Democrats
Subterms
More stories
- in US Politics
The Guardian view on the US and Israel: time for change | Editorial
One of the grimmest aspects of the conflict that has unfolded over recent days is its sheer familiarity, especially to those living through it. Even the youngest have faced this violence too many times before: the Norwegian Refugee Council reported that 11 of the children killed by Israeli airstrikes in Gaza over the past week were participating in its psychosocial programme to help them deal with trauma. In all, 228 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have died, at least 63 of them children, while 12 people in Israel, including two children, were killed by rockets fired by Palestinian militant groups. Both parties disregard the lives of civilians. But it is overwhelmingly Palestinian children who have died, lost parents or siblings, and whose homes, schools and health services have been hit. Late on Thursday, Israel announced a ceasefire after 11 days of violence, with Hamas confirming that the truce would begin overnight. It had become evident that both sides were looking for an exit, and Joe Biden had strengthened his language the day before, telling Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, in a phone call that he “expected a significant de-escalation today on the path to a ceasefire”. This too is familiar: the US beginning by talking only of Israel’s right to defend itself, and blocking efforts to exert pressure at the UN, but talking tougher once a resolution looked more plausible (whether to use limited leverage wisely or, less generously, to look like it has influence).The administration is said to believe it is better to lobby in private than pronounce in public; while such formulations are often convenient, it does appear to have been pressing harder behind the scenes. The approach reflects the president’s style of business and the bitter experience of the Obama administration, for which Mr Netanyahu showed such contempt – eventually prompting the US to refuse to veto a landmark UN vote demanding a halt to settlements in the occupied territories. But Donald Trump’s unalloyed enthusiasm for Mr Netanyahu, and the gifts he handed over, weakened the Palestinians and emboldened the Israeli prime minister.Mr Trump’s successor has returned to the status quo ante in US relations with Israel. But something has changed: his party and parts of the public are shifting. An influx of progressive Democrats to Congress, and the energy of the Black Lives Matter movement, have brought renewed support for the Palestinian cause. Many in the American Jewish community, particularly in younger generations, are increasingly critical of Israel. This time, the conflict appears to have captured public attention.Mr Biden has plenty to preoccupy him at home and internationally. Essentially, he wants all this to go away. But this latest violence has shown that it will keep returning until the real problems are addressed. The injustice of occupation has been compounded as settlements change the facts on the ground to make a viable Palestinian state look ever less possible, while Israel denies its Palestinian citizens the same rights as Jews. The US may prefer not to think about all this for now. But in the long run, Israel may find that it cannot count on such a compliant partner. More
- in US Politics
The Guardian view on US bishops versus the president: Biden is on the angels’ side | Editorial
Joe Biden wears his Catholicism on his sleeve. The American president carries the rosary beads of his late son, Beau, around his wrist, and each Sunday he attends mass in Washington, or in his home state of Delaware. After Mr Biden’s election to the White House last year, Pope Francis sent him a copy of his book on the Covid pandemic, Let Us Dream. In it, Francis calls for a new spirit of solidarity in societies which have learned the hard way that “no one is saved alone”.Through his $2tn American Rescue Plan, Mr Biden hopes to turn that theological claim into public policy, deploying the resources of the state in the name of a more equal, sustainable society. “I grew up with Catholic social doctrine, which taught me that faith without works is dead,” he has said.For millions of ordinary American Catholics, disillusioned and alienated by their church’s shameful handling of sex abuse scandals, the Biden presidency is therefore an uplifting source of celebration and hope. But within the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), it is instead treated as an insidious threat to ecclesial authority. As Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas put it recently: “Because President Biden is Catholic, it presents a unique problem for us.”The reason is Mr Biden’s backing of abortion rights, which goes against Catholic teaching. On issues such as the rights of refugees, concern for the poor, the dignity of work and the climate emergency, the president and Pope Francis march in virtual lockstep. But figures such as Archbishop Naumann and the president of the USCCB, José Gomez, believe that the president’s position on abortion confuses the faithful and brings his own Catholicism into disrepute. In such circumstances, they speculate, it may be appropriate to take the extreme step of denying him holy communion