EUROPE'S POPULIST EVOLUTION

Europe's populist movement, which for the longest time existed on the fringes and in the shadows, has evolved into politically powerful organizations challenging liberal democratic institutions and jeopardizing the continued existence of supranational organizations like the European Union. Populism is an ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, the "pure people" and the "corrupt elite." Populists hold that politics should be an expression of the "general will" of the people. They are pro democracy, but anti liberal democracy. They support popular sovereignty and majority rule, but reject pluralism (a conviction that various religious, ethnic, racial, and political groups should be allowed to thrive in a single society) and minority rights. Populist movements have a history of memorable and charismatic leaders, from fascists like Mussolini and Hitler, dictators like Stalin, reactionaries like Franco, to revolutionaries like Che Guevara. Europe's post World War II populist movements morphed into established political parties on the right (mostly in northern Europe) and on the left (in countries like Greece and Italy). Herman Van Rompuy, former president of the European Council, called populism "the greatest danger for Europe." An out-of-control migrant crisis, an influx of identifiable - mostly Islamic - immigrants, and the recent devastating terrorist attacks, have served to intensify populist sentiment, and enhanced the growing dominance of political organizations that articulate related concerns.

Populist parties tend to be anti-immigrant, anti-muslim, and anti E.U.. They successfully use islamophobia to mobilize its supporters. One of the earliest post-war organizations expressing these views was the "National Front" in France. Its founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen, began the movement in 1972 on a platform of French nationalism, right-wing populism, anti-immigration and euroskeptic. The party was openly racist and xenophobic. His daughter Marine was elected to succeed him in 2011, and managed to grow the movement into the third most powerful political party in France. Polls covering the 2017 presidential elections show her competing effectively with current president Francois Hollande. While the "National Front" operates in opposition to the traditional parties, hard-right populist parties in Hungary and Poland recently managed to expand their political base and transition into governing majorities. Prime Minister Viktor Orban's "Fidesz" party has run Hungary since 2010. Orban styled himself as the sole defender of Christian Europe, and has called for blocking migrants to keep Europe Christian. "Fidesz" won a two-thirds majority of seats in the 2010 parliamentary election, which allowed Orban to pass a new constitution with little or no input from opposition parties, and which included his right-wing "illiberal" viewpoints. Under his guidance, and contrary to E.U. rules, Hungary built a fence on its border with Serbia and Croatia to effectively keep immigrants out. Poland's radical right-wing anti-immigrant and euroskeptic "Law and Justice Party," under Jaroslaw Kaczynski, came to power in October 2015. Since being elected, it has used its muscle to stack Poland's judiciary, undermine its constitutional order, and take full control over public media. Its "reforms" have placed it firmly in the fascist camp, and squarely in conflict with the E.U.'s "Copenhagen criteria" which stipulate conditions for membership, even though Poland has been a member state since May 2004. Kaczynski has defiantly declared that "Poland will not bow to the E.U. on its reforms."

While these populist parties already dominate their respective national governments, this may just be the onset of things to come. Others are becoming increasingly more prominent. Kristian Thulesen Dahl's "Danish People's Party" has grown to being the second largest party in Denmark. Geert Wilders's "Party of Freedom" in The Netherlands, and Heinz Christian Strache's "Freedom Party of Austria" currently rank third in their respective countries. Polls preceding next year's national elections in The Netherlands suggest that Wilders' party could end up winning the elction and leading a governing coalition. While all of these and other parties proclaim their support for the same set of populist principles, and although they are euroskeptic, they also claim seats in the European Parliament. As of 2014 one-third of the members elected to that body represent political organizations opposed to the E.U. and its reach.

