Maureen Dowd Writes

Dear Glenn,

A friend sent me this refreshing article. I really do think it wiser that the US should buckle up and accept the result of the election. Policy is going to change dramatically but that is what elections are about. The latest attempt to portray Russia as being behind the leaked Hilary Clinton emails (as was also claimed concerning hacking the voting machines which has been shown to be absurd) reminds me of the efforts of the sore losers in our Referendum won by the leave campaign. In the long run such tactics by the CIA will backfire as you will have half the population never believing a word they say again. That would be a disaster for the CIA and the US as a whole.  The most amazing part of this well written piece is the fact Maureen Dowd, a very liberal  columnist from the New York Times wrote it! - David Lott

Election Therapy From My Basket of Deplorables
by Maureen Dowd

The election was a complete repudiation of Barack Obama: his fantasy world of political correctness, the politicization of the Justice Department and the I.R.S., an out-of-control E.P.A., his neutering of the military, his nonsupport of the police and his fixation on things like transgender bathrooms. Since he became president, his party has lost 63 House seats, 10 Senate seats and 14 governorships.

The country had signaled strongly in the last two midterms that they were not happy. The Dems’ answer was to give them more of the same from a person they did not like or trust.

Preaching — and pandering — with a message of inclusion, the Democrats have instead become a party where incivility and bad manners are taken for granted, rudeness is routine, religion is mocked and there is absolutely no respect for a differing opinion. This did not go down well in the Midwest, where Trump flipped three blue states and 44 electoral votes.

The rudeness reached its peak when Vice President-elect Mike Pence was booed by attendees of “Hamilton” and then pompously lectured by the cast. This may play well with the New York theater crowd but is considered boorish and unacceptable by those of us taught to respect the office of the president and vice president, if not the occupants.

Here is a short primer for the young protesters. If your preferred candidate loses, there is no need for mass hysteria, canceled midterms, safe spaces, crying rooms or group primal screams. You might understand this better if you had not received participation trophies, undeserved grades to protect your feelings or even if you had a proper understanding of civics. The Democrats are now crying that Hillary had more popular votes. That can be her participation trophy.

If any of my sons had told me they were too distraught over a national election to take an exam, I would have brought them home the next day, fearful of the instruction they were receiving. Not one of the top 50 colleges mandate one semester of Western Civilization. Maybe they should rethink that.

Mr. Trump received over 62 million votes, not all of them cast by homophobes, Islamaphobes, racists, sexists, misogynists or any other “ists.” I would caution Trump deniers that all of the crying and whining is not good preparation for the coming storm. The liberal media, both print and electronic, has lost all credibility. I am reasonably sure that none of the mainstream print media had stories prepared for a Trump victory. I watched the networks and cable stations in their midnight meltdown — embodied by Rachel Maddow explaining to viewers that they were not having a “terrible, terrible dream” and that they had not died and “gone to hell.”

The media’s criticism of Trump’s high-level picks as “not diverse enough” or “too white and male” — a day before he named two women and offered a cabinet position to an African-American — magnified this fact.

Here is a final word to my Democratic friends. The election is over. There will not be a do-over. So let me bid farewell to Al Sharpton, Ben Rhodes and the Clintons. Note to Cher, Barbra, Amy Schumer and Lena Dunham: Your plane is waiting. And to Jon Stewart, who talked about moving to another planet: Your spaceship is waiting. To Bruce Springsteen, Jay Z, Beyoncé and Katy Perry, thanks for the free concerts. And finally, to all the foreign countries that contributed to the Clinton Foundation, there will not be a payoff or a rebate.

As Eddie Murphy so eloquently stated in the movie “48 Hrs.”: “There’s a new sheriff in town.” And he is going to be here for 1,461 days. Merry Christmas.- Maureen Dowd courtesy of David Lott, an Englishman in Normandy

Comments?

From Terry in France - 

This bitter little diatribe ignores the reality of millions more votes for Clinton than Trump. 

A Current Malaise

Terry Field of England, France and now also Florida is no stranger to these pages.  He writes with energy and vehemence on occasion.  His views are wide-ranging, penetrating and sometimes upsetting. On this page, he responds to several recent articles, spars briefly with Mr. Lott, a man he greatly respects, and then takes on American journalism. Mr. Field offers a thoughtful summary of what news American journalists should be covering.  He also believes that Brexit is leading the U.K. to an export and domestic debacle. - Glenn N. Holliman

Reflections on a Current Malaise
by Terrance Field

The two articles – one by the United Kingdom Independent Party ex-leader and the other by a distinguished American journalist all refer to a current malaise, namely the relationship between truth, politics and journalism. The American article bemoans the loss of international prestige the Trump ascendancy  brings in its wake, whilst claiming the United States is changed utterly, and its journalism a ruined edifice, never to recover.

