RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Nation Shocked That Giuliani Has Associates Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Sunday, 13 October 2019 13:32

Borowitz writes: "After learning that two of Rudy Giuliani's associates had been charged with federal campaign-finance crimes, millions of Americans expressed their stunned disbelief that Giuliani had associates."

Rudy Giuliani. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Rudy Giuliani. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)


Nation Shocked That Giuliani Has Associates

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

13 October 19


The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."


fter learning that two of Rudy Giuliani’s associates had been charged with federal campaign-finance crimes, millions of Americans expressed their stunned disbelief that Giuliani had associates.

“By ‘associates,’ do they mean people who actually associate with Giuliani?” Carol Foyler, who lives in St. Louis, said. “This whole story doesn’t add up.”

“I read that these quote-unquote associates of Giuliani’s were actually business associates,” Tracy Klugian, of Butte, Montana, said. “If that means he was paying them a lot of money to associate with him, that could explain everything.”

“It said on the news that these associates were foreign-born,” Kevin Lockdale, of Portland, Maine, said. “Maybe they don’t speak English too well and so they don’t realize that everything Giuliani says is batshit. I mean, I know I’m grasping at straws, but I’m trying to make sense of this whole associates thing.”

Harland Dorrinson, a clinical psychologist who has done a ten-year study on the social isolation of despised people, said that the existence of Giuliani’s two associates should give “hope to the detestable” everywhere. “Honestly, if Giuliani can have associates, anyone can,” he said.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Polish Liberals Embraced Austerity - and the Nationalist Right Is Benefiting Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51834"><span class="small">Adrien Beauduin, Jacobin</span></a>   
Sunday, 13 October 2019 13:28

Beauduin writes: "This Sunday's election promises a landslide for Poland's ruling Law and Justice (PiS) Party, bolstered by four years of popular welfare measures and nationalist-conservative rhetoric. Polls indicate that the right-populist party will take between 40 and 45 percent of the vote - up from 37.5 percent in 2015."

Jaros?aw Kaczy?ski, leader of the right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) Party, speaks at a PiS election rally on the last day of campaigning on October 11, 2019 in Che?m, Poland. (photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
Jaros?aw Kaczy?ski, leader of the right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) Party, speaks at a PiS election rally on the last day of campaigning on October 11, 2019 in Che?m, Poland. (photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images)


Polish Liberals Embraced Austerity - and the Nationalist Right Is Benefiting

By Adrien Beauduin, Jacobin

13 October 19


Poland’s right-wing Law and Justice Party is promising a “Polish version of the welfare state.” Liberals are promising more austerity. Guess who’s going to win today’s general election.

his Sunday’s election promises a landslide for Poland’s ruling Law and Justice (PiS) Party, bolstered by four years of popular welfare measures and nationalist-conservative rhetoric. Polls indicate that the right-populist party will take between 40 and 45 percent of the vote — up from 37.5 percent in 2015.

Like in Hungary and Italy, Poland’s right-populists pose as an alternative to the neoliberal consensus, allying social measures with their own racist and homophobic ideas. While the center-right opposition serves up empty phrases about democracy and fiscal responsibility, after years of austerity the mass of Poles seems attracted by PiS’s talk of social redistribution.

Yet while the populist right is the likely big winner of the October 13 vote, the picture is not only a negative one. While PiS offers its vision of welfare only to some Poles, in its attempt to bolster Polish nationalism and so-called family values, the election also looks set to offer gains for left-wingers who challenge PiS’s chauvinist agenda.

“The Good Change”

After coming to power in 2015 under the banner of “the Good Change,” PiS has doubled down on its promises of social redistribution. Presenting his program at a packed stadium in Lublin in early September, PiS leader Jaros?aw Kaczy?ski announced the advent of the “Polish version of the welfare state.”

Greeted by LED screens heralding “A Good Time for Poland,” the stubby seventy-year-old told cheering, flag-waving crowds of PiS’s so-called hat trick — measures including an almost 100 percent rise in the minimum wage, increased retirement benefits, and Western-level subsidies for Poland’s farmers.

But there’s more to PiS’s message than just welfare. At the same rally, lifelong bachelor Kaczy?ski insisted on the centrality of the traditional family — conceived as the child-rearing union of man and woman — and warned that “each good Pole must know what the role of the [Catholic] Church is, [and] must know that without it, there is only nihilism.”

