IssuesConnect

Pop-up Window

Dems Must Fight Against the Republican Fantasy Factory

11/16/2020

TIME Inc. Image of "The Republican Club" courtesy of Andy Thomas Source: https://pressfrom.info/us/news/us/-200073-that-painting-of-trump-having-a-diet-coke-with-abraham-lincoln-is-now-hanging-in-the-white-house.html

Following the Democrats disappointing showing in the 2020 Congressional elections, losing 10 to 15 House seats and failing to take the Senate majority as predicted, a war between the Progressive and moderate wing has erupted. Representative Abigail Spanberger accused Progressives of “defunding the police” and “democratic socialism” for the Democratic losses and her near loss. House Whip Jim Clyburn echoed this accusation explaining the loss of his protégé, Jaime Harrison, in a Senate race against Trump sycophant, Senator Lindsey Graham.

While losses can be expected to generate intra-party disputes, this internal struggle highlights a more fundamental weakness in the Democratic Party. Except for Joe Biden, a well-known commodity for almost 50 years, Democrats who shunned “defunding the police” and “democratic socialism” still could not effectively push back against these Republican attacks. As Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accurately pointed out, not a single Democratic member of the House campaigned for defunding the police or democratic socialism. Yet, repetitive Republican messaging of Democratic socialism and police disbandment undermined Democrats.

Countering Republican lies and negative messaging will require that Democrats overcome a major barrier: a fantasy world dictated by resentment, fear, and tribalism rather than reality. Republican voters selectively attend to “their” media, like Fox, Salem Media, and Sinclair Broadcasting, while disbelieving voices on “other” media they label as Democratic. The idea that merely presenting evidence and the truth will persuade Republican leaning voters has long since passed. Now the source of information is as important as the “facts” that are offered.

Democrats Must First Win Elections and Then Improve the Lives of People

10/26/2020

People wait on long lines to vote Oct. 2020. Frank Becerra Jr./The Journal News

If Democrats have a blowout victory and take the Presidency, House, and the Senate, they should defer their inclination to improve people's lives as hard as that may be. Instead, Democrats should immediately take steps to try and ensure future electoral success. Despite our almost total concentration on Trump, we must remember he is just one link in a chain that has spanned at least 40 years. Democrats must make structural adjustments to break that chain and make sure that the changes Democrats make will not be stripped away by electoral fortunes or a hostile Supreme Court. Those changes must be made immediately because Democrats cannot be assured of controlling Congress for more than two years. And two years to make legislative changes is a short period.

Barak Obama, understandably, focused on improving the lives of people and not on structural adjustments. Obama, for example, faced a financial disaster (the worst recession in 50 years) that he had to address. He championed the banking industry's bailout that contributed to the economic recovery, although he could not completely repair the home mortgage market. Obama devoted himself to passing healthcare legislation, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but could not wholly implement the ACA because of electoral changes. Rulings by Supreme Court further undermined the ACA's implementation and now threaten its very existence.

Improving Lives and Ensuring Future Electoral Success

Of course, some initiatives to improve people's lives will overlap with ensuring future electoral success. One initiative Democrats must address is providing COVID-19 relief to avoid a looming health and economic crisis. The twenty-nine million households that need some form of aid is expected to multiply in the coming weeks. This growth will be fueled, in part, by the increase in unemployed state and city employees as local government budgets are depleted.

As a part of that effort, Democrats must also begin to repair the damage that may be done by the Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of the ACA. The addition to the Court of ultra-conservative Amy Coney Barrett likely ensures the overthrow of some parts of the ACA. To allow some parts of the ACA to be terminated in the middle of a pandemic would make COVID-19 relief efforts even more difficult. But for now, reversing the Court's decision on the ACA should be the extent of the Democrats' effort to reform the ACA. Making other needed reforms to the ACA should be delayed until the Democrats have made the changes necessary to ensure future electoral success. While providing COVID-19 and health care relief will not directly lead to future electoral success, it is essential to differentiate Democrats from Republicans for voters.