Van Rompuy's opinion that populism is the greatest danger for Europe appears to have merit. When populism becomes the dominant ideology in national parliaments, Europe's future could be in jeopardy.  A few weeks ago, in a referendum, the Dutch rejected the European Union's trade and political treaty with Ukraine. This result effectively cancelled the agreement, since approval requires unanimous consent from all 28 member states. All others had voted in favor. Geert Wilders called the vote "the beginning of the end of the E.U." On June 23rd Britain goes to the polls to decide whether it should remain in the union. As of this week the group supporting to stay in polls just one percent ahead of the "brexit" contingent, which is led by the U.K. Independent Party. In the mean time, violent demonstrations like the one by 500 or so black shirted, Nazi-style, islamophobic goons flashing Nazi salutes at a vigil in Brussels right after the attacks there, can't make Europeans familiar with the excesses of the 1920's and 30's feel very comfortable.

DIVERSITY, MULTICULTURALISM AND JIHAD

On January 7, 2015, at about 11:30 local time, two brothers, Said and Cherif Kouachi, forced their way into the offices of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris and killed 11 people. During the following two days four more attacks took place resulting in 20 deaths, which included three perpetrators. During the evening of November 13, 2015 a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris killed more than 130, and wounded hundreds. Eighty-nine were massacred while attending an Eagles of Death Metal concert in the Bataclan Concert Hall in the 11th arrondisement near the Place de la Republique. The attacks at the Zaventem Airport and the Maalbeck Metro Station in Brussels on March 22 of this year killed 32 and wounded 300. No wonder Europe is on edge. Many blame the increased flow of immigrants from North Africa and the E.U.'s open border policy. However, in reality almost all of the perpetrators were born and raised in or close to the communities they attacked. Europeans are searching for answers. While the handwriting has been on the wall for a long time, many have only recently begun to acknowledge that their institutionalized response to increased diversity, usually referred to as "multiculturalism," created during the 1970's, may be the cause of, not the answer to social problems resulting from what some would consider a policy of allowing excessive immigration.

The core issue is the extent to which immigrants have assimilated, or were allowed to assimilate into their host country's dominant culture. Prior to World War II new-comers to European countries migrated mostly from within the European continent. They brought traits similar to those prevalent in the countries they came to adopt. Hence, they assimilated easily. During the years immediately following World War II many European countries attracted "guest workers" from Spain, Italy, Greece and Turkey to compensate for an immense labor shortage. The idea was that, when no longer needed, these migrant workers would return to their native countries. During that same time period countries like France, Great Britain, and to some extent Belgium, attracted a flow of immigrants from their rapidly dwindling colonial possessions - the Caribbean, Pakistan and India for the U.K., and North Africa for France and Belgium. After the 1974 recession governments began to try to get rid of their foreign workers, many of whom had transitioned from a temporary necessity into a permanent presence. By then 30% of the migrant population was under 25 years old, and were born into their parents' "adopted" country. Fearing that these immigrants would dilute the national identity of their countries, governments encouraged them to preserve their own culture, language and lifestyle. The concept of multiculturalism was born and embraced. This did not represent a respect for diversity so much as a convenient means of avoiding the issue of how to create a common, inclusive culture. This policy ultimately resulted in the emergence of segregated communities.

Over time, immigrant neighborhoods developed into cohesive communities, using resources supplied by local governments, but separated from the national culture, and increasingly identifiable by race, religion, language, lifestyle and geographical concentration. The influx of new, predominantly Muslim, immigrants, often shunned by the lopcal population, grew, reinforced, and consolidated the identity of these communities. Second and third-generation youth growing up in this environment were confronted  with an identity crisis. Although they grew up in the country they lived in, they regularly encountered significant discrimination outside of their neighborhoods. (In France, in 2012, the unem ployment rate for youth of African descent under 25 was 42%). Aside from lacking affinity for their home cultrure, they had difficulty identifying with their parents' background. Kenan Malik, a columnist for the International New York Times, in "The Failure of Multiculturalism," suggests: " Many in France view its citizens of North African origin not as French but as Arab or Muslim. But second-generation North Africans are often as estranged from their parents' culture and mores - and from mainstream Islam - as they are from wider French society. They are caught not between two cultures, but without one." While searching for an identity of their own, many of these young people turned to radical Islam.

