The Visible Invisible Primary

The official starting gun of the Presidential election cycle is the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa caucus next year. The candidate hopefuls will be judged carefully by the registered Democratic and Republican voters of these states. Neither have any significant importance in the general election to follow as they have few Electoral College votes. The period between candidates testing the waters for a Presidential run and the start of the primary season is called the Invisible Primary. During this time, not only the citizens of New Hampshire and Iowa but also the media are testing candidates, less for their policies than for character. The unspoken question asked by the voters is, “does this person have Presidential qualities?” More precisely, “would this person be an effective Commander-in-Chief?”

What are the qualities needed to be President of the United States in the 21^st century? Pretty much the same as they have been since the 1930s. Brains, judgment, experience, guts and heart, to which one might add a thick-skin and stamina. Looking at the list of some twenty candidates currently in the 2016 race, how many of them have these qualities? The media sometimes does not help. Does it really matter whether Donald Trump’s hair is his own?

The race for the Presidency used to be a twelve month event. Now it seems to last for four years. Almost as soon as Barack Obama was re-elected in 2012, the political talking heads were at it, seeking possible candidates for 2016. Hillary Clinton was fund raising and tying up ward captains almost from the get-go, although she did not get her fingers dirty. Others did the job for her.

Whilst I question the permissiveness of fund raising in American elections, I have no objection to how most of the money is spent. Mini economies are created. Many political and campaign jobs get created. Local television and radio stations earn advertising revenue, the manufacturers of pins, badges, letter openers, T shirts, yard signs and other merchandising see a bump in profits, hotels and motels in out of the way places find their rooms filled and office space is leased country-wide. Of course, some candidates and helpers might help themselves to the funds but I cannot remember any major blemishes in the past few presidential elections.

However, I feel for the American voting public, who have to endure perpetual electioneering and numbing TV adverts. I suspect they look enviously at the British general election rules. 28 days’ notice is all that is required to call an election, at least it was until the 2010 Conservative/Liberal coalition. Now, a British government is required by law to serve its full five year term unless it loses a vote of confidence. The next British election will probably be held in 2020 but, alas, the campaign will start two years beforehand.

This year’s Presidential candidates seem to be a poor selection. Mrs Clinton has probably got the Democratic nomination already sewn up but how is she qualified for the job? Does eight years in the Residency and East Wing of the White House, two years in the Senate and four as Secretary of State make her better qualified than her rivals? Last week, Hillary took the Ethanol Pledge, a rite of passage in Iowa. Iowans want federal funding for corn-based fuel despite the fact that ethanol is more expensive to produce than oil. Bernie Sanders might challenge Mrs Clinton. He is a very experienced legislator and an architect of the Bank Crisis rescue in 2008/9. However he has a problem. He is not photogenic. In a nationwide election, this will hurt him. A sad reflection, I know, but nevertheless true.

As for the Republicans, Donald Trump is keeping his lead. He has no legislative or governing record whatsoever to protect, so he can promise and pronounce on everything without being challenged on his record. He knows that you campaign in poetry. I doubt he has considered that you govern in prose. He talks of “playing to people’s fantasies” but it is difficult to imagine how President Trump would wrangle worthwhile legislation from a contrary Congress. I expect he will remain centre stage for a while. Will he get anywhere near the Republican nomination? I very much doubt it but he may well run as an Independent, in which event he will take votes from the Republican nominee.

Who in the long list of Republican contenders will succeed? At the moment, it may be someone who has not yet put his hat in the ring, who is not bound to the Republican base, a person with governing experience who can appeal to the centre. I’m watching and waiting.

In the meantime, I am doing my best to ignore the trivia and trash reporting of what, so far, has been a lack-lustre invisible primary, save for The Donald who seems to be running strongly. But the media is giving him an easy ride. Oh please, someone in the press, ask him how he will fund, build, maintain and police a 2,000 mile wall on the Mexican boundary? Ask him how to justify why a person born in the United States cannot claim citizenship as of right. Will no one ask The Donald the hard questions? Until then, the Invisible Primary might as well remain invisible!

