Posted on

“Joe Biden’s Inflation” – and Other Idiocy

Election Day marks the merciful end of a silly season in the US that starts around Labor Day. It’s a time when we watch television at our mental-health peril. The years of presidential elections are the worst; mid-terms, like 2022, are the next worst.

Bombarded with screeched messages, we develop coping mechanisms. We may wear out the “mute” button , or record everything on a DVR to fast forward through political ads. Perhaps we simply try to tune out most of the noise. Unless we stop watching or listening altogether, though, some particularly obnoxious idiocy breaks through to our beleaguered consciousness.

For me, the worst has been the notion that we’re experiencing “Joe Biden’s inflation”.

Too Much Credit or Blame

Let’s start with a fairly obvious general point: Presidents usually get too much credit for good current economies and too much blame for bad ones. Determinants of the state of an economy are numerous and complex. Policies emanating from a president vie with those from other forces, especially the markets and Congress.  Those market forces at work are increasingly international in scope. Any big event anywhere affects everything, everywhere.

While it’s not impossible for an announced policy to have some immediate impact on the economy, it takes months and even years for most initiatives to move the economic needle significantly.

In this case, the foolishness of “Joe Biden’s inflation” goes well beyond merely overstating a president’s immediate impact on the current economy, however. The reasons could hardly be clearer; there are two major factors and two subtler ones, in place before the major factors, that set the table for inevitable inflation, or worse.

Obvious Cause #1: Covid-19

In General

Who thought we were going to get out of the worst pandemic in a hundred years without significant inflation, at the very least? Preventing financial collapse was the goal; inflation was inevitable. (As an aside, complaints about stimulus programs are rich, aren’t they? First, almost everyone supported them and lined up to take credit. New designs were required when a certain president’s name had to appear on the check. It wasn’t Biden’s. Second, stimulus checks deserved support. Third, the notion of Biden’s predecessor being a financially responsible conservative is hilarious.)

Consider fuel as one example. (It’s the best single factor to discuss because it affects the price of everything, like food, it is used to transport.) One of the very few advantages of the pandemic was that traffic disappeared overnight. There was no such thing as rush hour. Anyone with a reason to drive reached their destination in record time. Millions discovered stars in their night sky.

With the collapse of demand for fuel, prices dropped. Producers had to cut back production dramatically to avoid ruin. Emerging from the crisis brought not only restoration of more normal demand, but also two to three years of pent-up demand. Ramping up production involves far more than flipping a switch. Such high demand and low supply meant prices could do nothing but skyrocket.

As prices begin to settle back down, in fits and starts, should that be attributed to Joe Biden’s taming of inflation? If so, we’ll be re-assessing that every minute as the market for crude shifts. In a recent trip through parts of Europe, gas ranged from 1.90 to 2.20 Euros/liter. That’s $7.18 to $8.32 per gallon. Boy, that Joe Biden has enormous influence on global markets! Since it’s up again since I got home, it’s undoubtedly higher yet in Europe.

An intelligent discussion on the merits of Biden’s action on the Keystone Pipeline is possible, if anyone is interested, but it had nothing to do with the prices we’ve been paying at the pumps.

Handling of the Pandemic

First there was portrayal of Covid as a liberal hoax. When its existence became undeniable, next came denial of its severity – just another flu, if that. Keeping a safe distance was for sissies, even though experts had determined that the virus spread by people breathing on one another. It was somehow unpatriotic (?!) to wear a mask. Doing so to protect others was for losers.

In The Infodemic (Columbia Global Reports, 2022), Joel Simon and Robert Mahoney examine the ruinous approaches to Covid employed in two groupings of countries. The subtitle serves as a summary: How Censorship and Lies Made the World Sicker and Less Free. The first group was of authoritarian states like China, Iran and Russia, where censorship of truth is a blunt instrument. Those telling the truth about the virus were silenced by any means necessary.

In the second grouping, referred to as populist-led democracies, the authors say “governments relied on a more sophisticated and increasingly effective means of censorship, drowning the truth in a sea of lies.” (11) This they dub “censorship by noise”. Thus, “alongside the Covid-19 pandemic, there was an infodemic, a deluge of lies, distortions and bungled communication that obliterated the truth”, (10) with catastrophic consequences for public health and genuine freedom.

The three countries in the group of democracies whose similarly terrible handling of the crisis is described in detail are Bolsonaro’s Brazil, PM Modi’s India, and Trump’s USA. While aspects of Brazil and America’s responses were so similar as to suggest some coordination between Trump and Bolsonaro (sloughing off responsibility to more local officials being one example), some of the most bizarre behavior of any of the three countries came out of the White House. Historical analysis of American behavior for the years 2016 – 2020 will place us in relentlessly unflattering company.

Why Handle a Pandemic So Badly?

Donald Trump always knew he could not beat Joe Biden in a fair election in 2020, and behaved accordingly. That’s why he was so furious with Elizabeth Warren for not bowing out earlier (after disappointing primary showings), and throwing her support to Bernie Sanders. Trump believed he had a chance to beat Sanders.

Similarly, Trump was at his projecting best when he declared so long before the election that someone would try to rig or steal it. He knew that because he was planning to rig or steal the election. Step one was to declare victory early election evening. He went ballistic when thwarted by Fox News correctly projecting Arizona for Biden.

To have any chance against Biden, Trump knew he had to have an economy going gangbusters. So, he tried to deny the virus away, then minimize it. Then he was desperate to push ridiculous miracle cures. He ordered a hundred million doses of the vaccine while it was being developed, considering it his chance at re-election. He lost all interest in vaccination when clear it would not be ready before the election, other than getting it quietly for himself.

Some of the most heartbreaking stories from the whole ordeal were from caregivers relating how patients used their dying breaths to deny the existence of the virus that killed them.

Obvious Cause #2: Putin’s murderous rampage in Ukraine

It’s often called a “war”, but, as conducted by Vladimir Putin, it seems more a series of war crimes. While Putin devises ways to kill civilians with the evident hope of persuading them to give up, it becomes more evident that most Ukrainians would rather die than re-subjugate themselves to Russia. Meanwhile, the lack of enthusiasm Russian soldiers exhibit for the conflict seems understandable.

In any event, the economic effect is to lessen or negate each country’s participation in various global markets. Either or both are major players in a number of important markets – from oil, to wheat, to neon. (Europeans are wondering how they’ll stay warm this winter.)That last one, neon, is interesting. Ukraine is, or was, the world’s largest supplier: 70% of neon gas and 90% of highly purified semiconductor-grade neon used in chip production. Guess what happens to prices when supply of oil, wheat, neon and other essentials goes down suddenly and drastically.

Now, there actually is a president who spent every day in office giving aid, support and encouragement to Vladimir Putin’s every interest in the world. At the top of that list was destruction of NATO. Putin’s fondest aspiration is to be The One who restores Russia to its USSR glory, at least. The Mueller Report documents in exquisite detail the extraordinary lengths Putin’s Russia went in support of Trump’s 2016 bid for the White House. No effort or expense was spared.

