Riveting: The Story of Rosie and American Women in World War II

Recently, The Washington Post published an obituary of Naomi Parker Fraley who died in January, aged 96, in Washington State. She was the model for “Rosie the Riveter”, an enduring World War II symbol of American feminism. The poster, by the artist J Howard Miller, depicted a female worker, wearing a blue shirt and red polka-dot bandanna, flexing her left bicep, with the caption "We Can Do It!" The poster eventually became an icon and nowadays can be found printed on all kinds of merchandise including T-shirts, mugs and fridge magnets. However, whilst Fraley’s image became ubiquitous, she was left unheralded and anonymous.

After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, in 1942, 20-year-old Fraley went to work at the Naval Air Station in Alameda and it was in the station workshop that she was photographed for the Acme photo agency. When the picture appeared soon afterwards alongside an article in The Oakland Post-Enquirer, Fraley cut out the article and kept it for 70 years, while America misidentified another in her place.

In 2011, at a reunion event for female wartime workers, Fraley saw the Rosie poster displayed alongside her photograph. The woman in the photograph, according to the information, was named as Geraldine Doyle. "I couldn't believe it," she told The Chicago Tribune in 2016. "I knew it was me in the photo."

These days, Fraley would have been encouraged to bring massive law suits for using her image without consent. “Rosie the Riveter” represented so much more than just a World War II iconic image. Until 1940s, Americans ideologically regarded gender in a separate sphere. The public sphere was for men and the world of business and politics. The private sphere was for women and the world of home and domesticity.

Arguably, the most significant shift in the status of women in US came during World War II. Certainly, the war in US had less impact than in Europe and Russia. US women were not in danger of imminent attack nor did they have to endure civilian-like problems experienced by women in other countries at war, such as rape and other physical assaults. The US domestic economy benefited, witnessing the end of the Great Depression. There was far more employment for women compared to the 1930s because men were now in the armed forces in their millions. Tens of thousands of jobs were available, especially in war-associated industries.

The Hollywood movie, “Swing Shift Maisie”, produced by MGM in 1944, is dated and contains much WWII propaganda. The issues it dealt with covered work and gender roles. When Maisie first goes to the factory floor, she is wolf whistled and leered at. There is a woman supervisor but many men are there and she has to earn their respect. Significantly, there are no black workers. The film portrays US women at work and their role in a wartime setting.

Women have to be seen “doing their bit.” It was easy for women to get a job, especially in the growing munitions industry. Finally, there was a direct threat to jobs traditionally filled by men. Women were cheaper labour and, possibly, better. Different work practices were resented by men. The movie panned male factory workers, comparing them unfavourably with fighter and bomber pilots and the men who fought in the war. The movie challenged separate spheres ideology.

It is argued that one of the biggest changes in American society after 1945 was the status of women. At the commencement of war, women were needed in the workforce and this continued after it ended. However, there is a counter-argument that World War II made little difference for women. It was not a consequence of the war that women attained new status and enjoyed new opportunities. Feminism would not resurface until the 1960s. Then, Betty Friedan’s book, “The Feminine Mystique” challenged the continued role of women in the home. Thus the war was a temporary aberration for women’s advancement.

Last week saw the celebration here of the 100^th anniversary of the success of the UK Women’s Suffrage movement, winning votes for some women, those over the age of 30 who owned real property. It is astonishing that some 73 years after the end of World War II, women in both US and UK have yet to achieve equality in the work place on issues of pay and in the way they are sometimes regarded by male colleagues. The Weinstein scandals, followed by many others, are evidence that more progress is needed to achieve equality of opportunity and respect for women. Maybe a resurgence of Rosie the Riveter posters is needed with the altered caption, “We Women Can Do It” or “Don’t Mess With Us.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Smells Like Nixon

Last week, President Trump cleared publication by Devin Nunes, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, of a four page memo claiming bias inside the FBI against the Trump administration in relation to the Russian electoral interference enquiry. In 2016, an FBI surveillance warrant was approved by the Justice Department to monitor Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser. It is alleged that to obtain the warrant, the FBI relied on material from a dossier compiled by a British spy. The dossier was partly funded by Democrats but this was not disclosed when application for the warrant was made. The President and his administration are now hoping to use this revelation to undermine the work of Robert Mueller and side-line or stop his enquiry into Russian involvement aiding Trump in the 2016 election.

