Is the GOP about to die? Current polls suggest that the party’s support in key demographic areas is sinking and that in January 2021, Biden will be President and Democrats will control both the House and Senate.  Those Republicans who have not already quit the party will engage in an orgy of finger-pointing and reassessment. The finger-pointing will be, well, pointless. The reassessment will be painful. If it’s an honest reassessment, the conclusion should be that it’s time for the party to hang it up.

Go out of business?  Yes. The GOP is an irreparably damaged brand. Several key demographics now associate it with injustice, inequity, and oppression. For many, mention of the word “Republican” will conjure up words like racist, greed, lying, white, misogynist, and old. True? For what appears to be a slight majority, yes. Those answering no are, sadly, more likely to be white, xenophobic, and distrustful of government.  

A brand so damaged cannot be saved. In large part, GM put Oldsmobile out of its misery in 2004 because it no longer stood for anything worth buying. They determined that reforming the brand, which would have meant radically improving its car, would not be enough to convince buyers to choose it over alternatives. Better to kill a skunk than to hope its stench can somehow be removed.

The demise of the Republican party is already underway. California’s election rules already result in many November elections pairing two Democrats to compete with each other based on votes received in the primary. In most cities, the only hope for a Republican to win mayoral contests is for an incumbent Democrat to implode. Republican governors, like our own Larry Hogan, thrive by differentiating themselves from the party mainstream.  Friends describe Hogan as the exception to the rule that all Republicans are bad.  Many tell me, “You know, in most ways, he’s not really a Republican.  After all, he’s sane.”

If it’s true that the GOP can’t be saved, the question is whether it’s a good thing.  One party government likely will lead to excesses. Opposing parties provide essential checks-and-balances. They also serve the function of slowing down law-making by asking questions, channeling the voice of citizens out of the mainstream, and offering alternative visions of the future.  When opposing parties work together, national consensus is more likely. And history suggests that when a national consensus is reached, it typically embodies better policies than do laws enacted in times of political division, like today. 

An opposing party, provided it hasn’t gone off the deep end like the current GOP,  is thus a benefit to the party it opposes. Consider this:  If the GOP did not spend so much time proposing walls, race-baiting, and promoting income inequality, the Democratic party would not spend so much time fighting for the basic civil rights involved.  Instead, the parties could argue on how best to respond to the coronavirus, rebuild the economy, modernize infrastructure, and improve education.  Any of these topics are debates worth engaging in more than the cr*p that passes for politics today.

Assuming that the GOP is dying, what should be done?  They shoot horses, don’t they?  Those who value what used to be core Republican principles—free trade, reasonable regulation supporting a vibrant capitalist economy, civil rights, privacy, limited government, civility, and freedom from corruption—need to hasten the final demise of the current GOP so the task of creating a new party can get underway. This won’t be easy. Just look what happened to Mitt Romney when he dared to question the President during the impeachment process.  It will take clear proof that the current GOP and all the bad things it stands for is dead for most current Republicans and a sizable group of independents to start formulating what a new party should look like.

What about the “core constituencies” of the current GOP?  Some would be welcome parts of a new party. And as for others, such as those who lug AK-47s into the Michigan capitol building, effectively embrace white nationalism, and support policies inconsistent with the civil rights of others, good riddance. Let these folks form their own party or, better yet, think about why the party that seemed to embody everything they stood for withered away.

Democrats should welcome the emergence of a new opposing party. Without it, the fissures inside that party may very result in a split that would not bode well for its future. We have already seen Bernie supporters sit on their hands in 2016 and their support for Biden this year has been, to put it mildly, not overwhelming. The creation of a far-left party would almost be as bad as the creation of a far-right one, although one might argue we already have that.

The next decade will be interesting.  If our Democracy is to continue, we should all hope that the wreckage of the Republican party will get cleared soon so that a new centrist, economic and justice- focused party can emerge.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He is a former counsel to the House Committee on Education and Labor. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy

 

Pundits tell us it is now “too late” to impeach President Trump a second time. It is too close to the election. The nauseating solidarity of Senate Republicans suggests the outcome, regardless of the strength of the charges, would be the same as the first effort.  The net effect, we are told, would be to put another arrow in Trump’s quiver, empowering him to both claim the outcome “exonerated” him and that he now has definitive “proof” that Democrats, the press, people of color, and China are out to get him.  

