Trumpolitics

If the unthinkable occurs and Donald Trump is chosen as the Republican nominee for President, it will be the first time a non-politician has been selected at a Party Convention since 1952. Then, Eisenhower may not have been a professional politician but he was engaged in public life. As a five-star general in the United States Army during World War II and Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe, he had to know a bit about governing. I suspect you had to be quite a politician to handle the likes of de Gaulle, Churchill and FDR.

So far as I am aware, Donald Trump has never stood for public office until now and his governing experience is limited to real estate corporations, four of which were declared bankrupt, and failed ventures such as Trump University. Despite his claims to billionaire status, his governance abilities don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Until recently I, like most other professional and amateur observers of American politics, thought the Trump nightmare would end and we would waken to news that another Republican would lead the Party into the 2016 election. We now have to face the fact that Trump will remain in the race until the Convention. America is a democracy and if a sufficient number of Republican voters want Trump to run for President, it will happen.

I am now willing to take Trump’s run seriously, so have had a detailed look at Trump’s politics. They vary. For example, Trump used to be in the pro-choice camp on abortion but a few years ago he changed his views. “They evolved like Ronald Reagan’s” was his reasoning last summer. As President, Trump will support pro-lifers. He will defund non-profits like Planned Parenthood which he recognises as “important but abortions must stop.”

On the budget and the economy, he wants to introduce dynamism by bringing outsourced jobs back from China and Mexico. However, he doesn’t explain how manufacturers will pay for the increased wages bill.

We know Trump’s stance on immigration. Ban Muslims, remove Mexican illegals and build a wall between the States and Mexico, at the latter’s expense. Where are the details, the small print to establish the legality and implementation of such policies?

Trump says he will grow the American economy by 6% annually. China’s current economic growth of 6.8% outstrips all other G20 countries. How will America compete? Trump identifies the problem of the national debt which, he says, is out of control but in a flat contradiction he wants to increase the debt ceiling, as a bargaining chip to bring US lenders into line! “We owe $19 trillion and need a businessman to bring us back into line.”

Under Trump, the budgets of the Defense, EPA and Education departments will be under severe threat. Why attack the environment and education? States’ rights is his answer but this makes no sense as there is no offer of federal funding.

On Civil Rights, Trump says he is “fine” with affirmative action. Gay marriage, he says, is a reality. He criticises the Obama administration for doing nothing for African Americans but does not specify what he would do to help the black community.

Trump is strong on business. He wants to get U.S. money back into America and address “corporate inversion.” He is a supporter of US bankruptcy laws. “I've used bankruptcy laws to do a great job for my companies.” Having declared bankruptcy four times he should know. He advocates a 0% corporation tax as a catalyst for the creation of millions of jobs. He does not comment on the enormous salaries and benefits already enjoyed by the leaders of America’s big corporations who currently avoid the tax.

To my surprise I have found that Trump has positions on most issues affecting America. Here are some examples:

Crime: “The police are the most mistreated people in America. Black lives matter but we need strong police presence.”

Drugs: Trump wants to study the subject but not legalize some drugs now. This is for the states. Trump’s brother died from alcoholism and Trump does not drink.

Education: Trump envisages huge cuts in federal funding and Common Core, an educational initiative that details what students should know in English language, arts and mathematics at the end of each grade.

Energy and Environment: The oil lobby will love Trump. He believes climate change is a hoax. He characterises the EPA as “a disgrace.”

Foreign Policy: According to Trump, Putin has no respect for America. However, “I will get along with him.” Also, America will “deal with the maniac in North Korea with nukes.” I do not know of any leader who advocates a policy of using nuclear missiles. Trump identifies China as “our enemy; they're bilking us for billions.”

Last weekend, Trump asserted that America was being “ripped off” by its allies and that it was paying a heavy price for being the world’s policeman. He singled out Saudi Arabia for failing to contribute in money and men, America, he stated, would no longer buy Saudi oil. I conclude that Trump’s diplomacy would be better suited to the World Wrestling Federation shows than the State Department.

Government Reform: Trump regards Super PACs as a disaster, causing dishonesty. He believes all candidates should disavow PACs. He says, “I'm not accepting any money from anybody.” That’s simply not true.  Trump is funding his campaign with loans and repaying himself from sales of merchandise, etc. His website includes a link for donations.

Trump’s policy statements are not supported by detailed papers or costings for the media to investigate. Whilst Trump has much to say on many topics, the statements are sound bites, short sentences reducing complex issues to the barest and lowest common denominator. Subtle he ain’t. There seems to be a pattern where Trump claims he can fix everything while being intent on devolving problems to the states.

