The Supreme Court and Religion

And so it begins.  Yet another battle over the future of the Supreme Court, the fate of women in America, and, perhaps, the fate of the nation itself.

And, once again, the Republicans and movement conservatism wants to make it all about religion, while saying that their opponents have absolutely no right to bring up the subject of religion.

That they have done this time and time again for decades should be evidence enough of their self-serving hypocrisy.  Let me take a moment to dwell on my own personal experience in this area, as a recovering evangelical Christian.

Theologically speaking, evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics are natural opponents, even though they claim to worship the same God, and claim to honor the centrality of Jesus of Nazareth in that worship.  Evangelicals are, and have been for longer than my life span, obsessed with the issue of personal vice, while Catholicism embraces a somewhat larger view of social and economic justice.  This is why evangelicals, and not a few Catholics, have major problems with papal decrees (especially from the current Pope) that address these questions, while wholeheartedly exalting those views in the area of human behavior where the two religions intersect most neatly--sex.  

It is this intersection that explains why, with the help of evangelical Christianity's political muscle, there is a Catholic majority on the Supreme Court, while also explaining why that majority occasionally produces decisions that grate on the nerves of evangelicals.  For example, and most notably in the current moment, its refusal to strike down the Affordable Care Act.

Which is why it is both appropriate with regard to the question of stare decisis, and otherwise to protecting the health and welfare of the nation suffering through the worst pandemic in a century, to discuss how her views, on the law, religion, or anything else.  This is a job application for a lifetime position on the most consequential court on the county.  It shouldn't be easy for any nominee.  Putting it bluntly, it should be damned hard.  If they're equipped to parry arguments from the toughest, smartest attorneys in the nation, I'm comfortable saying that they should be able to handle a few tough questions from elected officials.  And let me remind everyone:  Brett Kavanaugh couldn't, and didn't, pass that test.  And a combination of timid Senators and corporate media shoehorned him onto the court anyway.

We can't afford political timidity or media corruption getting in the way of an open, robust, confirmation process.  Not when the current President, and his party, have all but confessed that the major goal here is to manipulate the outcome of a national election.

I've told you any number of times to vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, VOTE.  So here I am, doing it again.  It's the most peaceful possible end to our long national nightmare (thank you, Gerald Ford).

But, for those of you inclined to pray, especially on the eve of Yom Kippur, please do so.  We can use all the help we can get.

And g'mar chatima tovah to us all.

The Death Of A Justice--And, Perhaps, Much More

The rate at which politics moves in the Trump era is enough to give anyone whiplash.  Just a bit more than a week ago, I was exhorting all of you not to neglect the impact you could have on Senate races,  And here we are.

Somewhat random, but nevertheless relevant thoughts:

First and foremost, in our political culture's abandonment of decency, and specifically the Republican lust for power above all else, we have largely neglected to do what any decent country would do in the wake of losing someone with the level of human and professional accomplishment achieved by Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  to focus on mourning the loss of her, and on her greatness.  While I am completely confident that the latter will be enshrined in history--indeed, to a great extent, it already has--we have not even taken a full day, or even a few hours, as a nation to come together and honor not just an outstanding public servant, but a wonderful human being with the greatest accomplishment any human being can achieve:  family and friends.  Their loss is greater than ours.  And it has, for the most part, almost entirely overlooked by far too many of us.

For my part, I'll sum it up this way.  She was someone who understood that a denial of freedom to some of us was a denial of freedom to all of us.  She was someone who understood that democracy enabled us to disagree agreeably, and that doing so was the only path to a more perfect Union.  And she was someone whose wisdom and warmth inspired people to embrace her to a degree that seldom happens to those in the legal profession.

Well, sadly, not all people.  If nothing else, this disgusting story allows me to pivot to an unavoidable topic:  the political aftermath to Justice Ginsburg's death.

As of this morning, and even before a specific nominee to replace her has been made, Mitch McCONnell appears to have enough votes to ram that nominee through the Senate successfully, literally weeks and perhaps as little as days before a general election.  It's been said many times already, but it can't be said enough:  this is of course the same Mitch McCONnell who repeatedly declared, a bit over four years ago, that no judicial nomination to the federal bench could be allowed to proceed in an election year, to allow the will of the people to be heard with respect to said nomination.  