Meanwhile, amid the chaos of American policy for those years, the one objective Trump worked on effectively and consistently was the evisceration of NATO, which had managed to keep peace in Europe since the last World War. Not a day went by, seemingly, without doing something to further alienate one or more of our allies. The traitorous quid pro quo could not be clearer.

The American electorate scuttled Vladimir and Donald’s plans in 2020, leaving Putin to do it the hard way. Startled, and perhaps a bit unnerved, by the speed and effectiveness with which Biden was resurrecting NATO and re-establishing America’s stature in the world, Putin invaded. Disastrously. The results are death, destruction, and yes, massively inflationary market disruptions – all done with the fawning approval of Donald Trump for his favorite “genius”.

The Inflation Table Was Already Set – Tariffs and Worker Shortage

Having written about this before, and cited the full-blown analysis available in the December 2019 edition of Fortune magazine (“Why Trump Is Bad For Business”), we’ll keep this relatively brief. Before anyone had ever heard of Covid-19, there were clear signs the economy was headed for trouble due to two flawed policies.

The irony is that Covid might have provided cover for these missteps, by taking the blame for a broken economy. An honest and competent attempt by an average president to encourage people to distance themselves sensibly and mask up would have gotten us to the vaccines in much better shape. Then, vaccines and boosters taken by all (other than the hard core 1-2% anti-vaxxers) would have provided finishing touches on a course that saved hundreds of thousands of lives and greatly lessened the economic impact.

It’s doubtful that such an approach would even occur to Donald Trump.

Trump’s Tariff War With China

As many have said, “Somebody had to do something about China.” Yep, somebody did, and still does. That something is not a tariff war. What’s needed is something tied to China’s piracy of intellectual property.

Tariff wars serve mainly to increase prices across the board to consumers. To the buyers of raw materials and finished goods, tariffs function very much like an enormous sales tax. It’s not impossible but it is rare for tariffs to help a US manufacturer or industry, or to hurt a Chinese competitor. More often, tariffs hurt more American companies than they help.

And, by the way: so cowed was China by this “getting tough” with them that they became more belligerent regarding Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the entire Pacific.

Trump’s Immigration Policies Choked Off Supply of Labor

Because he has employed so many of them over so many years, Donald Trump knows better than most that immigrant workers are as likely as anyone to work hard and behave well.  The “murderers and rapists” nonsense is the red meat upon which his base feeds, however. So, people seeking asylum are “illegals”. Immigrants are taking all these jobs from our college kids who were hoping to pick turnips in the hot sun all summer. And so forth.

The truth is that the number one thing holding back our economy is a lack of workers across the board. Help Wanted signs are everywhere. The labor shortage is a double whammy; not only is it stifling growth, but it’s also raising prices. Scarce workers cost more, obviously.

Meanwhile, we still await serious discussion, by adults, of whatever changes are needed to develop immigration policies we believe in enough to enforce.

In Short

There was a president who made the inflation we’re facing longer lasting and more severe than it had to be. It isn’t Joe Biden.

Other Idiocy

Out of all the other harmful and dangerous idiocy out there, let’s briefly address one more: Election denial.

I’ve seen estimates that over half of Republican candidates for office across the country in 2022 are election deniers, and that about 60% of American voters will have an election denier on the ballot. Recognizing there can be some divergence in how the term is defined, the point here is not to get mired in definitional disputes or statistics.

The point is that support for the notion that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump should be disqualifying from holding public office for any candidate by reasonable voters of any political persuasion. Yet an incredible number of such candidates are on the ballot.

There has never been any basis for such a belief. For those with lingering doubts, despite the loss of 64 cases and the absence of any evidence, there is Lost, Not Stolen (https://lostnotstolen.org/). A group of leading, life-long conservative Republicans produced this exhaustive, documented study of all the baseless allegations of a stolen election one might hear. They categorically obliterate every argument made about the results in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. They conclude: “In fact, there was no fraud that changed the outcome in even a single precinct.”

Anyone arguing the 2020 election was stolen at this point is either (1) psychotic; (2) truly stupid; or (3) simply lying.

Let’s be clear on what’s at stake here. In many US jurisdictions, there are a number of Republicans hard at work to change the outcome the next time Donald Trump, or someone of his ilk, makes the call he made to Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger. In response to “Find me 11,780 votes!” they don’t want to hear “That’s not how we do things in America.” No, they want to ensure the answer next time is “Sure. In fact we’ll ‘find’ a few extra hundred to make it look better.”

Conclusion

I yearn for the good old days when “liberals” and “conservatives” argued about taxes, too much vs. too little regulation, big government vs. small, and the like. Indeed, I miss the day when one could have any discussion on the merits.

The argument now is whether basic American principles like checks and balances, the rule of law, and free and fair elections are worth preserving. Not content with “mere” voter suppression and grotesque gerrymandering, some now have voter nullification as the goal.

In a saner time, it would be safe to assume that anti-democracy, un-American cretins would be routed off to political oblivion. How we vote today, and perhaps in the next election or two, will determine whether our votes will continue to matter.

Ken Bossong

© 2022 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

For and Against, in the Election of 2020

Most presidential elections leave me grumbling how tired I am of voting against the worse of two evils, and longing to vote for someone. This is the year.

That is not to say there’s no compelling reason to vote against Donald Trump. There are many – and almost every day there are more. Happily, though, there are some good reasons to vote for Joe Biden.

Reasons To Vote For Biden

Breadth and Depth of Relevant Experience

With eight years as Vice President and many years before that in the US Senate, Biden’s background in two of the three branches of government is an enormous advantage.
Domestically and internationally, Biden knows the issues, the opportunities, the dangers, and the players. He has institutional knowledge and skill, a sense of what works and what doesn’t. Even mistakes and stumbles from the past can be teachable moments, for those, like Biden, open to learning.
The strongest resume of relevant experience since George H. W. Bush makes Biden a candidate ready to govern immediately upon taking the oath.

Devotion to the Constitution and the Rule of Law

Biden gets it; the reverence isn’t feigned. No policy position is as important. In matters large and small, he’s not the kind of guy to ignore his oath of office. It may not have seemed a big deal, but during last night’s town hall from Philadelphia, he eschewed presidential overuse of executive orders. He’d be the first president in a while with that approach.
So many offices and functions of the Executive Branch that must be apolitical to operate have been politicized blatantly. Restoring their integrity will be at or near the top of Biden’s essential to-do list.

Decency

Biden is a good person. In a better time, this would be a prerequisite, taken for granted in anyone seriously considered to be running for president. In these times, however, decency counts as a noteworthy advantage.

Integrity

(Ditto on this as normally a prerequisite.) Considering Biden’s worst moment in this regard ironically underscores his fundamental honesty. In an attack ad we’ve all seen countless times, it is telling that they had to go back 33 years for a clip of Biden responding to a question defensively, claiming academic achievement he hadn’t attained 20 years before that. It is cringe-worthy, but Biden’s worst moment wouldn’t have registered as noticeable if done by his adversary. More on that below.

