Hurray for Trump Rallies

POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica
Hurray for Trump Rallies
by David Trumbull -- June 19, 2020

When I was young, my family, like most American families, would gather around the television at least a few nights a week and enjoy entertainment that offered something for everyone. The marvelous variety shows -- Ed Sullivan of course the biggest shoe-- were where Americans were fist introduced to some of the rock bands whose music we still listen to six decades later. They also featured comedy, acrobatics, juggling, you name it. If you could put it on TV, it was there in an hour-long program, with the host as the center around which the entire circus revolved. In other words, they were in the 1960s what a Trump rally is in 2020.

"By the way, is there anything more fun than a Trump rally? Is there? Seriously. And we break every attendance record every single time, just about." -- Donald J. Trump.

The Trump rallies are back! For the Saturday, June 20, 2020, rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the campaign reports they received 800,000 requests for tickets. Fox News is the top cable news network in large part because it shows every Trump rally. Each Trump rally brings Fox about 5 million viewers.

It's the best TV on TV. You get music, lots of fun upbeat music, the sort of music that back in the day of network TV you would have gotten on those variety shows that filled our 23-inch screens. Some of the artists object to their music playing at Trump rallies. But as Mick Jagger found out when he tried to stop it, "You can't always get what you want." If the venue has a license to play your song, there isn't much you can do about it in most cases.

The music at Trump rallies will go on, and the crowd will go wild. There will be clapping, dancing, jumping around. I have never seen people at a political event having so much fun. Sure, at both parties' national conventions the balloons will drop when the nomination becomes official, music will play, and people will cheer, but the whole thing is so choreographed and staged that it will be a bore -- nothing like the energy at a Trump rally.

What is a TV variety show without a clown? At a Trump rally you can be sure to see some clown who waited outside in the heat or cold for many hours to get in and immediately get himself thrown out for an attempted disruption. Apparently, it never occurs to them that one voice in a backrow seat in a 20,000 person arena can't be heard, so no one will even know why you are protesting. Maybe they don't even know themselves why they are protesting. One thing is clear, the Trump supporters know why they are there. For a quarter of a century they saw America being taken away from ordinary Americans, and taken over by a small elite class that thinks the rest of us are deplorable.

Trump wants to give America back to us deplorables. And, in the process, he's giving us the greatest show on TV.

Trump’s Tariffs Target China’s Unfair Trade Practices

I applaud President Trump’s use of tariffs in response to China’s intellectual property abuse. I especially welcome the proposal to add all finished apparel and home textile furnishings to a fourth list of retaliatory tariffs. The U.S. has imposed tariffs pursuant to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes the President to take such action when a trading partner is found to have acts, policies, or practices that are unreasonable or discriminatory and that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. A seven-month-long investigation determined that China systematically engages in acts, policies or practices that are actionable under Section 301. The administration would be acting recklessly and with disregard of the facts documented in the 301 investigation if it failed to impose a traderemedy in the face of China’s unfair trade practices.

What will be the effect of a 25% tariff on apparel and home textiles of Chinese origin? For the American consumer the effect will be negligible. Back-to-school shoppers will fi nd shops and online vendors fully stocked with the articles they need, and at a price they can afford. Take for example, a pair of children’s blue jeans. Currently, as imported from China, those jeans, that retail at around $20, are imported at an average cost of $4.61. A 25% tariff would add $1.15 to the importers’ cost. Even if the entire increase were passed on to the consumer, that’s just a 6% hike. More likely most, or all, would be absorbed at the various levels of the supply chain. That is, if the brands and retailers decide to stick with Chinese sourcing.

Cost-sensitive brands and retailers might, however, decide that the increase is unacceptable. In that case, they can source elsewhere and avoid the 25% tariff. The U.S. has free trade agreements in place with 12 nations here in the Western Hemisphere. With a 25% tariff, in addition to the general duty, Chinese-origin jeans will cost $6.53. That makes sourcing from our regional FTA partners, at an average cost of $5.66, look very attractive. Additionally, when apparel is made in our regional partners, there is a good likelihood that it will contain U.S. inputs. Any shifting of sourcing away from China into our Western Hemisphere supply chain is certain to result in more U.S. textile production and more good-paying U.S. manufacturing jobs.

It is well past the time to do something to counter against China’s unfair trade practices. Year after year, since China’s WTO accession in 2001, USTR has issued an annual Reports to Congress on China’s WTO Compliance, and year after year, the report says the same thing — “Real progress was made, but much more work remains to be done” and “The Special 301 report again placed China on the Priority Watch List and the Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets featured Chinese markets prominently.” In our approach to China’s unfair trade practices we’ve been doing the same thing and expecting different results. That is why I appreciate this administration’s willingness to try a new, and I believe productive, approach to the China problem.

I understand the difficult situation some manufacturers are in, when inputs not available from any source other than China are on a 301 retaliation list. I urge the administration to release a transparent and expeditious exclusion process that is effective and mitigates the impact on textile producers. I note that for the first two lists, which had exclusion provisions that process is moving forward and, where merited, exclusions are being granted to some U.S. manufacturers who have become collateral damage in this trade action. The fact that some inputs can be sourced only from China should itself be a concern. Years of unchecked unfair trade practices on the part of China have driven other sources out of the market entirely. These tariffs, if maintained, can lead to both more U.S. production and a diversification of our foreign sourcing.

Foreign Intervention

POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica
Foreign Intervention
by David Trumbull - July 21, 2017

Okay, I'll admit it. If it weren't for foreign intervention in America, Donald Trump would likely not be president.

I mean that if the French had not intervened in the Revolutionary War, we likely would not have a president at all. We'd likely be one of the Commonwealth nations with a parliamentary system with a prime minister as head of the government and Queen Elizabeth II as titular head of state.

The American Revolutionary War began April 19, 1775, here in Massachusetts. The war became a fight for independence with the July 1776 adoption by the Americans' Continental Congress of the Declaration of Independence. The war ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris, September 3, 1783.

As a young schoolboy, I was taught how the Americans used unconventional fighting methods and had the advantage of fighting, on their own land, for their own land. It helped, too, that their cause was just. Washington's aide, the French aristocrat General Lafayette, was praised, and the contribution of the French mentioned, but just barely. In fact, it is not at all clear that the Americans could have defeated the British without the assistance of the Kingdom of France. We also had support from the Dutch Republic and the Kingdom of Spain.

