The Visible Invisible Primary

The official starting gun of the Presidential election cycle is the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa caucus next year. The candidate hopefuls will be judged carefully by the registered Democratic and Republican voters of these states. Neither have any significant importance in the general election to follow as they have few Electoral College votes. The period between candidates testing the waters for a Presidential run and the start of the primary season is called the Invisible Primary. During this time, not only the citizens of New Hampshire and Iowa but also the media are testing candidates, less for their policies than for character. The unspoken question asked by the voters is, “does this person have Presidential qualities?” More precisely, “would this person be an effective Commander-in-Chief?”

What are the qualities needed to be President of the United States in the 21^st century? Pretty much the same as they have been since the 1930s. Brains, judgment, experience, guts and heart, to which one might add a thick-skin and stamina. Looking at the list of some twenty candidates currently in the 2016 race, how many of them have these qualities? The media sometimes does not help. Does it really matter whether Donald Trump’s hair is his own?

The race for the Presidency used to be a twelve month event. Now it seems to last for four years. Almost as soon as Barack Obama was re-elected in 2012, the political talking heads were at it, seeking possible candidates for 2016. Hillary Clinton was fund raising and tying up ward captains almost from the get-go, although she did not get her fingers dirty. Others did the job for her.

Whilst I question the permissiveness of fund raising in American elections, I have no objection to how most of the money is spent. Mini economies are created. Many political and campaign jobs get created. Local television and radio stations earn advertising revenue, the manufacturers of pins, badges, letter openers, T shirts, yard signs and other merchandising see a bump in profits, hotels and motels in out of the way places find their rooms filled and office space is leased country-wide. Of course, some candidates and helpers might help themselves to the funds but I cannot remember any major blemishes in the past few presidential elections.

However, I feel for the American voting public, who have to endure perpetual electioneering and numbing TV adverts. I suspect they look enviously at the British general election rules. 28 days’ notice is all that is required to call an election, at least it was until the 2010 Conservative/Liberal coalition. Now, a British government is required by law to serve its full five year term unless it loses a vote of confidence. The next British election will probably be held in 2020 but, alas, the campaign will start two years beforehand.

This year’s Presidential candidates seem to be a poor selection. Mrs Clinton has probably got the Democratic nomination already sewn up but how is she qualified for the job? Does eight years in the Residency and East Wing of the White House, two years in the Senate and four as Secretary of State make her better qualified than her rivals? Last week, Hillary took the Ethanol Pledge, a rite of passage in Iowa. Iowans want federal funding for corn-based fuel despite the fact that ethanol is more expensive to produce than oil. Bernie Sanders might challenge Mrs Clinton. He is a very experienced legislator and an architect of the Bank Crisis rescue in 2008/9. However he has a problem. He is not photogenic. In a nationwide election, this will hurt him. A sad reflection, I know, but nevertheless true.

As for the Republicans, Donald Trump is keeping his lead. He has no legislative or governing record whatsoever to protect, so he can promise and pronounce on everything without being challenged on his record. He knows that you campaign in poetry. I doubt he has considered that you govern in prose. He talks of “playing to people’s fantasies” but it is difficult to imagine how President Trump would wrangle worthwhile legislation from a contrary Congress. I expect he will remain centre stage for a while. Will he get anywhere near the Republican nomination? I very much doubt it but he may well run as an Independent, in which event he will take votes from the Republican nominee.

Who in the long list of Republican contenders will succeed? At the moment, it may be someone who has not yet put his hat in the ring, who is not bound to the Republican base, a person with governing experience who can appeal to the centre. I’m watching and waiting.

In the meantime, I am doing my best to ignore the trivia and trash reporting of what, so far, has been a lack-lustre invisible primary, save for The Donald who seems to be running strongly. But the media is giving him an easy ride. Oh please, someone in the press, ask him how he will fund, build, maintain and police a 2,000 mile wall on the Mexican boundary? Ask him how to justify why a person born in the United States cannot claim citizenship as of right. Will no one ask The Donald the hard questions? Until then, the Invisible Primary might as well remain invisible!

