The Real 2016 Election: Is Congress in Play?

There is a myth about the office of the American presidency, that the holder is the most powerful man in the free world. A brief study of Article II of the Constitution will dispel the impression. Whilst the title “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy” is bestowed upon him or her, as well as the right to grant pardons and reprieves, all other executive powers are conferred by Congress or subject to advice and consent of the Senate.

The reality of American power is that it is shared between the Presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court and the three branches struggle with each other to become top dog. The States, too, enjoy powers and rights that are not expressly granted to the three branches by the Constitution. If this sounds complex and difficult, it is what the Framers intended.

The relationship between the executive and legislative branches is strained most of the time. In particular, during the last two years, Republicans have held majorities in both the Senate and the House, and control Congress. This explains why virtually no White House-inspired legislation has been enacted. Should we perhaps think again about the power of the occupier of the Oval Office?

For several months, that part of the American media which follows politics and current affairs has reported on the 2016 race for the White House, almost to the exclusion of Senate and House races. 34 Senators and all members of the House of Representatives are up for election. Let us assume that Mrs Clinton is elected President this November. If Republicans continue to hold majorities in both Houses of Congress, what legislation can she expect to pass? Will Washington gridlock continue? Will she even be able to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court bench?

For me, the most important election in November is for the US Congress. The Republicans need to keep their majorities if they are to stymie another Democratic president. The Democrats need to regain control if they are to get legislation passed or, if Trump wins, to corner him. I cannot look at individual races yet because nominees are not decided. Candidates for most seats, whether in the Senate or the House, have to go through the primary process and this is happening now.

Democrats seem well placed to contest the Senate. They are defending 10 seats compared with 24 for Republicans, who have very few chances to take seats from Democrats. The best opportunities seem to be in Colorado and Nevada but they are long shots. However, the Republicans must be worried. Current polls show a vulnerability in Arizona, North Carolina, Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Florida, Wisconsin and Illinois.

To overturn the Senate Republican majority, currently 54 to 46, the Democrats need 5 gains and no losses. If the Democrats make the eight gains mentioned, they will have a comfortable majority, although not sufficient to defeat a filibuster. In the House, the Republicans have a majority of 33 seats. The Democrats have to turn a 234 to 201 deficit by taking a minimum of 17 seats, which would give the narrowest of majorities.

Unlike local elections in UK which are often a reflection of how the major political parties are faring in Westminster, Congressional elections are often influenced by state, urban and rural issues, so predictability is problematical. Trying to sift the local issues from here in London is difficult if not impossible. Reading The Washington Post and The New York Times is a help but I cannot access small city and town newspapers which are often a much better guide.

At the moment, the Democrats have good news. Donald Trump says he doesn’t care about Congressional races and will offer no help to Republican candidates. However, he is changing his tune, perhaps because the RNC will hold back funds from Trump’s campaign and put the money into Congressional races. Trump needs to learn that he can neither win the election nor govern on his own, a lesson that his opponent clearly understands after so many years in government.

I regard the Congressional elections as the reality of 2016. I shall be watching and holding my breath. Another Republican majority in both Houses will mean at least two more years of rudderless leadership.

 

Two words: Donald Trump.

 

 

 

 

 

Trump: Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop

‘Waiting for the other shoe to drop’ is an English idiom. It means waiting for something bad to happen. It applies to Donald Trump and his campaign for the Presidency. After his political and PR disasters of the previous two weeks, I wondered whether Trump had reached rock bottom. On Monday, I read about a Trump campaign sea change, when Trump delivered his economic speech with the use of a prompter. Had he responded to his senior advisers’ advice to keep on message? Would it last? Twenty four hours later, the other shoe dropped. Trump talked about Second Amendment rights, linking them to a Hillary Clinton presidency and the nomination of Supreme Court justices.

Let me explore these two days in greater detail. Following Trump’s economic speech, The Wall Street Journal reported on its analysis by Moody’s: “Taken at face value, these proposals could produce a prolonged recession and heavy job losses that would fall hardest on low and middle-income workers.” In other words, Trump’s economic plan would hurt the very people Trump says he intends to help. “I am your voice,” he says but doesn’t add, “And in your wallets.”

According to Trump, his tax cut and deregulation proposals would stimulate the economy at a time when a business slowdown in investment and industrial production has already raised concerns that the American economy could slide into recession in the next year. But there was not much detail. Trump says in the coming weeks he will clarify his policies on spending cuts and modifications to the tax plan. Evidently, there will be deficit reduction plans and growth incentives. Trump went on record to say voters don’t care about specifics. In other words, Trump doesn’t have the specifics!

