“Follow the Money.”
“Pay more attention to what people do than to what they say.”
– Marty Lavin
“It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
– Attributed to Mark Twain,
a.k.a. Samuel Clemens.
The votes have been taken in the House of Representatives. The 45th president has been impeached. Or was he? Not until the articles of impeach have been delivered to the U.S. Senate, according to an article in Bloomberg as well as others in mainstream media.
It is a vote like no other in U.S. history, or so say certain pundits and politicos who often share no honest sense of history.
Every part of the headline will be addressed for the patient. Meanwhile, the impatient will be playing into the hands of those who trade in double-talk and deception.
Shortly after announcing the move by House Democrats to impeach, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (CA-D) announced that a vote would occur on the U.S. Mexico Canada (USMCA) trade agreement negotiated by the Trump Administration. Having recently visited Washington, D.C. again, the inside baseball on that move spoke volumes.
The most radical elements of the Democratic Party that wanted President Trump impeached since day one might think they got what they wanted. Did they?
• Fundraising for Republicans is through the roof, reportedly at record highs.
• Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-D) voted “present,” a fascinating move for a 2020 hopeful.
• New Jersey Rep. Jefferson Van Drew voted against impeachment as a Democrat and has since flipped affiliation to become a Republican. In doing so Drew praised the economy that President Trump’s agenda has created and pledged “undying” loyalty to him and his new party.
• Democratic attorneys and constitutional scholars who supported Secretary Hillary Clinton – Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz – both decried the basis and legality of the move to impeach. Turley said you could impeach every living president by the standard set in this impeachment.
Before the House Democrats articles of impeachment votes, a defiant President Donald J. Trump sent Speaker Pelosi the letter linked here to state to all who read his view why the process has been a political sham.
But whatever side one is on, this has arguably been useful to the majority regardless of party or independents like us. How so? Because political theater makes more look at history, precisely because so many say it is ‘historic.’
It is historic, but perhaps not for the reasons many believe.
Uncivil War
In the aftermath of America’s so-called Civil War in the early- to mid-1860s, there was much to do. A divided and war-torn nation had to somehow be reknit. The rights of states that rebelled and the rights of blacks who had been freed by Republican President Abraham Lincoln had to be established. For those who think today that our nation has never been so divided, the Civil War is but one of several reminders that an honest look at American history reveals an ongoing struggle for power, civil, religious or economic liberties and more.
Periods of serious divisions have been more common that we’re told by certain leaders.
Schisms existed in the colonies during the Revolution against England, the British Crown and the monopolies that the crown granted in the New World. Thomas Jefferson wanted an anti-monopoly provision added to the Constitution. Jefferson’s anti-monopoly position didn’t finally happen until the late 1800s and the pre-World War II 1900s that the core of America’s antitrust – read anti-monopoly – laws were passed. Those antitrust laws have been a political football before and since their enactment.
Banking and the Federal Reserve System has been a political duel too. Don’t be surprised if a second term of President Trump could bring the kind of scrutiny to “The Fed” that may harken back to Abraham Lincoln who financed the war between the states effort with “greenbacks” instead of borrowing from high-interest rate lenders.
On “February 25, 1862, Congress passed the first Legal Tender Act, which authorized the issuance of $150 million in United States Notes,” says Wikipedia. Actor John Wilkes Booth, Lincoln’s assassin, was pro-slavery, a white supremacist and a Democrat. There are plenty of conspiracy theories that the assassin Booth was also striking a blow for banking interests who didn’t get to profit from the Civil War as they otherwise might have.
America’s history has been raucous, in part because some want to be masters and oligarchs who rule by fiat, a misuse of law and money. Others claim to want pure majority rule, which the founders rejected as rule by mobs. Those who drafted and enacted the constitution rejected both, and today we pledge allegiance to the flag and “to the Republic for which it stands.” Our country was meant to be a Republic, not a democracy nor an oligarchy. Who said? Ben Franklin.
The vision of America’s Republic was the rule of law that defend individual liberties. More on that shortly, but let’s look at the history of the first U.S. impeachment of a president.
The First Impeachment
“The impeachment of Andrew Johnson…became the first American president to be impeached on March 2–3, 1868, when the House formally adopted the articles of impeachment and forwarded them to the United States Senate for adjudication. The trial in the Senate began three days later, with Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding. On May 16, the Senate failed to convict Johnson on one of the articles, with the 35–19 vote in favor of conviction falling short of the necessary two-thirds majority by a single vote.”
The above was from Wikipedia, which also stated that “The impeachment and trial of Andrew Johnson had important political implications for the balance of federal legislative–executive power. It maintained the principle that Congress should not remove the president from office simply because its members disagreed with him over policy, style, and administration of the office.”
Among the 11 articles of impeachment was the primary charge that Johnson violated of the Tenure of Office Act, passed by Congress in March 1867 over his veto. Johnson removed Edwin M. Stanton, the Secretary of War from office. Johnson believed the law to be unconstitutional, despite its enactment. Although Johnson was a Democrat from Tennessee, he “had been a fierce critic of the Southern secession,” per Wikipedia. Republicans – in the majority at the time – wanted “treason” of southerners in rebellion to be punished as “traitors.”
Johnson opted to embrace Lincoln’s more lenient policies, rejecting the more radical elements of the Republicans. A showdown of presidential vs. Congressional power evolved.
Johnson’s impeachment failed in the Senate because enough Republicans broke ranks with party leaders and voted against it. Congress ended up repealing the dubiously enacted Tenure Act, which later rulings by the Supreme Court seemed to support President Johnson’s view.
Ponder what one of the 10 Republicans who voted against impeachment had to say. Because Lyman Trumbull (IL-R) – like Democrat Turley in our times – felt that impeachment would hobble the presidency. The system of checks and balances in the U.S. government would be undermined, Trumbull said in a speech that included these words.
“Once set the example of impeaching a President for what, when the excitement of the hour shall have subsided, will be regarded as insufficient causes, as several of those now alleged against the President were decided to be by the House of Representatives only a few months since, and no future President will be safe who happens to differ with a majority of the House and two thirds of the Senate on any measure deemed by them important, particularly if of a political character. Blinded by partisan zeal, with such an example before them, they will not scruple to remove out of the way any obstacle to the accomplishment of their purposes, and what then becomes of the checks and balances of the Constitution, so carefully devised and so vital to its perpetuity? They are all gone.”
The battle over the impeachment then of President Johnson included charges of bribery and political pressure being applied to those pondering their votes for or against Johnson’s removal from office. It was a highly political mess.
When you step back, there are several parallels and lessons to be learned. Which is precisely why history has such value. In our own industry, we look at items in part through the lens of history because it provides perspective when dubious, habitual, or emotional claims are made that could sound nice but may be baseless or false.
There are a variety of things that could occur if and when Speaker Pelosi sends those articles of impeachment to the Senate. But the likelihood is that President Trump will be acquitted. No president has been removed from office by impeachment. Speaker Pelosi knows that no president has been removed from by impeachment. That point and her delay in presenting the articles to the Senate suggests that this is a political exercise now with Republican President Trump as it was then with Democratic President Johnson.
What Is This Process Resulting In Today?
Meanwhile, Democrats have had their lowest-rated televised debate in this election cycle. Per Mediate:
“According to Nielsen figures provided to Variety, the Los Angeles debate hosted by PBS NewsHour and Politico and simulcast on CNN drew just over 2 million viewers across PBS stations nationwide, and was seen on CNN by just over 4 million people.
PBS told Variety that the debate live streams across the participating networks’ digital and social platforms totaled more than 8.4 million viewers.
This is even fewer viewers than the fifth debate hosted by MSNBC, which drew just over 6.5 million viewers – which aired the same day as wall-to-wall daytime coverage of Amb. Gordon Sondland’s testimony to Congress in Donald Trump’s impeachment inquiry.”
By contrast, Forbes reported that the second Democratic presidential debate drew “8.2 million viewers on CNN, falling behind the first night of the Democratic primary debate a month ago, which drew a combined audience of 15.3 million viewers across three networks—NBC, MSNBC and Telemundo.”
But to set a context and present an objective metric of ‘energy’, compare the viewer estimates with those for the GOP in the 2015-2016 election cycle.
“The first live broadcast debate occurred on Thursday, August 6, 2015, at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio. It was seen on the Fox News Channel by 24 million viewers, making the debate the most watched live broadcast for a non-sporting event in cable television history,” said Wikipedia.
Democrats should pay some added attention to the more moderate candidates that were not on stage this week, such as Rep. Gabbard or former Congressman John Delaney. Delaney warned his party against “fairytale economics.” Those chickens may be coming home to roost.
While Mayor Pete Buttigieg (South Bend-D) and Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA-D) sparred over how many billionaires, past or present, have supported their respective efforts and in which wine-cave or private gathering. The buried headline is that both they and others among Democrats are getting billionaire backing. How does billionaire support square with those who pledge wealth or other tax hikes if elected? How are such tax hike pledges to be believed?
Billionaire and former New York City Mayor Bloomberg – even with his wealth – certainly has his work cut out for him. But the factoids of seemingly populist candidates getting billionaire support provided Bloomberg and the other Democratic 2020 hopeful billionaire Tom Steyer cover.
Who won the recent Democratic Debate?
The ubiquitous Drudge Report’s unscientific flash poll had businessman and math fan Andrew Yang way ahead, followed by Buttigieg and Senator Amy Klobuchar (MN-D) in third. Don’t forget that former President Barack H. Obama said before the debate that old white men were to be eschewed while women were “indisputably better.” Its interesting that the former president’s observation lined up with the Drudge flash poll’s top 3.
It is too much to say that the Democratic field is in chaos, as some pundits claim. President Trump is correct when he says that what Democrats do well is join forces when it comes down to it. But a look at the viewing numbers and other data makes it clear that the real winner so far is President Donald J. Trump. There are plenty of ways that a current non-top four Democratic candidate for 2020 could emerge, given the dramatic decline in interest while POTUS Trump’s polling and fundraising are up.
So, how is impeachment this time around looking so far?
Investors and the American Dream
On Wall Street, investors have shrugged impeachment off and the market continues its steady rise. For those who compare this market rally with that under President Obama, a clear distinction must be made. There were several QEs – quantitative easing, Fed purchases – and other stimulus programs made during the Obama Administration. Those bolstered the markets artificially. By contrast, what the Trump Administration policy has been to encourage investing by investors through regulatory and tax rollbacks. Rephrased, the Trump vision is to let free markets operate to a higher degree. Obama-era QEs were being unwound by the Fed under President Trump, yet the market has still been rising.
Investors seek certainty. It’s a familiar adage. The better the odds of success, the greater the potential returns, the more interest there is. So the less political disruption, the less the threat of regulatory or other harmful impacts, the better.
Objectivity?
We strive for objectivity here on MHProNews and look at the world through the lens of how issues impact affordable housing in general and manufactured homes in particular. For example.
Senator Warren and former Secretary Julio Castro (D) both have visited manufactured home communities during their campaign. Beyond letters, videos, photo ops and “selfies,” what have they done in a pragmatic way to advance the interests of those residents they were appealing to in those campaign stops?
Senator Warren has said and written about antitrust during her campaign. We concur that antitrust is a serious issue.
But where is Senator Warren’s call for hearings on how antitrust and other laws could be brought to bear that might help those manufactured home community residents that she’s been doing selfies with? Warren, Castro and others have a chance to do something real. Will they pose and posture, or will they act in a timely fashion that can begin relief for those residents they say they want to support now, instead of someday in the murky future?
What an objective view of the last few months reveals is sobering.
While former President Obama (D) and his Vice President Biden (D) have said that they had a scandal-free administration. But quite the opposite has been revealed. Beyond scandals like Solyndra, Fast and Furious, IRS targeting of conservatives, political spying and snooping on some reporters, the Libya fiasco and more, VP Biden’s son Hunter was apparently getting rich in Ukraine and China. Obama’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her husband’s foundation looks like a pay-to-play scheme, as donations to the Clinton Foundation plummeted once Teflon Don won the 2016 contest.
More Americans across the left-center-right divide are realizing that politicians and/or their families are getting rich while in office.
So yes, Senators Warren, Bernie Sanders (VT-I and self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist) and President Trump have all said that “The System is Rigged.” Several of those 2020 candidates said Thursday night at the Democratic debate that corporate interests are buying favors in Washington. That’s a point that candidate Trump made numerous times during his 2015-2016 run. He admitted doing the same – donating to Democrats and Republicans – adding that you couldn’t fix the system by electing people who rigged the system in the first place. Meaning, you needed an outsider not an establishment Democrat or Republican candidate.
Are there possible candidates who could emerge on the Democratic side? Theoretically, yes. But until they level with their supporters in a fashion as arguably candid as candidate Trump did while connecting to real people in 2015-2016, Democrats have a problem.
Even promising free stuff isn’t working as it once did. Dramatically declining TV ratings of the Democratic debates speak to that point. Why aren’t those promises of goodies paid for by others failing to attract more viewers? Can it be that after decades of less bold promises that went unfulfilled, that enough voters are tuning out such vapid jargon? Could it be that Democrat turned Republican Van Drew’s point about the economic benefits flowing from POTUS Trump’s economic plans are working for ever more people of all races and beliefs is resonating with everyday Americans?
Removing Bad Apples in the Trump Administration?
As an award-winning history-lover, publisher and business professional, there are things in the D.C. swamp that this writer believes the president needs to address. For example, we oppose Brian Montgomery for Deputy Secretary at HUD. In fact, we think he should be removed from office entirely. He may not be much different than some other backstabbers that have undermined the president’s administration.
No administration is perfect. But whomever gave the advice to the president to nominate Montgomery at HUD needs to rethink it based on evidence we’ve reported. For a president who preaches enforcing the law, Montgomery is arguably failing to do that in a manner harmful to millions.
We’ve praised some of the pragmatic stances of HUD Secretary Ben Carson. But we must ask, why isn’t enhanced preemption being promoted at HUD yet? We are mindful too that a White House source told me specifically during a conference call that “enhanced preemption” enforcement by HUD is on the table.
If so, then someone in the West Wing needs to so advise Secretary Carson. He’s doing and saying a lot of good things. But what’s missing at HUD – along with people at the FHFA – are some key things that would advance the very agenda they claim to want to foster.
Democrats could rally around the core of the American Dream and so can President Trump and his GOP loyalists. The irony is that Democrats blast billionaires on stage and on camera, while taking their money and doing their bidding off stage and off camera. The GOP has done similarly too. We are living in what could be compared to a modified Gilded Age with a new type of Robber Barons. The party and leader that makes that plain and shows voters how they can fix it with a new populism could rally some 70 percent of Americans behind him or her.
The new populism could and should be a remix of the old populism.
• Monopolies should be broken up. It isn’t billionaires per se that are the problem. Rather, it is how some got their wealth through crony capitalist connections. Honest success should be celebrated. But success that comes through monopolistic practices often tied to political cronyism that manipulates laws and contracts are as harmful to the American Dream as empty and poisonous socialistic promises are. The good news? Several in both major parties are seeing that antitrust law enforcement is a serious issue that must be addressed. Senators and House members should hold hearings, issues subpoenas, gather evidence, educate the public and then turn over their findings to the appropriate state and federal agencies for legal action where warranted.
• Access to Capital and Affordable Housing. As our report yesterday reveals, widely bipartisan laws already exist that could solve the affordable housing crisis and lift millions out of poverty. Those with lower wealth could be elevated into ever greater wealth through home ownership. See that deeper dive report linked here along with more below the byline and notices. At the heart of some Trump Administration plans are tax and regulatory reductions, trade and immigration policies that encourage American investments, businesses and workers. While we’ve not heard as much of late, due to partisan gridlock in Washington, infrastructure is too. The desire to have a strong military combined with peace and domestic investment instead of hawkish thirst for new wars is another keen feature of the Trump Administration. Each of these have numerous constituencies. Note that Rep. Gabbard has raised some of those themes too. Gabbard illustrates that some of these themes have bipartisan appeal.
• Leveling the playing field by equally enforcing good existing laws. The core notion of a republic is a nation of laws that are equally enforced upon all without favor. That’s radically different than pandering to whatever group or class. Mayor Buttigieg, to pick but one example from the recent debate, made a ridiculous claim regarding border jumpers are due what amounts to reparations. That’s a fine way to turn off most blacks, Hispanics, other minorities and whites who think that you don’t reward lawbreakers. Common sense analysis of outrageous promises, statements and claims are perhaps one reason why the audience for the Democratic debates has dropped by roughly 2/3rds. As both former Rep Delaney said fairytale economics – or as former Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) stressed, outrageous claims are a good way to “FedEx the election” to the Trump reelection campaign
• Discerning truth from political or big business spin. As media ourselves, we certainly believe in the first amendment. As independents, we get it that people on both sides of the two major parties are trying to score points with their respective bases. We see that media has become more polarized along left-right lines. This isn’t new in American history. Media bias ebbs and flows, rises and falls like a tide over time. One reason big media arguably tends not to be as focused on antitrust may be because much of the media itself is being monopolized or consolidated into ever fewer hands. That’s a point that Senator Sanders is quite right about. But the solution is educational/informational and once again, law enforcement. Where monopolization is occurring, antitrust laws should step in. The News Media Alliance – representing many smaller media interests – is in the odd predicament of begging Congress to exempt them from antitrust law, so they can negotiate with big tech Google and Facebook for a fairer deal that will allow independent media to survive. The logical solution isn’t what the News Media Alliance is asking for, rather, it is that Google and Facebook should be broken up under antitrust laws. Looking back to a prior point, Thomas Jefferson was correct in saying that the bill of rights failed to focus on the problems caused in America for centuries by monopolistic interests.
Restoring the American Dream?
Like him for his style or not, President Trump’s political philosophy is arguably is a blend of Democratic and Republican policies. He’s pragmatic. The reason that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer – clearly no friend of President Trump – supported tariffs and a tough stance on China is because properly understood that protects workers. The reason that Democrats are at least talking about infrascture with the Trump Administration is because it is a traditional Democratic stance.
Rephrased, both major parties have points worth advancing. The good wheat from each must be separated from the poor chaff.
The positions that the president takes are routinely pragmatic. What’s called ‘cozying up to dictators’ – for example – is a reality that the language of diplomacy at times is tough, at times the rhetoric is conciliatory. That’s true for successful presidents of both major parties.
Trump Administration policies seem to boil down to protecting American workers, American businesses, providing enhanced domestic and foreign safety in a dangerous world. Enforce the law is a common theme too. PayPal founder Peter Thiel said that Trump has “a phenomenal understanding of people,” per the New York Times. “We are both dragon energy. He is my brother,” said Kanye West, per Newsweek. So much for homophobic or racism claims against the 45th president.
While you’re at it, recognize that his being married to an immigrant, having Jewish and Christian family members, friends who are Muslims or of other beliefs makes a variety of claims lodged against the 45th president either ill-informed or unjustified by the facts.
Agree or not with his style, the president is much like others I know that come from cultural backgrounds were exaggeration is used to make a point. Hyperbole isn’t necessarily meant as a deception or lie. Exaggeration has been used for millennia to make a point, often in a wryly humorous manner.
The president’s opponents, which have come from both Republican and Democratic ranks, often complain about his tweets or style. They seem to forget that he is a showman, an entertainer. They also overlook years of history of support from women, minorities, immigrants – including his wife Melania – and others.
What the president has begun is a bridge of several divides in his policies. That may explain why the hostility is often so strong across the divide. The status quo – the establishment or ‘swamp’ – is going to battle back.
But as great as that hostility is, so too the loyalty of his supporters. There are indications his support among blacks and Hispanics is rising, despite the allegations by detractors of his racism. Union members and others who have for years been Democratic supporters are among Trump voters, as various studies reflect. The facts speak in favor of the Trump Administration policies.
In a different but related manner to yesterday’s deep dive report, the reality is that decades of studies have already produced the insights needed to fix what’s wrong in America. Some laws are going unenforced or are being manipulated. Information itself is being manipulated. Politics is becoming hyper-partisan – as noted above, not the first time – that the common interest is being sacrificed for special interests. There are issues like the budget that aren’t being addressed, but just yesterday 45 said that it is now coming up on his radar. The depleted military in a hostile world had to be addressed, he explained.
That said, accountability is needed. Just as tariffs on China are ‘working,’ so too big conglomerates that have manipulated the political and media landscape must be dealt with. That should be addressed in a manner that fines, breaks up and otherwise speak to a just resolution for every violation of the law by the powerful who have rigged the system. The answer isn’t a ‘wealth tax’ – ala Warren or Sanders. Rather it is to break up the crony capitalist ways that meet in capitol offices where wealth, money, contracts, laws and influence pedaling have been intersecting for decades. Democrats had their Tammany Hall, Republicans had their county commissioner kickback scandals in Oklahoma and Texas.
Human nature is what it is.
One last segue from the Democratic debate before closing. Andrew Yang is contributing a useful topic to the debate. Properly understood, there is a risk from automation and robotics. While we disagree with his proposed solutions, the issue itself is real. Humans can’t compete against machines and excessive automation. People’s rights must be protected. It’s a difficult balance to be reviewed another time.
Washington, D.C. has become one of the richest parts of the country, but they too have a homeless and housing crisis. Crime, addiction, broken homes and suicides follow or go hand-in-hand with housing unaffordability. Who says? Research reported by Stanford University, among others.
When one looks at the realities and looks beyond the motives behind political rhetoric, the answers begin to emerge. Properly addressing the issues by whatever candidate of whichever party, perhaps 70 percent of voters could be rallied around a new populist vision that enforces the law, punishes the guilty and levels the playing field. Americans first and America first in foreign policy only makes sense. All other vantagepoints are by definition de facto sellouts to outside interests.
There is much work to do that drains the swamp of cronyism that has rigged the system licitly or not for decades. Shining the light on the common enemy for the vast majority of smaller businesses and Americans of all backgrounds is the secret. Every other tactic of disinformation is routinely a devious means of dividing people into tribes and niches that keeps would be oligarchs rising in wealth and power. One must ask and answer the reasons why some billionaires like Warren Buffett support both sides of several issues.
Decades of research has already been done; no more is needed. In a perfect world, everything would be done all at once. But the reality is that this world isn’t perfect. So, the advances will come in fits, halts and starts. That’s American and world history.
Freedom is never free. It always comes at some cost. Understanding the causes and cures takes some effort, but it is worth the time. Otherwise, the vicious cycles of recent decades could continue.
• Pay more attention to what people do than what they say.
• Follow the money.
• Protect the rights of your neighbors of whatever background.
• Enforce good laws already on the books.
• Resist the temptation to blind tribalism.
• See if an accuser is in fact guilty of behavior they’re accusing someone else of doing.
• Repeating a lie or bad behavior often doesn’t make it right or true.
• Don’t let some string-puller fool you into losing even more of your rights as a child of God that are protected by the U.S. Constitution.
In less than a year, we the people will decide again who will represent them.
Be informed, prepared and spread the good word.
That’s today’s installment of “News through the lens of manufactured homes and factory-built housing,” © where “We Provide, You Decide.” © (Affordable housing, manufactured homes, reports, fact-checks, analysis, and commentary. Third-party images or content are provided under fair use guidelines for media.)
(See Related Reports, further below. Text/image boxes often are hot-linked to other reports that can be access by clicking on them.)
By L.A. “Tony” Kovach – for MHLivingNews.com.
Tony earned a journalism scholarship and earned numerous awards in history and in manufactured housing. For example, he earned the prestigious Lottinville Award in history from the University of Oklahoma, where he studied history and business management. He’s a managing member and co-founder of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and MHLivingNews.com. This article reflects the LLC’s and/or the writer’s position, and may or may not reflect the views of sponsors or supporters.
Connect on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/latonykovach
Related References:
The text/image boxes below are linked to other reports, which can be accessed by clicking on them.
