Reflections on the Future Survival of the Donald Trump Presidency

The Trump presidency has always been a rocky and contentious one, but recent and coming events will try its soul in ways that have not previously been seen.  While repeatedly some speculate that Trump will not make it to the end of his term in 2021, realistically it would take a lot to change for him to be impeached, convicted of a crime, or resign.  What forces and events will impact his presidency in the coming months?

Trump Himself

The Death of President George Herbert Walker Bush points to a significant contrast in personalities and the weakness of Donald Trump as a person.  Bush’s death provides not just a retrospective on the 41st president’s legacy, but it speaks also to the deficiencies of the Trump presidency. 

Bush’s presidency illustrates many legacies–some good  and bad–but psychological temperament and style stand out.  Bush’s career in business and government–especially the latter as CIA director, UN ambassador, member of Congress, and vice-president before becoming president–point to someone with the skills, knowledge, and experience to lead the country.  Bush’s resume was one of understanding how Washington worked. It was also a resume that demonstrated a commitment to diplomacy, knowledge-based decision making, and  a respect for the processes of government.

Bush appointed knowledgeable and competent people to serve him, he approached the world, as in the case of the first Gulf War, with a sense of multilateralism and diplomacy that starkly contrast to what Trump displays.  Additionally, Bush, unlike Trump, was willing to accept responsibility for his actions and he made choices–such as correctly breaking his no new taxes pledge–that demonstrated real leadership and a willingness to compromise.

Whether many realize it or not, the passing of Bush will only highlight so much more the deficiencies of Trump and his presidency. 

Michael Cohen and the Looming Special Prosecutor Report

Perhaps the most significant event affecting the Trump presidency took place last week when Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen pled guilty to lying to Congress.  It was not so much the lying that was the issue, but it was what the lie was about–efforts well into June 2016 to pursue a business deal with Russia.  Why is this significant?

Central to the special prosecutor’s investigation on Russian interference with the 2016 US elections and the role that the Trump campaign had in colluding with them has been ascertaining of motive.  By that, the issue has been to try to explain why Trump and his associates may have wanted to collude with them, or why they seemed even now unwilling to take a hardline with Putin or otherwise condemn the investigation.  The simple answer is that Trump had possible economic ties then and perhaps now with Russia that he did not want to reveal and which may have then and now continue to cloud his judgments as president.

Keep in mind that Trump this week did confirm much of the details of Cohen’s confession about a Russian Trump tower deal.  This fact no longer seems in dispute.  The deal now speaks to how the Trump business empire, his campaign, and now presidency are intertwined, and how there may have been interest or motive to collude with Russians to get a better economic deal for Trump.  There is a possible quid pro quo emerging.  The Russians did not want Clinton elected, Trump wanted a business deal and perhaps a presidency, the art of the deal suggests strike a deal so that everyone gets what they want.  This quid pro quo is perhaps the core of everything which has thus far unfolded, and it goes far beyond accusations that Secretary of State Clinton extended special deals to countries and those who were donors to the Clinton Foundation.

Democratic Control of the House

Democrats taking control of the US House is significant on multiple fronts.  They will pose a policy limit on Trump, they will also be able to do many investigations and perform the oversight of the executive branch and agencies that the Republican House never was willing to do.  But House control by Democrats also closely connects to the special prosecutor’s actions.

One must also read between the lines in the Cohen plea.  It is no surprise that special prosecutor Robert Mueller knows more than the media is reporting.  One can surmise that once the Democrats take control of the House in January Mueller will be able to release a report to them, even if he is fired.  There is little chance that Mueller will indict Trump even if the evidence supports it. Instead, he will follow the March 1, 1974 Justice Department Memorandum which then referred allegations of Nixon’s criminality to the House.  The same will possibly happen here.

One can probably expect the special prosecutor to indict more individuals, especially given Cohen’s plea.  One might also see Trump pardoning many individuals such as Paul Manafort who remain  loyal to him.  But even if all this occurs, the one-two punch of a special prosecutor’s report and Democratic House control will constrain the Trump presidency even more than it has already.

Mounting Personal Lawsuits

Trump faces numerous civil lawsuits in state and federal court that will continue to dog him, and they cannot be halted by presidential pardons or judicial appointments.  These suits involve sexual harassment issues, the Trump Foundation, his business dealings and how they tie into whether he violated the Constitution’s Emolument clause, among others.  President’s cannot issue self-pardons, especially in civil matters, and his authority does not extend to state courts where he cannot control appointments to the federal bench or the Supreme Court.

