More than half of us want to see action on gun control, but nobody I know expects Congress to pass a law. It cannot. With few exceptions, Congress is devoid of leaders. Most members on both sides plan their every move with the next election in mind. And they do not have the time to develop legislation because they are too busy fundraising, posting on social media, or trying to get on Fox or MSNBC. It is sad, but that’s only part of the story.

Somehow the quality of people serving in Congress is declining. Missouri once sent Stuart Symington to the Senate. Today fist-pumping Josh Hawley represents it. At least two members of the House of Representatives are openly anti semitic, Representatives Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Omar Ilhan (D-MN). Tlaib accused Jews serving in Congress of dual loyalty, suggesting they may be more loyal to Israel than to the United States. “They forget who they represent,” she said. 

Omar Ilhan is also accused of antisemitism, but is also known for selling t-shirts reading, “F**k around and find out” on her campaign website. Ilhan is not known for her legislative leadership or her ability to collaborate with Republicans.

On the Republican side, more than a dozen members regularly contribute to the destruction of the credibility, and to the worsening dysfunction, of Congress. The list includes gun fanatic Lauren Boebert (R-CO), QAnon follower Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), and, of course, Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who has been accused of sex trafficking. Other Republicans are accused of complicity in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol.

Misbehaving members of Congress are nothing new. Memories of Wayne Hays (D-OH) affair with employee Elizabeth Ray come to mind. Jim Traficant (D-OH) was expelled from the House and served seven years in prison for taking bribes, racketeering, and having staff members perform chores on his farm. Remember Wilber Mills (D-AR) and the “Argentine Firecracker,” Fanne Foxe?

There will be future episodes of bad judgment, alcohol abuse, and plain stupidity involving congresspersons and senators. Those episodes, too, will injure the credibility of Congress. But today we see something worse. We see members of Congress openly disobeying the rules Congress sets for itself. Consider the case of House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). As widely expected, he has effectively announced he won’t comply with the subpoena he received from the House Select Committee on the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol.  Other subpoenaed Republicans are expected to follow suit. Their plan:  Attack the legitimacy of the Committee, make unrealistic demands in exchange for testifying, and run out the clock until Congress adjourns for the year.

McCarthy and the Republicans actions seriously injure Congress for multiple reasons. Among them are openly violating the legitimate request of a duly created committee and seeking to subvert the work of Congress in investigating the most serious threat to democracy in recent times. An extremely dangerous precedent is being established that may please Donald Trump in the short term but will lead to favors being returned in future Congresses.

In eight months, Congress may very well be in Republican control. Mr. McCarthy is expected by many to be elected Speaker. Will he, as members of the Freedom Caucus and Donald Trump have suggested, proceed to impeach President Biden?  Unfortunately, the odds are better than 50-50. 

Members of Congress of both parties have become increasingly comfortable with open political warfare. Efforts to find common ground are now uncommon. Political fights are not resolved in Congress but fought out in the media. Lying has now become the norm. Members caught in lies no longer fear accountability. You get the idea.

I wonder if all is not lost—if Congress and representational democracy is not living on borrowed time. If it is, get ready for more Donald Trumps and worse (yes, that is possible). The only thing that can save democracy is for the people to start exercising it. That means people following Congress and government closer and holding those who undermine democracy accountable. That means voting members of Congress and senators who are not civil, do not focus on the common good, and who otherwise violate common decency out. 

The American people rid itself of Donald Trump in the 2020 election. Today 76 percent of Americans disapprove of how Congress is doing its job. Congress needs to reform itself or get ready to go out of business. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

I am still reeling from too many hours of news coverage of the mass shooting in Buffalo. Ten people murdered for being Black. A white racist, “radicalized” via the internet, conducted reconnaissance trips and selected a target two hundred miles from home. The shooter may be mentally ill but was functional enough to successfully execute a dramatic act of racist terror. He was also ready to die for the cause of reducing the number of Black people.

What are we to make of this and similar incidents of pure hate? More importantly, can we claim to understand what happened and why? 

I worry that we are somehow doing something to contribute to the growth of hate and the willingness of some of us, all too often younger White males, to embark on suicidal missions of death intended to somehow stop people of color from taking over the America. Or, better stated, is there something we are not doing that we should be? 

One explanation of the Buffalo and similar eruptions of hate is that they are an inherent side-effect of efforts to create a more equitable society. Achieving racial equity and justice means that those subject to past and current disadvantage based on race will get some, and ideally all, of the benefits of removal of those disadvantages. This means that people of color will enjoy a greater share of the national pool of economic and social equity. It also means that Whites will enjoy less. Whites will have less of that equity because it will not have that portion of the equity that reflected White privilege.

