"It's The Economy Stupid"...Or Is It?

The only, and I mean only rationale for voting for Donald Trump that I have heard that seems even remotely reasonable is that the economy was "good", i.e. no or low inflation, and that for a large percentage of Biden's term the economy has been "bad", i.e. inflation has been high. And it's true, for most of Trump's term inflation was low, unemployment was low and the jobs were being created in the aggregate. But is this the whole picture? Nope. I addressed this briefly in an earlier blog post "Inflation". The rationale only seems reasonable. What drives most Trump voters isn't an emotion-free analysis of the economic state of affairs and a reasoned conclusion that the Trump's re-election will usher in an era of prosperity. No, it's an excuse to cover for the real reasons for supporting Trump.

There isn't now and there never has been a reason to vote for Trump that isn't rooted in his message of hatred. 

Whatever else he decides to ramble on about, at the center of Trump's public pronouncements is a continual stoking of hatred and fear of (the wrong kind of) immigrants. Listen to his interviews - no matter what question he's asked is turned into a diatribe about immigrants. Even people here legally are demonized as "poisoning the blood" of the nation. Of course he's got other targets for his hatred: "the media" is the 'enemy of the people", undermining a free press, to mention one. That's it, that's all he's got and any fantasy that he will make us strong, or prosperous, or respected internationally is a delusion to justify support for a hateful bigot. 

Trump's administration was a combination of autocratic tendencies with utter ignorance and incompetence. There is no reason to think anything would change in a second Trump presidency other than the ratio of autocracy to incompetence could increase. In the four years he's been out of official power he hasn't gotten any smarter, he hasn't gotten an less self-serving or narcissistic, he hasn't become more familiar with how things work. He's less likely to appoint subordinates who will attempt to guide him toward doing the right thing, or refuse to implement illegal orders, and will be appointing more sycophantic loyalists into high government positions. Whether the loyalists he would hypothetically install are any less ignorant or incompetent as he is is an open question.  Despite his public disavowal of Project 2025, his own stated policies align pretty well with theirs. His Vice Presidential running mate isn't ignorant and incompetent, even if he is often tone-deaf and wrote the introduction to Project 2025. If any of the brains behind 2025 get appointed to government positions, you'll see it implemented, despite what Trump says now. 

There's your options with Trump: some combination of stupidity and fascism; certainly not prosperity.

Democracies, Republics and Elections, Oh My

I have heard the supposed difference between democracies and republics "explained" to me numerous times over the years, and by "explained" I mean "shouted at me", usually with an admonition to "educate myself". For these people a Democracy is nothing more or less than a Direct Democracy, i.e. "Mob Rule", while a  Republic is a government by elected representatives who are guided by a constitution. This is partially true.

"Republic" comes from the Latin Res Publica, "a matter of the people", whereby the government is a public matter and not the private property of a monarch. In other words, in the strictest interpretation, a republic is simply "not a monarchy". The form that a republic can take is quite varied. In the United States, most people who refer to republics are talking about a representative-constitutional government, whereby the executive and legislators are elected by the people for fixed terms and are guided by laws, in our case, a constitution. However who "the people" are can be circumscribed quite broadly. In the early days of the United States only adult, white, male, landowners were permitted to vote. This eventually gave the way to voting rights for all adults, except some felons. In a Socialist, or Communist, Republic, the will of "the people" is assumed to reside in the ruling party, which has elections, but decides ahead of time who may run. In an Islamic Republic, the Quran and the clergy empowered to interpret it decide what's good for the people. Ancient Greek republics limited voting to a citizen class. But even if we accept that the correct or true form of a republic is an elected representative government bound by a constitution, that does not makes democracies and republics mutually exclusive.

"Democracy" comes from demokratia, Greek for "power by the people". "Democracy" therefore literally means power or rule of the people. The simplest form of this is Direct Democracy, often referred to as "Mob Rule", where every decision is voted upon by everyone. Obviously this could only work in very limited situations, such as (very) small towns, or people in small isolated groupings. Direct Democracy almost never exists. A less "pure" form of democracy would involve an elected administrator and/or hired technical people who would keep things running, while important decisions would be voted on. The other end of the democracy continuum would be a system indistinguishable from what we defined above as a representative, constitutional, republic: you elect representatives for fixed terms, who are then responsible to run the government according to a constitution. Those who are careful about their words refer to this as a democratic republic, or just a democracy for short. Nobody who calls the United States a democracy really believes that it is a direct democracy or thinks that a direct democracy is a good thing for a large nation.

Nothing about being a republic guarantees that a tyranny of the majority, the mob rule that detractors of the term democracy so fear, cannot take root. Majorities can still elect representatives that will abuse minorities, and the representatives can be cowed by fear of not being re-elected. What gives the minority rights and protections are the rights and protections that we wrote into our laws early on, such as the Bill of Rights and separation of powers.  

Nothing about a democratic republic, whether you emphasize "democracy" or "republic", guarantees that a system like the Electoral College has to exist. Various representative democracies/democratic republics use different methods for choosing their head of government, or head of state. Most directly elect their president or prime  minister through popular vote. In some countries, notably in the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister is the leader of the party which wins a majority of seats in the House of Commons. We have the system that we do, not because we're a republic, or even strictly because we have a federal system, but because of various compromises arising from competing priorities among the various states. Predominant issues included slavery, small state versus larger states and the tendency for the states to view themselves as sovereign. 

