2020 election is as divisive as 1860 and 1876

This November 3 will mark the 17^th presidential election I’ve lived through, the 15^th (beginning in 1960) that I closely followed, perhaps the most unusual and volatile election ever and the most divisive presidential election since 1860 or 1876.

The Super Tuesday primary on March 3 clarified a lot of uncertainties about who would win the Democratic nomination. Although no one has the brass ring secured, Joe Biden appears to be clearly in the lead, perhaps with finality.

Well aged: A general election between Biden and President Trump will be a face-off between the two oldest party nominees ever. Biden will be 78 in November. Trump will be 74 on Election Day. Bernie Sanders, who might still gain the Democratic nomination, will be 79. Forty years ago, Ronald Reagan became, by far, the oldest person ever elected president. He was 70 when elected and served two terms; some of us worried whether he’d finish his term. Sanders had a heart attack in October and was released after insertion of coronary artery stents. Biden has a history of aneurysms. Trump proclaims himself healthy, but he looks very overweight and brags that he never exercises. His volatile temper indicates dangerously unhealthy stress levels. One of these septuagenarians will win what may be the world’s most complex and stressful job. A serious health crisis or sudden death of a nominee would throw the election into the worst turmoil ever.

Speaking of health: All of the candidates have histories that scare portions of the electorate. Trump has alienated many voters with his instinctive, no-consultation decision-making and incessant bragging and lying. His expectation of a boost from a strong economy might flop because of a corona virus that is spreading around the world and hurting economies. Trump second-guessed the scientists and physicians who worried about the new virus while he relentlessly downplayed its seriousness. He dismissed concerns about the impact of the virus and lied about a cure, a vaccine and progress of the virus, demanding that he get all the credit.

Whose party? Sanders’ promise to bring new, younger voters to the polls has turned up empty. Facing ever-increasing odds, Sanders should withdraw and endorse the party nominee, as any other Democrat would in the interest of party unity. But here’s the catch: Sanders is not a Democrat. He has never joined the Democratic Party and is officially an independent. In 2016, he declined to endorse her after Hillary Clinton had won a majority of delegates. His overly zealous supporters’ accusations could hurt the party in November. But it’s not Sanders’ party, remember?

Biden’s weaknesses: Biden’s performance in the early party debates was so pitiful that he lost his status of assumed nominee. His oral slips (blamed on a stutter) and occasional confusion left supporters deeply concerned. His delivery has much improved, but he still gets lost in sentences sometimes. He doesn’t have the comfort level or the maliciousness of Trump and could get rattled by Trump insults and cruelty. Biden has avoided a full accounting of his son’s cushy job with a Ukrainian oil company, Barisma, but Trump will almost certainly harp on the matter. Hunter Biden’s deal may be nothing more than the privileges of the electoral class — just a smidgen of nepotism (one of the Trump family’s traits) or just bad judgment.

Vice President: Tradition and reason would suggest that Trump will keep chief sycophant Mike Pence as his running mate, but Trump is totally unpredictable. Biden and others have suggested a black female would be a good running mate. Sen. Kamala Harris dropped her campaign after she spent early debates attacking fellow Democrats, especially Biden. She has now endorsed Biden, making her a logical VP. If she’s on the ticket, she will be a strong debater and rousing speaker. She might even swing the California vote.

Progressives: Democrats used to be called liberals, but some marketing study must have found “progressive” a more likable term, so that’s what they call themselves (except for Sanders, a proud “democratic socialist.”) Like liberals, progressives want to use governmental power to improve the lives of voters. Some are willing to “never mind” the impact on the budget deficit or national debt. The GOP used to worry about deficits and counter the progressives, but since the GOP’s 2017 tax cut, Republicans have pushed deficits and the federal debt ever higher.

Interference: The 2020 election will almost certainly be influenced by computer hacking, cheating, dishonestly edited videos and foreign interference. We might not know who legitimately won until well after Election Day, and both Trump and Sanders supporters might take to the streets if their guy doesn’t win.

Remember the curse: “May you live in interesting times.”

Justice under Trump is like gangster fiction

This post was published in the Wilson Times Feb. 15, 2020.

The fix is in. That is the only conclusion one can draw from the retribution rants of President Donald Trump and the willing compliance of his consigliere, William Barr.

Gaining acquittal on impeachment charges from the complacent, obedient GOP caucus in the U.S. Senate has unleashed Trump to follow his worst, meanest instincts. He’s out to extract payback to everyone who has crossed him and even from those who simply failed to give him their unequivocal fealty. He will do everything he can to make life miserable for Sen. Mitt Romney, the only Republican to vote to convict Trump in the Senate impeachment trial.

He has already extracted revenge from Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and Ambassador Gordon Sondland by firing. Both had the audacity to go before the House Intelligence Committee, after being subpoenaed, to honestly testify about the president’s request for electoral assistance from the president of Ukraine. Other witnesses are also being dismissed from the administration and humiliated, if possible, in the process. Even Eugene Vindman, twin brother of Alexander and also a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, was perp-walked out of the White House in retaliation for … what? He didn’t testify about Trump. He remained in the background, never running afoul, as far as the public knows, of Trump’s white-hot temper. This amounts to a tyrant’s “blood vengeance” against whole families.

Senate Republicans, who admitted that the evidence compiled by the House showed that Trump had used his powers to obstruct the House investigation and attempted to conceal his improper actions, claimed Trump had learned a lesson from the painful impeachment inquiry and would be on better behavior henceforth. The president’s retribution tour, just a week after his acquittal in the Senate, proves this president refuses to learn from his mistakes.

Having escaped punishment in the Senate, Trump is unleashed. All of his “enemies” are in danger from a president without restraints, a president who had earlier asserted that Article II of the Constitution gave him the authority to do whatever he wanted to do. (It does no such thing.) With its impeachment vote, the Republican majority in the Senate removed the last restraint within the federal government on Trump’s abuse of power.

It only gets scarier. With Barr, Trump’s sycophant-in-chief, wielding the awesome powers of the U.S. Department of Justice, there truly may be no constraint on Trump doing anything he dreams of doing. Barr, well known as an advocate of expanded presidential powers, is in a position to sculpt the Justice Department to suit Trump’s whims.

