Monday, February 22, 2021

AMERICA’S CLOSE CALL WITH LOSING DEMOCRACY: THE 2020 ELECTION STORY THAT’S BARELY BEEN TOLD

         

At first, we thought the end of the impeachment trial marked a good time for turning the page on Donald Trump and the 2020 election. The new administration certainly has turned the page, as President Biden’s recent Wisconsin and Michigan trips, his first since taking office, indicate. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris revved up their campaign to build support for the administration’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package. It appears they’re making headway. Polls showed Biden’s approval rating over 60% and support for the virus legislation nearing 70%.

One thing, however, caught our attention and made

us consider something about the election we can’t ignore –the danger democracy faced and escaped. The February 15/February 22 issue of Time Magazine includes a stunning report about the unprecedented effort by Americans of all political stripes to save the 2020 election. These Americans, first and foremost, wanted a fair election. Their objective was not engineering a victory for either side. The story hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves. According to Time, the key participants say they “want the secret history of the 2020 election told,” so we decided we’d help them get it out.

Molly Ball wrote “How Close We Came: The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign that Saved the Election.” She details how business interests, labor unions, and social activists made “sort of an implicit bargain” in which they came together to“keep the peace and oppose Trump’s assault on democracy.” It started with a man few people have heard of, Mike Podhorzer, and wound up involving hundreds of Americans from different political orientations.


Beginnings – Fall 2019 

Podhorzer’s political roots grew in union soil. He served as senior adviser to the leadership of the
AFL-CIO and developed a reputation for using scientific methods in campaigns. In late 2019, he realized a disaster loomed with the 2020 vote because Trump could try to “disrupt the election.” Podhorzer found others, especially in voting rights and civil rights organizations, who shared his fears. He began communicating with them and in March 2020 put his thoughts into a confidential memorandum that outlined how Trump might use right wing media and social media in claiming he’d won the election, even if he lost.

Four major concerns appeared early: (1)attacks on 

voters, (2) attacks on election administration,

(3) attacks on Trump’s political opponents, and

(4) attempts at reversing a Democratic victory. 

Podhorzer's group began working on these

problems before Biden clinched the Democratic

nomination and the Biden campaign never had a

real role in his efforts.


The COVID Bugaboo

Once the pandemic hit, it became clear conducting the 2020 election would pose special problems. States including Ohio, New York, and Wisconsin experienced turmoil in primaries because of poll-worker shortages, lack of polling places, and delayed vote counts.

           
The pandemic presented the first opportunity for real cooperation between the liberal activists sounding alarm bells about the election and business groups, many of whose members supported Trump, yet wanted a free, fair election. Business feared the impact on the economy of prolonged civil disturbances that might follow a disputed contest. Many states and localities didn’t have adequate funding for a pandemic-stricken election. Congress provided some money, but it wasn’t enough. Private donations, many from the business community, filled the gap, helping local election officials purchase protective gloves, masks, and hand sanitizer.

The pandemic dictated a major mail-in

ballot effort. Podhorzer’s group focused attention on helping states prepare for that, something many had minimal experience with. Additionally, they worked at (1) helping the public understand counting the votes might take longer than usual, (2) fighting disinformation on social media by getting the platforms to enforce their rules, and (3) encouraging both left-leaning activists and business groups to buy-in and avoid inflaming the situation. Meantime, Democratic lawyers vigorously fought court battles against Trump’s false claims, before and after the election.  

Alliances

Ball writes extensively about the “strange bedfellows” the effort attracted. She notes that the 

AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (along with some religious groups) issued a joint statement on election day calling on the media, the candidates, and voters to “exercise patience with the process and trust in our system,” even if they didn’t agree on a preferred outcome.

Once Trump’s post-election fraud claims went into overdrive, members of the group encouraged support from former elected officials for election administrators. In Michigan, for example, three former governors, Republicans John Engler and Rick Snyder and Democrat Jennifer Granholmjoined in calling for an electoral college tally free of White House pressure.

End Game

The Time story makes clear Podhorzer’s informal group anticipated the January 6 effort Trump and his supporters made to interfere with the congressional tally of electoral college votes. The left-leaning activists who were part of the alliance made things easier by standing down in the face of the insurrection. They didn’t confront Trump’s mob with a counter protest, which only would have made things worse, in part by letting the right wing media offer a false equivalency narrative.

In the end, the informal group Podhorzer spearheaded narrowly pulled out a victory. Ball’s story reported that they (and the country) “won by the skin of [our] teeth.”  That the  United States

needed the kind of effort reported by Time both depresses and encourages. It depresses, of course, that we had such a close call. It encourages because Americans of all political persuasions stepped up and preserved our democracy. The Time story is worth reading.         

