Impeach Trump!

The question I am often asked these days is: “Will Trump be impeached?” My answer has been “for what?” Impeachment is a remedy reserved to Congress to remove a President (and other government officers) found guilty of “treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors committed whilst in office.”  So, until Trump takes over on 20^th January next year, the question is moot and he is free and clear.

Last week, the President-Elect met with reporters from The New York Times. When questioned about how his business interests would be run, he stated that conflict of interest laws did not apply to him and he could run his businesses from The White House. “In theory,” Trump said, “I could run my business perfectly and then run the country perfectly.” This was Trumpese at its best but his assertion came as a surprise to me. Trump’s interpretation of the law is wrong. The law does not permit a President to have a conflict of interest as of right. Whilst it is correct that Congress has exempted the President and Vice President from conflict-of-interest laws in general, it has reserved the right to judge individual conflicts.

In 1974, uber-wealthy Nelson Rockefeller, heir to a fortune and the presumptive VP for Gerald Ford, agreed to Congressional hearings when his multitude of business interests were examined closely. The Justice Department subsequently confirmed Rockefeller’s right to conflict exemption. Four years later, the Ethics of Government Act and then the 1989 Ethics Reform Act codified the principle, effectively that where conflicts of interest were concerned, Congress could assume the President and Vice President can be trusted to do the right thing. However both statutes reserved to Congress the right to examine any situation where the chief executive or his second in command might have done the wrong thing, especially if it amounted to a ‘high crime and misdemeanour.’

When Rockefeller received his exemption, he offered to put his assets into a blind trust but Congress decided this was unnecessary in his case. A blind trust is one where trustees independently administer the private business interests of a person in public office to prevent or avoid conflict of interest. Trustees cannot be family members. Former Presidents Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton each placed their personal assets in a blind trust, even though they may have had no legal obligation to do so. In none of these cases did family members act as trustees because this would be a breach of federal law. Incidentally, President Obama did not follow the blind trust example but all his assets were invested in mutual funds and Treasury bonds, thus there was no need for trustee administration.

Much of Trump’s wealth is contained within his corporations and tied in with the Trump brand. Trump’s choice for chief of staff, Reince Priebus, has promised that White House counsel will review all potential areas that could pose a conflict: “I can assure the American people that there wouldn’t be any wrongdoing or any sort of undue influence over any decision-making.” But how can this assurance be worth anything if White House counsel are not aware of all the facts? Neither Trump nor Priebus has undertaken to ensure full disclosure of Trump assets to the lawyers. One only has to remember Richard Nixon and his failure to tell his lawyer, James St. Clair, about the full extent of his participation in the Watergate scandal. As a result, in court St. Clair was hung out to dry.

Trump’s Achilles heel might be his refusal to disclose his tax returns. The Washington Post reported this week that Congressional Democrats are calling for an investigation into Trump’s ‘business entanglements.’ Democratic members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee have called on the chairman, Jason Chaffetz, to review Trump’s financial arrangements in order to identify and protect against potential conflicts of interest. To date, Chaffetz has not responded. Probably, there is little in the Trump’s tax returns which will discomfort him, save that he may have over-stated his wealth. Politically, however, he will face trouble if he continues to refuse disclosure. The media will ask what he is hiding and will not give up until they get what they want. Eventually Trump will be forced to publish so the best thing he can do is disclose the returns right away.

There is little point in my examining further the legalities of conflicts of interest and blind trusts as I suspect these issues will occupy the time of countless numbers of attorneys all over the United States for many months. Conflict of interest law suits against Trump interests are hovering. Trump’s nature will make him want to defend all such suits vigorously. However, after the Inauguration, he will be a politician first, one who, according to American myth, is vested with enormous powers. Every action he takes will be scrutinised. And I mean every action. There is a log kept by White House officials called “the ticker” which records all the President’s actions on a three minute basis. Every call, every conversation and everything he does will be committed to paper. He will have no privacy. Even if Trump behaves within the letter of the law, politically his Presidency will be damaged, perhaps permanently, if the voters believe he is hiding his financial moves and using Presidential power to further his personal interests.

