Showdown for College Athletics

 

America’s colleges and universities are facing a showdown regarding the future of intercollegiate sports. They are dealing with several lines of attack, all pursued at least in part as result of  growing dissatisfaction with the unfair treatment of student athletes in Division 1 programs, especially those in football and basketball. Questions have continued to mount about the time requirements imposed on student athletes and about their apparent financial exploitation. 

There has been a constant debate about the role of athletics in America’s colleges and universities since the first sports teams were fielded in the mid-1800’s. Corrupt and abusive behavior became so bad by the early 20^th century that President Theodore Roosevelt threatened to initiate federal intervention if colleges and universities did not clean up their act. This was the impetus for the creation of the National College Athletics Association. 

The NCAA ever since has been the major vehicle for managing the world of intercollegiate sports. Challenges to its authority and effectiveness were limited during most of the last century. As television became a more pervasive factor in sports, that began to change. 

In 1984 the NCAA lost its control over television rights in college sports. The Oklahoma University Board of Regents had sued the NCAA. The case went all the way to the US Supreme Court which ruled that the institutions controlled those rights and profits. The decision provided a major boost to the growth of big time college athletics. 

As result of concerns over this development, in 1989 the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation created the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. To co-chair the commission, the foundation selected two well-respected higher education leaders, William C. Friday, former University of North Carolina president, and Father Theodore Hesburgh, president emeritus of Notre Dame. The commission released three seminal reports: 

            Keeping Faith with the Student-Athlete: a New Model for Intercollegiate Athletics,

            A Solid Start: A Report on Reform of Intercollegiate Athletics, and                                   

            A New Beginnings for a New Century: Intercollegiate Athletics in the United States. 

These reports focused on reducing expenditures, improving prospects for student athletes and insisting college CEOs exercise greater control over intercollegiate athletics. A number of reforms were implemented during this period, including raising admission standards for student athletes and limiting the number of contests and practices. 

During this time it was my privilege to serve on the NCAA’s Presidents Commission as a representative of Division II institutions. The 40 member commission did not have governance authority, but its advisory opinions did carry considerable weight. In general, the commission was sympathetic to the Knight Commission recommendations.  

Unfortunately, many of the reforms inspired by the Knight Commission reports have been emasculated in the past twenty-five years by an overwhelming flood of money, much of it from media sources and sports clothing and equipment companies. Most of the money flows to the 65 institutions in the five major athletic conferences, but they share very little of their largess with the student athletes who are so critical to their operations. 

Tragically, many smaller campuses seek to emulate the large corporatized programs without the necessary resources or prospects. Not only is the educational mission of these institutions undermined, but their students foot the bill for such reckless ambition. 

The crisis is two-fold. On the one hand, money is an issue. What is fair compensation for student athletes who participate in Division 1 football and basketball programs, some of which generate significant dollars? Players must invest long hours for games and practices, plus risk possible injury. Scholarships which are rigidly restricted fall woefully short of reasonable remuneration, especially when compared to the salaries of coaches. 

Money is also an issue with regard to how intercollegiate athletics are funded. According to NCAA data between 2005 and 2019, only 24 to 29 schools in the Football Bowl Subdivision generated sufficient revenue to cover expenses. All others, including those in the Football Championship Subdivision and other Division 1 institutions that do not play football, ran deficits and had to be subsidized by either student fees or direct institutional support.   

Maintaining the legitimate place of intercollegiate athletics in American higher education is the other aspect of the crisis facing colleges and universities. Although I was not an athlete during my undergraduate years at Wofford College in the late ‘50s, I considered the sports program a significant feature of my college experience. Athletes were well integrated within the student body. They were found in every fraternity. In three of the four years I was an undergraduate at Wofford a student athlete was president of student government. 

Sadly, this level of integration with the general student population is not the norm for intercollegiate athletes today, especially at NCAA Division 1 programs with their excessive practice and travel requirements. The educational mission is even irrelevant in some programs where players are recruited with the obvious expectation is that they will not become sophomores, much less graduate. 

These issues are coming to a head soon. 

California authorities in October 2019 passed legislation requiring that student athletes be able to profit from the use of their likenesses, sign endorsements and hire agents. Ten other states have passed similar legislation, including South Carolina. 

Initially, the NCAA opposed such action, but apparently seeing the handwriting on the wall, they have now pledged to issue relevant guidance for student athlete compensation by July. The organization has also argued before both the courts and Congress that it, the NCAA should continue to exercise authority over compensation for student athletes. The argument has not been well received in either quarter. 

Two matters are bothersome about existing proposals. 

One, the only beneficiaries of current legislative proposals would likely be the top players in the various programs. Justification for legislation was frequently based on the assumption that competition for “blue chip” players required it. But football and basketball, and many other intercollegiate sports, are “team” endeavors. What happens to team spirit when rewards go only to the few “star” players? 

Secondly, there seems to be no discussion about ratchetting down the level of commitment to big time athletics. The idea of keeping intercollegiate programs within the context of the overall college experience has been lost in the quest for a mythical pot of gold. Restoring sports schedules and practices to reasonable time frames would return some credibility to the “student” in student athlete. Placing strict limits on the imposition of student athletic fees and on the diversion of institutional resources would restore educational priorities.

Colleges and universities should take the initiative in addressing the problems of intercollegiate sports. For some it may be just a matter of economics. It would be better viewed as a matter of fairness and academic credibility.

 

Is "Building Back Better" Possible?

When President Joe Biden talks about his desire to lead a recovery from the impact the Covid virus has had on the American economy, he describes his goal as “building back better.” He recognizes the pandemic has not only been a health crisis, it has also been the country’s worse economic disaster since the Great Depression. More than 22 million jobs were lost in US by April 2020 and 60 million Americans lived in households struggling to meet normal household expenses, including 29% of families in the two Carolinas. 

But if Biden is to achieve his goal, it will require a sea change in the attitude among many Americans about what constitutes value and worth in our society. 

Since taking office in January, Biden has issued several executive orders to address financial challenges resulting from the Covid pandemic, and in March he was able to persuade Congress to pass, without any Republican support, the American Rescue Plan. The nearly $2 trillion act provided immediate relief by authorizing additional $1400 stimulus checks for Americans earning less than $75,000 annually. It also provided $350 billion to state and local governments, expanded child tax credits and made them fully refundable, and included aid for both homeowners and renters to prevent a spike in homelessness. 

In addition, the act extends and supplements unemployment benefits paid by the states. The extra $300 a month federal subsidy has been of critical importance to workers in states with modest benefits. The average unemployment benefit in both Carolinas, for example, is only about $230 per week according to data from the US Department of Labor. 

Combined with the vaccine rollout that has led to nearly 40 percent of US adults being fully vaccinated, the American Rescue Plan has helped to mitigate some of the damage suffered as result of the pandemic, but “building back better” is still an elusive goal. 

In a gesture demonstrating their lack of empathy for their poorest constituents, several governors have withdrawn their state from participation in federal unemployment programs effective the end of June. Without offering any supporting databut only vague speculation, the governors claim employers are unable to find workers for available jobs because of the extended benefits and the extra $300 provided by the federal government. 

SC Governor Henry McMaster made clear his attitude when he described shutting off federal benefits as a return to “pre-pandemic, state employment operations.” No “building back better” for him. 

Less partisan observers offer several reasons for workers hesitating to leave unemployment. First is the obvious. Some jobs require particular skills. For example, many positions on the SC Works website call for a registered nurse. 

There are other understandable issues such as, lack of affordable child care and erratic work schedules, both major concerns for women. Also, there are continuing concerns for those with underlying health problems as well as the absence of “herd” immunity which requires that at least 70 percent of the adult population be vaccinated.

