The Impact Of Watching Two Conventions

In a country as divided as ours, watching the Democratic and Republican national conventions back-to-back is bound to give anyone a severe case of psychological whiplash.  And that has been very much the case with me.

The week before the past one, I watched the Democratic convention and, as a Democrat and a progressive, I found myself genuinely inspired by not only the positive and, above all, unified nature of the message presented by Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and their allies all over the nation.  Likewise, I was inspired by the use of technology to overcome the sense of isolation generated by the pandemic, and give all of us a feeling that, however physically separated we are in this awful moment of history, we are all on the same page when it comes to how we move forward from it.  In particular, I liked the way the traditional roll call of the states became not a collection of party bosses in an arena, but a wide range of ordinary Americans from different locals in all states and territories.  It's safe to say, judging from the public reaction to that part of the convention, that this approach may become the norm even when we get into a post-pandemic world.

By this time last weekend, I found myself almost being able to remember what this country was like when it wasn't in thrall to a rancid cult of personality.  I found myself almost being able to visualize a world in which, once again, every day felt that way.

It didn't take long for the Republican Party to put a giant dent in all of that.  I'm not going to re-hash the details, since that makes me feel like I'm doing the bad guy's work for them.  But I have to admit that the rancid content of the robotic speeches, combined with the narcissistic abuse of public property for personal glory, pounded into television audiences over four days, was almost more than I can bear, even as I write this.  Even worse was the typical MSM lapping-up of it, even to the point of allowing conservatives to turn the tragic shooting of Jacob Blake and the violent aftermath into an endorsement of conservatives, who are responsible for the culture of violence in the first place.

All of this too all of the air out of my sails, the air that the Democratic convention had put there in the first place.  In my worst moments, it was almost enough to make me root for this to happen.

And then, last night, I learned of the tragically premature death of Chadwick Boseman, the gifted Black actor who brought heroes as real as Jackie Robinson, and as fictional as the Black Panther, to life.

My initial reaction was the feeling of yet another brick being dropped into the load of suffering all of us are carrying right now.  But then, I learned about how, over the past five years, while he was battling colon cancer, he was still able to bring all of those heroes to life.  That's the kind of accomplishment that tells death not to be proud.  That's the kind of accomplishment that will keep his work and his memory alive.

And it's something for all of us to keep in our mind and hearts right now, in what feels like a pit of despair that no one can climb out of.

We owe it to ourselves, to those who came before us, to those who will come after us, to fight as hard as Boseman--and T'Challa, for that matter--fought to keep love, and hope, and peace, and plenty alive and well.  Whatever happens, if we do so, we'll find a victory worth whatever it takes to get to it.

VOTE!

GET OTHERS TO VOTE!

WAKANDA FOREVER!

The Future Of The Never-Trumpers

What happens to all of the Never-Trump Republicans and conservatives if Donald Trump's time as President comes to an end on November 3?  

It's a question I've been thinking about for a while, even before the pandemic radically changed the dynamics of this fall's election.  Frankly, it's hard for me not to regard them with a very mixed array of feelings.  These are the same people who courted what we now summarize as the Trump vote for decades, knowing all about the bigoted and otherwise crazy views that motivates this voter cohort, but regarding it as a kind of political plutonium that they could manipulate in each election cycle in order to maintain their own grip on power, and never imagining for a minute that they could somehow let it get so far away from them that it would, in effect, swallow their own party and turn it into a nightmare that threatens everyone. They have been systematically feeding this monster for almost the length of my entire soon-to-be-64-year life, and now it's out of the cage, never to return.

Never to return?  I'm not entirely convinced that the Never-Trumpers look at it that way.  Rather, I think they view their momentary anti-Trump alliance with Democrats and Republicans as basically one of convenience.  Perhaps it was most eloquently and concisely expressed by George Will a few weeks back on Lawrence O'Donnell's MSNBC program, "The Last Word."  Will stated that he was going to be voting for Joe Biden on November 3, not in support of Biden's agenda, or that of the Democratic Party, but as a endorsement of democracy and of someone who could restore the pre-Trump political order, in which Democrats and Republicans could do partisan battle in a world in which neither had to worry about an American fifth column.

Will's candor, as well as his commitment to real democracy, are admirable, especially since they have the effect, among other things, of formally accepting Democrats and their views as being tolerable within a truly free society.  Frankly, that's not something he has always seemed to say in the past, nor is that a point on which many of his conservative colleagues would agree with him, especially when it comes to his position that all Republicans have to be voted out.  Some of them, at the very least, still seem to view the Republican Party as something that can somehow be salvaged, and object to the idea of voting it completely out of office.  Peggy Noonan, for example, seems to take this view, as though there was nothing wrong with the party that finding another Ronald Reagan and revisiting the politics of the '80s was enough to cure everything.