On Tuesday, Trump went on another rant, this one about the conviction and imminent sentencing of some of his cronies. As he has done in the past, he attacked federal judges over their rulings. He went too far for four career prosecutors involved in the Roger Stone sentencing. Stone, a long-time friend and errand boy in the Trump gang, was convicted of lying to Congress and witness tampering. Prosecutors recommended seven to nine years in prison for unapologetic Stone, a sentence within federal guidelines. If you’re not familiar with Stone, watch the 2017 documentary, “Get Me Roger Stone.” It’s available for streaming.

But Barr’s Justice Department has overruled its prosecutors on the sentencing recommendation, leading them to resign in protest. Also up in the air are sentencing for Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign manager, and Michael Flynn, former Trump national security advisor. Manafort was convicted, and Flynn pleaded guilty to their charges.

Perhaps worse than all this is a new policy at Barr’s Justice Department. It declares that no investigation can be opened into any presidential candidate without the written consent of Barr. Think he’ll sign off on an investigation of Trump or any of his troupe? Not on your life. The fix is in.

Gangster fiction terminology may be the only way to comprehend the Trump administration. Fictional gangsters would solve their legal problems by getting their cases dismissed by a judge the mob “owned.” Trump owns an entire Justice Department and still tries to intimidate federal judges with his Twitter tantrums. Like a gangster godfather, Trump protects those who are loyal and obedient and punishes those who cross him or disappoint him.

The scales of justice are being trampled by this administration.

-->

Republlicans see Democrats as Pontius Pilate and Trump as God

During the debates (which were more like a shouting match) Wednesday as the House of Representatives was about to vote on two articles of impeachment against President Trump, a Georgia congressman compared House Republicans to Pontius Pilate and said Pilate, the Roman governor who sentenced Jesus to death, was more fair than House Democrats. Jesus got better treatment from Pilate than President Trump got from House Democrats, he said.

Think about that. If Democrats are the equivalent of the 2000-years-ago Roman governor, then Donald J. Trump must be ... Jesus Christ. That makes Trump GOD!

No wonder Republicans are falling in line behind their leader: They have him mistaken for the one true God, who made heaven and Earth, who divided the Red Sea, who gave the laws to Moses, who is and was and always will be.

This explanation helps explain Republicans' boot-licking attitude toward President Trump and their refusal to believe overwhelming evidence of his wrongdoing and misbehavior. The trance he has imposed on every (R) in the Senate can only be understood as divine intervention or mass ignorance.

 

Impeachment 2019 won't be like Impeachment 1974

As the impeachment of a president begins to look more and more likely, I have found myself thinking back to the 1974 impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon. I was working in Washington at the time, reading the Washington Post daily and feeling excited about having a close-up seat for this political drama.

Nixon was not impeached, but the House Judiciary Committee had filed articles of impeachment and sent them to the full House for a vote. Recognizing that the House vote would be overwhelmingly for impeachment, Nixon reluctantly resigned, thereby allowing appointed Vice President Gerald Ford to ascend to the presidency and issue a pardon, which saved Nixon from charges for criminal conduct the impeachment inquiry had revealed.

It took a visit from Sen. Barry Goldwater, the most recognized and admired Republican in the Senate, to convince Nixon that his presidency could not survive an impeachment vote. If Nixon had not resigned, the impeachment trial before the full Senate could have dragged on for weeks, leaving the country nearly rudderless.

The 2019 impeachment debate will play out in a very different climate. Nixon had lost the support of all but the most dedicated Republicans. A recent poll showed Trump’s overall approval rating around 50 percent, but his approval among registered Republicans was more than 90 percent. It’s difficult to explain the disparity in one large portion of the electorate. Trump’s lashing out at every criticism and total denial of every accusation has to be a factor in the polls’ schism. His true believers have been trained to ignore all news reports that do not emanate from Trump himself or his minions.

Another factor in Trump’s favor if impeachment happens is his demand for personal loyalty from all appointees in his administration as well as elected officials. Although federal officials take an oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution, Trump demands and usually gets personal loyalty. If enough people in power violate their oath to uphold the Constitution and rule instead in favor of Trump’s interests, any impeachment vote will fail.

For Nixon, the secret Oval Office audiotapes were the deciding factor for impeachment. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Nixon had to release the tapes. Would a 2019 Supreme Court, with a 5-4 Republican majority including two Trump appointees, rule against this president? We may find out before this is all over.

Trump has been frequently accused of violating his oath of office and seeking to rule regardless of Constitutional restrictions and balance of power. He also faces lawsuits alleging he is violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution by accepting (and even marketing) stays at his hotels and resorts paid by foreign governments. His latest alleged violation involves telephone calls to the president of Ukraine. Those calls could be problematic on two counts: (1) Trump asks for “a favor” involving a Ukrainian investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son; and (2) Trump uses his elective office to conduct personal business, a vendetta against the Bidens, and brings in his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and U.S. Attorney General Robert Barr. Using company time, company assets and company resources to conduct personal business is unethical on any level. If true, Trump has committed what amounts to a corporate executive conducting his Amway business from his corporate desk.

What makes this impeachment inquiry particularly difficult is Trump’s insistence that he has never, ever done anything wrong (and claimed the calls to Ukraine were “perfect”), and his followers’ willingness to believe every word from a man with an astounding history of prevarications. A delegation from Congress, like the one that convinced Nixon to resign, will not work with Trump. If he goes down, he will go down screaming his innocence and perfection.

Sometimes a debate is not really a debate

This column was published by the Wilson Times Aug. 10, 2019,

I watched all four episodes of a program called the Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate held in the past two months. I lost sleep I will never recover and came away with a few impressions of the people who want to replace President Donald Trump.

The greater impression, however, was that this entire series was over-blown, poorly presented and not particularly helpful to voters. Although these debates were promoted as a chance for voters to “meet the candidates,” in their presentation, the debates aimed more at entertaining voters than enlightening them. Nowhere was this more evident than in the “introduction” of the ten candidates to be presented in the last two episodes, which were presented by CNN. The network had each of the 10 candidates each night enter the stage from behind a curtain, as if they were competing in the Miss America Pageant. The candidates got to smile and wave at the audience, who cheered while precious minutes of the program’s two hours were wasted.

The debate monitors tried to limit the candidates to one-minute responses to sometimes complex questions and invited other candidates to critique the responses from other candidates. It seemed obvious the monitors tried to foment controversy among the candidates, creating TV-perfect excitement. The monitors also seemed to have their favorites among the candidates and called on the same candidates over and over while other candidates were largely ignored. The network seemed to want the loudest, most persistent, most extreme candidates on camera.