On tax and spend, Trump talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk. Moody’s conclude that massive spending cuts in the federal budget would be needed to avoid a $1 trillion deficit. Trump’s budget maths do not add up.

On trade, Trump said he would use the threat of a 45% tariff on goods from China and 35% on non-oil imports from Mexico as negotiation tools to seek better trade and currency terms. Does Trump truly believe Mexico and China will not retaliate? Protectionism and isolationism has never worked for USA. Just look at what happened in 1936 when similar American trade policies deepened the Great Depression. Altogether, the vaunted Trump economy plan is typical Donald hot air.

So is Trump’s display of poor understanding of the Constitution. This week, at a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina, Trump warned his supporters that if Hillary Clinton is elected president and appoints judges to the Supreme Court, there is nothing anyone can do about it. This is abject nonsense. The American Constitution is clear as crystal that the President nominates judges to SCOTUS, subject to the Senate’s right to advise and consent. If this was not the case, President Obama would have filled the late Justice Scalia’s seat months ago.  

Worryingly, Trump added: “Given the Second Amendment, maybe there is something that could be done. If she [Mrs. Clinton] gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.” He added: “Although, the Second Amendment people. Maybe there is. I don’t know.” What Trump was suggesting is not absolutely clear but it seems he might have been hinting at assassination. At best, Trump’s remarks were out of bounds. A Trump adviser, Jason Miller, trying to walk back the remarks, suggested the candidate was not speaking literally. “It’s called the power of unification. Second Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power,” was his argument.

The Clinton campaign retaliated with total justification: “What Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the President of the United States should not suggest violence in any way.” Indeed, one wonders whether criminal charges might be brought for incitement to violence.

Interviewed on CNN, Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama argued that Trump didn’t mean to threaten Clinton, although he acknowledged that Trump’s statement “may have been awkwardly phrased.” CNN host, Wolf Blitzer, replied, “But even if he was joking, it’s not something you joke about.” Trump has tried to laugh the comment off, suggesting that the media was at fault for misrepresentation and getting it wrong. Whatever the outcome, there are no circumstances under which Trump or any other seeker of office should use such language or put forward such an idea in the first place.

In a recent blog I suggested that a Trump presidency would be neutered by the immense powers in Congress and the Supreme Court. Some readers have asked about the use of nuclear power. “Can he not just press the button?” Before any decision to use nuclear is made, the advice of Congressional leaders and the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be taken. If a President chose to go ahead with a nuclear strike against a country with whom America was not at war, I have no doubt that Section 4 of the 25^th Amendment would be enacted swiftly. The section provides:

            Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.  

The 25^th Amendment has not been tested but the provision is available to stop a President acting like a dictator. There is also Posse Comitatus Act which restricts a President from using the American armed forces in executing civil laws. This Act could be used by Congress to prevent a nuclear strike when no Congressional authority for such a strike exists.

Trump is to politics what Bill Clinton was to fidelity. I truly hope this is my final blog on Trump until the October debates. After all, can it really get worse? Dumb question. Another shoe just dropped. The latest Trump offering: "In many respects, you know, they [Muslim terrorists] honour President Obama. He is the founder of Isis. And I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton. Co-founder! Crooked Hillary Clinton! And that's what it's about!" Three days after Trump made this claim and repeated it on three occasions, he said it was just sarcasm. Well he would, wouldn’t he!

I am fed up with writing about Trump. He is a dangerous jackass, a bully, a misogynist, a racist, a pathological liar, a man who will say anything to insult and denigrate an opponent regardless of truth. Who can rid the election of this meddlesome wannabe? I am not calling for assassination. In November, I hope for a resounding victory for Hillary Clinton and that Trump leaves the political stage forever.

 

Oh No, Not More of Trump!

The Presidential election should be a contest of ideas and policies, as well as a test of character. This time around, it is more like a slow motion car crash, save for the intervention of Bernie Sanders.  I sense no spark in Mrs Clinton’s speeches, as opposed to Sanders, who knows how to work a room. His run for the nomination was significant for its new ideas. In contrast, Mr Trump has wowed his crowds. Tens of thousands of people with chips on their shoulders and hearts full of malignant feelings towards some of their fellow Americans have filled auditoria to hear his brand of Americana. He cannot be dismissed. 15 million people voted for him in the primaries. Yet a Republican-leaning newspaper, The Huffington Post, concludes every article on Trump with the following:

            “Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims ― 1.6 billion members of an entire religion ― from entering the U.S.”  

