Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for November, 2016

The outcome of the presidential election was a surprise to me as much as it was to anyone.

What is not a surprise is the reaction to it.

There have been some extreme events and outbursts, including rioting by some Clinton supporters and some nasty displays of neo-Nazism by the loosely organized Alt-right group. Fortunately, these reactions are not acceptable to the population as a whole. Most of us are moving forward and dealing with change in a rational manner. The checks and balances embedded in the Constitution will prevent significant, or even sudden, permanent changes to our government.

However, one proposed remedy to Trump’s victory resurrects an issue this nation has faced before…..secession from the United States.

As a practical matter, according to an opinion piece in the Washington Post, it is virtually impossible, short of an apocalyptic disaster which throws our nation into dysfunctional chaos. Although there are many who believe we have been dysfunctional for a long time, I have news for you – the national government has not only survived, it has expanded its influence.

The Post article states: Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies how a state can gain admission to the United States. There is no stipulation, though, for the reverse. Even if Obama wanted to let Texas go — a thought that probably appealed to him for at least a second — there’s no mechanism for him to do so. There’s no mechanism for Congress to simply say, Sure, off you go. Once you’re in, you’re in. The United States was born an expansionist enterprise, and the idea of contraction, it seems, never really came up.

To those proposing a Cal-exit , don’t waste your time, or those of the state’s voters, with a referendum to seek secession.

Having said that, the topic is worthy of an interesting hypothetical discussion.

Did the Civil War really resolve whether secession is constitutional? I touched on this subject in an article I wrote for Citywatch in connection with the Civil War Sesquicentennial.

As I pointed out, the seven states that seceded prior to Lincoln’s inauguration could have gotten away with it had Fort Sumter had not been fired upon by Confederate batteries. Absent the catalyst the attack provided, the nation had no stomach for war, much less a civil war. Had Lincoln raised troops to forcibly end secession, it is likely the entire Upper South would have joined the Lower South, including the critical border states of Kentucky and Maryland. Washington would have been isolated; Lincoln’s administration would have been dead on arrival.

A southern-leaning Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger Taney, a slaveholder himself, may have ruled in favor of the break.

What the Civil War did make certain was the illegality of forceful secession.

Does that mean peaceful or passive secession is permissible?

As mentioned earlier, there is no process for separation via legislation. There is nothing in the Constitution to guide Congress; nothing even stipulating a voting margin for such an action. Any request by a state to secede would simply die.

But let’s just say it did occur.

Just like divorce, there would be a property settlement…..and would that be costly to California! Do you think the rest of the states would transfer control of Yosemite and other national parks for a song? How about military installations and other federal government real estate?

The financial obligations California would incur for buying out its share of the unfunded liability of Social Security and Medicare of its citizens would be worse.

California claims to receive less monies from the federal government than it sends. That is so much BS. The benefits to the state from physical protection and security provided by the federal government is incalculable. In terms of economic trade, California’s primary trading partners are part of the Pacific Rim. Without the leverage of the federal government behind us, we would be at a disadvantage in negotiations with China and Japan, whose economies dwarf those of the Golden State.

Then there are details of establishing a monetary unit and a central bank.

How about supporting embassies throughout the world?

The nation of California would be bankrupt from the get-go.

One other thing. There are regions within California which will not go along with the plan. Much of California’s agriculture and water is attributable to the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada, respectively. Those regions would balk at the plan. They would form their own state, or possibly request to join Nevada. Sacramento would find itself isolated from the rest of its subjects. California would be totally dependent on a foreign government for food, water and energy.

The secession movement is laughable until you realize its proponents really believe it is plausible. For their sake, I sure hope they do not receive Nigerian e-mail solicitations.

But just the talk of secession further alienates California from the rest of the nation.

One of our top attractions is Wine Country. We do not want to be labeled Whine Country.

Read Full Post »

Ivanka Trump will take the oath of office as President of the United States in 2032. By then, she will have served in Congress for ten years, filling Rep. Peter King’s seat in New York. This would come after four years as White House Press Secretary.

I can hear the readers of this article madly typing comments, many of them expressing outrage.

Before you hit the “send now” button, you should understand that those who are well-acquainted with me know my affection for satire. I have even written a few satirical pieces for Citywatch.

