Category: Politics

This is a nonpartisan post, believe it or not.

Most of the country is divided into two camps. The first camp sees an outsider President trying to “drain the swamp” and being thwarted by a conspiracy of bureaucrats dubbed “the Deep State.” The second camp sees a proto-fascist “Stable Genius” held in check by the likes of courageous, patriotic bureaucrats like the character Anonymous (insider author of articles and books about thwarting the President).

• 

• 

Looking at those two statements, you might conclude that if one side is correct, the other must be wrong. This is normally the case with two apparently exclusive theses. I would like to suggest a third possibility: both are wrong, at least about the bureaucracy.

Before I do, let me state my bona fides. I worked within that federal bureaucracy for thirty-eight years. I attended nearly every available type of training for bureaucrats, from the typing course offered by the Department of Transportation (it never took!) to the Federal Executive Institute, the Harvard Seminar, and the National War College. I worked in three different Departments and an independent office. I attended countless interagency meetings from windowless rooms in Langley to the marble halls of the Old Executive Office building to the White House SitRoom. I served under every President from Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama. Over half my career was in positions of executive authority, where I got to meet with leaders (political appointees and career civil service) across the government bureaucracy and help make decisions about “the sausage.”

New administrations often distrust the career bureaucrats who welcome them to power. I participated in the transition team from Bush ’43 to Obama, and I guarantee you it happened then. It is hard for some incoming political appointees and staffers to grasp the concept of a nonpartisan group of technocratic experts there to “help you.” If you come from the political world, there are two sides: the “good guys” and the opponent to be defeated. There is no room for neutrals on the sideline. It is equally difficult for political types to understand when the bureaucrats tell them “we will do every (legal) thing in our power to make your policies succeed, including telling you when they are misguided or likely to fail. But we will do so privately–to you–and not in a manner supporting any particular political perspective.” (The word “legal” in that last sentence is very important, but there are oodles of lawyers and ombuds ((I was one for thousands of analysts)) there to assist any bureaucrat who wonders where the line is–it is not a decision anyone needs to make by themselves!)

The politicos may be distrusting, yet this is exactly how the bureaucracy works. It isn’t that the bureaucrats don’t have political beliefs, and don’t bring some bias to the table. Rather, they subsume those personal views in order to support the legal–there that word is again–policies of the duly-elected or appointed officials. That is the way the federal government is supposed to work, and the way that it does work, even today . . . mostly.

So there is no Deep State. Nothing that has happened so far in the Trump administration requires a Deep State in order to be explained. What about the “Russia hoax?” I have spent hours reading every document about that story: the Steele dossier, the Mueller report, the Horowitz IG report, various FOIA releases from the DOJ, FBI, etc., the dueling reports from all the relevant House and Senate committees. What happened, if not a conspiracy to ensure Mr. Trump was never elected or impeached if he was?

Simple. A small group of FBI counterintelligence analysts and the senior executives who supervised them saw what they are always looking for: a “Tom Clancy” style Manchurian candidacy that they were going to expose and become heroes. They went after it with a passion, even skewing the FISA process and swallowing whole the dossier which is so rife with error as to be laughable. In hindsight, they got caught up in the very real Russian attempts to divide the electorate and thought they had found the super-secret pièce de résistance: a Putin mole named Donald Trump. No conspiracy, just overzealous analysts with poor leadership. There is a reason one outcome from this entire affair was the Attorney General’s decision to limit the ability of his agents to begin such an investigation of a Presidential candidacy: previously, it required nothing more than a single executive to initiate!

I have friends who share “Q” or Q Anon” material on social media, and I have yet to see a single thing which (1) makes any sense and (2) isn’t easily explainable by means other than a Deep State. I invite anyone unfamiliar with Occam’s Razor to click on the link: vast, intricate conspiracies make great novels or Netflix dramas, real life is far more mundane and explicable. Most administrations have a cadre of former government officials who can help facilitate the relationship with the bureaucracy; this one has few. Thus this administration is uniquely suited to seeing any disagreement or discussion of countervailing issues as disloyal or political. That doesn’t make it so.

By now my MAGA buddies are considering unfriending me while my Progressive amigos are high-fiving: not so fast, my friends!

Before anyone gets too excited, no one should celebrate the actions of Anonymous (the writer detailing a resistance to the administration within the bureaucracy). This is not principled action or even peaceful noncompliance. If someone in the bureaucracy disagrees with a policy, they can (1) go to the IG or ombuds and file a complaint, (2) resign, or (3) swallow it and do their job. Actively trying to undermine the policy is NOT a morally acceptable option.

For one thing, I have heard so many times that ‘what Trump just did is unconstitutional’ only to have the issue adjudicated by the courts as . . . constitutional. You may disagree with it, but you (as a bureaucrat) don’t get a say on it; the courts do. Second, I hear ‘Trump’s action is unprecedented so (I get to do something unprecedented too).’ I think we all learned how wrong this logic is in kindergarten, not to mention I often find precedents for the actions which negate the premise. Notice nothing I said suggests the policies are good or that you (as a bureaucrat) have to like them. Just they are legal and you cannot undermine them.