Although both networks airing the debates (CNN and NBC) were rewarded with controversies, provocative statements and personal attacks live on-stage, the script did not benefit typical voters, nor did it meet the definition of a debate as a “formal discussion on a particular topic …” Usually, a debate is between two individuals or two teams, one taking the affirmative and the other the negative side of a resolution. With 10 individuals on stage and the monitors tossing out questions that are aimed at creating controversy and division, rather than understanding, there is no formal debate.

Americans have been intrigued with presidential debates since the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates, the first ever aired live on television. Kennedy is credited with winning that one-on-one debate, but Nixon didn’t lose by much in a showdown determined as much by style and “optics” as by policy and debating points.

Since 1960, with few exceptions, presidential nominees and even vice-presidential nominees, have debated regularly on television. The 2016 Republican debates and this year’s debates provide an argument that the “presidential debates” are no longer worthwhile. In 2016, Donald Trump bullied his way to the GOP nomination by insulting other candidates and making impossible promises based on his “only I can do this” theme. This year’s 23 Democratic candidates tend to be a blur before voters, who can hardly keep up with the names of two dozen candidates, much less their political policies or opinions.

It’s time to provide a service that is useful for voters. Instead of presenting a beauty contest or hollerin’ contest, the networks should fulfill their obligation to serve the public by providing each candidate a reasonable amount of free 15 to 30 minutes in prime time to present their beliefs and policies to voters. The networks and candidates could select the topics for each segment, and candidates would have to stick to that topic or their pre-recorded presentation would be shortened. Corporations could “sponsor” debates on an all-or-none basis but would not be able to run commercials.

Would voters tune in to watch one candidate lay out his/her vision for America with no opportunity for belittling or backstabbing? I hope that as large a percentage of American adults would watch these programs as watched the last episode of “Friends,” but that may be asking too much.

Impeachment is not a simple maneuver

This post was published in the Wilson Times April 27,  2019.

In the first 100 years of the American Republic, only one president was impeached (and the senator who cast the decisive “not guilty” vote was lauded in John F. Kennedy’s “Profiles in Courage”). In the last 50 years, I have lived through two (failed) impeachments and am now facing a potential third trial aimed at removing Donald Trump from office.

With the release of the Mueller report, it is now up to Congress to decide whether President Trump will be impeached. The special counsel investigation failed to find prima facie evidence of conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign to sway the 2016 election to Trump, but it did find an abundance of evidence of dishonesty, cruelty, misuse of office, malfeasance, abuse of presidential power and abuse of federal officials. It also showed the Trump campaign did nothing to rebuff or discourage Russia’s improper interventions. The Constitution provides for impeachment of a president for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and Trump defenders claim no one has presented credible evidence of a “high crime.”

But did the authors of the Constitution intend to limit impeachment only to specific federal crimes (there were no federal criminal statutes at the time the Constitution was ratified)? Or were the authors of the Constitution intentionally vague in order to punish misbehavior, incompetence or disreputable behavior in office? Many contend the latter thinking was intended in the impeachment clause.

Many elected officials (most of them Democrats) have cited Trump’s blatant lies, his mistreatment of subordinates and international allies, his narcissism, his attacks on the federal courts, his mendacity, his contempt for American values and institutions as more than adequate grounds for impeachment.

Some Democrats and a few others are pushing for Congress to bring impeachment charges against the president, but the Democratic leadership in Congress has advocated caution over any impeachment bill. Theoretically, an impeachable offense is whatever Congress says it is. It is the sole authority on this matter, authorized to bring charges in the House and convict or find not guilty in the Senate. Because GOP senators have lined up behind Trump, no matter what, an impeachment trial conviction is highly unlikely.

Although Congress determines whether an incident is an impeachable offense, there is another factor involved: voters. In the 1974 impeachment case against Richard Nixon, a majority of Americans had lost all confidence in Nixon. His approval ratings in polls dropped into the 20 percent range. The courts had ruled against his refusal to give up subpoenaed evidence of his obstruction of justice. Even then, Nixon had a loyal following among a small minority of voters and a league of loyalists on Capitol Hill. It took the intervention of Sen. Barry Goldwater, the most respected Republican in Congress, to convince Nixon that he had to resign or face certain removal from office.

When the House voted to impeach Bill Clinton in 1998, the president remained popular. He recorded his highest popularity rating — 73 percent — in the month that the House voted to impeach him. He was quickly acquitted by the Senate. The Clinton impeachment came to be viewed as a ghastly overreach by Republicans in Congress. Yes, Clinton had a disgusting affair with a 22-year-old White House intern, and he lied about it, but he lied to protect himself and his family, not to harm the country. Pushing the Clinton matter to the level of impeachment hurt the Republican Party, so Democratic leaders are cautious about going down that road again.

Their caution is sensible, but Trump might not be immunized from impeachment. The Mueller report, at first lauded and then condemned by Trump, did not exonerate the president. It revealed or confirmed a number of incidents that could be criminal misconduct, including obstruction of justice. Congress will investigate Trump’s finances, including the likelihood that his businesses violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution. The Mueller report may be only the beginning of a serious examination of Trump misconduct that could lead to impeachment.

Trump’s next test will likely be at the ballot box 18 months from now, not in an impeachment bill before Congress. Some have raised concerns that Trump might refuse to vacate his office if he is impeached or defeated at the polls. After all, he still contends, against all evidence, that he won the popular vote in 2016. His base of loyal, determined supporters likely will follow him down whatever road he takes. They have made it clear that they are loyal to Trump, not to the Constitution.

   In 2020 voters will choose whether to believe a president who dismisses as “fake news” anything that makes him look bad or fails to bolster his ego against someone (a candidate to be named later) who will promise a return to respect for federal agencies, institutions, laws and standards.

Hal Tarleton is a former editor of The Wilson Daily Times. Contact him at haltarleton@myglnc.com.

-->

Immigration issue is more than a wall in the sand

This post was published in The Wilson Times April 6, 2019.

Immigration has become the Gordian Knot of American politics, the issue that is impossible to unravel and keeps advocates on both sides tied up.

It wasn’t always this way. In the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, immigration was viewed as an overall positive for the United States. The Statue of Liberty (dedicated 1886) symbolizes that national attitude: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free … .” In those days, unskilled immigrants could find jobs at decent wages. But the U.S. labor market has far fewer manual labor jobs and more jobs that require advanced training or skills.

