Blog No 196. The Muddled Midterms, the Messy Aftermath, and Looking Ahead

Blog No. 195 suggested that Democratic victories in the midterm elections might prove to be at least the end of the beginning of the road to freeing the country from Trump and Trumpism. There is reason to hope that the midterms will turn out to have been just that, but at this point it is hard to claim even that modest milestone with certainty. Much will depend on future developments that are presently grounds for little more than speculation. Even less clear is what the elections portend for the future of the Republican Party.

The Democrats scored a solid victory in regaining control of the House and a victory that has appeared to grow as final results are tabulated in very close races. They were also successful in capturing at least seven governorships previously held by Republicans as well as flipping six state legislative chambers and more than 300 state House and Senate seats. On the other hand, Republicans not only retained control of the Senate but slightly increased their margin; and Trump appeared to have been effective in campaigning for Republican candidates for the Senate. The final size of the  Republican margin is still in doubt, but even a slight gain will make it easier for Republicans to win confirmations of judicial or other nominees with less concern over one or two Republican defections.

An unfortunate aspect of the Democratic victories was a significant reduction in the ranks of moderate or centrist Republicans. A November 7 article in the New York Times, detailed the “wipeout” of Republicans in the Northeast, “a region that once defined moderate Republicanism in America.” In another dismal metric the 90 member, bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus lost nearly half of its 45 member Republican component, including founder Carlos Curbelo. Geoffrey Kabaservice, writing in the Washington Post on November 9, argued that moderate Republicans are alive and thriving at the state level. While that may be, RINOs on the national scene appear to be a more endangered species than ever.

The messy aftermath of the midterms found key races in Florida and Georgia still unsettled, and began with a press conference of vintage Trump. It was a rambling affair that included a dollop of bipartisanship, suggesting possible cooperation with Democrats, but that suggestion was surrounded with self-congratulation over what he saw, or purported to see, as a tremendous success for Republicans, emphasizing wins by candidates he had campaigned for. It also included threats against Democrats who might investigate him, as well as rude remarks to three inquiring journalists who were African American women. A low point may have come when a young female White House staffer attempted to wrest the microphone from CNN reporter Jim Acosta who was asking Trump questions he didn’t like. Acosta gently fended off the staffer and was rewarded by a suspension of his press privileges on the spurious ground of having put his hands on the young woman.

The hi-jinks of the press conference were quickly eclipsed by the news that Trump had fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions and had replaced him with Sessions’s Chief of Staff, Matthew Whitaker who would serve as Acting Attorney General until a permanent Attorney General could be nominated and confirmed. The dismissal of Sessions had long been expected and was barely news, but the choice of his replacement was indeed noteworthy as it quickly appeared that Whitaker was a grotesquely inappropriate selection.

While Whitaker had once served as a U.S. Attorney in Iowa, his legal credentials were otherwise slender. Before joining the Justice Department he appears to have been occupied primarily as a contributor to CNN while promoting and serving on the advisory board of World Patent Marketing, a company the Federal Trade Commission called “an invention-promotion scam that has bilked thousands of consumers out of millions of dollars.” Whitaker’s approach to the law also drew comment: while running for office in Iowa, he had said that he could not approve “secular” judges, that the judiciary branch was inferior to the executive and legislative, and that the hallowed case of Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided. Apart from all that, and even more to the point, Whitaker had made numerous public comments before joining the Justice Department in which he was severely critical of the Mueller investigation—the very investigation over which he now takes control. Moreover, he had also been a campaign chairman for Sam Clovis, a witness in that investigation.

The latter aspects of Whitaker’s background gave rise to immediate calls from many quarters for Whitaker to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation. But if there was one thing that was clear, it was that Whitaker would never do any such thing. Having seen Trump’s fury at the Sessions recusal, Whitaker must have assured himself, and probably Trump, that he would not have cause to do likewise. Indeed, if he were somehow forced to change his mind, by an opinion from the Justice Department ethics office or otherwise, Whitaker’s only honorable course would be to resign his position.

