Has DC Turned Into Hollywood? Obama’s Best Week in Office.

For much of this 21^st century, the goings-on in Washington haven’t been pretty. “Special Interests,” “Gridlock” and “Partisan Politics” are phrases that are used daily in the media. However, in the past week, this most political of cities has changed from opposition at all costs to behaving in a way the majority of voters would probably want. It is as if Frank Capra had taken over the running of the three branches of government. Capra, the 1930s and 40s director of films such as “Mr Smith Goes to Washington” and “It’s a Wonderful Life,” was a lover of the human spirit, optimism and happy endings.

So, what happened last week? The Supreme Court in majority decisions ruled first that Obamacare stands. The challenge by the advantaged right to expose a tiny loophole in the legislation, which might have meant the removal of a tax break for the poorer in society, forcing them out of the benefits of the Act, failed. Now, this does not mean that the extremists of Republican persuasion will stop their challenges to a law they appear to hate, nor will it mean the administration of Obamacare will now go smoothly but SCOTUS has ensured that almost all American citizens can continue to avail themselves of healthcare insurance, at least for the time being.

The Court then ruled that states could not lawfully bar gay marriage. Personally, I don’t think this is the business of the federal government but I also do not think that a state has the right to bar marriage between two consenting adults, regardless of gender. So, I regard the ruling as appropriate, if not sound. I accept the religious right and others have a case but, at the end of the day, who is hurt by a marriage between persons of the same gender, especially if they have lived together openly? I see no lasting damage to society.

In recent times, there seems to have been a sea change in Congress. Readers of this blog know I have not been a fan of Harry Reid, the former majority leader of the Senate. For me, he was the abominable “no” man. He seems to have seen no point in legislation. If a bill was introduced which he didn’t like, he used his power to prevent it from coming to the floor of the Senate for a vote. He operated on bills which he perceived the President would not want. His mantra seemed to be, “no debate, no amendments, no vote.”

Partisanship in the Senate has been the order of the day since the Republicans won the Senate in the 2014 mid-terms but recently Mitch McConnell, the new majority leader, has shown a willingness to return to traditional ways. In the Senate, bills are now debated and voted on, especially if approved first by the House of Representatives.

This week the Trans-Pacific Partnership Bill will be placed before President Obama for approval. The Bill has no details of what trading terms will be sought. Heretofore, Mr. Obama has kept precise terms to himself, fearing opponents within his own party would object to freer trade, which will reduce union power. It is, however, an enabling bill, one which sets rules allowing the chief executive to negotiate with trading partners without having Congress on his back. Furthermore, the powers in the bill will survive the end of his presidency. Obama’s successor will enjoy the benefits too.

What has caused the change? One could argue for political common sense but this is a commodity that has been in short supply in DC for many a year. Possibly, it is just good luck for the administration but this is too simplistic.

My belief is that politics is the prime cause. The Democratic presidential nomination for 2016 is pretty well settled, according to most observers but the Republican field has some twenty hopefuls and there is no clear front runner. Republicans, generally, enjoy little popularity in the country, save for the base and the religious right, mainly because they are perceived to be a block to progress for anything but an extreme right wing agenda. It is the desire to enhance their electability that drives Senator McConnell and those with similar views to work with the White House to “get the job done.”

There are many issues that have yet to be worked on. The government has no clear policy or strategy on ISL, climate change and government deficits. If Congressional Republicans are seen to be working with the Obama administration in an effort to find acceptable solutions, this will help pave the way for the Republican nominee to have a serious run for the White House. The irony is they, the Republicans, are turning a “lame duck” President into one who might actually get things done.

The 2016 Election and the Invisible Primary

The American voters are currently enjoying or, more likely, enduring what is called the Invisible Primary.  I suppose the closest analogy was the experience of the British in 1939/40 when war had been declared but little happened. In the US, there are currently a few Democratic presidential hopefuls, headed by Hillary Clinton. In contrast some twenty Republicans have either declared their interest or have indicated they might run. Until a few days ago, little seemed to be happening but this is the norm for this part of the election cycle.