I am certain that in America’s criminal code there is an offence which prevents a President from using his office for personal financial benefit. However, referring back to the impeachment proceedings against Nixon and Clinton, it was never suggested that either man had acted in this way. None of Nixon’s men who were imprisoned over Watergate sought wrongful financial gain from their actions. As for Clinton, he did nothing at all wrong in the Whitewater affair. In fact, his investment proved to be a total loss.

It is clear from the impeachments of Nixon and Clinton that the process is far more political than legal. For example, Ronald Reagan was caught red-handed in the Iran-Contra affair when he twice knowingly broke Acts of Congress, clearly impeachable offences. But there was no political will within Congress to pursue him. Did Trump’s recent encouragement of an Argentine delegation to use his new Washington hotel cross a line? If so and if this type of action is left unchecked after Inauguration, such behaviour could put the new President into serious hot water.

Will Trump be impeached? Much depends on whether Trump’s Presidency is perceived as a success or a failure. For example, if his economic policies result in a boost for US manufacturing, improved wages for US workers and a better tax take, the voters will not encourage their legislators to try to remove him, even for cause. However, D.C. politics tells me Trump is regarded as an Independent, not a Republican. Congressional Republicans might leap at any opportunity to remove Trump from office because he would be replaced by VP Mike Pence, a politician who fits the current Republican blueprint so much better than his boss. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who'd Be a Democrat?

Last weekend, at the end of the show Hamilton, a member of the cast addressed Vice-President-Elect Pence:

            “We, sir, are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us — our planet, our children, our parents — or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us. All of us.”

Pence, himself, did not react but his future puppet master went wild on Twitter, suggesting harassment on the part of the cast while conveniently forgetting the First Amendment. Mr. Trump, some would say your Vice-President-Elect got off a lot lighter than your post-Civil War predecessor at the Ford Theater!

Democrats throughout America have taken quite a beating for the past week or so. Democratic supporters have looked on the wreckage of the Party of Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson and wept openly. Hillary Clinton said she just wanted to curl up with a good book and President Obama drowned his sorrows by travelling the world, meeting up with other world leaders whose careers, too, will end in tears. Everyone he met knew the future former President cannot do a thing except have “nice rides” in the Presidential plane and helicopter before he leaves office. But is this right. Can he really do nothing?

In my last blog, I wondered why no law suit had been commenced against the Senate for refusing to give a hearing for Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, for the Supreme Court vacancy. I have found out that Steve Michel, a New Mexico lawyer, filed a suit to force the US Senate Republican leaders to act on Obama’s nomination. Michel argued that US Senators’ powers were diminished by their leaders’ denial to vote on a vacancy for the Supreme Court. Unsurprisingly, the federal judge dismissed the case. I suspect the suit was doomed from the start.

The recent election results mean that after 20^th January, 2017, the Republicans will control the executive and legislative branches of the American federal government. They will soon have a Republican ideological majority on the Supreme Court bench, assuming Trump’s nominee gets the Senate’s post 20^th January nod.

However, there is a way for Mr Obama to get Judge Garland on the bench. Indeed, the President has the legal right to take action which would thwart the Republicans for a year and possibly prevent the Court ruling in aid of right wing and anti-feminist causes.

Article II of the Constitution grants to the President power to fill all vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session. I make no claim to expertise in American constitutional law but it seems Obama does have power to force through Garland’s appointment to the Court for a limited period. What an act of defiance that would be by a man who has been mauled by Republican congressional majorities for years.

New Republic recently published an article setting out the rules, pros and cons of such an action. There is time between the old and new Congress sessions in January, 2017, to make the appointment. If made, Garland would remain on the bench until the end of the first session of the 115^th Congress in December, 2017. But the appointment would have to be made on 3^rd January, 2017. The president’s recess appointment powers were significantly constrained by a 2014 Supreme Court ruling under which the President cannot appoint individuals to fill vacancies if the Senate holds “pro forma” sessions every three days. These sessions merely gavel in and gavel out the Senate chamber but have the practical effect of keeping the Senate active, thereby blocking the presidential recess appointment power. Well, rules are rules. However, the decision does not apply to the congressional inter-session period.