Americans and their Love Affair with Guns

Cartoon: Denver Post

In Greek legend, the Gordian knot was the name given to an intricate knot used by the peasant Gordius to secure his oxcart. An oracle foretold that he who untied the knot would rule all of Asia. People tried to undo the knot but to no avail. This is the position in which President Obama finds himself on gun control. In a July interview with the BBC’s Jon Sopel, the President said:
“You mentioned the issue of guns. That is an area where …I feel that I've been most frustrated and most stymied. The fact is that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense, gun-safety laws, even in the face of repeated mass killings. And… if you look at the number of Americans killed since 9/11 by terrorism, it's less than 100. If you look at the number that have been killed by gun violence, it's in the tens of thousands. And for us not to be able to resolve that issue has been something that is distressing.”

I am with the President on this one but who is creating the stumbling blocks? Is it a Process issue? Lobby groups such as the National Rifleman’s Association wield power way beyond their numbers. First, the NRA has its own PAC, enabling it to give unregulated funds to politicians. By funding numerous US Senators and Congressmen from both sides of the aisle, the lobbyists confound any legislation presented to Congress. In the 2012 election, more than 250 legislative hopefuls from both parties received NRA contributions.

Let us assume Congress wants to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of a semi-automatic rifle. I’ll call it the Comet 100. By altering the length of the stock and re-naming the rifle the Comet 101, the legislative ban is defeated. If an example is needed where Congress acts like an ostrich, when one of their number, Gabrielle Giffords, was shot in the head in public at a shopping mall in Arizona, was there a groundswell in Congress to pass tighter gun laws? There was nothing. Fortunately she survived but her career as a legislator was over.

Perhaps the stumbling blocks are erected by the judiciary? On numerous occasions since the 1960s, the Supreme Court has ruled on the right of Americans to own weapons. The Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment has been consistent, namely that American citizens have the right to “bear arms.” The Amendment states that citizen militia has such a right, yet the Supremes don’t interpret the Constitution to mean that the right is limited to members of the armed forces. How is a gun-toting gang member who lives in one of Chicago’s Projects a member of the militia? To change the law, either the Court has to do an about face or the executive and legislative branch need to change the Constitution, a tortuous process at the best of times and an almost certain vote loser. In my years of studying America’s way of life, I have not read one serious paper or editorial advocating a constitutional amendment.

I don’t regard the issue as one of either process or law. I believe it is set deep in American culture. Americans, black and white, rich and poor, Christians, Jews and Muslims, believe fervently in freedom. It follows that many Americans believe they have the right and freedom to defend themselves. If this means owning and using a firearm to preserve that freedom, that is their right. The cost of children’s lives, for example the 28 murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary, is part of the price paid by Americans for their freedom. So is the recent loss of life in Ferguson.

Most Americans I speak with are amazed to discover that a British citizen has the right to own a firearm and to keep it at home. It requires a Police license and weapons must be secured under lock and key. However, I have no absolute right to use a firearm to kill or wound anyone, even an attacker. There is a legal principle that British citizens must not take the law into their own hands and in defending themselves, they must use only such force as is reasonably necessary. This may well be the case both federally and in some US states but the all too frequent American-style killings make me believe it is not.

Rather than just criticise, may I offer a partial solution? If sales of bullets were regulated so that any sales would be registered, it might be possible to trace some gun ownership from a bullets used to kill or wound. If nothing else, this may act as a deterrent to indiscriminate use of guns, although the black market in bullets would probably be significant.

So, Mr Obama, if you are really serious about changing gun-safety laws, you will have to do better than wring your hands. Take the issue to the American people, get on the stump and persuade Americans that their freedoms will not be reduced or harmed by reconsidering gun ownership. Will the President follow this advice? I doubt it. I accept this is a complex issue. I also accept it is a vote loser in many states but as the President will not be standing for election again, what personal damage arises?

