Responsible Voting

Opinion writers for The New York Times have been commenting daily on the just-ended party conventions. Each writer has offered opinions on the best and worst moments of the four-day presentations. Mostly, the commentary was unremarkable; I agreed with much of it and could usually sympathize with the rest. But the evaluation of the final day of the Republican convention upset me. Well, one remark upset me.

Matt Labash, writing in the “What Else Mattered” section of the Times piece, offered the following:

The R.N.C. was as dispiriting as the D.N.C. At a time of multiple crises, when we most need good, honest leadership, we instead get relentless dishonesty. Democrats lie about “peaceful protests,” as cities are torched and ransacked. Republicans lie about Covid-19, a virus we didn’t even know existed 10 months ago, but which is now our third-leading killer, having taken nearly 185,000 American lives. These are the choices, folks: bunco men vs. flim-flammers. Bloods vs. Crips, engaged in gang warfare for its own sake. I, for one, will be voting my conscience, which dictates that I can’t vote. Not this cycle. Why reward the bastards?

Labash’s other remarks were not flattering either. I haven’t bothered to look up what he said about the DNC, but from what he wrote following the last day of the RNC, I assume it wasn’t positive. What upset me, though, was how he ended the above paragraph:

I, for one, will be voting my conscience, which dictates that I can’t vote. Not this cycle. Why reward the bastards?

This brought to mind something Katy Tur once said on MSNBC. Tur had been tasked by her network to cover the Donald Trump candidacy in the 2016 campaign. That hardly seemed a plum assignment at the time, but, as it turned out, she got to follow the man who would become the next President of the United States. Tur was able to observe the Republican standard-bearer, as they say, up close and personal. Additionally, Trump occasionally singled her out by name as a representative of the fake-news press.

What Katy Tur said after the election was that she hadn’t voted. Apparently, this was out of some perverted notion of journalistic objectivity. I thought that she, of all people, was in the perfect position to see Donald Trump as the lying hate-monger he is. As a well-educated professional woman, could she not see that Trump was a danger to the Republic and that it was her civic duty to vote for Hillary Clinton? Well, apparently not. Journalistic objectivity was no excuse for her behavior.

Matt Labash, on the other hand, offers a different, even weaker, excuse for not bothering to vote. He is practicing bothsidesism. Seeing hypocrisy in the presentations of both the Democrats and the Republicans, he concludes, in effect, that the two parties are equally corrupt and not deserving of his vote. He claims a moral superiority in this position. In reality, though, his position is like that of Trump himself when he spoke of good people on both sides of the Charlottesville demonstrations. If Labash cannot see a world of difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates this year, he is too clueless to be writing opinions in the Times. In fact, if he is indeed that oblivious to the obvious, perhaps it is best that he not vote!

I am impressed neither by Tur’s reasoning nor Labash’s. I should also mention a line of reasoning similar to Labash’s that is also dangerous to our democracy. Some voters take the pox-on-both-your-houses position and vote for a third-party candidate or write in the name of some non-candidate. This is yet another way of shirking one’s responsibility as a citizen. When neither of two candidates in an election meets one’s standards, the responsible action is to vote for the better of the candidates. Not voting for the lesser of two evils risks electing the greater of the two evils.

Let me illustrate how my reasoning works in practice. In an election between Donald Trump and Jack-the-Ripper, one has a moral obligation to vote and to vote for Jack.

To the Black Lives Matter Folks: Don‘t Screw Things Up

 I am in sympathy with the Black Lives Matter movement. Blacks have suffered from seemingly racist policing in this country, in addition to suffering from multiple forms of systematic discrimination over nearly a century and a half. Demonstrations demanding change are unquestionably justified.

The best hope for change that makes black lives truly matter is the election of Joe Biden and Kamila Harris, along with Democrats running for the House and Senate. Ironically, recent Black Lives Matter demonstrations have the potential to play into the hands of the Trump/Pence ticket. Trump wants to be the law-and-order candidate, and his insincere promise to quell civil unrest could tip the election in his favor. This would be a disaster for blacks (and most of the rest of us). Four more years of Donald Trump could destroy our democracy.

Whereas it is important to exercise the right of protest, demonstrations must not be allowed to get out of hand and degenerate into rioting and looting. Although demonstrators have not necessarily been responsible for recent civil disturbances, it is critical that they not encourage violence, whether intentionally or not.

Here are some ideas about what Black Lives Matter leaders can do. They can make sure that, to the degree possible, no local laws are violated. Demonstrators should not carry weapons of any kind. As much as possible—this gets harder as the days get shorter—demonstrations should be limited to daylight hours. Signs are hard to read at night, and it is too easy for mischief to begin in darkness. Demonstrations should have a well-understood purpose and should have enforced start and end times. Operations that last into the night court trouble—trouble from demonstrators themselves, trouble from unsympathetic infiltrators, and trouble from the police. Specific members of the team should be tasked with looking for troublemakers, documenting problems on camera, and reporting misbehavior to the authorities.

If these rules make demonstrating less satisfying, so be it. We must show citizens, particularly white citizens, that we are determined to press for change to make our country better and that we are not trying to tear it down.

Please don’t give Donald Trump the one issue most likely to appeal to white voters, even those white voters leaning toward voting for the Biden/Harris ticket. As many have observed from both the Democratic and Republican perspectives, the 2020 election is likely to be the most important election of our lifetimes.

The Trump Platform

 

Unequal Justice

 As is my habit, I listened to NPR this morning. I was struck by a remark by newscaster Korva Coleman on the 9 A.M. newscast. Introducing a brief story about the imminent sentencing of Lori Loughlin and Mossimo Giannulli, she informed listeners, “They could spend months behind bars.”

Months! Imagine that! The rich and connected pay a half-million-dollar bribe to get their two daughters into the University of Southern California, and they may spend months in jail. Had they been a couple of black youths who robbed the corner liquor store of $200, they likely would have been sent to prison for years. Those black miscreants would have lacked the legal services Loughlin and Mossimo can afford.