Mr Lott, basking in the cold moonlight of the undead – the fate he ascribes to himself as an old white-haired male -  bemoans the distorting mirror of Mr Snow- anchor of Channel 4 BBC News – (for you fortunate enough to have not come across the dreadful creature). The Lott article could have been written by a participant in the French Revolution – the ‘revolution betrayed’ by lilly-livered cowards, scoundrels and nee’r-do-wells. The American complains of the international shame of being an American with King Trump on the gravy trail.

This all seems a touch silly, and more than a little self-indulgent. I voted in the Brexit referendum, as did Mr Lott; as did vast numbers of others. I have no clear idea what I voted for or against, in terms of policy and detailed objectives, as I suspect the rest of the population do not – save of course the UKIPers who were clear what they wanted – but hold on, when I listen to the UKIPers they fight like ferrets in a sack about what needs to be done – so clearly they are in the dark about what it all means, as well.

The excessive gloom and self-indulgent melancholy that pours forth from the American article speaks of a cadre used to the luxurious indulgence of magisterial accurate informative and high-flown journalism that informs, educates, enlightens and entertains. All now lost as the hacks swim in a cess-pit of informational sewage courtesy of ‘The Donald’. 

Far right, Terry shares thoughts with a Pennsylvania USA investment club.

I have spent some time now in my version of Mar-a-largo, enjoying the sybaritic pleasures of the subtropical wonderland that is Sarasota, and in that time I have had cause to watch some of this high-flown journalism now lost forever. Well, I must have been somewhere else – maybe I bought the condo in Bogota, Lima, or Valpawhatsit. The journalism I have observed in the last couple of months – at least on the Telly -has been – how can I put it – BLOODY DREADFUL!

I have heard these heroic penmen write about Trump's hair, his swearing, his crotch-grabbing, his ‘conflict of interest’, his ‘tweets’ his ‘appointments’, his wife’s sales of jewelry as part of her First Lady in Waiting interview.

I go to bed with this drivel ringing in my ears, I wake, have my ‘French Toast’ in care of the local Amish store , (excellent cinnamon bread – yours for 10 dollars a loaf – Sorry – dropping into Trumplife there) put the TV on and – NO CHANGE – the same mindless, unfocused, uncritical, utterly irrelevant trivial drivel, designed to numb the mind.

I watch Fox (News), and a glassy faced super-blond with a crotch the Donald would quiver before he approaches grinds on with MORE irrelevant guff. I turn to CNN and – yes you guessed it – a slightly less perfect but still magnificent GMO-free blond grinds on about the SAME RUBBISH for the next FOUR HOURS. There are clever witty journalists – a super-sharp dark-haired wonder-woman who speaks at the speed of a gattling gun and is ‘information-dense’ – but even she uses satire and cynical asides to avoid the provision of informative, and dearly longed-for information, let alone quiet reflection.

The written journals – you know- the ones who appeal to the ‘elites’ (education plus brains plus wisdom, terrible folk, a danger to the people) like the New Yorker, the Washington Post, the NY Times, of course give good journalism a run for its money, but even they fail in the analysis department, in grappling with what is really happening in the world, and WHY it is all happening. To a man, serious journalists deal with the world through collegiate, generally socially left, ‘inclusive’ ‘liberal’ eyes. Thus for them the total unacceptability of Trump winning precluded any of them actually saying he could or would win.

I hold no candle for Trump, but the core point here is that the electorate – via the electoral colleges – voted for him. He appeared with the laurel wreath because THE PEOPLE AND THE COLLEGES WANTED IT!!!!!

Where is this fine journalism that so fails to understand this????

I have a personal take on all this – more of that later, but – being objective – the left after so abusing the people, the economy, moral values and rational social order for decades are in headlong retreat – on both sides of the ‘pond’.

Post war left liberal hegemony died a while ago – but NO serious journalists have dealt with this head-on. They regret, they deny, they dissemble, they agonize – BUT THEY DO NOT CONFRONT – and that is their over-riding failure.

The real tragedy of this fine American journalism, on the major TV networks, is that intellectual and rigorous analysis is obvious by its absence, and where a little is allowed, its manipulation, its – let’s call it what it really is – its corruption and hollowing out, means the average American citizen has a major problem in comprehending what is actually going on.

A few subjects I hear nothing about in this most powerful of nations – there are many more, but these are here for starters:

- Climate change

- Global resource depletion

- The need to make a world without a repeat of the eternal great power rivalry and consequential violence and slaughter

- The moral dimension to over-consumption

- The awareness of the universality of human life, usually distorted by cheap tribal nationalism

- The spiritual value of humility and deference to others – rather than religion that reinforced selfishness, as it used to be applied to reinforce slavery and gross abuse.

- The destruction of vast numbers of species and the ruination of the existences of animals for human benefit.

The only President I ever heard talk even slightly of these things at all was President Carter – much dismissed by most Americans, and remembered for the hostage crisis and little else. But these sort of things are neither left nor right,  but concerning core human and global matters, the consequences of ignoring them likely to visit hell on earth to our children.

