Unelecting Trump, or the Dark Course of American Democracy

Sometime in late October, I mentioned in a conversation on Facebook that one main concern I had about Donald Trump is that it would be impossible to unelect him. His authoritarian tendencies, which have also been exhibited by the Republican Party in the past 16 years, mean that the rules would be changed to such an extent as to return either the same candidate or his surrogate to power for a long time to come.

How would this be possible? Anyone controlling the Presidency, the Congress and soon the Supreme Court has extraordinary power to influence elections, even though voting is a state responsibility.

Here is a simple catalogue of the alarming trends that are occurring:

1. Voter Suppression

Voter suppression is a strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing people from voting. (Wikipedia)

Voter suppression has been actively used in key battleground states like Florida (famously in the 1999/2000 vote recount) and Ohio. A complete list of voter suppression techniques seen in the United States can be found on Wikipedia.

The Center for American Progress has a detailed list of actual cases of what it claims are voter suppression in a well-documented article here. Together with the fact that over 6 million convicted felons cannot vote, it is clear that a significant number of the American people are systematically being deprived of their right to vote.

Donald Trump has repeatedly cast doubt on the electoral result, stating that he won by “millions of votes”, and suggesting that voter fraud is the reason he lost the popular vote despite all evidence to the contrary (to date). Given this approach, it is easy to understand how a Trump Administration will choose to ignore further activities in voter suppression in key states.

2. Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering is the process by which a state sets its voting district boundaries in order to achieve a disproportionate political result for certain groups. Several states in the US have extremely complex voting districts which have been defined as a result of partisan gerrymandering.

For more information on this, please see:

• The Guardian article on North Carolina’s 12^th Congressional District 
• Washington Post article on what US voting districts might look like without gerrymandering
• Harvard Political Review brief on gerrymandering

Partisan gerrymandering is illegal according to both the US Constitution and subsequent US law. As Wikipedia notes:

Various constitutional and statutory provisions may compel a court to strike down a gerrymandered redistricting plan. At the federal level, the Supreme Court has held that if a jurisdiction’s redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause or Voting Rights Act of 1965, a federal court must order the jurisdiction to propose a new redistricting plan that remedies the gerrymandering. If the jurisdiction fails to propose a new redistricting plan, or its proposed redistricting plan continues to violate the law, then the court itself must draw a redistricting plan that cures the violation and use its equitable powers to impose the plan on the jurisdiction

How would a Trump Administration enhance gerrymandering? Three ways:

a.    By packing the Supreme Court

b.    By weakening the Voting Rights Act of 1965, for instance by creating for intrusive needs for voter registration and reducing the franchise

c.     By refusing to actively enforce these acts through the Attorney General’s office.

Jeff Sessions, who was recently confirmed as Attorney General, has already been rejected by a Senate confirmation panel in 1986 due to allegations of voter intimidation of blacks in Alabama. Mr. Session was, at that time, being nominated as a federal judge.

It is sadly notable that conduct that condemned Mr. Sessions in 1986, during Ronald Reagan’s second term, is considered acceptable in the Senate during Donald Trump’s first term.

3. Fake News / Terrorism

Donald Trump has, both during his campaign but also as President, repeatedly trumpeted fake news, and has conflated or wrongly attributed incidents of terrorism.

The list of fake news is now too long to catalogue, but several parties have made valiant attempts. Here are some:

• The New York Times inventories some of the fake news spread by Donald Trump since 2011.
• CNBC focuses on fake news during the 2016 election
• Buzzfeed reporting on hundreds of pro-Trump websites managed from the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
• Kellyanne Conway recently referred to a non-existent “massacre”, the Bowling Green Massacre, to justify the travel ban on refugees and citizens of 7 foreign countries

Why does this matter? Donald Trump has now normalised the fact that he spreads fake news. Prior to his inauguration, this was considered acceptable by the people who voted for him. He is now President of the United States, and it is clear that fake news is not going to go away anytime soon.

