The Electoral College is failing on its own terms

I think about Federalist Paper No. 68 sometimes:

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,'' yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.

Read the whole thing, of course, but the Electoral College was intended to prevent corrupt figures from capturing the imagination of the masses and riding that adoration to the presidency. It failed to do so in 2016. Now Donald Trump is trying to game the system -- despite the clear preference of the masses --  to stay in office. The Electoral College is failing on its own terms. Demolish it.

One thing I have to remind myself of these days...

 ....is that I can be a serious person while also taking moments for frivolous things that bring me some small bit of joy in this miserable world.

So, yes, I just spent a few minutes perusing the Star Trek reddit.

Prosecuting Trump

At the beginning of the week, I was prepared to argue that investigating and prosecuting Trump -- at the federal level, at least -- would be more trouble than it's worth. I don't want the Biden Administration to *also* be all about Donald Trump. Four years is enough, right?

Now I think he's a tumor that must be excised. It will probably cause a lot of pain, but there has to be a price for his wholesale assault on the integrity of the election, on top of his thoroughgoing corruption.

My post-Trump future

I would really like to settle down for a few minutes to think about how to be an effective and quality opinion writer when Trump leaves office. The benefit of Trump's presidency was a certain, righteous clarity -- he is such a bad president, that often writing was a matter of waiting for him to do something bad, then criticize it. That's overly reductive, but not as much as I would like it to be. And I'm ok with that. Trump really is a bad president. Serving truth, in my mind, means constantly pointing how how he steers America wrong.

The problem with my whole "pivot to a post-Trump future" plan, though, is that Trump won't pivot. There's still too much happening. We should be looking forward to Joe Biden's presidency. Right now, though, the current president is still keeping all of us on our tippy toes.

One of the things I worry about...

 ...is that our healthcare system might be broken if and when we get to the other side of this.

More than 900 staff members across the Midwest Mayo Clinic system have been diagnosed with Covid-19 over the last 14 days, a spokesperson told CNN "Our staff are being infected mostly due to community spread (93% of staff infections), and this impacts our ability to care for patients," Kelley Luckstein wrote to CNN in a Wednesday email.

Republicans are Democrats now

Jamelle Bouie explains why President Trump did better than expected:

At the end of March, President Trump signed the Cares Act, which distributed more than half a trillion dollars in direct aid to more than 150 million Americans, from stimulus checks ($1,200 per adult and $500 per child for households below a certain income threshold) to $600 per week in additional unemployment benefits. ... But voters, and especially the low-propensity voters who flooded the electorate in support of Trump, aren’t attuned to the ins and outs of congressional debate. They did not know — and Democrats didn’t do a good enough job of telling them — that the president and his party opposed more generous benefits. All they knew is that Trump signed the bill (and the checks), giving them the kind of government assistance usually reserved for the nation’s ownership class.

I think there's something to this, but I'm also kind of amused. The conservative critique of social spending has often been that amounts to Democrats buying political power -- votes -- by bribing voters with government goodies. Remember Romney's "47 percent"? Remember "Obamaphones?" Republicans have even argued against universal health coverage because it would "revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests."

Trump tossed that line of thinking away, and honestly, maybe that's valuable in the long-term. Except: Republicans will rediscover their fiscal rectitude when Biden takes power, of course.

God help us