Two United States Senators: Re-enter The Donald and The Sunday Times

John McCain, left, and Sen. Chuck Schumer

This week, two US senators, John McCain and Chuck Shumer, have hit the news. Both are well known and respected members of Congress. McCain is a four term Republican senator for Arizona and Shumer is a two term Democratic senator for New York State and has indicated he will retire in 2016.

John McCain must have thought his involvement in Presidential politics was over. He was defeated by George W Bush in the 2000 Republican nomination race. Then there was his unsuccessful campaign in 2008, when, as the Republican nominee who chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, he was trounced by Barack Obama.

True, McCain has been an influential legislator. He made a valiant attempt to rein in campaign spending. The McCain Feingold Act of 2002 was passed by Congress, regulating hard money contributions and seeking to outlaw soft money. The Supreme Court tore the Bill to shreds.

McCain was again the target last week. Donald Trump questioned McCain’s hero status as a Vietnam War veteran on the ridiculous grounds that McCain had been a POW for five years. On any view, Trump’s comments, from a man who has not served one day in the American armed forces, were beyond despicable and crossed the line of American politics. Is The Donald immune from the laws of political gravity or has he now delivered his own torpedo? Will he be isolated and regarded as an object of scorn or curiosity, rather than of Presidential seriousness? Will that please moderate Republicans?

Trump has dominated coverage of the Republican Presidential race with nonstop interviews and over-the-top comments. It has to be admitted he is a skilled showman who is able to command attention with his combative verbal style. But there is so much more to becoming President than Trump’s displays. The unwarranted attack on McCain ought to mark a turning point for Trump the politician.

Few Republicans have gone on the record to criticise Trump. Perhaps there is no desire to put themselves into direct conflict with him. Maybe Trump’s current poll ratings offer him an ill-deserved protection. According to The Washington Post, one source described Trump’s attack as “lethal” and another said he expects “a complete cratering” of Trump’s support. A third predicted that Trump would become “a niche candidate” and a sideshow to the main event.

Those who have gone on the record include Rick Perry, the former Texas Governor, who said: "His comments have reached a new low in American politics. His attack on veterans make him unfit to be Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces, and he should immediately withdraw from the race for President.” Marco Rubio, another leading Republican presidential hopeful, called Mr. Trump's comments "absurd, offensive and ridiculous".

Trump’s candidacy for the GOP nomination is a knot of contradictions. He disparages the Affordable Care Act but has called for a universal national health-care program. He calls himself pro-life after earlier saying he was pro-choice. He wants to expand Social Security benefits. He has repeatedly mocked his opponents in the most personal ways. How can someone like that unite the Republican Party, as well as the country? Yet The Donald has a sufficient lead in the polls to get him a seat at the 5^th August Republican nominee debate.

Eventually, every candidate who seeks to become a serious contender for the Presidency has to cross a threshold of acceptability with the voters. That is measured by not only where candidates stand on issues or how authentic they seem, but whether voters conclude they have the temperament, character and judgment to sit in the Oval Office. Perhaps the debate will be The Donald’s final political act.

In this week’s The Sunday Times, an article headlined, “Iran deal in hands of US senator,” suggested that Chuck Shumer might decide the fate of the Iran nuclear treaty. The story reported how Shumer was likely to support Israel’s position on the Treaty. Why? Because so many New York voters were Jewish. How simplistic can you get? Shumer will be an influential voice in the Iran nuclear treaty debate but can just one Senator possibly be so influential?

What the newspaper article neither investigated nor explained was Constitutional and Congressional math. Let us assume the Treaty is rejected by the Senate and that the President exercises his veto. Congress can override the veto if there is a two thirds majority vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. There are 100 votes in the Senate. 67 are needed to override a veto. The Republicans hold 54 Senate seats and there are two independents. So if no Republican and independent votes against the override motion, there will still have to be 11 Democratic Senators voting to defeat the Treaty’s ratification. The article makes no mention of where these 11 Senate votes will come from.

Furthermore, the article is silent about the House of Representatives. 290 votes in the House are needed to override but there are only 246 Republican congressmen, so 44 Democrats would have to defect. To make things clear and beyond dispute, if the House votes against an override motion, the Treaty survives, regardless of what happens in the Senate.

A quality broadsheet like The Sunday Times should offer better reporting. By dumbing down and trivialising the Treaty ratification by over-emphasising the importance of an individual Senator brings serious politics into the gutter. News International and the Murdoch era should have a lot to answer for.

Iran: The Nuclear Deal.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Barack Obama

Ponsonby Rule Rules.

Last week, a deal was struck between Iran and six world powers in relation to the use and control of nuclear energy. Although the negotiations have lasted years, the response from some areas was fast and typical knee-jerk. Officials in Israel and Saudi Arabia were out of the gate to tell the world that the deal was a catastrophic mistake, almost before the signatories ink was dry. These countries are, of course, entitled to their opinions and their leaders probably felt the need to service home consumption. However, the proof of a treaty of this kind, good or bad, usually needs years to establish, not days or months.

It is not for me to evaluate the pros and cons of the Iran Treaty. I would observe merely that anything that has the possibility of furthering the cause of peace must be worth pursuing. In addition, those of us who have met and know ordinary Iranians will know that sanctions have hurt and that the lifting of those sanctions will probably help these people improve their lives and fortunes, making them much less likely to want conflict. Whether this percolates upwards is another issue.

My main concern, however, is the newspaper slant that the Iran Treaty is a done deal, so long as the American Senate ratifies it. The front page article in The Times of London on 15^th July, was devoted to the importance of ratification by the Senate with no mention being made of similar requirements by the governments of the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia, Germany and the EU. The New York Times was more tempered in its reporting but nevertheless posed the deal as one where President Obama’s legacy was at stake, impliedly because a failure to get Congress approval marked the death of the Iran Treaty with damaging fallout for the President.

Matt Spence, The Times Washington correspondent, reported that “Congress is able to block the implementation of the nuclear deal with Iran by passing a resolution of disapproval.”  By implication, Spence suggests that if Congressional disapproval holds, the treaty is dead. 

Let me deal first with Congressional approval. Article I, Section 2 of the American Constitution grants power to the President to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. In this case, the Senate has 60 days to approve the treaty. If it decides not to do so, Mr. Obama has said he will exercise a veto, in which event it is for both Houses of Congress to decide whether to override the veto. To do this a two thirds majority in both Houses is required.

Let us assume the Senate rejects the Iran Treaty and Congressional disapproval holds. Is it dead? The answer is an emphatic NO. For example, the armistice at the end of World War I was codified into the Treaty of Versailles. The United States was a party to that treaty but it was rejected by the Senate. The cause of the rejection related to the creation of the League of Nations. Nevertheless, the Treaty of Versailles was not invalidated. Indeed, it became a cause of World War II.

In the United Kingdom, the executive, in the form of the Foreign Office negotiating team and the Cabinet, is subject to what used to be called the Ponsonby Rule, which now has the force of statute. There are two steps. The first is signing a treaty and the second is ratifying it. Signed treaties are laid before Parliament for 21 days before ratification, to see whether any MP wants to ask questions or propose a debate. If the latter, a government majority in that debate can be expected but at least there is a democratic process available to approve or reject. I suspect a similar process applies in the parliaments of other signatories.

The Iran Treaty will go ahead, even if the Americans reject it, unless the Treaty’s terms include a clause that rejection by one party will be treated as a rejection by all. I have not heard of any such clause. I accept that I am being “legal” and that the practical support of America will be needed, especially in financing inspections and overseeing the various checks. Nevertheless to report the Treaty as being entirely dependent on American approval is just plain wrong.