This year we commemorate the centennial of the United States' entry into World War I, on April 6, 1917. The war in Europe had been grinding on since the late summer of 1914. Just as French arms and men sent to America in the Revolutionary War may been the final necessary element of Patriot victory, so, too, the American Expeditionary Forces -- over a million strong -- under John Joseph "Black Jack" Pershing, broke the stalemate of the War to End All Wars.

The popular song, "Good-Bye Broadway, Hello France," (composed by Billy Baskette, with lyrics written by C. Francis Reisner and Benny Davis) -- a huge musical hit exactly one hundred years ago this year -- made clear the connection between French assistance to the U.S. in our war of independence and America's assistance to France in The Great War.

'Vive Pershing' is the cry across the sea.
We're united in this fight for liberty.
France sent us a soldier, brave Lafayette
Whose great deeds and fame we cannot forget.
Now that we have the chance,
We'll pay our debt to France.

President Trump's Trade Policy Agenda

POST-GAZETTE
President Trump's Trade Policy Agenda
by David Trumbull
June 9, 2017

On March 1, 2017, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative released President Trump's 2017 Trade Policy Agenda, I quote from the document:

"In 2016, voters in both major parties called for a fundamental change in direction of U.S. trade policy. The American people grew frustrated with our prior trade policy not because they have ceased to believe in free trade and open markets, but because they did not all see clear benefits from international trade agreements. President Trump has called for a new approach, and the Trump Administration will deliver on that promise."

President Trump wasted no time in implementing that "fundamental change in direction." On the Monday after the Friday he took office for his first term, he reversed what was supposed to be one of President Obama's most significant foreign policy and trade achievements. On January 23. 2017, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership ("TPP"), the largest free trade agreement ever signed.

Among the eleven countries other than the U.S. were six with whom we already had free trade agreements. Apparently, they were included to just to make the deal bigger. Among the other five: Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Vietnam, two, Japan and New Zealand, are modern, Western-style democracies with level of economic development comparable to the U.S. In other words, if a good bi-lateral free trade agreement can be negotiated with any nation, those two would be good candidates.

As for the rest of the lot to whom President Obama wanted to give preferential access to our market. Well, according to the U.S. Department of State --

The Socialist Republic of Vietnam is an authoritarian state ruled by a single party, the Communist Party of Vietnam. There are severe government restrictions of citizens' political rights, particularly their right to change their government through free and fair elections; limits on citizens' civil liberties, including freedom of assembly, association, and expression; and inadequate protection of citizens' due process rights, including protection against arbitrary detention. The government maintains limits on workers' rights to form and join independent unions and does not enforce safe and healthy working conditions adequately. Child labor persists, especially in agricultural occupations.

The most significant human rights problems in Malaysia include government restrictions on freedoms of speech and expression, press and media, assembly, and association. Restrictions on freedom of religion are also a significant concern--including bans on religious groups, restrictions on proselytizing, and prohibitions on the freedom to change one's religion. Other human rights problems include deaths during police apprehension and while in custody; laws allowing detention without trial; caning as a form of punishment imposed by criminal and "sharia" (Islamic law) courts; restrictions on the rights of migrants, including migrant workers, refugees, and victims of human trafficking; official corruption; violence and discrimination against women; and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons. The government restricts union and collective-bargaining activity, and government policies created vulnerabilities for child labor and forced labor problems, especially for migrant workers.

Brunei Darussalam is a monarchy governed since 1967 by Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah under emergency powers in place since 1962 that place few limits on his authority. The most serious human rights problems were the inability of citizens to choose their government through free and fair elections, restrictions on religious freedom, and exploitation of foreign workers. Other human rights problems include limitations on freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association. The partial implementation of a sharia-based penal code continues to raise significant human rights concerns. The country did not ratify the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which it signed in 2015.

Do these sound like the governments we should be do favors for? Thank you President Trump for pulling us out of the swamp that is the TPP.

Fake News and the Fake Clinton Narrative

So now there is a book out (which I have not read) revealing problems within the Hillary Clinton campaign for the presidency that doomed the otherwise inevitable election of the most qualified candidate to every run for president. Losing campaigns are, invariably, followed by analyses that show that despite the outward appearance that everything was fine, there were problems known at the time to only the campaign insiders which explain the unexpected loss.

I don't buy it. I was not so bold as to confidently predict a Trump victory, I did, however, throughout the campaign, tell friends that she was not, as our fake lying news said, a prohibitive front runner. I had no special insight into the inner workings of the Clinton campaign, I didn't need any to know that her campaign had trouble from the start.

1. The ninth-year curse. Since WWII the history of the presidency has been eight years of a Republican in the White House (1953-1961), followed by eight years of a Democrat (1961-1969), followed by eight years of a Republican (1969-1977). The pattern was broken by Carter who served but one failed term and Reagan/Bush with 12 years of Republican presidency. After that we reverted to pattern with eight years of a Democrat (1993-2001) and eight years of a Republican (2001-2009). All other things being equal we should have expected eight years of Obama to be followed by a Republican. The lying mainstream press insisted that Clinton had the advantage because she was of the same party as the popular incumbent. They conveniently ignored that in 1960 Nixon, VP to popular incumbent Eisenhower, could not overcome the ninth-year curse any more than Gore in 2000 could turn Bill Clinton's popularity into a victory in the ninth year. Her party registration was, from the very beginning, a liability, not the asset that the press said it was.

2. The lying mainstream press repeated that she was consistently ahead in the polls and had an insurmountable advantage. In fact, to my knowledge, there was no reputable poll that indicated that. The polls showed a slight lead, so small that a true account would have reported it as neck-and-neck. Further, there was one extremely telling number. Clinton never got above 49% in the polls, with Trump trailing slightly in the mid-40s. Clinton was not the incumbent, but she was running as if she were the incumbent seeking a third term. One rule of thumb, that anyone who follows political races knows, is that, in a two-way race, if the incumbent is polling at below 50%, the challenger will win. You learn this in "Campaign 101," undecideds break for the challenger.

3. Related to #2 was the fact that Clinton, by one important measure, was one of the most qualified persons to run for president. As former first lady, senator, and secretary of state she had ample Washington experience and universal name recognition. Yet, with all that going for her she could not get above 49% in the polls in a race against someone who had never held public office and was prone to intemperate utterances not typical of someone seeking the most powerful job on the planet. It didn't take a tell-all-book after the fact to tell me that her candidacy was in trouble.

The Electoral College Trump Card

POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica
The Electoral College Trump Card
by David Trumbull, December 9, 2016

If we went by the popular vote, Secretary Clinton would be the next president. FALSE.

We cannot know who would have been elected had the election been decided by the popular vote. Neither candidate campaigned to win the popular vote, they campaigned to win the electoral vote. Had it been a contest for the popular vote both candidates would have deployed their resources quite differently which would have resulted in a popular vote different from what happened.

But Clinton can still win if the members of the Electoral College honors the popular vote. FALSE.

Mere stuff and nonsense. It's silly speculation on the part of persons with little understanding of how our republic works.

1. The Trump electors are pledged to Trump. In many states that pledge is legally binding. In 1952 the Supreme Court ruled that electors are not entirely free and that states can require that they be pledged.

2. The Trump electors were vetted by the Trump organization and/or the state Republican Party to assure that they would be loyal.

3. The Trump electors are in states that Trump won, why would they vote contrary to their pledge and contrary the suffrages of those who made them electors?

4. Trump won the electoral vote by a large margin, so even if, as has happened in the past, a very small number of electors were unfaithful, it wouldn't change the outcome. The only reason that past faithless electors were not charged under state law is that their acts did not change the outcome.

5. Yes, the Constitution appears to assume that electors have discretion, but that reading only makes sense in the early elections, when not all states even took a popular vote (for the first nine presidential elections they didn't even record the popular vote). In this election, the names of the electors did not appear on the ballot. No voter can honestly state he thought he was voting for [fill in the name of some elector] rather than Trump. Everyone knows that the election was state-by-state for Trump v Clinton (and third party candidates). Since the time that all states choose electors by popular vote, no unfaithful elector has ever influenced an election. A large number of unfaithful electors would, rightly, be seen as an attempt to overthrow the constitution and those votes would be voided, with the faithless electors facing legal charges.

The error is a result of reading the Constitution in a vacuum. The Constitution must be read in the context of laws written to enact its provisions, court decisions that clarify the meaning, and the actual practice of our democracy under the Constitution.

I am reminded of this: "In a Lecture of mine I have illustrated this phenomenon by the supposed instance of a foreigner, who, after reading a commentary on the principles of English Law, does not get nearer to a real apprehension of them than to be led to accuse Englishmen of considering that the Queen is impeccable and infallible, and that the Parliament is omnipotent." Newman, Apologia pro Vita Sua, 1864.

Presidential Mask Election Predictor

POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica
Presidential Mask Election Predictor
by David Trumbull -- October 28, 2016

Fun fact: sales of Hallowe'en masks of presidential candidates have predicted the outcome of every election since 1980 when Reagan masks outsold Carter masks. In every presidential election through 2012, the candidate whose mask sold the most was also the candidate who won the election.

It makes sense. People want to go with a winner. And for all the talk of evil, creepy, and scary things, Hallowe’en masks are at least as much about revealing as concealing. Once a year on October 31 we don fancy dress and walk "the road not taken" (to use a line from Robert Frost, whom we also celebrate this month, on October 23, (see Mass. General Laws, Chapter 6).

Spirit Halloween, the world's largest Halloween retailer, announced on September 29, 2016, that the Trump Masks were outselling Clinton masks. Spirit's Index has accurately predicted the outcome of every presidential election since 1996 based on their top selling candidate mask.

Inspired by the polarizing candidates, Spirit Halloween teamed up with Harris Poll to survey more than 2,000 U.S. adults, asking why they would dress up as either candidate this Halloween, given the choice between Clinton and Trump (chosen by 45% vs. 55%, respectively). Key findings include the following:

• The top reason Americans chose Donald Trump is to be funny (39%), whereas the top reason Americans choose Hillary Clinton is because they like her (31%).

• About 1 out of 4 Republicans (23%) and Democrats (27%) who indicated that they would dress up as the opposite party’s candidate would do so to frighten America.

• Twice as many Americans who would choose to dress up as Donald Trump say they would do so to mock him, compared to Americans who would choose to dress as Hillary Clinton to mock her (32% vs 16%).

The Washington Post, for an October 25th story, contacted Rubie's, the world's largest designer and manufacturer of Halloween costumes, and found out that the "Donald Latex Mask" is outselling the "Hillary Latex Mask" by a ratio of three-to-one.

At www.buycostumes.com, one of the largest online retailers of Hallowe'en costumes, Trump masks are outselling Clinton masks.

What mask are you wearing this Hallowe'en? Personally, I'll go with something more traditional and keep politics out of it.

Romney for President?

Res Publica
Romney for President?
by David Trumbull, May 13, 2016

"He came pretty close to being elected president, so I thought he may consider doing it, especially since he has been very forthright in explaining why Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton should not be president of the United States," said William Kristol in a phone interview with the Washington Post last Friday. In that interview he reportedly confirmed that he and Romney had a meeting in Washington to discuss Romney's potential run as an independent.

Has the Republican establishment gone stark raving mad? Is Romney serious considering this? I thought Mormons didn't do drugs. Kristol must have given Mitt something stronger than a caffeine-free diet Pepsi if he got him to buy into this scheme.

Let's, as they say, break down the numbers.

1. Can Romney or any other independent win? No. No independent candidate has won a single State since 1968, when George Wallace won five States of the old Confederacy. He won't even be on the ballot in Texas (38 electoral votes) because the deadline to file was May 9th. Can he get nearly 90,000 signatures by June 9th to get on the ballot in North Carolina (15 electoral votes), unlikely. Say he gets on the ballot in California (55 electoral votes), where he has until early August to get the necessary 180,000 nomination signatures, then what? In 2012 Romney got 37% of the vote in the Golden State as a major party nominee. With current polls showing Clinton winning by comfortable margins over Trump, and that even without Romney pulling votes away from Trump, it doesn't take much analysis to see that Romney cannot win California. He has more time to get on the ballot in New York, and needs only 15,000 signatures, however he must get at least 100 from each of the state's congressional 27 districts. Even when he ran as a major party candidate Romney was weak on the sort of on-the-ground, precinct-by-precinct organization needed to pull that off. But say he does get on the ballot and competes for the Empire State's 29 electoral votes. Does he really believe that he can do better than New Yorker, Trump, and former New York Senator, Clinton? So there are four States that account for a quarter of the electoral vote total off the table. Romney would need to get two-thirds of all the remaining votes to win. In other words, the only way this late entry, non-major party candidate can win at all is if he wins in a landslide. The Las Vegas bookmakers have a name for betting on that happening, a sucker bet.

2. Can Romney win enough votes to deny both of the other candidates the 270 necessary to win, thus throwing the election to the House of Representatives where each State delegation would have one vote? That seems unlikely. If Wallace, with a more coherent, but repugnant, basis for a third-party run (Wallace was a segregationist who won some of the States of the old Confederacy during a time when the battle for civil rights for African-American was one of the topics at the center of political discourse) couldn't do it, what makes Romney think he can. Can he win Massachusetts where he was Governor? Well, he couldn't when running head-to-head with a Democrat, now he'd need to do it while splitting the Republican vote. Ditto for his native State of Michigan and adopted State of New Hampshire, he lost both in 2012. Perhaps he pulls off a win in Mormon Utah and gets 6 electoral votes. Will that be enough to deny the others 270? Who knows. Could that make a difference in a close election. Well, in 2004 Bush could have lost those 6 votes and still have had 10 more than he needed. In 2000, had Bush lost the then 5 votes from Utah and everything else stayed the same, the election would have gone to the House of Representatives. In the 1960 election, the closest ever in popular vote, Kennedy would still have won, even with 33 fewer electoral votes. In the unlikely event that Romney got enough votes to send it to the House of Representatives, it looks good for him. Remember, each State gets one vote. In 33 States the delegation is majority Republican. Democrats are the majority in 14 delegations, while three are split evenly. Even though Trump is the Republican nominee, the Republican establishment does not like him and would likely vote for Romney. That would give us a President who most likely would have come in third place in both the popular and the electoral vote. Watch for a massive movement to change our voting system after that!

3. The most likely scenario. Romney takes just enough votes away from Trump that Clinton wins. The Republican establishment has no problem with Clinton as she represents the Democratic establishment and the Republican and Democratic establishment have much more affinity for each other than they do with their own voters.

The Last Trump

POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica
The Last Trump
by David Trumbull - April 15, 2016

"In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." --1 Corinthians 15:52

I have the honor of serving as a lector at Saint Joseph's Parish in the West End. That means that, from time to time, I read aloud to the congregation the passages from the Holy Scriptures chosen for that Sunday's Mass. Recently I was speaking to my friend Jim, who also attends the Saturday vigil Mass, and he expressed his strong support for Mr. Donald Trump's candidacy for the presidency. My response was that, this being the season of the resurrection, perhaps I'll have the opportunity of gratifying him by reading 1 Corinthians 15:52 in church.

Joking aside, none of the Republican candidates for president has won me over. Trump's pronouncements on international trade and immigration I agree with, but he seems wanting as to the details. However, I have greatly enjoyed watching the incompetence of the anti-Trump people.

The Sunday, April 9, "2017", Boston Globe front page "Deportations to Begin" headline has to be about the most clueless thing a major newspaper ever did. How could they not have seen that it will help, not hurt, Trump's standing among the electorate. It's just as when Mitt Romney blasted Trump, causing Trump's ratings to rise. I cannot figure out what the Globe thought they would accomplish with a stunt more worthy of the Harvard Lampoon. As for Romney, it's clear he believes the GOP has a problem and he is the solution. Well, if Romney is the answer, it must have been a pretty dumb question.

Yes, the GOP has a problem, but the problem is not Trump. Trump is the symptom, not the cause.

I sum up the appeal of both Mr. Trump and Senator Sanders in three letters, CCC. Over the past three decades if you were clever, college-educated, and connected, you have most likely done very well. But if you are a non-CCC person, the past three decades have likely been fairly grim. The ABC television show "The Middle" is a humorous, yet with more than a little faithfulness, depiction of the difficulties faced by "middle" America. Or as someone recently said on Fox News (I paraphrase because I can't find the exact quotation) "The Democratic Party has abandoned the middle class and the Republican Party isn't sure it wants them."

I am certain that Trump is more popular than the polls show. Almost daily I get in conversations with friends, acquaintances, and even strangers who ask, "Can they stop Trump?" It's always said in a way that implies that stopping Trump is a good thing. But once I reveal that I'm not strongly anti-Trump, they, in turn, slowly, over the course of the conversation, reveal that they are Trump supporters. When I ask them whether they would admit it to a pollster they always say no. The media and the political establishment think they have done a good job of turning Trump into an unelectable villain, but in the privacy of the voting booth, the people may just trump them all.

It Ain't Necessarily So

POST-GAZETTE -- Res Publica
It Ain't Necessarily So
by David Trumbull
April 1, 2016

"The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never be sure they're authentic" -- Abraham Lincoln

As I write this column to be published on April Fools Day, I am thinking of my friends on social media, most of whom, in the frenzy of the current presidential nomination media circus, seem to have lost all common sense. My Facebook feed is full of false memes, fake quotations devised to support this or that political view. My friends, both Republican and Democrat, appear to have temporarily lost the ability to distinguish news from parody and truth from phony "quotes."

"A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington.

FAKE. There is no record that Washington ever said that. If you have read any of Washington's writings you know that in an age when "flowery" prose was in style, he was flowery even for his age. Had Washington ever expressed the sentiments above (which I somewhat doubt in view of his role in suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion), he would likely have done so in at least three times as many words. Often I've wanted to quote Washington in my columns, but I find it very difficult due to his prolix prose. A good rule of thumb is that any Washington "quote" brief enough to fit in a Facebook meme, is likely not a real Washington quote. The website http://www.mountvernon.org/ has a list of this and other spurious Washington quotes.

"If I were to run, I'd run as a Republican. They're the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they'd still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific." -- Donald Trump, in People magazine, 1998.

FAKE. There is no record that Trump said that in People or anywhere else. One tipoff is that while Fox News existed in 1998, it had been around for just over a year and wasn't even available in all parts of the country, it was hardly, in 1998, the massive voter influencer that the meme suggests.

"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." -- Thomas Jefferson.

FAKE. While the quote is perfectly in tune with Jefferson's distrust of banks and of commerce, he did not say it, at least not in those words. The tipoff is "moneyed incorporations," While Jefferson would have known of what we now call not-for-profit corporations, such as colleges, churches, and municipalities, for profit business corporations, with few exceptions, did not exist until a quarter of a century or so after Jefferson's death. The website https://www.monticello.org/ has a list of this and other spurious Jefferson quotations.

The Primary Concern

Res Publica
The Primary Concern
by David Trumbull

Well, the Iowa caucuses are behind us and the New Hampshire primary election was last Tuesday.

My friend Jesse L. asked on Facebook, “Why do we let two very white, conservative states, Iowa and New Hampshire, to pick our presidential candidates? This seems wholly unfair and antiquated in a country as large and diverse as ours.” I expect he’s not the only one asking that.

The short answer is that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party each want to nominate someone who can win in November and each has found that the current system yields a nominee who can win. Even in elections such as the re-election of Reagan, the re-election of Clinton, and the re-election of Obama, when the incumbent President was popular and the economy was good, the losing party nominated someone who, in another year might have won. So we keep the current system because it works.

But, back to Jesse’s question, Why?

I don’t know enough about Iowa to address that State’s role in choosing presidential nominees. I do know New Hampshire. I even campaigned there in the 1992 primary for President Bush, who was challenged by Pat Buchanan for the Republican nomination.

1. Is New Hampshire too conservative to have such an important early role in choosing the nominees? No. New Hampshire is not conservative. Nor is it liberal. It is neither Republican or Democrat. New Hampshire is a swing state. In 17 presidential elections since WWII, the winner in New Hampshire was the national winner 13 times. Of the times when New Hampshire did not follow the national trend, three were extremely close elections, some of the closest in American history, 1948 (remember the “Dewey Defeats Truman” newspaper headline, 1960 (nationally is was 49.7% Kennedy and 49.6% Nixon), and 2004 (Bush's margin of victory in the popular vote was the smallest ever for a reelected incumbent president). New Hampshire went against the national trend one other time, that was in 1976 when she joined with Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont, “Yankee” States, in rejecting Southerner Jimmy Carter. New Hampshire is average.

2. Is New Hampshire too White to have such an important early role in choosing the nominees? No. New Hampshire is White. But so is the voting population. If I am managing the campaign of a presidential candidate of either party, New Hampshire voters are a good proxy for the voting population as a whole. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 70% of eligible voters are White and 73% of voters are White, meaning Whites have a higher than average tendency to vote. Blacks are 12% of the eligible voters and 12% of actual voters. Hispanics are 11% of eligible voters, but only 7% of actual voters. In other words, not only are Hispanics a small percentage of eligible voters, the also are less likely to vote. Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics account for 92% of all voters. Whites account for almost three-quarters of the voters. So while the American voting population is diverse, it is not as diverse as Jesse’s Los Angeles neighborhood. If you take Los Angeles, Boston, and New Hampshire and ask, Which is the better predictor of a presidential election? the answer is clearly New Hampshire.

The answer to Jesse’s question is that the parties’ primary concern is not to nominate someone who represents the diversity of America. Their primary concern is to nominate someone who can win. Winning the presidency is about winning undecided White voters. Blacks are 12% of the vote and they vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic nominee, so it doesn’t matter who either party nominates, the Black vote is not, in any significant numbers, in question. The media makes much of the Hispanic vote, but the political reality that a campaign manager deals with dictates that the Hispanic vote, outside of Florida, is irrelevant. There is the rare Republican like George Bush who got about 40% of the Hispanic vote. More typically there is something in the range of 30% of the Hispanic vote that is not already locked into the Democratic Party. That means that both parties have a chance at persuading about a third of the Hispanic vote, but that’s only one-third of 7% of the total vote, that’s under 2.5% of the vote. Now that 2.5% could make the difference in a close election, that is it could in the popular vote. But not in the electoral college where, other than Florida, the Hispanic population is largely in states such as California, which will go Democratic no matter how much Republicans court the Hispanic vote, and Texas which will go Republican no matter how much Democrats court the Hispanic vote.

Each party has “safe” states that its presidential nominee will carry, but they are not enough to win. They have to appeal to undecided voters in swing states, and the math tells us that the overwhelming majority of those undecided voter are White.

The Summer of Market Basket

Just in time for Labor Day the book We Are Market Basket: The Story of the Unlikely Grassroots Movement That Saved a Beloved Business arrived in the mail (the official release date was August 12th). A documentary film is supposed to come out soon, also.

In some ways I think of last summer, the summer of 2014, as the summer of Market Basket (or, Demoulas, as we still call it in our household). The Market Basket workers' strike, which began as a protest rally at the Chelsea store on June 24, 2014, and ended on August 28, 2014, (the Thursday before the Labor Day 2014), was on everyone's lips that summer. We nearly lost friends over the issue of whether to continue to shop there or support the strikers (Mary and I joined the boycott). Here we are, a year later, the strike is part of history, recorded in book and movie, and we are at another long Labor Day weekend.

Labor Day honors every working man and woman in America, but we all know that its origin lies in the recognition of the advances in employer-employee laws and practices wrought by organized labor, that is to say, labor unions. And, therein, lies two ironies. The summer of 2014 witnessed a successful organized labor action on a scale we haven't seen in decades. Organized? Yes. Unionized? No.

With their livelihoods at stake, how, went conventional wisdom, could semi-skilled workers have any chance of prevailing over management without a union? Throughout the protests employees were quoted in the press saying, "We don't need a union, we have something stronger, we are a family." It's truly an inspiring story. But, also, an unusual, almost unique, story. Who needs a union when you have a boss, Arthur T., who gives you better pay, benefits, and sense of being stakeholders in the company than you are likely to get under a union contract?

1. Don't discount how past union activity benefited the Market Basket employees. When the employees walked off, the new management threatened to fire them. Now, from a practical standpoint the board would have been sore pressed, even in a weak labor market, to quickly find qualified replacements for the entire workforce, Nevertheless, the threat of losing your job surely would have forced many protesting workers back to the job, at least one would expect. But they did not return. Why? Because you cannot fire workers for striking. Its a federal law. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (commonly called the "Wagner Act"), guarantees the right to unionize and to strike without retaliation. When management threatened to fire the workers, the workers filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, using that pro-union law for protection.

2. The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act) modified the Wagner Act. Specifically it placed some restrictions on striking, among other things, requiring an 80-day notice period before a union strike. Taft-Hartley placed no such restriction on non-unionized workforces. Therein lies the second irony. These non-unionized workers successfully used a pro-union law, but had they been unionized, the strike would have been illegal, at least as it was conducted.

From the summer of Market Basket I take two lessons. (1) Labor still has power when organized, and when the laws protecting the rights of working women and men are enforced. (2) That labor laws written 70 or 80 years ago may not always reflect the realities of the current labor market, and to question whether they may need revision is not to be anti-union or anti-labor.

From Hiroshima to Tehran

Seventy years ago tomorrow, on August 6,1945, the U.S. Army Air Forces detonated an atomic bomb, code named "Little Boy," over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later, on 9 August, the U.S. Army Air Forces detonated a second atom bomb, code named "Fat Man," over the Japanese city of Nagasaki.

Seven decades later the strategic value and the morality of dropping atomic bombs on Japan continue to be subjects of debate, with strong opinions on both sides. In a sense, the decision to use the A-bomb was perhaps the logical outcome of another controversial decision made by the Allies. At the Casablanca Conference in January 1943, President Roosevelt said that the Allies' goal was unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan. The Conference adopted that goal, thus assuring that victory would be complete, but also messy, as no terms of surrender would be entertained.

After defeating Germany (Germany surrendered unconditionally on May 8, 1945, the Allied occupation began, and the final peace treaty was not signed until September 12, 1990) the Allies met at the Cecilienhof palace in Potsdam (not far from Berlin, today it is an historic site well worth visiting). The Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945, stated:

"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

Eleven days later we dropped the first atom bomb. On May 8 the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and on May 9 we dropped the second bomb. Even after the events of the 8th and 9th, Japan was still seeking surrender under certain conditions. After days of internal dissension within the government of Japan, including an attempted coup d'état, the Japanese authorities reluctantly accepted the reality that the Allies would accept nothing short of unconditional surrender.

On August 15th, the Empire of Japan surrendered unconditionally to the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and the other Allies. Victory Over Japan was widely celebrated throughout the U.S. until 1975. Rhode Island only retains that holiday, renamed "Victory Day," moved to the second Monday in August.

Nuclear weapons are back in the news, now in the context of President Obama "deal" with Iran that will result in that deadly regime joining the nuclear club. Had the U.S. not used the atom bomb in 1945, some other nation probably would have used it in some other conflict. As horrific as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were, at least they showed the world that this is something we don't want to have to do again. I'm not so confident at Iran can be trusted to exercise the restraint that the over nuclear powers have.

Not Machiavellian At All

Res Publica
Not Machiavellian At All
by David Trumbull -- May 15, 2015

Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (May 3, 1469 – June, 21 1527) was an Italian historian, politician, diplomat and philosopher. He was a high official in the government of the Republic of Florence during the times when the Medici family governed the republic.

He wrote several books and it is from the content of one of his books, The Prince, that we get the adjective Machiavellian, which dictionary.com describes as "characterized by subtle or unscrupulous cunning, deception, expediency, or dishonesty." For example --

In Chapter 5, he advises the conquering prince that a conquered republic must be utterly reduced, because history shows that more clement treatment fails to hold the territory.

In Chapter 7, rather than condemning, he cites the notorious Cesare Borgia as one to be imitated.

In Chapter 8 he says that a prince who rises through wickedness may, nevertheless, hold his principality securely if injuries are inflicted all together and not spread out over time.

In Chapter 15 Machiavelli advices the prince to follow vice if so doing brings security and virtue would bring ruin.

In Chapter 17 he says it is better to be clement than cruel, however, some cruelty is necessary and justified to maintain order and to withstand the violence that will break forth when there is not firm leadership.

In Chapter 20 he says that sometimes it's a good idea to pick a fight with another prince, just so you can look good when you defeat him.

If the only thing from Machiavelli you read is The Prince, then you might well conclude that his political philosophy is diabolical. That would be unfortunate, for Machiavelli's writings in support of republics and of freedom are much more extensive than his one, thin volume on how a prince may conquer and hold territory.

The key to understanding Machiavelli's The Prince is in the final chapter. It's a call for a reunited Italy, free of oppression by foreign occupiers. Italy was cut up into several city-states that were constantly at war with each other. The French and the Spaniards seeing opportunity invaded and ruled extensive tracks of the peninsula. Machiavelli dedicated the book to Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici (September 12, 1492 – May 4, 1519) the ruler of Florence, and exhorted Lorenzo to raise an army, drive out the foreigners, even if that meant crushing some of the independent republics and principalities. To Machiavelli, the choice was clear, either the nominally independent states would be forever in peril from each other and from foreign invaders, or they could lose their independence but gain freedom. Lorenzo did not take up Machiavelli's cause of a united Italy, and Italian reunification had to wait until the 19th century.

Charter of Liberty

Res Publica
Charter of Liberty
by David Trumbull -- May 8, 2015

"We hold here that the right to a speedy trial is as fundamental as any of the rights secured by the Sixth Amendment. That right has its roots at the very foundation of our English law heritage. Its first articulation in modern jurisprudence appears to have been made in Magna Carta..." -- Chief Justice Earl Warren delivering the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the matter of Klopper v. North Carolina, March 13, 1967.

Magna Carta (or, in English, "the Great Charter") was signed by King John (best remembered in the popular mind as "Bad King John" of the Robin Hood tales) on June 15, 1215. The document, which marks its 800th anniversary next month, is, in important ways, the foundation of the liberties of English and American law. The origin was a dispute between the king and the barons, and neither was wholly satisfied with the compromises contained in the Charter. At the request of John, Pope Innocent III annulled it. But the genie of liberty was out of the bottle and the Charter was amended and reaffirmed through the next few yeas and, in 1225, took the final form that makes it a foundational document in the English system of government and in every nation whose legal system owes something to English law.

Magna Carta did not create trial by jury, but it did enshrine it as a right, as well as the concept of due process.

"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

Even though England, to this day, has a State Church, Magna Carta laid down the law that even the king must respect certain ancient liberties of the Church. In America this became the religious establishment and free exercise clauses of the Constitution.

"The English Church shall be free, and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably in their fullness and entirety for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and all places for ever."

President Ronald Reagan summed it up well in his April 16, 1986, Law Day Proclamation --

"The foundations of freedom upon which our Nation was built included the Magna Carta of 1215, English common law, the Mayflower Compact, the Act of Parliament abolishing the Court of the Star Chamber, and numerous colonial charters."

Martha Coakley Has No Problem with Non-Citizens Voting

Res Publica
Martha Coakley Has No Problem with Non-Citizens Voting
by David Trumbull -- October 31, 2014

Recently Martha Coakley said she believes that allowing non-citizens to vote in local town and city elections should be an option for municipalities to choose for themselves, showing, once again, how out of touch she is with the citizens of Massachusetts.

She has been roundly denounced. Some have even suggested that our Attorney General needs a refresher course in constitutional law because, they say, such a proposal is contrary to the U.S. Constitution. Here I must part with my fellow conservatives, for, no matter had bad the idea of aliens voting in our elections may be, it is, nevertheless, perfectly constitutional.

The U.S. Constitution, as it went into force in 1787 said absolutely nothing about qualifications for voters, leaving it entirely in the hands of the states. At the time no state prohibited non-citizens from voting. There were other restrictions. In Massachusetts the electoral franchise was restricted to male inhabitants (not limited to citizens), 21 years of age and older, and owning a certain amount of property. Most states had similar requirements. Southern states further restricted the franchise to Whites only.

Some states limited voting to citizens starting after the War of 1812, which generated an enhanced sense of patriotism. More banned it in the 1840s and 1850s. Two notable things were happening around then-- (1) the 1848 revolutions in Europe caused many Americans to regard foreigners with suspicion and (2) the beginning of the flood of Irish Catholic immigrants who threatened the political supremacy of English, Scots, and Scots-Irish Protestants. But the big wave of states banning voting by non-citizens was in the early twentieth century. Then a new wave of immigrants from Italy, the rest of Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe, again awaked nativist fears about "inferior races" and Catholics and Jews. It was not until the election of 1928 that all states had limited voting to citizens only.

The Constitution has seven times been amended to regulate voting.

(1) The 14th Amendment, ratified February 3, 1870, said that states could not deny the vote to African-Americans. In Massachusetts American-Americans had the vote since the 1780s.

(2) The 17th Amendment, ratified April 8, 1913, provided for the direct election of U.S. Senators. The amendment stipulated that, "The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures," again, recognizing that qualification of voters is a state, not national, right.

(3) The 19th Amendment, ratified August 18, 1920, said that states could not deny the vote to women. In Massachusetts women had been able to vote since 1879, but only for school committee, not for any other offices.

(4) The 22nd Amendment, ratified, February 27, 1951, limited the President to two terms.

(5) The 23rd Amendment, ratified March 29, 1961, gave the District of Columbia votes for President and Vice President. It did not specify whether D.C. voters had to be citizens.

(6) The 24th Amendment, ratified January 23, 1964, said that states could no longer assess a "poll tax" for voting.

(7) The 26th Amendment, ratified July 1, 1971, said that states could not limit voting based on age in the case of citizens who are 18 years of age or older. Interesting, there is nothing in the Constitution hindering states from choosing a lower age. In Maine 17-year-olds can vote in a primary election, as long at they will be 18 by the time of the general election. Maine is not the only state to allow voting by 17-year-olds.

Clearly, nothing in the Constitution prohibits voting by non-citizens. In New York City non-citizens voted in elections for school board until 2002 (when the board was made an appointed rather than elected body). The reasoning behind this is that many non-citizens have children in the public schools and are taxed to support the schools. A few, very few, other municipalities allow non-citizens to vote in at least some local elections.

Currently it is illegal for aliens to vote for President, Vice President, U.S. Senator, and U.S. Representative. That restriction is found not in the Constitution, but in a law [18 U.S.C. §611]. It was passed as a part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Given that the Constitution gives to the states, not Congress, the power to regulate qualifications for voting (except that the states cannot disenfranchise specific classes of voters under the provisions of the 14th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments) I question whether the federal prohibition on aliens voting in national elections is itself constitutional. Derek T. Muller, Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine School of Law, also questions the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. §611.

Suffolk Downs, 1935 - 2014

Res Publica
Suffolk Downs, 1935 - 2014
By David Trumbull, September 19, 2014

"We are extraordinarily disappointed as this action is likely to cost the Commonwealth thousands of jobs, small business and family farms. We will be meeting with employees and horsemen over the next several days to talk about how we wind down racing operations as a 79-year legacy of thoroughbred racing in Massachusetts will be coming to an end, resulting in unemployment and uncertainty for many hard-working people." -- Chip Tuttle, Chief Operating Officer, Suffolk Downs.

Mary and I are so sad, remembering fun times at the track on Saturday afternoons. Friends would join us. Mary's father loved going to the track with us. On Kentucky Derby Day we'd dress in our finest -- with Mary taking special care to pick out a fabulous hat -- and bring along sugar and fresh mint to mix with the Bourbon we bought at the track -- voilà, hand-crafted mint juleps!

In the early 2000s I attended a small Anglican church that met in Cambridge in the Swedenborgian chapel across from Harvard Yard. Our priest, Bowen Woodruff, was also an unpaid chaplain to the jockeys at Suffolk Downs. The jockey's job is demanding and dangerous. Jockeys can be injured, even killed, in a race. Many are not locals, in fact many are natives of South America. They are engaged in a difficult occupation, thousands of miles from home and family. They move from track to track, following the racing season and seeking to advance their careers. They have little opportunity to attend regular church services. They truly appreciated having Fr. Woodruff hold a Bible study with them on Wednesdays at the track. On Saturdays several of us from the church would go to the track, accompanied by Fr. Woodruff in his clerical "dog collar." The arrangement was that he would bless our bets, with the understanding that we would tithe on the winnings. He never bet himself as he feared that people might mistake his familiarity with the jockeys for some sort of "inside information."

The closing of Suffolk is not just about the people who work at the track -- the jockeys, the workers at the restaurants and concession stands, and others. There are the trainers, and all the people who work at the farms -- often family farms -- where the horses are raised, and all the vendors who supply those farms and the track. If, as I hope, the voters of the Commonwealth approve casino gambling this November, some of those jobs will be retained at a new casino in Everett. But we will have lost one of the things that made Boston a wonderful city to live in. No longer can I, for the cost of a short Blue Line trip, sit outside on a perfect summer day, enjoy a hotdog and cold beer, while watching magnificent horses, loving cared for and trained, compete in one of the most thrilling sporting exhibitions.

United We Stand with Arthur T.

Res Publica

United We Stand with Arthur T.

September 5, 2014

In is fitting that the Market Basket workers' strike, which began as a protest rally at the Chelsea store on June 24th, ended on August 28th, the Thursday before the long Labor Day Weekend. Labor Day honors every workingman and woman in America, but we all know that its origin lies in the recognition of the advances in employer-employee laws and practices wrought by organized labor, that is to say, labor unions. And, therein, lies two ironies.

The summer of 2014 witnessed a successful organized labor action on a scale we haven't seen in decades. Organized? Yes. Unionized? No.

Striking Market Basket employees took on the board of directors and won. The board of the company, which was owned in majority by allies of rival cousin Arthur S. Demoulas, was forced to back down, give in, and make the deal to bring back Arthur T. The workers were greatly helped by thousands of customers, and even some vendors, who joined in a boycott. But what they did not have was a union. A union would have provided institutional memory of past labor strife, professional staff to organize workers and confront management, and reserves of funds to assist striking workers and their families.

With their livelihoods at stake, how, went conventional wisdom, could semi-skilled workers have any chance of prevailing over management without a union? But the Market Basket employees did prevail. Throughout the protests employees were quoted in the press saying, We don't need a union, we have something stronger, we are a family. It's truly an inspiring story. But, also, an unusual, almost unique, story. Who needs a union when you have a boss, Arthur T., who gives you better pay, benefits, and sense of being stakeholders in the company than you are likely to get under a union contract?

Furthermore, don't discount how past union activity benefited the Market Basket employees. When the employees walked off, the new management threatened to fire them. Now, from a practical standpoint the board would have been sore pressed, even in this weak labor market, to quickly find qualified replacements for the entire workforce, nevertheless, the threat of losing you job would surely have forced many protesting workers back to the job, one would expect. But they did not return. Why? Because you cannot fire workers for striking. Its a federal law, The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (commonly called the "Wagner Act"), that guarantees the right to unionize and to strike without retaliation. When management threatened to fire the workers, they filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, using that pro-union law for protection.

The Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act) modified the Wagner Act. Specifically it placed some restrictions striking, among other things, requiring an 80-day notice period before a union strike. Perhaps because in 1947 the terms organized labor and unionized labor were, functionally equivalent Taft-Hartley placed no such restriction on non-unionized workforces. Therein lies the second irony. These non-unionized workers successfully used a pro-union law, but had they been unionized the strike, at least as it was conducted, would have been illegal.

The Customer May Not Always be Right, but He is the Customer

Res Publica
The Customer May Not Always be Right, but He is the Customer
By David Trumbull -- July 25, 2014

Last week I wrote about Uber and Lyft, two relatively new car services that are making a big dent in the taxi business. The services are wildly popular with riders who, for years, have been stuck with not much alternative to broken down wreck taxis, driven by surly drivers who refuse to put on the air conditioning in the summer, pad the bill, refuse to accept credit cards, and are so engaged in their loud mobile phone conversations in foreign languages that they don't pay attention to the road and put the passengers at risk of serious injury.

Passengers see Uber and Lyft as the solution to poor quality taxi service. Local governments see Uber and Lyft as the problem. The Peoples Republik of Cambridge has tried repeatedly to ban Uber and Lyft. Cambridge is not alone in opposing giving riders the options they want. But, in city after city, the politicians have had to back down. They are learning that they cannot stand athwart history yelling STOP. The people want Uber and Lyft and will not tolerate elected and appointed officials abusing their offices to come to the aid of the old taxi monopoly.

It is, for me, exciting to watch a supposedly immovable object, the taxi company/municipal government symbiotic relationship, get pushed aside by the irresistible force that is People Power. People Power is being asserted elsewhere, in the current struggle over the future of the Market Basket chain of food stores.

The Greek drama that is the quarter-of-century-old Demoulas family feud over control of the business that Athanasios and Efrosini Demoulas started in Lowell in 1916 is worthy of a made-for-TV miniseries. The family lawsuit in the early 1990s over ownership nearly destroyed the business, but it survived, and indeed thrived.

Market Basket customers love the store. We love the low prices. We love that although it is a chain, the selections in store are tailored to the local community -- the Methuen store abounds in Italian delicacies, the North Andover store serves the Syrian community, the Chelsea store is a little Latin America. The employees are extremely knowledgeable, helpful, and cheerful, making marketing a pleasant experience. As for the employees, they are well paid and treated with respect by management. Who needs a union when your boss makes you feel like a family? This model of low prices, great selections, and a happy staff has worked, making the Demoulas family one of the richest in the Boston area.

By now you have seen the news -- massive walkouts of Market Basket employees, a widespread customer boycott, and rallies across the state demanding the re-instatement of Arthur T. Demoulas as CEO. How will it end? I don't know. But however it ends, the board of this closely held, family-owned business will be forced to act in response to a spontaneous outburst of People Power.

I have not seen anything in America quite like it in some time. Next year will mark the 30-year anniversary of the Coca-Cola Company's disastrous launch of New Coke. Then, too, a corporate board learnt the lesson that there is someone more powerful than the stockholder; that is the Customer.

Persons, not People

Res Publica

Persons, not People

July 11, 2014

My Facebook friends on the political left are, once again, in the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision riled up over the Supreme Court and clamoring, again, for a constitutional amendment to say that, "Corporations are not People," thus, they believe, over-turning the 2010 Citizens United decision.

Well, of course corporations are not people! No one ever said they were. Okay, I concede, Mitt Romney did say that during the 2012 presidential campaign, but Romney never did strike me as being very bright. People, from the Latin populus, means human beings taken as a group, whether construed as a singular or plural noun. Clearly, corporations are not people, as they are not human. Liberals demanding a, "Corporations are Not People" amendment might just as well call for a, "The Moon is Not Made of Green Cheese" amendment. Corporations are, however, persons, something that, for centuries until 2010 was never doubted.

A person (from the Latin persona) in the eyes of the law, is an entity with legal standing. A person can sue and be sued, own property, enter contracts, and employ other persons. As far back as ancient Roman law and through the English Common Law that forms the basis for American law, corporations have been recognized as artificial persons. If Hobby Lobby and Citizens United were not "persons" they would have had no standing to sue, nor would the laws they were protesting have applied to them, as the law operates on persons only.

The doctrine of corporate personhood was explicitly enunciated by the Supreme Court nearly 200 years ago in the celebrated Dartmouth College. In the 1819 Dartmouth case the legislature of New Hampshire attempted a hostile takeover of the school, a private corporation, in order to treat it as a public institution and run it as the state saw fit. The brilliant Daniel Webster argued for the corporation that "...its rights stand on the same ground as those of an individual."

The Court agreed, and Associate Justice Joseph Story in his concurring opinion wrote (emphasis added): "An aggregate corporation, at common law, is a collection of individuals, united into one collective body.... It is, in short, an artificial person, existing in contemplation of law, and endowed with certain powers and franchises which, though they must be exercised through the medium of its natural members, are yet considered as subsisting in the corporation itself, as distinctly as if it were a real personage.

Law, not nature, created corporations, and the law may operate differently toward corporations than toward individuals. For example, corporations cannot vote, be drafted, or serve as public officers. The question is what rights of a natural person do we give to artificial persons. I believe the court decided correctly in the Citizens United and Hobby Lobby cases. Others, including some of the Supreme Court Justices, disagree. But the solution, if you think the court erred, is to address the specific errors, not throw what has served us well for hundreds of years -- the legal doctrine that Corporations are Persons.