#Legislative Gridlock

[worldwatcher3072]

Bridging the Divide:

Combating Partisan Polarization in American Politics

In the realm of American politics, a shadow looms large – a shadow cast by the growing chasm of partisan polarization. As our nation grapples with complex challenges and opportunities, the stark divide between political parties threatens to stifle progress and compromise. In this blog post, we delve into the depths of this issue and explore potential strategies to bridge the gap and combat the corrosive effects of partisan polarization.

The Roots of Partisan Polarization

Partisan polarization isn't a new phenomenon, but its intensity and impact have become increasingly evident in recent years. Rooted in a multitude of factors, including ideological differences, media echo chambers, and gerrymandered districts, this polarization has created an environment where collaboration takes a back seat to confrontation.

The Consequences of Polarization

The consequences of partisan polarization are far-reaching. Legislative gridlock, where policy-making grinds to a halt due to an inability to find common ground, has become all too familiar. Public trust in institutions erodes as citizens witness their elected officials engaged in seemingly endless ideological battles, often at the expense of meaningful governance. Moreover, polarization can hinder innovative solutions to pressing issues, leaving critical problems unresolved.

Combating Partisan Polarization: Strategies for Unity

While the challenge of partisan polarization is daunting, it is not insurmountable. Here are some strategies that could help bridge the divide and promote more constructive dialogue and cooperation:

Promote Civility and Respect: Leaders from both sides of the aisle must set an example by engaging in civil and respectful discourse. Constructive debates and disagreements can lead to better solutions, but they should be grounded in mutual respect and a commitment to finding common ground.

Encourage Cross-Party Collaboration: Establish platforms and initiatives that encourage members of different parties to work together on shared goals. Cross-party alliances can demonstrate the potential for compromise and foster a culture of cooperation.

Foster Media Literacy: Educating citizens about media literacy can help counter the echo chamber effect, where individuals are exposed only to information that reinforces their existing beliefs. Encouraging critical thinking and a diverse range of news sources can lead to a more informed and well-rounded public discourse.

Address Gerrymandering: Redistricting reform can help mitigate the impact of gerrymandered districts, which often contribute to polarization by creating safe seats for one party or the other. Independent commissions and transparent processes can lead to more competitive elections and encourage candidates to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters.

Promote Civic Engagement: Encouraging citizens to actively participate in the political process can help counter apathy and disengagement. When people are actively involved, they become more invested in finding common ground and advocating for solutions that benefit everyone.

A Shared Responsibility

The task of combating partisan polarization is not solely the responsibility of politicians or policymakers. It is a collective effort that requires the engagement of citizens, communities, and institutions across the nation. By recognizing the dangers of polarization and committing to fostering a more inclusive and collaborative political environment, we can work toward a future where the United States thrives through unity, understanding, and progress.

In conclusion, while the challenge of partisan polarization is significant, it is not an insurmountable obstacle. By embracing a spirit of cooperation, promoting civility, and fostering a culture of open dialogue, we can begin to heal the divisions that threaten our democracy. Let us remember that the strength of our nation lies not just in our differences, but in our ability to come together for the greater good.

#Partisan Polarization #Political Divisions #Bipartisanship #Civic Engagement #Cross-Party Collaboration #Legislative Gridlock #Media Literacy #Gerrymandering #Unity in Politics #Political Discourse #Civility and Respect #Redistricting Reform #Democracy #Inclusive Politics #Public Trust #Political Compromise #Media Influence #Political Reconciliation #Constructive Dialogue #Common Ground

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Lauren Gambino at The Guardian:

Joe Biden has signed into law a bill that rushes $95bn in foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, a bipartisan legislative victory he hailed as a “good day for world peace” after months of congressional gridlock threatened Washington’s support for Kyiv in its fight to repel Russia’s invasion. The Senate overwhelmingly passed the measure in a 79 -18 vote late on Tuesday night, after the package won similarly lopsided approval in the Republican controlled House, despite months of resistance from an isolationist bloc of hardline conservatives opposed to helping Ukraine. “It’s going to make America safer. It’s going to make the world safer,” Biden said, in remarks delivered from the White House, shortly after signing the bill.

“It was a difficult path,” he continued. “It should have been easier and it should have gotten there sooner. But in the end, we did what America always does. We rose to the moment, came together, and we got it done.” The White House first sent its request for the foreign aid package to Congress in October, and US officials have said the months-long delay hurt Ukraine on the battlefield. Promising to “move fast”, Biden said the US would begin shipping weapons and equipment to Ukraine within a matter of hours. Biden admonished “Maga Republicans” for blocking the aid package as Ukrainian soldiers were running out of artillery shells and ammunition as Iran, China and North Korea helped Russia to ramp up its aerial assault on Ukrainian cities and critical infrastructure. Rejecting the view that Ukraine is locked in an unwinnable conflict that has become a drain on US resources, Biden hailed Ukraine’s army as a “fighting force with the will and the skill to win”. But the president also pressed the case that supporting Ukraine was in the national security interest of the US.

[...] In an effort to attract Republican support, the security bill includes a provision that could see a nationwide ban on TikTok. The House also added language mandating the president seek repayment from Kyiv for roughly $10bn in economic assistance in the form of “forgivable loans”, an idea first floated by Donald Trump, who has stoked anti-Ukraine sentiment among conservatives. Although support for the package was overwhelming, several Democrats have expressed their concern with sending Israel additional military aid as it prosecutes a war that has killed more than 34,000 people in Gaza and plunged the territory into a humanitarian crisis. Three progressive senators, Bernie Sanders, Peter Welch of Vermont and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, voted against the bill for its inclusion of military support to Israel.

