Suckers for Trump

May 31, 2016

Let me begin by reminding you of Trump’s claims,[1] and end with some questions.

“I’m totally pro-choice” he declared and then took it back: “I’m pro-life” and told MSNBC that “there has to be some form of punishment” for a woman who has an abortion, later modified that only the doctor should be responsible. Plus he supported Planned Parenthood, and defunding them.

Remember the poor woman in Providence whose house was taken under eminent domain? “Eminent domain is wonderful” he told Fox News, and within a month told another outlet, “I don’t like eminent domain.”

He told CNN “I’m an environmentalist,” but tweeted “Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!”

He once “support[ed] the ban on assault weapons and … a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun.” but “I don’t support it anymore.” Now he says he’s “the strongest person running in favor of the Second Amendment.”

In 2000 he said “We must have universal health care” but his campaign website read “It is not enough to simply repeal this terrible legislation,” and says he’d substitute “free market principles” on health care.

On taxes, in 2015 he described his tax plan as “a big tax reduction, including for the upper income.” On May 5 he told CNBC “I am not necessarily a huge fan of” cutting taxes for billionaires.

It’s not clear who Trump likes as people. First he refused to denounce the Ku Klux Klan and other white nationalists supporting him. Under fire he reversed course but many white supremacists, including David Duke, continue to support Trump. He’s blown hot and cold on refugees: “on a humanitarian basis, he said, “you have to” take in Syrian refugees. But now he wouldn’t. “I love Hispanics!” he tweeted on Cinco de Mayo, pictured with a taco bowl. Except of course that he wants to build a wall and send them all back to Mexico.

Donald thinks military policy is a cinch, “It would take an hour and a half to learn everything there is to learn about missiles. … I think I know most of it anyway.” He waffles on whether he would trust the Russians or not. He liked NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which unites Europe and the U.S. militarily. “I see NATO as a good thing” he said recently but six days later decided “NATO is obsolete.”

The Middle East befuddles him. He supported invading Iraq. and crowed that “It looks like a tremendous success” but four days after that said, “The war’s a mess.”

He supported fighting in Libya: “Qadhafi in Libya is killing thousands of people, nobody knows how bad it is, and we’re sitting around, we have soldiers, all over the Middle East, and we’re not bringing ‘em in to stop this horrible carnage. … We should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very easy and very quick.” But he said later, “I never discussed that subject.… We would be so much better off if Qadhafi were in charge right now.”

What are we supposed to make of Trump’s contradictions and about-faces? Does the adjective he uses endlessly to describe Hillary fit Trump better? Does he know what he’s talking about? I’m more interested in how we decide what he’s for? He’s inviting people to buy their own dreams. Whatever you’re for, he wants you to think he is too. Selling people their own dreams is a great sales tactic. It’s natural to believe others think like us. But if we guess wrong, who wants to be Donald’s sucker?

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, May 31, 2016.

[1] Clips collected on http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-contradictions-213869;  Michael P. Lynch, Truth, “Politics and the Power of Contradiction,” New York Times, May 8, 2016, at SR2, available as Michael P. Lynch, Trump, Truth, and the Power of Contradiction, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/trump-truth-and-the-power-of-contradiction.html?_r=0; “A Trump Sampler: His Changing Views,” New York Times, May 8, 2016, on page SR2, available at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/08/sunday-review/a-trump-sampler-his-changing-views.html.

Advertisements

Upcoming Speaking Engagements:

May 30, 2016

UP-COMING EVENTS

June 1, 2016, 5:30 p.m., League of Women Voters of Albany County, NY, annual dinner meeting at the Normanside Country Club, Elsmere, NY

June 2, 2016, keynote address, Justice Studies Association Annual Meeting at the University at Albany

June 8, 2016, Bethlehem Neighbors for Peace, Bethlehem Public Library, Bethlehem, NY, 7 p.m.

June 11, 2016, New Lebanon Library, New Lebanon, NY, at 3 p.m., Judging the Roberts Court, with myself and Judge Robert Smith

June 28, 2017 Talk to Meeting of the Education Committee, Community Board 17, Brooklyn, NY, 7:30 pm

September 7, Marquette College of Law, Milwaukee, WI

September 15, Constitution Day address at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland, OH

October 27, 2016, Russell Sage College, Troy, NY, 7 p.m.

