Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Chas_P]

Charles,

 

Unrelated, but do you consider persons and organizations who suppress legal voting rights your enemy?

I have no enemies Winston. Everybody loves me. :)

[Winstonm]

I have no enemies Winston. Everybody loves me. :)

 

So, you only pay lip service to democracy but really only care about power?

 

Edit: Myself, I do consider enemies those who attempt to subvert democracy for their own selfish interests.

[y66]

Taylor gets it.

[barmar]

And another one's gone, another one bites the dust:

Jimmy Kimmel played a great clip of her chuckling and rolling her eyes when Trump suggested that maybe she would return to the administration in some other role in the future. She seems like a reasonable person, so I'm sure she's glad to be out of that madhouse.

[Winstonm]

Oh, look, another Dennison "accomplishment": Yahoo

 

Ford Prepares for Mass Layoffs After Losing $1 Billion to Trump's Trade Tariffs, Report Says

 

Ford is having a bad year in 2018. Its stock is down 29%, and the tariffs imposed by President Trump have reportedly cost the company $1 billion, as the company is in the midst of a reorganization. Now, the company is announcing layoffs.

[y66]

The forgotten Americans: An economic agenda for a divided nation

 

This Brookings event just ended. It takes a day or so to post the video. Worth checking out.

 

Edit: This paper by Isabel Sawhill summarizes her observations and 7 policy recommendations, many of which have been vetted here in the wc.

[Chas_P]

So, you only pay lip service to democracy but really only care about power?

 

Edit: Myself, I do consider enemies those who attempt to subvert democracy for their own selfish interests.

I care not at all about "power". My desire is for comity.

[y66]

Guest post from Michelle Cottle at NYT:

 

With less than a month until Election Day, it’s time for Democrats to hunker down and get serious about their midterm messaging. In the dispiriting aftermath of the recent Supreme Court confirmation circus, this means taking a couple of deep breaths, not flipping out over the Republicans’ purported “Kavanaugh bounce” (which might be more of a hiccup) and focusing on a few key issues that resonate with a broad swath of voters.

 

Republicans are twitchy about their electoral prospects. They know that midterm elections tend to go poorly for the party that holds the White House, just as they are aware that President Trump, while beloved by the base, has a popularity problem among the wider electorate. Party leaders are going all in with the culture-warring and scaremongering, looking to drive their voters to the polls with the specter of a wild-eyed, rage-filled Democratic “mob” hellbent on destroying the Republic. In a Wednesday op-ed in USA Today, the president himself indulged in some light red-baiting, claiming that “radical socialist” Democrats want to turn America into Venezuela. The entire screed was classic Trump: unhinged, breathtakingly dishonest and aimed squarely at making the opposition’s head explode.

 

As part of this base-stroking, Republicans are eager to keep the debate raging over their freshly confirmed, ultra-polarizing Supreme Court justice, Brett Kavanaugh. The brutal fight to seat Justice Kavanaugh, which morphed from an inquiry into the judicial fitness of one man into a culture-war cage match over women’s rights and shifting sexual mores, electrified many left-leaning voters. But it also stirred up die-hard Republicans, potentially endangering the “enthusiasm gap” Democrats had been enjoying.

 

With Justice Kavanaugh now safely tucked into his lifetime appointment, there’s much less cause for conservatives to stay angry. And even if they’re stewing today, or next weekend, three-plus weeks is an eternity in politics — all the more in a political climate dominated by this endlessly dramatic White House. Thus, we see prominent Republicans, including the Senate majority leader and the head of the Republican National Committee, peddling the idea that if Democrats gain power in Congress, one of their top priorities will be to impeach Justice Kavanaugh. No matter that this claim has no factual basis — it plays perfectly to the Republican base’s enduring sense of victimhood.

 

Which is why Democrats must resist the urge to follow Republicans down this spider hole, or that of any radioactive topic designed to inflame partisan passions.

 

Thankfully, Democratic leaders in both chambers of Congress seem to recognize this and are encouraging their members to pivot toward issues aimed at bringing more people into the fold. In the Senate, they have said they will fixate on health care in the coming weeks, with special attention paid to protections for people with pre-existing conditions. This is a wildly popular provision of Obamacare, and one on which Republicans know they are vulnerable. This explains why President Trump fibbed about having fulfilled a campaign vow to protect coverage for pre-existing conditions, when in reality his administration has refused to defend such protections. Every single Democratic candidate should be laboring to make sure that every single American voter knows this.