A cause for employee reluctance in the hospitality/leisure field is the average low wage. According to SC Works, average pay in the sector is $9.48 an hour, which is less than $400 a week and less than $20,000 a year.  Also, hospitality/leisure workers surveyed this spring by Florida Atlantic University expressed concern about last year’s abrupt layoffs. Anxious about employment security, many are looking to find jobs in other fields. 

According to Forbes in November 2020, Americans making less than $30 an hour were feeling the most economic pain as result of the quarantine imposed by the pandemic. These are the people benefiting most from the federal unemployment stipends, which have prevented wholesale eviction of families and provided income for essentials. 

In SC the extra $300 per week has added roughly $30 million dollars to state GDP each week. For NC the sum is about double. To eliminate this infusion of income ten weeks early is not a sound strategy given the overall economic environment.

But a begrudging opposition to federal unemployment benefits is not the only hurdle Biden must overcome. He also has to contend with America’s saturation of billionaires. 

While most Americans have suffered severe financial anxiety during the past 15 months, the nation’s nearly 700 billionaires have reaped a windfall. Their net worth has increased by more than $1 trillion to more than $4 trillion. 

Since 2020, nearly 100 newcomers have joined the ranks of US billionaires, including four who made their money in the health care field. But the usual suspects can be found among the biggest winners. Elon Musk of Tesla fame and Amazon founder Jeff Bezo top the list. Musk’s fortune grew by $144 billion. Bezo added only $86 billion, having shared some of his largess with his ex-wife, MacKenzie Scott. Her fortune increased a mere $25 billion. 

Perhaps it wouldn’t be so bad if billionaires were a bit more thoughtful about how they “invest” their wealth. Job creation is rarely a priority. Musk is determined to be the leader in space exploration.  Bezo has bought a 417- foot sailing yacht with sails so big he is having to buy another boat to provide a helipad for his girlfriend’s helicopter.  

And by the way, Bezo’s superyacht is not being built by American workers. It’s being built in the Netherlands, not a low-wage country, at the cost of $500 million. 

Biden has not adopted any of the audacious schemes for taxing the wealthy batted around during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. His proposals thus far suggest only increasing modestly the marginal tax rate on income over $400,000 for individuals and doubling the capital gains tax rate, but only for those making more than $1 million a year. 

The new president wants to be tougher on corporations, raising the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent, imposing a 15 percent minimum corporate tax, and implementing several measures to discourage corporations from moving assets and jobs abroad. 

Justification for Biden’s proposals for corporate changes is confirmed by an independent study of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy determined the act allowed 379 profitable corporations to pay on their 2018 income only an effective corporate tax rate of 11.3 percent, not the 21 percent statutory rate. No federal taxes at all were paid by 91 corporations, including Amazon, IBM, Duke Energy, Delta Airlines, Starbucks, Netflix and General Motors. 

The Covid pandemic has demonstrated America needs a fairer economic system that recognizes the value and worth of all citizens. Many workers essential to our well-being are being paid meager wages and lack reasonable job security, while billionaires and corporate managers milk the system for obscene riches. “Building back better” should not be partisan issue. It is in the public interest and deserves support from all economic and political factions.      

National Suicide?

 It’s a familiar story. 

Yesterday, in Rock Hill, SC, five people died as result of gunshots, including four from the same family. The alleged killer was a former professional football player armed with a .45 caliber pistol. He later took his own life. It was the fourth high profile mass shooting to occur in the United States in the span of twenty-two days. 

On March 16, a 21-year-old man armed with a Glock semiautomatic pistol attacked three massage spas in the Atlanta area, killing eight people, including six women of Asian descent. Six days later, another 21-year-old man wearing an armored vest and carrying a modified Ruger AR-556 pistol and a semiautomatic handgun, murdered ten people in and around a Boulder, CO, supermarket. The Ruger firearm is a shortened version of the semiautomatic AR-15.  And on April 2, four individuals, including a nine-year-old boy were slain in Orange, CA, by a 44-year-old man also armed with a semiautomatic pistol. 

All weapons used by the killers in the first three incidents were apparently bought legally. The source of the firearm involved in yesterday’s massacre has not been revealed. 

Members of the media and assorted politicians immediately began speculating as to the motives of the shooters and their possible mental health. The Atlanta gunman claimed to be a sex addict, which conflicted with his strict religious beliefs, but he denied being racist. The Boulder slayer is a naturalized US citizen with a history of paranoia and problems with anger management. The Orange killer apparently had a business-related gripe, although that hardly explains murdering a nine-year old kid. Possible motives for the Rock Hill shooter have not been identified. 

Given the presence of so many firearms in the US and the lax character of our gun safety regulations, neither the motives nor the mental health disorders of the gunmen seem relevant. With approximately 400 million lethal weapons easily accessible there likely is always going to be someone with a grievance or a personality defect who can acquire a firearm in America and slaughter several of his fellow citizens. 

Our lax gun safety regulations make it impossible to determine exactly how many US homes have a firearm or how many Americans actually own a firearm, but survey data does provide us some reasonable estimates. According to a Gallup poll in 2019, there are firearms in only about 40 percent of US households, and only about 22 percent of Americans own such a weapon. On a per capita basis the US leads the developed world with 120.5 firearms for every 100 people. Canada has 34.7 and England only 4.6. 

While only a minority of Americans own firearms, those who do apparently are obsessed with owning more. USA Today reported in February that Americans bought nearly 40,000,000 guns in 2020 and an additional 4,137,480 in January 2021. Closer to home, residents of South Carolina bought 52,622 guns in January and residents of North Carolina bought 86,017. 

And while shootings that result in four or more deaths receive the greatest media attention and give the most energy to debates about guns in America, they are not the worse aspect of our irrational gun violence. Suicides, a growing public health crisis in the US, are responsible for nearly two-thirds of all gun deaths annually, including the highly visible mass shootings. More than half of all suicides involve a firearm. 

Some mental health specialists believe that an attempted suicide is a plea for help. Unfortunately, when a gun is used, help is seldom an option. 

Given the circumstances, one would expect a responsible debate among the nation’s political leadership as to how to reduce the trauma of gun violence. That is sadly not the case. 

At a hearing of the US Senate Judiciary Committee about gun safety shortly after the Atlanta massacre, US Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) issued a blanket dismissal of any legislative action, “What happens in this committee after every mass shooting is Democrats propose taking away guns from law-abiding citizens (italics added) because that's their political objective,” His words and attitude are hardly an indication of an open mind or the basis for finding common ground. 

On April 1, US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and South Carolina Attorney General Allan Wilson visited the newly opened facility of a SC-based firearms company in Greenville. The company’s mission statement is quite clear: “We want to sell as many AR-15 and AK-47 rifles as we can and put them into common use in America today.” Graham did not disappoint his host, stating emphatically his opposition to any ban on assault rifles. He also touted the value of guns for self-protection, citing three cases in South Carolina where citizens had used guns to defend themselves. 

Reports of the visit did not indicate comments by either politician about the 40 South Carolina children under 18 who died as result of firearms in 2020. According to the SC Victims Assistance Network, in half of the home with guns in the state, firearms are kept unlocked and loaded. 

The simple truth is there are too many firearms in the US today and there is no meaningful system in place to insure a reasonable degree of safety from gun violence for the public. Gun manufacturers are producing weapons that are more and more lethal and have been relieved by Congress of any responsibility for how those weapons might be used. 

Background checks are riddled with loopholes, making them a sad joke. The so-called “Charleston loophole,” which allows a purchaser to buy a firearm after three days regardless of whether or not the background check has been completed, is still in place. It has been six years since it made possible the massacre at Charleston’s Emanuel African American Methodist Church in June 2015. 

Not only can virtually anyone buy a firearm in the US, rarely are there any qualifications or training required for ownership. Neither are there any restrictions on the number of firearms an individual can own. Nor are gun owners required to insure their firearms are not easily stolen or accessed by children. 

