Negative Reinforcement

Alan Minsky, the Executive Director of Progressive Democrats of America, asks

why does the DNC (and, by extension, the establishment wing of the Democratic Party) refuse not only to address poverty but really even to acknowledge its existence...

This is not a new question. By Bill Clinton’s presidency the shift away from supporting programs designed to address poverty became official party policy, echoing the Republicans mantra of self-help. Of course, poverty rates remained more or less constant. During Obama’s presidency, Tavis Smiley and Cornel West launched their poverty tour because of the president and the party’s refusal to even say the word, let alone do anything about poverty. Similarly the on-going Poor People’s Campaign explicitly operates outside of a party that refuses to seriously address an endemic social problem that conservatively has many tens of millions of Americans in its grips.

He answers- in part- his own question by noting

The prevailing ideology of the past four decades, call it neoliberalism or market fundamentalism, embraced by the mainstream of both parties, offers no solution to American poverty. Rather, it tacitly accepts it as part of the landscape. So an alternative poverty policy will, by definition, fly in the face of Democratic establishment orthodoxy. In other words, we’re going to meet resistance.

There are additional reasons, of course, including a lesson of Democratic primary history. In 2008, John Edwards based his campaign to become the Democratic presidential nominee on recognition of "two Americas."  Although recognizing that race played a part, it was a message centered on acknowledging that the poor of any race have been left behind while the wealthy had become wealthier and even more powerful.

Even before the scandal of having had an extra-marital affair resulting in a child, Edwards had fallen behind both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and facing a seriously uphill battle.

The race came down to one candidate promising to make history as the first female president and one determined to become the first black president. The latter prevailed, winning both the nomination and the office itself, with millions of independents (and a few Republicans) inspired by a message of good feelings and intentions. Democrats felt a real hunger for change and placed their faith in Obama's rhetoric of "hope" and"change." 

Nonetheless, as Smiley and West realized, that hope was never realized as President Obama presided over an Administration that did little to address either economic or racial inequality. Strategically, he didn't have to. As Aaron Coleman recently pointed out, "whenever Barack needed to shore up his black base, he could summon a sermon or a Jay-Z appearance quicker than you could say 'Kwanzaa.'” (The latter also played well with his young white liberal base, the former with his middle-aged white liberal base.)

And so Barack Obama remains extraordinarily popular among Democrats (which a former speechwriter of his actually believes is a good thing).  For eight years, President Obama sat on his popularity and did nothing to close the gap between the two Americas. The gathering interest among Democratic officials, including presidential candidates, in addressing the racial wealth gap could not have emerged without a failure to pay any attention to it in the previous ten (and more) years.

President Obama, largely unmoved by the plight of poor, working-class, and middle-class Americans relative to the wealthy, is the one recent successful Democratic presidential aspirant. And he is beloved with the Party's voters. It is a lesson that- unfortunately- the Democratic Party, and its national committee, has learned well.

Share |

A Little More Information

Controversy swirling around the second highest elected official in Virginia may give us a glimpse into the perspective of Democratic candidates for the presidency. On Monday we were reminded by the Associated Press

Two women have made allegations against Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax. But on Saturday, Fairfax issued a statement repeating his strong denials that he had ever sexually assaulted anyone and made clear he does not intend to immediately step down....

Though Virginia's congressional delegation is split

Since the two allegations against Fairfax were made, many top Democrats running for president in 2020 have called for Fairfax’s resignation, including Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

Attorneys for both Meredith Watson and Vanessa Tyson say their clients would testify in any impeachment hearing,   Fairfax has denied the charges and called for an FBI investigation, though it is more likely an investigation would be conducted by local police and/or prosecutors because the the offenses alleged are not federal crimes.  

He also decried a "rush to judgement" and that was before Politico reported late yesterday.

A woman who alleged Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax raped her in college was accused of harassing and threatening a man she had a relationship with, according to Maryland court records.

The man sought and received a peace order against Meredith Watson in July 2008, the records show. A peace order falls under the “umbrella term” of a restraining order in the state of Maryland, University of Maryland law professor Leigh Goodmark said. It is applied to situations in which a person may need to ask for distance from someone who isn't their spouse or live-in partner, he said

In a petition for the restraining order, obtained by POLITICO, the man described an incident in which Watson “was detaining me against my will ... [and] not letting me leave” a vacation house in Corolla, N.C., and “dented the trunk” of his vehicle with her fist. In another instance, Watson showed up at his house stating “she was going to kill herself” and sent “threatening text messages” to the man, who had his sister come over to persuade her to leave, according to the document.