Of course, rich people don’t knock over liquor stores; they commit nicer, “white collar” crimes. They employ expensive lawyers, and, if convicted at all, they receive light sentences in country-club prisons or are confined for a time to their own mansions with their own hired help.

For now, I want to ignore the privilege or the lack of privilege that individual lawbreakers may have experienced in life, as well as the effects—both positive and negative—of incarceration. Instead, I want to consider the crimes themselves.

Robbing a liquor store is decidedly antisocial and deserves punishment. Bribing college officials to advance the prospects of your unqualified children is also damnable. How do these crimes differ?

The robbers appropriated property not their own and directly terrorized an innocent party or two. Assuming the robbery was not part of a widespread crime wave, most people are inclined to pay little attention to it and do not feel personally terrified. People might even have some sympathy for the underprivileged defendants.

The rich who practice bribery to achieve their desires terrify no one. What they do, however, is undermine the mechanisms of civil society. Whereas the robbers disobey society’s rules, those who illicitly use their wealth and position to obtain what they do not deserve both disobey society’s rules and subvert faith in the fairness of society itself. They are, I think, of greater danger to the body politic. And they go to prison (maybe) for just months?

The penalties we impose for various crimes are, to put it nicely, screwed up. People are incensed by some particular crime and call for unreasonably harsh sentences that lawmakers dutifully enact without consideration of the seriousness of the infraction with regard to other infractions. In general, “violent” crimes and crimes likely to be committed by the underclasses are harshly punished, and the crimes of the wealthy and well-connected are subjected to only modest punishment.

It is time to rethink all sentences for crimes, ranking them according to the harm they inflict and specifying punishments commensurate with that harm. This should be carried out at all levels of government.

Progressive Should Be Thankful for Joe Biden

 I’m beginning to find progressive voices lamenting the moderation of Joe Biden tiresome. In the abstract, I would like to have a more liberal president than Mr. Biden. But I want a candidate in 2020 who has a fighting chance of actually being elected. Having experienced the political whiplash that resulted from the 2016 election, I find it hard to believe that Americans would relish the prospect of replacing a fascist with a person the president, with at least a modicum of justification, would surely call a socialist. (He will call Joe Biden and Kamala Harris socialists, but he will not be widely believed.)

Let’s be real. Much of what many Democrats would like to accomplish will be, at best, difficult. Success will depend critically on what happens in Senate races in November.

The highest priority of a Democratic president must be to return sanity, competence, and integrity to the federal government. That is to say, the president must undo the depredations visited upon the Republic by President Donald Trump. (See “The Biden Agenda before the Biden Agenda.”) This is a project that can largely be accomplished by the chief executive.

If Democrats take both the White House and the two houses of Congress in November, they may indeed be able to check off some of the items on the progressive to-do list. But before the ship of state steams off in the direction of the rising sun, its listing must be corrected before the deck reaches the waterline. This job will largely fall to President Joe Biden.

Progressives should do what they can to elect like-minded senators and representatives, and they should be grateful for having a Joe Biden at the top of the ticket. Moderates and conservatives can vote for the Democratic ticket without serious misgivings.

Trump-Pence Slogans

In 2016, the slogan of the Trump-Pence campaign was “Make America Great Again.” The implication was that, in 2016, America had ceased to be great, but that it had been great at some past time. It was never clear when, in the Trump-Pence universe, America was last great, but Democrats concluded that that fabled time was probably the 1950s, when whites were prosperous and blacks knew their place.

This year, somewhat predictably, the GOP slogan is “Keep America Great.” Democrats, of course, believe that the Trump administration has run the nation into the ground, so that “Make America Great Again” could logically be this year’s Democratic slogan. “Keep America Great” is, at best, disingenuous.

I began thinking of possible Trump-Pence slogans that would be scrupulously honest. That’s an unconventional concept for political rhetoric in general and an especially peculiar one for Republicans. But one can have some fun with the concept. I want to offer the GOP some signs that could capture the actual thoughts and intentions of its standard-bearers.

Trump is already trying to label the Democratic ticket as “socialist.” This is absurd. Although the Democratic Party has certainly moved left in recent years, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris hardly represent the far-left wing of the party. We can expect the Republicans to weaponize the “socialist” label. Here’s a possible sign:

One of Trump’s most conspicuous efforts has been the elimination of federal regulations. His administration has also been lax in enforcing existing laws and regulations. The GOP faithful love this stuff, as they have a basic dislike—hatred even—of government. Trump‘s base sees every law or regulation as a limitation on freedom. This will please them:

In 2016, Trump made much of his intention to keep foreigners out of the country. He began his campaign with outrageous charges against Mexicans. This year, the campaign could be equally outrageous but might opt instead for subtlety. This seemingly innocuous sentiment suggests, in the Trump universe, keeping foreigners out and deporting the undocumented people already here:

Trump had planned to be able to boast of a prosperous economy in the 2020 campaign. It was always questionable how much Trump was responsible for a strong economy, and fate dealt the president a nasty blow. The economy, as a result of the ongoing pandemic and the administration’s failure to deal with it effectively, has been sent into the toilet with little prospect of improvement in time to be of much help to the GOP ticket. Trump cannot brag about the financial health of the country, but he can assert that the economy is more important than, say, the health of school pupils:

Trump not only values the economy over the health of Americans (and especially of children, who don’t vote) but he also values economic health over the environment and the regulations intended to protect it. Many Trump supporters would resonate to this message:

The Trump administration has been characterized by disdain for competence. Cabinet secretaries have been selected for their political contributions rather than for their subject-area knowledge and experience. Trump’s disdain was even more in evidence as he dealt with (or failed to deal with) the pandemic. The president has refused to pay attention to medical and scientific experts. Instead, he seems to believe that he is the world’s greatest expert on every conceivable subject. Alas, America has always supported an anti-intellectual strain that can make a virtue of Trump’s dislike of experts:

Black Lives Matter demonstrations have given Trump an opportunity to bring out the ever-popular law and order Republican theme:

Black Lives Matter also suggests a more obviously racist slogan. Alter all, in Republican voting, black lives really do not matter:

A surprising initiative from the Trump administration is the campaign against mail-in voting. Given that Trump himself votes by mail, this effort is decidedly insincere. The strangest component of this crusade has been the attack on the United States Postal Service. The Trump-Pence ticket could try to minimize the significance of the anti-USPS effort:

Trump believes in family, albeit only his own. He could claim otherwise, suggesting a softer side of the president. This suggests:

Trump came into office arguing that we should have more friendly relations with Russia. Even President Obama attempted to “reset” U.S.-Russia relations, after all. Trump’s studied avoidance of ever saying a negative word about Russia or Vladimir Putin and his willingness to accept Putin’s word over that of his own intelligence services has been incomprehensible. This suggests a slogan that perhaps not even his most ardent supporters will fully appreciate:

Trump has eagerly taken credit for positive developments, even if his actions have not been the cause of them. (The rising stock market is one of his favorite “accomplishments.”) On the other hand, he seems incapable of taking responsibility for negative events or for actions that have the potential to turn out poorly. For example, rather than taking charge of the production and distribution of personal protective equipment needed by medical and other workers, he left the matter to governors. Those governors found themselves outbidding one another for PPE. Here is one slogan that certainly captures the Trump philosophy of governance, but it might not be popular, even with the true Trump believers:

We are unlikely to see any of these proposed Trump-Pence slogans, with the possible exception of “Law & Order.” It is worth thinking about what honest slogans of the GOP ticket might be. As Trump literally lies more often than he tells the truth, however, honesty will not be much in evidence in the 2020 presidential campaign.

Vote in Pennsylvania

 I believe that the November 2020 election is the most important election in my lifetime. It is probably also the most problematic, given the ongoing pandemic, Republican attempts to restrict voting, and the president’s efforts to discourage mail-in voting.

The upcoming election is of greatest importance for three reasons. First, we need to remove the proto-fascist Donald Trump from the White House. Second, if a President Biden is to be able to change the direction of the country, we need a Democratic Congress. Democrats need to hold the House and flip the Senate. Finally, state elections are crucial because the state legislators we elect will redraw electoral districts, a task that fell primarily to Republicans after the 2010 census and result in gerrymandering that assured that Republicans sent more people to Congress even in states where Democratic voters were in the majority.

The main message I want to send to my fellow Pennsylvanians is this: VOTE. Vote as though your life depends on it, but try to do so without actually putting your life in jeopardy. You can vote in person, of course, though this is potentially risky because of the coronavirus. It is better to vote by mail. It is no longer necessary to provide an excuse for doing so. Any voter can vote using a mail-in ballot.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has conveniently provided a Web site that provides all the information you need to vote. From that site, you can register to vote, check your registration, request a mail-in ballot, and find additional information related to the voting process. That Web site can be found here:

https://www.votespa.com/

Here are some important dates you need to keep in mind:

• The last day to register to vote if you are not already registered is October 19, 2020. Most people will be able to register on-line (see above link).
• Applications for mail-in and absentee ballots must be received by your county election office by 5 p.m. on October 27, 2020. You must be registered to submit an application. Most people can apply on-line (see above link).
• Ballots must be received by your county election office by 8 p.m. on election day, that is, November 3, 2020. Having an earlier postmark doesn’t count if your ballot is not received by that time.

Rules are slightly different for active-duty military personnel (see above link).

There are few compelling reasons to apply for an absentee ballot, which requires that you offer a reason for not voting in person. You can request a mail-in ballot simply because you want one. (This is a recent—and welcome—innovation.)

Finally, I offer some advice:

• If you are a resident of Pennsylvania and you are not registered, register to vote as soon as possible.
• If you are unsure about your voter registration, you can check it on-line.
• If you are registered, even if you think you will want to vote in person, request a mail-in ballot right away. If you choose not to use it, you may still vote in person.
• If you are going to vote by mail, fill in your ballot as soon as you get it and mail it to your county election office. (It can be hand-delivered if you prefer.) You can hold onto your ballot for a time if you are uncertain how you want to vote, but be keenly aware that your ballot must arrive on time to be counted. Do not rely on the swiftness of the U.S. Postal Service.

Remember: Democracy does not work if people don’t exercise their right to vote.

The Biden Agenda before the Biden Agenda

Joe Biden has articulated his plans and objectives for addressing myriad matters—the environment, education, women, gun violence, you name it. Each topic is treated on his Web site in a longish essay, not simply in a list of bullet points.

As of August 1, 2020, Donald Trump’s Web site is quite different. It is compact and concerned primarily with fund-raising. Only two issues are dealt with, and neither page treating one of these issues is linked to from what passes as the home page. The issues carry the titles “Drain The Swamp” and “Stand Against Antifa.” Apparently, these are the two most vital issues facing the nation in the Trump universe. Each page is virtually devoid of seemingly relevant text and, like the home page, concerns itself primarily with fund-raising.

What is the president’s plan for the environment, for civil rights, for prison reform, for the COVID-19 pandemic? Who knows! In fact, when questioned about his goals for a second term, Donald Trump could only speak of his natural talent and the failings of his enemies, most notably John Bolton. Trump never answered the question asked. However, his goals presumably include enriching himself and his friends through government action, continuing the dismantling of democratic institutions, alienating our allies, and enjoying the fellowship of foreign despots. Interestingly, the Republican Party has decided not to devise a new platform for the 2020 campaign but to simply reuse the platform from 2016. The party wasn’t going to get any fresh ideas from their current standard-bearer anyway.