Americans and their Love Affair with Guns

Cartoon: Denver Post

In Greek legend, the Gordian knot was the name given to an intricate knot used by the peasant Gordius to secure his oxcart. An oracle foretold that he who untied the knot would rule all of Asia. People tried to undo the knot but to no avail. This is the position in which President Obama finds himself on gun control. In a July interview with the BBC’s Jon Sopel, the President said:
“You mentioned the issue of guns. That is an area where …I feel that I've been most frustrated and most stymied. The fact is that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense, gun-safety laws, even in the face of repeated mass killings. And… if you look at the number of Americans killed since 9/11 by terrorism, it's less than 100. If you look at the number that have been killed by gun violence, it's in the tens of thousands. And for us not to be able to resolve that issue has been something that is distressing.”

I am with the President on this one but who is creating the stumbling blocks? Is it a Process issue? Lobby groups such as the National Rifleman’s Association wield power way beyond their numbers. First, the NRA has its own PAC, enabling it to give unregulated funds to politicians. By funding numerous US Senators and Congressmen from both sides of the aisle, the lobbyists confound any legislation presented to Congress. In the 2012 election, more than 250 legislative hopefuls from both parties received NRA contributions.

Let us assume Congress wants to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of a semi-automatic rifle. I’ll call it the Comet 100. By altering the length of the stock and re-naming the rifle the Comet 101, the legislative ban is defeated. If an example is needed where Congress acts like an ostrich, when one of their number, Gabrielle Giffords, was shot in the head in public at a shopping mall in Arizona, was there a groundswell in Congress to pass tighter gun laws? There was nothing. Fortunately she survived but her career as a legislator was over.

Perhaps the stumbling blocks are erected by the judiciary? On numerous occasions since the 1960s, the Supreme Court has ruled on the right of Americans to own weapons. The Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment has been consistent, namely that American citizens have the right to “bear arms.” The Amendment states that citizen militia has such a right, yet the Supremes don’t interpret the Constitution to mean that the right is limited to members of the armed forces. How is a gun-toting gang member who lives in one of Chicago’s Projects a member of the militia? To change the law, either the Court has to do an about face or the executive and legislative branch need to change the Constitution, a tortuous process at the best of times and an almost certain vote loser. In my years of studying America’s way of life, I have not read one serious paper or editorial advocating a constitutional amendment.

I don’t regard the issue as one of either process or law. I believe it is set deep in American culture. Americans, black and white, rich and poor, Christians, Jews and Muslims, believe fervently in freedom. It follows that many Americans believe they have the right and freedom to defend themselves. If this means owning and using a firearm to preserve that freedom, that is their right. The cost of children’s lives, for example the 28 murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary, is part of the price paid by Americans for their freedom. So is the recent loss of life in Ferguson.

Most Americans I speak with are amazed to discover that a British citizen has the right to own a firearm and to keep it at home. It requires a Police license and weapons must be secured under lock and key. However, I have no absolute right to use a firearm to kill or wound anyone, even an attacker. There is a legal principle that British citizens must not take the law into their own hands and in defending themselves, they must use only such force as is reasonably necessary. This may well be the case both federally and in some US states but the all too frequent American-style killings make me believe it is not.

Rather than just criticise, may I offer a partial solution? If sales of bullets were regulated so that any sales would be registered, it might be possible to trace some gun ownership from a bullets used to kill or wound. If nothing else, this may act as a deterrent to indiscriminate use of guns, although the black market in bullets would probably be significant.

So, Mr Obama, if you are really serious about changing gun-safety laws, you will have to do better than wring your hands. Take the issue to the American people, get on the stump and persuade Americans that their freedoms will not be reduced or harmed by reconsidering gun ownership. Will the President follow this advice? I doubt it. I accept this is a complex issue. I also accept it is a vote loser in many states but as the President will not be standing for election again, what personal damage arises?