Foreign

When we heard on Wednesday, March 11, that the president was consulting with Stephen Miller prior to his national address, I wondered why. We soon found out.

In the address he blamed foreigners for our problems. In the first sentence the president pointed out that the virus originated in China. He then referred to it as "a foreign virus." He then boasted about restricting travel to the US from China, which, despite his assertions to the contrary, was in keeping with the advice of his advisers (and, by the way, seems to have been a good move).

By the middle of the speech we learned that he was suspending travel from Europe. This action was taken without advice from his experts, other than Miller apparently, and without informing the affected countries, most of whom have been important allies. As with many of his policies, the primary purpose seems to capitalize on an innate fear of others and propose that, if it weren't for THOSE people, we would be safe.

This is nothing new. In 2014, Trump was sewing panic about Ebola. He proposed a travel ban then too, in spite of nearly all health experts advising against it. If he had gotten his way, many would not have been able to go to Liberia, Sierra Leone, or Guinea to help with the crisis. Or, to be more specific, we would have been banned from returning to our families. Fortunately, the administration at that time heeded expert advice.

Of course, in the current crisis, when experts were saying we need to take it very seriously, our president was saying that his China travel ban was a cure-all and there was nothing to worry about. "Do not panic!" is good advice. But the hypocrisy of such advice from someone who did everything in his ability to get people to panic a few years earlier is a hard pill to swallow.

Now, instead of apologizing for disbanding the epidemic teams in the NSC and DHS and for initially downplaying COVID-19, Trump has characteristically chosen to deflect blame to other countries. And of course he couldn't resist comparing our response to that of European countries, concluding that we are much better than they are. This is false, senseless, and divisive, but it is precisely what we have come to expect.

There is an exception to the European travel stoppage. Travelers from the UK are still welcome.* Why? Well, the only answer seems to be that, because Boris Johnson is almost as xenophobic as Trump and has withdrawn from that European Union, no harm can come from his country. Of course, people from the EU can travel to the UK and then to the US, just as travelers from China used connecting flights to get to the US. But the UK exception is in line with Miller's strategy: let's emphasize that this is not about safety from the virus; this is about safety from foreigners who don't share our prejudices.

As it turns out, Miller's ever-toxic advice may have backfired. On Thursday, the stock market stopped dropping only when it was automatically halted because it plunged too far too fast. One can only hope that Wormtongue will lose some of his influence. But I won't hold my breath.

_______________
*March 14: Today the UK and Ireland were added to the list of countries from which travel is restricted. This may in part be due to the UK's controversial strategy of encouraging infection among its lower-risk members of the population.

Electoral College

On December 19, the Electoral College will prove its obsolescence.

Some argue that the Electoral College lost its purpose about 10 years after its institution. Others have argued that it remains and should remain as a safety measure.

Alexander Hamilton supported the College. In a blog post, law professor Bruce Hay summarizes Hamilton's view:

They would make sure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications,” turning away anyone whose only qualifications were “talents for low intrigue” or “the little arts of popularity.”

They would also keep out the stooges of hostile governments, being the best “practicable obstacle” to “the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils” by “raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union.”

Hays summarizes the reason for the institution of the Electoral College:

The framers rejected direct popular election of presidents, fearing that it would attract demagogues. They also refused to let other governmental bodies or officials choose the president, fearing that it would invite corruption and foreign interference. And so they erected a buffer institution, strikingly similar to a jury: a body of citizens assembled for the occasion, called upon to exercise their independent judgment, composed as a bulwark against demagoguery, official intrigue, and foreign meddling.

If ever in US politics there was a reason for the electoral college to be a bulwark against demagoguery, it is this year. But the electoral college will not exercise this responsibility—and will prove it has no purpose.

There is something we can do about it, not for this election but future ones. It's called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, a bipartisan effort to guarantee the presidency to the winner of the nationwide popular vote. This leaves the College in place in case an elected candidate dies, and it avoids the need for a Constitutional amendment. It ensures that candidates direct their campaign to all Americans, and it prevents special treatment for battleground states. The effort has close to 2/3 of the votes it needs to convert the Electoral College to an institution that serves us all. Let's add more states to the compact.

Write your legislators. Or help organize a state referendum. Or both.