Laudable though his intentions are, Joe Biden’s most important and urgent task is one that, out of political politeness, he is no doubt reluctant to publicize. Like a parent facing widespread devastation caused by a precocious but destructive toddler left alone in the house too long, Joe Biden must concentrate on cleaning up Trump’s messes. He must quickly build an administration comprising men and women of experience, competence, and unswerving loyalty to democracy and the rule of law. He must reassure our allies that a steadfast United States of America is back and that its flirtation with fascism is over. The Biden administration must begin re-implementing regulations annulled by its predecessor and seek to enact the most important ones into law. A Biden Justice Department needs to drop its support of anti-democratic conservative litigation and turn its attention to police department misconduct and the crimes of Donald Trump and his cronies.

Once the ship of state is diverted from its course toward the rocky shoals of autocracy, Joe Biden, his administration, and—it is to be hoped— a Democratic Senate and Democratic House of Representatives—can renew the goal of perfecting our Republic and again becoming a beacon of freedom in an increasingly dark and perilous world.

The Real Trump Platform

Republicans have decided to forego creating a new party platform for 2020 and to simply reuse their 2016 version. This is administratively simple, of course, but the United States of 2020 is very different from that of 2016, and Donald Trump’s agenda, now that Trump has seen what he can get away with, is rather more expansive. The president will not be too explicit about his real goals for the country, but we can glean some objectives from his actions and his tweets. Others, we can guess. Some of these ideas, he may be willing to talk about; others not so much.

Here is an attempt to discern the planks of Mr. Trump’s real platform for 2020:

1. Complete and strengthen the wall on our southern border and begin building a wall on our northern border.
2. Deport all people in the country found to be undocumented.
3. Eliminate all immigration into the U.S., both permanent and temporary.
4. Stop admitting asylum seekers.
5. Withdraw from the United Nations, NATO, and other multilateral compacts.
6. Add Russia to the G7.
7. Add a representative of Russia to the National Security Council.
8. Accept Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
9. Remove U.S. troops from Europe, Korea, Syria, and Afghanistan.
10. Increase spending on defense.
11. Increase arms sales to Saudi Arabia and Israel.
12. Eliminate the inheritance tax.
13. Decrease the corporate income tax.
14. Provide additional tax breaks for real estate developers.
15. Outlaw all abortions.
16. Keep niggers out of white suburbs.
17. Eliminate scientists and science advice from government.
18. Eliminate spending on science and medicine.
19. Eliminate public schools and universities in favor of for-profit education.
20. Protect statues of Confederate generals and other monuments to the Confederacy.
21. Put the portrait of Robert E. Lee on the $20 bill.
22. Outlaw books criticizing the president.
23. Strengthen laws against slander and libel.
24. Institute new taxes on newspapers and radio and television stations.
25. Outlaw mail-in voting.
26. Require a government ID for voting throughout the country.
27. Privatize postal and weather services, Social Security, and the IRS.
28. Begin charging admission for D.C. museums and monuments.
29. Make the Justice Department and Federal Reserve answerable only to the president.
30. Provide a domestic police force for the sole use of the president.

Perhaps you think the above list an exaggeration. A little, maybe, but it is certainly commensurate with Donald Trump’s inclinations. Only this morning has the president tweeted that we should postpone November’s election because mail-in voting is “INNACURATE & FRADULENT.” (He approves of "Absentee Voting,” which he himself uses, but he condemns “Universal Mail-In Voting.”) The Constitution be damned.

If you want a president with a real platform like the one above, by all means vote for Donald Trump in November, preferably in person and without wearing a mask. If you want to preserve our Republic, vote for Joe Biden by whatever means are at your disposal.

Votes for All—Universal Adult Suffrage

Voting access is the key to equality in our democracy. The size of your wallet, the number on your Zip code shouldn’t matter. The action of government effects every American so every citizen should have an equal voice. … We all count! It doesn’t matter whether you’re black, or white, Latino, Asian-American or Native American. We are one people. We are one family. We all live in the same house—the American house.

   — John Lewis, 2019

I recently watched the four-hour American Experience documentary “The Vote,” which traces the long road to women’s suffrage. “The Vote” is available on the PBS Web site, and I recommend it highly.

The documentary pointed out a characteristic of our laws that I had never thought about. As the franchise was expanded over the years, the Constitution was amended to say not who could vote but who could not be prevented from voting.

Voting by ordinary citizens was not dealt with in the Constitution until the post-Civil War amendments were enacted. In Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, citizenship is defined:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

This provision was required by the infamous Dred Scott Decision, which denied that Blacks could be U.S. citizens. Section 2 annuls the notorious provision of Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, which treated slaves—referred to as “other Persons”—as three-fifths of a person:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

(Notice that “persons,” not “citizens” are to be counted, despite President Trump’s recent instructions that the census should not count undocumented persons.) Section 2 also provides that a state’s representation can be reduced if the right to vote

is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime

This provision has been used to disenfranchise felons in some states. It has never been used to reduce a state’s representation. The provision was largely made moot by the 15th Amendment, Section 1 of which reads

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Taken together, the 14th and 15th Amendments require that, with minor exceptions, all men aged twenty-one or older may not be prevented from voting based on race, color, or having been a slave. (Apparently, some Southern states tried to prohibit people from voting whose parents or grandparents were slaves.) Nothing is said about prohibiting voting because of religion or sex. Arguably, the First Amendment made using religion to disenfranchise citizens questionable. Some women argued that these amendments should have given them the right to vote. They argued for their suffrage to be provided for explicitly. They did not carry the day.

