How America ended up with this pandemic

This article from The Atlantic is long, but it's the most thorough explanation of how a virus crippled an unprepared, inattentive and misled nation and ultimately the whole world. Take your time. Read it carefully.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/09/coronavirus-american-failure/614191/

Primaries might not be best way to choose nominees

An article in the December issue of The Atlantic addresses an issue that has disturbed me for some time: Did we go too far in the 1970s in removing political “bosses” from the presidential nomination process?

The tumultuous party nominating conventions of the late 1960s — recall the image of Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daily cheering on police violence in the streets as Democratic Party delegates snubbed candidates not endorsed by the party establishment — and the post-Watergate campaign reforms of the 1970s fueled the shift in nomination process from collective decisions made by faithful party delegates in mammoth national conventions to a universal primary system, in which millions of individual voters make the decision once reserved for or controlled by party officials with years of experience in politics.

The “democratization” of presidential nominations seemed like a great idea at the time. The entire electorate would have a role in choosing nominees. Instead of safe, “establishment” candidates who have earned their promotion to the top job after decades of service to the public and the party, the primary system gave us unconventional candidates such as Jimmy Carter and George McGovern. Voters got to have their say, but what they often said was, “I like the cute one with a sense of humor.” Instead of a party convention, Democrats and Republicans sponsored two “beauty contests” of potential nominees.

Eventually, this led America to Donald Trump, a presidential nominee with no experience in government and no interest in learning about how the government works, even as he practices diplomacy by insult and policy making by impulsive tweets. It also led to useless enterprises such as this year’s Democratic candidate debates, featuring two dozen candidates, many of whom get few chances to speak.

The 2016 presidential campaign saw a Republican nominee who was not a Republican in the usual sense, and a Democratic candidate who did not refer to himself as a Democrat at all and had not been registered as one. This year’s candidate debates include a “spiritual adviser” with no experience in government and no clear policies.

Reforms that made presidential primary results the standard for nominating a president have not lived up to their promises. We all wanted to put an end to the “smoke-filled rooms” where presidential nominations were “really made” by cigar-chomping big-city party bosses, but we weren’t aiming for the circus we got.

We (I thought primaries would be a great way to select a presidential nominee) never thought the new process would turn into such a shipwreck. Without some “party bosses” to ride herd on candidates, we have ended up with candidates who don’t know what they’re getting into and voters who succumb to glitz, glib comments and greatly exaggerated promises.

In the Atlantic article, Jonathan Rauch and Ray La Raja suggest a new reform: allow veteran party officials (members of Congress, elected state officers, state party chairmen, etc.) to serve as appraisers of potential nominees and avoid embarrassing (and dangerous) surprises. These party regulars, with deep knowledge of governing and party principles, would serve as the “adults in the room” who can screen out the unqualified, the dangerously unhinged, the inexperienced and those untested or unsuccessful at lower levels.

Turning away from the exciting state primaries and caucuses will not be an easy sale, but a comparison of the nominees selected in traditional convention nominations and in primaries might sway opinion. Smoke-filled rooms gave America Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Woodrow Wilson, and Harry Truman. The only major mistakes in this system, arguably, were Warren Harding and Richard Nixon. That’s not a bad record.

Who benefits in withdrawal from Syria?

If you're wondering why President Trump would abruptly and without consultation with administration advisors or international allies pull 2,000 U.S. troops out of Syria, I'm glad to have your company.

Syria has been a disaster for years, and many U.S. decisions only made matters worse. President Obama threatened the Syrian government against use of chemical weapons but then did nothing when the Assad regime murdered its only citizens with poison gas. Obama allowed Russia to take the lead in Syria and take advantage of the lack of a clear strategy for the U.S. coalition fighting ISIS and other groups.

Trump's rationale (if you can call an irrational person's thoughts a rationale) is that ISIS has been defeated, so our troops should come home. As military and diplomatic officials have pointed out with great alarm, it's not that simple. ISIS has been pushed back by U.S. allies as well as the Russians and Syrians, but it hasn't disappeared and can swiftly regain enough footing to carry out devastating terrorist attacks.