at mass.The last similar discussion took place in 2004, when the pro-choice Catholic John Kerry was running for the White House. The issue was eventually parked and Mr Kerry didn’t win. Now the bishops have announced a vote next month on the subject, with a view to issuing a clarificatory document. The arch-conservative cardinal Raymond Burke is already on the record stating that “apostate” politicians backing abortion rights should be denied communion. As the conciliatory Mr Biden makes a credible fist of uniting a nation divided by decades of culture wars, it is tempting to despair. The USCCB has no power to order the withholding of communion, and the Vatican has already made clear its disapproval of the proposed June vote. But this may cut little ice with prelates who have fiercely resisted the liberal priorities of Francis’s papacy from its inception eight years ago.The weaponising of the eucharist illustrates the extent to which much of the hierarchy of US Catholicism has become the theological wing of extreme Republicanism. The end result, as one prominent theologian has warned, may be some kind of “soft schism” as conservative bishops try to pull the church further to the right. Surveys indicate that a majority of US Catholics believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases.The extraordinary violent denouement of Donald Trump’s polarising presidency meant that dialling down division became an urgent national priority. Mr Biden, in both tone and substance, has done a pretty good job on that front so far. If only the national leaders of his church could follow suit. More
- in US Politics
Arizona’s political odd couple reveals two distinct paths for Democrats
When Democrat Mark Kelly was sworn in to office late last year it marked the end of a nearly 70-year drought of Arizona being represented by two Democrats.But since then Kelly, a former astronaut, and his counterpart senator, Kyrsten Sinema, have plotted decidedly different paths in the Senate. Despite being from the same party and the same state and representing the same electorate, the pair of Arizona Democrats have become a sort of political odd couple.The twists and turns that each Arizona Democrat took to get into office – and the moves they are making to retain their seats – reveal two distinct paths Democrats can take to win and retain tough Senate seats. But they can also give differing answers as to how Democrats might keep power, or even extend it.Sinema, a longtime Arizona lawmaker and former Democratic member of the House of Representatives, has carved out a reputation as one of the most conservative members of the Democratic caucus in the chamber. Her name is almost synonymous with Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and bucking the Democratic party on key sticking points.Sinema has split with her fellow Democrats on a minimum wage hike to $15 and support for an overhaul to the legislative filibuster. Among the press corps she is also notorious for avoiding virtually all interviews.Kelly himself offered levity when asked about their similarities and differences.“She can run a marathon at a 7.30 pace,” Kelly said. “I cannot do that.”Meanwhile, Kelly, 57, the husband of former congresswoman Gabby Giffords and a naval aviator turned astronaut, has plotted a more low-key course in the chamber. He talks to reporters. He hasn’t committed to overhauling the filibuster but he hasn’t come out in opposition either. He joined with other Democrats in supporting a minimum wage increase.Neither Democrat is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but the fact that they differ both stylistically and on key policies illustrates both the viability of Democrats in a state that for years has seemed out of reach to liberals and also the debate over what kind of Democrat can take root statewide.Both Sinema and Kelly are essential to Democrats retaining their slim majority in the chamber and, effectively, passing any legislation in the chamber. Kelly is considered more of a reliable party-line vote than Sinema but there are moments when they agree with each other and, in the process, buck the party at large.Kelly, in the hallway interview, said he couldn’t speak for how Sinema approaches legislating, but said in the five and a half months he’s been in Congress “our country is best served by trying to work across the aisle”.They have both bristled at Joe Biden’s approach to border security. Kelly called out Biden on the subject in response to the president’s address to Congress.“While I share President Biden’s urgency in fixing our broken immigration system, what I didn’t hear tonight was a plan to address the immediate crisis at the border, and I will continue holding this administration accountable to deliver the resources and staffing necessary for a humane, orderly process as we work to improve border security, support local economies, and fix our immigration system,” Kelly said in a statement shortly after Biden’s speech.They have also both participated in a bipartisan group of almost two dozen Republican and Democratic senators sometimes referred to as the G20. They have also recently been working on a bipartisan agreement on semiconductors, alongside some of the more conservative senators in both parties.They also both like to invoke the late Senator John McCain, a Republican, as an icon.But even to colleagues, it’s clear that Sinema and Kelly are different in key ways.