In the 1980s, U.S. politicians realized that illegal immigration, particularly from Mexico and Central America, was reshaping America without any study, planning or control. President Reagan and Congress agreed on the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act to crack down on illegal immigration and provide a means for illegal immigrants already here to come clean and be naturalized as citizens.

The law created paperwork for illegal immigrants to apply for legal status and required employers to check the legal status of employees. The law granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants, but it did not slow the pace of migrants crossing the southern border. In fact, the migration accelerated, adding another 10 - 14 million illegals to the U.S. population.

Since then, Congress has been unable to find a consensus on what to do about the illegal immigrants already among us or the millions more who might cross the border illegally in the future. In his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump simplified the complex problem with three simplistic words: Build That Wall. For all his exaggerations and persistence, Trump has not found a solution to the issue. A wall can be breached, climbed over, tunneled under or blown up and cannot stanch the flow of illegal immigrants at a price Americans are unwilling to pay. (And Mexico has refused to pay for a wall, as candidate Trump promised they would.)

The basic problem is not people crossing the border illegally; it is the corruption, violence, poverty and economic hopelessness of Mexico and Central American countries that drives residents to risk everything for an opportunity to work and compete for the American Dream. The problem will not go away until those high-emigration countries improve the safety and economic opportunities of their residents. U.S. immigration policy should include helping those countries reform.

David Frum, writing in the April issue of The Atlantic, puts the immigration problem in perspective. Illegal immigrants are also swamping European countries. Like Mexicans or Salvadorans, these immigrants would rather live in a prosperous country than live a Third World existence.

Part of the problem has been the willingness, even eagerness of U.S. employers to hire immigrants, who often are more eager to work than native populations. Immigrants provide some positive benefits for the U.S. economy, and some negative effects as well. Immigrants contribute to the economy; their birth rate keeps the U.S. population from declining. Immigrants require more government assistance than native born, on average, in costs such as subsidized housing, medical care, specialized education and so forth. U.S. businesses can’t get along without immigrants, but illegal immigrants offer less help. The current policy of accepting low-skilled, poor immigrants has long-term negative impacts on Social Security and Medicare.

Frum suggests we need to reconsider laws on refugees and asylum seekers. If the criteria for asylum are fleeing violence and poverty, much of the world’s population is eligible.

Frum also provides a dose of reality for those on the left who claim Americans should welcome all immigrants because we are all neighbors: “Without immigration restrictions, there are no national borders. Without international borders, there are no nation-states. Without nation-states, there are no electorates. Without electorates, there is no democracy. If liberals insist that only fascists will enforce borders, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals refuse to do.”

Hal Tarleton is a former editor of The Wilson Daily Times. Contact him at haltarleton@myglnc.com.

-->

Donald Trump, the Great Negotiator

The federal government is in the midst of another partial government shutdown, but this one could be longer lasting than previous shutdowns. Each of these shutdowns is evidence of a failing, inept, incompetent government. It doesn't seem to matter whether Democrats are in charge or Republicans are in charge, whether there is divided government or one-party rule in Washington. From Capitol Hill to sixteen blocks away at the White House, the government can't get the simplest, most important things done, such as passing a comprehensive budget on time.

What might make this shutdown different is the man in the Oval Office. President Trump fancies himself a shrewd businessman and "stable genius." Democrats have a lesser assessment of the president's skills and character.

Trump has said he welcomes a government shutdown (just as he welcomes trade wars). He markets himself as a great negotiator and frequently touts his great breakthroughs in negotiations with foreign leaders, but those breakthroughs have a habit of breaking down once Trump has finished tweeting.

Trump has demanded that Congress approve a budget that includes $5 billion for the wall along the southern border that he promised in his 2016 campaign, leading chants of "Build that Wall!" But Democrats, who offered five times as much for his wall if Trump would only agree to changes in immigration rules and a chance at full citizenship for immigrants who came here as children. Trump, the great negotiator, turned that deal down.

The president's behavior in this and in past talks contradicts his claims of skill as a negotiator. He has failed to deliver in most negotiations, despite his bragging.

Trump's problem likely is rooted in his background. He grew up as the anointed son of a real estate mogul, who started at (or near) the top. He could run the family business according to his own whims. He didn't have to ask advice. He didn't have to answer to anyone. He was the boss, the king, the emperor, the ruler of all he surveyed.

When he negotiated, he could look out only for his own interests. There were no co-equal parties to the negotiations, only subordinates, "losers" in his vocabulary. If he wanted to refuse payments to a subcontractor, he could get away with it. He could offer them low offer or nothing else. It was his way or the highway. If worse came to worst, he could declare bankruptcy and leave the creditors to plead for pennies on the dollar in bankruptcy court.

Trump would like to negotiate the way he did as a private businessman, but he can't. Congress is equally as powerful as the executive branch, and the judicial branch is equal to the other two branches. Trump cannot bully Congress the way he bullied subcontractors. He cannot expend money on his centerpiece border wall without an appropriation from Congress. He will have to learn to negotiate in good faith and to compromise if he wants more end this shutdown.

Speaker of the House is calling it quits

Every politician trying to get out while the getting is good claims he/she wants to "spend more time with my family." In Speaker of the House Paul Ryan's case, this excuse may actually be truthful, at least in part. His children have largely grown up without him over the past 20 years.

Nevertheless, Ryan's decision not to run for re-election to a safe seat in Congress and to not continue as speaker of the House has to have been influenced by several factors: the difficulty of legislating with an impulsive, unpredictable, often angry and spiteful president in the White House; the nearly impossible task of getting a majority of House members to agree on legislation of any kind in a hyper-partisan atmosphere, the frustration of trying to work with members of the Republican right wing that wants to cripple the federal government as a means of realizing their dream of a more decentralized, unregulated society.

Ryan may also not want to preside over a congressional minority if Republicans lose enough seats, as many are predicting, to give the Democrats a majority. Who wants to be the minority leader after you've been Speaker of the House? Just ask Nancy Pelosi. Republicans have already been wounded by an unusual number of decisions not to seek re-election. Mid-term elections usually result in lost seats for the party in power.

Whatever his reasons might be, Ryan's decision will likely weaken the GOP effort to retain control of the House and the Senate, if for no other reason than the appearance that the party's leader is giving up.