I have no evidence to say whether the Republicans are right or wrong when alleging bias. Is the President justified in authorising publication of a document which is protected by national security interests? Is the FBI justified in denouncing the President’s action? Certainly, the FBI director, Christopher Wray, demonstrated his fury when he told his agents: “Talk is cheap; the work you do is what will endure. We speak through our work. One case at a time. One decision at a time.” It cannot be denied that at extreme levels, the FBI agents expose themselves to mortal danger. This cannot be said of the administration which stands accused of politicising national security. Of course, the Republicans are making the same allegation against the Democrats. However, even if the Nunes memo was taken at face value, it’s a big stretch to move from one part of the FBI wiretap allegation relied on someone politically motivated against the President to Mueller’s investigation into Russian collusion and whether Trump obstructed justice is wrong.

This is not the first time an administration has clashed publicly with its security services and the Justice Department. Dick Cheney, George W, Bush’s Vice President, was outraged when in 2003, Joseph Wilson, a diplomat and the husband of CIA agent, Valerie Plame, published an op-ed article in The New York Times, casting doubt on the then President’s claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa. The timing was significant as the United Nations was in session, discussing whether action against Iraq was warranted to remove weapons of mass destruction.

A week later, Washington Post journalist, Robert Novak, published an article that Plame was a CIA agent and had been instrumental in sending her husband to Chad to investigate the uranium claims. Subsequently, the administration was forced to admit that Novak had been told of Plame’s employment with the CIA by a state department official, Richard Armitage. In outing Plame, many other CIA agents and their sources found their lives in peril. Eventually, Scooter Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff, fell on his sword and took responsibility. He was imprisoned but soon reprieved by Bush.

Arguably a better analogy of unwarranted administration interference is the so-called Saturday Night Massacre in October, 1973, when President Nixon fired Attorney General Elliott Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Rucklehaus for refusing to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Cox had been appointed by Nixon in the aftermath of the Watergate break-in and ensuing scandal. During the Senate hearings into the affair, the Oval Office taping system was disclosed. Cox issued a subpoena, asking the President for copies of some tapes. Nixon refused to comply, claiming executive privilege, but he offered a compromise – the Stennis Compromise – where US Senator Stennis would review and summarise the tapes. Cox rejected the offer for reasons which included the fact that Stennis was virtually deaf.  

The following day, Nixon ordered Cox’s firing. When Richardson and Rucklehaus refused the order, the Solicitor General, Robert Bork, carried it out. Subsequently, Nixon was forced to appoint another special prosecutor who chased after the tapes. Their eventual disclosure nailed Nixon. As for Bork, he was nominated by Reagan for a vacant seat on the Supreme Court. The Senate rejected him. What goes around, comes around.

I distinguish the Cheney and Nixon events from Iran Contra under Reagan where there was no cover up, although there were strong grounds to impeach the President, and Clinton’s Whitewatergate and Lewinsky, where again there was no cover up, the President seeking to protect disclosures about his private life.

The common features in the Cheney and Nixon events is administrations seeking to denigrate a story that it perceives as detrimental and to cover up wrongful and illegal acts. Those Presidents and Vice Presidents initiating the unlawful acts were vindictive and believed the rule of law did not apply to them. I know I should not judge the Trump administration yet for its current actions about the Russian business and that comment is fruitless until the eventual outcome is known. However, there is a bad odour in D.C. When there is a bad smell, you ignore it at your peril.

 

President Trump aka Dopey has ordered a military parade. Will Disney advise the Joint Chiefs of Staff as to content? Maybe it will be led by Mickey Mouse, a close relation of Dopey.

