I'm not sure which I enjoy more; the GOP underestimating Barack Obama's political durability or the fact that the Republican Party is against most policies that would make sense in this world.
The GOP is already under pressure for allowing those that are on no-fly lists to buy guns, as if any interference in the 2nd Amendment is tantamount to treason. I understand that some people who are on the no-fly lists are on there erroneously, but should the bias be to assume that they're on their erroneously? Doesn't Donald Trump's call for keeping all Muslims out of the United States assume, for safety's sake, that all Muslims are terrorists, even the one's that aren't? Or that all Mexicans who want to come here or are here withour proper papers are criminals, even the one's who aren't? I think it makes sense to err on the side of safety and not allow those on the lists to buy guns. That would be prudent.
And speaking of guns, it turns out that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Speaker Paul Ryan had a chat last week about the budget and also about lifting the ban on federally funded research into gun violence, an especially noxious provision that was foisted on the government by the NRA. Just think about that for a second. In a world that's been taken over by data and metrics and crowdsourcing and research, the greatest democracy in the world cannot fund research into gun violence. How does anyone stand for that? Imagine what we might...oh, what's the word...oh yes--LEARN--if such studies were allowed. Ignorance is cheap and the last vestige of the truly frightened. No wonder Donald Trump is leading in the polls.
Which brings us to climate and the real possibility that the world will begin to actually do something to mitigate climate change. It's true that the new accord reached in Paris will not solve the issue. After all, you don't solve an issue that's been around since the 1750s in a 50 year period, but it's a real step and president Obama can rightly add this to the list of historic accomplishments that history will remember and thank him for. It is true that many of the accord's provisions will need further support from the next president, but I have every confidence that the next president will be supportive of the deal.
But again, the GOP seems out-of-sorts when it comes to the climate issue. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell seems oblivious to the fact that the coal industry both in the United States and a good part of the world, is on its deathbed. It's not coming back to West Virginia or Kentucky or Pennsylvania and to try and hang on to it and essentially lie to the inhabitants of those states that the coal economy is coming back is dishonest.
Even the oil and gas industry is on the decline, but it doesn't realize how greasy the slope is. Yes, there is a load of oil and gas in the economy now and prices are cheap and getting cheaper. The OPEC nations, who were once the bane of our existence, are reeling and continue to pump more. Why? Because they need every penny they can get and if they stanch the supply and prices go up, they lose again because more people will buy alternative energy automobiles, drive less and look for ways to save money. Saudi Arabia and Iran and Iraq and Russia and Venezuela rely heavily on oil revenues. My fear is that political and economic unrest from falling national revenues will further inflame the world.
That's why this new climate agreement is so important. The President, and many Americans of all political persuasions, understands that addressing the effects of climate change are vital to our economic and political interests. Many of the rebellions that started in the Arab world in 2010 are tied to the lack of water, limited harvests and high food prices. Other uprisings are certainly possible. It is vital that we at least take some action now. This agreement is a first step. And the public is behind the president.
The GOP candidates who continue to deny that the climate is changing because of human activity are in danger of becoming outliers in their own party, and certainly the world. If we are to lead on this issue, and we must, then the national government needs a leader who recognizes that this is an issue to address now. We risk being marginalized or ridiculed by the rest of the world if our president reverses course in 2017 and undoes what Obama has carefully and diplomatically wrought.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest
Sunday, December 13, 2015
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Let's Get This Straight: Trump Will Not Be President
He won't even be the Republican nominee in 2016.
Yes, I know, the New York Times just published a poll that has Trump high atop the GOP field and gaining strength as the one candidate who will keep us safe. He's everywhere on cable and network news and is a constant topic of conversation on social media. Even Hillary Clinton has stopped dismissing him as a joke and is responding to his absurd claims. This is necessary for now because Trump will not go away on his own. He has to be shown the door and that will happen. It will be messy, but it will happen.
Why am I so sure about the Donald? Because he's essentially an excellent salesman but a political fraud who knows how to sell himself, and he's attached himself to a message and a persona that insulates him from criticism for saying outrageously xenophobic, racist, sexist, anti-Semitic and just plain wrong things on a daily basis. What he has done marvelously well is to tap into the country's fears about terrorism and he has accused the president of not only not doing enough, but of purposely allowing us to be vulnerable.
Trump doesn't need to repeat the lie about Obama not being a citizen because he has better ammunition: the president is the problem, the other, the un-American, them.He's also been able to reduce Jeb Bush to a quivering mass of jello, make fun of Marco Rubio's youth, calls Ben Carson a know-nothing, and says that of course Chris Christie knew about the GW Bridge lane closings despite the fact that not one shred of evidence has been credibly produced that he did.
My question, then, is this: Is this what we want in a President? The answer is no.
