Category Archives: All Politics Is Local

Revisited: The Day They Stopped a Pardon Scandal

Since taking office, President Trump has used the power of the presidential pardon to free several people convicted of various crimes. The crimes include illegal campaign contributions, lying to the FBI about a government coverup by a former president, and contempt of court for discrimination against minorities.

As of this writing, Trump has hinted of more pardons, including that of one official serving time for a public corruption conviction, including soliciting bribes.

Some of the crimes mirror legal battles now being played out against former Trump campaign officials.

The situation recalls memories of a governor of my home state of Tennessee in the late 1970’s.

After the governor was voted out of office, but before his term expired, he began issuing pardons in what was termed a “cash for clemency” scandal. These included the commutation of a sentence for at least one convicted murderer.

The outgoing governor was a Democrat, the incoming governor a Republican. The concerned leaders of both political parties, however, convened and swore in the new governor several days before his term was to begin. Any more pardons thus were averted.

This revisit to the past is not necessarily to suggest the extreme measure of impeachment against a current president. It is to suggest that both political parties in Congress could act together to go beyond partisan politics.

They could pass legislation insuring the full investigation of Russian meddling in our elections. They could reign in questionable practices by some Trump appointees.

The Republican governor sworn in early by both parties in 1979 was Lamar Alexander, now one of Tennessee’s senators, known as a moderate. Time for moderates of both political parties to unite for honest governing.

Packaging the American Election

American elections are about advertising—the packaging of the candidates. And packaging costs money.

A reward for contributing the most money to a successful campaign may be access to the president to lobby for favored business interests. Or the contributor may be awarded a place in the president’s administration or maybe an ambassadorship.

Candidates are sold like toothpaste or cars. They are sold to appeal to the electorate, who are boxed up by paid studies into neat electoral slices.

Political campaigns are couched to appeal to those electoral slices. Like an ad for a food product, they narrow down a specific desire and zero in.

A few Americans read about products before they buy them—dietary supplements, automobiles, or floor covering, for example Too many depend on splashy advertising that appeals to desire but doesn’t offer real information.

Desires for physical products are often self-centered: to be cool or beautiful or wealthy. Vague promises, hard to quantify, are made about the product’s potential. Smart consumers search for proof that the product gives what it promises.

However, desires also can be unselfish: for strong job growth or freedom from terrorism or saving the lives of babies. Politicians cater to these desires, too. Whether candidates actually care or can actually deliver may be secondary to their desire to be elected.

Wise voters continually study reputable sources—about the country and the world, as well as about the candidates. Does the candidate’s character and past life indicate how well the candidate may carry out what they say? Do candidates actually give evidence of caring for what they promise to do?

Best to go beyond the flashy advertising, the tweetable campaign slogans, and the I’ll-give-you-the-moon speeches.

Rule by Executive Decree

Former Ambassador Ryan Crocker, in an interview on VOA with Greta Van Susteren, spoke of “rule by executive decree.” He was speaking specifically of the Iran nuclear agreement, but his words apply more broadly.

As Crocker pointed out, both Democratic and Republican presidents have used executive orders to carry our their policies to an unprecedented degree. Rules are issued; rules are rescinded, all by strokes of the presidential pen.

Congress is unable to pass even simple legislation. Our divisions have torn it apart, leaving it unable to function.

This position, Crocker rightly pointed out, “is not a good position for our nation to be in.” It damages our ability to act with any authority in world affairs.

Our friends wait for us to find a path. Our enemies take advantage of our flip-flopping. We can’t be trusted, they say. Just wait, and policy will change with the next president.

At some point, if we are to overcome this blockage, we must respect those with whom we disagree and work together. Name calling and angry tweets belong to unsupervised children.

Are we capable of “reasoning together”? Our survival depends on it.

James Comey, John McCain, and now Rex Tillerson

The books, A Higher Loyalty by James Comey, and The Restless Wave: Good Times, Just Causes, Great Fights, and Other Appreciations by John McCain, hint of the moral war being fought in this country.

Rex Tillerson, former Secretary of State, fired in the usual Trump fashion, had not fit well in the job to which he was assigned. Inexperienced in government operations, he neglected to form necessary relationships with the people who worked for him.

