By Count Friedrich von Olsen

I suspect, but don’t actually know, that there is a term for this attitude I demonstrate on a consistent basis, one aspect of which is to move to a preset conclusion with regard to certain things, individuals or issues no matter what the particular circumstances, developments or events of the moment happen to be. If there is a term psychologists or psychiatrists use for this personality trait, I do not know what it is. An overarching question is this: Does this attitude reflect close-mindedness on my part or is this actually a tribute to my underlying sagacity that enables me remain in synchronization with a fundamental and immutable truth?
A very good illustration of what I am referring to here is my estimation of the governor of our Golden State, Jerry Brown. I don’t think it is fair to say I hate the fellow. It might not even be accurate to say I don’t like him. But it is more than fair to say that I distrust him. It is fairer still to say I distrust him immensely. I distrust him for all of the really shady things he has done and continues to do, which generally although not universally include action with which I have some level of philosophical or political difference. Nevertheless, as is probably inevitable, he actually does from time to time something or some things with which I am philosophically or politically in tune. The thing is, even when he does such things, I distrust him…
Case in point: The California Legislature recently passed Senate Bill 149, which would have required that any candidate for president on the ballot in California – and this would have applied at the primary election and general election level – publicly disclose his or her personal income tax returns. I think I understand the rationale for this effort toward transparency. One argument would be that it would reveal to some degree the range of a particular candidate’s financial interests, some of which might be in conflict with the interests of some voters. Another argument is it would show to some degree the candidate’s sophistication and intelligence in being able to chart his way through what is a pretty challenging tax code. Another argument is that it would expose those candidates who put on false airs and pretend they are wealthy – and therefore competent – when they really are neither. One argument against it is that tax returns are by law confidential and that requiring their public disclosure is a violation of that law and the candidate’s right to privacy…
Still, let us not kid ourselves: Everyone knows that this bill was actually written, sponsored and passed by Democrats and an overwhelmingly Democratic California Assembly and California Senate, the members of which are politically way out of step with our current president, Donald Trump. Donald Trump, who happens to be a Republican, has refused to disclose his tax returns in the face of call after call for him to do so. The legislature, with Senate Bill 149, was clearly taking a swipe at our president. After it was presented to Governor Brown, he on Sunday vetoed it…
In making that veto, he gave a reasonable, indeed quite articulate and might I even say sensible justification for it. “Today we require tax returns, but what would be next?” our governor asked. “Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?” Moreover, he questioned whether the disclosure requirement would pass Constitutional muster…
As a dyed-in-the-wool Republican and Donald Trump supporter, I believe that this was merely an effort by California State Senators Mike McGuire and Scott Wiener, Democrats both and the coauthors of this legislation, to embarrass and maybe even exasperate our president. So, I am not displeased that Governor Brown vetoed Senate Bill 149…
At the same time, however, something tells me that this veto was applied in this case not because Governor Brown is a defender of the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution, an advocate for fair play for Democrats and Republicans alike, and an exponent of privacy rights. Rather, I believe he vetoed Senate Bill 149 because he is looking ahead, toward his own run for president in 2020. He would rather not, I suspect, be forced into disclosing all the different places he has been making money, the wheeling and dealing he has been involved in, and just how being governor and having appointment power over who is to man several of California’s regulatory agencies, committees and commissions has redounded to his own personal benefit…