    

Tuesday, February 16, 2021

WHY BOTHER WITH A SENATE TRIAL FOR TRUMP?: LET US COUNT THE WAYS

 

As expected, the United States Senate acquitted former President Donald Trump on impeachment charges last Saturday. Seven Republicans joined 48 Democrats and two independents in support of convicting Trump, making it 57-43, ten votes shy of the 67 needed. Trump was charged with inciting the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, and not trying to stop the carnage.

The seven Republican votes made it the most bipartisan impeachment trial in U.S. history.

Though House impeachment managers put on a brilliant case, Republicans fearful of a back-lash from the Trump base, ignored the evidence and acquitted him, leaving Trump still eligible for public office.

Many GOP senators hid behind the discredited jurisdiction rationale – the idea the Senate couldn’t convict a former president since he’d already left office. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell relied on

that rationale in justifying his own acquittal vote, despite admitting the House managers proved their case. The no jurisdiction theory flew in the face of established precedent and the plain text of the constitution. The idea, however, provided enough of a fig leaf that Republicans exonerated Trump with the semblance of a straight face.

Even some progressives, knowing the likely outcome, asked why the senate

bothered with the trial. They said it distracted from President Joe Biden’s agenda (time will tell about that) and put Trump in the spotlight when the country should move on to other things. With all due respect to such views, we saw at least five reasons the senate proceeded as it should have:

        (1) Democracy Matters

The riveting presentations by the House managers – tightly scripted, efficient, and brimming with new video evidence – showed the United States values democracy and the rule of law. An effort at holding Trump accountable for the January 6 insurrection mattered more in terms of preserving basic principles of our system than outcome. Besides, the chance of bringing Trump to justice hasn’t passed. He still faces criminal investigations, including a new one by a prosecutor in Georgia over his attempts at reversing the election outcome in that state. Trump’s impeachment lawyers seemingly invited criminal prosecution as an alternative to conviction in the senate, as did


McConnell. 
We’re not reticent about seeing a former president found guilty of criminal charges thrown in jail. If the Secret Service must learn how it guards a protectee in prison, so be it.
  

 

      (2)  A Nation Watching

We won’t know the full impact of the trial on public opinion for a little while. As it began, most polls showed a narrow majority in favor of conviction, 52-48 in several surveys. Those polls didn’t fully reflect the effect of the

prosecution’s case. We can’t imagine the horrendous scenes of assaults on police officers and lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence running for their lives didn’t change some minds. Republicans who 
voted ‘no’ presumably are betting whatever negative effects the trial had on their party will fade.  Maybe, but we can already envision Democratic consultants screening the video for use in television and internet ads against Republicans in future campaigns. Is this really what Americans want from their leaders? Republicans who decided they couldn’t cross Trump and his supporters may find themselves in disfavor with other voters in coming elections, even if they survive dreaded primary challenges.

 

(3)  A World Watching   

Whatever the public reaction in this country, the fact the trial happened should have helped

America’s tattered reputation around the globe. The United States is making an international comeback, having rejoined the Paris Climate Accord and the World Health Organization. The new president’s effort at controlling the virus should help show the U.S. as a responsible world citizen again. Holding the trial demonstrated to countries around the world we will at least try drawing lines at abhorrent behavior by our presidents. We will use our institutions in service of protecting our values, even if we fail.

 

(4) We Care

Going forward with the trial demonstrated a level of concern about doing the

right thing, even if we didn’t get the right outcome. The trial was as much for the history books as for today. No one 100 years from now can say we just didn’t care when a lawless president incited an armed insurrection aimed at overturning the outcome of a free and fair election and preventing a peaceful transition of power. No, it didn’t turn out right, but we tried, and posterity will take note of that.

 

      (5) Trials and Truth

Trials are not perfect vehicles for arriving at truth, but they’re better than most anything else this society or any other has for achieving that goal. As a result of hearing and seeing the difference between the exquisite presentations

by the House managers and the disjointed, angry, sometimes unintelligible offerings by Trump’s overmatched lawyers, Americans got a clear picture of what’s true and what’s not. Anyone who watched any significant part of the proceedings understands exactly what happened on January 6 and the implications of that tragic event.

All three of us tried lawsuits during our legal careers and one of us presided over hundreds of them as a judge. We know firsthand how the presentation of conflicting

stories helps clarify an event and reveals the truth as best we can ascertain it. The second impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump served that function for the American people, an exercise they very  much needed.