• Antarctica
  • Book Reviews
  • Economics and Taxation
  • Photographs
  • Political Commentary
  • Running
  • Science
  • Short Stories
  • Travel
  • About Richard Watson

Richard Watson

~ Commentary

Richard Watson

Category Archives: Political Commentary

What is to be Done?*

03 Friday Aug 2018

Posted by Richard Watson in Book Reviews, Political Commentary

≈ Leave a comment

“Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.”

Fascism is a surprising difficult word to define. The term itself has been reduced to a mere insult which obscures our ability to identify the dangerous trends in society that allow fascists to thrive. Rather than name calling, we should understand such trends and work at solutions to overcome and guard against them. These societal conditions are particularly insidious as they develop slowly, often unnoticed for many years, until by the right combination of events and party politics, a monster steps into the breach. It takes a society to create a dictator.

In looking at fascism as a movement, where do we start searching for lessons? Do we look at Russian Stalinism, German Nazism, or Italian Fascism? Do we mean totalitarianism or authoritarianism? What about czarist Russia? The argument quickly gets lost in terminology. In On Politics, Alan Ryan considers the essential elements of fascism to be “…racism, nationalism, irrationalism and antiliberalism.” We certainly see these elements in American politics from time-to-time.

Ryan also considers the existence of cults, namely the Cult of Leadership and the Cult of the Party. The Clintons, Bushes and even Obama have strong cult followings. And the current incumbent has added the Cult of Celebrity to the list. Certainly, the Cult of the Party is strong among Democrats and Republicans whose use of the word “patriotism” often seems a demand for loyalty. When does adoration transform into an obsessive following that we should worry about? Richard Evans, in The Third Reich in Power, explains that “[of] all things that made the Third Reich a modern dictatorship, its incessant demand for popular legitimization was one of the most striking” – another familiar note that can be heard in American politics.

This is not to say that America is on the road to fascism. The world is far different from that of the 1930s. But we have been passing some of the same sign posts. The Nazis “…always held the letter of the law and the institutions of the state in contempt” (Evans). There was a “…division of the world into friends and enemies,” and liberal democracy was regarded “…as a fraud perpetrated on them by the victorious Allies at Versailles” (Ryan). Intellectuals were scorned – another American trait. The Third Reich also benefited from the spread of radio as a means of mass communication. Oppressive regimes always seem to be early adopters of new technology. Mythology also played an important part. Goebbels’ propaganda machine (the Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda, to give its full name) explained the murderous rampage of the Night of the Long Knives as a sort-of “Make Germany Great Again” moment which saved the country from ruin.

The development of European Fascism in the 1930s was the result of at least sixty years of tumultuous history. Longer if you include the Napoleonic Wars**. Go back to 1870 when Bismark provoked the French into attacking the German states, precipitating the Franco-Prussian War and the subsequent unification of Germany in 1871. The defeat of the French armies created a vacuum into which the Paris Commune stepped and briefly ruled. Karl Marx got some good ideas from the Commune and obtained some fame from his analysis of those events.

But the new German state’s acquisition of Alsace-Lorraine was to rankle the French for some time. Intellectuals considered it to be “…war in perpetuity under the mask of peace” (Edgar Quinet as quoted in Alistair Horne’s The Fall of Paris). Also remember that the American Civil War had just ended in 1865, with President Lincoln’s assassination shortly thereafter. The world was in a fragile state in 1871, and the stage was set for the First World War to follow when old divisions and grievances would be aired.

The American entry into the First World War resulted in the unconditional surrender of Germany by breaking the stalemate on the Western Front. The French were quick to take their vengeance in the punitive Treaty of Versailles. Had America not entered the war, the terms of an armistice might not have been as harsh. Add to this, the failure of democracy in Weimar Germany, crushing inflation, and finally the Great Depression, and you had conditions in Germany under which it would have been surprising had a dictator not risen from the ashes. Resentment and mythology were such driving forces behind nationalism at the time, that when Hitler accepted the French surrender in June 1940, he used the same railway car in which Germany had surrendered to France in 1918.

In “The Concentration Camps,” Hannah Arendt observed that “[t]he next decisive step in the preparation of living corpses is the murder of the moral person in man.” So what is to be done? “If we are keenly aware of the weakness of human reason, we can guard against that weakness. If we understand the extent to which we are governed by mythical forms of thinking, we can assist reason to exercise a proper control over our conduct” (Ryan).