Furthermore, the public disclosures suggesting an active effort to thwart the administration in fact undermine the nonpartisan character of the career civil service. As I said, in the best of times, we had to convince new administrations we were there “to help.” That will be infinitely more difficult in the future. This goes double for the many former senior leaders who are so active now in media. I understand they feel the times are perilous and demand action. I ask only that they consider the long-term ramifications for the career civil service, and limit their very public criticism to when it is absolutely necessary. Which would not be every night on the round of talking-head shows.

Or publicly endorsing candidates. Think it’s not a growing problem? Check out this WaPo article. I know (and respect) many of these people. It is not that past leaders of the civil service didn’t face serious challenges. Just to keep it within living memory, Watergate anyone? Grouping together and endorsing a candidate–nay, more so explicitly opposing the sitting President–is the type of partisan activity poisonous to the standing of the bureaucracy.

It is true these individuals retain a first amendment right to offer political opinions. But not everything we HAVE the right to do IS right to do. It is one thing to imagine a hypothetical situation where only members of the civil service were privy to something, and therefore believed they had an obligation to make it public. That’s what happened with the whistleblower and subsequent impeachment. I disagreed with how serious that issue was, but not with the whistleblower making a complaint. But what we see now is political complaints coming from the bureaucracy (past or present), and it is not like there isn’t plenty of criticism already.

Some career civil servants have chosen to resign and explain their decisions publicly. This is appropriate and honorable, whether one agrees with their reasoning or not. In the end, their choices to act within the system (and leave it) support the nonpartisan nature of the civil service, even if they are publically critical.

On the other hand, there is leaking classified information. Now there’s a story citing government officials stating the intelligence community provided warning of the nature of the coronavirus and the inadequacy of China’s response back in January. Assuming this is true, kudos to the community; job well done. However, the fact that this information has now been leaked to the press? For what purpose? There is no value in this information in responding to the virus today. When we are safely past this crisis, we need an in-depth investigation of who-knew-what-when and what-did-they-do/not do. This is a leak of sensitive intelligence information solely for the purpose of criticizing the administration’s response. And some wonder why others see a conspiracy.

One side claims the public disclosures of Anonymous prove there is a Deep State, while the other side suggests it is patriotic and shows the need for active resistance by the bureaucracy. Such reasoning evinces the greater danger: the politicization of the career civil service bureaucracy, much to our collective regret.

The nonpartisan career civil service is a treasure. If you scoff at that comment, read a history of the federal government in the 19th century before civil service reform: a stinking mass of corruption and nepotism likely to ruin everything it touched. Today’s civil service is full of dedicated experts trying their best to work in the public’s interest. A real tragedy would ensue if we let our political differences lead to politicizing the federal bureaucracy: that would truly be a national disaster.

I have a confession to make. I spent thirty years in DC. That makes me a swamp creature. I was part of the deep-state back when we just called it the bureaucracy; deep-state sounds so much sexier, no? Let me re-engage my deep-state, lizard brain and try to explain what’s going on.

The intersection between high-minded idealism and cynical political calculation exists at the power of position. You can have all the right ideas and best policies and accomplish nothing if you lack the power of office and majority. Likewise, the one who wins can implement even the most hare-brained schemes. You would like to think that the best ideas always win, but we know this is not the case.

Why would Speaker Pelosi change her mind on impeachment? Remember, she and Senator Mitch McConnell are among the most successful Congressional leaders in American history. People hate them for their ruthless pursuit of their respective agendas. What is she up to?

• First, impeachment rallies the Democratic base, especially in the suburban districts which went from purple to blue in 2018. It might imperil some of the new members in districts which voted for Trump in 2016 but elected a Democrat in 2018; she left those members an out by allowing them to vote their consciences, but their fate is probably sealed. I believe she has read the tea-leaves, done the math, and thinks she has secured the Democrats a majority in the House after 2020. Think I’m wrong? Have you noticed all the red state, safe-seat Republicans in the House who are retiring (twenty at last count)? They don’t intend to sit around for another two years as powerless ranking members.
• Second, impeachment plays for time and moves the spotlight off the party’s Presidential nomination. Yes, it does pull several Senators off the campaign circuit, but it also gives them a chance to shine during the Senate trial. Meanwhile, the party may be able to pare down the list and start to get behind a nominee. While Speaker Pelosi would prefer a Democratic President, arranging for one is not her job, so if impeachment retains the House majority but loses the Presidency . . . “Oh, well!” as my lovely wife likes to say!
• Third, it lays a trap. The President will trumpet (sorry, couldn’t resist) his exoneration in the Senate, but the obstruction claim will only be considered by the Supreme Court between March and June next year. If they hold (as they did for Nixon and Clinton) that the President must release information, his refusal would come just before the election, and even if he won re-election, it would set the stage for another impeachment!
• Finally, it pacifies the progressive Democratic members who have bridled at the Speaker’s reticence to impeach, and willingness to work (e.g., USMCA, appropriations, Space force) with the President. No Speaker wants a loud caucus constantly tweeting against her. She can tell them to sit down and relax–and if it doesn’t work, she can (figuratively) purge them as the cause of the disaster.