In fact, he claimed that this position was a rule of the Senate, enshrined by Joseph Biden back when Biden was still a member of the Senate.  This position is based on an out-of-context quote from Biden back then, and overlooks the fact that, as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he oversaw the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice in the last year of Ronald Reagan's second term--specifically, Anthony Kennedy, the Justice eventually replaced by Brett Kavanaugh (who clerked for Kennedy). 

Now, in response to the bipartisan effort to underscore his hypocrisy, McCONnell is now saying "Oops!  Did I forget to mention that the rule has a subsection that waives it for years when the Republicans hold the White House and the Senate?"  Yes, Mitch you did.  And you forgot to include find a Biden quote to support the "subsection," because no such quote exists.  In fact, should you need further proof of how muddled his "thinking" about the confirmation process is, take a look here, where he describes it as an obligation and a choice.  It's either one or the other, Mitch.  At some point, reality demands that you stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Unfortunately, the problem here is not just the fact that, however twisted McCONnell's comments are, there's much more at stake than exposing the self-serving hypocrisy of the Republican Party, and its Senate caucus.  A 6-to-3 conservative majority has the power to upend the Roe ruling, and thus make abortion law either a state-by-state patchwork or, worse, a real-life version of "The Handmaid's Tale."  Indeed, a majority of that size has the power to do what movement conservatives have wanted to do ever since the New Deal:  to dismantle the entire administrative state and leave every one of us to fend for ourselves.  They allegedly want to protect our "liberty," as defined by now-overruled Supreme Court cases such as Lochner v. New York.  This would be, of course, the "liberty" to be oppressed by those who have the power and the need to do so.  It would, effectively, replace the so-called "nanny state" with a Bully state.

And, when confronted with the prospect of a Bully state on the horizon, there is no alternative but to bully right back.  I'm sorry, but the days of reaching across the aisle and putting bipartisanship first are over.  That's precisely why this won't do.

Rather, this will have to do.  I'm not crazy about it, but I'm not about to stick my head into the sand when all of us are about to be swamped, by the Republicans and by their destruction of not only our political system, but also our planet.  Too many people sacrificed everything to carry us this far.

Will Democrats in Washington wake up at last?  Will they stop bringing Robert's Rules of Order to what stopped being a knife fight a long time ago, and has been full-scale carnage ever since?

Maybe.

There's the September 30th deadline for the federal budget.  There's the ability to deny the Senate a quorum.  There's the ability of one or more Senators to take the floor and hold it for as long as they can.  There are probably other aspects of the rules that allow Democratic Senators to delay, IF they have the fortitude to use them.

Personally, years of observation and frustration have made me deeply cynical when it comes to the likelihood of this happening.  But there are glimmers of hope, here and there, like this one.

Do it, Chuck.  Do it, Nancy.

If you don't, it may lead to the death of more than a justice.

And baruch dayan ha'emess, RBG.

Whatever You Do, PLEASE Don't Forget The Senate

We tend to talk about the upcoming election as though it was purely a binary choice.  Elect Biden over Trump, and we've done what we need to do to save the nation and ourselves.  But, while it's got to be done, it's not enough.

No, I am not advocating for some would-be progressive third-party savior to protect us from the corporatocacy.  I have noticed over the past week or two in social media that the Bernie-and-Elizabeth dead-enders are trying to make some last-minute noise about how we all need to withhold our votes from Biden and the Democrats to teach them a lesson that only the purest, most uncompromising progressives can and will save all of us, even attracting votes in red states.  These people are overlooking the fact that Senators Sanders and Warren are both supporting AND working with Biden on progressive concerns  And they also have somehow managed to either forget the last four years entirely, or don't mind overlooking the fact that Reagan-era conservatism has burrowed into our society as deeply as it has due to the fact that Reagan conservatives were willing to play a game of inches, in a system designed to reward those who are willing to play that way.

Which brings me to what I want to write about today.  The United States Senate.

For the past six years, under Mitch McCONnell and his fellow-travellers in perfidy, the Senate has been a graveyard not just for great ideas, or good ones, but for any ideas at all except ideas that benefit the interests of Donald Trump and donors to Republican Senators.  They enacted a tax cut that amounts to welfare for Wall Street, stuffed the federal court systems with unqualified stiffs, and, worst of all, used the impeachment process to give the most openly crooked President in the history of the Republic a free pass to set new records of corruption.