We must beware of leaders, and of party politics. It is time for civil discourse. Time for reconciliation.

 

* Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, otherwise known as Lenin, felt the Paris Commune made three mistakes: banks were not seized; the proletariat was unnecessarily magnanimous; and “instead of annihilating its enemies, it endeavored to exercise moral influence on them” (Horne).

**It is interesting to consider that for a time, England’s King William IV was also the King of Hanover (later annexed by Prussia). William died in 1837, and his niece Victoria assumed the English throne. But Hanover subscribed to Salic Law which meant that only a male could succeed to the throne. But because of an accident of birth, how might history have changed?

Henry V also used Salic Law to justify his invasion of France – according to Shakespeare:

My learned lord, we pray you to proceed
And justly and religiously unfold
Why the law Salic that they have in France
Or Should, or should not, bar us in our claim.

See Alan Ryan, On Politics; Richard Evans, The Third Reich in Power; and Alistair Horne, The Fall of Paris.

Time Man of the Year.

Stormy Weather

24 Saturday Feb 2018

Posted by Richard Watson in Political Commentary

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Gates, Manafort, Mueller

Why Trump? After repeatedly backing Democratic candidates in the U.S. presidential contest, were the Russians tired of backing losers and thought it was time to splurge on the long-shot? New charges brought by Robert Mueller against former Trump advisors Paul Manafort and Rick Gates begin to connect some of the dots. It is staring to look like this tangled web starts with something called the Orange Revolution. And no, this has nothing to do with hair color.

Putin’s man on the ground in Kiev was one-time Ukranian president, Viktor Yanukovych. Ukraine held a run-off election on November 21, 2004, between Yanukovych and challenger Viktor Yushchenko. The exit polling showed Yushchenko defeating Putin’s ally Yanukovych with 54% of the vote. The next day, after armored vehicles rolled into Kiev, Ukraine’s Central Election Commission announced that Yanukovych had won the election with 49% of the vote. This did not sit well with Yushchenko and his supporters. The Revolution had begun.

A new election was ordered by the Supreme Court, and Putin criticized Western governments for attempting to interfere in the election (Ron Paul reported that “several US government agencies…sent US taxpayer dollars into Ukraine in an attempt to influence the outcome“). Shortly after this, Yushchenko disappeared. He was the victim of an assassination attempt – poisoned by dioxin, a toxin used in Agent Orange. Yushchenko eventually recovered and ended up serving as president from 2005 to 2010.

What does this have to do with Mueller’s investigation? Yanukovych, the ultimate loser in the Ukranian election, paid millions of dollars to Manafort and Gates for their work as political consultants in the Ukraine. One wonders what sort of advice they gave to Yanukovych. Did they end up giving similar advice to then candidate Trump? Putin most likely looked favorably upon Manafort and Gates for their assistance in the Ukraine. If Trump was their man, well then, it seemed only logical for Putin to become a Trump supporter…but it actually might be worse than this.

This new indictment of Manafort and Gates, includes an amazing list of allegations. The duo is accused of international money laundering, bank fraud, tax evasion, lying to the FBI, and a possible connection with another Putin associate, Oleg Deripaska, who is unable to obtain a US visa because of possible links to organized crime. All-told, approximately $75 million was funneled through off-shore accounts, and hidden from the IRS, by Manafort and Gates. There is also the possibility that Manafort and Gates influenced members of US Congress into taking pro-Russian views on the Ukraine.

It is difficult to know how this ends up for Trump. He can always claim that he fired Manafort and Gates after learning of their Russian connections. If you are Mueller, you don’t turn the screws this hard, unless you know you are onto something massive. My guess is that the issue of Russian influence in the election is a distraction, and that it is ultimately a money-laundering rap for Trump.

Mueller seems to be doing well by following the money. If Trump cash can lead to Stormy Danielle and Karen McDougal, where else might it take us?

A female Sumatran orangutan, Pongo abelii, at the Gladys Porter Zoo.

The Russians are Coming

23 Friday Feb 2018

Posted by Richard Watson in Political Commentary

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

#MeToo, Congress, Gun Control, Occupy

The Russians have been at it for some time…and will continue to do so. The United States cannot stop Russian interference any more than Americans can stop its own government from meddling in the economies and elections of other countries or from spying on its own citizens. The important thing, is to cultivate an informed electorate that is able to distinguish between logical, reasoned argument and bullshit. Given the unequivocal nonsense coming from both Republicans and Democrats, this, I fear, is the harder task. Common sense is in very short supply.