“I think they are two unique and distinct characters,” said Senator John Hickenlooper of Colorado. “And I use the word character freely.”Hickenlooper described Kelly as “one of the most grounded and thoughtful people”, adding: “He sees things that other people just don’t see.“He’s very intuitive,” Hickenlooper said. “They are so different and they are both – I think they’re both really smart and I think they’re both really good.”Asked if Kelly was slightly more liberal than Sinema, Hickenlooper said: “It’s hard to say. Their values are the same. Both are very progressive in terms of they think this country should be based on equality. We should have equal opportunity and schools should work for everybody.”But on policy positions, like the minimum wage, Hickenlooper said they have a “difference of opinion on tactics”.The backgrounds of Sinema and Kelly could only be more different if they were from opposing parties. For years Giffords was the political standard bearer of their family with Kelly in the background with a somewhat non-partisan air to him. His election to the Senate in 2020 was his first foray into electoral politics as a candidate.Sinema, by contrast has been in politics for years and her allegiances have shifted over time. She associated with the Arizona Green party before joining the Democratic party. She served in the state legislature and found success passing legislation by working with Republicans – even when Republicans held a supermajority. Jonathan Patton, who served with Sinema in the state legislature, recalls her finding success by keeping a single-minded focus on passing legislation.“If you’re in the legislature in Arizona, you’re not getting any bills passed,” recalled Paton.But during her time in the legislature, Sinema managed to do just that. She was able to get Republicans to work with her. “I don’t think she’s particularly ideological and I think it was a mistake on both sides for people to think she was. Now does that mean I agree with her on things? No it does not but my point is she was single-mindedly focused on getting things that she wanted, that was important to her for whatever reason,” Paton said.Sinema also taught at Arizona State University and served as a criminal defense lawyer. On the Hill, Sinema has at times been photographed in brightly colored wigs and a bright pink sweatshirt that reads “Dangerous Creature”.Kelly, a twin, spent his earlier years in life as a naval aviator and then a Nasa astronaut. He announced his retirement from spaceflight in 2011. In 2013, years after an assassination attempt on Giffords, the former congresswoman and Kelly founded the gun control advocacy group Americans for Responsible Solutions, which, in the process, made Kelly more visible to the political community. Until 2018 he was a registered Independent. In 2020 he won the special election for Senate, defeating the former senator Martha McSally.In recent years they have both had their eclectic moments – Sinema interned at a California winery and Kelly has been a brand ambassador to a Swiss luxury watchmaker. Sinema has also completed Iron Man triathlon competitions.Between the two senators, though, Sinema is the one with a bigger question mark over her head on key pieces of legislation like filibuster reform and the destiny of Biden’s roughly $2tn infrastructure package. She was one of a series of one-on-one sit downs Biden had with senators this week as the president pushes forward with attempts to find some kind of bipartisan infrastructure deal.Kelly meanwhile, is up for re-election next year and, alongside the Georgia senator Raphael Warnock, is essential to Democrats’ hopes of retaining control of the Senate. Sinema has a little more time before she has to run again.“Mark is in cycle, he’s up for re-election in 2022,” noted Kirk Adams, a former Republican speaker of the Arizona house of representatives. “And a primary challenge from the progressive left would be very problematic for him – not that he wouldn’t win the primary but the effect that he would have in the general – being forced to move more left in what I think is truly a purple state. So that’s the first lens that I would apply to the differences between those two.” More
- in US Politics
‘We’re gonna win the second half’: the Texas Democrat eyeing 2022 victory
No football team ever lost a game, says Mike Collier. The players just ran out of time.In 2018, Collier tried to unseat the Republican incumbent, Dan Patrick, as Texas’s lieutenant governor, arguably the most powerful role in state government. He watched poll numbers trend closer and closer – until Patrick bested him by just under five points.But Collier – a Democrat – isn’t jaded enough to turn his back on what he thinks is a winnable fight. And to him, the game’s just getting started.“We came out of the first half down by a field goal,” he told the Guardian. “Now, we’re gonna go win the second half.”When Collier was a teenager, his family moved to a small town just north of Austin. Although he decried how racism pervaded (and still pervades) much of America, he’s nostalgic for the days when Texans were at least bound by civility and preparing for the future.