I am not immune to lists about silly things, but today I want to make a list of Constitutional Amendments. Not only will I rank them from least important (No. 27) to most important (No. 1), but I'll also group them together. Absolutely no help was taken from here.
Not A Thing Anymore Group
27) 18th Amendment (Prohibition)
Last place goes to the only Amendment that is no longer actually in place. Americans learned a few lessons: Teetotalers are no fun and also that Americans love our liquor too much to ban it.
26) 3rd Amendment (Quartering of Soldiers)
Our first of the Bill of Rights amendments, there just isn't much of a need or desire to quarter soldiers anymore. There haven't been any significant judicial rulings involving it for decades. In 1787, this was a BIG DEAL. This is the Third Amendment! This is before all the judicial stuff and slavery stuff! Nowadays, I can't imagine the government even wanting to use private homes for bunkhouses.
25) 21st Amendment (Ending Prohibition)
The only real "Oops, never mind" amendment there is. Beyond its application to the 18th Amendment, this one doesn't have any real modern relevancy.
Minor Procedural Issues We Should Have Seen Coming Group
24) 20th Amendment (Start Date of Terms)
This changed when Presidential and Congressional terms start. It moved them up, because travel and vote counting was no longer a reason for delay. It also put in writing that if a President-Elect were shot or died before inauguration, the Vice President-Elect becomes President. This is an amendment you never think about and only ever learn in school.
23) 27th Amendment (Congressional Pay Hike Delay)
This was actually one of the first 12 amendments proposed, but it wasn't adopted by enough states and was forgotten about until Gregory Watson, a University of Texas grad student, found it and pushed it nationwide. States jumped on board, and soon it was passed. Only four states have never affirmed it, but who cares...it's law. In short, Congressional pay changes don't take effect until after the next election. Interestingly, Watson got a C on his original paper because the professor didn't think it was realistic that it'd become an amendment.
22) Seventh Amendment (Civil Trial By Jury)
The second of the Bill of Rights! I had to take a look at this a second time. At first I read it as "you can have a trial by jury." That's important! But no. The Seventh says you can have a trial by jury for a civil suit over as little as $20. Even with inflation, $20 is still the rule. Who invokes a jury trial for a $25 disagreement? That seems like a job for the People's Court, not a court of the people.
21) 12th Amendment (Presidential Election Fix)
This is the "Oops, political parties messed things up" Amendment. Originally, the electoral college voted for president, with Vote-Getter 1 becoming President and Vote-Getter 2 becoming Vice President. Obviously, this doesn't work out great if they're of opposite political parties. This amendment came after President Adams and Jefferson were elected with less-than-helpful vice presidents.
20) 22nd Amendment (Presidential Term Limits)
You know that whole "We have a President, not a king" thing? Well, it took us until after FDR had been elected four times to really mean that. This was touted by Thomas Dewey... of "Dewey Defeats Truman" fame... during the "Dewey Defeats Truman" time period, too.
Major Procedural Issues That Had To Be Addressed Group
19) 11th Amendment (Sovereign Immunity)
In short, states can't be sued by people who don't live in that state. Nor can they be sued by a foreigner who doesn't live in that state. Long story short, six years after the Constitution was signed, Georgia got sued by a dude from South Carolina on behalf of a guy that gave supplies to Georgia during the Revolutionary War. Georgia said "We don't answer to you, Guy Who Doesn't Live in Georgia." In court, Georgia lost. Within 2 years, this amendment was passed to say that states are immune from lawsuits from outsiders. It was the first "That's a Problem; Let's Fix It" issue after the Bill of Rights.
18) 16th Amendment (Income Tax Distribution)
This is another reaction to a court case, called the Pollock case. The Constitution pretty clearly said that taxes on property have to be distributed by population. The Pollock case ruled that portions of a graduated income tax were unconstitutional because it wasn't distributed by population. Congress decided to fix it by saying that income tax can be distributed however Congress wants.
Important Yet So Broad They Aren't As Important Group
17) Ninth Amendment (Other Powers)
"Just because we didn't list other rights doesn't mean those other rights can be denied/disparaged." In theory, this means a lot. In practice, it doesn't. The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and those in his judicial vein have found, in short, that "Just because other rights exist doesn't mean the Constitution protects them." These folks are called Originalists, and basically believe that if the Constitution doesn't list a right, it doesn't get protection. Many conservative court-watchers are originalists. But originalists are kind of contradicted by this amendment, right?
16) Tenth Amendment (Federalism)
If the Constitution doesn't explicitly list a right for the federal government, then that right belongs to the states. This rarely gets much application anymore, and the Supreme Court in 1941 said it's mostly just a harmless truism. However, the Tenth Amendment has been a part of some significant recent cases, most notably the 2012 Obamacare ruling that said states can't be forced to expand Medicaid.
Why Didn't We Think Of This Before? Group
15) 25th Amendment (Presidential Succession)
What happens if a President dies? OK, that's in the Constitution, but nothing after that. No way to fill the role of Vice President, no idea what happens if the Vice President dies, no way to determine if a President is incapacitated (even temporarily, like during a colonoscopy). This cleans that up. It's important, but it's also mostly just legalese.
14) 26th Amendment (Voting Age Lowered to 18)
This may seem like it should go lower on the list, but it was mostly a response to the Vietnam War. If 18-21 year olds can fight and die for the country, they should be able to vote. It's significant, but it's not like this was a political earthquake or anything.
13) 23rd Amendment -- (D.C. Electors)
Washington, D.C., gets electors in the electoral college based on population. But they are limited to no more than the smallest state. In this case, Wyoming is the smallest state with only three electors. As of the most recent Census, there are more people living in D.C. than in Wyoming. If they gain another 300,000-400,000 people in the future, the size cap on electors could become an issue -- then, they'd be somewhere around the 43rd largest state and be pressing harder for statehood.
12) 17th Amendment (Senate By Popular Vote)
You get to vote for Senators now! Before this, it was decided by state legislatures. This probably should have been the case the entire time, but it took us until just before World War I to figure it out.
I'm Not Sure Where This Goes, But Here Seems OK
11) Second Amendment (Gun Rights)
It's interesting how the "well-regulated militia" part gets left off by gun rights advocates. There are lots of recent court cases about this, and it will probably always be in the courts. I don't have a lot to say about it; this moves up or down the list depending on your affinity for guns.
Civil Rights Group
10) 24th Amendment (No Poll Taxes)
Also known as the "Knock it off, Southern States" Amendment. It was used as a go-round to stop African Americans from voting. This one was only passed during the Civil Rights era.
9) 15th Amendment (Voting Rights for Black People)
An extension of the whole reason we fought the Civil War. Voting rights can't be based on race. This was a key part of Reconstruction.
8) 19th Amendment (Women Can Vote)
There's not a lot to say about this, other than it took too damn long. Roughly 50 percent of the country getting the right to vote is SUPER IMPORTANT.
7) 13th Amendment (Banning Slavery)
Yet another issue that took too damn long. It's the reason for the country's only (yet!) Civil War. I just read the text, and ... involuntary servitude is still legal as sentencing for a crime. That's an interesting loophole, but I think it also gets covered by another amendment further down the list.
Pillars of Modern Justice
6) Eighth Amendment (Cruel and Unusual Punishment)
Hey! It's that other amendment I just mentioned! Legally speaking, there are other, more basic rights. This one is further down the list because many believe the death penalty is cruel and unusual, but it's legal. Also, it's only for those already convicted of crime, and there's just a slight bit less empathy for convicts than those merely accused of a crime.