Relationships

Few aspects of life are more important than relationships formed and nurtured. The significance is magnified on the national and international stages. Genuinely worthwhile relationships take patience and hard work, and this is where decency and integrity really count. Possessing all these requisite traits makes this factor Biden’s strongest suit.
Even better than his knowing the players in every realm, the players know and respect him. This consensus builder understands that the President’s most important power is the power to persuade (Presidential Power, Richard E. Neustadt, 1960).

Bipartisanship

When given grief for talking to the “enemy” across the aisle, Biden explains as patiently as he can that this is how things get done. It’s OK to shut up and listen once in a while, without giving up your fundamental principles. Not only is it possible to learn something – about their position and yours – but it can lead to discovering a better solution for all concerned.
If there is merit in anything that’s been done in the last four years, Biden is one politician who might just retain and build upon such items, rather than ditching them out of spite.

Deliberative Decision Making

Joe Biden knows what he doesn’t know, a key component of wisdom. He seeks expertise, listens, and carefully considers alternatives before acting. If anything, he’ll have to guard against being too deliberative before taking action. Given the enormous stakes involved in what comes before a president, this approach would be an important improvement.

Strength in Core Beliefs

Biden’s willingness to give and take for prudent problem solving does not extend to basic principles and core beliefs. Nice try with that “sleepy”, “weak”, and “Trojan Horse” stuff, but Biden would not be the Democratic candidate without HIS beliefs and principles defeating those he is accused of espousing.

Race and Social Justice

No Johnny-come-lately to these issues, Biden has earned trust in this area. It will take most of what he brings to the table in judgment, empathy, honesty, consensus building and experience, but the time seems right. It should be straightforward to get this done, but it just isn’t. He presents the best opportunity to take significant steps toward real justice. The fear-mongering ads against him are predictably false.

On Trump-Haters, Never-Trumpers, and the Like

It’s worth pausing to examine one of the least persuasive and most annoying tactics employed by defenders of Donald Trump. Point out anything done or said by the Donald that is clearly wrong – morally, legally, or factually – or criticize him for anything, and expect to be dismissed quickly as a “Trump Hater” or a “Never-Trumper”. (Other versions include “I get it; you don’t like the guy” or “Ignore what he says and concentrate on what he does”.)

The implication is that one must have suffered an affliction, or taken a blow to the head and awakened loathing Donald Trump. Worse, it’s as if that retort explains anything. The tactic is designed to accomplish two things. First, it is a condescending put-down. Second, it gives the Trump defender something to say without addressing the merits of what’s wrong with Trump.

This has cause-and-effect backwards. Observers of what Trump says, and even worse what he does, conclude based on overwhelming evidence that he is both a terrible president and a despicable human being. Disliking him as thoroughly as anyone ever encountered, while resolving never to vote for him, flow directly from rational analysis of observed fact. It’s not that he’s a bad president because he’s not “my kinda guy”.

Let’s use me as an example. I resolved on Inauguration Day to give him a fair shake, on the merits, cognizant of his having a personality I tend not to appreciate. Would he glance around the Oval Office, feel the gravity of the responsibility and the opportunity for accomplishment, and (at least attempt to) rise to the occasion? Well, no, apparently; not for an instant. That has proven tragic for countless reasons.

Reasons To Vote Against Trump

This section writes itself. It was tempting not to bother writing this as being too obvious, but it feels instructive to gather a number of the reasons in one place.
How can such a spectacular collection of character flaws and personality disorders have been amassed in one person? Niece Mary Trump points to Donald’s father, Fred. Other plausible explanations are lacking. A childhood impoverished in ways not financial is still cause for sympathy, but at some point people must take responsibility for the adults they have become. Unfortunately, Donald Trump doesn’t take responsibility for anything – other than credit for good things he had little or nothing to do with accomplishing.

Contempt for the Constitution, Ethics, and America’s System of Justice

Many of the reasons not to vote for Trump are disqualifying for the presidency all by themselves – but none more than this. Books have been written on the topic, with many more undoubtedly to come. Their remarkably consistent portrayals of Trump, as a man and as president, lend these books collective credibility, regardless of their angle.
Trump’s pursuit of self-interest has comprised an all-out assault on basic American principles – among them separation of powers, judicial independence, checks and balances, the integrity of elections, equal protection, transparency, and (soon to come) the peaceful transfer of power. Previously unthinkable conflicts of interest are to this president no more than the spoils of attaining the office, perhaps the main reason to run. Even more alarming is his yearning for, and pursuit of, autocratic power.

Hero worship of Vladimir Putin

Could there be a worse hero/mentor to an American president than KGB thug Vladimir Putin? The disgrace at Helsinki was the end for a fair number of people who had supported Donald Trump. (That more of them didn’t turn away then is disappointing enough to deserve its own post, as do many of the points here.) Much has been written elsewhere on the topic of Trump’s extreme and bizarre deference to Putin, most recently in his refusal to address Russian bounties on US troops. The personal fawning is embarrassing enough, but this is substantive; let’s address one aspect.
President Trump’s behavior in the international arena has been called erratic, puzzling and impulsive. It’s been all that and more with respect to American interests. When viewed through the lens of Russia’s ambitions, however, a clearer, more consistent picture comes into focus. When prosecutors finally get to sift through the wreckage of the Trump administration, this should be high on the list of items to probe. Anyone looking for reading material will find the Mueller Report more relevant than ever.

Abandonment of Allies

Nothing gladdens Vladimir’s heart more than Trump’s systematic weakening of America’s alliances and influence around the world. Vacuums created by our lessening presence are filled eagerly by the world’s bad actors, like Russia, China, Iran and Turkey. Our allies wonder what is left of the America they thought they knew.
It seems clear that a re-elected Donald Trump would waste little time withdrawing the US from NATO, for example. This would be the piece de resistance for Putin, the jackpot that makes his considerable investment of effort and resources assisting Trump’s campaigns a bargain.

Mendacity

Donald Trump is adept at every form and technique of dishonesty. He didn’t invent lying, of course, but the scope, the nastiness, the audacity, and the sheer volume of his lies are unprecedented. If they ever open a Dishonesty Hall of Fame, Donald Trump will be the Babe Ruth of its first induction class.
Prior to Trump, a good way of describing a compulsive liar was one who lied when the truth would serve him better. Here again, Trump is special. Simply put, it’s never the case that the truth would serve him better. Because of who he is and what he does, the truth has been Donald Trump’s enemy for as long as he can recall.
He has been lying so much for so long, he seems incapable of uttering a declarative sentence that is completely true. It’s fascinating to watch, actually. In the middle of a statement that might contain a kernel of fact, he catches himself just in time to salvage his words from the truth.
Before leaving the subject, two other aspects of Trump’s dishonesty are worthy of mention. First, he is a master at projection. That is, he falsely accuses others of the illegal or unethical acts he is actually doing or planning to do. As one of countless examples, Trump can guarantee the election will be “rigged” because he is doing everything he can to rig it.
This tactic is clever. It puts the falsely accused on the defensive; moreover, being the first to accuse serves to weaken any allegation of the same wrongdoing against the accuser, even if true.
Then there’s the cowardice with which he lies. The worst of Trump’s whoppers usually are presented in one of two ways. Either Trump pretends merely to relay what others are saying (“People say that…”, “Everyone knows…”etc.) or he’s merely asking a question (the lie followed by ???????). Leave it to Donald Trump to lie in ways that are themselves intellectually dishonest. It’s no compliment to observe that there’s never been a president like him.