For the PiS leader, there is no real separation between church and nation; he called on the public to cherish Polishness because “the nation is the base for any human’s existence and action.” He continued this mix of nationalism and “family values” along the campaign trail, warning that the LGBT movement represents “a great socio-technical operation aiming at the destruction of society and Polishness.”

While the veteran politician is considered Poland’s real leader, he in fact pulls the strings in the shadows. Current premier Mateusz Morawiecki, a former banker, serves as PiS’s more acceptable public face.

Indeed, while at the Lublin rally Kaczy?ski addressed the party’s core supporters with his nationalist-conservative narrative, Morawiecki followed on stage in the role of the responsible economist. Promising a “new phase in the state’s overhaul,” he enumerated the billions that will be spent on hospitals, schools, train stations, and police.

Indeed, throughout the campaign, the pair have played “good cop, bad cop”: Kaczy?ski has warned of the evils the opposition would bring, while Morawiecki has used his credentials as an economist to lend credibility to the ruling party’s spending promises.

“The Best Government We Ever Had!”

PiS’s four years in power have been marked by controversial reforms — and protests — concerning issues such as the takeover of the public media, the undermining of the independence of the judiciary, and attempts to further restrict already very limited abortion rights.

Yet PiS has soared ahead in the polls — and in the streets, the government’s popularity can be felt. In the small Silesian mining town of Imielin, I met Sylwia, a middle-aged woman. She says she is apolitical, but she is also convinced that “This is the best government we ever had — they really care about Poles.”

For El?bieta, a pensioner I met in the streets of Bia?ystok, Eastern Poland, on a rainy Saturday: “I am satisfied .?.?.?because there’s an increase in prosperity. You can see it, and it’s beautiful. We never had such a government.”

The secret of PiS’s success is its social programs, which have enabled it to win support beyond its hardcore nationalist-conservative base. After eight years of rule by the neoliberal center-right Civic Platform (PO), in the run-up to the 2015 contest PiS sensed that Poles were tired of being told they had to tighten their belts.

It offered them a greater share of growth, through an economic offer couched in “family values.” This was typified by its “500+” scheme, offering families 500 z?oty (115 euros) per child, from the second child onward — as long as the (heterosexual) parents are married. Ahead of this year’s contest, PiS has extended this measure to the first child, vaunting itself as protector of “the Polish family.”

Before 2015, PiS had been part of a neoliberal consensus through which all parties from left to right had promised that the path to growth lay in weakening labor rights, cutting pension benefits, raising the retirement age to sixty-seven (from sixty for women and sixty-five for men), and rigorous budget discipline.

Professor Julian Auleytner, the rector of the Pedagogical University in Warsaw, is credited with inventing the 500+ measure for a smaller party in 2011. He told me that back then “everyone, including the PiS, said there was no money” for this policy.

But while he is critical of the program’s details, he notes that “the material situation of children has really improved. This is visible to the naked eye if you go to any school.” He also sees it as a political success: “For a great majority of families, this has been perceived as an economic progress offered by the PiS, in contrast to the liberals, who always warned about high social costs and the need to save money.”

Wojciech P?aziuk, mayor of a village next to Wroc?aw, says that he will be backing PiS not to serve his own farming interests, but out of concern for his fellow inhabitants. He emphasizes that “500+” as well as “300+” (a program offering 300 z?oty [70 euros] per child at the start of the school year) are “very visible in the village — we can really see the impact for the poorest, who were excluded before. For example, some families can go on vacation for the first time ever.”

PiS has also introduced other social measures, like a minimum hourly wage, a rise in the monthly minimum wage, lowering the retirement age, increased retirement benefits, and free medication for the elderly.

The Clueless Right-Wing Opposition

Faced with PiS’s advance, the center-right PO has built a Civic Coalition (KO) with other parties, but it still bears the burden of its spell in power between 2007 and 2015, when it was hit hard by countless scandals.

In a bid to restore its image, in this year’s contest the KO is headed by the affable Ma?gorzata Kidawa-B?o?ska, who pledges “Collaboration instead of quarrels” and promises that “Tomorrow can be better.” Through such slogans, she has tried to distance herself from the sharp tone of Polish politics. Yet this has failed to stir enthusiasm.

Indeed, the KO has not found an answer to PiS’s popular social programs: while Kidawa-B?o?ska insists that her party “will not enter a race of promises with the PiS,” which “promises everything,” she has been unable to formulate a clear alternative.