5) 4th Amendment (Unreasonable Search and Seizure)
These next three are incredibly hard to rank. I have no argument if you place them in another order. They're all the most basic of our laws for the Judicial Branch. Nearly half of the Bill of Rights is about putting more of a spine in the Judicial Branch. Search and seizure is kind of the start of an experience with the law. Any one of these three without the others would leave the court open to corruption. This one is about police needing a warrant before searching and seizing your property*.
* Some exclusions may apply, but it's complicated and I don't want to get into it.
4) Fifth Amendment (LOTS OF THINGS)
There's a lot in this one amendment: No one will face trials for major crimes unless a grand jury indicts them first; No double jeopardy; "I plead the Fifth" -- no self-incriminating testimony can be compelled; The "due process" clause that you can't lose life, liberty or property without due process; and eminent domain (the odd man out here) that the government can't take private property without proper compensation. It's a pretty dense amendment. That's why it's so important.
3) Sixth Amendment (ALSO LOTS OF THINGS)
You've got a lot here, too: Right to a speedy and public trial; Right to a jury trial in the district in which the crime was committed; Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; Right to have witnesses face you in person in trial; Right to have legal counsel; and Right to subpoena witnesses on a defendant's behalf. Can you imagine a world in which these don't exist? It sounds like a dystopia or North Korea or something.
Super Important Ones
2) 14th Amendment (Citizenship and Equal Protection)
This one gets really high up on the list not just because of its immediate impact -- Reconstruction -- but because of its impact on history. This one granted Native Americans and former slaves citizenship. It also said the federal government trumps state laws, part of the due process clause. But most important was the "Equal Protection" clause. It doesn't look like much in context, but it was first extended beyond African Americans to Asian Americans, then to women. It's the basis of the arguments for gay rights advocates right now. The rest of the amendment mostly dealt with post-Civil War issues, but the three biggest issues were biggies: citizenship, equal protection and due process.
1) First Amendment (Five Freedoms)
It's 45 words, but these 45 words made America what it is. It included five freedoms that remain the basis for constitutional democracy worldwide. Here are the Five Freedoms: 1a) No law respecting an establishment of religion 1b) nor the free exercise thereof 2) No law abridging the freedom of speech 3) Nor of the freedom of press 4) Nor of the right to peaceably assemble 5) We also have the freedom to petition our government for redress of grievances. That's probably the most succinct yet powerful 45 words ever. Without the First Amendment, we don't have much of a democracy.
Mixed Signs in New Poll
A new poll by Quinnipiac focused on who the public trusts more, President Trump or the news media. The answers were both a relief and a concern.
First, the good news: 52 percent of the respondents said the news media is more trustworthy than President Trump, as compared to 37 percent who say it's the other way around. (Note: I still think that's too high.) Those numbers are fairly consistent with men overall (50-40), women overall (55-35), college-educated white voters (55-37), independents (50-38), and respondents across every age category. The age groups were also telling: the younger a respondent, the more likely they were to trust the news media over President Trump. That gives me hope that the younger generation trusts the work of journalists.
Where I found concern was that the poll also showed a few groups that trust President Trump more than the news media, and it's almost exactly what one might expect. Self-described Republicans trust President Trump more than the news media by a whopping 78-13 margin (!). White people without a college degree are the opposite of the national trend, trusting President Trump 55-37 over the news media. Further, the disparity between white people and those of color could not be more clear. White men trust President Trump more, 46-45. White women trust the news media slightly more at 48-45. White people in general trust the news media more 46-45. People of color trust the news media 68-18 more than President Trump.
Olathe Shooting
We're exactly the opposite side of metropolitan Kansas City from Olathe, but what I thought would fizzle out as a regional story has been picked up by national outlets. I'm glad it's gaining national attention, because the story behind the shooting of three men at a bar in Olathe is horrifying.
Two Garmin engineers of Indian descent, Srinivas Kuchibhotla and Alok Madasani — both my age, roughly — were regulars at a bar called Austin's. A 51-year-old white man, Adam Purinton, began yelling racial slurs at the two and told them to "Get out of my country," according to witnesses. He then opened fire. Madasani survived. Kuchibhotla died on Wednesday. Another man, Ian Grillot, tried to chase down Purinton in the parking lot, but counted the number of gunshots and was nearly killed (hit in hand and chest by bullet, but will survive) for his trouble. Purinton fled the scene to Clinton, Mo., where he told a bartender at Applebee's that he needed a place to hide for a while, since he just shot two Middle Eastern men. He was soon arrested and is in jail on $2 million bail.
Kuchibhotla and Madasani were not Middle Eastern. They were not dangerous. They were engineers contributing to the country. There are GoFundMe accounts set up for Kuchibhotla and Grillot (who's still in the hospital). This is a hate crime. Where did Purinton get these ideas? Demonization without empathy produces hate. This is the power of rhetoric: that anyone who looks vaguely Middle Eastern is considered a threat by those predisposed to hatred. This incident is a pitch-perfect example of why some of us are so incensed by hateful rhetoric.
Summary Judgments
It's concerning to me when members of the Administration have different talking points. The messages given by Vice President Pence and Steve Bannon to EU representatives show there is a sharp divide in the Trump Administration. • • • In case you were wondering who I prefer for the chair of the DNC, the short answer is I don't care. The long answer is: If they want to win and not just be an opposition party, they'll have to have a 50-state strategy. They'll have to work to take back state legislatures and governorships and seats in "red states." It doesn't matter the name on the chair so long as they're committed to being more than an obstacle — to being an alternative — for Republicans. So far I've not been impressed by Democratic messaging. • • • I have been running a lot this week with the great weather. I ran 3.1 miles on Monday in 34:30. I then ran 3.25 miles on Wednesday in 34 minutes. I'm on track for my first 4-miler on March 11. I've been looking at my running calendar, and I'm seriously considering a 10K in September. I might be crazy. • • • The kids have been adorable lately, especially when Roland eats something with protein in it. When he doesn't have enough protein, he's a 2-year-old Terror. When he gets a cheese stick or peanut butter? He's the most adorable kid ever. One night this week after he ate dinner, he got real close to Alyson's face and said, "You're pretty, Mommy." And that's how our heart melted in three words.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Friday, February 17, 2017
Repeal, replace, repair, repeat
It's now nearly a month after President Trump took office, and the planned "repeal and replace" of Obamacare/the Affordable Care Act has not yet taken shape or place. We're no closer to knowing what the Republican plan is, although they have had six years to settle on an opposing plan. There are currently multiple Republican health care plans, and no consensus unifying theme.
Instead of diving into the weeds of which plans are likely, what changes are happening, etc., I wanted to examine exactly why it is that the Republicans are having such a hard time uniting. It was easy to say Obamacare was terrible. It was harder to build something of their own.
There are Republican plans out there. Paul Ryan has "A Better Way." Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price (while he was a U.S. Representative) put out his own plan, the Empowering Patients First Act. Sen. Orrin Hatch and friends released the Patient CARE Act. Sen. Ted Cruz has the Health Care Choice Act. President Trump's health care plan is... incomplete and a few paragraphs long. It kind of lists a few Republican ideas, but little concrete. There are also a couple conservative think tank plans out there that are far more thought out.
But the question isn't "Do the Republicans have a plan?" but "Why can't they agree on what to do?"
Part of that comes from philosophical differences, part of it comes from the sticky position that the ACA left them in, and part of it comes from problems of their own making. Let's tackle some of those issues.