The very islolation of these separate communities obscured their inner workings, allowing mujahideen to fundraise, prepare and recruit for jihad with a freedom available in few Muslim countries. Michael Nazir-Ali, former bishop of Rochester, writes: "One of the results of multiculturalism has been to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up, and also to turn already separate communities into areas where adherence to Islamic extremism has become a mark of acceptability." The arguments about the purported "failure of multiculturalism" and the development of so-called "no-go zones" have recently entered the political discourse on both sides of the Atlantic. Irrespective of semantics, many of these segregated areas have become Muslim enclaves in which the enforcement of European laws is at best spotty. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, acknowledged that a form of apartheid exists in France. In fact, France lists 751 "sensitive urban zones," most of which developed as a consequence of multiculturalist policies. Molenbeek, the municipality in the Brussels-Capital region, where most of the perpetrators of the attacks in Paris and Brussels and Paris grew up, is one of these in Belgium. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that these enclaves have become incubators for jihad. However, identifying the problem and assigning blame is only part of the process. European governments need to move beyond claiming that the problem does not exist, and develop solutions short of the drastic measures suggested by increasingly powerful populist parties. We should all hope that they have the capacity to do this.

A BROKERED CONVENTION COULD PRODUCE UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES

The GOP is in a bind. Its elders and strategists are attempting to do whatever they can to prevent its frontrunner, Donald Trump, from amassing enough delegates to win their party's nomination for President outright when they meet at their national convention in Cleveland, Ohio in July. While strategizing obstruction, Republican Party regulars agonize over how a contested convention would develop, or, if it decided to broker the outcome, who would take the lead and at what cost. Throughout our political history brokered conventions are nothing new. However, they did not always develop as intended.

The 1880 Republican convention in Chicago opened with three candidates fighting for the nomination. A draft movement attempted to nominate ex-President Ulysses Grant for a third term after a four year absence. Grant's opposition supported either Maine Senator James Blaine or Secretary of the Treasury John Sherman. The convention deadlocked for 35 ballots. Grant remained 66 votes short of the nomination. On the 36th ballot the anti-Grant vote switched to dark-horse candidate Ohio Congressman James Garfield, who was nominated, and assassinated only months after inauguration.

The 1912 Democratic convention was held in Baltimore, Maryland. At the time Democratic rules stipulated that the winning nominee needed to secure two-thirds of the delegate vote. The principal candidates were House Speaker Champ Clark of Missouri and Governor Woodrow Wilson of New Jersey. Both had won several primaries. Clark entered the convention with a plurality of the delegates, and received 440 votes on the first ballot, against 324 for Wilson. Nobody even received a majority of the delegates until the 9th ballot when the New York delegation, with support of the powerful and corrupt Tammany Hall, shifted its support to Clark. This gave Clark the majority, but drew staunch opposition from William Jennings Bryan, a three time Democratic presidential candidate and leader of the liberals, who denounced Clark as the candidate of Wall Street. He threw his support behind Wilson, who gradually gained support and finally won on the 46th ballot.

In 1920, during the Republican convention, Ohio Senator Warren Harding trailed badly during the first eight ballots before the convention adjourned for the day. Half a dozen party leaders met that night in a "smoke-filled" room. They collectively decided to throw the nomination to Harding, who subsequently won the election in November, but later died in office.

The big turnaround came after the Democratic convention in Chicago in 1968. President Lyndon Johnson had recused himself after coming within seven points of losing the New Hampshire primary to Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, and after Senator Robert Kennedy proclaimed his candidacy a week later. Subsequently, Johnson's Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, entered the fray, but refused to run in primaries. He collected delegates in state caucuses where party leaders acted behind closed doors. Senator Kennedy was killed June 5, leaving McCarthy as the only remaining anti-Johnson, anti-war candidate at the convention. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and President Johnson's White House aides cleared the process for Humphrey, and helped him win the nomination on the first ballot. In the mean time, for the entire nation to follow on national television, more that 10,000 demonstrators and 23,000 police and national guardsmen battled in the streets surrounding the convention hall. The National Guard had been ordered to shoot to kill if necessary. Protesters were openly beaten. Tear gas even reached the convention delegates, and presenters inside accused police of using Gestapo tactics. Although public opinion tended to support Mayor Daley, the Democratic Party subsequently reformed its rules and required all states to select delegates in open primaries and public caucuses.