Trump has nowhere near enough support to win the race to the White House. In November some 200 million people will vote and the current polls have Trump running ten points behind. The gap between the candidates is not surprising. Trump’s brand of politics is almost unknown. Take just the last few days. He insulted parents of a fallen war hero; he claimed that Russia would not invade Ukraine, although it did so in 2014; he expressed hope that his daughter would just “find another company” if she were sexually harassed at work; he joked at a campaign event when he shamelessly accepted a Purple Heart, the military decoration for soldiers wounded in combat, from a veteran, although Trump has not served a day in the armed forces; he initially refused to endorse Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator John McCain but changed his mind and made a stiff and insincere statement giving them support; and he ordered a crying baby out of one of his rallies. In an interview with NBC News journalist George Stephanopoulos, he was questioned about the death of the soldier Humyan Khan. He argued that he too had made “sacrifices” in his life by working hard and employing thousands of people but could not point to one act of true sacrifice.

Amidst this catalogue of catastrophes, Michael Morell gave an interview with The New York Times. Morell was the acting director and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, having served for 33 years under three Republican and three Democrat Presidents. Despite Trump’s claim that Morell is biased in favour of Mrs Clinton, Morell is neither a registered Democrat nor a registered Republican. As an experienced and respected government official, he has always remained silent about his political preferences.

Morell told the newspaper that he will vote for Mrs. Clinton because she will deliver on the most important duty of a President, keeping the nation safe. Trump, he says, is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security. Morell spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, he found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument. Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice. Tellingly, Morell says he never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, he saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”

In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton, Morell states Trump has no experience on national security. Even more important, the character traits he has exhibited during the primary season suggest he would be a poor, even dangerous, commander in chief. These traits include “his obvious need for self-aggrandizement, his overreaction to perceived slights, his tendency to make decisions based on intuition, his refusal to change his views based on new information, his routine carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law.”

However, Trump is like a lighthouse-shaped doll with a semi-circular bottom, the one that you knock over but straightens up. He can say such awful things. Does he really think all Mexicans are killers and rapists? Does he really want to ban all Muslims from entering into the United States? Will he really build the wall? No of course not! But he has channelled into a brand of ill-feeling amongst blue collar Americans who are fed up with low wages, the fat cats in Washington, state Congresses and City Halls up and down the country who, they feel, have both disinherited them and who continue to deprive them of their rights. And Trump brands himself as the only one who will fix it.

For Trump supporters, he is the real deal. They love his never-ending stream of insults. “Crooked Hillary” will ring out for the rest of the campaign. He will pour oil on the flames with the news that the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Foundation is being investigated by the FBI. It is alleged that Mrs Clinton, when Secretary of State, gave favours to donors in exchange for money. One wonders how Trump explains the actions of the NRA in this regard.

But Dodgy Donald has skeletons in his own closet. Last week, The Washington Post reported that Trump claimed he gave millions of dollars of his own money to charity but could find no evidence in support. The newspaper looked at the Donald J. Trump Foundation. Tax records show no gifts from Trump to his namesake foundation since 2008. The Trump campaign's official list of donations included thousands of free rounds of golf given away by Trump's golf courses but no cash gifts from Trump's own pocket between 2008 and this May, except $10,000 to the Police Athletic League in New York. The New York Supreme Court is hearing a case where Trump is alleged to have signed off a 2007 deal designed to deprive the US Treasury of millions in tax. And Trump has still not disclosed his tax returns.

An avalanche of mud will be slung between now and November in probably the dirtiest Presidential election ever. The Clinton campaign raised $90m in July, compared with Trump’s campaign’s $80m. Both sides have been boosted by small online donations which are indicative of an enthusiastic support base who either won't or don’t care about Clinton and Trump controversies. With this kind of spending power, both candidates will fill the airways with a perpetual stream of negative adverts. I don’t envy my American friends who will have to put up with this sort of politics for another three months.

 

 

Last night, Trump set out his economic plan. I have not read it yet but I won’t be surprised if we are back to trickle down a la Reagan, a seriously failed policy, tax cuts for business and a deficit in the trillions.

 

 

 

OMG! President Donald J. Trump.

Last week, I predicted, possibly rashly, that Hillary Clinton would win the November election. But what if I am wrong? Most people I speak to are repulsed and revolted by the thought. I think Trump has no redeeming features but, as one of my friends in America pointed out, there is an atmosphere of the French Revolution where politicians’ heads are the prize. As Trump is no politician, he is exempt.

However, I am not overly concerned by a Trump victory. Here is why. At the Democratic Convention, Khizr Khan asked Trump, “Have you even read the Constitution?” I do not go this far but some of his statements lead me to believe he does not understand it.