How will fake news affect future elections?

a.    It will be spread not only by the usual ecosystem of political surrogates and trollers, but increasingly by elected officials. This is already occurring.

b.    The virulence of attacks on people for refusing to believe in fake news is now at an all-time high. Note the language of Donald Trump’s recent twitter attacks on John McCain over the Yemen raid.

c.     It will increasingly conflate anti-terrorism with patriotism and with supporting Republic candidates. This is an old script, first pioneered by George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks, and repeatedly enhanced since by the Republican party.

4. The Family Business

Donald Trump’s conflicts of interest are increasingly well-documented. He remains involved in the Donald Trump Organisation, and has assigned management of this to his two sons.

The Trump organisation has hundreds of business relationships with both foreign countries and with key lenders such as Deutsche Bank, that the US government is currently involved with in regulation.

His daughter Ivanka, who has her own business interests, remains an advisor, as does his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The Trump organisation has announced plans to expand nationally.

Trump’s past record of work in dealing with complex property development codes and requirements in New York, as well as his record of strategic bankruptcies and non-payment of suppliers indicate that he knows how to use the public sector.

USA Today has counted 4,095 lawsuits against Donald Trump over the past 30 years. How will a US District or Federal Court rule in a case where the ultimate defendant is a sitting President?

It is apparent that the incentives for using the Presidency to expand the personal wealth of Donald Trump and his family members are fully aligned.

5. The 1930s Playbook

Nearly every aspect of Trump’s business policy as expressed today could have been taken from a 1930’s authoritarian playbook:

• Condemn US companies for “moving jobs abroad”
• Condemn free trade, when recognising that more American jobs will be lost by pulling out of key trade agreements such as NAFTA, particularly in key US sectors such as automotive assembly and agricultural exports
• Threaten successful foreign exporters, such as BMW, with a 35% tariff, while refusing to recognise that Germany can retaliate with the same tariff
• Ignore the tremendous inequality in the US tax system and household earnings by promising yet more tax cuts for the very wealthy
• Appoint ideological members of Cabinet who are intent on sabotaging and destroying the very entities they have been appointed to lead
• Condemn the press for “fake news” and “fake polls”
• Condemn specific companies for failing to carry Ivanka Trump’s clothing line
• Create an unspecified foreign enemy (all refugees, all Muslims, all Chinese, all Mexicans) and promise a grateful and impoverished nation protection and strength.

The list is long, and will no doubt continue to grow in the next few years.

6. Draining the Swamp and Lobbying

The United States government is the largest financial organisation in the world. It is also the world’s largest single debtor (at the Federal level) and the largest absolute debtor when combining the Federal Government, 50 State governments, municipalities, the Federal Reserve, and organisations such as Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.

The incentives of doing business with the US Government, as well as seeking regulatory abatement from it, are simply too high to counteract. Donald Trump is a billionaire who is appointing a Cabinet of billionaires. Does anyone really believe that the business interests that gain so much from the government will suddenly change their course?

If anything, they will be emboldened. This pattern has been repeated throughout history.

Why?

The question is really why this is being done. The Republicans control all three branches of government: Executive, Legislative, Judicial (at least embodied in the Supreme Court). This sets the stage for a period of time in which they will be able to implement their policy agenda, subject to the limit where internal Republican conflicts interfere with the process.

Given where things stand now, I increasingly believe that protecting and extending political power is as important as policy making for this Party. We see this in the patterns of gerrymandering and voter suppression in Republican-controlled states.

We also know what happened when the Democrats lost the House in the first mid-term elections in 2010 the Senate in 2014.

We see no hope of a rational policy debate or voting system in the United States, and we see growing corporate interests and other special interests influencing policy and voting results.

We see that these interests flourish regardless of the political party in power.

As a result, I am increasingly pessimistic as to whether the United States can ever unelect Donald Trump, or someone like him.

As I have written in another post, the United States resembles to me the Roman Republic in its final days. We have just elected our man on a horse. Such men never go quietly.

© Philip Ammerman, 2017

The Irrelevance of Resistance in the Senate Confirmation Hearings

I find the Senate confirmation hearings for Donald Trump’s cabinet interesting but a mainly a distraction. Far too many friends and colleagues are investing themselves in blocking this nominee or that. They are free to do so, of course, but it is something of a fool’s errand.

Donald Trump has won the election, and the Republican party controls:

• The Presidency
• The Senate (52 seats)
• The House (241 seats)

This means that no matter what, if the Republican Party maintains voter discipline, it passes its candidates by simple majority vote.

This should hardly be controversial. The American voters have spoken, according to the rules of the Electoral College and voting tradition. There is a new government in Washington. This government has every right to form a cabinet and begin the process of governing.

In a parliamentary system, this corresponds to a vote of confidence upon announcing a cabinet. It happens all the time.

The Senate confirmation hearings are useful in reviewing personal priorities or opinions or past history, but that is all these can achieve. Yes, the current crop of nominated secretaries may be controversial or repugnant to some. But they have every political right to take office. That’s the result of an election, given the duopoly in the US political system.

A Parliamentary system with more than 2 parties might bring about a more serious confirmation process, but even this is uncertain given the elected representatives we see in many countries.

Anyone expending their time and energy on trying to block Betsy Devos or Jeff Sessions should understand this. A party elected by majority has a mandate to govern, with the candidates it selects. 

If these candidates happen to be dangerous ideologues not fit to manage a corner store … well … that’s the reflection of the Electoral College’s will. When you examine campaign finance and voting records: is Congress any different?

If people are really that angry, it may be far better for them to invest time and energy in something tangible, like organising for the 2018 mid-term elections. The confirmation hearings are a theatrical diversion that offer nothing more than reinforcement bias. 

(c) Philip Ammerman, 2017 

Inauguration Day

I see a constant stream of frustration, disgust and anger on Facebook and many other channels tonight as President Donald J. Trump takes office. Certainly, there is much to be disgusted about.

Let’s look beyond the anger. The question is, as individuals, what can any one individual do in the face of a system such as the one we find ourselves in?

Politics is disparate, and something of an equilibrium. Donald Trump and the Republicans control Congress for the next 2 years. If you are angry, mobilise now and win a Democratic majority in Congress in 2018.

The next elections are on Tuesday, November 6^th, 2018. All 435 seats in the House of Representatives are included, as are 33 of the 100 seats in the Senate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2018

If you are angry at Trump and his election, then one creative and positive outlet you have is to organize now for November 2018.

But while you are doing this, it’s important to reflect on a couple of things.

First of all, don’t define yourself solely by what you are against. Define yourself as well by what you are for. You will find that this is more difficult, particularly when you ask others to stand for the same things, and vote together.

So compromise is essential in politics.

Second of all, reflect that many of the voters who voted for Trump have a serious reason for doing so (and I’m not referring to the lobbyists or billionaires seeking tax breaks or public contracts). I’m referring to the middle class and the blue collar families, who have really been left behind.

Ironically, Hillary Clinton’s policies would have been much more beneficial for most in this group. Trump won because his supporters believed he would do a better job (and he won the Electoral College math).

Whatever the case, the United States faces drastic problems in terms of debt, falling tax revenue, loss of economic competitiveness, monopoly situations in many sectors (including start-ups), an abysmal national healthcare policy, an unbalanced military policy, and many other problems.

These are not going to be easy problems to solve. At least not sustainably, or rationally.

So your first job is probably to try to understand what the current situation is, what the root causes are, and what the possible solutions are.

These solutions are going to cost money. Unless you are prepared to pay for them (or force others to pay for them), they will be difficult to solve.

Finally, if I can share one point from my personal experience: Back in 1999/2000, I was equally horrified by the Florida vote recount and George W. Bush’s election.

Much of what I feared from that time materialized. Most of this was due to an incredible ignorance among the governing class, as well as the mendacity of those who support and enable it.

In 2017, this is now infinitely worse. It is institutionalized.

My advice is: make sure you are taking care of yourself. We are now in a very “risk-on” world. You simply can’t take anything for granted. Do whatever is possible to survive and evolve, especially financially. Protect your assets. Improve your employability. Make sure you are as flexible, nimble and agile.

The issues we are seeing now are only leading indicators of a far more serious and deleterious situation, and one that is practically impossible to reverse.

-->

So, get ready.

Princeton establishes a Center for Scholars in Athens

Princeton University's tradition of deep commitment to the humanities has long been connected to Greece and Hellenic culture, from antiquity to the present. On Tuesday, Nov. 1, the University added a formal home base for Princeton scholars in Greece with the opening of the Princeton University Athens Center for Research and Hellenic Studies. Three years in the planning, the Center is led by the University's Seeger Center for Hellenic Studies.

"An academic home in Greece embodies some of the key goals of the Stanley J. Seeger Hellenic Fund, established in 1979," said Dimitri Gondicas, founding director of the Seeger Center and a 1978 alumnus. "Creating the Princeton Athens Center was consistent with the vision of our benefactor, Stanley J. Seeger '52, whose legendary generosity made it possible for Princeton to be a world leader in Hellenic studies." Every year, the Seeger Center for Hellenic Studies supports more than 100 Princetonians for study and research in Greece, said Gondicas.

At an evening reception at the new Center, Gondicas opened his remarks in Greek: "Kalos orisate! Welcome! … Princeton has enjoyed strong, enduring links with the Hellenic world, and it has been an international leader in the study of Greek culture. As scholars, educators, philanthropists, public servants, business people, art collectors and writers, Princetonians have contributed immensely to the cultural and international relations between Greece and the United States."

Princeton President Christopher L. Eisgruber participated in the ribbon-cutting ceremony and greeted the 55 guests including faculty, students, friends, and more than 30 undergraduate and graduate alumni spanning more than 50 years.

"This is the first time Princeton University has opened a research and scholarship center anywhere outside of the United States," said Eisgruber, Class of 1983. Acknowledging the "extraordinary generosity and vision" of Seeger's gifts and the gifts of many alumni attending the reception, Eisgruber said that one of the reasons the University chose to establish the center in Athens "as we become a more international university" is Princeton's "extraordinary humanistic tradition that finds its home here in Athens and in Greece."

He said these alumni gifts ask the University "to build upon the study of ancient and modern Greece and to do so in a way that understands the broad influence of Greece in the world. As we seek to make this enterprise succeed ... we will depend on our connections here in Greece to make this a thriving hub of activity."

Read the full article at the Princeton Club of Greece website. 

 

Princeton University recruiting an Assistant Professor in Modern Greek Language, Literature, and Culture

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

Assistant Professor in Modern Greek Language, Literature, and Culture

Princeton University's Seeger Center for Hellenic Studies and the Department of Classics invite applications for a tenure-track position (assistant professor) in Modern Greek Language, Literature, and Culture, to begin September 1, 2017. The successful candidate will be appointed full-time in the Department of Classics, with "associated faculty" status in Hellenic Studies. 

We seek a dynamic and productive scholar of the literature and culture of modern Greece (15th century to the present) who is capable of innovative instruction at all levels, from introductory language courses to graduate seminars. The successful candidate will be able to communicate the importance of modern Greek literature to students and colleagues with interests across the humanities. 

PhD must be completed by start date. 

Applications must include cover letter, curriculum vitae (including language proficiencies), teaching statement, and a sample of research (article or chapter of about 20 pages length). 

Applicants should ask their referees to write by December 15, 2016, when the review of dossiers will begin. The position is open until filled. 

Princeton University is an equal opportunity employer and all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to age, race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, disability status, protected veteran status, or any other characteristic protected by law. This position is subject to the University's background check policy.  