The simple reason is that not even Donald Trump can continue to run his campaign as he has been. As soon as Trump stops saying vile things, he's finished, because the truth is that he really has no platform, no singular idea other than hate, no economic plan, no foreign policy, no domestic policy and a lifetime of conflicting views on issues on which most Republicans will not ever compromise.
Right now he gets a pass at the debates because of the sheer number of GOP candidates still in the race. Come January, the real campaign begins and I'm assuming that Trump is not going to be prepared for it. Voters will want real answers for their economic problems and they'll want details as to how Trump is going to carry out his plan to throw out 11 million people from this country and what it would take to barricade us so that other people can't come in. They'll want to know what he wants to do with taxes, legal issues, health care and business policy. He's said some thinga about these, but the media and the people will demand answers. And he either won't have them or he'll give vague answers or he'll do what he's doing now about national security--he'll try to fake it. This isn't the midterm or the early semester quiz. It's the final exam and Trump is going to fail.
In addition, as the GOP field narrows, he's going to need to say even more because there will be fewer voices to take up precious airtime. This is where he will falter because he will need to become less radical and say fewer provocative things. Trump has built his campaign on those two pillars. Once he stops, his reason for running will be gone. The Republican Party is hoping that this happens in January before he can do real damage. I'm not sure the party will get its wish, but ultimately the balloon will deflate.
I've certainly been caught off-guard by Trump's durability and political stamina. It's delayed the ascent of a viable candidate and will only hurt the GOP for as long as his campaign lingers.
But rest assured my fellow Americans--Donald Trump will not be elected president in 2016. And for that, we can be thankful.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest
Yes, I know, the New York Times just published a poll that has Trump high atop the GOP field and gaining strength as the one candidate who will keep us safe. He's everywhere on cable and network news and is a constant topic of conversation on social media. Even Hillary Clinton has stopped dismissing him as a joke and is responding to his absurd claims. This is necessary for now because Trump will not go away on his own. He has to be shown the door and that will happen. It will be messy, but it will happen.
Why am I so sure about the Donald? Because he's essentially an excellent salesman but a political fraud who knows how to sell himself, and he's attached himself to a message and a persona that insulates him from criticism for saying outrageously xenophobic, racist, sexist, anti-Semitic and just plain wrong things on a daily basis. What he has done marvelously well is to tap into the country's fears about terrorism and he has accused the president of not only not doing enough, but of purposely allowing us to be vulnerable.
Trump doesn't need to repeat the lie about Obama not being a citizen because he has better ammunition: the president is the problem, the other, the un-American, them.He's also been able to reduce Jeb Bush to a quivering mass of jello, make fun of Marco Rubio's youth, calls Ben Carson a know-nothing, and says that of course Chris Christie knew about the GW Bridge lane closings despite the fact that not one shred of evidence has been credibly produced that he did.
My question, then, is this: Is this what we want in a President? The answer is no.
The simple reason is that not even Donald Trump can continue to run his campaign as he has been. As soon as Trump stops saying vile things, he's finished, because the truth is that he really has no platform, no singular idea other than hate, no economic plan, no foreign policy, no domestic policy and a lifetime of conflicting views on issues on which most Republicans will not ever compromise.
Right now he gets a pass at the debates because of the sheer number of GOP candidates still in the race. Come January, the real campaign begins and I'm assuming that Trump is not going to be prepared for it. Voters will want real answers for their economic problems and they'll want details as to how Trump is going to carry out his plan to throw out 11 million people from this country and what it would take to barricade us so that other people can't come in. They'll want to know what he wants to do with taxes, legal issues, health care and business policy. He's said some thinga about these, but the media and the people will demand answers. And he either won't have them or he'll give vague answers or he'll do what he's doing now about national security--he'll try to fake it. This isn't the midterm or the early semester quiz. It's the final exam and Trump is going to fail.
In addition, as the GOP field narrows, he's going to need to say even more because there will be fewer voices to take up precious airtime. This is where he will falter because he will need to become less radical and say fewer provocative things. Trump has built his campaign on those two pillars. Once he stops, his reason for running will be gone. The Republican Party is hoping that this happens in January before he can do real damage. I'm not sure the party will get its wish, but ultimately the balloon will deflate.
I've certainly been caught off-guard by Trump's durability and political stamina. It's delayed the ascent of a viable candidate and will only hurt the GOP for as long as his campaign lingers.
But rest assured my fellow Americans--Donald Trump will not be elected president in 2016. And for that, we can be thankful.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest
Sunday, December 6, 2015
Our Answer to Terror: Do Nothing on Guns
On December 9, the Supreme Court is going to hear arguments concerning how far the Fourteenth Amendment goes towards protecting diversity programs in university admissions.
On October 5, the Court decided that a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights to counsel were not violated and a Maryland Court's decision was overturned.
Last June, the Court ruled in a case that questioned just how far the Environmental Protection Agency can go when it tries to regulate and issue rules concerning clean air and water requirements.