There are several undemocratic features that were built into our framework of government. One has been eliminated: the indirect election of Senators. While today Senators are elected directly by the voters in each state, originally they were selected by each state government. Since gerrymandering was just as prevalent back then as it is now, a non-representative state legislature could appoint someone who represented their interests, which might not align with the interests of the voters. The founders did not trust "the people" to reliably choose their own Senators. Even today the Senate is an undemocratic institution. Small population states, like Wyoming, Vermont and the Dakotas have the same representation as large states like New York, Florida, California and Texas. This made sense in the early days of the nation when states (or at least their leaders) still viewed themselves as sovereign entities and jealously guarded their respective rights and perquisites, but is the culture really noticeably different when you cross a state border these days? The election of a president had several undemocratic features. The electoral college itself, where votes were weighted in favor of smaller states was originally even more undemocratic by the insertion of a second layer of voting between the people and the president - the electors. Unlike today, where the electors for the most part are required to vote in accordance with the voters in their state or district, originally electors were conceived as a way to overturn the vote of the majority of voters in a state if the voters voted for the "wrong" candidate. 

Today's Republican Party, and not just the predominant Trumpist faction, is fixating on these undemocratic aspects of our system and amplifying them in order to retain power. It's not just the lie of the stolen election either. Attempts are being made all across the country, not only in Congress but in state and local election boards, to find ways to "legally" reverse or overturn election results. Roadblocks and speed bumps continue to be put in place to make it more difficult to register or to actually vote. Polling places are moved or eliminated, early or absentee voting is curtailed and unnecessary steps are added to mail-in ballots (how many times do we need to sign or initial the ballots and envelopes?) Voter rolls are purged weeks before an election, referenda to allow felons who have served their time eligible to vote  have been neutered by byzantine rules, gubernatorial powers are curtailed by Republican state legislatures just before a Democratic governor is sworn in, legislatures slow walk or refuse to implement or fund petition initiatives...the list goes on and on. 

Today's Republican Party, as the cliche goes, talks out of both sides of their collective mouth. They claim that their candidate, Donald Trump has the support of the majority of the country, yet they do all that they can to make the will of the majority irrelevant. 

Let the States Decide?

The phrase "let the states decide" is usually used in conjunction with abortion rights and restrictions. But it can be, and is, applicable to many other situations. 

There has always been a tension in the United States between the ideal of local control and the reality that we are all citizens of one nation. Rural people often complain about the hypothetical big city voters who is "telling them what to do". Residents in small states point out how "they're not California". I'll agree that some things should be left up to local citizens. Some things. 

I'll concede that there's often regulations that come out of the federal, or even state, government that do not adequately take into account the facts on the ground. Environmental regulations, safety regulations, you name it. Regulators and elected officials default to a one-size-fits-all approach to law-making. They seldom think through the consequences or downstream effects of their decisions. An example in my own experience as a state government employee involves remote work. In 2020 in response to the Covid pandemic, most state employees were allowed to work from home. When the danger was largely past, our agency head decided to extend the ability of many employees to work from home, leaving the ultimate decision to his managers who knew the situation best. Then we got a new governor whose personal experience informed him that in-person work was more effective an efficient that remote work. Remote work ended, despite evidence that most employees were more productive working from home at least part of the time. One-size-fits-all. In this example the governor should have allowed the work arrangement to be molded to the needs and productivity of the work groups and the individuals involved rather than having one rule across the board. Many government regulations are like this - a standard that doesn't fit that multitude of situations across the country. 

This should absolutely not apply to rights. 

The right of a woman to control her own body should not depend on what side of a state border she lives on. Rights that are enshrined in the Constitution do not change when you move from one state to another, why do we think that other rights do? Let's not forget that for fifty years a woman's right to control her own body was considered a Constitutional right! Not only should rights not depend on where you live, they shouldn't subject to being taken away when a partisan, religiously motivated majority takes control of the Supreme Court. 

And what is meant by "let the states decide"?

Usually it means "let the legislature decide". There's multiple problems with this. Most obvious is the issue of gerrymandering. There are a number of states where statewide elections are often won by Democrats, but the legislature is composed of a majority of Republicans, sometimes with a veto-proof majority. So you have situations where the majority of voters choose Democrats (who usually support abortion rights) but Republicans (who usually support abortions restrictions or bans) are elected. In addition to this, most people are not one-issue voters. Republicans who are elected for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with abortion will, once elected, push for abortion restrictions even though the majority of the electorate, including some of their own supporters, favor abortion access. My own state of Nebraska is a good example. Polling consistently shows that 50% or more of Nebraskans favor access to abortion, but since Nebraskans have elected a majority of legislators who support abortion restrictions, that's what gets passed in the legislature. Many of those 50% however live in districts where they are the minority. 

In any state so far that put abortion rights on the ballot, the measure has passed, even in "red" states where the legislature and executive had attempted to impose restrictions. There are several states with referenda on the ballot next month, including Nebraska (although in Nebraska there are two - one for and one against - pay attention to what you're voting for!). In Nebraska there have been attempts to remove the issue from the ballot, and hopefully the pro-Choice measure will prevail, but fundamental rights should never be subject to a vote.