Democrats are excited and optimistic about mid-term elections. They plan to run against an unpopular president and a Congress that has done little to address key issues that are priorities for many Americans. However, Democrats would be foolish to be over-confident. Few, if any, Democrats thought Donald Trump could win the White House in 2016, and gleeful Democrats are probably underestimating his support again this year. Polls and other indicators show that Trump supporters are more loyal than ever and are determined to follow their leader wherever he goes.

November's election results might hinge on Trump, but at this point no one knows whether Trump will turn voters toward Democratic candidates or will drag Republicans into an abyss.

Football, Super Bowls and the future

This Super Bowl weekend, numerous articles are pointing out the decline in the popularity of the National Football League. President Trump has suggested the decline in NFL game TV ratings is the result of players' protests during the pregame National Anthem. More sober analyses show many factors account for the ratings decline, including the "cut the cord" movement (which has resulted in an overall decline in network/cable viewing), the lack of success by fans' favorite teams (Dallas Cowboys and others) and individual players (Cam Newton and others), and the acknowledgement that traumatic brain injuries are plaguing the entire sport.

Another factor, largely unacknowledged, is the never-ending hype of the networks and the NFL to cram two entire weeks of anticipation into the calendar before the Super Bowl takes place. Sunday's game is scheduled for 6:30, but NBC's coverage of the game begins at noon. That strikes me as a textbook definition of overkill. Fans' capacity for minute details and "expert" opinions has been stretched beyond the breaking point.

This all-day coverage is aimed at selling more high-priced commercial time, of course. The Super Bowl captures the largest annual viewership and charges the highest quarter-minute price for commercials. Super Bowl commercials have become an event almost as anticipated as the game itself.

In the 52-year history (or the LII history if you're into the NFL's pretentious Roman numerals) of Super Bowls, I've probably closely watched 46 (that XLVI) of them. I'll watch number LII Sunday, even though my favorite teams faltered in the regular season or playoffs and won't be on the field.

Despite its inherent violent collisions and dangers of serious, even permanent, injury, football can provide moments of beauty, such as a perfectly arced pass that drops the football into the receiver's hand 60 yards from where it was unleashed, a sudden zig-zag that frees a runner to scamper into the end zone past prostate defensive players who were faked out by the move, or a ballet-like leap into the air to snag a pass and return to earth within the painted lines on the field.

These moments are why I still watch the game, even though I find college football more interesting and exciting. Both collegiate and professional football are facing an existential threat in the form of crippling brain traumas that leave retired players with severe mental disabilities and/or dementia. Participation in football is declining at the middle school and high school level. Parents are reluctant to allow their sons to play a game that can result in their permanent disability. Without youth football to supply the apprentices to the college and pro games, the sport cannot survive. Even though the NFL and the NCAA have imposed new rules to limit the severity of collisions to the head and neck, the hazard of debilitating concussions and dementia persists. Better helmets don't seem to be the answer.

I'll watch the Super Bowl Sunday knowing that the event might not reach its ninety-ninth year (that would be Super Bowl IC), and I will look forward to the start of the college football season (although my team isn't doing well) with all its hoopla, youthful excitement, and perfect blue skies. It's one of the reasons I love the autumn.

Iraq War was a "Fiasco" with lessons to tell

"Fiasco," a book I've wanted to read for a decade, finally came my way, and I found time to read it. The book is a history of the Iraq War by Washington Post reporter Tom Ricks (a Pulitzer Prize winner), and its title aptly describes the foolishness and incompetence of the political administration that blindly pushed the nation into that war and the military officers who wasted American, allied and Iraqi lives because they failed (with some exceptions) to plan strategically, to understand the country they invaded and to foresee the post-invasion chaos that their decisions caused.

At the end of 2002, members of the George W. Bush administration set their minds on invading Iraq, ousting Saddam Hussein and turning the large, diverse and moderately wealthy country into a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. To justify their plans, they claimed that Saddam had nuclear, chemical and biological "weapons of mass destruction," constituting a clear and imminent danger to the United States and its allies.

It turns out there were no such weapons. Saddam had given up his WMD program years earlier. Administration claims that Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks carried out by Al Qaeda should have been clearly seen as false, but the warmongers were determined to take over Iraq for whatever reason, or no reason other than, "we can."

The U.S. military, by far the strongest on Earth, had little problem pushing through Iraq in a matter of days, but no one in the administration had a plan for what would then become of Iraq. Crucial errors were made. The Iraqi army was disbanded, leaving no infrastructure for an orderly transition. The Pentagon insisted that few troops would be needed to conquer and occupy Iraq, despite studies that said hundreds of thousands more troops would be needed. Huge weapons caches filled with artillery shells, mortars, rifles, etc. were bypassed by invading troops in their narrowly focused search for WMD. Those caches would serve as warehouses for insurgents who turned the explosives into improvised explosive devices. These IEDs killed and maimed thousands of U.S. soldiers. Oops! American commanders (with few exceptions) never won the trust of the Iraqi people, thus the insurgency grew more and more powerful.

Fiasco! Debacle! Call it what you will; it has been called the single worst foreign policy decision in American history. Iraq today is, by many measures, worse off than it was before the invasion and is not a "beacon of democracy."

Rick's book, though on used-book shelves (where I found a copy) today, still has lessons for American leaders and American voters. President Trump repeatedly says the U.S. military is in terrible shape and needs billions of dollars more in funding. Military units are suffering, but they are suffering because of the demands being put on our service personnel. We have had troops in Iraq since March 2003. U.S. involvement in the Afghan War has gone on for more than 16 years. Troops are getting out because they have tired of one deployment after another. Politicians and voters are demanding too much of our military personnel. The United States has become a nation that looks to war first, knowing that our wars will be fought by volunteers from low-income families and circumstances. The sons and daughters of the wealthy and powerful will not have to risk their lives. Generals who contribute to fiascos like Iraq are not fired (as several in World War II were); they are given presidential medals.

"Fiasco" is a book well worth reading, and well worth thinking about any time some politician suggests sending U.S. troops into some woebegone country to keep America safe.

Is it time for President Oprah?

I watched Oprah Winfrey's speech at the Golden Globes ceremony, and I have to congratulate her on a rousing, beautifully delivered speech. (I watched the YouTube version, not live.) I've never been mesmerized by Oprah or any other daytime TV star, but I've admired her business and entertainment savvy and appreciate her support for books and authors more than anything else she's done.

Monday's speech kicked off a groundswell, so it seems, for Oprah's presidential bid in 2020. The Democratic Party has no obvious consensus candidate for the next presidential election, so the path seems wide open for Oprah. Her speech shows she knows how to inspire and motivate others. I could vote for her, particularly if her opponent is Donald J. Trump.