PLEASE get in touch with me if you are interested in arranging an event.

AVAILABLE as PODCASTS:

“Virtual Book Review Roundtable: ‘Unfit for Democracy’ Featuring Stephen Gottlieb, Peter Quint and Dana Schmalz,” Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, May 6, 2016, at: http://www.iconnectblog.com/2016/04/virtual-book-review-roundtable-unfit-for-democracy-featuring-stephen-gottlieb-peter-quint-and-dana-schmalz (Richard Albert, moderator)

Interview by Susan Arbetter, on Capitol Pressroom, WCNY and syndicated, recorded February 12, 2016 and broadcast February 15, 2016, available as a podcast

Interview by Alan Chartock on WAMC “In Conversation with …,” broadcast February 11, 2016, at 1 p.m., taped before a live audience at Albany Law School, Jan. 26, 2016, available as a podcast at http://wamc.org/post/wamc-s-alan-chartock-conversation-stephen-gottlieb-1#stream/0

Interview by Joe Donahue on the WAMC Roundtable, Jan. 25, 2016 at 11:10 a.m., available as a podcast.

Also available, Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle [CLSC], August 16, 2001, talk at the Hall of Philosophy, Chautauqua Institution, Chautauqua, NY, on Morality imposed: The Rehnquist Court and Liberty in America.  Broadcast by C-Span on their America and the Courts series, October 20, 2001, podcast at http://www.c-span.org/video/?165692-1/book-discussion-morality-imposed-rehnquist-court

All good wishes,

Steve


Bernie and Ralph

May 24, 2016

Let’s talk about Bernie Sanders and Ralph Nader. I have enormous respect for what both men have been trying to tell us. I also have enormous respect for Nader’s willingness to plow his earnings back into the effort to improve many aspects of life while he, Nader, lived on a shoestring.

Then came the 2000 election. Nader argued that there was no difference between the major parties so it didn’t matter which one won that election. On the economic issue he was close to right, although the 2008 meltdown should have made clear that there are important differences between Republicans and Democrats on handling the economy. On other issues, particularly the environment, and the War in Iraq, the parties were far apart. That election made an enormous difference.

And it almost killed Nader’s movement; it certainly killed his ability to be an effective advocate. The conversation after the 2000 election wasn’t about Nader’s message; it was about the damage Nader did.

Bernie has an important message, which he shares with people like Elizabeth Warren and Ralph Nader, that the American economy is organized to take advantage of the vulnerable and deliver its benefits to those who have much more than they need. But if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, what happens to Bernie’s message will depend on how he treats Hillary. It will be important for his message that he works for her election – and that his supporters do. If he and they work for the ticket, then his message has staying power because it becomes a shared message, his people are welcome and they broaden their own power within the Party. But if they sit it out or vote for the other side, their only message is that they aren’t important, reliable or helpful. It will stir resentments that will block their appeal going forward.

Nurturing Bernie’s message requires looking beyond this election, making friends and alliances for future elections. The way to create a lasting movement is to build on good feelings and organize for challenging down ballot in future federal, state and local elections much like what conservatives did to the Republican Party. Winning the top spot is a defective balloon, useless without down ballot organization. Bernie’s people have a chance to push the whole party, not just the White House, to the left. That’s the big prize. It doesn’t mean Bernie lost if he can’t catch Hillary; it means he and his supporters can do something much more powerful and sustainable.

Sitting back, or communicating that it’s my way or the highway infuriates the public. Republicans are learning the costs of that strategy, and even if Donnie wins, he may have no coattails or ability to govern. One of the crucial features of a democratic culture is the ability to be a good sport. Moderates usually win in the general election because that’s where the public is, so compromise must join principle in a successful strategy. Movements build over time. The best way to limit a movement’s prospects is to look like a sore loser.

I hope that message gets across to Bernie and his supporters.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, May 24, 2016.


When More Law is Too Much – a Case of Airport Excess

May 19, 2016

A proposal before the Albany County legislature makes it a crime to “interfere[] with or fail[] to submit” to the United States Transportation Security Administration inspection protocols.  It would become a crime to turn around and leave the airport for any reason once one enters the screening area.