It won't.  The 80's are gone, as there is almost no New Deal left to rebel against except Social Security, and Trump's unilateral payroll-tax cut threatens the existence of even that.  And there is no ex-New-Deal-Democrat-turned-Republican, like Reagan, to inspire confidence in so-called "Reagan Democrats."  What's left of the GOP is a political apparatus whose leaders care only about maintaining the grip of the investing class on the rest of us, since their support of that grip helps to maintain their cushy jobs on Capitol Hill and elsewhere.  You have only to look at the reflexive support for Trump from Mitch McCONnell's Senate, through impeachment, a pandemic, and a depression to see the truth of that.

I will be the first to admit that I have enjoyed the fruits of the Never-Trump movement, especially its influence on voting trends by way of advertising, such as the work being done by the Lincoln Project.  It feels good to see all of that razor-edge Republican marketing expertise being used against Trump.  But, one way or another, it's not going to last beyond November 3.

And then what?

Does the Never-Trump movement transform itself into a third, moderate-to-conservative party, one that focuses on conservative tax and defense policies while accepting some form of a social welfare state? Or does it enter into some kind of an alliance with the Democratic Party, trying to pull it slightly to the right on those policies in return for a commitment to at least a part of the progressive agenda, such as single-payer health insurance, something that is supported in Europe even by conservative parties?

I honestly don't know which one of these alternatives is more likely to win out.  I'm not even entirely sure which one would be best for the nation--or, for that matter, the narrowly partisan interests of the Democratic Party.  I can say this much:

Forget about nostalgia for the Age of Reagan.  It is over, and it will not come back.

That is a truth that Never Trumpers have to face, in making decisions about how to go forward.

And if they are interested in talking about an alliance?

Well, I can think of at least one progressive Democrat willing to have that conversation.

Pull Out All The Stops Against The Godfather In The Oval Office

In the age of Trump, there's never a shortage of topics for posts.  Ordinarily, that would make it difficult to select a topic for the coming week.  Or, I might just choose not to right about the Orange Iguana and, for a change of pace, write about something positive, such as Vice President Joe Biden's selection of Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate.  After all, for about twenty-four hours after I heard about the Biden-Harris ticket, I felt as though I had been magically been transported out of Trumpland, as least emotionally, and had gone back to the world in which politics could be a vehicle for progress.

But that feeling didn't last very long  And, for the same reason, although there are still a smorgasbord of topics to chose from, there's only one topic I can write about right now.

And that is the existential threat to our democratic elections currently being posed by Trump, who has become the Godfather in the Oval Office.

I'll explain exactly why I call him that in a few moments.  Right now, I want to comment on the systemic destruction of a constitutionally-mandated function for the sole purpose of rigging the fall elections:  the destruction, more specifically, of the U.S. Postal Service.

At a time when the nation in under siege from a pandemic with no national plan to combat it, a siege so severe that the United States has become an international pariah for travel purposes, a siege so severe that the American economic engine is almost literally running on empty, a siege so severe that millions of us are living in our homes in fear for their lives, and those of their families, it faces an election that matters like none before it.  The ability of every adult citizen to vote has never been more essential.  And there is only one means by which to ensure that ability:  voting by mail.

Voting by mail has taken place in U.S. elections for decades without any serious problems or objections to the practice.  It's the means by which Americans overseas--including, and especially, military personnel--are able to vote.  It possesses one major advantage over electronic voting:  it creates a paper trail beyond the reach of hackers, domestic and foreign.  There are already five states in which voting by mail is the only way to vote, and voting takes place in those states without partisan objections, or any at all.

And the Post Office is one of the most well-regarded agencies of the federal government.  It touches the lives of every American, every day, and plays a vital role not only in the nation's commerce, but also the personal lives of our must vulnerable citizens, in providing the delivery of necessities from Social Security checks to medicine for veterans.  It delivers millions of gifts each holiday season on time; in fact, in one movie (not counting remakes), it has even been able to prove the existence of Santa Claus.

That scene from the original "Miracle on 34th Street" includes one moment not included in the clip:  a statement by Santa's attorney that attests not only to the Post Office's efficiency, but also to the fact that federal law criminalizes the misdirection or misdelivery of U.S. mail.

