Morning Fog

Some Random Thoughts On The Impeachment Trial

The Prosecution:  A great job. The presentation just blew us away. But the case was not a difficult one to make. 

The Defense: Constitutional scholars have debunked the silly notion that the President may not be judged guilty now that he has left office. It is equally silly to contend that Trump was just exercising his free speech, first because we should expect a President to speak the truth, and to speak on behalf of the country and its people, rather than just uttering his trivial and false personal opinion; second because he was shouting "fire" in a crowded theater - which is beyond the pale of free speech. 

The Outcome:

Wouldn't it be really great if the proceedings could wind up in a conviction either this Friday, or next Monday? Monday is Presidents Day - what poetic justice, and what a gift for past Presidents, to have the worst President, the twice-impeached President, the besmircher of their high office, thus repudiated on that day? OR a quick result on Friday, February 12 which (younger readers may be unaware) is Lincoln's birthday. I feel certain that Honest Abe by now is sick and tired of having GOP politicians refer to themselves as "the Party of Lincoln." He would be ashamed of what his party has become.

Also under the Conviction rubric, if it should occur: No Democrats, nor any democrats, should gloat over the result.  It would be unseemly and divisive; it should be interpreted soberly as having barely escaped tyranny and restoring the country to its democratic course.

Of course, it is generally recognized that most of today's Republican politicians will continue to toady to the Tinpot Tyrant Trump. Despite incontrovertible evidence, conviction is unlikely. Nevertheless the attempt had to be made, and we must recall that it wasn't the attempt, but the shameful outcome, that was divisive.  And though today's Republican Senators may view acquittal as a victory, and may save their jobs, if not their honor, for a year or two, it is the death knell of the Republican Party. Let us hope.   

The Art Of The Possible

What happens when politics, the "Art of the Possible," tries to survive in a world where nothing seems possible? There are a lot of teeth-gnashing reports in many quarters of our media, worrying that Biden's pledge to unite the Disunited States of America is naive and bound to fail. These worriers [let's call them worry-warriors] point to Republicans' suddenly rediscovering their hatred of deficits; to McConnell's continuing stonewalling, to Trump fans of all stripes continuing to worship every lying, traitorous, or deranged word he has ever uttered.

No, the odds for achieving unity, or even mutual respect and tolerance, seem pretty bleak just now. But all these forms of divisiveness were entirely predictable. It's only been five days since Biden was inaugurated. Let's see where niceness leads him. Hope springs eternal, especially, it seems with Biden. And I for one haven't given up on the chance that some weird, unexpected event will break the ice jam on the Potomac.

But I hope he won't be silly about it. There are some red lines on which he and Democrats generally need to be firm. One is that Trump richly and indisputably merits trial and conviction in the Senate. The case is cut-and-dried to any rational person. There is no "it depends" answer to the question at hand. Those who deny it are concerned, not with defending the Constitution, but with keeping themselves in power at all costs. Democrats must pursue impeachment to its end, even if it does reduce chances of cooperation in Congress on other matters.

Which brings us to red line number 2:  Hoping for reconciliation, cherishing the ideal that legislation on major national problems should and can be bipartisan,  Biden must not fall into the trap that Obama did. Republicans are already signaling that they will play the same games of delay, obfuscation, and eventual flat rejection as they did in 2008-2016. If that continues more than a month, Biden needs to use what power he has to push through what he can, with majorities in both Houses. Not only is that course just, but time-sensitive, for I believe Biden has a shorter window than he realizes - Democratic Party unity will start disintegrating rather quickly - it always does!

What specific tasks should Biden focus on, beyond trying to overcome the Trump virus?  I hope to address that in my next post.

 

 

   

Happy Unnew Year

We in the U.S. all tend to think of a new year - whether it's the calendar year, or the chronologically later beginning of a new President's term, as a fresh start. Out with the old problems, on to new challenges and projects. We think that, but it's never true. Not in our personal lives, nor in the life of a nation. Things carry over.

That's true in spades now. Trump is impeached, could face conviction, and is on his way out, but he will continue to make trouble, and no ban on future political activity is likely to stop him. Republicans in Congress, almost every one of whom helped to enable Trump's destructive acts, were slightly chastened by the violence at the Capitol on January 6, but many, especially in Congress, persisted just a few hours after being saved, in questioning the outcome of the 2020 election, while others still suggest that election was "stolen." Voters still voted for Trump in large numbers in 2020, and they're still mostly in his corner and find his false claims credible. The rioters who trashed the Capitol and Democracy itself are being tracked down and at least some will be brought to justice, but they and their cohort remain a threat, even if it's not clear yet of what magnitude. Many issues - including the pandemic, our foreign relations, and the partisan divide have been left in tatters, or half finished.

So our new President will have all that to deal with but will also need to demonstrate useful progress on the nation's issues while (in my  opinion) working to expand the big tent of the Democratic Party before the 2022 elections.

I hate to be a buzzkill, but the truth is, there's not a lot to be euphoric about in this new-year, new-administration season. I do think it can be handled, and that things may look cheerier in a year or two.

