Dan Osborn Ad Fishing for Trump Voters

An ad just broke for Independent Senate candidate Dan Osborn claiming, among other things, that he's "with Trump" on "China, the border and draining the swamp. In an article about his outreach to Trump voters he is quoted as saying that he would "help Trump build the Wall". None of this should be any surprise.

Osborn has never run for public office. He is a former union organizer who led a strike against Kellogg's in Omaha. He has been outspoken from the beginning that he is not beholden to either party, although early on he seemed friendlier to Democrats, even though no one could mistake him for a liberal. When he first declared his candidacy there was apparently a handshake agreement that he would accept an endorsement from the Nebraska Democratic Party (NDP) in exchange for the NDP not running a candidate. He later reneged and refused to accept the endorsement. 

His public statements seemed to suggest that he was a moderate libertarian. To the left on social issues like abortion and marijuana legalization and more conservative on border security and crime. (He is on record as suggesting that the undocumented immigrants who pay into social security should be "just given a social security card"). He has said that he would not caucus with either party, although how he will get anything done without aligning with one of the major parties is unclear. (Hint: it's close to impossible)

Frankly, I don't trust him. I predict that he will end up caucusing with whichever party holds the Senate majority, and be a thorn in the side of the party that takes him in. Think Manchin without the experience or Sinema without the urge to build consensus. The biggest thing that he's got going for him is that he's not Deb Fischer. Whatever he ends up doing I guarantee that he won't be voting in lockstep with Republicans. 

The purpose of this ad is obviously designed to get Trump voters to vote for him and not Fischer while still voting for Trump. So what does he say in the ad? He's "with" Trump on China. Guess what, there's not a lot of daylight between Trump and Harris or Biden on China. Drain the swamp? He's been railing against corruption in DC since Day One. The border? Okay - I have a problem with that. The ad starts off by accusing Fischer of "betraying Trump", calling her "the same as Hillary Clinton". Ironic since the Fischer campaign is trying to paint Osborn as a AOC/Sanders/Pelosi/Harris liberal - maybe he's trying to counteract those ads.

Anyway, I don't fully trust him, but I'm going to hold my nose and vote for him

Why Should You Vote for Trump?

The election is in nine days and some people are going to vote for Trump. Why?

In another post I speculated that it was people hallucinating that 2017-2020 was an era of unprecedented peace and prosperity, with low crime and virtually no illegal immigration. They believe that in addition to domestic tranquility, we were respected and feared internationally.

Great reasons, other than them not being true. 

On the international stage Trump was viewed by our allies as unreliable and by our enemies as a joke. He was literally laughed at at the United Nations. Russia was in the process of invading eastern Ukraine, even though the full-on war hadn't started yet. We still had troops in Afghanistan and sent troops back to Iraq to fight ISIS, not to mention incursions into Syria and the assassination of an Iranian general. Illegal border entry, while not as high as during Biden's first few years was still substantial. Have we forgotten that Trump declared a national emergency at the border?  Crime statistics are a little hazy (the FBI stats showing crime reduction did not include several large cities) but there's no evidence that crime is any worse than it was four years ago. Inflation, which was a global problem, not specific to any policy of Biden's has resulted in a higher cost of living. Trump claims he will not only "end inflation" (which has receded to pre-2020 levels) but to reduce prices (how?). 

In other words, any reason to vote for Trump is based on a complete fantasy version of what his time in office was like. 

I have seen Trump supporters propose a straw man version of why people oppose Trump: "Orange Man Bad" or "Mean Tweets". No one that In know reduces their opposition to him to those "reasons". 

Trump started off his 2016 campaign with hate and hasn't let up. He has consistently labeled his opponents as enemies and traitors and called for their imprisonment. Not for actual crimes, which he stands accused of, but simply for opposing him. His supporters argue that he just "telling it like it is". But I expect the President of the United States, whether I voted for him or her or not, to represent all the people. I don't expect the president to threaten to withhold disaster relief from states whose governors criticize him, or whose electoral votes he didn't win. I expect the President of the United States to exercise a minimal level of decorum and represent our nation on the world stage and not act like a mafia don. 

