“It don’t mean a thing,” Duke Ellington and Irving Mills informed us in 1931, “if it ain’t got that swing.”

Does Ohio still have that swing?

Over the last few years some, including University of Cincinnati political science professor David Niven, have cast doubt on the state’s long-held “swing state” or “belwether” status in national elections — but presidential polling, combined with the results of the November 7 election, show that the Buckeye State could be as relevant as ever when it comes to discerning national political trends.

Recent New York Times and Siena College polls show former president Donald Trump leading incumbent Joe Biden in five of six non-Ohio “swing” states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Pennslyvania — all of which Trump carried in 2016 but lost in 2020 — with Biden ahead only in Wisconsin. But those same polls also predict a large shift in Biden’s direction if Trump is convicted in some or all of his currently pending criminal cases.

Meanwhile, the most recent Ohio poll noted at RealClearPolitics, from early October, has Trump up on Biden by 12 points. Not a lot of “swing” vibe there.

On the other hand, on November 7, Ohio’s voters defied the Republican Party’s positions on major issues, enshrining  abortion rights in the state’s constitution and legalizing recreational use of marijuana.

It’s not just Ohio moving in those directions. As the Libertarian Policy Institute’s Nicholas Sarwark notes, “[e]lection results across the country show a clear demand for broadly libertarian policies and candidates.”

Neither of the likely “major party” presidential nominees seem especially well-suited to exploit what looks like a potential “libertarian moment” (as Reason magazine’s Nick Gillespie might put it). Nor does the Republican field of also-rans.

On the Democratic side, however, there may be room for movement … if Joe Biden retires from the race and endorses a better candidate.

Three names come to mind: Jared Polis of Colorado, Laura Kelly of Kansas, and Andy Beshear of Kentucky. All three are Democratic governors who’ve proven they can beat Republicans in red (Kansas and Kentucky) or “purple” (Colorado) states, both for election to office and on the “individal freedom” side of policy issues like abortion and marijuana.

I’m not personally endorsing, nor do I expect to vote for, any of them (or for Biden or Trump). But if  the Democrats want to win America’s swing states, those are the hard choices involved in getting competitive. And the clock is ticking.

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

While questions on the role of religion in American politics never go completely away, there’s an ebb and flow to the public conversation. The election of US Mike Johnson (R-LA) as Speaker of the House of US Representatives looks like a “high tide” moment.

Johnson’s an unabashed Christian nationalist who’s pro-life, anti-LGBTQ, pro-Israel on “biblical prophecy” grounds, and opposes the “so-called” constitutional/Jeffersonian principle of separation of church and state: “The founders wanted to protect the church from an encroaching state,” he says, “not the other way around.”

Not unexpectedly, he’s experiencing pushback from various corners, including more than 12,000 Christians who’ve signed a petition denouncing him as a “false prophet” who “doesn’t speak for” them.

I’m a fan of keeping the state separate from pretty much everything, especially religion. There’s pretty strong historical grounding for believing that’s what the people who created the system we live in intended. In addition to Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he posited a “wall of separation,” the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli is clear: “[T]the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

On the other hand, if we’re going to allow the federal government to exist at all, I’m with those guys, who also ordered that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

I’m not concerned with Johnson’s beliefs. In fact, since he’s a politician, I consider it foolish to assume that they bear any resemblance to his claims. For all I know he’s a closet Muslim, a secret atheist, or, most likely, a narcissist who sees God in the mirror when he shaves each morning.

His actions, however, are a different story.

When Johnson came to Congress, he swore an oath (in defiance of biblical command, by the way — Matthew 5:33-37) to “support and defend the Constitution.”

That oath obligates him to certain things even if the Constitution contradicts his interpretation of scripture.

If it’s impossible to be true to both, he needs to pick one.

If he can’t bring himself to do the job as he swore to do it, he should resign rather than betray his oath, and certainly rather than seek and accept the position of Speaker.

Unfortunately, he seems to have missed 1st Corinthians 10:21: “Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils.”

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

On November 3, Special Counsel Jack Smith filed  the “United States’ Opposition to Applications to Broadcast the Criminal Trial of United States v. Trump” with the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

A “coalition of media organizations” has petitioned the court to allow recording and broadcasting of former president Donald Trump’s federal trial on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstructing an official proceeding (and conspiring to do so), and conspiracy against rights.

Granting that request seems like a no-brainer. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to a “public” trial, and it’s clearly in the public’s interest to be able to follow judicial proceedings in real time.

Unfortunately, federal courts respect neither that right nor that interest. “The relief the Applicants seek,” Smith argues, “is clearly foreclosed under rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Local Criminal Rule 53.1.1.”

The latter being a more detailed version of the former, I’ll quote from it:

“The taking of photographs and operation of tape recorders inside the United States Courthouse and radio and television broadcasting from inside the courthouse during progress of or in connection with judicial proceedings, including proceedings before a United States Magistrate Judge, whether or not court is actually in session, are prohibited.”

In theory, you or I could personally attend Trump’s trial.

In reality, unless we’re members of a select club or can camp outside the courthouse for days in advance, our chances of getting in approach zero. The courtroom will be packed, and those who can’t get in will be limited to hearing about the proceedings from those who CAN get in.

In an age of inexpensive and unintrusive audio and video broadcasting, that’s the exact opposite of “public.” There’s no good excuse for limiting the public to hearing at second hand about a public proceeding that we could, if allowed to, easily watch in real time or in recorded format.

A footnote to Smith’s filing claims that “Counsel for former President Trump has requested that government counsel convey that he takes no position with respect to these Applications.”

He SHOULD take a position — the position that the Sixth Amendment trumps (pun intended) the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. And he should direct his lawyers to actively pursue broadcast of his trial by supporting the petition and joining any appeal of its denial, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

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