There is precedent for a Supreme Court recess appointment, for example, in 1856, when William Brennan began his court tenure with a recess appointment. But would the President become political and take the opportunity? The downside is it would make the new President and the new majority in Congress angry, unwilling to compromise or to seek any accommodation with congressional Democrats. But is there evidence that the Republicans will reach across the aisle? Recent precedent seems to say no. In 2006, the Republicans seized power in both Houses of Congress at a time when it held the White House and had an ideological majority on the Supreme Court. President Bush spoke of spending his “political capital” without reference to the sensibilities of those on the opposite aisle. The Democrats could take heart. The 2008 elections gave the Republicans a black eye!

There is another factor. In the unlikely event that the President decides to make the recess appointment, would Garland accept it? He is only 64 and his career as a judge would end if and when the Republicans removed him at the end of the Session in December, 2017. One wonders if America’s media will uncover any recent exchanges between the President and the Judge. If so, look out for fireworks.

If no recess appointment is made, that is not the end. To keep a vacancy on the Court, the Democrats could wait until the new Senate is asked to approve a nomination and filibusters Trump’s pick. Problem: there is a Republican majority in the Senate. The right to filibuster could be lost in the future if there is an up and down majority vote on the Senate floor to change the rules and eliminate the filibuster on Supreme Court appointments.

I have gained a clear impression that Americans have elected sulky teenagers to Congress, immature men and women who have forgotten they are elected for all the people and should act likewise. Instead, there is noise indicating yet another fearsome, partisan period where, for example, minority and female rights will be attacked. Americans have surely elected an over-sensitive, bullying, non-politician to the White House, one who, in his initial cabinet and adviser choices, is showing a desire to make America white again.

No doubt, Mr. Obama would infuriate many if Garland is appointed but it would help keep the more rapacious Republicans at bay for a year. It will also endear President Obama, a fine and dignified man, to at least half the country and help shore up a legacy that needs some defending.

 

 

PS. The 2016 election isn’t over yet. In Louisiana, there is a run-off race for the Senate seat next month. The Democratic candidate is behind in the polls but were he to win, the Republican majority would be a razor thin 51-49, with the VP having a casting vote, if needed. The politics never ends.

The Supreme Court: "That's My Vacancy."

 

Presidents come and Presidents go. Some leave a lasting impression. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, continued by Harry Truman, still remains a popular topic of discussion, although much of it was dismantled by the Eisenhower administration. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society built a socialist-looking America. Many programs such as black civil rights and government sponsored healthcare for the young and old, have survived but Nixon’s Republicans could not wait to tear down much of the Great Society and the wrecking ball continued under Reagan to remove even more.

The one area of federal government where a President’s mark can last for decades is in Supreme Court appointments. Since the end of World War II, only two Presidents, Truman and Nixon, have had four picks. Some have none. History may now be repeating itself. Following the death of Justice Scalia, there is a Supreme Court vacancy to fill. During Trump’s four year term, another three seats may become vacant. If so, his choices would influence the interpretation of the American Constitution for the next three or four decades.

The process of Supreme Court appointments is simple enough. The President names the appointee, subject to “the advice and consent” of the Senate. All appointees must go through a vetting procedure by both the Executive and Legislative branches of government. This is no small thing. Every decision, ruling and opinion of the appointee is studied for bias. The Senate Judiciary Committee holds public hearings, interviewing the candidate, often with public demonstrations in the background.

An appointee is not chosen for his or her Party affiliations but for ideology. A Democratic appointee is expected to be pro-choice, pro-big government, anti-big business. A Republican appointee is expected to be pro-life, pro-business and support the traditional interpretation of the 1^st and 2^nd Amendments.

After Justice Scalia’s death, the Senate refused to give President Obama’s appointee, Merrick Garland, a hearing, despite his being an uncontroversial pick. The reason given by Senate Majority Leader McConnell was Obama was a lame duck President and the vacancy should be filled by the new President. I know of no precedent for such a proposition. Indeed, I am amazed that in America’s litigious society, no one took the Senate to law. Had a case been brought and taken on appeal to the Supreme Court, the Justices would have had to themselves decide on increasing their number! Suffice it to say the vacancy was not filled and now Trump has a Republican Senate majority to help approve his nomination.

Currently, the Court is divided equally between Democratic and Republican ideologies, so the new Justice will be the swing vote on cases brought. But voting does not always work out the way the nominating Party expects. There is a pertinent story concerning Earl Warren becoming the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In 1952, as Governor of California, Warren represented Eisenhower’s only serious rival for the Republican nomination for President. The two men struck a deal. If Warren withdrew from the race and if Ike won the Presidency, Ike would nominate Warren for the first vacancy on the Supreme Court.

In 1953, Chief Justice Vinson died and Warren succeeded him. Ike kept his word with no worries: after all, Warren was “one of us.” However, before Vinson’s death, the Court had heard the Brown v Board of Education case on racial segregation but had reached no decision. Warren wanted to be involved and persuaded his fellow judges the case should be re-argued so he could participate. After that hearing, Warren lobbied his fellow judges and, to Ike’s horror, the Court unanimously ruled to desegregate public schools as soon as reasonably possible. When Ike heard the verdict, he was heard to yell, “If I had known what that bastard would do, I never would have appointed him.”

Under Democrat Senator Harry Reid, then the Senate Majority Leader, the right of the Senate to filibuster judicial appointments was reduced. Now it only applies to the Supreme Court. If you are a Democrat, this might appear a relief because it means the Senate Democrats can block Trump’s choice through a filibuster which can only be defeated by a vote of 60 Senators.

Incoming Democrat Minority Leader, Charles Schumer, and his fellow Democrats have some political calculations to make.  If they filibuster Trump’s Supreme Court pick, McConnell and the Senate Republicans could use the so-called nuclear option to change Senate rules and eliminate the filibuster for the Supreme Court. That would mean in future a simple Senate majority would be sufficient for a confirmation vote.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – may her bright eyes continue to shine - made headlines this summer for saying she feared for the country and the Supreme Court should Donald Trump be elected. She has now acknowledged the inevitable. In a short question-and-answer session before the Jewish Federations of North America, Ginsburg said the most immediate impact of last week’s election on the Supreme Court is that it will get a new ninth member. “There is an existing vacancy, and President Trump will fill it,” she said. “Then, perhaps, Congress will do some work.” She could have added, “Be careful what you wish for.”

 

 

 

President-Elect Trump: Deja Vu? Here We Go Again.

After last week's shock result in America's presidential election, some reactions were not surprising. Street demonstrations from Oregon, through Minnesota to New York State allowed people to vent. By and large, the protests were peaceful. One complaint was that “Hillary won the popular vote.” So what? It is the Electoral College, a device of the Founding Fathers to ensure the there was a safety valve on the people’s decision, who decide. I heard nothing about a Constitutional change during the election race.

The media blamed Trump’s win on everything and everyone except themselves. The much vaunted web sites, Five Thirty Eight and Crystal Ball, came up with convoluted reasons for their inaccurate forecasts. I'm still waiting to read how the Huffington Post explains away its forecast that President-Elect Trump had a less than 2% chance of winning.

My American friends and relations are in both despair and denial. The voters' choice has rocked them to their very core. They cannot understand how a man who is a proven liar and cheat, a misogynist, xenophobe and womaniser, a racist who wants to remove millions of people and prevent entry to others because of their religion, could become chief executive. “He is also a bankrupt,” one friend observed, forgetting that American bankruptcy laws are a weapon in the hands of the bankrupt.

