Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in September 2024

David, Goliath

Most Idahoans would agree with Thomas Jefferson’s observation that “the government closest to the people serves the people best.” In fact, that nugget of wisdom is right there on page 2 of Idaho’s present-day Republican Party Platform. Idaho schools have greatly benefited from governance by locally-elected school boards. Those boards are knowledgeable about local educational issues and responsive to the needs of their school communities. Our local governance is now under attack by dark-money-funded know-it-alls who seemingly believe that Idahoans are incapable of educating their kids.

The Idaho School Boards Association will likely take a strong stance against forcing taxpayers to fund religious education at their annual meeting in November. Their Resolution 8 correctly states: “A voucher, tax credit, or scholarship program would irreparably harm our existing  system of public school districts and charters, especially in rural Idaho, and would likely harm overall student achievement.”

Our school board trustees are acutely aware of the budget busting effects of so-called “school choice” programs in other states and of the fact that “about 91% of this year’s voucher recipients attend religious schools.” Most of the recipients already send their kids to private/religious schools, so these programs essentially provide a public subsidy to well-heeled families. Kids with disabilities are left out in the cold under these programs. On the other hand, a choice program would be a bonanza for those like Doug Wilson of Moscow, who wants to build a Christian nationalist school system in Idaho.

Trustees from rural school districts are particularly concerned about the impact of choice schemes on their communities. Public schools are the heart and soul of communities around the Gem State. School sports and other activities bring communities together, providing a common identity and sense of purpose. Folks in those small communities will travel across the state to watch their kids participate in public school activities of all sorts. That community spirit would disintegrate as schools are privatized.

School choice schemes would particularly impact those communities that don’t have church-supported schools. It is of interest that legislative candidates in the eastern part of the state who opposed subsidizing private/religious education fared better in the GOP primary election as compared to other parts of the state. School subsidy programs would definitely harm education in rural communities, as stated in Resolution 8.

But unelected out-of-state interests who are intent on privatizing education in the United States seem to think Idaho’s common-sense school trustees are just a bunch of country bumpkins. The head of one such group, the Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC), recently penned an op-ed sneering at Idaho’s school trustees and Resolution 8. Before putting great store in the writer’s belittling words and dismissive attitude, it would be well for Idahoans to consider the pedigree of MSPC. Its parent organization is the extreme-right State Policy Network (SPN), which makes MSPC a sibling of the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF), another SPN offspring. We all know that the IFF has been trying to do away with the Idaho public school system for years.

MSPC is also a member of a political venture that Donald Trump has disavowed as too extreme. Yes, MSPC is a proud member of Project 2025, which advocates for eliminating the U.S. Department of Education and establishing universal school choice.

Make no mistake, MSPC, IFF and Dorothy Moon’s extremist branch of the GOP are doing everything possible to defeat opponents of voucher programs in the November election and elect those who will support the voucher gravy train. Together with billionaire-financed outside groups like the American Federation for Children and Young Americans for Liberty, they are supporting candidates like Codi Galloway in District 15 and Dan Foreman in District 6. Both are cheerleaders for the out-of-state efforts to privatize education in Idaho. Voucher opponents Julia Parker and Rick Just are facing an onslaught of vicious campaign tactics and false charges. However, they have truth on their side.

The battle between Idaho’s School trustees and the out-of-state billionaires is much akin to the struggle between David and Goliath. The only advantage is that David, Idaho’s school trustees, know the lay of the land and are genuinely committed to educating Idaho kids.

 

A mistake, not a policy choice

A reader reacting to the news of noncitizens being registered to vote in Oregon recently sent me an email, saying: “Oregon does such a great job they register illegals to vote. That’s democracy for sure the Democrat way.”

Wrong registrations did happen: First, state officials reported 306, and then on Monday, they said the number was really 1,259 and that nine people who were not U.S. citizens had voted.

This latest announcement is likely to fuel a bigger political uproar among a number of  Republican legislators. Republican secretary of state candidate Dennis Linthicum said, “It’s no longer a conspiracy that illegal immigrants can successfully register to vote in Oregon. But now they actually have, so our conspiracy theory has turned from hot air to fact.”

The subject of noncitizens voting has national resonance, with Republicans in the U.S. House considering a shutdown of the federal government over the subject of noncitizen voting in elections.