Thus far Republican frontrunner Donald Trump has accumulated about 47% of the awarded pledged delegates. If he continues on that pace, he would end up with a significant plurality, but about 100 delegates short of the 1,237 delegate majority needed to win the nomination outright in Cleveland. Unless Trump's supporters manage to shift a sufficient number of uncommitted delegates to their candidate to secure the nomination on the first ballot, the convention would technically become brokered. During subsequent ballots most delegates would no longer be required to vote based on their state's primary results, and things could get ugly - potentially worse than what we saw in Chicago in 1968.

There will be more than one thousand Trump delegates in the convention hall. Donald Trump has already warned that, if he were denied the nomination, millions of his supporters would feel disenfranchised and are likely to riot. In addition, Ohio is an open-carry state. Guns are allowed in public places. Besides, more than 53% of Cleveland's population is African-American, an ethnic group which recently demonstrated aggressive opposition to the Republican frontrunner and his supporters. Also, if Trump is denied, he could exit the convention and run as an independent. If he succeeds in becoming the nominee, establishment Republicans may start a third-party campaign. A myriad of variables that may interact and develop into unintended outcomes. So yes, the GOP is in a bind. Many mainstream Republicans are openly hoping to get beyond this election cycle without major damage to their party, and, I imagine, some are wondering whether Cleveland is really the best place for the Republican Party to hold its convention this year.

GREAT BRITAIN COULD EXIT THE EUROPEAN UNION. SO, WHO CARES?

While we are preoccupied selecting party nominees who will face off during the final stage of our presidential election contest, the European Union teeters on the brink of unraveling. As he committed to during last year's challenging re-election campaign, Great Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron went to Brussels to negotiate exceptions from EU rules for his country. What he came back with was not earth-shaking, and did nothing to convince the eurosceptics. Nevertheless, Mr. Cameron scheduled a national referendum for June 23rd to decide whether Britain should leave the EU or remain part of Europe. This referendum will not only be the most crucial event for Mr. Cameron's parliament, but the most important in Europe in years. "It will determine the Prime Minister's future, since it is hard to see him staying in office if he fails to win his campaign to remain in the E.U.. It may be decisive for the future of the United Kingdom, as Scottish Nationalists have said a British exit (a.k.a. Brexit) would trigger another vote on Scottish independence. And the departure of one of the heavyweight members would have a huge impact on the future of the E.U." (Economist, February 27, 2016).

At the root of concern among British voters lies the forfeiture of national authority. Up to 55% of Britain's laws are now set in Brussels. Tim Montgomerie, a columnist for the Times of London, while admitting that there are real risks to a Brexit, sums up the argument favoring separation as follows: "All risks are real. But so are the risks of remaining a part of a politically dysfunctional and economically declining EU. There is a strong pragmatic case for believing that a Europe of such different political cultures cannot work, but the real reason why British voters should support Brexit is that we want our country to have what the U.S., Australia, Switzerland, Canada, Japan and other free nations already have: self-determination." Many believe that the campaign leading up to June 23 will be a contest between hearts and minds. Those pushing for exit appeal to voters instincts, while their opponents focus on jobs and security.