 

The day after the Kavanaugh confirmation vote, the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, called on her members to pull themselves together — “DON’T AGONIZE, ORGANIZE” — and get busy selling voters on the party’s “For the People” agenda. In addition to cutting health care costs, Democrats pledge to focus on creating well-paying jobs through infrastructure investment and on tackling Washington corruption. The party ought to have a bit of fun with this last agenda item, given that polls have shown for months now that a strong majority of voters are favorably inclined toward congressional candidates who will provide a check on this White House.

 

So far, Democrats seem to be staying on point. A couple of lawmakers have called for the next Congress, presumably with Democratic control of the House, to revisit the allegations against Justice Kavanaugh. A handful of others have argued that, if it turns out that he lied to Congress, he should be impeached. Ms. Pelosi has swatted down such suggestions, declaring, “We are not about impeachment.”

 

None of this means that the masses of Americans rightly appalled by this Supreme Court fight, or any of Mr. Trump’s outrages, should simply swallow their pain and get over it. Outside groups and incensed individuals should be working to channel all that frustration and heartbreak into turning out voters next month.

 

But the truth is, voters repulsed by Mr. Trump and his congressional enablers are already fired up to turn out for Democrats. Thanks to an unforgiving Senate map, the party’s more daunting challenge this cycle is to persuade people in not-so-blue areas of the country to give it a second chance.

 

As such, candidates and lawmakers need to take a more strategic approach. Stick to a message with broad appeal. Discuss the Kavanaugh battle in the larger context of the need for a responsible legislative branch to hold this out-of-control executive branch accountable. And no talk of impeachment — for anyone.

 

The only way to get the attention of a Republican Party that has proved itself interested in nothing more than power is to take away that power. Until that happens, the rest is just noise.

[barmar]

Oh, look, another Dennison "accomplishment": Yahoo

Of course, Trump's supporters will just say that this is only temporary pain until we "win" the trade wars. He's doing this for us, to protect the jobs that are being lost to all those other countries (esp. China) because of their "unfair" trade practices.

 

Which is like saying that military casualties are just a temporary loss until we win whatever war they're involved in.

[kenberg]

Guest post from Michelle Cottle at NYT:

 

 

 

I agree with the general tone, but I think it is a bit optimistic.

 

Example:

So far, Democrats seem to be staying on point. A couple of lawmakers have called for the next Congress, presumably with Democratic control of the House, to revisit the allegations against Justice Kavanaugh. A handful of others have argued that, if it turns out that he lied to Congress, he should be impeached. Ms. Pelosi has swatted down such suggestions, declaring, "We are not about impeachment."

and

Thus, we see prominent Republicans, including the Senate majority leader and the head of the Republican National Committee, peddling the idea that if Democrats gain power in Congress, one of their top priorities will be to impeach Justice Kavanaugh. No matter that this claim has no factual basis — it plays perfectly to the Republican base's enduring sense of victimhood.

If in fact the Ds have no intention of using a hoped for Senate/House majority to oust Kavanaugh through impeachment I most strong suggest that they make this very clear very fast. One statement by Pelosi will not suffice.

 

Some posters here have favored post-November impeachment. E.J. Dionne, in a recent column, suggests:

If Democrats take control of the House, they should hold hearings on the administration's manipulation of the FBI investigation. These could also shed light on the extent to which Kavanaugh misled the Senate.

 

And there should now be no squeamishness about the urgency of enlarging the Supreme Court if Democrats have the power to do so after the 2020 elections. The current majority on the court was created through illegitimate means. Changing that majority would not constitute politicizing the court because conservatives have already done this without apology

Of course neither the posters here nor E.J. are running for office, but clearly this is in the air. To the extent that the D's make it clear that they are interested in helping working families rather than undoing the Kavanaugh appointment, I expect them to gain votes. But they need to make it very clear with statements that allow for no wiggle room, and it has to be clear that it is a party-wide view. I hope that this is as obvious to them as it is to me.

 

My Trump-free stay in Oregon was great. But the Dems desperately need my advice.

[Winstonm]

I care not at all about "power". My desire is for comity appeasement.

 

FYP

[Chas_P]

FYP

Appeasement: To bring about a state of peace, quiet, calm, contentment. Yeah. That's it.

[Winstonm]

Appeasement: To bring about a state of peace, quiet, calm, contentment. Yeah. That's it.

 

More like this:

 

especially : a policy of appeasing an enemy or potential aggressor by making concessions

[Al_U_Card]

More like this:

The opposite of polarization which leads nowhere good.

[johnu]

Of course neither the posters here nor E.J. are running for office, but clearly this is in the air. To the extent that the D's make it clear that they are interested in helping working families rather than undoing the Kavanaugh appointment, I expect them to gain votes. But they need to make it very clear with statements that allow for no wiggle room, and it has to be clear that it is a party-wide view. I hope that this is as obvious to them as it is to me.

 

My Trump-free stay in Oregon was great. But the Dems desperately need my advice.

 

If there was a Democratic President, removing Kavanaugh, either by Federal prosecution for perjury, or impeachment would make sense. Kavanaugh has about the same command of the truth as Dennison so an FBI interview where he is forced to give straight answers would either be a perjury party, or he would have to take 5th to avoid incriminating himself.

 

A moderate or progressive justice could be nominated and confirmed and that would be a result worth the effort of impeachment. If Dennison is still president, he'll just nominate somebody even worse (if that's possible) but who doesn't have any bones in the closet that could lead to impeachment down the road.

 

It's much better to leave Kavanaugh alone for now.

[Winstonm]

This story just won't stay dead - does that mean it has legs?

 

Given the limitations of D.N.S. data, none of the independent experts I spoke to could be certain of what Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization were doing. Some of them cautioned that it was impossible even to guess at every way that an e-mail system might malfunction. A senior analyst at a D.N.S.-service provider said, “Things can get messed up in unexpected ways.” But Paul and Leto maintained that they had considered and rejected every scenario that they had encountered in decades of cybersecurity work. “Is it possible there is an innocuous explanation for all this?” Paul said. “Yes, of course. And it’s also possible that space aliens did this. It’s possible—just not very likely.”

[ggwhiz]

A moderate or progressive justice could be nominated and confirmed and that would be a result worth the effort of impeachment. If Dennison is still president, he'll just nominate somebody even worse (if that's possible) but who doesn't have any bones in the closet that could lead to impeachment down the road.

 

It's much better to leave Kavanaugh alone for now.

 

Agreed but..........What is the history of changing the confirmation votes needed from 60 to 51?

 

More importantly, who thought that was a good idea? Under the 60 vote scenario wing-nuts need not apply, left or right and I for one would like to see it make a comeback.

[kenberg]

If there was a Democratic President, removing Kavanaugh, either by Federal prosecution for perjury, or impeachment would make sense. Kavanaugh has about the same command of the truth as Dennison so an FBI interview where he is forced to give straight answers would either be a perjury party, or he would have to take 5th to avoid incriminating himself.

 

A moderate or progressive justice could be nominated and confirmed and that would be a result worth the effort of impeachment. If Dennison is still president, he'll just nominate somebody even worse (if that's possible) but who doesn't have any bones in the closet that could lead to impeachment down the road.

 

It's much better to leave Kavanaugh alone for now.

 

 

My point was different. It was that if voters become convinced that Dems would use election successes to oust Kavanaugh, this will hurt the Dems chances for electoral success.

Three indicators of this come from the article that I was responding to.

1. Republicans are saying that Dems would use electoral success to oust Kavenaugh, Presumably they are making this charge because they expect that this will hurt, not help, Democrats.

2. Pelosi says :"We are not about impechement". Presumably she says this because she does not want voters to think that the Dems are about impeachment.

3. The author of the article asserts, referring to the charges that the Dems could use electoral success to pursue impeachment, "the claim has no factual basis". Presumably he points this out because he thinks the charges, if believed, would hurt Democrats.