Not until the ratification of the 19th Amendment, did women get the right to vote:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

It is unclear whether “sex” includes sexual minorities such as homosexuals. It is reasonable to conclude that it does, as the Supreme Court has just ruled that “sex” in legislation prohibiting discrimination in employment does indeed cover such people.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to enforce the protections of the 14th and 15th Amendments and explicitly outlawed certain mechanisms for denying the right to vote such as the use of literacy tests. Additional legislation over the years has sought to strengthen voting rights. In 2013, however, a major provision of the 1965 law was struck down by the Supreme Court. That provision required states with a history of discrimination to obtain federal clearance for any changes to their voting laws.  Shelby County v. Holder provided an excuse for Southern states to implement procedures intended to limit voting by racial minorities.

The 24th Amendment outlawed the franchise’s being dependent on paying a poll tax or other tax. The 26th Amendment, the most recent amendment touching upon voting, reduced the voting age to 18:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

The Constitution does not explicitly prohibit using other criteria to prevent people from voting, such as removing them from the voting rolls for not having voted in recent elections. Additionally, many states prevent incarcerated persons from voting, possibly even after they have served their term in prison. In Florida, for instance, felons lost their right to vote and had to go through an elaborate procedure to restore their rights upon release from prison. Floridians voted to eliminate that procedure, but the legislature passed a law that, before voting rights could be restored, all fines and mandated restitution had to be paid. Does that law run afoul of the 24th Amendment? That question awaits an answer.

If the United States is to be a true democracy, should not everyone be allowed to vote? Even criminals sent to prison remain citizens. What harm can come by allowing them to vote? They might even have special insights into our penal system that might profitably be taken into account. Given that this country incarcerates so many people, taking away those people’s franchise significantly reduces the electorate.

I believe, apparently as did the recently departed Congressman John Lewis, that all citizens should be allowed to vote. Period. Therefore, I propose a constitutional amendment that would make that ideal a reality:

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1. All citizens of the United States who are eighteen years old or older shall have an irrevocable right to vote.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This amendment, rather than describing who cannot be prevented from voting, simply declares that suffrage is universal among citizens. Moreover, events such as incarceration can have no effect on suffrage. One can lose the right to vote only be losing citizenship, by personal renunciation, for example. States could implement this amendment in various ways or Congress could specify a nationwide implementation. Ideally, voter lists can be done away with. When presenting themselves to vote, whether in person or remotely, people can simply self-certify that they are citizens. As now, severe penalties can be assessed on non-citizens caught trying to vote. (Although Republicans falsely claim that many non-citizens have been allowed to vote, there is no evidence for that belief.)

Would not such an amendment be a reform that enhances our democracy?

A New Name for the Redskins

So the Washington Redskins are finally to get a new name. Fine. What is it to be? I have been unimpressed by most of the names I have heard suggested. Redtails? That seems like a cynical attempt to embrace one minority after defaming a different minority for decades. Will the new uniform pants have scarlet seats?

An obvious naming strategy would be to take advantage of some aspect of the District of Columbia. After all, there once was a baseball team called the Washington Senators in town. This could be the new name for the NFL team. The team could adopt another name suggesting the governmental nature of Washington. We could cheer the Washington Lobbyists, the Washington Legislators, the Washington Lawmakers, the Washington Politicians (commonly called the Pols), or the Washington Solons. Less favorable references to our nation’s capital suggest names such as the Washington Swamp Rats or other names that, out of delicacy, I will not mention.

Many of those names probably would not work well, particularly those having more than two syllables. Actually, I sort of like Swamp Rats, though I doubt that has much chance of being selected. It does have but two syllables, which is a plus. (Go Rats!)

How about the Washington Leaders? If the team is actually any good, that name would have a double meaning. Again, the name has but two syllables.

My best suggestion is simply to call the football team the Washington Reds. Fans of the old name will see a surreptitious reference to the former name; detractors of the old name will see a name with no negative implications or, perhaps, will imagine a team of revolutionaries (or maybe Bolsheviks). The communist reference is a stretch. The name can just suggest a color. After all, my alma mater, the University of Chicago, fields the Maroons. What, after all, is a Maroon?

Well, I await a final decision about the team name from the Redskins front office. Is anyone ready to wager on what name will be selected?

Community vs. Individual Concerns in the Time of Pandemic

What is needed to control the coronavirus until a vaccine is available, we are told, is extensive testing and effective contact tracing. We should all be wearing masks and be distancing from one another. This will allow us to identify outbreaks and quickly contain them. There is general agreement, except in the White House, that we have not yet achieved effective control of the virus by these means.

Coronavirus

We must recognize, however, that even if we have readily available testing and contact tracing, and people are wearing masks and avoiding getting close to one another, individuals are not immune to catching the virus. Some people will be infected, and they may get sick and possibly die. The benefit to the community is that fewer people will become sick, and a good deal of economic activity can resume with reduced risk. The heavy burden currently being felt by hospitals, EMS personnel, and funeral homes will be substantially reduced, and the nation will be a happier place.

The one bright note for individuals is that the medical establishment is learning how better to treat COVID-19 patients. There is still no cure, but treatment is improving, and one’s chance of surviving a COVID-19 hospitalization has improved. Because, even with extensive testing and contract tracking, individuals are not immune to getting sick, however, it is wise to do everything you can to stay well—wear a mask, wash your hands, avoid touching your face, and avoid people—especially crowds of people—as much as possible. If you can, stay home and watch Netflix or read War and Peace.

Good luck surviving this pandemic.

Masks

Despite the now universal medical advice that, during this time of pandemic, people should wear masks in public to decrease the spread of the coronavirus, many people refuse to do so. Masking has unfortunately become a political issue. People eschew masks as effete or as a concession to a science in which they have no faith or in recognition of Donald Trump’s assertion that the pandemic is some kind of liberal plot. To my knowledge, no one has so far been killed in arguments over mask-wearing, but that may well happen before the pandemic subsides.

