Some Politically Agnostic

The Washington Post has reported

An angry dispute erupted among House Democrats on Thursday, with centrist members blasting their liberal colleagues during a private conference call for pushing far-left views that cost the party seats in Tuesday’s election that they had worked hard to win two years ago.

The bitter exchange, which lasted more than three hours as members sniped back and forth over tactics and ideology, reflected the extent to which the 2020 campaign exposed simmering tensions in the party....

“We need to not ever use the word ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again. . . . We lost good members because of that,” Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), who narrowly leads in her reelection bid, said heatedly. “If we are classifying Tuesday as a success . . . we will get f---ing torn apart in 2022"....

 “There is no question that that was a huge albatross on the necks of so many of our candidates, who unfortunately went down,” said a lawmaker who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private discussions. “There has to be a reckoning within our ranks about this because a lot of Justice Democrats don’t give a damn about the Democratic Party. . . . They’re all about purity and orthodoxy, and it is damaging our opportunities.”

Nonetheless, a Pennsylvania Democrat, Conor Lamb, who barely won re-election, stated

Spanberger was talking about something many of us are feeling today: We pay the price for these unprofessional and unrealistic comments about a number of issues, whether it is about the police or shale gas. These issues are too serious for the people we represent to tolerate them being talked about so casually.

In a case of bad timing or unintended irony

“Democrats’ messaging is terrible; it doesn’t resonate,” Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, said in an interview. “When [voters] see the far left that gets all the news media attention, they get scared. They’re very afraid that this will become a supernanny state, and their ability to do things on their own is going to be taken away.”

Supernanny state? One wonders what Representative Schrader would have said if told a mere ten months ago that the next President of the USA would be elected on a platform which included the requirement that all Americans walk around wearing a mask.  Neither Medicare for All nor the Green New Deal can hold a supernanny candle to "I would insist that everybody out in public be wearing that mask."  That man, thankfully, was elected President of the United States of America.

Moreover, the executive director of Justice Democrats, Alexandra Rojas, was right when she told the Post reporter "They had one job and they blew it. We need a Democratic Party that stands for something more than just being anti-Trump."

We learn "Chuck Schumer is "pushing for $50K of student debt to eliminated by executive order in Biden's first 100 days."  Luckily, he and Senator Elizabeth Warren had introduced a resolution in September which "asked the president as of 2021, whether it be former Vice President Joe Biden or current President Trump, to 'take executive action to broadly cancel federal student loan debt' as the country faces a pandemic and both a “historic public health and economic crises.” 

This is good policy and good strategy.

The point of this isn't just to help people with student debt, but to make it clear that the government and Democrats are going to wield power to help people. It's to get rid of the cynicism that politics is pointless.

Then Dems have to do a bunch of stuff for other groups. https://t.co/EJsY1cugNY

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) November 7, 2020

It would reduce cynicism about politics. Moreover, it would reduce cynicism of government, which can only redound to the benefit of America's de facto party of government, the Democratic Party, particularly when that is the party in power.

Alternatively, Democrats can take the advice of Spanberger, Schrader, Lamb, and other centrists and take a passive approach, standing for nothing and doing little.

Yet Americans are looking to Democrats to do more than end the pandemic- which eventually will be accomplished primarily by vaccine- but also to make their lives better.  When Democrats relieve the crushing burden of student debt or reduce doctor bills through health care reform significantly bolder than Obamacare, they benefit in another way.

Suddenly, GOP charges that Democrats want to install a "nanny state" or "defund the police" or "give out free stuff" lose their power. They are neutered because things have been accomplished which Democrats can tout rather than being on the defensive about supporting people who believe they are "entitled" or opposing police.

An activist approach would confer an additional benefit. When Joe Biden is unable to make good on his campaign promise to unify a (inevitably) divided country, Democrats can present an alternative vision. It may be a vision of a nation of greater racial justice, better education, fewer climate crises, or of middle class and working class Americans who are not suffering under the crushing burden of debt because of a health emergency. They can actually go on the offensive rather than running scared from every demagogic charge from Republicans about crime, health care, taxes, the environment, or simply needing help from other Americans.

And because if you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything.

 

Share |

Or What They Would Call God's Will

At a rally for President Trump on October 27 in Phoenix, attendee Cynthia Manville stated to a reporter

We have no fears because there's a conservative Supreme Court now. We feel if Democrats cast legislation that's radical liberal, it wouldn't stand the test of time. God has a certain way of watching over this country.