 
2020 Economic Slowdown

Perhaps the biggest wild card is the economy.  The US is in the middle of one of the longest recoveries and bull markets in history.  But there are many signs that the end is coming.
Internationally, there is a slowing down of world economic growth that will affect US exports.  Also, as a globally interconnected economy, the US will be impacted by what happens elsewhere.  Rising interest rates are impacting an already slowing down housing market that seemed until recently to be overheated. 

The Trump tax cuts, according to analysts, either had little impact on economic growth–especially when most of the tax cuts were taken as profits and not reinvestments–or they have run their course.  The trade wars are beginning to impact many US sectors, including agriculture and the auto industry (as seen by GM’s plans to close facilities), and  the tightening of immigration is leading to labor shortages.

Finally, the Trump administration has failed to address longer term structural problems with the US economy such as the significant racial and economic gaps tht limit opportunities for many, unequal economic development, decaying infrastructure, and an inability to deal with global economic issues such as the increasing competitiveness of China and other major economies. Throw into this also a  growing budget deficit that will force the US to borrow more money at higher interest rates. All told, the recent Wall Street stock jitters highlight what many see as a first or second 2020 economic slowdown that  will impact the presidential race.

But Will the Republicans Abandon Trump?

All of the above forces will serve as manor checks on the remaining Trump presidency.  But does that mean that Republicans in the Senate or his base will abandon him?  As of now there is little sign of that.   It would take a significant combination of the above events for that to happen and for there to be a serious chance of Republicans calling for impeachment, or for there to be support for challenges to Trump were he to run for a second term.  Trump remains more popular among his base than do the rest of the Republicans and until such time as his base leaves him one cannot foresee  this scenario.

Parkland and the political coming of Generation Z

This blog originally appeared in The Hill.

Does Generation Z, Americans born from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s, look at politics
differently from previous generations, like Baby Boomers or even Millennials, such that they will change America and remake the world in its image? Right now it is too soon to tell but their reaction to the recent school shootings, in particular at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., might portend a coming of political age or consciousness moment that could change America over the next 20 years.

Political scientists often overlook generations as an important variable in politics shaping attitudes and behavior. More often the focus is on race, gender, and socioeconomic status. When age is considered the claim is often made that as people get older they become more conservative. Yet ignoring generation influences misses a critical factor in politics.

It was sociologist Karl Mannheim in 1928 who first talked about generations. Since then others have looked at generations as a social variable. Mannheim argued that a cohort of people born around the same time often develops a consciousness or awareness about themselves that define their political outlook for the rest of their life. A generational consciousness is triggered by some major event in adolescence that defines a set of political values that shape the views both initially in youth, and approximately 20 years later when that group matures and assumes leadership positions when they can act on their beliefs.

Some evidence suggests that political views or values once defined as adolescents are permanent and rarely change even as we age. Yes, factors such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status may mediate or affect attitudes, but in general a generational consciousness has two stages: the initial formation and then eventually its re-emergence when a generation takes power.

The Baby Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, were shaped by the JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King, Jr. assassinations as well as the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. That generation is split in terms of Democratic and Republican party support and is beginning to exit the political arena along with the Silent Generation (1924-1945), which forms a major base of the Republican party. The exit of these two generations creates an existential crisis for the two major parties, especially when one considers that the Millennials (1982-1994) hold views at odds with the two major parties on a range of issues. Contrary to the mantra of some, demographics are not destiny, generational attitudes are.

Yet while many have focused on the rise of Millennials as they begin to take leadership positions (Millennials are now the largest voting bloc, and the oldest are now 36 and eligible to run for president of the United States), few have thought about Generation Z, those born between 1995 and 2010. The oldest Gen Zs are 23. How do they difference from Millennials?

Marketing and business books suggest major differences between Millennials and Gen Z. The latter are more tech savvy and grew up in a world of 9-11 and the Great Recession of 2008-9, but so far political scientists have not examined who Gen Z are and whether they politically differ from Millennials. The reason for this is simple: Right now the oldest Gen Z is 23 — they are only now coming of voting age. What do we know about them?