“The Texas that I remember then was progressive,” Collier says. “But it was a Texas-progressive, in the sense that, you know, people could do their own thing.“They could be free.”An accountant, auditor and energy expert by trade, Collier is more sports analogist and goofball than political insider. His endearing drawl sounds like a habit rather than an act, and he seems happiest poking fun at his 27-year-old son or telling dad jokes.But, as he sets his sights on next year’s lieutenant governor race, Collier isn’t kidding around.“A Democrat beats Dan Patrick, and suddenly everybody behaves differently, particularly if that Democrat brings to it our Texas values – which I do – as a Democrat, and we roll up our sleeves and start solving problems honestly,” he says.“I think it’ll change everything.”He’s not wrong.As the second most populous state, Texas accounts for 38 electoral college votes and just added two more congressional seats after last year’s census. It’s home to one of the most powerful constituencies in the union, a bloc that’s handed Republicans control over every lever of state government – at least for now.But Texas’s demography is trending younger and more diverse, generating buzz over a potential uptick in more liberal voters. A Collier victory could represent the first ripple in a blue wave that Democrats have been promising for years now.That, in turn, would transform federal politics.Next year’s election could also lead to the ousting of a conservative firebrand whose political reign has further aligned Texas with xenophobia, conspiracy theories and Trumpism. Patrick, once an outsider himself, has spent years deeply entrenched in the highest rungs of state government, pushing its politics past even his own Tea Party inclinations.After chairing Donald Trump’s Texas campaigns, Patrick has already been endorsed by the former president ahead of 2022. Trump’s support earlier this month was a much-needed boost for the beleaguered state executive, whose approval ratings plummeted to a measly 35% in April, according to the Texas Politics Project.But while Patrick was focused on Trump, Collier worked hard to elect Joe Biden last year. He endorsed Biden early in the primary season, then took on a series of duties – including a senior adviser role – to help his campaign.Collier remembers watching Biden’s launch video in 2019, during a terrible day at an energy conference. The minutes-long clip described a battle for the soul of the nation, with footage of neo-Nazis marching through Charlottesville.“Tears came to my eyes,” Collier says. “I said, ‘this is exactly what’s happening in my America.’”Much like Biden, Collier readily admits that he’s old, has white hair and wears Ray-Bans – pure coincidence, he says. And much like Trump, Patrick is the consummate showman, with an eclectic life story that’s seen biblical highs and lows.Patrick, né Goeb, went from popular sportscaster to bankrupt businessman, then eventually garnered a following as a middle-aged talkshow host. But by the mid-2000s, he settled on a career in public service, eventually ascending to the lieutenant governorship after several terms in the state senate.Now, he relies on his flair for the dramatic – used in another life to get through an on-air vasectomy – to push his conservative agenda.Patrick proudly frequents Fox News segments, where he makes sensationalized claims about the US-Mexico border and spews vitriol about immigrants, one in six of all Texans. In the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, he raised eyebrows after making clear that he valued a healthy economy over human life – even his own.“No one reached out to me and said, ‘As a senior citizen, are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children and grandchildren?’” he told the Fox News host Tucker Carlson. “And if that’s the exchange, I’m all in.”At times, the bellicose Patrick appears to be waging war against himself. After eight students and two teachers were massacred in a mass shooting at Santa Fe high school outside of Houston in 2018, he personally offered to donate up to 10 metal detectors for the district.But this year, that empathy ran dry when he pushed the legislature to allow Texans to carry a gun with no permit, a policy opposed by the majority of voters.“Our politics reflects the point of view of a very, very small minority of Texans,” Collier says, and Patrick “panders over there to a small crowd that don’t represent our values”.Collier’s vision of Texas is much different. He imagines a state that leads the charge against a global climate crisis, where kids line up to get into the public schools instead of trying to find any way out of them.He knows that too many young, Black men are languishing behind bars. And he doesn’t think hospital closures in Texas’s rural communities should force pregnant people to drive an hour and a half just to find an OB-GYN.“We’re a wealthy nation. We’re a wealthy state. Everybody oughta have healthcare,” he says.When he talks policy, he doesn’t fearmonger, mince words or put on a show. In many ways, he’s the anti-Patrick – or is Patrick the anti-Collier?“I mean,” Collier says earnestly, “He’s just not one of us.” More
- in US Politics
Will Republicans back a commission to investigate the Capitol breach?