On Wednesday, Biden called the aid to Israel “vital”, especially in the wake of Iran’s unprecedented aerial assault on the country. Israel, with help from the US, UK and Jordan, intercepted nearly all of the missiles and drones and there were no reported fatalities. The attack had been launched in retaliation against an Israeli strike on an Iranian consular site in Syria. “My commitment to Israel, I want to make clear again, is ironclad,” Biden said. “The security of Israel is critical. I will always make sure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself against Iran and terrorists who it supports.” Biden’s abiding support for Israel’s war in Gaza has hurt his political standing with key parts of the Democratic coalition, especially among young people. As he spoke, students at some of the nation’s most prestigious universities were demonstrating against the war. Biden emphasized that the bill also increases humanitarian assistance to Gaza, touting his administration’s efforts to pressure Israel to allow more aid into the devastated territory. But House Republicans added a provision to the bill prohibiting funds to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, Unrwa, a “lifeline for the Palestinian people in Gaza” that Israel has sought to disband.

President Biden signed a foreign aid package worth $95BN containing foreign aid for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel and provisions to a TikTok ban.

The good: Ukraine and Taiwan funding. The bad: TikTok ban and Israel funding.

See Also:

Vox: Ukraine aid and a potential TikTok ban: What’s in the House’s new $95 billion bill

#Ukraine Aid #Ukraine #Israel #Taiwan #TikTok Ban #Joe Biden #Biden Administration #Foreign Aid

[gatheringbones]

[“Our institutions have socialized us to scarcity, creating artificial resource shortages and then normalizing them. For example, because the residents of affluent neighborhoods have been so successful at blocking the construction of new housing in their communities, developers have turned their sights on down-market neighborhoods, where they also meet resistance, often from struggling renters fretting about gentrification.

As this dynamic has repeated itself in cities across America, the debate about addressing the affordable housing crisis and fostering inclusive communities has turned into a debate about gentrification, one pitting low-income families who have stable housing against low-income families who need it. But notice how contrived and weird this is, how our full range of action has been limited by rich homeowners essentially redlining their blocks. Or consider how a scarcity mindset frames so much of our politics, crippling our imaginations and stunting our moral ambitions. How many times have we all heard legislators and academics and pundits begin their remarks with the phrase “In a world of scarce resources…,” as if that state of affairs were self-evident, obvious, as unassailable as natural law, instead of something we’ve fashioned?

The United States lags far behind other advanced countries when it comes to funding public services. In 2019, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and several other Western democracies each raised tax revenues equal to at least 38 percent of their GDPs, while the United States’ total revenues languished at 25 percent. Instead of catching up to our peer nations, we have lavished government benefits on affluent families and refused to prosecute tax dodgers. And then we cry poor when someone proposes a way to spur economic mobility or end hunger? Significantly expanding our collective investment in fighting poverty will cost something. How much it will cost is not a trivial affair. But I would have more patience for concerns about the cost of ending family homelessness if we weren’t spending billions of dollars each year on homeowner tax subsidies, just as I could better stomach concerns over the purported financial burden of establishing a living wage if our largest corporations weren’t pocketing billions each year through tax avoidance. The scarcity mindset shrinks and contorts poverty abolitionism, forcing it to operate within fictitious fiscal constraints. It also pits economic justice against climate justice. When lawmakers have tried to curb pollution and traffic gridlock through congestion pricing, for instance, charging vehicles a fee if they enter busy urban neighborhoods during peak hours, critics have shot down the proposal by claiming it would hit low-income workers in transit deserts the hardest. In many cases, this is true. But it doesn’t have to be. We allow millions to live paycheck to paycheck, then leverage their predicament to justify inaction on other social and environmental issues. Politicians and pundits inform us, using their grown-up voice, that unfortunately we can’t tax gas-guzzling vehicles or transition to green energy or increase the cost of beef because it would harm poor and working-class families. My point isn’t that these tradeoffs aren’t pertinent but that they aren’t inescapable. They are by-products of fabricated scarcity.”]

matthew desmond, from poverty: by america, 2023

#matthew desmond #history stuff #currently reading

[lifewithchronicpain]

If you're confused about what is happening in Congress right now, here's a simple breakdown.

First off, some days ago Sen Manchin announced he's tanking a reconciliation bill on climate change, healthcare, and tax reform. A reconciliation bill is a limited means by which Congress can pass a bill related to the budget with a simple majority. Because of the filibuster, regular legislation needs 10 Republicans to get past a filibuster, which Republicans do automatically now. Hence gridlock in Congress.

Thinking Biden wouldn't get his reconciliation bill, the Republicans got enough to vote for a bill on computer chips and it passed the Senate. They were also supposed to vote to pass a bill to help veterans suffering with cancer from toxic burn pits that Jon Stewart has championed. Meanwhile, there was also a plan to get enough Republican votes to codify same sex marriage with legislation, and they were almost at 10 votes.

Then suddenly after the vote on the Chips Bill that many Republicans very much liked, Sen Manchin and Sen Schumer announced they brokered a deal on the reconciliation bill. So suddenly we are on track to get climate change initiatives, lowe drug costs, and taxes on rich cooperations.

Republicans lost their shit.

Being the big piss babies they are they can't stand Biden getting so much of what he wants. They suddenly don't support the Bill Jon Stewart was pushing for veterans who are sick and dying because of those stupid fucking burn pits. Stewart is pissed, and if you seen him on TV being pissed, this is why.

Also Susan Collins has signaled the votes for same sex marriage are gone. But that's not even enough, they are now trying tank the Chips Bill in the House of Representatives where it needs to still pass to become law. So they are trying to stop a bill they supported and like because they can't fucking stomach the idea of Biden getting so many legislation wins. However the Chips Bill will pass because democrats have a majority, and no one can whip up votes like Pelosi.

I don't know if Manchin intentionally pulled a fast one to get Republicans to vote on the other bill, but either way, it's just another example of how Republicans are party over country and don't give a flying fuck about any of their constituents.

#long post #politics #republicans #democrats #senate

[chuplayswithfire]

if voting wasn't enough, the republicans wouldn't do it every year. if voting wasn't enough, the republicans wouldn't take ground.

