Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in November 2015

Indian Country’s Obama

November 30, 2015

trahantlogo1

At least 73 American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians serve in 17 state legislatures.

This is important for a couple of reasons.

First, if you look at the body of work of these state senators and representatives, you’ll find them advocating for better services, more funding and improving relationships between tribal nations and state governments. Second, state offices are a source of talent for higher elective posts, ranging from Congress to the White House. Remember it was in only 1996 when Barack Obama was elected to the Illinois state Senate.

Montana best demonstrates the growing influence of Native American voters.

Denise Juneau, the state’s superintendent of public instruction, is currently running for the U.S. House of Representatives. She’s a member of the Mandan and Hidatsa Tribes and grew up in Browning, Montana, in the Blackfeet Nation. Juneau has a political track record. She’s already won two state-wide contests so she knows what it takes to win a House seat.

This is how U.S. politics often works: A candidate wins at the state level, does a good a job, and then she moves on to Congress (or is appointed to a federal post, such as Secretary of Education).

The Montana story is richer than Juneau alone. Some twenty years ago, Montana was much like any other state with a significant Native American population with only one or two Native Americans serving in the legislature. Then Native American candidate won in 1997. And again in 2003. And by 2007 Native Americans in Montana reached ten seats in the legislature; representing 6.6 percent of that body. Montana’s population is 7.4 percent Native American. Today there are 3 Native Americans in the Senate and 5 in the House, some 5.3 percent of the state legislature.

To put the Montana percentage in national terms: If Congress were 5.3 percent Native American, there would be 5 U.S. Senators and 21 members of the House. Even if you adjust for population, the number of Native American members of Congress would have to more than double to equal the representation in Montana.

It’s telling that when Brookings Institution researched the historical demographics for members of Congress it did not even bother to measure Native Americans. There are two tribal members currently serving in Congress and, so far, this election season, there are at least seven Native American candidates for Congress.

First take/motorized

November 30, 2015

I wouldn't have thought the groups of people seeking to run motorized vehicles - snowmobiles, ATVs and so on - in the backcountry would be quite so large, but maybe it is.

They were among the last holdouts and critics in opposition to the recent designation of the central Idaho wilderness area earlier this year. Now they are filing a lawsuit against the in-progress Kootenai National Forest plan in Montana (the forest is adjacent to northern Idaho) which would designate about 115,000 acres as wilderness.

Wilderness areas generally ban motorized equipment of any sort (planes being a notable exception), and such recreational transports usually are banned from there. But accommodations have been made in some places, as the plaintiffs' attorney pointed out.

Most of the specific issues in the case concern whether all of the proposals in the plan properly went through the public hearing process, and whether for the proper periods of time. But the presence of motorized transport in wilderness areas is something likely to come back up, in various places. - rs

No barking in the night-time

November 28, 2015

stapiluslogo1

Two years ago at this point, Idaho was headed for a major clash within the Republican Party.

It was two years ago last week that Russell Fulcher, then a state senator from Meridian, announced he would oppose incumbent Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter in the Republican primary. That launched the most serious opposition from inside his own party to an Idaho governor in almost 50 years, though Otter would go on to win it decisively.

Months before that, in June 2013, Bryan Smith launched his campaign for the 2nd District U.S. House seat, opposing veteran Republican incumbent Mike Simpson in the May 2014 primary. He campaigned steadily for nearly a year before losing, by a strong margin, on election day.

In starting their campaigns well before the end of the year before the election year, Fulcher and Smith - who were not alone in Idaho in launching primary competition campaigns along that schedule - were doing the smart thing. Money is an important factor in many campaigns, but time is often an underrated asset, or liability if you have too little of it. I even think of the two as being mathematically related: Extra time, or money, can help make up for a deficiency on the other side of the equation. And Fulcher and Smith must have entered their campaigns knowing they were likely to be outspent (as they eventually were), so the extra time was a helpful element.

One point here is that, even with lengthy campaign efforts, each fell short, and it wasn’t especially close.

Another point is that no one this year has been making similar effort in the year-before to start an insurgent campaign the way those two did.

By this point in the last election cycle, as I noted, a significant clash between wings of the Republican Party in the state was already well in the making, and it became a big and highly unusual conflict, with what amounted to two separate slates going to war with each other in the primary. The election delivered a clear win to one of those sides - the incumbent, more establishment side - but it didn’t end the splits or the conflict, as demonstrated in the rancorous party convention of 2014.

That seemed to set up the likelihood of another, similar, battle for 2016. But no such battle seems to be coming together. Look around and you’re not seeing announcements of primary challenges around the state, a contrast to the last cycle.

There are several possible reasons. One of the biggest is simply the lack of major offices to run for: Above the legislative level, that would be just the two U.S. House seats, and both incumbents (Republicans Raul Labrador and Simpson) look likely to seek re-election and are strongly entrenched.

Nor is there, offhand, any particular reason to anticipate major fireworks on the legislative level. Put aside the presidential race and Idaho’s politics in 2016 look pretty quiet. In state, political people probably are thinking more about 2018 (when, among other things, Otter likely will step aside and open the office for someone else) than 2016.

It may be that some of the activism within the Republican Party could be diverted to the presidential nomination contest, where some of those same debates could play out (in a proxy way).

But the absence of Idaho dogs barking in the night-time, as the Sherlock Holmes story had it, may translate to an absence of heated politics in the state next year.

First take/police state

November 28, 2015

We still encounter people here and there - and nationally, there seem to be a lot of them, though thankfully a long way from a majority - who say they support Donald Trump. What they like about him are phony assets (he'd be independent, though he's already been hat in hand fundraising, for example). But do they listen to what he says?

Timothy Egan of the New York Times has, and here he outlines what a Trump administration would look like.

In wrap: "Take him at his word — albeit, a worthless thing given his propensity for telling outright lies and not backing down when called on them — Donald Trump’s reign would be a police state. He has now outlined a series of measures that would make the United States an authoritarian nightmare. Trump is no longer entertaining, or diversionary. He’s a billionaire brute, his bluster getting more ominous by the day."

Campaign promises are often enough hot air, or undeliverable. But watch what a presidential candidate says on the stump: It usually does reflect what they at least try to do. Which in Trump's case is beyond scary. And beyond un-American. - rs

A matter of war

November 27, 2015

mckeelogo1

To formally declare war against any terrorist group as a reaction to ordinary criminal acts, whether against France, some other country, or against us, would be a dumb mistake.

To do so just to best Vladimir Putin in some sort of attempt to get ahead of Russia in the Middle East would be even dumber. We know we cannot defeat an idea with conventional weaponry. We know we have no business involving ourselves in civil wars in the Middle East, especially where those disputes spill over into unwinnable theological differences within factions of Islam that have been at odds with one another for a thousand years.

We also know better than to interfere with a regime change driven from without; a lesson learned from Iraq and Libya.

Finally, we must know that we cannot continue to assign the responsibility for warfare to just the 1% of our young and hearty, expecting them to return again and again to the hellish nightmares of battle while the rest of us continue on without inconvenience or sacrifice.

This means that to avoid running amok into the same moral, legal, political and practical quagmire we found in Afghanistan and Iraq, we must keep the situation with Syria and ISIL or ISIS, or whatever it wishes to be called, in careful perspective. If our real objective is to seek out and hold the individuals responsible for these atrocious terrorist activities accountable to society, which is a legitimate objective, and which we have proved we are very good at doing, then the obvious solution lies in our criminal courts, not warfare. The acts are crimes, and are best handled as crimes wherever they are found.

To date, the overwhelmingly successful prosecutions of radical jihadist terrorists has been in the federal courts of the United States. With a conviction rate of close to 90%, more than 500 terrorism related cases have been prosecuted there since 9/11.

Meanwhile, the effort to prosecute detainees in military tribunals at Guantanamo under the war powers act has become hopelessly snarled and bogged down. There have been three convictions out of Gitmo since 9/11. Three. There are only seven detainees currently being tried in military tribunals there, and indications are that the Pentagon only intends a total of fourteen prosecutions in all – out of the entire 780 detainees incarcerated at Guantanamo in its history.

We have the personnel, the processes, and the knowledge to manage the entire matter of terrorist acts completely under the direction of our United States Attorneys’ offices and within the criminal justice system of our federal courts. Terrorist acts are crimes and should be treated as such. This is where it all belongs, and this is where it all should stay

First take/Kurdistan

November 27, 2015

A couple of experts on the Kurds - the 40 million or so people stretched across Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria - make a good argument on The Daily Beast today that the time has come for an independent Kurdistan.

As a practical matter that simply seems not to have been in the cards up to now. To get the independent state they have been seeking would mean getting several independent countries to give up a significant chunk of their population and territory, some of it oil-producing. And the leadership of some of those countries, present or past - Iraq and Turkey maybe most visibly - have been violently against the idea.

And trying to offer up independent countries to every ethnic group around the globe is, Woodrow Wilson to the contrary, not a real good idea.

However. Something like the protagonist in the Kipling poem "If," the Kurds - who long have had a sort of shadow government in place and a military to go with it - have been a solid bulwark against their neighbors Daesh, holding their ground better than either the Syrian or Iraqi states. They are proving themselves a coherent force, and nation status could make them more effective. On top of that, they generally have been aligned with the West; the United States has worked with them informally for years.

Writers Aliza Marcus and Andrew Apostolou argue, though, that a single Kurdistan may yet be impractical, just because conditions in the four countries are so different. Iraqi Kurds have been all but independent for close to a quarter-century, while those in in Turkey are still struggling with the federal government there. Those in Iran remain repressed, while those in Syria are moving toward the Iraqi model.

But they do argue that giving the group international help is not beyond reach. Maybe, with the recent shootdown of a Russian plane by Turks kept in mind, the right leverage may be here to do that. - rs

Can Idaho Democrats come back?

November 25, 2015

carlsonlogo1

The voice on the other end of the telephone belonged to a nice lady who hailed from Wisconsin. She and her husband, who she described as an outdoor enthusiast, had moved to Wallace 14 years ago.

Wisconsin is a state with two strong political parties, and while in recent years the Democrats and their union allies have been outmaneuvered by Governor Scott Walker to the point where critics feel Wisconsin Democrats are somewhat moribund, their organization looks postively dynamic compared to Idaho’s.

The caller wanted to know whether I could come speak to a discussion group of about 25 mostly Democrats and would I be willing to share thoughts on whether there would ever be a Democratic resurrection. Here’s the gist of what I said.

The Democrats can once again be the majority choice of Idaho voters, but it is going to take time, hard work, a major reframing of the issues they focus on and the mother’s milk---money.

Here’s what has to happen: the new State Chair, former State Senator Bert Marley from Pocatello, has to visit all 44 Idaho counties. While there he must interview the county chair and emphasize the paramount obligation to find qualified Democrats to contest for every office on the local ballot. Additionally, they must fill every precinct committee slot.

If the county chair cannot do that Marley should replace them with someone who can get the job done.

Conversely, Marley owes it to these county chairs to find qualified candidates to contest every statewide and federal office. The bottom line is a party cannot start up the comeback trail without contesting every position on a ballot. One cannot win an election with nobody on the ballot, as is the case all too often.

Secondly, Democrats have to thrust forward the kind of talent that has put time in grade developing the personal relationships still critical to winning elections. Butch Otter has won three terms as governor not because of his do-nothing, risk nothing policies. He has won because he spent 14 years as Lt. Governor traveling the state building the kinds of personal relationships with donors, party workers and constituent interest groups essential to achieving ballot success.

Nothing against Steve Allred or A.J. Balukoff, the D’s last two gubernatorial nominees. Both are fine individuals but neither had spent the time in-grade developing the necessary political relationships, nor had they served in other partisan offices.

Next, the Idaho Democratic Party has to attract back the lunch-bucket carrying Democrat---the hard-working, tax-paying dirt under the finger-nails miner, or logger or farmer who started migrating to the Republican party after they felt deserted by the left-leaning, super liberal element of the party.

Others call these folks Andrus Democrats. Whatever one terms them, they along with many independents and Republicans (Andrus received as high as 30% of the Republican vote) voters carried Andrus to victory four times with two of those gubernatorial races providing the highest winning margins in Idaho history.

The Andrus formula falls under the umbrella of what he calls the three “E’s:” the Economy, Education and the Environment. He authored the phrase, “First one has to make a living; then, they have to have a living worthwhile.” In other words one has to have a job.

Consequently, he focused on policies which enhanced job creation and expanded the economic pie---but not at the expense of erxisting businesses. New business had to pay its on way. He did not believe nor did he offer incentives that in actuality were subsidies at the expense of existing business.

Secondly, he knew how important quality educational offerings were to business leaders looking to relocate their business and their families. His steadfast support for education including better pay for teachers was steadfast and constant.

Third, he knew how important Idaho’s quality of life was to the numerous citizens who enjoyed all forms of outdoor recreation. For that reason he was as supportive of wilderness areas and wild and scenic rivers as he was of national recreation areas and multiple uses on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands.

Andrus saw these as issues around which people could unite. He avoided trumpeting the numerous social issues that divide people, and which made it all too easy for Republicans to define Democrats.

His advice today would be don’t let your opponents define you, reframe your messages, get back to basics, avoid fear-mongering, and be for the three “E’s.” When Idaho Democrats start listening and acting on the advice of their most successful office-holder ever, the comeback will start.

First take/Iraq

November 25, 2015

The 60 Minutes report this week on the fight in Iraq was both illuminating and complexifying - but that latter was necessary.

There were small points: Almost everyone CBS talked to on the field (and that included soldiers in a front line) referred not to ISIS but to Daesh - and don't be surprised if people rapidly start switching to that instead of ISIS or the Islamic State, not least because those guys not to like it. (A British report said "Daesh, an adapted acronym of their Arabic name - Dawlat al-Islamiyah f'al-Iraq w Belaad al-Sham - is similar to another Arabic word - das - which means 'to trample down' or 'crush', which could therefore be the source of their dislike.")

There was almost some enlightening material about the thousands of drone and other strike U.S. forces alone have unleashed into the Daesh-held state.

An oddity emerged in that area. The U.S. missile strikes and other air support have been going out in support of the small and somewhat weak Iraqi-national army and the few others formally aligned with it; but not in support of others - such as Shiite and other insurgent forces - which are only informally aligned with it. That almost comes across as a bureaucratic glitch. So to the U.S. vehicles and weapons that have fallen into Daesh hands.

The report seemed to indicate, in aggregate, that progress is being made, albeit slowly. But a question comes from some of that too: What happens if Daesh is beaten? What happens to control of the region then? Has anyone thought it through? -rs