House Democrats are poised to adopt legislation to create a 9/11-style commission to investigate the Capitol attack, in a move that will force Republicans to either embrace an inquiry that could embarrass Donald Trump – or turn a blind eye to a deadly insurrection.The proposal, endorsed by the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, would establish a 10-member commission evenly split between Democrats and Republicans – and allow the top ranking members from each party to jointly authorize subpoenas, in addition to doing so by majority vote.Crucially, it would focus narrowly on facts and causes relating to the attack on the Capitol on 6 January by a pro-Trump mob and the interference with the peaceful transition of power. Five people died amid scenes of chaos and violence that shocked the US and the world.Whether Democrats can seize the moment and push the legislation through Congress remains unclear. The Democratic-led House is likely to swiftly adopt the bill, but it could falter in the 50-50 Senate should Republicans insist on a commission with a mandate to investigate their own political priorities.The push from Pelosi and senior House Democrats underscores their resolve to investigate Trump and hold him accountable for what they consider to be his role in inciting a deadly insurrection that shook the core of American democracy.Complicating matters is the fact that the current Congress is far more polarised than it was after the September 11 attacks, with the parties sceptical of each other’s motives. Democrats see some Republicans as complicit in fuelling the 6 January attack by perpetuating lies about a stolen election.While some Republicans, including Liz Cheney, have backed the idea of a commission, most of the party’s lawmakers say they won’t accept a proposal that could give Democrats the upper hand in determining the course and conclusions of the commission’s work.The proposal for the commission is modelled closely on the commission Congress established in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, where recommendations led to reshaping of congressional oversight authority and intelligence gathering.Negotiations over creating a commission had been stalled for months over disagreements about the panel’s structure and scope, until the top Democrat on the House homeland security committee, Bennie Thompson, and the top Republican, John Katko, announced a bipartisan agreement on Friday.Pelosi deputised Thompson to lead talks as she felt the homeland security committee was an appropriate venue, and as Katko was one of only three House Republicans to accept Biden’s election win, impeach Trump and punish extremist congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene for endorsing executions of Democrats, according to sources familiar with discussions.The current draft of the commission proposes an equal split on membership and subpoena power, after Republicans denounced Pelosi’s initial plan that envisioned a committee with seven members appointed by Democrats and four by Republicans.But the scope of the commission is still tightly focused on 6 January, with Pelosi unwilling to entertain Republicans who want its mandate expanded to cover violence during last summer’s Black Lives Matter protests against police brutality and racism.The announcement of the compromise gives House and Senate Republicans a bruising conundrum: embrace the commission, sure to embarrass Trump and spark a backlash that could jeopardise support from his voters ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, or effectively turn a blind eye to the insurrection.Democratic aides involved in the negotiations were unsure whether Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, would extend his support, the sources said, in part because members of the House GOP conference increasingly seek to downplay or even outright deny the violence that took place on 6 January.Democrats also note that McCarthy has since hired the former White House political director Brian Jack, who was involved in planning the “Stop the Steal” rally that immediately preceded the attack – raising the spectre that either McCarthy or one of his own aides could come under investigation.Liz Cheney, who was ousted from House Republican leadership this week over her repeated repudiation of Trump, told ABC McCarthy, who spoke to Trump during the attack, should “absolutely” testify before the commission, either voluntarily or via a subpoena.The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, remained mum on Friday as to whether he would endorse the commission. However, he has taken issue with its mandate, saying appointees, not House Democrats, should dictate investigation parameters.Pelosi has suggested to her leadership team in recent weeks that she would be receptive to forming a select committee to investigate the Capitol attack as a fallback, should the bill not receive sufficient support in the Senate, the sources said.But the speaker’s preference would be to create a commission, they said.Introduced two days after Trump was acquitted by Senate Republicans in his second impeachment trial, the proposal to create a commission signaled Pelosi’s intent to pursue the former president.She ran into Republican resistance, with McConnell slamming the idea as “partisan by design” and McCarthy condemning Democrats for trying to move ahead unilaterally.Even if Congress fails to create a commission, it is still likely to get some answers.Seven House committees – including judiciary, intelligence and oversight – are conducting investigations into the intelligence and security breakdowns that allowed the mob to breach the Capitol.In near-identical letters sent in March to 16 agencies across the executive branch and Congress, the committees demanded all documents and communications relevant to the certification of Biden’s election win.The investigations are similar to House Democrats’ efforts to investigate Trump during his first impeachment inquiry, when Pelosi huddled regularly with six committee chairs before the House impeached the president over the Ukraine scandal.House and Senate committees have held hearings to investigate the Capitol attack and heard from witnesses including the current and former chiefs of Capitol police and defense and national security officials.Pelosi has said all information gathered during committee hearings will serve as a key resource for either a commission or a select committee. More