First, there's the question of how much to repeal. Hard-right conservatives wish to throw out the whole kit and caboodle. They're growing increasingly angry that they haven't been able to fulfill their promise to repeal Obamacare yet. But the ACA is a vast and tricky thing. If you throw out all of it, you're taking away 10-20 million people's health insurance, you're taking away protections for consumers (read: no denial for pre-existing conditions, children can stay on parents' plans until age 26, etc.) and more. Those of a more moderate bent know that some of those provisions are highly favored by the general public. They're reluctant to throw all of the ACA out, because then the GOP is the bad guy that "took away my health care."
Second, there's the question of whose costs need to be lowered. Fiscal conservatives take issue with how expensive the ACA is on the government. Others, like occasionally President Trump, have argued that the ACA is too expensive for individual people, through premiums and deductibles. The problem is you can't fix one problem without hurting the other. Let's say the fiscal conservatives win out — premiums and deductibles will rise for some group or coverage will be cut as a result. If Trump's side wins, the government spending on health care rises more. There is no way to bridge that gap.
Third, there's the question of who should have coverage. Some argue that the goal of health care should be universal health care coverage, "even those who can't pay for it." Others believe that GOP should make it clear: "We don't believe it's the federal government's job to make sure everyone has health insurance."
Fourth, there's the question of how to pay for a new health care plan. This one's a biggie. The ACA raised its nearly $100 billion a year through taxes on the rich and some new revenue streams. The GOP hates those taxes. Get rid of them! But then the question is how to make up for that, and... there's the catch. According to leaked audio from a Republican gathering last month, there are talks to start taxing some or all of the employer-paid health plans most of us get. Those are currently exempt from taxes. That would be bad politically, and other Republicans pushed back in that very meeting.
Fifth, there's the question of Medicaid expansion. About 20 of the 52 GOP senators have said they wouldn't vote for any ACA fix that didn't keep the largely popular Medicaid expansion that their state chose to do. But other Republicans from states that chose not to expand Medicaid want to know that their principled stands were not in vain. They want to know that they did the right thing, and to see those states that caved admit they were wrong to expand Medicaid.
Sixth, there's the question of who will bear the brunt of the changes. Several of the GOP plans call for a change in the ratio of costs. In essence, the ACA limited the cost health care plans for older people to no more than 3:1 of the health care plans for younger people. The Ryan and Hatch plans both call to make this 5:1 instead. One of the conservative think tanks called for it to be 6:1. In short, one writer found the GOP plans would shift costs to older, sicker patients rather than the ACA's younger, healthier patients.
Seventh, and related, there's the question of how to determine subsidies. Right now, subsidies are based on income -- the less money you have, the more government help you get in return. Some of these plans call for either getting rid of all subsidies or changing subsidies to an age-based system.
There are more issues at hand, but these give you some of the basic problems the GOP is fighting right now. In that leaked audio, one Republican said that they've got to get the Obamacare fix right, because if they don't, it'll be called "Trumpcare" and they'll all have that as an albatross around their necks. Personally, I'd be more worried about doing what's right for the country and for your constituents than what would be most embarrassing.
Where the Power Lies
For a minute there, I thought that the Flynn/Russia thing was going to have legs. I thought that maybe this — this? — would be the thing that brought President Trump down. A few Republicans in the House and Senate, including our own Sen. Roy Blunt, started to call for an independent investigation of Russian ties to President Trump and his campaign. And then... nothing.
Meanwhile, I heard an interesting perspective from liberal comedian Samantha Bee, talking about how the real power in Congress is Paul Ryan. Notably, that he's the man to watch for reactions to the President. Right now, Ryan is probably content to ride Trump as long as he can — the same voters that elected Trump also elected the representatives that gave Ryan power. But Ryan, as Speaker of the House, is the man tasked with writing articles of impeachment, should that ever have to come to pass.
So that's the tentative alliance here: fiscal conservative, traditional Republican Paul Ryan with brash, hard-to-pin-down, nontraditional Republican Donald Trump. It's in the best interests of both to work nicely with the other. I'll be watching to see which side burns the bridge first. The one that burns the bridge first will be the one that thinks they have the moral superiority.
Good News from Gates Report (Vlogbrothers)
The Vlogbrothers pointed this out, but Bill and Melinda Gates issue a letter each year, and this time it was to Warren Buffett. It talks about the good their organization has done. There's a lot of good that's been done, so let's hit the high notes, because this reminds you that life is making major strides:
• The number of childhood deaths per year has dropped in half since 1990. The trend line has been revised downward twice.
• The number of children worldwide receiving vaccines is at its highest point in history -- 86 percent. The gap between rich countries (96 percent) and poor countries (80 percent) is the smallest it's ever been.
• It took decades to get 200 million women on modern contraceptives. It took another 13 years to get to 300 million women on contraceptives.
• Extreme poverty has been cut in half since 1990.
• There were only 37 new cases of polio last year. Not in the U.S. Not in North America. IN THE WORLD.
In a world in which there isn't a lot of hope, These things remind me of the good being done in our world.
News Judgments
Although there are good news stories, I bring you an interesting perspective from my friend and former OU colleague Adam Croom. He still works at OU in an interesting role, but he ended up meeting with the first African-American to own a home in Norman. After Adam told him thank you... for everything, Dr. George Henderson said, "I would have never believed that in 2017, we would be starting the battle all over again." Powerful story. Read it here. • • • A friend of mine (Hi, Allie!) asked my thoughts on a newspaper in Colorado being called "fake news" by a lawmaker and threatening to sue the lawmaker for libel. After talking about it with Alyson, I have a few observations. 1) It's a relatively untapped legal field -- a newspaper not as the defendant of a libel suit, but a plaintiff. I think they have an argument that they were defamed, but whether it was legal or not is a different question. 2) That's because a newspaper will probably fall under the higher burden of proof for libel of a "public figure." It means the paper would have to prove "actual malice" -- that the lawmaker had deliberately bad intentions when he made his remarks. It's a higher burden of proof, which means the case is tougher. 3) I didn't say they didn't have a case. If they sue and win, maybe this emboldens other organizations in more high-profile situations to make a similar stance? • • • I've been sick or the kids have been sick a lot this week, so my running has been rather disjointed. I have run up to 2.5 miles, so that's good, with a month until I run a 4-miler. But it's getting warmer and we're all hopefully getting healthier, so I hope that changes soon. • • • Some of the better Evie-Roland stories have already been on Facebook, but there's one that hadn't been. The kids were pretty sick last weekend, and at one point, we heard an unpleasant noise come from the kitchen. "What was that noise?" I asked to the kids. "Evie," she admitted. "Was it a butt noise?" "Yeah." So now the go-to phrase for farts or poops is "butt noises."
Instead of diving into the weeds of which plans are likely, what changes are happening, etc., I wanted to examine exactly why it is that the Republicans are having such a hard time uniting. It was easy to say Obamacare was terrible. It was harder to build something of their own.
There are Republican plans out there. Paul Ryan has "A Better Way." Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price (while he was a U.S. Representative) put out his own plan, the Empowering Patients First Act. Sen. Orrin Hatch and friends released the Patient CARE Act. Sen. Ted Cruz has the Health Care Choice Act. President Trump's health care plan is... incomplete and a few paragraphs long. It kind of lists a few Republican ideas, but little concrete. There are also a couple conservative think tank plans out there that are far more thought out.
But the question isn't "Do the Republicans have a plan?" but "Why can't they agree on what to do?"
Part of that comes from philosophical differences, part of it comes from the sticky position that the ACA left them in, and part of it comes from problems of their own making. Let's tackle some of those issues.
