THE POLITICS OF “NO” IS NOT EFFECTIVE IN DEMOCRACIES

“Stay away from negative people. They have a problem, for every solution.”
Albert Einstein

The British and American political experiences have traditionally been based on positivity. Democracy thrives when the electorate is given a vision of moving forward, building on the past, correcting past mistakes.  The major distinction between authoritarian regimes with market economies (think Russia, China, Vietnam) and democratic ones is that in the latter case, voters not technocrats get to chart the future. 

Democracies do not operate efficiently in an environment of negative polarization. The politics of “no” is based on emotion, not reason.  Compromise becomes difficult if not impossible and the wheels of democratic government, never quick to turn in good times, grind to a halt.  In my view, the present political crises occurring on both sides of the Atlantic are the result of the politics of “no” and its inability to perform within a democracy.

First, a review of the Brexit debacle that has consumed the United Kingdom for the past several years.  The vote to leave the European Union was a “no” to many things. Among them: wage stagnation in the middle class, immigration, the EU assuming more political power, London overpowering local governments, the political elite, multiculturalism and political correctness. The Referendum to leave the EU had the great advantage of not having to specify what was being left behind.  Any “no” would fit the bill. 

The same phenomena is apparent in France where the gilets jaunes (yellow jackets) have taken to the streets of Paris each weekend since November. An open-ended “no” can mobilize a greater number of people than “yes” without the need for a consensus on what is being negated.  When the protests began the gilets jaunes refused to appoint leaders or to submit a list of demands to the French government, rightly assuming that a non-specific “no” would continue to attract more followers.

In the United Kingdom, the conservative government of David Cameron, made a major error in the framing of the Brexit Referendum, which stated: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?  What kind of national identity or vision for the future does “leave” assert? The wording simply gave every British voter with an axe to grind a way to express displeasure. Many observers have contrasted the Brexit Referendum with the campaign to legalize abortion in Ireland. The Irish Referendum was a masterpiece of positivity and won with an overwhelming yes.

The Brexit vote has created a political crisis in Britain of epic proportions. The devil was in the details and no majority in parliament can now agree on the details of leaving the EU.  There never was a plan to follow the Referendum vote to “leave.”  Being against something in a democracy is relatively easy. Formulating a replacement is fraught with peril. 

It is now clear, there is no parliamentary majority that will support a reasonable withdrawal agreement. The office of Prime Minister has been left in shambles.  Whatever the outcome, Britain has lost international standing in the world. London is on the brink of being replaced as the financial capital of Europe.  Corporations and financial centers have fled the United Kingdom and Scotland is considering the same.

A similar politics of “no” has captivated the United States in recent years with similar results as those experienced in the United Kingdom. When Republicans captured both chambers of Congress during the Obama administration it became clear that any Obama initiative would receive a resounding “no” during the remainder of his Presidency.  If the Republican obstructionism was designed to bring governing to a halt, it succeeded.

Rather than working in concert, the executive branch and Congress were reduced to testing their respective limits of power.  Through the politics of “no” Republicans were able to win many disgruntled voters to their side without offering a solution on any major issue, domestic or foreign, for eight years.

The Trump presidency was built on a foundation of “no”.  Make America Great Again was defined by negativity.  This included his campaign pledges of: no immigration, no Moslems, no Obama Care, no foreign Involvement, and no NAFTA.

 As in the case of Brexit and as with the French “yellow jackets”, American voters had a long list of grievances that could be thrown into the mix of Trump’s politics of “no.” But it was also true to form that few positive solutions were being articulated.  It was enough to get elected that Trump could point to his credentials as an astute business leader who could solve any problem through the “art of the deal” and transactional politics.

After the election the Trump presidency continued to expand on the politics of “no.” No to NATO, legal immigration, negotiated treaties, trade agreements, the rule of law, a free press, the European Union, the United Nations, and most exasperating of all: “no” to funding the federal government unless his unrealistic demands on building a wall along the Mexican Border were supported by Congress.  As with Brexit, there is never a plan moving forward after each “no” decision is made by the President.

President Trump’s politics of “no” have developed several interesting corollaries.  First, it has resulted in an authoritarian presidency where advisors within his administration cannot speak for the President with any accuracy. Trump is in charge of the daily messaging and often contradicts himself or is unclear. Debate within the White House is either not permitted or ignored. His obedient staff is reduced to stating that their opinion is irrelevant because the President will say and do what we wants, with little notice or discussion.  The only thing that is absolutely clear, is the “no.”

Secondly, the politics of “no” reaches far beyond the White House. Republican leaders are not made aware of the President’s policy positions in advance. On other occasions, the President reverses his position after deals are worked out with Democrats.  Foreign leaders are not consulted or briefed on the President’s views. Even small details are left to chance before summits or conferences are scheduled.  While all world leaders are aware of the “no”, getting a positive agreement is impossible under these circumstances.

Since the election of Donald Trump, many Democrats have continued the disheartening spectacle of the politics of “no” by calling for no more Trump, without considering the political implications for the 2020 presidential election. The repellant and dangerous antics of the President coupled with the Mueller probe brought to investigate theories of collusion and obstruction of justice have made his impeachment too enticing to ignore.

Removal of Trump in America has become analogous to leaving the EU in The United Kingdom. In both cases negative goals that are easy to support, but with far reaching consequences beyond the initial vote of “no.” With Brexit and Impeachment, what comes after the vote has not been thought through.

  Democrats who want Trump gone are calling for his impeachment no matter what the political cost. They seem oblivious to the need to invest scarce political capital addressing the important policy issues facing the nation in preparation for the next national election.  This is so even though impeachment is more likely than not to fail and to invigorate Trump supporters. Moreover, impeachment success would only place a more conservative and tactful political operative in the presidency, Vice President Mike Pence.

Nancy Pelosi and others have wisely fought against the politics of “no” and the call to remove Trump at any cost.  These Democratic leaders are aware of a simple truth. Trump is the master of the politics of “no”.  The remedy for Trumpism is not more negativity through political revenge but rather the development of policy positions that bring about positive results for all Americans.  Further, there must be development of a Democrat political coalition not focused solely on defeating Trump but also dedicated to preparing America to thrive in a post Trump world.

A LOOK BACK AT IMMIGRATION

"People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors."  Edmund Burke

I recently read a timely article reviewing a history of the forced emigration of thousands of Scottish people from their homeland. (The Scottish Clearance: A History of the Dispossessed 1600-1900. By TM. Devine) Wealthy English land owners needed more space to graze their livestock, principally sheep. Entire villages, first in the Scottish Lowlands, later in the Highlands, were given the option of starving to death or embarking on boats for America, Canada and Australia.

A well read English periodical in 1739, the Gentlemen’s Magazine, gave the following justification for the forced emptying out of Scotland:

“Being destitute of all means of knowledge, and without any schools to educate their children, [they] are entirely ignorant of the principles of religion and virtue, live in idleness and poverty, have no notion of industry, or sense of liberty, are subject to the will and command of their popish disaffected chieftains, who have always opposed the propagating of Christian knowledge, and the English tongue, that they might with less difficulty keep their miserable vassals in a slavish dependence.”

The ancestors of Scottish Americans were summarily exported from their homeland, not unlike the bales of wool that replaced them. The number of Americans of Scottish descent today is estimated to be 20 to 25 million (up to 8.3% of the total US population), and Scotch-Irish 27 to 30 million (up to 10% of the total US population). The Scotch-Irish immigrated to Ireland before coming to America.

This article gave me pause to consider the views of any American supporting the Trump policies on legal immigration, who happens to be of Scottish heritage.  How is it possible to deny the same opportunity to others, an opportunity that literally saved the lives of their ancestors and made a path for their forbearers to thrive and contribute to the American dream?

 Other immigration histories tell a similar story. Approximately 84% of Italian immigrants came from Southern Italy and Sicily, which was still largely rural and agricultural. Much of the populace had been impoverished by centuries of foreign misrule, and an oppressive taxation system. In 1870, there were less than 25,000 Italian immigrants in America.  Shortly thereafter about 5.5 million Italians immigrated to the United States and Italians are now the fourth largest group of Europeans in the country.

The Irish were an even a bigger mass migration.  About 33 million Americans,10.5% of the total population, reported Irish ancestry in 2013. This compares with a population of 6.7 million on the island of Ireland.  A significant factor was the Irish famine. During the mid-19th Century, Ireland experienced the worst social and economic disaster a nation could suffer. A quarter of the island's population starved to death or emigrated to escape truly appalling conditions.  England did little to help and was more than happy to see their catholic neighbors seek greener pastures.

Closer to home, my Quaker ancestors immigrated much earlier, in the late 1600s. But the reasons were no less severe. English religious persecution made life unbearable in the homeland. Lastly, almost all Jewish Americans can trace their journey to America through European and Russian pogroms or the rise of fascism.   

The point is that other than African Americans, brought to America against their will and forced to endure the unthinkable, we are all here and our American family stories permitted to take root because of persecution, hate, or starvation in our ancestral homelands.  No nation is as diverse as American.  Other than Native Americans, no ethnic group can lay claim to owning the historical foundation story of America.  We were all once unwanted, unwashed, penniless, facing certain death and/or considered undesirable.

Attempts to label America “a Christian nation” in order to exclude those of other faiths is a false narrative.  The very reason for our national formation was to cobble together a nation built on religious freedom.  Moreover, those masses of people at our southern border, attempting to immigrate legally from Latin America, are often more dedicated Christians than those who seek to block their path.

This commentary is not about illegal immigration.  There is no hiding behind the claim: “my ancestors immigrated legally, and I only oppose illegal immigration.” The discussion point is much less complicated.  Given the opportunities that were afforded our ancestors, how can any of us support the Trump Administration’s assault on legal immigration?

Part II of this commentary will review Trump policies on legal immigration, the response of the legal community and the courts, and why this matters to all of us.

THE TRUMP ASSAULT ON LEGAL IMMIGRATION

“Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe?” Thomas Jefferson, First Report to Congress

Part one of this commentary reviewed the history that brought our forefathers to America.  What follows is a summary of the Trump Administration’s concerted effort in 2018 to reverse years of legal immigration policy.  While there were other egregious attacks on legal immigration that took place in 2017, the most significant actions took place last year.  If such a hostile immigration environment had been permitted to take hold in previous generations, most of us would not be Americans today.

·      *Despite the fact that the number of displaced people is at the highest level since WWII, the Trump Administration lowered the refugee cap for 2018 to 45,000 and then only admitted half that number, 22,491, the lowest number in 40 years.

·      *Immigration authorities in 2018 denied 37 percent more filings related to immigration including travel documents, work permits, and green cards.

·     *The number of immigrants who received visas to move permanently to the United States, normally highly skilled workers, dropped 12 per cent in 2018.

·      *The Trump Administration began seeking a regulatory policy change in 2018 to deny the spouses of H-1B visas, the right to work.  If this change receives final clearance, over 100,000 spouses could lose their jobs.

·      *In 2018 the Administration separated thousands of children from their families. The humanitarian crisis that resulted was blamed on the Latin American families with young children fleeing violence and oppression rather than on the misplaced policy which had been set in motion with no method of uniting the families in the future.  Internal Administration documents have revealed that the program was designed as a threat to cut the flow of families seeking legal asylum.

·      *The separation of families was exasperated on April 6, 2018 when then Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced his “zero tolerance” policy to criminally prosecute asylum seekers who were not afforded a timely review at ports of entry and crossed the border without inspection.  This policy was in direct opposition to immigration laws passed by Congress. In short order, 3000 children were forcibly separated from their families.

·       *Throughout 2018 the Trump Administration systematically ended temporary protection status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of immigrants who fled natural, criminal and political disasters.  When deadlines came up for certain countries, the Administration simply refused to “redisignate” a TPS for each country.  This placed immigrant from those countries in immediate peril of deportation and made it impossible for new individuals to be classified under TPS. The countries most affected by this policy were Salvador; Haiti; Nepal; Honduras; Syria; and Yemen.

·     *In May and June 2018, the number of individuals permitted to enter the country to seek asylum dropped by 42 percent.  This was due in great part to new implementation rules adopted by the Administration.  First, more restrictive guidelines for the first screening interview, narrowed the qualifications for entry.  Second, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) exasperated backlogs under a new policy of “metering” that limited the number of individuals seen each day at ports of entry.  The hope was that long waits would turn the asylum seekers around.  Third, the Administration began limiting the “credible fear” test for asylum to “persecutions by the government” and by removing “gang violence” as a factor to be used in granting asylum. (there is great irony in this given Trump’s use of the horrors of Latino gang violence as a reason to wall-in the border)

·    *  The Department of Justice sought to make major changes in the asylum process by making the immigration court system more restrictive. First, a long held requirement that asylum seekers receive a full hearing before an immigration Judge was eliminated.  Second, after an asylum seeker passed the “credible fear screening” test they must now remain in detention, unable to collect the data needed to be granted asylum.  Third, there have been Administration attempts, not yet implemented, to charge $50.00 for an asylum application.

·     * In June, 2018, Donald Trump nixed Congressional attempts to address the backlog of immigration cases by increasing the number of immigration judges.

There are other actions taken by Trump and his minions of political appointees throughout the federal government designed to undermine legal immigration.  The above examples are merely the highlights.  What I hope is clear is that none of these policies has anything to do with illegal immigration, or building a wall, or providing more security for the American people.

Whatever one thinks about the ACLU, we must be grateful at the fortitude of this organization in swiftly filing lawsuits to protect the recognized rights of immigrants.  The ACLU’S guiding principle is that when the government has the power to deny legal rights and due process to one vulnerable group, everyone’s rights are at risk. The ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project is dedicated to expanding and enforcing the civil liberties and civil rights of immigrants and in combating public and private discrimination against them.  In 2018 they were busy filing lawsuits around the country…and winning.

It would be a mistake to assume that America’s approach to immigration was a fair and equitable one, prior to 2016.  Before Trump was elected President, our immigration system was already in need of major repair.  For example, individuals from many countries were forced to wait for decades to receive a green card. Workers without college decrees only received 5,000 green cards despite the overwhelming need for agricultural workers.  There was no immigration category for entrepreneurs who wanted to start a business. There was an unreasonable cap on immigrants with “extraordinary abilities” (scientists, business leaders, professional athletes).

Now that Trump has placed the spotlight on immigration by attempting to further destabilize a troubled system, it would be a good time for a more enlighten Congress to consider and overhaul all aspects of immigration. We need to return to the fundamental belief that: “all are welcome”.  Unfortunately, the present policies tell the world: America is closed to those who need our help the most.

THERE IS NO GOING BACK TO NORMAL

The March 1, 2019 NYT editorial comment, penned by Alex Kingsbury, struck me as significant on many levels. (Go Back to Normal After Trump? No Thanks) Mr. Kingsbury pointed out that the statement made by House Oversight Committee Chairman, Elijah Cummings following the public testimony of Michael Cohen: “We have to get back to normal,” is not the result that concerned Americans should be looking for. Hoping to rid the country of a President who ignores the rule of law, who is incapable of truth telling and who has destroyed 50 years of hard earned political diplomacy, may bring us back to the old normal, but this is not enough and in some cases impossible to achieve.  

 Chairman Cummings eloquent comments following the Cohen hearing were widely reported by the media as the high point of the day long proceedings and an attempt at reconciliation in our fractious political climate. But there can be no return to the “good times” engendered by the Obama or Clinton presidencies if one is a Democrat or to those years surrounding the Bush(s) or Reagan administrations if one is a Republican. The Donald Trump presidency has exposed too many shortcomings of “normal” and created a new paradigm.

As Mr. Kingsbury points out, the investigations by the Mueller probe and by the Justice Department in the Southern District of New York have brought additional focus to the “normal” policy of: “treating crimes by the poor as felonies and crimes by the powerful as misdemeanors.”  It is jaw dropping to me that Paul Manafort’s defense team recently argued to the sentencing federal Judge that he should receive a more lenient sentence because “were it not for the Mueller investigation his crimes would never have been exposed”.

While Manafort’s plea for leniency is ridiculous, his point supports Mr. Kingsley’s conclusions.  There are too few prosecutors investigating too many white collar crimes, which are time consuming and complicated.  Wealthy Criminals are violating the public trust, jeopardizing national security and corrupting the political system to rack up millions in profits, often untaxed profits, with impunity. For the most part, these wealthy criminals know that regulations are lax and enforcement underfunded.

Before the Trump gang gained power to remind us how the wealthy flaunt the rule of law, we had the worst recession in our lifetimes. This meltdown, which adversely affected millions of Americans, was caused in great part by the malfeasance of bankers and financial manipulators.  In the aftermath there were few prosecutions. There can be no returning to normal when it comes to ferreting out white collar crime.

Statistics clearly show that when resources are directed against violent crime, these crimes drop dramatically. The same is true of tax fraud but the number of IRS agents has not increased in over 50 years due to congressional underfunding.  The federal government, now in the middle of a deficit crisis, is losing 458 billion a year due to tax evasion, according to the IRS.  There can be no returning to normal when it comes to enforcing our tax laws.

Again, in the area of enforcement, bringing powerful individuals and organizations to the bar, for their complicity in sex trafficking and pedophilia, cannot return to normal. American Universities (Penn State, Michigan State), religious institutions (the Catholic Church) and private individuals (Jeffery Epstein, massage parlor owners) must all be investigated when criminality is apparent. Having a friend in high places must not prevent investigations with adequate resources committed to prosecuting these complex crimes against children and women that often cross state and national borders.

There are many other issues, not touched on by Mr. Kingsley, where it would be a mistake to return to normal. Climate change is one of them.  There is no doubt that President Trump has reversed eight years of progress on climate issues by calling global warming a hoax, by withdrawing from international agreements and recently, by ignoring a report released by the Defense Department raising concerns.  But it is too late for the “old” normal.

Global warming is now out of the slow and steady manageable stage and is entering an accelerated period of worldwide crisis.  Even China, with its commitment to electric cars is showing more concern than the United States.  The “new” normal must replace superficial strategies for a comprehensive policy where our country becomes an inspiration to encourage, not a drag to discourage solutions.

The “old” normal in American politics called for the wealthy and social conservatives in one voting block against the middle class, poor and social liberals on the other.  The Trump election and presidency have shattered this view.  Trump has exposed the existence of a large voting population, in traditional Democratic strongholds, who are economically disadvantaged and who believe the traditional two party system has left them behind.  These voters will continue to support a President who will seek to keep out immigrants, fight against the effects of globalization, promise to bring back basic industry and to withdraw America from international commitments.  These voters will not magically disappear when Trump is no longer in office.

For those who thought that the election of Barrack Obama meant that racism was no longer pervasive in America, the election of Donald Trump has proven this a pipe dream.  Clearly, racism remains virulent. There is no returning to the past belief that respect for minorities was winning the day.  The “new” normal must begin with early childhood education to teach all students the history of slavery, of segregation, of the past use of legal remedies to deny minorities their basic human rights and of the meaning of white privilege in today’s society. Only then can we all understand and share the same national story, learn from it and grow past our racial divide.

In foreign affairs, there is no returning to normal with respect to the Atlantic Alliance.  After two plus years of Trump treating our European allies more like rivals than partners, very few Europeans believe the President will do the right thing during a crisis.  There are too many cracks in the Alliance to return the relationship to “normal”, even with a new President in the White House. European leaders have been forced to move beyond Trump because of the ambiguities caused by his actions on Iran, in Syria, on arms control treaties and in imposing tariffs. There is also outright fear and indignation caused by his rhetoric on threatening not coming to the aid of NATO members who do not pay their bills.

While the next President might attempt to restart the Alliance, Europe will now be inclined to develop other strategic partners, particularly economic ones, and to act independently of American interests.  Not all the goodwill that has been lost will be regained.  The United States will be more alone in the world than at any time since WWII.

Donald Trump has made it impossible to return to the “old” normal, following his departure. His wrecking ball adventurism in domestic and foreign affairs has been cataclysmic and will require not simple repairs but rather major resets in policy. The challenge for Democrats reaches far beyond winning elections.  The ultimate test will be governing in the post Trump world.