Ignorance

No one knows all that is needed to be a good president. That’s not ignorance, but the reality of taking on a really tough job. But Donald Trump is proudly, willfully ignorant. Regardless of the expected participants, the setting, or the issues at hand, he doesn’t know and he doesn’t want to know. At this point, Trump’s rages against anyone trying to brief him in detail, or tell him anything he doesn’t want to hear, are legendary. Consider the caliber of people who’d be left willing to work for this man in a second term.

Business Dealings

One of the strangest myths about Donald Trump is that he’s a business genius. At a time when the only competition was 2,200 miles away in Las Vegas, Trump managed to go down in flames with casinos in Atlantic City. By all accounts, Trump University and the Trump Foundation were little more than frauds. Worst of all, his decades of dishonorable business dealings sent innumerable honest, hardworking small business people to ruin.
Living and working in New Jersey, I have heard dozens of first-hand stories of Trump dealings over the last 35 years or so. They’re all essentially the same; the next good one will be the first. By 2019, before COVID-19, it was dawning on some US industries – like steel – that Trump was bad for business (December 2019 Fortune magazine).

Negotiating/deal-making

Using bluster and bullying on our allies and a sort of inane flattery (that works only with him) on our adversaries, our master negotiator careens from one interaction to another, either not caring or not realizing how he’s being had. He single-handedly raised Kim Jong-un’s status on the world stage several levels without getting a thing in return. As a result, North Korea has accelerated their nuclear program during Trump’s watch.
Meanwhile, he would have you believe he has tamed China with his tariff war – the main effects of which have been to raise prices and hurt more American businesses. So intimidated by Trump are the Chinese that they are more aggressive than ever regarding Hong Kong, the South China Sea, and Taiwan. The world is more dangerous than it was four years ago.

Race and Social Justice

In effect, Donald Trump has been telling white supremacists and neo-Nazis to “stand by” for his entire presidency. He simply made it explicit during the nationally televised debate. We all know what that means, and no one more than the white supremacists and neo-Nazis. They have received the message loud and clear. A worse president for the healing needed in this realm, again, can scarcely be imagined.

Conclusion

For a while after it became clear that Biden would be the candidate, I joked that he would win because there were two reasons to vote for Joe: (1) He wasn’t Donald Trump. (2) He wasn’t Hillary Clinton.

I’ve come to relish the opportunity to vote FOR Joe Biden, though. His strengths are oddly, uniquely designed to address the mess awaiting him and to begin undoing the damage. Whether voting for Biden or against Trump, though, the person deserving the vote is the easiest decision of my lifetime. Not for nothing, as they say, was Donald Trump desperate to run against anyone but Joe Biden.

Like the rest of us, Joe Biden is far from perfect. Some mistakes will be made. Even if not a superstar, though, Biden has a real chance to be a good president, giving us what we need in a perilous time. That might make him the best we’ve had in a while.

Meanwhile, down the ballot: Over the years, whichever party wins the presidency, it has seemed desirable for the other party to have either the House or the Senate. Not this time.

The indefensible abuses of power by Donald Trump (and his Senate Republican enablers) deserve total, unmistakable repudiation. A presidential landslide combined with new faces in the Senate would send clear assurance, to both our emboldened enemies and our appalled and apprehensive allies, that America has lost neither its values nor its collective mind. That would be a first step in restoring order.

If the required no-doubt-about-it message is delivered, it also needs to be understood by the Democrats taking the reins. Elections have consequences, as they say, but we don’t need one batch of serial abusers of power replaced by another. After four years of unrelenting Republican wrongdoing, it seems almost unfair to ask Democrats to play by the rules, restore decency, and forego payback. Unless someone does it, however, what is to become of the erstwhile United States? It should be a badge of honor to right the ship.

Meanwhile, whatever real Republicans remain with their sanity and consciences intact have the unenviable task of taking back their party from the lunatic fringe and the craven enablers. Talk about needing to undo damage!

The message has to be: We don’t care who you are. The only way to attain power and then keep it is to deserve It – by behaving and performing well. That message must come from us (We the People) every election at every level, every time.

That’s our job.

Ken Bossong

© 2020 Kenneth J. Bossong

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed—
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

From Let America Be America Again by Langston Hughes (1935)

Posted on

Joe Biden’s Opening Statement

With so much of the 2020 election season (primaries, selection of running mate, conventions) in the rear-view mirror, next up are the debates.

In case you were wondering what to do with your upcoming Tuesday nights, the first presidential debate is September 29; the other two are October 15 and 22. Mike Pence and Kamala Harris will square off on October 7. All are scheduled for 90 minutes, starting at 9 PM ET. (The end of daylight savings, with clocks “falling back”, is not until November 1.)

Other than Donald Trump in 2016, there has never been a candidate for president remotely like Donald Trump. Preparing to debate him presents unique, bizarre challenges. A standard opening statement just won’t do, for instance.

Here, then, is an approach Joe Biden might take with his opening statement next Tuesday night:

Good evening

“Good evening. I would prefer to use this time to make a traditional opening statement for a presidential debate. For reasons I believe are obvious, however, I need to explain what my approach to all the debates will be – as to both content and tone – and why.

After nearly four years of this presidency, we all know what to expect from Donald Trump in a debate: name-calling, bluster, bullying, coarseness, insults, rudeness, and above all a blizzard of dishonesty.

Content

There will be every kind of dishonesty: denial of obvious truth, fabrication, projection, misrepresentation, distortion of context, and outright lies. Gross exaggeration is as close to the truth as Donald Trump ever seems to get.

I speak of Donald Trump’s dishonesty from personal experience; nearly everything said about me and my positions in his campaign ads, for example, has been false.

Spending too much precious time in these debates reacting to an avalanche of lies would be a disservice. You deserve to know how I plan to serve as President. (And note: there is a plan. We actually have a platform. Not everyone is going to agree with every word of it, but that’s OK.)

You deserve to have the issues discussed on the merits; I will do that.

Therefore, I have directed that several policy experts on my campaign staff devote their time during and immediately following the debates to fact-checking. To keep the debates moving as smoothly as possible, I will generally just point out falsehoods without dwelling on their details. Within 48 hours of the conclusion to each debate, however, we will issue an explanation of what was false, how it was false, and why it matters.

I reserve the right, of course, to address a particular falsehood in some depth. This might be where the discussion requires immediate correction and failure to do so would leave a misimpression. On the other hand, there may be so many falsehoods that I won’t have time even to mention them all.

If that happens, my silence on a given falsehood will not mean acquiescence.

