I Can See Them Coming: Repeats of 1850 and 1957

The trouble on the horizon is awful. I don't see it diminishing anytime soon.

Talk has already started. The governors of some blue states are already putting out gestures of resistance:

• Pritzker, Illinois: "You come for my people, you come through me."
• Newsom, California:  Has called for a special session to bring more resources to combat attacks on immigration, abortion, and LGBTQ rights.
• Hochul, New York: Has promised to combine forces with Attorney General Letitia James to "protect New Yorkers' fundamental freedoms."
• Walz, Minnesota: Has promised to make Minnesota a 'safe haven' for people to practice their rights.
• Healey, Massachusetts: Has refused to participate in deportation plans;
• Polis, Colorado: Has joined with other Democratic governors and ex-governors to form Governors Safeguarding Democracy. He and Pritzker are co-chairs.

So what if you were 47, with control of both houses of Congress--as it appears is going to happen? What would you do?

I'll tell you what I'd do: promote and get a law passed much like the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The territory of California, which had declared itself to be a separate republic (much like Texas), had had its population swell up by more than 100,000 because of the Gold Rush in 1849. It quickly applied for statehood, but as a free state. The South pushed back because that would upset the free-slave state balance, which had roughly been maintained by one slave state being admitted to the Union shortly after, or shortly before, a free state also had, for about a quarter century. If California's admission were to upset that apple cart, there would be secession and a civil war if no offer could be made that the South could accept.

Henry Clay to the rescue. In the last major bill that he promoted before his death, he proposed the Fugitive Slave Act, to pave the way for California's admission.  That law demanded and made it legally binding for authorities from slave states to coerce law enforcers from free states to try to help them find fugitive slaves and transport them back into captivity. It did not allow for state authorities to opt whether or not to do so.

The Fugitive Slave Act caused intense outrage in the states where slavery had either died out or had been legislatively forbidden. It resulted in some free states passing "personal liberty laws," giving state enforcers the right to refuse assistance to federal authorities, or authorities from slave states, assigned to take fugitives back into slavery.

In other words, the Fugitive Slave Act warded off war, but could not guarantee peace. The actual Civil War, it has at times been disingenuously said, was caused by a reaction to a threat upon states' rights. Another situation, with geography largely flipped on its head, may in fact be happening and very soon.

Laws in states mentioned above (and others), passed in objection to taking immigrants and putting them into concentration camps, separating children from their families, and shipping them out of the country--never mind if the country of their origins will accept them back--would set up very definitive new states' rights situations, the enforcements of which may create a deep and abiding constitutional crisis. What if the governors of such states activate their National Guard units to protect immigrants? And what if 47 activated the U.S. Army to challenge that?

Then the National Guard folks would have an unalterable choice to make: Justice, or the law? There would be no choice, if their oath to the Constitution would be genuine. If that should come to pass, all the big talk by blue state governors might come to naught, or at the very most, a paper tiger.

Flipped on its ear, too, would be the purpose of the Supremacy Clause: to guarantee that laws would be enforced properly and fairly, regardless of what state governors would think of them. In 1957, Governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas brought out the state's National Guard to 'protect' Little Rock Central High School from having to admit nine black students, in violation of the earlier Supreme Court ruling that demanded it. President Dwight Eisenhower, in a much celebrated decision by liberals, called out the 82nd Airborne to parachute near Little Rock and march to the school to override the governor's decision (even though Ike didn't much like doing it). The National Guard had to stand aside and watch. It did not resist.

Faubus, in other words, dared Eisenhower to take action, and Eisenhower called him on it. Perhaps the same thing will happen to 47. I think we know how he'll respond, and this time with all the justification that the Constitution, which he otherwise might dispense with at his leisure now that the Supreme Court gives him all the license he needs, guarantees, and with joyous enthusiasm. Eisenhower said little in performing his presidential duties, though. I don't think 47 would remain quiet in the least. He would be pompous, hypocritically self-righteous, and endlessly obnoxious.

So did Faubus press the Guard into service to gain political points with his constituents? Cynics might agree. In the list above, I see at least three potential candidates to make presidential runs in 2028. Democrats are hardly possessed with political purity. The same thing's possible.

So what goes around, comes around, though it might take more than six decades in one case, 175 years in another. Would the same thing happen if a Republican Congress should pass a national abortion ban, one that might even prohibit interstate travel to have one? What kind of constitutional showdown might that cause? And what kind of resistance?