This has happened before. In the 1980 election, a week before voting the polls had Jimmy Carter well in the lead. Reagan was toast. The polls were wrong. I was in Florida with a group of Republican-leaning lawyers two weeks after the election. They were in despair. They could not understand how such a bozo could make it to the White House. They forgot or ignored that Reagan had been a union negotiator and a two term Governor of California. And he was the man who indeed made America great again in the minds of many Americans.

Both Reagan and Trump had reached the age of 70 when elected. Reagan had retained his life-saver physique. Within two days of major surgery after being shot, Reagan appeared at a hospital window in a photo opportunity that made him resemble Tarzan. Trump is clearly overweight and apparently not at the peak of physical fitness. This may well operate to his detriment. The Presidency is not just mentally gruelling.

On the 20th January, 2017, Trump will be inaugurated. (Please note this correction. Last week, I wrote 9th January.) He has already indicated watering down some policies. For example, Obamacare is likely to be amended, not repealed. But he has many an albatross around his neck. The Wall, Banning Entry to Muslims, The Tax Cut, ending America’s participation in NATO. The State of the Union Address in January will be an interesting guide to Trump’s thoughts about the future.

No matter how big a business Trump has run, he is going to find governing is a major step up by a factor of 100. Will he manage? Well, preliminary indications are that he will be supported by former administrators of the Bush era and consultants and lobbyists from K Street. "He is meant to be draining the swap,” is a point forcefully made. Maybe his choices show the need for insiders to resolve the many problems that exist in dealing with special interests. What legislation will he seek introduced in Congress? Does he really expect the legislators to vote against receipt of funding from lobbyists?

I have also heard it said that with a Republican Congress, Trump can do what he likes. This shows a lack of understanding of the American political system by those advocating the point. The Republican controlled Congress may seek to legislate on programs to which Trump is opposed. How does he propose to wrangle Congress when he has never played the game? He does not have a track record as a team player.

I am keeping an open mind on the Trump administration but I believe the Achilles heel will be The Trump Corporation. From 20th January, 2017, all Trump’s assets will be placed in a blind trust and Trump will be barred from taking any action at all in relation to his businesses. Whoever he appoints or chooses to run the business, even his sons, cannot discuss the businesses with him, let alone allow him to make decisions. Will Trump be able to stop himself from doing the wrong thing? If he breaks the law, the Democrats will be onto him, demanding impeachment.

I am not saying that under Trump all will be well. It won't but is it ever? I suspect that what we saw of Trump in the campaign is the real Trump and he is more likely than not to upset the apple cart both at home and abroad. I expect this time around, the 100 day honeymoon afforded to new presidents will be more myth than reality. But let's examine the administration’s proposals and consider the 4,000 plus political appointees before condemning Trump out of hand.

But You Said!

The American people, in their infinite wisdom, have spoken. Less than 60 million of the 200 million eligible voters have chosen Donald Trump as their President and have also elected sufficient numbers of Republicans to Congress to hold majorities in both Houses. So I got one prediction right, that there would be no change in the House of Representatives.

To explain, I read daily The Washington Post and The Huffington Post. I also follow Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball, Five Thirty Eight, Election Projection and Real Clear Politics. Yesterday The Huffington Post stated that Trump’s chances of success was less than 2%. The Washington Post was not so bullish. They put Trump’s chances in the low 20% range. The election web sites all had Hillary Clinton well ahead. Also, all these publications had the Democrats taking control of the Senate, save one which had it as a dead heat. Yes, I was wrong but so were all these professionals and pretty well every other professional pundit and web site.

It is dangerous to have a knee-jerk reaction to this type of news. Immediately, there is nothing that Trump can do. He is President-Elect. He has no legal powers during Transition; he has to wait until he swears the oath of office. But on 8^th January, 2017, he will be sworn in, by which time he will have appointees for all cabinet posts as well as many senior civil service and political posts. There are some 4,000 jobs within his patronage, most subject to Senate approval but with a Senate majority, most confirmation hearings will be formalities. Trump must be ready to hit the ground running.