The January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol should be a wake-up call. Consider what could have happened if firearms had been carried by most of those who sought to disrupt the legitimate processes of the US government. Farfetched?  Already there are more semiautomatic firearms in civilian hands in the US than are available to American law enforcement and military. 

Specifically, there should be national legislation banning the sale of semiautomatic firearms to the general public. High-capacity ammunition magazines and armored-piercing ammunition should not be generally available to civilians. Examinations should be required for all firearm purchasers proving they have the skills and knowledge to operate safely and efficiently the weapon they wish to buy. And insuring firearms against theft or from falling into the hands of underage youth should not be left to chance. There should be a regular system to confirm proper security. 

Perhaps I am foolish to suggest such a set of regulations for gun safety. But the fact is the proposals listed are in place in many other developed countries today---countries that have far lower gun death rates that the US.  Our gun death rate of 3.4 (per 100,000) is the highest by far among developed countries, seven times higher than any other developed country. 

Our failure to act is a form of national suicide.

Raise the Minimum Wage

For the past forty years or so, the interests of the Bezos and Zuckerbergs have held  almost absolute sway in America. Shareholder value reigns supreme. If it cannot be monetized, it must not be of any value. That has to change or America will lose its soul.

The current debate over Joe Biden’s proposal to raise the minimum wage in America to $15 is heating up and once again the bias against the poor in the US economy is appallingly obvious. Even though the increase is designed to be implemented over a four-year period, some politicians and businessmen predict financial ruin. 

Their scenario is bizarre.  A boost in wages will produced an annual salary of slightly more than $31,000, less than half the current national median household income of about $68,000. The increase will affect about 40 percent of the US workforce, but only about two percent of the nation’s work force receives the existing minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. 

Critics have seized upon a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office that project a loss of 1.4 million jobs if the Biden proposal is adopted. However, the study also estimates that 900,000 Americans would escape poverty. Exactly how having nearly a million of our fellow citizens enjoy better financial circumstances would lead to a loss of jobs is difficult to comprehend. 

Virtually all of the workers who would receive a pay increase under this legislation are likely to increase their spending accordingly. In our consumer-based economy that inevitably will lead to more jobs being created. 

It should also be noted that many of those being paid the current minimum wage, or something close to it, are employed in fields that are of critical importance although they do not always  require educational certification--- jobs like home health aide, childcare provider, janitor or housekeeper, and food preparer. These jobs are not likely to be eliminated. 

Truthfully, the Biden proposal is about more than economics. It is about whether or not we care about the worth and dignity of every American. 

The pandemic has exacerbated some of the income equities that are reflected in today’s society. According to the Pew Research Center, since 1989 the wealth gap among the nation’s richest and poorest families more than doubled. An analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies claims that since March 2020, the net worth of America’s 643 billionaires increased from $2.9 trillion to $3.5 trillion while another 29 were added to the list. 

The level of inequity is apparent in that the increase in billionaire wealth was twice as much as the value of all the stimulus checks paid out to Americans thus far. 

CEO compensation  provides another example of the income inequities rampant in our economy. The management guru Peter Drucker in the 1970s suggested a CEO-worker pay ratio of 20-1. Today, despite legislation requiring corporations to reveal publicly the ratio has climbed to an average among leading companies of approximately 300-1. Median pay for the top 400 corporate chief executives has stayed in the neighborhood of $20 million annually. 

These numbers seem to earn little more than a yawn from political leaders. Probably related to the fact that corporate CEOs are major campaign contributors. 

But the numbers have consequences. If pay for each of those 400 corporate executives was reduced to say $5 million and the other $15 million paid out in salary and wages to employees earning less than $142,800, nearly $400 million in additional money would be paid into the Social Security Trust Fund alone, forget about the benefits of the additional earnings available as well as the additional jobs that might result. 

Not everything of value in society can be monetized. Taking care of the elderly and the infirmed, caring for children, ensuring their health and safety, and making sure our food and drink are safe to enjoy, all are invaluable. The janitors and housekeepers in my granddaughters’ school may not be as important as their teachers, but if custodians fail to do their jobs, the environment for learning  suffers severely. Just think of how critical the efforts of these workers have been during the pandemic in limiting the threat of infection from Covid-19 and its variants. 

And by the way, our society does not appear to consider teachers as important as we should, given the role we expect teachers to play in preparing our children for life. In both Carolinas the starting salary for teachers is not much better than $15 an hour. 

We need to examine what constitutes economic growth in America. The current system for calculating Gross Domestic Product is absurd. A dollar spent on repairing hurricane damage is valued the same as a dollar invested in a school or health facility. In order to determine real worth some consideration should be given to the purpose for which a dollar is spent. 

That is what needs to be done in evaluated the proposal to raise the minimum wage. The benefits of improving the livelihood of people who have not been served well by our economy in recent years are clear. Surely they are just as valuable as Jeff Bezo’s dreams of space travel or Mark Zuckerberg’s quest for a social media monopoly. 

And if there are temporary or even permanent changes that need to be accommodated, government has the capacity to make those adjustments. America proved that during the Great Depression, we can do it again in the 21^st century.   

GOP Answer to Riot

The events of January 6 in Washington, DC, clearly represented an act of insurrection against the legitimate governing institutions of the United States. Even the Republican Minority Leader of the US Senate, Mitch McConnell has recognized that fact and has identified Donald Trump as bearing major responsibility for the violence. Trump and the other speakers at the rally prior to the storming the Capitol had no other purpose in mind but to intimidate the joint session of Congress meeting that afternoon to receive the certified election returns from the states, the last step in confirming the presidential victory of Joe Biden. 

Some of the people attending what was called the Save America Rally may not have fully appreciated what they were supporting, but ignorance, willful or not, is no defense. More egregious has been the Republican answer to this attack by a destructive mob on the citadel of our democracy. 

I watched this morning on ABC television as the Republican Senator from Mississippi Roger Wicker was being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos. The ABC anchor asked Wicker if Trump should be held accountable for inciting the insurrection. Wicker refused to respond specifically to Stephanopoulos’s question, but claimed that Trump cannot be convicted because he is no longer in office. Stephanopoulos than played a video of Wicker as a Congressman in 1999 voting to impeach Bill Clinton. The hypocrisy blared from the screen. 

Republicans are grasping at straws in their frantic search for a reasonable way to avoid voting to convict Trump. They talk about “precedents” as if there have been frequent impeachment trials. There have been very few because America has had very few presidents who have abused the office with such total disrespect for our country’s laws and traditions. 

In his first impeach trial Trump was acquitted in February 2020 by Senate Republicans, save one. Some even admitted that he was guilty of abusing his office and undermining the national interest for personal gain. Two reasons were given to justify the acquittal: an election was pending in which the public could make a judgement (they did) and Trump had learned his lesson (he proved quickly he had not by summarily removing several of the individuals courageous enough to disclose his abuse). 

The Republican party is facing an historic turning point in its history. That Donald Trump was ever nominated by the party for the presidency was a major blow to the party’s image as a responsible national political organization. Despite a campaign of disgusting racial and sexist language, Trump managed to win the presidency. His victory was at least in part the result of the inequities built in to the structure of the US Senate, and consequently, the Electoral College. Although he lost the popular vote by nearly three million, Trump collected 304 electoral votes.

In the2020 election there was an earthquake-size shift in voter sentiment. Joe Biden won the popular vote by over seven million. Reflecting the same structural inequities, Biden's electoral count was only 303. It is also noteworthy that although the GOP retains 50 seats in the Senate, the Republican senators represent 41 million fewer voters than do the 48 Democrats and two Independents, who organize with the Democrats. 