 

 

 

State of the Union, Trump Style

If ever a comparison was needed between the presidential and parliamentary systems of government, I saw it this week. On Wednesday afternoon, I watched Prime Minister’s Questions from the House of Commons. Mrs May was in China so her place was taken by David Lidington, the Cabinet Office minister. Protocol demanded that Mr Corbyn’s not appear and his substitute was taken by the redoubtable Emily Thornberry, the shadow Foreign Secretary. The House of Commons chamber was its usual rowdy, noisy and unruly self and the finest example of people behaving badly.

Speaker John Bercow tries humour to regain order but it might help if he ordered the removal of some of the elderly schoolboys from the Commons chamber for their boorishness! It would also help were he to admonish those answering questions to do that very thing. For decades, no Prime Minister has had his or her feet held to the fire by this mockery of the democratic process.

Earlier, I watched the State of the Union address, delivered to a vast Congressional audience of America’s great and good, half of whom applauded and stood up pretty well every minute. It gets to be fun when the House and the Senate are held by different parties. The Vice President and the House Speaker sit next to each other behind the President and as one stands smiling, the other sits, frowning.

This year, the Democratic politicians, military chiefs of staff and Supremes listened to the speech mostly in stony silence. Mind you, there were some ungentlemanly and unladylike muted Democratic hisses and boos when the President lauded the destruction of Obamacare and the “deal” on immigration.

Back to the speech. It cannot be denied that Mr Trump looked Presidential and spoke presidentially. However, he adopted a ploy first used by President Reagan, pointing to and speaking about people seated close to the First Lady. Trump told sob stories of their bravery and sacrifice. With respect, the stories have no place in a speech about current and future political policy. This is something that plays well to the American television audiences. We Brits dismiss it as unworthy of the ceremony.

Throughout the speech, faces on the Democratic benches were pictures of sourness. Nancy Pelosi looked like a shrivelled prune as she glared for more than an hour. Bernie Sanders sat grim faced as if he was auditioning for a place on Mount Rushmore. Chuck Shumer’s body language was a plea to leave the Chamber as soon as he could. On the Republican benches, men named by the President rose and smiled broadly as if the President himself had rubbed their tummies in praise.

The problem really arises when you examine the substance of the speech. Trump fell woefully short. He laid out no new policies for the coming year. Instead he spoke about immigration, energy and infrastructure, the same policies he advocated in his campaign, while virtually ignoring healthcare. He combined the First Amendment right to religious freedom and the Second Amendment, which relates to the right to bear arms. Do he and his speech writers not know the Bill of Rights? He wants to detain terrorists and enemies of America in Guantanamo Bay yet he spoke of America’s freedoms and respect for law.

Contradictions abounded. On immigration, he reached out to both parties, proposing citizenship for Dreamers and others if they pass a twelve year test. However, he made the deal conditional on the imposition of very strict, harsh and seemingly unfair immigration laws. How is that reaching out? He seeks laws that are anathema to Democrats and some Republicans. Where is there room for compromise?

On energy, Trump praised clean coal, which any mining engineer will tell you does not exist. On infrastructure, he wants $3 trillion spent, half by the federal government, the rest by the states, cities and private partnerships. Anyone who studies America’s history knows that projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Interstates were rife with corruption, yet Trump made no mention of avoidance of boondoggles. Mind you, he did not mention Fire and Fury writer, Michael Wolff. Trump missed an opportunity to demand the outlawing of Fake News.

A while ago, the United Nations general assembly delivered a stinging rebuke, voting by a huge majority to reject Trump’s unilateral recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, despite Trump's threat to cut US funding to countries that did not support US recognition. Trump repeated the threat in the speech, having first told the assembled throng that America was the most generous of nations on foreign aid. In fact, the per capita generosity table is headed by Sweden.