There is not a lot of data. Two studies examining their political attitudes are the General Social Science Survey (GSS) done by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago in 2016, and the American National Election Study (ANES) by the University of Michigan, also in 2016. These studies are perhaps dated, but they offer some important information about whom then Gen Z was and how they contrast with previous generations.

Generally, both the Millennials and Gen Z are far more liberal on a range of issues including immigration and economic equality compared to the Silents and Boomers. But there are subtle contrasts between Millennials and Gen Zs. Start with the issue of ideology.

When asked in ANES on seven-point scale to rate themselves extremely liberal/liberal versus extremely conservative/conservative, 19.6 percent versus 14 percent of Millennials rate themselves that way respectively compared to 15 percent versus 12.4 percent for Gen Z. In the GSS, employing the same seven point scale, 19.6 percent of Millennials say extremely liberal/liberal versus 13 percent extremely conservative/conservative, while with Gen Z respectively lists 21.9 percent versus 14.4 percent.  Yet in the ANES study if simply asked if liberal versus conservative, 22.3 percent of Millennials say liberal and 27.1 percent say conservative, while it is 24.7 percent and 30 percent respectively for Gen Z. Depending on how the question is asked, one gets either Millennials or Gen Z coming out more liberal or conservative, but the differences in percentages are so slight as not to be statistically significant.

Turning to issues, in the GSS 60.3 percent of Millennials think it is the government’s responsibility to promote equality while 64.9 percent of Gen Z say the same. In ANES, when asked what should immigration levels be, 22.1 percent of Millennials say it should be increased a lot or a little compared to 28.4 percent of Gen Z. Conversely, 35.2 percent of Millennials say immigration levels should be decreased a little or a lot compared to 28.9 percent of Gen Z. Gen Z comes out more liberal on two of the more salient issues in American politics.

Finally, look at guns, an issue supposedly of importance to Gen Z. When asked in the GSS whether they favor gun permits, 73 percent of Millennials say yes and 73.8 percent of Gen Z also say yes. When asked in the ANES how important the gun access issue is, 59.2 percent of Millennials say it is extremely or very important compared to 56.8 percent for Gen Z. Guns back in 2016 might have been a more important issue to Millennials than Gen Z because of their history with school shootings, and this was of course before the Parkland shooting.

On just these issues it is difficult to discern significant differences in political ideology between Millennials and Gen Z. But recall the 2016 GSS and ANES are two years old, back when the oldest Gen Z was 21. This is significant for two reasons. If Mannheim is correct, generational attitudes are formed in adolescence by a major triggering event. Back in 2016 many members of Gen Z may have still not yet formed or developed a set of political attitudes. But it is entirely possible that this is changing as they are getting older, and the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, and the demonstrations coming afterwards may have been the triggering event for Gen Z.

If Parkland was in fact a focusing event for Gen Z the 2018 may give us some evidence for that. But more likely if Mannheim is correct, one needs to look at the longer term impact in the next 20 years to see if and how Parkland affected Gen Z and what it means not just for guns but other issues too.

The Constitution and the Failures of Contemporary American Politics

Note:  This column recently appeared in Politics In Minnesota.