Of great disappointment was the fact that a majority of Republicans in the US House attempted to overturn the presidential election returns immediately after the Capitol riot in which five people died, including a police officer defending the legislators and their staffs. That same majority save ten refused to vote to impeach the man who incited the riot. It is also disappointing the ten who voted their conscience, and who include some of most loyal Republicans in the House, have been subjected to bitter scorn and even censure by Trump supporters who control the GOP in some states. 

Eleven Republican members of the Senate also voted to overturn the presidential election after the riot. The two most outspoken dissenters, Josh Hawley of Missouri and Ted Cruz of Texas, obviously have presidential ambitions. Building a campaign for the top office in the land on the basis of unsubstantiated challenges to state certified election returns may prove to be an uphill battle. 

And given the fact that Trump’s charge to the insurrectionist mob called for attacking his own vice president, it may prove difficult for Hawley or Cruz to find a running mate any time soon.

Republicans in the Senate who oppose convicting Trump must recognize that they are encouraging the fringe elements that the deposed president has energized. If he is acquitted, it will give new life to the conspiracy theorists and white supremacists who have emerged as a potent force in GOP politics. They will not go away if Trump is not held accountable for his disregard of his responsibilities as president. 

Acquittal will also mean that Trump will not only be free to run again, but he will receive as a former president benefits worth at least one million dollars annually. In addition to staff support and office rental, a pension of at least $200,000 will be provided by US taxpayers. That seems particularly unjust in view of the Republicans quibbling over whether or not families struggling with the economic fallout of the pandemic should receive $1000 instead of $1400 in one-time aid. 

The 2022 elections may seem like they are far away, but American voters are beginning to realize that some politicians just don’t seem to learn anything from their earlier mistakes, so it is up to us to remind them.  

Time to Abolish the Death Penalty

 

The decision of the Trump Administration to resume execution of those convicted under federal law of capital crimes has intensified the public debate about the death penalty as a legitimate form of punishment.  So far in the six months since July when the first executions were carried out, nine men have been killed by the US government. Two other men and one woman have been scheduled to die between now and January 20 when Joe Biden become president. 

In the United States the public attitude generally has been in favor of capital punishment. It has been as high as 80 percent in favor (1994). This year according to Gallup 54 percent of Americans support the death penalty. 

The broad backing for capital punishment should not be surprising. Individuals charged with a capital crime are usually not particularly attractive---no one you would wish for a neighbor.  Still, a sizeable number of Americans are bothered by the potential consequences of a penalty that has no recourse if applied in error. 

My personal skepticism was born in a courtroom in Bennettsville, SC, in January 1964 when as a television newsman, I witnessed the trial of a young black teenager charged with the rape and murder of an elderly white woman.  Johnnie Poe had allegedly confessed to the crimes and was being defended before an all-white jury by a white, court-appointed attorney, Marlboro County State Senator John “Jack” Lindsay. 

The racial breakdown in Marlboro County at the time was pretty even, but the Voting Rights Act had not been passed. Therefore, Lindsay had nothing to gain by defending Poe vigorously, but he did just that. He revealed that a state-sponsored examination of the defendant’s intellectual abilities indicated Poe had an IQ lower than 95 percent of all Americans, which meant he could not have written or dictated the confession attributed to him. Lindsay also pointed out his client was the third person to confess to the crime and the only one without a record of violence. In addition, when challenged by the senator, an FBI examiner assigned to the case was unable to positively tie hair found at the scene to Poe. 

It took the jury slightly more than an hour to find Poe not guilty. With a lesser defense attorney, the young teenager might easily have been convicted. After witnessing that trial, I have never felt comfortable about the death penalty. 

With regards to the use of capital punishment, the United States is something of an outlier. According to Amnesty International, 142 countries have abolished the death penalty in either law or in practice. Among the 56 nations that retain the death penalty, the US ranked seventh last year in executions. Four countries: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Pakistan, accounted for nearly 90 percent of the 657 documented executions in 2019. China, like North Korea, keeps its death penalty statistics secret, but Amnesty International estimates the number executed by China in 2019 was in the thousands. 

The United States does not share political philosophy or humanitarian goals with any of the countries continuing to use capital punishment extensively.  

What is behind the reluctance to eliminate capital punishment in America? 

Some people believe the death penalty is a deterrent that prevents future capital crimes, but there is no supporting evidence. Obviously, it deters the guilty party from future crimes, but whether capital punishment has any influence on potential perpetrators is unproven. 

The argument is also made that the death penalty is appropriate when the crime is of a heinous nature. Society expects to see a person guilty of inflicting death suffer death in return. But the American justice system is not flawless and often capital punishment is applied arbitrarily. 

Racial discrimination is rampant in the imposition of capital punishment. In both North Carolina and South Carolina more than 50 percent of inmates on death row today are African Americans, even though the race represents only 26 percent of the population in South Carolina and 22 percent in North Carolina. 

In addition, eyewitness misidentification, poor forensic science, prosecutorial misconduct, and bias profiling by police are factors that can produce incorrect results. Nonprofit organizations like the Innocence Project and the Equal Justice Initiative have uncovered hundreds of cases involving murder convictions of innocent defendants. 

A major problem with the exercise of the death penalty in the US is our federal system. Criminal laws in general are enforced by the states, and currently, capital punishment is considered legal by 28 states, American Samoa, the US military and the federal government. There has been, however, little discernable difference in the murder rates in states with the death penalty and those without. But it is a murky system of justice where the punishment for a crime depends in part upon the geographic location or the jurisdiction in which the crime occurs. At some point the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment should come into play.

Thus far, the US Congress has refused to grapple decisively with the issue of capital punishment. It has been left primarily to the US Supreme Court to attempt to address the obvious inequities in it imposition. That is not how the system is supposed to work. Enacting appropriate laws is the responsibility of our national legislature. 

Capital punishment cannot be defended as a legitimate criminal penalty today. Its effectiveness as a deterrent has not been established. There is clear evidence of racial and socio-economic discrimination in the operations of the system. As well, mistakes happen within the system. Despite the best intentions of those staffing the system, the risk of executing an innocent person will always exist. 

The US Congress should immediately abolish the death penalty in all jurisdictions. Attention in the future could then be turned to implementing a fair and equitable system of justice that reflects the humanity of the American people.

The Threat of "Gig" Companies

Since Election Day 2020 most attention in the US has been on the presidential contest and Donald Trump’s avalanche of frivolous lawsuits. Perhaps some scrutiny is due the passage of a California ballot measure, Proposition 22. It undermines worker rights and has the potential for also threatening the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. 

Labelled the “Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies from Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers” initiative,” Prop 22 overturns a California law that sought to insure workers in the so-called “gig” economy receive appropriate benefits and protections. Borrowed from the musical world where musicians often refer to a performance as a “gig,” the term emphasizes the short-term or temporary nature of a worker’s employment. 

Uber, Lyft and DoorDash designed the ballot measure that won with 58 percent of the vote. Among the leaders in the “gig” economy, these companies, which provide transportation services, want to continue to classify their drivers as “independent contractors” instead of considering them employees as California law would require. 

Workers designated as “independent contractors” are not entitled to the normal benefits employees receive, such as workman’s compensation and wage and hour protections. They also have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes out of their own pockets. 

The companies justify their position by denying they are transportation companies. They are primarily technology companies in their view---they use smartphones to connect clients with their drivers. Therefore, they should not have to meet the requirements related to licensing, safety checks and employment which generally are imposed on transportation enterprises.  Several states and courts, and other countries, have rejected this assertion consistently since 2009 when Uber was founded. 

It was something of a surprise that Prop 22 passed. Labor unions opposed it since it obviously stripped workers of significant rights. A few weeks prior to election day only 39 percent of the public indicated support for the measure. 