David Cameron, who now probably regrets having committed to hold a referendum, argues that for economic and national security reasons the U.K. would be better off staying in the EU. Industry watchers fear a vote to leave the EU would diminish London's role as a financial gateway to Europe. Over the past two decades London has become home to more than 250 foreign banks, on the promise that by being based in London they could seamlessly do business all over the EU. A Brexit could instigate a stampede and shuffle banks back into the European Union. Moreover, the EU takes almost half of all Britain's exports, while Britain takes less than 10% from the EU. An immediate effect of the early run-up to the referendum already resulted in a precipitous drop in the value of the British pound. Since mid-February it dropped 5.9% to the Euro and 8.5% to the dollar. No surprise that financial interests are donating to the campaign to stay in. Both J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs have financially supported the "Britain Stronger in Europe" campaign, and Morgan Stanley is considering doing the same. While Brexit supporters argue that Britain is held back by Europe, and that it could soar as an open economy that continued to trade with the EU and all around the world, reality promises to be different. If Norway and Switzerland are a guide, the EU would allow free market access to its markets only in return for adherence to the same rules eurosceptics dislike: free movement of people and a big payment to its budget. Outside of the EU Britain would be on the sidelines, nominally independent, but still constraint by rules it would not have any role in formulating.

French President Francois Hollande warned Mr. Cameron that "I don't want to scare you, I just want to say the truth: There will be consequences in many areas, in the single market, in the financial trade, in development, in the economic development between our two countries." Let's face it, a Brexit outcome of this referendum would affect the future of Europe and the global order. Britain is the EU's second largest economy, it has a powerful military, and it exerts outsize influence in global affairs. A Brexit means abandonment of the EU by one of its most important members, while losing its biggest military power and most significant foreign policy actor would seriously weaken the EU. Dutch historian Dirk-Jan van Baar, in a column published in De Volkskrant of February 26, assesses the situation as follows: "This will be the first time that a member state leaves the EU, a premiere which will attack the "irreversibility" of the European Union. Once started, the decline can pick up speed. Once the rot is visible the deterioration can't be reversed. David Cameron will go into history as the assassin of the EU, a cowardly variant of Gavrilo Princip, the Serbian student who in June 1914 fired the deadly shots in Sarajevo." He concludes: "By demanding more and more exceptions and privileges the Brits have overplayed their hand, and tested the elasticity of the European project to the extreme. Anyone with a functioning brain understands that the EU is finished if the British approach becomes the standard."

Britain's financial sector is not the only group attempting to affect the outcome of the referendum. When London Mayor Boris Johnson threw his support behind the campaign to leave the EU, followed by 6 of Cameron's 29 ministers, he highlighted the political dimension of the debate. Mr. Johnson, a member of Prime Minister Cameron's Conservative Party, is widely expected to challenge Mr. Cameron for his job if the referendum blows up in his face. Internationally, the EU has become an increasingly important part of the West's foreign and security policy. Without Britain it would be more difficult for the EU to pull its global weight. No wonder therefore that Vladimir Putin supports the Brexit movement, and populist parties in France, The Netherlands, Italy and elsewhere are watching the debate closely. In the U.S. a weaker Europe would feed the views of isolationists like Trump and Cruz who hold that Europe's institutions are unable to cope with the realities of the modern age and that border controls, protectionist trade policies, and a reassertion of national sovereignty are essential to deal with the chaos of the outside world.

Right now polls predicting the outcome of the June 23 referendum are all over the place. Some show that Britons favor leaving Europe by a two-to-one margin, others have the split fairly even, while some polls show the "stay in Europe" camp leading by 10%. We still have a little over three months to go. A Brexit would be a seismic event. Coupled with all the other challenges and crises Europe is experiencing, this has the potential of developing into a tsunami.

ELECTION 2016 BY THE NUMBERS - AFTER THE INITIAL SKIRMISHES, STRATEGY DOMINATES

Bernie Sanders "creamed" Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary, yet each candidate received the same number of delegates (once "super delegates" were added. This outcry from Bernie Sanders supporters was heard everywhere, and it underscores the fact that many voters don't understand how the selection of a party nominee works in our election process. During the initial stages coming in 2nd or 3rd may produce intangible advantages and reflect a candidate's potential for the benefit of sponsors. However, going forward, what determines advance on the road to their party's nomination is delegate count. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz flaunted their virtual tie for 2nd place in South Carolina, but Donald Trump collected all 50 pledged delegates from that state. It is perhaps worthwhile to attempt to untangle some of the elements candidates consider when strategizing how to compete for that prized nomination.