Meanwhile, if I get a fact wrong, it will be inadvertent; it will be corrected, with apologies, as soon as possible.

Tone

As to the tone of the debate – the name-calling, the belligerence, the coarseness, the bullying he will undoubtedly attempt – I will do my level best not to be drawn in by Donald Trump’s tactics, or to sink to his level.  I will not take the bait; then we will see what else he has to offer.

For the rest of these debates, I hope there is no need to address this topic again.

One (More Standard) Opening Statement Point

In the few moments left for this opening, here’s a brief overview of the choice involved in this election. The differences between Donald Trump and me couldn’t be more numerous or profound. For now, please note one important distinction.

In attacking our nation’s crises and challenges as President, I will: (1) surround myself with the best available experts; (2) direct them to tell me the truth, rather than what I wish were true; (3) listen to the experts; and then (4) do my very best for the country and all its people.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, will do what he always does – his very best for the benefit of Donald Trump – for as long as we let him. There’s no need for a President to bother with expertise, facts, careful deliberation, skillful implementation, or diplomacy when he cares nothing for anyone or anything but himself.

Please never lose sight of this basic, overriding distinction as we get into questions of public policy, character, and fitness for the office of President.

Thank you.”

This approach probably will not prevent the train-wreck the debates promise to be, but it might reduce the force of impact. At this point, any step lessening the ongoing damage to our democracy is worth taking.

Ken Bossong

© 2020 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

(Y)Our [Expletive]

A True Little Story

As a young lawyer – therefore, a long time ago – I was the first associate for an established lawyer with a general practice. One day, he sent me to my first settlement conference in a civil case. Handing me the file, my boss gave me an idea what to expect – including the welcome news that the assigned judge tended to be favorable to the side we were on in this case.

Most of the details don’t matter, which is a good thing, since I don’t remember who the judge or the other three lawyers in the case were. I do recall that the other lawyers were well-known veterans and that two of the three were on the same side I was. That is, our clients had been in the same car, now plaintiffs suing the defendant, the driver of the other car in the accident.

The judge had each of us give our theory of the case before grilling us about our positions’ strengths and weaknesses. As predicted, he was noticeably tougher on the defense lawyer, with parting words urging him to have his insurance company find some real money to settle the case. After the session, I was pleased to accept an invitation from the veteran plaintiffs’ lawyers to join them for lunch.

Talk at lunch turned to what had just occurred, and I got a lesson on reading between the lines toward settling cases. At a pause, one experienced lawyer turned to the other, lowered his voice and referring to the judge said, “I’m glad he’s tough on the defense, of course, but you know, he is kind of an [expletive].” To which the other replied, “Yeah, but he’s OUR [expletive].”

Although I don’t remember who said it, I’ll never forget the line. That’s because it is (far too often, unfortunately) the only way to make sense of the otherwise inexplicable. Embracing our [expletives], no matter what they do, is an outgrowth of our seeming need for “Us vs. Them” conflict (see post of 2/19/19). It comes up in many settings, two of the most obvious being sports and partisan politics.

Sports

An obvious example from sports is the player on a rival team you love to hate. Ask sports fans to give an example, and be prepared for lengthy, passionate responses. Yet, those same fans usually have a player on their team they love all the more because rival teams’ fans hate him or her. That player is “our [expletive]”.

When our [expletive] does it, it’s daring, ingenious one-upmanship; when their [expletive] does it, it’s an OUTRAGE! Yours plays dirty; ours plays hard.

Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner

A famous story from baseball’s early days involves a time two of its greatest players met in a World Series. Shortstop Honus Wagner led his Pirates against outfielder Ty Cobb’s Tigers in 1909. Both are on almost everybody’s list of the best ten players ever, indeed on most top-five lists. While Wagner (he of the most valuable baseball card) was well respected and liked, Cobb was infamous on a number of fronts. One of the on-the-field reasons was his practice of sharpening his spikes in plain view before games and then sliding into bases with spikes high.

In the fifth inning of the Series’ first game, Cobb got on first base and yelled at Wagner. He was stealing second and coming for him. Wagner took the catcher’s throw, eluded Cobb’s flashing spikes, and tagged him in the mouth. It had to be especially satisfying for Pirates fans, and correspondingly bitter for Tigers fans: Not only was Cobb’s attempted intimidation reversed, but Wagner outplayed him as the Pirates won the Series 4-3.

Yours Becomes Ours

The transience of such perceptions is clear when [expletives] change teams. Len Dykstra was an irritant, a wacko, and an excellent player for the Mets before becoming a Phillie. He was all that and more for the Phils. “More” is meant literally, by the way. When I pointed out to fellow fans that Len seemed about twice the size he had been for the Mets (this being the steroid era, after all), the general reaction was “Shhhh!” He was our [expletive] now.

Partisan Politics

The phenomenon is not limited to fun and games, of course.

Gerrymandering is clever if it benefits your party, disgusting when the other guys do it. Lines designating voting districts have to be drawn somewhere; sometimes, where they should go is a legitimately close call. I’d like to think that gerrymandering started with officials figuring they might as well benefit their party in making the choice between two sensible boundaries.

In any event, there’s no defending the grotesque voting districts that have been created by both parties over the years to provide safe havens for candidates based not on performance but demographics. The maps for such districts can resemble spaghetti on a plate or the splotches of Rorschach tests. It’s part of the cynical spoils of having your [expletive] be in charge of redistricting.

Congress

Prior posts have taken Congress to task for dereliction of duty in various areas – among them judicial appointments (1/25/19), immigration reform (5/10/19 and 8/21/19), and impeachment (6/23/20). No abuse of power is shameful enough to elicit a response. Other than to mourn the obliteration of statesmanship by partisanship, I won’t belabor here.

The President

Then there is you-know-who, the man for whom “He can’t possibly go any lower” is the one challenge gleefully accepted and always met.

As pointed out by Anonymous in A Warning (highly recommended, by the way; a much better read than expected), Trump is neither a true conservative nor much of a Republican. He IS what some left wingers have falsely accused all conservative Republicans of being (see below).

So, the question to conservative Republicans who’ve been giving Trump a pass is this: Is he really your [expletive]? Granted, he has the [expletive] part down pat. But how is he yours? He could not be clearer that he cares nothing about anyone or anything but himself. That includes you and almost everything you believe in.

Embracing those in power because they’re in power rather than on the merits of their ideas, character, or actions entails costs and risks, including to one’s sense of integrity and judgement. What does it say about you if this [expletive] is “yours”?

This is of genuine concern for two reasons:

  • Some good, well-meaning Americans are going to rue the day they supported this man when the gravity and extent of his wrongdoing come fully into focus. Many already do, given the overwhelming evidence right out in the open, but the feeling we haven’t seen anything yet is inescapable.
  • Needless, long-lasting damage has been done to both the Republican Party and the conservative movement in this country by acquiescence in extensive criminal activity. As someone in neither camp, I can speak to the need for two viable parties and competing points of view. It’s going to be a long time before a large number of moderates vote for Republicans again after their disgraceful enabling of this wretched, embarrassing man.