A lot of people agree with that, including the "handful of women kneeling outside of the building" in the video (below) of Trump supporters praying Thursday outside of the Clark County Election Headquarters in Nevada. The video was posted by CBS News Producer Alyssa Estrada, who remarked "They tell me they're praying justice will be done and righteousness prevails."

 

 

Alas, their prayers for justice and righteousness, assuming (as they very likely did) they were appealing to an all-powerful, micro-managing God, have been answered.

Share |

Left, But Not Right

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was right about one thing in this exchange:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on why she supports calls to defund the police in an interview on 'Good Morning America' with George Stephanopoulos on Wednesday: "What a lot of folks are talking about when it comes to the movement, is that they’re asking for the same budget priorities that many affluent suburbs already have. And it may sound strange, but many affluent suburbs have essentially already begun pursuing a defunding of the police in that they fund schools, they fund housing and they fund health care more as their number one priorities."

She's correct- it does sound strange. It sounds strange because, notwithstanding some exceptions in a nation of 89,000 municipalities, her statement is inaccurate. She is wrongheaded in saying "many affluent suburbs have essentially already begun pursuing a defunding of the police in that they fund schools, they fund housing and they fund health care more as their number one priorities."

This may or may not actually be technically accurate. Ocasio-Cortez did not specify any of the affluent suburbs but it's possible that a few have cut police funding. But if so, much of the reason is that police departments in many affluent suburbs, generally towns of little crime, have been overfunded for decades. Their primary benefit to the community is to trap- uh, er, to detect- traffic scofflaws, often of dubious advantage to the public.

These affluent municipalities, typically overwhelmingly non-Hispanic white, face different, and less daunting, problems than the major cities which are the focus of the Black Lives Matter movement and of Representative Ocasio-Cortez.  That may be why in June, Pew Research found "fewer than half of Black adults (42%) say spending on policing in their areas should be reduced."

Support for reduction of policing was greater for blacks than whites, which should (but won't) put an end to the snide meme that defunding the police is a boutique issue for Chardonnay sipping, latte drinking, Prius-driving, overly educated whites. Still, even most blacks oppose reducing funding for police.

That is a hard truth for Black Lives Matter or individuals such as Ms. Cortez to swallow.  We know it is because in the same interview with ABC's Stephanopoulos, the New York congresswoman remarked of what Wikipedia terms the "Buffalo police shovingincident"

The President targeted a 75-year-old man, justice-loving man who, uh, who wanted to stand up for his neighbors and wanted to stand up for his fellow black Americans in making sure that everyone is treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Had he heard it, this would have surprised Martin Gugino who, if appearances do not radically deceive, is white. It does not take a genius to suspect that a fellow named "Gugino" is not black, although names, for various reasons, can be deceiving. But the video, or variants thereof, was widely viewed on both social media and televised newscasts.

 

Gugino could possibly be African-American but in the absence of any such evidence, one would either conclude that he is white or simply assume nothing. And yet Ocasio-Cortez not only lauded him (good, that) because he stood for his beliefs but also claimed it was "for his fellow black Americans."

Note also that Ocasio-Cortez did not literally state "the President targeted a 75-year-old man." She said "the President targeted a 75-year-old, uh, man."  Unsure whether to specify the individual's color, she hesitated before deciding not to do so. She could have noted he was white, which the remainder of her sentence made obvious was not her intention. Alternatively, she might have called him a "black man," which would have sparked the interviewer's attention in a way that opting for "his fellow black Americans" would not, and did not.

It may have been a slip of the tongue, though "his fellow black Americans" would be a very long slip. Or it may have been ignorance on the part of the congresswoman, whom no one has plausibly accused of being uninformed.  But a different picture emerges if  that remark is considered with her unsubstantiated, grossly misleading implication that affluent suburbs are widely slashing police budgets and that major cities should follow their lead. Seen realistically, Ocasio-Cortez can reasonably be viewed as a deeply dishonest politician.

 

Share |

Compromise, No Progress

Recounts. Faithless electors. GOP legislatures fielding a Republican slate of delegates in states won by Biden. Challenges in federal court to mail-in ballots and other voting procedures.

This opera isn't over until the fat lady sings. However, in one of the first ridiculous takes on the incoming Administration- assuming Joe Biden takes office sometime next year- is that from William Saletan, who writes "the conservative tilt of this electorate, particularly amid such high turnout, bodes ill for Democrats. But the exit polls also hint at opportunities for compromise and progress."

In this hyper-partisan environment, "compromise and progress" is right up there with summer and winter, poverty and wealth, devil and angel, or good and evil.