 

 

So I think that I am not the only one, not by a long shot, who thinks that painting the Dems as pro-impeachemnt will be harmful to the Dems' electoral chances. And I don't think that saying impeachment will not be immediate but rather when there is a Dem president really changes this calculation.

 

So my hope is that the Dems think this through and then make it very clear whether they plan to impeach or do not plan to impeach. Never mind about exactly when this impeachment would occur. Do they or don't they plan to impeach Kavanaugh? The clock is ticking, they should have worked this through already. Dionne suggests enlarging the court as a way to respond. If voters come to think of this suggestion as a serious Democratic strategy, for 2020 or whenever, i think this will cost the Dems quite a few votes. Politicians like to play both sides of the street. I don't think that this will work here. The issue is pretty straightforward: Are the Dems prepared to accept the results of the confirmation process and move on, or are they not? Silence will suggest, and allow others to credibly suggest, that they are planning to impeach as soon as the time is right. If impeachment, sooner or later, is in fact the plan, then fine. If it is not the plan, I strongly advise them to make this clear. Today. Preferably yesterday.

[Winstonm]

My point was different. It was that if voters become convinced that Dems would use election successes to oust Kavanaugh, this will hurt the Dems chances for electoral success.

Three indicators of this come from the article that I was responding to.

1. Republicans are saying that Dems would use electoral success to oust Kavenaugh, Presumably they are making this charge because they expect that this will hurt, not help, Democrats.

2. Pelosi says :"We are not about impechement". Presumably she says this because she does not want voters to think that the Dems are about impeachment.

3. The author of the article asserts, referring to the charges that the Dems could use electoral success to pursue impeachment, "the claim has no factual basis". Presumably he points this out because he thinks the charges, if believed, would hurt Democrats.

 

 

So I think that I am not the only one, not by a long shot, who thinks that painting the Dems as pro-impeachemnt will be harmful to the Dems' electoral chances. And I don't think that saying impeachment will not be immediate but rather when there is a Dem president really changes this calculation.

 

So my hope is that the Dems think this through and then make it very clear whether they plan to impeach or do not plan to impeach. Never mind about exactly when this impeachment would occur. Do they or don't they plan to impeach Kavanaugh? The clock is ticking, they should have worked this through already. Dionne suggests enlarging the court as a way to respond. If voters come to think of this suggestion as a serious Democratic strategy, for 2020 or whenever, i think this will cost the Dems quite a few votes. Politicians like to play both sides of the street. I don't think that this will work here. The issue is pretty straightforward: Are the Dems prepared to accept the results of the confirmation process and move on, or are they not? Silence will suggest, and allow others to credibly suggest, that they are planning to impeach as soon as the time is right. If impeachment, sooner or later, is in fact the plan, then fine. If it is not the plan, I strongly advise them to make this clear. Today. Preferably yesterday.

 

I don't think a Kavanaugh impeachment matters in the midterms. The Democratic party is finally allowing and supporting candidates who appeal to individual districts, regardless of social positions.

 

The Democrats should be running on a simple plan concerning Kavanaugh - we will adhere to the rule of law.

[barmar]

Agreed but..........What is the history of changing the confirmation votes needed from 60 to 51?

 

More importantly, who thought that was a good idea? Under the 60 vote scenario wing-nuts need not apply, left or right and I for one would like to see it make a comeback.

This is called the "nuclear option", see the Wikipedia page. It was used in 2013 by Democrats to eliminate the 60-vote rule on approving executive branch nominations and federal judges, and last year by Republicans for Supreme Court nominations (so they could prevent a fillibuster on Neil Gorsuch). It's a very weird, and legally dubious, process. But since both parties make use of it from time to time, neither of them is going to challenge its validity, because they don't want to destroy a weapon they might need in the future.

 

How weird is it? It's basically a vote by the Senate that one of its own rules (the one requiring 60 votes to end debate) doesn't actually mean what it says in certain circumstances.

[kenberg]

I don't think a Kavanaugh impeachment matters in the midterms. The Democratic party is finally allowing and supporting candidates who appeal to individual districts, regardless of social positions.

 

The Democrats should be running on a simple plan concerning Kavanaugh - we will adhere to the rule of law.

 

Since nobody expects then to announce that they intend to not adhere to the rule of law, this approach amounts to remaining silent. My recommendation is that they announce their intentions (beyond announcing that they won't break the law). I think they are going to take your path instead of mine. I believe that this will cost them some votes.

 

But I guess I am repeating myself, so I will stop.

 

[awm]

Since nobody expects then to announce that they intend to not adhere to the rule of law, this approach amounts to remaining silent. My recommendation is that they announce their intentions (beyond announcing that they won't break the law). I think they are going to take your path instead of mine. I believe that this will cost them some votes.

 

But I guess I am repeating myself, so I will stop.

 

The problem is that there's a significant part of the Democratic base that wants to see the Democrats play hardball. When the Republicans have power they (ab)use it in any way they can, whereas when the Democrats take power they try to bargain and be 'bipartisan" and this dichotomy is extremely frustrating for some on the left. While the party can pretty much take these peoples' votes for granted (and frequently does), they're also a big part of the people who go door-to-door and/or make calls for candidates, and a big part of the donor base. So the Democrats don't want to upset their base by announcing that they definitely won't pursue impeachment... but they also don't want to alienate swing voters by announcing that they will. By forcing them to take a clear position the Republicans help themselves either way.

 

Of course, the same can be said of Republicans and their position on Obamacare and protections for people with pre-existing conditions, or on tax cuts and budget deficits, or on racism and "white nationalists." But Republicans are usually willing to tell different things to different audiences (and sometimes straight-up lie) and they seem not to get called on it (at least not by Fox News and other channels watched by right-leaning voters).

[Winstonm]

Since nobody expects then to announce that they intend to not adhere to the rule of law, this approach amounts to remaining silent. My recommendation is that they announce their intentions (beyond announcing that they won't break the law). I think they are going to take your path instead of mine. I believe that this will cost them some votes.

 

But I guess I am repeating myself, so I will stop.

 

My point is that they should not make the election about Kavanaugh but about being worthy of trust - meaning that Kavanaugh's confirmation process should be investigated - not that he is automatically unworthy. But this should only be done by the leadership and not the individuals on the campaign trail. It would be a mistake to declare Kavanaugh guilty enough to be impeached prior to investigation - the issue is to address is not to let it go but not to automatically look to condemn - in other words, the trick is to appear reasonable and grown-up.

 

To sloganize it: Don't dump or duck Kavanaugh. Get it right!

[Al_U_Card]

And appearances can be deceiving ... Trump used "Lock her up!" to great advantage and still does (Feinstein) yet nary a hint of real prosecution.

Run on electoral substance and let the people decide .... oh wait, half are deplorable and a lot of the rest aren't elite enough to be "trusted". No wonder Hil is inciting violence, the empress has no clothes and she is not much to look at.

[kenberg]

The problem is that there's a significant part of the Democratic base that wants to see the Democrats play hardball. When the Republicans have power they (ab)use it in any way they can, whereas when the Democrats take power they try to bargain and be 'bipartisan" and this dichotomy is extremely frustrating for some on the left. While the party can pretty much take these peoples' votes for granted (and frequently does), they're also a big part of the people who go door-to-door and/or make calls for candidates, and a big part of the donor base. So the Democrats don't want to upset their base by announcing that they definitely won't pursue impeachment... but they also don't want to alienate swing voters by announcing that they will. By forcing them to take a clear position the Republicans help themselves either way.

 

Of course, the same can be said of Republicans and their position on Obamacare and protections for people with pre-existing conditions, or on tax cuts and budget deficits, or on racism and "white nationalists." But Republicans are usually willing to tell different things to different audiences (and sometimes straight-up lie) and they seem not to get called on it (at least not by Fox News and other channels watched by right-leaning voters).

 

Right. The Dionne article I cited, advocating increasing the size of the Supreme Court as soon as Dems get the power to do it, speaks for one branch of the Dems. The party has some things to decide. As do Republicans. There are more than a few conservative columnists who are not supporting Trump.

Some of this, probably a lot oi it, comes down to how we approach the world. I think it would be a good idea for Dems to say what they intend to do about Kavanaugh, and I think that not saying what they will do leaves them open to being portrayed in the worst light. I do recognize that they have a problem. It's a natural human tendency to duck problems, but it doesn't always work so well.