California elections: Here we go again!

Great friend and serial contributor to LWC Guy Heston once again shares his observations on elections -- especially those in the Great State of California.

 

When I wrote on these pages last May it was to wearily note the time consuming task of deciding how to vote in the June 2018 California state primary election. There were 59 candidates for governor and lieutenant governor. Voters were expected to wade through the official state voter information guide the size of an old-fashioned telephone book.

Oh, those were such simpler days. We Golden Staters have moved on to the general election, which will come to a merciful conclusion November 6. If you live anywhere in the United States, I suspect you feel the same way.

This time here in our corner of the left coast, the state voter information guide is 96 pages, supplemented in my case by a separate county election guide that is 86 pages. For some reason the state numbers the pages of its guide but my county does not. I only know the county guide is 86 pages because I counted—when you are retired you have time for these things. I would definitely support a new California regulation requiring all county guides to number their pages.

Luckily, because of the June primary we are down to just two candidates each for all of the state-elected offices. Thanks to one of those quirky California rules (yes, we voters passed a state proposition authorizing it), the finals consist of the top two candidates from the primary, regardless of party affiliation. So for lieutenant governor and U.S. senator it is Democratic vs. Democratic candidate, and in one state assembly district it is Democratic vs. Libertarian. It is so Californian!

This general election we have just twelve state propositions to decide. Shall we approve bonds to fund housing for low income residents and individuals with mental illness, water supply projects and construction for non-profit children’s hospitals? These are propositions that don’t seem to generate much public discussion—who wants to argue against construction projects for non-profit children’s hospitals? The state voter guide does have a nice chart showing how much all of the bonds voters have approved are projected to cost over the years. Just so we know.

The real action is further down the California ballot where special interest groups are having at it and spending, according to my rough estimate, a gazillion dollars.

Many Republicans are hoping the proposed repeal of increased gas taxes that were approved by the state legislature in 2017 will bring out the anti-tax vote and perhaps save a few state and Congressional seats in swing districts. And many Democrats imply repeal of the taxes would result in driving on dirt roads with no emergency access.

Meanwhile, the unions and business interests are engaged in the usual California election slugfests. One proposition would stipulate work rules for ambulance personnel. Roughly $30 million is being spent in support or opposition, most of the dollars coming from ambulance companies.

But the biggest big dollar battle is Proposition 8, which would limit the profits of kidney dialysis centers. The sponsor is the Service Employees International Union Health Care Workers, ponying up more than $20 million for the cause. As you might imagine, the owners of dialysis centers, the two biggest being DaVita and Fresenios, are more than slightly worked up; and, according to calmatters.org, have pumped in $111 million in opposition. Believe me when I say you cannot watch television in California for long without a Proposition 8 ad. The television sales people must love it.

On top of the above I am asked to weigh in on re-electing state judges (yes or no), electing county judges, a county water bill and various local ballot measures about terms limits, ethics commissions and such. I will spare you the details because, having pored through the state and county guides, I am weary and bleary-eyed.

Yes, elections can be time consuming and challenging for voters, and, whatever your political leanings, perhaps it is time to reconsider campaign finance rules so we retirees can watch “Judge Judy” or reruns of “The Big Bang Theory” in peace. However you feel, let’s get out there and vote! Even in our troubled times, the ballot box is sweet.

The world has more confidence in Putin than Trump

The American mid-term election is just a few weeks away.  Anybody who continues to think that the two political parties are the same hasn't been paying attention.

The Trump presidency makes clear the differences between Republicans and Democrats.  It's not complicated.  With some notable exceptions, Republican office-holders, Republican candidates and Republican voters are overwhelmingly supportive of Trump.  Democratic office-holders, Democratic candidates and Democratic voters are overwhelmingly opposed to Trump.

So, yes, the upcoming election is about Trump.

He has given us plenty to tussle over -- taxes and the federal deficit and debt; healthcare; the economy; immigration; regulations; the environment; the list goes on, and it's a long one.

Foreign policy is a part of that list, too.  Congress can be involved, but under Republican leadership since the 2016 election it has been mostly missing-in-action.  There's not much likelihood of any change to that state of affairs, so long as Congressional leadership remains in Republican hands.

So Trump has been free to run the foreign policy show, in all of its fits and starts.  Congress still is on the hook to provide funding and approve appointments and treaties.  But the stage where the performance is conducted belongs to the president.