 As all the American news media, except Fox, has pointed out. The speech was littered with false claims - some of which I have listed – platitudes, and indifference to America’s laws. What finally made me gag was the ending. Trump said:

 “Americans dreamed this country. The people built this country. And it is the people who are making America great again. As long as we are proud of who we are, and what we are fighting for, there is nothing we cannot achieve. As long as we have confidence in our values, faith in our citizens, and trust in our God, we will not fail.”

Not even the much loved President Reagan could get away with this sentimental clap-trap until his second term. In Trump, the words were hollow. For me, the speech was written by Disney. I could add it was delivered by Dopey except Dopey was mercifully the silent dwarf.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shutdown

The dramatic headlines read, “The American Government is closed.” Unsurprisingly, the headlines were not exactly right. It is true that Congress has failed to agree a budget with the President and, furthermore, could not agree the terms of a four week CR (Continuing Resolution) to keep the federal government working but less than 10% of federal employees are furloughed thus far. The government is working and last night, the Senate agreed to “kick the can down the road” with a CR until 8^th February. The House votes today and the US government will be back at work the next day.

This is no longer an unusual occurrence. Most readers will recall Presidents Clinton and Obama had to run watered down governments. So, why did post-war Presidential giants like Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ and Nixon not face the same problem? The trouble starts with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act, 1974. The role of Congress in the federal budget process changed. Standing Budget Committees for both Houses were created and the Congressional Budget Office was created. After Nixon, Congress regained control of the budget process. The evidence is clear. Since 1974, there have been nineteen shutdowns, including Trump’s. The first was in 1976 when President Ford vetoed a funding bill for the Labour, Health & Education Department.

President Carter faced five shutdowns in his four years, all bar one over abortions issues. This appears to be the first occasion when a shutdown happened over a non-related budget issue, setting a precedent for future disputes. It was not until the 1980s that legal precedent was set so that funding gaps necessitated a full or partial shutdown. In 1981, President Reagan furloughed 241,000 federal workers when a cut proposed by him in domestic spending was rejected. Reagan faced seven more shutdowns over mainly spending issues but there were also disputes about future legislation. The administration of President George W. Bush was also forced into a shutdown when Congress rejected a plan to reduce government deficit.

Arguably, the best know shutdowns were under President Clinton. The first, in 1995, lasted six days when overreaching Congressional Republicans sought a rise in Medicare premiums, rollbacks of environmental regulations and a balanced budget requirement. The dispute was settled first with a CR and then a final agreement when Clinton agreed to a balanced budget within seven years. The second, in late 1995 lasted almost a month. The argument was technical, relating to which calculations would be accepted to decide the balanced budget issue. It sounds nerdy but in fact was highly political.

The 18^th shutdown happened in 2013 when the Republicans, led by Speaker Boehner, tried to pressure President Obama to agree lower levels of discretionary spending and delay implementation of any funding bill by a year. The Republicans caved after 17 days.

So, why has the government shut down now? Almost as soon as President Trump took office, he declared war on illegal immigrants but the move was expected as Trump’s policies against illegal immigrants were well known. In one of his first White House moves, Trump sought to bar immigration from seven countries, regardless of the rights of those seeking entry. He saw nothing wrong in using the expression, “extreme vetting.”

In addition, the President wanted to end the legal status granted to many thousands of immigrants protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, DACA, introduced by the Obama administration. Under DACA, certain undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children before 2007 (the Dreamers) could apply for renewable, two-year permits that protected them from deportation and allowed them to work legally. Applicants must have been less than 16 years old when they arrived and younger than 31 when DACA began in 2012. They must have had no significant criminal record and be enrolled in high school or have a diploma or the equivalent. The program did not provide a path to permanent residency or citizenship.

The Congressional Democrats have refused to agree the budget unless and until an acceptable compromise for the Dreamers is reached. They also are unwilling to move forward if funding for the Mexican Wall is included, although this seems to be a less important issue. It is not for me to judge whether a shutdown makes a deal for the Dreamers more or less likely. The Democrats’ argument, essentially, is that it’s time to take a stand for the Dreamers and a show of strength is the only way to force a recalcitrant White House and Congressional Republicans to get serious on the issue.

Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House, so how have they got stuck? A budget bill requires the approval of both Houses. In the Senate, the debate is subject to a filibuster, so the Democrats could “talk it out.” To end a filibuster requires a cloture motion, when a 60% majority is needed. The Republicans do not have 60 votes in the Senate. I hope this explanation is clear. If not, please consult your local Congressman. Interestingly, Trump recently asked Senate Majority Leader McConnell to change Senate rules to end filibuster rights. McConnell refused.

Where is the President now in the debate? A recorded message was set up on the White House comment phone line, which accepts calls from members of the public: "Unfortunately, we cannot answer your call today because Congressional Democrats are holding government funding - including funding for our troops and other national security priorities - hostage to an unrelated immigration debate. Due to this obstruction, the government is shut down."

I am sure Trump is fuming because, yet again, he is thwarted by Congressional Democrats but either he does not understand how government money works or he is lying. The federal government has numerous pockets of money, thus essential government employees can be funded. The payment of troops is not presently in issue, nor is the funding of armed forces as a whole.

Interestingly, I came across a Trump quote from 2013 about President Obama: "The problems start from the top and have to get solved from the top. The president is the leader, and he's got to get everybody in a room and he's got to lead." Will Trump lead now and figure out a compromise? The vaunted dealer and his art thereof seems to be missing, although he is claiming credit for the latest CR. Mind you, so are the Democrats and the Republicans!

Now there is a breathing space, will the Democrats receive support when their argument is based primarily on rights of illegal immigrants? Dyed in the wool Trump supporters will point to this as an example of Democratic Party obstructiveness and a desire to confound the nation. Furthermore, Republicans will argue that the move against illegals was a Trump policy and he was voted in as a result. Meanwhile, the Democrats will criticise the Republicans as heartless because they have declared war on innocent children.

Details of yesterday’s CR deal are sparse and much will depend on the small print. From what I have gathered, the Democratic leadership agreed to back the budget bill after accepting promises from the Republican leadership for a debate on the future of young illegal immigrants. Democrats want protections from deportation for the estimated 700,000 plus young immigrants brought to the US as children. What happens if the debate does not produce results acceptable to the Democrats? What if CHIP, the Children’s Health Insurance Program is not restored and funded? And what if other budget issues are not resolved? By then, the political parties will have weighed public opinion but will either cave in? If not, there will be another shutdown.

What a way to run a government! On Friday evening, Senator John Kennedy (R-La) commented: “Our country was founded by geniuses but it is being run by idiots.” I fear that were the Founding Fathers to visit D.C at this moment, they would not know whether to hold their ears, their eyes or their noses.

 

 

Shameless or Getting There?

Donald Trump reminds me of Marmite and Vegemite. You know immediately whether you like it or hate it. There is no middle ground. Over the past months, it seems that every week the White House is the centre of a scandalous remark coming from the President. For those who dislike the man, this is more evidence of his inappropriateness for the job but his supporters love to see him take on people they perceive as the enemy.

American Presidents have a unique position in the political system. They are unlike Prime Ministers who habitually find themselves in the middle of a parliamentary punch up. Presidents are bound by separation of powers and often stand aloof of the legislature, letting Congressional allies do the dirty work, at least on the surface.

Over the years, there have been much beloved Presidents who, on occasion, could hardly string a sentence together. During Reagan’s second term, Alzheimers got to him and the Iran/Contras scandal could have ended his Presidency but the political will needed to remove him from office was not there, nor was the public in favour of change. The inarticulate George W Bush suffered from lack of vocabulary, although he spoke fluent Spanish, which endeared him to his Texan voters. Towards the end of his second term, Eisenhower suffered from serious ill health. His Cold War policies fell apart after the U2 spy flights were exposed. Khrushchev’s politicised an intended summit meeting by cancelling it, thereby damaging Ike’s legacy. But the American public stood by Ike.