Federal law passed in 1996 specifically bans noncitizens from voting in federal elections, for president or Congress. A few local jurisdictions, mainly in Maryland and Vermont, do allow noncitizen voting in some cases, mainly when property taxes, which may be paid by noncitizens, are at stake. But repeated studies have found that actual illegal voting is rare. One study by the Georgia secretary of state found a total of 1,634 cases of noncitizens “potentially” registering to vote over 25 years – but it found no illegal votes.

The policy in Oregon is clear. According to the Secretary of State’s Office: “Only U.S. citizens may vote in Oregon elections. People must verify and attest they are U.S. citizens when registering to vote, and only voters who have registered in Oregon will have their ballot counted. Providing false information when registering to vote is a felony.???”

So what happened in the case of those 1,259 noncitizens?

Oregon’s voter registration system provides for automatically registering people to vote when they obtain a driver’s license or state identity card. There are exceptions. Some people are not included, including those too young to vote and others who are barred, including noncitizens. The first group is flagged by birth date, and the second by the type of identification people provide – as they must – when they obtain the license.

Since 2021, Oregon officials have accepted a wider range of identity documents at the Driver and Motor Vehicle division, including foreign passports and birth certificates. State officials said in September that the 306 noncitizens registered to vote had presented foreign passports that were marked as U.S. passports. The other 953 people who were wrongly registered to vote had presented foreign birth certificates as proof of ID. The nine people who actually voted were referred to the Department of Justice for investigation.

In the context of Oregon’s 3 million registered voters, this is not a massive mistake. It’s the kind of error a bureaucracy usually can handle, and state elections officials said they’ve change their procedures to prevent more mishaps.

It isn’t a policy decision, either: What happened is actually directly counter to the state’s stated policy.

My email correspondent implied that a mistake was made and that it was intentional. The first suggestion was on target. The second isn’t, and that’s worth bearing in mind when considering how much weight to give in the case of the improper registrations.

 

The Idaho water giveaway candidate

Idaho has a limited water supply, and hanging onto - and carefully using - what it has is among the most pertinent topics for Idaho’s leading public officials, both as a matter of politics and policy. But the details, and breadth, of the threat to Idaho water users are worth bearing in mind.

Governor Brad Little spoke on September 23 about a report developed by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, which is seeking more information about how the states use their groundwater.

The Council said “in many parts of the country, the quality of groundwater has become so poor that it seriously impacts the health of communities that rely on it. This is especially true for farming and Tribal communities with no other access to potable water. Groundwater is managed locally, with best practices that vary from state to state,  but there is an opportunity to develop and scale approaches to restore clean water in every community.” Which is true, and also a fact that groundwater sources sometimes cross state boundaries (as the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer does in Idaho).

The Council was speaking only about gathering technical data; no specific changes or expansion of federal activities were proposed.

Little and Lieutenant Governor Scott Bedke said in response that, “Management of water is a state issue. We do not invite or welcome the involvement of the federal government in making decisions about this precious resource."

The point that states should maintain general control over water, which in some ways even is written into federal law, is valid. But while the Council report was described on the governor’s website as a “groundwater grab,” it isn’t. Wariness about federal involvement is appropriate, but specifics matter. Without federal reclamation projects, for example, there would be no Magic Valley.

If control of water is a major concern for Little and Bedke, as it should be, they should have been rocked by comments by not just an advisory council but by the Republican nominee for president.

At a press conference in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, on September 13, Donald Trump said: “You have millions of gallons of water pouring down from the north, with the snow caps and Canada, and all pouring down. And they have, essentially, a very large faucet, and you turn the faucet, and it takes one day to turn, and it’s massive … and you turn that, and all of that water goes aimlessly into the Pacific. And if you turned it back, all of that water would come right down here and right into Los Angeles.”

Translating from Trumpspeak: He is proposing to take the Northwest’s water and send it to California. Okay, this is a fantasy. There is no “faucet” and no water diversion system now exists that would even allow this to happen, and if one were built the project might take decades. Tricia Stadnyk of the University of Calgary, said of Trump’s remarks that, “It’s somebody that doesn’t fully understand how water works and doesn’t understand the intricacies of allocating water not only between two countries but also for the environment.” To say the least.

Still, Trump said that if he is elected, he would do it. It would be Trump Administration policy.

For generations, Idahoans have been concerned about the idea of California reaching up to the Columbia River system and piping its water down to the big-population centers of the southwest, drying large parts of Idaho (and Washington and Oregon too, for that matter). Now a major-party nominee for president is proposing, explicitly, to do exactly that.