In truth, the modern electoral process is specifically designed to exclude the relevance and significance of the ballot- of what should be the power of universal suffrage.

Power sits in Corporations, national Treasuries, and the quiet clubs where the political power reclines, ever undisturbed.

In reality, the election of anyone now is not a reflection of people’s desires, but a mechanism to manage capital and resource independent of the pesky population.

Why?

We are tribal carnivores. Hairless apes, right at the end of our evolved potential to deal with reality.

Now, on to the lost British State, and Brexit angst,

Pretty obviously, the lunacy of Brexit has reached its dénouement now.

When did the collapse of the dreamland balloon happen?

Yesterday.

How did it happen?

Davies. The arch Euro-loather and Tory anti-EU Hard-Man. In two sentences he collapsed the dreamscape and replaced it with harsh reality. Until now, the May government made tough noises about border control, strongly implying the interpretation of the wishes of the nation as expressed in the vote was for a tough closed door on inward migration, and a massive reduction in net migration. Down to less than 100, 000 per annum.

The stance was to imply a total exit – political and economic – since to do other would imperil the sacred control over migration flows. How has this changed? Mr Davies has stated in the last twenty four hours that:

1 He would expect to pay an access fee to maintain the country in the single market. Why has he done this?  – simple – he is advised by increasingly desperate corporate folk, civil servants, economists and other highly undesirable ‘elite’ types that to do other would cause a crisis of exports not seen since Herr Doenitz blockaded the country on behalf of the Man with the Moustache. (For Americans this means Nazi bombers sent by Hitler in 1940.)

2 He has said that very significant inward migration of low skilled folk would be needed in order to continue to lubricate the wheels of the British economy. Strangely, he anticipates that this supply will come from Europe – Poland, etc, rather than from the far-flung regions of the Globe – Ulan Bator, Hyderabad, Ayers Rock, etc. This may seem a strange expectation to the UKIPers and Mr. Lott, but to the rest of us, used to the Europeans appearing to pick our pumpkins, serve our coffee, educate our children in private crammers, it seems normal, to be expected. Indeed, what we have become accustomed to.

In summary- we plan to leave, pay to stay in the single market, have no say in how the EU changes and develops, and take loads more ‘guest workers’ from precisely the same places in order to enjoy pumpkins and coffee, plus minimally remediated, otherwise completely uneducated offspring.

THEREFORE

Nothing much changes except the Frogs get to pick off the juicy bits of un-passported City of London activity that they always wanted, the Germs get to stuff Frankfurt with the same, and UK property prices decline – as does the economy in general, as the world realizes the whole aborted exercise makes the country look absurd, and a political risk to investment that it was not considered to be prior to the dreamfest.

And the reason for all this?

A section of the population intellectually, educationally, and temperamentally unsuited to decide even if their drains should be unblocked were asked to vote on a matter that they simply could not comprehend. - Terry Field

Comments?

A Perspective from the Navajo Nation

An old college chum, a retired United Methodist minister in Tennessee, sent this article along earlier in the week.  It is by Kayla DeVault, a Native American living on the Navajo Nation in Arizona. 

A number of years ago as an Episcopal Church official, I spent several days on the Arizona Navajo reservation, learning about the Dine, as they call themselves.  It was a window into a world very different from my mainline American culture.  Once after giving an explanation of a program I was encouraging the Navajo church leaders to consider, a Navajo woman proclaimed she had seen an unusual bird fly by the window while I was speaking, and she interpreted this that I had offered something worthy of consideration.  Whether my words were wise is beside the point, but it struck me at the time and has stayed with be since, that Native Americans have something to share with the larger world of western wisdom.  Perhaps we would do well to listen more carefully to those of other cultures and nations for we in the west often do not chose wisely. - Glenn N. Holliman

Four Ways to Look at Standing Rock: An Indigenous Perspective

In the shadow of the Trump election, I found myself explaining to world climate leaders how to see Standing Rock through an indigenous lens.

A couple of weeks ago, as I stood before climate scientists, advocates, and world policy leaders at the COP22 in Morocco, I felt the increased importance of my message as climate denier Donald Trump was voted into office. My perspective as a young Native woman living on the Navajo reservation and studying both renewable energy engineering and Diné studies had earned me an appointment to the NEJAC/EPA Youth Perspectives on Climate Working Group as well as to the SustainUs Youth Delegation attending the November climate talks in Marrakech.

I was there to bring Standing Rock to the world climate talks.      

     

Rarely do so many nations come together in one space for a shared purpose.

Watching the events at Standing Rock unfurl over the past year, I felt compelled to ask our Navajo leadership to divest from oil, coal, and uranium and instead invest in the Standing Rock Sioux tribe’s fight against the Dakota Access pipeline. Eventually they did. Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye announced a formal stance of solidarity and traveled to Cannon Ball, North Dakota, to plant the Navajo Nation flag there. A week later, I stood on the front lines of #NoDAPL while energy company employees hit us with pepper spray and threatened us with attack dogs. I found everything dear to me, suddenly, at the heart of this battle—fought by people from the four corners of the world.

Which brings me to the significance of counting by four. To understand Standing Rock, you must remove the Western lens and adopt a holistic, indigenous perspective of the world.

BUMP bump bump bump. BUMP bump bump bump. The rhythm of the powwow drum, the heartbeat of life, beats in a sequence of fours. It celebrates the ebb and flow of the natural world. The rhythm falters only during the Honor Beats, when a Jingle Dress dancer raises her fan to catch the spirit of the drums. Rarely do so many nations come together in one space for a shared purpose. It is a gathering where commonalities are celebrated, such as the sacredness of the eagle feather and the direness of maintaining balance in the world. Certain concepts—holistic methodologies, the value of ceremony and language, the religious significance of certain landmarks, the beliefs of interconnectedness and interdependence—put indigenous groups in stark contrast with Western thinking.

This similarly has been the exception of Standing Rock.

And, just as the powwow rhythm carries four beats, an overwhelming number of indigenous communities count various elements of their lives in fours. The medicine wheel of Native culture represents the four directions. There are the four elements, which build all life and the four seasons that govern time.

Where I live in the Navajo Nation, the culture is steeped in fours. Dinébikéyah, the land given to the Diné (Navajo) by the Holy People, falls between four sacred mountains. The day is broken into four phases, which correlate to the four stages of life and the four steps that govern life in Navajo philosophy: Nitsakees (Thinking), Nahat’a (Planning), Iina (Living), and Sihasin (Reflection, which provides hope and assurance). Each Navajo has four clans that constitute his or her identity.

The beauty of using fours, to define so many aspects of life, is that we are forced to see the holistic picture. 

The beauty of using fours, to define so many aspects of life, is that we are forced to see the holistic picture. Without this bigger picture, we lose sight of the interconnectedness of humans to nature and to each other. The intricacy of this worldview is captured in the traditional Navajo home, the hooghan or hogan. It represents the entirety of life as a Navajo: its four pillars symbolizing the four sacred mountains. Its doorway faces the east, a fire at the heart. Within the hogan, you are cradled between Mother Earth and Father Sky (visible through the smoke hole in the ceiling). This same smoke hole allows the sun to pass through. It traces a clockwise path on the walls called sha bikego, or “sunwise.” This direction is used in every ceremony and every meeting. When the sun reaches the northern wall, this symbolizes winter; when it strikes the fire, it’s time to plant. The northern star, above the hogan, is the symbolic fire in the sky around which the First Man and First Woman constellations rotate.

Everything in Navajo philosophy is related to the concept of balance, and even groups of fours balance one another. These are pairs rather than opposites, and maintains what Navajos call hózhǫ́, a sort of harmony the universe relies on. The other key concept is k’é, or your relations. These could be your siblings, your clan relatives, your tribe, or even your belonging among all creations on this shared planet.

To me, conversations of hózhǫ́ and k’é are crucial to global talks of sustainability. We cannot address how climate change will affect our futures if we do not acknowledge the need for both balance and our fellow beings. The concepts may be of Navajo origin, but they embody the holistic viewpoint of many indigenous communities.

What does this view have to do with the climate? To achieve sustainability in any society, we must ensure the protection of four areas of community well-being:

Environmental: We are all made of water. We all breathe air. We cannot change our dependency on the four elements or the fact that they create us; therefore, we must protect our environment.

Economic: No community can operate without an adequate and fair economy. Furthermore, the diversity and adaptability of an economy are key to its survival.

Social: Our relationships to one another ensure the well-being of us as individuals and as societies. Our communities thrive when we have mutual respect, safety, and room for personal growth.

Cultural: Identity is a critical part of community sustainability, and it is often left out of the greater picture. This is a crucial issue when indigenous communities attempt to assert their sovereign authority and are faced with infringement of their cultural freedoms and rights which, without, would destroy the ability to maintain harmony.

So this is what I had to say to the climate justice world two weeks ago. Standing Rock requires us not to forget that fourth piece: cultural identity.

Standing Rock requires us not to forget that fourth piece: cultural identity.

When we have global conversations about loss and damage, we cannot simply tick off the population counts for displaced people or the dollar figures for economic impact or infrastructure damage. This is watching disorder through a Western lens. Instead, we must analyze the loss and damage done to a way of life, to the sustainability of an entire identity of people. The United Nations may have a definition for poverty, but to be impoverished does not always equate to having no financial leverage. Hardships come in many forms.

Jon Eagle Sr., the tribal historic preservation officer for the standing Rock Sioux, recounts the struggle of his ancestors through his tribe’s winter records. Their lives were extraordinarily difficult, but the definition of what they consider true hardships provides important context. Not surprisingly, the traditional Lakota people define four hardships in life:

To hear an orphan cry, as it was a terrible sound.

To lose a child, an indescribable pain.

To lose your mother.

To not know where your warriors fell.

With this reference point, consider Energy Transfer’s decision to desecrate sacred sites and destroy graves of warriors and other ancestors. It is forcing cultural damage on the Lakota people. 

---

I want to make sure the world’s youth hear an indigenous perspective on sustainability and comprehend how the need to protect our cultural identity and exercise our tribal sovereignty in the DAPL fight impacts our survival as nations.

I want to make sure the world’s youth hear an indigenous perspective on sustainability.

Because we are still learning how to erase the colonization of our own minds to really see the cultural implications of our so-called “infrastructure projects,” perhaps it is easier to identify straightforward acts of environmental racism, such as placing a refining factory within an impoverished community. Perhaps we can more easily oppose using cheap labor as a country’s leading export or stand up for the rights of a particular sex, gender, or religion.

And perhaps that is why, on Sept. 3, the water protectors who watched Dakota Access workers destroy the graves of their ancestors, continued to pray for and forgive the ignorance of those committing the crimes against them.

“These people in our history, they were our heroes,” explains Jon Eagle Sr. in National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Standing Rock Preservation Leadership Forum, as he described the ancestral burial sites that Energy Transfer destroyed. “I don’t think the mainstream society understands that.” Our cultural lenses prevent many of us from realizing that.

As I told the COP22 audiences, the battle at Standing Rock symbolizes the greater battle we all face: The assurance of cultural well-being and sustainability as a global community while combating the short-term visions and greed of corporations. We must remember the importance of hózhǫ́—balance—and that we, as beings of the Five Fingered Clan, are connected as k’é—relatives. We are made of the same four elements, and we share the same finite resources. As my my mother says: “We may be coming from all four directions, but we all come from the same neighborhood—the earth.”

Kayla DeVault wrote this article for YES! Magazine. Kayla is an Anishinaabe and enrolled Shawnee, living on the Navajo reservation. She currently works for the Navajo Nation Division of Transportation as a project civil engineer while studying Diné studies at Diné College. She is a youth ambassador for Generation Indigenous and was a participant in the White House Tribal Youth Gathering.

Comments?

We Have Been Here Before

We have been here before. 

 It could get ugly and messy but we can survive.

by an Ordained Church Leader from California

            The presidential race was between a secretary of state with more than three decades of public service, who had familial ties to the presidency, and a crude man known to be a short fused racist.  The year was 1824.  

John Quincy Adams was the son of our second president.  He had served as Ambassador to the Netherlands, Russia, and Great Britain.  He had served as Monroe’s secretary of state.  Andrew Jackson was a slave holder from Tennessee who had made a name for himself fighting Seminole Indians in Florida and defeating the British at New Orleans.  He was known to bend the rules.  His short fuse had gotten him in duels, in which he had been wounded and killed another.  While he had served as a United States Senator, he was the quintessential outsider of his day. 

            Like 2016, the election of 1824 was close.  Indeed it is the one of two times that a presidential election was decided in the House of Representatives.  That is where the story gets even more interesting relative to our present experience.  While Adams did not have email servers and private foundations to create a firestorm of accusations that he was crooked, he was accused of a nefarious backroom deal with Henry Clay.  The contention is that Clay used his influence to tip the balance in Adams favor in the House of Representatives, thus electing Adams over Jackson.  When Adams named Clay to be Secretary of State, at that time seen as the stepping stone to the presidency, the so-called “corrupt bargain” became the war cry for the 1828 rematch.

            When these two faced each other again, the race was nasty.  While the contenders stayed above the fray (would that those days would return!), there was plenty of mud thrown around.  A bit of sex was thrown in with subtle suggestions made of impropriety in Jackson’s marriage to his beloved wife, Rachel.  Much was made of the foreign born wife of Adams. 

             Does this sound familiar?  And while MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Fox’s Shawn Hannity were not on the scene, their ancestral kin, the National Intelligencer for Adams and the United States Telegraph for Jackson, were churning out screeds with little concern about balance, fact and truth. Forgeries and made us stories were tools to ruin reputations and win elections.  Ring any bells?

            So, we have been here before.  When Andrew Jackson took over from Adams, the urbane and educated gave way to the earthy and scrappy.  Jackson also came into office with a very firm view of things and a bit of a chip on his shoulder.  The nation was changed significantly by his presidency.  While five of his six predecessors had been slave holders, his actions in combat against native Americans presaged the Trail of Tears, one of the marks of inhumanity that our nation cannot wash away.  His economic policies led to the destruction of the Second Bank of the United States; the Panic of 1837 was a direct result of this imperious and impetuous action. For six years, the economy of the United States was in a shambles. What the elections of 1824 and 1828 also made abundantly clear were the sectional divisions in the nation that would become fully evident and explosive in the civil war.

            Trump’s election represents the rejection of careful, informed and reflective leadership.  What is ascendant is reactive, reflective, and intuitive leadership.   Trump evinces certitude in position and trust in his own instincts that will not be altered by expertise or even facts.  This has proven to be powerfully attractive to an electorate that is distrustful of those who are more educated and experienced.  It doesn’t matter that he has no cogent details.  He is attractive and compelling because he gives voice to the feelings of the dissatisfied.  It makes no difference that his vague assertions belie reality. 

            This worked for Jackson, got him elected, reelected, and even got his handpicked successor reelected.  This all happened in spite of the fact that he was the only president censured by the United States Congress and was often caricatured as King Andrew.  But then the wheels came off the bus.  Who knew that when Jackson retired to the Heritage in Davidson County, Tennessee that the United States would endure a succession of one term presidents of notable mediocrity for the next 24 years.   Only Civil War and Lincoln would change this. 

            The good news is that we survived all of this.  However, the United States did not play out its identity crisis on the world stage. The president was not a world leader trying to make senses of the nation’s role in a changing world.  The economic realities were not global. 

            Arguably, Jackson was able to do so much damage because the nation was so young.  Its customs, traditions, and case law were nascent.  After all, the constitution had only been ratified for 39 years.   Today, we have a much more robust tradition to impede any one person president or not from detaching our nation from its core values and traditions. 

Or perhaps we should know better!

Comments?

Electoral College Explained

Daniel R. Schuckers is one of Pennsylvania's outstanding legal historians and a reader of this blog. He contributes herein his first article, his own writing.  With a M.A. in history from Stanford, a law degree, a former assistant state attorney general, a protonotary and now a law school professor, few have the credentials he has to examine and explain the American system of electing presidents.  He wrote this article in 2012 never dreaming in 2016, once again, the USA method of electing by States and not the majority vote, would come into play.  At this writing, Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by 2 1/2 million popular votes, but remains behind in the Electoral College. - GNH

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE: AN EXCELLENT BUT IMPERFECT SYSTEM

by DANIEL R. SCHUCKERS, ESQ.

This year Americans celebrate the 225th anniversary of the writing of the American Constitution. The debt that modem Americans owe to the Founders of 1787 is immense: a federal system with power distributed between the national and state governments, a tripartite system of government with checks and balances, an independent judiciary and the rule of law. Although Americans argue about the legacy of the Founders and the meaning of the Constitution (as is often evident in the judicial opinions of Justices Scalia and Breyer and as is evident in the political campaigns and debates this presidential election year), the American people still admire and even revere the work done by the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787.    

                                              Right, Dan Schuckers

As much as Americans revere the Founders and the basic principles of 1787, they must confront the reality that one of the creations of the Founders has served the Republic imperfectly.  Since the emergence in the 1850's of the two major political parties, there have been 39 presidential elections; in 36 of the elections, the Electoral College reflected the will of the American people.  In three of the elections --- 1876, 1888 and 2000 --- the Electoral College failed to reflect the will of the American people and in each case a President was sworn into office who did not receive a majority or even a plurality of the popular votes.

In 1968, the American Bar Association issued a report which stated that "the electoral college method of electing a President of the United States is archaic, undemocratic, complex, ambiguous, indirect and dangerous." These six adjectives were used to support the conclusion in the ABA report that "it seems most appropriate that the election of the nation's only two national officers be by national referendum." The ABA report reflected a proposal that was made and rejected in Philadelphia in 1787 and that continues to be made 225 years later.

ORIGINS OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

Article II of the Constitution establishes the executive branch of government and the method by which the President is chosen: "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress."   Then, as noted by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 68 "the people of each state shall choose a number of persons as electors, who shall assemble within the state, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President."

              Thus, electors from the states, not the people, not the Congress and not the state legislatures, choose the President.  Direct election of the President was advocated in Philadelphia by such leading delegates as James Madison of Virginia and James Wilson and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, but was twice rejected in part because of concern that the public would not know the candidates, their qualifications and their positions.  Election by Congress was also considered, but also twice rejected because of the delegates' belief that the President should be independent of Congress.  Election by the state legislatures was also rejected in Philadelphia in 1787.

James Wilson of Pennsylvania was the first to suggest an Electoral College and toward the end of the Constitutional Convention the delegates adopted the proposal.  Wilson acknowledged that the issue of how to choose the President "greatly divided the house."  Although the method by which the President is elected divided the delegates in Philadelphia, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 68 noted that those who favored rejection of the 1787 Constitution did not focus on the Electoral College; the Electoral College "has escaped without severe censure."  Hamilton continued: "if the manner of (choosing the President) be not perfect, it is at least excellent."

EXAMPLES OF IMPERFECTIONS IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

An imperfection in Article II of the Constitution became evident in 1800 when it became clear that there was no separate provision for voting for Vice President.  In the election of 1800, the Republican electors voted for Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr with the intent of voting for Jefferson for President and Burr for Vice President.  There being no provision for voting for Vice President, the electors gave as many votes to Burr as to Jefferson thereby forcing the election into the House of Representatives.  After 35 ballots, several state Congressional delegations switched their votes thereby ensuring the election of Thomas Jefferson as President and Aaron Burr as Vice President.  This imperfection in Article II was corrected with the adoption in 1804 of the Twelfth Amendment providing for separation ballots for President and Vice President.

For critics of the Electoral College, the election of 1824 provides another example of a defect in the system.  In a four-candidate race, Andrew Jackson received a plurality of the popular vote, ie, approximately 40%, but he received only 99 electoral votes out of a total of 261.  With John Quincy Adams having received 84 electoral votes, William Crawford having received 41 electoral votes and Henry Clay having received 37 electoral votes, the Presidential election was again referred to the

House of Representatives where Henry Clay as Speaker of the House wielded considerable influence. In what Andrew Jackson called ''the corrupt bargain; Clay threw his support to Adams who won 13 of the 24 state Congressional delegations and newly-elected President Adams appointed Clay Secretary of State.

Since the birth of the Republican Party in the 1850's and the emergence of the two-party system, three Presidential (as of 2016, four) elections have resulted in the Electoral College vote being contrary to the popular vote.  In each case, great bitterness has resulted along with cries for the abolition or reform of the Electoral College.

In the election of 1876, the Democratic candidate, Samuel Tilden, won a majority of the popular vote, but the vote of the Electoral College was marked by disputes concerning certification of electors from four states. The House and the Senate could not agree on which electors from those four states should be certified. For the first and only time in American history, Congress formed a bipartisan Electoral Commission to resolve the dispute. With eight Republicans and seven Democrats on the Electoral Commission, the electoral votes of Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oregon were awarded to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes thereby ensuring his victory by an electoral count of 185 to 184.

Similarly, in 1888, the Democratic candidate, Grover Cleveland, won the popular vote by about 100,000 votes, but Republican Benjamin Harrison was victorious in several states with small margins thereby obtaining a victory in the Electoral College by a vote of 233 to 168.

In 2000, the Democratic candidate, Albert Gore, Jr., won the popular vote by about 530,000 votes, but Republican George W. Bush was victorious in several states with small margins, particularly   in Florida after considerable litigation and a controversial decision by the United States Supreme Court. His victory in the Electoral College was by a vote of 271 to 266.

PENNSYLVANIA'S PRESENT SYSTEM OF SELECTING ELECTORS

The Constitution does not dictate to the states how the electors are to be chosen in each state. For the past century, all states except Maine and Nebraska, have utilized the "unit rule," ie, "a winner take all" system.  Maine with four electoral votes and Nebraska with five electoral votes give electoral votes to the winner of each Congressional district (two in Maine and three in Nebraska) and two electoral votes to the overall winner of the popular vote in the state.  All other states give their electoral votes to the candidate who has received the most popular votes within that state.

Electors in Pennsylvania and in 23 other states are not required to cast their votes for any specific candidate.  Although Pennsylvania has never had an elector deviate from the political party which chose the elector, other electors from other states have chosen to be "faithless electors."  If it chose to do so, the Pennsylvania Legislature could easily join 26 other states which require electors to be bound to their pledge to vote for a specific candidate.

Section 918 of the Pennsylvania Election Code provides that within 30 days after the nomination by a political party's national convention, the Presidential nominee of the party must nominate the party's candidates "for the office of presidential electors." Thus, the electors are chosen by the party's Presidential nominee.  This year, the Republican convention in Tampa, Florida ends on August 30; therefore, the 20 Republican electors must be named by September 29.  The Democratic convention in Charlotte, North Carolina ends on September 6; therefore, the 20 Democratic electors must be named by October 6.

              During the past five Presidential elections, ie, from 1992 through 2008, Pennsylvania has cast its electoral votes for the Democratic candidates.  A review of the electors during those years indicates that the party chose people to be electors who were party loyalists, particularly state and county party officials, mayors, county commissioners, state senators, state representatives and district attorneys.

After the Presidential election on November 6, the results will become known and the Secretary of the Commonwealth will certify the results.  Then, according to federal law, the 20 Republican electors (if the Republican Presidential candidate wins a majority or plurality of the popular vote in Pennsylvania) or the 20 Democratic electors (if the Democratic Presidential candidate wins a majority or plurality of the popular vote in Pennsylvania) will meet in the Capitol in Harrisburg on December 17 and cast their electoral votes.

According to Article II of the Constitution and as noted by Alexander Hamilton, the electoral votes of each jurisdiction are transmitted to Washington, D.C. During the first week of January the electoral votes are delivered to a joint session of Congress meeting in the House of Representatives.  The Vice-President of the United States is the President of the Senate and the presiding officer for purposes of conducting the official tally of the electoral votes.  When all 538 electoral votes are tallied, the Vice-President announces the results; if any Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate has received 270 electoral votes, the Vice-President declares that person or those persons to be the winners.

PROPOSED CHANGES IN PENNSYLVANIA'S METHOD OF SELECTING ELECTORS

In 2011, two proposals to change Pennsylvania's method of selecting electors were introduced in the Pennsylvania Senate.  Both proposals are, of course, state proposals and can not affect the provisions for the operation of the Electoral College in Article II of the Constitution.  Both seem to be motivated by a desire to have Pennsylvania's electoral votes be more reflective of the will of the people.  However, the people in one proposal (Senate Bill No.  1116) are the American people whereas the people in the other proposal (Senate Bill No. 1282) are the people of Pennsylvania.

Senate Bill No. 1116 was introduced by Senator Alloway of Adams County and has the title "The Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote Act." There has not been much publicity concerning this bill and it was referred to the State Government Committee on June17, 2011.

If enacted by enough states, ie states with a total of 270 electoral votes, the National Popular Vote Act would result in the direct election of the President.  The Electoral College would be preserved, but states which pass the Act (which would NOT become effective until enough states have passed the Act) would agree to cast their electoral votes for the Presidential candidate who received a majority or a plurality of the nationwide vote.  Such states would disregard the interests of their states in order to insure the election nationwide of a majority or a plurality President.

               Eight states (Vermont, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, California, Washington and Hawaii) along with the District of Columbia have passed the National Popular Vote Act for a total of 132 electoral votes....138 electoral votes short of the 270 needed to activate it.  During the past several decades, public opinion polls have indicated that a clear majority of the American people support the idea of the President being chosen by a nationwide popular vote system.

Although this proposal would eliminate the possibility of a President being elected by less than a majority or a plurality of the popular vote, critics have noted that this proposal would greatly reduce

 the role and significance of individual states. Critics have also stressed that the Founders twice rejected

 the concept of the direct election of the President in 1787. The National Popular Vote Act would also lead to the anomalous situation of a state's popular vote being for one candidate and the state's electoral votes having to go to another candidate because the other candidate received more popular votes nationwide.

Senate Bill No. 1282 was introduced by Senator Pileggi of Delaware County.  He is the majority leader in the state Senate and one of the cosponsors of the bill is Senator Scamati of Jefferson County who is the president pro tempore in the Senate.  Governor Corbett has said that he supports the bill.  In light of their sponsorship and support, Senate Bill No. 1282 received considerable publicity in the summer and fall of2011 and was the subject of a Senate State Government hearing in October 2011.

The bill allocates Pennsylvania's electoral votes according to Congressional districts.  The winner of the popular vote in each Congressional district would receive an electoral vote and the winner of the statewide popular vote would receive two electoral votes.  Such a system would more closely represent the popular will of the people of Pennsylvania.   Instead of "a winner take all" system, this proposal would probably ensure that the losing Presidential candidate received some electoral votes.

During the hearings on Senate Bill No. 1282 several criticisms were expressed.  This change in Pennsylvania law could result in one candidate winning a majority of the popular vote and yet not gaining a majority of the electoral votes.  It also could greatly reduce voter turnout particularly in Congressional districts which were for political reasons gerrymandered to overwhelmingly favor one political party.

Two rather practical considerations also became apparent. Passage of this bill could greatly reduce Pennsylvania's status as a "swing state." Such states historically receive substantial attention from the Presidential candidates in terms of campaign appearances and interest in Pennsylvania issues. Also, passage of this bill would greatly reduce the amount of money which would be spent in Pennsylvania by the candidates and the national media.

In light of the above criticisms of the two Senate bills and in light of political and editorial misgivings concerning the bills, Pennsylvania will very likely retain its "winner take all" system in 2012.

CONCLUSION

The Electoral College remains, as Alexander Hamilton eloquently described it in the Federalist Papers, "an excellent but not perfect system" for selecting the President of the United States.  An imperfection became obvious in 1800 and was quickly corrected with the l2th Amendment in 1804. The imperfections were evident in 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 (and in 2016) when candidates who received a majority or a plurality of the popular vote were not chosen to be President. Those obvious imperfections should not obscure the fact that in the 51 Presidential elections in the 19th, 20th, and 21th centuries, the Electoral College performed its function well 47 times.

Imperfections, however, are exactly that - imperfections; no one should be surprised in 2012 if charges of corruption, fraud, illegitimacy, thievery and deceit are made if the candidate who receives a majority or a plurality of the popular vote does not receive a majority in the Electoral College. In the wake of the 2000 election and in light of the current highly-charged political atmosphere such accusations will be expected and plentiful. Also abundant will be demands that changes be made in the Electoral College.

Current efforts, however,  to change Pennsylvania's method of selecting its Presidential electors will likely fail and Pennsylvania will likely retain its "winner take all" system as its Presidential electors gather in Harrisburg on December 17, 2012. - Daniel R. Schuckers, Esq.

Comments?