There is an old saying, “you campaign in poetry, you govern in prose. Trump has no governing experience and he will be staggered by the size and complexity of the US federal government, not to mention the problems he will face wrangling Congress, even one where Republicans might control both Houses. If Trump goes the whole way, Americans will soon yearn for the return of George W Bush. Oh the irony.

But at this stage, Trump campaigns in poetry. I believe he is using blank verse. And the blanks have far too many four-letter words.

Many thanks to my readers who send me comments on the blog. I am going to take a short break from writing about American politics. Hopefully, I’ll be back in May.

Appointing the Next Supreme Justice

Last week, President Obama nominated Washington, D.C., federal appeals Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Scalia. According to observers, Garland, 63, is a centrist with almost two decades of judicial experience. If he is confirmed, Garland is unlikely to add diversity to the Court, nor a liberal shift. His record is one of a pragmatist, not a pathfinder. He would be an uncontroversial candidate who should be easily confirmed.

At the ceremony in the Rose Garden, the President said: "Our Supreme Court really is unique. It's supposed to be above politics. It has to be. And it should stay that way." Anticipating an adverse reaction from Senate Republicans, the President added, "To suggest that someone as qualified and respected as Merrick Garland doesn't even deserve a hearing ... would be unprecedented." 

Under the Constitution, it is now the Senate judiciary committee’s role to consider the nomination, providing the requisite advice and consent to decide whether Garland should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. However, since Scalia's death, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have repeatedly stated they will not consider any nominee, arguing that whoever wins the general election in November should name the next justice.

There is Presidential authority that when the Senate is in recess, the vacancy can be filled. If the Senate is by-passed, the appointee can only serve until the end of the following Senate session.  The Supreme Court itself clarified that power in June, 2014, in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning. However, I doubt that Mr. Obama would risk a recess appointment. His nature is to face down an opponent, not go round him.

Senator Al Franken tore into the Republicans for their threat to block the President’s pick, saying their arguments reminded him of his past life as a comedian on Saturday Night Live. “I used to make a living identifying absurdity,” Franken said at the start of a fiery speech in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. “I’m hearing a lot of it today.”

Franken has ammunition. Last week, on the floor of the Senate, Democrat Pat Leahy stated: “The Constitution is very clear that we can’t walk away from a constitutional responsibility when it comes to a vacancy on the Supreme Court.” Leahy’s colleague, Senator Richard J. Durbin, agreed. “The Senate shall advise and consent by voting on that nominee. That is what the plain language of the Constitution requires.”

The Republican case that a President has no right to nominate a Supreme Court justice in the final year of his term is bunk. A Minnesotan lawyer friend of mine told me, “In the past 100 years, there have been 19 Supreme Court Justices who were nominated and confirmed in an election year, including Scalia himself.  The others were Kagan, Alito, Breyer, Souter, Rehnquist, Blackmun, Goldberg, White, Warren, Vinson, Murphy, Reed, Roberts, Cardozo, Hughes, Sutherland, Clarke and Brandeis.”

Presidential obligations exist under the Constitution. The chief executive “shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate…to appoint …Judges of the Supreme Court.” In addition, the President shall appoint “all other officers of the United States not otherwise provided for.”

The Article does not say “the President may appoint.” Instead, there is a requirement placed upon the chief executive. Furthermore, the Article does not restrict the chief executive from carrying out the obligations of his office in the final year of his term. If that were so, every President would be constrained in his fourth year of office, not just the eighth year.

The Senate Republicans are playing politics with the Supreme Court. They want another Scalia in the vacant seat and seem to want to use every weapon to achieve their aims. However, they should remember the American public does not like it when the executive and legislative branches play the political game using the Court as a pawn. In 1937, President Roosevelt put forward his Court Packing Plan to make sure the second New Deal legislation would pass. In a Democratic controlled Congress, the plan failed, giving FDR a bloody nose, damaging badly his second term. The public wanted business as usual with the Court, not more appointees.

Also, the Republicans should take care about hand-picking their nominee. In 1953, President Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren as the new Chief Justice. After all, Ike thought, Warren was “one of us.” Ike looked on with astonishment as Warren presided over a liberal, reforming Court which, for example, desegregated public schools. Ike is reported to have yelled at his aides, “If I knew the son of a bitch was like this, I’d never have nominated him.”

If the Senate Republicans are wise, they will give Garland a hearing and a vote on the merits. But since when is the current crop of Senate Republicans replete with wisdom?