I do not see acquiescence ahead. Talk of resistance lasted about four years, but much of it was talk. This, I think, will be the real thing. That will cause crackdowns, overenforcement, and the sting of authoritarianism. It will open wounds that will remain raw. 

I do not see settlement ahead, either. Secession? We seem a long way from that. But the emotionalism brought by a repeat and reports of immigrant abuses would reach new heights. Coercion would inflame that emotional cauldron even more. From there, it is difficult to know what the future will bring.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

The Country's Really at Stake Tomorrow

I hope so much that I'm preaching to the choir here. But just in case--

For the love of God, vote.

And vote with your brain. Vote the way you actually see things with your very eyes.

If you're in the 3rd Congressional District, or know somebody who does: Tell them to vote for Rebecca Cooke, over incumbent Derrick Van Orden, the latest impostor who wants to keep his job as a Republican bobblehead. It's the only Congressional race in the state that's anything near competitive, due to Republican gerrymandering that spans more than a decade. This used to be Ron Kind's seat, but he stepped down. Rebecca represents a real choice, a new beginning, for the 3rd. Please vote for her.

For the U.S. Senate, please avoid electing a Ron Johnson clone by turning back Eric Hovde and staying with someone who's done a tremendous amount for this state, especially in the realm of health care: Tammy Baldwin. Hovde has thrown millions of dollars that, as a billionaire, he doesn't need, in addition to PAC money poured into the race by Mitch McConnell. McConnell sees the photocopy of Johnson's eccentric stupidity, his caving to moneyed interests, his enthusiastic inclusion of lies and innuendoes, his horrible pandering, and his terrible policy positions. Baldwin has fought back against Hovde's blithering, amateurish approach of sheer volume of smears. Don't let him succeed. 

Wisconsin needs Tammy Baldwin. Please vote for her.

And, of course: this is the moment to turn back a lying, disgusting, two-bit phony who's trying to return to the White House. That this election is going to be decided by a whisper thin margin tells you a lot about how White Christian Nationalism has nearly overwhelmed the rhetoric of this campaign, the exaggerations, the threats, the monstrous lies that ex- has included.

I have written much about ex-'s incompetence, his stupidity, his cruelty, and his meanness. It is the height of naivete for anyone to suppose that his words have been nothing but stunted, awful political rhetoric. He will make mincemeat out of the Constitution and abuse the military to deal with domestic issues. In short, he will turn America into a police state. He will also completely abandon Ukraine, pleasing Vladimir Putin because (remember?) he wants to build a hotel in Moscow.

Expect, too, wars with either Mexico or Iran. He wants to invade Mexico to stop immigration from that territory, as if he would with all the coastlines we have. He wants to show his mega-religious political allies that God will be pleased if he devastates Israel's number one enemy. With no accountability now to hold him back--the Supreme Court has set the table for him very nicely--and with his second term providing him with no political consequences, count on him to:

• Try to stifle all media opponents by legal or quasi-legal means;
• Try to expand book banning to include anything written about gays or trans-people;
• Take away any effort to contribute to battling climate change;
• Get us out of NATO and leave Europe at the mercy of Russia;
• If he gets both houses of Congress on his side, take away Social Security and Medicare;
• Ditto for control of Congress--before the above mentioned, he will end abortion in the U.S.;
• Cripple the economy with a misguided, repeatedly stupid attempt to foist China with tariffs; and 
• Put immigrants into concentration camps, where they will suffer and die by the thousands.

I'm sure that list, a highlight reel, is far too short. It can all be avoided by elected Kamala Harris President.

She doesn't have the elixir of magical policy alternatives; indeed, she would be far better off trying to mimic what Joe Biden has tried to do. But her campaign has undersold (at least in ads) the good that Biden has done for the economy and for relaxing the devastating anxiety caused by Covid. She has basically tried to sell herself by continuing to say that she isn't ex-, and trying to bring in Republicans who see things clearly. We will see, after tomorrow, whether that will work.

That she managed to recover much of the support lost by Biden after that disastrous debate in June is all to the good. But her momentum slowed down when ex- played it cagey by avoiding a second debate. He knew he would once again be made to look like the fool he is. So instead he relied on ridiculous, shouting, fear-mongering ads on TV, to which Harris could not respond with any kind of effective timing. He threw every kind of nonsense at us, including fears about support of trans-people, as if she had caved their every whim. (Note that Hovde copied those ads to the letter in Wisconsin.) If he wins, that change in strategy will be remembered as the turning point.

