Those of us who grew up in the era of summer reruns have had the most difficult time with both the new media and political environments. There just is no downtime anymore, what with 24-hour news cycles and the panicked reaction of the main television networks to phones, Netflix, YouTube and on-demand programming.
So it makes perfect sense that we will have a summer jammed to the gills with Donald Trump, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley. Not that these candidates don't have things to say, because they do. It's just that come the fall, they'll be off the headlines and back to being annoyances and debate fodder for the wealthier, more established name-brand candidates. It's not fair and it certainly isn't democratic, nor does it help the country when money determines your political life, but that's the way it is, and has always been.
The stark reality is that candidates need to run actual campaigns with strategies and staff, and that takes professionals who know what they're doing, donor lifelines, media access, and political experience under the heat and glare of the media spotlight. Right now, we're getting the free media show that only the second tier candidates can provide. Hillary Clinton is sharpening her economic message, ahead of Monday's speech, Jeb's reconnecting with the bluebloodlines inherent in the Bush family, dining with Mitt at the Walker Point compound, and Scott Walker is wowing them with his approachable personality, but not with his smarts.
I know it's rather gauche to put Chris Christie in with the varsity because most major publications and even dyed-in-the-wool Morris County, New Jersey Republicans are writing him off (no link; just a conversation I had with said woolen GOPer), but I'm not going to get on that train just yet. It's true that he's got the trifecta when it comes to negatives--a scandal, no record and a lousy personality--but the man does fight and with a frontrunner named Bush, this year is going to be a bit unpredictable on the right side of the spectrum.
Which brings me back to Donald and Bernie. Trump is blowing hot air and getting media traction for it, but it's attention for all the wrong reasons. He's got nothing to run on and no policy except outrage. As a matter of fact, he even makes Christie's YouTube rants look like Bill Buckley on Firing Line (I'm trying to win the Most Obscure Reference award today. DraftKings has a daily game, you know). He'll be off the radar by the time the first GOP debate comes around and I would be surprised if he's even in it. Of course, if he is, then his campaign will really end there because people will see him for what he is.
Bernie Sanders is the anti-Trump; he has an actual message for the country and the far left is drinking it up because Hillary won't dare say the same things on the campaign trail. Sanders is playing to large crowds, but again, he needs to raise money and run ads. He also needs to appeal to a larger portion of the Democratic electorate. Hillary will eventually need to fold in some of Sanders' ideas if she hopes to keep the faithful in her corner, but I just don't see him being a force past Iowa or New Hampshire. If anything, Clinton will be expected to win those races handily, so if Sanders is close then that will be the narrative. But a loss is a loss and money doesn't follow losses.
Still, we should enjoy the summer fun because once the campaign turns serious, there's no turning back.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Sunday, July 5, 2015
The Most Important Election of Them All
Well, yes and no. Aren't all presidential elections the most important election in history? It certainly feels that way, especially if you listen to the media buzz that emanates every four years. The future of the country is at stake. The direction of our foreign and domestic policies will be set by the voters in this election.
So it shall be in 2016, but this time there is some truth to the hype. We've just witnessed a few Supreme Court decisions that have profoundly changed the country's political and social landscape. We are still suffering from the after-effects of the Great Recession. Race has roared back as a flashpoint issue. The world situation is critical (as it always seems to be). And by the end of this month, we'll likely have over 20 people who'd like to run this government formally declare their intention to do so. Impressive. Or foolish.
Right now I would say that the edge in the race has to go to the Democrats, if for no other reason than they have a clear front-runner in Hillary Clinton and control of the electoral college map. The Republicans are far more split than the left and the remnants of the Tea Party are forcing some of the more moderate candidates to run farther to the right than they'd like. Of course, Bernie Sanders might have that impact on Clinton, forcing her to the left, but she has the advantage of being a known quantity for the past two decades. In addition, more of the Republican candidates are nationally known than are Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb, which means that it will be more difficult for their messages to find daylight.