Protesters at Supreme Court Harvard Law Review Blog

Balancing the Scales of Justice

10/12/2020

Some readers of my post on "Leveling a Tilted Court" (see below) asked if my call for increasing the number of justices on the court amounted to an endorsement of "court-packing." Opponents of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 derisively called the critical purpose of that bill "court-packing." The bill allowed Roosevelt to appoint a new justice for each justice over 70 and a half years old. Although the bill was couched as a measure to improve the court's functioning with younger justices Roosevelt's proposal was not about age.

Opponents did not object because it would have increased the number of younger justices. Rather, they objected because his proposal would have permitted him to appoint justices more favorable to his economic proposals. And as planned by Roosevelt, court-packing means adding justices to the court for the express purpose of receiving favorable decisions.

These considerations show that the negative view of adding more justices to the court is that it promises to make court decisions less fair, that is, likely to favor one side consistently. As I have outlined below, adding more justices to the court would make the court decisions more honest and less predictable. One way of ensuring that the public appreciates the court's growing fairness is to add even more justices from the list of "approved justices" Trump received from the Federalist Society. Additional justices, not recommended by the Federalist Society, could be added for balance. And if increasing the number of justices needed to balance the court results in a Supreme Court of 23 or more, so be it.

Leveling a Tilted Court
September 28, 2020

cales of Justin published February 14, 2018 by Steve Nease politicalcartoons.com

Republicans have biased the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. That is, Republicans used their control of the Senate to subvert accepted practices for confirming judges. Contrary to accepted practices, Republicans confirm judicial candidates who say that they will judge cases according to conservative orthodoxy, regardless of the fallout for society. Previously, the Supreme Court tended to weigh the outcomes of their decisions for society, along with legal principles. Amy Coney Barrett, the latest Republican nominee to the Court, has expressed a willingness to disregard stare decisis. Stare decisis is the legal principle that allowing a flawed decision to stand may be better for the country than upsetting the legal system with continually changing rulings.

During the Obama, Administration Republicans failed to confirm 69 of his picks because the candidates did not affirm conservative legal principles. Republicans have confirmed 194 of Trump’s judicial appointments, including three found unqualified by the American Bar Association. Most importantly, Republicans refused to consider Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. Their justification for ignoring their duty to consider a Supreme Court nomination occurred within a year of a Presidential election. They claimed consideration of the Garland nomination was too close to a Presidential election. Donald Trump’s confirmation of two Supreme Court justices, and likely confirmation of a third, will tilt the Court to the far right for at least a generation.

The 2020 Election: White Supremacist Rule vs Democracy

10/10/2020

Photograph by Erin Scott / Reuters

Joe Biden is running against Donald Trump and, more importantly, he is running against Trump's vision of a white supremacist U.S. Biden is leading in the polls. However, Democrats still agonize about the prospect of either a Trump resurgence or Republican corruption of elections. Trump had a revival in the 2016 election, spurred by Russian interference, and he won. Also, Trump has announced his willingness to cheat. Many experts who have studied the state-wide election systems have found them to be seriously corrupted.

White supremacists accept cheating and justify it under the guise of protecting democracy. White supremacy holds that black and brown people are inferior to whites and thus should not be allowed all the privileges and respect that whites routinely have. They claim that the need to protect American democracy from the inferiority of nonwhite voters justifies voter suppression. widespread corruption.

From the beginning of this country, white supremacists debased black people through slavery, segregation, and denial of voting rights. Supremacists pretend their actions will not affect whites because whites are not the target. But white supremacy limits the choice of everyone because it inevitably leads to authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is a form of government whose essential characteristic is centralized power. Authoritarians exercise their power to control the rest of society, including whites. Whites and blacks who are not in power, paradoxically, are equally controlled by those who are.

Confederate flag at polling place - WRAL

Leveling a Tilted Court

9/28/2020

Republicans have biased the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. That is, Republicans used their control of the Senate to subvert accepted practices for confirming judges. Contrary to accepted practices, Republicans confirm judicial candidates who say that they will judge cases according to conservative orthodoxy, regardless of the fallout for society. Previously, the Supreme Court tended to weigh the outcomes of their decisions for society, along with legal principles. Amy Coney Barrett, the latest Republican nominee to the Court, has expressed a willingness to disregard stare decisis. Stare decisis is the legal principle that allowing a flawed decision to stand may be better for the country than upsetting the legal system with continually changing rulings.

During the Obama, Administration Republicans failed to confirm 69 of his picks because the candidates did not affirm conservative legal principles. Republicans have confirmed 194 of Trump’s judicial appointments, including three found unqualified by the American Bar Association. Most importantly, Republicans refused to consider Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. Their justification for ignoring their duty to consider a Supreme Court nomination occurred within a year of a Presidential election. They claimed consideration of the Garland nomination was too close to a Presidential election. Donald Trump’s confirmation of two Supreme Court justices, and likely confirmation of a third, will tilt the Court to the far right for at least a generation.

Now, Trump and his Senate majority are rushing to confirm Barrett to the vacancy following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Barrett’s nomination, and probable confirmation, is occurring in the middle of a Presidential election. To counter Republican further tilting the federal judiciary toward conservatism, some Democrats suggest reforming the judiciary. Specifically, many Democrats indicate that Congress should increase the number of Supreme Court justices from 9 to 11 to offset Trump’s two illegitimate Court appointments. Other Democrats raise two counterarguments against increasing the number of justices.

Those Who Abandon Democracy

8/31/2020

Even if Joe Biden is elected President, Trump’s supporters, with or without Trump, will persist in their efforts to turn our democracy into an authoritarian regime. Authoritarian regimes are forms of government whose essential characteristic is centralized power, exercised by one person or a small group of people who limit the political power of the governed. Trump’s election and his success in recruiting officials who are willing to undermine our democratic institutions confirm the presence of those who favor authoritarianism over democracy. Other Trump supporters believe authoritarianism will enhance and protect their financial interests. And some want authoritarianism because they think it will slow social change, solidify their social status, or maintain white supremacy.

While the number of those supporting democracy has been greater than those supporting authoritarianism, authoritarianism has always had supporters in this country. Together these authoritarian supporters probably account for no more than a third of the American electorate. Another ten to fifteen percent of Americans are willing to accept authoritarianism because they do not see how it will diminish their opportunities. When the first colonists arrived in North America in 1607, the authoritarian English king, James I, ruled. While the colonists declared their independence from England in 1776, they did not formally gain their freedom until they had defeated the British in 1783.

The most profound American struggle between democracy and authoritarianism took place between the factions writing the U.S. Constitution in 1787. One faction represented by Alexander Hamilton proposed a governing plan that gave widespread power to an executive. Other factions proposed more limited executive powers. But support for American authoritarianism did not end with that struggle, nor with the successes of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and the defeat of fascism in World War II.

Authoritarians continued their fight. They muted their message and weaponized their money to roll back the New Deal and sabotage democratic institutions. As the Republican Party became increasingly comfortable with authoritarianism, Donald Trump was able to capture the party and begin the final phase of making America an authoritarian country despite most voters supporting democracy. This march toward authoritarianism is, of course, being aided by the Republican Party’s contempt for the truth and debasement of the rule of law. Also, Trump and Republicans are using several structural obstacles embedded in the Constitution to bring about an authoritarian regime.

The Democratic National Convention - The Republic in a Foxhole

8/31/2020

By guest contributor: Renee Campbell

Democratic Convention Finale - WTOP News

As the Democratic Convention unfolded last week, we were shown one inspiring montage after another and presented with speakers broadcasting messages of warning and hope. Citizens from across the spectrum of the Democratic Party and even into the Republican Party lent their voices to the cause of defeating Donald Trump and electing Joe Biden our next US President.

Two of the most powerful speeches came from former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle, Michelle Obama laid out the need for change. Her assessment of Donald Trump’s shortcomings as President was reinforced by the Republican defectors who spoke at the convention in support of Biden. Barack Obama reminded us that the struggle to make this country work for all its citizens is nothing new. Heroes of the past put their faith in what could be rather than what was, and were able to bring about structural reform. These speeches were focused on character - the self-serving, amoral character of Donald Trump, which has led us to a state of chaos, and the empathetic and diligent nature exhibited by Joe Biden, which will enable him to lead us to a better place.

Joe Biden’s acceptance speech was a knock-out by all accounts. His warmth of character and dedication to his life’s work as a public servant is undeniable. Biden’s choice of running mate says good things about his desire for an inclusive administration, and his record in supporting pro-gay rights legislation and authoring anti-domestic violence legislation speaks to his willingness to get ahead of the curve on issues he believes are moral imperatives. His capacity to persevere serves as a role model for us as individuals and as a nation. Joe Biden is undeniably a survivor, and if we trust him to lead us, maybe we will be too.

Biden/Harris will be a tough ticket to beat come November - at least I hope so. My only negative comment on the week’s proceedings was the over-use of quasi-religious imagery and language. If the word “soul” had been tied to a drinking game, we all would have been wasted by the end of each night.

They say there are no atheists in a foxhole, but no doubt there are quite a few in the Democratic Party. Voters are unlikely to object to a President who holds strong religious convictions. Many of the heroes of the civil rights era were deeply committed to their faith in God. But it is not a good idea to leave the impression that the Party is pinning its hopes on a supreme being. When trust is tied too closely to a God concept - explicitly or implicitly - you will turn off some voters and bolster the cynics among us.

“Faith” will be necessary as we work our way out of the current morass, but it would be wise to make clear that where we must place our faith is in the “small d” democratic process. The definition of religion is a belief in things unseen. If we believe in our founding principles, that all men are created equal and are endowed with inalienable rights, and have faith in the democratic process, we can bring about a country far better than the one we see today. God willing.

Renee Campbell - Guest Contributor
Following a career in music and dance, Ms Campbell became active in progressive politics during Barack Obama's first campaign in 2008 She attended a Wellstone bootcamp for candidates and organizers, which lead to blogging. She continued to volunteer and was selected as an OFA Summer Organizing Fellow in 2014. She completed an internship in political consulting and received an M.A. in Political Psychology from Stonybrook University. She blogs at CitizenSpeaking.net.

Biden's One Percent Solution

8/1/2020

Political pundits believe that a vice-presidential selection can make a minor but significant difference to the ticket in a presidential election outcome. Some studies have found that the choice of a vice-president can make a one percent difference. In the five presidential elections between 2000 and 2016, the percentage difference between the winner and the loser ranged from .5 (George W. Bush versus Al Gore in 2000) and 7.2 percentage points (Barack Obama versus John McCain in 2008). In such close elections, a percentage point, is a substantial difference.

The effect of a vice-president on a ticket is usually measured by the number of votes the ticket receives that can be attributed to the favorability of the vice-president. In 1960 some of the voters who saw John Kennedy as young and inexperienced may have been relieved by his older and more experienced vice-presidential selection, Lyndon Johnson. As a result, Johnson may have increased the number of voters supporting the ticket.

Another way of weighing the effect of a vice-president is to consider the halo effect that a vice-president choice creates for the presidential candidate. Voters can consider the social, racial, and political characteristics of a vice-presidential candidate to be either contrasted to or matched with those of the presidential candidate. Voters may have contrasted the urbane, youthful, Northeastern, John Kennedy with the uncouth, middle-aged, Southern, Lyndon Johnson. This contrast may have enhanced Kennedy’s youth and vitality to voters who found those characteristics favorable.

Between a Rock and ..... A Stone

7/20/2020

There are two plausible explanations for Donald Trump’s commutation of Roger Stone’s sentence. The first explanation is that Stone had information that, if made pubic, could damage Trump’s bid for re-election. Stone may have threatened to provide information that Trump conspired with the WikiLeaks and the Russians. The Mueller Report, and later legal proceedings, found that Stone’s perjury helped to conceal evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

The second explanation is that Trump believes he needs Stone to save his flagging re-election campaign. Stone was instrumental in Trump’s 2016 win. Stone was the Russian affiliated Wikileaks go-between for Trump and his campaign. According to testimony and documentary evidence introduced at Stone’s trial, Trump discussed the Wikileaks disclosures of stolen email information with Stone and his campaign officials. Trump later denied that these conversations took place in sworn written testimony.

In either case, Trump’s falling poll numbers play a role in the pressure Stone exerted on Trump to rescue him from prison. If Stone thought Trump would lose the election, he might have been unwilling to wait for a pardon. Stone might well have feared that Trump would avoid offending the incoming Attorney General and not grant him any relief. And Trump’s low poll numbers would make him seek Stone’s help.

Some observers have suggested that Trump commuted Stone’s sentence because of their past friendship. I reject the plausibility of this explanation because it assumes Trump can feel empathy, something he has not proven. I also reject any explanation that Trump’s commuted Stone’s sentence is an attempt to undermine Trump’s conspiracy with Vladimir Putin against the people of the U.S. That assumes Trump has an ability to plan. Trump has shown no such capacity.

Trump commuted Stone’s sentence to minimize any backlash that might have occurred with a pardon. Commuting Stone’s sentence might have been Trump’s compromise between Attorney General William Barr’s advice not to interfere with Stone’s sentence and Stone’s request for a pardon. Trump may have believed the commutation would satisfy Stone while preventing a backlash against his interference in the judicial process.

One pundit has suggested that by ignoring Barr’s advice, Trump showed an acknowledgment that a pardon would make re-election harder. If either of the most plausible explanations for Trump’s commutation is true, then it is clear Trump will do anything he believes is necessary to win re-election. And the more desperate he becomes, the more extreme his reaction will become.

Going Viral

6/30/2020

Governor Andrew Cuomo - WKTV

The inadequate responses of our elected officials have worsened the damage done by the pandemic. Donald Trump bears most of the blame for the U. S’s weak response to coronavirus. His incompetence and selfishness have led to the colossal failure to mitigate and control the virus. But Trump’s failure was compounded by the disjointed approach to the infection by some state and local officials.

The state and local officials who failed to respond to the virus adequately did so out of homage to Trump. Trump and other officials have made many missteps. Most significantly, they have been unable to ensure that they consistently communicate accurate information. Officials need to deliver the scientific facts and any gaps in knowledge in a coherent and easy-to-understand way.

Unless the information is clearly and consistently presented, officials will not be believed and will lose credibility. Because of the mixed messaging we have had, too many Americans do not understand the threat posed by the coronavirus. The mixed messaging that Trump and some officials are guilty of has led to the current out of control spikes we see now. But even some officials who have effectively communicated the facts about coronavirus may be in danger of losing their credibility.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has communicated more effectively than many other elected officials. But even Cuomo has had missteps. Cuomo did not recognize the seriousness of the coronavirus as soon as he should have. As a result, Cuomo failed to quarantine New York or take other steps to slow the disease’s spread as soon as he should have. Once he recognized the seriousness of the infection, he scheduled daily briefings in which he did a masterful job of presenting what he and his advisors knew about the disease, its spread, and the state’s response.

But even Cuomo has made a potentially dangerous mistake. He has likened lifting the restrictions imposed to slow the disease’s spread to opening a valve. And Cuomo stated that if the infection’s spread started to overwhelm the health care system, he would re-impose the restrictions. Thus, Cuomo has promised that he and public health officials could control the disease.

Modulating the disease depends on the behavior of people. And as we see now, once limits are lifted, people tend to believe that they no longer need to observe and restrictions. Valves can be turned on and off easily. People cannot.

Pop-up Window