Thus, while it is not likely Trump will face impeachment again before election day, it is a shame.  He richly deserves it.  His actions since his first impeachment are worse than those that preceded it. Since  February 5, 2020, the date on which the Senate acquitted Trump, declining to remove him from office despite plentiful evidence, thousands of Americans have died because of what may meet the definition of criminal negligence, which is one way to describe Trump’s failure to prepare adequately and to respond promptly to the coronavirus.   

Here is a list of charges that could serve as the basis for a fresh set of Articles of Impeachment in the House of Representatives:  

Criminal negligence. Negligence is the act or omission to act where there is a duty to do so. The Presidential oath of office, which Trump took on January 20, 2017, reads,  “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  Although reasonable people might argue that what we have seen, despite it being a dismal failure, reflects the best of Trump’s abilities, that might be a harsh comment on someone who has claimed to have a “big brain.” This article of impeachment would allege that Trump failed to execute the office of President by effectively blocking the execution of the function of the Center for Disease Control and other federal agencies in preparing for a pandemic. He also violated the constitution, which was established to promote the general welfare of Americans.  Allowing thousands to die by not doing your job is not promoting the general welfare.    

Simply put, the President has the best information resources in the world. This is not an accident or serendipity. The President is expected to use the resources made available to him to promote the general welfare. Trump chose not to use them, despite resources being “pushed” to him in the form of national security briefings and specific warnings from administration officials. Trump instead chose to trust his gut.  

Involuntary manslaughter.  This crime occurs when a person unintentionally causes a death because of reckless failure to act.  That is what Trump did.  He failed to contain the spread of the coronavirus by not implementing social distancing and other measures sooner despite having knowledge of the risks the virus represented.

This article of impeachment might also include a second count.  Trump effectively encouraged people to ingest bleach or have it injected into their bodies.  On April 23, at one of his virus briefings, Trump stated, “I see the disinfectant, that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. . .. Is there a way we can do something like that, by injection, inside, or almost a cleaning. . ..  (I)t would be interesting to check that.” In fairness to the President, he also added that, “I’m not a doctor,” but added, “I’m, like, a person that has a good you-know-what.”

Importantly there do not appear to be any reports of people dying from drinking bleach directly because of Trump’s comments despite dozens having apparently tried it.  Immediately following the comment, calls to poison control centers spiked.  Numerous reports of people acting on the President’s comments appeared in the press in following days and would be easily verifiable. If nobody died because of the President’s reckless speculation, does that preclude the Senate convicting him on this count?  Probably, but should it?

A third count might be tied to Trump’s claim that he is taking hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the coronavirus.  As a result, some (misguided) Americans have taken the same drug, which the FDA suggests is “dangerous” to many.  Importantly, some commenters, including “Morning Joe” Scarborough of MSNBC, suggest that the germaphobe Trump would not be willing to take the risk of taking the drug given the warnings of the FDA.  If Morning Joe is right, Trump is a hypocrite and a liar. Fortunately for Trump, hypocrisy is not an impeachable offense under Article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

Perjury.  How can you commit perjury if you are not a sworn witness before a court or Congress?  Thus, a conviction on this article of impeachment would be difficult.  But it may, other than the manslaughter charge, be Trump’s worst offense.  Simply put, he repeatedly lied throughout his series of comical “coronavirus task force” briefings, which were held until it became clear that they were doing him more political harm than good. Trump ended these lie-fests with a tweet on April 25th that read,  “What is the purpose of having White House News Conferences when the lamestream media asks nothing but hostile questions, and then refuses to report the truth or facts accurately. They get record ratings, and the American people get nothing but Fake News. Not worth the time and effort!”  Nice.

Is the impeachment clause of the constitution obsolete or unworkable given modern politics?  What do you have to do to get convicted?  Shoot someone on 5th Avenue? 

Who knows?  But the behavior of the Orange Menace should have all of us angry.  Our lives and livelihood are at risk because of him.  Fortunately, we have less than eight months left before voters, I hope, show him the exit door. 

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He is a former counsel to the House Committee on Education and Labor. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.   

 

Current polls suggest President Trump is the underdog in the 2020 election, but it is only May.  A lot can, and will, happen between now and when America heads to the ballot box (or, more likely, mailbox) to vote.

This column speculates on what a second Trump term might look like. One reader of my companion piece speculating on what a Biden presidency might look bottom lined the subject by saying, “more of the same.” This commenter likes Trump’s consistency, his candor, and his willingness to take an eye for an eye. Charitably put, interesting.