But the companies invested over $205 million in the Yes campaign, bombarding the television airwaves, social media and their own apps with messages touting a minimum wage for drivers and other benefits consistent with a fulltime job. The ads also claimed that most drivers supported Prop 22, but that could have been inspired in part by the companies’ threat to leave California if the measure failed. 

Yes campaign ads also caused some voter confusion. For example, while the companies promised support for a generous minimum hourly wage, the method by which that wage would be computed was not clear. According to one post-election survey 40 percent of voters who cast a Yes ballot thought they were supporting a “living wage” for gig workers, but the promised wage will cover only hours drivers spend ferrying clients, not hours waiting or otherwise engaged in support of the service. 

Based on their success in California, it is anticipate that Uber, Lyft and DoorDash will pursue similar legislation in other states. They have also indicated a desire to seek federal legislation to further their objective. 

The business model of gig enterprises is based on reducing in every possible manner any obligation to share profits with workers, the people who actually provide the services a company delivers. In fairness to gig companies like Uber and Lyft, they are only mimicking to the extreme the negative policies towards workers already being pursued by most of today’s corporate giants. This is a major factor in creating the income inequity that has plagued America for the past four decades. 

But it is not only the workers of these companies that will be impacted as result of Prop 22. 

The Social Security Trust Fund is already under pressure. The latest official estimate is that by 2035 the fund may not be able to pay full benefits to recipients. If companies are allowed to continue to expand the number of workers classified as independent contractors, this problem will be exacerbated. 

Why? Because companies are not required to withhold taxes from wages paid to independent contractors, nor to remit due payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare). Instead, workers classified as independent contractors are considered self-employed and are responsible for filing and paying all taxes themselves. 

It has been well documented that a significant percentage of self-employed workers misreport their income for tax purposes. A 2018 tax preparer industry survey found that 32 percent of self-employed workers admitted underreporting, while 36 percent “don’t do taxes at all.” 

A 2019 study by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College estimates that underpayment of Social Security contributions in 2014 amounted to nearly $6 billion. Given the expansion of the gig economy, it seems logical to assume the number of independent contractors has increased in the past six years and the underpayment has grown. 

The failure of independent contractors to fully pay due payroll taxes has consequences. Not only does underreporting lower the Social Security benefit the individual gig worker will receive, but it also threatens the benefits of all beneficiaries by undermining the solvency of the Trust Fund. 

Congress needs to act now to head off this infringement of workers’ rights. No state should be allowed to undermine a federal program, especially one as important to the economic viability of so many citizens as Social Security. Nor should any company be allowed to enrich its management and shareholders at the expense of its workers.   

Legitimate Reasons for Statehood

Discussion of statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico is becoming intense as the Biden administration begins to take shape. Part of the intensity is the result of fear that a recalcitrant US Senate under the iron thumb of GOP Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will frustrate the ambitious goals of the new president. Adding four new senators might change the political math of the US Senate and reduce McConnell’s power. 

The expectation that the new states would send Democrats to the senate may turn out to be wishful thinking on the part of Biden supporters. There are, however, legitimate reasons to grant statehood to both of these entities, regardless of partisan concerns. Although the characteristics and history of DC and Puerto Rico are quite different, their political status is the same: residents of both are US citizens, but they are not allowed to exercise fully their citizenship rights for only one reason…where they live.  

Nearly fifty years ago, I completed a Ph.D. dissertation that addressed the status of “US-Administered Overseas Areas,” which included Puerto Rico. In the study I acknowledged the reluctance of Americans to admit that the US is a colonial power and our difficulty in reconciling the traditional American support for the right of self-determination with continuing to govern overseas areas as dependent possessions. That conundrum still exists today. 

Although the Constitution grants to Congress the “Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” (Art. IV, Sec 3), there never has been a conscious, consistent policy to guide the country’s governance of dependent territorial areas. Most such dependencies were acquired for strategic reasons related to American military involvements, and little planning has gone into their political and economic development. 

Puerto Rico was acquired in 1898 along with the Philippines and Guam as result of the Spanish-American War. The island’s residents were not granted US citizenship until 1917 under the Jones Act. They were not allowed to elect their own governor until 1948. The election of Luis Munoz-Marin led in 1952 to what was touted as a unique creation: the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

Originally, “commonwealth” was to be a transitory status between independence and statehood within the US. Under this arrangement Puerto Ricans were to enjoy self-government in all domestic matters, electing their own government and passing their own laws, as long as they did not contradict the US Constitution, law and regulations. Foreign affairs remained the purview of the US government. The Eisenhower administration used the status to persuade the United Nations to remove Puerto Rico from its list of non-self-governing territories. 

Autonomy has been illusionary under commonwealth status. Puerto Ricans were drafted into the US military, but they have not been allowed to vote for the US president or representation in the US Congress. Until the late 1960s, it appeared commonwealth status might produce economic progress for the island, but that too has proven a false promise. 

Despite US corporations receiving significant tax breaks for the thirty years between 1976 and 2006, the latest available household income data indicates residents of Puerto Rico have an annual income of a little over $20,000, less than a third of that for US residents. Forty-three percent of the island’s residents live in poverty, including fifty-seven percent of the island’s children, according to recent US Census Bureau data (2018). With no regard for the deprivation reflected in these numbers, Puerto Rico is not allowed equal participation in essential social programs such as Medicaid and food stamps. 

Ironically, since Puerto Ricans hold US citizenship, they may move to any US state and participate fully in all programs, including voting for President and Members of Congress. The past decade has seen a significant increase in migration of Puerto Ricans to the mainland, Florida being the primary magnet. As a result, there are over 5 million people who identify as Puerto Rican in the US today, while the island’s population has decreased from 3.6 million in 2000 to an estimated 3.2 million today. 

DC, with its population of an estimated 717,000, is not governed under the same legal authority as US territorial dependencies. A provision in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution created the District and authorized Congress “To exercise exclusive  Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States,…” 

Over the years Congress has subjected DC to a variety of governing structures. For ninety years it was governed as a municipal corporation with three commissioners appointed by the President. Congress was DC’s legislature. In 1961, DC residents were granted by constitutional amendment (XXIII) the right to choose electors for President “equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State;…” It was another decade before DC was allowed a non-voting delegate to Congress.

The Home Rule Act, passed in 1973, provides the governing structure currently in place. It gives DC residents the right to elect their own mayor and a 13-member council which functions as a legislative body. Congress still retains the right to review all legislatioin passed by the council before becoming law and has authority over the DC budget. Also, the President appoints DC judges, and there is still no voting representation in Congress. 

In terms of population, both DC and Puerto Rico compare favorably to existing states. With 717,000 citizens, DC is larger than Wyoming and Vermont and is approaching in size Alaska and North Dakota. Puerto Rico’s 3.2 million makes it larger than 20 existing states and DC. The large number of people claiming Puerto Rican descent living in the US today over 5 million, increases the urgency of providing statehood. 

From an economic point of view, DC residents pay a higher per capita federal income tax than residents of any current state. Puerto Ricans do not pay as much as DC residents, but net federal expenditures (expenditures minus taxes) of the island are less than those of 19 current states, including South Carolina. Puerto Rico is also home to 12 of the world’s 20 top pharmaceutical companies and five of the top selling drugs are manufactured on the island. 

It is increasingly problematic that the US citizens who reside in the District of Columbia and in Puerto Rico can reasonable be denied the right to full participation in their own governance when granting statehood to both DC and Puerto Rico would effectively accomplish this objective. The alternative makes little sense in terms of fairness and national security. 

DC, our national seat of government, originally had a population of less than a few thousand souls. Today, it has nearly three-quarters of a million US citizens. Is it wise to continue treating them like “wards” of the federal government? 