The Republicans will have the burden to show that they can run the country more effectively than President Obama has during his term. The problem is that more Americans favor the Democratic position on most major issues. Most of the GOP candidates have come out against the court's marriage equality ruling and want to enact religious freedom laws to protect those people who oppose that decision. These laws might be popular in certain states, but when Indiana tried to enact such a law in March, it met with intense opposition from the business community, the NCAA, and other groups who are committed to a diverse educational and workplace environment. Plus, moderates favor marriage equality, and the GOP will need those voters in key states if it wants to win next November. Rolling back the major civil rights issue of our day will likely be a self-inflicted wound from which the Republican Party will not likely recover.
The same is true, to a lesser extent, on the issues of health care and immigration. The American public is still split on whether the ACA is good policy, but most people want the law to be fixed, not repealed. That the Supreme Court saved the law will provide fundraising fodder for the right, but the GOP cannot afford to take health insurance away from those who already have it under the exchanges. They have floated a fix, but it would repeal the personal mandate, and that would cause havoc because those premiums are keeping the law afloat. And the health care industry is changing so rapidly because of the law that companies and hospitals would probably oppose anything that cuts into their profits or practices. Remember that the ACA was based on conservative principles. The GOP should recognize that. If they can't find a way to fix the law, they might find that public opinion turns more to the left, and towards a public health care system that's the dream of most Democrats.
Donald Trump notwithstanding, the Republicans have a big problem when it comes to immigration. Any candidate that echoes Mitt Romney's "self deportation" policy in 2016 will lose badly. Marco Rubio supports an immigration plan that is more progressive than the other candidates and he's paying for it by losing support among conservatives. One of the candidates is going to have to convince the faithful that a new immigration law is in the best interests of the party and the country. That candidate will then have chance at winning the general election.
The Democrats have their own problems because they can't run too far away from President Obama, but they can't be too close either. Americans like the idea of more forceful environment action, but don't like executive orders. They want higher wages and less income inequality, but don't want higher taxes or government regulation of the economy. And I suspect that most people don't want the government to punish banks, as Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have advocated.
The Republicans need to present a more positive message to the country about what they're going to do if elected, not continue to be against everything that the Democrats are for. They have to realize, as the Democrats did in the 1980s, that their policies are not connecting with enough voters for them to win a national election. This election, though, like most, will be fought on economic and security grounds. Again, the GOP is on the defensive as they are seen as the protectors of the wealthy and against spending on infrastructure, public education, and health issues. An arch conservative, like an arch liberal, will not win in 2016. Pragmatism and a vision to move us forward will.
Because this is the most important election of them all.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest
So it shall be in 2016, but this time there is some truth to the hype. We've just witnessed a few Supreme Court decisions that have profoundly changed the country's political and social landscape. We are still suffering from the after-effects of the Great Recession. Race has roared back as a flashpoint issue. The world situation is critical (as it always seems to be). And by the end of this month, we'll likely have over 20 people who'd like to run this government formally declare their intention to do so. Impressive. Or foolish.
Right now I would say that the edge in the race has to go to the Democrats, if for no other reason than they have a clear front-runner in Hillary Clinton and control of the electoral college map. The Republicans are far more split than the left and the remnants of the Tea Party are forcing some of the more moderate candidates to run farther to the right than they'd like. Of course, Bernie Sanders might have that impact on Clinton, forcing her to the left, but she has the advantage of being a known quantity for the past two decades. In addition, more of the Republican candidates are nationally known than are Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb, which means that it will be more difficult for their messages to find daylight.
The Republicans will have the burden to show that they can run the country more effectively than President Obama has during his term. The problem is that more Americans favor the Democratic position on most major issues. Most of the GOP candidates have come out against the court's marriage equality ruling and want to enact religious freedom laws to protect those people who oppose that decision. These laws might be popular in certain states, but when Indiana tried to enact such a law in March, it met with intense opposition from the business community, the NCAA, and other groups who are committed to a diverse educational and workplace environment. Plus, moderates favor marriage equality, and the GOP will need those voters in key states if it wants to win next November. Rolling back the major civil rights issue of our day will likely be a self-inflicted wound from which the Republican Party will not likely recover.
The same is true, to a lesser extent, on the issues of health care and immigration. The American public is still split on whether the ACA is good policy, but most people want the law to be fixed, not repealed. That the Supreme Court saved the law will provide fundraising fodder for the right, but the GOP cannot afford to take health insurance away from those who already have it under the exchanges. They have floated a fix, but it would repeal the personal mandate, and that would cause havoc because those premiums are keeping the law afloat. And the health care industry is changing so rapidly because of the law that companies and hospitals would probably oppose anything that cuts into their profits or practices. Remember that the ACA was based on conservative principles. The GOP should recognize that. If they can't find a way to fix the law, they might find that public opinion turns more to the left, and towards a public health care system that's the dream of most Democrats.