Trump, before, during, and after his time in office displayed an appalling ignorance of how things worked. His lack of understanding of how tariffs work and how NATO is financed are two of the most obvious. But his ignorance of the laws that effect the office of the presidency or how legislation is passed is dangerous. And he's proud of his ignorance, displaying no willingness to learn. He's adverse to facts and information, preferring to make decisions based on his gut and has the attention span of a toddler. His appointees are "the best people" when he brings them on, but "losers" when they leave. And they usually resign, rather than be fired. 

Much has been made about Harris recently comparing Trump to Hitler, as well as the ongoing labelling him as a fascist. I'll concede that the comparisons are sometimes over the top and not very helpful, but the fact of his authoritarian tendencies is undeniable. This is what you get when you elect "businessmen". The CEO of a private company is effectively a mini-dictator. What he says, goes. They usually don't understand that an executive in government is constrained by the Constitution and by the other branches. And it's not like we have to speculate. Trump has made clear that he will exercise dictatorial power (but only on Day One) and has made many references to using the Justice Department and the courts to exact retribution on his opponents. 

Think his ignorance and incompetence means that the dystopia that he promises won't come to pass? That it's just rhetoric? The one thing he learned from his time in office was that appointing people whose loyalty to the Constitution was greater than their loyalty to him frustrated his plans. You can guarantee that the appointees in a second Trump term will not only be efficient, but will be unquestioningly loyal to Trump. 

But sure, vote for him because you believe that Harris didn't really work at McDonald's

Election Predictions

Election Day is in nine days. 

Will the election for president be close? I have no idea and neither does anyone else. Polls have proved unreliable over the last few elections for a variety of reasons. Pollsters have attempted to compensate for previous inaccuracies by introducing fudge factors which will supposedly lead to more accurate results. Political action committees and candidates' campaigns have flooded us with "junk polls" that skew the averages. 

What will be the influence of minor parties? Despite the moral high ground that some progressives are dubiously claiming regarding the government's support of Israel, their candidate, the Green Party's Jill Stein has no chance whatsoever of receiving even one electoral vote. Would a vote for Stein, or any other minor party, really be a vote for Trump? Only if you assume that these voters would have voted Democratic if not for Israel-Gaza. Many of them distrust both major parties equally and see no difference between them. Speaking of Israel's Gaza war (expanding into surrounding nations) will the Muslim voters help swing Michigan into Trump's column? Could be, since Michigan Muslims aren't any less stupid than any other American voter and don't realize that getting Trump back in the White House will likely be worse for Palestinians than it is now. 

Will the election be close? Why does Trump appear to have a chance to be re-elected? It's hard to imagine how it could be, given all that we know about Losin' Don, but there's a lot of amnesia about his four years, some people freaking out about the inflation and it's lingering effects during Biden's term and hallucinating that Trump's presidency was one of peace and prosperity. There's a solid base of Trump supporters, what I and others refer to as the Trump Cult, who would vote for him no matter what. Who believe his ridiculous claims and outrageous lies. If that was the sum total of people who would vote for him, he'd never be elected, but it's not. He had two serious challengers in the Republican primaries, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Ambassador Nikki Haley of South Carolina. The two of them received close to 50% of the votes cast in the Republican primaries. Other than registered Republicans who usually vote for Democrats or Independents (I am one of those) none of those people are going to vote for Vice President Harris; they'll vote for whoever the Republican candidate is. This group has significant overlap with the people who are convinced that every Democrat is a Communist and will vote for Trump as the only alternative. Add to those groups those who think that Harris is a lightweight and believe, for all his negatives, Trump will be better for the country. 