I will bet the Speaker has a few more political reasons up her sleeve: I have only a half-lizard brain, and she is a political genius. If you want to believe this is all about military aid to Ukraine, God bless you. I missed where all that fervor was when the Russians were actually invading Ukraine, and all we sent was non-lethal support. This was politics (first Trump, then the Democrats), pure and simple.

Why did the Democrats focus on impeachment? From the election night when the nightmare began, many Democrats could not stand the notion of another moment of a Trump presidency. That is why they started from the conclusion (getting him out of office) and looked for justifications. Remember the discussion of the 25th amendment (removing the President for incapacity)? Much the same thing.

What should they have done? Before I answer that question, I want to remind all my friends that I believe that President Trump should have resigned long ago, when he realized he was not suited to this peculiar job. Yes, he won the position, but it’s not El Jefe, it’s more the persuader-in-chief. He should have said this isn’t right for me (he probably would have said “it’s not good enough for me”) and moved on. As a businessman, he certainly knows that not every leader is right for every situation. But he didn’t.

So-o -o -o -o ? The Democrats should have made it clear his mafia-esque phone conversation with President Zelensky was beyond the pale. They should have censured him, a symbolic punishment which only Andrew Jackson received. Don’t knock this as only symbolic: this impeachment will end up being only symbolic. They should have passed a bill defining –using the President’s own language in the phone transcript–this type of activity as a “high crime or misdemeanor” as used in the Constitution, thereby notifying him (and his successors) that any repeat of such activity would result in impeachment. Imagine the latter scenario: forcing Congressional Republicans in the House and Senate to either support the Bill or explain why this behavior is ok with them! It’s one thing to vote against impeachment or conviction; it’s another thing altogether to vote defending unethical behavior in general. Imagine President Trump with that Bill on his desk, forced to either swallow his ego and sign it or veto it and face being overturned.

The Democrats lacked imagination, because they remain obsessed with a single thing: removing the President. It is not a condition unique to them: the Republicans did the same thing with President Clinton. For all the evil that Richard Nixon did, he had real respect for the office, and his resignation–short of impeachment–was laudatory even if forced. He did the right thing in the end. If Bill Clinton had a shred of human decency, he would have resigned when his affair with an intern became public. If he had any respect for the office, he would have resigned before lying under oath. If his Republican opponents had any imagination, they would have censured him and passed a Bill defining the reception of oral sex from an intern in the Oval Office as behavior so disgusting it qualifies as “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

After all, that is what Congress does: it makes laws. Imagine Congressional Democrats defending that one; picture President Clinton facing the same Hobson’s choice.

But no, here we are. The streetcar is pulling up to the station. The outcome is predetermined and will satisfy no one. We have set several terrible precedents: looking for reasons justifying impeachment, impeaching before the relevant court cases are completed, and simply making impeachment a more routine thing. Based on recent political history, I guarantee the next Republican-majority House under a Democratic presidency will be a real circus. Meanwhile, the morning news brings word that the House may simply hold on to the Bill of Impeachment and not forward it to the Senate. I wonder how many additional weeks of coverage they can get out of that move?

The Progressives’ singular focus on President Trump is misguided, if only because he is a symptom, not the problem. Impeachment, even if it succeeded in removing the President, would not resolve the issue. There is a political realignment going on in the Western world, and until it shakes out, there will be little tranquility. But that is a topic for another post, another day.

Some have complained that President Trump thinks he’s a king. Remember Emerson’s quote: “When you strike at a King, you must kill him.”

+1 to anyone who recognizes this title. +1 more if you can anticipate the quote I’ll introduce below. +1 more still if you guess where the analogy leads! Take credit in the comments, please.

In August, 1964, the US Navy reported that it had been attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin by North Vietnam. President Johnson responded by deploying US ground forces into South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong attacked these forces, but the President resisted a major response until after the Presidential election in November (foreshadowing here). In February, 1965, the Viet Cong attacked Camp Holloway, an American helicopter base in the central highlands near the village of Pleiku. The battle was little more than a large raid: it lasted about twelve hours, involved some fierce hand-to-hand fighting as the Viet Cong penetrated the perimeter, resulted in eight American KIA, 126 wounded, and US military escalation. It was the first blood of the US war in Vietnam.

McGeorge Bundy was one of Kennedy’s “best & brightest” who argued for greater US involvement in Vietnam under Johnson. When asked years later about the importance of Pleiku, he said “Pleikus are like streetcars” in that one comes along regularly, and you just pick one to get where you’re going.

Where’s this going? In case you have been out of contact the last week or so, there is an impeachment going on in Washington. The proximate cause is President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky. But that phone call was just a streetcar called Pleiku: a way to get where some always wanted to go.