This is not just gathering information. This is not a study. This is an actual literal proposed water grab.

And what has been the reaction to that devastating water proposal from Idaho’s public officials?

Crickets.

It’s quite a contrast from the state’s reaction to the Biden Administration study. Wonder why that is?

 

Congress and the health care mess

Sens. Mike Crapo of Idaho and Ron Wyden of Oregon have more common ground than most Republicans and Democrats, given the fact that they represent neighboring western states. Life in rural Idaho is not much different than Oregon – where some folks are trying to become part of Greater Idaho.

But the senators are deeply divided when it comes to big-ticket matters such as the Inflation Reduction Act – one of the Biden administration’s hallmark pieces of legislation. The differences were on full display during a recent Senate Finance Committee hearing on the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) health-care provisions.

The opening statements submitted by Wyden (the committee chairman) and Crapo (the ranking member) also serve as an illustration of why health care in America will continue to be a mess. Wyden is married to the Democratic agenda, which also is the case with the party’s nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris. Crapo, an avid supporter of former President Trump, is a good soldier for the Republican Party, and has been for decades. He isn’t about to sign on to an IRA, health-care plan or anything that has the Democratic Party’s stamp of approval.

This is not to fault Crapo and Wyden. They have been in office for a long time and know how politics is played. If left to their own, without partisan politics getting in the way, Crapo and Wyden are the kind of guys who could come up with a bipartisan solution to health care. The senators are as congenial, thoughtful and intelligent as they come in the U.S. Senate. But their political parties are looking for one thing – a clear-cut victory over the other party. And that isn’t going to happen with the numbers so close in the Senate and House.

So sit back and enjoy a bit of the partisan gridlock – courtesy of the Senate Finance Committee.

Wyden said in his opening statement there are two choices. “One choice is to sign up for concepts of a plan by Donald Trump. The other choice in America is to sign up for concrete health care results delivered by Democrats through the IRA, which was passed into black-letter law two years ago.”

So much for getting Republican support on the issue. For good measure, Wyden took a swipe or two at the GOP’s vice presidential candidate, JD Vance.

Crapo, taking a more statesman-like approach (initially) said that health-care access and affordability are in everyone’s best interest. This committee has proven that bipartisan consent and deliberating policymaking can yield real solutions, from driving down prices at the pharmacy counter to ensuring patients can confidently select a mental health provider who fits their needs. Unfortunately, the IRA took the opposite approach, advancing top-down problematic program overhauls through a rushed, partisan process that sidelined the minority and ignored constructive input.”

Those darn Democrats, anyway. The bill probably was put together in a smoke-filled room, with no Republicans allowed inside.

As Wyden sees it, the IRA has taken on “price gouging” practices by Big Pharma, allowing seniors to save through out-of-pocket caps on prescription drugs while allowing working families to pay lower insurance premiums.

“Taken as a whole, this new law is making a concrete difference in the lives of millions of working families and seniors in Medicare,” Wyden said. “These cost-saving measures need to be protected and strengthened in the years to come, not watered down or erased by putting Big Pharma or insurance companies back in charge.”

Who could possibly be against all those good things? Your turn, Sen. Crapo.

“Bureaucratic price fixing, under the guise of negotiation, may sound appealing, but it comes at a massive cost – particularly as firms begin to look elsewhere to launch new life-saving treatments. The implications for the therapeutic (research and development) pipeline are already apparent, with at least 21 drugs and 36 research programs discontinued since the law’s enactment. Even for approved drugs, delays and denials in care have started to skyrocket – and yet the Biden-Harris administration inexplicably excluded medications from its price authorization reforms.”

Leave it to Democrats. They never tell the whole story.

But Crapo (back to his statesman mode) offers a solution. “Instead of perpetuating a tax-and-spend agenda, we can and should work together to improve health-care choices, affordability and reliability.”

Unfortunately, the “working together” part is the sticking point.

Chuck Malloy is a long-time Idaho journalist and columnist. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com

 

Home stretch

Imagine the goodly number of Republicans - in or out of political office - who've been disenfranchised by their own political Party.

Now, imagine those millions of GOP voters - cut off by their own ilk - watching the rise of Vice President - and candidate for President - Kamala Harris and Tim Walz on the national stage.

Forget political Party.  Just think of the media spotlight on someone who's new, female, 20+ years younger than most other candidates, mixed race and charismatic.  Someone who signals a younger, and immensely qualified candidate, regardless of political labels.