There are signs of hope coming from Florida students and the #MeToo movement. If they can both avoid the fate of the Occupy movement, there is a chance that politicians can be forced to engage in real policy debate, and even the possibility that the sway of that domestic terrorist organization which goes by the initials NRA will be diminished (ultimately, divestiture may be the answer to the NRA threat…it worked in South Africa).

The Student (#NeverAgain) and #MeToo movements would be wise to study the tactics used by the U.S. government against Occupy. It is now well documented that the Obama administration used several pages from Nixon’s play book to bring down the Occupy movement. Both the FBI and Homeland Security were used to infiltrate and inform against Occupy members. Obama also abused the Espionage Act to put “a record number of reporters’ sources in jail.” In fact, Obama used the Espionage Act more than any other administration combined, and this includes Nixon. Do the Russians really need to interfere in American internal affairs when our government has become increasing authoritarian and a threat to personal freedoms?

The 1984 (ironically) election slogan “Reagan Means War,” was a Russian (then the Soviet Union) plant. The Russians also didn’t go for Nixon and offered to finance Hubert Humphrey’s campaign. Well, you know what they say, if at first you don’t succeed…at least the Russians showed some bi-partisan spirit this time by backing a Republican candidate…

Perhaps the most audacious operation the Russians undertook was something called Operation Snow. Both Churchill and Stalin hoped the United States would enter World War II. Whereas Churchill used the overt mechanisms of diplomacy, Stalin covertly relied upon an agent within FDR’s administration to influence American foreign policy.

Harry Dexter White was a senior official at the US Treasury and was sympathetic to the Soviet Union. He was among the many who were fooled by Stalin, including FDR who fondly referred to Stalin as “Uncle Joe.” White became the pawn used by the Soviets to provoke the Japanese to attack the United States. You can read the detail in the links. Inevitably, the Japanese were going to attack America regardless of any Soviet provocation. But the point is, the Russians were inside Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration lobbying their own interests.

One benefit of having an idiot as president is that it draws the curtain back on the office. Those who run the country are not endowed with super-intellects or knowledge. Members of Congress, for the most part, are not smart. They only know what they are told by lobbyists and are bereft of the ability to critically appraise or analyze their own intelligence briefings. Pay no attention to what those men and women behind the curtain tell us to believe. Remember that they work for US. We, the people, will decide when it is appropriate to talk policy about gun control, the systematic abuse of women by the powerful, or whatever…

“Suppose you were and idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” – Mark Twain

Spasibo!

 

Seven Words You Can’t Say at the CDC

16 Saturday Dec 2017

Posted by Richard Watson in Political Commentary

≈ 1 Comment

Acknowledging the impact of the great comedians on his policy agenda, Trump has singled-out George Carlin this week as having had profound influence by borrowing from The Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television to craft new rules for the CDC and a modern, dystopian America.

Here is how Carlin may have updated this bit –

“There are some people that aren’t into all the words. There are some that would have you not use certain words. There are some 470,000 words in the English language, and there are 7 of them that you can’t use at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. What a ratio that is- 469,993 to 7. They must really be bad. They’d have to be outrageous to be separated from a group that large.

Here are the heavy-seven: vulnerable, entitlement, diversity, transgender, fetus, evidence-based and science-based. These are the ones that’ll infect your soul, curve your spine, and keep the country from winning the war. And ‘evidence-based’ and ‘science-based’ don’t even belong on the list. They’re such factual sounding words!

Actually none of the words belong on the list, but you can understand why some of them are there. I’m not completely insensitive to people’s feelings. Take ‘transgender’ – nothing can more quickly confuse a misogynist, bathroom-minded congressman than transgender…”

The Third Man

02 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by Richard Watson in Political Commentary, Science

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Climate Change, Global Warming, The Third Man

Orson Wells in The Third Man.

The climatic scene of Carol Reed’s 1949 film noir The Third Man takes place in the tunnels beneath Vienna and is the perfect metaphor for the current state of U.S. politics – because both Democrats and Republicans are chasing each other through the sewers.

If the Democrats do not climb out of the gutter, Donald Trump will be reelected as President in 2020. Why? The Democrats have shown that they are equally adept at name-calling, and this merely entrenches both sides. It is not unlike being bogged down in the Western Front one-hundred years ago.