Nevertheless, unlike other wealthy men appointed by Trump, Tillerson didn’t work to grease wheels for the rich. He was a good man trying to do his job honorably. Speaking recently to the graduating class of Virginia Military Institute, he joined others in spotlighting the moral challenges this country faces.

“If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom,” Tillerson said.

Though he did not mention Trump by name, listeners surely understood the speech as a repudiation of Trumpian practices, of labeling as fake any news that is unfavorable to the administration.

The danger of Trump so filling the airwaves with easily provable untruths is that we accept lying as just part of the game. It isn’t. We’ve never had a politician lying so often and with so little shame.

As Tillerson said, “When we as a people, a free people, go wobbly on the truth, even on what may seem the most trivial of matters, we go wobbly on America. . . . If we do not as Americans confront the crisis of ethics and integrity in our society and among our leaders in both the public and private sector, and regrettably at times into the nonprofit sector, then American democracy as we know it is entering its twilight years.”

Is Democracy Dying?

“Is Democracy Dying?” is a series of essays in Foreign Affairs (May/June, 2018). They discuss the chances for democracy’s continuance, especially in the United States.

Why is the United States, for generations the world’s poster child for democracy, not immune from danger? One answer—many believe the main answer—is this country’s growing inequality.

An article in the series by Ronald Inglehart, a political scientist, compares today’s wages with wages at General Motors fifty years ago when “ . . . workers earned an average of around $30 an hour in 2016 dollars. Today, the country’s largest employer is Walmart, which in 2016 paid around $8 an hour.” (“The Age of Insecurity; Can Democracy Save Itself?”)

The cards are stacked against the working and middle classes, as we increasingly reward the more well-off. The recently passed tax legislation cuts taxes for the wealthy. This is predicted to increase the national debt and lead to calls for scaling back or abolishing programs for the less well-off, like affordable medical care or even social security, the pension system for the elderly.

Growing inequality would seem to demand, first of all, that we distribute the tax burden, not give more tax breaks to the wealthy.

As Inglehart writes, quoting overwhelming conclusions from research: “. . . extreme inequality is incompatible with democracy.”

Who is Sinclair Broadcasting and Why Is One Company Allowed to Manage so Much of Our News?

Sinclair Broadcasting seems to have appeared out of nowhere. Without many of us being aware of it, this one company is on the threshold of managing a large proportion of U.S. television stations.

Who is Sinclair Broadcasting?

According to Jon Talton (“As Rules Faded Away, Sinclair Stepped In,” The Seattle Times, April 8, 2018) the company requires “right-wing talking points to be aired on its local stations…”

This not only takes away from local reporting. It also makes a mockery out of reporting “news.” The stations, if they implement the Sinclair model, become propaganda machines, not reporters of facts.

When radio appeared in 1912, the airwaves were considered public. The federal government began issuing licenses.

When television was later introduced, the Federal Communications Commissions enacted the Fairness Doctrine. It required balanced coverage of controversial issues. Though national networks appeared, like NBC and CBS, the ownership of stations was mostly local. In fact, Sinclair began as a locally owned station in 1971 in Baltimore.

Talton details how the Fairness Doctrine was eaten away over the years by lawsuits and deregulation under both Democratic and Republican administrations. “This opened the way for the success of Rush Limbaugh and imitators, who couldn’t have broadcast their shows without balance under the old rule.”

Limits on the ownership of local stations were lifted, and thousands of local stations were bought by a few big owners, including Sinclair.

According to Talton, the government watchdogs were captured by the broadcasting industry. He points to Ajit Pai, President Trump’s FCC chairman, as aggressively rolling back rules.

Local reporting is being overtaken by news slanted to particular political interests.

But, as Talton says, we can all turn off irresponsible broadcasters like the Sinclair stations. We still have the option of listening to legitimate television and radio stations and subscribing to good newspapers. We have choices. So far.

The Folly of Disdaining the Experts

President Trump’s cabinet of department secretaries and advisors lurches from tweeted firings to unprecedented numbers of new appointments.

Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, a good man humiliated for trying to do his job, is only one of many caught in the flood of incoming and outgoing.

The State Department he headed is one of the original three U.S. government departments begun under George Washington.

The purpose of more recently created departments may be a bit fuzzy, but the purpose of the State Department is clear and always has been. The State Department’s purpose is to handle U.S. relations with other countries.