The rest of the world is at the receiving end of Trump's conduct of foreign affairs, whether it be the substance or the style of the performance.  Opinions formed today determine tomorrow's international support for America's future policy goals.

Now that we are almost two full years into the Trump presidency, what does the rest of the world think of him?  What does it think of the United States?

According to a recent Pew Research Center report ("Trump's international ratings remain low, especially among key allies" October 1, 2018), the answers to those questions are not good.

The report describes the results of a survey conducted in 25 countries around the globe.  It covers traditional allies -- such as Europe, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Japan, Israel and South Korea -- one clear rival (Russia) and several that might be described as "non-aligned," such as Brazil, India, Indonesia and Tunisia.

The results are startlingly clear:  Trump is not a positive or inspirational leading representative of America to the rest of the world.  70% of respondents have "no confidence" in Donald Trump as president of the U.S.  70% also say that the U.S. does not do much to "take into account the interests of other countries."  American influence has diminished while China's influence has grown.

Trump comes in fifth, at the bottom of the list, when it comes to inspiring confidence "to do the right thing regarding world affairs" -- 27% reported having confidence that he would do so.  Russia's Vladimir Putin scored 30%.  Germany's Angela Merkel earned the high score of 52% with France's Emmanuel Macron coming in second at 46% and China's Xi Jinping a distant third at 34%.

The fact that Trump has not caused the U.S. to forcibly absorb part of another nation as Putin did when he ordered Russian armed forces to invade Crimea must count in Trump's favor, but apparently not for much.  As blatantly illegal, hostile, harmful and self-centered as the Crimean invasion was, more people think that Putin, going forward from the time of the survey, will "do the right thing" in world affairs!

Who, besides perhaps Russians, would have guessed that Putin would come out ahead?  (And this, despite the fact that the annual Putin calendars with his included beefcakey photos must have cost him a few points, too.)

Trump, of course, has by now established for himself a reputation as Quitter-in-Chief.  Resigning from the Paris Climate Agreement, the Iran Agreement, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership all show American disengagement from international affairs.  The other participants have remained,  expecting to continue without the U.S.

These agreements address issues that are of critical importance to the rest of the world, including America's allies and also the non-aligned nations.  The other parties are both developed and developing countries; it's no surprise that Trump's actions are interpreted as showing a diminished American commitment to leadership in global affairs.

Any multi-nation agreement that includes the United States, and which predates the Trump presidency, must now be assumed to be at the mercy of Trump's whimsy or hostility.  That does not inspire confidence that America will "take into account the interests of other countries."

Domestic policies and initiatives can have international consequences, too.  Trump's love affair with fossil fuels can be seen as indifferent -- at best -- to the needs of other nations, or hostile -- at worst -- since the unrestrained use of fossil fuels further degrades the world's environment and worsens the effects of global warming.  The atmosphere does not recognize national borders.

The poor always suffer more than the rich.  By comparison to the U.S., most of the world's nations are poor.  And they know these things.  Given a choice of other leadership, they will be inclined to shun Trump's America.

China's Xi Jinping is not bashful in announcing that China is ready and able to fill many of the leadership vacuums caused by American disengagement.  He has said so, clearly, on the big-ticket concerns of international trade and global warming.

Developing countries are always looking for money.  Chinese loans and other cash assistance (even with strings attached) can look more attractive as Trump reduces American foreign aid.  In addition, lingering effects and memories of last decade's financial crisis provide opportunities to tout the Chinese forms of marketplace economics and capitalism as superior to the lightly-regulated American alternatives.  The U.S. economy caused the global near-catastrophe, not China's.

It looks like "America First" has become "America the Lonely."

There is a remedy.  Two of them -- the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives, and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.  The Republican majority in each House of Congress means that both committees are chaired by Republicans.  Since the beginning of Trump's presidency, neither chair has been inclined to challenge Trump on his approach to foreign affairs.

A Democratic majority in either House of Congress resulting from November's election would mean at least one committee would have a Democratic chair.  Trump would be faced with some real Congressional oversight that would show the world that the United States is not as set on abandoning its traditional leadership positions as it now appears to be.

It's still the president's stage, but it's a big stage with room for other actors.

The key question for November's election is this:  Does Trump deserve another two years of being enabled by an oddly docile and captive Republican Congressional leadership?