The change in both opportunity and economic achievement that is inherent in a more just society is difficult for many Whites to accept. As the Biden administration appoints people of color to top posts in government, for example, some Whites feel resentment and assume the appointees did not merit their jobs. Some of us also balk at seeing people of color serving as judges, corporate executives, doctors, and any other job not involving manual labor or sports. At the heart of this assumption is that most people of color remain “intellectually inferior” to most White people. 

The movement towards a more just and equitable society is prompting some White people to vent anger at what they see as “their country” being “given away.” Racism and hate have come out of the closet to degree not seen since the 1960s. In the 1960s there were race-motivated murders and terrorism, but not the mass shootings that we see today, or so it seems. 

Why have racists become more comfortable sharing their hatred? One explanation is that racism is more acceptable and public today than in the recent past. Racism today frequently does not result in accountability or punishment, encouraging more racism. And because some of the racists are government officials—like Donald Trump who infamously suggested that Mexicans were rapists and drug-dealers—some racists take pride in “telling it like it is.”  Also, unlike in past eras, racists’ beliefs are often “confirmed” by being discussed on cable and other news media outlets. Fox News personalities come to mind-Please don’t call them journalists or any other title that implies they are anything other than propagandists for right-wing, often racist thinking.

Finding a solution to the problem—something to address the race-hate and terrorism—may be impossible, but we must try. The efforts must go beyond trying to identify troubled individuals that have already been “radicalized” or those who are already in the process of planning a mass murder. Instead, we need to try a couple of things. First, all of us need to accept that to achieve equal justice for all, economic inequality based on racism or the vestiges of racism needs to be addressed. This means understanding the history of both slavery and the virulent race-hate that followed it. Second, we need to make sure everyone understands that aggressive action to create racial equity is in everyone’s interest. 

If everyone understood that people of color are not “taking over America,” racists might calm down. Their racism is unlikely to disappear, but they will be less likely to feel personally threatened by seeing diversity in business and government. And if they came to embrace the concept that the elimination of inequality and inequity in society will make all of us safer and freer, the race-hate we see around us will start to dissipate.

How might America change the thinking of racists? For starters, purveyors of race-hate need to lose their platforms on the web. Just as the First Amendment doesn’t protect individuals who yell “fire” in a crowded theater, those that foment and encourage violence need to be silenced. The First Amendment is no more of a license to engage in terrorism than the Second Amendment is to shoot people at random.

Action is needed now. The best minds in the country need to be brought together to analyze the trend of increasing race-motivated violence, identify its causes, and recommend a series of actions to address it. Am I naïve to hope that Republicans might join Democrats in supporting this type of effort?

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

You’ve heard it before. What is taking the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol so long to complete its investigation? I wonder about this and worry that Republicans might “run out the clock” before the Committee completes its work. 

For those who want the truth about what happened on January 6 and who was responsible, there is good news this week. The committee will start public hearings on June 9. That first hearing will trigger a series of hearings that will dive into what Trump knew about the insurrection—and whether he was its mastermind.

We already know that after inciting rally attendees outside the White House on the morning of January 6, Trump retired to the White House private dining room despite stating, “I’ll be with you.”  For the next several hours, Trump watched the rioters throw flag poles at police, smash doors and windows, and legislators flee for their lives. He watched as the vote count to certify the election of Joe Biden was disrupted. When asked to call the rioters off, he declined for several hours.

While watching the events on multiple TVs, Trump was also on the phone. He had several calls with House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan, and others. What did they tell the President? What did he ask them to do?

Did Trump and others engage in a seditious conspiracy which is a felony? Many believe the answer is yes. To convict an individual of seditious conspiracy, the government must “prove that the defendant in fact conspired to use force.”  That is a heavy lift: “Simply advocating for the use of force is not the same thing [as just advocating the use of force] and in most cases is protected as free speech under the First Amendment.”

The January 6 committee (and the Department of Justice) already know Trump and his allies advocated the use of force. The investigation seeks to establish that the President’s actions went beyond talk. Who recruited the rioters and paid the expenses that made their deadly trip to Washington possible?

One reason the January 6 committee has taken so long to complete its investigation is that the Trump team has not only declined to cooperate with the investigation but appears to have attempted to hide evidence. Why was Trump using “burner phones” for his calls to Capitol Hill? 

If Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Chief-of-Staff Mark Meadows, and many others were complicit in planning the attempted coup, how likely is it that they attempted to hide their involvement? 