The State Department’s Foreign Service Officers, otherwise known as diplomats, train to carry out their mission to the rest of the world, like members of the military for their assignments.

They learn foreign languages, study the history and culture of the countries where they will serve, and train for managing outposts of the U.S. in foreign countries. On average, they spend two-thirds of their careers in those countries.

Their duty is to use their skills and on-the-ground experience to serve the various presidents and their administrations. “Serve” is the operative word.

Yet presidents sometimes disdain their diplomatic servants. Roger Grant Harrison (“Will the State Department Rise Under Pompeo?” American Interest, April 4, 2018) suggests why this might be so.

Wrote Harrison: “The problem with career Foreign Service Officers is that they know too much. They know why your simple-minded plan to invade Iraq and install a democracy won’t work. They understand the tribal, ethnic, and familial loyalties that will frustrate your efforts to consolidate the opposition to the Assad regime in Syria, and why the endlessly trained Afghan military will never win the victory that American generals endlessly promise.”

Ah, well, they try. And will try again, under Mike Pompeo or whoever finally takes over from Rex Tillerson.

Borrowing from the Future

Politicians understand how Americans hate paying taxes. A good way to get votes is to promise lower taxes—even if the resulting deficit will burden next generations.

Even though we hate taxes, we love programs paid for by taxes: the military to keep foreign enemies at bay, social security for the elderly, weather forecasts warning us of hurricanes, protection for our borders, clean air and water, national parks, police to guard us, good schools, justice systems to mandate fair play, protection of Americans abroad—and so on and on.

Unfortunately, payment for these programs comes disproportionately from the incomes of wage earners. The recent tax cuts for some wage earning Americans are a pittance compared with tax cuts passed for wealthy Americans—those able to live on accumulated wealth, not dependent on wages from a job.

Taxation on wealth has not kept pace with taxation on wages.

This is not to heap shame on economically advantaged Americans. Many of them give liberally to good causes. They begin businesses resulting in jobs. They fund scholarships. They sponsor research.

But this giving is voluntary. Until taxation on wealth keeps pace with taxation on income, our government will be inadequately funded.

Americans who receive a tax cut this April are cautioned to remember that the gift is actually money borrowed from the future.

How Many of These Young Demonstrators Will Vote?

Teenagers in our local high school were allowed seventeen minutes on March 14 to demonstrate for safer schools. One minute was allowed for each person killed by a gunman in a Parkland, Florida, school in February. The high school faculty considered the demonstration a lesson in civics for the students.

By the next congressional elections in November, 2018, a few of these students will be old enough to vote. By the time major elections are held in November, 2020, a great many of them will be eligible.

Elections are influenced not only by those who vote, but also by those who don’t.

Typically, younger voters have not voted at the same rate as their elders. Will this change in future elections? How much would a rising participation rate by younger voters change our politics?

A Witch Hunt?

After he was fired by President Trump, former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe issued the following statement:

“The big picture is a tale of what can happen when law enforcement is politicized, public servants are attacked, and people who are supposed to cherish and protect our institutions become instruments for damaging those institutions and people.”

Supposedly, McCabe was fired because he provided an interview to a news agency unauthorized by the FBI.

In his rebuttal, McCabe says of the charge: “As Deputy Director, I was one of only a few people who had the authority to do that. It was not a secret, it took place over several days, and others, including the Director, were aware of the interaction with the reporter.”

McCabe is said to have written memos relating to his conversations with President Trump as did former FBI director James Comey. They, like Comey’s memos, may shed light on whether Trump attempted to halt the investigation into possible collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Robert Mueller was appointed by the U.S. Justice Department to investigate the Russian meddling. Now Trump is calling this investigation a “WITCH HUNT.”

Trump makes this accusation, despite cases already brought against thirteen Russians, as well as several Americans within the Trump campaign and administration.

Robert Mueller, by the way, is not a Democrat. He is a Republican, a highly respected public servant appointed as FBI director by President George W. Bush. He served for thirteen years as director.

Schools and Tax Cuts

According to an article in The Economist (“Five into four,” February 3, 2018), cutting taxes at the state level in Oklahoma has been disastrous for its schools.

The tax cuts were based on the belief that cutting taxes will so invigorate the economy that the loss in revenue will be replaced, even exceeded, by economic growth.