Is the polarization and dysfunctionalism in contemporary American politics an accident or  a product of design failure?  The more one thinks about it the conclusion may well be that the many of the problems now confronting the United States are the product of a faulty Constitution, or at least one that may perhaps have outlived its times.
    Many mythologize our Constitution and the men who wrote it. This seems especially true among the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party. They see in James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and other Founding Fathers a “genius” to the American political process (as historian Daniel Boorstin described it) where the product of their efforts was creation of a representative democracy that really reflected the first three words of the Constitution–“We the people.” Yet historian Richard Hofstadter counseled against seeing the Constitutional Framers as gods, but instead as who they really were–smart politicians with their own interests, prejudices, and limitations who affected compromises to create the American political system.
    Among lost milestones in 2013 was the one hundredth anniversary of the publication of Charles Beard’s An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States.  In that book Beard made a radical argument that the Framers were economic elitists who did not trust the common man, writing a Constitution to further their economic interests which they felt were threatened by America’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation.  The Articles government according to Beard, was an economic disaster for business interests, and many of the constitutional framers were being hurt by this government.  The tipping point for them was Shay’s Rebellion, demonstrating to many of them, including Alexander Hamilton, the dangers that the people could pose to the rich.
    Beard’s book catalogues the economic background of the constitutional framers, all slaveholders or wealth businessmen except for a couple.  They wrote a document giving Congress vast powers to regulate and strengthen commerce, and it was also constitution that preserved slavery, stood silent on voting rights, and otherwise created a system of checks and balances, separation of powers, and other power-dividing mechanisms that made it difficult, as James Madison said, for majority factions to take over the political process.  Political scientist Robert Dahl described the Constitution too as a mechanism to slow down political change, making it difficult to effect reform or change unless there was significant time and consensus to achieve it.
    Beard’s controversial challenge was to assert that the complex constitutional system was not meant to produce democracy, but instead shield the rich from the poor and to entrench the power of the former forever.  John Jay, one of the framers and co-author of the Federalist Papers, once exclaimed that “Those who own the country should rule it,” while James Madison famously declared in Federalist number ten that: “But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.”  For Beard, the real genius of American politics was how the Framers recognized the inevitability of class conflict but designed a political system than  transformed it into group competition, forever dividing the people among various interests, thereby sublimating strife between the rich and poor.  In short, as former Supreme Thurgood Marshall said, “We the people” was the reality of the Constitution, it excluded many from its promise and it took a Civil War, two civil rights movements,  and more than a score of amendments to even give faint meaning to the promise of these three words.
    Looking back over time one wonders to what extent Beard was correct in that the Constitution was designed to assure rule by a privileged elite or that, to update his thesis, that the polarization and dysfunctionalism in contemporary American politics is not just an accident but is exactly what the Framers wanted.  America is a society where economic privilege allocates political power.  Who votes, who runs for office, who gives money, and who benefits from our public policies is significantly determined by economic status.  The “winners” in the American political system look surprisingly a lot like the profile of the constitutional framers of 1787. 
    The Electoral College mechanism for electing the president along with the federalism it embodies have split America into regions since the early days of the republic.  Small states, such as in Senate, can gang up and filibuster legislation and thwart majorities even though they only constitute a small portion of the  population.  And in the House the requirement that every state receive at least one House member too gives disproportionate influence to small populations.  Couple that with gerrymandering and we have created a political system where there are increasingly fewer and fewer incentives to compromise.  This means fringe voices, especially in the political right these days, are given a virtual veto over reform.
    Certainly the American political system is not meant to be winner take all pure populism.  It is a balancing of majority rule with minority rights, but is the minority the Koch brothers and others with money, or those hostile to the rights of women, people of color, and the GLBT community?  The political process which was designed as a compromise seems increasingly unable to create the incentive to compromise, or at least it does not work because some do not want it to.  Instead of seeing our political system now as one where the slowness to change and demand to compromise  were viewed as virtues to protect liberty, it now appears to be one that is unable to act, paralyzed  by gridlock.
    If Charles Beard as updated is correct, one should not be surprised by what is happening across the United States.  The polarization and dysfunctionalism is either an intentional feature to preserve the power for a few, or as law professor Sanford Levinson contends, a sign of original design flaws in the Constitution that are now coming to haunt America more than two centuries later.  In either case, as we head into the 2014 and then 2016 political cycles, we should ask whether the Constitution we mythologize really is up to the task for the demands of the twenty-first century and if it is the cause of, or the impediment preventing the resolution of many of the pressing problems in contemporary American politics.

American Politics in the Age of Ignorance: Why Lawmakers Choose Belief Over Evidence

Please note:  I am pleased to announce formally the publication of my new book, American Politics in the Age of Ignorance: Why Lawmakers Choose Belief Over Evidence, which was just published by Palgrave-MacMillan.  The book describes how lawmakers often ignore evidence when making law, are guided by political myths, and  enact policies that are known in advance to fail.  I try to explain why legislators often enacted failed policies and are guided by political myths.  I also provide a catalog of about a dozen of the most frequently enacted failed policies and political myths.

Below you shall find a short essay describing the book followed by the official Hamline press release for the book.

I hope all of you read the book, especially at a time when Congress and state legislatures across the country have come back into session.