Who were the winners and losers last night? The list is endless. Beginning with the losers, here are three. Trump is on record that on his first day in office, he will repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better. The Affordable Care Act is an Act of Congress which only Congress can repeal but the Congressional Republicans want the Act scrapped. They don’t want it replaced. There are more than 20 million Americans signed up to Obamacare. They must be very worried about how they will pay for healthcare if Trump keeps only half his word and Congress limits itself to repeal only.

Next on the list is women. I’m not talking about Trump’s sleaziness and misogyny. I’m thinking about the new Supreme Court Justice appointee, the ideological majority of the Court and the probable onslaught by pro-life interests to water down or repeal Roe v Wade, which legalises abortion in the United States. Trump has said that women should receive some sort of punishment if they abort a foetus. Have no doubt that the religious right will seek to hold Trump’s feet to the fire on this one. Finally, one woman might suffer personally. Trump supporters want to “lock up” Hillary Clinton and Trump has encouraged the hatred. Will he seek to have her prosecuted? He has said so on many occasions. I am unaware of any crime committed by this hard-working but unpopular lady. I truly hope this idea dies a death.

Are there winners? Trump has campaigned on “drain the swamp.” He refers to the powers of special interests in Washington, the lobbyists on K Street who wield enormous power, although not elected. It would be interesting to see how Trump approaches the problem, which really is just a process issue. Since most members of Congress rely on lobbyists for funding, will they follow Trump’s lead and become turkeys voting for Christmas? And if they refuse Trump, what will he do about “the swamp”?

The construction business will be lining up for contracts to repair and rebuild the nation’s roads, bridges and the rest of American infrastructure. This is sorely needed. However, how will Trump finance the vast cost? He says the national debt is too large. At $20 trillion, the debt is a figure that I, as an ordinary mortal, can’t contemplate. If he borrows to pay for the works, while keeping debt at its present level, other areas of the US budget will be cut. That’s a recipe to hurt the poor, the very people he has said he will support. “Campaign in poetry, govern in prose,” is a well-known saying. Let’s face it, governing American style means someone gets screwed.

The first order of business on 8^th January should be the Continuing Resolution, which has kept America’s federal government funded until 9^th January. I expect the CR will be extended while the Trump administration and Congress agree a budget. However, there is Trump’s promised and much vaunted tax cut to 15%. Of course, Trump will not benefit personally. He doesn’t pay federal income tax. Smart! Even with Republican majorities in Congress, there could still be blood on the floor on this one.

I don’t want to consider America’s relations with the rest of the world. Abandoning NATO, tearing up trade treaties, building a wall on the Mexican border, banning Muslim visitors and removing “illegals” could turn the US into a pariah state. I hope not. The free world needs America. However, this leads me to the biggest winner of the night, Vladimir Putin, who must be laughing in his vodka.

Former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson said a week is a long time in politics. The next two years until the 2018 mid-terms will feel like an aeon.

 

Do We Really Need American Culture?

I don’t know about you but I am Trumped-out, Clintoned-out, Congressed-out and pretty well everything-to-do-with-American-politics-out. I don’t want to think about it, write about it, teach it or pontificate about it. I don’t even want to bore my mates to tears anymore about it.

The thing is we, i.e. us Brits, can’t seem to move without bumping into some form of Americana. Back in the 80s, I was in South Florida. It was my first time in the States on Halloween. I needed to draw some cash. In those days, ATMs were mere science fiction, so in I went to a Wells Fargo Bank on Key Biscayne – a wonderful area that has now been more over-developed than Sandbanks. I opened the bank door, entered and was accosted by a six foot frog, who guided me to a teller, dressed as Snow White. It was a hoot.

We were staying with friends who had a two-year old. We went trick or treating and I heard about the costumes my wife wore for Halloween such as naughty Eloise from the books by Kay Thompson. Halloween has now been adopted by the Brits. I don’t mind groups of small children, accompanied by adults, knocking at the door, especially if they ask, “Trick or treat, money or eats?”  I do object to smelly teenagers, not in costume, ringing the door-bell with menace and demanding to be fed. Still, what’s the point of being an older man if you can’t be grumpy?