Every state in the union participates in the nomination process. They employ two different methods to arrive at their choices, a primary election or a caucus. A primary is a statewide voting process in which voters cast secret ballots for their preferred candidates, a method most of us have become accustomed to. However, there are still ten states using a caucus system, which was once the most common way of choosing presidential nominees. A caucus is a system of local gatherings where voters decide which candidate to support and select delegates for nominating conventions. Today Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, North Dakota, Wyoming and Iowa still use this system. The selection taking place in each state is for delegates to each party's nominating convention, both of which this year are held late July. And here comes the rub, parties, Democrats more than Republicans, distinguish between "pledged delegates" and "super delegates."

Pledged delegates are chosen with the understanding that they will support a particular candidate at the convention. Super delegates are delegates seated at the convention who choose who they want to vote for. For Democrats these are party insiders who aren't bound by the popular vote and can support any candidate they choose. They include all Democratic members of the House and Senate and sitting Democratic governors. Democrats count 712 super delegates nation-wide, making up about 30% of the total delegates needed to win the nomination. This obviously reflects a concerted effort by party principals to have a measure of control over the process. In a close election super delegates can snatch a victory away from a candidate with numerically more "voted" delegates. Republicans generally have three unpledged or unbound delegates in each state, consisting of the state chairman and two RNC committee members. They are supposed to vote according to the results  of primary elections in their state.

A Democratic candidate needs to amass 2,383 delegates to secure the nomination. Thru the Nevada caucus Bernie Sanders collected 51 pledged delegates and 19 super delegates. Hillarfy Clinton could count 52 pledged delegates, but her organization has been able to "secure" support of 451 super delegates, bringing her thus far 18% closer to the needed delegate count than Senator Sanders. On the Republican side Donald Trump is well ahead in the delegate count, tallying 100% better than his combined opposition. For him the numbers that matter are not just delegates, but the number of his so-called establishment opponents in the race, which tend to divide "inside" votes among themselves.

Under Republican rules, until March 15 each state's slate of delegates is selected proportionate to each candidate's performance. Their magic number to win the nomination is 1,237. After March 15 states can use a "winner-take-all" process. There are few of those. Only Florida, Ohio and Arizona use this method. However, many of the next states in the Republican contest have rules that require candidates to win a minimum percentage of the vote to claim delegates. That increases the pressure on Donald Trump's opponents. For instance, among the Super Tuesday states on  March 1, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Vermont and Tennessee all impose a 20% vote threshold, while Oklahoma and Arkansas have dropped this minimum to an imposed 15% before a candidate can receive any delegates. All of this could benefit the party's frontrunner who has thus far clocked between 35% and 45% of the vote in states he won. Recent cycles have demonstrated that the Republican candidate leading the delegate count at the point of the calendar where 50% of the delegates have been allocated goes to the nomination. That point will be reached by the middle of March.

All of this may still be as clear as mud. What is clear, is that going forward the tactics used to enhance delegate collection will become more important than the size of the candidate's support in each state. On Saturday February 27 the Democrats will vote in their South Carolina primary with 57 delegates at stake. Tuesday March 1 features "Super Tuesday" a contest involving 13 states (9 primaries and 4 caucuses) where Democrats will compete for 990 delegates, and Republicans will divide 660. At the end of that day Democrats will have "divided" 49% of the number of delegates needed for the nomination, while Republicans will already be at 64%. To the candidates and their followers the mantra should be "keep your eye on the prize," the conventions are only 5 months away.

JUSTICE SCALIA'S DEATH CHANGES EVERYTHING!