To win in 2020, Democrats need to speak to the issues that matter to those in swing states. Why, for instance, should coal miners be concerned about climate change? Why should steel workers see that trade agreements are good for business? Why does immigration help the economy?

The climatic scene of The Third Man.

Here is the interesting thing about climate change. One doesn’t have to agree with the premise of man-made global warming to end up supporting policies that are good for the environment and also reduce carbon emissions. The discussion just needs to be put in a different frame. What I mean is that you can deny the science behind global warming, but we can nevertheless end up agreeing to policies that have the same result, as if you actually did believe in global warming.

The point is best made by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, otherwise known as the Skeptical Environmentalist. In a paper he submitted prior to the Paris climate summit he notes: “Instead of trying to make fossil fuels so expensive that no one wants them – which will never work – we should make green energy so cheap everybody will shift to it.” N’est-ce pas?

A subtle, yet important difference. Make green energy inexpensive compared to carbon fuels, and the market will sort it out. This will still take time and require the development of technologies not yet known. But why not cut out all the aggravation and energy wasted in the argument over global warming and begin rowing the boat in the same direction?

Can you remember the last time a world power set itself a task that was technically impossible at the time and required the pooling of many scientific disciplines and industries? It was accomplished when the following words were spoken: “Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.”

Sure, it cost a lot of money. But the investment in the space program has paid off many times over, and the stimulus to science and the resultant technologies have provided immense benefits to the economy. What you are reading this blog on right now was developed by minds that were inspired by the space program.

My solution to the whole mess is to send a human mission to Mars – because this will require the development of the very technologies that will reduce carbon emissions. An international team would attract the interest of the world, and you could even include an astronaut of the Muslim faith. Take all the money we’ll be spending bombing the Middle East in the next year and the program would be budget neutral. Let the Middle East bomb itself for awhile. It will still be there once we have astonished the world once again, and the countries of the Middle East may even see the folly of it all once they see what can be accomplished when people work together instead of propagating hate and fear.

“Roger, Tranquility. We copy you on the ground. You got a bunch of guys about to turn blue. We’re breathing again. Thanks a lot.”

Tranquility Base.

Iran – Radicalism in the Age of Radicalization

27 Saturday May 2017

Posted by Richard Watson in Political Commentary, Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Iran, Saudi Arabia

I am struck by images from the recent Iranian election and thought I would make a comparison of election images from other countries in the region. My methodology lacks scientific rigor, would be laughed out of any legitimate study, plus I’ll admit that I’ve stacked the deck somewhat. Nevertheless, to my eye, one country appears to lean more to the west than the others. And although images can be highly manipulative, they are often revealing.

Here is the test. Pick the images which correspond to the following countries: Iran, Afghanistan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. The inclusion of the Saudis is a slight deception, since the country is a monarchy, but they do sometimes have municipal elections. My contention is that you can see it in the eyes of the women, and although the plague of the ubiquitous cell phone is also evident, in Iran you see young people who look as though they would gladly cast off the theocracy and embrace freedom, if only given the chance.

14_iran

14

13_afghan4

13

12_iran

12

11_saudi

11

10_israel 3

10

9_Iranian_2016_election_15-800x500_c

9

8_afghan

8

7_saudi 1

7

6_israel 2

6

5_iran-election-rouhani-ap-img

5

4_israel 1

4

3_iran

3

2_iran

2

1_afghan1

1

The point I really wish to make is that the United States is yet again backing the wrong regime. Our relationship with the Saudis is a Cold War relic that will ultimately drag us into a much wider and devastating war.

But first, the key to the photographs: Afghanistan 1, 8, 13; Israel 4, 6, 10; Iran 2, 3, 5, 9, 12, 14; Saudi Arabia 7, 11. How did you do? What were your impressions?

I have no doubt you can find images to stack the deck your own way, creating a different impression – particularly if you go back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Yet consider how the United States has historically treated Iran, and you begin to see where that chip on their shoulder comes from.

It was in 1953 that the CIA backed a coup which overthrew the Iranian government. Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of Teddy and distant cousin of FDR, was the CIA’s man in Tehran. By now, you should realize that the United States merely follows the footsteps of the British throughout the entire region – treading over the same mistake strewn ground. The British staged their own Iranian coup in 1921. Then later, the U.S. backed Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988, and may have even supplied some of the chemical weapons used by Iraq.