Despite all of that, my gut tells me that when all the votes are counted Harris will have a majority of votes cast. But the undemocratic Electoral College could go either way. As little as a few thousand vote win for Trump in all or most of the so-called swing states could give him an electoral college blowout, even if he once again receives fewer actual votes nationwide. Of course if this happens he'll crow about how he "won easily" and claim he also "won" the popular vote, blaming voting by non-citizens and other imaginary Democratic cheating. We all know what will happen if it goes the other way. He and his people have already been ramping up the accusations of rigging and cheating and election deniers are in place in key states, ready to cause chaos. 

Let's not forget that it's very likely that the Senate will became majority Republican, so even if Harris wins, getting anything done, including appointing federal judges, will be virtually impossible.

 

Nebraska's Dueling Abortion Ballot Questions

Nebraska currently has a ban on abortions past the 12th week of pregnancy. That particular ban was passed last year, changing the cutoff down from 24 weeks and narrowly avoiding 6-week and total bans. 

Initiative 434 would enshrine the 12 week ban in the Nebraska State Constitution, but would not prevent a more restrictive ban from being enacted. (There are several exceptions included) Over 300 petition signers claim that they were lied to by petition circulators and signed the petition under false pretenses. 

Initiative 439 would add a state constitutional right to abortion up to fetal viability (around 24 weeks) with "fetal viability" defined as “…the point in pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the patient's treating health care practitioner, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures", which was the national standard before Roe vs. Wade was repealed. 

Abortion opponents have been scurrying around to try to misrepresent Initiative 439, claiming, among other ridiculous points, that "the wording in the measure would give human traffickers and abusers the right to subject women to forced or coerced abortions and allow unlicensed medical professionals to influence a woman's decision." and painting doctors who perform abortion as "the abortion industry". 

Some proponents of Initiative 434 characterize it as a "middle ground" between the anti-abortion and abortion rights camps that creates reasonable limits and exceptions". I'd consider that point if it weren't for the fact that abortion opponents don't compromise and view any "middle ground" as merely a step toward a total ban. They'll continue to chip away, as they have in other states, until there is a total ban. 

Initiative 434 is nothing but an effort to confuse the issue. We should have been allowed to have an up or down vote on abortion rights without having this initiative, which misrepresents the issue. I had read that whichever initiative receives more more votes would "win", but there's more detail than that: 

"For a ballot initiative to pass, it must receive a majority of supporting votes and at least 35% of total votes during the election. If both abortion-related amendments pass, the one with the most votes will be amended into the Nebraska Constitution." - to restate, to pass, an initiative must (1) have more "For" votes than "Against" votes (2) the "For" votes must be greater or equal than 35% of the total votes cast in the election statewide and (3) the "For" votes must be greater than the "For" votes of the competing initiative.
A side note - are the people who are totally against abortion going to vote for Initiative 434, which adds legal abortion to the state constitution?

No Good Guys, Just Innocent Bystanders

Over the last year I have I have refrained from commenting on the War in Gaza. Not because I didn't have an opinion, and not because I was ignorant about the political and religious situation there. I refrained from commenting (including responding to others' comments) because the situation is complicated. I don't "Stand with Israel" (even though I think it should be able to defend itself) nor do I "Stand with Palestine" (even though I think the civilian death toll in Gaza is horrendous) - because neither side has clean hands, terrible actions by one side are used to justify even more terrible actions on the other side and it escalates again and again. What is happening now in Gaza isn't isolated from previous events and goes back beyond the founding of the State of Israel.

There have always been Jews in what is now Israel and Palestine. There has been an uninterrupted Jewish presence from the Hasmoneans through Roman rule, Byzantine hegemony and a revolving door of Muslim caliphates until the League of Nations Mandate administered by the United Kingdom. Arabs have also been a continuous presence in the region. Jews have for at least the last millennium been a minority, but the claim that only the Palestinians are indigenous to the land and that Jews are merely colonizers ignores the demographic history of the area. Even outside the dubious claims based on a kingdom gone for two thousand years, or the rationale given by Christians looking to jump start the End Times, the Jews had as much claim to some of the land of the Palestinian Mandate as the local Arabs. The United Nations apparently agreed. 