Which is exactly what Donald Trump is doing, right now, in broad daylight, and brazenly admitting it on television.  Moreover, he's not just doing it passively, by refusing to authorize additional funding for the Post Office; he's also authorizing his hand-picked, conflicted Postmaster General to systematically vandalize postal facilities around the country.  And today, to top it all off, he held a news conference at which he said he'd consider agreeing to additional Post Office funding if Democrats made other coronavirus relief concessions.  Presumably, this would include the unlimited corporate coronavirus liability that Mitch McCONnell earlier stated was the hill he would die on.

Donald Trump is literally holding the existence of the American system of government for ransom.  This is what Mafia Dons do, which is probably why his first name feels so appropriate.  And that is why I stated, earlier, that we have a Godfather in the Oval Office.  Of course, Mafia dons also demand percentages of business deals that take place in their "territories."  If only Trump was guilty of something like that ... oh, wait!

Democrats need to get off their political duffs.  Hearings, subpoenas, and the generous use of the Sergeant-at-Arms have to be the order of the day.  And the rest of us?  We have to be in the streets, in the faces of Republican office holders, and yes, at the door of the Postmaster General.

We are under the thumb of the most sophisticated crime syndicate in world history.  The only way to get out from under that thumb is to fight.

And, Speaking Of The Filibuster ...

... as I promised in my previous post, I have more to say here about how Democrats who want to move the country forward can do so without worrying about the potential for filibuster abuse standing in the way.

Budget bills--anything dealing with raising revenue and/or spending it--cannot be filibustered, and, as a consequence, have been used (some would say abused) by both parties to accomplish goals that might be thwarted by way of a filibuster in a non-budget bill.  The Republicans launched this approach in passing taxes cuts under George W. Bush, and used it again to get tax cuts under Donald Trump.  In between, Barack Obama and congressional Democrats used it to get the Affordable Care Act into law.  So, whether the use of the budgeting process to achieve partisan goals without fear of a filibuster is wise, or fair, or desirable is something of a moot point.  Both parties have ratified it as a means to multiple ends, and so it has now become.

So, if the filibuster is, in some form, left in place, what hope does the budget process offer for getting past the Mitch McCONnells of the world, and enacting a progressive agenda for the nation?

Plenty.

As was the case in particular with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, making use of the budget process for this purpose involves a certain amount of what I would charitably describe as creativity.  The bill in question has to be one that principally has an impact on the federal budget, either to raise revenue or to spend it.  If it strays too far from that purpose, its opponents can request a ruling from the Senate parliamentarian as to whether the bill's impact is primarily budgetary in nature.  If the parliamentarian says that it does not, the bill then becomes subject to the filibuster rule.  In fact, during the sausage-like process that led to the so-called Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, modifications were made in consultation with the Senate parliamentarian to ensure that it would not be subject to a filibuster.

It's at this point that I'm inviting you to read this, if you have not done so already.

As a consequence of climate change, refugees and asylees are going to be a fact of life, whether we want them to be or not.  It is not a choice for them.  It's not going to be a choice for any of us.  And, whatever policy direction we choose to take, that choice is going to cost a great deal of money.  And, if we choose to go in the direction that is consistent with our heritage, as well as our humanity, we can use the budget power of Congress, filibuster-free, to fund an immigration system with more staff to process visa applications and adjudicate asylee cases, and a combination of lower fees along with streamlined rules to make entering and leaving the country on a legal basis simpler and more likely.  

And, in saying this as a principal in an immigration firm, I'm actually speaking against my self-interest.  A system like the one I'm describing would be less dependant on lawyers.

There's no reason, in fact, why this basic approach couldn't be utilized across other issues that matter to progressives.  Climate change means that people are on the move, but science has been on the move with it, and has given us the means to fight it sustainable energy and renewable resources.  The budget process can, as it already has, be utilized to promote the development of both industries--and, at the same time, provide jobs, including jobs in areas with historic underdevelopment and unemployment (including, of course, neighborhoods with a high percentage of people of color).

I am, in one sense, getting ahead of myself with all of this.  Progressive policies, in any case, require a government led by progressive leaders.  That means winning elections, and doing it in a time of corruption in our politics that has no historical parallel.  But that state of affairs just makes it all the more important to spare no effort--no fair effort--to ensure that a government led by progressive leaders is exactly what we have as of this coming January 20.

And, when that happens, not let the filibuster rule stop us from giving the American people the rule of law they've been denied for the past three-and-a-half years.

The Filibuster: Mend It, Don't End It?

I'm a Democrat.  The Republicans control the Senate.  So why would I want to write a post about filibuster reform?  The Democrats aren't in a position to do anything about it.