Position information and Application: 

jobs.princeton.edu/applicants/Central?quickFind=69279  

On Message and on the Money

Should anyone still be wondering as to the importance of political fundraising and marketing using an established party network and an established political brand, a recent article in Politico by Shane Goldmacher should put their doubts to rest.

Excerpts follow: not in linear order.

The rush of money has provided Clinton a tremendous advantage as she vastly outspends Trump in nearly every facet of the 2016 campaign: on TV, on radio, on mail, on staff, on field operations. Clinton raised roughly $297 million for her campaign and joint committees with the Democratic Party in August and September. That is more in the last two months than the $262.3 million the Republican National Committee touted on Friday that it had raised during the entire cycle.

This club has expanded to the point where Clinton would now struggle to fit all of these bundlers into a single ballroom. As of the end of June, she counted 496 such individuals and couples. By the end of July, it was 871. On August 31, it was 1,133.

It includes billionaires George Soros, Warren Buffett and Tom Steyer, super lobbyists like Steve Elmendorf and bold-faced names like Calvin Klein and J.J. Abrams. There is also a sprinkling of longtime Clinton family advisers, such as Vernon Jordan.

The assemblage is already more than double the size of President George W. Bush’s vaunted 2004 Pioneer and Ranger program for those who raised at least $100,000; Bush had 548 Rangers and Pioneers. It also dwarfs Obama’s reelection fundraising operation four years ago that had 602 individuals or couples in its $100,000 club, and a total of 770 bundlers who raised at least $50,000.

Remarkably, when Clinton releases a revised list in the coming week, her team of bundlers could be larger than the Bush 2004 and Obama 2012 lists combined.

Another story on my radar screen this week was an article by David Dayen in The New Republic, which references the Podesta email dump on Wikileaks:

Michael Froman, who is now U.S. trade representative but at the time was an executive at Citigroup, wrote an email to Podesta on October 6, 2008, with the subject “Lists.” Froman used a Citigroup email address. He attached three documents: a list of women for top administration jobs, a list of non-white candidates, and a sample outline of 31 cabinet-level positions and who would fill them.

The cabinet list ended up being almost entirely on the money. It correctly identified Eric Holder for the Justice Department, Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, Robert Gates for Defense, Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff, Peter Orszag for the Office of Management and Budget, Arne Duncan for Education, Eric Shinseki for Veterans Affairs, Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services, Melody Barnes for the Domestic Policy Council, and more. For the Treasury, three possibilities were on the list: Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Timothy Geithner.

This was October 6. The election was November 4. And yet Froman, an executive at Citigroup, which would ultimately become the recipient of the largest bailout from the federal government during the financial crisis, had mapped out virtually the entire Obama cabinet, a month before votes were counted. And according to the Froman/Podesta emails, lists were floating around even before that.

Reading these two articles reveals exactly how the political system works in the United States.

1.     Elections cost money. Serious money.

2.     Governance requires qualified people, and more importantly, trustworthy* people.

Put the two together and you can understand exactly how the sausage is made today.

I have four further observations to make: 

1. After everything that has been published about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, no one can claim they did not know who they were voting for. 

2. It is perhaps the ultimate irony that the effect of Donald's boorish campaign and character has been to cast Hillary Clinton as a sympathetic person. 

3. It remains a tragedy that in a country as talented and open as the United States, we see that the political system has left voters with this choice. It is perhaps as bad as it gets, and there is absolutely no indication that the system will improve in the future. 

4. In this respect, the United States is perhaps an early outlier, but it is not unique in any way. Political systems no longer appear ready to handle the brutal challenges of today or tomorrow. 

© Philip Ammerman, 2016

Photo courtesy of CBS and Getty

Clinton has built the biggest big-money operation ever

Shane Goldmacher. Politico. 15 October 2016

The Most Important WikiLeaks Revelation Isn’t About Hillary Clinton

David Dayen. The New Republic. 14 October 2016

*I use the term “trustworthy” deliberately. I did not say patriotic.