Fortunately for America, the committee did not abandon its efforts to conduct a comprehensive, thorough investigation after it met with uncooperative and, it appears, lying witnesses. After 10 months of work, it is ready to start publicly sharing its findings.

Here is what we are likely to learn this summer:

Trump approved the effort to disrupt the certification of the 2020 vote. It was one of several strategies, including dozens of unsuccessful lawsuits, intended to overturn election results. Disrupting the vote certification was a desperate, obviously illegal, action.

Several prominent Congressional Republicans knew the riot would take place and approved it. Remember Missouri Senator Josh Hawley fist-pumping rioters as they streamed towards the Capitol to smash windows and try to hang Mike Pence? The complicit legislators might include McCarthy, Jordan, Cruz, and Hawley, as well as a full clown-car carrying Lauren Boebert, Mo Brooks, Andy Biggs, and several other members of the Freedom Caucus.

Trump’s team was directly involved in raising funds to support the organization and training of members of groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers that were recruited to come to Washington. Fundraising helped pay their expenses while in Washington. The investigation will uncover not only who wrote checks, but also who requested them to write checks and what contact they had with Trump, Trump family members, and White House staff.

White House staff and others associated with Trump developed the strategy of how to retain the presidency and transmitted it to the insurrectionists. This means that White House officials wrote the January 6 “battle plan” and Trump approved it. 

A minute-by-minute account of what Trump did on January 6. The expected detailed description of a president watching TV in the hopes that the attack would be successful will further damage Trump’s already plummeting popularity. The disgusting disclosures of a president enjoying the events of January 6 might finally end his leadership of the Republican party.

If the January 6 committee hearings are as powerful as some predict, the dynamics of the 2022 mid-term elections and, more importantly, the 2024 presidential election, could change. Recall that after Nixon’s overwhelming win in the 1972 election, Democrats won in a landslide in the 1974 mid-term elections and regained the presidency in 1976.

The January 6 hearings may prompt Americans who are still confused about the attack on the Capitol to realize it was a violent attack on democracy conceived of and executed under the leadership of the former President. 

Stay tuned. It will be a bad summer for Republicans. But a good one for our Constitutional democracy.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, nature, and other subjects.

Since the draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked to Politico, I have talked to a lot of people about it.  My pro-choice friends are as outraged as my pro-life friends are pleased. References to having “won” or “lost” are as common as disparaging comments about “the other side.”

One thing absent from the conversations is a detailed discussion of Justice Alito’s draft opinion. With very few exceptions, both sides ignore details. All that matters is the outcome.

Ignoring the legal arguments cited in support of the decision is unfortunate. Regardless of your position on abortion, it is important to acknowledge that the Court was doing what it is supposed to do—considering legal arguments related to the case before it and deciding the case based on its interpretation of the law and the Constitution.

 In the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Alito, apparently joined by four of his conservative colleagues, decided that the legal foundations for Roe v. Wade were wrongly reached in 1973 and should be overturned. Looking at the legal issues rather than whether we support abortion, is Justice Alito right?

The right to an abortion is not established in the Constitution in the same way as the right to bear arms, free speech, or freedom of religion. To establish the right to abortion, the Court in 1973 interpreted part of the Constitution, principally the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as creating a right that was not explicitly referenced. That right was the “Right to Privacy.” It is the basis for the right to abortion and serves as the foundation for several other rights, including interracial and same sex marriage.

The key finding in Roe is that:  “State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here [in effect in 1973], that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.”

The” bottom line” in Dobbs is not that the case bans abortion, it is that it returns the right to regulate the practice to the states. Abortion rights will remain in states, like Maryland, which have not enacted legislation restricting or banning abortion. The right will be restricted or eliminated in other states. Currently 23 states have such laws, including four that have passed a state constitutional amendment declaring that their constitution does not secure or protect the right to abortion. 

The draft opinion indicates that for a right to be found in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the rights had to have been largely established at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. In overturning Roe, Justice Alito found that the right to an abortion was not well-established in American law at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted,1868. He argues that because the right was not well-established in 1868, the right to an abortion cannot be read into the Constitution. 

If formally adopted by the Court, the decision in Dobbs will be difficult for a future Supreme Court to overturn. The opportunity for such a reconsideration may also not arise for several years given the current ideological makeup of the Court and the unlikelihood of a liberal majority in the next several years.

One way to expedite a reversal of the Dobbs decision would be for Congress to expand the size of the Supreme Court. That action, popularly referred to as “Court packing,” is unlikely given the party split in the House and Senate and the probability of a Republican majorities in both in 2023.

The other way to reverse Dobbs would be to pass a Constitutional amendment. That option is not being discussed at this point, given that approval requires the votes of three quarters (38) of the States. It is currently inconceivable that a pro-choice amendment will be approved in the next 10 years.