Whatever happens, this craven, criminal version of what was once called the World's Greatest Deliberative Body cannot be allowed to stand, not in its present form.  If it does, and if (G-d forbid) Trump manages to win a second term, even if the Democrats hold on to the House of Representatives, Trump's perverse behavior will be allowed to destroy whatever is left now of constitutional government in our country.  And if it does, and even if Biden does manage to throw Trump out of the White House, his term is liable to be a nightmare of frustration as McCONnell as his partners in crime hold the line on behalf of the autocracy they wish to create.

Political success, like all other kinds, requires money and, thus far, Biden has done surprisingly better than Trump in raising it.  I say "surprisingly" not because I don't doubt that most of us are sick of Trump but because, historically, money in elections (especially national ones) has historically been a Republican advantage.  But I'm not as sure that the same level of financial success applies to Democratic efforts to retake the Senate.  For a time, Democrats attempting to flip Republican Senate seats seemed to be done well enough in the polls that I considered the possibility that not only would the next Senate have a Democratic majority, but that it might even be large enough to make liberal agonizing over the filibuster a thing of the past.

But, as we get closer to Election Day, and as Republican campaign efforts start to ramp up, the polls in a number of Senate races have tightened significantly--so much so that, as I type this, I cannot say for sure that even a bare-minimum Democratic Senate majority is guaranteed.  And it is for this reason, combined with Biden's apparent financial superiority over Trump, that I am for the moment, not only concentrating my political donations to Democratic (or, in races with a Democrat, independent) Senate candidates attempting to flip Republican seats, but making sure that I give something to every candidate attempting to do so, regardless of how "hopeless" their standing in the polls seems to be.

And I urge all of you, as strongly as I possibly can, to do the same thing, to the very best of your ability.  Don't bankrupt yourself, obviously, and, in your donating, don't forget the presidential or House races.  But the Senate needs to be flipped--to borrow a phrase, for the sake of ourselves, and our posterity.

I've divided these candidates into three groups, and am providing links to the campaign websites.

In the first group, I'm including those candidates that, based on polling, seem to have the best chance of actually flipping the seat for which they're running:  Sara Gideon, Cal Cunningham, Mark Kelly, and John Hickenlooper.  Make sure that you give something to them.

In the second group, I'm including those candidates who are deadlocked with their Republican opponent, or close to being so:  Al Gross, Jon Ossoff, Raphael Warnock, Theresa Greenfield, Barbara Bollier, Amy McGrath, Steve Bullock, Jaime Harrison, and MJ Hegar.  I would urge all of you to find a way to give these candidates a significant amount of money, or other forms of support, especially in the case of McGrath, who is waging a courageous battle against McCONnell, a take-no-prisoners politician.  And I would also suggest doing the same for Doug Jones, who is doing everything he can to hold onto a traditionally Republican seat in Alabama.

In the third group, I'm including those candidates who are, statistically speaking based on polling, unlikely to win their races, but who are still worth supporting (especially compared to the alternatives) as good people, and as an exercise in political party-building in severely red states whose citizens need all of the help they can get.  And, as some of these people are progressive, the progressive dead-enders can and should treat those races as opportunities to put their money where their mouths and typing fingers are, and prove that they can make a difference.  In any case, here they are:  Dan Whitfield, Paulette Jordan, Adrian Perkins, Mike Espy, Preston Love, Jr., Abby Broyles, Dan Ahlers, Marquita Bradshaw, Paula Jean Swearengin, and Merav Ben-David.  Whitfield and Love are write-in candidates, but don't let that stop you.

In fact, don't let anything stop you, if you can afford it.  I don't think any of us can afford to do nothing to support these candidates.  Many of them are flying well below the media radar and, while that can be a liability, it can also be an asset; if Republicans and the media ignores these races, it could open up opportunities for Democrats and progressives to create a few election-day surprises.  Perhaps a lot of them.

It's up to you, as it always has been and (G-d willing) always should be.

Do it.

"Will The Future Ever Arrive?"