FAILING TO VOTE IS HOW WE GOT HERE.

failing to vote. failing to hold the line. failing to be involved. failing to make change. failing to encourage our peers to hold strong and failing to put our backs into it.

nothing moves fast in politics. nothing changes over night. the work of legislation is the long and tireless work of voting, registering people to vote, advocating for a candidate, and constantly, constantly pushing.

people need to stop looking for a hero. there is no sleeping king, there is no single action that you can take that will win the war, this is not v for fucking vendetta, there is not going to be a shining overthrow that brings the system down around our ears.

you have to vote. you have to donate. you have to advocate. and then you have to do it again and again and again until you fucking die.

that is the way of the world.

you don't rest on your laurels. you fight. and you fight. we have lost ground that ACHES to lose and lost rights that people died to achieve but that does not mean we STOP VOTING or throw in the fucking towel.

the supreme court has this much power because congress has been trapped in useless gridlock or under republican control since 2010, which means the supreme court is determining things that SHOULD be being enshrined in law by the legislative branch, not the judicial. the democrats need a SUPERMAJORITY to pass legislation. without a supermajority what they can do is STOP republican legislation, but not *pass* new legislation.

to change the constitution, you need an amendment to pass the house, the senate, and *then* be ratified by the states.

it is not something the democrats could have just "done" these last fifty years and they just haven't for shits and giggles. we have not had the numbers because people are so easily fucking discouraged and think that voting should be a one and done process.

it's not.

we have to fight. for our entire lives, we have to fight. the very easiest thing that every single one of us can do is vote, not just for the president, not just for the governor, not just for congress, but for the mayor. for the sheriff. for the judge. for the city council. for the schoolboard.

at every single level we can and should and must be voting and we have to do that every election for our entire lives until we die and we have to raise our children to do the same damn thing.

there is no stopping point.

this is life. this is what it is. you have to fight for it.

#politics #god i keep seeing so many posts that make me want to SCREAM please LEARN HOW THE GOVERNMENT WORKS

[fluffypotatey]

My fellow zillennial. It's come to my attention that Gen Alpha is apparently making aesthetic tiktoks romanticizing 2020, like they want to be a teenager during that time??? Like no? You don't? I can't even begin to start breaking down how bad that year was in every category. McDonalds apparently now has "standards" yet another rubbish thing to add to the "college degrees make you overqualified with zero experience sorry you can't get this entry job" bucket. And Lunchables news reporters are like 30 years too late to be writing an expose on the toxic levels of metal in that.

people were dying????? we were in a state of panic and isolation???? schools were struggling with the switch to online only classes????

do we all remember the BLM protests and the tips on how to keep your face hidden and how to stay safe from getting maced???? do we remember the pushback against it??? calling on botched stats???

do we even remember the fucking US election???? how heated it got???? how much distrust republicans tried to seed into mail-in ballots?????

and then literally January of 2021, the US legislative house gets stormed in, Texas has a freeze so bad our gridlock shuts down and PEOPLE DIED FROM THE COLD WHILE EVERYONE ELSE MOCKED US FOR FREEZING!!!

2020 was not a good year. it is the furthest from a a good year, but it sure as hell emphasized a motley of issues the world had going on (tho i’m more versed in the US issues bc i live there)

#i’m gonna go ahead and hope gen alpha is romanticizing it because that was a year they were still very young #like year your spring break turned into a spring month and you got to spend so much time at home!!!! awesome!!!!! #why do you think that happened???? seriously i would like to know #this is secondhand information but i would like to know why that year and not idk 2018 or 2013 when frozen came out??? #tbh if i ever romanticize the early 2000s it’s because that was when i was a child and knew nothing #i didn’t know what a recession was or that airplane security was never like this ten years ago #i never thought to wonder why it took my dad years to become a naturalized citizen #or why some friends of mine faced discrimination i was ignorant to #or why so many new students joined my class after Hurricane Katrina #i was young & i was ignorant & i never questioned shit & all i knew was that Avril Lavigne was awesome and high school musical was my dream #tbh idk what about 2020 looks so desirable because all i remember was dread and panic and being so fucking lonely #i just hope it’s a desire they’re making out of nostalgia for when they were still unaware about what was going on bc i do get that #but saying that 2020 was the year you want to live as a teen????? as an adult????? #no sir #nuh uh #that is NOT the year you want to relive at that age i assure you #asks #gen alpha i suggest you pick 2012 bc even tho there was talk of an apocalypse it actually never happened and looking back it’s kinda funny

[beardedmrbean]

When it comes to leaving students with crushing debt they can’t repay, America’s richest colleges and universities are often the worst perpetrators. 

Under a new congressional bill, those institutions could face millions in fines if they don’t start giving students a better deal.

The idea – known as “risk sharing” – is one of a slew of far-reaching provisions included in a massive overhaul of the higher education system that was proposed by House Republicans earlier this month. The College Cost Reduction Act, introduced by Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., chairwoman of the House education committee, is the GOP’s suggested template for finally reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, a sweeping 1960s-era federal law that governs colleges. 

The law is supposed to be reauthorized every five years. But the last time it was renewed was in 2008. It has been in place through temporary extensions ever since. In the interim, the country’s runaway student loan debt problem has reached crisis levels as the average price of college tuition climbed to new heights. 

Many ideas in the 224-page GOP bill have already prompted blowback from Democrats and higher education advocates. Republicans, for instance, want to slash the amount of money that students can borrow for college. Under the bill, they wouldn’t be able to take out more than $50,000 in total for undergraduate programs or $100,000 for graduate programs. 

That cap would be a huge change. It also could limit students without grant money to pursuing their studies at a limited number of schools.

Some of the GOP’s ideas about how to fix the federal student loan system would crush many American families, according to Sameer Gadkaree, president of the Institute for College Access & Success. 

“This could mean that some borrowers would stay in debt for the rest of their lives,” Gadkaree said in a statement responding to other proposed changes in the bill that would alter income-driven repayment plans.

The Republican proposal is a big bill with lots of ideas – some radical and others that almost everyone agrees on. Because the legislation is so massive, it’s nearly impossible it would move very far in this Congress, which has experienced historic levels of gridlock. 