Instead, according to the article, “. . . deep tax cuts have wrecked the state’s finances . . . lawmakers gave a sweetheart deal to its oilmen, costing $470m in a single year . . . ”

Teachers have fled the state for living wages in other states. Other services also have suffered, including the state highway patrol.

Tax cuts in neighboring Kansas wrecked state finances there as well, However, a Republican legislature in that state rebelled and reversed tax cuts. Tax raises require a larger majority in Oklahoma.

Despite these examples, cutting taxes on the more well off appears alive and well in the recent tax package passed by the U.S. congress. Unfortunately, the deficit from such cuts threatens programs enjoyed by the less well off. Anybody for cuts to Social Security?

Discouraged About Our Politics? Try Baby Step Involvement

Recently, Washington State legislators passed and sent to the governor a bill exempting many of their records from public view, despite the state’s Public Records Act.

Public protest over the bill began after newspapers pointed out how they used the Public Records Act to investigate political corruption,.

The legislature had passed the exemption bill without the usual public debate and scrutiny. A large number of representatives and senators approved the bill, supposedly rendering it veto proof.

The governor, though expressing himself against the measure, was considering letting it pass without any action, since, it seemed, the legislature would simply vote to override his veto.

Thousands of emails poured into offices of the legislators. Thousands of citizens phoned. Some even sent letters. Reaction overwhelmingly condemned the bill.

The governor vetoed the bill, and the legislators agreed not to pass it over his signature. They will, they said, work on another bill that follows more accepted procedures and allows for compromise.

In a time when our national government appears polarized and paralyzed, citizens can exert a great deal of influence at the state and local levels. Perhaps responsible state governments will prod our national politicians out of their dysfunction.

A long time ago, I heard someone suggest that involvement, even in small ways, works to overcome the despair of powerlessness.

I was one of those who emailed my state legislators. It was a small act, but, strangely, it did give me a bit of optimism about our democracy.

Domestic Terrorism

On February 5, I quoted from a blog by Jim Wallis, editor-in-chief of Sojourners (written November 17, 2017, after a church shooting in Texas). Today, I’d like to quote further from that blog. Wallis begins by defining terrorism.

“Terrorism: the purposeful violence against civilians, non-combatants, with the intent to create and foster social fear. One gun violence massacre after another has certainly created the fear that our families and children are not safe in their schools, our theatres, our concerts, and even in our churches.”

But we can react in different ways to this fear, Wallis points out. Our fear can be stoked toward buying even more guns. In that case, more guns are available for disturbed young men like the shooter in Parkland, Florida, as well as for use in domestic disturbances or in suicides.

Or we can follow other examples. “Australia came to this conclusion after 35 people were killed in a mass shooting. Conservative Prime Minister John Howard and his party banned semiautomatic and automatic guns and implemented a buyback program, slashing the country’s arsenal by 20 percent and dramatically reducing gun deaths.”

Wallis also discusses ill-conceived interpretations of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides Americans with the right to own guns, ostensibly to protect ourselves from a potentially tyrannous government. But it is absolutely ridiculous to extend that to any weapon that is available, any military weapon a government has. Should every American have the right to own a bazooka, a tank, a rocket launcher, a weaponized drone — how about a nuke?”

Finally, he quoted Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, affected greatly by the Newtown massacre of children in his state: “My heart sunk to the pit of my stomach, once again, when I heard of today’s shooting in Texas. My heart dropped further when I thought about the growing macabre club of families in Las Vegas and Orlando and Charleston and Newtown, who have to relive their own day of horror every time another mass killing occurs.”

Now add families and friends of those killed at a high school in Parkland, Florida.

“You Lie” vs Not Clapping

Joe Wilson, a U.S. congressman from South Carolina, showed his disagreement with a speech by President Obama in 2009 by yelling “you lie” in the middle of it. He was not tried for treason. So far as I know, although some disliked his interruption (for which he later apologized), no one even suggested treason.

According to the United States Constitution (Article 3, Section 3), “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

How does a refusal to clap for President Trump’s State of the Union speech fit with the Constitution’s definition of treason?

Trump apparently didn’t come right out and say non clappers were treasonous, but he implied it. He used his “somebody” shield, as he often does. “Somebody” suggested treason, Trump said. He answered his alter somebody: “Why not?”