Meantime, how shall we mitigate all these problems? Trump created or exacerbated every one of them. It would be nice to think he might be prevented from making things still worse, but even a full impeachment with a ban on running for public office, unlikely as it is, wouldn't stop him from communicating with, and rousing, the rabble. Sadly, unless he just drops dead, the only option seems to be to assume Trump has a "better nature" somewhere, and to appeal to it, as I did years ago, at the time of the Charlottesville riots:      

"Letter to a Former President" (August 2017)

 

The Gavrilo Princip Principle

As the occupation of the U.S. Capitol by Trump dupes unfolded two days ago, I noted, as many did, that planning for the security of the building clearly had been inadequate to the need. This must have been an error of leadership and planning; it's entirely appropriate that the head of the U.S. Capitol Police Force has now resigned. But that is not to denigrate the members of the force, who (mostly) performed their duties quite well under the circumstances.

The much-played video of a single police officer left to block the stairs as the mob began to make its way up was instructive. I sympathize with the officers who were injured as a result of our President's reckless disregard for truth, especially of course with the officer who died on January 7 as a result of his injuries the day before. Much less sympathy, incidentally, can be offered concerning four others who died during the melee (one shot, the others from medical causes) - all four of those were part of the mob, and presumably they came knowing there was a risk.

One interesting sidebar on this whole mess is to contemplate things the role that almost certainly would NOT have occurred if the Capitol Building had not been breached, vandalized, and terrorized. The most obvious is that almost all those Trump allies in the Senate and House would not have been induced to abandon their plans drag out certification of the electoral votes. Pete Buttigieg, during his run for president, memorably observed that many Republicans seemed unable to locate their consciences. Boy, they found them in a hurry, didn't they, when they were fearing for their lives?

Other topics that would never have come up without the physical occupation of the Capitol were the suggestions that Pence and the Cabinet should use the 25th Amendment to oust Trump from office, even a few days before his term end; or that he should be impeached again. And in turn, without those threats, Trump would never have conceded, even as muddily as he did, that Biden and Harris had won the election. Finally, Trump's very clear role in fomenting the developments of January 6 may actually cause the scales to fall from the eyes of at least some voters across the country. Even the Proud Boys may learn a lesson from having foolishly let themselves be incited and exploited by Trump to raid the Capitol, believing his promise that he would accompany them [which he did not!] and, only two days after hearing him say he loved them, to hear themselves being described in very different terms.

Will any of these consequences of the night of January 6 have any lasting effect? Time will tell. And chaos theory suggests we'll never really know for sure.

Incidentally, the title of this post refers to Gavrilo Princip, the man who shot the Austrian Archduke Ferdinand and set off World War I. He only succeeded in doing so because, having missed his chance once due to a route alteration, he happened to be standing on a different corner slightly later when the Archduke's coach driver took a wrong turn and passed right in front of good ol' Gavrilo!  

Baby Huey In The White House

I wonder if many people these days recall the character in the "funnies," as we used to call them, named "Baby Huey." Read all about him here on Wikipedia (make a donation to support them while you're there); but he looked like this:

and, though I hadn't thought about him in years, the name and its related image suddenly popped into my head as I considered our OUTgoing U.S. President's latest childish fit. After lying [savor the double-entendre here]  in his crib for weeks, soiling his diaper at least daily while single-mindedly insisting it wasn't fair for him to have to get up from his cocoon and go face his creditors, but being largely ignored, he suddenly came to life to throw tantrums about the covid relief bill and the defense authorization bill.

Analysts in the press, on television, and on social media are all yapping about Trump's reasons for jumping into the legislative process at the last moment, even though his own party's legislators had been led to believe the terms they negotiated were acceptable to him -- in fact, in the case of payments to individuals, the maximum he would accept. These pundits theorize that Trump really was concerned that people needed more support to keep their heads above water; or that there was "waste" spending in the bill that could be used more wisely.  These are valid concerns. After all, Morning Fog has itself argued that the payouts would have only token effect. 

But it's completely wrong to attribute such concerns to Donald J. Trump. In four years, haven't we learned that every move he makes is strictly for his personal benefit?  I submit that Trump's real and only concerns are to satisfy his craving for attention, to re-attract media attention to himself; to give him the opportunity to appear to be championing the cause of the common man, to provide him a pretext for slamming Congress; to complicate and delay the transition process; to make it seem he is still active and effective as President; to get him more air time to press his completely false claims of fraud in the election, and to reinforce the loyalty of his base.  Period.

It's depressing to see all our opinion-makers struggling to explain Trump's actions in logical terms. It's all about him, as it always has been. 

The lesson here, for all of us, but maybe especially for Trump fans, is that it's all a swindle. It's been four years of swindle. None of us should let ourselves be manipulated any more.  

Voter Suppression - An Apotheosis

President Trump, early this morning, decided to ignore all the tiny steps his minions had taken, and planned to take, to suppress votes against him, by the simple step of effectively declaring himself the winner. 

Claiming falsely to have won several states in which results remain unclear, and suggesting that pausing while millions of remaining votes are counted, are evidence of Democrats' stealing the election. "We were getting ready to win this election ...frankly, we did win this election" he said. He promised to go to the Supreme Court (he recently packed them for a trip) and get them to stop the voting! [sic - clearly he means "counting"]. 