Puerto Rico has been a US dependency for more than a century. Its strategic importance was the original motivation for retaining control over the island. That has not diminished. The Roosevelt Roads Naval Station is the cornerstone of our Caribbean Defense System. Welcoming Puerto Rico into the US family will enhance respect for our nation among Latin Americans. 

The fiscal costs of granting statehood to DC and to Puerto Rico are infinitesimal. The political and security costs are difficult to underestimate.

A Dangerous Message

My wife and I were watching the local weather report the other morning when the commercial popped up on the screen. The product being offered was not too surprising---your very own AR-15 rifle. The message was unnerving.

The company making the offer boasts a name that sounds as though it might be an official government-based entity. According to the off-screen narrator, one purpose of making AR-15s available is to guarantee ‘‘freedom.” To guard against “tyranny” is another goal.

On the company’s website, I found the following mission statement (capitalization included):

OUR MISSION IS TO MAXIMIZE FREEDOM, NOT OUR PROFITS. WE WANT TO SELL AS MANY AR-15 AND AK-47 RIFLES AS WE CAN AND PUT THEM INTO COMMON USE IN AMERICA TODAY. OUR FOCUS ISN'T TO MAKE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY BUT TO SPREAD FREEDOM AS FAR AND WIDE AS POSSIBLE. OUR LEGACY WILL NOT BE ABOUT MONEY; WE WANT OUR LEGACY TO BE ABOUT MAXIMIZING AMERICAN FREEDOM. AND WE WORK EVERY DAY TO DO JUST THAT. WE MAKE HIGH-QUALITY FIREARMS AT AFFORDABLE PRICES FOR EVERYONE! THEN WE BACK THEM WITH A FULL LIFETIME WARRANTY.

A more detailed explanation of the company’s objective indicates the desire to take advantage of a US Supreme Court reference to the “in common use” standard relative to firearms covered by the Second Amendment. According to that criteria, originally stated in United States v. Miller (1939), the Second Amendment right to bear arms extents to any firearm found to be “in common use.” By aggressively expanding the availability of A-15s, a semi-automatic rifle that easily can be converted to automatic operation, the company intends to cement legal access to this deadly weapon.   

This arms manufacturer is turning the First Amendment on its head. Giving to our citizens the right to freedom of speech was considered by the Founding Fathers to be a means of protecting, even promoting, democracy which requires open debate combined with fair elections. Cynically offering AR-15s to protect “freedom” begs the question: freedom from what? The annoying opinions and wishes of people who disagree with us?

Such a strategy is not only at odds with democracy, but it is especially disturbing, even dangerous, in today’s America.

In the past year, anger over the deaths of some African Americans at the hands of police has led to widespread protests in several American cities. One reliable source has identified more than 7,000 Black Lives Matter protests across the US between May and August of this year. Those protests have been met with counter protests, frequently involving armed white supremacists.

Donald J. Trump has inflamed the situation further by labelling BMU protesters “anarchists” and “terrorists” and by praising would-be vigilantes like 17-year old Kyle Rittenhouse. Last August, the teenager killed two men during unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Armed with an AR-15, Rittenhouse showed up in Kenosha without authorization from local law enforcement officers. He is not even a resident of Wisconsin.

Trump also deployed federal agents during the protests in Portland, Oregon, against the wishes of Oregon authorities. He threatened to use federal forces in other cities where protests occur, but apparently ran into opposition within his own administration to such a step.

During the presidential campaign Trump made endless unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud and accused election officials and other unknown parties of rigging the voting process to his disadvantage. He is now engaged in an effort to persuade Republican state legislators to replace popularly elected presidential electors with those committed to him, an undemocratic act if not an unconstitutional one.

Only a few GOP members of the US Congress have distanced themselves from Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric and electoral machinations, abetting Trump in his refusal to cooperate with President-Elect Joe Biden. Trump’s intransigence is obviously at attempt to thwart the will of the American people and de-legitimize our election process. It also puts at risk effective implementation of the rollout of coronavirus vaccines in the midst of a pandemic that has already taken nearly 275,000 American lives.

In many parts of America, the country is a tinder box. Paramilitary groups encouraged by Trump’s endorsement have blatantly sought to intimidate critics of the president. When armed opponents of Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's stay-at-home order invaded the Michigan legislature in May, Trump praised them and tweeted “LIBERATE MICHIGAN.” Later in October, the FBI uncovered a plot to kidnap the Michigan chief executive and revealed there was a similar plan to seize the governor of Virginia.   

Mankind has wrestled for many centuries with the almost universal problem of how to regulate the use of weapons. Whether for purposes of defense or to conquer and subdue an enemy, weapons have been viewed as necessary. Maintaining order and security, domestically or internationally, requires weapons of various types and levels of destructive capability.

Generally speaking, the destructive capability needed domestically is assumed to be considerably less than that required in the international arena. In neither setting is it viewed as wise to allow unfettered availability or use of any and all weapons. At some point, restraint is essential.

The US Supreme Court has wrestled with how to interpret the Second Amendment for many years. Thus far, it has not denied government at any level the authority to place reasonable limits on access to certain types of firearms, especially those frequently used to the detriment of public safety. Specious advertising seeking to manipulate court decisions for personal profit is not healthy for the future of our democracy.

Is It Over?

Ordinarily, the approach of Election Day would be greeted with excitement and anticipation, perhaps moderated to some degree by a dose of realism about your candidate’s prospects for winning. In 2020, it’s different.

In this election the focus has been too much on fear. Fear of the coronavirus, fear of foreign interference in our electoral process, fear of voter fraud or counting irregularities, and fear of not being able to making our government work again.

Fear is the primary tool of Donald Trump in trying to make a convincing case for re-election. And it is reinforced by his propensity to lie or exaggerate at every opportunity. Sadly, the core of his supporters seems oblivious to his cavalier disregard for truth or accuracy in talking about the public’s business.

Not only does Trump inflate the accomplishments of his own administration, but he denigrates his opponent Joe Biden, trying to paint the former vice president as corrupt and inept. He has encouraged Attorney General Barr and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to find something criminal in Biden’s history.

Trump does not limit his verbal assaults to opponents. He castigates members of his own administration when they do not provide unquestioning support for his outrageous rhetoric. He attacks Dr. Anthony Fauci, the country’s leading infectious disease expert, because the doctor refuses to endorse the White House laissez-faire attitude towards the coronavirus.

Even as health workers labor mightily to care for the more than 9,000,000 Americans infected by the coronavirus Trump scorns them. He accuses doctors and hospitals of manipulating the pandemic’s spread in order to generate more income for themselves, telling his rallies, "Our doctors get more money if someone dies from COVID. You know that, right?”

Trump uses the Black Lives Matter movement to stoke fear and to signal not so subtle racism. Demonstrators against suspected police abuse are assailed as anarchists and mayors and governors trying to maintain order are denounced for not cracking down harshly on the generally peaceable protesters. Social media and television have been awash with campaign ads that magnify the limited violence.

Trump and Republican candidates for Congress are attempting to make law and order an issue, claiming Democrats want to “de-fund” the police. The claim is blatantly false. Some law enforcement officers have been cajoled into participating in campaign appeals for Republican candidates. This is inappropriate. Law enforcement must be applied in a nonpartisan manner.

The response of Trump and the Senate Republicans to the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is another blow to the idea of an independent judiciary in today’s America. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, Lindsey Graham pledged support for Trump’s nominee to replace Ginsburg before the candidate was announced. It was obvious that Graham viewed the proceedings as a platform for his re-election campaign. He even begged for campaign contributions when discussing hearings with the news media in the Hart Senate Office Building, a violation of Congressional ethics.

Amy Coney Barratt may prove to be an impartial jurist in the future, but neither the appointment process nor the subsequent hearings provided any meaningful evidence of what we can expect. Before 1925, the Senate Judiciary Committee did not invite court nominees to appear in a public hearing. Maybe it is time to stop wasting the public’s time and return to that practice.