Who benefits from Trump's rash decision? Syrian dictator Assad, sure, but also Vladimir Putin's Russia. By salvaging Assad, Putin has gained great leverage in the area and a foothold on the Mediterranean. Trump's sudden decision to withdraw troops directly benefits Putin in both the short and long term. It's a decision that could more logically come from the manipulative, conniving Putin than from anyone who cared about U.S. strategy and prestige. Abandoning besieged allies, as Trump is doing in Syria, will cast all U.S. promises into doubt with terrible long-term consequences.

There has been no reporting that I've seen linking Trump's announcement to Russian suggestions or messaging, but if I were Robert Mueller, I would ask for White House visitation, phone and email logs just to make sure the seed of this strategy wasn't suggested by the Kremlin.

Trade tariffs have been tried before

The Trump administration is imposing tariffs on a number of products from both adversary countries and allies. The president insists that these tariffs are necessary because of trade deficits with certain countries (though not necessarily with those on whom the tariffs are being imposed). Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave an emotional speech reminding Trump that Canadians have stood with U.S. troops for more than a century. How, then, he asked, could steel and aluminum exports from Canada be a threat to the United States.

Trade deficits and potential tariffs hearken back to the 1980s, when U.S. manufacturing was suffering from overseas competition. Factories were closing, and jobs were being exported to countries with low labor costs. Thirty years ago, it was the Democrats who were complaining about the loss of manufacturing jobs and calling for tariffs or import quotas to fix the imbalance in trade and recoup U.S. jobs. Rep. Dick Gephardt ran for the Democratic presidential nomination on that issue.

Despite the appeal of the trade complaints, tariffs were avoided, and American manufacturing adjusted by becoming more specialized. Textile manufacturing (the industry that gave jobs — and low wages — to generations of my family) mostly abandoned U.S. factories and thrived in low-wage countries. U.S. factories turned to more complex, intricate manufacturing, such as airplanes, and to research-oriented work in communication and computers. Entertainment and financial services became the new standard in U.S. exports. Automobile imports, which was one of the complaints of the fair trade zealots, has adjusted. Now most foreign vehicle companies have factories in the United States. The world's largest BMW plant is in South Carolina, not Germany. Complaints about foreign cars taking away U.S. jobs are rarely heard now.

Another predecessor of the current tariffs bubble is one President Trump would know about if he read history (he famously dislikes reading anything longer than one page). Few Americans today are old enough to remember the Great Depression, when whole industries collapsed, unemployment topped an estimated 25%, and many Americans went hungry. The proximate cause of the Great Depression was trade tariffs. Seeking to shore up their own industries, countries imposed tariffs, and international trade fell. Along with trade, jobs disappeared. A global financial crisis that lasted a decade ensued.

Maybe Trump's tariffs won't have the same effect, or maybe he's just bluffing and will back away from his threats once he has everyone's attention, but the risk he's taking on this gamble endangers more than his popularity, his presidency and his legacy. The global economy could end up in the fix it was in in 1930. Although there has been no stock market crash as a result of these tariffs, stocks will certainly tank if global trade collapses in a trade war.

Trump has always been a gambler. Now he's raising the stakes for everybody.

Trump's new slogan for 2020

As President Trump prepares for his 2020 re-election campaign, let me suggest an update for his MAGA (Make America Great Again) slogan. The new slogan should be WODWWU, pronounced "wad woo." It stands for "Whatever Obama Did, We Will Undo."

Obama pushed adoption of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Undone. Obama signed the Paris Accords to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; Trump pulled the U.S. out. Obama had set an ambitious target for increasing average gasoline mileage; Trump said, "never mind." Obama initiated reforms that would reduce incarceration for non-violent federal crimes; Trump's Justice Department is going in the opposite direction. Obama established a program to allow immigrant children brought here by their parents to become productive citizens; Trump has ordered an end to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Obama worked with allied nations to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran; Trump has announced the United States' withdrawal, allowing Iran to return to developing nuclear weapons right away.

WODWWU, y'all!