Proponents imagine people probing airport security until a vulnerability is found by “start[ing] the screening process at an airport” but leaving before completing it. The legislation’s supporters want travelers to have to go through a secondary screening process which includes a physical search of the person and their luggage, a pat down or more. But this poorly drafted legislation makes it a crime to leave once the traveler approaches the conveyor belt, before luggage has been screened.

The proposal substitutes inconsistent local rules for uniform national ones. Under the vague “interference” language, a person who questions why a security officer wants to search the traveler or her luggage may well be arrested for interfering with security protocols.   The proposal aggravates the problem of “flying while Muslim” – or at least flying in Muslim apparel, though I know from experience here and abroad that the vast majority of Muslims are, like the rest of us, decent, caring, peace-loving and law-abiding, although stopped and searched in very disproportionate numbers.

The New York Civil Liberties Union has described this proposal as “a remedy in search of a problem.”[1] There is no apparent problem this legislation would solve. Under long established rules, the TSA and other law enforcement personnel at the airport have all the authority they need to take action whenever they actually suspect a problem rather than whenever someone turns around because they have to run to the bathroom, had a panic attack or forgot something, which becomes criminal under this proposal.

I’d like to quote an eloquent letter sent to me by psychiatrist Aliya Saeed: “physical searches are quite traumatic for many … including survivors of rape (who are unlikely to want the back of a stranger’s hand next to their crotch, and on their breasts, as practiced currently), transgender individuals, those with emotional and mental health issues, pubescent children, etc. Being forced into an arrest … in a crowded public place, because someone is perceived to be walking away from a checkpoint, instead of … being able to simply leave an intolerable situation, presents  an undue risk …. We know that people with mental illness are far more likely to end up at risk of harm in police encounters because they are often unable to communicate effectively or comply readily with police demands. This presents an unnecessary liability for the law enforcement, and an unacceptable risk…, especially [for] those with mental health issues, history of trauma, autism, or those with limited English proficiency.”

This legislation just isn’t needed – there is no gap in authority to take necessary action when officials reasonably suspect wrongdoing. Instead, this will cost us tax dollars without giving us any benefits while threatening travelers with totally unnecessary harm. This legislation should be withdrawn.

– This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, May 17, 2017.

[1] NYCLU Memorandum Re: Proposed Albany County Local Law E of 2016, establishing a secondary search protocal at Albany County Airport, submitted at a meeting of the Albany County Legislature, Monday, May 9, 2017.


Forthcoming Speaking Engagements

May 14, 2016

May 17, 2016, 12:00 noon at Albany Public Library, Albany, NY

May 24-25, 2016, Demos’ Money in Politics Legal Convening, at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia

June 1, 2016, 5:30 p.m., League of Women Voters of Albany County, NY, annual dinner meeting at the Normanside Country Club, Elsmere, NY

June 8, 2016, Bethlehem Neighbors for Peace, Bethlehem Public Library, Bethlehem, NY, 7 p.m.

June 11, 2016, New Lebanon Library, New Lebanon, NY, at 3 p.m., Judging the Roberts Court, with myself and Judge Robert Smith

September 7, Marquette College of Law, Milwaukee, WI

September 15, Constitution Day address at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland, OH

October 27, 2016, Russell Sage College, Troy, NY, 7 p.m.

Please get in touch with me if you are interested in arranging an event.

AVAILABLE AS PODCASTS:

April 18, 2016, recorded video discussion: “Virtual Book Review Roundtable: ‘Unfit for Democracy’ Featuring Stephen Gottlieb, Peter Quint and Dana Schmalz,” Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, May 6, 2016, at: http://www.iconnectblog.com/2016/04/virtual-book-review-roundtable-unfit-for-democracy-featuring-stephen-gottlieb-peter-quint-and-dana-schmalz (Richard Albert, moderator)

Interview by Susan Arbetter, on Capitol Pressroom, WCNY and syndicated, recorded February 12, 2016 and broadcast February 15, 2016, available as a podcast

Interview by Alan Chartock on WAMC “In Conversation with …,” broadcast February 11, 2016, at 1 p.m., taped before a live audience at Albany Law School, Jan. 26, 2016, available as a podcast at http://wamc.org/post/wamc-s-alan-chartock-conversation-stephen-gottlieb-1#stream/0

Interview by Joe Donahue on the WAMC Roundtable, Jan. 25, 2016 at 11:10 a.m., available as a podcast.