The United Nations partition of Palestine granted to a proposed Jewish state the areas where Jews were the majority plus the sparsely populated Negev desert. The Arabs were to receive the areas that were majority Arab. (I use the term "Arab" rather than "Muslim" since the Arab population included a Christian minority). There was much organized opposition to granting the Jewish population even token political rights much less a nation of their own. Most people know that the independence of the new State of Israel was declared in 1948 and that it was immediately attacked by its Arab neighbors. What most people don't know is that the occupation of The West Bank and Gaza did not occur in the aftermath of that short war. The occupation didn't take place until 1967 after another war by Arab states against Israel. Jordan had been occupying the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza strip. 

This is one of the mysteries about this conflict. There could have been a Palestinian state in 1948 based on the U.N. Partition Plan, even after the Arab countries lost their war on Israel. In addition, at any time between 1948 and 1967 Jordan and Egypt could have established an independent Palestine - but they didn't. From the Arab perspective it was all or nothing - either Israel would be eliminated and replaced by an independent Palestine or they would refuse the half loaf and keep waiting and fighting. This set the stage for cycle after cycle of violence. The Arabs, at least their most vocal leaders, claimed that Israel had no right to exist and dedicated themselves to eradicating the Jewish state. The Israelis, seeing that their very existence threatened from all sides dedicated themselves to protecting their home at all costs. 

When the dust cleared after the 1967 War, Israel had taken The West Bank from Jordan, the Golan Heights from Lebanon, and Gaza and the Sinai from Egypt and militarily occupied them. This added an intractable problem to the already impossible situation. In addition to dealing with being surrounded by enemies dedicated to erasing it from the map, Israel had just effectively taken some of those enemies within its borders and made itself responsible for them. 

I'm not going to attempt a comprehensive list of the provocations and atrocities from each participant. Israel's horrible treatment of West Bank residents, including the violence by the so-called Settlers with the collusion of the military, is inexcusable. (They are also, tract by tract, stealing the Palestinians' land) The regular firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel isn't making them any friends. Last October's attacks on Israeli civilians, including rape, murder and kidnapping was met by thousands of deaths of Palestinian civilians. Palestinian governing bodies, instead of trying to make a better life for their people, prioritize fruitless attacks that provoke retaliation, making things worse. Of course, in this conflict Israel is in the position of power and the Palestinians the oppressed people. Although a case could be made that the hopelessness of the situation makes even bloody acts of terror seem reasonable. Israel, understandably anxious after 80 years and several wars, puts security as a high priority, but in doing so they have become the oppressors themselves. 

One could reasonably ask, regarding either the Palestinians or the Israelis, "what were they supposed to do?", but in almost all cases one side is perpetrating an atrocity as a response to the other guys perpetrating an atrocity, which in turn was retaliation for another atrocity. I don't "stand with" the total war in Gaza or the elimination of the Arab presence of the West Bank and I don't "stand with" the Palestinians who provoke retaliation by murdering civilians. Both sides think they're justified in their actions and nothing outside parties do will convince them otherwise. 

There's no "good guys" in all this, just innocent bystanders.

Israel & Palestine - Part I - History of The Jews in The Middle East

There isn't any serious argument about the Jewish people having originated in the Middle East and having established political entities several centuries BCE, with a brief period where independent kingdom won it's independence from the Seleucids before being absorbed by Rome. What is being argued (by supporters of Israel) is that the Jews originated there and had a continuous presence there while others argue that Israel is a colonialist entity that supplanted the indigenous population. Still others argued that Ashkenazi Jews (Yiddish-speaking Jews from Europe) were not descended from Biblical Jews, but from the Khazars, a Turkic people whose ruling aristocracy may have converted to Judaism in the 8th Century. 