Ryan Lizza notes "this campaign was always a referendum on Trump, rather than an affirmative endorsement of Biden and his agenda," an observation perhaps most accurately reflected in Biden's promise to unite the country. Thus, it is unsurprising that, as Axios' Nichols and Allen report

Republicans' likely hold on the Senate is forcing Joe Biden's transition team to consider limiting its prospective Cabinet nominees to those who Mitch McConnell can live with, according to people familiar with the matter.... A source close to McConnell tells Axios a Republican Senate would work with Biden on centrist nominees but no "radical progressives" or ones who are controversial with conservatives.

Or a President Biden could decide to exercise power and, in an upset for recent Democratic Presidents, lead.  One possibility:

Why can’t Biden appoint a dozen Republican senators to cabinet positions for a week, then fire them so there are special elections for those seats?

— Jimmy for #BLM (@bigbats76) November 5, 2020

That won't happen because it would be breaking a norm and as we have learned, breaking all norms and intentionally causing the death of roughly 200,000 Americans will please no more than roughly 48% of the electorate.

Less radically, the President could make a deal with McConnell in which the Majority Leader's wife, Elaine Chao, remains Secretary of Transportation. However, McConnell would be unlikely to agree, given that the President can fire cabinet members at will, and McConnell probably could not be so easily appeased.

There is a third- and at least a little more realistic- option, one which wouldn't break new ground. The ground already was broken by President Trump, with nary a peep from GOP senators or from more than a very few in the GOP establishment. As of July, 2019

the current deputy Labor Secretary, Patrick Pizzella—will have plenty of temporary company. By NPR's count, Pizzella will become the 16th person in the Trump administration who is serving as the acting head of a federal agency, or in some other vital executive branch role. At the Department of Defense, Mark Esper has been on the job since June 18; at the Department of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan recently celebrated his three-month work anniversary. Between January 2 and today, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney has apparently not done enough to convince Trump to make his appointment permanent.

Ordinarily, Cabinet secretaries and designated Cabinet-level officials are subject to the Constitution's advice-and-consent provisions, and must be confirmed to their positions by the Senate. But the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, or FVRA, allows presidents to designate "acting" replacements in the event of a Senate-confirmed individual's death, resignation, or incapacitation. By law, substitutes may retain that designation and the powers of their office for up to 210 days—more than six months—without having to answer to lawmakers in a confirmation hearing setting. If the Senate rejects a nomination for a permanent replacement during that time, the 210-day grace period restarts.

So Joe should take Nike's advice- just do it. There will be no fever broken, no unity created by giving in to Mitch McConnell. It would merely confirm the contempt of Republicans and some others that Democrats are determined to shed "lib tears" and shrink from standing up to their opponents. It would be, as Saletan years for, compromise. But it also means that after four years of extreme conservative governance, the status quo created by Trump and McConnell would remain unchallenged. That would not sit well with voters- and would mean no progress.

 

Share |

The Rebuke Which Won't Be

With some evidence, progressive journalist David Sirota this (Wednesday) morning posted an article arguing that these are the "six takeaways" from the elections:

Democrats’ Weak Economic Message Hugely Helped Trump; The Lincoln Project And Rahm Emanuel Embarrassed Themselves; People Don’t Love The Affordable Care Act;  A Lot Of Grassroots Money Was Set On Fire; Democrats’ Court Calculation Was Wrong; A Large Percentage Of Americans Have Lost Their Minds.

It was clear to many of us that any money (however much, from wherever) thrown at the Democratic senatorial candidates from Kentucky or Alabama would be futile, thus far better spent elsewhere.

I never bought the idea that Republican voters could be wrested from Donald J. Trump. They loved him in 2016, they love his presidency, and they would love him in 2020. It's how they roll. Nonetheless, if Biden were to be elected, it might be attributed to Never Trump Republicans (such as the Lincoln Project) and that would curb any enthusiasm of the Democratic establishment to promote a progressive economic message. 

Certainly, whatever the outcome of the presidential race, it's clear that Americans "have lost their mind"- or their sense of fairness, belief in democratic principles such as free expression or the notion that no one (including the President and his family) are above the law.

I also am convinced, as I always have been, that voters don't love the Affordable Care Act. 

But here is where the rubber meets the road. It's going to be close to impossible to advance that (accurate) narrative if simultaneously Democrats were unable to regain a Senate majority but the vice president to the architect of the Affordable Care Act has been elected President. Similarly doomed is this prescription, right on policy but an extremely hard sell:

I think an open rebuke of Bill Clinton and Obama is necessary. Defending Obamacare is incredibly tone deaf when it was clearly a massive policy failure.

Everything Clinton and Obama touched turned to shit. https://t.co/rBkHGznOWc

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) November 4, 2020

Everything" is an exaggeration but both the Obama and Clinton administrations failed at reversing the trend toward privatization, presided over an increase in income inequality, and harbored an unhealthy fondness for balanced budgets.

However, it's unlikely that the Democratic Party will abandon Obamacare.  As CNN reported in mid-October, Joe Biden had not

swayed from his commitment to continue allowing private plans -- despite the pressure from the Democrats' progressive wing, which wants to put the federal government at the center of the nation's health care system, akin to Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for All" proposal.

"Competition and the option of private insurance plans remain central in this approach," said Linda Blumberg, institute fellow in the Health Policy Center at the Urban Institute.

If Joe Biden has won the presidency (which at this moment, 1:00 eastern time on Wednesday, is probable), it will be hard to dislodge him from the notion that health care is not a right which must be free to everyone regardless of economic or health status.

It will be nearly impossible with a Senate maliciously and effectively led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (a title I had not expected him to have the opportunity to hold in the next Congress). Further, that "nearly" can be erased because (as Matt Stoller has lamented previously) Barack Obama, AKA Mr. ACA, remains extraordinarily popular among Democrats.

After a string of primary and caucus defeats this cycle (and never having won any such contest previously), Joe Biden even in early February had

looked to the black voters of South Carolina to hand a win to his flagging campaign. On Saturday, they delivered.

Biden won 61% of the votes cast by non-white voters, dominating a crowded Democratic field among a group that made up more than half of the electorate. Biden also performed strongly with older voters, women, regular churchgoers and moderates and conservatives, according to AP VoteCast, a wide-ranging survey of more than 1,400 voters in South Carolina’s Democratic primary.

Biden’s strength with the state’s African American voters helped him edge out second-place finisher Bernie Sanders. The Vermont senator won roughly 14% of African American voters, while billionaire Tom Steyer won 15%.

Biden wouldn't have blown away the field, and might not even have won in South Carolina, without the extraordinarily influential support of House Majority Whip James Clyburn who, like the President Biden loyally served, is black.

Once his nomination was clinched, the Party's choice nominated for vice- president a black woman (Asian on the other side, but really), who is not progressive but does support the Affordable Care Act.

That legislation is the signature achievement of President Barack Obama and is what his favorable legacy hinges on.  Neither Kamala Harris nor Jim Clyburn is progressive and both support Barack Obama. Biden is being called upon by Matt Stoller to move away from Obamacare and repudiate the last Democratic President and the president previously known as "the first black President."

It should happen, just as Biden and the Democratic Party ought to disregard the (centrist) policy positions of the Never Trump crowd and replace them with economic policy centered on restoring the hollowed-out manufacturing base of the country, reducing income inequality, and a health care plan which acknowledges the severe limitations of the Affordable Care Act.

They should, but won't. It's not where the electoral base of the Democratic Party is now and it's even further from those special interests now dominating the Party.

 

Share |

Continued Division

Fox News online recognizes

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden paraphrased the man he shared a ticket with in 2008 and 2012, when he used an idea from President Barack Obama in a speech at a Sunday campaign event.

Biden, addressing an audience at a voter mobilization event in North Carolina, claimed that he would be a president for all Americans, and declared that while he represents one party now, he will represent all if elected.

"I'm running as a Democrat but I will govern as an American president," Biden said. "No red states, no blue states, just the United States."

Obama said the same thing when he and Biden were running for a second term in 2012.

More famously, however, Obama delivered a similar message during his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention when he was an Illinois Senate candidate.

"There is not a liberal America or a conservative America, there is the United States of America," Obama said at the time. "There is not a Black America and a white America, and Latino America, an Asian America, there is the United States of America."

Four years later, Senator Barack Obama was elected President of the United States of America.  Eight years later, the country was more divided than ever.

Four years later still, America is even more divided owing to the evil which is Donald J. Trump.

But if the Obama presidency was not responsible for the division of the country into blue states and red states as of 2016, it was unwilling or unable to curtail it, and was a failed presidency.

Now it is 2020, and I agree with the essential point made by this political scientist:

Yes- as I've said, I think Biden did OK w messaging, but they largely made it an issues campaign while I would've made it a "system of gov" campaign (authoritarianism vs democracy) & highlighted exactly what Trump has in mind for his 2nd term. BC it looks like Saddam Hussein https://t.co/3a9B03R5bL

— Rachel "The Doc" Bitecofer 📈🔭🍌 (@RachelBitecofer) November 2, 2020

I wouldn't call "people are dead because, unlike myself, Donald Trump lacks empathy and didn't listen to the scientists" (largely accurate) an "issues" campaign. Jelani Cobb, who typically tweets about issues and history directly affecting African-Americans, is right on target:

One day before the election we’re reminded that Joe Biden, like Barack Obama before him, is closing out a presidential campaign with the promise to fix the national catastrophe presided over by the Republican currently in office.

— jelani cobb (@jelani9) November 2, 2020

One day before the election we’re reminded that Joe Biden, like Barack Obama before him, is closing out a presidential campaign with the promise to fix the national catastrophe presided over by the Republican currently in office.

Nonetheless, I understand Bitecofer's point, and it is an important one. Similarly, Will Bunch writes

For more than five years now, as Donald Trump has jetted across the nation for Nuremberg-style rallies to egg on mob violence while riling up “the forgotten Americans” with a stew of racism, misogyny and xenophobia, many of us have tried to tap dance around what is really going on in this country. I know, at times, I have.

So we call it things like “demagoguery” or “authoritarianism,” or — especially in the wake of 2020′s racial reckoning — “white nationalism.” And on occasion when things really go off the rails — like when the president’s men shoot tear gas and rubber bullets at peaceful protesters near the White House so Trump can stage a photo-op with an upside-down Bible — a few folks go out on a limb and call it “creeping fascism.” Pay attention: It is not creeping. It is on full gallop from Vancouver, Wash., to Graham, N.C., bloodied clubs raised and at the ready.

These are the stakes. Four years ago, we went into a fraught Election Week with vague anxieties about what could — but probably wouldn’t, we wrongly convinced ourselves — happen. Now we no longer have to imagine what a Trump presidency would be like, or how much worse things could get if he clings to the White House by illegitimate means for another four years. There are so many problems that America needs to address, but all of that hinges on the coming weeks and whether we fulfill our already frayed but implied 1787 promise to Ben Franklin made right here in Philadelphia: A republic, if we can keep it.

Times have changed- sort of- since Obama's speech in 2004. There still exist the "blue" states and "red" states he successfully fooled the left into believing were a mirage. However, now there are many "purple" states because, the differences among states are eclipsed by the differences within states, as urban areas are increasingly liberal/Democratic while rural areas are increasingly conservative/Republican.

But there is one major similarity- a Democrat running for the presidency on the "why can't we all get along" plank and who sincerely wants nothing as much as he (they) wants (or want) to unite the country.

It won't happen, of course because it is not what the right is interested in.  Though a few people a week ago thought otherwise, the events of the last few day should have shaken the optimism.  If Biden for the purpose of election says there are no blue states or red states, only the United States of America- and it proves successful- all the better. The cancer first must be excised so that we can keep that Republic. If, though, he really believes it, he'll need to learn quickly as President or things will deteriorate far more quickly than they did under the presidency of the Democrat he served for eight years.

 

Share |

Worse Than Sick

Never Trump Republican and husband of Kelly Ann (Fitzpatrick) Conway:

This is truly one of the sickest lies he's ever told, and that's saying something. https://t.co/N7TOGJrskH

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) October 30, 2020

Now, that is one good sense of humor. Trump dishonestly disparages doctors and a critic labels it "one of the sickest lies."

What is the truth, however?

In September, American Hospital Association President and CEO Rick Pollack wrote

Hospitals do not receive extra funds when patients die from COVID-19. They are not over-reporting COVID-19 cases. And, they are not making money on treating COVID-19.....

Further, hospitals and health systems adhere to strict coding guidelines, and use of the COVID-19 code for Medicare claims is reserved for confirmed cases. Coding inappropriately can result in criminal penalties and exclusion from the Medicare program altogether.

Surprise! Trump lied and people will continue to die- Americans, for those individuals convinced the President wants to "make America great again."  There are at least three reasons, each of them more rational (for him) than sick, that Trump has come up with this one.

The President could have noted that under the CARES Act, hospitals and health systems receive a Medicare add-on payment of 29% for what is described here as "complex coronavirus-related treatment." But had Trump done so, he would have dabbled in facts, which he rarely does and which is typically not a concern for his conservative audiences. Additionally, Trump would not have been blaming doctors but hospitals, which bear major responsibility for the outrageous cost of health care in the USA. That would have a bug, not a benefit in an Administration which has enthusiastically promoted the interests of the economic power elite.

Most obviously, however, the President wants to blame others for his failure by deflecting attention from his active role in promoting SARS-CoV-2.  Moreover, if he can sow (further) distrust in doctors, more individuals will be reluctant to seek prompt medical attention when warranted. More deaths would ensue, which (aside from re-election) has been this President's game plan since the beginning of the pandemic.

Share |