Or are they?

I'm not one to tempt fate, however tempting it may be to do so.  However, pu! pu! pu! (and with a pause to knock on wood, which I just did), current polling suggests that my party has at least a theoretical chance of taking control of the Senate away from Mitch McCONnell next January.  This might not be the best week to lean too hard on that thought, as recent polling has undermined it to a small degree.  Nevertheless, it's there.

Which has raised some media discussion (including, of course, Web discussion) about the idea of doing away with the Senate's filibuster rule in the event that happens, thus giving a Democratic President and a Congress with complete Democratic control a chance to successfully address every legislative goal with a simple majority vote.  In fact, recently, the idea got a very powerful boost from Barack Obama.  In delivering his eulogy for the late, legendary John Lewis, the former president not only endorsed the idea in surprisingly strong rhetoric, but went so far as to link the filibuster itself with systemic discrimination against African-Americans.  (On a side note, I'm glad to see Obama use his post-presidency to say things he felt that he dared not say while he was in office, though I will always deeply regret his decision to wait that long in saying them.)

It's not entirely true that the filibuster was created specifically for the purpose of promoting racism, although it is certainly true that it was used well into the previous century for precisely that purpose.  You can find a good discussion of the rule's history here, in an article which also argues for its abolition.  But it is certainly true that filibusters are still being launched today with that goal in mind, and, even worse, they have been used over the past decade (thanks to Mitch) as little more than a single-minded tool of partisan opposition, in an attempt to realize short-term political gains at the expense of the long-term (and even short-term) needs of the entire nation.

It's tempting to look at the fact that McCONnell is the author of this misery, and hope that, if he loses his race this year for re-election, all might be well again, or at least better.  But it's a pretty resistible temptation, as far as I'm concerned.  For one thing, although he has a strong challenger in Amy McGrath, he has maintained enough of an advantage over her in opinion surveys that give him anywhere from a statistically insignificant lead to a gargantuan one.  But there's another reason for resisting temptation:  McCONnell, who has been an at-the-hip partner with Donald Trump from the very beginning of Trump's term in office, has helped him corrupt nearly the entire Republican Party, including every Republican member of the Senate.  Any successor to him as leader of the Republican caucus would not hesitate to go on engaging in filibuster abuse.  Only a 60-member Democratic caucus would stop that successor, and the chances of getting a 60-member Democratic caucus are, to amend a cliche, not even slim.

And too, as McCONnell himself is fond of reminding all of us (but mostly Democrats), the filibuster rule has always been a two-edged sword, which means that any attempts to modify it are also a two-edged sword.  You'll know exactly what I'm talking about if you remember what ol' Mitch did with Harry Reid's modification of the rule as it applied to non-Supreme Court judicial nominees.  What Reid did was understandable and justified, under the circumstances.  But it also gave us Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh for life on the highest court in the land.

So, if the Democrats get a Senate majority out of this election along with a President Joe Biden, what should they do?  Especially if the majority consists of little more than 50 Democrats plus Vice President Whoever-She's-Going-To-Be?

Don't end it.  Mend it.

Here are several ways.

1.  Wait until after the election, to see exact how many seats (if any) the Democrats will gain.  If it's as high enough to give them a 55-seat majority, make that the cut-off for ending or prolonging debate.  The number, like the rule itself, isn't etched in constitutional stone.  As noted in the Atlantic article, it used to take a two-thirds majority to end debate, before that was changed to the current three-fifths cut-off.  Thus, it would still require more than a majority to end debate, but it would be a more reasonable, more achievable number.  It would still serve a counter-majoritarian purpose, but not a crushing one.

2.  Require Senators who want to mount a filibuster to take the floor and attempt to hold it, a la Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington." Frankly, this is my favorite option.  It's not dependent on a specific numerical standard, one that may or may not be advantageous at varying times.  It requires Senators to put themselves, their debating skills, and their reputations on the line for the sake of a given cause.  And it also subjects them to the pressure of intervening events, e.g., deadlines on certain must-pass bills.  Moreover, it need not require the stamina of one Senator to sustain a filibuster; a Senator could be allowed to yield to a sympathetic colleague, who, in turn, could be permitted to continue it while still attempting to hold the floor for as long as possible.

3.  If all else fails, become more creative in making parliamentary arguments that given bills should be considered budget-related, and thus, under existing Senate rules, not be subjected at all to the potential for a filibuster.  What are some examples of this?

I'll have more to say about that in my next post.  To borrow a phrase from Rachel Maddow, watch this space.