Now, add a guy in Tim Walz, that looks like everybody's favorite uncle - twinkle in the eyes and a smile that could warm a cold convention hall.

Then, imagine the millions of Independent and otherwise disaffiliated voters sizing up the upcoming national elections.

Democrat Harris-Walz.  Or, Republican Trump-Vance.

I suspect most of us have made our selection in that race.  Still, hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent on advertising and campaign staffing before it's all over.

Even before this Presidential business got off the ground, there was something in the air - something different.  Something that felt like there would be change.  Something new.  Something that indicated this election would be unlike others.

There certainly are major differences in the candidates.  Many major differences.  Hard to imagine these four people - President and Vice-President wannabees - could be so unique in so many ways.  But, they are.

Donald Trump is throwing the "kitchen sink."  Fact checkers are trying to keep up with his steady stream of falsehoods.  It's not that Harris or Walz are above criticism.  Nobody is.  But, much of what we're hearing from the Trump camp doesn't stand the light of day.

We - voters all - are being offered the clearest choice in races for the top spots.  Republicans Trump-Vance - standard GOP fare - versus Harris-Walz - a mixed-race woman Vice President and a former social studies teacher.  And Governor.

As the candidates get better established, it will be interesting to see if - in the days from now till the election - we have discussions of issues or just personal attacks on character and race baiting.

Given the current state of jumbled politics in our nation, we badly need more of the former and less of the latter.

And, there's this.

Which ever team comes out on top, remember, there are all those important appointments of cabinet members, department heads and others necessary to run things.  Hundreds and hundreds of vacancies to fill.  By whom?

Used to be - when times were more settled and the pace was slower - there could be a period of "on-the-job" training.  Time for the new office holders to get things in order.  No more!  Now, we expect those new faces at the top to "hit the ground running"

In these turbulent days, with the introduction of artificial intelligence, realignment of the inner workings of both political parties, an economy struggling to find its footing and all those appointments to be made, leadership at the top has never been more important.

All this facing a Republican Party that's been discarding those who aren't in lock-step with the hard-core GOP base.  As that base eliminates those who won't get in line, where do the outcasts go?  Where is a moderate Republican supposed to hang his/her hat?

Yes, Sir.  These next eight weeks are going to be interesting.  This election night is going to be something special.

 

The Great Seal

The extremist branch of the Idaho Republican Party is in an absolute panic about the Open Primaries Initiative (OPI), which will give every Idaho voter the right to choose our elected officials. Mike Moyle, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, has come out with a laundry list of supposed horribles that will result if the OPI depletes his legislative cadre of culture warriors who have turned Idaho into a national laughingstock. Dorothy Moon, who wants absolute control over who gets elected to public office in Idaho, is forging ahead with her own misinformation campaign. The GOP extremist have even been so brazen as to try to steal Idaho’s Great Seal.

Moon’s effort includes a disgusting sign that combines the Great Seal of the State of Idaho with a naughty wordplay on fornication– “Don’t  Californicate Idaho’s Elections.” Idaho’s Great Seal is right next to that deceptive and sexualized wording–a great insult to the Gem State and its people. Being a self-proclaimed protector of the moral fiber of Idaho children, I wonder how Moon thinks parents will explain the meaning of the sex-act word to their children. The sanctimonious GOP hardliners would be outraged to see “fornicate” in library books. Public billboards are apparently fair game.

Moon’s misuse of the Great Seal is not only tasteless, but it is counter to Idaho’s public policy against using the Great Seal for personal gain. Section 18-3603 of the Idaho Code makes it a criminal offense to forge or counterfeit the Great Seal to defraud another person. I’m not suggesting that anyone could or should be subject to prosecution, but that nobody should sully the dignity of the Great Seal. Using the Great Seal to imply state approval of campaign propaganda, particularly billboards that use an always-inappropriate version of the “F” word, is dead wrong

Both Moon and Moyle falsely claim that the OPI will turn Idaho into a liberal bastion, just like California. Apparently, they have not bothered to check out the current voter registration figures at the Secretary of State’s office–606,822 Republicans, 129,043 Democrats and 268,795 unaffiliated. Their claim defies common sense. What the OPI will do is give reasonable, traditional Republicans a chance to compete for office, instead of being beaten by party-favored extremists in the low-turnout GOP closed primary. That’s why so many traditional Republicans strongly support the OPI.