Another disturbing aspect of this year’s election is the obscene amount of money being spent--- more than $14 billion dollars by the two parties, about half in the presidential campaigns. Some of the money has made its way to the two US senate battles in the Carolinas. Both senate races have received over $250 million.

The unfortunate thing is small donors ($200 and under) are providing less than 25 percent of the money. Campaign finance laws are a sieve thanks to Mitch McConnell and the US Supreme Court. Whenever there is talk about activist judges, think Citizens’ United, the 2010 decision that opened the floodgates for corporate political contributions and declared there is no evidence that money necessarily corrupts politics.

Thanks to the Super PACs encouraged by Citizens’ United, big donors have acquired outsized influence. Sheldon Adelson has given Trump’s re-election effort $180 million while Michael Bloomberg has pledged at least $100 million to support Joe Biden. I find little comfort in the fact that Democrats are winning the money race this election cycle. Money seldom develops any long term loyalty.

Finally, Election Day may turn out to be just the beginning of a long nightmare. Both parties are lawyered up. Even as state officials sought to develop voting rules, there has been constant litigation with the parties maneuvering for advantage at the ballot box and after.

How will absentee ballots be treated? How long for early voting and where are voting sites going to be? When must absentee ballot be postmarked and when can voting officials start counting them?

Politicians in a democracy should be able to work our election processes to protect everyone’s right to vote.  Everyone, regardless of party, should be able to find agreement on process. Haggling for weeks after the election over whether an absentee ballot can be count if received three days or six days after Election Day is ludicrous in a democracy.

If you can’t win with the voters, seek to control the count of the ballots---a disastrous policy for a democracy.  It is as if we fear our fellow American more than any external enemy.

Election Turmoil

I have been voting since 1960. I have voted in North Carolina. I have voted in South Carolina, and I have voted absentee while in the military, first in Alabama and then in Vietnam.

I have voted for Democrats. I have voted for Republicans, and I have vote for candidates who belonged to neither of the two major parties.

I have been a poll worker. I have been a poll watcher. I was the voting officer for my Army unit, and I have been an unsuccessful candidate.

In all those years, in casting all those votes, and in participating in the electoral process in various ways, I have always felt that my vote was secure. My candidate did not win in every case, but I never doubted that my vote had been counted.

In 2020, that sense of security has been undermined.

Now I am not so naïve as to believe that every voters in the Carolinas in the 1960s felt the same as I did at the time. African Americans were still subject to all sorts of voter suppression tactics.

The country began to address that problem in 1965 with passage of the Voting Rights Act. It required preclearance by the US Department of Justice of any regulation, policy or law which might impact access to the ballot in states with a long history of discrimination against minorities. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, in the twenty years following passage of the act the disparity in registration rates between white and black voters dropped from nearly 30 percent to only eight.

Despite the obvious evidence of the act’s success in combating discrimination, in 2013 the conservative majority on the US Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled the preclearance requirement was unconstitutional because data on discrimination had not been updated. The defect cited in Shelby v. Holder can be repaired quickly through legislation, but Republicans in the US Congress have resisted any such measures.

As a result, in state after state, Republican state legislatures have implemented new laws and strategies targeting specific groups, generally those that tend to vote for Democrats. Voter rolls have been purged under dubious circumstances, photo id requirements have been imposed with deliberate intent to exclude certain citizens, efforts to gerrymander election districts have been intensified and a raft of other low level inconveniences have been implemented, such as moving or closing polling places in neighborhoods with significant minority residents and limiting time and places for registration drives, for early voting, and for mail-in voting.

A notable example of the extremes to which Republican governors have been willing to go, the Texas chief executive, Greg Abbott has limited mail-in drop boxes to one per county, regardless of population. This represents a significant hardship for voters in the state’s most populous counties, which are mostly Democratic. That his action has been upheld by the US Fifth Circuit Court reflects the effectiveness of the collusion between Trump and GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in remaking the federal judiciary.

Added to the assault on voter rights, has been Donald Trump’s persistent ranting about voter fraud and “rigged” elections. Without any evidence of meaningful violations in previous elections and without any sympathy for voter fears about the pandemic, he has labeled anticipated mail-in voting this year a “disaster” and “a whole big scam.” Trump also has encouraged mail-in voters to go to polling places on Election Day and cast an in-person ballot if poll workers cannot confirm their mail-in ballot has been received. Even after being warned there are laws against voting twice, he continues to offer that advice.

The new postmaster general, a wealthy Trump supporter, tried to complicate the mail-in voting issue by imposing drastic budget restrictions on the US Postal Service, raising questions about its capacity to handle the likely increase in mail-in voting. In addition, the US Department of Justice, under William Barr, has already begun investigating possible election fraud cases. There is no indication DOJ is pursuing any cases of discrimination under the remnants of the Voting Rights Act.  

With characteristic bombast Trump also has assailed peaceful protesters as “thugs” and “anarchists,” and given a greenlight to private militia groups, like the “Proud Boys.”  Trump’s rhetoric and his unwillingness to condemn violence and unlawful behavior by his supporters is heightening the danger that mayhem could occur during the 2020 campaign and afterwards. His refusal to state a willingness to concede peaceably if he loses November’s election simply adds fuel to the fire he’s laid.  

It’s not only Democrats who are concerned about the atmosphere in which the 2020 election is being held. Benjamin L. Ginsberg, a recently retired attorney with a long track record of representing Republican Party groups, wrote an op-ed piece for the Washington Post in September stating:

The president’s rhetoric has put my party in the position of a firefighter who deliberately sets fires to look like a hero putting them out. Republicans need to take a hard look before advocating laws that actually do limit the franchise of otherwise qualified voters. Calling elections “fraudulent” and results “rigged” with almost nonexistent evidence is antithetical to being the “rule of law” party.

I will still vote in this year’s election, but not by absentee as I originally intended in view of the pandemic and my age. Instead, I will take advantage of early voting to insure that my vote will not be endangered by mail problems or the continuing changes related to absentee voting.

It’s regrettable that our nation’s current leadership has created an environment in which respect for my right to vote, and yours, is in doubt. Democracy cannot survive under those conditions.

 

Importance of Court Overblown

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s death has roiled America’s politics in midst of a presidential election, setting up yet another fight over control of the nation’s highest court. Ironically, conservatives already have a 5-3 majority on the US Supreme Court and nothing is likely to prevent Donald Trump and Senate Republicans from enhancing that margin.

What are the stakes here? Is the future of the republic truly at risk?

Obviously, Trump is claiming the Ginsberg vacancy has created the chance to secure conservative dominance of the judiciary for the foreseeable future and he has been crucial to that opportunity. Unmentioned by Trump, but clear to all is that the Ginsberg vacancy offers a means for him to shift the focus of the presidential campaign from his administration’s shortcomings with regards to the pandemic and the economy. More than 209,000 deaths and more than 30 million people unemployed do not make a strong case for re-election.

Trump’s nominee to replace Justice Ginsberg has all the usual credentials Republican judicial appointees have possessed during the past three decades. Amy Coney Barrett is openly anti-abortion and appears to have strongly conservative views on most issues, including healthcare, consumer protections and workers’ rights. She has little experience in private practice, having spent most of her legal career as an academic, primarily on the law faculty of her alma mater, Notre Dame.

Barrett currently sits on the Seventh Circuit of the US Court of Appeals. She was nominated by Trump and confirmed by the US Senate in October 2017. This is her sole experience as a judge. Barrett calls herself an “originalist.” She clerked for and is an admirer of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Despite the thinness of her credentials, Barrett is likely to be confirmed since Republican Leader Mitch McConnell exercises iron control over his GOP majority.  Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (SC) even said last week that all committee Republicans will vote for the president’s nominee—not waiting to learn who that nominee was. So much for the “separation of powers.”