Traditionally, the Invisible Primary was a time for retail politics. Candidates would attend numerous small fund raisers as they tried to get their faces known to the local and national media. The period was regarded as a test of character, not policy. Has the candidate got the personal attributes to get votes? Is he one of us? It is unusual for any candidate, no matter how well known, to get into policy in general, let alone detail.

This time around, there may have been a game-changer: Charleston. The murder of nine people at a black Methodist church has produced a number of reactions. The narrow point is the call by the South Carolina governor and other politicians for the removal of the Confederate flag from the South Carolina statehouse. Major retailers like Wal-Mart, Amazon and eBay have announced they would no longer sell products that feature the flag. Whilst this flag is a symbol of the American Civil War and slavery, thus offensive to many Americans, it is merely a symbol whose removal will make little difference to entrenched racist attitudes amongst some whites and, indeed, may harden them. Yet most politicians have centered on the issue, ignoring race relations, racial hatred and gun control.

I have looked at the reactions of some of the presidential hopefuls. The Republicans have, by and large, stammered and stumbled in their response. Initially, most stopped short of calling for the removal of the Confederate flag. Scott Walker, the Wisconsin governor, declined to comment, save to say that the shooting was committed by a racist and evil man. Ted Cruz, the US senator from Texas, showed incredible insensitivity in saying, “gun control means hitting what you aim at.” The following day Cruz campaigned at a shooting range. Jeb Bush, currently the Republican front runner, at first said he was unsure whether Dylann Roof was a racist but later clarified his statement that the shooting was racially motivated.

I suppose the Republican contenders are forced to adhere to the conservative base and the family heritage and traditions of the South. Also, I suspect most, if not all, are supported financially by lobby groups like the National Riflemen’s Association that wields astonishing political influence and power. Whatever. The response has been mealy-mouthed as not one contender has offered any policy initiative in the short, medium or long term to address mass killings, which now litter America’s violent history. Instead, they adhere to the spin doctors’ Invisible Primary rule, no policy announcements till the primaries begin.

In contrast, Hillary Clinton has seized the moment. Eight years ago, she called for the Confederate flag to be removed from the South Carolina statehouse. This week, she has praised Governor Haley’s decision for making the same call. Of the Charleston murders, she said, “Let us be resolved to make sure these nine righteous men and women did not die in vain.” She has already waded into the issue of race relations on many occasions this year, placing emphasis on the need for criminal justice reform. Addressing the Conference of Mayors last week, she said: “I know this is a difficult subject to talk about. There are truths we do not like to say out loud or discuss but we have to.” On another recent occasion, she said: “Whether you live in Ferguson or West Baltimore, in coal country or Indian country, you should have the same chance as any American anywhere to get ahead and stay ahead.”

By taking the race relations issue head on, Mrs. Clinton will be looked upon as a fighter for minorities. The black and Hispanic communities will be encouraged to vote for her. Blue collar workers may feel the same. But I detect far more than a calculating political move on her part. I believe Hillary means what she says. Last April, she spoke at Columbia University on mass black incarceration, stating: “Not only as a mother and grandmother, but as a citizen and a human being, my heart breaks for those young men and their families. We have to come to terms with some hard truths about race and justice in America.”

Does Mrs. Clinton’s stance mean she will now start campaigning in earnest? What will be her position on unemployment, gun control, social security and the budget deficit? I, for one, would like the phony election period to end and find out now what policies candidates might introduce. I would also like to know what plans potential candidates have to break away from the old patterns of Washington where there is a steel cage separating the parties. Will Mrs. Clinton have the right stuff to reduce the influence of partisan politics?

Who Rules in America and UK?

If I need reminders of the differences between the principles of American and British government, it only requires a look at issues which we in Merry Olde would regard as peripheral but where in USA they take centre stage.

In England, there are no laws preventing the public burning of a flag which depicts the Union Jack or the English Cross of St. George, provided the act does not lead to arson, etc. If people want to waste money buying a flag and burning it in public, they have the right to do so. However, should Parliament decide to outlaw British flag burning in public, that would end of the matter. Since 1688, the Crown in Parliament has been sacrosanct, thus an Act of Parliament becomes a binding law unless and until repealed by Parliament. If a law proves very unpopular and the government refuses to change it, the public can express its displeasure by voting that government out of office, leaving it to the incoming government to repeal that law.