Here, diplomatically stated, is what I expect should President Trump defy odds (again) and get reelected:

The President will remain poll and media driven. No President has ever monitored his public image and standing in the polls as closely as has Trump. Nothing will change here. Even though a re-elected Trump will be a lame-duck, he will remain combative with the media and Democrats.

Frequent personnel changes will continue. Expect more fresh faces in the cabinet and on the White House staff. The quality of these appointees will be commensurate with those of the first term.  One exception to the “fresh” part will be the return of Mike Flynn. Could he succeed Pompeo at State?  Or maybe become Secretary of Defense?

The President will continue his position on climate change and the usefulness of science as a guide to policy making. Trump will cite any short-term improvements in climate resulting from the shut-down/slow-down of the economy as evidence that climate change is a hoax.  He also will continue to second-guess scientists on the coronavirus and anything else where their recommendations may run counter to his “gut” instincts.

Trump will continue to focus on the stock market as a barometer of economic recovery. Hoping for a speedy economic recovery is not a bad thing, but the stock market is not the best metric.  The President often equates the strength of the economy with the market. If he continues this, needed interventions to reduce unemployment and meet the urgent needs of families impacted by the economic crisis may not happen.

Trump will continue his “America First” foreign policy. The role America played in the world since 1945 will continue to “evolve” as the U.S. goes it alone on key issues. Expect China, Germany, Russia, and others to fill this void. Some see this as a good thing, but does this increased isolationism increase the chances for armed conflicts—conflicts where America may find itself without allies?

Attorney General Barr will keep his job, and Trump will continue to pursue interpretations of the Constitution that are “novel.”  In July 2019, in comments focusing on the Mueller probe, Trump commented, “I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president.”  This perspective, frightening to some of us, was supported in Barr’s infamous memo of June 2018.  Barr wrote, “Constitutionally, it is wrong to conceive of the President as simply the highest officer within the Executive branch hierarchy. He alone is the Executive branch. As such he is the sole repository of all Executive powers conferred by the Constitution.”  If you were Trump, would you replace Barr?

Trump’s partisanship, and his willingness to dis members of his own party when they disagree with him, will continue.  Should the Democrats win the Senate and retain the House, the friction will get worse.  Do not expect bipartisan solutions on how best to address the coronavirus and rebuild the economy.

All told, should Trump win in 2020, his leadership style and political priorities will remain the same. This is worrisome. The pandemic most likely will change America more than any of us imagine.  And the America of 2016 is not stagnant. In 2021 there will be more poor and struggling people, more people of color, and a myriad of other currently unforeseen challenges. 

Is Trump the leader we need to get through this?  Einstein said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”  While not everyone would blame Trump for the depth of the coronavirus crisis in the U.S., many question whether we are on the right path with our current leader. If we suffer a “second wave,” either this summer or in the fall, is Trump the guy we want to lead us?  Based on his record, I vote “no.”

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He is a former counsel to the House Committee on Education and Labor. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.  

 

Uncle Joe has just completed what he hopes will be the beginning of the end of his Tara Reade nightmare. MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski interviewed him on May 1st on Morning Joe. Reade is the former Biden Senate staff member who has alleged he sexually assaulted her 27 years ago.  Brzezinski aggressively questioned Biden, both on the alleged incident and on whether documents related to it are being covered up. 

The interview should have been flagged for unnecessary roughness.  Mika, a self-styled champion of women’s rights, grilled Biden as on why Reade should not be believed, why he is not opening all his Senate records, and why he thinks Reade is making the allegations. Biden responded with a complete denial. “It never happened,” the former Vice President stated.

Biden understandably struggled with the question of why Reade should not be assumed to be telling the truth. How do you respond to this type of allegation, assuming it is not true? Mika accused him of adopting a double standard. Given Biden’s position on the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the subject was fair game.

Biden responded that Reade has the right to be heard, but that if the allegations are not supported with evidence, his denial should be accepted. Agreed. Brzezinski also urged Biden to fully open his archived Senate records, now in the custody of the University of Delaware. Biden repeatedly stated that the records do not include any personnel records. Thus, any record of a complaint against him by Ms. Reade would not be in the records. Good point.