Yet bipartisan sentiment is growing on Capitol Hill to make higher education more affordable – President Joe Biden has made that argument a central component of his attempts at broad student loan relief. Even in their attacks on those efforts, Republicans have leaned on bipartisan criticism of the rising cost of college in America. 

“We want there to be quality assurance in the education that students are seeking,” Foxx said in an interview with USA TODAY. “Too much of the focus of the colleges and universities has been on milking the students and parents.” 

A House aide not authorized to speak publicly about the legislation told USA TODAY that Democrats vehemently oppose it. Republicans did not consult them when crafting it, the aide said, as they would do with more bipartisan legislation. 

Karen McCarthy, the vice president of public policy and federal relations at the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, said colleges are still parsing through the bill. She said her group is waiting to hear feedback from more schools. 

“We’re always on the lookout for unintended consequences,” she said. “With any bill of this size, we always have things that we like and areas of concern.”

Which colleges would see the biggest fines? 

One radical change proposed in the bill would effectively make colleges, not student loan borrowers, financially responsible for unpaid loans. 

According to a summary of the bill, schools would essentially be on the hook for paying their graduates’ loans back if those students didn’t end up earning as much money as the college predicted. 

An analysis of the bill from The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, a conservative think tank, estimates that private schools would face hundreds of millions of dollars in fines for leaving students saddled with debt. The University of Southern California, for example, would risk a roughly $170 million annual penalty. The school did not respond on the record to a request for comment on the proposed fine. Neither did the University of Phoenix, which also would face tens of millions in penalties.

Preston Cooper, a higher education researcher at FREOPP, said the biggest losers under the law would be elite nonprofit schools. 

“These places are very heavily reliant on the student loan program,” he said. “The end goal of this is not necessarily to reward or punish different institutions but to change the incentives.”

Democrats oppose idea as higher ed lobby raises concerns over bill

So far, the idea of forcing colleges to pay the government back for unpaid federal student loans doesn’t have bipartisan support. Behind closed doors, Democrats are worried the provision would end up hurting community colleges and minority-serving institutions, the House aide said. 

Big players in the higher education lobby have problems with the proposal, too. The American Council on Education hasn't taken an official stance on the bill or any component of it. But Emmanual Guillory, the group’s senior director of government relations, said he shares Democrats' concerns that the risk-sharing provision could hurt colleges that enroll more students from marginalized communities.

Colleges shouldn't be financially penalized for pay gaps in the job market, Guillory said, or for labor challenges in other industries.

"Everyone is not starting from the same starting point," he said. "We can understand the logic, but it just doesn't work that way."

#nunyas news #stop creating worthless degrees #and you won't get fined

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

North Carolina Senate Republicans filed legislation Monday to strip Gov. Roy Cooper of power to appoint State Board of Elections members, intensifying a years-long struggle over state government powers between the GOP-led General Assembly and the Democratic Governor.

The unveiling of the bill came almost two hours after a panel Cooper created recommended changes designed to ease the current GOP dominance of University of North Carolina governing boards.

The dueling proposals escalate the clash between Cooper and the General Assembly to reshape the balance of power within government in the final weeks of the year’s main legislative session. Still, Republicans maintain the upper hand after regaining veto-proof control of the legislature in April.

The current state board has five members appointed by the Governor — three Democrats and two Republicans from candidate lists made by state party leaders.

Under the GOP bill filed Monday, legislative leaders would appoint all eight members. The Senate leader, House speaker and House and Senate minority leaders would pick two apiece but wouldn’t be obligated to choose from the party’s nominations — raising the possibility that unaffiliated voters could serve.

The board administers elections in the ninth-largest state, a presidential battleground where over 7 million voters are registered and statewide elections are usually close.

Republicans say having an even number of members will support consensus building on the board. They’ve complained often about the Democratic-controlled board entering a legal settlement in 2020 over absentee ballot rules that the GOP says ignored state laws.

“The voters of North Carolina should have faith that members of the Board of Elections can work together to conduct free and fair elections without any perception of bias,” Sen. Warren Daniel of Burke County, a bill sponsor, said at a Legislative Building news conference.

The bill is scheduled for committee debate Wednesday. Senate leader Phil Berger told reporters that House GOP counterparts support the state board appointment changes. The bill also would direct legislative leaders from both parties to pick four-member election boards for all 100 counties. Berger’s office said expected amendments would make the state board changes happen immediately and the county board changes effective in 2024.

In a news release, Senate Minority Leader Dan Blue, a Wake County Democrat, called the bill a “power grab, plain and simple” that “would create more gridlock and uncertainty in our elections system.”

Cooper sued over previous state election board laws approved since late 2016, and courts ruled in his favor, saying the board’s compositions by the GOP prevented him from having control over carrying out elections laws. Registered Republicans now hold a 5-2 seat majority on the state Supreme Court.

Separate legislation being negotiated by House and Senate Republicans this year also would take more appointment powers away from governors on several key state boards, including state and local community college boards. GOP leaders have said more accountability and diversity of thought are needed on important boards that Cooper’s appointees control.

Speaking to unveil recommendations of a blue-ribbon commission led by former UNC system presidents Tom Ross and Margaret Spellings, Cooper said he hoped Republicans would now also consider seriously its suggestions to diversify the UNC Board of Governors and trustee boards at 16 campuses.

“Here the legislature controls pretty much everything in higher education. So diversifying appointment authority here is a good idea,” Cooper said at an Executive Mansion news conference. “I don’t know why it wouldn’t be here if it is there.”

For 50 years, the legislature has chosen the voting members of the system Board of Governors ― with half of the current 24 elected by the House and the other half by the Senate. In the 2010s, Republicans filled the board with like-minded members and ultimately pushed out Ross and later Spellings from the presidency. The legislature also stripped from the Governor appointments to campus trustee boards.

Cooper and others argue that the boards need to better reflect the state’s population as it relates to race, gender and political views.

The commission recommended the General Assembly keep electing UNC Board of Governors members, but that lawmakers return to electing 32 members as they did for decades. The minority party in the two chambers would get to select combined eight of those members. Sixteen members would be picked from specific regions of the state. The panel also recommended that the governor get to pick four of the 15 seats on UNC campus trustee boards, but that wouldn’t take effect until January 2025, after Cooper leaves office.

#us politics #news #huffington post #2023 #republicans #conservatives #north carolina #Gov. Roy Cooper #north Carolina Board of Elections #University of North Carolina #Warren Daniel #Phil Berger #Dan Blue #North Carolina Supreme Court #Tom Ross #Margaret Spellings

[racefortheironthrone]

It was interesting to read you say that the American system isn't set up for political compromise. Considering how easy it is to clog up the system so that nothing can get done - the filibuster, for example - I thought that the US system was set up to encourage political compromise.

This is something of a national mythology, that the American constitutional system was designed for political compromise. In reality, if we think both structurally and follow the theory laid out in Federalist 10, the intent of the U.S constitutional order was to restrain political factionalism through the creation of institutional checks and balances, with the idea being that politicians would jealously guard the interests of their institutions (be that the Executive, Legislative, or Jeudicial) over the interests of any political faction.

In contradiction to the conservative vision of American history that the U.S Constitution was the perfect and un-perfectable work of enlightened statesmen, if we examine actual American political history, this model of politics broke down immediately. National political parties - the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans - were formed by men who had decried the evils of political factions, and politicians began to prioritize building majority coalitions with their fellow partisans, if only to allow the basic political functions of assembling enough votes to pass legislation and coordination of policy between the political branches, almost immediately.

Political parties, in turn, developed intensely consequentialist and highly mutable views of American political institutions: when they were in the minority in Congress, Democratic-Republicans decried federal overreach and preached a radical form of anti-federalism...until they won the majority in the elections of 1800 and rediscovered the virtues of federal authority. Likewise, the Federalist Party rapidly shifted from a celebration of Executive authority under Washington and Hamilton to an emphasis on the Supreme Court under Marshall when they lost the presidency to Jefferson and their Congressional majority.

And then, in spite of everything that was designed to do the opposite, the U.S fell into a multi-decade period of single-party rule followed up by the gradual and then inevitable derailing of all politics that wasn't oriented along the lines of pro- and anti-slavery that completely paralyzed the country for a generation until the Civil War forced the establishment of an entirely different political and Constitutional order.

The point here is that, if we discount a very few mythologized compromises (most of which fell apart almost immediately under partisan poltical pressure), the early American constitutional order was characterized as one of wild experimentation, kludges and other short-term solutions, and near-constant crisis.

As for features that supposedly engender compromise, they usually actually engendered political gridlock instead: for example, the filibuster was a complete accident that Aaron Burr accidentally introdiuced to the Senate in 1805 that wasn't actually used until the 1840s (at which time the House eliminated the filibuster in its chamber), and that immediately was dominated by the politics of slavery, causing near-complete governmental paralysis by the 1850s.

#history #american history #u.s constitution

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

M.Wuerker

* * * * *

Meanwhile, Joe Biden continues to deliver!

October 5, 2023

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

          As the House spirals into chaos, President Joe Biden announced the cancellation of $9 billion of student debt for public service workers. Per the NYTimes (accessible to all),

President Biden canceled an additional $9 billion in student debt on Wednesday as repayments started up again this month after a three-year pause. The move affects 125,000 people who qualify under existing programs, including for public-service workers such as teachers and firefighters and for people on permanent disability, according to a White House statement. “This kind of relief is life changing for individuals and their families,” Mr. Biden said on Wednesday.

          The $9 billion in forgiveness for public service workers is a small portion of Biden’s plan to forgive $400 billion in student debt for about 43 million Americans, a plan that was invalidated by the Supreme Court under the so-called “Major Questions Doctrine.” That doctrine is a judicially invented artifice that allows the Supreme Court to invalidate any congressional legislation it objects to on policy grounds.

          Of course, Congress could overrule the Supreme Court’s opinion blocking the forgiveness of student debt—but that would require Democrats to gain a majority in the House, retain control of the Senate, and re-elect President Biden. Each of those outcomes is achievable. If we can achieve those goals in 2024, Democrats can also pass national legislation to protect reproductive liberty, regulate the sale of firearms, protect voting rights, ensure the equality of LGBTQ people, and expand the Supreme Court.

          Biden’s act of forgiving student loan debt for 125,000 Americans provides a glimpse of the promise of 2024 if Democrats regain control of Congress and re-elect Joe Biden. I know we are all working at full speed and do not need additional motivation. But it is helpful to recall how much better things can be if we are successful.

The race to replace Kevin McCarthy.

          Let’s get this out of the way: No, Donald Trump won’t be the next Speaker of the House, despite suggestions to that effect from Marjorie Taylor Greene. The one thing Republicans love more than Trump is holding onto their jobs. They know that electing Trump as Speaker would ensure the loss of control of the House and the defeat of Trump as a presidential candidate. Republicans will figure out that fact after they have milked their fifteen minutes of fame for nominating Trump as Speaker.

          Trump doesn’t want to be Speaker, which is a real job that requires hard work in exchange for the enmity of the Republican caucus. And if Republicans lose their collective minds and elect Trump as Speaker, he will trigger government shutdowns, legislative gridlock, and physical altercations on the House floor (among Republicans). He would quit in weeks, forcing Republicans to go through a humiliating third election for Speaker in a year.

          Trump had plenty of opportunity to step up to the Speaker’s job when McCarthy went through fifteen rounds of votes. He didn’t then, and he isn’t going to do so now.

          Finally, Trump is ineligible to be Speaker under rules passed by the Republican caucus. See MSNBC, Why Trump, despite the chatter, won’t become House speaker. Per MSNBC,

House Republican Conference rules for the 118th Congress clearly states, “A member of the Republican Leadership shall step aside if indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years imprisonment may be imposed.”

           Could Republicans amend their own rule? Sure! But they won’t.

          I could be proven wrong, but I don’t think I will be. Why? I believe House Republicans will put their self-interest in re-election over their faux fealty to Trump. As we saw yesterday, it takes only five Republicans to break from the party to stop the GOP caucus in its tracks.