If. MSNBC's Steve Kornacki believes that Pennsylvania will be the deciding vote. I still believe that too many battleground states are too much up for grabs; it will be an absolute photo finish. Either way, we will still be left with a nation comprised at least halfway of people who, apparently with blind religious connection, have been fooled into thinking that the Almighty has willed this result. The movement it has engendered will not go away, either way it goes. But that will be a discussion for another day.

In the meantime: In the name of God, vote. Vote like the country's at stake. Because it really is this time.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

No, Jeff. I Don't Believe You. You Gypped Me.

Jeff Bezos has gypped the subscribers to the Washington Post--I am one of them, electronically--by walking away from his major public responsibility: Taking a position on this incredibly contested presidential race.

Not only did his cancellation of presidential election endorsement come at the last second and was timed maybe as poorly as it could have ever been, his explanation, made days later, riffs at ex post facto darts being pulled out of his back.

Bezos is trying to take the high road after torpedoing his own editorial staff at the Washington Post and removing a recommendation for Kamala Harris, the only move that makes any sense this fall.  He says it's the "right thing to do" because the newspaper should not appear biased.

That is colossal nonsense. Newspapers, as a rule, try as hard as they can not to be unnecessarily biased by the way they report facts. They seek balance, sometimes disappointingly because the underlying cause of big stories are often well-known before they reach the print stage. But the point is that they usually bend over backwards to avoid accusations, true or not, of misrepresentation.

So newspapers are, by their nature, normally as unbiased as entities could possibly be. Bezos' entreaty in the name of objectivity is pretentious and defensive. That has nothing to do with whether or not they should take positions on vital issues of the day. That's what the op-ed page is supposed to be about. But Bezos has nixed what I believe to be the Post's sacred obligation: to serve as the public's positional system on choosing the most important person in the nation and the world. Dozens of papers still do this and don't think twice about it. Bezos has not only thought twice, but thought wrong.

The timing of the decision, so close to the election itself, reveals this. If Bezos was that devoted to his high-minded principles, why didn't he come out and take this position, say, last spring? It has been more than obvious that siding with one or the other has reached an all-time high. If he was to do the public a lasting service by toning down the temperature of debates and disagreements, that would have been the time to do so.

It's kind of like a baseball hitter with a swing flaw. He should fix it in the spring, when the season's still young and the race is still blurry and largely undecided. He shouldn't wait to work on it when it's two out in the ninth, the bases are loaded, and he stands at the plate.

It all smacks of something else, too. Bezos is a multibillionaire. He has been roundly attacked, probably unjustly, by ex- during his woebegotten presidential term for his involvement in post office issues.The attack is a hazing, though, for not supporting ex- politically. It really means nothing else.

But that's enough. Bezos wants ex- off his back, just because it's too much of a hassle otherwise. Does that matter to the rest of us?

That's a good question. For the Post to avoid a presidential endorsement at this late hour cannot be anything but abdication of political and citizenship responsibilities. It is the direct ignoring of the simple fact that that paper represents a significant degree of the electorate, one that depends upon it for representing their views.

Yes, the Post tries to be balanced in its approach, and anyone who follows it can't help but agree. It has conservative columnists with whom I disagree strongly--but it has them. It has run plenty of stories about those who support ex-, even though I dislike them deeply. For it to be designated as responsible, it has to do so.

But the chief columnists, those who are read most consecutively and most often, remain those who lean left. The paper's readership has demanded it. It has relied upon it for opinion leadership. Their combined attitudes can't help but steer the paper's conclusion that ex- cannot possibly return as president.

Which is why a quarter of a million subscribers have cancelled at this point. If Bezos is so worried about losing money--I'm guessing he's really not--he shouldn't have waited until the ultimately decisive point to worry about this.

So, no: I don't believe his effort to smooth this over with high-minded principles. It feels empty and pointless.

The Los Angeles Times has also very recently declined to take a position in the race, too, infuriating much of its staff as well. Run by another billionaire, it all looks to be a cabal by rich people to save their toys so they aren't unnecessarily scratched.

Will it matter to the average voter? No way to tell. But for two major newspapers to abrogate their responsibilities now, at the last minute, tells me that it's capitulation to a tinpot phony who might in fact fool enough people in battleground states to walk away with this thing. When the heat came on, two newspaper moguls up and walked away. When it came to have some guts, they had none.

We have three days to know whether that mattered.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark