Election Blues

When I first restarted my blog in February, I was looking forward to commenting on the 2020 presidential campaign.  I've long enjoyed national politics, and the Democratic primary didn't disappoint.  But since then, I've lost interest in details that usually consume me--emerging issues, polling data, party platforms, and candidate gaffes.

I think it's in part because this campaign follows the same script every week: some new Trumpian outrage followed by rebuttals from Democrats and pundits, who make the same arguments over and over again.  Permeating beneath this is a layer of fear: fear that Trump will rig the election, fear that he won't leave peacefully, and fear that minority rule will triumph again.

All reasonable fears.

What to do?  My neighbors and friends continue to ask how they can help.  People who never wrote letters or made phone calls now offer to do so.  Others who didn't consider themselves "political" put up yard signs and volunteer to work at the polls.  These actions matter.  And yet I can't help but feel like my country's unraveling.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death and the nomination of her successor highlight both a growing national divide and the hypocrisy in our government.

In the midst of all of this, I took comfort in the spontaneous protest that erupted this week, directed at Donald Trump as he viewed RBG's casket at the Supreme Court.  Gathered on the grounds nearby stood ordinary citizens who jeered and booed as he came into view.  Eventually their scorn coalesced into the chant "Vote him out," which Washington Post writer Monica Hesse called "astonishing, discombobulating, and more patriotic than anything you'll witness at a Trump rally."

Here was Trump, pretending to honor Justice Ginsburg, forced to face an outcry against him.  This almost never happens.  Wrapped in the cocoon of the White House, he ventures only to arenas where adulation is the norm.  On Thursday, though, for about one minute, he stood and heard the voice of protest.

This gave me hope.  Fellow citizens honoring our distinguished justice and, at the same time, calling out our unworthy president.  I may be feeling blue, but I also feel buoyed by my neighbors and the protestors in DC who showed themselves to be irrepressible.

The Power of One

How can the death of one person hold so much power in our democracy? Aren’t we supposed to be “We, the people”?

The loss of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has set off a volatile, political battle. Less than twenty-four hours after her death, Republican senators were already speaking about her replacement. And though I revere Justice Ginsburg’s brilliance and accomplishments, I’m concerned that she holds this much power in our government, either alive or dead. Something’s broken when the absence of one person can wreak fundamental change across society.

A similar truth holds for Mitch McConnell. Though he’s still here, of course, he continues to block legislation, and at the height of hypocrisy, prevented a hearing for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland in March 2016 during Barack Obama’s second term. Now McConnell intends to seek Senate confirmation for Donald Trump’s nominee within six weeks of a presidential election.

What is broken must be repaired. 

When it comes to the Supreme Court, we must first dispel the myth that it’s our one non-partisan branch of government. We all know this isn’t true. The current fight over Justice Ginsburg’s seat is proof enough. We must then consider remedies to the Court’s composition. Russell Wheeler, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, reviews options in his March 2020 essay, “Should we restructure the Supreme Court?” In it, he summarizes the three most frequently discussed ideas: adding seats to the Court (aka “packing the court”), increasing the size of the Court to 15, and imposing term limits for justices. 

Whatever changes are made, our courts must be structured in such a way to avoid current trends where, as Wheeler points out, four of our five conservative Supreme Court justices were nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote, and “senators who confirmed Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh represented less than half the population.”

McConnell’s ongoing reign is a related problem. As the Senate Majority Leader, McConnell holds the power to schedule or not schedule votes even when bi-partisan support for a bill is evident. He blocked votes on popular criminal justice reform in 2018, for example, and gun background-check legislation earlier this year. He seeks quick approval for Trump’s judicial nominees yet repeatedly held up Obama’s. His power, and Nancy Pelosi’s for that matter, should be scaled back.

The imbalances of power in our government are not sustainable, and the only way to make change is through the legislative branch. When our newly elected Congress convenes in January 2021, our representatives need to review and revise not only the structure of the Supreme Court, but the power in their own bodies as well. 

It behooves us to hold them accountable.

Coming Round to Kamala

Though Kamala Harris initially struck me as an excellent choice for Attorney General, based on her piercing examinations of Brett Kavanaugh and William Barr, she didn't impress me as the best candidate for Vice President.  Throughout the Democratic primary, I found her smug and condescending.  I didn't like her disrespectful take-down of Joe Biden in the first debate, and her performance in subsequent debates seemed equally artificial and staged. 

Here's why I've changed my mind:

1. Senator Harris has the experience for the job.  As a US senator, she serves on key committees, including Intelligence, Homeland Security, and Budget; and as California's Attorney General for six years, she headed up law enforcement for the most populous state in the nation.

2. She's tough and commanding, certainly more so than her milquetoast opponent Mike Pence, but also stronger than both Joe Biden and Donald Trump.  Biden's appeal comes more from his conciliatory and welcoming manner, whereas Donald Trump fails as a commander though his meandering, senseless speech and derogatory treatment of others.

3. Though President Trump calls Kamala Harris "phony" and "nasty," she's avoided the labels that have dogged women candidates in the past.  Hillary Clinton evoked for many the image of the stern school teacher.  Sarah Palin, unprepared for her role in 2008, became a caricature of a silly, incompetent woman.  And Geraldine Ferraro ended up mired in her husband's finances in 1972, as if she were an extension of his career and not a solid candidate in her own right.

4. With an undergraduate degree from Howard University and a law degree from the University of California, Hastings, Senator Harris brings a refreshing education to the campaign.  In fact, both she and Joe Biden break a long tradition of Democratic candidates boasting Ivy League and elite New England school backgrounds--offering an understanding of ordinary Americans.

5. Kamala Harris holds the confidence of her running mate.  Regardless of the process that Joe Biden undertook in his selection, he nonetheless sees in her a partner ready to govern.  We all benefit from their compatibility in that we'll have two smart leaders making joint decisions.

Kamala Harris isn't perfect.  Her record as a prosecutor concerns many, and the rapid collapse of her primary campaign troubled others.  Still, she can do the job and she will do it well.  We've accepted for far too long the incompetence of Donald Trump and Mike Pence.  Senator Harris will serve our country with honor and distinction, and we must give her the chance to do so.

Losers and Suckers

Can anyone seriously doubt that Donald Trump called World War I Marines "losers" and "suckers," as reported on Thursday by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic? Or that he wondered aloud why anyone willingly serves in our military? And that he didn't want wounded veterans participating in a parade?

No, and here's why: 

These comments follow logically from Trump's own words.

1. Though his most well-known "loser" is probably former Senator and POW John McCain, he has also described many others this way: Bill Kristol, Chuck Todd, Jeb Bush, Karl Rove, Marco Rubio, Rihanna, Seth Meyers, Tina Brown, and a host of unnamed Twitter users.

2. He's disparaged the military before. He called James Mattis "the world's most overrated general"; he said that General John Kelly, his former chief of staff, "misses the action and just can't keep his mouth shut"; and he bullied Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman for his impeachment testimony, calling Vindman "very insubordinate" and someone who "did a lot of bad things."

3. "Suckers" is another one of Trump's words.  It's a concept he fears.  "Why is the United States always the sucker?" he said in February, opining that Europeans take us for granted. And when he announced troop withdrawals from Germany in July, he said, "We don't want to be the suckers anymore."

4. He has no understanding of military service.  As Nancy Pelosi said on Friday, "Every day Trump makes clear that he does not comprehend what it means to sacrifice for one's country--as he consistently puts his own interests ahead of our national security and those who defend it," citing his refusal to stand up to Vladimir Putin. I would add his praise for Chinese dictator Xi Jinping, his coddling of Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and his sending troops to build the border wall.

5. Finally, why wouldn't Trump want wounded veterans in his parade? Recall his 2015 mockery of New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski's disability, or consider Trump's derogatory comments on women's "ugly" faces.  Clearly he disdains anyone who doesn't meet his standard of appearance.

Though General Kelly could confirm The Atlantic report if he were willing to speak out, we don't really need him to.  Donald Trump's history of insults echo from one week to the next.  His language and behavior pollute the office he holds, and for this reason alone we should vote him out.