Tag Archives: Presidential politics

Unfit.

In the main, there are two things that the ongoing impeachment trial of Donald John Trump bring to my mind. One is that this man is perhaps the least suited individual in America for the high office he now holds. The second is that the office of the presidency is far too powerful for a single person to hold, and that if we do not act to constrain that power, we will be in the same situation again before we know it. So in a certain respect, you can say that the Trump administration was an accident waiting to happen, made inevitable by the weak constraints on executive power, particularly in the era of U.S. global dominance following World War II (i.e. the era we remain in now).

Brother Matt took a whack at the hyper paternalistic imperial presidency back in 1991 with his song, “World War II”, the refrain to which went like this:

Daddy likes things done in a big way
Daddy's back with bargains from D-Day
Daddy chose a game for the lads to play
Daddy showed his hand with Enola Gay

We have had mad men at the helm before, to be sure. I’m thinking Nixon towards the end of his Watergate troubles, certainly, but even before, during the terror bombing of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. The crazy, drunk Nixon whose Defense Secretary told fellow staffers to ignore the president’s orders – that Nixon was what people typically term crazy. The mad bomber president, not so much. It is emblematic of the imperial presidency that while Nixon could get away with dropping massive ordinance on defenseless populations, his administration was ultimately brought down by his attempts to spy on his political opponents. The power dynamic is obvious.

The inevitable impeachment ensues.

Why is Trump different? Well, if nothing else, he demonstrates the degree to which even the weak constraints we thought we had had on the presidency were only voluntarily complied with – that these were traditions and norms, not laws. Every president in my lifetime had some substantive exposure to constitutional law and therefore felt compelled in a minor way to observe some limits to their power. Not this president. He knows nothing about constitutional law (inasmuch as he knows nothing, period), and so he acts outside of the usual bounds, and there appears to be no remedy or even accountability for that. I think I’ve mentioned previously on this blog, I had tacitly assumed that the weak controls on the presidency were statutory in some respect, but apparently not so. This needs to change.

If a Democrat wins this year, I’m sure there will be plenty of cooperation across the political spectrum for constraining the presidency (in ways that can easily be reversed by Republicans). But the only truly reliable constraint is an energized, organized citizenry. Unless we put down our electronic devices and start working together on these weighty issues, we can’t expect any better from any future president.

luv u,

jp

Heavy lift.

I want to open this week with a message to my fellow leftists. I know, some of you right now are probably saying, “Okay, boomer … “, but hear me out. For the more deeply committed among you, the upcoming presidential race is probably not the most important item on the agenda, but for those who plan on participating in the Democratic party primaries and caucuses, I have one modest caution: Don’t rip a new asshole into every candidate other than Bernie (whom I personally support). Many of us who are participating in electoral politics want Bernie to win, but that goal is in the hands of the voters. If we out-organize and out-vote all of the other candidates, we can win … but losing is a possibility, and given that eventuality we would still need to beat Trump in November … regardless of who wins the Democratic party nomination for president.

It's going to take all of us

The fact is, achieving top policy priorities like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal will be tremendously difficult no matter who the next Democratic president turns out to be. Obviously, Bernie Sanders is the best choice, in that we can be confident that we won’t have to convince the president to push for them. This is true of Warren to a lesser extent. But even with a reliable progressive / socialist like Bernie in the White House, M4A and the GND will demand massive organizing and activism outside of government, as well as more progressives in both the Senate and the House. All of that amounts to a heavy lift, and the difference a progressive president would make would be significant but not sufficient in and of itself.

In other words, there is no universe in which we can elect Bernie on a Tuesday in November and have him deliver M4A, for instance, sometime over the following year, all by himself. We need to build momentum for this and other progressive policies now and throughout next year, and when we defeat Trump with whatever candidate gets the most primary votes, we will need to push even harder and keep our eye on the ball. The presidential component of this project, while important, is relatively minor; no Democratic president can pass such sweeping legislation without a movement behind him or her. We will be opposed in all progressive proposals by the richest, most powerful institutions in the world, so it’s going to be a fight no matter who wins.

If we work extremely hard, we will get the nominee – Sanders – that we want and need. And then the real work begins.

luv u,

jp

More old wine.

We were treated to the spectacle of another Republican debate last night. I’ll dispense with my usual comments about the format, style, and proprietary nature of the event – suffice to say that as a wholly-owned property of CNBC, it met the usual low standard of reality television production values. That said, on to what might be referred to euphemistically as “the substance”.

First off, it’s worth noting that there are way, way, WAY too many candidates on that stage to allow any kind of reasonable debate. Setting politics and policy aside for a moment, I have to wonder what the hell is wrong with the Republican party that they can allow this to continue? The policy distinctions between these ten are minor, at best. Hasn’t it occurred to any of these people that, for the good of their party, it might be best to just sit this one out? In other words, sacrifice your own petty political ambitions so that there might be ample opportunity for substantive debate? Apparently not, as not only are there ten main debate candidates, but a kids table with 4 more. Talk about vanity.

Peterson Institute shill.Issues wise, we heard a lot of recycled crap about simplifying the tax code. The flat tax is presented as something new; it’s basically Jack Kemp 3.0. The unifying principle is, of course, massive deficits coupled with massive tax savings for the super rich. Sound familiar? Sure it does. Nine, nine, nine, anyone? Yesterday’s nines are today’s “tithing”.

The ironic thing is that there was some talk of stagnating wages for working people, particularly from Fiorina and Huckabee, but the prescription for that ailment is always just more of what’s screwing the common folks now. The contextual narrative these candidates are operating with identifies Obama as a socialist who has gotten his way for seven years. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We have been living under a kind of modified austerity, more of less following the principle set by Grover Norquist that Democrats in power should be forced to “rule like Republicans”. That has stagnated growth and increased inequality. They want to make it far worse.

Some of the most despicable posturing came from Governor Christie, a media favorite (particularly on MSNBC’s Morning Joe), who wasted no time in throwing the media under the bus. Far worse, he continued his practice of carrying water for Pete Peterson:

Let me be honest with the people who are watching at home. The government has lied to you and they have stolen from you. They told you that your Social Security money is in a trust fund. All that’s in that trust fund is a pile of IOUs for money they spent on something else a long time ago.

This is the kind of gas that’s been emitting from New Jersey’s blimp-like governor for some time now, and it’s bogus as hell. Where does he get the notion that money that has been borrowed has somehow been “stolen”? So, is he saying China isn’t getting their money back from us?  In fact, they are. We can pay ourselves back the same way we pay back all of our other creditors. It’s called keeping promises. New concept for that fucker.

Christie’s just trying to advance the narrative that Social Security is bankrupt and that we need to privatize it and hand it over to his friends in the financial services industry. I think the fact that those pirates are still slathering over the prospect of getting their greasy hands on it is proof positive that Social Security has plenty of life left in it.

There are other points to cover, but let me stop here and maybe resume next post.

luv u,

jp