DACA tantrum is typical of Trump

President Trump has announced in a tweet (of course) that "DACA is dead." Only a few months ago, Trump was virtually commanding Congress to send him a bill that makes the Obama administration's DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) policy a permanent program, allowing immigrants who came here as small children with their illegal-immigrant parents to remain. But a short while later, Trump was demanding that a DACA fix must include billions of dollars for a border wall (an idea that obsesses him). The dysfunctional Congress could not find the votes to put a DACA fix in the same bill with border wall appropriations, so both DACA and the border wall went unfixed.

This episode is typical of many elements of the Trump presidency. Trump says something extraordinary, then he changes his mind just days later and reneges on the entire promise. We saw it in his reaction to the Parkland, Florida, school shooting, negotiations with North Korea and tariffs. Swept up in sympathy for the surviving Parkland students, Trump seemed to endorse long-sought restrictions on gun purchases, including universal background checks of gun buyers. Then he backed away. He tried bullying North Korea and its dynastic leader, Kim Jong Un, calling him "Little Rocket Man," but then he declared his willingness to negotiate directly with Kim with no limits on discussion topics. He has also announced tariffs on international trade and then backed off the tariffs for select countries. 

The president's reversals must be leaving America's allies' heads spinning.

DACA would seem to be an easy compromise. Large majorities of Americans support legislation allowing persons who came here illegally in the custody of their parents to remain in this country, where they have grown up and attended school. These children were too young to form a criminal intent to violate immigration law and should, essentially, receive forgiveness under these circumstances.

You can agree with Republicans' criticism of Obama's executive order creating DACA, that it over-stretched a president's authority to change immigration policy through an executive order, and still be willing to give the million or fewer DACA applicants forgiveness for their parents' actions. You can also agree with Trump that Mexico should have done more and should do more to prevent illegal entry into the United States from Mexico but also agree that punishing DACA recipients is the wrong way to get Mexico's help.

Trump seems to believe that international diplomacy is just like a business negotiation. It's not. International disputes can lead to war. A wrong turn in trade negotiations can lead to a collapse of carefully structured trade agreements with catastrophic worldwide economic consequences.

The president is right about one thing: DACA is dead, and he's the one who killed it.

Trump doesn't understand libel law

President Trump has again threatened (or promised) to revise U.S. libel laws. He has been harping on this issue since early in the 2016 campaign.

He thinks U.S. libel laws are too lenient, that news media get away with printing falsehoods without having to pay damages to the plaintiff. On Wednesday, Trump again complained about libel laws: “Can’t say things that are false, knowingly false, and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account.We are going to take a very, very strong look at that.”

The president's remarks shows how little he knows about libel laws. Although he has frequently complained about being libeled and has been accused of libeling others, he obviously is unaware that falsehood is one of the elements of a libel lawsuit. Without falsehood, there is no libel.

Four elements must be proven in a successful libel lawsuit: defamation, publication, injury and identification. That is, the plaintiff must show that the particular statement was false and defamatory; that the false statement was "published" to persons other than the plaintiff and defendant, that the plaintiff was injured by the statement (e.g., harm to reputation or business), and that the statement identified the person filing the lawsuit (not necessarily by name). A successful plaintiff must prove all of these elements.

Trump frequently complains that he has been defamed by the "fake media," but he seldom, if ever, tries to show that the contested statement is false. Truth has been a defense against libel judgments in this country since 1736, when printer John Peter Zenger's attorney, Alexander Hamilton, persuaded the jury that Zenger's criticism of the King of England was truthful and therefore exempt from prosecution for libel. Truth has been accepted as a perfect defense in libel cases since then.

The president should also be aware that unlike the Zenger case, which was a criminal libel trial, nearly all libel cases today are not criminal but are civil lawsuits brought by an aggrieved complainant. These lawsuits are ruled by case law, the findings of past courts up to the Supreme Court. Case law has expanded libel defense many times over the past 250 years. Significantly, the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan case, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public officials have to prove not only falsehood but also "actual malice" or "reckless disregard of the truth" to win a libel judgment. The Times had published a full-page advertisement (NOT a news story) that defamed an Alabama public official in an ad extolling the civil rights movement and Rev. Martin Luther King. This ruling gave the news media greater latitude to investigate and criticize public officials.