As criticism of Whitaker mounted, the nimble Trump was not at a loss for words, saying “I don’t know Matt Whitaker.” Apart from the point that it would have been passing strange for him to have appointed anyone to such a sensitive position whom he had not gotten to know, and whose background had been thoroughly vetted, it was a direct contradiction of Trump’s statement in October that “I know Matt Whitaker.” It was also contradicted by several reports that Whitaker had participated in numerous meetings in the Oval Office. Faced with those contradictions, Trump later hedged his statement by tweeting that “I did not know Mr. Whitaker except primarily as he traveled with A.G. Sessions. No social contact…” It remains unclear how much he knew of Whitaker’s troubling background.

What the Whitaker appointment will mean for the Mueller investigation, and the larger question of what that investigation will mean for Trump, would require a far better crystal ball than RINOcracy.com has on hand. And anyone who claims to have such a crystal ball should be regarded with skepticism–it is certain only that future developments will be interesting. At present, however, it seems unlikely that anything Mueller does or reports will result in a Trump impeachment and removal from office by the Republicans in the Senate. On the contrary, it seems more likely that Trump will survive to run again and, with his base intact, will be a formidable candidate.

It is also beyond the realm of prediction to suggest who Democrats will select to oppose Trump in 2020. A New York Times article on November 10 described the conflict within the Party between moderate and progressive elements. The latter appear to be personified by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris; it is not clear who stands out from the crowd enough to personify the moderates except, perhaps, Joe Biden, who seems less keen for the race than the others. RINOs will tend to hope for a moderate Democrat, not only as more congenial to our own views but more likely to unseat Trump.

Apart from selection of a strong candidate, Democratic chances in 2020 will depend on how they exercise the responsibilities they have been given in the House. They will obviously leap to the opportunity of providing the legislative oversight of the Trump administration that has been so conspicuously lacking under Republican leadership. They must, however, carefully avoid acting in ways that appear to be vindictive or mere “harassment” as Senator Mitch McConnell put it.

Democrats should put together a legislative program that addresses key issues, some of which they avoided or ignored during their campaigns. If they can craft legislation that commands bipartisan support, it will have a chance of passing the Senate and being signed into law by the President. Failing that, however, such legislation would provide a foundation for their presidential candidate in 2020.

One issue the Democratic candidates did focus on was healthcare and, in particular, protection of persons with preexisting conditions. Enough Republicans belatedly claimed that, they too wanted to provide such protection that it should be possible to draft a bill with bipartisan support. But Obamacare needs repair work in other respects and there bipartisan support may be more difficult to come by but is worth exploring. On the other hand, a hugely expensive bill to provide “Medicare for All” is apt to be as futile as the numerous bills purporting to repeal Obamacare that House Republicans passed over several sessions.

An issue on which some Democrats had the courage to campaign, and did so successfully, is gun control. With every new mass killing, the case for comprehensive gun control becomes more compelling. If Democrats could muster the courage to take on the NRA, they might even find some Republicans to join them. In any case, the battle is well worth waging.

The most pressing issue on which Democrats had little or nothing to say during their campaigns is immigration. It may be accurate as well as satisfying to attack Trump’s policies as clumsy, unnecessary, inhumane and illegal (as his recent proclamation attempting to restrict asylum very likely is), but that is not sufficient. There are genuine issues to be resolved: How should the caravan be handled when and if it arrives at the border in a significant number? Do we have the resources on the ground to process its members in accordance with the law? (All those troops will not be much help with that.)  What should the standards for asylum be? For legal immigration? What should be done as to the DACA children? What as to the other 10-11 million illegal aliens? Perhaps it is asking too much to suggest that Democrats provide answers to all those questions in the next two years, but if they can address some  of them with common sense and clarity, the public should be grateful.

Another issue about which Democrats said little in campaigning is climate change, and that is an issue on which it should be possible to gain at least some Republican support, despite the defeat of Carlos Curbelo and other members of the Climate Solutions Caucus. One approach that has been supported by several Republicans on Capitol Hill as well by other conservatives, including George Schultz, is a carbon tax. Democrats should make every effort to make climate change the bipartisan issue it deserves to be.

It was said for several years, with some justification, that Republicans were better at opposing than legislating. We shall soon see if Democrats can improve on their record.