The Fabled Past and Coming to One’s Senses

As I write, a group of Republicans in the House of Representatives have declared that Donald Trump deserves the chance to challenge the Electoral College results and remain in his post when Congress meets on Jan. 6 to certify the election. During a meeting with the president in the White House, they planned to block elector ballots from at least five or six states where, in their opinion, the greatest fraud occurred.

According to law, Vice President Mike Pence presides over counting the elector votes for each candidate on Jan. 6. And, he appears to approve doing this, as far as we can judge. The Electoral College officially elected Joe Biden on Dec. 14, casting 306 votes for him compared to 232 for Trump. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to become president.

Meanwhile, Trump and the lawyers from his campaign, with their allegations about illegal mail-in voting in six states, have not been able to influence Congress to challenge the ballots.

In order to dispute the results of the Electoral College vote, at least one member of the House of Representatives and one senator must come forward with objections. We should mention that Democratic representatives tried to do this after all three Republican presidential victories in the last 20 years, in 2001, 2005 and 2017. But these efforts have always failed because of lack of support in the Senate.

Most likely, that will happen again this time since Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and Majority Whip John Thune have called on their colleagues to abandon this effort. Besides, not one Republican senator has yet made a public commitment to step forward for Trump (at the time of writing this article).

Still, if there is a commitment, a majority of both houses must vote to decide whether to dismiss the electors’ votes in disputed states from the total vote count.

The Democrats, as is already known, hold a majority in the House of Representatives. But from a procedural viewpoint, it is unclear whether the House will follow the rule of “one state, one vote” or if all 435 members of the House will get the right to express their own respective opinions. If it comes to that, deciding the question resides with the Supreme Court.

If it is decided there that every state receives the right to vote, then Republicans will have the advantage because they make up the majority of delegates in the U.S. House of Representatives. And they can vote for Trump if they so desire. But they will really want to do this since it will throw the country into chaos. And few Republicans are prepared to go to such serious lengths for the sake of the current president.

As such, in line with the tradition of hopes for Christmas and the new year, I would like to make a few wishes about foreign policy and extend them to the American establishment, wishes which do not depend on who wins the presidential election.

First, we must forget about the idea that “America should sit at the head of the table.” Such statements ignore the long list of internal and foreign problems with the country, and it is time to recognize the reality that the short period of American world dominance has come to an end. Politicians need to act with the sober understanding that the world table is a circle and not a rectangle with one boss at the head of it.

Second, the U.S. should cease using power to advance democracy throughout the world. Those who call for such action are upsetting the exceptional Western values they preach about. Bombs, sanctions and regime change have ended with the desolation and suffering of tens of millions of people, and carry enormous human, material and moral loss for America itself.

Third, it is time to begin thinking about transforming NATO into an international antiterrorism organization consisting of fast acting, well armed international forces prepared to eliminate extremist threats in any corner of the world. With its current expansionist spirit and insatiable financial appetite, NATO represents more of a problem than a solution for global security.

Fourth, America may be the leader in certain areas, but it should do this by setting a successful example, not with force. Money saved from America’s futile attempts to become the world hegemon can be used for things like domestic social and infrastructure development, and for working with other countries in solving global crises in health care, the environment, and shortages of food, water and energy resources.

And, finally, it is clear that during this period of American hegemony following the breakup of the Soviet Union, America’s security and that of the whole world is considerably worse than it was before. Has the time to rethink the failed foreign policies of the U.S. finally arrived?

It is understandable that all of this seems like the voice of one person crying in the wilderness, but these recommendations have nevertheless been published in the Washington Times, considered a megaphone of the Republican Party. This means those who call upon Washington to search for itself are not entirely alone.