The Sullivan case made it more difficult for public officials to prove libel. Trump probably would like to change that, but he can't do that by executive order or even legislation. The actual malice standard is now constitutional law, and any attempt to change it would have to survive a Supreme Court challenge.

Trump should also be aware that it is very difficult for a plaintiff to win a libel suit over an editorial or other opinion. Courts have ruled that "there is no such thing as a false opinion."

Impeaching Trump will not be easy

With Michael Flynn pleading guilty to lying to the FBI in the special prosecutor's probe of Russian influence in the 2016 election and with new anger aimed at men who fondle and sexually harass women, one has to wonder whether President Trump's administration might truly be endangered.

Articles of impeachment have reportedly been discussed in the House of Representatives. Potential charges include obstruction of justice by firing FBI Director Comey in order to slow down or stop the Russia probe, false statements presented to the American public, either in interviews or tweets; racial, religious and ethnic discrimination in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other legislation; and bringing disrepute upon the presidency by multiple alleged  incidents of sexual harassment of women.

Congress is far from an impeachment indictment, which is a rare event in the history of the Republic, and should be. However, the special prosecutor is gathering charges and testimony that could readily present an impeachment that easily could  match the seriousness of the charges against Richard Nixon and exceed the impeachment charges against Bill Clinton. Impeachment still seems unlikely, but it is not impossible, perhaps not even improbable.

The House of Representatives, which must vote to impeach the president, is standing solidly with the president on a string of controversial bills, regardless of public opinion. Passing an impeachment bill in the overwhelmingly Republican House has little chance as the Trump administration nears its first birthday. However, more indictments of top Trump aides and more details of cooperation with Russians in disrupting the 2016 election in Trump's favor could force all but the truest believers to vote to impeach.

The odds in a Senate trial, where Republicans have a 52-48 majority, might seem more hazardous for Trump, but the Senate is properly reluctant to remove an elected official from office, and a verdict of guilty to "high crimes and misdemeanors" seems unlikely.

Making the Senate's vote more difficult is the apparent willingness of die-hard Trump supporters of stick with their man regardless of what he says or does. This Trump base does not believe anything they read in the "mainstream media" — if they read anything at all from traditional news media — and blindly accept Trump's claim that any negative reporting about him is "fake news." They won't be moved, even if the House and Senate vote unanimously to impeach and remove the president from office, even if Vladimir Putin admits that he called the shots in Trump's election and helped him win.

This unyielding Trump base is believed to account for about 20 percent of voters, far from a majority but still a lot of angry people. It helps to remember that even after Richard Nixon resigned the presidency and was caught on tape trying to obstruct justice, millions of Americans continued to support him, bought his books and held him in highest esteem.

Impeaching Trump may be possible, but it is not likely without a landslide of new facts in the criminal probe. A better, more likely way of removing Trump will come in 2020. 

All hail the narcissist in chief

First of all, let's give President Donald Trump credit for holding a long, wide-ranging news conference in which he answered questions from reporters. That used to be something that presidents did regularly, but times have changed. On Monday in the White House Rose Garden, Trump did what he should do more often, answering questions for about 45 minutes.

Unfortunately, one unnecessary and uncalled-for comment from the president overwhelmed the good vibes from the news conference. In answer to a question about the deaths of four Special Forces soldiers in Niger, Trump asserted that he had written letters to the families of the soldiers killed in an ambush and planned to call them next week. He said he likes to call grieving families "when it's appropriate" (whatever that means). Trump seemed to hedge on just what he had done to comfort families. He said he had written letters but had not mailed them yet. Huh? The ambush occurred two weeks ago.

From there, he claimed that he was doing something — comforting grieving families — that other presidents had not done, mentioning President Obama in particular but also berating other predecessors. Trump's remark, like many of his off-the-cuff comments, is provably false. There are news stories, photographs and video of President Obama greeting and speaking with grieving families of combat casualties. President George W. Bush also made it a point to extend condolences to the families of service members killed in action. Bush has extended his emotional connection to military members since he left the White House, hosting dinners at his Texas ranch for injured combat veterans and publishing a book of portraits he had painted of injured veterans.

This defamation of Obama and other presidents reminds Americans that narcissism is Trump's primary motivation for anything that comes out of his mouth. It is not enough for him to bolster his own image, no matter how false or misleading this effort might be (see inaugural crowds, Electoral College victory margin, legislative accomplishments in the first 30/90/100 days, and so forth). He also has to drag down others, dishonor their achievements and destroy their legacies. 

Trump seems especially obsessed with belittling Obama, whom he claimed for years was unfit for the presidency because he was "born in Kenya" (despite documentary proof of his birth in Hawaii to a mother who was a natural-born citizen). He has attacked every achievement of the Obama administration, including the Iran nuclear deal, the Affordable Care Act, sentencing reform and clean air regulations. His determination to obliterate these actions makes it clear that he cares more about wiping away all that Obama has done than about achieving policy goals. 

On Monday, Trump even had to lie about Obama's condolences to families of military casualties.

Protesting the national anthem

I did not watch any NFL games yesterday. My schedule did not allow it. I have followed the disagreements over players' actions during the playing of the national anthem in news reports, so I'm aware of the controversy.

My initial reaction is that I have always objected to the use of non-political public events to promote political views. I have sat through stage productions, fundraisers, school events and, yes, sporting events that were used to promote political viewpoints. My objection is not to the political views themselves but to the exploitation of a captive audience to promote those views. The innocently trusting audience had no way of knowing they would hear a political spiel and had no way of escaping. Welcome to "bait-and-switch."

NFL players have demonstrated their objections to the killing of African-Americans by police (or associated issues) by refusing to show respect to the United States during the playing of the national anthem. Instead of standing silently, hats off and hand over heart (as etiquette prescribes), players have knelt on one knee, turned away or simply ignored the anthem. The protests began with one player and has spread to others.

President Trump greatly magnified the protest when he called on NFL owners to "fire" any player who failed to show respect to the flag. The president's disrespect of players' concerns turned other players and NFL owners against the president and multiplied the number of protesters

Although protests are protected by the First Amendment, this is not so much a legal issue as a respect issue. Football players — or teachers, entertainers or celebrities — should respect the audience that came to see them play or sing or dance. They should exercise their First Amendment rights in a manner that respects others while still getting their message across. Modern media offer multitudes of opportunities for free expression. Millionaire football players have even greater opportunities to claim the spotlight without disrupting events people have paid dearly to watch.

You would think that the powerful and wealthy NFL Players Association could find a reasonable compromise for this issue before more fans are alienated. Let protesting players pass out leaflets at the stadium; let players address issues after the game is over. The NFL could even eliminate the playing of the national anthem, which, until recently, had received little attention. The old baseball joke went like this: "What's the last two words of the national anthem?" "Play ball."

Parallels with hearings from 45 years ago

From 1972-75, I worked in Washington, D.C., subscribed to the Washington Post, and watched the Watergate hearings on television as much as I could. Like much of America, I was mesmerized by the hearings.

Watching, reading about or listening to the testimony before congressional committees this year takes me back to the Watergate era. So much is the same — the setting in ornate hearing rooms before scores of staff members, media representatives and other officials are interchangeable between 1973 and 2017.

As I listened to testimony from fired FBI Director James Comey, I was transported back to the testimony of John Dean, the White House counsel before the Watergate Committee. Both witnesses spoke in carefully, cautiously measured phrases. Both demonstrated uncanny recall of events. Both men's testimony had the ring of truth.

Tuesday's testimony by Attorney General Jeff Sessions recalled another similarity to Watergate: partisan attacks against the witness were unbecoming and contrary to the Senate's courteous traditions. That is true about both political parties. Democrats tried to interrogate Sessions and force him to admit to wrongdoing. Chairman Richard Burr had to remind one senator to allow the witness to answer her question. Republicans sought to defend the president by shifting the focus of the inquiry or adroitly denying generally accepted facts.

Sessions tried to be the courtly southern gentleman, but it was difficult when he was interrupted by aggressive questioners before he could complete his answer in his slow drawl. Sessions, the administration's "top lawyer," however, refused to answer some questions on the basis of executive privilege even while admitting that he could not invoke executive privilege. Only the president can do that, and President Trump had not invoked executive privilege over his conversations with Sessions. Thus, Sessions said he was reserving the president's right to invoke executive privilege at some time in the future. That strikes many people as stretching a constitutional privilege complete out of shape. By his standard, every conversation with the president would be privileged until the president declares it is not covered by executive privilege. That leaves no room for balance of power and the authority of Congress to examine the executive branch's performance.