The bedrock of American democracy is separation of powers. The executive, the legislature and the judiciary are separate from one another and one branch of government cannot impinge on the others. The President cannot even walk into Congress without an invitation. The sole exclusion is that the Vice President has the right to preside over the Senate, with a casting vote in the event of a tie.

Let us accept Trump is victorious. In addition, let us assume a continued Republican majority in the House of Representatives but a Democratic majority in the Senate. What are the likely outcomes? Trump gives no indication that he understands how government works. He will be talking with very experienced politicians, who hold considerable power which a President cannot negate without negotiation.

Trump’s foreign policy statements include a threat to withdraw America’s membership from NATO if other members “do not pay their fair share.” The Constitution provides that the President has the right to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. It is implicit that withdrawal from treaties is subject to the same condition. US senators are said to be the foreign policy experts in government. Is it likely that the Senate would endorse Trump’s proposal, especially when Russia is fomenting problems for the western allies? Trump would be stopped.

Trump’s plan to rid the world of ISIS is to carpet-bomb oil fields in Iraq, even though most of ISIS stolen assets is in Syria. He was questioned recently by CNN’s Anderson Cooper whether such a policy would be “destroying the wealth of Iraq” and in the process, hurting ordinary Iraqis. Trump responded, “No, there is no Iraq and there are no Iraqis.” The use of the military by a President is murky at best. Successive War Powers Acts have a lack of clarity. If Trump needs Congressional support for military action, would he get it?

The Donald has an unfortunate turn of phrase when talking about other countries and their leaders. He seems to support Putin in the hacking of Democratic e-mails. What would he have said had the Republicans been hacked? He wasn’t aware that Russia invaded Ukraine two years ago. If he talks to world leaders, telling them to pay their fair share and let’s bomb Iraq, does he really believe experienced statesmen will listen to him, let alone agree with what he says. Unless he learns some diplomacy, he will be shunned and marginalised. What will he do then? Take his toys and leave? America would become isolated and disrespected.

On the domestic front, Trump would be pressed hard about building “the wall” between USA and Mexico. The cost has been estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars. How will Trump finance the project? Congress owns the purse strings. The House of Representatives might provide some help but will Americans want their taxes spent on the project, especially when they find out the true cost?

Then there’s the Muslim threat. Trump may be right in his allegation that America’s immigration policy is broken but he needs to highlight the policy failures of Homeland Security which need to be fixed and how to do it. Seeking to pass a law barring US entry on grounds of religion seems to be a breach of the First Amendment. Would the Supreme Court find for Trump, assuming he can get a law through Congress? If he tried to by-pass Congress using a Presidential executive order, I suspect the Court would quash it, even if Congress doesn’t.

My point is straightforward. Mr Trump cannot bulldoze his way through Congress and the Supreme Court. Franklin Roosevelt was rebuffed by a Democratic controlled Congress in 1936 when he introduced his plan to increase the number of Supreme Court judges. If Trump doesn’t know it yet, he will find out quickly that he will become a presidential eunuch unless he makes overtures to Congress. “I am the only one who can fix things” has the hollowest of rings. And failure to understand the Constitution and how it works will hole his presidency below the water line.

 

Last week in Columbus, Ohio, Trump said he feared that the election would be “rigged.” I cannot recall such a statement by a major party nominee in modern history. His words: “I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged, I have to be honest.” Trump repeated the charge on Monday night on Fox News, saying: “November 8th, we’d better be careful, because that election is going to be rigged. And I hope the Republicans are watching closely or it’s going to be taken away from us.”

In one way, I agree with Trump. A Presidential election is rigged. It is the fault of the Founding Fathers. They did not trust the people with the election of a President, thus the Electoral College was created. On Election Day, when American voters go to the polls, they will actually be voting for an Elector, who has the right to vote as he wishes. These days, Faithless Electors are a myth but an Elector could vote against his or her State’s choice. Furthermore a candidate can win the popular vote but lose in the Electoral College. It has happened four times, the last being 2000 when Bush beat Gore, amid all kinds of irregularities in Florida. The essential point is that the rules apply to both candidates. Trump can’t scream ‘foul’ at a system which has been in place since the birth of the United States.

However, I doubt this is the point Trump made. Regrettably, he provided no evidence in support of his allegation until yesterday, when Trump alluded to a few court cases across the country where restrictive laws requiring voters to show identification were thrown out. Those decisions, he said, could open the door to fraud in November but without explaining why. Instead, he said: "'If the election is rigged, I would not be surprised. The voter ID situation has turned out to be a very unfair development. We may have people vote ten times.”