The Fox News Factor

I enjoy much of the American presidential election process, especially some of the traditions. At midnight on Election Day, the voters of Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, all fourteen of them in 2012, go to the polls, hoping to be the first to declare a result. By tradition, the presidential campaign formally opens when a candidate is officially nominated at the Party’s national convention, notwithstanding months of electioneering beforehand. The gatekeeping role traditionally played by three states, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, all with few Electoral College votes, plays an important part in the process because these states are bellwethers of potential. For example, in 1992, Bill Clinton was beaten by Paul Tsongas in the Democratic New Hampshire primary but the media declared him the winner because he had been so far behind Tsongas.

This year, Fox News has stepped into the election. Its influence may diminish the power of the early states in the presidential nominating process. In August in Cleveland, Ohio, a swing state, the cable news channel will host the first of several Republican debates, moderated by Chris Wallace and others. So far there are fourteen Republican hopefuls who have put their hats in the ring. However, not all fourteen, nor others who declare before 6^th August, will be permitted to take part in the debate. Instead, Fox News has decided that the debate will be limited to ten contenders, all of whom had to declare their entry before 6^th July and who will have to file a public disclosure of their personal finances in time to participate.

The latter condition is fair enough. A 1978 federal ethics law requires all presidential candidates to file details of their financial interests with the Federal Election Commission within 30 days of declaration, although the FEC will usually grant time extensions. Fox News has said it will not be willing to agree any extensions.

It is the former condition which does not bear close scrutiny. Fox has said it will use an unspecified mix of national polls to decide which ten Republican hopefuls will appear in the first debate. Apart from the diminution of power held by the states who hold early primaries, not to mention the romance of it all, what chance will there be for underfunded longshots, like Jimmy Carter in 1976 or Rick Santorum in 2012, to emerge by impressing the grassroots activists? The value of early primary contests is that the states concerned vet and test presidential contenders in an exercise in retail politics. These primaries are not a test of policy, they are a test of character. The Fox News debates may well change the game and minimise this valuable adjunct to the election process.

Limiting the field based on unknown national polls will turn the first debate into nothing but a popularity contest based on name identification. What if those 9^th and 10^th on the list are separated from 11^th to 14^th by a minimal percentage? Fortunately, some Republican candidates are raising objections. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina has set up an online petition calling for debate equality. He said, “If the cable news channels or political elite have their way, the media will have a louder voice in our nominating contest than actual Republican voters.” South Carolina’s Lt. Governor, Henry McMaster, supported Graham. “Excluding candidates [from the debates] based on national polling rewards name recognition for celebrity candidates and those who have lots of money to purchase national advertising.”

The concerns expressed are all the more pertinent as it seems likely that Donald Trump will make the cut for the first debate while sitting Republican governors like Chris Christie (NJ), John Kasich (OH), and Bobby Jindal (LA) might be excluded.

A debate when ten people speak will likely not be a proper debate, as people will either speak over each other or merely state fixed positions. It strikes me that adding another four contenders to the debate will make little difference to the process but will, at least, introduce fairness. Fox News might well be advised to change its entry rules. Indeed, I shall not be surprised if before 6^th August, Fox News faces a legal challenge by both those contenders who do not make the cut and the Republican National Committee, on grounds that the debate rules are unfair.

Fox News is the most watched news channel in America. However, it does not adhere at all to journalist standards of fair and balanced reporting. It has a right wing bias. In 2010, Elena Kagan was nominated by President Obama to a seat on the Supreme Court. Kagan had a superb academic record and had served as Solicitor General. Within hours of the nomination, Fox News put a panel together to discuss the nomination. One of the female panellists said: “I don’t know anything about her [Kagan] but she looks like a dyke. Therefore, she is bound to be pro-choice, support women’s issues and the like.”

One wonders how such a biased media outlet should even be allowed to produce a television debate. Is it fit for purpose? Perhaps the debate should be: “Will the democratic process of a presidential election be advanced by an exclusive debate where candidates are chosen by a News Channel?” Now that would be worth watching, especially if those candidates excluded from the debate muscle their way in.