Black Friday, the annual retail shopping bonanza after Thanksgiving in the States, recently copied by the Brits, falls on Friday November 25 this year. For centuries, the adjective "black" was applied to days upon which calamities occurred. The phrase, “look at what I’ve saved” might be justified because prices have been slashed? But Black Friday feeds retail addictions and craziness.

I understand the earliest known use of "Black Friday" referred to the day after Thanksgiving in 1951 when workers called in sick so they could enjoy a four-day weekend. Then, in the 1960s, "Black Friday" came to be used by the Philadelphia police to describe the crowds and traffic congestion accompanying the start of the Christmas shopping season. One group of persons – retailers - must love Black Friday but whether their workers do is a different matter. Yet here we are, adopting another slice of American culture which is capitalist inspired. Give the people what they want.

I have been musing about other areas of American culture which the Brits have adopted. Since when did our school-leavers have a Prom? I gather this is now par for the course. Thank heavens my daughters left school before I had to witness them wearing Prom dresses, corsages on their wrists and being collected by boys wearing ‘tuxedos’, or black tie evening dress to the rest of us mortals, and going off to an evening of dance, drink and loss of virginity. Come on, John, it’s a tradition!

Naturally, I don’t object to American Football being played at Wembley and Twickenham but give me a game of football – not soccer – any time and not Major League Soccer. We have imported all kinds of reality television shows. Big Brother and I’m a Celebrity are home grown but do we have to have the Kardashians?  From what I gather, they are pains to many. I don’t watch. What is real about reality TV anyway?

I could go on……so I will. Calling everybody by their shortened first name, fast food, chewing gum, dress down Fridays and my bete noire of bete noires, the truly insincere ‘have a nice day', although I have always felt it is a pleasure being served by people who are pleasant and take pride in their work.

Back in the 1950s, I had no objection to the import of Elvis Presley, Bill Haley and early rock ‘n roll. A decade later, Motown toured the UK. It went largely un-noticed but made a huge impression on me. By the 1970s, I wore American jeans and T-shirts bought in America. I kept my coffee hot in a Styrofoam mug. This kind of culture imported from the US was great. And I still indulge. A while back, I was in Spearfish, South Dakota, and visited the local college, Black Hills State University. My black sweat shirt is emblazoned with the initials, BHSU. I enjoyed telling people that this was how President No 43 spelled his name.

On our many trips to the US, I had to giggle at the habit by men out west to wear a cowboy hat inside a restaurant or diner at dinner time. Three years ago in Cody, Wyoming, things had changed. Headwear was now baseball hats. At pretty well every table, men were sitting and eating wearing those hats, many with the peak on backwards. I’ve seen the habit creeping into London eateries. There’s a saying, “in Rome, do what the Romans do.” In Cody, I didn’t have a baseball hat!

Do we in old Blighty really need to adopt everything American? If so, in the next general election, should we expect Mr. Corbyn to call our PM “Crooked Teresa?” I have no objection to American culture in America. In fact, I love most of it. Many of our values are shared with our American cousins. I just like our British culture. It’s right to pour the milk before the tea! So could we be more selective about what we adopt from America and what we keep at arm’s length?

 

Supplemental:

Tuesday night could be a long one for those of us who stay up to watch election results. I have no better idea of the likely outcome than any of you. I read two American newspapers and watch four web sites, including fivethiryeight and Larry Zabato’s Crystal Ball.

Before I make my predictions, I need to give a health warning. Polls are unreliable in a tight race, especially because this year some pollsters give themselves a 4% plus or minus margin of error. Also, results from the better pollsters are three or four days in arrears, so polls next Tuesday reflect questions asked on Friday.

That being said, I believe the following:

President: A Clinton win. I can’t predict Electoral College numbers but no landslide.

Senate: A Democrat win by 51 to 49 or 52 to 48. Even a 50/50 tie would work for the Democrats if Clinton wins.

House: A Republican hold with an approximate 20 seat majority.  

If you decide to place a bet based on my beliefs, I am not responsible! The one thing certain in every election is anything could happen.