Critical views about public spending have weak mass appeal, but do find some echo on the ground, especially among those who made it during the post-1989 transformation to neoliberal capitalism — the KO’s core vote.

The big farmers I interviewed in Lower Silesia were adamant that the government’s distributive policies were excessive. Jerzy Fink, a farmer of about fifty, warned that “they’re going to put us in the red with this free distribution”; Czes?aw Kaczmarek, a more elderly farmer, bluntly called it “political corruption.” For another farmer in the neighborhood, the programs should be linked to a duty to work, rather than just “handed out to everyone” at the expense of “hard workers.”

Polls predict the KO will score around 25 percent in Sunday’s vote. Not only unhappy about high public spending, these voters oppose what they see as the dismantling of democratic institutions and the weakening of Poland’s position in Europe.

Indeed, the biggest issue under PiS rule since 2015 has been reforms to the justice system, as the ruling party has moved to disarm the constitutional court, merge the positions of chief prosecutor and justice minister, introduce disciplinary measures for judges based on their decisions, and lower the compulsory retirement age of judges — a means to get rid of certain rather unyielding figures.

While PiS claims that all this was necessary in order to get rid of judges linked to the pre-1989 Communist regime, this looks more like a means of removing potential barriers to its control. This has triggered massive street demonstrations and led the European Commission to trigger — for the first time in its history — Article 7 of the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty, designed to thwart any threat to the rule of law in an EU member state. Poland’s aggressive foreign policy has also alienated many of its European allies.

Political Cynicism

While the judicial reforms were seen by many citizens as an attack on the democratic system of checks and balances, sociologists Przemys?aw Sadura and S?awomir Sierakowski warn that voters in smaller towns and villages don’t really care.

Summarizing the results of eight hundred interviews conducted around the country, Sadura told the press the best way to characterize Polish voters is “cynical.” He explains that “Polish voters see well enough the shortcomings and pathological behavior of politicians, but they agree to it as long as the supported party satisfies their desires and interests.”

He explains PiS’s success by underlining that social programs have attracted about a fifth of potential voters, adding to its core base of around 35 percent. While this core vote is mixed in terms of its age, education, income, and geography — and is above all galvanized by PiS’s populist anti-elitism and national-conservative rhetoric — the typical “social voter” more often comes from villages and smaller towns and looks at the government’s nationalist, clerical propaganda with suspicion.

According to Sadura, “This voter says, ‘Well, as long as they realize those social programs that interest me, I’ll swallow that.’” Similarly, this cynicism means that PiS is almost “scandal-resistant” — as the sociologist remarks, “As long as they don’t get caught red-handed filling their pockets with public money, the voters will absolve them.”

In his view, the only thing that could topple PiS would be economic difficulties, stopping it from delivering on social redistribution programs.

TV Propaganda

Another key aspect of PiS’s ability to survive scandals is its total control over public media, which remains an important source of information. “If some scandal involving the government emerges, the public television’s news broadcast will report on it as little as possible and will turn attention to the opposition’s mistakes,” says Kalina B?a?ejowska, a journalist who has been closely reporting on this issue for the last four years. The journalist adds that PiS was quick to consolidate its power after its 2015 election victory, as it “conducted a purge in public media.”

“Experienced journalists suspected of sympathies for the opposition were massively laid off and good-for-nothings from obscure right-wing media were hired,” she says. “The content on public radio and TV changed instantly, with content embarrassing the government disappearing overnight.”

While there have been complaints that such one-sided reporting is contrary to Polish electoral law, the National Media Board is fully controlled by PiS supporters and unlikely to shift, B?a?ejowska explains.

Exploiting this control, PiS has also used public TV to mobilize its core vote through intensive anti-LGBT propaganda. Speaking to a crowd in Kalisz, Central Poland, Kaczy?ski spoke of an “attack on freedom” from the “transvestites marching on Polish streets, under strong police protection .?.?.?demanding that our freedom be restricted, but that we don’t have the right to criticize them.”

Similar was the portrayal of recent “Equality Marches” demanding equal rights for LGBT people. While the demonstrations met with intense violence from homophobic crowds in both Bia?ystok and Lublin, state media instead presented the “LGBT lobby” as the intolerant ones. As B?a?ejowska reports, in a report on the Paris Pride parade, state television even manipulated a sign reading “The Death Penalty is Homophobic” by translating it as “Death Penalty for Homophobia.”