Watson’s spokeswoman, Karen Kessler, did not comment for this story before publication. After the story was published a lawyer for Watson, Nancy Erika Smith, said the order granted was a seven-day court order and that Watson “was not in the Courtroom and did not know about the proceedings or have an opportunity to be heard” when it was issued. The man “abandoned the effort after hearing from Ms. Watson’s lawyer,” Smith said.

The dispute between the two centered around $2,000 that was owed to Watson and was resolved, Smith said, with the man agreeing to pay Watson. The man who filed the request for the order did not respond to a request for comment for this story, nor did Fairfax through his office.

It appears that, regrettably, the three presidential hopefuls who had it all figured out were not asked for comment.  Politico adds

Watson also told friends she was raped by former Duke University basketball player Corey Maggette, according to a report in The New York Times. “I have never sexually assaulted anyone in my life and I completely and categorically deny any such charge," Maggette, who became an NBA player, said...

The petition against Watson also stated that, “Within 30 days the respondent was at my home and wouldn’t leave [and] the respondent was throwing property and I had to call my sister over [to] the house to make her leave. On numerous occasions respondent has stated she was going to kill herself."

“This isn’t the first time or occurrence,” the man wrote.

The petition said Watson called the man “around 100 times a day” after the vacation house incident and sent him text messages.

“I am going to enjoy tearing you down just as much as you enjoyed tearing me down. Hang on tight because you are in for a ride!” read one of the alleged text messages that the man transcribed on the petition.

It still is possible that Watson was in fact raped by Justin Fairfax or that there was improper contact of some sort.  Even if not the case, there is still the matter of the charge made by Ms. Tyson.

However, this most recent information that has come to light demonstrates further that there needs to be a full investigation.  We probably then would learn why- in a question no one media outlet has had the backbone to ask- a woman raped by a man and one forced into oral intercourse evidently did not report the matter to either the local police department or the county prosecutor's office.

There may have been an awfully good reason in both cases. Still, it's a missing critical piece of this puzzle.

Also missing is an explanation by Mr. Booker, Ms. Warren, and Ms. Gillibrand as to whether they are convinced the allegations are accurate or instead believe that the charges themselves require Justin Fairfax to step down from the position to which the voters of Virginia elected him.  It's the least we should expect from individuals who are asking voters for the opportunity to pull us out of the mess we got into a long time ago, and which Donald J. Trump is aggravating almost daily.

Share |

Another Unapologetic Apology

Under pressure from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic members of the House of Representatives, Ilhan Omar has"apologized."

Listening and learning, but standing strong 💪🏽 pic.twitter.com/7TSroSf8h1

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) February 11, 2019

A genuine apology is something like "I'm sorry for what I've (written/said/tweeted/done)," preferably including "because I was wrong," and definitely omitting "but of course I was right." This was not oa horse of a different color; it wasn't even a mammal.

Omar began by acknowledging anti-semitism is "real," not unlike acknowledging the existnce of, say, climate, Nepal, or planet Earth itself. We know her intention is not to "offend," but instead to express her opinion, however repulsive.  (And there is no such thing as "Jewish Americans" because "Jewish" is not a nationality.)

"Just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity" sounds like she is trying to rationalize her remarks but, more generously, is a garbled set of 15 words. No one is apologizing- expressing regret at one's own words or action- by announcing she is apologizing. The apology lies in actually expressing error rather than in characterizing one's statement.

She writes "at the same time" to emphasize the message that follows: "I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry." The tell is that this is not what she had said. When Greenwald defended Omar and Tlaib for their criticism of Israel and slammed Congress for encouraging suppression of the BDS movement, Omar had responded  "It's all about the Benjamins baby 🎶."

But AIPAC does not donate money to political campaigns and though facts may be inconvenient, they still are facts.

Equating AIPAC with the NRA and the fossil fuel industry- two groups of which Omar is (rightly) critical- and not of immigrant rights or other groups she favors, she makes it clear that she is hostile to the the pro-Israel group. That is her right, but including it in an apology alone renders the so-called apology meaningless.