Constitutional experts might challenge me on two grounds. First, the UK is subject to the laws of the European Union and if the EU decides that flag-burning is lawful, the British Act may be defeated. However, it is always open to Parliament to withdraw from the EU and the latter cannot prevent an exit. Second, a challenge to the relevant UK courts to defeat the Act might succeed but only on grounds of interpretation of the written words of the Act. The courts have no right to challenge the will of Parliament, however distasteful an Act may be.

In America, the law is different. To many Americans, setting alight the Stars and Stripes is beyond offensive. What it is not is illegal. For decades, those Americans who abhor flag burning have called for punitive measures to prevent it. However, in America the First Amendment to the Constitution is paramount. No state or federal legislation seeking to prevent flag burning in public would be constitutional.

This week, the governor of South Carolina called for the Confederate flag that has flown on the statehouse grounds for more than 50 years to be removed, in the aftermath of the Charlestown killings. “We are here in a moment of unity in our state, without ill will, to say it’s time to remove the flag from the capitol grounds,” said Governor Haley. “One hundred and fifty years after the end of the civil war, the time has come.”

Suddenly a symbol that the governor herself, only days earlier, had said was beyond her power to move seemed to be on the verge of removal by a broad bipartisan consensus. However, if the state legislature rejects the proposal, the Governor is stuck, unless and until a court rules in her favour. The state legislature intends to address the flag issue in an extraordinary session this week.

A tangential issue arose recently when the Supreme Court ruled that messages displayed on specialised vehicle licence plates are a form of speech and the State of Texas was entitled to reject a proposed design that featured the Confederate flag. At first sight, the ruling might seem contradictory but the court explained that the design proposed by the Sons of Confederate Veterans would not simply reflect the views of the driver but by implication the state in a manner it did not want to endorse. As the Confederate flag is closely associated with the American Civil War and slavery. Justice Breyer expressed the majority view: “Texas cannot compel a motorist to display a message he or she finds objectionable.”

Let’s take another issue which concerns motorists: speed cameras. In the UK, we have had these deterrents for fifteen years or more. The UK courts upheld an objection which charged police entrapment because cameras were disguised and placed in positions which were difficult to see. Now the camera boxes must be painted bright yellow and be clearly visible.

In America, motorists don’t face the restriction of speed cameras. Five years ago, the Supreme Court heard a case that dealt with a laboratory analysis of drug evidence. Justice Scalia wrote: “Forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from risk of manipulation…and an analyst may alter evidence in a manner favourable to the prosecution.”  The ruling meant that the state or local authority would be obligated to ensure the speed camera employee testified in court as to the evidence revealed by that camera. This would have made the prosecutions unduly expensive Furthermore, some states including Minnesota have ruled speed cameras unconstitutional on the basis that the photograph identified the car and licence number, not the driver.

In America, court rulings on these types of issues are not necessarily an end in themselves. If a sufficient number of American citizens want to outlaw flag burning or approve the displaying of flags on licence plates, or want the installation of speed cameras, and if members of Congress were persuaded to pass an amendment to the Constitution to this effect, American law would change. What are the chances? Probably zero. Passing an amendment to the Constitution is a lengthy and difficult business. Omitting the Bill of Rights, there have been only 17 Amendments to the Constitution ratified since 1795, and two of those amendments, on Prohibition, cancelled each other out.

The Race for the White House, 2016

Enter Donald Trump, the Candidate for the Buffoon Party

In the sixth series of The West Wing, President Bartlet is in his final year in office. His Assistant Chief of Staff, Josh Lyman, is frustrated that the work of the administration might not continue and he searches for a candidate to carry the Bartlet torch. He becomes impressed by Matthew Santos, a Congressman from Texas, but Santos is now disillusioned with the political process in Washington. Lyman decides to get on a plane and talk to Santos in his home, as time for filing for presidential office is short.

“You are too good at this to give up now, Matt,” Lyman tells Santos.

“The House just doesn’t work like it should. It’s time for me to get out and be here with my family,” Santos replies.

“I don’t want you back in the House. I want you to run for President,” says Lyman.

Their discussion continues briefly and Lyman leaves. Mrs Santos approaches her husband, asking “What did Josh want?”

“He wants me to run for President.”

“President of what?” is her answer.

I was reminded of this exchange this week when I read that Donald Trump had decided to run for the White House, except the headline said, “Trump Running for President.” President of what, I asked myself? In this case, it is the United States. How can Trump be serious?

Politics deserves and needs its eccentrics. In the United Kingdom, over the past forty or fifty years, members of the Monster Raving Loony Party have challenged at the hustings. Usually, their candidates lose their deposits but it does not stop them from enjoying themselves. They add to the political process by poking fun at the mainstream.

Donald Trump would fit in well with MRLP. What are his qualifications? He is a real estate mogul and reality television star. Politically, he is a novice. He has not held public office. He has no Party backing. No doubt he will campaign on his business skills. However, he is no stranger to bankruptcy. His businesses have cost creditors.

What will he bring to his campaign? Let’s look at some of the things he said:

“Our country is in serious trouble. We don't have victories anymore. We used to have victories, but we don't have them. When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let's say, China in a trade deal? They kill us. I beat China all the time. All the time.”

Beat them at what, Donald? Is your foreign policy one where you will use knuckle-dusters?

“When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity. And now they are beating us economically. They are not our friend, believe me. But they're killing us economically.”

This is pure fantasy. True, the Mexican economy is improving but it is hardly a challenge to US dominance.

“Islamic terrorism is eating up large portions of the Middle East. They've become rich. I'm in competition with them. They just built a hotel in Syria. Can you believe this? They built a hotel. When I have to build a hotel, I pay interest. They don't have to pay interest.”

If one needed evidence of confused thinking, this is it. Muslims are forbidden to pay interest. Instead, they share profits with their funders.

On the economy, Trump demonstrated his lack of knowledge of how public finances are run. “Last quarter, it was just announced our gross domestic product -- a sign of strength, right? But not for us. It was below zero. Whoever heard of this? It's never below zero.”

Donald, it does go below zero. If there are two consecutive below zero quarters, this signifies a recession.

“Our real unemployment is anywhere from 18 to 20 percent. Don't believe the 5.6. Don't believe it.”

Trump is right on the 5.6%. But in real terms, the unemployment figure is around 10%, not the 20% he quotes.

“We have a disaster called the big lie: Obamacare. Obamacare. Yesterday, it came out that costs are going for people up 29, 39, 49, and even 55 percent, and deductibles are through the roof. You have to be hit by a tractor, literally, a tractor, to use it, because the deductibles are so high, it's virtually useless. It's virtually useless. It is a disaster.”

Healthcare is a serious topic. What does Trump offer in exchange? Nothing. If it wasn’t so serious, I’d comment as well on the ‘literal tractor’ issue!

The funniest ‘Trumpism’: “Now, our country needs - our country needs a truly great leader, and we need a truly great leader now. We need a leader that wrote ‘The Art of the Deal.’ We need a leader that can bring back our jobs, can bring back our manufacturing, can bring back our military, can take care of our vets. Our vets have been abandoned. And we also need a cheerleader.”

Where do I start? What has negotiating a property deal to do with running the country? As for leadership, what has Trump led? A private property development corporation, nothing else.

The biggest lie is contained in the words: “I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created. I tell you that. I'll bring back our jobs from China, from Mexico, from Japan, from so many places. I'll bring back our jobs, and I'll bring back our money.”

Any first year political student knows that government does not create lasting jobs. It is business that does that.

Trump is estimated to be worth $9 billion. He can afford to spend a few hundred million dollars on a nationwide campaign. He can have fun blowing his mouth off. However, when push gets to shove, when the laughter stops and the real campaigning begins, I am confident that all we will see of Donald Trump is his backside as he leaves the political stage, beaten out of sight. It is the ultimate fate of all political buffoons to be mocked and dismissed. Step off, Mr Trump.