Let’s get one thing out of the way here: what President Trump did on that call was anything but “perfect”–his term. It was base, demeaning, and unethical. He placed personal objectives above national security concerns. He crudely bargained with a foreign political leader for domestic political advantage. Is that impeachable? Sure, since impeachment is a matter for the House and Senate to define and try. Impeachable is whatever the House majority decides it is; guilty is whatever two-thirds of the Senate says it is. It is a political activity using judicial terms and methods.

That said, the hand-wringing about mixing politics and national security is overwrought. Recall Johnson’s actions before Pleiku: US forces were attacked prior to the election but didn’t get the airpower/retaliation the administration had already planned, because it was before the election. Nixon lied about a special plan to end the Vietnam war leading up to his 1972 re-election. Leading up the 1984 election, Senator Edward Kennedy offered to arrange favorable news coverage for the Soviet leadership hoping to forestall Reagan’s re-election. President Trump’s actions were (as usual) over the top, but hardly unprecedented. If you’ve never been to Washington, ***Newsflash***: politics happens there, even with national security issues.

Just eight months ago, Speaker Pelosi said “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.” (that last part was an A+ troll, btw). I don’t care which party you party with, those conditions are not met, especially when it comes to last one (bipartisan). It could have been different (has in the past), but it isn’t.

If the Speaker was serious about impeachment, she would have delayed the process long enough to get court rulings on the “obstruction of Congress” charges. Remember it was the Supreme Court’s decision against Nixon along the same lines that paved the way for his resignation in the face of a bipartisan impeachment. Trump’s cases remain in the courts, so there is no there, there (yet).

And of course, this impeachment did not occur in a vacuum. Calls for impeachment (including petitions, websites and a leadership PAC) started before Trump’s inauguration. Democratic Representatives introduced a motion to begin impeachment proceedings in December 2017; it received 58 positive votes (all from Democrats). Reasons for impeachment changed over time: foreign business ties, collusion to undermine the 2016 election, the emoluments clause, obstruction of justice, fomenting racial hatred, bribery and finally abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

In the few choice words of newly-elected Representative Rashida Tlaib, “we’re gonna impeach the m*therf*cker!” There are numerous other, less pithy but equally adamant quotes from Democratic office holders.

So we’re all riding a streetcar to get to the same destination: impeachment. Oddly enough, we all know exactly what awaits us there. There will be no surge in public opinion, for or against. There will be no conviction in the Senate. What is really going on here? What were the Democrats supposed to do, just ignore President’s Trumps gross overture in Ukraine? What else could they have done?

If you haven’t shut down my blog’s window in partisan disgust yet, I hope you’ll come back tomorrow for part two and my thoughts on the answers to those questions.

Maybe it was the annual 4th of July celebrations. Maybe it was the “USA-USA-USA” chants as the American Women’s team won the World Cup. Maybe it was the hyper-patriotism evinced by President Trump (I think this is certainly the case). Whatever the cause, I noticed the return of an unfortunate and misguided meme: “Don’t call them Americans.”

The meme is usually accompanied by a map of the Western Hemisphere, clearly labeling the two continents, and the accompanying text patronizingly explains that since all residents of said hemisphere are Americans, it is incorrect to call the citizens of just one country in that hemisphere “Americans.” Sometimes it is someone trying desperately to be clever. Sometimes it is a washed over Latin American Marxist seeking redemption. Sometimes it is just someone “Trumped.”

Let’s finish this pedantic argument off once and for all, shall we? It is entirely correct to refer to all inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere as Americans, when differentiating them from other continentals. When referring to groups as Europeans or Asians or Africans, it would make sense to refer to Americans, too. However, it would not make sense for a European to argue that they should be called “humans” instead of Europeans, not because it isn’t true (probably, not sure about the French), but because “human” is part of a different classification and does not distinguish by continent. Clear so far?

What about the particular use of the term American to designate citizens of one country, the US of A? Peoples the world over adopt naming conventions for themselves; they are not assigned by others. Sometimes these conventions make sense, other times they don’t. Canadians are not from Canadia (despite my then-young daughter’s claim) but from Canada. People from New Zealand choose to be called Kiwis after a native, flightless bird…ok? In Naples they’re Neapolitans not Niples, in Liverpool, Liverpudlians not Liverpoodles, and DC is filled with Washingtonians, not swamp creatures.

As the peoples of the Western Hemisphere became independent nations, they each chose a national title. Only one chose a title with the term “America.” Perhaps it was something of a early-adopter advantage for the US, which dissuaded others from so choosing, but that is the history, cut and dried. It’s not like the USA was a behemoth striding the globe in 1776! As a result, people from the USA call themselves Americans, as does the rest of the world. It is not at all confusing, which might be a valid reason for suggesting an alternative.

I read where someone suggested people from the United States should be called “United States-ians” which IS the official term used in Spanish (estadounidenses). Now for some real irony: there is another country in the hemisphere with the moniker United States–Los Estados Unidos de Mexico, or Mexico. Anyway, estadounidenses is a bureaucratic term; even Mexicans refer to “americanos,” “norteamericanos” (wait, isn’t Mexico in North America?) or “gringos” (¡smile when you say that, amigo!)

Brazilians are free to call themselves Americans, when it makes sense. And you can call an Egyptian an African, if you’re trying to distinguish them from a Asian, like from Israel (really).There are no Argentinians, just Argentines, Berliners are something you eat (still), Czechs come from Czechia (betcha’ didn’t know that one!), and Bolivians come from the Plurinational State of Bolivia (Nobody knows that one!).

The argument against calling people from the United States “Americans” is not technically correct, is not clever, and is not worth repeating. It is tendentious at best, simply a way to trigger some of the worst chest-thumping responses from average Americans.

And anyway, it’s pronounced ” ‘Muracan. “

We’ve been waiting for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report for some two years. I avoided commenting during the media speculation; now that we have the results, it’s time to form an opinion. Predictably, political hacks on both sides have manned their positions and resumed trench warfare. Sometimes they switched which trenches they occupied (see “Mueller, straight arrow and savior of the country” vs “Mueller, partisan hack and political coward”).

There are few real surprises in the report. It is not well-written, so I don’t suggest you read it all. I have done that for you (ahh, retirement)! Here are six key points to consider:

1) The Trump campaign was a clown show, totally unprepared to function before or after the election. At one point, the media noted that the campaign had no foreign policy advisers, so they quickly pulled together a team which included George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, hardly experts. The former bragged at a bar to a foreign diplomat the Russians were going to help Trump, the latter continued to exaggerate his access for personal gain even after he was fired! The report also relates the story of Putin calling together Russian business oligarchs with the mission to find someone who can establish contact with Trump’s transition team (hardly the action of a case officer running his agent!). Oh, and Mueller explains that Don Jr. was probably not savvy enough to know that accepting “oppo” research from a Russian might be illegal!

2) President Trump had no idea how to govern. He asked his Intelligence leaders to stop the Mueller investigation (they don’t do such investigations). Trump is quoted by his staff as saying he thought firing Flynn, or Comey, or even Mueller would stop it. The President and several senior officials thought they could lie anytime, about anything, without consequence. Oftentimes the lies were inconsequential, unnecessary,and easily detected, yet they continued.

3) Believe it or not, Mueller got the most ethically-challenged targets, even if none of it had anything to do with conspiring with the Russians. Paul Manafort was a grifter in it for the money: Mueller actually quotes Manafort warning others about dealing with the Russians! Michael Flynn talks to the Russian Ambassador, lies about it to the FBI, oh and forgot to register as a foreign agent for Turkey (he a former senior intelligence officer!). Don’t get too excited about the investigation’s thirty-seven indictments, because most of Mueller’s indictees (twenty-eight) will escape justice: they are Russians indicted for hacking, and will probably never see the inside of a US courtroom, let alone jail.

4) Mueller’s report clearly demonstrates the importance of professional civil servants, both civil service and political appointees. They are the people, like White House Counsel Donald McGahn, Deputy National Security Adviser KT Mcfarland, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who refused to enact the President’s whims. Without them, President Trump would have committed obstruction of justice or worse.

5) If you asked most people what the Special Counsel’s investigation was all about, they would say “whether Trump colluded with Russia.” Hours of speculation on cable channels connected every dot. The NY Times and Washington Post did major stories with elaborate charts of all the relationships. The Steele dossier detailed all the dirt. Mueller had all that and a crew of trained FBI agents, and over two years he found: nothing. Setting aside the legal-technical argument over collusion vs. conspiracy, Mueller didn’t find any. He even noted that some in the campaign did welcome Russian support, but they couldn’t figure out how to make it happen (see point one, above).

6) Presidential obstruction of justice is difficult to prove, absent intent. The President has many authorities and when using those authorities, it is hard to say he is obstructing justice unless he leaves a clear piece of evidence to that effect. President Trump publicly said all kids of outrageous things (which are admissible) but these were all ambiguous and Mueller found no smoking gun on intent. He did uncover a vast body of evidence.

6) Mueller admitted he was never going to indict the President, based on current Justice Department policy. However, he made a great point that the Congress can enact a change that certain laws (for example, obstruction of justice) do apply to the President, which would override the Justice Department policy for future cases. This is a reasonable recommendation, and should receive bipartisan support. Let’s learn from our current predicament.

The bottom line: there was Russian interference, but no Russian conspiracy. The President is an ego-maniac (shocking, that) who was willing to do anything–including obstruct justice–to end the investigation which he deemed baseless. FBI counterintelligence agents surveilled associates of a Presidential candidate during a campaign. There better be some hot-stuff intel implicating those associates or the first step in all this was a serious failure of judgment. A former UK intel officer (Christopher Steele) accessed Russian sources to create and share a dossier to affect the election (his stated intent in a defamation deposition in the UK): anybody ok with that?