Donald Trump notwithstanding, the Republicans have a big problem when it comes to immigration. Any candidate that echoes Mitt Romney's "self deportation" policy in 2016 will lose badly. Marco Rubio supports an immigration plan that is more progressive than the other candidates and he's paying for it by losing support among conservatives. One of the candidates is going to have to convince the faithful that a new immigration law is in the best interests of the party and the country. That candidate will then have chance at winning the general election.
The Democrats have their own problems because they can't run too far away from President Obama, but they can't be too close either. Americans like the idea of more forceful environment action, but don't like executive orders. They want higher wages and less income inequality, but don't want higher taxes or government regulation of the economy. And I suspect that most people don't want the government to punish banks, as Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have advocated.
The Republicans need to present a more positive message to the country about what they're going to do if elected, not continue to be against everything that the Democrats are for. They have to realize, as the Democrats did in the 1980s, that their policies are not connecting with enough voters for them to win a national election. This election, though, like most, will be fought on economic and security grounds. Again, the GOP is on the defensive as they are seen as the protectors of the wealthy and against spending on infrastructure, public education, and health issues. An arch conservative, like an arch liberal, will not win in 2016. Pragmatism and a vision to move us forward will.
Because this is the most important election of them all.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest
Sunday, June 28, 2015
The Conservative Court Turns Left
The same court that brought us corporations as people, unlimited political money, abortion restrictions, a step backwards in voting rights, and unequal pay has now thrown some serious bones to the left in the form of a stronger Affordable Care Act and a right to gay marriage. I'm sure that wherever they are, David Souter and Sandra Day O'Connor are smiling just as broadly as President Obama and millions of formerly marginalized United States citizens are across this land.
It just goes to show you that handicapping Supreme Court decisions based on the justices' questions and demeanor during oral arguments is dangerous, unpredictable sport. Remember that the Chief Justice asked only one substantial question during the health care arguments, but he surprised almost everyone by writing a rather forceful decision upholding the law. Justice Kennedy was widely seen as the bellwether on marriage equality, and he provided the fifth vote to recognize that dignity comes in many forms.
The Originalist Triplets from Different Mothers--Scalia, Thomas and Alito--certainly didn't disappoint their right wing adherents by pointing out to us that laws should be read as written and that if marriage was a right, then why didn't the nation recognize it until now? Never mind that the country didn't recognize civil rights for African-Americans for over 100 years after the Civil War, and that was with an amendment specifically crafted to remedy that injustice. Justice Thomas's career-defining quote about how slaves did not lose their dignity because the government allowed them to be enslaved was not only a jaw-dropping bit of incongruity, but also a shocking misunderstanding of what the word means.
But this is the danger of the originalist doctrine. It presumes to know exactly what the Framers meant not only in their time, but in ours. I'm no legal expert, but I've committed my professional life to teaching history and my reading is that those men who gathered in Philadelphia were a bit more flexible on legal interpretations than the originalists give them credit for.
Rather than be shocked at what American society has become, I think they would be pleased, perhaps even giddy, at the idea that we've become as multicultural, open, democratic and accepting as we are now. I would be disappointed if Madison, Washington, Hamilton or any of the others came to our century and said that we had completely misread the meaning of their words. After all, they included both the elastic clause and the ability to amend the constitution.
Meanwhile, Scalia, Thomas and Alito (and sometimes Roberts) would roll back civil rights laws and would have us believe that the Fourteenth Amendment, the one that guarantees every citizen equal protection of the law, has nothing to say about guaranteeing LGBT Americans, well, the equal protection of the law. or that four words in the health care law were meant as grenades that would blow it up rather than mechanisms to guarantee that less-well-off Americans could get affordable health care. Scalia especially seems to believe that the only rights that Americans have are the ones granted in 1787. How thoroughly regressive.