But I have some concerns about an Oprah presidency. First of all, I don't think America needs another television celebrity with no governmental experience in charge of the Executive Branch. Sure, Oprah is not at all like Trump, but she  shares some of his disqualifications: lack of government experience, lack of government service, and lack of deep knowledge of how to get things done in Washington. Some of the electorate will consider these "disqualifications" as the highest and best qualifications, but putting a novice in charge is highly risky in any venture.

Oprah would be the opposite of Donald Trump in policy making in areas such as civil rights, regulation of private business, immigration, taxation, deficit spending, judicial appointments, foreign policy and authority of the administration. These issues can and should be debated separate from the issues of presidential experience and capabilities. Issue debates will go on regardless of who is elected president in 2020.

One huge positive for Oprah will be her ability to inspire the country. American voters have become cynical, distrusting and dubious about the ability of the federal government to do anything right or do the right thing. An inspirational president could reverse this decades-long trend toward national cynicism and distrust. John F. Kennedy, the most inspiring president of my lifetime, said that he wanted to show young people that politics could be an honorable career choice. JFK was one of only a handful of great inspirational leaders to win the White House, following Jefferson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts and Wilson. (I'm not including Obama in this list; although he could be inspiring, his presidency failed to gain bipartisan consensus, and he is too recently out of office for history to fairly judge him.)

All of these presidents inspired with words, with lofty rhetoric that inspired the public and motivated them to support administration initiatives. Oprah clearly has the rhetorical skills to articulate inspiring messages that could marshal national support. She could be the singular individual who could reverse the long trend toward cynicism and distrust, but she will have to show that she is a skilled administrator as well as a writer and speaker.

 

News, nostalgia and inspiration at the Newseum

On our first visit to Washington, D.C., in 25 years, my wife and I went to the Newseum, located at 6th Street and Constitution Avenue. Neither of us was sure what the Newseum would be like, but we paid our entry fee and began exploring the six levels of exhibits about newspapers, news reporting, and history.

It was a worthwhile visit, although the galleries and corridors and stairs could be a maze. Of particular interest to us were a video presentation of reporters talking about their response to 9/11. They were at work in Manhattan when the terrorists crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center. Watching the scenes and hearing the reporters' disbelief (like all of us) that this could be happening, took us back to that horrific day 16 years ago. Despite the life-risking dangers as the towers fell and thousands died, the reporters swallowed their personal feelings, fears and concerns for themselves, their friends and their families, and continued to report what was happening.

I couldn't help thinking that the current president of the United States called these self-sacrificing reporters "enemies of the people" and purveyors of "fake news." The close-up video of the second plane crashing into the World Trade Center was so terrifying and so clearly an airliner aimed directly at the building that I once again could not understand how anyone could deny that this tragedy was carried out by Islamic terrorists who hijacked four aircraft in a well-planned and malevolent plot against the United States. Yet some conspiracy theorists even today say the whole thing was carried out by the federal government.

Another exhibit in the Newseum examined the relationship of President John F. Kennedy with the press. Kennedy seemed to enjoy sparring with reporters at news conferences, and an interview video shows Kennedy saying that the  adversarial relationship between the press and the government is a natural and healthy thing. Another exhibit celebrated JFK on the 100th anniversary of his birth. These exhibits gave me a flood of nostalgia. The grief I had felt in 1963 was renewed hearing this brilliant, articulate, inspiring and short-lived president. I could not avoid a comparison between this man, who wrote books and regularly read 15 newspapers a day, to the current president, who boasts that he never reads books and requires the White House staff to limit any briefing papers, no matter how complex the issue, to one page. How far we have fallen!

Another Newseum exhibit was a 50th anniversary look back at the civil rights era of the 1960s. The cruelty of segregation and the officials who responded to protesters with violence were exceeded only by the murders of many civil rights advocates and bystanders. It's an era worth remembering not only because of the illogical cruelty and oppression but also to be reminded of how far we have come.

The Newseum is a stop to include on your Washington trip. I only wish the museum had offered a discount if I showed my old press pass (I still have it).

Trump the Democrat

Suppose Donald Trump runs for re-election on the Democratic ticket!

After yesterday's new coalition of Trump, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer plus Trump's indication that he might eliminate the debt ceiling altogether, Trump seems more Democratic than some Democrats. And he clearly left some Republicans (Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) miffed by the Republican president's detour around the party's congressional leadership.

The Trump-Pelosi-Schumer triumvirate got together on a legislative plan that appears to be counter to the Republican Party's interests. Ryan and McConnell wanted to put off debt ceiling and 2018 budget decisions until after the 2018 mid-term elections. Making painful and controversial decisions after the election instead of before would be in the best interests of the majority party. Democrats wanted action sooner rather than later, giving them the opportunity to force Republicans to state where they stand on controversial but essential legislation before Americans go to the polls.

Some Republicans have complained that Trump is not really a Republican, which is true. He is Trump, and what is good for him and his friends is his policy, regardless of partisan concerns. Bipartisanship, if that is what Trump is able to bring about, would be welcomed by many Americans and by some members of Congress in both parties.

Bipartisanship would be helpful in repairing Trump's initiative on immigration. Trump was prompted (by Pelosi) to say some nice things about young immigrants while his attorney general announced the rescinding of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy of the Obama administration. Trump tweeted (how else would he make an important announcement?) that the "Dreamers" protected by DACA would have nothing to worry about in the six months before DACA expires under the new policy.

Critics are portraying the administration's decision as a cruel betrayal of these young immigrants brought here illegally as children. But what the administration is doing is forcing Congress to pass DACA-type protections into federal law. It gives Congress six months to pass legislation. There is no guarantee that Congress will do its duty, but there seems to be overwhelming support for providing a means for these innocent young people to avoid deportation. Members of Congress who fail to support a fair and reasonable bill to protect "Dreamers" will face political consequences. A long-sought comprehensive immigration overhaul might even come from this motivation.

Both of these actions this week by the president relates to his impatience and impulsiveness. Trump has been critical of Congress for its failure to pass health care legislation and other important measures. He has accused his own party's leadership of dragging their feet. Most successful businessmen have an impatient streak, and Trump's streak is long and deep. If his impatience gets Congress to start things moving, he could salvage his own failing presidency.

Prayers and theological malpractice

The Rev. William Barber, president of the North Carolina NAACP, did not like the news photo of evangelical leaders gathered in the White House to pray for and "lay hands on" President Donald Trump. I can't really blame him. I found the picture of that scene disturbing, and I have found the evangelical support of Trump throughout the presidential campaign and presidency a mystery and an abandonment of Christian principles. Many evangelicals continue to support Trump, despite his habitual lying, his personal insults, prideful mendacity and his lack of Christian compassion and humility.

But Barber's reaction went beyond my own disgust and disappointment with Christian leaders who have forsaken Christian principles for political gain. Barber has declared praying for Trump to be "theological malpractice bordering on heresy." Barber seems to forget that Jesus urged his followers to "love your enemies" and "pray for those" who hate you or use you.

I don't know the nature of the prayers the evangelicals uttered in the White House, but I would hope that they prayed for divine guidance for the nation's leader. He needs all the divine guidance he can get, even though he shows little evidence of Christian devotion, humility or openness to change.

Is it wrong to pray for someone you disagree with or who has done wrong? Surely any Christian, evangelical or not, would agree that praying for others is a religious practice, if not an obligation. I think of the survivors of the Mother Emmanuel Church massacre who publicly declared that they had forgiven the racist gunman who murdered nine church members at a Bible study, and they would pray for him. Such forgiveness and compassion is a Christian witness.

Barber's wrapping of his own political agenda in a religious cloak is not surprising. It is his standard methodology. The protests against the Republican state legislators in Raleigh were not just a political statement; they were moral judgments. Barber named the weekly protests "Moral Mondays." Although I agree with the protesters' opposition to many of the actions of the General Assembly, I recognize that no political party or faction has a monopoly on morality.

I was introduced to Barber about a decade ago, when he was selected as keynote speaker at Wilson's annual Martin Luther King Jr. breakfast. The breakfast enjoyed broad biracial support and had become a convivial celebration of community diversity. Speakers in previous years had praised King's nonviolent approach to racial equality and his principle of brotherhood all people.

Barber took a different tack. He angrily and loudly vilified the white community in general and specific white politicians (all Republicans). Before his speech ended, people began leaving. The joyful highs that had concluded previous MLK breakfasts were missing after Barber's speech. A member of the MLK celebration told me later that Barber had nearly destroyed the annual breakfast, causing it to lose much of its business and corporate support.

Barber's critique of his political adversaries is not heretical, but it does weaken the moral foundation of religion. If all morality is politically based, it is no longer morality. If religious principles are based on politics, it's not sound religion.

Watergate and showing Comey the door

I was working in Washington when the "Saturday Night Massacre" shocked and appalled America in 1973, creating a volcanic reaction against President Nixon.

President Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey seems less volatile and less shocking than Nixon's firing of Archibald Cox, but the similarities cannot be missed. Firing an FBI director is within a president's prerogatives, but firing an FBI director, or anyone else who is directing an investigation of the president's actions, makes the firing suspicious and shocking.

The rationale for firing Comey was odd and somewhat contradictory. He was fired, it was said, for his poor performance in the investigation of Hillary Clinton's email server. This is the investigation that candidate Trump glowingly praised during the presidential campaign. The firing also comes many months after Comey's alleged missteps. And it comes in the midst of an ongoing investigation by the FBI into Russian attempts to influence the 2016 presidential campaign with targeted leaks, planted false "news," and other conniving.

Jeffrey Toobin, the Supreme Court journalist and author, compared the Comey firing to Third World dictatorships, where investigations of the ruler or ruling family inevitably led to the firing of investigators. "What kind of country is this?" Toobin asked on CNN.

Comey made some mistakes as FBI director. His press conference to announce that no charges would be brought against Hillary Clinton over her email practices, followed weeks later by an announcement of the reopening of the investigation (and subsequent closing without new findings), led to harsh criticism from Democrats.

If you stretch credulity and assume Trump had legitimate reasons to fire Comey, the timing is still troubling. The Russia-Trump probe continues, at least for now, and it should gain greater urgency. Trump's unctuous and misleading compliment to Comey in the letter firing him attempts to portray Trump as innocent but just raises suspicions more.

Trump's readiness to fire the FBI director should lead to a special prosecutor, one outside of the Jeff Sessions Justice Department and the White House, one with independence and authority to subpoena and bring criminal charges. Congressional investigations into Russian influence in the 2016 campaign should gain importance and greater bipartisanship. Trump's bold timing and vague rationale surely raise suspicions.

This national crisis has not risen to the level of Watergate (where are Sam Ervin, Judge Sirica and John Dean?), but it does show that an independent investigation is warranted.

Health care for all has only one option

After dozens of votes to repeal "Obamacare," Republicans in Congress have gotten their wish. They have the votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but they now face the reality that repealing the act does not improve health care. The repeal leaves huge gaps in health care and eliminates many popular aspects of the Affordable Care Act, such as protecting patients from being punished for having pre-existing conditions.

The reality has hit the GOP leadership: They can't just repeal Obamacare. They have to replace it. A proposed replacement was rolled out this week, but the Congressional Budget Office has found that the GOP health care plan leaves an additional 24 million Americans without health insurance. That figure frightened some less ideological Republicans, and votes to pass the GOP plan are dissipating.

The GOP plan is under attack from the left, as Democrats decry numbers of people who are left out of the new plan, and from the right, as far-right Republicans complain that the new plan is just warmed-over Obamacare.

Maybe this is an opportunity for a bold new approach. Both the Obama plan and the new GOP (Paul Ryan) plan are built on an inherently flawed premise — that America has to keep its network of employers paying premiums for employees and insurance companies paying the bills (or part of the bills) for U.S. healthcare. This system leaves out the unemployed, under-employed and just plain unfortunate. Obama's plan, like the one Hillary Clinton tried to push through during her husband's first term, tried to force the uncovered into buying insurance. Obamacare used tax penalties and government subsidies to make people get health insurance. It increased the percentage of people with healthcare but still left many people uncovered. The new GOP plan uses the same basic strategy but uses incentives to get people to buy health insurance rather than penalties and subsidies. It would leave even more people uncovered.

Perhaps the time is right for a new strategy — one that was rejected in earlier debates, but the only one that will truly cover "all Americans," which President Trump promised the GOP plan would achieve. That option is "single-payer," which is the model nearly all Western democracies use to provide truly nationwide coverage. In this option, all Americans would pay into the system, just as we all pay into Social Security and Medicare, and a federal agency would disburse payments to health care providers. Overhead would be sharply cut with just one agency handling accounts payable rather than hundreds of insurance companies, many of whom pay their CEOs multi-million salaries.