On September 28, when a couple protesting against the Lublin “Equality March” was arrested with a homemade bomb, state television skated over this news; but on October 10, just ahead of the elections, it did broadcast a half-hour-long documentary on Poland’s LGBT movement, titled Invasion.

What About the Left?

Though the Left is moving in the shadows of the PiS-KO conflict, in the run-up to Sunday’s vote it has arguably had the best campaign of all Poland’s political groupings. Since the early 2000s, when a left-wing coalition implemented neoliberal reforms in preparations for Poland’s EU entry, the Left had been a zombie in the country’s political scene.

Indeed, in the 2015 contest, it failed miserably, divided as it was between a left-wing coalition spearheaded by the pre-1989 Communists (SLD) and a new left party called Razem (“Together”). Both fell short of the threshold to enter parliament.

This time around, the left-wing parties seem to have learned from the mistaken divisions of the past. They have built a coalition uniting not only SLD and Razem but also Wiosna (“Spring”), a new center-left party founded by Robert Biedro?, a very charismatic figure who is also Poland’s first openly gay parliamentarian. Simply called Lewica (the Left), these forces have attracted a young, urban, and female electorate and are polling at around 13 percent.

As well as competing with PiS on social measures — for example, advocating for an extension of child support to single parents (most often meaning women), the Left also recently marked itself out through its solidarity with striking teachers and vowed to tackle the crisis in public health care.

At the same time, it has also challenged PiS’s chauvinism, proving the most outspoken defender of LGBT rights and women’s reproductive rights. Some of its candidates were involved in the “Black Protest” mobilization of 2016 which forced the government to relinquish plans to further restrict abortion rights. Additionally, while most parties do not dare to challenge the powerful coal industry, Lewica has presented the most ambitious environmental program.

Motivation and Mobilization

The big question for election day is whether PiS can win an absolute majority of seats. Sure of victory, potential PiS voters may well stay home — as Sadura notes, this is especially likely of those who are attracted by its social programs but would not want it to have unchecked power.

According to a survey by the conservative daily Rzeczpospolita, while only 39 percent of PiS voters describe themselves as very motivated to vote and 25 percent are somewhat motivated, for KO voters these figures rise to 69 percent and 20 percent, respectively. Lewica voters are the most motivated of all (with 94 percent very motivated to vote and 6 percent somewhat so).

The biggest factor remains the uncertain results for two smaller forces — the peasant party PSL and the far-right Konfederacja, each hovering around the 5 percent threshold needed to enter parliament. If they fall short this would help PiS win a majority of seats, but if they do surpass 5 percent they could play a kingmaker role.

PiS’s hegemonic position clearly points to the failures of the liberal opposition and, indeed, the Left. By ignoring the basic social needs of large parts of the population, they have abandoned the field of redistributive policies to the national-conservative right.

Just like the Orbáns, Salvinis, and Trumps of this world, Kaczy?ski is thus liberated to present himself as a popular champion against local and international elites, even though the baubles he promises do not challenge the fundamentals of neoliberalism.

It is easy to understand the appeal of even these measures, which offer crucial help for many poorer families and elderly Poles. Yet PiS has no real interest in fixing broken public services or, indeed, tackling crucial problems like coal pollution and climate change. Instead, it prefers to buy support through cash handouts while keeping the public’s attention on scarecrows like the “LGBT lobby.”

Faced with PiS’s looming victory, the situation is not all bad: the Left is back in action, as a newly united force, and could in the future become a challenger to PiS on the key terrain of social protection. Yet with PiS still hegemonic, the Left is yet to galvanize the mass of Poles around a narrative as powerful as Kaczy?ski’s own national conservatism. That is the task that remains to be achieved, in this election as after.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
War on Plastic Waste Faces Setback as Cost of Recycled Material Soars Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51048"><span class="small">Jillian Ambrose, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Sunday, 13 October 2019 13:26

Ambrose writes: "The battle to reduce Europe's plastic waste could become a quarter of a billion dollars more expensive every year as the cost of recycled plastic soars."