The militantly unmasked are doubtless inspired by the actions of the president. Donald Trump has consistently dismissed the viral threat despite the 135,000 deaths in the U.S. that have been caused by it. He has made a point of not wearing a mask, even in situations in which doing so has seemed particularly urgent. Today, for the first time, he unabashedly wore a mask publicly in a visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. One suspects that the hospital staff was insistent on mask usage to protect its patients. The president has not suggested that he has changed his mind regarding masks, however, and today’s mask usage is probably a one-off event.

I believe that the zealous opposition to mask-wearing could largely be extinguished if the president would simply proclaim that he will wear a mask whenever he is interacting with others and that he urges everyone to follow his lead in order to decrease the spread of disease.

Why is Mr. Trump so reluctant to take this simple action? Why is he willing to contribute to already appalling death toll by failing to do the obvious?

Can Americans Follow Through?

The increasing number of COVID-19 cases, mostly in the South and West, was totally predictable. States went through a period of shutdown without developing testing and tracing capacity and without achieving the decreasing incidence explicitly recommended by White House guidelines (though ignored by the president himself). When states like Florida and Texas began “opening up” their states, people, especially young people, behaved like the contents of a shaken soda bottle that was suddenly uncapped. Masks were left at home; people gathered in large celebratory groups; and infections invariably followed. People were tired of restrictions, and politicians did not have the will (or the good sense) to assure that the re-opening of their states would be at least relatively safe from contagion. As a nation, America has not had the will to see the project of suppressing the coronavirus to a minimally damaging conclusion. Such a seeming failure of will is not unheard of but is not inevitable.

Americans have often seen existential challenges to the end. Despite repeated setbacks, the country pursued its fight for independence to a successful conclusion. The Union finally won the War to Preserve Slavery (i.e., the Civil War). There were protests about the war and about conscription, but the nation even held a presidential election in the middle of the war. World War II, despite its loss of life, its disruptions, and its privations was prosecuted successfully and led to the Pax Americana. Smaller conflicts that were not existential threats were too quickly concluded to inspire heavy opposition or caused too little disruption of everyday life for the citizens to demand their end (think the war in Afghanistan).

Unfortunately, Americans have not always responded courageously to significant moral challenges. The writing of the Declaration of Independence was nearly derailed over slavery, and American’s original sin persisted until the conclusion of the Civil War. Having finally put slavery behind us, the nation failed again, however, truncating Reconstruction and paving the way for the backlash that became Jim Crow. The Civil Rights movement of the last half of the twentieth century rolled back many of the indignities long visited on Black people, but the gains were partial and, in many cases—think of the Voting Rights Act— did not last intact.

We now face two moral challenges, and it is unclear whether Americans have the will to overcome them. One is the current Black Lives Matter movement that seeks to reform policing, do away with monuments to the Confederacy, and achieve the promise of equal rights implicit in the Declaration of Independence and in Reconstruction. This revolution is centuries overdue. Will it be successful this time? That success is hardly assured. If Donald Trump is re-elected, the dream of equality will again be suppressed.

The second moral challenge we face simultaneously is overcoming the coronavirus. The opening up of states in the South and West is proving to be disastrous. Americans are impatient to return to their normal lives, and politicians, most notably the president, are exploiting that impatience. Will we be successful in minimizing the effects of the pandemic until a vaccine is available? Or will we sacrifice American lives out of collective impatience and the eagerness of the president to improve the economy to buoy his election chances?

It is unclear that America will meet either of these moral challenges. Eventually, of course, the coronavirus will be reduced to a manageable threat, as have been measles or polio. The cost in lives and treasure may be heavy, however.

It is less clear that justice for the race we once enslaved will, at last, be achieved.

Nominations for the National Garden of American Heroes

In a July 3 speech at Mount Rushmore, President Donald Trump announced plans for a “National Garden of American Heroes” to honor great Americans. The garden is to contain statues—they must be straightforward likenesses of those honored—of the likes of Billy Graham, Henry Clay, Davy Crockett, Dolley Madison, Ronald Reagan, and Antonin Scalia. A Washington Post story on Mr. Trump’s idea suggests that the proposed list is odd and seems designed to please his own supporters. Of course, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are included, but many other names are unlikely to be at the top of lists compiled by legitimate historians.

If this initiative is really intended to ingratiate Mr. Trump with his ardent supporters—and there is no doubt that this is the case—the list really needs to be more focused on that objective. To that end, and as a service to our president, I offer the off-the-top-of-my-head list of potential honorees below. My list is in no particular order. Perhaps readers can offer additional names:

1. Jefferson Finis Davis
2. George Armstrong Custer
3. Fielding Lewis Wright
4. Charles Augustus Lindberg
5. Fred Christ Trump
6. Roger Brooke Taney
7. George Corley Wallace Jr.
8. Phyllis Stewart Schlafly
9. Jason Gould
10. Robert Edward Lee
11. Andrew Jackson
12. Ayn Rand
13. Theophilus Eugene “Bull” Connor
14. Preston Smith Brooks
15. Andrew Johnson
16. Orval Eugene Faubus
17. Ronald Wilson Reagan
18. Isabella Maria Boyd
19. William Jennings Bryan
20. Joseph Raymond McCarthy
21. Antonin Gregory Scalia
22. Charles Edward Coughlin
23. Jesse Alexander Helms Jr.
24. James Strom Thurmond Sr.
25. Rose O’Neal Greenhow
26. John Caldwell Calhoun
27. Ross Robert Barnett

I have to admit that I needed to look up some of these people to get their full names. I included no living persons, who surely would not grace the memorial garden—at least, not yet.

No person is totally good or totally bad, of course, so even liberals may find laudable qualities in some of the persons listed. (Perhaps not too many, however.)

The president intends for his garden to educate citizens. Who can argue with this objective? If readers do not recognize all the names above, they can research the accomplishments of these American heroes.

Thoughts on the Department of Justice

The United States of America is a nation of law. Or so we were taught in school. We have a venerable Constitution that defines the overall structure of the Republic and a Congress and president that are responsible for enacting laws. We have a judicial system, including a Supreme Court, that interprets the law and relies on the body of laws and judicial opinions developed over more than two centuries.