Taxes would rise, but health insurance premiums would be eliminated for both employees and employers. How much does the average worker pay for health insurance? $500 a month? $1,000 a month? How much do employers pay? That amount (or less) would be collected in taxes and used to pay for health care of everyone. The uninsured, who are a drain on the system now, would be eliminated. Taxation could be designed to be fair to all, with the lowest-income paying lower taxes and the most affluent paying more. Making the healthcare tax a separate form of tax on both employees and employers just like Social Security and Medicare, would keep the system transparent. Some co-pays would be appropriate to keep the public from abusing the system.

This is the only way everyone would be covered. Everyone would share the risks in a risk pool of 300 million-plus people. Insurance companies would fight for their survival, but the advantages of this system is too great to allow one interest group to sabotage it.

Facts and truth are at issue, not leaks

President Trump and his defenders, clobbered by news reports showing dishonesty and infighting in the White House and the firing of the president's national security advisor, are attempting to change the subject. To hear Trump tell it, the secret (and lied about) conversations between Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador, as well as other contacts between the Russians and the Trump campaign and transition teams, are nothing. What's important, Trump claims, is the fact that the actions he and his minions have been trying to cover up were leaked to the press and broadcast to the public.

What could be worse than a fully informed electorate? 

In a rambling press conference Thursday, Trump attacked the news media with his usual accusations of dishonesty and "fake" news. Nowhere did Trump explain or excuse the contacts with the Russians.

Trump defenders have claimed that Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador were not only legal but routine. If that's the case, why did Flynn find it necessary to lie to the vice president about his conversation? After Flynn was fired, the New York Times reported the discovery of frequent contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. Trump has branded those reports as "fake news" but has not addressed the issues involved.

Many Americans, and especially elected officials and foreign policy specialists, are uncomfortable with the Trump administration's cozying up to Vladimir Putin's Russia. To have Russian contacts shrouded in secrecy and lied about only raises the level of discomfort.

Soon enough, Trump will find that he can rant all he wants about the "dishonest media" and "fake news," but, as Ronald Reagan once said, "facts are stubborn things," and in a free marketplace of ideas, truth will eventually win.

Trump's presidential action: playing golf

It was a quiet weekend, relatively speaking. It was a weekend when President Trump acted more presidential than he had the past three weeks of his presidency. What did he do that was so presidential? He played golf with Japanese premier Shinso Abe.

The guest at Trump's golf resort in Florida said he and the president spent time getting to know each other and discussing worldly matters on the luxurious lawns of the golf course. Trump refrained from attacking anyone on Twitter while he kept a golf club in his hand instead of a smart phone. That made him seem presidential.

Ever since President Eisenhower played golf at every opportunity, hitting the links with golfing greats such as Arnold Palmer and with members of Congress or foreign visitors, forging those bonds that are needed in Washington and in the diplomatic world, presidents have played golf with people they needed to schmooze or ask favors of. News reporters were kept at a distance, far out of hearing distance from the golfers but still breathlessly reported the president's day on the links.

A president did not have to be as accomplished as Eisenhower to engage in golf diplomacy. John F. Kennedy explained why he didn't release his golf scores, as Eisenhower sometimes did; he said, unlike him, Eisenhower had never beaned a Secret Service agent with a tee shot. Richard Nixon was too intense to relax on the golf course, but he played anyway. Bill Clinton played often and invited celebrities to join him. George W. Bush played but preferred running or biking. Barack Obama loved to play golf and managed to work in outings for business or pleasure.

Donald Trump used to complain that Obama spent too much time playing golf, but now he's discovered that golf can have a presidential purpose. He flew hundreds of miles to reach a course of his choosing with his Japanese guest and spent the weekend on a golf vacation. It was the most presidential thing he's done so far.

Travel ban and border wall are aimed at Trump support

President Trump's temporary ban on travel to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim countries has filled the news space today. There have been suggestions that Trump is in retreat under a barrage of criticism from Democrats, civil libertarians, refugee advocates, employers of foreign-born workers, protesters and others. Don't believe it.

Trump is not losing much, if any, support with his executive order. Trump's base, the people who gave him his victory three months ago, are not crying over travel bans that target Muslims or Muslim countries, any more than they are crying over the border fence Trump says will be under construction soon.

The question is why all the critics who are filing lawsuits and staging protests are surprised by this action. As someone in another Muslim country said 70-odd years ago, "I am shocked! Shocked!" at gambling in Casablanca. Keeping Islamic terrorists out of this country and building a wall to keep out Mexican immigrants were two of Trump's most frequently repeated campaign promises. Why is anyone shocked that he is doing what he said he'd do?

Opponents may complain, but Trump's supporters will cheer. Their man has carried out two of his key promises. That means their support for him is stronger than ever.

The ban on persons from seven predominantly Muslim countries may be un-American, ill-conceived, offensive to European allies and Middle Eastern governments, and it may condemn former U.S. government employees to remaining in their native countries at great danger to their lives and their families. But the Trump supporters don't care about the tears shed by separated family members or the betrayal of interpreters for the U.S. military or the condemnation of other governments. They won't even notice that Islamic countries that were not included in the order included countries where Trump had business interests. After all, Trump said he was going to put America First, and by golly, he's doing it. So the rest of you can go to hell.

Besides the facts that the travel ban is totally lacking in compassion and will likely encourage radical Islamists to attack U.S. interests, its issuance reveals a more surprising fact about the Trump administration. News reports show that the executive order was issued after being drafted by a small cadre of Trump's close advisers without input from the agency heads and cabinet members who are in charge of homeland security, immigration and international diplomacy. 

Furthermore, Trump seems to be drawing the leash around his inner circle tighter and tighter so that he is getting advice from fewer and fewer people. Unlike Abraham Lincoln, who famously appointed a "Team of Rivals" (Doris Kearns Goodwin's book) composed of former opponents and antagonists, Trump is building a Team of lackeys who will not disagree with the president on anything. He has banished the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of National Security from a key advisory committee to make room for his political adviser, Steve Bannon. Trump, it appears, is incapable of leading a team of rivals, only a team of sycophants who will hail whatever the Great Man does.

And that is more worrisome than either the travel ban or the border wall.