          Okay, with that elephant in the courtroom out of the way, let’s talk about the two announced candidates. But before we do, I want to answer a question a reader posed: Did Democrats make a mistake by not backing McCarthy? Will we end up with someone worse?

          No. Democrats did not make a mistake. McCarthy said in his farewell pity party that he did not want to work with Democrats. He said,

he would not have wanted to be speaker at the cost of relying on Democrats to provide votes or making concessions to win their votes. “No. I’m a Republican. I win by Republicans, and I lose by Republicans.”

          If Democrats had begun voting for McCarthy on the motion to vacate, other Republicans would have started voting against him or he would have resigned before the vote concluded. McCarthy wouldn’t allow Democrats to choose the Speaker of the House while Republicans hold the majority.

         This brings us to Jim Jordan and Steve Scalise, both miserable candidates for the job of Speaker. Are they worse than McCarthy? That’s a high bar—or is it a low bar? (You get the point.) Both are unfit for the office, but the GOP caucus is apparently not ready to acknowledge that it cannot govern unless it nominates a candidate capable of building a coalition.

See Slate op-ed by Norman L. Eisen, Siven Watt, and Fred Wertheimer, Jim Jordan shows he's unfit to lead the Judiciary Committee.

See The Guardian, House speaker contender Steve Scalise reportedly called himself ‘David Duke without the baggage.”

          But here is the most disqualifying fact about Jordan and Scalise: Both objected to the count of the electoral ballots on January 6 after the assault on the Capitol! See Vox, 147 Republican lawmakers still objected to the election results after the Capitol attack. For the record, Kevin McCarthy also objected to the electoral count after the attack on the Capitol. That fact should be a red flag for every Republican thinking of supporting Jordan or Scalise.

Trump continues to attack prosecutors and judges.

          On the third day of his trial in New York state court for fraudulent business practices, Trump continued his attack on Attorney General Letitia James and Judge Engoron. He posted on his vanity social media platform:

The Trial in NYC brought by the Racist A.G., Letitia James . . .  should be dismissed in that [DELETED] and the Judge fraudulently reduced the value of Mar-a-Lago, and other assets, in order to make their FAKE case more viable. This is yet another Witch Hunt for purposes of Election Interference. Letitia is a Dirty Cop . . . .

          (Note that I deleted a racist term used by Trump to refer to Attorney General Letitia James.)

          Trump accuses Judge Engoron of “fraudulently” reducing the value of Trump's assets, and says that A.G. James was a “Dirty Cop.” I cannot understand why such language has not resulted in severe sanctions against Trump.

          Dennis Aftergut reviews Judge Engoron’s existing gag order against Trump in The Messenger, Trump’s Consequences for Crossing the Line: A Gag Order That Opens the Door for More. Aftergut explains that Engoron’s order opens the door for Judge Chutkan to issue more expansive relief:

Trump is facing an October 16 hearing on a motion by special counsel Jack Smith for a gag order in D.C.; that's where Trump's federal indictment for criminally conspiring to overturn the 2020 election is set to be tried in March. While what just happened in the New York case is very different from the situation in the federal case, Trump just handed D.C. federal district court Judge Tanya Chutkan a first-ever precedent for limiting Trump's speech. No judge wants to act in the absence of a prior ruling in the same direction, particularly as to a gag order motion that presents highly sensitive First Amendment issues. [¶] It’s a safe bet that as the D.C. trial date approaches, Trump will continue, even escalate, his vile attacks on the administration of justice. [¶] A stalwart federal judge like Tanya Chutkan will not be intimidated; indeed, her judicial spine likely will only be stiffened by [such] threats . . . .

          Trump is pushing the envelope, whether he intends to or not. I noted a few weeks ago that Trump seems to be losing control of his emotions and thoughts in a way that suggests a mental breakdown or a progressive cognitive decline. Or he could be seeking a confrontation, betting that no judge would jail him. While jailing Trump would be traumatic for the nation, it will be far worse to do so after violence occurs.

          A story by Lucian Truscott in his Substack blog lends great weight to the notion that Trump is looking for confrontation. You will recall that Trump visited a gun store in South Carolina and made a show of buying a gun. When the media noted that it was illegal for him to buy a gun while on pretrial release for 91 felony counts, his spokesperson claimed that Trump did not actually complete the purchase transaction.

          But as Lucian Truscott explains, the real story is that Trump selected the gun store in South Carolina as a signal to white supremacists that he stands with them. See Lucian Truscott, The mainstream media completely missed the story when reporting on Trump's visit to the South Carolina gun store.

          Truscott writes:

Candidate Trump’s stop at a gun store in South Carolina on Monday wasn’t just an offhand visit:  His eight SUV convoy doesn’t do anything without advance planning days or even weeks ahead of any event Trump attends or location he visits.  He made a decision to stop at Palmetto State Armory in Summerville, South Carolina, because he knew that that specific gun store was where the racist shooter in Jacksonville, Florida bought the guns he used to kill three Black people at a Dollar General store in late August.  On the receiver of one gun, the [Jacksonville] killer had painted a swastika right next to the engraved name of the store where he bought it, Palmetto State Armory.  It’s just one month after the killings occurred.  Memories are strong, and emotions in the Black community are still raw.

          As Truscott notes, the choice of the Palmetto State Armory store was no accident. The store is well-known “among gun people for its connections to the racist Boogaloo Boys,” whose members were involved in the kidnap attempt of Michigan Governor Whitmer and were present at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville (about which Trump said there were “good people on both sides.”).

          There is more detail in Truscott’s deeply researched article. Check it out.

          Here’s the point: The evidence suggests that Trump is intentional in his provocations. He knows exactly what buttons he is pushing. Federal and state judges should assume so when evaluating whether Trump should be jailed pending his criminal trials.  

#Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter #Speaker of the House #House Republicans #student loan debt #TFG #gag order #Robert B. Hubbell #Lucian Truscott #M.Wuerker

[eightyonekilograms]

I know I reblogged it with nothing but a glib tag, but you actually really should read that New Atlantis piece. Like kontext said, it's pretty messy and needed a better editor-- it pingpongs all over the place and frustratingly abruptly ends right when it gets to its thesis statement-- but it's gesturing at something real and important.

One thing which was really sobering for me about it is that it's yet another demonstration of the catastrophic unintended consequences of well-meaning political fights from the 90's and 2000's. I've had a bunch of these lately. Just to pick one example: pork-barrel earmarks. We got rid of them in 2011, and all that did was hyperaccelerate partisan gridlock, because without earmarks there's no reason to ever reach a compromise with the other side instead of digging in please your base. (Earmarks actually came back in 2021, which probably contributed to Biden's less-dysfunctional-than-I-expected legislative agenda, but by then the damage had been done)

It's possible I'm becoming more of a Chesterton's fence small-c conservative, except I don't actually think the fence and its world were any good either: earmarks and the pre-Stewart homogenized corporate media sucked ass as well. It's more like I'm becoming a despondent nihilist who thinks we're doomed no matter what choice we make.

Askonas also really clarified why I'm so sick of Stewart now. I thought it was just because I'm tired of liberal smug assurance in general. That's definitely still a big part of it, but it's also because Stewart is now a) basically indistinguishable from the rest of the media landscape, now that they've all patterned themselves on him and b) a general still fighting the last war.

[mariacallous]

After months of congressional negotiations and public uncertainty, U.S. President Joe Biden signed a bill into law on Wednesday that will grant nearly $61 billion worth of economic and military aid to Ukraine. The package will provide a lifeline to Ukraine in its war effort, but the future of the country’s fight for survival against Russia remains far from certain; Kyiv will still likely receive less U.S. aid this year than last, when its highly-anticipated counteroffensive failed to yield significant results. To find out what effect Ukraine’s leadership expects this new tranche to have, Meduza spoke to Mykhailo Podolyak, a top adviser to the Zelensky administration.

On April 23, the U.S. Senate approved foreign aid legislation that includes $61 billion in assistance for Ukraine — the first significant Ukraine aid bill Congress has passed since December 2022. U.S. President Joe Biden signed the bill the following day, vowing that weapons shipments would begin “in the next few hours.” The bill’s passage followed more than six months of intense negotiations by a gridlocked Congress, leading many observers to speculate in the meantime that the war may be a lost cause.

Ukrainian presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak, who spoke to Meduza after the bill’s Senate approval, said he never doubted that the aid would eventually be passed. He did note, however, that the package isn’t as large as it sounds when compared to Russia’s military spending. “Sixty-one billion dollars isn’t some enormous amount that will fully cover Ukraine’s weapons shortage,” he said. “Russia’s total military budget is around $250–320 billion, including direct appropriations, indirect appropriations, and assistance from countries like North Korea, [so] we’re not talking about a level playing field here.”

Nonetheless, Podolyak said, the new package includes most of the types of equipment Ukraine’s military needs most urgently right now, including ammunition, long-range missiles, air defense missiles, electronic warfare equipment, and drones, among others weapons. Podolyak said that the quantities and logistics were still being finalized but that he has confidence in the U.S. to allocate the funding effectively: “Our American military partners have a good understanding of what’s most important right now for the Ukrainian Armed Forces to be able to take active defense measures in a number of areas.”

The main piece of equipment Ukraine needs that’s not included in the package, Podolyak said, is F-16 fighter jets. While Washington has so far declined to provide the U.S.-made aircraft, it has granted permission for other countries to do so. Ukrainian pilots are currently training to fly the planes, which the country will receive from a number of its European allies. “The key participant in this coalition is the Netherlands,” said Podolyak. “The training itself takes place in various countries, and multiple countries are helping with the supply logistics.” He noted that any country can join the coalition at any time.

“We also have the artillery coalition: about 20 countries, led by Czechia, have come together and are preparing to finance artillery procurement,” Podolyak added. “There’s also the drone coalition, which is being led by Latvia. And [German Chancellor Olaf] Scholz has just come out with a very good initiative: they’re planning to organize additional shipments of Patriot air defense systems.”

These European-led coalitions are in part a product of the months of uncertainty over the future of U.S. aid that preceded the new bill’s passage; the possibility that no more major packages would be forthcoming from Congress prompted E.U. members to try to pick up the slack. However, Podolyak noted, there’s a crucial difference between the supplies coming from Washington and those coming from Europe: timing.

“[The U.S.] has more of all of these things in its warehouses than European countries do. The U.S. military has a lot more weapons, ammunition, and consumables like shells and missiles of various modifications, including ones for air defense systems,” he said. “The Europeans, to provide us with these same types of tools, will need to invest a lot of money [and wait for production] or search on the global market [and purchase additional weapons]. Whereas the U.S. has all of these things in warehouses — it’s just a question of supply logistics.”

While the new aid package won’t ensure Ukraine’s victory or guarantee a successful counteroffensive, Podolyak said, it will have a major positive impact on the country’s ability to carry out defensive operations. “If we understand that our [weapons] shortage has become less severe, we can do more planning and destroy larger amounts of the reserves Russia is using on the Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Luhansk fronts,” he told Meduza.

Additionally, he said, the replenishment of Kyiv’s arsenal will have a psychological effect — for Russia as well as Ukraine. “We’ll understand that our troops have artillery now,” he said. “And it will affect Russia even more because the amount of destroyed [Russian] equipment and personnel is going to increase. It will allow us to stabilize the front line [and] carry out more effective defensive operations in terms of the amount of damage they cause.”

The future of American assistance to Ukraine is still in doubt, and the upcoming U.S. presidential election only adds precarity to the situation. As Mykola Bielieskov, a research fellow at the National Institute for Strategic Studies in Kyiv, recently told Bloomberg, “The question is whether there will be aid and in what volume in 2025 and beyond — as Putin’s strategy is to wait it out.”

But Podolyak said the assistance to Ukraine approved by the U.S. and E.U. countries in recent months makes him confident that the “pro-Ukraine coalition” is committed for the long run. “We see the rhetoric coming out of Europe,” he said. “We see how [U.S. House Speaker Mike] Johnson’s rhetoric has changed.” He continued:

There’s an understanding that there’s no compromising in this war. Because any compromise with Putin means a protracted war. He’ll simply pause for a while, and then the frozen conflict will start to unfreeze — with far more destructive consequences.

According to Podolyak, the package approved by Congress this week marked a “watershed moment” at which the U.S. “needed to decide for themselves whether to see this through or not.” The bill’s passage, he said, shows that “America’s decided to see it through to the end.”

When asked whether a second Trump presidency could spell trouble for the future of American aid to Ukraine, Podolyak said he sees the situation as a “process of constant dialogue.”

In an April 22 interview with BBC News Ukrainian, Ukrainian military intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov warned of a “difficult period” for Ukraine starting in mid-May. According to Podolyak, Budanov was referring to anticipated Russian attempts to exploit the formal expiration of Volodymyr Zelensky’s five-year presidential term by intensifying attacks on Ukrainian cities while conducting an information campaign promoting the idea that Zelensky’s presidency is illegitimate. (Ukraine’s constitution prohibits elections while martial law is in effect.)

The passage of the U.S. aid package, however, “somewhat thwarted their plans,” Podolyak said: “They thought that there would be a delay in aid and that this would help them amplify the notion that [Ukraine’s Western partners] no longer want to help it.” At the same time, he warned against alarmism, noting that Budanov also said there’s “no reason to expect Armageddon.” “We understand what they’re going to do,” Podolyak concluded. “And we know how to counteract Russia’s disinformation campaigns, because we don’t have any issues with legitimacy.”

[lifewithchronicpain]

I, for one, am glad Biden is running again. He's too old? He doesn't have dementia, so what? How is that not a plus? If he passes away from age we get our first female president.

Still, in all seriousness, I am pleased with what he's a accomplished with the hand he's been dealt. If you don't follow politics it's easy to be upset about what you wanted done not getting done. But congress has been basically in gridlock ever since Obama became president. Republicans went full racism and never wanted to work with him. So then they decided to just be that way from now own because it hasn't cost them anything to be obstructionists.

So there was a time you could count on people in Congress to cross the isle and support bills because they genuinely liked them. No more. There was a time you could pass a bill with a simple majority with no fear of filibuster. No more.

Congress is broke, and he still got shit done with a tiny majority. Infrastructure, climate change initiatives, first gun legislation in decades, reduced the price of insulin for seniors which resulted in Eli Lilly making the price available to everyone, the chips act, he brought Brittney Griner home, and so much more.

Yeah, he's center left, but he's left enough to get important shit done. As was discussed in a previous post, change doesn't happen all at once. You take bites from the apple until then you can look back and see how far you've come.

He's got my vote.

[progressivepower]

Steve Scalise drops out of House speaker race amid GOP leadership crisis. Louisiana Republican Rep. Steve Scalise has withdrawn from the House speaker race, extending concerns about the duration of the legislative gridlock with a government shutdown... https://t.co/yUBZ5ieuMf http://dlvr.it/SxPBWP

[laundryandtaxes]

It is really not the fault of any particular justice on the court that Americans have grown so accustomed to paying their Congressmen to do absolutely nothing that they've come to think of the role of Supreme Court as meting out entirely new rights rather than primarily as acting as a check on the power of the other two branches of government, and it is also not the fault of anyone on the court that Congressional gridlock has lead presidents to allow agencies to outright make up new laws to enforce as they go, rather than appropriately waiting for Congress to give them new powers they don't have, or to put forth a new rule for them to enforce, because otherwise they have almost no hope of making any agenda a reality. I think a lot of liberals are seeing what their government was intended to look like right now and finding that they strongly dislike it, but that's not the same as any particular ruling being "illegitimate," it's an indicator that they personally dislike the way this government was framed. With the EPA case in particular, it is astonishing that media has reported on the case primarily through the impact it will have, but it is absolutely true that presidents have allowed and encouraged federal agencies to just pretend laws exist that they wish did, in order to get those agencies to do things they want without having to go through Congress because almost nothing makes it through Congress except warwaging funds and a functional budget; agencies pretending laws exist that don't is not a small deal and then enforcing them, it can lead outright to the end of democracies as unelected bureaucrats take up powers never given to them by the legislators who ostensibly represent the people. One example that has personally irritated me has been the ATF suddenly deciding that bump stocks are machine guns (even though they absolutely are not firearms or even a crucial firearm component, and they certainly do not meet the definition of a machine gun offered up by Congress via legislation) and banning them on that clearly illegitimate and outright fraudulent basis. But even people who care about access to bump stocks just don't actually care that much about access to bump stocks, so it doesn't worry people. But if federal agencies get to literally just decide the law doesn't matter when it comes to their aims and what they are entasked with doing, they could do all sorts of things. Imagine if Trump, who attempted toward the end of his term to reign in this kind of behavior from federal agencies, had leaned into it instead and been smart enough to figure out that he could have used the precedent of rogue agency action to his advantage and easily claimed he was not doing anything new or unusual- he could have had an important agency decide that "elector" or "vote" for instance, just didn't mean what the law said it meant, and used that agency to enforce non-existing law. Imagine some administration redefining "speech" pertaining to freedom of speech. It's easy to get angry at justices whose job was not intended to be making decisions about the daily lives of Americans, much harder to hold your Congress members to account for their abject refusal to do the job for which they are paid astounding sums and fix problems.

[maaarine]

USA:

it’s chilling how republican politicians create the problems they provide solutions for

they enable gun violence, which creates a feeling of insecurity, and a desire for law and order

they enable economic misery, which creates a feeling of me-first resentment, and a desire to exclude The Other from access to resources

they enable legislative gridlock, which creates a feeling of decisional frustration, and a desire to bypass democracy

etc.

in the end electing a fascist dictator seems necessary to satisfy those desires

they set society on fire in order to play firefighters

#mytxt #politics