Mr. Moyle has parroted Moon’s false claim that the OPI was perpetrated by some malevolent “liberal group, fueled by out-of-state money.” He knows better. Former Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives, Bruce Newcomb, a reasonable, conservative public servant, is the person who got the OPI going in Idaho. He is Moyle’s former boss in the Legislature and Moyle knows very well that he is not some faceless liberal. Newcomb urged Reclaim Idaho, a home-grown, all-volunteer group that has done such great work on Idaho initiatives, to take on this project, following its success on the Medicaid expansion initiative in 2018 and the education funding initiative in 2022.

Newcomb was frustrated by the Legislature’s increasing extremism, which resulted from the closing of the GOP primary election in 2012. That allowed traditional Republicans to be picked off in subsequent low-turnout primaries by extremist culture warriors who are more interested in stoking fear and outrage to retain their grasp on power, rather than attending to the state’s real problems. For instance, the state has an extremely serious water problem on the Snake River–a problem that cries out for legislative attention. The culture warriors know little about water policy and apparently care less about this controversy, which will have a major impact on the state’s future. Newcomb dealt seriously with water and other important issues when he was Speaker. That simply does not happen under current leadership. He sees the OPI as a way to get rid of governmental troublemakers and replace them with dedicated public servants.

The OPI has strong support from other traditional Republicans, including Butch Otter, Denton Darrington, Maxine Bell, Jack Riggs, Sandy Patano, Greg Casey and over 100 others. They are neither Californians nor liberals. They are people who support conservative values and are hoping to restore reason, civility and common sense to governing in Idaho.

 

It shouldn’t be this competitive

By most political rules of thumb, Oregon’s 6th Congressional District race this year shouldn’t be particularly competitive.

But both the Democratic and Republican national political parties have declared the district a priority, a place where significant money and support will be sent.

There’s a case for why that shouldn’t be so.

Two years ago, when the brand new district had no incumbent, neither party had an incumbent’s advantage. The winner then, Democrat Andrea Salinas, is running as an incumbent now, and she has the advantages most incumbents can have. She has visited her district rigorously, worked on constituent projects and requests, kept in touch with key constituencies and raised plenty of money, typically an incumbent advantage.

She also is a Democrat running in a district that leans gently Democratic, and isn’t particularly bedeviled in her district by issues or controversies from the Beltway. The Cook Political Report lists the district as leaning Democratic.

And one more thing: She is running against the same candidate she defeated two years ago, Republican Mike Erickson. Reruns are a dynamic that more often than not – unless the candidate has some particular and specific political problem of the sort Salinas seems not to have – usually results in a repeat of the earlier result, even more so. Erickson is an experienced candidate, but his track record doesn’t inspire confidence: He has run for the U.S. House three times, and twice for the Oregon Legislature, and lost all those races.

While the two candidates spent comparable amounts of money, each between $3 million and $4 million, this cycle Salinas has reported raising and spending far more than Erickson. Erickson is, however, wealthy enough to self-fund a substantial campaign, but reports of that haven’t surfaced as of the most recent federal campaign report at the end of June.

These considerations may be one reason why the national Republican congressional committee decided only last month to add Erickson to its priority list of candidates.

Given all that, you have to wonder why the sixth is considered so close. But there are reasons for that, too. Even if you dismiss the recent poll released by the Erickson campaign, the only poll of the race so far that showed the two candidates nearly tied, with Salinas at 45% and Erickson at 43%), there are some reasons to class this race as competitive.

First, the general election of 2022 was close. Salinas took 50% of the vote to Erickson’s 48%, a gap of just 7,210 votes. In 2022, the ballot also included a Constitution Party candidate, who pulled 6,762 votes. If you assume, reasonably, that many of those votes would have gone to Erickson absent that candidate, then the outcome would have been exceedingly close.

There are no third-party candidates on the ballot in the sixth this year, with Salinas cross-nominated by the Independent Party of Oregon.

Second, the voting base of the sixth was close two years ago and seems close and fluid now. For years, the numbers of registered Democrats and Republicans both have been in decline while the number of nonaffiliated voters has picked up significantly. That trend has held in this district in recent years. While the number of registered voters has increased by about 10,000 to 474,332 as  of August according to the  Secretary of State’s Office, the numbers of both Democrats and Republicans have fallen from two years ago by almost identical percentages.

We can only guess at how that will translate to votes in November.