American Politics in the Age of Ignorance

Elections portend opportunities for change.  Change often involves both people and policy. As a nation we face critical questions about taxes, debt, and stimulating the economy and producing jobs.  Similar problems confront Minnesota legislators as they tackle a $1 billion plus debt.
    Unfortunately, despite the changes in people, many of the policies proposed, adopted, and implemented are not new and they will fail.  This will be true in 2013 both in Washington, D.C. and in Minnesota where nearly a quarter of the legislators will be new.
    This is not for lack of knowledge about their likely impact.  Instead, often ideas or public policies are proposed despite the fact that the best evidence indicates that they will be unsuccessful and ultimately fail.  Unmasking some of these proven failures and explaining why American politics seems condemned to enact them is the topic of my new book, American Politics in the Age of Ignorance: Why Lawmakers Choose Belief Over Evidence (MacMillan-Palgrave, December 2012).
    Hope is great when it comes to miracles. Belief is terrific when it comes to the Tooth Fairy. But neither hope nor belief should guide the making of public policy to solve our nation’s or Minnesota’s pressing problems, especially now. The making of good laws and government programs should be driven by facts and good evidence regarding what does work, otherwise taxpayer dollars maybe wasted.  Unfortunately, often that is not the case.
    Elected officials often enact failed laws and are captured by political myths. There is a pack mentality among legislators who often turn to trendy and often untested ideas and the  need for quick fixes to make it look like they are doing something as elections approach or to  appease an impatient electorate.  Many elected officials are part time, with limited knowledge, expertise, and ability to gather critical information necessary to make good decisions.  Additionally, the power of money in politics, partisanship, special interest pressures, and sometimes simply ideology or even blindness to the facts–often willful–all contribute to situations where so called new ideas are really recycled old ones already proven to have failed.
    In almost every aspect of our lives we are taught to act upon the best available evidence at hand.  Successful  businesses are guided by data.  Sound medical diagnosis demands it.   Victorious military commanders need intelligence.  Public administrators are taught to use best practices when managing.  The public wants government to be successful and do what works at the most efficient price possible.  But there is a knowledge gap in American politics.  Social science and scientific research, as well as experimentation and past successes and government failures provide significant  evidence regarding what works or not, yet public officials often ignore this information when making policy.
    Neither of the two major political parties seems exempt from ignoring facts when making policy.  Republicans currently  seem particularly prone to make these mistakes.  Governor John Huntsmann, perhaps captured it well at the September, 2011 Reagan Library presidential debate: “Listen, when you make comments that fly in the face of what 98 out of 100 climate scientists have said, when you call into question the science of evolution, all I'm saying is that, in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science.”   Republicans seem convinced, despite the best evidence, that tax cuts are the solution to almost any economic ill there is.  Or that immigrants are an economic drain on the economy.  Or that voter fraud is rampant, corrupting the integrity of U.S. elections.
    Yet Democrats are not innocent.  Despite the best evidence that taxes incentives are hugely  inefficient in terms of affecting business relocation decisions, they often support them.  Or despite overwhelming data that public subsidies for professional sports stadiums or conventions are bad economic investments, Democrats embrace them as tools of job production and revitalization.  Democrats have also joined Republicans in believing that “three strikes and you are out” criminal  penalty laws for repeat offenders deter crime, when again the best evidence contradicts this. 
    Faith, hope, or simply myth and ignorance often describe what the art of politics has become these days.  Evidence-based policy making is what the legislative process  should be about.  This is why legislators hold hearings–they are supposed to be gathering information to help make better policy.  Instead, the hearings are often charades, with policy makers having already made up their minds and the outcome of the proceedings already predetermined from the onset.
    Clearly  no one has all the answers.  Decisions are often made with limited knowledge, and experimentation  is a good idea and way to improve decision making.  Yet all this is different from the current practice of simply ignoring what the evidence says.  And the evidence does speak loudly.  American Politics in the Age of Ignorance documents  a dozen of the most frequent failed policies and political myths that are repeatedly repackaged and enacted.  They include:
*    Tax incentives are a good way to affect business relocation decisions.
*    High taxes serve as deterrent to work or business activity.
*    Enterprise zones are an efficient means to encourage economic development.
*    Public subsidies for sports stadia are a good economic development tool.
*    The building of convention and other entertainment centers are successful tools for economic development.
*    Welfare recipients migrate from state to state simply to seek higher benefits.
*    Three strikes laws and mandatory minimums are effective deterrents to crime.
*    Sex education causes teenagers to engage in sexual activity.
*    Legalization of drugs leads to increased drug usage.
*    Immigration and immigrants take jobs away from Americans and serve as a drain on the economy.
*    Voter photo identification is needed to address widespread election fraud in the United States.
*    Legislative term limits will dismantle incumbent advantages, break ties to special interests, and discourage career politicians.

For the most part, all of these ideas are false based upon significant evidence.  In many cases, enactment or support for these ideas has produced the exact opposite effect from what was intended.
    Be warned–look to see many of these ideas again recycled, proposed, and reenacted again this year in Minnesota and across the country.  But the persistence of this failed policies and myths should not be read as a wholesale indictment of government or of democracy.  Government in America has accomplished a significant amount, ranging from putting a man on the Moon, winning several world wars and the cold war, helping find a cure for polio, and so much more.  The list is impressive and often overlooked.  The Marshall Plan, the building of the interstate highway system, clean water, sewers, fluoridation, Head Start, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and countless other famous and mundane activities demonstrate the capacity of governments to be successful and make meaningful differences in the lives of Americans.  Yet despite these accomplishments, government can still improve.  It can execute better if simply if does what seems to make sense—learn from the past and from the evidence to make future choices better informed.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                                                                                         CONTACT:
January 10, 2013                                                                                            Gail Nosek: 651-523-2511
                                                                                                                            gnosek01@hamline.edu

HAMLINE UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR DAVID SCHULTZ AUTHORS
AMERICAN POLITICS IN THE AGE OF IGNORANCE

ST. PAUL, Minn. (January 10, 2013) – Hamline University professor David Schultz, noted expert on elections, politics, and public policy, has released his latest book. In American Politics in the Age of Ignorance: Why Lawmakers Choose Belief Over Evidence, Schultz explains why he believes elected officials are frequently captured by political myths and enact laws that are known to fail.

"There is a pack mentality among legislators who often turn to trendy and untested ideas and the need for quick fixes.” Schultz said. “The power of money in politics, partisanship, special interest pressures, and sometimes simply ideology or even blindness to the facts all contribute to situations where so-called new ideas are really recycled old ones already proven to have failed."

In American Politics in the Age of Ignorance, Schultz speaks to a knowledge gap. He argues that social science, scientific research, experimentation, past successes, and government failures provide significant evidence regarding what works and what doesn’t, yet public officials often ignore this information.

In addition to explaining why policy makers often ignore good research, American Politics in the Age of Ignorance also documents a dozen of the most frequent failed policies and political myths that are repeatedly repackaged and enacted. Among the myths and failed policies examined are: the role of taxes in economic develop, public subsidies for sports stadiums, illegal immigration, voter fraud, and abstinence-only sex education. The book can be found at Amazon.com, though the publisher, and other bookstores.

Schultz is a professor of public administration and government ethics at Hamline University School of Business. He has taught classes on American government and election law for more than 25 years. Schultz is the author and editor of 25 books and 90 articles on American politics and law and is a frequently quoted political analyst in the local, national, and international media.  Schultz drew on these experiences, plus him time working in government and on political campaigns, to write American Politics in the Age of Ignorance.

Hamline University attracts a diverse group of 5,000 undergraduate and graduate students who develop their passions working alongside professors invested in their success. Challenged to create and apply knowledge in local and global contexts, students develop an ethic of inclusive leadership and service, civic responsibility, and social justice. Hamline students are transformed in and out of the classroom to discover truths that shape the way they see and are able to change the world.

An American in Ukraine: Thoughts on Politics, Domestic and Abroad

Fade to Black: The End of the Orange Revolution

    Americans often times don not realize how good our election system actually.  Some bitterly complain–with little evidence to support their contentions–that the American political system is perforated with voter fraud and that election officials are biased and do a bad job counting ballots.  Consider ourselves lucky.

For the last week I have been teaching and lecturing in Kyiv (Kiev) Ukraine.  I was invited to lecture on election law at the school of law at Taras Schevecheno University.  I was also asked by the US State Department to give two additional lectures on American democracy.  One for the history department at Schevecheno University, the other at the Ukrainian National Library.  All of my public lectures were packed with students and members of the public eager to learn about America.  They also wanted to talk about their elections.