In response, Representative Joe Kennedy III- who evidently will not be spotted entering a MENSA meeting- tweeted "Glad to see this. With anti-semitism on the rise at home and abroad, we must unequivocally reject tropes, stereotypes or other language deeply hurtful to the Jewish community -- there's no place for it."

One can only hope that Kennedy other elected officials and media figures who believe that Ilhan Omar has apologized are merely declaring victory in an attempt to move on. If instead they believe that a politician demanding "people hear me when others attack me" and that AIPAC is the moral equivalent of the murder-approving, likely Russia-funded National Rifle Association is offering a mea culpa, they don't realize when they've been played.

Share |

Christianity Subordinated

Proudly Never Trump in 2016, Erick Erickson- lawyer, blogger, talk show host, and intense evangelical Protestant- now promises to vote for Trump-Pence in 2020 while

Some of my concerns about President Trump remain. I still struggle on the character issue and I understand Christian friends who would rather sit it out than get involved. But I also recognize that we cannot have the Trump Administration policies without President Trump and there is much to like.

Erickson cites taxes, deregulation, the ACA, Israel, the Paris accord and the agreement with Iran, "shifting foreign policy focus to the western hemisphere, and "solid executive appointments, including to the judiciary."  As could be expected, Erickson adds

We have a party that is increasingly hostile to religion and now applies religious tests to blocking judicial nominees. We have a party that believes children can be murdered at birth.

The Democratic Party does not apply religious tests to judicial nominees.  Rather, a few of President Trump's nominees have made it clear not only that their religious views inform their judicial philosophy, but that they believe divine law trumps secular law in consideration of legal issues. Andrew L. Seidel explains

Questions of religion are fair game the moment nominees argue that their duty to their god is superior to their duty to this country. The issue is not the religious belief itself, but the ability of that nominee to honor their oath of office. If they cannot, We the People have a right to know. And the Senate has a duty to ask.

These questions cannot be blocked by a Senator, as Ted Cruz recently did, whining  about a "theological inquisition."  It would be better (or at least more transparent)  for a nominee to defend his or her judicial philosophy in light of theological precepts the candidate holds.That would require a willingness to defend her judicial approach with its philosophical underpinnings. 

Alas, under questioning they choose to hide their rationale and Christian faith. Similarly, Erick Erickson chooses not to tell us what Democratic official "believes children can be murdered at birth,." He may be referring to Virginia governor Ralph Northam, though surely the latter does not represent an entire party, especially now that he is under attack from some of its most prominent members.

A few days (not coincidentally) before the Northam blackface scandal, the Governor was asked about a hypothetical situation prompted by the mischaracterization by conservatives of an abortion bill briefly considered by the state's House of Delegates.  Although the bill pertains to second and third trimester abortions, Northam unwisely responded

If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desire. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

Characteristically apoplectic, Republicans erupted in false outrage, contending- as it would appear Erickson is- that this is infanticide. However, it's likely the critics understand that

When an infant who might have otherwise been terminated in a third-trimester abortion is born, doctors and parents don’t then decide whether to kill the baby. They choose whether to take extreme, painful measures to try, against the odds, to keep a baby with severe congenital deformities alive.

It's unsurprising that as a forced birth advocate Erickson, though arguing in bad faith, would attack Democrats for support of abortion rights and questioning of judges about the impact of religious belief upon their judicial philosophy.

Nonetheless, when Erickson suggested in September of 2016 that he would vote for neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump, he accused the latter of "corrupting the virtuous and fostering hatred, racism and dangerous strains of nationalism." Erickson argues that the 2+ years of President Trump have been characterized by successful, conservative activity.

Erickson is elated that the policies have been very conservative and, in his opinion, successful. However, Donald Trump's presidency has been marked no more by extremist policies- which a President Cruz also would have promulgated- than it has been by lies, repeated regularly and enthusiastically; public demeaning of friend and foe alike; and boasts of the President's endless greatness.

These are not Christ-like virtues, and Erickson wrote at the time

That I see so many Christians justifying Trump’s immorality, defining deviancy down, and turning to anger and despondency about the future tells me I cannot in good faith support Trump because his victory would have lasting, damaging consequences for Christianity in America.

Now Erick Erickson supports the man whose victory appears it will have lasting, damaging consequences for Christianity in America.  That would be troubling from an atheist, far more so from someone who claims a deep Christian faith.

Share |

Oblivious

There is a serious problem oddly obscured in the current controversy over alleged sexual assaults committed by Justin Fairfax, now Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, and that of sexual assaults allegedly committed decades earlier by Brett Kavanaugh.

Once Circuit Court Judge Kavanaugh appeared on a short list of nominees for the US Supreme Court, Christine Blasey Ford wrote US Senator Dianne Feinstein, charging that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her in the early 1980s, when she was 15 and he was 17.   The information eventually became the primary controversy in the Senate Judiciary Committee considering the nomination.

Deborah Ramirez also charged Kavanaugh with sexual misconduct, which would have occurred a few years later, when both individuals were attending Yale University. Declaring loyalty to Kavanaugh, the White House labeled the accusation a "35-year-old, uncorroborated claim" which "is the latest in a coordinated smear campaign."

It wasn't coordinated- but never mind. It was, of course, uncorroborated, neither proven nor disproved.

Following an additional, cursory investigation, the Senate Judiciary Committee (possibly inaccurately) declared there was "no evidence to substantiate any of the claims" of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh.

There had been six (6) investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of Brett Kavanaugh in the quarter century spanning the period of 1993 to 2018- and a partisan GOP committee did not exonerate the candidate, only claiming there was "no evidence."

After Meredith Watson, then Vanessa Tyson, recently accused Justin Fairfax of sexual assault, the Lieutenant Governor released a statement which included  “I demand a full investigation into these unsubstantiated and false allegations. I will clear my good name and I have nothing to hide. I have passed two full field background checks by the FBI and run for office in two highly contested elections with nothing like this being raised before.”

Fairfax cites "two full field background checks by the FBI."  Similarly, supporters of Brett Kavanaugh had cited the "full-field investigations" conducted of Kavanaugh on several occasions.

And yet, this: all these investigations by the highly-touted Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Bureau came up with nothing. Nothing.

That begs the question of why the Federal Bureau of Investigation is conducting inadequate investigations of public figures. Even if none of the charges against either Kavanaugh or Fairfax is valid (an extremely improbable scenario), they are accusations the FBI presumably did not learn of (or alternatively, buried).

Donald Trump, and to a lesser extent, his supporters have been attacking the FBI for the better part of two years. However, they do not question the competence or efficiency of America's top law enforcement agency, but instead its over-zealousness, and that only because it has been investigating Donald Trump.

Responding to criticism of the bureau from Team Russia, Democrats have only heaped praise upon the agency.  It has been, consequently, immune from legitimate criticism. But after Donald Trump is removed, one way or the other, from office, there should be an investigation into the investigators, because the Federal Bureau of Investigation has not been living up to its hype.

Share |

We Don't Need No Stinking Investigation!

As The Washington Post has reported

A Maryland woman said Friday that she was sexually assaulted by Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax (D) in a “premeditated and aggressive” attack in 2000, while both were undergraduate students at Duke University. She is the second woman this week to accuse him of sexual assault. Fairfax forcefully denied both allegations.

Democratic Party leaders quickly called for Fairfax to resign, including the influential Virginia Legislative Black Caucus. Many who had withheld judgment after the first allegation this week said they could no longer stand by him, including most of Virginia’s Democratic congressional delegation and national Democrats with presidential aspirations.

While Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) and Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.) said Fairfax should resign if the allegations were true, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) offered no such equivocation. “The allegations against him detail atrocious crimes, and he can no longer effectively serve the Commonwealth,” Kaine said in a statement. “We cannot ever ignore or tolerate sexual assault"...

The new accusation against Fairfax came from Meredith Watson, who said Friday in a statement through her attorney that she shared her account with several classmates and friends immediately after the alleged assault occurred. Watson did not speak publicly Friday, and her lawyer did not make her available for an interview.

“I deny this latest unsubstantiated allegation,” Fairfax responded in a statement. “It is demonstrably false. I have never forced myself on anyone ever.”

Asked what evidence Fairfax had that would demonstrate that the charge was false, spokeswoman Lauren Burke said: “In due time, all the facts will come out.”

If it's up to several Democrats- Terry McAuliffe, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris-  who have announced, or may announce, for the Democratic nomination for President- the facts probably will not come out.

All those Democrats, as well as at least five Democratic US Representatives, have called on the Lieutenant Governor to resign.  And they are all wrong.

If the charges against Fairfax are as they seem and the pleas for him to resign are legitimate (reasonable), they are sufficientlyserious to warrant an investigation.

That investigation should have been conducted 18-19 years when the alleged violent crimes took place. Unfortunately, the attack never was reported- or so it seems, in the absence of any reporting to the contrary- and the people of North Carolina (in Tyson's case, Massachusetts) thereby were denied the inquiry they deserved.

McAuliffe, the immediate ex-governor of Virginia, recognizes the charges as "serious" and as "credible."Yet, when a defendant is charged with a crime, a grand jury indicts the individual- thereby concluding the serious charge is credible- and he is not automatically punished or penalized, instead given an opportunity to go to trial or to negotiate a plea. A lieutenant governor should be given similar consideration.

Notwithstanding the statement of public officials that Justin Fairfax must not wait for the civil equivalent of indictment but instead resign immediately, there must be a prompt and thorough investigation. That might benefit Fairfax, whose political career (and more) will otherwise have been unjustly destroyed if the accusations are invalid. If they are largely accurate, however, the two women who maintain they were sexually assaulted deserve complete vindication.

The behavior alleged is dreadful and appalling. However, in a democratic republic, we do not lightly overturn the will of the people. That includes those in the state of Virginia, whom Fairfax serve, and the  voters of Virginia, who elected him. All deserve assurance that the truth has been sought and as much as possible, determined.

Share |

Unreliable Advocate

Anti-trust crusader Matt Stoller, a critic of Barack Obama and of the Democratic establishment (but I repeat myself), is not a fan of Neal Katyal, often seen opining on MSNBC and CNN.

Stoller noted that Katyal's law firm marketing materials bragged that the latter "achieved landmark wins for Bristol-Myers Squibb limiting forum-shopping in mass torts cases, and for Wells Fargo reversing a decision allowing cities to sue under the Fair Housing Act."

So when Katyal tweeted "100 years from now, law students will read about this decision. It may be read alongside Dred Scott, Plessy v. Feguson, Korematsu, and the Chinese Exclusion Act cases," an unimpressed and skeptical Stoller responded

Katyal makes money selling corporate legal services as a rainmaker for #BigLaw firm Hogan Lovells's Supreme Court practice. He endorsed Gorsuch for the court and warmly praised Kavanaugh. I don't understand the credulity towards an obvious con artist.

A charge fairly extreme (except as applied to anyone in Donald Trump's inner circle) as "an obvious con artist," should not be taken as face value. However, in a January 2017 op-ed in The New York Times, Katyal wrote

I have no doubt that if confirmed, Judge Gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law. His years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence — a record that should give the American people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the president who appointed him. Judge Gorsuch’s record suggests that he would follow in the tradition of Justice Elena Kagan, who voted against President Obama when she felt a part of the Affordable Care Act went too far. In particular, he has written opinions vigorously defending the paramount duty of the courts to say what the law is, without deferring to the executive branch’s interpretations of federal statutes, including our immigration laws.

One down, one to go. Soon after President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, we learned

Katyal, a former acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, spoke highly of Kavanaugh’s work ethic and character.

“It’s very hard for anyone who has worked with him, appeared before him, to frankly say a bad word about him,” Katyal said. “This is an incredibly brilliant, careful person, but someone who will move the court in a conservative direction.

“In my practice, we basically have a rule that if there’s a Kavanaugh clerk who applies, we hire that person. He’s legendary for his preparation,” Katyal added. “This is a guy who reads … every one of those opinions, sits down with his clerks on Fridays, and goes through them, each one, every single opinion. He is an unusual judge, so I think it will be a very interesting set of hearings.”

On Thursday, the Supreme Court granted a temporary stay to a Louisiana law that required doctors performing abortions to obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Had it gone into effect, possibly all facilities providing abortions in the state may have shut down. Chief Justice Roberts joined the four liberal judges, with justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh- the latter writing the minority opinion- taking the forced birth position.

Katyal was wrong about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, and that's not all. In May 2018 he claimed "The basic point is that prosecutors should not be able to tie up the work of a president," a highly arguable point. The same month, he cast further doubt on remedying criminal behavior of a president by indictment, a view he has been reticent to express on MSNBC.

Matt Stoller believes there is a Democratic "deep state," which is "not the politicians, not the consultants, but Big Law. That's where power lives." Unfortunately, referring to it as a "deep state" enhances a Republican talking point. But with the likes of Neal Katyal, an acting solicitor general in the Obama Administration, defender of global warming and friend of The Federalist Society, it's hard to argue with him.

Share |