That leaves pro-choice advocates—supporters of women’s rights—one avenue to limit the impact of Dobbs. That avenue is changing state laws by electing executives and legislators supporting the right to abortion. 

The pro-choice v. pro-life fight is one that will be fought in the states. Proponents on both sides are well-advised to read the Dobbs opinion and shift the focus of their advocacy to states rather than the federal government. Absent the restoration of a federal right to an abortion, the issue is one that the states will control. 

Unless the role of the Supreme Court is changed from that of an interpreter of laws to some sort of super-legislature, the law and Constitution, as interpreted by the Court, will control the right to abortion. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, nature, and other subjects.

 

Remember the climate crisis? In October 2020, just before winning the presidency, Joe Biden discussed climate change with former Obama advisor Dan Pfeiffer.  Biden told Pfeiffer, “It is the number one issue facing humanity.” Biden went on to say, “Climate change is the existential threat to humanity. It is going to bake this planet. This is not hyperbole. It is real. And we have a moral obligation.”

Since his election, Biden has regularly proposed increased spending to address climate change.  He even appointed Former Secretary of State John Kerry to serve as  U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate.  But his leadership on the issue can be questioned. Listening to him today one wonders whether he still sees climate change as “the number one issue facing humanity.”

Why isn’t Biden talking more about this issue? The problem: It has been eclipsed by other issues. Topping the list are the war in Ukraine and inflation. We all worry about these two issues. Unfortunately, many other issues are of greater concern. These issues are tied to individuals’ party identification. 

Republicans will point to crime in the cities, border security, a host of “culture issues,” including Critical Race Theory, LGBQT rights, elections, and, of course, Biden himself. Democrats point to Trump and his continued assault on democracy, healthcare, affordable housing, student debt, income inequality, and social justice.

Where’s climate change? A friend of mine put it this way, “An immediate crisis always trumps a long-range one.”

Climate change is not a long-range problem. It is also unfair, especially to Democrats, to suggest it is not a party priority. President Biden proposes spending $45 billion on climate change in his fiscal year 2023 budget. Republicans, at least the minority no longer denying climate change, acknowledge the issue, but are silent on it. I cannot remember a Republican speaking out on the issue in the last year, can you?

Because Democrats control the House and Senate, chances are good that most or all the $45 billion requested for climate change will be funded this year. But is that amount commensurate with the gravity of the problem? And what happens next year? If, as widely predicted, Republicans win control of the House of Representatives and Senate, or even just one chamber of Congress, budget priorities will shift. It may not matter what President Biden proposes on climate change. That is a reason to worry.

President Biden and other Democrats know they have both a 2022 and 2024 problem. That is one reason they are not talking about climate change. The voters they need to appeal to are worried about other things. And with inflation raging, members of both parties are increasingly reluctant to engage in more massive federal spending. Things such as military and humanitarian support for Ukraine are likely to add up to more than $80 billion this year if Biden’s current request for another $33 billion is followed by additional requests as the war continues. 

That also brings us to the 2022 elections and, logically, 2024. Biden and his party are not ready to concede the 2022 elections. That means addressing the priorities of the party’s progressive wing. To win in November, Democrats must deliver on things like affordable housing, expanded healthcare, and student loans. All those priorities, regardless of their merit, decrease the chances of adequate funding for climate change.

Obviously, progressives consider climate change a priority, but it is one of several. If Biden were to make addressing climate change his top priority, as he promised to do in 2020, he would lose the support of many progressives, or at least their enthusiasm. That could guarantee losing at the polls. 

So, assuming President Biden was sincere in 2020 about climate change being the “number one issue facing humanity,” what should he be doing? For one, start talking about climate change. Just as his support for Ukraine has built public support for aid or Zelenskyy, Biden needs to put climate change back on the front page.

Biden also needs to redouble efforts to present scientific evidence of climate change and the need to address it to the public. One promising idea is to hold a high-profile White House conference on the subject, including foreign heads of state. Another idea is to dedicate a month to fighting climate change and encourage States and cities to hold events to raise awareness of the crisis. 

Finally, we all need to demand that candidates for office address the issue. 

Until this happens, not enough will be done about climate change, by President Biden or anyone else.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

What should we make of the “evolving” war in Ukraine? Should President Biden be congratulated for sending Ukraine more military and related aid, including increasingly advanced munitions? Or is Biden leading us into World War III? These are legitimate questions because American weapons are killing Russian soldiers every day. Pundits suggest that if Putin continues to suffer losses, he will turn to chemical or nuclear weapons. Or might he do something else to slow or stop the flow of arms into Ukraine?

