The Coup Isn't Over

The failure on Wednesday of the far-right mob to prevent the formal recognition of Joe Biden winning the 2020 presidential election should not be taken as the end of the Right’s insurgency, but rather another stepping stone in the building of its legend. 

When Trump called upon his fascist followers to muster at the Capitol on Wednesday, it was the last throw of the dice as far as his own presidency was concerned. His legal team had previously raised 62 complaints of voter fraud across the country, in states such as Georgia, Michigan, Nevada,  Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. All of these charges were rejected as baseless. Often the depositions were filed without supporting evidence. In Georgia it took judges just one day to throw out the case.

This begs the question: why do it? Why go to the time and expense of taking these issues in front of the courts when those filing the cases knew they were going to be thrown out? In order to answer such questions, one has to appreciate the overall picture. 

Trump’s assault of the legality of the November vote started in March 2020. By May 2020, The Guardian was reporting that Trump had singled out both Nevada and Michigan, both states that he needed to hold but was vulnerable to a swing vote, for making mail-in voting easier. He alleged that ballots would be sent to all registered voters when, in fact, both states arranged for mail-in ballot applications to be sent out. However, the Trump teams raised no complaint when Iowa and West Virginia also send out mail-in ballot applications to all registered voters ahead of the elections. Both these latter states were expected to, and returned, Trump victories. No subsequent allegations of voter fraud was raised, despite the fact that these states acted the same as those Trump complained against. 

One can therefore see that Trump’s team were acutely aware of the states vulnerable to flipping and, in advance, decided to create a case for voter fraud, regardless of facts involved. Where states who did the same thing but were predicted to return a Trump victory, no such concerns were expressed. From this, it is fair to assume that if any of the flip states had gone to Trump, that allegations of voter fraud  concerning those states would have similarly evaporated.

The central point is, as compiled in detail in the paper Mail-In Voter Fraud: Anatomy of a Disinformation Campaign, that Trump, supported by the Republican National Committee and Fox News, ran a disinformation campaign against the American public. This campaign has led to about half of Republican voters continuing to believe that there was indeed wide-scale voter fraud, that Trump had the election stolen from him and therefore the assault on the nation’s Capitol was justified. 

Trump’s selective offensive against mail-in voters in flip states will seem even more logical when the tactics of the 2016 are taken into account. It is true that Mail-In voting makes it easier to vote. It is also true that, in comparison to those registered voters who attend a polling station, those who register for Mail-In voting are more likely to vote. In September 2020, Channel Four News started a series of reports that alleged that, in contrast to traditional voting campaigns where political parties encourage their supporters to register and go to the polls, Trump’s 2016 campaign actively targeted black voters to dissuade them from voting. C4News estimates that 3.5 million black voters were subjected to the “Deterrence” project. For instance, in Georgia, where black voters make up 32% of the population, 68% of black voters where targeted for deterrence campaigning. In total, 54% of voters in the deterrence category were from minorities, while those votes were activity encouraged to vote were overwhelmingly white. Thus another objection to the Mail-In campaigns from flip-states are that it would be defeating one of the weapons used by the Trump and the Republican campaigning team to keep the black vote away from the polls. 

The refusal of Donald Trump to admit defeat at the polls and to encourage his supporters to storm the Capitol ahead of the formal counting of the Electoral College votes cannot be ignored. It can mean only one thing: the insurgency of the far-right in US politics is still ongoing and while they were defeated on the day, the war they are waging against democracy is not over. Some commentators are comparing Wednesday the 6th of January to Hitler’s Beer Hall Putch of 1923, which at the time was a bit of a farce but led to Hitler being given a national platform to make his party’s case during the subsequent trial. I am in little doubt that the legend of the stolen vote and storming of the Capitol is exactly what those who seek to overthrow democracy in the USA is seeking to gain from perpetuating the lies sown by Trump and the Republican National Committee.

Why do I emphasise the role of the RNC? As shown by a series of votes surrounding Biden’s confirmation as President Elect, the war within the Republican Party is ongoing. Eight Republican senators backed Trump’s version of events but, more importantly, so did 139 members of Congress. The insurgency of the Far Right into the Republican Party is far from over. Even if the Democrats are successful in getting Trump impeached and thus not able to stand for the presidency again, if his successor does not come from his immediate family, it will certainly come from one of these Congressional hopefuls. That is if the Republican Party fails to counter this takeover. So far they have failed. Today’s video appeal from Arnold Schwarzenegger to can be seen as part of the fightback of those within the Republican Party who still support the democratic process. Those 147 elected members of Congress and Senate who still back Trump may also support democratic methods, but they also seem quite willing to back undemocratic methods too. 

One last reflection on the events of the 6th of January. Many have already noted that compared to the response to the Black Lives Matter protests, the police response to the storming of the Capitol was muted to say the least. There has been much evidence that the far-right has been working very hard to infiltrate the police and military. There must have been hope that instead of resisting the invasion, the police on duty would have actively gone over to side with the insurrection. That did not happen but it cannot be taken for granted that it will always be the case. Rather than “defund the police” a much more urgent case can be made to deradicalise the police: that is root out those members would willingly back the overthrow of the US Constitution. I would expect that in light of how the invasion played out, the fascist insurgences will redouble efforts to get more of the nation’s security forces over to their side.