It's worth noting that another group, Confederates, also believed they knew the true meaning of the Republic. They wanted to live in a country that allowed states to decide almost all aspects of public policy, protect slavery and Jim Crow, and to nullify federal laws they didn't agree with. That's why they broke away and were almost successful in creating such a country. Their loss still resonates in the south and it's time to bring that era to a close. We shouldn't destroy every vestige of it, but it's past time to take down the flags and statues (and put them in museums where they belong), and to rename some streets. We'll be a better country for it.
What history will more likely remember is the rock-solid support for humanity and progress that the four liberals--Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg--continue to fight for. Their opinions were subsumed under Kennedy and Roberts, but they should rightly be proud, and thanked, for their steadfast support for the citizens of this country.
As we move forward from last week, we need to remember that many states will be required to recognize marriages, but off the alter those states can continue to discriminate based on sexual orientation and use religious belief as a hammer against full equality. I certainly support religious values, but it's time to recognize that Biblical prohibitions that discriminate, marginalize and promote hate are...wrong.
Bu that's a discussion for the future. Right now I'm going to buy some rainbow sherbet, kick back, and celebrate America.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest
It just goes to show you that handicapping Supreme Court decisions based on the justices' questions and demeanor during oral arguments is dangerous, unpredictable sport. Remember that the Chief Justice asked only one substantial question during the health care arguments, but he surprised almost everyone by writing a rather forceful decision upholding the law. Justice Kennedy was widely seen as the bellwether on marriage equality, and he provided the fifth vote to recognize that dignity comes in many forms.
The Originalist Triplets from Different Mothers--Scalia, Thomas and Alito--certainly didn't disappoint their right wing adherents by pointing out to us that laws should be read as written and that if marriage was a right, then why didn't the nation recognize it until now? Never mind that the country didn't recognize civil rights for African-Americans for over 100 years after the Civil War, and that was with an amendment specifically crafted to remedy that injustice. Justice Thomas's career-defining quote about how slaves did not lose their dignity because the government allowed them to be enslaved was not only a jaw-dropping bit of incongruity, but also a shocking misunderstanding of what the word means.
But this is the danger of the originalist doctrine. It presumes to know exactly what the Framers meant not only in their time, but in ours. I'm no legal expert, but I've committed my professional life to teaching history and my reading is that those men who gathered in Philadelphia were a bit more flexible on legal interpretations than the originalists give them credit for.
Rather than be shocked at what American society has become, I think they would be pleased, perhaps even giddy, at the idea that we've become as multicultural, open, democratic and accepting as we are now. I would be disappointed if Madison, Washington, Hamilton or any of the others came to our century and said that we had completely misread the meaning of their words. After all, they included both the elastic clause and the ability to amend the constitution.
Meanwhile, Scalia, Thomas and Alito (and sometimes Roberts) would roll back civil rights laws and would have us believe that the Fourteenth Amendment, the one that guarantees every citizen equal protection of the law, has nothing to say about guaranteeing LGBT Americans, well, the equal protection of the law. or that four words in the health care law were meant as grenades that would blow it up rather than mechanisms to guarantee that less-well-off Americans could get affordable health care. Scalia especially seems to believe that the only rights that Americans have are the ones granted in 1787. How thoroughly regressive.
It's worth noting that another group, Confederates, also believed they knew the true meaning of the Republic. They wanted to live in a country that allowed states to decide almost all aspects of public policy, protect slavery and Jim Crow, and to nullify federal laws they didn't agree with. That's why they broke away and were almost successful in creating such a country. Their loss still resonates in the south and it's time to bring that era to a close. We shouldn't destroy every vestige of it, but it's past time to take down the flags and statues (and put them in museums where they belong), and to rename some streets. We'll be a better country for it.
What history will more likely remember is the rock-solid support for humanity and progress that the four liberals--Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg--continue to fight for. Their opinions were subsumed under Kennedy and Roberts, but they should rightly be proud, and thanked, for their steadfast support for the citizens of this country.
As we move forward from last week, we need to remember that many states will be required to recognize marriages, but off the alter those states can continue to discriminate based on sexual orientation and use religious belief as a hammer against full equality. I certainly support religious values, but it's time to recognize that Biblical prohibitions that discriminate, marginalize and promote hate are...wrong.
Bu that's a discussion for the future. Right now I'm going to buy some rainbow sherbet, kick back, and celebrate America.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)