In Honour of Harry Truman

Every now and then, I like to dip into local news. The Minneapolis Star Tribune is a great read. This week, a story in The Kansas City Star caught my eye:

“Road conditions in the Kansas City area became treacherous Sunday with snow and ice from a major winter storm that descended on the region. Highways in the Kansas City area were snow-packed by early afternoon and conditions were expected to get worse later in the day, according to the Kansas Highway Patrol. Travel became difficult across Kansas and Missouri as a large winter storm, stretching as far east as Michigan, hit Kansas City on one of the biggest travel days of the year.”

Why is this story of interest? Leaving aside Interstate 70, built in the Eisenhower era, many of the roads in Kansas City and Jackson County and mentioned in the Star article were constructed under the supervision of one Harry S. Truman, President of the United States from 1945 to 1953.  Truman will be remembered best for his Presidency and the events to which he was a party: the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan, the Truman doctrine, the recognition of the State of Israel, the Berlin airlift and the colossal post-war industrial unrest in America.

But what of Truman’s days before Washington? In 1922, Truman was a newly-wed without a job or any savings. His haberdashers business had failed. Things looked very bleak for him but an army pal, Jim Pendergast, spoke to his uncle about Harry. The uncle was Tom Pendergast, the boss of Kansas City and head of one of the most corrupt political party machines America had ever seen.

Pendergast’s legitimate businesses included cement and real estate. He also owned saloons and supplied booze to most of the Kansas City drinking houses. He was involved in gambling and prostitution but not drugs. He had a finger in every pie imaginable. He was also in a position to secure beneficial contracts for himself from the Kansas City and Jackson County councils, which were controlled by the Pendergast machine.

Pendergast needed a County Judge, the person who awarded and supervised contracts for road building in Kansas City and Jackson County. Truman knew what he would be getting into with Pendergast but he needed a job and this one paid well. However, he would have to stand for election. He was a poor public speaker and a naïve campaigner. Without the force of the Pendergast machine behind him, he would have lost.

Truman was elected County Judge in 1922, 1926 and 1930. It was a big job. He had up to 700 employees and budgets in the region of $7m a year. In the 1920s, this was huge. He loved the work and the power and prestige that went with it. In a state where racism was prevalent, he worked with Catholics, Jews and blacks. He soon earned a reputation for efficiency, as well as the respect of the press. He was responsible for building thousands of miles of road, converting dust and dirt tracks into cement roads. Farmers were grateful to him. It was so much easier for them to get produce and cattle to market. Kansas City inhabitants now walked on pavement, not mud and drove on bitumen and cement, not dirt. Truman did a terrific job. Those roads have lasted. I have driven some of them. No complaints.

Try as he might, Truman could not escape the demands of the machine. He found it increasingly difficult to deal with Pendergast, especially when Johnny Lazio became Pendergast’s second in command. Lazio was a Capone man. The Mob had forced its way into Kansas City. But that’s another story.
There is neither evidence nor suggestion that Harry took bribes or kickbacks himself but he often wondered whether he was just as bad as a crook by turning a blind eye. He wrote in his diary:

            “I wonder if I did right to put a lot of no account sons of bitches on the payroll and pay other sons of bitches more money for supplies than they were worth in order to satisfy the political powers. But I saved $2.5 million?”

In 1934, Truman was time-barred from running for County Judge. He let it be known he would like to run for state Governor or US Congress. Pendergast was looking for a new US Senator in D.C. Truman was his third choice. When nephew Jim suggested Truman for the Senate, Pendergast reportedly replied, “Do you really believe Harry can be elected to the US Senate?” But, helped by the machine’s interesting election methods, Truman, then aged fifty, won. The rest really is history.

If I could ask Truman one question, it would be “what are you most proud of in your political life?” I’d like to think he might answer, “the roads I built when I was County Judge.”