The mythology surrounding delta blues icon Robert Johnson includes the legend that he sold his soul to the devil at the “Crossroads” for his astounding musical talent. It’s understandable that people had difficulty explaining Johnson’s otherworldly singing, composing, and guitar playing in more conventional ways. Why anyone would sell their soul to the devil, acquiescing in harmful, abhorrent behavior, for the likes of a Donald J. Trump – now that’s inexplicable.

The Boy Who Cried “Wolf”

My father loved the fable of the Boy Who Cried “Wolf”. I know this because he told me the story at least three times as I was growing up. As is often the case, the Donald Trump nightmare is the most extreme real-life example of the fable in memory.

For decades, those creating the orthodoxy of the Left in America have assigned anyone not in complete agreement with every detail of that orthodoxy a series of damning attributes. Question a current belief or policy, or even simply use verbiage no longer in favor, and out came the “-ists” and the “-phobics”. You were racist, fascist, xenophobic, misogynist, sexist, etc.

One day, a guy who actually is all of the above – and more – somehow (incredibly) becomes President of the United States. This time, when all the old “-ists” and “-phobics” are trotted out to condemn him, guess how a number of conservatives react: “Yeah, we know – he’s racist, he’s fascist, he’s xenophobic , he’s misogynist, he’s sexist, blah, blah, blah. Sure. Everybody not on the far left is. You’ve been telling us for decades.”

This matters. In seeking refuge from what they perceive as unrelenting political correctness, many conservatives who don’t like Trump a little bit have been contorting themselves into philosophical pretzels to reluctantly back him. (Yeah, I know there’s also a contingent who believes the wrong side won the Civil War. Trump’s their hero. They’re not the folks being addressed here.)

Thus, a remarkable phenomenon occurs: Some wonderful people – who  love their spouses and families, work hard, help others generously, tell the truth, seek knowledge, behave honorably, and serve their country and communities selflessly – find themselves supporting someone who is their exact polar opposite in every way. For all that matters most – character, morals, work ethic, respect, honesty, fair dealing, empathy – they would detest this man if they had any dealings with him.

A Suggestion

It must be exhausting and disheartening to concoct rationales under which Trump’s torrential outrages “aren’t so bad” – or at least “aren’t as bad as the alternative”. Here’s a suggestion: Do yourself a favor and give it up. Not your conservative principles. Give up the liar and his lies.

The country’s leading conservative columnist, George F. Will, who does believe deeply in conservative principles, has much insight to offer. His column is published by the Washington Post and appears in other major outlets. Among recent worthwhile pieces are those dated June 1 and July 29. The latter decimates some myths about Joe Biden the Trump campaign would have you believe, to consider Trump somehow not as bad as the alternative.

When the veteran plaintiffs’ lawyer delivered his memorable line at that long-ago lunch, it was with more of a world-weary sigh than a triumphant boast. We chuckled a bit, the mirth offset by unease. The conversation quickly turned to other topics, but the insight has been helpful ever since, especially in cases of truly bad behavior rather than simply a judge’s tendencies.

A recent reverie involved citizens filing a class-action civil lawsuit against Donald Trump under RICO (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), for conducting an ongoing criminal enterprise out of the White House. In sharing the idea with a close friend, I wasn’t completely kidding. (Establishing standing for citizens to seek damages might be a challenge, though.) Those thinking Trump is worth supporting because he’s their [expletive] are both deluding and demeaning themselves

Therefore, the Merits

Let’s go back to considering the facts and the merits of our important issues. Gerrymandering ill serves us, no matter whose [expletive] is doing it. One would think the Constitution forbids it in all but relatively benign manifestations. However, in June of 2019, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the flagrant examples before it were matters of politics into which the Court should not intrude. So it’s left to us not to put up with this nonsense. We better be vigilant. One-party redistricting authorities now have a green light; worse, there’s now extra incentive to attain such mapping power.

The same goes for legislators whose gamesmanship precludes serious deliberation on important congressional business. It doesn’t matter whose judicial appointments or meritorious bills never even get discussed. Wrong is wrong; the country suffers.  We’ll find out soon enough if Kentuckians are proud to have had their very own Mitch McConnell the senate’s majority leader and the president’s enabler-in-chief. Maybe it’s time to consider term limits.

Above all, let’s not have any [expletive] – yours, mine, or anyone’s – be president again. Ever.

Ken Bossong

© 2020 Kenneth J. Bossong

Posted on

Senate Republicans, I Know What You Did Last Winter

Dear Senate Republicans not named Mitt Romney,

You did this. You did this to us. Your craven dereliction of duty enabled the nightmare to continue and, predictably, get worse. We have almost four and a half more months before the voters pick up after you and seven months of peril to endure. Whatever evil Donald Trump perpetrates as a desperate candidate and then as a bitter lame duck is on you. This will be on top of the immeasurable harm he has done since you emboldened him with your vote on February 5 not to remove him.

It was right there before you: a lock-tight, unassailable two-article impeachment. It could have been twenty-two articles or two hundred and twenty, of course. Was the House’s inclination to keep it a simple, manageable, straight forward two articles understandable? Yes. I would have included more, the Mueller stuff at least, however, because it too was right there – fully developed, consistent, and equally compelling.

The Articles of Impeachment

The second article, for obstruction of justice, was particularly straight-forward. President Trump flatly and publicly forbade anyone in his administration from cooperating at all – with documents or testimony. Indeed, he boasted about obstructing justice. Retaliation for anyone who properly responded to lawful subpoenas was swift and severe. That these witnesses undoubtedly knew what the consequences would be for telling the truth not only makes their devotion to duty more laudable, but bolsters their credibility.

There were no material facts in issue. The obstruction was a blanket refusal to cooperate, or permit anyone else to cooperate, with the Congress in fulfilling its oversight duties. Nixon’s cover-up in Watergate, which Republican congressional leaders assured him was indefensible, was trifling by comparison. Your failure to convict weakened the Congress as a co-equal branch.

The first article was no less compelling.  The backdrop was a new president of the Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, desperately seeking US assistance in fending off Russian aggression. Official US policy to provide it was clear; an appropriation was in place. Zelensky was most anxious for two things, a meeting with President Trump to affirm to Russia and the rest of the world America’s support, and disbursement of the military aid. Each was withheld by a President Trump bent on benefiting himself.

Quid Pro Quo

The two main defenses, if they can be called that, seem to be that (1) There was no real quid pro quo and (2) Trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine. Which of these is more laughable is a close contest, but I vote for (2). In fact, the depiction of Donald Trump as a crusader against corruption may be the single funniest thing ever said about him – unintentionally funny though it may be.

That is to take nothing away from the absurdity of the quid pro quo argument. In the infamous phone call of July 25, 2019, there comes a point where Ukraine’s President Zelensky brings up the topic of US military assistance for Ukraine. He refers specifically to the need to acquire more Javelin anti-tank missiles. President Trump’s reply is “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.”