But let’s get back to Saudi Arabia. This is the home of the Wahhabi ideology whose followers attacked the United States on September 11, 2001 (although for a different interpretation, see this New York Times article). This sect of Islam was founded by Abdul Wahhab (1703-1792), who with Muhammad bin Saud established the first Saudi state in 1744. My argument is that Western Europe and the United States weaponized the Wahhabi ideology in a misguided attempt to thwart Russian ambitions. It begins some time ago, as you no-doubt guessed, with the British.

The British were in Afghanistan to protect their position in India, which officially began in 1600 when Queen Elizabeth I granted a charter to the Honourable East India Company. The French also thought that India could be good for trade (opium, silk, cotton, tea, and so on) and formed a rival French East India Company. France and Britain fought each other for awhile on the subcontinent and elsewhere in the world including a little tiff in North America where a bothersome British colony had the cheek to declare independence. It was Clive of India who put paid to French ambitions in India in 1757 at the Battle of Plassey, and the French who returned the favor in North America by helping the colonists. Despite their North American losses, the British remained untouchable at sea, but were vulnerable by land. It was thought that Russia posed the next and greatest threat. Hence the British interest in Afghanistan and the resulting First Afghan War (1839 to 1842).

Almost since its inception at the beginning of the 7th century, Islam has been under siege from the West. Although to be fair, there was a time when Islam gave as good as it got. The Umayyad Caliphate expanded into the Iberian Peninsula in 711. Later, Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Empire in 1453. But in the nineteenth century, the Ottoman’s become the Sick Man of Europe leading into the First World War. Then Germany had an idea.

The First World War quickly bogged down in Flanders Fields, and powers on all sides tried to come up with alternative plans to break the stalemate. Churchill came up with Gallipoli. The Germans thought it would be a good idea to arm Irish nationalists. But it was the other German idea that was right out of the Great Game. The Germans realized that Britain could be destabilized by threatening their empire on the subcontinent. To this end, the Germans were in Kabul in 1915 with plans to start a holy war. Islam would be used as a weapon against the British.

Although the German idea didn’t work (they did loose the war), the United States thought it could use yet another failed European strategy to fight the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Communism does not abide religion. It is anathema to Communists. So the United States encouraged Saudi Arabia to spread its Wahhabist interpretation of Islam to fight the godless Communists. What else to do with all that oil money? It was a nice fit at the time, but would ultimately be bad for the United States.

In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. The U.S. responded with covert operations against the Soviets (code named Operation Cyclone) in which the United States fought a proxy war by arming and supporting the Mujahideen (the word meaning “those engaged in Jihad”). Out of the Mujahideen grew the Taliban which was created by the Pakistani intelligence agency and funded by the United States. There was even a time when the United States felt it could do business with the Taliban. Union Oil Company of California was involved in negotiations with them to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. But the 1998 bombing of the US embassy in Nairobi made it difficult for the United States to continue its support of Jihadists. And after 2001, well…

The West’s habit of stirring up trouble along Russia’s southern flank by enlisting the help of fundamentalist Islam has to be the most short-sighted and disastrous foreign policy in history. The strategy was deeply flawed and left the region from the Mediterranean to Pakistan awash in continual strife, cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives, and has begotten the worst humanitarian crisis since the end of the Second World War.

Alexander the Great lead his army through the Khyber Pass in 326 BCE in his failed attempt to capture India, becoming the first head-stone in this “Graveyard of Empires” known as Afghanistan. With over two-thousand years of examples, war proves that it is always an abysmal failure that only succeeds in setting up the next monstrous regime. Clearly, war as a strategy has failed to sort-out the region. Isn’t it time for a new approach?

The United States should drop its so-called ally, Saudi Arabia. ISIS-like, the Saudis continue to behead and stone to-death those who incur its disfavor or disagree with the regime. The Saudis are guilty of war crimes which, most notably in Yemen, are aided by the United States government. This includes the use of cluster munitions which are banned under the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions and the use of white phosphorus on populated areas. The U.S. State Department has this to say about the Convention on Cluster Munitions – “Cluster munitions have demonstrated military utility. Their elimination from U.S. stockpiles would put the lives of its soldiers and those of its coalition partners at risk.” The lives of innocent civilians apparently do not figure into the State Department’s reasoning. Other countries that are not signatories to this Convention include: Saudi Arabia, Libya, Russia, North Korea, Iran and Yemen (other U.S. allies in the region also commit war crimes, see Israel’s use of white phosphorus in Gaza). Nice company. The most recent $100 billion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia is abhorrent. It will guarantee that the Saudis can continue to fan the parched flames of conflict in the Middle East for decades.