The Washington Post article opined that the term “rigged” defied norms of politics. Trump taps into fears long predating his campaign. One is a growing but unsubstantiated worry that elections are being stolen. Not for the first time, a Trump habit of making wild, unproven allegations are bound up in his claims for honesty.

From the beginning, American elections have been sprinkled with election fraud. Just research the 1800 election between Adams and Jefferson. In the early part of the 20^th century, political bosses continually used ruses such as impersonation and ballot box stuffing to make an election certain. In 1960, Mayor Daly of Chicago fixed the result for Illinois for Kennedy. The Republicans in 2000 used all kinds of fraud to ensure Florida was in the Bush column.

Sometimes, American elections seem to resemble the national sport. I can hardly wait for Trump to utter the mantra, “vote early and vote often.” In conclusion, Trump should put up or shut up about election fraud. As he has no viable evidence to prop up his claim, he should give it up before he makes himself look an even bigger fool.

 

Who Will Make it to the White House?

One of the benefits of a western democracy at election time is the vote of a poor person counts no less than that of a billionaire. The choice of a teenager ranks equally with a senior. No person has more power at a ballot box than any other, unless there is election fraud. However, democracy has its disadvantages. The vote of a person who has studied and analysed the issues of the day is worth no more than that of a bigoted dullard. As Winston Churchill observed, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.”

On Friday morning, USA Today proclaimed that Donald Trump had won the battle of the National Conferences. If I understand the article correctly, the tabloid's conclusion was based on Trump's mere survival as his Party’s nominee. Talk about setting the benchmark low.

The Presidential campaign will now start in earnest. I am not a psephologist so I will refrain from forecasting on Trump winning states like Ohio and Pennsylvania if he is to make it to the White House. Instead, I will assess the importance of this Presidential election and what it means to America.

Abraham Lincoln is often quoted as saying, "you can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.” Yet Trump is trying to do the latter. His policy for problem solving seems to be “leave all to me.” Clinton’s reaction was, “really, really.” The Donald suggests he is the only person capable of solving America’s problems as the country is in such a parlous state and the politicians, especially Obama, have failed. If so, will he reduce the West Wing and OEOB staff to a handful? If not, what will the one thousand plus government employees be doing? Is his cabinet to be a collection of stuffed dummies, a collection of yes men who will do as ordered?

Let me compare and contrast the two contenders. Mrs Clinton has a track record of working in teams. Yes, her healthcare initiative as First Lady failed but she has a series of successes in relation to the welfare of children the world over. Her record as US senator shows she is a policy person. Trump is wholly without experience in the political field, let alone governing. He is an isolationist. He wants to build walls to prevent Mexicans crossing the border, he seeks to ban Muslims from entering the States and he would even seek to bar judicial appointments if the candidate has foreign blood.

Look at history, Mr Trump, name one successful Presidential candidate after World War II who ran successfully on an isolationist policy. I thought so. You can't. You need to go back to 1916 when Woodrow Wilson promised to keep America out of the Great War and a year later broke that promise.

In the movie, "Wag The Dog", an enemy was invented and war declared in order to keep an incumbent in office. This is pure Trump. He has based his campaign thus far on fear and hatred of minorities and derision of those who are disabled or "different". He believes it is permissible for a man in his position to threaten violence. Is this the kind of leader Americans truly want? He often says “trust me” which makes me ask, along with Khizr Kan, whether he has read the Constitution, let alone understood it. The most important point in American governance is that trust is not a pre-requisite.

In Mrs Clinton, Americans have someone with political leadership experience, one who is not bigoted, who champions people regardless of race or colour and who is probably as prepared as any post-War candidate for the role of Commander in Chief. True, she has her problems. She is not a great orator, she has made some very public errors and she has popularity issues. But who would Americans want to make the final decision on use of nuclear weapons?

I have heard it suggested quite often that the November election has many elements of Brexit, a substantial percentage of disillusioned voters concerned by immigration and loss of jobs, fuelled by an elite that they think controls their lives. This may be true in part but Trump’s attraction is to a minority of whites whereas Brexit caught the imagination of much of UK, primarily excluding Scotland and London.

I believe Hillary Clinton will win in November. Today, after the usual Convention bounce, she holds a 6 point lead over Trump, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. However, my opinion is not based on polls, policies or politics but on the innate and overriding good sense of the American voter who will not want to be governed by a bully, a racist, a misogynist and wannabe dictator. Historically, what Americans demand of a President is someone who transcends politics, who constantly strives to do what is right and is the chief executive for all Americans. Trump will never fulfil this role.

Next week, I will offer an opinion of what might happen if I am wrong and Trump wins in November. Stay tuned.