Those who answer "Yes" will probably assert that Trump is able to bend the rest of the world to his will -- notwithstanding the fact that every time in history that such a feat has been attempted it has failed -- or they will expect that Trump can use the next two years to develop statesman-like qualities.

Yes, things can change, but not enough to make pigs fly, and let's not forget that one of Trump's selling-points of himself, in his own words, has been "I'll never change."

Those who answer the question "No" will vote for Democrats.  If there are enough of those votes, then one or both of those Congressional committees can get back to work.

 

News of the Day Got You Down? I’ve Got a Plan for You!

Long-time friend and LWC contributor Guy Heston writes on what to do about the news of the day.

The other day the news of the day was getting on my nerves of the day.

Mr. Trump was ablaze on Twitter. The so-called cable news networks were enthralled but I was not. Name calling tweets are not necessarily news, even if they come from you-know-who.

But then I noticed someone I had never heard of, Omarosa Manigault-Newman, was on the front pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post. The former White House staffer had tapes she thought the public and Special Counsel Mr. Mueller might find interesting and damaging to Mr. Trump. Although she seemed mostly trying to sell her book, this was a disturbing development, another national controversy apparently in the making. As President Reagan might have said, here we go again.

Then there was the latest economic news from Turkey, where the lira was heading south faster than a jet from Los Angeles to Mexico City. Expert economists were beginning to sound rattled about the larger implications, so I got rattled.

Luckily, there seemed to be no breaking political news about Canada/US relations—all quiet on the Canadian front. I was beginning to wonder if our neighbors to the north were even speaking to us. If I were them, I’m not sure I would. Maybe they are ghosting us, I thought.

And then there were my beloved Los Angeles Angels, heading south in the baseball standings so fast they made the Turkish lira look positively stable. I can take the lira free fall, but an Angels collapse is beyond rattling, although we fans should be used to it by now.

All the negative news was just too much. So I turned off CNN and MSNBC (ok, I admit it, I’m a lefty so I don’t watch Fox much unless I want to see what they are up to), logged off my lefty self from The Times and The Post, got into to my California emissions regulated car and drove to one of our local cineplexes where I bought myself a ticket to “Mamma Mia, Here We Go Again” and settled in.

Some of my friends think the movie is sappy. Not me. I found one hour and fifty-four minutes of innocent bliss, a story about a young woman’s wedding, remembering her mother and connecting with her extended family and, yes, foreigners who welcomed her to their land. Somehow she got through immigration.

There I was in the dark, lounging in one of those new recliners so many theaters are installing, munching on my $7.50 bag of popcorn laden with imitation butter, trying to sing along silently to ABBA so I did not disturb my seat mates, and not thinking a whit about Mr. Trump, Ms. Omarosa, Turkey, Canada or baseball standings. Plus the movie featured a cameo by Meryl Streep, Cher arriving on a Greek island via helicopter, and so many ABBA songs I lost count. What was not to like?

Maybe you don’t like ABBA songs. Maybe you don’t like Meryl Streep movies. And maybe you don’t like Cher, in which case I am ghosting you. But I can say this much. When you are truly weary of Trump tweets and all that cable news drama, pick a movie, go to the cineplex, sit in the dark with strangers, munch on popcorn, and spend a couple of hours forgetting about the news of the day.

If Americans like the idea of getting their Social Security payments, then they might want to have more (not less) immigration into the U.S.

Immigration into the United States has been, and will continue to be, a net positive for the solvency of America's Social Security pension payments system.  Keeping incoming immigration numbers level when compared with past numbers is good; more would be better; fewer will be bad; if reduced to none -- disastrous.

If no significant actions -- benefit reductions and/or tax increases -- are taken, Social Security will be able to pay only 77% of promised benefits starting in 2034.  That assumes immigration will remain at about one million annually.

Since Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system and not a savings account -- at any given time, payments to current retirees are supported by the earnings of current workers -- the ratio of workers to retirees is key to making those payments.  The higher the ratio, the better the chances of payments as usual.

Immigrants have a higher birthrate than the native-born, so that the number of workers contributed into the system by a given number of immigrants is higher than it is from the same number of native-born.  That's a plus for the numerator in the ratio.

The native-born are older, and a larger population, so as they age they add to the ratio's denominator in greater numbers.  As a result, the ratio of workers to retirees has been declining.  Without immigration, it would have declined more, and the date of the reduction in benefits would occur even sooner than 2034.

To literally drive this point home (into the home of the American voter, perhaps), The Economist observes

 AS PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP attempts to reduce immigration into America, new research suggests how rapidly that strategy is likely to disadvantage many of his most loyal supporters. In 2016, there were more deaths than births among America’s non-Latino white population. The future quality of life of this aging, shrinking population increasingly depends on two factors: sustained high fertility amongst minority groups already in the country—and continued immigration.

 Migrants are a particularly important factor in sustaining the size of America’s workforce: in 2014, 80% of foreign-born inhabitants were aged 18 to 64 compared to 60% of those native born.

The emphasis is mine.

Assuming continued trends in longevity and native-born birthrates, there are only two levers that can be pulled to maintain current benefit payments beyond 2034:  increase the social security tax; increase the workforce.  Or, of course, some combination of the two.

In the early years of the Social Security Administration, each retiree was supported by a dozen or more workers.  Now, the ratio is closer to 3:1 and declining, as illustrated by this graphic from Mercatus Center at George Washington University:

We live longer than we used to, which means that we collect those Social Security retirement payments longer, too.  And that means that we need a continual infusion of new workers to support those payments.

Immigrants add to the annual number of new workers in two ways.  Some are immediate additions; others come later as babies born to immigrant mothers mature into working adults.  During the period 1970 to 2014 births to U.S. born women have declined, while those to resident immigrant women have increased, according to a report by Pew Research.  Total U.S. births increased during that period; the increase was due to births to immigrant mothers.  The trend of decreasing birth rate among U.S.-born women shows no sign of changing.  A decrease in immigration will mean a decrease in the total U.S. birth rate.

Such a decrease would be troubling for the continued solvency of Social Security, as a decrease in the birth rate -- assuming, of course, that the retiree population continues to grow -- would mean fewer workers paying taxes to support the Social Security payments for each of those retirees.  (In the interests of full disclosure:  I expect to be one of "those retirees."  So, yes, I have a vested interest in this.  I'm guessing that you do, too.)

A decrease in annual immigration into the country would make the problem even worse as fewer immigrant workers will arrive to immediately add themselves to the workforce.

The Social Security Administration has prepared an extensive report on the effects to be expected of the future results of current demographic trends.  It includes the assumption that immigration into the Unites States will continue at about 1 million annually.  The report was prepared prior to the start of the Trump presidency.

Most Americans currently support legal immigration at current or greater levels, according to a Pew Research Center report.  My guess is that a wider understanding of the economic benefits of immigration -- such as its positive effects on Social Security solvency, as discussed here -- would result in even more support for these positions.  The findings of the report reveal several indicators of popular support for continued and even greater immigration:

• 45% of Americans correctly say that most immigrants living in the U.S. do so legally; 35% say most immigrants are living illegally.
• Three-quarters of immigrants are, in fact, legal immigrants.
• Most Americans are comfortable with immigrants, even those who are unauthorized:  65% say that unauthorized immigrants are no more likely than U.S. citizens to commit serious crimes; 71% say that such immigrants mostly fill jobs that citizens do not want; 73% of those who come into contact with immigrants who are not fluent in English say that the experience is not troubling enough to be a concern.

Other studies have shown that the presence of immigrants, especially unauthorized immigrants, has the effect of lowering crime rates.

This seems not surprising -- why would a group that does not want to call attention to itself condone criminal behavior, therefore inviting increased scrutiny by law enforcement and adverse publicity in the media?

The Social Security issue discussed here is just one part of the overall national economic impact of immigration.  Broadly speaking, only two factors can contribute to an increase in GDP:  An increase in the number of workers, and an increase in worker productivity.

The demographics of the American population make it clear that an increase in the number of workers will happen only with continued, or even increased, immigration.  (It seems unlikely that a government directive that native-born women should increase their fertility -- should such a thing leap out of the realm of the hypothetical and attempt to land itself in the real world -- would have the desired, or any desirable, effect.)

Notwithstanding majority opinion, significant numbers of Americans are unhappy with, or uncomfortable with, immigration.  If it were up to me, I would want to understand why they feel that way, and address their concerns within the context of how they benefit from immigration.  I'd be willing to bet that some, maybe most, of them would end up deciding that the loss of Social Security benefits would be a greater discomfort.

Social Security benefits have already been decreased by delaying the full benefits age.  Demographic results that are baked in to the population argue for further benefits reductions immediately so as to possibly minimize the 23% reduction in all pension payments that will take place in 2034 without an increase in the Social Security system's funding.  That increase in funding can come only from increased taxation rates, or an unexpected increase in the number of workers, or a combination of the two.

2034 is sixteen years in front of us.  Suddenly, that doesn't seem like a long time.

Proposition 70 -- More California electoral entertainment

Oh, for the good old days of high school civics class, where we learned how democracy is the best form of government.  "Best" because people are entitled to govern themselves through free and fair elections in which decisions are made by a straight-forward majority vote -- one-half of the total vote, plus at least one additional vote, determines the outcome of the election.  The majority rules, not the minority.

Oddly and -- to me, at least -- inexplicably, the majority sometimes lets itself get duped into giving up majority rule in favor of rule by the few.  Proposition 70 on California's June ballot tries to make that happen once again.

If this proposition passes -- ironically, it can be passed with a simple majority vote -- then beginning in 2024 the state's revenue generated by its cap-and-trade program can be spent only with a 2/3 majority vote in the state legislature.  Cap-and-trade is California's program for discouraging business and industry from producing the carbon pollution that fouls the environment, damages peoples' health and contributes to global warming.  The program's revenues are to be spent in ways that mitigate the harm caused by this pollution.

Passage of Proposition 70 would amount to institutionalizing minority rule.  That's a recipe for gridlock and opaqueness in governance.  As it creates conditions that can empower and enrich the minority, it never ends well for the majority.

California has tried this type of minority rule before, with consistently poor results.  It used to take a 2/3 vote in the legislature to pass the annual state budget.  Unsurprisingly, the legislature was chronically late in producing a budget.  The passage of Proposition 25 in the 2010 election returned the process to a simple majority vote; since then, the state's budgets have been timely.

Compounding Proposition 70's ethical failure in promoting minority rule, and in the way it hopes that voters' memories are faulty, is the fact that it imposes itself on the state's governance not now, but six years in the future. 

Let's be real about this -- do we know what is going to be happening six years from now so accurately that we can be comfortable that the state's needs can be met in a timely fashion with this kind of legislative restriction?  We are living in a time where planning a lunch meeting for next week can seem like a strategic undertaking, so, no, I am not comfortable with that kind of restriction.

Democracy through simple majority vote instead of minority rule is of great value to me.  (I had good civics teachers in high school.)  Timeliness in the allocation of state government resources to help fix the problems of environmental pollution and global warming caused by carbon release is critical support for creating a healthy living environment in California.

These are the reasons to vote "No" on California's Proposition 70. 

The drawbacks of minority rule are by themselves enough reason to oppose this proposition, or any similar attempt to cripple the democratic process, whether it happens in California or somewhere else.

If you live in another state, or another country, and you see something like this happening in your election, then take heed of my advice:  Go ahead and be entertained by California's electoral shenanigans, but when it comes time to vote please remember my state's sorry experience with minority rule, and how that type of rule corrupts the fundamentals of democracy by minimizing the will of the majority.

California voter guide supports Hoosier view that state is weird

Appearing below is one more contribution to LeftWingCapitalist from my good friend Guy Heston.  With wit and empathy, Guy is a keen observer of the human condition.  I hope you enjoy his article on California's election eccentricities.

Our friend Michael from the great state of Indiana visited us here in California recently. While discussing world affairs over breakfast coffee he informed us that many Hoosiers (who after all elected the ultra conservative and now Vice President Mike Pence as their state’s governor) view California as some sort of strange planet where heaven knows what goes on—a truly foreign republic right out of Star Wars.

I must confess in some ways I can’t fault the more conservative Hoosiers. Let’s face it, and I say this as a native of The Golden State, California can be a bit out there. Just take a look at our recently released voter guide for the upcoming California primary election.

We have 27 candidates for governor. I am not kidding. There are the usual candidates, including the current lieutenant governor, the state treasurer, a state assemblyman, a self-described taxpayer advocate who is not surprisingly a Republican, and a self-described public policy advisor, which is California election talk for a Democratic politician who has been termed out from his previous spot. But that is just the beginning of our out there election fun.

Also among the gubernatorial candidates is a puppeteer, a virtual reality manager and a marketplace minister. I do know what a puppeteer does but must confess the other occupations are a bit of a mystery to me.

Moving down the ballot, the race for lieutenant governor is boring by comparison, with the candidates list including an attorney, economist, entrepreneur and retired business owner. And the race for Secretary of State gets even more boring as the incumbent is widely considered a shoe-in. He has not been challenged by a virtual reality manager.

Next we have the race for California Senator, which is where the best fun is found. Here we have 32 candidates, including long time incumbent Sen. Dianne Feinstein. To win she is going to have to beat a paratransit operator, a bus driver, a constitutional solutions advocate, a wireless safety advocate and 27 other Californians. Having worked in public transit I have the highest respect for paratransit operators and bus drivers. And do you know anyone who is not a wireless safety advocate? I’m not quite sure about what the job description of a constitutional solutions advocate includes but confess it sounds intriguing.

In our California Official Voter Information Guide, each candidate for statewide office has the opportunity to submit a statement of qualifications, so with this great number of candidates you can appreciate why the guide has the heft of an old-fashioned phone book. The statements of previously elected officials are run of the mill, although this time I didn’t spot anyone referencing motherhood and apple pie. But the statements of what might be called fringe candidates make for great reading. One candidate for U.S. Senator is running on a platform of nullifying the 2016 presidential election. I’m not even going to go there. Another wants to get the government out of our wallets, although he doesn’t specify how he would propose to pay for police, fire and all that.

But far and away the best statements of qualifications come from the candidates for governor. One candidate’s platform consists primarily of teaching your children calculus. Who could argue with that unless your child is an artist. And my personal favorite is from a candidate whose platform consists of two words, “Why not!” I honestly can’t say why not. Maybe he’s on to something.

Yes, California can be a bit strange, yet we are once again the world’s 5th largest economy that provides you with so many goodies like Google, Apple, Hollywood, and all that Walmart stuff that comes through our ports. So come on, Indiana, what’s not to like? Like you we are just one of the 50 states doing our best, even if a bit weirdly from time to time. And by the way, I’ve been to Indiana and like it!

Now is the time to punish Putin for messing with U.S. elections. It's not happening, and that's only part of the problem.

 . . .government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.  -- Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address.

Some dance to remember, some dance to forget -  -- Eagles, "Hotel California."

43rd president George W. Bush never caused me to doubt his commitment to democracy, even as his policies and actions gave me heartburn.  His single-minded pursuit of "regime change" made for poor policy and, eventually, disastrous consequences -- for both the United States and Iraq as it fueled continuing suffering for millions of Iraqis, provided a fertile environment for the growth of al Queda, Islamic State and their fellow-travelers, and enabled the westward expansion of Iranian state influence -- because successful democratic institutions are the product of indigenous demand, not foreign imposition.

Despite poorly-conceived  and faulty actions, Bush understood the value of protecting and promoting democracy world-wide.

All presidents have their failings.  But, like the 43rd, every other president since the time of World War II has confronted an assault on democracy with actions to protect, and then to promote, democratic institutions and values.  Abraham Lincoln might have been a few decades ahead of his time with his national vision, but his modern-era successors have consistently acted to protect and promote that vision.

Until now.

The president of the United States is Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief.  The world's economic order -- based on stability in trade rules, laws and democratic values -- is in large part the product of those two roles being used effectively to protect, promote and defend democracy.  The rules-based international order championed by the global alliance of democratic nations, with the United States as its leader, has been the foundation for prosperity.

Alarmed by this success, democracy and international stability are under attack by those whose power would ultimately be undone by further expansion of democratic governance.  Russia's president Vladimir Putin is the leader of this pack.

Autocratic rule is making gains in nations that are populous, prominent, powerful and growing:  Russia, China, Turkey, Philippines, Poland, Egypt and others.  Official, state-sponsored Russian undercover operations have acted to interfere in, and influence the outcome of, American elections in 2016 and 2018; United States intelligence agencies are unanimous in this conclusion.  Special Counsel Mueller's investigations have indicted 13 Russian individuals and three Russian organizations for illegal election tampering.  British law enforcement and intelligence agencies have openly stated their investigative conclusions that Russian covert activities have conducted assassinations on U.K. soil.  European governments are recognizing the same tampering in their elections and working to counteract it.

The measure of the success of this interference is the growth in popular distrust of democratic governing institutions in the targeted nations.  Distrust yields chaotic and inconsistent governance.  This feeds Putin's narrative of hostility to western democratic institutions and supports his confrontational posture against what he describes as western (especially American) persecution of Russian values and national integrity.

If history is any guide -- and we know that it is -- we expect the American Commander-in-Chief to act to punish outside interference in U.S. elections.  We expect the American Chief Executive to publicly and energetically support an American ally in its efforts to counter state-sponsored murder within its own borders.  We expect the Chief Executive to offer up loudest praise first to democratic governing successes, and only later express measured and subdued recognition of those achievements that can be attributed to autocratic governing regimes.

Instead, we have a Commander-in-Chief who does not coordinate the considerable resources at his command to administer proportional punishment, and a Chief Executive who is lukewarm and unreliable in supporting democratic allies, and fulsome in praising governing autocrats, prominently including Putin.

Political policy and practice that praises autocrats -- especially when done in preference over a vigorous defense of democracy -- ends up being a grueling dance that does not end well for those with democratic values.  The British experience with Germany's Hitler, the American experiences with Central American and South Vietnamese autocrats (a long-running case of the ". . .he may be a son-of-a-bitch, but at least he's our son-of-a-bitch. . ." syndrome) provide graphic and lasting evidence of how dancing with the wrong partner ends poorly.

We have a president who dances with autocrats, and forgets how that dance always ends.  We have a president who has forgotten -- or does not understand -- that any successful international alliance requires leadership that is reliable, visible and consistent.

If the question Who will defend democracy? had been asked in the past, the clear and immediate answer would always have been The United States of America. 

The answer to that question is no longer so clear, nor is it timely.

We have never seen anything like this before.

The sooner that this ends, the better that it will be for all.

Read at your own risk -- you could be exposed to treasonous thoughts (according to Trump)

President Donald Trump apparently thinks that Congressional Democrats who didn't stand and applaud for him during his first State of the Union Speech are treasonous.  That's what he said during a public appearance in Cincinnati, Ohio.

That has the sound of autocracy, not democracy.

For the record, and in full disclosure:  I wouldn't have stood and applauded for him, either.  My guess is that must make me treasonous, too, in his mind.

Speaking officially for the White House, Sarah Sanders -- apparently in one of her more entertaining and effervescent moods -- provided follow-up and spin in response to justifiably astonished outrage by saying, in effect:  What's wrong with you people?  Can't you take a joke?  Besides, the president didn't actually call anybody treasonous; he just mentioned that somebody else brought it up.

So, we are supposed to believe that Trump was just having some fun?  He was joshin' us?  Having failed to create a spirit of working bipartisanship and unity through his previous sober and measured pronouncements (perhaps in his mind, at least), he is now going to accomplish this through humor?

Let's take a look at what Trump said about the Democrats in attendance during his first SOTU; he started by saying

"They were like death and un-American.  Un-American."

That doesn't sound like the beginning of a joke.  (How is "like death" funny?)  Most Americans, I imagine, would take issue with being called "un-American."  (I do.)  Let's see if it got any better after the beginning (that sometimes happens with jokes).

"Somebody said 'treasonous.'  I mean, Yeah, I guess, why not? Can we call that treason?  Why not?"

No improvement there.  Maybe it's a setup for the punch line.  Sure enough, the punch line came next:

"I mean they certainly didn't seem to love our country that much."

Wow, rim shot, right?

Nope, what Trump said doesn't make it as a joke.  Especially not if he was just repeating what "somebody" said because that makes him look uncertain and weak, not funny.

Unless. . .well, maybe Ms. Sanders was referring to Trump's own insistence that he is constantly misunderstood (at least by Democrats, the majority of the media, most American, most Britons, most Europeans, most Mexicans, most women, most Muslims, most . . .) and his statements should always be looked at as jokes, or at least we should consider them to be jokes first until somebody in the White House waves some sort of flag that says "Not a Joke."

If that's the case, then Trump could have spiced up his State of the Union speech with a selection from what must be a massive joke repertoire.

For example, he could have led with a barn-burner like "Isn't it great to be hearing about the state of the union from a president who was actually born in the United States instead of from Obama my predecessor who wasn't?  Born in the U.S., that is.  Born."  (With his natural sense of timing, he would probably repeat some of the joke's words for greater effect.)  Yes, absurdity sometimes makes for a really good joke, and you just can't beat something like that one for absurdity.  "American carnage" might come close, but he would have to really massage that one to make it into a giggler.

Or he could have slipped in an unexpected short quickie for a big laugh.  Something like "beautiful, clean coal."  That would really bring the house down.  (Oh, I see he tried it; didn't get a lot of laughs, did it?  Well, maybe he has better luck next time.)

Perhaps a try at self-deprecating humor?  Americans really like that in their elected leaders.  If he had dug up one of those about how Hillary polled millions more votes than he did -- saying something like "great, really great, really honest and valid votes!  But I won anyway!" -- he could have scored some points on that complaint of his about being misunderstood. 

Or maybe a little poke at the recently-enacted income tax legislation, something like "I really wanted really huge tax changes that would make the rich and powerful like me pay more, but Congress slipped everything past me so that didn't happen, even though I'm a really stable genius!  Gee, I guess that one's on me." 

Having said that, Trump would have been on quite the roll, and -- if history is any guide, and it usually is -- he might have ad-libbed some sort of flub, something like "But you know what's hugely super?  I don't have to worry about that tax audit any more since the IRS is loyal to me.  To me!  Loyal!"

Unfortunately, the truth of it is that Donald Trump is unique among modern presidents for his absence of public displays of humor of all styles.  We have to take his words seriously, even when they seem outlandish, uninformed or just flat-out incorrect.

Whether one likes it or not, Trump is the president.  His words -- spoken and written -- must be taken seriously.

But a little public humor -- respectful and without malice -- would help him to do a good job of being president.

Unfortunately, I do not think he is up to that challenge.

Public humor does not come easily to those who exploit the privileges conveyed upon them by the good fortune of being rich and powerful.  It's happened before, during America's Gilded Age (the First Gilded Age?) of the late 19th century.  It was a time of official preference for the privileged elitism of wealth, and for limited regulation of the power of big businesses.  Many of the rich and powerful of the Gilded Age knew of little reason for public humor, and certainly not for humor of the self-deprecating variety, if only because it did not serve to further their goals of accumulating additional wealth and power.

However, there was humor at their expense.  Some of the best came from Samuel Clemens.

American author, humorist, social observer and man-about-the-world Samuel Clemens -- perhaps better known as Mark Twain -- was intelligently critical of the rich and powerful of the Gilded Age.  The term "Gilded Age" was first used as the title of an 1873 book co-authored by Clemens.  As he traveled widely outside the borders of his native land he was noted for representing the American population as one where the humility, decency and common sense of the great majority would eventually prevail over the greed and self-interest of those among the rich and powerful who sought to selfishly exploit the nation's resources, human and natural, by using the privileges of their positions.

Writing about him shortly after his death, George Ade -- the American columnist, author and playwright of the early 20th century -- published his essay in the December 1910 issue of Century Magazine in which he said, in part:

. . .Mark Twain was probably the best of our emissaries.  He never waved the starry banner and at the same time he never went around begging forgiveness. . .

There was no spectacle of a State of the Union speech during Clemens' time.  However, if "(waving) a starry banner" can be equated to standing and applauding and cheering for such a speech nowadays -- and I believe it can -- then I am confident that Mark Twain, if present during such an affair, would remain firmly rooted to his chair for its duration, and would never beg forgiveness for doing so.

Would that make him "treasonous" in Trump's eyes?  Apparently so.

Does the Trump presidency -- champion of much lower taxes for the very wealthy and powerful business interests; champion of increasing the power of those already powerful through regulatory laxity; apologist-in-chief for these actions by saying they are to be excused with the rationalization of a dribble-down benefit to all others -- intend for the United States to enter a new Gilded Age?  I think so.

Does Donald Trump, as president of the United States, seem to equate disagreement with his ideas and policies as treasonous?  Based on his own remarks, that looks to be the case.

Does Trump think that public criticism of him, whether from the media or elsewhere, should be abridged and curtailed?  Since he has repeatedly spoken about changing "libel laws" so that he can sue those who criticize him, once again the answer has to be "yes."

Trump needs to be reminded that equating disagreement with a leader with treason is something that happens in monarchies and dictatorships.  Such behavior is not part of a democracy.

I think that Mark Twain would say the same thing.