Pretty well all the Presidents I have studied have brought a sense of dignity to the office, although almost all were known to have a rich range of bad language, invariably used in private. There were other peccadilloes they would not have wanted to be disclosed in the public arena. Ike, LBJ, Nixon and W Bush were known to swear habitually. FDR, Ike, JFK, LBJ and Clinton were womanisers, although Clinton was the only one to have his dirty linen washed in public.

Of all the Presidents in my lifetime, Barack Obama was arguably the most Presidential, although Truman ran him close. He conducted himself as a gentleman, taking the abuse hurled at him with all the dignity of his office. He turned a cheek to racial slurs. As his wife said, “when they go low, we go high.” Even if you disliked his domestic agenda and criticised his foreign policies, you could say little that was damaging about his curatorship of the Presidency.

And now we have Mr Trump, a self-proclaimed “pussy grabber” and a racist. Remember how he called Mexicans “rapists and murderers”. Recently, when Trump spoke of Haiti, Salvador and Africa, he allegedly called them shitholes of the world. There have been denials but his side of the story doesn’t hold up, in my view.

I have asked myself, why has he not called for the removal of the Statue of Liberty? On it is written, “Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free.” No doubt there are poor and tired Norweigans but it is unclear if Trump wants to attract them as immigrants or just any middle class whites. The Liberty statue does not differentiate between white and black.

I should say that in addition to racism and womanising Trump is a proven liar, a braggart, a bully and a coward. He appears to like confrontation but when he met Chinese President Xi Jinping and Mexican President Enrique Nieto, he hardly stood up to them. Her praised Xi for its good deals at America’s expense and Nieto rebuffed a call to pay for The Wall.  Trump is a poor politician. After one year in office, he can point at only one major piece of legislation, tax cuts, and a controversial one at that. At present, the government is looking at a shutdown after 20^th January unless a budget deal can be reached.

He has brought opprobrium and disgust to the office of the Presidency. In a global world, he fails to realise that America First will end with the rest of the world shunning America. What I dislike the worst is Trump’s equating everything with money. Too often, we hear “bad deal” and how other nations are screwing America, for example Pakistan who “give nothing in return.” Trump needs a Kissinger to explain the reality of international politics.

And yet, there are always two sides of a balance sheet. The DOW is at its highest ever. There has been a bull market for a year. How many Americans benefit is the question? Remove those who invest in their own company’s pension scheme, I doubt whether more than 10% of Americans are in the market. Less than 10% were invested in October 1929. Unemployment has stayed at 4%, a low number, and there are signs than there is an increase in labour in the manufacturing sector. According to a friend who moved to US many years ago, the economy is improving, jobs are being created and pay is increasing.  Withdrawing regulations on a large scale and the corporate tax relief are having an impact and Trump can take credit. Will Trump’s unconventional approach have a lasting impact on America and its relations with other countries?  Obama sought to change America and perhaps Trump was elected as a result of Obama’s failure to find support for his policies in middle-America. 

Assume, for the sake of argument, that everything I have written is correct. Does this mean Trump is not fit for office? I could list a string of assertions and allegations made by the media, administrators and politicians: his lack of attention span and the inability to concentrate or focus for any length of time, his volatile temper, his aggressiveness towards staff as well as other nations, his apparent laziness and his self-interest. However, I have neither seen nor read anything to suggest the 25th Amendment should be invoked. What about impeachment? Again, I have seen no evidence of treason, bribery or a high crime, at least not yet. Mueller may change this. But even if Mueller’s report is damning, would Trump’s Republican colleagues in cabinet and Congress turn on him? Currently, I doubt it but this is politics so logical rules don’t apply.

Trump’s methods to attempt changes in previously existing ways of both federal and international politics are full frontal compared to those of his immediate predecessors. If the majority of the people want to reject him and his shameless ways, will that herald a return to a leadership made up of professional politicians? Or will it bring a procession of unqualified TV personalities, reality stars and poseurs? Time will provide answers. I won’t guess.