Will the future ever arrive?...Should we continue to look upwards?  Is the light we can see in the sky one of those which will presently be extinguished?  The ideal is terrifying to behold, lost as it is in the depths, small isolated, a pin-point, brilliant but threaten on all sides by the dark forces that surround it; nevertheless, no more in danger than the star in the jaws of the clouds.                                                                                                                                                                --Victor Hugo

I have been a--well, call it what you will, but I have been a "progressive," a "liberal," a "reformer," and yes, a Democrat, and in some ways even a socialist, for as long as I've been actively interested in politics, which is to say since the 1968 presidential election.  I turned 64 this past Tuesday, at a time in our history when we as a people, and as individuals, face multiple challenges.  Individually, each of these challenges are powerful enough to serve as the definition of an entire era.  Collectively, they may be powerful enough to rip the fabric of this country to pieces, and turn what we have called the United States of America into just another historic relic, another failed attempt at a just and prosperous society no more meaningful or influential than any failed society that preceded it.

In no particular order:

Our streets are filled with the anguished voices of people whose civil rights have been withheld for centuries;

Our economy is in the worst condition it has been in since the Great Depression;

Our health is menaced by a pandemic whose boundaries, as of this point, are beyond our ken, with no long-term solution in sight;

And our planet itself is threatened by the poisons we have produced in our desire to consume without consequences.

Any of these disasters, and certainly all of them taken together, are overwhelming enough to give rise across the political spectrum for demands to take political action.  Unsurprisingly, especially in an age when the power to reach the rest of the world is literally in everyone's hands, those demands are not in short supply.  Nor should they be, however inarticulate some of them may be.

What result?  Stalemate.

We have two political parties.  One of them conducts political discussion and action like a graduate seminar, for which the point is to endlessly research, opine, and discuss what might be the intellectually perfect solution to all human problems, without ever expending much practical effort, and sacrifice, to find out if any of the discussions have produced ideas that work.  The other one conducts political discussion and action like a crime syndicate, for which the only point is the maintenance of its own prefered position in the scheme of things, a state of affairs it always describes as the only possible state.  And any debate about that state of affairs is effectively thwarted by the fact that, in true crime-syndicate fashion, it has effectively bought out every branch of government at every level.

And horrible as all of this is, it would be less horrible were it not for the one segment of our society that is affected by, yet not really at home with, either of our two woefully deficient parties.

Poor white men.  Men who long for a world in which they can feel prosperous and powerful simply by way of the fact that they are white men.  Men who, having been born into a constitutional structure that renounces aristocracy, yearn to be part of an aristocracy, yearn to feel powerful simply by dint of identity, and feel that, if government is to have any value at all, it is to make them feel that way, whether as well-paid factory workers, or well-heeled plantation owners.  Nothing matters for these men except the raw feeling of "being on top."

Once upon a time, they were New Deal Democrats, in an age when the Democratic Party was content to make merely token efforts to empower women and people of color.  When the politics of the New Deal morphed into those of the Great Society, they began the long transition into being Reagan Democrats, hoping to find shelter in a party that promised, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, to protect them against "the other"  And, when they finally figured out that their new "home" had no real room for anyone except the folks that already owned it, they threw out the owners and became Trump Republicans, men so filled with rage from their self-deceptions that, like their new leader, they could think of doing nothing but tearing the house down, if only to ensure that "the other" could never feel comfortable in it.

Will the future ever arrive?

The past can serve as a guide to the future.  In some ways, that's the most fundamental truth contained in conservative politics.  What does America's past tell us about ourselves, that might be useful in working our way through the crises of our current moment.

We have always been a society hungry for reform.  We have also always been a society hungry for the power that can be wielded and maintained through the ownership of property.  We have often been resorted to violence in cases where that ownership was either threatened or thwarted.  And we have ultimately been a society which has needed the so-called "heavy hand" of government to both restore order and to implement changes needed to ensure either the protection or expansion of the social, economic, and political power that comes with the ability to hold and acquire property interests.

Don't believe me?  Take a look here.

I'm not writing this to give you a cherry, chipper, we've-been-through-this-before lecture.  I have no wish to belittle the magnitude of our present crises, individually and in combination.  I do it to remind all of us, perhaps even myself, that their are two essential ingredients to overcome any crisis or series of them.

Not giving up.  And voting.

Not giving up can be hard.  Voting shouldn't be hard, save for the fact that the aforementioned crime syndicate is making is so.  But both of these things have never been more essential than they are now.

And, in any event, the two of them in combination are the only possible way to ensure that the future will arrive.