The second part of this new approach dictates that the United States embrace young Iranians who can truly become a moderating force throughout the region, once the shackles of theocracy are broken. Look at those pictures again at the beginning of this blog and see if there is a shift in your perspective.

Lastly, but no less important, a radical idea presents itself in Syria – or really next door in Lebanon. In Lebanon alone, there are upwards of one-million Syrian refugees, of which 200,000 are children in need of education. Do we teach them that the West is uncaring of their humanitarian plight, ignorant of their culture, and closed to asylum (visit any homeless camp along the urban river banks of American cities to get a sense of what life in a refugee camp is like – minus the water)? Or do we radicalize these children by providing an education? A foreigner looks at the United States and sees a country that incongruously loves its guns and bombs more than its children. Now is the time to change that perception and begin the long process of reconciliation.

The Clooney Foundation for Justice is taking the first important step in this direction, believing that “without education, this lost generation becomes not only a missed opportunity for the advancement of Lebanon but also a huge security threat in the region and beyond.” The Foundation plans to work with private sector partners to design “a program to provide out-of-school children in Lebanon, including Syrian refugees, a chance to go back to school.”

Rather than $100 billion of arms, imagine what $100 billion of education can do. Imagine what 200,000 children radicalized with education can accomplish…imagine the future.

Take up the White Man’s burden—
The savage wars of peace—
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch Sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hope to nought.

-Kipling – The White Man’s Burden, 1899

Recommended reading:

Rachel Bronson, Thicker than Oil. America’s Uneasy Partnership with Saudi Arabia.
Diana Preston, The Dark Defile.
Catherine Merridale, Lenin on the Train.

The Resurrection of Richard Nixon

05 Sunday Mar 2017

Posted by Richard Watson in Political Commentary

≈ Leave a comment

The current bunch of ruffians running the government have managed to do something that until recently was thought impossible. They have managed to make Richard Nixon look good.

Richard Nixon signed an executive order which created the EPA in 1970 to implement a number of environmental laws in order to make America clean again. Republicans would like to reverse these Nixonian regulations and go back to a simpler, almost biblical time, when rivers burned and skies were scarred brown with the unchecked pollution of industry.

In 1969, Ohio’s Cuyahoga River burned for a 13th time. It was also in 1969, that California experienced its largest oil spill when a Union Oil offshore rig dumped oil along thirty-miles of Santa Barbara coast-line. Public outrage spurred Congress to pass the Clean Air Act of 1970 and to re-write the Federal Water Pollution Control Act into what has become known as the Clean Water Act.

Trump and Pruitt see the EPA and its bothersome standards as an example of the federal government trampling on states’ rights. Which may be. But recall that one purpose of the U.S. Constitution is to “…promote the general Welfare…” This means that the federal government must sometimes intercede and protect us from our baser instincts.

So, if you would prefer not to be able to swim in your local rivers on a hot summer afternoon, to breathe the air without a respirator, to bathe on beaches uncontaminated with oil, or to eat food unladen with toxic chemicals, then Trump and Pruitt are the men to have on your side.

Workmen using pitchforks, rakes and shovels attempt to clean up oil-soaked straw from the beach at Santa Barbara Harbor, Calif., Feb. 7, 1969.  The oil, leaking from an off-shore well for over a week, covered local beaches and threatened many southern California shoreline areas.  (AP Photo)

Workmen using pitchforks, rakes and shovels attempt to clean up oil-soaked straw from the beach at Santa Barbara Harbor, Calif., Feb. 7, 1969.

cuyahoga

Cuyahoga river burns in 1952.

beijing

Beijing.

Taxing Times

02 Thursday Feb 2017

Posted by Richard Watson in Economics and Taxation, Political Commentary

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Nonprofit Organizations, Taxation

If Trump is serious about lifting the prohibition against political activities on the part of churches, then they must be taxed. Churches, as well as other charitable organizations, are prohibited from engaging in political activities. This is not a gag on freedom of speech. Rather, it is a condition on receiving an exemption from income tax and a well established principle of law.