Also available, Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle [CLSC], August 16, 2001, talk at the Hall of Philosophy, Chautauqua Institution, Chautauqua, NY, on Morality imposed: The Rehnquist Court and Liberty in America.  Broadcast by C-Span on their America and the Courts series, October 20, 2001, podcast at http://www.c-span.org/video/?165692-1/book-discussion-morality-imposed-rehnquist-court

All good wishes,

Steve


Universalism vs. the What-About-Mes

May 10, 2016

This primary season has made plain Americans’ dissatisfaction with American politics – dissatisfaction because someone else seems to be getting all the goodies and concern. The right wing thinks the poor are the government’s favorites. The left wing sees its wages and taxes mostly benefitting the super wealthy. Both Sanders and Trump mined the political backlash from special interest politics. Trump’s apparent nomination increases the urgency for both parties to respond to this problem.

And for anyone who wants to argue that impoverished or minority Americans are being short changed, one runs a minefield of envy, and the “what-about-mes.” The same weighs down discussion of the advantages of international trade agreements. If we don’t all share, the biggest issue is me. Similarly, for too many people the environment never seems to be about themselves but someone else, people on islands, lowlands, the next generations, but not themselves. That makes all our problems tougher to deal with.

When he wanted to establish a program for the elderly and the injured, the genius of President Franklin Roosevelt was to make it seem universal. Social security insurance applied to all kinds of people and most kinds of jobs.[1] We pay into the system long before we know whether and how much we’ll need. Many get social security who would be excluded by any need based program. But that’s the point. There is no stigma to social security. FDR did it as an insurance program; most of us contribute and collect. Roosevelt wanted to make it simple – you did your social security business at the post office. And when some politicians wanted to tamper with it for ideological reasons, they found that social security was a third rail of politics. FDR had hit that nail on the head.

Now, however, simple, universal programs like medical insurance have become a political football, and the very possibility of the government pursuing the general welfare is under attack from the not-with-my-money crowd. But because it is under attack, because we cannot count on government even to pull us out of a recession that would involve spending tax dollars, no matter how good the investment, the very possibility of economic changes are much more threatening than they should be.

Investment in infrastructure should be an investment in the general welfare, full of benefits for everyone, putting people to work building it, making jobs and businesses easier to reach, and creating benefits for all of us, from clean water and more reliable utilities to better education and internet services. The best way to protect people from unemployment is to provide jobs that provide benefits for the public. Infrastructure can pay dividends, in jobs and services that make everyone better off, and that only government can build.

Unfortunately politicians prefer big showy projects, dramatic new bridges and buildings rather than maintenance, repair and cost effective options. They prefer projects targeted for their contributors, Or they prefer to get on their soapboxes and try to get us to tear down the very government that made this country a great one. The cost of political behavior that breeds distrust of American government is enormous. Good government, self-government was the signal contribution of America to the world and we are allowing our political infrastructure to crumble along with the water, utility, transportation and electrical infrastructure.

It’s not just who we tax; it’s also what we do. Government matters; it does things for the public that no one else will take care of. We need good government, fair government, government for all of us, but government – strong, effective government – and the confidence that comes from doing it right.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, May 10, 2016.

[1] On the original exclusions, see Larry DeWitt, The Decision to Exclude Agricultural and Domestic Workers from the 1935 Social Security Act, Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 70, No. 4, 2010, https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.html, but he is less convincing regarding motivation. For summaries of current exemptions, see Intuit Inc. (U.S.) at https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/General-Tax-Tips/Who-Is-Exempt-from-Paying-Social-Security-Tax-/INF19965.html or http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/013015/who-exempt-paying-social-security-taxes.asp.


Brexit and the EU

May 9, 2016

May I call your attention to an excellent discussion of the Brexit issue. I’m more sympathetic to the ideal of a stronger Union because I think it would be valuable to us, democracy and world peace but I think Barber’s explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of both the EU and the British position are realistic and an excellent guide to how those issues should be handled in Europe as it is. Here are a citation and link: Nicholas Barber, The Brexiteers: Right Answer, Wrong Question, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, Apr. 29, 2016, at: http://www.iconnectblog.com/2016/04/the-brexiteers-right-answer-wrong-question. Enjoy.


%d bloggers like this: