Josh Cook's Blog, page 4

Galley Lag Part Two of Infinity

As I've pointed out before, I get more galleys than I can read, let alone write about and too often, great books don't get nearly as much attention or as many sales as they deserve. So, if for no other reason than to slightly assuage my readerly guilt, here is a raft of galleys (the astute bookseller can probably guess when I started compiling this list, but, well, I had a book I wanted to finish writing, so this post got bumped down a bit.) I'm really excited about even if I don't get to write about them. (Some of which might even be available for purchase now.)

O Fallen Angel by Kate Zambreno

I've written about Zambreno's brilliant and archetypal postmodern novel Green Girl before so I was excited to see this galley come through the store. The description is even more intriguing as O Fall Angel is apparently inspired by a Francis Bacon painting.


Sex and the Constitution: Sex, Religion, and Law from America's Origins to the Twenty-First Century by Geoffrey R. Stone

So much of the momentum for the misogyny and homophobia in our society are drawn from the various Christian views and sex and sexuality. Our framers didn't get everything right, but they were absolutely right when they (despite what some might say) went to great length to separate church and state. But does historical truth, logical empathy, fair jurisprudence, and basic respect for the lives of one's fellows humans stop them? Of course not, there's a chance someone somewhere might be enjoying sex. So far, what is most fascinating about this history is how fluid the conservative ideologies are. Conservatives like to pretend that their beliefs are steadfast bedrocks with long lineages, but really it took Christianity a long time to figure out how it felt about sex and many of those things, homosexuality and abortion in particular, were assessed differently over time. In fact, the prohibition against abortion in the United States is actually fairly new, not really gaining momentum until the mid-1800s.


Culture as Weapon: The Art of Influence in Everyday Life by Nato Thompson

Seeing Power was so good, Thompson's latest was already on my pile, but then we had to form, lead, participate in, and maintain a resistance movement (perhaps even revolution) against a nascent kleptocracy. Given how brilliant Thompson is about the way art arts in our contemporary world (and that I started my Reading is Resistance column on this blog) this is now a must read.










The Twelve-Mile Straight by Eleanor Henderson

This one came to me as a bound manuscript (which is still, irrationally, a little exciting) along with a note, not from the publicity assistant or someone from marketing (not to knock those publicity and marketing letters as they can often be very helpful) but from the editor who describes the book as “what I believe to be the best book I've ever edited, out next year.” I don't know anything else about the book, but I do know that editors, as a genus of humanity, tend to value honesty. That's all I need to know to put this on my list.


Imagine Wanting Only This by Kristen Radke

This is a graphic memoir by one of my publishing friends and has steadily (and rightly I think) been building buzz and momentum. What I especially like about it, is that, even though there are a few big and a few painful moments, as there are in every life, the idea of a search for identity is essentially assumed. You don't need a traumatic moment to put some effort and thought into figuring out who you are and how to be the best version of that person you can be.



: The One-Eyed Man by Ron Currie

Everything Matters! is one of the books I've been handselling for years. It is perhaps the only optimistic story about the end of the world and, along with its exploration of relationship, drug abuse, mental illness, and economic stagnation, and thus, an important book, one that I think is a major step towards whatever happens after postmodernism. I also, really liked his next novel, Flimsy Little Plastic Miracles with its exploration of authorship, identity, and fame. Given that his publisher is reissuing Everything Matters! with a new cover and his sending him to the West Coast to reach a new audience, hopefully it will get the support and attention a writer of Currie's caliber deserves.


Recitation by Bae Suah

It had been a while since I'd read a Deep Vellum book, so I asked twitter which of the handful I should read next. Kenny Coble said I should read Bae Suah. He answered first and somehow I haven't read anything from Korea yet.


Priestdaddy by Patricia Lockwood

Lockwood wrote two of my favorite recent poetry collections and is producing some of the strangest and most unsettling poems in English. She has also cultivated a really interesting social media presence. For those facts along her new book, which is a memoir, would go on the pile. But the title. And look at that cover. You'd think it was an Alissa Nutting novel.

Reading Is Resistance: In Praise of Defeat

I, like so many other Americans, spent January 20, 2017, in a depressed funk. Which is strange in a way, because, it's not like the inauguration was a surprise. Somehow, even after the last few potential legal opportunities to prevent a Trump presidency were wasted, it didn't feel as real as it should have. But still, knowing the Obamas had to welcome this man, knowing Hillary Clinton had to sit there and watch this catastrophically unqualified charlatan take the oath for the office the majority of Americans wanted her to hold, knowing that all those other catastrophically unqualified people were in line to take charge of the various federal departments, knowing that white supremacists had something to celebrate, knowing that vulnerable people would suffer and die...

It felt like we'd come to the end of something. Perhaps, it marked the end of the American century. (Even if he is curtailed or removed from office before he does too much more damage, I don't think our standing in the world will ever be the same.) Perhaps, it marked the end of this particular form of constitutional democracy. (If court issued stays are not honored, I have no idea where we go from there.) Perhaps, given the administration's attitude toward climate change and our compressed timeline to do anything about it, it marked the beginning of the end of this particular form of human society. I think it definitely marked the end of a certain kind of white innocence, as we finally heard what so many other Americans were trying to tell us for so long: our social justice gains are insufficient and fragile, the racism in this country is far deeper than we understood, the “casual” racism in our family we brushed off as harmless wasn't casual but opportunistic, that our country was filled with sleeper cells for white supremacy and white nationalism, and that, no matter who we as individuals voted for, our own voted for Donald Trump and we bear responsibility for that.

Which is a long way of saying I was feeling depressed as shit at work that day. And this massive book of poetry in translation from a wonderful small, independent press had been staring at me all week.

In Praise of Defeat is a career spanning collection of poetry (and a little prose) by the Francophone Moroccan poet, writer, and political activist Abdellatif Laabi, a writer I'd never heard of until this beautiful blue collection of his work published by my friend and yours Archipelago Books showed up at the store. Laabi was one of the founders of the left-wing literary review Souffles, which was banned by the Hassan II regime. Laabi himself was then tortured and imprisoned for eight years. Eight years.

Given his history, it's not terribly surprising that his poems and collections have titles like “Beneath the Gag, the Poem,” “Talk or Be Killed,” “Skinned Alive,” “The Sun is Dying,” and “In Praise of Defeat.” And there is the darkness you would expect; the pain, the comfort with death, the sharp turns of image from the delicate to the grotesque all in the relatively straightforward language you would also expect from a brain made weary by imprisonment and torture, but it is also shot through with moments of the more sophisticated diction you would expect from the founder of a radical avant garde literary magazine. The result is something like Walt Whitman crossed with Jean Genet but with a very different breadth of life in search of expression and a very different beatification of the criminal. With many of his early poems, I had an image of him getting back to his cell or wherever and trying to write on whatever scraps of paper were available with whatever writing utensil was available “Fuck you,” over and over again in a show of brute defiance, but his hand did not quite follow the instructions, something intervened, an unconsciousness poetic current, perhaps, and when he read the scraps again later, he found he'd written these poems instead.

Even without all the swirling context, these poems would have had an impact, but given that context, they punched me in the jaw. But, not in like, a bad way, but in the way how sometimes Rocky gets punched but that only makes him stronger and then he's all like “hit me again,” and Drago hits him again and then we all know it's over for Drago now. Strength from pain. Resilience from attack.

As the Trump administration continues to run roughshod over American democracy, sewing chaos within our vital social and economic systems while threatening even worse, and ruining the lives of Americans, visitors, and immigrants, it is perhaps, most difficult, especially for a white man like me, to get any appreciation of the scale of the carnage he is creating. I am insulated by my privilege and I am insulated by living in Massachusetts, a wealthy, liberal state with the resources to mitigate at least some of the trauma Trump is inflicting on the world. There is a risk, of course, as I watch the horrors unfold on social media, that I fetishize the suffering of others, reducing other people to props in my arguments.

There is, of course, a limit to how I can connect with those Trump will cause to suffer (at least for now); a limit created by my privileged life and by the need to maintain my own emotional and mental health. For me, In Praise of Defeat is part of a solution to that problem, giving me the specific language of someone who has suffered in the past, through the medium of poetry, to apply to the suffering of people today. I can transfer Laabi's poetry and the emotions they create within me to the stories and images I am seeing now so I can act with at least some emotional intelligence or at least awareness.

And this is about emotional awareness. About understanding, on some level, how other people feel or, in the case of our new fascists and their sympathizers and apologists, definitively and intentionally refusing to understand how someone else might feel. Nothing in my life and nothing that I read will give me the experience of someone being arbitrarily turned away from the United States, but the poetry of Laabi still offers an avenue, a bridge between my life and that pain, and even though I am not able to cross that bridge the connection is there. Poetry like Laabi's (or even Whitman's and Genet's) creates connections between the people; the exact connections that eventually defeat fascists.

Reading is Resistance Vol 1

One of the big differences I've noticed between the growing resistance to the Trump presidency and my activism in college is a general acknowledgment of the need for members of the resistance to care for themselves, to make sure that everyone does what they need to do to be mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and physically healthy. The idea of resistance (perhaps even revolution) is seeing its members not as soldiers in an army, but as human beings fighting to make the world a better place; whole people with needs, wants, talents and weaknesses, and who are also supposed to benefit from that better world.

Of course, ideally we try to find things that do both; actions that directly contribute to the resistance and energize and sustain us. For some, going to protests and rallies is energizing. (If anyone is energized and sustained by running committee meetings or drafting municipal legislation please stand up. We've got a lot of stuff for you to do.) For me, reading can be that dual action, that activity that contributes to the resistance while energizing and sustaining me.

Furthermore, we as individuals can't do everything. A big part of the success of the #smallacts movement is that it breaks the difficult, relentless effort of activism into chunks that nearly everyone  can fit into our lives. Along those lines, we also have to find what we, as individuals are best at, and how to use that talent, expertise and wisdom, together with other people and their talents to have the greatest impact. You will be shocked to know that, after several seconds of consideration, I decided that as a bookish person, a reader, and a writer, I hope to use my expertise in the world of books to help the resistance however I can, by sharing what I know about reading, how it can connect to the resistance, and, of course, recommending the weird and challenging books to get through this weird and challenging time.

For this installment, I'm going to focus in on reading techniques, the ways we can read that will help develop the skills we need to resist the Trumpocracy.

Cultivate Context
Yeah, let's not have this anymore.To me, one of the big reasons why conservative ideology is still politically effective despite being shackled to racism, bound to dogmatic religious thinking, and committed to policies and economics that have definitively failed, is the ability of conservative pundits and politicians to remove contemporary debates from their historical context. The way Republicans talk, you'd think all of our current federal regulations were foisted on the public by Bill Clinton. Every law is a story, a story about debate, lobbying, amendment, and negotiation. This is not to say that every law or every regulation is effective, but that, at some point, someone thought it would make the world or some part of it a better place. For an easy example, find pictures of major urban areas before the EPA. We have the Environmental Protection Agency because, at some point, many Americans and enough federal legislators and executives believed society benefited overall from protecting the environment. More frustrating, for me, is how we have actively forgotten the policies that contributed to the invention of the middle class after the Great Depression and World War II. (FYI: It wasn't low taxes and a balanced budget.) In short, the only way contemporary conservative policies win debates (when they even are debated as quite often these ideas are taken as articles of faith) is to remove them from all context and discuss them as axioms.

In many ways, reading is all about context. We learn from information and exploration through images that are arranged in relation to each other. Interpretation is driven by extrapolating what these events, these images, and even these words mean because they are in the context of these other words, images, and events. Often, however, that act of contextualizing is automatic, perhaps even unnoticed, because it feels like you're just reading. But if you read with that idea of contextualizing at the front of your mind, you both see the process and improve your ability to make connections across time and space.

Those connections across time and space, between the past and the present, between cause and distant effect and between people who never interact on a daily basis, are exactly what conservatives need us to forget for any of their points about tax rates on the top income earners, trickle down economics, and government regulations to make any sense at all. Reading intentionally builds that contextualizing skill so that you always ready to respond to a statement from the government or an argument about say, health care, with the necessary follow up questions and research to establish their context.

Become an Expert in Something
A portal to expertise hides in the back of nearly every work of popular nonfiction: the bibliography. The bibliography or works cited, is a list of other books and primary research; the time-consuming, expensive primary research upon which so much rests, and exactly the kind of research vulnerable in a malignantly anti-intellectual government. Furthermore, as funding is cut, as scorn is heaped on experts, as they are removed from positions and not consulted when their knowledge will be useful, their impact on our culture will wane.

One way to resist the de-knowledging of society is to become knowledgeable yourself. To replace, as much as you can, the absence of experts in mass media and government with the presence of expertise in your life. Furthermore, buying (when you can) and requesting your library carries these primary source or more scholarly works will support (at least a little) some of that un-glorious but vital scholarly work. Furthermore, there's always the chance, depending what you focus on, that some bill or statute or referendum (especially at the municipal and state levels) will touch on your topic and if that is the case, you will be ready to write letters to the editor and speak at meetings. (And the more of us that become experts in something the more likely citizen-experts will be around for every issue that comes up.) So, follow something that catches your eye in a book you're reading to its primary source and because an expert on it.

Develop Your Ear for Bullshit
“Alternative facts” happened on Sunday January 22, 2017. The day before, the White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said, out loud and into a microphone for all to hear, the utterly laughable, easily disprovable assertion that Trump's inauguration had the highest attendance in history. We all saw it. We know that's not true. When pressed to explain why the White House Press Secretary would blatantly, even casually, lie to the American people in his very first and thus heavily symbolic appearance, Conway said that he just presented with “alternative facts.” And, even if you're not terribly politically engaged, or even if you are but are conservative, any reader will hear something off about that phrase. The word “fact” by definition, implies an absence of “alternative.”

But as with all things, sorting through meanings to find concealed deception (though, honestly, if they think this conceals deception they think very little of the American people) is a skill that needs to be learned and developed. Close reading isn't just an academic exercise, it is an exercise in getting beyond the first layer of meaning, of identifying phrases that seem odd, and of blocking the verbal jujitsu those in power use to sound like they're saying one thing when they're actually saying its opposite. It might be taking things too far to say that all deconstruction does is apply a bullshit detector to the book you're reading, but not much.

But close reading is a skill that erodes when you don't use it. So dust off the old lit crit and start reading your books with an eye for the layer beneath, so it is easier to see what Conway, Spicer, and Ryan are hiding. If you weren't an English major, and want to develop this skill, there are, of course, plenty of books, both popular and academic that explore the technique, but I would also recommend finding a book or two about your favorite book (or at least one you're very familiar with) and reading those. That will show you an example of close reading in the context of something you already enjoy.

Find your skill, take your small act, and keep reading.

A Declaration of Congressional Opposition

In 2008, Congressional Republicans lead by Mitch McConnell committed to do everything in their power to obstruct the Obama agenda, not for any reasons inherent in the policies themselves, but so that Obama could never claim bipartisanship on any legislation he might have been able to pass. It was a cynical tactic that essentially dug up Madison's grave to spit on his corpse. And it worked. The tactical opposition of Congressional Republicans wasn't able to prevent a second term for Obama, but it did contribute greatly to the historic Congressional and state level swing to Republicans and particularly conservative Republicans in 2010 and, by preventing legislation like a second stimulus package or a major infrastructure investment, ensured the economic recovery from the Bush recession would be more sluggish and less well distributed than it could have been and contributed to Trump's victory. In the history of the American 21st century, should there be anyone around to write it, Mitch McConnell will be one of our great villains, and a big part of his villainy comes from this tactic and all damage and death it lead to.

Congressional Democrats should learn from McConnell's technique, but, rather than hide behind lies about negotiation and compromise, come right out and sign their own Declaration of Congressional Opposition. Here's what that Declaration could look like.

Whereas the extent of Russian influence and interference in our presidential election, potentially in the hopes of securing a president in line with there own interests, is still to be officially determined, but thought by most intelligence agencies to extensive and intentional;

Whereas the extent of the relationship between Mr. Trump, Russia, and the Vladimir Putin regime is still unknown and that Mr. Trump himself has publicly downplayed the significance of Russian interference in our election and currently and historically praised Vladimir Putin, often comparing Putin favorably to the democratically elected and re-elected Barack Obama;

Whereas Congressional Republicans are at present unwilling to allow an independent investigation into the Russian interference in our election;

Whereas, in the absence of his full tax returns the extent of the conflicts of interest inherent in his business holdings, both foreign and domestic are unknown and;

Whereas Mr. Trump has been grossly negligent in dealing with the conflicts of interest currently known to the public by claiming to transfer executive power over his business affairs to his children who also have public roles within his transition team, rather than to a true blind trust, remaining an executive producer of The Apprentice, and maintaining ownership of his new hotel in Washington, D.C.;

We believe it cannot be known whether policies offered and/or supported by Mr. Trump and the Republican party which he now heads, are policies offered in good faith for the betterment of the United States of America and its citizens, are in service to a foreign agenda from a nation that wields power over Mr. Trump, or are for the personal enrichment of Mr. Trump, his family, and/or members of his administration;

And with the fact that Trump's opponent, Hilary Clinton, received 2.8 million more votes than he did;

We the undersigned resolve to oppose each and every policy or person offered by the Trump administration and the Republican party, including cabinet level positions and Supreme Court Justice seats, with every legislative, congressional, and parliamentary tool at our disposable, until such time that the extent of Russian influence over our election and over Mr. Trump and his administration is known and dealt with and all potential conflicts of interest are accounted for and dealt with.

One of things I've heard a lot of is this idea that Democrats in Congress will have to “pick their battles,” that they will not be able to fight everything and so must focus on the worst of Trump's potential policies. So who do we not fight? Do we give Rick Perry a pass to focus on Ben Carson? Tillerson to focus on Sessions? Or vice versa? Let the less powerful agencies slide so we can focus on the bigger departments? Which one of Trump's public nominees to date doesn't represent an existential threat to either the department which they are ostensibly supposed to lead, a dramatic departure from previous and longstanding U.S. domestic and foreign policy, and/or present legitimate risks to civilization as we know it? Who do you give a pass to?

Even the most reasonable nominee, by far, is tainted. Elaine Chao actually makes a fair amount of sense as Secretary for the Department of Transportation, however, she is Mitch McConnell's wife. McConnell was the primary force that prevented making the intelligence around Russian meddling in our election to increase the chances of a Trump victory public prior to the election and, McConnell has said he will not recuse himself from her nomination process. Chao may be qualified, but that to me, looks like textbook corruption. As much as possible, we cannot allow corruption to gain any kind of foothold in our government.

And what exactly have Republicans talked about as their policy goals that are not worth a filibuster? The repeal and delay Obamacare is policy nonsense that at absolute best will result in a whole bunch of meaningless legislative slight of hand that will allow Republicans to claim responsibility for their own version of exactly the same policies as the ACA and at worst will sow chaos in our nation's health care system and lead to many premature deaths. And they're talking about ending medicare and privatizing social security. Aren't those worth a filibuster? The very first action House Republicans took, was to hold a closed door meeting, on a holiday, to greatly weaken ethical oversight (you know, to help bring back jobs to the working class), and though massive public outcry saved the Office of Congressional Ethics, they still pushed through rules designed specifically to squelch dissent from Democrats. Where is the opportunity to compromise? For the last eight years Republicans have fought everything from major policy to relatively low-level judiciary appointments, while almost universally negotiating in bad faith. Democrats should be willing to die on every single hill Republicans wish to climb.

You might also point out that since I think McConnell's obstruction is undemocratic and a gross perversion of his responsibility as a legislator, as a citizen, and even as a human being, that it represents the worst kind of partisan politics where victory on election day is elevated above improving the lives of Americans through policy and legislation, it is hypocritical of me to ask Democrats to do the same thing I am condemning Republicans for.

In 2008, Barack Obama won 52.9% of the vote, almost 10 million more votes than John McCain, and secured 365 electoral college votes. In the Senate, Democrats gained eight seats and earned 51.9% of the vote totals. In the House, Democrats gained 21 seats and secured 53.2% of the total vote. As I've said elsewhere, I don't think there really is such a thing as a “public mandate,” but by any empirical assessment, the 2008 Democratic platform was one of the most popular political statements in our nation's history. McConnell and the Republicans that followed him, essentially spit in the eye of the American people.

In 2016, Trump lost the popular vote by 2.8 million votes and his electoral college victory hinged on about 70,000 voters in three states. Furthermore, his number of electoral college votes was far fewer than Obama's and ranks only 46th in electoral victories historically. (It's even fewer electoral college votes than Obama received in 2012 when Republicans were all but certain they had him beat.) Furthermore, Democrats gained eight seats in the House (in our heavily gerrymandered House of Representatives) and two seats in the Senate. By any empirical assessment, the American public preferred the Democratic platform over the Republican one in 2016 and it is only through an obsolete quirk in our process that Trump won. Organized Democratic opposition could actually be understood as doing the will of the American people, rather than directly opposing it.

And, unlike Barack Obama in 2008, we still do not know the full extent of Russian influence in favor of Trump in our election. Honestly, even if it the fake news stories and social media bots are the extent of it, that is enough to question the legitimacy of a Trump presidency, especially since he has downplayed the significance of Russian interference and praised Putin and it looks as though Republicans, even with pressure from well-respected Republicans like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, aren't willing to hold an independent investigation.

We also have to wonder about James Comey and the FBI. Elections are complicated animals, and their results can rarely be attributed to any one event, idea, or person, but I think it is safe to believe that Hilary Clinton is president if Comey does not break with decades of precedent and with the wishes of the other security and intelligence agencies to release the letter about Anthony Weiner's totally irrelevant computer.

Finally, over the course of the campaign and in the months that followed the election, Donald Trump has shown a shocking lack the temperament, curiosity, and attention to information, policy, and detail to be President of the United States. The question might be better framed not was "What are the best things for the Democrats to say 'no' to?" but "What could they possibly say 'yes' to?"

As we have seen with the use of budget reconciliation in the Senate to begin the dismantling of Obamacare, there are many ways the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans will be able to enforce their policies that the Democrats will be unable to stop. Furthermore, there will be techniques of Congressional opposition that Republicans were willing to use that I'm not sure are worth risking. Will there be policies so bad that Democrats are willing to shut down the government to prevent it? What happens if there is another debt ceiling fight? Are Democrats willing to let our already hobbled judiciary system continue to erode? What happens if Trump offers a potentially palatable nominee for the Supreme Court?

There will be acts of judgment Congressional Democrats will have to make, but ultimately, they can give Republicans and Trump legitimate claims to bipartisan success or they can deny them that claim. You can start from a position of unified opposition justified by legitimate concerns and the will of the majority of Americans or not. You can continue the same efforts at traditional legislative negotiation and compromise and most likely continue to get insulted by Republicans or you can try something else. You can either have your name in the public record next to some of the things a Trump administration will do or not. You can either give fascists permission or make them take it from you.

I'm not sure if a declaration like this is, ultimately the best strategy for protecting the American public, but, in moments of doubt, when there is debate, when you might not be sure what you should do, when it is hard to extrapolate all of the potential consequences of an action, “If a fascist wants this to happen, I'm going to fight like hell to stop it,” is a pretty solid fallback position.

Amending the Electoral College

The electoral college as a means of selecting the president was established for a number of reasons, none of which are particularly good. In essence, the Founders were afraid the general voting public wouldn't select men like themselves, (under the Articles of Confederation, farmers had a nasty habit of selecting other farmers to represent them) plus an electoral college style selection rather than a popular vote increased the power of southern slave holding states that had a much smaller voting population and really, really, really liked slavery and political power.

In just about every way, even after the amendment to allow direct election of the electors by the people, the electoral college is an elitist, out-of-date institution that has, now that we live in a heavily urbanized county, directly disenfranchised voters who live in cities.

For the most part, fixing the electoral college fell into the “not worth the trouble” category of problems, but, with two of the last three presidents winning their first terms while losing the popular vote, it is clear now it must be changed.

Here is a proposed amendment to the Constitution. (In your head, feel free to give the prose that Constitutional flare.)

The winner of the total national popular vote shall be considered to have received the 270 electoral college votes unless: The popular vote is essentially a tie and no candidate has a 50% plus 1 majority, at which point, the distribution of the electoral votes shall revert to existing state by state distribution procedures and/or the influence of a foreign power in the election is suspected, the winning candidate is suspected of potentially impeachable offenses, and/or the winning candidate does not take appropriate steps to eliminate conflicts of interest that would allow the winning candidate to use the office of the President for personal gain. Congress, state legislatures, and the people, will all be empowered to petition for a review in the third case, at which point, electors selected according to state rules will be empowered to secure briefings from the relevant law enforcement agencies and/or Congressional committees before meeting in their state capitals on [date]. They will also be empowered to discuss and coordinate with each other in the time preceding the meeting. At the review meeting they will be empowered to either ratify the existing results, select the candidate who was previously defeated in the general election, or call for a new Presidential election in a timely fashion that allows for the party of the removed candidate to select a new nominee with all other parties being allowed to re-run their original candidates and/or select new ones at their discretion. The current administration will continue until the results of the new election are certified reflecting the above process plus two months to allow the new incoming President to establish their transition.

Here's what I'm thinking with the above amendment. First, and most importantly, it recenters political power to one person=one vote. It doesn't matter where you live, you have the same voice in choosing your President as everyone else. If you're going to object by saying the smaller states and rural areas deserve a voice, I'll say three things: First, I believe the assumption that urban and rural, high-population and low-population, and coastal and central states having diametrically opposed interests is an assumption we need to reexamine. (And, is likely, another one of the ways Republicans kept getting the people they hurt to vote for them, but that's for a different post.) Second, small states already have the Senate (and in many ways the House). Third, MORE PEOPLE MEANS MORE PEOPLE.

Second, it's always handy to have a system that sorts out ties and, in a virtual tie and in the absence of a majority, the geographic distribution of support makes sense. It's the political equivalent of an away goal.

Third, if it looks like I'm proposing this amendment specifically to prevent another Trump from happening, you're goddamn right I am. The world has changed since the framers wrote the Constitution and the ways in which a foreign power can influence our election and how an elected president could exploit the position for personal gain have changed. Trump, conveniently, has pretty much exposed all of those changes. Honestly, “preventing another Trump” is probably the best reason I can think of for doing just about anything. And, as we have seen with the extent and intent of Russian meddling only becoming clear after the election, it would make sense to have some procedure to prevent a criminal from taking power even when they are able to dupe the people for a day. Furthermore, it is now clear that norm and convention is not enough to prevent a kleptocrat from exploiting the presidency. The removal of conflicts of interest must be enshrined in the Constitution.

One of the major problems we have faced in our both the election of Trump and the election of George W. Bush is the totally unnecessary compulsion to declare a winner on election day. Nearly all of our misconceptions about Trump's election came from declaring him the winner before all the votes were counted; before we learned how narrow his victories in the rust belt were and how dramatic Hilary Clinton's popular vote lead became. But once a narrative is set it is difficult to change and so Trump is acting like he has a mandate, 52% of Republicans believe he won the popular vote, and the pressure to ensure an orderly transition of power hamstrung any efforts the Obama administration might have made to reassess the election. When we look back to Bush's first election, there really wasn't any good reason to stop counting in Florida. If we establish a simple procedure in the case of a delay of the results, then there isn't a problem if it takes longer than usual to determine the winner.

Obviously, given that I'm not a statistician or a constitutional scholar, there are some gaps in my proposal. What would be a statistical tie? Less than 1% difference seems too high, given the numbers we're talking, so less than .5% perhaps. I don't know. Second, in terms of petitioning for review, it can't be so easy that the losing party always request it, but it also can't require a majority or super-majority as then as long as the president-elect is a member of the majority party, odds are said party will never allow a petition of review no matter how criminal the president-elect may be. The same balance must be struck with the ability for states and the people to request a review. The bar must be set high enough so the review doesn't become a way for the losing group to gum up the transition, nor must it be so high that the party in power is able to always prevent it.

There are two ways to amend the Constitution and we can call for both of them. The first an amendment can be passed by a super-majority of both chambers of Congress so, you can call your Congressional representatives and the second is through a Constitutional convention as called by the states. Historically, Congress has acted before such a convention could be called to pass the requested amendment because once that convention is called anything can happen.


It's hard to imagine contemporary Republicans supporting this at either the national or the state level because the odds that they can win a national popular vote as they are composed now is just about zero, but you can do something or you can do nothing. Calling for this amendment will, if it gains any traction, at the very least, force Republicans to spout their bullshit about small states. And now, while the wound is still raw, is the time to start pushing. Maybe the above suggestion isn't the right way to fix the problem, but I hope, it get the conversation started.