I'm going to argue that the Jewish people are indigenous to what is now Eretz Israel, the modern nation carved out of the Palestinian Mandate which was in turn a province of the Ottoman Empire. Later articles will discuss the Palestinian Arabs, the United Nations Partition Plan, persecution of Jews, persecution of Arabs, quasi-apartheid in Israel. 

Nothing I write should be interpreted as support either for the October 7, 2023 terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians or the wholesale destruction and civilian deaths in Gaza. 

The last independent Jewish entity prior to the establishment of the modern state of Israel was the Hasmonaean Kingdom, which ceased to be independent in 63 BCE and was displaced completely in 37 BCE by King Herod, who was installed by Rome. Herod's client Kingdom of Judea ceased to exist upon Herod's death in 4 BCE. After Herod's death no independent Jewish political entity existed in Palestine, or anywhere else, until 1948. Despite there being no independent Jewish state post-Herod, Judea and the surrounding area continued to be the cultural and religious home of the Jews. There were Jewish communities in many cities of the Roman and Persian Empires, but Jerusalem and Judea were still regarded as "home". In around 70 CE the Romans defeated a Jewish revolt, destroyed the Temple and deported hundreds of thousands. After successive revolts, Jews were banned from Jerusalem, but not Judea, which was renamed Syria Palaestina. 

Nonetheless, Jews were never completely driven from Palestine. The population totals and percentages are unreliable and appear to to have waxed and waned in cycles before the establishment of the Ottoman Empire, but there were always at least some Jewish presence in what had previously been Judea. Not only native-born Jews, but immigrants from Europe fleeing persecution as well. Population figures become more reliable during reign of the Ottomans, 1516 through the end of World War I. (1516 was when the Ottomans conquered Jerusalem - the empire existed before that date) Jewish population according to Ottoman censuses remained a steady 5,000 from the 1530's through the 1800 census. The total population was around 156,000, increasing to 275,000 in 1800. The Ottoman Palestine region roughly corresponded to modern Israel, the occupied Palestinian territories and Jordan. There is no reliable figures for that area excluding what is now Jordan. (Throughout this time Palestine, including what is now Jordan, was simply a geographical term, like "The Midwest U.S." that is descriptive, but has no legal or political meaning. Palestine at this time was part of the Ottoman province of Syria.)

During this time, although there was recognition that Palestine was the location of their ancestral home, it doesn't appear that there was any indication that the area was a political Jewish homeland of any sort. On the contrary, Palestinian Jews were a religious minority living amid a Muslim majority in a Muslim-ruled polity, similar to how European Jews at the time were a religious minority living amid a Christian majority in a Christian-ruled land. 

It must be emphasized the Ottomans did not view their various provinces as potential independent nations, or even as "homelands" of various ethnic groups, but as simply administrative divisions, analogous to counties within an American state. Individual subjects were categorized according to their religion with Muslims at the top, with "Greeks" and "Armenians" next and Jews last. This is significant when viewing Jewish immigration into Palestine. In the 1500's the Catholic rulers expelled Jews from Spain and Portugal. These Sephardim were welcomed into the Ottoman Empire. Once welcomed into  Ottoman lands, many Sephardim settled in the center of the empire, in what is now Turkey, although many spread throughout Ottoman lands, including Palestine. This was not technically immigration, but movement from one part of the empire to another. 

During the 19th Century Jews continued to relocate from other parts of the empire and immigration into Palestine from outside the empire continued. Much of the immigration was driven by persecution that occurred not only in Europe, but in the empire itself and other Muslim nations such as Egypt. During the 1800's Jews continued to be a presence in Palestine, although never more than a tiny minority. In 1880 the Jewish population was around 23,000. This was the situation in the late 1800's as Zionism cohered and established itself. Despite the lack of a Jewish state, there had been a continuous Jewish presence in the area that is now Israel and the Occupied Palestinian territories. Though a minority, Jews were clearly a people indigenous to the area. 

"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.