Daniel Phillips, Black Hebrew Israelites Bear Blame for Friday’s Confrontation with Catholic Students

It seems that whenever there is a clash with ethnic overtones, and some young men sporting red MAGA hats are involved, the knee jerk reaction is to blame the youth in MAGA garb. So automatic this reaction has become, that the original impression (Trump supporters are all evil, racist, violent and ignorant) lingers long after more evidence surfaces demonstrating blame belongs to numerous parties. 

Let’s take this incident that happened in front of the Lincoln Memorial on Friday, during the March for Life Event. With so many people gathered already for political activism, the event attracted fringe elements of society attempting to publicize their agenda. One such group was the Black Hebrew Israelites. 

The Black Hebrew Israelites stood at the base of the steps, spewing racist, offensive hate. Their goal was to spark confrontation, at which they succeeded several times. 

Eventually, the Black Hebrew Israelites began an offensive roll of insults against the Catholic Church. At this point, the group begins to attract the attention of male students from Covington Catholic High School, many of whom happen to be wearing red MAGA hats.

The Black Hebrew Israelites then spews hate and insults directly at the students. The initial reaction was for the students to leave. Over the next twenty to twenty-five minutes, as the group continues to spew hatred, little by little, the student gather on the steps in back of and to the right of the group, keeping a distance of several yards.  (Some have reported that the students were waiting for buses.)

As the speakers begin to notice the growth in students in their audience, they target the students directly for an offensive tirade. The students respond by drowning out the speakers with sports cheers and chants. As the adrenaline flows, one attention-grabbing student runs to the front of his friends, and strips his shirt off as his friends scream in support. The boy then leads the groups in what appears to be a tribal-like cheer (the Haka?) that many sports teams have adopted as a show of intimidation. The crowd howls its approval. 

The crowd continues with a more popular and recognizable sports chant. It was at this point that Daniel Phillips, an activist for indigenous people’s rights, decided to intervene. Beating a rhythmic pattern on a hand-held drum, engaging in a chant, Phillips marched directly toward and then into the crowd of students. Phillips later stated he approached the students, and not the Black Hebrew Israelites, because the group of students was much larger and mostly white. 

As Phillips approached the students, they gave no ground. Phillips walked straight towards one student, who smirked, but who did not move as Phillips banged the drum in his face. The rest of the students reacted by chanting as well, and then clapping in time with the drum. 

The chant devolved into a chant made famous by the Florida State Seminoles, and popular for other teams with Native American mascots: The Chop. This includes the Atlanta Braves, where Deion Sanders brought the chant after attending FSU.

Certainly, this is not Christian behavior, and deserves a talk from Christian Youth leaders on how to respond to such aggressive behavior by others in a way that is consistent with Christian values and beliefs. But the worst thing the students did was to use sports chants popular with teams that have Native American mascots. The students were not the aggressors. 

Daniel Phillips must shoulder some blame for being unduly aggressive. He has himself admitted that he chose to talk toward and into the group of students because they were a larger group and mostly white. Absent from his analysis was the provocations consistently made by the Black Hebrew Israelites. The group had been spewing hatred aimed at numerous ethnicities, and religious groups. Yet, in the reporting, almost any recognition of this offense behavior, let alone condemnation of the group, is absent. For the mainstream press, it is enough that there was a confrontation and white kids involved wearing MAGA hats. Obviously, the Trump supporters must be to blame. 

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

Note:  I used to consider myself a Republican until Trump won the nomination in 2016. I am no supporter of Trump, or of the Republican Party, which appears to be full of nothing but sycophants. Nonetheless, I refuse to jump on a popular band wagon when a full analysis of the facts points in a different direction. The true problem with modern American journalism, I believe, is laziness. Just report the same line you were programmed to believe over and over. I pray greater objectivity comes back to American press soon.

Can Trump Declare a National Emergency to Build His Wall? The Answer Is a Little More Complicated than Trump Would Like You to Believe.

It has been about three weeks since President Trump refused to sign legislation that funded the government, but did not appropriate money for his border wall, causing a partial government shutdown. With 800,000 government employees poised to miss their first paycheck since the shutdown, Trump addressed the country on prime time TV to make his case for the wall.  The day after the televised statement, Trump met with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to discuss the possibility of re-opening the government.  According to Schumer, Trump pounded on a table and stormed out the room complaining that the meeting was a waste of his time when Pelosi made it clear she would not support Trump’s wall.  Schumer has referred to Trump’s behavior as rule by temper tantrum.