First, there's the question of how much to repeal. Hard-right conservatives wish to throw out the whole kit and caboodle. They're growing increasingly angry that they haven't been able to fulfill their promise to repeal Obamacare yet. But the ACA is a vast and tricky thing. If you throw out all of it, you're taking away 10-20 million people's health insurance, you're taking away protections for consumers (read: no denial for pre-existing conditions, children can stay on parents' plans until age 26, etc.) and more. Those of a more moderate bent know that some of those provisions are highly favored by the general public. They're reluctant to throw all of the ACA out, because then the GOP is the bad guy that "took away my health care."
Second, there's the question of whose costs need to be lowered. Fiscal conservatives take issue with how expensive the ACA is on the government. Others, like occasionally President Trump, have argued that the ACA is too expensive for individual people, through premiums and deductibles. The problem is you can't fix one problem without hurting the other. Let's say the fiscal conservatives win out — premiums and deductibles will rise for some group or coverage will be cut as a result. If Trump's side wins, the government spending on health care rises more. There is no way to bridge that gap.
Third, there's the question of who should have coverage. Some argue that the goal of health care should be universal health care coverage, "even those who can't pay for it." Others believe that GOP should make it clear: "We don't believe it's the federal government's job to make sure everyone has health insurance."
Fourth, there's the question of how to pay for a new health care plan. This one's a biggie. The ACA raised its nearly $100 billion a year through taxes on the rich and some new revenue streams. The GOP hates those taxes. Get rid of them! But then the question is how to make up for that, and... there's the catch. According to leaked audio from a Republican gathering last month, there are talks to start taxing some or all of the employer-paid health plans most of us get. Those are currently exempt from taxes. That would be bad politically, and other Republicans pushed back in that very meeting.
Fifth, there's the question of Medicaid expansion. About 20 of the 52 GOP senators have said they wouldn't vote for any ACA fix that didn't keep the largely popular Medicaid expansion that their state chose to do. But other Republicans from states that chose not to expand Medicaid want to know that their principled stands were not in vain. They want to know that they did the right thing, and to see those states that caved admit they were wrong to expand Medicaid.
Sixth, there's the question of who will bear the brunt of the changes. Several of the GOP plans call for a change in the ratio of costs. In essence, the ACA limited the cost health care plans for older people to no more than 3:1 of the health care plans for younger people. The Ryan and Hatch plans both call to make this 5:1 instead. One of the conservative think tanks called for it to be 6:1. In short, one writer found the GOP plans would shift costs to older, sicker patients rather than the ACA's younger, healthier patients.
Seventh, and related, there's the question of how to determine subsidies. Right now, subsidies are based on income -- the less money you have, the more government help you get in return. Some of these plans call for either getting rid of all subsidies or changing subsidies to an age-based system.
There are more issues at hand, but these give you some of the basic problems the GOP is fighting right now. In that leaked audio, one Republican said that they've got to get the Obamacare fix right, because if they don't, it'll be called "Trumpcare" and they'll all have that as an albatross around their necks. Personally, I'd be more worried about doing what's right for the country and for your constituents than what would be most embarrassing.
Where the Power Lies
For a minute there, I thought that the Flynn/Russia thing was going to have legs. I thought that maybe this — this? — would be the thing that brought President Trump down. A few Republicans in the House and Senate, including our own Sen. Roy Blunt, started to call for an independent investigation of Russian ties to President Trump and his campaign. And then... nothing.
Meanwhile, I heard an interesting perspective from liberal comedian Samantha Bee, talking about how the real power in Congress is Paul Ryan. Notably, that he's the man to watch for reactions to the President. Right now, Ryan is probably content to ride Trump as long as he can — the same voters that elected Trump also elected the representatives that gave Ryan power. But Ryan, as Speaker of the House, is the man tasked with writing articles of impeachment, should that ever have to come to pass.
So that's the tentative alliance here: fiscal conservative, traditional Republican Paul Ryan with brash, hard-to-pin-down, nontraditional Republican Donald Trump. It's in the best interests of both to work nicely with the other. I'll be watching to see which side burns the bridge first. The one that burns the bridge first will be the one that thinks they have the moral superiority.
Good News from Gates Report (Vlogbrothers)
The Vlogbrothers pointed this out, but Bill and Melinda Gates issue a letter each year, and this time it was to Warren Buffett. It talks about the good their organization has done. There's a lot of good that's been done, so let's hit the high notes, because this reminds you that life is making major strides:
• The number of childhood deaths per year has dropped in half since 1990. The trend line has been revised downward twice.
• The number of children worldwide receiving vaccines is at its highest point in history -- 86 percent. The gap between rich countries (96 percent) and poor countries (80 percent) is the smallest it's ever been.
• It took decades to get 200 million women on modern contraceptives. It took another 13 years to get to 300 million women on contraceptives.
• Extreme poverty has been cut in half since 1990.
• There were only 37 new cases of polio last year. Not in the U.S. Not in North America. IN THE WORLD.
In a world in which there isn't a lot of hope, These things remind me of the good being done in our world.
News Judgments
Although there are good news stories, I bring you an interesting perspective from my friend and former OU colleague Adam Croom. He still works at OU in an interesting role, but he ended up meeting with the first African-American to own a home in Norman. After Adam told him thank you... for everything, Dr. George Henderson said, "I would have never believed that in 2017, we would be starting the battle all over again." Powerful story. Read it here. • • • A friend of mine (Hi, Allie!) asked my thoughts on a newspaper in Colorado being called "fake news" by a lawmaker and threatening to sue the lawmaker for libel. After talking about it with Alyson, I have a few observations. 1) It's a relatively untapped legal field -- a newspaper not as the defendant of a libel suit, but a plaintiff. I think they have an argument that they were defamed, but whether it was legal or not is a different question. 2) That's because a newspaper will probably fall under the higher burden of proof for libel of a "public figure." It means the paper would have to prove "actual malice" -- that the lawmaker had deliberately bad intentions when he made his remarks. It's a higher burden of proof, which means the case is tougher. 3) I didn't say they didn't have a case. If they sue and win, maybe this emboldens other organizations in more high-profile situations to make a similar stance? • • • I've been sick or the kids have been sick a lot this week, so my running has been rather disjointed. I have run up to 2.5 miles, so that's good, with a month until I run a 4-miler. But it's getting warmer and we're all hopefully getting healthier, so I hope that changes soon. • • • Some of the better Evie-Roland stories have already been on Facebook, but there's one that hadn't been. The kids were pretty sick last weekend, and at one point, we heard an unpleasant noise come from the kitchen. "What was that noise?" I asked to the kids. "Evie," she admitted. "Was it a butt noise?" "Yeah." So now the go-to phrase for farts or poops is "butt noises."
Friday, February 10, 2017
Why Don't We Have Term Limits?
I had a hard time coming up with a good topic this week, which usually isn't a problem for me. So I went back to December, when I asked for topics from my friends and family who read this blog.
A friend of mine, Pat Payne, asked that I look into campaign finance reform and term limits. So let me do a deep dive into one of those (term limits) today. But in order to analyze the subjects properly, I want to set up some structure to the analysis.
1) What do people on either side say/What are the historical roots?
2) Which of those arguments do I find persuasive?
3) Is there a compromise that can be made/what do I propose?
4) How easily could this be done?
Term limits
I find this issue easier to talk about because there aren't a lot of legal issues around it — mainly just an issue of philosophy. I'm referring specifically to Congressional term limits. The Presidency already has term limits and the judicial branch is intended not to have them. That may be a discussion for another time, but I'm OK with no term limits on the Supreme Court.
Pros and Cons
On the side of term limits are those that say politics is too corrupt/easily influenced. The arguments for term limits come from a variety of sources, but it amounts to a few issues:
1) Fresh faces in Congress keep new ideas flowing.
2) Term limits push members of Congress to get more things actually done rather than continuously push things off.
3) Term limits reduce the potential for corruption and the power of influential sources of campaign donors.
4) New faces in Congress keep them accountable to their constituents rather than the ... ahem.... trappings of Washington.
5) It prevents career politicians by limiting the time they are in power.
In essence, it's a push to limit the power of incumbency, which is a severe advantage already. incumbent representatives and senators are re-elected about 90 percent of the time.
On the other hand, there are some decent arguments on the other side. They amount to "the will of the people" and "term limits won't be that effective."
1) If the people vote for a person repeatedly, that's their prerogative. It's undemocratic to put limits on what the people want.
2) It punishes experience. It takes time to figure out any new role, and term limits — especially relatively short ones — would reduce the power of experience.
3) A corollary to the above issue: It turns Washington into a revolving door rather than have stalwarts.
4) There's no incentive for an elected official to pay attention to what his district wants when they are a lame duck after their final election.
Which Arguments Are Convincing
Starting with the pro side, it's fair to say that our modern politicians are too entrenched. A 90 percent incumbency rate is crazy high. And term limits would be the most obvious tool to take care of that. However, I'm not convinced that money would no longer have an influence and Congress would actually get things done. Rather, they may just say "not my problem" and punt until after their terms. Or money would go to the party to be trickled down rather than the candidate. Effectively, it'd make parties far more powerful than they even are now. But there is something to say about how term limits would prompt change and reduce — though not eliminate — corruption.
And the cons side is correct about their first two points: It's undemocratic and experience does matter. Experience can help guide through tricky issues. It can help people come together because they have a shared history rather than being fresh faces. The other two arguments are less convincing.
My proposal
So in the spirit of trying to build something and find compromises, I have a proposal: Candidates may spend 22 years combined in the House and Senate, with no more than 16 years (lifetime) in the House or 12 years in the Senate (lifetime).
Some calls for term limits are as little as 8 years or 12 years. I find those a little unconvincing -- if desired, a state or district should be able to elect a Congressperson for more than the length of a presidency. This is for balance and for long-term goal setting — the experience issue. However, 20 years in either chamber is too much, so I put a cap on those.
And if the idea of term limits is to prevent career politicians, a reasonable limit should be set. Because of the size of the House, I have a longer potential term in the House, because experience can matter when there are hundreds of new faces each year. But maxing your time there would limit you to one Senate term. The Senate, supposedly the more deliberate chamber, would have a lower term limit to emphasize the gravity of that chamber, but I would be open to 18 years there, too, for the sake of experience and long-term coalition building. *Note: The Senate has to be a multiple of six to prevent the staggered election years from getting too crowded. Right now, 33 Senate seats are up every two years.
Could it be done?
Here's the rub.
I don't think it could be done through Congress in our current climate, unless one side or the other did it while they were in the majority. And there's no incentive for a group in the majority to put limits on the potential amount of time they can serve. Let's say you're Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell. Why would you call for term limits if you're in power? With the high incumbency rate, you could stay in power a long, long time. You'd be essentially saying "We admit our chamber — of which we're the most powerful people — are too corrupt to be trusted." That's a dumb move.
So the only option left is a constitutional amendment. That would require 38 states saying they want federal term limits. And it doesn't appear that's likely. One key test is how many states have term limits on their state legislatures. And the answer will surprise you: Only 15 do. (Locally, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Nebraska have term limits in their state legislatures.) There were another 6 term limits that have been overturned either by state legislatures or courts. I did pick up on a trend: Almost every Western state has either had or has term limits, except for Alaska, Hawaii and New Mexico. Also, all of the state term limits have been put into place in either the 1990s or 2000s. So it appears there is a rising force for term limits, but it hasn't really made its way eastward. One other cynical view why federal term limits are unlikely is that the state politicians will likely run for federal office in the future, so they'd be limiting their own future power.
Perhaps in 20-30 years, there may be an appetite for a constitutional amendment, but it does not appear to be the case now and the only methods to bring it about seem unlikely.
Summary Judgments
Last week, I shared on Facebook a story in the Los Angeles Times about a Muslim man who takes care of foster children who have terminal diseases. It was by a former colleague of mine at OU (She has won a Pulitzer.). There is an update: Readers have donated more than $100,000 to the man after seeing the story. What an incredible impact that journalism can have. • • • Twitter has its uses. For instance, live events and direct access to fans/citizens. However, I find myself becoming more curmudgeonly about it, like the opening rant by Drew Magary here. • • • I ran 2 1/4 miles at one point this week, but I'm missing a day or two of running while taking care of a sick boy and trying not to get the disease myself. I'm probably not going to make it to 4 miles in my training by this time next month (March 11 is my first 4-mile race), but that's OK. My biggest problem is that every time I decide to run, the temperature drops to the 20s or 30s that day. It's a terrible trend that makes me feel like a bad runner, since I don't run as well in the cold as I do when it's respectably warm outside. • • • Roland was sick yesterday and today, but he's feeling OK. He's got a virus that kind of looks like pink eye or conjunctivitis, but isn't. The doctor: "Good news: It's not pink eye or conjunctivitis. Bad news: He's got a different virus." Me, a few minutes later: "Is it as contagious as those other diseases?" Him, not missing a beat: "Oh, yeah. Maybe worse." The good news was very fleeting in that doctor's visit.
Pros and Cons
On the side of term limits are those that say politics is too corrupt/easily influenced. The arguments for term limits come from a variety of sources, but it amounts to a few issues:
1) Fresh faces in Congress keep new ideas flowing.
2) Term limits push members of Congress to get more things actually done rather than continuously push things off.
3) Term limits reduce the potential for corruption and the power of influential sources of campaign donors.
4) New faces in Congress keep them accountable to their constituents rather than the ... ahem.... trappings of Washington.
5) It prevents career politicians by limiting the time they are in power.
In essence, it's a push to limit the power of incumbency, which is a severe advantage already. incumbent representatives and senators are re-elected about 90 percent of the time.
On the other hand, there are some decent arguments on the other side. They amount to "the will of the people" and "term limits won't be that effective."
1) If the people vote for a person repeatedly, that's their prerogative. It's undemocratic to put limits on what the people want.
2) It punishes experience. It takes time to figure out any new role, and term limits — especially relatively short ones — would reduce the power of experience.
3) A corollary to the above issue: It turns Washington into a revolving door rather than have stalwarts.
4) There's no incentive for an elected official to pay attention to what his district wants when they are a lame duck after their final election.
Which Arguments Are Convincing
Starting with the pro side, it's fair to say that our modern politicians are too entrenched. A 90 percent incumbency rate is crazy high. And term limits would be the most obvious tool to take care of that. However, I'm not convinced that money would no longer have an influence and Congress would actually get things done. Rather, they may just say "not my problem" and punt until after their terms. Or money would go to the party to be trickled down rather than the candidate. Effectively, it'd make parties far more powerful than they even are now. But there is something to say about how term limits would prompt change and reduce — though not eliminate — corruption.
And the cons side is correct about their first two points: It's undemocratic and experience does matter. Experience can help guide through tricky issues. It can help people come together because they have a shared history rather than being fresh faces. The other two arguments are less convincing.
My proposal
So in the spirit of trying to build something and find compromises, I have a proposal: Candidates may spend 22 years combined in the House and Senate, with no more than 16 years (lifetime) in the House or 12 years in the Senate (lifetime).
Some calls for term limits are as little as 8 years or 12 years. I find those a little unconvincing -- if desired, a state or district should be able to elect a Congressperson for more than the length of a presidency. This is for balance and for long-term goal setting — the experience issue. However, 20 years in either chamber is too much, so I put a cap on those.
And if the idea of term limits is to prevent career politicians, a reasonable limit should be set. Because of the size of the House, I have a longer potential term in the House, because experience can matter when there are hundreds of new faces each year. But maxing your time there would limit you to one Senate term. The Senate, supposedly the more deliberate chamber, would have a lower term limit to emphasize the gravity of that chamber, but I would be open to 18 years there, too, for the sake of experience and long-term coalition building. *Note: The Senate has to be a multiple of six to prevent the staggered election years from getting too crowded. Right now, 33 Senate seats are up every two years.
Could it be done?
Here's the rub.
I don't think it could be done through Congress in our current climate, unless one side or the other did it while they were in the majority. And there's no incentive for a group in the majority to put limits on the potential amount of time they can serve. Let's say you're Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell. Why would you call for term limits if you're in power? With the high incumbency rate, you could stay in power a long, long time. You'd be essentially saying "We admit our chamber — of which we're the most powerful people — are too corrupt to be trusted." That's a dumb move.
So the only option left is a constitutional amendment. That would require 38 states saying they want federal term limits. And it doesn't appear that's likely. One key test is how many states have term limits on their state legislatures. And the answer will surprise you: Only 15 do. (Locally, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Nebraska have term limits in their state legislatures.) There were another 6 term limits that have been overturned either by state legislatures or courts. I did pick up on a trend: Almost every Western state has either had or has term limits, except for Alaska, Hawaii and New Mexico. Also, all of the state term limits have been put into place in either the 1990s or 2000s. So it appears there is a rising force for term limits, but it hasn't really made its way eastward. One other cynical view why federal term limits are unlikely is that the state politicians will likely run for federal office in the future, so they'd be limiting their own future power.
Perhaps in 20-30 years, there may be an appetite for a constitutional amendment, but it does not appear to be the case now and the only methods to bring it about seem unlikely.
Summary Judgments
Last week, I shared on Facebook a story in the Los Angeles Times about a Muslim man who takes care of foster children who have terminal diseases. It was by a former colleague of mine at OU (She has won a Pulitzer.). There is an update: Readers have donated more than $100,000 to the man after seeing the story. What an incredible impact that journalism can have. • • • Twitter has its uses. For instance, live events and direct access to fans/citizens. However, I find myself becoming more curmudgeonly about it, like the opening rant by Drew Magary here. • • • I ran 2 1/4 miles at one point this week, but I'm missing a day or two of running while taking care of a sick boy and trying not to get the disease myself. I'm probably not going to make it to 4 miles in my training by this time next month (March 11 is my first 4-mile race), but that's OK. My biggest problem is that every time I decide to run, the temperature drops to the 20s or 30s that day. It's a terrible trend that makes me feel like a bad runner, since I don't run as well in the cold as I do when it's respectably warm outside. • • • Roland was sick yesterday and today, but he's feeling OK. He's got a virus that kind of looks like pink eye or conjunctivitis, but isn't. The doctor: "Good news: It's not pink eye or conjunctivitis. Bad news: He's got a different virus." Me, a few minutes later: "Is it as contagious as those other diseases?" Him, not missing a beat: "Oh, yeah. Maybe worse." The good news was very fleeting in that doctor's visit.
Thursday, February 2, 2017
A Possible Trend, with Possible Outcomes
While increased polarization is nothing new, I'm detecting a seeming trend in political discourse. But first, a short trip into recent history.
In 2009, Barack Obama had been inaugurated as President for roughly one month (Pretty similar timing to now). A CNBC reporter named Rick Santelli said from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange that a tea party was needed. That prompted a conference call of 50 conservative activists who vowed to fight Obama's policies and to schedule protests. It was a mix of populism, libertarianism and conservativism. They were not just active, but visibly active — involved in politics and willing to make themselves heard. They were a reaction, I believe, to the liberal politics that had just won the national election. They felt their voices weren't being heard, so they were going to have to speak louder and more often.
It's fair to say the Tea Party has had a lasting impact despite a little decline in its size. Their push to power in both state and national government has been successful. In Kansas, the governor and its two houses were for a time majority Tea Party/far-right conservatives rather than the more moderate conservatives that had ruled the state. On a national stage, although no one person speaks for the Tea Party, its politicians continue to grace the stage and airwaves. Ted Cruz, Jason Chaffetz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio all have either claimed Tea Party lineage or have benefited from Tea Party fundraising efforts.
Here's my first big argument, although I'll freely admit to not having much direct evidence: I don't believe Donald Trump wins the Presidency without the rise of the Tea Party. The Tea Party focused on smaller government, global isolationism (whether through force or through avoidance), originalist Supreme Court justices in the Scalia mold, anti-tax, anti-trade, etc. These are all positions which Trump voiced, and some of them are breaks from traditional GOP positions, like an anti-trade stance. The movement energized and excited Republicans into a more vocal and politically involved bunch. While it's become something a minor political move in the last 2-4 years to not actually say you're actually with the Tea Party, I think it's fair to say that Trump is a result of that movement.
On the other hand, while Democrats were in power, they kind of got thumped by the Tea Party, slowly losing seats and houses of Congress to GOP and Tea Party-backed candidates. Their constituents were not as energized nor were they all that politically involved. Sure, there were pockets of activism, but there wasn't anything lasting.
Here's the trend I'm picking up on: I believe we're seeing a reaction from the left for a liberal Tea Party. I may be wrong, and it may never coalesce into a brand the way "Tea Party" did, but I do see parallels. The Tea Party felt it was not being heard by Washington and so do the current protesters. In fact, each has had their own March on Washington. The Tea Party became energized and politically involved in a way that the GOP constituency largely hadn't been at the time. The liberal wing is becoming energized and politically involved through marches, a more organized system of calling politicians, and not being afraid to speak out. They learned their lesson from the Tea Party, who did the same thing from a different political position just 8 years ago.
I see a few possible outcomes:
1) The liberal protesters end up disillusioned by the lack of political influence of their protests and give up. They feel defeated and beaten down after losing more seats in the 2018 midterms. Their voice grows quieter and quieter until the 2020 election rolls around. When that happens, the politician that most gives them hope of turning things around will gain their support, whether Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand or some other national figure. The character of that person will determine their success or failure in 2020.
2) The liberal protesters organize enough into their own version of the Tea Party. While remaining disorganized, the group pushes Congress to move to the left, or at least more moderate than the far-right push that has been taking place. Their protests, energy and political involvement annoy those on the right yet excite those on the left. The 2018 midterms end in a stalemate (I've talked about how the geography/math isn't good for Democrats that term) or with minor Democrat gains. Democrats find their voice and footing in opposition to an ever more unpopular Donald Trump and elect a liberal politician as president in 2020. The GOP begins moving away from Trump, but can't extricate itself enough, becoming associated with Trump's worst tendencies.
3) A liberal protest movement annoys politicians on the right, further calcifying their position despite evidence that the nation is pretty closely divided. Liberals, still feeling their voices aren't heard, decide to up the ante, so to speak, and get even more loud. At some point, a liberal protest turns truly violent into a full-scale riot. This further divides the country. Politics becomes even worse. Moderates are passed aside in the name of "pure" politicians on the left or right. The chasm between the parties only deepens.
I hope that the third option doesn't happen and that moderate heads can prevail. But I fear it will. I don't think we would know a moderate anymore if they stared us in the face.
SCOTUS pick and the "nuclear option"
This may surprise you, but I don't have strong feelings about Neil Gorsuch. Moreover, I'm sad about the process that may be used to confirm him and how we got here.
For generations, there has been a rule that judicial confirmations were subject to the filibuster. They required 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and move to an up-down vote. Until recently, the only question for Supreme Court justices was whether they were qualified and if any major red flags came up. Between Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton, justices were easily confirmed with very little opposition. Only two faced major challenges: Clarence Thomas (because of Anita Hill) and Robert Bork. Everyone else, whether liberal or conservative, passed with ease. There's a small shift in the George W. Bush years. John Roberts — who was eminently qualified, but conservative — passed easily with 78 votes. Samuel Alito avoided the filibuster and passed with just 58. I believe the Alito confirmation was a special case — he was a staunch conservative replacing a middle-of-the-road justice in Sandra Day O'Connor. His pick reduced the "swing" justices to just Anthony Kennedy. But Alito's selection made Supreme Court nominations an issue not of qualifications, but of viewpoints. Obama's picks, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, passed with more than 60 votes — avoiding the filibuster — but there was plenty of opposition.
What has changed was the "nuclear option." The "nuclear option" is a move by the majority power to remove the minority party's ability to filibuster a nominee and have a straight up-and-down vote. It kills the minority party's power, essentially. It makes the climax of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington meaningless.
This phrase's history dates to the Clinton Administration, when some of his judge picks and presidential appointments were filibustered by the Republicans. There wasn't much reason for it, and one judge waited four years before finally getting a vote. In effect, Republicans (in the majority) refused to even have hearings and sat on 60 other appointments out of spite. Republicans "won."
Fast forward to 2005, and Democrats return the favor. They're in the minority, but they hold up votes on 10 Bush judicial appointees because they found them too far out of the mainstream. This created a giant mess that was eventually solved by 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans, called the Gang of 14, who agreed not to use the nuclear option if the Democrats wouldn't use the filibuster except for "extreme circumstances." Republicans "won," because they convinced the Democrats not to use the filibuster and got their appointees in.
When Democrats took back the Senate in 2011, they were frustrated and sought to hamper the Republicans' ability to be obstructionist. There were negotiations and the filibuster was used by the Republicans on 78 (!) Obama appointees. The Republicans filibustered major Court of Appeals appointments by Obama for sketchy reasons. Finally, Democrats voted 52-48 (all Republicans and 3 Democrats voting against) to eliminate the use of the filibuster for all executive and judicial appointments OTHER than the Supreme Court. Think of this move as going semi-nuclear. Everything was nuked by the Democrats except the Supreme Court. Democrats "won."
Republicans sat on the nomination of Merrick Garland (a moderate pick) simply because it was an Obama pick. They waited a full year, which was beyond unprecedented. Republicans "won." And now we're here. Gorsuch is not a mainstream option, but he is highly qualified. In a less partisan era, he may have passed easily. But we're no longer in a less partisan era. Democrats were (rightfully) upset by that action, and have vowed to filibuster the pick. The Trump administration has called for the nuclear option on the Supreme Court. I expect it to be used.
I'm saddened because the filibuster used to be a tool that would force the majority party to compromise or to moderate. It was a legislative method to bring the two sides together. It was a method to move to the center. And now, through Republican obstructionism and Democrats desire for action, the filibuster is likely to die. Republicans, as shown in this history, have been successful with their obstructionist tactics. Democrats went semi-nuclear in response. Republicans seem ready to go fully nuclear. Mourn the death of the moderates.
Executive Orders
I don't want to get bogged down in the minutiae of Trump's Muslim ban. I probably did that too much on Facebook itself, and I don't know if it helps the conversation any. It's so hard to care so much about an issue and feel like saying something doesn't help, and saying nothing doesn't either. It makes one feel powerless and dismissed.
But the one thing I wanted to bring up in this space was that the executive orders were very poorly handled in communication to the respective departments. I think it's safe to say objectively that the order's meaning and effects were not well understood. In short, it was bungled. Here are some heartbreaking examples that you can read on your own time.
The morality of such an act is up for debate. You know where I stand, and I won't retread that ground here. But the implementation of his acts are also worth consideration.
Summary Judgments
If I'm going to be critical, I also want to give praise: I was impressed by Donald Trump unexpectedly and quietly flying to the "homecoming" of the first military soldier death under his tenure. It wasn't something he had to do, but it was a good move. I was pleased with this action. The more I read about the raid on Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) that led to his death, the more I am saddened. Here are stories on the raid by Reuters and the New York Times. • • • Separation of church and state is important, lest we become a theocracy — something we claim to hate in other countries. This is dangerous stuff. • • • I signed up for the Sweet 16: a series of four 4-mile runs. I ran 2 miles straight on Wednesday, so I'm feeling pretty good about it. I'll be much happier once it starts warming up. Running when it's 20-35 degrees outside is no fun. • • • Evie and Roland are in separate day care rooms right now. There was an opening in the 2 1/2-3 room, so Evie moved up. That means Roland's by himself in the 2-2 1/2 room. I think he might be having a hard time with it, because the kid has been a bear lately. He's been whining and throwing fits far more often. We find ourselves working around his moods a lot lately. It's meant we've paid less attention to Evie, and she's had some behavioral issues, but on a lesser scale. I don't know if this is Terrible Twos or just them being difficult. Advice would be nice!
In 2009, Barack Obama had been inaugurated as President for roughly one month (Pretty similar timing to now). A CNBC reporter named Rick Santelli said from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange that a tea party was needed. That prompted a conference call of 50 conservative activists who vowed to fight Obama's policies and to schedule protests. It was a mix of populism, libertarianism and conservativism. They were not just active, but visibly active — involved in politics and willing to make themselves heard. They were a reaction, I believe, to the liberal politics that had just won the national election. They felt their voices weren't being heard, so they were going to have to speak louder and more often.
It's fair to say the Tea Party has had a lasting impact despite a little decline in its size. Their push to power in both state and national government has been successful. In Kansas, the governor and its two houses were for a time majority Tea Party/far-right conservatives rather than the more moderate conservatives that had ruled the state. On a national stage, although no one person speaks for the Tea Party, its politicians continue to grace the stage and airwaves. Ted Cruz, Jason Chaffetz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio all have either claimed Tea Party lineage or have benefited from Tea Party fundraising efforts.
Here's my first big argument, although I'll freely admit to not having much direct evidence: I don't believe Donald Trump wins the Presidency without the rise of the Tea Party. The Tea Party focused on smaller government, global isolationism (whether through force or through avoidance), originalist Supreme Court justices in the Scalia mold, anti-tax, anti-trade, etc. These are all positions which Trump voiced, and some of them are breaks from traditional GOP positions, like an anti-trade stance. The movement energized and excited Republicans into a more vocal and politically involved bunch. While it's become something a minor political move in the last 2-4 years to not actually say you're actually with the Tea Party, I think it's fair to say that Trump is a result of that movement.
On the other hand, while Democrats were in power, they kind of got thumped by the Tea Party, slowly losing seats and houses of Congress to GOP and Tea Party-backed candidates. Their constituents were not as energized nor were they all that politically involved. Sure, there were pockets of activism, but there wasn't anything lasting.