So while the far-right insurgency in the United States has stalled for now, one must not make the mistake that the removal of Trump from the presidency is the end of the matter. It isn’t. The fight against authoritarianism must be the leading task of the Biden presidency. It will take many forms, including improving the lives of Americans who have lost out in the current system. All policies must have the common thread of fighting to support democracy and improve the lives of all Americans. Otherwise, the high ideals of the USA may well be lost forever.

  

 

Trump, Sanders and the US Republic

“We need a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States while we figure out what the hell is going on. We are out of control.”  

These are Donald J. Trump's unrepentant words and they are supported by at least twenty percent of Republican voters in the upcoming selection of the party's presidential candidate.

Much has been said since then: bigoted, un-American, Trump should be stripped on his honorary degrees etc.  I doubt much of this matters to the man in question for his eyes are fixed upon one target at this time.  Much print has already been spent on the wrongness of his comments and, for the record, I think they are pretty awful.  

The deeper question is, surely, what does this all mean for the US system of republican democracy?

Since the beginning of the US Civil War, the Democrats and Republicans have dominated US politics.  Yes, there have been independent movements and candidates: socialists, greens on the left and on the right characters like Ross Perot.  Overall though, the two huge party machines have, so far, overcome and endured. 

This election cycle feels different.  We have Donald Trump who is brilliant at self-publicity and outrage.  On the left, not getting the media attention but just as different from the mainstream, Bernie Sanders is soldiering on, drawing the crowds and continuing a quiet insurgency into the heart of the Democrat nominations.  Safe money may well be on Hilary Clinton but all the "moderate" would-be presidential candidates, whether Republican or Democrat, suffer from one major disadvantage: they represent a system that no longer represents the interests of the vast majority of US citizens.

US politics is designed to the a two-party system.  It is also designed not to be a democracy.  The Founding Fathers studied in-depth ancient literature but especially the Roman Republic which was, in its way, a representative democracy.  The higher orders set the agenda and made the decisions.  Their votes carried more weight so by the time the poorer (and larger) cohorts had their time to vote, usually it didn't matter.  Any of that sound familiar?  

Previously the popular vote did not really matter.  It does now.  Why is that?

Since late in the Bill Clinton presidency, the media has depicted a breakdown in communication between the US left and right wings of politics.  Whether this is an accurate portrayal of politics at the top is very doubtful but certainly at all levels of political coverage, there is no dialogue between supporters that does not eventually break down into insults and name-calling.  This is no way to run a nation.  After nearly two decades of this communication breakdown, it is little wonder that folk on both left and right are looking outside the centre for their answers.  People are no longer able to seek for, never mind find, any consensus with each other.  

The politics of Sanders and Trump are poles apart but both are similar in how they speak their mind, are not polished, are willing to take on received wisdom and do not suffer fools gladly.  These are qualities that are popular and rightly so.  People of all political persuasions are sick of fakery, false outrage and outright dissimulation.   Both Trump and Sanders are the real McCoy.

My own politics are much closer to Sanders' than to Trump's.   US politics is shifted so far to the right compared to that in Europe that even Sander's socialism is unremarkable here.  As an outsider though, it is clear that existing status quo of American corporate politics would be far more at ease with a victory for Trump than they would with Sanders, the latter representing far more accurately the role of tribune of the people.  Trump is a billionaire and from a monied background, although that should not be held against him.  Although very popular with blue-collar voters, he will only represent the rich.  He has no concern for little people; an example being his dealings with his neighbour Michael Forbes over the development of the Balmedie golf course in Scotland .  

It comes to pass therefore that on the right Trump is getting the headlines while Sanders is digging away on the left.  The question I have is whether the US Republic is able to adapt to this breakdown in communication, popular consensus and what it means for the long term outlook for politics in the USA?  

It is certainly an issue that is not going to be resolved any time soon. 

Strange Bedfellows: the SNP, Tories and the West Lothian Question.

07:34 Today Programme. BBC Radio 4 6th October 2009.

"Shadow foreign secretary William Hague, repeated this week the Conservative pledge to stop Scottish MPs voting on purely English or Welsh issues. The Conservatives would complete the devolution settlement by allowing English MPs a veto on legislation the affects only England, and English and Welsh MPs a veto when it affects England and Wales. Shadow Scottish secretary David Mundell, and the SNP chief whip in the Commons, Stuart Hosie, discuss the Conservative's constitutional change proposals."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8294000/8294126.stm

It wasn’t my imagination that Scottish Nationalist MP, Stuart Hosie, seemed intensely relaxed about the Conservative proposals over the baring of Scottish-based MPs on issues that are judged purely to be matters for England and Wales.
On the face of it, the proposals seem fair. The English should have their own representation, just as the Scottish, Welsh and (hopefully soon) the Northern Irish have. Although is this the right way to go about it?
The problem with banning of Scottish members from voting is that it is unconstitutional. The Westminster Parliament is the parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not just of England. To make it an English Parliament would mean a massive change in direction to our constitution, effectively paving the way to the break up of the United Kingdom. Hence the Tories having the support of the SNP over this issue.