Justitia by
Maarten van Heemskerk, 1556

These institutions and resources, though vitally important, underspecify how the country actually works. For example, the Constitution is silent about political parties, yet our two-party system of private entities has become a seemingly essential component of our governing system.

Additionally, American government adheres to many unwritten rules. Votes are countered honestly, at least most of the time. Presidential candidates disclose their medical and financial records before standing for election. Presidential nominees requiring Senate confirmation get a hearing and a vote by the Senate. Presidents, who occasionally are known to shade the truth, are not expected to lie more often than not. The Department of Justice administers federal laws fairly and without favoritism.

Donald Trump and his Republican allies have defied conventions that may not be enshrined in law but which are essential to the workings of the Republic. He refuses to disclose his tax returns and offers laughable excuses for medical information. He fires competent office-holders and replaces them with temporary lackeys. He lies to the public, often seemingly for the sheer sport of it.

Most distressingly, the convention of a Department of Justice enforcing the rule of law and representing the interests of the United States before the courts has been conspicuously violated. Under President Donald Trump, Attorney General William Barr has led a Department of Justice intent on protecting the president, his friends, and his personal interests. Readers can easily enumerate the myriad ways in which Mr. Barr has acted as the president’s fixer, rather than an advocate for the rule of law and for the interests of the United States.

One hopes that, in November, President Trump will fail in his re-election bid, and, in January, President Biden will fire Mr. Barr and nominate a more conventional Attorney General. We should ask what we can do to avoid ever having another Attorney General like William Barr.

Assuring the independence of the Department of Justice is difficult. Although it seems as though William Barr is doing everything the president wants him to do, it is not really clear that he is taking his orders from the chief executive. Mr. Barr seems to hold the view that the president can do just about anything, and his interests override those of everyone else and of the country generally. He never should have been confirmed by the Senate.

The view of the presidency held by William Barr is, happily, a minority one. One hopes that the Senate will, in the future, assure that no one with such an anti-democratic view will be approved as Attorney General. (Actually, senators had every reason to expect Mr. Barr to act as he has, despite his less than candid answers before the Senate.)

What is needed (and the best we can do) is a mechanism to assure that justice is administered fairly and without influence by the president.

Ideally, I think, the Department of Justice should become a fourth branch of government, headed by an Attorney General appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Attorney General should have a fixed term, perhaps of 10 years, and be removable for cause only through impeachment by the Congress. The advantages of this organization should be immediately apparent. Although this would be a logical arrangement, it is unlikely to be implemented, as doing so would require a constitutional amendment.

Perhaps a not-too-dissimilar organization would work nearly as well based on something like the Federal Reserve model. Presidents invariably try to influence the Federal Reserve, but usually without success. Of course, the Fed is protected from presidential influence in part because the president does not control who all the decision-makers are. Nonetheless, the Department of Justice could be restructured a largely autonomous body with a fixed-term leader insulated against arbitrary dismissal.

I  don’t have a fully worked-out plan for Justice, but I do think the above ideas should be given some consideration. The rule of law in the United States is under threat, and we need to do something about it.

Note: As it happens, today is the 150th anniversary of the establishment of the Department of Justice. Most people assume Justice it is much older. Its beginnings and thoughts about its possible future are offered in a Washington Post editorial that can be read here.

A 51-Star Flag

I have long been ambivalent about giving statehood to the District of Columbia. Clearly, the District is “different” from the existing 50 states, but the same sort of argument was made against statehood for Alaska and Hawaii. Whereas the last two states added to the Union were non-contiguous with the rest of the country, D.C. is special in other ways. Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution grants Congress the power to legislate for a district carved out from other states to be the seat of the government, a parcel “not exceeding ten Miles square.” (The actual area of the District of Columbia is just over 68 square miles, well under the 100 square mile stipulation of the Constitution.)

Residents of the District cannot vote for president and vice president, and they have neither senators nor voting representatives in the House. Yet, there are more than700,000 such souls, and they have long called for their being fully-enabled citizens of these United States. The population of the District exceeds that of Wyoming and Vermont. At this moment, when the country seems to be realizing that black lives do indeed matter, statehood has become especially pressing, as more than 45% of the residents of Washington are black. The Republican-led Senate will surely oppose statehood for the federal district, but a Democratic Senate, House, and White House, come 2021, almost certainly will enact it.

In fact, the House of Representatives passed a statehood bill, H.R. 51, on June 19. It would maintain a federal district mandated by the Constitution consisting only of federal buildings and monuments. The rest of the present District of Columbia would become Washington, Douglas Commonwealth, named for Frederick Douglass, the long-dead abolitionist whom Donald Trump opined has “done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more.” (Douglas spent the last 17 years of his life, which ended in 1895, in Washington.) It is unclear how we will speak of the federal government should the District be given statehood. “Washington” will refer to the current District of Columbia less government property.  Will be speak instead of “D.C”? “Columbia” refers, of course, to Columbus, whose star has lost its luster of late, so I don’t know how long “District of Columbia” is viable in a woke U.S. Time will tell.

The proposed name is a bit odd, of course, but needs to be distinguished from the other Washington on the Pacific coast. The proposed state would not be alone in having a long name. Rhode Island is technically the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, a name legislators are newly attempting to shorten. Whereas “the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations” can easily and unambiguously become “Rhode Island,” Washington, Douglas Commonwealth, cannot so simply be abbreviated without ambiguity. However, we speak of “Washington” all the time, and context indicates which Washington is intended. “Washington, Douglas Commonwealth,” allows “Washington, D.C.,” to continue to be proper nomenclature, albeit not, technically, for the seat of government of the United States. Were that not an advantage of the House proposal, perhaps East Washington could have been the name of the new state, analogous to the names of the Carolinas and Dakotas.

Republicans, of course, are unconcerned with democracy or the proper treatment of downtrodden minorities. They are only concerned with the fact that Washington, D.C., is largely Democratic and that statehood will likely add two Democratic senators and a Democratic representative to Congress. Given that other features of the Constitution that help Republicans by giving unrepresentative power to rural domains are unlikely to be changed any time soon, the addition of Washington, Douglas Commonwealth, will go a little way toward making Congress and the White House more truly representative.

I have worried about the state of our flag should another state be added to the Union. Admittedly, although 48 stars seemed perfect, the 49-star flag is acceptable. Perhaps it is even improved aesthetically by being a little less regimented. I really had not considered how to fit 51 stars onto the flag, but others have. Here is the most promising design, one most in keeping with recent versions of the U.S. flag:

The above design is courtesy of the Flag Institute. It looks pretty good, no?

Shirley Jackson Day 2020

Shirley Jackson

“The morning of June 27th was clear and sunny, with the fresh warmth of a full-summer day; the flowers were blossoming profusely and the grass was richly green.”

Thus begins the most famous story written by Shirley Hardie Jackson (1916–1965), “The Lottery.” The short story was published in the June 26, 1948, issue of The New Yorker and is infamous for the angry letters and canceled subscriptions it provoked.

“The Lottery” was my introduction to Jackson, who is known mostly for her horror and mystery works. Her well-crafted and shocking story led me to read her two best-known novels, We Have Always Lived in the Castle, and The Haunting of Hill House. I’ve also read her humorous memoirs Life Among the Savages and Raising Demons, the savages and demons in question being her four children. Jackson was a prolific writer, and I have many more of her works on my reading list.

Jackson spent much of her life in North Bennington, Vermont, a town that she reputedly had in mind when writing “The Lottery.” Nevertheless, North Bennington has celebrated Shirley Jackson Day in recent years every June 27. As a result of the current pandemic, Shirley Jackson Day is to be a virtual event in 2020. For those of us who do not live in Vermont, this is an unexpected blessing, as we can experience readings from her works on the Internet. Details of the event can be found here. The celebration begins at 7 pm EDT.

Our Honored Confederate Generals

President Trump has been adamant in his opposition to renaming military installations carrying the names of generals of the Confederate States of America. He justified the continued memorialization of these traitors to the American Republic via Twitter:

It has been suggested that we should rename as many as 10 of our Legendary Military Bases, such as Fort Bragg in North Carolina, Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Benning in Georgia, etc. These Monumental and very Powerful Bases have become part of a Great American Heritage, and a history of Winning, Victory, and Freedom. The United States of America trained and deployed our HEROES on these Hallowed Grounds, and won two World Wars. Therefore, my Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations. Our history as the Greatest Nation in the World will not be tampered with. Respect our Military!

As usual, our president is tone-deaf and obsessed with displaying his manhood.

Bases were named after Confederate generals as a sop to the South. More than a century and a half after the conclusion of the Civil War, however, it is time to celebrate the Union and to consign the Confederacy and its champions to the graveyard of morally corrupt ideas. If a base is renamed, its history, however storied, does not disappear, but only its association with the cause of slavery

Some will assert that base names don’t matter. I freely admit that, during my brief Army career, it never occurred to me to ask after whom the bases to which I was assigned were named. Having recently become an issue brought to light through the continuing racism revealed in police murders of black citizens, racism clearly not obliterated by Union victory in the Civil War, the celebration of military traitors can no longer be ignored. Among the bases named for those who led troops against the United States are some very substantial installations. The bases are:

• Fort Hood, Texas, named for General John Bell Hood
• Fort Lee, Virginia, named for General Robert E. Lee
• Fort Bragg, North Carolina, named for General Braxton Bragg
• Fort A.P. Hill, named for Lieutenant General A.P. Hill
• Fort Pickett, Virginia, named for the hapless Major General George Pickett
• Camp Beauregard, Louisiana, named for General P.G.T. Beauregard
• Fort Gordon, Georgia, named for Major General John Brown Gordon
• Fort Polk, Louisiana, named for Major General Leonidas Polk, a former Episcopal bishop
• Fort Rucker, Alabama, named for General Edmund Rucker
• Fort Benning, Georgia, named for Brigadier General Henry L. Benning

Naming installations after enemies of the nation is ridiculous on its face. Apparently, it seemed to make sense at one time. If we are to accept this self-flagellatory process, why stop at celebrating Confederate generals? Here is a short list of names for President Trump to consider:

• Fort Benedict Arnold
• Fort Aaron Burr
• Port Aldrish Ames
• Julius & Ethel Rosenberg National Laboratory
• Camp John Brown (admittedly somewhat ambiguous)

Of course, the president will neither use these names nor assent to changing the names of bases named for Confederate generals. The military or Congress may do the job for him, if not soon, then once a new president is in office. Perhaps a promise to do so should be in the Democratic platform this year.

Trump Really Doesn’t Seek to Divide Americans

It is often said that Donald Trump seeks to divide Americans rather than unite them. His actions certainly have that effect. Nevertheless, I don’t think that division of Americans is really Trump’s objective.

Donald Trump knows in his heart that he is a minority president, that most people dislike him and everything he stands for. But he is who he is, and Mr. Trump is not about to pander to the majority, which frankly hates his guts. Instead, everything he does is intended to please his base, those folks who think like him and, in most cases, adore him. He is terrified of losing any of these people because he has no talent or inclination to win over Americans who are not already devoted to him.

Dividing Americans is not really a good political strategy, either for winning elections or for governing. But Donald Trump has discovered, probably much to his surprise, that, with a devoted following and substantial help from our undemocratic electoral system, he can win a national election. In 2020, however, the voters disdained by the president are more strongly motivated than they were in 2016.

Let us hope that Mr. Trump’s perverse strategy doesn’t work twice.