Ukraine is having its national elections on October 28.  Yet unlike the United States, the prospect of a fair election is nil.  Ukraine was part of the USSR but in 1991 achieved independence.  Its democracy has struggled, with the turning point–or so it appeared–reached in 2004 when a rigged election was thrown out by its Constitutional Court and a new fair election was ordered.  Ukrainians took to the streets in what was called the Orange Revolution, demanding free and fair elections.  It looked like they got what they wanted.  Yushchenko, a reformer looking to the west, had defeated Yanukovych to become president.  In 2006 free parliamentary elections produced a governing coalition electing Yuliya Tymoshenko as prime minister.  But then in 2010 elections,  Yanukovych barely defeated Tymoshenko in elections that were barely fair and free.  In 2010 local elections were held, and they were not free.

Yet now it appears that the Orange Revolution is perhaps ready to fade to black. Yanukovych and his governing coalition have jailed the leading opposition candidate  Tymoshenko on trumped up charges.   Yanukovych’s supporters are trying to enact a defamation law to criminalize criticism  of the government.  Opposition candidates and parties are being removed from the ballot.  Few expect the elections to be fair.

Whether people will take the streets again I do not know.  Kyiv is politically odd.  I see opposition  commercials on television and there is a permanent encampment protesting Tymoshenko located not far from Independence Square.  Students are openly critical of the government but yet there seems realization that the election results are already known and that perhaps more restrictions are on the way.

Lessons for America
America’s political system is far from perfect.  Money corrupts the political process for one.  The choice of candidates is often lousy and the two major parties provide voters with often mediocre options.  Yet the opposition is not jailed.  We have no real evidence of voter fraud or vote buying with two close elections in Minnesota demonstrating a political system 99.9%+ free from errors.  Studies across the country further prove the general integrity of our political system and generally how fair and impartial the administration of our elections.  We have the right to openly criticize the  government and a right to vote.

Yet all of that is being threatened.  The cries of voter fraud and efforts to restrict franchise worry me.  Restrictions seeking to be put in place across the country to make it more difficult to vote compromise the integrity of our democracy.  Stories of partisan election officials and legislatures trying to limit franchise too smack of vote rigging.  Laws that make it difficult for third parties to access the ballot are fearful.  And of course now watch some of our political debates where political honesty and truth seem secondary to winning.  We are not Ukraine but we certainly are not the model of democracy we like to believe we are.

The lesson of Ukraine for the United States is that we take our political system for granted.  We should not be creating a democracy that attempts to disenfranchise voters and make it difficult for  parties to campaign and gain access to the ballot.  Students in Kyiv worry that the rich are buying  elections in their country.  We too should worry the same and not let those who argue cynically that money is speech win the argument.  Some I know who argue that money is speech content they are merely neutrally looking out for the rights of us all, including the poor, to give money to the candidate of their choice.  Anatolie France once said the rich and poor equally have the right to sleep under the bridge.  Some equality, some choice.  We can do better as a country, and we should.

Life in Kyiv
    Kyiv is a beautiful city.  I spent a lot of time just hiking it in between lectures and sampling  wonderful food.    The best part of the city is the architecture of the old churches.  The city is old, founded around 980 CE, and some of the churches approach 1000 years old.  At some future point I will post a few of my pictures.  Beyond the buildings, the people are very friendly and there is a love for flowers, tea, and sweets here that is great.  Wonderful pastry shops and places for treats are everywhere.  This city has one of the best subways (Metros) I have every ridden, and I get could get anywhere for hardly a cost.  One of my colleagues took me to the Kyiv Opera House to see a terrific contemporary ballet.  The opera house was stunning and the ballet excellent.

My favorite events here were the talks with the students and the public.  My public lecture at the Ukraine National Library was standing room only and the questions from the audience great.  The same was true with the student lectures, but the talk I gave in the history department to them was especially fun.  Students here are still excited by Obama, even if the same is no longer true in the USA.  The history department chair had spent some time at the University of Iowa and we had common friends.  In fact, there is another funny story here.  One of my law colleagues here had visited the country of Georgia recently and she ran into one of my former students from Moscow State University.  This is truly a small world!

Final Thoughts on the American Elections
    Amazing how much Obama threw away with his horrible first debate.  He all but had the presidency sew up and destroyed it.  The numbers now suggest that his leads in the swing states are  disappearing too.  What happened?  Simply put, Obama failed to demonstrate a passion or install a passion among his supporters and swing voters and he finally gave those doubtful about voting for Romney to consider him a viable alternative.  Obama needs to shift the momentum in his second round with Romney, otherwise the swings will continue to shift and it will be more and more difficult for him to win.  Obama does have voter registration and money on his side, but that may not be enough.

Off to Malta to lecture!