 

The New Speaker of the House

Why is the office of Speaker of The House of Representatives so sought after?  Put briefly, the Speaker is endowed with enormous political power. The Speaker determines when a bill reaches the floor of the House, chairs the majority party's steering committees, selects nine of the thirteen members of the powerful Rules Committee and appoints all Democratic members of select and conference committees. When a bill is introduced, the Speaker determines which committee will consider it. As presiding officer of the House, the Speaker is the highest-ranking legislative official in the US government. 

For the next two years, the Speaker and the President will head opposite parties.  As the highest-ranking member of the opposition party (and de facto Leader of the Opposition), the Speaker is normally the chief public opponent of the President's agenda and has been known to undercut the President's agenda by blocking measures and rejecting bills passed in the Senate. Tip O'Neill, a vocal opponent of President Ronald Reagan's economic and defence policies, played a large part in delaying “trickle down” and defence spending. Newt Gingrich fought a bitter battle with President Clinton for control of domestic policy under “Contract with America.” Yet it was the Senate Republicans who defeated Gingrich, with help from Clinton. The Contract with America could have destroyed a lot of Republican political careers!

Nancy Pelosi, now aged 78, is the front runner for Speaker. She enjoys a reputation of paying close attention to the individual needs of Democratic colleagues especially those from vulnerable districts. She has a record of advancing agendas with priorities that Democratic Congressmen and women can sell in their districts. Pelosi is famous for her ability to raise millions in campaign contributions for the Party. She was directly responsible for some $130 million that went directly into the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, for the 2018 mid-terms.

During the Obamacare negotiations, Pelosi was the master tactician. Holding scores of meetings, back-to-back, day into night, juggling phone calls from House and Senate leaders, Cabinet secretaries, not to mention the President to get a “yes,” she paid attention to vulnerable members; Pelosi knew they would pay the highest price for doing the right thing, and they did, losing seats in the 2016 election.

As the majority Party in the House, the Democrats have an opportunity to improve the Affordable Care Act, pass an infrastructure bill that works and do many other things, such as stopping The Wall. Pelosi supporters say the she is needed in the Speaker’s chair to get these things done. The country’s biggest unions argue that Pelosi is the best equipped Congressman to take on Trump and have lobbied Democrats to back her. Top donors have placed calls to lean on undecided members. Celebrities including Barbra Streisand and Martina Navratilova have weighed in for Pelosi. The cherry on the cake has been provided by former President Obama who said this week, "I think Nancy Pelosi, when the history is written, will go down as one of the most effective legislative leaders that this country's ever seen,"

Others feel differently about Pelosi. They believe there are things in her past that has her fundamentally tainted. That is hardly a surprise. She was first elected to the House in1986. Opponents say what is wanted is a Speaker not tainted by polarizing choices of the past, but who has experience, who is knowledgeable but doesn’t sound like she is lecturing, someone vibrant but not green, someone passionate but not a yeller. Someone fresh is wanted.

A potential challenge to Pelosi was expected from African American lawmaker, Rep. Marcia L. Fudge (D-Ohio). It threatened to divide Democrats along racial lines. Pelosi moved quickly to solidify her support among prominent members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Then on Tuesday, Pelosi, in a show of political strength, cut a deal to sideline Fudge, who now says she will support Pelosi.  Fudge will be the chairman of a resurrected subcommittee on elections. Black women legislators in the House will now have a seat at the decision-making table.”

The first public test for Pelosi is Nov. 28, when Democratic Congressmen choose their candidates. She is expected to win easily. After that, the math may be tight. It has been reported in The Washington Post and elsewhere that twenty current and incoming Democrats will not support her for speaker. They have not identified themselves yet but in terms of numbers, this would exceed the fifteen votes Pelosi can lose when the full House Democrats vote.

Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi picked off another Democratic detractor as the opposition against her appears to be slowly crumbling. Brian Higgins, a New York Democrat who has criticized Pelosi for months and vowed repeatedly to vote against her in the new Congress, announced his support for the California Democrat.

What will then be the outcome? I have little doubt Pelosi will triumph but in doing so, what political deals will she make in addition to those with Fudge and Higgins? There’s an old saying that in life there are two things you don’t want to see made: sausages and a political deal.

The 2018 Midterms Part II

The 2018 American election results are in the books. Or are they? At the time of writing, recounts are happening in Florida and Georgia which could give the results a different hue. But let’s summarise the big picture. The Democrats took the House back and several Governors’ mansions too. Republicans held the Senate.

Here is my analysis of some winners and losers. First, the winners. The Democrats took over the House of Representatives, reversing a twenty eight seat Republican majority. That’s a very big win. As a result, Nancy Pelosi may regain the role of Speaker, although currently it’s a toss-up whether she has enough votes. If she takes the chair, this would also a big win for her. It’s rare for a former speaker to regain her place after so long. She lost the House gavel eight years ago. What role will she adopt as Speaker? I’d like to say she will be a conciliator, seeking common ground with Republican legislators, but past history indicates it’s more likely that she will welcome a return of gridlock as she and her Party settle scores with her enemies. Perhaps this is why she doesn’t enjoy the confidence of a majority of her colleagues.

The Republicans may have an increased majority in the Senate and the President is crowing this as a win. I don’t see it that way. The Senate map was so much in favour of the Republicans because only eight Republican seats out of thirty four were at stake. Maintaining control was expected. 2020 will be very different as many more Republican seats will be up for grabs.

However, I cannot deny Senate Republicans have a win. They will keep confirming President Trump’s right wing, conservative judges and other appointees. Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, must go into the winners’ column. He got a bonus. Democrat Amy McGrath’s loss in Kentucky’s 6th District means it’s doubtful she will be the Democratic opponent for McConnell’s seat in 2020. Mitch would have had a hard ride.

Other wins include Amendment 4 on the Florida ballot. Convicted felons who have discharged all debts to society now have the right to vote. Some may credit this as a civil rights win. The Washington Post states almost 10% of voting-age Floridians are convicted felons. The outcome of Florida elections will be different from now on, probably good news for the Democrats. Ballot initiatives were passed in three deep-red states, Nebraska, Idaho and Utah, to expand Medicaid eligibility under Obamacare. Kansas elected a Democratic governor, replacing a Republican who opposed an expansion. 37 states now want an expanded Medicaid. These are big wins in the Democratic columns.

My final winner is Mitt Romney who won the Senate seat in Utah. Will he seek the Republican Presidential nomination for 2020? Your guess is as good as mine.

Here are my losers: In third place, some big name Republican politicians were voted out of office, including Peter Roskam (Chicago), Erik Paulsen (Minneapolis), John Culberson (Houston) and, unexpectedly, Steve Russell (Oklahoma City). But some fancied Democrats lost. Karen Eastman in Nebraska and Dana Balter in New York fell by the wayside, the latter in a district carried by Hillary Clinton when she ran for Senate and President.

In second place: Donald Trump made the mid-terms a judgment on his Presidency. However he and his spokespersons want to spin it, he lost the House of Representatives by a big margin. At time of writing, we don’t know the final outcome of the Senate vote but the Republican majority will remain narrow. From where I sit, El Presidente got a drubbing. Trump’s fear-based, anti-caravan strategy was ugly and probably backfired. In the end, Trump was just doing what he knew, rather than what might have saved one-half of Congress from going Democrat.

In first place, for me, is the BBC, Sky News and other British television news channels. Shortly before the results were given, news channels here reported the possible Democratic win in the House and the likely outcome. Those I watched forecasted an impeachment initiative by the House. None of the broadcasters set out likely details of charges. None commented that after so long, the Mueller investigation has yet to accuse the President of anything at all. Nor did any question the end game. Whilst the House impeaches (accuses), it is the Senate which convicts or acquits. Where will 67 Senate votes be found to convict Trump?

None put forward a logical reason why the House would process a losing case. I can see a possible answer, namely stymying the administration and putting Senate Republicans off-side. But the price would be the voters’ anger. Most would not support this kind of politics. But the essential point is the broadcasting was of the poorest quality and so misleading for Brits who don’t know the impeachment rules.

 

 

 

 

The 14th Amendment: Trump v The Constitution.

The 14^th Amendment: Trump v The Constitution.

Long before Donald Trump’s election for President, he revealed his attitudes to immigrants, especially illegals. Remember that speech about Mexicans: “they are murderers and rapists. Some may be good people.” Since his election two years ago, illegals have been firmly in his cross wires. In addition to demanding funding from Congress for The Wall – I thought he said the Mexicans were paying – he banned people en-masse from Muslim based Middle East countries. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has cracked down hard on the right to enter USA. Customs & Border Protection has separated children who are American citizens from their allegedly illegal immigrant parents. Does this government-inspired action leave a bad taste? Yes. Does Trump care? That’s rhetorical.

From time to time in the twentieth century, America was gripped by Red Scares, where US citizens were led to believe communists were taking over its government. The phrase “better dead than red” abounded. We can see an extension of red scare in the current Trump rhetoric about the caravan, the thousand or so people from Central America making their way through Mexico to the US border. This week, Trump spoke of them as “a million or more.” Armed troops have been placed at the Mexican border.

Now Trump wants to up the ante. He announced he had power, through executive order, to override the Constitution by removing rights secured by the 14^th Amendment. He also vowed to place even tougher restrictions on asylum seekers. To support his case, he falsely linked the “caravan” with a convicted murderer who killed two California deputies. He added: "Democrats want open borders and want to invite caravan after caravan into our country," He then led the crowd in a chant of "Build that wall! Build that wall!" I suppose it makes a change from “Lock her up.”

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1868, addressed citizenship rights. It followed on closely from the 13^th Amendment which abolished slavery. Both were passed in response to issues relating to ending slavery following the end of the American Civil War. The 14^th Amendment’s first section is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution. It formed the basis for the 1954 landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, desegregating public schools.

The Amendment's first section has several clauses. With regard to citizenship it states:

          All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The history of the 14^th is fascinating but I have insufficient space to tell it all. The Amendment ensures that children born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction become American citizens at birth. Incidentally, children born abroad to an American citizen also acquire citizenship if the birth is registered at an American Embassy or Consulate.

The contentious words of the Amendment are “subject to the jurisdiction.” The right wing National Review asserts Trump’s right to change the terms of the 14^th Amendment by executive order. It suggests the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment is clear because subsequent federal legislation legislation extended citizenship to Native American. How does this support a right of executive order to vary the Constitution? All it seems to suggest is that Congress has constitutional power to clarify who is within the “jurisdiction of the United States” and therefore eligible for citizenship. Had Congress exceeded its remit, I have no doubt the Supreme Court would have decided that such statute was unconstitutional.

The National Review provides no argument supporting a Presidential right to change the Constitution by executive order. Instead, it merely argues that Congress has an involvement. Furthermore, it makes no mention of the power of the courts. Let’s assume that a statute limiting the definition of “jurisdiction” and the right to citizenship is passed by both Houses of Congress. Would not the lawyers wade in and take the case all the way to the Supreme Court? Is the Court going to approve a law that a baby born within the American jurisdiction will not enjoy the constitutional right of American citizenship? Even with a right wing balance on the Court, I cannot see this happening.

I believe neither the President nor Congress has to right to alter, limit or change the Constitution unless two thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate propose an Amendment and three quarters of the States ratify such Amendment within the time deadline set. (There are other methods but suffice it for the blog to set out these most important rules.)

I am unaware of any precedent to support Trump’s stance on the power of a Presidential executive order overriding the Constitution. However, there are plenty of US attorneys who read this blog who will put me right.  If they do so, I’ll let you know. Mind you, if The Donald didn’t make outrageous claims concerning the extent of his power, his Presidency would be dull. It might also tend towards the legitimate

If Trump truly believes he has power to change the Constitution by personal fief, he needs to read that document, or at least have it read to him! His power is limited. And if he tries to enforce an executive order limiting birth right conditions, he will need to be prepared for an avalanche of lawsuits and actions by the House of Representatives to throw that order into the gutter where it would belong.

 

Does Being Presidential Matter?

Ever since Donald Trump entered the race for the Presidency, he has traded insults, demeaned his fellow politicians and, excuse the expression, behaved like a horse’s ass. Publicly he accepted a Purple Heart from a veteran at an election rally, despite never serving a day in the armed forces. And what about that live performance, mocking a disabled man? Appalling!

Trump has consistently shown the misogynist side of his character. Last month, Trump insulted adult-film actress Stormy Daniels, calling her “Horseface.” He likes to undercut female adversaries with jabs at their physical appearance. Trump tweeted:

          “Federal Judge throws out Stormy Danials lawsuit versus Trump. Trump is entitled to full legal fees.” @FoxNews Great, now I can go after Horseface and her 3rd rate lawyer in the Great State of Texas. She will confirm the letter she signed! She knows nothing about me, a total con!”

Trump took on then likely Presidential rival, Senator Elizabeth Warren. He said he would pay a million dollars to charity if she proved she had Indian blood. Warren released DNA test results showing she was between 1/64th and 1/1,024th Native American, thus verifying her claim. Instead of honouring the wager, Trump continued to refer to Warren as “Pocahontas.” Sadly for Warren, the episode has backfired. A Cherokee Nation’s spokesperson railed against her for undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage. Trump loved it and tweeted:

 

          “Thank you to the Cherokee Nation for revealing that Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to as Pocahontas, is a complete and total Fraud!”

Without any doubt, Donald Trump is “un-presidential” but I must ask, so what? What does being presidential actually mean? It is to conduct oneself in a manner befitting a president. Presidents have been criticized for not looking presidential. In my version, being presidential requires the office-holder to transcend the norm of politics by acting for all Americans and behaving with high standards of moral decency, whilst demonstrating a sense of humour and trying to do what is right. That last one is tough as we are talking about politicians, i.e. professional liars. I suggest only three men have upheld the standards of being presidential: George Washington, although he is alleged to have had affairs whilst he was President, Barack Obama and Josiah (Jed) Bartlet, of fictitious West Wing fame, and even Bartlet was censured.

Pretty well all of Trump’s predecessors in the White House, at various moments, have used unseemly language or have engaged in inappropriate behaviour. John Ferling’s book, Adams v Jefferson, relates the story of the 1800 Presidential election and the underhand, appalling and crooked methods used by both men in order to win. By comparison, the 2000 election between George W Bush and Al Gore was child’s play.

There are so many examples of a President being un-presidential. 1812 war hero, Andrew Jackson, taught his parrot to swear, embarrassing colleagues and White House visitors alike. Using hot fireplace tongs, James Monroe chased his Secretary of State out of the Oval office. The race between John Quincy Adams and Jackson in 1828 was one of the ugliest ever, with partisan newspaper headlines making accusations against the candidates, ranging from murder and adultery to pimping.

Pretty well every President, except William Harrison who died in office after only a month, has been accused of some form of misconduct. Most of it was petty, bumbling and shabby: there were charges of favouritism, cronyism and graft, as well as wheeling and dealing, most often done not by the President but by the men around him.

Ulysses. S. Grant could never bring himself to fire men close to him, especially his notorious staffer and Whiskey Ring swindler, Orville Babcock. Instead Babcock was appointed Inspector of Lighthouses, a lucrative position where graft was rampant. James Monroe was twice embroiled in Congressional investigations relating to the disappearance of White House furniture. (More than a century later, Bill Clinton was accused of the same thing and was forced to return the items.)

