The longest partial “government shutdown” in US history ended on January 25. To get Leviathan’s gears turning at full speed again, President Donald Trump said uncle on funding for his pet border wall project in return for a three-week “return to normalcy.”

More interesting than the (quite possibly temporary) end of the “shutdown” is the direction things were taking right before the wall funding came tumbling down.

Transportation Security Administration employees called in sick en masse, creating long delays at major airports. IRS employees called back (without pay) to process tax returns followed suit.

At the other end of the spectrum, self-organizing volunteers, as well as employees/contractors sent by tourism-reliant businesses, turned out to clean toilets and so forth at national parks. The parks were “closed,” but visitors showed up anyway and enjoyed their time with nature.

A few days before the temporary truce, Association of Flight Attendants president Sara Nelson asked AFL-CIO leaders to call a general strike: A walkout by workers (especially union workers) across all industries, all over the country, in support of getting federal employees back on the job and back on regular paychecks.

Had the matter dragged on for a few more weeks, or even a few more days, Nelson’s call might have fallen on more supportive ears. And if the curtain goes up on “Shutdown Theater Part II: This Time It’s Personal” at the end of the three-week timeout, there’s a distinct possibility of something resembling just such a general strike.

But I’ve got a better idea. Instead of taking off work in support of furloughed federal employees, why not seize the jobs those employees are doing and free the employees, and the customers, from the competing manipulations of Donald Trump, Charles Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi?

The air transport sector is the most obvious place to start.

Airline and airport operators should get together during this three-week ceasefire and put together a plan to provide airport security, airplane safety inspection, and air traffic control whether the government is on the job or not.

Such a plan would work like this: The instant the federal government “shut down,” airport/airline representatives would inform Washington that flights will continue, and that they will continue on time and without undue passenger delays for security screening, period.

If TSA shuts down security screening points for lack of personnel, the airports will either re-open those lines with their own screeners (perhaps hired from the ranks of unpaid TSA employees), or simply wave passengers through.

If the FAA inspectors aren’t available to inspect planes, the airlines will use their own mechanics.

If federally employed air traffic controllers aren’t willing to work without pay, the airlines will hire and pay them.

But either way the flights happen, unless armed troops are sent in to stop them. And if  the airlines/airports take over those jobs, no backsies. Once they go private, they stay private. Washington, you’re FIRED.

Time for a gut check to see if politicians really want to keep playing the “shutdown” game.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “My proposal for the next government ‘shutdown,'” Richmond, North Carolina Observer, 01/29/19
• “The Fired Next Time: A ‘Shutdown’ Proposal,” by Thomas L. Knapp, River Cities’ Reader (Iowa), 01/29/19
• “A ‘shutdown’ proposal: Washington, you’re fired,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Hendricks County, Indiana Flyer, 01/30/19
• “The Fired Next Time: A ‘Shutdown’ Proposal,” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 01/31/19
• “Proposal for a ‘shutdown,’” by Thomas L. Knapp, Kemmerer, Wyoming Gazette, 01/31/19
• “The Fired Next Time: A ‘Shutdown’ Proposal,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 02/01/19
• “Use the next shutdown to privatize federal functions,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Greenville, North Carolina Reflector, 02/01/19
• “My proposal for the next government ‘shutdown,'” by Thomas L. Knapp, Sanford, North Carolina Herald (paywall), 02/01/19
• “The fired next time: A ‘shutdown’ proposal,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Florence, South Carolina News Journal [web and print editions], 02/05/19

On January 23, the President of Venezuela’s National Assembly, Juan Guaido, was sworn in as “interim president.” In what was presumably a pre-coordinated move, Guaido’s administration was quickly recognized by the governments of the United States, Canada, and several countries in Latin America.

Guaido’s claim rests on a provision in Venezuela’s constitution which allows him to assume the office should it become vacant. The Assembly says that it is.  Nicolas Maduro, elected to a second term as president in 2018, begs to differ. A number of countries, including Russia and China, continue to recognize his government.

All of which seems either remarkably simple or incredibly complicated, depending on who you ask and which side they’re on.  From an American who’s on neither side, like me, it comes down to two simple facts:

First, Venezuela’s government does not and never has represented any kind of military threat to the United States. It has never invaded the United States. It has never attacked the United States. It has never threatened to do either, nor does it seem to be well-equipped to do so if it desired to.

Secondly, Venezuela is not and never has been either a state or territory of the United States. It achieved independence from Spain in 1821 as part of the Republic of Gran Colombia, and became a completely independent nation in 1830.

Taken together, these two facts lead inexorably to one conclusion:

How Venezuelans choose to conduct their political affairs never has been and is not now the business of the US government. One need support neither Maduro nor Guaido to reach this conclusion. It’s simply not up to Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Marco Rubio, or any other American politician to run Venezuela.

Unfortunately, US administrations since the 1950s  seem to have lost or mis-filed the above memo. Usually in the name of anti-communism, though in reality mostly for the benefit of American oil companies, the US has continuously intervened to ensure “friendly” regimes in Caracas.