On October 5, 2015 journalist Kimberly Atkins published an article in the Boston Herald headlined: Next President will name as many as four Supreme Court justices." While this fact has hung over the 2016 election from the beginning, its consequences have not developed much traction until Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead on February 13 at a resort in West Texas. The political world instantly exploded as activists on opposite sides of the political spectrum began arguing about who should nominate Scalia's replacement, and when that nomination should be submitted.

Justice Antonin Scalia, nominated by President Reagan in 1986, was the champion of "originalims," a theory of constitutional interpretation that seeks to apply the understanding of those who drafted and ratified the Constitution. Scalia was the unquestioned dominant leader of the conservative majority on the court. Given current political realities, and what political leaders believe is at stake, the 5-4 conservative majority could quickly turn around if President Obama manages to replace Scalia with a Justice more to his liking.

The Republican opposition argues that a lame-duck President should not nominate a Supreme Court Justice during an election year. They submit that this should be left to the next President. Every Republican candidate for President subscribes to this position, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that the nomination process should be delayed until the next President is inaugurated. Presidential candidate Ted Cruz, a sitting member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which would need to send the nomination to the floor of the Senate for discussion and an up or down vote, vowed to filibuster any Supreme Court nomination President Obama would submit. Whether the obstructionist strategy will ultimately succeed may depend on what candidate Obama submits, and to what extend Senators facing tough re-election battles judge that supporting this strategy could backfire with independents and moderate  Republicans in their states.

Not surprisingly, Democratic candidates for their party's nomination have called Republican calls to block any nomination by President Obama "outrageous." Hillary Clinton asserts that 'the Senate has a constitutional responsibility that it cannot abdicate for partisan political reasons." She continued: "The longest successful confirmation process in the last four decades was Clarence Thomas and that took roughly 100 days. There are 340 days until the next President trakes office, so that is plenty of time." Her rival, Senator Bernie Sanders, agrees. He believes that GOP threats are beyond his comprehension, and that Democrats need to rally people for leverage. Having said all this, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's presumed successor, New York Senator Chuck Schumer, in a speech before the American Constitution Society mid 2007, opined that the Senate did not only have the right but the duty to block Supreme Court nominees from  a lame-duck President. The only difference between then and now is the party controlling the White House and the Senate.....

Florida Senator Marco Rubio contends that it has been 80 years since a lame-duck President made a Supreme Court nomination. Actually, the last "lame-duck nomination" came from President Reagan when he presented Justice Anthony Kennedy in 1987, who was confirmed unanimously in 1988 - an election year. Prior to that nomination at least 13 justices have been confirmed during election years. All of the others were submitted prior to World War Two, when the politics of the Supreme Court were not as ideologically polarized as they are today. This polarization is at the crux of the current debate. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, among others, has expressed a concern that the court was losing its independence and is being considered a political branch of the government. Several years ago she pointed at  the growing divisiveness of the judicial nomination process as evidence that political leanings were working their way into the system.

This entire discussion begs the question how the ramifications of Justice Scalia's death will impact the election process currently under way. Assuming that President Obama won't be able to muster confirmation of a nominee, the White House, the Senate and the Supreme Court are now up for grabs. Whoever controls the first two could be in a position to change the ideological make-up of the court for a long time to come. Besides, three other justices are in their late seventies and early eighties - all of whom might be replaced during the coming eight years. Electability of each party's nominee, if it was not an issue already with party regulars, now becomes more crucial. On the Republican side Ted Cruz, given his background as Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Texas Law School, and his clerking for Chief Justice William Renquist in 1996, may start getting an edge. After all, Donald Trump is not really looked at knowing much about constitutional law. On the Democratic side Bernie Sanders may become an electoral liability as salient issues begin to shift.

Senator Cruz commented that: "If we get this wrong, if we nominate the wrong candidate, the Second Amendment, life, marriage, religious liberty, everyone of those things hang in the balance." Party operatives like South Carolina Senator  Lindsey Graham tends to agree with the message, not the messenger. He said: "I hope conservatives will understand this is a wake-up call. You better nominate somebody who can get 270 electoral votes - Donald Trump can't, Ted Cruz can't." Both parties are hoping that a dynamic nominee will also help them claim a plurality in the U.S. Senate where this year 34 Senators are up for re-election (24 Republicans and 10 Democrats.)

Needless to say that, although the stakes really have not changed, their intensity, focus and perceived importance certainly have. Justice Scalia's death injected a renewed sense of urgency into the process of electing a new leader of the free world. Watch for the fireworks, This year's election just became more interesting.

POLITICS - IS IT MORE THAN HOLLYWOOD FOR UGLY PEOPLE?

"Have you had enough yet?" During a recent trip across country this question, referring to the ubiquitous coverage of all aspects of a raucous election cycle, came up over and over again. I suppose it is worth recognizing that not everyone is a political junkie, and that many are becoming frustrated trying to weed through the incessant barrage of political analyses projected by the national media. While we understand that in our system of government elections are a necessary by-product, pundits have historically and traditionally commented on candidates, the offices they aspire to, and politics in general with varying degrees of criticism, cynicism, sarcasm, or reduced these to ridicule. In a sense the composition of the current electoral field of candidates underscores that tradition. Many platforms tend to express criticism of rather than support for how our government works. Our politicians, what they do and why, are not always revered, especially during an election. To be fair, the competitive nature of the process feeds into the degenerfation of the dialogue.

Otto Von Bismarck, arguably the premier European politician of his time, in an 1867 interview when he was still Prime Minister of Prussia before becoming Germany's first Chancellor, said "Politics is not an exact science. Politics is the art of the possible." Bismarck, who dominated European affairs from 1860 to 1890, knew what he was talking about. Dubbed the Iron Chancellor, he engineered a series of wars that unified German states into a powerful empire. Of course, Bismarck was not the first nor the last personality coining a memorable sound-bite that resonated historically. Some more or less profound observations and comments about politics and its practitioners have entered the literature. Some of these have been indicative of a prevalent mindset during the period they were uttered, and some still appear applicable today. Here is a sampling of these:

Well before anyone in this country thought about these things, we heard from  Plato, who said: "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." Much later, during the Italian Renaissance, Niccolo Machiavelli observed that "Politics have no relation to morals," something some of our current contestants apparently subscribe to as well. Our early history recorded pronouncements like: Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct," and "most bad government has grown out of too much government." Both of these attribuited to Thomas Jefferson. And who does not remember Abraham Lincoln' statement that "the ballot is stronger than the bullet."

Mark Twain's sharp tongue and quick wit featured prominently during the second half of the 19th Century. Most of his political commentary was very critical of politics and politicians. Some samples: Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself," or: "Politicians like diapers need to be changed frequently, and for the very same reason." Not to be outdone, humorist Will Rogers transitioned into the 20th Century with statements like: "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." "Pol;itics has become so expensive that it takes a lot of money even to be defeated." "Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock."  And: "Everything is changing. People are taking their commedians seriously and the politicians as a joke."

Early 20th Century political and social commentary appeared to have had a more serious or outright dour content - although some of this might just be a reflection of my choices. Taking a cue from Machiavelli, Adolph Hitler pronounced: "What good fortune for those in power that people don't think," and: "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death." We all know what those observations led to. The journalist, satirist and cultural critic H.L. Mencken appears to have hooked into some of Hitler's expressions when he said: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

A wealth of memorable quotes completed the century. There was Charles De Gaulle: "Politics is too serious a matter to be left to politicians." Winston Churchill: "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."  Milton Friedman: "If you put the Federal Government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." Ronald Reagan: "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." He also said: " I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself." Paul Begala: "Politics is Hollywood for ugly people." And finally a quote reminiscent of the personal attacks during this year's election: " In a recent fire Bob Dole's library burned down. Both books were lost, and he hadn't even finished coloring one of them." (Attributed to Jack Kemp.)

Food for thought? Let's be thankful that we live in a country where we can actually say these things with impunity.