A plastic bottle recycling plant in Santiago, Chile. Importing recycled plastic from Latin America could help meet European demand. (photo: Martin Bernetti/AFP/Getty Images)
A plastic bottle recycling plant in Santiago, Chile. Importing recycled plastic from Latin America could help meet European demand. (photo: Martin Bernetti/AFP/Getty Images)


War on Plastic Waste Faces Setback as Cost of Recycled Material Soars

By Jillian Ambrose, Guardian UK

13 October 19


Europe’s manufacturers face $250m-a-year hit as rising demand drives up price

he battle to reduce Europe’s plastic waste could become a quarter of a billion dollars more expensive every year as the cost of recycled plastic soars.

In recent months, the price of recycled plastic flakes, used to make goods from soft drink bottles to glitter, has become more expensive than virgin plastic for the first time.

For years the cost of making plastic products from recycled flakes was cheaper than relying on virgin plastics made using fossil fuels, meaning the sustainable option was an economic option too.

But according to experts it is now cheaper for major manufacturers to use new plastic.

A report from S&P Global Platts, a commodity market specialist, revealed that recycled plastic now costs an extra $72 (£57) a tonne compared with newly made plastic.

According to the analysts this trend is driven in part by the growing demand to include recycled plastics in new products. Meanwhile, new plastic is becoming cheaper to make due to a flood of petrochemicals production from the US driven by the shale gas boom.

They have warned that this could cost sustainable manufacturers across Europe an extra $250m a year.

Although many larger manufacturers would struggle to switch their machinery back to virgin plastics, smaller manufacturers may be forced to turn their backs on recycled plastic to keep costs down.

In a blow to the war on plastic this could mean the makers of clear plastic bottles and fruit punnets stoke demand for new fossil-fuel based plastic rather than reusing old recycled bottles.

Makers of plastic packaging are under pressure to use more recycled plastic to reduce the scourge of plastic pollution in the oceans.

Coca-Cola’s European business plans to cut the amount of virgin plastic used in its soft drink bottles to 50% within the next two years, and will change the colour of its Sprite bottles from green to clear to make sure 100% of its bottles can be reused.

The UK is planning to tax companies which don’t use at least 30% recycled plastic in their products, but until then it may be cheaper for companies to demand more new plastic to make their packaging.

Alongside a tax on virgin plastic use, experts are calling for the UK government to support plans to increase the amount of recycled plastic in the market.

This could mean incentives for new recycling plants, improving recycling facilities at a local council level, or importing recycled plastic flakes from Latin America.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Donald Trump: Xenophobe in Public, International Mobster in Private Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9643"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Sunday, 13 October 2019 11:44

Reich writes: "The most xenophobic and isolationist American president in modern history has been selling America to foreign powers for his own personal benefit."

Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)


Donald Trump: Xenophobe in Public, International Mobster in Private

By Robert Reich, Guardian UK

13 October 19


The founding fathers said betraying America to foreign powers was an impeachable offense. The president must go

he most xenophobic and isolationist American president in modern history has been selling America to foreign powers for his own personal benefit.

Trump withdrew American troops from the Syrian-Turkish border, leaving our Kurdish allies to be slaughtered and opening the way for a resurgent Islamic State. Trump’s rationale? He promised to bring our soldiers home.

There could be another reason. Trump never divested from his real estate business, and the Trump Towers Istanbul is the Trump Organization’s first and only office and residential building in Europe. Businesses linked to the Turkish government are also major patrons of the Trump Organization. Which may be why Trump has repeatedly sided with the Turkish strongman Recep Tayyip Erdo?an, who has been intent on eliminating the Kurds.

Back home, Trump has separated families at the border, locked migrant children in cages and tried to ban Muslims from entering the country. He says he wants to protect America’s borders.

But guarding America’s geographic borders isn’t nearly as important as guarding the integrity of American democracy, which Trump has repeatedly compromised for personal political gain. He did this on 25 July when he asked the president of Ukraine to do him a personal “favor” by digging up dirt on Joe Biden, his most likely 2020 opponent.

Trump justifies his trade war with China as protecting America from Chinese predation. But he asked China to start an investigation of Biden, and last week his adviser on China conceded he spoke with Chinese officials about the former vice-president.

During the 2016 election, Trump publicly called on Russia to find Hillary Clinton’s missing emails. Within hours, Russian agents sought to do just that by trying to break into her computer servers.

Special counsel Robert Mueller found that Russia sought to help Trump get elected, and Trump’s campaign welcomed the help.

Now Trump is playing at being a double foreign agent – pushing the prime minister of Australia, among others, to gather information to discredit Mueller.