He also responded that he sealed the records because, as an active candidate for office, the records would be used as “fodder” by political opponents to accuse him of flip-flopping on issues.  Biden’s rationale is fully credible, especially given his 2020 opponent. 

In the face of Brzezinski’s overly aggressive questioning, Biden demonstrated composure that can be described as Presidential (at least as pre-Trump Presidential composure).  He was visibly unhappy with Mika, but never accused her of being unfair and avoided the trap of speculating why Ms. Reade would lie. His composure will prove to be a plus to those Biden supporters anxious about how this crisis will be resolved. Whether his answers will resolve the matter, however, is less certain.  Likely, this story will persist for a while. Ms. Reade is expected to elaborate on her allegations in coming days. No doubt additional rebuttals will be necessary.

Vice President Biden is suggesting that any record of a complaint against him would be in the records of the National Archives.  He has asked the Secretary of the Senate to request any such records and release them. This is all well and good, but if no record is found, it does not end the matter. No doubt there will be speculation as to whether such a record was destroyed or otherwise covered-up.

It is difficult not to feel sympathy with Biden if one assumes he is the victim of a serious false allegation. Current evidence, as of this writing, suggests that the allegation is false. It is too early, however, to close this matter.  Reade, who has changed her story over the years, appears a bit quirky, to put it mildly. Her admiration for Vladimir Putin (since disavowed), is just one example. Despite this, the jury is still out.  Stay tuned.  We have not heard the last word on this nasty episode.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He is a former counsel to the House Committee on Education and Labor. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy. 

 

My initial draft of this editorial began with the sentence, “Had Trump been President during World War II, you would be reading this piece in German or Japanese.”  I went on to excoriate the President for his recent bizarre behavior and to revisit a handful of other issues that have made his presidency so memorable. You can guess what I mean.

A wise teacher once advised me that when you write in anger, it’s a good practice to set the piece aside before you hit send and reread it in the morning. I did this. My angry draft lacked civility. I ended the piece by calling Trump the Orange Menace. Upon reflection, I know that would not have changed any minds. It is cathartic to write this stuff, but usually succeeds only in strengthening the opinions of people who had already arrived at the same conclusions.

Thus, I set my draft aside and spent some time reflecting on why I am so angry. Part of the reason is that I do not understand how anyone, let alone the President, could act as he has in recent days. Who would dare to speculate on the curative impact of drinking or injecting bleach as an answer to the pandemic? Why did Trump ignore quality intelligence indicating that the pandemic was all but inevitable? Why did he announce that the virus would disappear in a few days when his own experts begged to differ? Inquiring minds want to know.

No doubt the thinking behind these and related episodes will be examined in depth in future days.  Most likely, his lack of leadership on the virus will be shown to be part of a series of colossal misjudgments. The same type of thinking that led him to claim that he won the popular vote in 2016 is at play here. Also, remember, this is a man who claimed to trust Putin on the issue of election interference over his own intelligence agencies. He also claimed credit, thousands of times, for the strong economy that ended abruptly in February. What has happened since, of course, is the fault of the Democrats. 

One might ask whether Trump understands the difference between truth and lies. He appears to believe that if you say something often enough and believe it yourself, that somehow it will come to pass. If this is true, saying the pandemic will end might end it. Saying that there are miracle drugs waiting to be used to “cure” the virus, will, in fact, do so. And saying that the economy will roar back in a few months’ time will heal the economic havoc wreaked by the lockdown. 

When some of us call Trump bizarre, it is more a reference to his divorce from reality. There are many weird, eccentric, awkward people in the world, but only one is President of the United States and in a position to get us all sick, killed, or incinerated in a nuclear war. How did someone with little appreciation of how government works, other than, perhaps, how to game the rules, conclude he could succeed as President?  Did Trump believe that familiarity with the Constitution and at least a passing knowledge of how Congress writes laws to be irrelevant?  How did he choose the curious bucket of themes on which to base his Presidency—things like xenophobia, rejection of science, and open hostility to the press?  Does he believe these themes make America better?  And, how did this guy get elected? He may have stolen the election, but the fact that a good 40 to 45 percent of us voted for him has not been explained, at least not to my satisfaction.

Thus, I have unanswered questions. My lack of understanding is perhaps the real reason for my anger. Maybe once I figure it out, I will stop thinking of nasty things to say about the Orange Menace.

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant. He is a former counsel to the House Committee on Education and Labor. For more than 30 years, he advised clients on federal education and social service policy.