Some nations appear to have a low bar for treason. I’m not sure about North Korean law, but it probably doesn’t matter, since the leader, Kim Jong-un, appears to be the law. One certainly might expect death, with or without a trial, if they openly withheld clapping during one of his speeches.

President Trump appears to admire Kim, saying, “I can tell you this, a lot of people don’t like when I say it, but he was a young man of 26 or 27 when he took over from his father, when his father died. He is dealing with obviously very tough people, in particular the generals and others. And at a very young age he was able to assume power. A lot of people I am sure tried to take that power away. Whether it was his uncle or anybody else and he was able to do it, so obviously he is a pretty smart cookie.”

North Korea—are we there yet?

A Full Life: Reflections at Ninety by Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter was an anomaly. An unwavering born-again Christian from the Bible Belt, he forged a presidency along liberal paths.

His administration produced a national healthcare plan, which he described in his book. “Our plan protected all Americans from catastrophic illness costs; extended comprehensive health coverage to all low-income citizens; gave total coverage to all mothers and babies for prenatal, delivery, postnatal, and infant care; promoted competition and cost containment and provided a clear framework for phasing in a universal, comprehensive national health plan.”

Senator Ted Kennedy opposed it, wanting another plan of his own approved. As Carter says, thirty years would pass before another plan was approved with “just partial implementation.”

If Carter had been from any part of the country except the deep South, would his presidency have been more successful? He writes: “Some of the most influential analysts never anticipated my election, and others could not accept having a governor from the Deep South in office.”

Particularly amazing (and tragic) is comparison of the political campaigning of that era with the present one.

Carter and his Republican opponent in the presidential campaign, Gerald Ford (whom Carter highly praises), chose not to raise campaign funds from corporate or private donors. Both used funds collected from the income tax form allowing $1 dollar to be donated to campaigns (now $3). According to Carter (writing in 2016), this fund has not been used since 2004.

It’s hard to imagine the differences from the political campaigns of today, which have become contests mostly between wealthy American donors.

As president, Carter was a serious reader as was his family. He commented,“All of us are avid readers, and it was during the weekends that I had a chance to catch up on back reading .”

Carter also exercised every afternoon by running from five to seven miles.

He mentions the efforts he put in to prepare for summit meetings, studying briefing books on political and economic matters and about the leaders he would be meeting.

Easy to note the contrasts between Carter and the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Why Solutions Begin Locally, Not at the Top

“The Firs” is the name of a close community of trailer home families in a Seattle neighborhood. They rent the land for the trailer homes that they own. Their modest homes answer a need for working class housing in a city of soaring rents and home prices.

However, this land offers more material value as a site for a hotel and apartment complex. The owner of the land wishes to profit from such a proposed new development and so has told the residents of the trailer park to leave.

He says, “They want to stay there forever . . . why should I solve the problem? I already gave them a lot of notice.” He offered to give $2,000 to each owner after they leave. (“A Mobile-Home Community Fights Development,” The Seattle Times, January 28, 2018, Erika Schultz and Christine Willmsen)

It’s doubtful if residents of The Firs can find communities as affordable as their present one. Some of the trailers are too old to be moved without destroying them. Plus, their close knit neighborliness would be lost.

Yet costs of homelessness are not usually factored in when affordable neighborhoods are swapped for condos for the more well off. Nor are the emotional costs of those who barely hold on in a constant fight to balance housing with food and medical care.

Capitalism is a wonderful servant but a terrible master. It is the soul of efficiency: the best use of resources—farms, mines, land—for making money for owners. This best use for owners, however, may conflict with the best use of less powerful citizens.

Yet, for both capitalism and democracy to survive, ordinary citizens must reap their benefits, not just owners and the wealthy. Capitalism must be made to serve, not treated as a god.

“Power is directed at the top. . . . Actual work can start only at the bottom, at home and underfoot, where the causes and the effects actually reside.” (Wendell Berry, The Art of Loading Brush)

John McCain’s Failed Cause Was the Nation’s Loss, Big Time

Almost two decades ago (March 1, 2000) Senator John McCain wrote an editorial for USA Today: “Campaign Finance Reform Must Not be Ignored.”

Unfortunately, his pleas for reform were indeed ignored.

Recently, Charles and David Koch, heirs of an industrial family invested in fossil fuels, announced a donation of twenty million dollars to promote President Trump’s recently passed tax plan.