The newscaster on BBC, where I watched this horrid statement, was circumspect, simply stating, of his "we did win" statement, "That's not true."

The President was addressing his campaign staff at 2:00 AM, looking to cheer them and laud their work. Should we forgive his "alternate facts" for that reason? Well no, since he was aware of course that his remarks would be broadcast around the world. It is probably a good thing that his live audience was hired staff,  because a real audience of random voters would probably have broken out in guffaws. Personally, we suspect that Trump's real pique was clued by his statement "we were getting ready to win this election" - he had planned a big party for his 400 guests at the White House, and wasn't able to have it. Poor baby. 

Overall, this was a comic performance on a serious matter, so Morning Fog is going to take a while to absorb more facts before further comment.

Meanwhile, we recognize that not everyone may share our assessment of Mr. Trump's statement. For an alternate view, check out today's Tin Lizard post, "Relieved." 

Supreme Court Election Meddling

As a followup to my post of October 27, below, it's worth reading a piece from the Washington Post this Sunday titled "The Supreme Court Shouldn't Decide Voting Cases".

It seems the Court has already left the barn through a back door, showing an unnecessary willingness to rule off the cuff where no ruling is needed.

 

Reestablishing Comity

It seems commonplace now (and true) to suggest that we are a divided nation because we all live in, and retreat to, our own social bubbles, seeking out opinions that conform with our own, and demonizing those that don't. We are unable to speak the "others," however we define them, let alone accept that they're just plain old Americans like us. There are grass-roots efforts cropping up in many places seeking to ameliorate this separation but the malaise is too broad to be dealt with entirely by small local efforts.

There are some things we can do on a broader scale (more to come) but for now I'd toss a kudos to the observation that Trump's former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats made in a recent interview: that we should address each other enough to find common ground in support of our election process and its essential soundness, because if we don't, it's not Trump or Biden who will win, but our enemies in Russia, China, and Iran who have tried so hard to disrupt it.

Can SCOTUS Avoid Sullying Itself In November?

Amy Coney Barrett has been confirmed as our newest Supreme Court Justice. No surprise there! Personally I harbor some expectation that she will deal Trump some surprises. Let us hope.  Meanwhile...

The Washington Post ran an editorial yesterday morning suggesting that the vote be delayed until after the election, on the premise that Trump would then still have his remaining time in office to get her confirmed, but she would not be in a position to be embroiled in deciding elections results.  Hah! Not a bad suggestion, but of course no one paid the least attention to it.

The Post also argued that Barrett should recuse herself from any case arising from the November 3 election, not because she couldn't be open-minded, but because any decision favoring Trump would inevitably be seen by the public as payback, and redound against the Court's reputation for impartiality. I agree. In fact did agree, in Morning Fog October 14. But as I also said there, Barrett's recusal, even if she chooses to do so, is insufficient to salvage the Court's reputation. Any Court decision on election outcomes, with or without Barrett's vote, is going to have the same deleterious effect on the Court's perceived legitimacy.

The only answer is for the Supreme Court to refuse to take up any cases related to election outcomes. Our existing election procedures have been sufficient in the past, and should be now. Those procedures are established entirely by states, or even counties, so shouldn't decisions of the states' supreme courts be legitimate? Would it even be legit for SCOTUS to be involved? WAS it legit for it to involve itself in that decision of 2000? Of course lawyers can make it seem that legally, 2 + 2 ≠ 4, but it is the public perception of nonpartisan fairness that is essential to Supreme Court legitimacy.

One good that might come from the furor over this election, Barrett's confirmation, the President's self-serving innuendo, and talk of Supreme Court involvement, would be an impetus to create and legislate a consistent and uniform set of procedures and parameters to apply to all elections of federal officials. It's high time.

 

 

Remember Trump's GOP Enablers

A return to moderation in politics requires a signal defeat for Trump at the polls. But it also means that Trump enablers in the Senate and House - and that means every one of them, such stellar examples as Graham and McConnell of course, but also including Murkowski and Romney - must suffer wide defeat at the polls. Otherwise it will likely be impossible for Biden to govern, let alone make progress in correcting the disasters of the past four years.

Even more important, I think, is to keep in mind that a possibility remains that voter suppression, false claims of election "fraud," and the vagaries of the electoral college system might restore Trump to office regardless of the outcome of the popular vote. If that dangerous and disgusting (a favorite Trump word) outcome occurs, the moderate's second line of defense must be the defeat at the polls of as many Trump enablers as possible.

Thus in some ways, defeating "Republickin's"* in Congress may be more essential than defeating Trump himself. I hope voters are keeping this in mind.

 

* NOTE: The term Republickin' is a specific coinage, intended seriously but with a bit of tongue in cheek, for the President's enablers in Congress. For detail, please see: https://www.thetinlizard.com/2020/10/whats-a-republickin-.html.  The Tin Lizard is a blog related to Morning Fog, which will carry a broader and less political subject matter, but happens to be reopening today with an explication of this term that we'll keep using until it's no longer applicable.