Here's the trend I'm picking up on: I believe we're seeing a reaction from the left for a liberal Tea Party. I may be wrong, and it may never coalesce into a brand the way "Tea Party" did, but I do see parallels. The Tea Party felt it was not being heard by Washington and so do the current protesters. In fact, each has had their own March on Washington. The Tea Party became energized and politically involved in a way that the GOP constituency largely hadn't been at the time. The liberal wing is becoming energized and politically involved through marches, a more organized system of calling politicians, and not being afraid to speak out. They learned their lesson from the Tea Party, who did the same thing from a different political position just 8 years ago.
I see a few possible outcomes:
1) The liberal protesters end up disillusioned by the lack of political influence of their protests and give up. They feel defeated and beaten down after losing more seats in the 2018 midterms. Their voice grows quieter and quieter until the 2020 election rolls around. When that happens, the politician that most gives them hope of turning things around will gain their support, whether Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand or some other national figure. The character of that person will determine their success or failure in 2020.
2) The liberal protesters organize enough into their own version of the Tea Party. While remaining disorganized, the group pushes Congress to move to the left, or at least more moderate than the far-right push that has been taking place. Their protests, energy and political involvement annoy those on the right yet excite those on the left. The 2018 midterms end in a stalemate (I've talked about how the geography/math isn't good for Democrats that term) or with minor Democrat gains. Democrats find their voice and footing in opposition to an ever more unpopular Donald Trump and elect a liberal politician as president in 2020. The GOP begins moving away from Trump, but can't extricate itself enough, becoming associated with Trump's worst tendencies.
3) A liberal protest movement annoys politicians on the right, further calcifying their position despite evidence that the nation is pretty closely divided. Liberals, still feeling their voices aren't heard, decide to up the ante, so to speak, and get even more loud. At some point, a liberal protest turns truly violent into a full-scale riot. This further divides the country. Politics becomes even worse. Moderates are passed aside in the name of "pure" politicians on the left or right. The chasm between the parties only deepens.
I hope that the third option doesn't happen and that moderate heads can prevail. But I fear it will. I don't think we would know a moderate anymore if they stared us in the face.
SCOTUS pick and the "nuclear option"
This may surprise you, but I don't have strong feelings about Neil Gorsuch. Moreover, I'm sad about the process that may be used to confirm him and how we got here.
For generations, there has been a rule that judicial confirmations were subject to the filibuster. They required 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and move to an up-down vote. Until recently, the only question for Supreme Court justices was whether they were qualified and if any major red flags came up. Between Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton, justices were easily confirmed with very little opposition. Only two faced major challenges: Clarence Thomas (because of Anita Hill) and Robert Bork. Everyone else, whether liberal or conservative, passed with ease. There's a small shift in the George W. Bush years. John Roberts — who was eminently qualified, but conservative — passed easily with 78 votes. Samuel Alito avoided the filibuster and passed with just 58. I believe the Alito confirmation was a special case — he was a staunch conservative replacing a middle-of-the-road justice in Sandra Day O'Connor. His pick reduced the "swing" justices to just Anthony Kennedy. But Alito's selection made Supreme Court nominations an issue not of qualifications, but of viewpoints. Obama's picks, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, passed with more than 60 votes — avoiding the filibuster — but there was plenty of opposition.
What has changed was the "nuclear option." The "nuclear option" is a move by the majority power to remove the minority party's ability to filibuster a nominee and have a straight up-and-down vote. It kills the minority party's power, essentially. It makes the climax of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington meaningless.
This phrase's history dates to the Clinton Administration, when some of his judge picks and presidential appointments were filibustered by the Republicans. There wasn't much reason for it, and one judge waited four years before finally getting a vote. In effect, Republicans (in the majority) refused to even have hearings and sat on 60 other appointments out of spite. Republicans "won."
Fast forward to 2005, and Democrats return the favor. They're in the minority, but they hold up votes on 10 Bush judicial appointees because they found them too far out of the mainstream. This created a giant mess that was eventually solved by 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans, called the Gang of 14, who agreed not to use the nuclear option if the Democrats wouldn't use the filibuster except for "extreme circumstances." Republicans "won," because they convinced the Democrats not to use the filibuster and got their appointees in.
When Democrats took back the Senate in 2011, they were frustrated and sought to hamper the Republicans' ability to be obstructionist. There were negotiations and the filibuster was used by the Republicans on 78 (!) Obama appointees. The Republicans filibustered major Court of Appeals appointments by Obama for sketchy reasons. Finally, Democrats voted 52-48 (all Republicans and 3 Democrats voting against) to eliminate the use of the filibuster for all executive and judicial appointments OTHER than the Supreme Court. Think of this move as going semi-nuclear. Everything was nuked by the Democrats except the Supreme Court. Democrats "won."
Republicans sat on the nomination of Merrick Garland (a moderate pick) simply because it was an Obama pick. They waited a full year, which was beyond unprecedented. Republicans "won." And now we're here. Gorsuch is not a mainstream option, but he is highly qualified. In a less partisan era, he may have passed easily. But we're no longer in a less partisan era. Democrats were (rightfully) upset by that action, and have vowed to filibuster the pick. The Trump administration has called for the nuclear option on the Supreme Court. I expect it to be used.
I'm saddened because the filibuster used to be a tool that would force the majority party to compromise or to moderate. It was a legislative method to bring the two sides together. It was a method to move to the center. And now, through Republican obstructionism and Democrats desire for action, the filibuster is likely to die. Republicans, as shown in this history, have been successful with their obstructionist tactics. Democrats went semi-nuclear in response. Republicans seem ready to go fully nuclear. Mourn the death of the moderates.
Executive Orders
I don't want to get bogged down in the minutiae of Trump's Muslim ban. I probably did that too much on Facebook itself, and I don't know if it helps the conversation any. It's so hard to care so much about an issue and feel like saying something doesn't help, and saying nothing doesn't either. It makes one feel powerless and dismissed.
But the one thing I wanted to bring up in this space was that the executive orders were very poorly handled in communication to the respective departments. I think it's safe to say objectively that the order's meaning and effects were not well understood. In short, it was bungled. Here are some heartbreaking examples that you can read on your own time.
The morality of such an act is up for debate. You know where I stand, and I won't retread that ground here. But the implementation of his acts are also worth consideration.
Summary Judgments
If I'm going to be critical, I also want to give praise: I was impressed by Donald Trump unexpectedly and quietly flying to the "homecoming" of the first military soldier death under his tenure. It wasn't something he had to do, but it was a good move. I was pleased with this action. The more I read about the raid on Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) that led to his death, the more I am saddened. Here are stories on the raid by Reuters and the New York Times. • • • Separation of church and state is important, lest we become a theocracy — something we claim to hate in other countries. This is dangerous stuff. • • • I signed up for the Sweet 16: a series of four 4-mile runs. I ran 2 miles straight on Wednesday, so I'm feeling pretty good about it. I'll be much happier once it starts warming up. Running when it's 20-35 degrees outside is no fun. • • • Evie and Roland are in separate day care rooms right now. There was an opening in the 2 1/2-3 room, so Evie moved up. That means Roland's by himself in the 2-2 1/2 room. I think he might be having a hard time with it, because the kid has been a bear lately. He's been whining and throwing fits far more often. We find ourselves working around his moods a lot lately. It's meant we've paid less attention to Evie, and she's had some behavioral issues, but on a lesser scale. I don't know if this is Terrible Twos or just them being difficult. Advice would be nice!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)