In 1934, Congress amended the statutory predecessor of §501(c)(3) to include the restriction that no substantial part of an organization’s activities may constitute carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation. The intent of the Finance Committee was to stop deductible contributions for legislative ends.

The prohibition of §501(c)(3) organizations from engaging in political activities came into being in 1954, when Lyndon Johnson proposed an amendment to the tax code in order to deny tax exempt status to not only those organizations “…who influence legislation but also to those who intervene in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.” Congress had previously contemplated inserting language in the code that would have prohibited organizations from participating in “partisan politics” back in 1934, but a draft provision was deleted, because it was thought to be overly broad. Nevertheless, that same year, Congress did amend the code to restrict lobbying activities.

In Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington, the Supreme Court upheld the congressional limitation on §501(c)(3) lobbying activities because an organization’s First Amendment rights are preserved through its ability to speak through an affiliated action fund. The Court stated “the IRS…requires only that the two groups be separately incorporated and keep records adequate to show that tax deductible contributions are not used to pay for lobbying. This is not unduly burdensome.”

In Branch Ministries v. Commissioner, the District Court of DC upheld the revocation of a church’s tax exemption under §501(c)(3), because the church had expressed its concern about the moral character of a candidate in the 1992 presidential elections. The church had placed advertisements in USA Today and the Washington Times, stating amongst other things that “…Clinton is promoting policies that are in rebellion to God’s laws,” and “tax deductible donations for this advertisement gladly accepted.”

The Internal Revenue Code treats churches differently from other tax-exempt organizations. While a church may file for Section 501(c)(3) status, it is not required to do so in order to be tax-exempt. A church may simply hold itself out as a church and claim exempt status pursuant to Section 508(c). However, partisan political activities are a direct violation of Section 501(c)(3). The Court noted that the

…plaintiffs have failed to establish that the revocation of the Church’s Section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status substantially burdened its right to freely exercise its religion…The fact that plaintiffs may now have less money to spend on the religious activities as a result of their participation in a partisan political activity, however, is insufficient to establish a substantial burden on their free exercise of religion. [emphasis added]

There are situations where an organization may engage in advocacy which is essentially political, or where the political actions of others can be attributed to an organization.

In its 2002 Continuing Professional Education Manual, the IRS discussed the possibility that advocacy of an issue might cross the line into “participation or intervention” in a political campaign:

The concern is that an IRC 501(c)(3) organization may support or oppose a particular candidate in a political campaign without specifically naming the candidate by using code words to substitute for the candidate’s name in its messages, such as “conservative,” “liberal,” “pro-life,” “pro-choice,” “anti-choice,” “Republican,” “Democrat,” etc., coupled with a discussion of the candidacy or the election. When this occurs, it is quite evident what is happening– an intervention is taking place…the fundamental test that the Service uses to decide whether an IRC 501(c)(3) organization has engaged in political campaign intervention while advocating an issue is whether support for or opposition to a candidate is mentioned or indicated by a particular label used as a stand-in for a candidate.

The IRS realizes that staff of public charities may become involved in political campaigns and may even endorse candidates. To avoid attribution, charities should ensure that their staff understand the rules, particularly since the use of a nonprofit’s “financial resources, facilities, or personnel” is indicative that the actions of the individual should be attributed to the organization.

The CPE Manual states:

The prohibition against political campaign activity does not prevent an organization’s officials from being involved in a political campaign, so long as those officials do not in any way utilize the organization’s financial resources, facilities, or personnel, and clearly and unambiguously indicate that the actions taken or the statements made are those of the individuals and not of the organization.

There may also be situations where candidates speak at charitable events in their capacity as public figures. Once again, the IRS CPE Manual provides guidance:

Candidates may also be invited to speak at events by IRC 501(c)(3) organizations in their capacity other than as a candidate. Many candidates are public figures for reasons other than their candidacy. For instance, a number of candidates either currently hold or formerly held public office or may be experts in a non-political field. A candidate also might be a public figure as a result of a prior career, such as an acting, military, legal, or public service career. When a candidate is invited to speak at an event in a capacity other than as a candidate, it is not necessary for the IRC 501(c)(3) organization to provide equal access to all candidates. However, the IRC 501(c)(3) organization must ensure that the candidate speaks only in the other capacity and not as a candidate, that no mention is made of the individual’s candidacy at the event, and that no campaign activity occurs in connection with the candidate’s attendance at the event.