What is the difference between giving Ukraine a lethal drone and a F-16 fighter? Or a nuclear submarine? Or a missile with a nuclear weapon on it? If the U.S. gave Ukraine the capability of launching a raid on Moscow, would the U.S. or Ukraine be responsible for the death and destruction that followed?

These are complicated issues. The war in Ukraine would already be over if the U.S. had not resupplied Zelenskyy’s forces. Tragically, Russia may have won the war, but the dying would be over. Instead, hopes for a quick end of the war prompted by Putin “realizing he made a mistake” have proven naïve. I know, I had those hopes.

Now I wrestle with how to reconcile hatred of Putin with the idea of the U.S. being at war. Morally, as President Biden tells us, Putin must be stopped. But the war in Ukraine is now a conflict in which the U.S. is all but a direct combatant. And that might be an understatement. I wonder whether U.S. service members might be lending a hand in flying the drones that are killing Russians. 

Ukraine is yet another war that the U.S. entered without a formal declaration of war. The public did not demand that the U.S. get involved. Rather, the president and his advisors decided getting involved was the right thing to do. Democrats and Republicans eventually followed his leadership. 

Today the debate in Washington is not over whether we should aid Ukraine, but whether we should aid them more. A vote in the House of Representatives for more weapons passed 361 to 69, with only 54 Republican votes and 15 Democrats voting no. (Want to see a vote where AOC (D-NY) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) voted the same way? This was it. By the way, Andy “Handgun” Harris voted for the bill.)

While I am OK with where we are today, I am nervous. Because Putin is a growing threat to world peace, I welcome Ukraine’s success in fighting back. But, less than a year after getting out of Afghanistan, the U.S. is moving towards direct involvement in another war. Will this “proxy war” evolve into another Afghanistan, or Vietnam?

To date, U.S. service members are not dying, but recall that for the last year or two of the war in Afghanistan, there were very few U.S. casualties. With the benefit of modern military technology, the U.S. was able to wage war in Afghanistan with few casualties. To date, we are waging war in Ukraine with no U. S. casualties. How much longer is that likely to continue?

Much will be written about the war in Ukraine in coming months, most of it an attempt to decipher the thinking of Vladimir Putin or to document the courageous leadership of Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people. Less will be written about the complicated and unresolvable ethical issues raised by the modern rules of war.

In six months, after the mid-term elections are over, the war in Ukraine may still be raging. By then, the U.S. is likely to have made several more gifts of arms to permit Ukrainians to continue the fight against Russia. As the 2024 presidential race gets underway, will Democrats run on their record in Ukraine? Will Republicans criticize them for not arming Ukraine enough or not engaging in direct combat? Or will Republicans, like Trump, blame Biden and the Democrats for leading the country into war and suggest that had Trump won the 2020 election, the war would never have happened?

If the above sounds to you like a murky, confusing, or useless debate, we agree. I cannot see a “right” answer emerging from the discussion or any answer clarifying the “modern rules of war.” The “rules of war,” surprisingly don’t provide an answer. As published by the International Red Cross, the rules “outlaw” things such as torture and killing civilians but don’t define what constitutes being in a war.

I wonder how many sitting members of Congress think the U.S. is currently at war in Ukraine. Isn’t it bizarre that a country can be at war and not be certain that it is?

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

Congress is a mess these days. I am not talking about politicians with whom I disagree on policy. The problem is the growing group of clearly unqualified people who somehow got elected to Congress. Many of them have little ability to understand policy, ethical issues, and who evidence temperaments incompatible with service in Congress. I call these legislators dysfunctional. They undermine the ability of Congress to do its work.

Currently, the Constitution provides minimum qualifications to serve in Congress. Article I, Section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution reads, “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five Years and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

Qualifications to serve in the U.S. Senate are more detailed, but also minimal. “No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.” 

It is not difficult to understand why so many obviously unqualified people have been elected to the House and Senate. More people are eligible to serve in Congress than not. 

One solution to better screening candidates would be to amend the Constitution to add more qualifications. One simple example would be to specify that persons currently in federal or state prison cannot serve in Congress. In 2002, an Ohio Congressman, James Traficant, ran for Congress while serving an eight-year sentence for bribery and racketeering.  He won 15 percent of the vote. 

Other criteria would be trickier to write and enforce. Currently, in Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, and Nebraska, candidates have been accused of sexual assault, stalking, and domestic violence. Should the Constitution bar them from running for office? What if subsequent trials or disclosure of facts prove their innocence?