That began to backfire in 1998 with the election of Maduro’s predecessor and mentor, Hugo Chavez. Chavez cultivated closer relations with communist (Cuba and China) and former communist (Russia) countries, while implementing socialist economic programs.

Two decades later, Venezuela is an economic and humanitarian wreck. American politicians blame Chavez/Maduro and socialism for the country’s decline. Maduro and his supporters blame US sanctions and secret support for the opposition.

Both sides are right, but on only one of those claims is the US rightfully positioned to act. It should lift all economic sanctions on Venezuela, withdraw diplomatic recognition of any claimant, close its embassy, and leave a note on the door: “Work this out yourselves; when you have, let us know if you’d like to resume relations.”

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “Venezuela: None of Our Business,” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 01/28/19
• “Venezuela: None of our business,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Hendricks County, Indiana Flyer, 01/28/19
• “Venezuela: None of Our Business,” by Thomas L. Knapp,  OpEdNews, 01/28/19
• “Venezuela: None of Our Business,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Antiwar.com, 01/28/19
• “Venezuela: None of Our Business,” by Thomas L. Knapp, River Cities’ Reader [Iowa], 01/28/19
• “Venezuela: None of Our Business,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Uintah Basin, Utah Vernal Express [paywall print edition],  01/29/19
• “Venezuela: None of Our Business,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 01/29/19
• “Venezuelans’ domestic political affairs are none of our business,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Claremont, New Hampshire Eagle Times, 01/30/19
• “Venezuela: None of our business,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Montgomery, West Virginia Herald, 01/30/19
• “Venezuela: None of our business,” by Thomas L. Knapp,  Fayette, West Virginia Tribune, 02/01/19
• “Venezuela: None of Our Business,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Uintah Basin, Utah Nickel Ads [print edition], 02/05/19

Well, Trump blinked. In his standoff with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) over the 2019 State of the Union address, the president finally conceded that he doesn’t get to deliver the speech before a joint session of Congress unless he’s invited to do so — technically by the House and Senate, but as a practical matter by Pelosi herself. She’s going to wait until the ongoing “government shutdown” ends to invite him. He’s going to impatiently await that day.

It’s not very often that I agree with any politician, let alone Pelosi. When I do, it’s usually on “even a stopped clock is right twice a day” grounds. This matter included. I don’t really care WHY she withdrew the invitation. I just hope it stays withdrawn. Forever.

The Constitution requires the president to “from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”

It does not require the president to do so in the form of a live speech. While the first two presidents (George Washington and John Adams) gave State of the Union speeches, the third (Thomas Jefferson) just sent a written report — as did every subsequent president for more than a century, until Woodrow Wilson revived the speech ritual.

Radio, then television, transformed the State of the Union address from mere constitutional busy work into something else entirely: A free campaign commercial for the sitting president and a shorter one for the opposition party.

The sitting president gets as long as he cares to take — Bill Clinton is the record-holder at 89 minutes — to harangue his cabinet, the Supreme Court, and both houses of Congress, in front of the American people, on all the major broadcast TV networks and cable news channels). The opposition party gets to respond in kind, usually at much shorter length, with a likely future presidential contender sometimes chosen as that party’s face.

Now, I am not a fan of campaign finance law. In my opinion, anyone who wants to donate his or her money to a political candidate should be allowed to do so in any amount.

But that body of law does exist, and the value of, say, two hours of prime time television on all the biggest channels (not counting the “newsy” countdown stories and post-speech “analysis”) far exceeds maximum legal campaign contribution limits. If all of the declared candidates for the next presidential election were given “equal time,” that might make it legal. But it would also be boooorrrrring.

It’s 2019. The president of the United States doesn’t have to schlep down to Capitol Hill to deliver a speech. He can fulfill his constitutional duty with a written report. Or, heck, with a constantly updated web site that automagically updates statistics revealing the “state of the union.” If he wants to speechify, he can embed a YouTube video or set up a Google Hangout.

End the “State of the Union” dog and pony show. Permanently.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “A Campaign Finance Proposal: Let’s Do Away with SOTU,” by Thomas L. Knapp, River Cities’ Herald (Iowa),  01/24/19
• “Get rid of the State of the Union address. Be like Jefferson — he sent Congress a written report.” by Thomas L. Knapp, Miami, Florida Herald [web and print], 01/24/19
• “Let’s do away with the SOTU,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Hendricks County, Indiana Flyer, 01/25/19
• “A Campaign Finance Proposal: Let’s Do Away with SOTU,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 01/25/19
• “A campaign finance proposal: Let’s do away with SOTU,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Montgomery, West Virginia Herald, 01/25/19
• “It’s Time to Abolish the State of the Union Address,” by Jared Keller, Pacific Standard magazine, 02/05/19
• “A Campaign Finance Proposal: Let’s Do Away with SOTU,” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 01/28/19
• “Let’s do away with SOTU,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Shreveport, Louisiana Inquisitor (paywalled cache link), 02/01/19
• “A Campaign Finance Proposal: Let’s Do Away with SOTU,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 02/01/19