Both major political parties benefit from donations large enough to make the heads spin of ordinary folks. In 2017, the median household income, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, was $59, 039, not quite .003 percent of what the Koch brothers gave this one time. (They’ve given much more over many years.)

Should we not be uneasy with the thought that if politicians want to be elected, they must support policies favored by big donors?

Campaign finance reform became harder when a Supreme Court decision in 2010 struck down the limits on corporate giving.

Reform, if it is to happen now, may be up to the states. One movement encourages a sufficient number of states to seek an amendment to the U.S. Constitution overturning the 2010 decision. Other states are trying various ways to publically finance local elections.

Success depends on the support of ordinary citizens—or they can ignore the efforts at reform, as they did before, and continue with a government influenced and operated overwhelmingly by the wealthy.

U.S. Ambassador to Panama Announces Resignation, and Politics Becomes Personal for Me

The U.S. ambassador to Panama, John Feeley, announced his resignation. He says he no longer can serve under President Donald Trump.

In his announcement, Feeley said, “As a junior foreign service officer, I signed an oath to serve faithfully the president and his administration in an apolitical fashion, even when I might not agree with certain policies. My instructors made clear that if I believed I could not do that, I would be honor bound to resign. That time has come.”

Feeley swore his oath on July 20, 1990, along with forty-four other members of the 52nd junior officer orientation class, including me.

For nine weeks, we had studied together the rudiments of what a Foreign Service Officer does—from leading staff to dealing with foreign governments, from writing to speaking.

We had gone on retreats together and been advised by our seasoned Foreign Service elders. We had met after classes for happy hours and sometimes played ball on the grassy slope below the Washington Monument.

We knew as we took that oath that we would never again all be in the same place together. On flag day, we had received our assignments to our first posts.

Though some would receive more specialized training, we would soon scatter to South America and Asia and points in between. The typical officer spends two-thirds of his or her career in foreign assignments.

John Feeley, a former Marine Corps helicopter pilot, was more experienced than most of us. Married and a father, he was the kind of person you would want on your side in a crisis, somebody you would trust to lead. We were not surprised as Feeley advanced through the ranks, finally becoming a career ambassador.

Now all that expertise is lost.

No Consideration for Disruption to Lives, Families, Employers, Communities . . .

No consideration was given “to the disruption . . . on the lives of Daca recipients, let alone their families, employers and employees, schools and communities . . . ”

The quote is from a ruling by a federal judge staying Trump’s order to end the DACA program until the courts complete a proper review of the order.

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) permitted the “Dreamers” to remain in this country to study and work. Dreamers are young people brought to the United States as children, who have grown up in this country.

The judge’s ruling highlights the upheaval caused by other sudden orders to deport thousands of people established for years in the United States.

These include certain Nicaraguans and Haitians. These groups were allowed to remain in this country for humanitarian reasons when natural disasters devastated their homelands.

Despite the hardship caused by Trump’s orders to the people involved (as well as the countries they would return to) many who voted for Trump support him.

I understand the broken immigration system this country has had for decades. Assigned to U.S. embassies and consulates overseas, I saw its shortcomings in the lives of the people we met every day in our work.

However, the harming of law abiding, productive members of American communities is a horrible start to immigration reform.

Judges: Just Another Political Game?

“The prospect of more ideological and active conservative judges is not intrinsically bad. The federal courts look stronger for including a range of legal philosophies. The problem is that conservatives are not striving for balance, but conquest.”

      –The Economist, (September 25, 2017), commenting on what it considers the politicizing of judicial nominees.

Federal judges in the United States are appointed by the president for life, subject to the approval of the Senate. The goal is for judges to be impervious to political pressure, judging impartially without worrying about the next election,

Nevertheless, the appointment of federal judges has become more politically motivated than ever in the last few years.

Refusing to approve presidential choices for federal judges in the last year of Obama’s presidency reached record highs. This practice is not new, but the number of times it was done is unprecedented.

President Trump, now enabled to appoint a large number of vacant judgeships, has shown less regard for experienced judges than any recent president. The process has come to resemble the questionable practice of appointing ambassadors for campaign contributions.

Political ambassadors, however, only serve until the next president takes office, not for life.

Since his political party controls the Senate, the issue of partisanship in the appointment of federal judges is theirs to support or to end. If they choose to act for party and not for country, we will suffer the consequences for decades.