Rudy Giuliani is Trump’s international thug, arranging deals with foreign powers. On Wednesday, two of Giuliani’s business associates were arrested in connection with a criminal scheme to funnel foreign money to candidates for office, including donations to a Super Pac formed to support Trump.

Under Trump, thuggery has replaced diplomacy. On Friday, in an opening statement for congressional impeachment investigators, Marie Yovanovitch, former US ambassador to Ukraine, said people associated with Giuliani “may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine”.

Meanwhile, even as Trump spews conspiracy theories about the Biden family, his own children are openly profiting from foreign deals. Eric and Don Jr have projects in the works in Ireland, India, Indonesia, Uruguay, Turkey and the Philippines.

Trump is pocketing money from foreign governments eager to curry favor by staying at his hotels. The practice has become so routine that during Trump’s 25 July phone call, the Ukrainian president assured him that the “last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower”.

According to a former Trump Organization official, foreign governments spent more than a million dollars at Trump businesses in 2018, mostly at the Trump International hotel in Washington. Trump will make even more money if he carries out his plan to host next year’s G7 meeting at his Doral golf resort, in Florida.

All of this is precisely what the founding fathers sought to prevent.

When they gathered in Philadelphia 232 years ago to write a constitution, a major goal was to protect the new nation from what Alexander Hamilton called the “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils”.

To ensure no president would “betray his trust to foreign powers”, as James Madison put it, they included an emoluments clause – barring a president from accepting foreign payments.

They also gave Congress the right to impeach a president for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. During the Virginia ratifying convention, Edmund Randolph confirmed that a president “may be impeached” if discovered “receiving [help] from foreign powers”.

You don’t have to be an originalist to see the dangers to democracy when a president seeks or receives personal favors from foreign governments. There is no limit to how far a foreign power might go to help a president enlarge his political power and wealth, in exchange for selling out America.

Donald Trump is a xenophobe in public and international mobster in private. He has brazenly sought private gain from foreign governments at the expense of the American people.

This is shameful and criminal. At the very least, it is impeachable.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Senate Is Likelier to Remove Trump After Impeachment Than You Think Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51833"><span class="small">David Priess, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Sunday, 13 October 2019 08:21

Priess writes: "As the House of Representatives builds momentum to impeach President Trump, conventional wisdom holds that the constitutionally required two-thirds vote in the Senate to remove him would be impossible. This conventional wisdom is wrong."

A protest in front of the White House in July of 2018. (photo: @AdamParkhomenko/Twitter)
A protest in front of the White House in July of 2018. (photo: @AdamParkhomenko/Twitter)


The Senate Is Likelier to Remove Trump After Impeachment Than You Think

By David Priess, The Washington Post

13 October 19


The history of past acquittals isn’t as helpful to Trump as naysayers believe

s the House of Representatives builds momentum to impeach President Trump, conventional wisdom holds that the constitutionally required two-thirds vote in the Senate to remove him would be impossible.

This conventional wisdom is wrong.

While getting rid of the president this way remains far from certain, it’s more likely than most observers will admit. And it’s becoming a stronger possibility day by day as Trump’s foreign policy stumbles remind GOP senators that speaking out against the president doesn’t have to be political suicide.

Historically inclined naysayers cite the acquittals of our only two impeached presidents as support for the argument that Trump won’t be removed. Those examples, both of which ended with the commander in chief beating the charges against him and serving out his full term, on first blush do appear to bolster that case.

Andrew Johnson’s experience in particular astounds to this day. After that president’s egregious behavior and manifest unfitness for office got him impeached by the Republican-dominated House in 1868, the Senate failed to remove him from office — by one vote. That result came despite the GOP holding a greater-than-two-thirds majority in the Senate.

The wrong lesson, however, can be taken from Johnson’s nonconviction. Senators allowed the president to remain in place partly because they suspected the law that the president had violated to prompt his impeachment, the Tenure of Office Act, itself stood on particularly shaky ground. (It was, in fact, later ruled unconstitutional.) Other articles of impeachment against Johnson included “crimes” like speaking ill of Congress in public — which may very well have contravened a lingering norm from the early days of the republic but fell very well short of warranting immediate ejection from the presidency.

