On April 14, the Republican National Committee announced its withdrawal from the Commission on Presidential Debates, which has monopolized “major party” debates since 1988. The RNC, claiming bias on the CPD’s part in selecting moderators, pledged to “find newer, better debate platforms.”

While the RNC’s reasons are self-serving, this may be the most encouraging development in presidential election politics in decades. The American public hasn’t seen anything like a genuine, all-party presidential debate since 1996.

Why? Ross Perot. After the late Texan’s two well-financed independent (1992) and third party (1996) presidential outings, CPD  established a requirement excluding any candidate who doesn’t demonstrate at least 15% across  five CPD-selected polls.

Did I mention that CPD was established by the Republican and Democratic Parties, and is operated by a “bi-partisan”  — that is, Democratic and Republican — board?

CPD doesn’t sponsor debates designed to inform the American public. Instead, it puts on a quadrennial series of expensive — illegally expensive, if treated as in-kind campaign contributions — infomercials for two, and only two, presidential  candidates:  The two the “bi-partisan” organization supports.

Libertarian, Green, and other third party and independent candidates need not apply. Not even candidates who’ve made it over onerous ballot access hurdles (also created by the Big Two) and could conceivably rack up 270 electoral votes to win the election.

It’s a safe bet that if a third party or independent candidate hits the 15% mark in several polls, those won’t be the polls the CPD uses.

And it’s an even safer bet that if a third party or independent candidate hits 15% in too many polls to be ignored, CPD will raise the threshold to 20%.

Additionally, the major party candidates  quietly negotiate “memoranda of understanding” with each other to ensure the public doesn’t see third party or independent candidates on stage next to the Big Two outside of CPD events. The 2004 memorandum, for example, committed Republican George W. Bush and Democrat John Kerry to “not appear at any other debate or adversarial forum with any other presidential or vice presidential candidate.”

None of  this election-rigging skulduggery  explains the RNC’s withdrawal from CPD, of course. Republicans, like Democrats, are fine with subjecting candidates who might cost their own candidates votes to effective media blackouts. The RNC’s move is just a tantrum over perceived “unfairness” to Republican nominees in the form of any questions more controversial than “boxers or briefs?” during the infomercials … er, “debates.”

But that tantrum creates an opportunity for US “mainstream media,” working with political organizations other than CPD, to open up the American electoral process to real competition.

Will our media and civic institutions take up the challenge of busting the CPD monopoly and putting on real presidential debates featuring all viable candidates?  If so, they’ll deserve our thanks.

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 HISTORY

“Economic fallout worsened Thursday,” the Washington Post reports,  “even as Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) moved incrementally to roll back new inspection rules for commercial trucks entering from Mexico, with some companies saying they aren’t able to fulfill orders because trucks are stuck in multi-mile backups at a number of entry points.”

For more than a year, Abbott’s been burnishing his reputation as America’s top immigration authoritarian. In March of 2021, he launched “Operation Lone Star,” mobilizing his state’s National Guard for various border-related theatrics, and hosting units from states whose Republican governors want their reputational tickets similarly punched (and are willing to treat taxpayer money and the troops’ time as campaign contributions for the purpose).

For nearly a year, Abbott’s petty stunts — such as abducting immigrants in Texas and busing them to Washington, DC (“thanks for the ride, Greg!”) — mostly inconvenienced undocumented immigrants, National Guard troops, and Texas taxpayers. The rest of us, not so much.

But in early April, he ordered Texas state troopers to “inspect” (read: delay) commercial vehicles entering the state from Mexico, after those vehicles had already undergone federal inspections.

Abbott’s escalation creates a whole new supply chain problem with one of America’s  largest trading partners (Mexico runs neck and neck with Canada and China for the top spot).  You may not be seeing his antics in your grocery bill or price paid for car parts yet, but if he keeps it up you will soon.

That’s OK, though, he says: He’s “negotiating agreements” with the governors of Mexican states, pushing them to do more of the immigrant hassling in return for him easing off on the “inspections.”

The US Constitution (Article I, Section 10) says that “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power.”

The clause isn’t invoked very often. Governors frequently visit foreign countries to drum up preferential trade deals. But Abbott’s  clearly operating beyond his authority as governor of Texas here.

Another clause, in Article I, Section 8, gets trotted out every other day when the federal government wants to intervene in even the most minor state or local matter:

“Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

In 2005, the US Supreme Court ruled (in Gonzales v. Raich) that this  clause even justified US government interference with medical marijuana grown in, sold in, and used in a single state without ever crossing a border.

The clause certainly applies to goods crossing into Texas on their way from Mexico to markets in Texas or elsewhere.

Texans like to style themselves as exceedingly independent, and sometimes there’s even talk of actual secession. Abbott’s playing to that tendency. But he’s pretending to powers he doesn’t possess — yet, anyway — and he’s doing so at your expense.

Time for the feds to hold Greg Abbott after class and make him write “I will not restrain international trade” on the blackboard a few hundred times.

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 HISTORY

As I write this, BBC reports that UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss is “urgently” investigating reports of a chemical weapons attack in the Ukrainian city of Mariupol. The US Department of Defense finds the reports “deeply concerning.”

Usually when the western governments start quacking about “chemical attacks,” it means they’re planning to take action of some kind — airstrikes in Syria, sanctions on Russia, what have you — and are looking for an excuse.

This doesn’t look like an exception to that rule: Further down in the story, Ukrainian Deputy Defence Minister Hanna Maliar identifies the likely weapon as “phosphorous ammunition.”

That would most likely be white phosphorous, an element not classed as a chemical weapon under the Chemical Weapons Convention. It’s used as a component in smoke, illumination, incendiary, and tracer rounds for everything from small arms to large artillery, as well as in grenades, by most major militaries on Earth.

In theory, it’s illegal to use white phosphorous to attack “personnel,” but acceptable to use it on “equipment.”

That’s a pretty big loophole. As an 81mm mortarman in the US Marine Corps, I often trained on what we called “shake and bake” missions, involving a mix of white phosphorous and high explosive rounds. The justification? We would be firing at the enemy’s “equipment.” That would include their uniforms, canteens, etc. If they chose to stay with that “equipment,” well, that was their problem.

If the weapon in question is indeed white phosphorous, calling the incident a “chemical” attack is neither legally accurate nor novel. It’s nasty stuff — it burns incredibly hot and water won’t put it out — but it’s been in wide use since World War One. Including, probably, by both sides in the Ukrainian conflict.

In truth, chemical weapons aren’t especially useful on the modern battlefield. Soldiers of all nations carry, and are trained to use, protective gear. Such weapons have some utility in short-term “territory denial” — making the enemy not want to enter a given space for fear of exposure. They’re not a game-changer, though. And, with one exception, most regimes won’t use them precisely because the effects aren’t worth the negative reactions.

That exception is CS, commonly known as “tear gas.”

Unlike white phosphorous, “tear gas” IS banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can’t legally be used on the battlefields of international conflicts.

But most regimes, including the US government, freely use it on “their own people” (another phrase often used in pre-escalation propaganda) to break up protests, flush out suspects in standoffs with police, etc.

CS, which is highly flammable, was the agent used in the US government’s fiery 1993 massacre of 76 Branch Davidians, including 25 children, near Waco, Texas.

The US also retains stockpiles of deadlier agents, which it agreed by treaty in 1997 to destroy by 2007. What’s the holdup?

Given the American government’s own retention of several actual chemical weapons and frequent, even casual, use of another,  calling a supposed white phosphorous attack in a war zone “deeply concerning” comes off as, at best, insincere and opportunistic.

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 HISTORY