Third, while Erickson’s campaign as such seems lightly funded, it has allies. Pro-Erickson third party mailers have hit the district, at least one blasting Salinas over a lawsuit Erickson has filed against her.

Erickson could also benefit from some name familiarity after his earlier races.

All that said, the advantages Salinas should accrue this year still give her the edge. The changes from last cycle to this one do soften or even eliminate some advantages she had then, but she’s added some new ones from her incumbency.

It’s not a wrapped-up contest. The parties are not wrong to put a priority on it, and Oregonians would be wise to pay it some attention too.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

Enlightenment or division

I’ve long been a fan of the late journalist Tom Wicker, a Washington, D.C., fixture for a quarter century who covered presidents, assassinations, Watergate, even a deadly prison riot. Wicker’s southern charm — he was born in North Carolina — didn’t prevent him from offering sharp, preceptive and critical comments about presidents of both parties.

Wicker was a truth teller, including his quote that I use to assess today’s politicians:

“The first and most fundamental task of the American politician ought to be that of public education — the enlightenment of the electorate he represents, a constituency that in the nature of the case and in the process of its own business will not have the time, opportunity or inclination that he had to inform itself about the realities of an ever more complex and shrinking world.”

That’s the job — enlightenment — and the recent remarkable presidential debate made it, at times painfully obvious, that the Republican Party’s candidate has no such ability and indeed displays precisely the opposite characteristics.

A good deal has been written since Tuesday night about Vice President Kamala Harris’s mastery of former President Donald Trump, almost all of it bad for Trump.

To cite just one example of post-debate analysis, Jeff Greenfield, writing in Politico, said: “Harris made it Trump’s night — in the worst possible way. The campaign armed Harris with a series of trip wires hoping that Trump would be unable to resist setting them off. Not only did Trump take the bait, he brought a couple of his own, which he tripped over again and again. It was as if Lucy showed up with half a dozen footballs for Charlie Brown to kick, and Charlie himself brought a few more for good measure.”

Media analyst Margaret Sullivan noted: “Even over on Fox News, there were some abnormal glimmers of reality, as when Brit Hume allowed that Trump had ‘had a bad night.’ ”

What Harris accomplished on the biggest possible stage was, as Wicker said, the business of enlightenment, reminding a country that seems to suffer short-term memory loss that Trump is all about himself and about as stable as his hairstyle becomes in a windstorm.

Peter Wehner, a former George W. Bush staffer, wrote in The Atlantic that “Trump savaged people he had appointed to his administration who have since broken with him. He repeated his claim that Harris wasn’t Black. And then there was the piece de resistance: Trump spreading the conspiracy theory, weird even by his standards, that in Springfield, Ohio, Haitian migrants are abducting and devouring their neighbors’ pets. ‘They’re eating the dogs!’ he roared. ‘The people that came in — they’re eating the cats!’

And he still couldn’t stop himself. When one of the moderators, ABC’s David Muir, rebutted Trump’s claim, the former president said, ‘I’ve seen people on television! People on television say, ‘My dog was taken and used for food!’ ”

What a ridiculous and easily debunked conspiracy theory that at heart is, not surprisingly for Trump, profoundly racist. The fantastical fable wasn’t a George Wallace-style dog whistle; it was literally the blare of a Klaxon. Trump might as well have been saying, “White people don’t eat dogs, only brown-skinned Haitians eat dogs.”

Racism is at Trump’s core and, sadly, is also the beating heart of much of his appeal to many Americans. Trump is running the most openly racist campaign in recent American history, doubling down on the Obama birther smear he literally peddled for years to now openly questioning Harris’ heritage. How galling it must be for him to be soundly shamed by, of all people, a woman of color.

Harris wisely has refused to take Trump’s racial bait other than to raise eyebrows and a “I can’t believe this stuff” smile as he flayed away with nonsense.

If we could wipe away at least some of America’s profound case of historical amnesia, we might have both candidates rather than just one making the case for turning the page on a too long period of division that too often boils over in rage. In a better world, we would remember the still unfinished business of the Civil Rights Act, passed 60 years ago this summer.

Wicker was an astute observer of President Lyndon B. Johnson, the man who signed that landmark legislation. Johnson was, as Wicker wrote, “By blood and geography, a Southerner.” Yet, once in power, Johnson bucked his own region and many of his historic allies to become a civil rights champion. He explained why it was so critically important to move the country on from its old, often deadly past. Johnson was not a naturally gifted speaker, but he could tell a story as he did in one of the greatest political speeches I’ve ever read.