A better approach than the unwieldy and lengthy process of amending the Constitution would be to encourage a credible, neutral organization to assess the qualifications of individuals seeking election to Congress. The organization would develop a set of criteria against which to assess the suitability of individuals to serve in Congress. The vetting organization would then issue a report indicating whether candidates are qualified. 

The process would be voluntary. Political parties and voters could ignore the findings of the organization, sometimes with good cause, but many clearly unqualified candidates would either be discouraged from running for office or would lose.

What might the organization conducting the assessments look like? Fortunately, a model exists–the American Bar Association (ABA). Acting through a specially composed committee, the ABA has been offering evaluations of the suitability of individuals to serve as federal judges since 1953. 

Importantly, the ABA, does not endorse nominees or recommend them.  It comments on individuals after they have been nominated for office. The ABA notes, “In conducting its evaluation of each nominee, the committee focuses strictly on professional qualifications: integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament. The Committee does not consider a nominee’s philosophy, political affiliation, or ideology. The Committee’s objective is to provide impartial peer evaluations of the professional qualifications of judicial nominees to assist the Senate Judiciary Committee in assessing whether such individuals should be confirmed by the Senate.”

In the case of judges, the President, and the Senate, which confirms judicial appointments, are free to ignore the ABA’s evaluation. That is the right approach. 

The ABA would not be the best organization to assess Congressional candidates. Finding the right organization would itself be a challenge. The organization must have financial independence and a governance structure that ensures the integrity of the process.

An appropriate organization would need to select the criteria to use in measuring candidates’ qualifications. One good starting place would be the standards currently used by the ABA in evaluating judicial nominees. Three criteria used by the ABA are integrity, professional competence, and temperament.

The most important qualification to serve in Congress is integrity. In evaluating this qualification, the ABA looks at “the nominee’s character and general reputation in the legal community, as well as the nominee’s industry and diligence. “

As applied to individuals seeking to serve in Congress, individuals’ records would be examined. Does the individual have a criminal record? If in business, did he/she have a reputation for honesty? Were they successful? Do they have a solid record of complying with regulations?

 A second category of criteria is professional competence. In evaluating individuals for the bench, the ABA looks at “such qualities as intellectual capacity, judgment, writing and analytical abilities, knowledge of the law, and breadth of professional experience.”

As applied to Congressional candidates, this evaluation might include a look at educational credentials, the individual’s communications skills, their experience in working with laws or in a legislative or governing body, and a summation of their professional experience.

There would be no wrong answers here, but an individual with 10 years of experience serving as a state legislator would be rated higher in that area than one with no prior experience in government. Similarly, a doctor might be viewed as having valuable professional experience that might benefit Congress as it considers healthcare legislation. 

Congress benefits by having individuals with a broad diversity of professional experience. It benefits less from members with little experience in working on public policy or who evidence little interest in listening to and learning from others before deciding to run for Congress.

The final criteria is “temperament.” The ABA qualifications reference “judicial temperament,” but the criteria listed are equally applicable to serve in Congress. These criteria include, “the nominee’s compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice under the law.”

I hope that both political parties will see the benefit of screening candidates. Both parties have suffered from “unqualified” people running for office. I will spare readers listing names of incompetent members of Congress. I will note, however, that the two best-known Democrats running for the First District seat in the House of Representatives would be deemed “qualified” or “highly qualified.”  That is my opinion. 

I would not expect Andy “Handgun” Harris to be deemed “qualified” based on his blind loyalty to the defeated ex-president, Trump, and for attempting to carry a loaded handgun onto the floor of the House of Representatives. Legislators with balanced temperaments and sound judgment do not do things like that. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

Last Sunday’s 60 Minutes included yet another segment on the leadership of Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the war in Ukraine. According to 60 Minutes, when Zelenskyy announced he would not leave Kyiv, the Ukrainian people united behind him, and the Russian invasion was doomed. It was an upbeat message, communicated not by Zelenskyy, who was interviewed for the segment, but by CBS News reporter Scott Pelley. I struggled to watch the piece through its conclusion.

I share the widespread admiration for Zelenskyy and the efforts of the Ukrainian people to date in fighting the Russians, but the war is not over. As I watched praise being heaped on the Ukrainian president, I thought about how quickly things might change. Forgive me for saying it, I thought about what might happen if Russia mounts a major new offensive or introduces chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. And what if Russia succeeds in murdering Zelenskyy?

Later Sunday evening, I read about the eight-mile-long convoy of fresh troops and tanks heading to Donbas. I also watched U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson touring bomb sites in Kyiv. Cynic that I sometimes am, I questioned Johnson’s motivations. Why was he there? Was it to bolster his image at home or to rally the Ukrainian people?

While Zelenskyy continues to plead for weapons, any assumption that Russia has been defeated is naïve and dangerous. It also can be embarrassing. Remember George W. Bush landing on an aircraft carrier and emerging from an airplane in a flight suit below a “Mission Accomplished” banner on June 5, 2003, regarding the Iraq war? Perhaps the best-remembered picture of Harry Truman is the 1948 photo of the President holding up a copy of the Chicago Daily Tribune with the headline, “Dewey Defeats Truman.” 

Assuming that Ukraine is about to defeat Russia, or better stated, assuming that Russia has suffered a stinging defeat, risks America and other countries not giving Ukraine the support it needs to survive. That is why it is disturbing to see so many articles and other reports painting Zelenskyy as some sort of superman. I even read this in a Detroit Free Press editorial: “One thing is clear: However halting his English or casual his dress, Zelenskyy is the leader of the free world today. What remains to be seen is how far smaller politicians presiding over much larger nations will follow him.”

Notwithstanding Zelenskyy’s performance to date, it is premature to declare him the leader of anything other than Ukraine. And Ukraine’s future is far from certain.

So, what about President Biden and the U.S. government? To his credit, Biden has been judicious in his comments about Ukraine, about the issues associated with providing more weapons or implementing a no-fly zone, and about Russia. The one exception was Biden suggesting Putin be removed from power—a sentiment shared by many but nonetheless not wise to say given continuing reports of Putin’s “desperation” raising the risk of his using nuclear weapons.

Biden is to be commended for how he has handled Ukraine, but the most problematic decisions remain ahead. If Russia launches a new offensive, Ukraine will need to be resupplied. If Russia steps up attacks on civilian targets, as appears to be the case, Ukraine will need more sophisticated weapons to respond. And if Russia manages to turn the tide and start regaining territory, the U.S. will have to do something even more dramatic.

All this is to say that the war in Ukraine, despite the unexpected success of Zelenskyy’s forces in resisting Russia to date, is far from over. The worst is yet to come. Predictions that Russia wants to end the war and devise a means of withdrawing “with honor” have proven false. Putin appears to be strapping in for a long, drawn-out war.

So, let’s stop expressing amazement about how Russia was defeated and accept the reality that a year from now, the war may still be ongoing. The West must accept the reality that we have a 21st century Hitler on our hands. It is time to figure out what needs to be done to proclaim the true victory for Ukraine that the media and others have prematurely pronounced. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

I dread this November’s midterm elections. And not just because most pundits predict Republicans will take control of the House and Senate. Rather, I fear the elections will highlight the unfortunate reality of today’s politics. Many of us are voting out of fear rather than hope. We vote to keep “the bad people” out of government rather than to endorse a specific agenda.

My statement, of course, does not apply to everyone. I know several principled Democrats and Republicans who study agendas and vote in the belief that one party is better for America than the other. Unfortunately, for every one of these voters, there seems to be three or four others who simply want “to keep Nazis out of power” (meaning Republicans when voiced by Democrats) or “stop socialism” (meaning Democrats when voiced by Republicans).

Voters using their precious franchise to vote against something or somebody rather than the opposite is nothing new, but today, the trend is becoming dominant.

I no longer expect to uncover a coherent Republican policy agenda. There has not been one since 2016. Trump was never a Republican in the true sense of the word and threw the legacies of the likes of Reagan and George H.W. Bush into the trash. Free trade, reasonable regulation of the economy, and world leadership were replaced with tariffs, deregulation at any cost (celebrated as dismantling the “deep state”), xenophobia, and outright racism. Trump championed the new agenda, vilified his opponent, and won the election.

Democrats won back the White House not because of the left-leaning agenda reflected in the 2020 Democratic platform, but because voters were sick or afraid of Trump. I know no Democrats who voted for President Biden who proclaimed that Biden was their first choice as the party’s nominee. All my Democratic friends wanted someone “who could win,” and Biden was deemed as “less toxic” or “more electable” than the alternatives, especially after Representative Jim Clyburn (R-SC) endorsed him and locked-in the African American vote.

Biden’s polls for the first year and a half of his presidency tell us that there is little enthusiasm for him. Unfortunately, there is also little confidence in his vice president. This brings us to a troubling truth:  Absent somebody to hate at the top of the Republican ticket in 2024, the Republicans are likely to retake the presidency.

The prospect of a Republican president with a Congress controlled by legislators who still embrace the Trumpian strategy of “America First” should frighten every American. America First means ignoring the necessity of progress in the areas of human rights, economic justice, fighting climate change, and maintaining democracy. If the current Republican agenda returns to power, democracy as reflected in the constitution will be living on borrowed time.

The Democrats to date have not put forward an agenda that can win elections without the boost that hatred of Trump and all that he represents provides. The progressive agenda reflected in the President’s “Build Back Better” agenda and his 2023 budget are not likely to win over voters who are more afraid of inflation than of increasing billionaires’ wealth. Biden’s efforts to promote diversity and racial justice, unfortunately, have alienated many white voters, including Democrats. One such Democrat asked me recently, “As a white man, do you think they are focused on you?”

As a supporter of things like addressing income inequality, eliminating racism, and cleaning up the environment, I see a lot of appeal in the Democratic agenda. But I am more motivated by fear of what Republicans will do if they return to full power in Washington. I wake up at night worrying about a President DeSantis trampling civil rights to create a “Christian America,” locking down borders, and making isolationism the centerpiece of American foreign policy.

I am concluding that both political parties are broken because both have lost the ability, and the interest in, running on policy rather than fear. Books have and will be written about how the parties have gone astray, but I have yet to see a blueprint for reversing the trend. And if our two-party system collapses, where does that lead us? 

I fear that the emphasis on the negative, practiced to an art by today’s Republicans, but also embraced by many Democrats, will convince voters, especially younger ones, that our system is broken—that democracy no longer works. If our parties collapse under their own weight, where will that leave us?

A few weeks ago, I passed a house with a “Let’s Go Brandon!” banner proudly displayed. We all know what that banner means. Do you need more evidence that our political parties are broken? 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

Last week John Queen of Chestertown wrote a letter to the editor of the Spy in support of Dave Harden, a Democratic candidate who hopes to replace Andy “Handgun” Harris in the U.S. House of Representatives. The letter suggested Democrats should support Harden over Heather Mizeur because she may be “unelectable” in the conservative-leaning First District. 

Queen wrote, “Heather Mizeur simply cannot win a general election in our moderate-to-conservative district. . .  What is relevant is that she represented Takoma Park for more than a decade as an elected official and has the far-left voting record to show for it. “ 

Queen goes on to say, “Andy Harris will have millions of dollars to define her as a far-left Takoma Park transplant whose mindset is fundamentally different than that of the typical First District resident.”

I was saddened to see the letter. Mr. Queen is right that should Heather Mizeur win the Democratic nomination, Dr. Harris will brutally attack her as a socialist, or worse. But what really upset me about the letter is the prospect of two good candidates slugging it out in a primary, thereby increasing the chances that Harris will embarrass us in Washington for two more years. 

Thus, the First District has a dilemma. If you agree that we need someone other than an anti-government, election-results-denying right-winger representing us, you want a unified Democratic party. And the only way for the party to unify is to make a difficult choice between two good candidates. 

The district must select the better candidate. Who is that? Is it the one who might be less susceptible to Republican Harris’ attacks? Or is it the candidate whose experience and expertise will best serve the First District in Congress?

I have a preference between the two, but this column is not about endorsing one of them. Eastern Shore Democrats–the activists who are the heart of the party—must make that decision. And that decision should be based on which candidate shares our vision of what government should be and how it should serve. 

Any democrat facing Dr. Harris faces a tough fight, but I reject the claim that a progressive candidate cannot beat Harris. Want proof? Review the elections of Senators Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff in Georgia in 2020. Or just ask Stacy Abrams for her opinion. She would tell you voter enthusiasm is everything. 

Democratic voters will be less enthusiastic about a Democratic nominee chosen based on who might be less susceptible to attacks from Dr. Harris. If that is the case, Dr. Harris will have chosen his own opponent. If that opponent proves to be Mr. Harden, Harris will attack him as viciously as he would have attacked Ms. Mizeur. I can imagine Harris ads telling us that Dave Harden lived abroad for more than two decades.

Thus, First District Democrats face a difficult choice. Would we be better served by an experienced expert in domestic policy with a demonstrated commitment to improving healthcare, education, housing, racial and social justice, and income equality or a foreign policy expert expert who was raised on the Eastern Shore and whose family’s Eastern Shore roots go back nine generations? 

I hope that Ms. Mizeur and Mr. Harden will increase their engagement with Eastern Shore voters and that a nominee will be chosen who enjoys the full support of all who want Dr. Harris out of Washington.  Either candidate would be huge improvement over Harris.

I want a new representative in Congress.  That means that I do not want to see mudslinging between Ms. Mizeur and Mr. Harden. Any nastiness that either of them might possess should be saved for the general election.

Democrats tearing down other democrats is not the way to win elections.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.