As the hearings continue and the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 elections continue, parallels with Watergate will keep popping up. What is unlikely to pop up is a presidential resignation. While President Nixon was a paranoid egotist who could not admit to being wrong, he at least had the interests of the country foremost in his mind. What is foremost in Trump's mind is Trump himself.

Freedom Caucus sells out constituents

The House Freedom Caucus succeeded yesterday in stopping a vote on the Republican bill to replace the Affordable Care Act. Even after President Trump met with the coalition and begged them to come around and allow the bill to pass, the caucus refused. They wanted more concessions. Already, they had wrangled enough concessions out of the GOP leadership to frighten some more moderate members of the party.

The Freedom Caucus leaders criticized the GOP replacement for the ACA as "Obamacare Light." They wanted more than just a halt to some of the essential elements of the ACA; they wanted every vestige of the 2010 legislation ripped from federal law. A ban on pre-existing conditions as grounds for refusing coverage? Out! Allowing 26-year-olds to remain on their parents' insurance? Gone! Coverage of contraception? No! Coverage of mental health as well as physical health? Nope! Limits on higher premiums for older people? No way! Ending limits on lifetime coverage? Out!

The Freedom Caucus is getting its way (even as Republicans in and out of Congress work to find a way to shove their bill through the House), but Republican candidates everywhere might rue the day when the Freedom Caucus succeeded. For all the criticism of "Obamacare" and the GOP's ridiculously redundant votes to repeal "Obamacare," much of the legislation in the ACA has been quite popular. As Americans pay more attention to the details of the law that is being eliminated, it is growing in popularity, even as conservatives in Congress try to eliminate any clause that has any resemblance to the ACA. 

Republicans have a quandary. They can vote to destroy every whiff of "Obamacare" and hope the electorate does not rebel against the loss of decent health insurance coverage, or they can leave the ACA or popular parts of it in place and face questions about why they wasted time voting against the ACA dozens of times but couldn't pull the trigger given the opportunity, at last, to destroy it.

The Freedom Caucus, a basically Libertarian organization, has taken an odd role as the defender of insurance companies' profits. Instead of quashing government intrusions into personal lives (the Libertarian philosophy) and cutting federal spending, the Freedom Caucus is demanding changes that hurt individual taxpayers and benefit wealthy insurance companies.

Have the high principles of the Freedom Caucus been sold out to the insurance industry's billions in campaign donations?

House Committee begins search for truth

I listened to part of the House Intelligence Committee hearings yesterday as I drove back from a meeting in Raleigh. For a few minutes, dazed by the monotony of that familiar ribbon of U.S. 264, I imagined I was listening again to the Watergate hearings or the subsequent impeachment hearings.

The partisan divide was in place. Republicans seemed unconcerned about the apparent attempt of Russia to interfere with U.S. elections, just as their predecessors had been unconcerned about apparent illegal activities by the Nixon administration — break-ins, using federal agencies for political purposes, lying under oath, disregard for individual rights and so on. Democrats were more attuned to what they saw as the larger — much larger — issue. While Rep. Trey Gowdy listed the names of Democrats in the Obama administration who might have had access to information that had been linked — a suggested sort of guilt by awareness — some Democrats sought to pull the issues out of the partisan divide.

Rep. Adam Schiff offered a Barbara Jordan-like speech that urged the committee to get to the bottom of the Russian influence in the U.S. election. He saw this attack as a threat to democracy. Jordan, if you don't remember, was the Texas congresswoman who gave a galvanizing speech that laid out the absolute necessity for the House Judiciary Committee to bring a bill of impeachment against a president guilty of utter disdain for moral limits on his power.

Where all this will lead is unclear after one day of hearings, but it is encouraging to see the House tackle the matter and seek the truth, not the "alternative facts" that have twisted the nation's moral compass.

Trump presidential mask doesn't last

Whatever good President Trump had done for himself in his speech to Congress last week abruptly fell apart early Saturday morning, when he tweeted angry, unsupported accusations at former President Obama. Trump claimed, without any evidence or even any rational strategy, that President Obama had tapped his phones in Trump Tower.

Government officials quickly pointed out that the president does not have the authority to order wiretaps. That action has to go through the Justice Department and a federal court established to review and limit wiretapping of American citizens. FBI director James Comey and others treated the accusations with the lack of credibility it deserves, as the equivalent of claiming Obama was intercepting Trump's brain waves through telepathy.

Trump was his old self Saturday morning, lashing out incoherently at perceived enemies. But his target, Obama, made the irrational claims even more distasteful. Since his election, Trump had praised Obama for his cooperation and advice as America transitioned from one administration to another. Obama, who strongly opposed Trump during the campaign, was overwhelmingly gracious and graceful toward the president-elect, promising him full cooperation from himself and everyone in his administration and offering insights and advice Trump. Trump thanked Obama with apparent sincerity for his cooperation and advice.

In his speech to a joint session of Congress six days ago, Trump carefully read from the teleprompter and appeared more presidential than at any time during the campaign and presidency. Then, four days later, it all imploded as the Twittering Trump lowered the boom on his predecessor without any evidence or corroboration but with plenty of malice and mendacity.

As Trump himself would say: "Sad." 

A Trump who stays on message

President Trump's address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night surprised me. He seemed rational, even thoughtful. A few times during the speech, he reached out to Democrats and others with promises to protect clean air and water, to provide paid family leave, and to allow at least some of the 11 million illegal immigrants to remain in the United States. He even channeled John F. Kennedy with his reference to a torch of liberty handed down from generation to generation. Kennedy in 1961 had said, "the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, ..."

What he didn't do is even more important. He didn't lead his supporters in the chamber to shout "Lock her up" or "Build the wall." He didn't insult and call names the members of the press covering his address. From my observations of Trump's administration so far, none of these repulsive actions would have surprised me. In the past year, he has dismissed or insulted members of the military and their families. He called the press "enemies of the people." Tuesday, he led an extended applause for the widow of an American sailor killed in a raid. The lingering focus on her and her grief must have been agonizing for this widow of only a month, tears streaming down her face, which was contorted by grief.

Trump demonstrated that he could stick to a script, that he could use a teleprompter without wandering off message or striking out at perceived enemies or distorting some perceived slight. This was Trump's best, most presidential speech. It will help him with independents and Democrats without hurting his standing with his loyal base.

The question for the next few weeks will be whether the president has turned over a new leaf. If he has, a Trump presidency might not be nearly as bad as so many detractors (as well as mainstream Republicans) have feared. If not, if Trump reverts to his campaign mode, it will be a long four years.

Single-payer health insurance has an opening

President Trump declared before his inauguration that his promised replacement for Obamacare would have a goal of "insurance for everybody." While that doesn't sound much like what Republican members of Congress have been saying for the past eight years, it does sound quite a bit like "single-payer" health insurance, which is the model most western democracies have in place to cover "everybody" with insurance backed by the government with payments to providers by the government entity that oversees health care.

Canada has this plan. Great Britain has this plan. France, too. Generally speaking, the citizens of those countries support their national healthcare plans. It's simple. It's more efficient than the dozens of separate private insurance providers and the thousands of individual businesses that pay insurance premiums for their employees. But whenever a similar system is suggested for the United States, conservatives complain that it's "socialized medicine." Well, yes, but so what?

America's messed-up system, which has given the United States the dubious honor of spending the largest portion of its gross domestic product on health care of any western democracy, evolved from labor union contracts. When World War II wage freezes took pay hikes off the table, the unions targeted health insurance as a way to increase worker benefits. Soon, employer-paid health insurance became an expectation of job seekers.

The 2009 Affordable Care Act attempted to keep the private insurance and the employer payments in place while guaranteeing coverage to all or almost all Americans. It didn't work perfectly, but it did reduce the number of uninsured Americans.

With the dominant GOP promising the repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with ... something, it's time to give the single-payer option a chance. It won't be cheap, but what we have now isn't cheap, either. Add what employers pay to the employees' "share" of the premium and the co-pays and deductibles employees pay, and it comes to large number, which could be replaced by health care taxes on employers and workers that would be approximately equal to what they now pay.

Cost savings from having a single organization paying all the bills (like Medicare) would result in cost savings. Instead of thousands of health insurers taking a cut of the money flowing to health care, on entity would cover all health care bills. With the federal government paying the bills, pressure on pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and other providers to reduce costs would result in a decline in health care costs.

If Trump is for it and his party controls Congress, why shouldn't it happen?

Trump and the intelligence reports

President Trump has been briefed by U.S. intelligence officials about their conclusion that Russia conducted a cyber campaign to embarrass and discredit his Democratic opponent, but he doesn't seem to have understood the message. 

After the briefing, Trump said, "there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election including the fact that there was no tampering whatsoever with voting machines." True enough, insofar as we know, but he misses the point. It's not that the Russians "stole" the election in the way of small-town (or big city) political bosses allegedly have in the past, by stuffing ballot boxes. U.S. intelligence did not find any intervention in the vote-counting mechanisms. But they did find Russian meddling in the election campaign.

What the president-elect should be alarmed about is that a foreign government sought to influence the election by using cyber warfare tools to steal emails and then release those emails through cooperative hacker or fake news groups. Did Russia's orchestrated release of embarrassing emails at strategic times or its dispersal of fake news posts targeting Democrats have an impact on voters on Nov. 8? It's impossible to know with certainty, but it is not irrational to think that undecided voters might have been swayed.

Trump's dismissal of the intelligence reports is worrisome because the 2016 meddling can happen again and can be more destructive in 2018 or 2020. This Russian strategy can also happen in upcoming elections in Germany, France, Italy, Great Britain and other democracies.

President Vladimir Putin, whom Trump admires, has made no secret of the fact he would like to restore the old Soviet empire. He has shown a willingness in Georgia and Ukraine to use Russian troops to intimidate or topple governments or grab territory. How much easier it will be for him to use cyber weapons to effect regime change in Poland, the Czech Republic, or Estonia.

Trump had better take this threat seriously. All western democracies had better watch out.

Obama's unnecessary speech and the reaction

President Obama gave one of the most unusual Oval Office addresses in my memory Sunday night, but the reaction to his lectern-side chat was both predictable and overdone.

As I watched a bit of the president's address, I kept asking, "Why?" He didn't seem to have anything of any great import to say. He mostly reiterated his past policy statements about terrorism, religion and immigration. So why would he shoot a hole in prime-time programming for a rehash of past statements? He didn't even seem to understand the medium he was using. Most Oval Office addresses were delivered by a president (Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis, Nixon during Watergate, Carter during the energy crisis, Johnson on Vietnam, Reagan during the Cold War) seated at the presidential desk. For some inexplicable reason, Obama chose to stand at a lectern in front of the presidential desk. He was playing ice hockey when the venue called for baseball.

Republicans, especially those running for president, lambasted the speech as a weak and pusillanimous whine about tolerance and love instead of the take-no-prisoners tone they said was needed. Donald Trump chose to make sure his criticism topped the news feeds. He issued a statement the next day urging that the United States ban travel by Muslims (even those who are American citizens and residents) into the U.S. His discriminatory, unconstitutional proposal was greeted with loud applause at some Trump campaign rallies. The rank-and-file loved it, apparently.

Some saner voices spoke up at their own peril. A President Trump would issue an executive order barring Muslims from entering U.S. territory. That is a clear and flagrant violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion. Every court in the land would shoot it down.

More worrisome is the reaction of Trump's supporters, who, according to polls, constitute a substantial plurality of Republican primary voters. While they cheered Trump's proposal to ban Muslims on the basis of their religious faith, none of these less-government Republicans seemed to consider that a president with the power to discriminate on the basis of religion (First Amendment be damned) could discriminate on the basis of any religious belief. A presidential order could bar Anglicans, Jews, Catholics, or Free Will Baptists from residing here or from voting or from owning property. Can they not see where Trump's knee-jerk, unfiltered, unexamined reaction could lead?

That's the frightening thing.