Graham, like several other GOP senators facing re-election, may also view the upcoming hearing as an opportunity to reboot his campaign. It has been tough to defend chaotic responses to the pandemic and its economic fallout by Trump and Senate Republicans. Allowing federal relief aid to expire is difficult to justify in face of the hardships weighing down millions of Americans.

What should be the public’s reaction to this sham process?

First, we must recognize the addition of another conservative Republican to the Court is a done deal. Barrett will be confirmed. She may not be your choice, but Senate Republicans have the votes and no apparent inclination to change their collective mind.

Democratic senators should also recognize this fact. Launching into lengthy soliloquies about the injustice of it all or trying to bully the nominee into revealing her suspected bias will not derail the train. Such tactics will merely allow Graham and his GOP colleagues to drag out the hearing and distract voters from the campaign at hand.

Second, just how much does it matter that the GOP will have such dominance on the Court? Having an outsize majority of justices appointed by one party has happened before.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt assumed office in 1933, the Court was more divided.  Seven justices had been appointed by four Republican presidents and only two by a Democratic one. And in view of complaints that Ginsberg’s death allows Trump to appoint three to the Court, note FDR’s predecessor, Herbert Hoover, also named three justices during his single term. 

The conservatively oriented Court in the 1930s caused FDR some grief during his first term, but the resistant justices became more agreeable to the New Deal after he won a landslide re-election in 1936, sixty-one percent of the popular vote and ninety-eight-point five percent in the Electoral College. Of course, his threat to “pack” the Court may have helped.

Fact is the framers of the US Constitution did not intend the Court to be an initiator of policy. It was to step in only when one of the other branches or a state had moved out of bounds. In No. 78 of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “…the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.” He went on to assert, “…the judiciary…has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever.”

In recent years the Court has assumed a more prominent role than anticipated because of the failure of the executive and legislative branches to effectively seize the initiative in addressing the needs and concerns of the American people. For some thirty years now gridlock seems to be the preferred mode of operation in Washington. And while most of the difficulty may be attributed to Republicans, the Democrats are not blameless.

Finally, it is noteworthy that Trump and the Senate Republicans are acting with great urgency in processing Barrett’s nomination. This is in stark contrast to how vacancies in many key federal agencies have been allowed to linger.

For example, the agency charged with protecting workers’ right to organize, the National Labor Relations Board, did not have a quorum (four) to function for more than six months between December 2019 and July 2020. The board is supposed to have five members. It still only has four, and three are Republicans.

And the six-member Federal Election Commission which enforces campaign finance laws has lacked a quorum (four) for most of Trump’s term. For only one month since August 2019 has the commission had four members. Currently, it has three with one, a Republican, nominated. His confirmation will leave the commission likely deadlocked.

Effective governance seems elusive in Washington today.  

What's Changed?

There are advantages to being old.

One is that you were there when some of the history younger folk talk about was taking place. It’s easier to understand and appreciate changes that have occurred during your lifetime. You have a lot more information to work with.

Take for example our Vietnam saga and its subsequent impact on American politics and our nation’s security.

In my recently published memoir, Joint Ventures, I write about spending time in Vietnam as a young Army officer between March 1962 and March 1963. US involvement in the fighting at that point was limited. In an administrative role, I was not in grave danger, but I did realize we faced a serious challenge. When I left the military in spring 1963 and began a journalistic career, I tried to inform the public about Vietnam, but Americans were not yet tuned in.

Things started to change after the 1964 election. Primary focus in that contest was on civil rights. Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 initiated the shift in the Solid South from Democratic to Republican. It was ironic since a higher percentage of GOP members of congress had voted for the act than Democratic members.

As for Vietnam, LBJ was the candidate of reason in that race. Although disturbed by Barry Goldwater’s remarks about how to use the military in Vietnam, I voted for him. I still hoped it possible to introduce party competition into South Carolina; less optimistic about that today.

Only a few months after the election, Johnson began escalation. In February 1965, bombing of North Vietnam began and in March, two US Marine battalions landed at Danang. At the end of 1965 there were 200,000 US servicemen in Vietnam.

In fall of 1964, inspired by my experiences in Vietnam, I began graduate study at USC Columbia in international studies. What I learned made me skeptical about LBJ’s course of action. Did our national interest in Vietnam justify the allocation of the required resources?

Over the next few years, I vacillated between journalism and academia as career possibilities. Rejecting a Yale fellowship to study Vietnam in spring 1966, I returned to television news. When invited to participate in a Taiwan research project in summer 1967, I switched again. Fortuitously, WBTW agreed to send me and a camera to Vietnam to interview Carolina servicemen in the warzone. What I saw and heard confirmed my skepticism about our goals.

Serious setbacks continued to plague us in Vietnam over the next six months. Despite the persistent buildup of US military forces, the Viet Cong and its patron North Vietnam were gaining ground. In 1967 an average of 31 Americans servicemen were killed every day.

The Tet Offensive in January 1968 was the decisive blow. Eventually, the surprise attack against cities and small towns in Vietnam was beaten back, but confidence in a US military victory was dashed. During 1968 US military forces suffered almost 17,000 deaths, an average of 46 per day.

Throughout the escalation of our military involvement in Vietnam, I noted the willingness of Democratic US senators to challenge policies of a Democratic president. Two Democratic senators, Wayne Morse (OR) and Ernest Gruening (AK) even opposed the modest Gulf of Tonkin resolution. In 1966 Democratic Sen. William Fulbright (AR), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, held hearings on US policies in Asia, inviting respected scholars to share their expertise regarding the wisdom of LBJ’s strategy.

By winter of 1968, two Democratic US senators, Eugene McCarthy (MN) and Robert Kennedy (NY) were contesting LBJ’s re-election. Their challenge likely factored into Johnson’s decision to withdraw his re-election bid. At the time US personnel deaths had reached approximately 30,000.

The courage of those senators willing to take on a president of their own party impressed me. LBJ was a formidable politician. His domestic policies had been well received, especially by the traditional Democratic coalition formed under FDR. That there were senators who would put their own political future on the line to confront LBJ spoke highly of their character.

I am reminded of the courage those Democratic senators demonstrated when I consider our current circumstances. America has been traumatized for nearly a year now by a raging pandemic. The country is approaching 200,000 lives lost in less than a year, our economy had been brought to a standstill, our schools and higher education institutions crippled, and our health care system overwhelmed. More than 30 million jobs have been lost.

The president has admitted deliberately misleading the American people about the dangers of the pandemic. Yet he has done little to organize and lead a coherent response to the threat. Whatever his motives, he has failed to protect the nation’s health and prosperity.

Inexplicably, among the Republicans serving in the US Senate only Mitt Romney has dared to criticize the president’s performance. His voice was easily drowned out when his colleagues rallied to the president’s defense after evidence revealed the nation’s chief executive had used the powers of his office to seek personal political advantage. The president’s response to that support has been to wreak vengeance against any dissidents within the administration.

Following the lead of Senate Majority Leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY), GOP senators have doubled down on their support of the president by refusing to provide meaningful relief to Americans currently suffering serious economic distress because of the pandemic. Unconcerned earlier about the impact on the nation’s deficit of a $1.5 trillion tax cut for corporations and rich individuals, Republicans in the US Senate have suddenly discovered the need for fiscal restraint.

Many years have passed since the US ended its involvement in the Vietnam war. Democratic US senators were vital to bringing about that needed policy change. Responding to the current pandemic, which has already killed more than three times as many Americans as the Vietnam war, requires similar courage. The question is where are the courageous US senators in the GOP willing to challenge the errant president of their party?