 

PS. Tomorrow, we’ll know if the federal government has shut down. Mr. Trump is suggesting that if there is a shutdown, the armed forces will have to be laid off. What nonsense! For a while, the non-essential people only are laid off. I have a sneaking feeling that the President will welcome a shutdown because it will enable him to fire a lot of people. Oh, what a tangled web.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Tied Vote

Most US state governments follow the federal government model: a legislature composed of two chambers, an executive headed by a governor and a state supreme court. The Commonwealth of Virginia is one such state, although the Virginia General Assembly consists of the differently named House of Delegates as well as the Senate. Still, as William Shakespeare wrote, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

On occasion, I have been required to study state election laws. Minnesota and Missouri have highly complex and detailed rules about the conduct of elections, in particular what constitutes election fraud. I understand that all other states have similar laws. Oddly, there is nothing in the American Constitution and Bill of Rights which provides for one person, one vote, but the states cover the issue in their laws.

What happens if an election for a state seat is a tie or dead heat? You might think it cannot happen but last week, there was a tied election for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates. After three recounts, a tie was declared and a state official drew lots from a bowl to choose the winner, Republican David Yancey. The Democrat candidate, Shelley Simonds, refused to concede and told the press, “All options are on the table.” This is political language for “it’s with the attorneys.” However, unless Simonds can prove the count was in error, this is a done deal.

Virginia state law requires a tie to be determined “by lot”, which is interpreted to mean picking a name out of a bowl, drawing straws or flipping a coin. Is this a good way to settle an election? Probably not but what are the alternatives? Candidates could compete in a different way, like playing a frame of pool. I accept this has nothing to do with the job in question. Certainly, it isn’t democratic. A new election could be held but what if the result is the same? The problem remains. Do you keep having elections until there is a clear winner? As a solution, the drawing of lots does precisely and unequivocally what it is meant to do. It breaks the tie.

There are practical considerations if a democratic result is wanted. Elections are expensive and take time. For a district of tens of thousands of people spread over multiple municipalities, the costs are a factor: staff time, polling places, distributing machines, etc. Would the voters be happy to see tax dollars spent in this way?

Before my British readers hold up their hands in horror at the undemocratic Virginian solution, they might like to know that in the 1886 general election, there was a tie in Ashton-under-Lyne, with the Liberal and Conservative candidates each receiving 3,049 votes. The Acting Returning Officer gave his casting vote to the Conservative. Times have changed and the modern British convention is that, if votes remain level after recounts, the Returning Officer will decide the winner by a random method such as tossing a coin, drawing straws or putting candidates’ names in a container and pulling one out. In this, we are clearly in step with our Virginian cousins.

Elections are imprecise. People spoil ballot papers and they abstain. In the event of a tie, is it not better to accept the imprecision and acknowledge that the will of the people cannot always be measured perfectly? Is it not better to settle things on a toss of a coin rather than continue to maintain a pretence and force an equally imprecise result?

****

I know from e-mails received this week that some of you expect me to comment on THAT BOOK. I cannot do so as I have not read it, nor have I any intention of doing so. If you’re a Democrat, the book allegedly demonstrates that Mr Trump is unfit for office; if you’re a Republican, it’s all about Bannon. Oddly, Mr Trump is reported saying he never gave any interviews to Wolff. The White House “ticker”, a comprehensive record of the President’s movements in three minute segments, as well as his meetings and phone calls, will disclose the truth of this statement.

One reader of my blog put it like this: “if Trump is unfit for office, should he not go?” Unless Mr Trump resigns, one way to remove him from office permanently is through the impeachment process. He has to be tried and convicted of treason, bribery or a high crime and misdemeanour. I am unaware of any evidence which can be produced to Congress that approaches the benchmark set in the Constitution. That is not to say there is no evidence. I have written on several occasions that the Mueller investigation may well prove to be Trump’s Achilles heel. The acid test will be whether there are 67 US Senators willing to convict him.