One example of the IRS position on organizational endorsements is a public statement which was negotiated with Jimmy Swaggart Ministries as a condition for recovering its tax-exemption:

When a minister of a religious organization endorses a candidate for public office at an official function of the organization…the endorsement will be considered an endorsement by the organization since the acts and statements of a religious organization’s ministers at official functions…and its official publications are the principal means by which a religious organization communicates its official views to its members and supporters.

20170204_cuk400

We the People

15 Thursday Dec 2016

Posted by Richard Watson in Political Commentary, US Constitution

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

US Constitution

Ratification of the U.S. Constitution was a closely run thing. In New York, the state’s ratifying convention to replace the Articles of Confederation with the proposed Constitution barely said ‘yes’ by a vote of 30 to 27. North Carolina and Rhode Island would not ratify until late 1789 and 1790, respectively. Thus, when George Washington became president in April 1789, there were just eleven United States. North Carolina and Rhode Island had the status of sovereign nations.

The Preamble wastes no time stating the intent of the Constitution – which is to “…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty…”

The early arguments for ratification, The Federalist 2 – 8, emphasized defense as a selling point. European countries required large and costly standing armies to protect against incursions by their neighbors. “…the very strength of a united America would eliminate the need for a large standing army in peacetime. The result would be enormous peace dividends in both dollars and democracy” [Amar]. Individual states would have no need to maintain standing armies to protect against their neighbors in a United States. Hamilton closed out The Federalist series of papers with #85, noting that the Constitution would prevent “…extensive military establishments, which could not fail to grow out of wars between the States in a disunited situation.”

I’ll be summarizing key points from Akhil Reed Amar’s America’s Constitution – A Biography (2005) as I make my way through the book. But what is fascinating is how much of what occurred in our most recent election was by deliberate design. The moderates were swayed to ratify the Constitution “…not because they distrusted their own democratic state lawmakers…but rather because they needed to rein in other states’ legislatures” [Amar]. This is the very notion of “tyranny of the majority.” We may not like the outcome here in California, but the middle of the country sees that the electoral college has functioned as intended by checking the popular vote. In a very real sense, the rest of the country is reacting against the progressive platforms and legislators of the coastal United States.

Based on the “real” news I see daily, it is apparent that very few politicians understand the Constitution. Neither does the media, and it is to their everlasting shame that news sources do not take this opportunity to educate the country. My knowledge of the Constitution is weak at best. This stuff is vitally important, and the state of the country must not be left to the political parties and courts to sort out…they’ll just fuck it up some more. Hence this erudition and humble monograph. Remember the opening phrase of the Constitution – “We the People…”

Onward…Article I is next.

canvas

Keeping up with the Trumps

02 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by Richard Watson in Political Commentary

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Donald Trump, Politics, US Election

When people talked about how Richard Nixon disgraced the office of the presidency, little did they know that this was the start of a forty-year slide in the degradation of that office to no more than a televised reality show. After what now appears to be the certainty of a Trump nomination, that process is complete.

Imagine if you will (cue Rod Serling), a political party so detached from the mood of the Country, that it would rather commit suicide than continue with the lingering malaise and lugubrious drollery that has characterized American politics.

As the rest of the world watches aghast, the United States has now entered…The Twilight Zone.

More later…

LOS ANGELES - OCTOBER 11: Rod Serling, host and narrator of The Twilight Zone. 'Nightmare At 20,000 Feet,' episode of The Twilight Zone. Initial television broadcast on October 11, 1963. Image is a frame grab. (Photo by CBS via Getty Images)

LOS ANGELES – OCTOBER 11: Rod Serling, host and narrator of The Twilight Zone. ‘Nightmare At 20,000 Feet,’ episode of The Twilight Zone. Initial television broadcast on October 11, 1963. Image is a frame grab. (Photo by CBS via Getty Images)

← Older posts

Recent Posts

  • The Sash My Father Wore, or How the Orange Came to Ireland April 26, 2020
  • Single Audits and COVID-19 Relief Funding April 17, 2020
  • Relief Provisions for Individuals April 7, 2020
  • Covid-19 Stimulus Programs for Small Businesses April 2, 2020
  • “Been a Breach of Promise” October 5, 2019

Pages

  • About Richard Watson
  • Photographs

Blogroll

  • Leanne Waldal
  • Moya Watson
  • Watson House

Archives

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 117 other subscribers

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • Richard Watson
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Richard Watson
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...