Lost in all the posturing is the Mueller report’s confirmation of the extensive Russian effort to influence the 2016 election, and the late and ineffectual response by the Obama administration. Their explanation to date is that the administration felt anything they did would seem to be political in advance of the election, but that explanation is undermined by their admission that they expected Secretary Clinton to win. That is, they failed to act forcefully because they thought their actions would undermine the legitimacy of a Clinton presidency. Reread that sentence and just think about it for a moment. It was more important to appear impartial than to dissuade or deter the Russians…after all, Clinton was going to win. I wonder if they would have felt the same way if they knew candidate Trump was going to win?

Where do we go from here? The House of Representatives has more than enough evidence to begin impeachment proceedings. I agree with Speaker Pelosi that they probably shouldn’t, since there is no chance the Senate will convict. Much as prosecutors sometimes decide against bringing a case to trial because they feel the judge or jury will never convict, impeachment should be reserved for the most extreme cases; President Trump may be extreme in his behavior, but this case is not. As the wise bumper sticker said, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.”

I though President Clinton should have resigned rather than lying to a grand jury, which would have avoided his eventual impeachment. I think President Trump should resign, as he clearly does not know what he is doing. The fact he has some good ideas or nominees does not outweigh his overall incompetence.

Investigations by the federal Southern District of New York and State-level agencies can and should continue: justice must be done for any pre-election crimes committed. That justice should wait until the Trump presidency is over. In so doing, we must be careful what precedents we set. Actions taken to “get Trump” will set new standards for opposing future Presidents, whether we think they should or not. Can you imagine what a Republican-led Senate or House would investigate under “President” Biden (just google “Hunter Biden Ukraine” to get an idea)?

Do I think President Trump should remain in office? No, I thought he should have resigned when it became obvious he did not know how to govern. It seems clear his campaign was a stunt which he has been unable to develop into a meaningful administration. Do I think “The Resistance” should pack up and go home? Yes, they pursued a proven falsehood (Russia collusion) and they are discredited. It is fine and good to oppose the President’s policies and his objectionable tweets and blatant falsehoods. But he remains legitimate as President, even though he should have resigned.

There are serious issues like entitlement reform, the opioid crisis, immigration policy, and infrastructure investment that need to be addressed, rather than another obstruction investigation or impeachment proceedings. It is well past time to return to more normal politics, awaiting the next election cycle in just another 550-some days!

Today we take on the Electoral College, one of the most misunderstood pieces of our government. It is much in the news recently, as an initiative is afoot to undo it without amending the Constitution. The idea is to get enough states to commit their electors to whomever wins the national popular vote, regardless of how the votes in a particular state go. So, for example in the last election, if the people of Colorado voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump (they didn’t), the electors from Colorado would still have cast their votes for President for Hillary Clinton, based on the fact she received more votes in the national vote totals. If enough states pass similar rules, the electoral college becomes irrelevant, and the winner of the national popular vote becomes President.* Simple, yes?

Now if you were shocked (everyone was) and appalled (some were, some weren’t) by the results of the November 2016 election, it is entirely understandable why you might blame the Electoral College. But should we change it on that basis, and why do we even have this (very unique) institution? You be the judge!

A quick review of the Electoral College: you don’t vote for President. You vote for a name associated with a slate of state electors who then convene and award the electoral votes from your state to a candidate. Sounds redundant, and it is. Each state determines how its electoral votes are awarded. The most common method is “winner-take-all,” although Maine and Nebraska use more elaborate methods which apportion their votes by congressional districts. The number of state electors is equal to the number of the state’s federal representation (House & Senate) meaning every state gets at least three (two senators and one representative), and more populous states then get more.

One reason the founders created the college was to balance against the tyranny of very large states. At the time, the founders feared Virginia and New York, the two largest states, might get together and trade votes between each other, ensuring the President always came from one or the other. While this threat seems quaint now, it is paralleled in the notion today that absent the Electoral College, a candidate might only campaign in New York city, Los Angeles, and Chicago (for example) in hopes of running up such a large vote advantage in metropolitan areas they could ignore large portions of the country.

Critics say this already happens: they charge that Democratic party voters are disenfranchised in red states as their votes don’t count, and it makes no sense to campaign in such states. First I would note that of course all the votes count, just some people voted for a winner and others voted for the loser. Second, Virginia was once one of those wasted-vote states until enough Democratic party voters moved there, turning it purple and now (perhaps) blue. So electoral reality changes, as it should. Finally, the difference between not needing to campaign (i.e., being able to ignore a state) and not wanting to campaign (because it is a lost cause) is an important one. No system which intentionally ignores large sections of the country can long endure.

Which leads to the chief criticism of the Electoral College: it is anti-democratic. This is 100% correct. As I noted before, the founders were very suspicious of the simple voting majority, and one of the reasons for creating the concept of electors was to have a group of reasoned, thoughtful citizens second-guess the popular vote: you can’t get much more anti-democratic than that! Doesn’t this ignore the wishes of “large sections of the country,” the claim I just described as unsustainable? No. Even in the last election, the country was evenly divided, and the electoral college less so. The national popular vote majority collected by Senator Clinton (three million votes) was dwarfed by the majorities she achieved in California and New York (six million votes). Stated another way, absent those states, candidate Trump “won” a majority of the popular vote in the other forty-eight!

So is the Electoral College just an unnecessary anachronism which gets in the way of our democratic process? We won’t know how necessary it is until we change it, which is always a hard way to learn (see constitutional amendments 17, 18, and 21). It is no more an anachronism than our constitution is: both are old, both still work. Does the electoral college get in the way of our democratic process: Yes, just as the founders intended.

There have been critics of the college from the very beginning. They surge in number and volume after any election when the winning candidate did not win the popular vote, which has happened five times out of fifty-eight elections. Consider the following question: is the drive to eliminate the college a principled effort to fix a longstanding problem, or an emotional reaction to a shocking election result?

Recall that prior to the 2016 election, it was then-candidate Trump who opined he might lose due to the “rigged system.” And it was then-candidate Clinton (and then-President Obama, among others) who rightly criticized him for attacking the system simply because he didn’t like the probable outcome. That debate was not specifically about the electoral college, but the principle holds: we don’t make drastic, summary changes to a system which has worked so well for so long, simply because we don’t win.

*Eagle-eyed observers may note that the movement to circumvent the electoral college has not been ruled on in the courts. If someone from a state adopting the approach sues for relief, the Supreme Court would have to rule whether the entire concept is an unconstitutional route to amending the existing constitutional system. ¡Ay Caramba!

The never-ending immigration debate continues to shed more heat than light. I see more vague, heartless, and ill-informed opinions on this topic than just about anything else. As a pro-immigration conservative, I often feel like my views aren’t reflected in all the noise. Here they are; I hope they are specific, compassionate, and informed.

America is just different. I am not implying necessarily better, but no sane person can deny the core attractiveness of the concept of America. We are a creedal nation: one defined not by blood or religion or geography, but by an individual’s commitment to espousing a common set of beliefs. If you wonder what they are, re-read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. More people want to come to the United States and live there than anywhere else in the world, and the numbers are not even close. Some immigrants already espouse the American creed; others just want to get away from whatever ills plague them in their own country. All we ask of those who arrive in America is they (eventually) share our creed.

Alas, more people want to come and live in the United States than the United States can reasonable digest. It is not a matter of space or jobs: it is a matter of culture. Just as America changes everyone who comes to live in it, every immigrant (legal or not) changes America. The vast majority of immigrants make America better. A tiny minority make it worse, or even intend to do it harm. Regardless of good intent, cultural changes take time.

If you look throughout American history, the greatest anti-immigrant movements happen not during large swells in immigration, but just after, as the new immigrants settle down and spread throughout the country. Thus has it always been; thus it is today. Foreign-born residents made up 13.7% of the US population as of last year, the highest level since 1910 (14.7%). When the first foreign immigrant lands in your small town, he is a curiosity; when several hundred follow, you begin to wonder why you can’t find white bread at the corner “supermercado.”

Asking such a question is not inherently racist or anti-immigrant. Racism requires intent (I know some academics posit a whole different theory of implicit racism: I disagree, but let’s leave that for another post, another day). As an expat in Mexico, I often hear expats complaining that we as expats should not change the local culture. These same voices call people racists when Americans say immigrants should not change America’s culture. Consistency, anyone?

Since the wave of immigration has passed, a wall is not the solution, as I have previously noted. That said, a wall is neither moral or immoral, it is just an object of policy. A wall can trap innocent people in utter subjugation: see “Curtain, Iron.” A wall can keep sadistic murderers from harming innocents: see “Prison, SuperMax.” Some immigration proponents state that the existing US-Mexico border wall is immoral because it forces immigrants to the desert where they are more likely to perish. These same people claim the wall is ineffective. Logic, anyone?

America has less physical border control than almost anywhere. I say almost anywhere, because contrary to FaceBook memes, the tiny Vatican state has none. Due to the amiability of our neighbors (and despite our occasional extra-territorial forays), America has few walls or fences, and only recently (post 2001) became interested in tracking people coming and going. America didn’t even have immigration laws until the late 19th century; our view was “if you can get here, good on you!”

Today, America’s immigration system is designed to be difficult to pass. There is simply too much demand, from too many places, and Americans see no reason to to make it easier. We have to screen against drug smugglers, foreign terrorists, child-traffickers, routine criminals, and folks who just want to come to America despite not qualifying. We have to screen people from everywhere, with every language, dialect, religion, race, and culture. We have to move hundreds of thousands of people and millions of dollars of products across our borders instantly everyday to fuel our trade-based economy. And we have to do all this while remembering–in our creedal nation–you can’t spot a “real American” by how they talk, dress, pray, or behave. Some humility for the challenge facing our immigration and customs officials, por favor?

Some people think immigrants (legal or not) get a free ride of generous benefits at the cost of American taxpayers. Most immigrants would admit their material life is better in America, at least eventually. But immigrants qualify for only the most basic public services, such as the right to children’s education, emergency medical care, some anti-poverty programs, and various legal protections. Mostly they work multiple (lousy) jobs, have taxes and Social Security taken from their pay (which if not legal immigrants, they will never be able to file for and recover), and send as much of their paycheck home as possible to support a family.