As an alternative, Section 4 of the 25^th Amendment affords to the Vice President and a majority of the cabinet the right to declare that the President is unable to discharge his office. In that event, the VP assumes the office of President. However, if and when the President sends a written declaration to Congress that no inability exists, he resumes office, subject to the right of the VP and executive to maintain the President remains unfit. What would happen next is anyone’s guess. The Section has never been invoked and it would be pure speculation on my part to assume that it will be used against Mr Trump. The only certainty is paralysis in DC.

It needs to be remembered that tens of millions of Americans voted for Mr Trump and their choice should not be capable of easy removal, no matter how much a genius he might be….in his own mind. However, Mr Trump should beware of crying “Wolff” once too often.

 

 

 

The Race for 2020. Yes, It Has Started.

I wanted to start the year on a lighter note, bringing a blog to make you smile, if not laugh. Certainly, the thought of a new front runner in 2020 has lightened my days in these times of Brexit, Russian hegemony, Chinese hegemony and Trump shamelessness and megalomania.

My story relates to the 2020 election, which, if we have not been blown up, will be the year of the Tokyo Olympics, the European football championship and the American election for President. Who will challenge Trump? I won’t speculate about the Republicans. Assuming Trump survives in office - this is not exactly a shoo-in - it is unlikely that anyone in his party would mount a serious challenge out of fear of the hereafter and the political wilderness.

So I have looked at who might enter the race as a Democrat? Hilary cannot be dismissed. Her recent tour promoting her book, What Happened, has cleared the decks for a 2020 run. I watched her appear on the Graham Norton Show (a late night UK chat show) where I was left in little doubt she still hankered for another four years in the White House. Bernie Sanders is still out there promoting his socialist agenda. I wonder if he tells himself, “If Corbyn can do it, why not me.” Well, Mr Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn is several years younger than you, he hasn’t done it yet and middle-America does not do socialism. Kamala Harris, the firebrand senator from California, will make a showing, as will several others.

But it is the number one pick, recently listed by The Washington Post who made me LOL, which for us oldies stands for laugh out loud. Dwayne Johnson is a huge human being in every sense. He is very tall and wide. He has become huge box office at the cinema for his roles in adventure films. What does it matter that he is no Shakespearian actor? He keeps the tills ringing whether in picture houses or on Netflix.

Before the successful movie career, Johnson was a professional wrestler, one of the biggest so-called superstars of WWE, the World Wrestling Experience. Known as “The Rock”, Johnson became the self-proclaimed People’s Champion, with an impressive arsenal of moves including The People’s Eyebrow, the People’s Elbow and the Rock Bottom.

I don’t know about the wrestling angle but there is precedent for a Hollywood actor to make it into the White House. Ronald Reagan played up his acting angle, ensuring he was called “The Gipper” by all and sundry, revising one of his roles. At the same time, he played down his years of experience in politics. He was heavily involved in film trade union politics as a Democrat before he moved into the Republican camp. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the body builder turned guttural actor and married to a Kennedy, made it to the Governor’s mansion in California as a Republican. I wonder what his in-laws thought. There was a ground-swirl to have him run for President until the proponents realised an Austrian born man did not qualify for this particular role.

Dwayne Johnson is an engaging conversationalist with a huge personality and would appeal to populist America. He is a Latino, a bloc whose vote is of increasing importance. He says he is an independent and that would have to change. But would America want or vote for another non-politician to be in charge of the executive branch? Whatever you may feel about Mr. Trump, he has upset almost every norm of Presidential politics, so if Johnson is serious about a run, which itself is uncertain, the novice card will not be much of a bullet in the hands of his opponents. However, Johnson has no political experience whatsoever.

Nevertheless, if I have learned anything about American politics, it is never write anyone off. Let’s assume Johnson makes it to the White House. Would he end his inaugural address with one of his famous wrestling sayings: “If you smell what The Rock is cooking!”