There is a political problem that the Conservatives face and it is one that I do sympathise with. The Tories are not popular in Scotland, just having one parliamentary seat out of fifty nine. The banning of Scottish MPs effectively mean that a lot of Conservative policy will have a much easier ride through the next parliament after the election (assuming a Tory win of course). It would be to the detriment of the people of England if MPs from other parts of the United Kingdom were excluded though. Devolution has allowed certain things to be done differently and why shouldn’t the people of England benefit from the insights on offer from other parts of the UK? Instead of enforcing party discipline, an alternative could be to lift the whip on Scottish MPs voting on English matters. This would allow the individual to abstain or otherwise, allowing MPs to share their experience of their own part of the United Kingdom and allowing them to pass a disinterested verdict on English policies that is beyond party politics. Before devolution, this possible answer to the West Lothian Question would not have been feasible.  Now however it would allow all the people of the Union to enjoy the benefits of devolution while Westminster remains unchallenged as the seat of parliament of the United Kingdom
As the Conservatives stand, their suggested policy would play directly into the hands of the nationalists. For a party that used to known as the Conservative and Unionist Party, this is surely not a tenable position. It also gives the people of Scotland a very strange choice among the parties at the next Westminster elections. Of the four main parties north of the border, a vote for either the SNP and now the Conservatives is a vote in favour of the dissolution of the Union. Labour is a spent force at Westminster, bracing themselves for the oncoming decimation. The only Westminster party that a reasonable supporter of the Union can therefore vote for are the Liberal Democrats, who support home rule for Scotland within the United Kingdom.

Reforming the House of Lords

I was listening to Radio 4 the other day when I was annoyed to hear an idea being praised by some academic. It was on the selection for the House of Lords and the idea was that citizens should sit on juries to select peers. The reason this annoyed me is that I floated this very idea some time back. This is how it came about.

Remember New Labour’s “Peoples’ Peers”, the label applied to the Independent Appointment’s Commission chaired by Lord Stevenson? Members of the public were nominated, with the Commission receiving over 3000 applications to join the House of Lords. There was widespread outrage when Lord Stevenson announced the names of the successful applicants. Among those newly ennobled, six knighthoods and five other honours had already being awarded. What is more, Lord Stevenson suggested that normal people, such as hairdressers, would be uncomfortable being in the Lords.

This was November, 2001. At the time I happened to be listening to the Jimmy Young Show on BBC Radio 2 and decided to contribute to the debate. I was fortunate enough to get through to a producer (possibly with the name of Chris?) who was courteous enough to listen to my idea which was this:

The Independent Appointment’s Commission was effectively a selection jury made up from the Great and the Good. Is it any wonder therefore that they had selected new peers from their own social background? Therefore if the IAC was truly to represent “Peoples’ Peers”, the selection committee would have to be made up from normal people. How could this be achieved? By selecting the members of the IAC on the same basis as juries are selected for court cases. The individuals selected would be part of the panel for the duration of that selection round.

Now, I was on the telephone for about four minutes putting forward this suggestion. The gentleman on the other end seemed genuinely impressed and questioned me on aspects of the plan. After the conversation ends I listened to the rest of the programme in the hope that my idea would be mentioned. It was not. And there matters rested until I heard the same suggestion being praised the other day.

I am not accusing anybody of stealing my idea. It is almost certain that whoever came up with it recently had arrived at it independently. No matter what the provenance of the idea is, I reckon it is still a good one.

The problem with selection of the House of Lords is that it is tied too much to the justly criticised patronage system. IAC was a flawed attempt to balance the system. I am against the direct election of the Lords for the simple reason that it will undermine the independence of the House. Peers will be in the power of the political parties rather than independent as they are now. An elected Lords will also undermine the constitutional supremacy of the House of Commons. In recent years the Lords have been a centre of effective resistance to government attempts to pass through illiberal, not to say draconian measures such as the extension of the term of detention that the police can hold a suspect without charge. The Lords also acts as a centre of expertise and specialised knowledge that is simply not available to the Commons. This is all the more important with the increasing professionalisation of the political classes. In my opinion, a House of Lords made up of entirely elected members will fatally wound the institution and inevitably it will become a rubber stamp for the executive in power.

The power of the Lords is that its members, once they join the House, are life members. The government no longer has direct control over them. Certainly many still take the whip and sit loyally with their political party. But still the Lords is a rigorous obstacle that contentious bills have to pass through.

The key to reforming the Lords lies in reformation of the selection system. Whether made up members of the public or more specialised members (such as politicians, academics or religious leaders) or even a mixture of members, juries may offer a simple and elegant solution as to who becomes a Lord.