In my early youth, I developed an appreciation for the genre. Steve Allen’s and Ernie Kovacs’ off-the-wall skits, while not about politics, not to mention tame by today’s standards, were the prototypes for contemporary comedic interpretations of current events and social norms.

John Oliver’s work is at the top of my list these days (Jon Stewart is OK, but Colbert is a frightful bore). Oliver pulls no punches and uses gut-busting delivery and politically incorrect content, although I wish he would refrain from over-reliance on the F-bomb.

I’m waiting for someone to perform a skit about Ivanka Trump rising to power; Chelsea Clinton too – it has been reported that she is being groomed to run for Congress. There’s great potential material here. It could top all of the Donald Trump/Hilary Clinton sketches that appeared on SNL.

I thought Donald Trump’s campaign was satire – until November 8th – but Clinton ended up as the punchline. So, while I am not serious about either Ivanka’s or Chelsea’s prospects for leading the nation, the recent election proves that anything can happen. Maybe Billy Bush can resurrect his family’s political fortunes.

Yes, anything can happen, but, judging from partisan Facebook posts, few of Clinton’s supporters failed to recognize that right up through late in the afternoon of November 8th. By the way, Dave Chappelle’s sketch with Chris Rock on SNL hilariously made that point.

Both candidates took their lumps in the parodies; perhaps Trump more so, but his rants were softballs which the writers were able to knock out of the park. Many Clinton supporters may have developed a false sense of security by assuming the satire reflected the prevailing sentiment across all regions. However, what may seem funny and improbable one day, can become reality the next.

Too many people have a myopic view of the world. They do not understand how anyone can hold an opposing position. As a result, they can get blindsided and unduly horrified when results do not go their way.

We owe it to ourselves to understand the underlying reasons for the views of a wider audience, not just what is reported in the mainstream and social media, or fed to us by partisan organizations. Michael Moore had it right.

Unless we make an effort to understand each other, we will allow satire to obscure reality. Then it will no longer be funny.

Read Full Post »

I have been wrong every step of the way in this campaign.

I thought Trump would be defeated in the primaries or taken down at the Republican convention. And certainly there was no way he could win a national election after alienating large segments of the population.

Wrong, wrong, wrong……but so were the pollsters.

How did it happen? After all, Clinton had the organization, hardened foot soldiers reaching out to key demographic groups and the backing of a popular president.

Basically, the same playbook she followed in 2008; it failed her then, too. In hindsight, it was doomed to fail again when you consider decreasing support and disgust for the two major political parties. I guess you can say Clinton is a slow learner.

She also alienated important groups, just as Trump did. It started back in 2016 in West Virginia, when she threw the coal miners under the bus, in so many words dismissing them as a non-factor. I wrote about it in Citywatch then:

Pulling the rug out from under those whose livelihoods depend on the coal industry is not how you win their hearts and minds.

The bad feelings will not be limited to West Virginia either. The swing state of Ohio is in play, where 33,000 are employed in the industry and coal provides 69% of the state‚Äôs electricity. Those employees have friends and relatives, so the potential for a meaningful block turning out in a tight race is there.”

Apparently, the effect went beyond coal miners and their families: blue-collar families of all stripes, all throughout the nation, who share the same values as their brethren toiling in the hills of Appalachia, felt insulted.

The e-mail fiasco just added fuel to the fire. Even that crisis would have diminished if she had taken the criticism seriously from the start, instead of her initial humorous take on it.

The Clinton Foundation donations from foreign countries also undercut her.

Basically, all of this contributed to the public’s poor perception of her trustworthiness. When you lose trust, it is difficult to get it back, more so when your personality does not convey warmth and sensitivity. The personality issue was more pronounced when compared to President Obama’s and Bill Clinton’s charisma.

Trump had more than his share of problems – offensive remarks, refusal to share his tax returns, trash-talk about world affairs – but amazingly that was not enough to offset Clinton’s negative image. It is as if voters perceived him as being genuine, in a perverse way.

Bottom line, this race was never about ideology. Otherwise, President Obama’s popularity, which was partly due to his policies, would have carried her.

Our nation hasn’t changed. People still care by health coverage. Most people do not want to see a wall along the border. We do not want to abandon our allies.

It appears all most people want is a president they can read like a book. And one who can read them.

And what a book.

Don’t know what the next chapter has in store.

Read Full Post »