It’s hard to imagine Trump’s forthcoming impeachment resting on such weak foundations. Most likely, articles of impeachment against him will point to core abuses of power, obstruction of justice and failure to comply with lawful congressional subpoenas — and that’s if the House only chooses to highlight misdeeds related to the Ukraine debacle.

What about the most recent failed conviction of an impeached chief executive? After Bill Clinton’s articles of impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice passed the House in 1999, GOP senators couldn’t muster even a majority vote to convict him on either article, much less the two-thirds needed to kick him out of the White House.

But it’s worth recalling that Clinton’s acquittal came largely because his violations of law were intended to cover up a personal affair, not a matter of state, and were not seen as a persistent pattern of inherent unfitness. The situation now is quite different. Trump’s actions on the Ukraine scandal alone implicate the constitutional fabric itself, and they build on inappropriate activities described in detail in the scathing Mueller report. This all puts senators tasked with judging Trump in a different place than those who judged Clinton.

The Senate-will-never-convict club can discount this history, pointing instead to congressional Republicans’ sycophancy during the past two years, and credibly say, “GOP senators are in lock-step with the president and will rally around their fellow Republican.” And indeed, getting 20 out of 53 Republican senators to agree to boot him from office won’t be easy under any circumstances.

Trump, however, is far from an institutional Republican. He had never run for office as a Republican before the 2016 presidential election. From the 1980s into the Obama years, he donated more to Democratic candidates than to Republican ones. As late as 2004, he said he identified more as a Democrat than as a Republican.

His party credentials contrast sharply with the most recent nearly impeached Republican president, Richard M. Nixon. By the time the Judiciary Committee voted on articles of impeachment against Nixon, he had been a steady partisan for almost 30 years: a Republican representative and senator from California from 1947 until 1953, vice president of the United States for eight years under Dwight D. Eisenhower, the party’s standard-bearer in the 1960 presidential election, Republican candidate in the 1962 California gubernatorial race and president since 1969.

So when Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) in early August 1974 led a GOP triumvirate to the White House to tell Nixon that he’d lost the congressional support necessary to hold on to the presidency — telling him, “There’s not more than 15 senators for you” — he was addressing the man who many Republicans saw as the face of the party.

Not so now. While the GOP has largely embraced Trump’s political program even where it breaks with long-standing party orthodoxy, he has earned little enduring loyalty within the establishment. Republican senators remain loathe to break openly with the president, but former senator Jeff Flake last month candidly assessed that 35 of his former GOP colleagues would vote to remove Trump from office if the poll were taken in private. “Anybody who has sat through two years, as I have, of Republican luncheons,” Flake also said, “realizes that there’s not a lot of love for the president.”

Flake’s point has limited utility; a Senate trial of Trump would not end, of course, with a private vote. His observation nevertheless reveals a core truth: Republican support for Trump is highly instrumental, not fundamental. If the president’s overall approval rating sat above 60 percent (as Bill Clinton’s did during his impeachment trial), or if the majority of the American people opposed impeachment and removal as they did then, or even only if support among Republicans for Trump’s impeachment and removal remained in the single digits, fear of Trump’s tweets would probably keep GOP senators in line.

Polls now tell a different story. Trump’s aggregated approval rating has never escaped the 35 to 45 percent band, keeping it stunningly short of Clinton’s overall numbers. Plus, a new Fox News poll shows 51 percent of respondents support impeaching and removing Trump. And a Washington Post-Schar School poll reveals that 18 percent of Republicans support his impeachment and removal.

In this environment, even the small dose of political courage we’ve seen this week from Republicans on Capitol Hill matters. On the Ukraine affair, at least two GOP senators — Mitt Romney (Utah) and Ben Sasse (Neb.) — publicly expressed concern about the president’s actions. Before Trump’s angry tweets responding to Romney could become a headline story, the president’s decision to expose Kurds in northern Syria to Turkish attacks spurred much wider criticism from Republican senators, including firm Trump ally Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.). Talk is cheap, yes. But coming on the heels of so many instances of GOP senators’ silence in the wake of Trump’s controversies, one can forgive The Post’s Shane Harris for calling it a “Republican rebellion.” Most importantly, the president uncharacteristically refrained from lashing out at those who disagreed with him.

Political momentum has odd properties. When tides turn, they often turn quickly and harshly. While the basic math still points to a Senate acquittal, this week nevertheless brings to mind Winston Churchill’s words after the British victory at El Alamein in 1942: “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 Next > End >>

Page 727 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN