Category Archives: Politics

Why GOP lawmakers won’t buck Trump

Elected as a Republican, Nate Bell is now the Legislature's only independent.

Elected as a Republican, Nate Bell is now the Legislature’s only independent.

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Many Arkansans are unhappy with both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as their choices, and so are some Arkansas lawmakers. But how many are willing to say they don’t support their own party’s nominee? So far, at least one.

Rep. David Meeks, R-Greenbrier, says he is “99.9 percent sure” he won’t vote for Trump and definitely won’t vote for Clinton.

Meeks, who last year adopted three boys under age four, says he is “a Christian first, a conservative second, and a Republican third.” He says Trump is unfit to be president, even dangerous.

“It’s more about the bullying, the intimidating, the fact that he just doesn’t seem to understand diplomacy, doesn’t seem to be humble,” he said.

Won’t his voting for someone else help Clinton because it’s one less vote for Trump? Meeks doesn’t see it that way. Trump will win Arkansas regardless, he said.

One other legislator has declared his opposition to both Trump and Clinton – the Legislature’s only independent, Rep. Nate Bell of Mena. Bell was elected as a Republican six years ago but left the party last year and isn’t running for re-election.

The outspoken Bell has very publicly opposed Trump for a long time. He says Trump promotes bigotry and “a version of nationalistic populism that is eerily reminiscent of virtually every dictator in the history of the world.”

Trump, of course, is the Republican nominee, and so therefore most Republican lawmakers will support him. Regardless of their feelings toward him, they oppose Clinton.

But Bell said few lawmakers with whom he’s spoken enthusiastically support Trump. Those particular lawmakers don’t want to offend Trump supporters, so they’re making a political calculation. They expect him to win Arkansas but lose the election, and they’re trying to remain viable.

“When he loses, someone’s going to get blamed, and typically that blame’s not going to be placed on Hillary,” he said. “The blame’s going to be placed on Republicans who didn’t support Trump sufficiently to help him win.”

Bell said he probably would keep his views much more to himself were he running for re-election in his pro-Trump district. Similarly, Meeks said it’s easier for him to stand on principle because he doesn’t have an opponent in the fall.

“Arkansas is going Trump, and it’s just not a battle that you really want to face or you really want to deal with,” he said of his fellow lawmakers.

Meeks will be considering the alternatives who have qualified or have submitted signatures to qualify for the state’s ballot, among them Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate; Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party; or a new organization, Better for America, that was started by John Kingston, a conservative donor and Mitt Romney ally. It hasn’t selected a candidate yet.

Like Meeks, Bell is surveying his options but will probably vote for Johnson. He’s imagined the various scenarios where someone besides Trump or Clinton is elected. Remember, the president is elected by the Electoral College, not the popular vote. The map favors Clinton, so the key for a third party candidate is to keep her from winning 270 electoral votes. Johnson would have to win New Mexico, where he was a Republican governor, and a few other states, including Utah, which normally votes Republican but where Trump isn’t popular. A poll by utahpolicy.com found Johnson’s support in that state rising to 16 percent.

So it’s at least imaginable that Johnson wins enough states that no candidate wins the required 270 votes. Under the Constitution’s 12th Amendment, the next president then would be selected by the House of Representatives, with each state having one vote. In that scenario, maybe some kind of coalition develops and the House picks Johnson. Meeks imagines a similar possibility, with the Senate picking a Democrat as vice president to balance the ticket.

The other possibility is that a politician with a national stature – Ohio Gov. John Kasich or Romney – runs under the Better for America banner, Bell said. Ohio has 18 electoral votes and is a critical swing state.

These scenarios are highly unlikely but possible. In 1824, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but didn’t win a majority of electors, and the House chose John Quincy Adams.

Of course, what probably will happen is either Clinton or Trump wins more than 270 votes. More likely it will be Clinton, while Trump wins Arkansas while supported – enthusiastically or not – by almost all of the state’s Republican elected officials.

Government of the 9 percent

Elections aheadBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

If you’re one of the millions of Americans enthusiastically supporting Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, then let’s be clear: Your candidate won your party’s nomination, fair and square.

The rest of you may be wondering how two candidates with historically high unfavorable ratings became the nominees. And the answer is, because 9 percent of Americans voted for them.

According to a recent New York Times analysis, only 9 percent of 324 million Americans have actually cast a ballot for either Clinton or Trump. Almost a third of Americans can’t vote because they are children, noncitizens and felons. Another 88 million are eligible adults who never vote, while 73 million vote in general elections but not party primaries. In other words, roughly 161 million people could have voted but didn’t. That left only 60 million people, out of 324 million, who voted in the primaries, and of those, Trump and Clinton won the most votes among the many candidates originally competing.

Arkansas’ turnout mirrored the country’s. Out of 3 million residents and 1.7 million registered voters, only 633,000 Arkansans cast a ballot. Clinton was the choice of 146,000, or about 4.9 percent of all Arkansans. Trump’s 135,000 votes came from 4.5 percent of us. So as with the rest of the country, 9 percent of Arkansans have voted for either Clinton or Trump.

It’s not hard to see how someone opposed by most Americans could slip through the process. If the field is crowded like it was this year, a candidate can become one of two people with a realistic shot of becoming president even if he or she is the first choice of only 5 percent.

It wasn’t long ago that presidential nominees were chosen by party leaders and delegates at party conventions. Now, most states use a primary process where voters decide. Like many states, Arkansas has open primaries where any voter can cast a ballot in either party, regardless of how much they support that party.

That’s made it harder for the two parties – technically private organizations – to enforce discipline. Trump, who only recently became a Republican, won the nomination over 16 longtime Republicans. In Arkansas, party leaders supported everyone but him: first, former governor Mike Huckabee and then, when he dropped out, mostly Sen. Marco Rubio with some supporting Sen. Ted Cruz. Trump won 33 percent of the vote, Cruz won 31 percent and Rubio won 25 percent. According to an analysis by Talk Business & Politics, many voters were irregular voters – not longtime, committed Republicans.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders competed hard for the Democratic nomination even though he’s an independent socialist, not a Democrat. There’s been a big stink after online hackers revealed some party officials favored Clinton, but is it any wonder they would prefer the Democrat over the non-Democrat? Sanders’ supporters didn’t think so, which is one reason why they disrupted the Democratic National Convention and interrupted Clinton’s speech there numerous times.

Whichever party loses this election might have to ask tough questions about how much party discipline should be enforced. Should parties be as democratic as possible? If so, they’re going to lose some control of their own process. Already, the Democrats have decided to reduce the number of superdelegates – party leaders who get their own vote and who overwhelmingly favored Clinton this year. That change will lessen the elites’ power, but it also means that the non-Democrat would have come a lot closer to winning the Democratic nomination this year.

Most Americans probably would support the process being more democratic, not less. That being the case, they should become more active in primaries, when some of the most important choices are made. If not, a small minority of voters will make that choice.

For the foreseeable future, general election results in Arkansas will be relatively predictable: in this red state, the Republican candidate probably will win except in pockets where the Democrat probably will win. The real competition often is in the primaries, when voters can select those particular Republicans and Democrats.

So if you are only going to vote one time in an election year, maybe you should skip the general election and vote only in the primaries. The next ones are in May 2018.

Related: Don’t be a reptile this election.

Medical weed: What images do you see?

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Unless Arkansas somehow becomes competitive in the presidential race, which it probably won’t, the state’s airwaves won’t be crammed with political advertising by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Pity our unfortunate fellow Americans in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida for that one. In Arkansas, the only race between candidates that might be mildly interesting is the one for U.S. Senate.

What we will have is a pretty good three-way debate about medical marijuana.

Arkansans likely will have two choices on their ballot: the Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act and the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment. The act has already qualified, while the amendment is in the process of doing so.

Both would legalize marijuana for medicinal use, but they differ in substantive ways. The act would have the force of law, while the amendment alters the Arkansas Constitution, a more permanent statement. The act includes about 50 ailments for which marijuana could be prescribed; the amendment lists 14. Both would set up a network of dispensaries where patients could obtain the product, but the amendment’s would be for-profit enterprises while the act’s would be run by nonprofits. Only the act includes a provision allowing patients living too far from a dispensary to grow their own.

That last provision is the reason there are two ballot proposals. The leaders of the two groups,
the act’s Melissa Fults and the amendment’s David Couch, worked together in 2012 to convince voters to legalize medical marijuana and almost succeeded. Since then, they’ve split over “grow your own,” which Couch says Arkansans won’t accept. The split does not appear to be amicable.

Meanwhile, a campaign is forming to oppose both groups. On July 22, the Coalition for Safer Arkansas Communities held an informational meeting at the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce. The coalition will include law enforcement personnel, educators, medical providers and others. Gov. Asa Hutchinson is opposed to the legalization efforts, as is the state’s surgeon general, Dr. Greg Bledsoe. The State Chamber is opposed because it says medical marijuana will complicate workplace safety enforcement efforts and worker’s compensation claims.

The main speaker at the meeting was Henny Lasley, a Little Rock native now living in Colorado, which legalized marijuana medically in 2000 and recreationally in 2012. Now, she says, youth marijuana use in Colorado is the highest in the nation. There are more marijuana stores in Denver than pharmacies, Starbucks, or McDonald’s. Hundreds of marijuana products – including all kinds of fun-looking foods – are for sale in that state. She and Dr. Bledsoe say that, far from being harmless, marijuana is a dangerous plant with long-term effects and far higher concentrations of the mind-altering THC compound than it contained in the past.

Lasley said that all of the four states, plus D.C., where marijuana is now legal recreationally originally legalized it medically. She and the coalition’s campaign manager, Terry Benham, say the medical marijuana efforts are just Trojan horses hiding the marijuana industry’s true intentions, full-scale legalization.

Fults and Couch say this is not a Trojan horse. They say marijuana ought to be an option for doctors and patients in some circumstances, such as cancer and epilepsy, and that the Food and Drug Administration is dragging its feet on studying the drug for political reasons, including the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. Medical marijuana is now legal in 25 states plus D.C., but legal recreationally in only four states plus D.C., so most states have not followed Colorado’s lead in expanding its use.

This campaign, like many, will come down to images – the kind voters see on television and the internet, and the kind they see in their heads. What comes to your mind with the words “medical marijuana”? A cancer patient or an epileptic getting a little relief, or a teenager getting his hands on a now-available gateway drug? Do you see a small network of dispensaries responsibly providing a plant to a few who can benefit from it? Or do you see marijuana stores popping up on Main Street?

If you’re not sure, campaigns will be trying to help you form those images, one way or the other. This is an election, after all.

It’s been a good election – for liberals

Hand with ballot and boxBy Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

After four days of the Republican National Convention and two days of the Democrats, one thing is clear: Regardless of who wins in November, it’s been a lot better year for liberals than it’s been for conservatives.

For traditional conservatives, in fact, this election season has been tough, and a bit of an awakening.

The Republican Party has long been thought to be dominated by two factions – pro-business/less government types, and social conservatives. To maintain power, the party has had to appeal to Wall Streeters in New York and pro-lifers in Arkansas.

But it turns out that Donald Trump understood something that the data-driven party establishment didn’t: who really votes for Republicans, and why.

In recent years, the Republican Party has attracted more and more support from two very important groups who don’t fit neatly into the pro-business or social conservative wings: white working people without a college degree, and senior citizens.

At the same time, Republican Party policies have not always aligned with those voters. The party has supported trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, teaming with President Clinton and President Obama to overcome the opposition of Democrats in Congress. Who’s been hurt the most by free trade? Working people without a college degree. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress have supported significant changes to Social Security and Medicare that their senior citizen voters generally don’t support.

Then came Donald Trump.

During the campaign, he’s pledged repeatedly not to touch Social Security and Medicare, saying his policies will make the country so rich that no changes are needed. And during his speech to the Republican National Convention, Trump railed against a system rigged in favor of those rich Wall Streeters and blasted those free trade deals. He also repeated his plan to stop illegal immigration, which also has cost working people without a college degree the most.

Trump’s ascendancy is forcing the Republican Party to come to grips with the disconnect between some of its conservative policies and its voters. That’s difficult. Last week, some conservatives stayed home from the Republican National Convention, while others whooped and hollered or at least held their nose and golf-clapped for a candidate who, at times, sounded a lot like a Democrat.

For liberals, Hillary Clinton may have won the nomination, but Sen. Bernie Sanders won the battle of ideas. Thanks to him, the party has taken a giant step to the left, including promising a tuition-free college education to students with a family income of up to $125,000. During his speech to the rowdy convention Monday, Sanders railed against income inequality caused in part by … the same trade deals Donald Trump criticized.

As for social issues, Democrats at the national level no longer are even pretending to straddle the middle. During Sanders’ speech, the person sitting next to President Clinton was Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood.

Every election is described as “the most important election of our lifetime.” This one actually does rank up there. We are watching the realignment of both parties. The Republicans, for three decades the party of Reagan conservatism, are becoming the party of Donald Trump. To some degree, they must in order to appeal to their own voters. The Democrats are becoming more liberal – so liberal that President Obama is now one of the party’s moderates, and the Bill Clinton of the 1990s wouldn’t even fit in the party today.

So for liberals, the Democrats, and in some ways the Republicans, have moved in their direction if not past them.

Conservatives, meanwhile, will have some tough questions to ask about their own philosophy. Maybe the best they can hope for is to be both the party of Reagan and the party of Trump.

As for the Wall Streeters who both nominees say they’re mad at? I’m pretty sure they’ll do OK, regardless of who wins or loses.

Related: Trump played checkers and they played chess – in a checkers year.

Don’t be a reptile this election

By Steve Brawner
© 2016 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

You’re not a reptile, so don’t let yourself be treated like one this election cycle.

In legal circles, the “Reptile Theory” is the basis for many plaintiff’s attorneys’ cases. According to a report by Dr. Ann Greeley that’s posted on the American Bar Association’s website, lawyers across the country have stopped trying to focus on building sympathy for their clients and instead are focusing on rousing anger toward the defendant.

The practice got its name from a 1960s theory of evolutionary biology by neuroscientist Paul MacLean, who said the brain at its most primitive core is “reptilian” and focused on survival.

Regardless of whether or not plaintiff’s lawyers believe that theory makes any sense biologically, they want jurors focused on safety – theirs and others. Lawyers aren’t just building a case against the defendant; they’re identifying a source of danger facing the entire community, including the jurors. A tire blowing out and causing an accident could happen to anyone, so the lawyer wants to give jurors a chance to punish the danger itself and hopefully eliminate it by punishing the defendant.

If a plaintiff’s lawyer focuses on the plaintiff’s suffering, on the other hand, then juries might find fault with that person’s actions. Maybe the driver bears some responsibility for the tire blowing out because he drove over a broken glass bottle. Besides, why should that guy get rich just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Plaintiff’s lawyers are not the only ones relying on the Reptile Theory. Political campaigns do it, too, especially this year. The unfavorable ratings for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are so historically high that the Reptile Theory is either’s best path to victory.

That’s a big reason why this year’s Republican National Convention was so much an exercise in Hillary fear-raising rather than Trump praising. Like a plaintiff’s lawyer, the party tried to make voters focus on their fears and punish the defendant – this week, Clinton. It’s why the first night’s theme was “Make America Safe Again.”

Of course, the Reptile Theory is only part of the reason for the party’s focus on Clinton. There are legitimate concerns about her candidacy. At the same time, some Republicans can’t bring themselves to say much positive about their own nominee, even if they should. In a seven-minute speech, U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton mentioned Trump’s name one time, and then only his last name. Sen. Ted Cruz, whose wife Trump had insulted and whose father Trump had suggested was involved in the John F. Kennedy assassination, didn’t even endorse the candidate, instead encouraging his audience to “vote your conscience.”

I have no doubt that the Reptile Theory will be alive and well at the Democratic National Convention, when Trump will become the defendant.

There’s nothing necessarily wrong with criticizing an opponent. A majority of Americans have serious concerns about both Trump and Clinton, so of course the opposing campaigns will try to use those concerns to their advantage.

The problem is that fear alone, unless you’re in imminent danger, is a terrible basis for making decisions. As those plaintiff’s lawyers know, frightened people are more easily manipulated. When we’e afraid, we’re more likely to surrender our freedom, we stop thinking logically and creatively, and we start looking for people to blame. And then really bad things can happen.

Moreover, the two major parties use these fears to maintain their shared control. Republicans and Democrats make us believe we must vote for one or the other – the one we fear the least – rather than give a third party or independent a chance.

Reptiles have been around a long time. They are good at individual survival – eating and avoiding being eaten. But they don’t advance, they don’t make the world a better place for their young, and they don’t do anything great.

So, yes, this election, vote your fears. But also vote your hopes and dreams, and your logic and reason.

Most importantly, as Cruz said, vote your conscience. It’s something that reptiles don’t have but humans do, which helps us invent things like democracies and elections.