This week, a small number of House Republicans joined House Democrats in voting for a continuing resolution which would have re-opened the government without providing funds for the wall.  The support from House Republicans possibly signals growing pressure to end the shutdown and re-open the government.  In response, Trump has stepped up his talk of declaring a national emergency in order to fund the construction of the wall without congressional approval.  Trump has said multiple times that the law is 100% behind him in declaring the national emergency.

While the President may want the public to think that this is a simple question, under U.S. law, this is really two questions.  The answer to one may be simple.  The answer to the other may not.

The first question is whether the President has the authority to declare a national emergency.  In answering this question, it is important to keep in mind that the Constitution does not mention emergency powers of the President.  This means that the President would not have the unilateral authority to claim broader authority than those specifically granted through the Constitution unless Congress has acted. 

In this regard, through the National Emergencies Act of 1976, Congress granted the President the authority to declare a national emergency through a proclamation published in the Federal Registry. Thus, the answer to the first question is indeed simple.  Yes, the President may declare a national emergency.

But the President cannot claim unlimited powers through the declaration of a national emergency.  That is, he cannot use the declaration of a national emergency as a carte blanche power grab.  To the contrary, the powers available to the President are limited. To define the breadth of presidential emergency powers, it is again necessary to look to congressional action.

The National Emergencies Act of 1976 does not itself grant emergency powers to the President  Congress has passed numerous laws granting the President specific powers usable during a period of national emergency.  The National Emergencies Act was meant to define how the President may invoke the emergency powers granted by other statutes.

Before the President can use any emergency power granted by statute, the President must state the specific power to be used.  He can do this either through the original Proclamation, or through a subsequent Executive Order published in the Federal Register.

Determining whether the President may use the declaration of a national emergency specifically to build a border wall requires an analysis of numerous statues.  So far, in his public comments concerning the wall, Trump has identified the existence of construction projects that were included in the budget, but for which funds have not been spent or encumbered.

This points to two specific statutes Trump may be planning to invoke to fund his wall.  The first permits the reallocation of funds appropriated for military construction projects that have not yet been obligated:

In the event of a declaration of war or the declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act that requires use of the armed forces, the Secretary of Defense, without regard to any other provision of law, may undertake military construction projects, and may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to undertake military construction projects, not otherwise authorized by law that are necessary to support such use of the armed forces. Such projects may be undertaken only within the total amount of funds that have been appropriated for military construction, including funds appropriated for family housing, that have not been obligated.

10 U.S.C. 2808.

The second permits the termination of an Army civil works project that is not essential for national and use the funds for Army civil works projects that are essential for national defense:

In the event of a declaration of war or a declaration by the President of a national emergency in accordance with the National Emergencies Act that requires or may require use of the Armed Forces, the Secretary, without regard to any other provision of law, may (1) terminate or defer the construction, operation, maintenance, or repair of any Department of the Army civil works project that he deems not essential to the national defense, and (2) apply the resources of the Department of the Army’s civil works program, including funds, personnel, and equipment, to construct or assist in the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of authorized civil works, military construction, and civil defense projects that are essential to the national defense.

33 U.S.C. 2293.

The question that remains in the application of these statutes is whether the border wall is for the use of the armed forces, or is essential for national defense.

These are questions that are likely to be addressed through litigation should Trump invoke emergency powers to fund the building of the wall.  One hurdle to those who may challenge Trump’s actions is whether a federal court will even intervene to decide the issue.

There are times when a court has jurisdiction over a case, but nonetheless decides that it is not appropriate to issue an opinion.  This is called the doctrine of justiciability.  One such circumstance where a court may find a case non-justiciable is the political question doctrine.

The political question doctrine springs from the idea that courts may decide issues of law, but are not an appropriate forum for political issues.  The courts may find an issue non-justiciable as a political question, for example, when a matter is explicitly assigned to a particular branch of government through the Constitution,  The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to declare war.  As a result, courts are not likely to review such a declaration of war.

The political question doctrine may be invoked where the court could not resolve an issue without expressing a lack of respect for a coordinate branch of government, where it is impossible for a court to devise a manageable standard to resolve the issue, where the resolution of the issue first requires a policy decision that is beyond the discretion of the court, and whether there is a possibility of embarassment that varying policy decisions would be made by different branches of government.

This is not to say that the courts will never question the President’s use of an emergency power.  To the contrary, in 1952 the U.S. Supreme Court addressed President Truman’s attempt to seize U.S. steel mills during a strike in order to provide a steady supply of steel for military use during the prosecution of the Korean War and found the action to be unconstitutional.  Youngtown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

Concerning the merits of whether a national emergency exists, a federal court is likely to find that issue to be a non-justiciable political question.  One main reason is that Congress provided no criteria for determining when such an emergency exists.  In this circumstance, courts are likely to be uncomfortable to define the criteria that creates an emergency whole cloth, without further guidance from Congress.  Indeed, the lack of a definition of criteria could very well be intentional to allow the President flexibility in responding to a complicated situation that may need immediate action.

On whether the actual exercise of the power invoked is appropriate presents a different type of question.  Under either statute, appropriated but unspent construction funds cannot be reallocated for just any question.  They must be appropriated for a project necessary for national defense or for the use of the military.

The main intended purpose of the wall is to stem the entry of aliens into the United States who lack legal authority to come in.  That is an immigration issue.  The President has mentioned the need to stem the inflow of illegal drugs.  That is a criminal justice purpose.  The President has variously claimed that there is an imminent threat of the entry of known terrorists.  However, statistic undercut this argument.  Only a handful of known terrorists have been apprehending in recent years attempting to cross the southern border legally.  Thus, whether the wall is essential to national defense appears to be a question a court can decide with clear standards and without causing undue embarrassment to the coordinate branches of government.

Likewise, a court could easily determine which governmental department will use the wall.  The U.S. military is prohibited from enforcing domestic criminal law.  The military is not charged with enforcing immigration law.  That job falls to the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department.  Thus, again, the question may not be considered a political one.

Trump is correct that the law is behind him if he were to declare a national emergency concerning the inflow of undocumented aliens over the southern border.  But that does not mean that the specific invocation of powers would be an easy question.  To the contrary, the appropriation of funds for a border wall by reallocating budgeted but unspent funds for construction projects will likely spark complicated litigation.

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.

Trump’s Narcissistic Need to be the Expert is Troubling for the Country as a Whole

Admittedly, I am no psychologist. I can’t diagnose psychological disorders, and I would not try. As I discuss narcissism in this writing, I do not do so as an official psychological term. I am merely discussing a personality characteristic that appears to plague our current President. 

With that being said, let’s talk about narcissism. Narcissism is essentially an extreme form of self-love. It’s more than just a case of healthy self-esteem.  It’s a case of thinking so highly of one’s self that it interferes with other personal relationships. 

One aspect of narcissism that is particularly troubling is the need to feel like the expert on all subjects. It interferes in a person’s ability to analyze a problem properly, to take advice from someone who actually is an expert in the field, and to decide on a proper course of action. In this sense, narcissism can also cause a person to assign blame for a problem inappropriately. 

This is one of the problems narcissism has caused for President Trump. Often, when addressing a serious problem, Trump must feel like the expert. In doing so, he interjects criticism that is unwarranted, and suggests courses of action that can be downright inane. 

Retired Admiral William H. McRaven, who was the commander in charge of the Navy SEAL raid that executed Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, has been critical of Trump, particularly over Trump’s willingness to use security clearances as a weapon against those who oppose him. When Trump revoked the security clearance of former CIA Director William Brennan, McRaven accused Trump of engaging in a McCarthy-like witch hunt. 

McRaven continued his criticism of Trump over the weekend, this time focusing on Trump’s abusive relationship with the press. A prime example of that being when the White House revoked the press pass of CNN correspondent Jim Acosta, without giving Acosta warning or an opportunity to defend himself. It was a move that caused US District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, to issue injunctive relief to CNN and Acosta by ordering the reinstatement of the press pass. McRaven warned that Trump’s treatment of the press threatened the Constitution. 

Because a narcissist can not tolerate criticism, Trump lashed out against McRaven. Aside from accusing McRaven of being a supporter of Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama, Trump tweeted that the United States should have gotten bin Laden long before the Navy SEAL raid. Trump even noted that in one of his books, he criticized President Bill Clinton for not addressing Osama bin Laden during Clinton’s term, when Sudan allegedly offered custody of bin Laden to the United States. 

But Trump is no expert in military tactics or anti-terrorism. Trump never served in the US military. He has never been involved in planning a military operation. When he attended a private military academy, he was criticized for the self-centered way in which he treated the cadets under his leadership. Indeed, Trump has yet even to visit American troops since becoming Commander-in-Chief. He has no knowledge or experience to formulate intelligent criticism of the timing or implementation of the military raid that led to bin Laden’s death. 

About one week earlier, Trump similarly felt the need to weigh in on an important subject of which he had no knowledge. In now infamous tweets occurring on November 10th and 11th, Trump blamed the destructive fires in California on gross forestry mismanagement. It was a move that drew criticism from firefighters and California’s leaders alike. Specifically, the heads of firefighting unions and associations chastised the President for being insensitive to the feelings of the firefighters on the ground and the people who had lost their homes.

Yet, Trump continued with his theme of forestry mismanagement when he visited California over the weekend. Trump claimed that he had spoken with Finland’s President, Sauli Niinisto, about Finland’s national forest. Specifically, Trump recalled speaking to Niinisto about how the Fins regularly rake the forest floor as an effective means of fire prevention. Niinisto, however, replied by publicly stating that he had no recollection of ever talking to Trump about raking. 

Once again, due to his narcissistic leanings, Trump felt the need to be perceived as an expert.  He needed to show that he knew better than the people on the ground handling the situation. 

This narcissistic need to be the expert creates practical problems for Trump, his Administration and the country as a whole. First, it makes Trump less willing to seek and follow the advice of people who have more knowledge than he does on a specific subject. Why listen to climate change experts, for example, when raking can just solve the problem. Second, it demoralizes the very people the country needs to address complex problems. The Navy SEALS who raised bin Laden’s headquarters have a reason to be proud that their work as they very likely saved lives by preventing future terrorist attacks. They do not need to hear the current Commander-in-Chief chiming in on his displeasure of the timing of the action years after bin Laden has been dead. Likewise, firefighters do not need to hear their President’s criticism of the cause and extent of the fires, when Trump has no training or experience in firefighting or forest management. Finally, by pretending to be an expert, and assigning blame without a true understanding of the situation, Trump could make inadvisable personnel decisions, firing those who are true experts in favor of those who accept Trump’s personal assessment without question. This can only lead to poor policy choices. 

A true leader understands that he or she is not an expert in everything.  He or she understands the importance of getting advice from people with the appropriate training, knowledge and experience. Decisions based on a narcissistic need to feel like the expert do not serve the country well. 

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

Due Process Prevails; Jim Acosta’s Press Pass Reinstated

In a victory for the principle of Due Process, US District Court Judge Timothy Kelly granted injunctive relief to CNN and its White House correspondent Jim Acosta requiring the White House to re-issue Acosta’s press pass immediately. The White House revoked the press pass last week, after a contentious exchange between Acosta and President Trump, where Acosta pressed the President for answers concerning the so-called caravan of migrants, mostly from Honduras, traveling on foot through Mexico to the US border. 

Publicly, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders justified the action, tweeting a video she claimed showed Acosta had assaulted a young intern who was attempting to retrieve a microphone from Acosta. The video itself was a clip originating from Alex Jones’ Infowars organization that many claimed had been doctored. 

Judge Kelly noted that once the White House had opened its grounds to Acosta by issuing the press pass, he had a First Amendment right to access. The White House could not arbitrarily revoke that right without giving Acosta Due Process of Law. Judge Kelly noted that the Department of Justice attorneys arguing the case could even not tell  him who in the White House made the decision to revoke Acosta’s credentials. The Judge also noted that the justification posited by the White House that Acosta had touched an intern inappropriately was likely untrue and that the evidence upon which this claim was based was of questionable accuracy. 

The President responded to the ruling claiming that this was about decorum. He stated that he intended to write rules and regulations over reporter behavior at press conferences. 

Such rules would begin to address the Due Process concerns over arbitrary revocation of press credentials. Due Process requires at a minimum notice of the Government’s reasons for taking away a right, and an opportunity to be heard. Any new procedure should, at the least, include a way to challenge White House action, and appeal it. 

But rules and regulations on press behavior can lead the White House to further issues. Any White House action must be neutral to the viewpoint of the reporter in question. That is, the President cannot revoke a press pass simply because he does not like the questions or leanings of the reporter in question. Whether a reporter is legitimately being rude or lacking in decorum, then, would depend on whether Trump was simply using the argument as pretext to punish a reporter who aggressively questions him on a topic the President wants to avoid. That is, the President could not punish a reporter who used follow up questions to prevent the President from answering in incomplete or misleading answers. The President also cannot define rudeness as failing to emphasize news the President perceives to be beneficial to him. 

Today’s decision, while not a final decision in CNN’s lawsuit against Trump, nonetheless is a victory to those who wish to reign in Trump’s authoritarian tendencies by countering his ability to make arbitrary and capricious decisions without adhering to proper legal processes. It is a victory for limited government. 

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

Jim Acosta Deserves Due Process

Due Process of Law is a bedrock principle of the US Constitution. No one can be deprived of life, liberty or property without Due Process of Law. It is a principle that applies to the Federal Government through the Fifth Amendment, and to the State Governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. 

The concept of Due Process is actually fairly simple at its core. If the Government wants to take away a person’s right, whether it be property or a federal benefit, the Government must give notice of its intent to do so. The notice must sufficiently disclose the Government’s reasons. The person must be given a meaningful opportunity to defending his or her right. The Government must give the person a fair hearing. 

Due Process is messy. It’s inefficient. Due Process causes delay. That is by design. That is because a democracy is not supposed to do the most expedient thing; it is supposed to do the right thing. Thus, while it may be expedient to trample on the rights of a minority class for the benefit of the majority, Due Process prevents that from happening unless the Government has a darn good reason. To put simply, minority rights are protected against pure majority rule. 

And this is what frustrates President Trump time and time again in the manner that he runs the Federal Government. Trump wants things done his way, right away, no questions asked. To tell him he can’t do things his way is a mark of personal disloyalty, not a mark of true patriotism that values the rule of law above all else. 

Coming from the business world, Due Process is not the way Trump operates. He is used to demanding personal loyalty of his employees. He is used to winning negotiations through leverage and strength, not legal virtue. 

It should therefore come as no surprise when Trump expresses disdain for Due Process. We can’t have undocumented aliens come in the country and be given a hearing with the Immigration Courts. That will take too long. We can’t have recounts in the State of Florida. That’s just delay. We should just recognize who the winner is now and move on. 

One of the most egregious examples of Trump’s disdain for Due Process is his treatment of CNN Reporter Jim Acosta. It’s no secret that Acosta’s relentless questioning irritates Trump. He has routinely called Acosta rude and tried to evade Acosta’s questions. Last week, Trump revoked Acosta’s press pass. 

Ostensibly, the White House revoked Acosta’s press pass on the allegation that Acosta assaulted a young woman intern attempting to retrieve the microphone from Acosta. Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders even tweeted a video to back up her claim. 

The problem is that the White House acted without giving Acosta notice of its intent to revoke his credentials or an opportunity to defend himself. In short, the White House denied Acosta Due Process. 

The denial of Due Process is particularly egregious in this case. Many claim that the video Huckabee Sanders released, which happened to originate from Alex Jones’ Infowars, was doctored. Governments should never be permitted to take away a person’s right through trumped up evidence. Thus, the evidence must be tested and Acosta must be given an opportunity to attack its reliability. Jim Acosta must be given Due Process. 

Acosta and CNN have filed a lawsuit over Acosta’s press credentials. One of the allegations is the denial of Due Process in violation of the Fifth Amendment. It is a decision that the court must decide properly in order to reign in Trump’s resistance to Due Process and temper his more dangerous authoritarian tendencies. 

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

Trump’s Bullying of the Press has become Intolerable

Back in 2016, it was not unusual to log in to Facebook, and see that a friend had shared something that looked like a news story, detailing how someone who had a beef with Hillary Clinton had gone missing or committed suicide under suspicious circumstances. If you did a little detective work, like trying to Google the story, you often found that not only was the story false, but that the website that hosted it was somewhere in Bulgaria. 

Fake news. 

But in the last two decades or so, something strange had happened. New cable news channels and news sites on the web proliferated, and tended to pander to one political leaning or the other. Thus it became possible for people to chose a source of news that further supported their pre-existing world view by printing stories and editorials consistent with that view. 

If a story floating around Facebook or Twitter fit into a person’s world view, that person was more likely to believe it without checking the source, and share the story in the hope of convincing others of his or her world view. 

Secretary Clinton was a prime target for this fake news, as conspiracy theories of the so-called Arkansas mafia threatening women who claimed sexual abuse by her husband, Bill Clinton, had proliferated for years. Likewise, the suicide of Secretary Clinton’s colleague, Vince Foster, fueled belief that there was a conspiracy to cover up wrongdoing in the White Water affair. So of course to Clinton detractors news of mysterious disappearances and suicides of Clinton associates made sense.

It was in this way that fake news influenced voters in the 2016 presidential election. 

But as the term “fake news” became more popular, the definition became twisted by those who found themselves the target of unflattering news stories or critical editorial pieces. 

After the election, for example, but before Trump’s inauguration, a news story broke that a former British spy had compiled a dossier that allegedly showed that the Russian Government had compromising information on the President-Elect; the so-called Steele Dossier. Many of the allegations were salacious, and at the time there was no corroboration of many of the allegations. At a press conference after the story broke, Trump refused to take questions from CNN, calling the network “fake news” for publishing accounts of the Steele Dossier. 

Trump then expanded the term to include stories with anonymous sources that were allegedly leaks from the White House staff. Eventually, Trump applied to term to any news story that he disliked, that portrayed him in a negative manner, or that failed to discuss news Trump believed reflected well on him, such as the economy. To Trump, fake news was not just false stories created out of whole cloth. It was any story that he believed reflected poorly on him. 

It became a common term in his war against the press. Fake news became the enemy of the people.  Reporters who did not buy the official White House line, and who insisted on following up with tough questions at press conferences were deemed rude. Women reporters with tough questions were ridiculed. 

As Trump became more belligerent with the press, his sycophantic fans attending his political rallies followed. Members of the press were shouted down at Trump rallies. If a person confronted a Trump fan with news sources showing that their memes and outlandish claims were wrong, the inevitable response was, “Well, you must have got that from CNN.  That’s fake news.” Thus the moniker fake news permitted Trump fans to ignore facts, avoid the cognitive dissonance of seeing that their beliefs were wrong, and attack the purveyors of news stories critical of their President. 

But Trump’s war against the press has taken a startling new twist. In a post mid-term election press conference, White House pool reporter Jim Acosta, as is his routine, asked tough questions of the President and had tough follow-up questions. Trump’s response was to order that the microphone be taken from Acosta. An intern grabbed for the microphone, and Acosta resisted, continuing with his tough line of questions. When Acosta eventually relinquished the microphone, Trump called him rude and said CNN should be ashamed for hiring him. 

For supporters of the free press, this exchange was bad enough. Here was the President avoiding the tough questions could reflect badly on him. He picked a fight with a reporter who had refused to kowtow to his bullying. 

But what happened the next day was utterly shocking. The White House had revoked Acosta’s press credentials. Worse, to justify this action, the White House released video of the press conference claiming it showed that Acosta had assaulted the intern who tried to take away him microphone. Almost immediately, news sources demonstrated how the video had been doctored to speed up the exchange and make it appear as though Acosta had reacted to the intern with a Karate-chop. 

Warring against the free press with harsh rhetoric is one thing. But to exclude a reporter, who has been critical of the President and willing to follow up with tough questions countering the official White House line, based on doctored evidence is intolerable. It is the action of a bully, a man whose autocratic tendencies prohibit him from receiving criticism, a man who believes he is entitled to positive press coverage. 

The American people should not let this stand. They cannot permit Trump to expand the definition of fake news to such an extend that the guarantee of a free press in the First Amendment of the Constitution becomes meaningless. They cannot allow a President to single out for punishment a reporter trying to hold that President accountable. 

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr. 

Mid-Term House Results Highlight Decline in Republican Voter Base

Desiring to place a positive spin on the outcome of the 2018 mid-term elections, President Trump will most assuredly emphasize Republican gains in the Senate. Despite a pick-up of five seats (as projected at the time I write this) for a 56 seat majority, however, the results of the Senate races do not diminish the fact that the Republican Party is dying. 

The trend in the American electorate is more accurately demonstrated by the results of the elections for the House of Representatives. There, the Democrats, needing to pick up 23 seats to be the majority party, are projected as of the time of the writing of this to win as many as 35 seats. 

The Founding Fathers, fearing mob rule, built safe-guards into the Constitution, insulating the Government from the popular vote. Thus, the President is not directly elected by the people. Instead, the people vote for Electors, who make up the Electoral College and who in turn choose the next President. The number of Electors each state has is the sum of the number of the state’s representatives in the House and the number of the State’s senators. This results in disproportionate power being given to the voters in states with smaller populations, such as Montana and Utah, than to those in states with large populations, such as California and New York. 

Likewise, each state has two senators, regardless of whether the state has a population of 700,000 or 7 million. 

Even if a policy or presidential candidate lacks the support of the most voters nationwide, the structure of the US Constitution means that that policy or candidate can still win the day. 

Indeed, in the history of the United States, there have been five times when the candidate winning the popular vote nonetheless lost the presidency. The two most recent times occurred in 2000 and 2016 when the Republican candidate lost the popular vote but won a majority in the Electoral College. 

It should come as no coincidence that these two most recent examples involve Republican presidents. The fact is that the Republicans have seen their core supporters diminish for quite some time now. In fact, Republican Donald Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 by almost 3 million. The reason Democrat Hillary Clinton lost the Electoral College vote was due to the fact that her voters were concentrated in highly populated states where the individual vote has less power. 

Take the 2012 federal elections as an example. That year, the only group that gave Republican Mitt Romney a majority was white males. This caused a lot of soul-searching within the Republican Party, with many Republican leaders seeing a dire need to expand the appeal of the party to other demographic groups. As one effort to attract new voters, Republicans even initially supported a liberal version of immigration reform, which passed the Senate but died when Tea Party members in the House branded the bill as amnesty.  Fearful of the new-found power of the Tea Party, House Republican leaders backed away their support of immigration reform. 

The rise of the Tea Party itself serves as an example of how a group took advantage of political structures meant to counter the popular vote to gain power. When Republicans won control of the House of Representatives in 1994, after over forty years of Democratic majorities in that body, the party concentrated on protecting its power.  Republicans, led by Tom DeLay, focused on state legislature races, the state legislatures being the bodies that created congressional district maps. In a process known as gerrymandering, state legislatures controlled by Republicans drew maps that purposefully created a large number of districts where the population favored the Republicans. That is, the legislatures created safe Republican districts. While gerrymandering has been a part of American politics since the republic was formed, it had never been accomplished on so grand a scale before. The unintended consequences of this round of gerrymandering was that Republican House members now found stronger competition from more conservative candidates in the primaries than from challengers in the general election. Thus, the conservative Tea Party found themselves with power disproportionate to their actual size in the general population. Tea Party members strongly influenced the direction of the Republican Party.

While Republicans count on white makes for their support, the trend in the United States has been for white males to make up less and less of the general population. In order for Republicans to maintain popular support, Republicans needed to appeal to other demographic groups. 

However, Republicans have chosen not to broaden its appeal, but instead to attempt to counter the trend of the growing number of non-white voters. This can most easily be seen in the party’s immigration policy. While Republicans have opposed the ability of undocumented aliens to enter the country, they have also pursued policies to stem legal immigration. The Trump Administration, for example, has imposed harsher requirements on immigrants with at least a college education to qualify for a visa through the H-1B program. The Administration also seeks to impose restrictions on asylum-seekers, and wants to change the law to limit family-based immigration. If successful, the result of such policy positions will be to reduce the growth in non-whites within the US population. 

Applying these trends to the 2018 elections, Republicans picked up Senate seats in states such as North Dakota, Missouri, Florida and Indiana. These were all states that voted for Trump in 2016. Republican wins should therefore not be surprising. Indeed, of the 35 seats up for election in 2018, 26 were Democratically held. That meant going into the election, the Democrats not only had to defend all of their seats, but also pick up three of the remaining nine seats. The task of making gains in the Senate was much more difficult for Democrats. 

Gains in the House, however, are much more reflective of trends in the US population. Despite Trump’s claim to economic success, issues such as health care, the protection of women from sexual assault, harsh immigration enforcement, Russian interference in the 2016 election and the rise of racial bigotry all played a role in the Democratic victories. Indeed, the Democrats made these gains despite the aforementioned disadvantage of Republican gerrymandering. Clinging to gains in the Senate, which themselves will have no effect of the balance of power in Congress due to the fact that the Republicans already had a majority in the Senate, will do little, if anything, to enhance the long-term prospects of the Republicans. 

By contrast, a Democratically controlled House will not only thwart Trump’s agenda, but will give support to the continued investigation into Russian electoral interference headed by Robert Mueller. In sum, the results of the 2017 mid-term elections were a clear disaster for Trump and the Republican Party, and far more reflective of the hurdles Republicans face in future elections. 

By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.