The favor sought by President Trump: Zelensky was to announce and conduct investigations of two preposterous notions: (1) Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 presidential election and (2) Joe Biden sought the removal of Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Victor Shokin because he posed a threat to a company (Burisma) whose board included Biden’s son, Hunter.

Anyone in Trump’s administration could have told him how ridiculous and thoroughly discredited these theories were; many in fact did. Russia’s massive interference in the 2016 election was a matter of voluminous, detailed record. And the truth regarding Shokin’s removal was exactly the opposite of Trump’s narrative. Biden’s position on Shokin as Vice President was official US policy, and that of America’s allies, precisely because Shokin did NOT prosecute corruption in Ukraine.

Hunter Biden may have been guilty of attempting to ride the coattails of a well-known father. This is something Donald Trump knows more than a little about – as both a son and a father.

When I hear that asking for a “favor” in return for desperately needed aid is not quid pro quo, a reverie comes to me. It’s a mashup of scenes from old gangster movies: [An Edward G. Robinson-like figure has a rival gangster tied up in a chair.] “Yeah, listen here, you, see? I unnerstand you got a pretty little daughter. If ya ever wanna see her again, you’re gonna do me a little favor, see?” For some reason, the point is clear without needing to add, “That’s the quid pro quo, see?”

Briefly, on Some Legalities

The hold itself was illegal under two federal statutes, regardless of reason, as increasingly frantic emails between OMB and DOD make clear. The Department of Defense realized it was becoming impossible to properly spend the money appropriated in the fiscal year ending on September 30. The Office of Management and Budget knew this, of course. They also knew the legislature holds the “purse strings” and the executive branch can’t just say “screw it”, but was not in a position to explain the hold or to comply with the law’s formal requirements to rescind. (See the Appropriation Act and the Impoundment Act of 1974.)

The reason for the hold was much worse; no wonder no one wanted to explain it in writing. It is a serious violation of federal law for (a) a person to (b) solicit, accept or receive (c) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, (d) in connection with a Federal election (e) from a foreign national. (52 USC 30121) If it’s illegal for anyone to receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with any election, what is it for a president to solicit dirt on a political rival in an upcoming presidential election from a foreign nation – all in return for release of aid to which that nation is already entitled?

On Mens Rea, or “Guilty Mind”

I’ve heard it argued that Donald Trump could not have committed high crimes and misdemeanors because he is too dopey to form the requisite criminal intent. Among the serious problems with this, three stand out. First, being stupid and being evil are not mutually exclusive; one can be both. Second, what kind of defense is this for a president? Third, Mr. Trump has many serious flaws on constant display, but stupidity is not one of them. He is colossally and willfully ignorant, but not stupid. For years, he has said and done any number of stupid things – not because he doesn’t know any better, but because he wants to say and do them. The fact that he has gotten away with them so far makes him one of the greatest con men of our time.

Trump knew exactly what he was doing with Zelensky, alright. We all know exactly what he was doing. So did Zelensky, of course, who was loathe to becoming a pawn in US politics. In the build-up to the phone call of July 25, the single biggest point made by Trump’s people to Zelensky and his people was this: If he ever wanted the aid disbursed or his White House visit, he had to convince Trump in this phone call that Trump would get his investigations. In fact, it was critical that Zelensky make clear he was about to publicly announce the Biden investigation. The announcement mattered  more than an investigation everyone knew would yield nothing.

Another reverie: I find myself wondering whether Vladimir Putin was miffed to learn that his favorite protégé believed Russia alone wouldn’t be enough to overcome Biden in 2020. After all Russia did for him in 2016? While that weird Putin/Trump thing undoubtedly endures, it had to rankle a bit that Trump resorted to asking Ukraine.  Then again, Trump even asked China to investigate Biden. (Didn’t need Bolton for that; we saw Trump say it on TV.) When all is known, countries Trump has not asked to investigate Biden may feel left out.

Consequences of Your Vote

There will be many books, but it will take a treatise, someday, to adequately recount the harm that has resulted from your vote to acquit. For now, this brief summary will have to suffice.

Balance of Power

President Trump’s relentless attacks on checks and balances, and any restraint on his power whatever, have intensified. Two of the many troubling examples are letting inspectors general go when needed most and the ongoing politization of the Department of Justice.

An agency has an inspector general to have someone relatively independent of politics ensure that the agency conducts its affairs properly. They are on the lookout for the proverbial fraud, waste, and mismanagement. Honest leadership welcomes such overview. Firing IGs for looking into matters uncomfortable to those doing the firing is more than a bad look.

Trump said while letting intelligence IG Michael Atkinson go, “He took this terrible, inaccurate whistleblower report and he brought it to Congress”, thus setting in motion the impeachment. In other words, he did his job – one of two unforgivable sins in this administration. (The other is telling the truth.) The removal of Glenn Fine, Christi Grimm, Steve Linick, and Mitchell Behm all make for interesting reading, especially given what they were working on, including (for Fine and Behm)  oversight of the largest stimulus package in American history. 

The politization of the Department of Justice famously includes interference in actual cases (Michael Flynn and Roger Stone). Hot off the press, the firing of US Attorney Geoffrey Berman was a typical Trump operation. First AG Barr lied that Berman had resigned. Then he said Trump did it. Then Trump said Barr did it. There is no suggestion that Berman was doing a bad or even mediocre job in the Southern District of New York. With the merits nowhere to be found, speculation that Berman was doing too good a job fills the void, with talk of Ruby Giuliani or a state-owned Turkish bank and another international bad-boy buddy of Trump, President Erdogan. This should be great for sales of Bolton’s book.

The American Bar Association for years has been promoting the Rule of Law all over the world. It seems the focus should shift to the United States.

Pandemic

Petrified by what a pandemic might do to the economy and his prospects for re-election, President Trump resorted to denial and an absolute refusal to lead in any respect when it mattered most. The mind boggles at what might have been accomplished by way of coordination, information exchange, adroit use of the Defense Production Act, and so forth, to maximize an effective response.

Not content with mere inaction and epic mismanagement of the crisis, Trump went out of his way to make up or pass along dangerously false information, undermine medical experts and his own CDC, and “lead” by atrocious example. Just listing by bullet points the examples would take up an entire post on this blog. You knew better when Trump called COVID-19 a hoax by liberal Democrats, then later said the Democrats politicized the pandemic. You, too, had to cringe listening to such pronouncements as it’ll just go away, you could even go to work with it, and you’d benefit from ingesting disinfectant.

For those who find it amusing to have a POTUS say outlandish things, there is a recent CDC poll of 502 Americans representative of the US population. Thirty-nine percent reported intentionally engaging in at least one high-risk practice not recommended by CDC… including application of bleach to food items (e.g., fruits and vegetables) (19%); use of household cleaning and disinfectant products on hands or skin (18%); misting the body with a cleaning or disinfectant spray (10%); inhalation of vapors from household cleaners or disinfectants (6%); and drinking or gargling diluted bleach solutions, soapy water, and other cleaning and disinfectant solutions (4% each).

