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!
No comments:
Post a Comment