Late in his 1964 campaign against Barry Goldwater, an ultra-conservative who opposed the Civil Rights Act, Johnson knew the once solid Democratic South was no longer solid. To try to reach the region that broadly opposed his civil rights efforts, Johnson sent his wife, Lady Bird, on an eight-state, 47-stop train trip from Washington, D.C., to New Orleans where LBJ met her train.

In a speech to a packed crowd at a New Orleans on Oct. 9, 1964, Johnson invoked his own history, imploring the many skeptical Southerners listening to embrace a hopeful, pluralistic America, to cast off the old ways and build a stronger, better country.

“There is work to do, and we can either do it together, united, or we can do it divided, eating on each other.

“Now, the people that would use us and destroy us first divide us,” Johnson said. And “if they divide us, they can make some hay. And all these years they have kept their foot on our necks by appealing to our animosities, and dividing us.”

In winning a historic landslide, Johnson lost Louisiana in 1964. There the old divisions won again.

And the same issues confront us today. The Great Debate this week served one critical mission. It was a rare moment of political of enlightenment. In stark contrast, we are offered a candidate promising more division and another recognizing the work to be done.

 

Freedom v. Freedom

When the dust settled after Idaho’s May primary election, one reasonable conclusion was that the hard right - what could have been loosely centered around the Idaho version of the Freedom Caucus - stood a good chance of taking effective control of the legislature in the next session. Up to now that group has been a powerful and sometimes successful force, but clear control has been elusive.

New cross-currents are setting that prognosis up for grabs. One big reason was outlined in a strong new report by the news group InvestigateWest, which found that Idaho’s Freedom Caucus has fallen into war with itself - and with the national group that helped found it. The whole thing is worth a read; much of what follows was drawn from it.

The contentious U.S. House Freedom Caucus, which is much better known even in Idaho, has been experiencing its own internal conflicts in the last couple of years even as a close ally was elevated to the House speakership. But the issues in Idaho are separate (though in some ways mirroring those in Congress), drawing from its relationship with an allied group called the State Freedom Caucus Network.

That is a national organization founded in 2021 by Republican operatives with the idea of extending the Freedom Caucus of the U.S. House - I’ll leave it to you to decide how good an idea that is - into statehouses around the country. They’ve planted a dozen of them so far, including in Montana, Wyoming and Arizona as well as Idaho.

But Idaho has been a problem child. Political scientist Matthew Green, who has been tracking activity in this area, remarked to InvestigateWest, “What’s interesting about Idaho is that you have this national organization that’s involved in this feud with the state Freedom Caucus. I don’t know of this happening in any other state.”

What has happened is in a way inevitable, because much of the draw and dynamic of Freedom Caucus culture involves suspicion, distrust and an automatic pulling away from people or institutions in power.

The Idaho conflict seems to have started in at least its present form when leaders of the state Freedom Caucus (which earlier this year had about a dozen legislators as members) decided against provoking unnecessary conflicts with House Speaker Mike Moyle, who on matters of ideology and legislation is mostly in alignment with them. That outreach to a similar-minded leader of the establishment, though, was too much for some Freedom Caucusers, and schism ensued.

That’s one reason, the InvestigateWest article noted, the dozen members of the caucus from last winter now seem to be headed down to seven (after two members who lost primary elections end their terms).

But there’s more. The national organization sided with the idea that cooperation with the powers that be was not a good thing, and the group’s director Maria Nate - hired by the national group - supported that. That was the background of a fiercely angry conversation, secretly recorded and later released, between Nate and Representative Heather Scott, a co-leader of the Idaho Freedom Caucus group and a backer of reaching out to Moyle.

Since then the Idaho group seems to have split from the national and named its own director, outgoing Senator (he was defeated in the primary) Scott Herndon, who backs the Heather Scott group. Meanwhile, the national group has been trying to recreate itself (with help from at least one Idaho legislator) under its flag as the Idaho Freedom Caucus with Nate as director.

So there are now, more or less, two Idaho Freedom Caucus groups, each with its own director, and apparently with conflicting claims on the group’s logo. Legal conflict looks like a distinct possibility.

If all this sounds improbable, well, it isn’t. Given the nature of what underlies these groups, it’s probably better seen as inevitable. The other states with Freedom Caucuses are on notice.