In each of these cases, and the overwhelming majority of others, the Court has, or will, rule based upon the Justices' interpretation of the laws. History has shown that the Constitution is a fluid document that can be applied in many ways and that the text and amendments are not absolutes.
Except for guns. To hear the debate now and over the past 25 years, you would think that the Second Amendment was the most important, most sacrosanct, indeed, the most sacred of all amendments and that it must not ever be changed because having a gun to protect yourself against the most liberal, most open, most democratic state ever invented by man must never be violated. This thinking is a testament to people's fears and the rather warped assumption that our number one enemy is the government created by those fairly wise men back in the 18th century.
I say fairly wise because aside from protecting and allowing slavery to survive, they included the amendment about having guns as a right tied to a militia. They never saw the NRA coming and now that it has, I'm certain they are ruing the day that they were not crystal clear with the amendment's language. What's worse is that the same five guys who stick together when it comes to unsettling interpretations of the constitution were the same five votes that led to the Supreme Court ruling in 2008 that the pesky clause about the militia meant nothing and that having a gun is a personal right.
I know some people who are Second Amendment absolutists and the first thing they'll say when they read this is that I want to take their guns away. I do not. If people want to arm themselves, then go ahead (and they are, if news reports are accurate). What I want is for the states and the national government to know who has a legal gun and a license to use it, since 40% of gun sales come from unlicensed dealers that don't require a background check. I want a limit on how many bullets one person can purchase overall, not in singular purchases. I want the same kind of background checks on guns that many legislators--Democrats and Republicans--voted on when it comes to refugees. If you're good, you get your gun. Mazel tov. If not, tough. We don't have an absolute right to speech or religion or assembly. We also don't have an unfettered right to a gun under any circumstance.
It continues to boggle my mind that people who are on the federal terrorist watch list can still legally purchase a gun. And there are other instances where legislators in states have gone out of their way to protect the right to a gun above safety issues.
The terrorist massacre in San Bernardino was a scary tragedy and there has to be a way that we can address both terrorism and our rights at the same time. Many politicians and those running for president will no doubt tell us that since we at war with ISIS, we will need to give up some freedoms in an effort to defeat our foe. That was certainly true after September 11 and we are still subject to surveillance despite Edward Snowden's efforts. But to say that everything is on the table except for gun legislation is foolish and blind.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest
On October 5, the Court decided that a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights to counsel were not violated and a Maryland Court's decision was overturned.
Last June, the Court ruled in a case that questioned just how far the Environmental Protection Agency can go when it tries to regulate and issue rules concerning clean air and water requirements.
In each of these cases, and the overwhelming majority of others, the Court has, or will, rule based upon the Justices' interpretation of the laws. History has shown that the Constitution is a fluid document that can be applied in many ways and that the text and amendments are not absolutes.
Except for guns. To hear the debate now and over the past 25 years, you would think that the Second Amendment was the most important, most sacrosanct, indeed, the most sacred of all amendments and that it must not ever be changed because having a gun to protect yourself against the most liberal, most open, most democratic state ever invented by man must never be violated. This thinking is a testament to people's fears and the rather warped assumption that our number one enemy is the government created by those fairly wise men back in the 18th century.
I say fairly wise because aside from protecting and allowing slavery to survive, they included the amendment about having guns as a right tied to a militia. They never saw the NRA coming and now that it has, I'm certain they are ruing the day that they were not crystal clear with the amendment's language. What's worse is that the same five guys who stick together when it comes to unsettling interpretations of the constitution were the same five votes that led to the Supreme Court ruling in 2008 that the pesky clause about the militia meant nothing and that having a gun is a personal right.
I know some people who are Second Amendment absolutists and the first thing they'll say when they read this is that I want to take their guns away. I do not. If people want to arm themselves, then go ahead (and they are, if news reports are accurate). What I want is for the states and the national government to know who has a legal gun and a license to use it, since 40% of gun sales come from unlicensed dealers that don't require a background check. I want a limit on how many bullets one person can purchase overall, not in singular purchases. I want the same kind of background checks on guns that many legislators--Democrats and Republicans--voted on when it comes to refugees. If you're good, you get your gun. Mazel tov. If not, tough. We don't have an absolute right to speech or religion or assembly. We also don't have an unfettered right to a gun under any circumstance.
It continues to boggle my mind that people who are on the federal terrorist watch list can still legally purchase a gun. And there are other instances where legislators in states have gone out of their way to protect the right to a gun above safety issues.
The terrorist massacre in San Bernardino was a scary tragedy and there has to be a way that we can address both terrorism and our rights at the same time. Many politicians and those running for president will no doubt tell us that since we at war with ISIS, we will need to give up some freedoms in an effort to defeat our foe. That was certainly true after September 11 and we are still subject to surveillance despite Edward Snowden's efforts. But to say that everything is on the table except for gun legislation is foolish and blind.
For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives or Twitter @rigrundfest
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)