Month: February 2017

When the ends don’t justify the means.

Posted on by David A. Plymyer

In this morning’s Baltimore Sun there were dueling op eds on a bill pending before the Maryland General Assembly, SB739/HB949, that would deny state contracts to and pension fund investments in private companies that participate in any international movement that refuses to do business in Israel or its occupied territories.  The op ed by attorney Rachel Roberts capably pointed out that the bill offends the First Amendment and is decidedly un-American in its attempt to suppress political dissent.

I’d like to make another point, and will begin doing so with a question.  The bill’s primary sponsor in the Senate was Democratic senator Bobby Zirkin and in the House it was Democratic delegate Benjamin Kramer, and my question is:  What the hell were they thinking?  Are they trying to prove that the Democratic Party stands for nothing more than the ends justified the means, which seems to be the guiding principle of the Trump administration?  At a time when American values are under attack by a Republican president does the Democrat-controlled General Assembly want to show how little regard it has for the value of individual liberty and free expression?

Today the Maryland General Assembly moved with unusual speed in passing a joint resolution that allows the Maryland attorney general to file suit in order to restrain President Donald Trump from exceeding the constitutional limits of his power without the attorney general first obtaining the permission of the governor.  Now Democrats in the General Assembly are pressing forward with a bill that would exceed the constitutional limits of their own power.  It is a stunning display of hypocrisy.

The bill is aimed at the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement intended to advance the interests of Palestinians.  The primary goal of the movement is to force Israel to comply with United Nations Resolution 242 and other international law that prohibits Israel from resettling occupied territories (the West Bank and Gaza) with its own citizens.

The State of Maryland has no right to punish private companies for refusing to do business with entities businesses in a foreign country on moral or political grounds  Even within the state private businesses are free to do business with whomever they choose subject to prohibitions against racial, religious and other discrimination.

In the last century it was okay for companies to refuse to invest in companies from South Africa in order to pressure the South African government to end apartheid.  Today it is fine for companies to refuse to do business in North Carolina in an effort to persuade North Carolina to repeal a statute restricting LGBT rights.  But it is not okay for a private company to refuse to invest in Israeli companies in the hopes of convincing Israel to conform its settlement policy to international law?  Who gets to pick and choose which course of action is good and which one is bad?

The issue for me is not whether participation in the BDS movement is good or bad.  The issue is whether state officials should be deciding for companies whether it is good or bad.  What’s next?  A ban by a red state legislature on awarding contracts to companies who refuse to book stays in Trump hotels for their employees or refuse to purchase Trump-branded products?  I find it almost unbelievable that the General Assembly is willing to go down this path.

Equally implausible is the willingness of Maryland Democrats to surrender the moral high ground to Mr. Trump.  Mr. Trump justifies his travel ban on the “greater good” of protecting this nation’s security.  Mssrs. Zirkin and Kramer justify the curtailment on individual rights in their bill on the “greater good” of protecting Israel.  I fail to see any moral distinction between the two purported justifications, neither of which pass legal muster.

Although most of the scholarly objection to this type of bill is centered on the First Amendment, it seems to me that there are issues under the Commerce Clause as well.  Maryland has absolutely no authority to regulate the actions taken by private citizens in the course of foreign commerce.  Under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution regulation of foreign commerce is the sole responsibility of the federal government.  If the state is not trying to regulate foreign commerce by punishing citizens for actions taken in the course of foreign commerce, then what is it doing?

Democrats may want to try to distinguish themselves from the Trump administration by showing that they are willing to stand up for American values, like the rule of law and its regard for individual liberty.  Or, they can pass SB739/HB949 and affirm that they agree with Mr. Trump that the ends always justify the means, and that respect for the rights of individuals is but a secondary concern.

February 15, 2017

 

Baltimore’s own little bomb-thrower.

Posted on by David A. Plymyer

Baltimore City Councilman Ryan Dorsey made headlines a couple of weeks ago with a rant against Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank and Plank’s Port Covington development, claiming that the proposed development will further segregate the city and saying this about Plank:

“He is not a local. He is not from Baltimore. He does not live in Baltimore. He is not about Baltimore. He is himself, an occupying, colonizing, culturally appropriating force.”

As if that was not enough Dorsey, who is white, also said that a meeting that Plank attended with President Donald Trump and other business leaders amounted to “white supremacy cozying up to white supremacy.”

In a tweet I described Dorsey as a fool for attacking Plank as a carpetbagger, if only because the city desperately needs people who do not live in the city but nevertheless care about it and are willing to invest in it, especially Marylanders like Plank.  In a recent letter to The Baltimore Sun Dorsey proved that he is more than a fool; he is a reckless bomb-throwing idiot.

In his letter Dorsey doubled down on his criticism of Plank for meeting with Trump because by doing so, according to Dorsey, Plank “aligned” himself with the Trump administration and because meeting with the president “normalizes figures like President Donald Trump and White House adviser Steve Bannon.”  Why Dorsey believes that a single meeting with Trump in the company of other business executives to discuss the future of manufacturing in the United States means that Plank has “aligned” himself with Trump is one thing but his accusation that advising the president “normalizes” Trump and Bannon is quite another and displays Dorsey’s true colors.

Dorsey used a term (“normalize”) that gained currency during the presidential campaign of Mr. Trump as another way of saying that someone did something that added an air of legitimacy to Mr. Trump or his message; in other words, something that tended to counter the impression that Mr. Trump was not a “normal” (legitimate) candidate and should not be treated as such.  In the eyes of many opponents of Mr. Trump it referred to the act of improperly treating someone on the lunatic fringe as if he was a normal person.

I have news for Dorsey:  Mr. Trump is the president of the United States and we need to accept that reality if we are going to deal with it successfully.  The mindset that he is not “legitimate” leads to misguided and dangerous concepts such as the proposition by Dorsey that people of good conscience should not undertake to advise or counsel the president.

On the contrary, when for example it comes to foreign policy and the use of military force we may in the future be damn glad that someone as cool-headed and savvy as James Mattis is willing to serve in Mr. Trump’s cabinet.  Dorsey apparently believe that Mr. Trump should get all of his advice from people like Steve Bannon and the latest whack job who seems to have his ear, 31 year old advisor Stephen Miller, to whom I now refer as Oberführer Miller because of his pronouncement that “the media and the whole world will soon see, as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.”  (Stay tuned, by the way, as more about the background of Miller is published.)

Dorsey’s mention of Bannon in his letter is ironical, because Dorsey is the mirror image of Bannon, albeit on the other end of the political spectrum from and a lot less sophisticated than Bannon.  As I observed in a prior post Bannon is by nature an anti-establishment bomb-thrower more interested in disrupting the status quo rather than repairing it; during Mr. Trump’s campaign his approach appealed to disaffected voters willing to blow up the establishment in hopes that something better would arise from the ashes.

I am as concerned as Dorsey about the direction Mr. Trump and his administration are taking this country, to the extent that I set forth in detail in the above-referenced post my thoughts on how the tide could be reversed.  The difference is that Dorsey appears to believe that Mr. Trump somehow can be run out of office and that if Mr. Trump is deprived of all sound advice from sensible and successful citizens like Plank his departure will be hastened.

Think about it for a moment:  Why would depriving Mr. Trump of advice from “normal” people hasten his exit?  Because without sound advice Mr. Trump might continue to make calamitous decisions that lead to his downfall?  Is that what we or Dorsey really want?  It seems like a risky strategy to me, given the rather dangerous world in which we live.

I recommended an approach based on the strategy of persuading Mr. Trump that he needs to distance himself from the influence of Bannon.  I don’t know if my strategy can succeed; if anything Mr. Trump seems to be growing more erratic and unpredictable.  I do know that I am not willing to adopt the same strategy that got us into this mess, which is based on the idea that you blow everything up and then hope against hope that order magically emerges from chaos.  Whack jobs on the left are no more helpful than whack jobs on the right.

Dorsey’s antics are just one more reason to be disheartened about Baltimore.  Bomb-throwers typically do a lot more harm than good in local government and the Baltimore City Council has enough problems without having to deal with someone like him.

February 14, 2017