As mystifying as it is how anyone could believe a word President Trump says about anything at this point, you know as well as I that thousands more have died in the pandemic than needed to. From bemoaning cruise passengers docking to get treatment because it would “hurt his numbers” months ago, to creating a perfect pandemic storm with Saturday’s rally in Tulsa, Trump couldn’t be clearer. His only interest is in himself and his numbers. The irony is that doing the right thing right away would have lessened the economic carnage, as well.

The Economy

Ah yes, the economy. Donald Trump says he created the greatest economy ever, but COVID-19 ruined it. Unfortunately, there is good reason to believe that his policies had the economy heading for a downturn before the pandemic hit.

One of the cover stories in the December 2019 issue of Fortune magazine, not exactly a leftist rag, was “Why Trump Is Bad For Business”. The piece is a comprehensive analysis of how business’s gains from lower taxes and deregulation had been more than wiped out by two policy disasters. First, Trump’s immigration policies deprived the economy of badly needed workers. Second, his tariff war with China just made everything more expensive, hurting business. As demand dampens, recession ensues. The measurable confidence of CEOs, purchasing managers, and consumers had all hit the skids. Trump is said to have “lost the C-Suite” in 2018.

Similarly, in a 12/23/19 piece by Dan Clark in Law.com’s Corporate Counsel, Altman Weil’s survey of corporations’ top lawyers (general counsel and chief legal officers) indicated widespread planning for recession. Again, this was before the novel coronavirus was a factor.

Then there’s the national debt. What this “conservative” had already done to the national debt before anyone heard of COVID-19 involves truly incomprehensible numbers.

Presidents get too much blame and too much credit for swings in the economy, anyway. But things weren’t nearly as rosy as Trump’s campaign would have you believe.

Racism, the Police, and the Military

This part all but writes itself. It’s hard to imagine a worse person to be POTUS after the horrific killing of George Floyd than Donald Trump. He specializes in divisiveness while appealing to his base’s basest instincts . We all know what MAGA means to some of his followers. Not for nothing do white supremacists love him. Before leaving the topic, though, it’s worth saying something about the police and the military. That’s because the president managed to misuse both with one episode on June 1.

Trump set the police on peaceful protesters exercising the very sort of freedom of assembly and speech rights the First Amendment was created to protect. This for a chance to stand in front of a church and hold aloft the one document he apparently knows and cares even less about than the Constitution of the United States. To recap, the Bible and the First Amendment were abused as the police were misused to violently roust a peaceful protest against race-based police violence.

General  Mark Milley was in Trump’s entourage strolling across the recently-cleared Lafayette Square that day. His apology for participating seemed both deeply felt and carefully considered. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he knows the dangers of politicizing the military in a free democracy. Anyone in Trump’s vicinity must be prepared for a request or demand to engage in activity that is illegal, immoral, or both.

Trump and some of his wackier supporters refer to the impeachment as an “attempted coup”. Since the impeachment inquiry was brought in accordance with the constitution, due process, and precedent, it was the antithesis of attempted violent or illegal overthrow. There is someone itching to set the military on US citizens, though. At times, he seems almost giddy at the prospect.

Consequences In Sum

Much of what really does make America great is under siege. When considering the many reasons for pride in America, at the top of the list is the Constitution. And among its ingenious virtues, at the top of that long list are these: checks and balances of the three co-equal branches of government; the First Amendment freedoms; Equal Protection of the Law under the Fourteenth Amendment; and Due Process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The president you would not remove has remarkable animus toward each of these first principles, and undermines them at every turn. This is a different kind of coup attempt.

Back To You

Deep down inside, you know as well as we do how despicable Donald Trump is as a person, and how dangerous and unfit he is to be president.

Some of you said these things, and more, publicly when he was merely a candidate, and you were correct. Many more of you have said so privately to your closest confidants – and to yourselves late on a sleepless night – since the 2016 election, as the certainty of such assessments became undeniable.

You also know, deep down inside, how meritorious the impeachment inquiry was.

Despite the compelling case for removal, everyone, literally everyone, knew Trump would be acquitted. The simple reason was the majority you Republicans had in the Senate. It was simply a given that you would not vote in good conscience. The only interesting question was whether any of you would.

Thank you, Mitt Romney.

Perjury?

Senators take office with an oath. Nonetheless, at the start of the impeachment trial, Chief Justice Roberts administered the following specific oath to each senator: “Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, President of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?” 

One would think it impossible to overstate the gravity of the duty undertaken. In the weeks leading up to the impeachment trial, though, some of you made it clear you had no intention of doing impartial justice. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell seemed particularly intent on getting the point across. A December 18, 2019 Vanity Fair article by Alison Durkee contained a gathering of quotes from McConnell – and Lindsay Graham: “I’m not an impartial juror,” McConnell said. “This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision . . . I’m not impartial about this at all.” That wasn’t all. “Everything I do during this, I will be coordinating with White House counsel,” [indicating there would be] “no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.”

 “This thing will come to the Senate, and it will die quickly, and I will do everything I can to make it die quickly,” Graham said… “I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.”

Clear signal received. Now, under what conceivable argument, Senators Graham and McConnell, was your oath administered by the Chief Justice anything other than perjury? It’s acceptable to take a false oath in a proceeding if it’s not judicial? Lying in a “political process” is a given for you?

How many of you Senate Republicans did the equivalent without being so brazen about it in public? Are you emulating the president you enable?

Meanwhile, the Fallout Is Actually Even Worse

Note that in the high crimes and misdemeanors charged and chargeable, plus the malfeasance since the failure to remove, the facts are generally clear and not in serious dispute. Witnesses are scoffed at and called names, but the facts stand.

Consider that all of the above wrongdoing is limited to what we know about, matters of public record. Imagine what we don’t yet know.

What does all this portend? If THIS wasn’t enough to remove, impeachment is a nullity when either the Senate or the House is controlled by the president’s party. If so, then the president really will be above the law most of the time. Or as The Donald likes to say, “I can do anything I want!”

In Closing

I know what you did last winter. Instead of giving a real-life horror movie the ending it deserved, you made it even worse. Whatever good you may have done in your career, your legacy is now tied inextricably to that of the worst president in history – the most incompetent, the most dishonest, the most hateful, and the most corrupt.

You’d be wrong to dismiss me as from the far left, by the way. Electorally, I’m your worst nightmare these days – a centrist/moderate who considers candidates and issues on the merits, who pays attention, and who votes. Millions of Americans who are more-or-less like me decide elections.

In addition to two special elections, thirty-three Senate seats are up for election in 2020. Twenty-three of them are held by you Republicans.

Whether or not you are up for re-election this year, I have a suggestion. If you’ve died a thousand deaths since February 5, and have come to regret your vote to acquit, you might want to share that sentiment well before November 3. Indeed, you should do it while staunchly and publicly opposing whatever constitutional crisis or other outrage Trump has in store for us next. It won’t be long in coming.

Respectfully,
Kenneth J. Bossong

© 2020 Kenneth J. Bossong