I hope I never hear the phrase “We are a nation of immigrants” again. It is true and utterly specious. The phrase is trotted out as some kind of justification, but for what? The Native American peoples came to the hemisphere from elsewhere, and they were not uniformly welcoming of the newly arrived European settlers. Subsequent groups of migrants arrived in accordance with the few laws and limits on immigration, but were more often threatened than welcomed. Hardly a history anyone should cite to support any position in the current debate.

Likewise, spare me your tired, huddled masses of Statue of Liberty quotes. The statue, a gift from France in 1886, is a monument to the American ideal of Liberty (remember, our creed?). It’s official title is “Liberty Enlightening the World” and its design is based on the Roman goddess Libertas, calling to mind the connection between the Roman and American Republics. By coincidence only, it sits on Liberty island, not far from Ellis island, where millions of immigrants later processed to enter the United States. What about the famous “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free?” It is inscribed on a plaque at the base, in the museum. Emma Lazarus wrote the poem to promote the acceptance of refugees as part of a fundraiser to pay for the base of the monument. The Statue is about why people would want to come, not whether they should be allowed to.

If overall immigration is at modern lows, why are we having a debate? For one reason, the time to solve any political issue is when there is no crisis. You fireproof the building when you can, not once the fire rages. There is a surge in the number of families and children from Central America arriving at the US-Mexico border. Some suggest it is the fruit of America’s long involvement in Latin American affairs. If that were the case, we would expect to see the greatest number of immigrants from the countries where America was most recently involved. Most of the immigrants come from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. America supported several coups in Guatemala in the early 1980s. Yet America invaded Panama in 1989; where are those refugees? America supported a coup against Honduran President Zelaya when he suspended the constitution and tried to remain in office in 2009; so why did Honduran emigration increase ten years later?

The reality is all these countries are experiencing increasing violence and decreasing economic opportunity. The migrants who arrive at the American border frequently tell media sources they ‘just want a better future for their families’. Given the demand to immigrate to America, ‘wanting a better future’ is not going to get you into the country legally. Legal immigration is handled in the immigrant’s home country and strictly regulated by national quotas. These migrants are showing up at the border and claiming asylum as refugees from a “well-founded fear of persecution.” I’ll spare you the legal details surrounding this phrase and just note that high crime and no good jobs won’t qualify, meaning most of these asylum-seekers will be denied. But if that is so obvious, why did they risk so much? How do poor people from underdeveloped, violent nations suddenly decide to risk everything to walk with their children to the United States?

There are two groups responsible for spreading the word: human-traffickers and pro-immigration activists. Agustin Gomez, the Guatemalan father of the young boy who died in ICE custody after crossing the border, said, “We heard rumors that they could pass (into the United States).They said they could pass with the children”. The coyotes who organize and move people across the border are actively recruiting and offering discounts for migrants who bring their children with them. One coyote told the foreign press, “Everyone took advantage and sent them (the children) over. Some coyotes charge less because they know if you turn yourself into immigration, there is no problem. You will always go through.”

Meanwhile, groups like Pueblo Sin Fronteras (People Without Borders) have been visiting communities in Central America for fifteen years, helping organize groups to reach the United States in protest of American immigration laws. Desperate people are told they will be welcomed; they are used: by the coyotes for profit, by others as political tools. The numbers of such immigrants are not yet a crisis, but they are taxing America’s ability to detain, care for, and process them. They are increasing, and there is no logical reason for them to stop coming.

If you care, I have covered my views on immigration previously here. I would only add that the problem of families with children showing up to request asylum will only grow worse. It got bad once before under the Obama administration, and it was only brought under control by a combination of carrots (foreign aid, direct support to Mexico, catch-n-release) and sticks (family detention, some child separations, threats to without foreign aid). Sound familiar? That administration was (I believe) embarrassed by what they did, but they still did it; the current administration seems proud of it. In any event, some of those policies have been ruled unconstitutional, so there are fewer tools to address the situation.

The plight of these refugees is horrific. Imagine how bad things must be to decide to walk hundreds of miles with your children to an uncertain future. It is immoral to separate children from families just to deter immigration; it is just as immoral to encourage families to take their children on such a trek without any reasonable hope of success. Those who simply say “welcome them” must answer the questions: what solution do you propose? how many will qualify? why favor those that can walk to the border (Latin America) over those who can’t (Africa and Asia)? how will we pay for it? and, where will they go? There is nothing compassionate about the moral hazard of encouraging poor people to undertake great risk neither they, nor their chosen host nation is prepared for.

Part of the reason the immigration debate is so nasty, is it isn’t just about the immigrants, but about who we as Americans are. The nature of the American creed is up for debate: what are we asking the immigrants to profess to believe in? Compassion or the rule of law? The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Individual autonomy, diversity, and acceptance? Different views of who we are color how we approach the problem. Either way, the people who suffer most are those most vulnerable: the would-be immigrants themselves.