James Buchanan appears to have had a hand in the Democrats’ attempts to rig the elections of 1856 and 1858. In 1860, after Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, they launched an investigation and leaked its findings to the press, whereupon Buchanan called his accusers “parasites.” He said the testimony against him was “nothing but falsehoods.” He complained that he was unable to fight back, since it was unbefitting of the President to divulge the nature of private conversations: “My lips are sealed,” was his interesting defence. Incidentally, Buchanan was a homosexual. By the standards of the time, without doubt this would have been un-presidential.

Three men appointed by Warren Harding went to jail over the Teapot Dome scandal when oil leases were granted in exchange for kick-backs. Harry Truman had a difficult past. In 1934, when he entered the Senate, he was known as the Senator for Pendergast. Tom Pendergast ran the notorious Kansas City political party machine and was the master of graft, election rigging and all things crooked in local government. Truman had worked for Pendergast. During his occupancy of the White House, Truman was accused of favouring his poker-playing cronies and giving them rides in the president’s jet plane, then called “Independence.” JFK changed the name to Air Force One.

Speaking of JFK, was he presidential? It’s now known he took drugs and was a philanderer, much like his father and his brothers. A respecter of women? Hardly. And, more important, was he a friend of the blacks and their cause? It was LBJ who got meaningful civil rights laws on the statute books. I don’t suggest JFK was a racist. He was just indifferent.

Lyndon Johnson was well known for meting out "the Johnson treatment." When he wanted something from a legislator, he used a blend of badgering, cajolery, reminders of past favours, promises of future favours, and threats and predictions of personal doom if something didn't happen. “It was like standing under a waterfall and the stuff was pouring on you non-stop,” said one junior Congressman who wished to remain anonymous.

Not everyone appreciated LBJ. During the long-running Kennedy-Johnson feud, US Attorney General and Senator Robert Kennedy said of Johnson, “He tells so many lies that he convinces himself after a while he's telling the truth. He just doesn't recognize truth or falsehood.” Johnson often made stunningly off-colour remarks about women and their ‘racks’, remarks which some may consider Trumpesque.

Nowadays, arguably America’s most crooked ex-President, Richard Nixon, is starting to look like a poster boy. His domestic record holds up well and he and Henry Kissinger brought Russia and China to heel with such clever diplomacy. His underhandedness now looks, comparatively, almost upstanding. Noted historian, William McFeely says: “I think Nixon was pretty bad, but I think that even he had a respect for the Constitution, and a constitutional sense of the value of the Presidency. Trump trounces on these.”

Turning to the current incumbent, will Trump get unseated by the wrongdoings of others? The Mueller Inquiry has potted Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager. The guilty plea of Michael Cohen, his former attorney, implicates Trump. Cohen has pleaded guilty to violating federal law at Trump’s direction, making the President an unindicted co-conspirator. Trump’s entire Presidency, from his Cabinet appointments to his foreign policy, lies in a muddle of money-grubbing, kow-towing, and influence-peddling.

But many Americans, fed up with current Washington politics, are responding to both Trump's message and his delivery. He routinely polls in the 40s for popularity. And as Trump himself said, “I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct. I’ve been challenged by so many people, and I don’t really have time for total political correctness, and to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time, either."

My point is this. If the American President keeps his or her citizens safe, runs sensible defence and military policies; if his or her economic policies help America to thrive to the benefit of all who work, not just the rich; if the old, the sick and children are taken into consideration and helped; and if the administration is known as a respecter of women and the underprivileged, does it matter one jot whether the President is presidential? If I had a choice of great government led by a philandering, blaspheming, womanising, cheating, swearing, insulting leader or rubbish government led by a saint, bring on the former every time and to hell with being presidential.

But currently American voters don’t have this choice and Trump has to be the extreme opposite of presidential.