Republicans

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Bloodied but unbowed: liberal justices wield dissents as weapon of resistance

      by

      Bloodied but unbowed: liberal justices wield dissents as weapon of resistance The three justices may be in the minority, but their opinions are sounding an alarm that equal rights are under threat by the new rightwing supermajority of the supreme courtThe US supreme court, with its new rightwing supermajority, is transforming America at breakneck speed. In a single judicial year, it overturned the right to an abortion, unleashed legally carried guns on to city streets, stymied government action to combat the climate crisis and Covid pandemic, and took a hatchet to the time-honored separation of church and state.Seasoned observers described the 2021-22 term that ended in June as perhaps the most momentous in the court’s 233-year history. The six rightwing justices – three of them appointed by Donald Trump – demonstrated an iron grip over blockbuster cases.The three liberal-leaning justices, by equal measure – Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor – were outnumbered and bloodied. When the court reconvenes in October, the retired Breyer will be replaced by Ketanji Brown Jackson, but the same punishing 6-to-3 dynamic will prevail.Bloodied but unbowed. The three liberal justices may be in the minority, but they are fast emerging as a vital resistance to the Trump-instigated judicial revolution now under way.That resistance is reflected in the dissenting opinions produced by the three. Not only were liberal dissents more in evidence in 2021-22 – Sotomayor alone wrote 13, more than she has in any previous term – but the language deployed in them was also direct and unrestrained.The dissents went beyond polite disagreements over jurisprudence. They amounted to the sounding of an alarm, alerting the nation that equal rights, constitutional government, and even what it is to be an American, are all under threat.Here are six of the most visceral warnings contained in the dissents of the three liberal-leaning justices.1. Attacking equal rights and individual freedomsOver 60 white-hot pages of dissent, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan tore into the majority ruling in Dobbs v Jackson that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion. Pointing out that such a right had been the law of the land for half a century, they decried the ruling as a full-on attack on an individual’s freedom.“After today, young women will come of age with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers had,” the dissenting opinion said. From the moment of fertilization, “a woman has no rights to speak of”.The decision struck at the core of American values, they said. Individual freedom and equal rights “have gone far toward defining what it means to be an American. For in this nation, we do not believe that a government controlling all private choices is compatible with a free people.”2. Overriding the will of Congress and that of the American peopleThe ultimate source of power in the United States is “we the people”. Today there are 240 million citizens eligible to vote for their representatives in Congress and president.And then there are the five men and one woman who control the supreme court and who are busily changing the face of America.The liberal-leaning justices accuse their rightwing peers of supplanting their own will over that of “we the people”. Kagan wrote the dissent to West Virginia v EPA, the majority ruling which hobbled the power of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to tackle the climate crisis by regulating fossil-fueled power plants.Kagan charges the six rightwing justices of ignoring clear instructions given to the EPA by Congress to address the “potentially catastrophic harms” of global heating. The justices had in effect rewritten the Clean Air Act in favour of their own policymaking.“The court appoints itself – instead of Congress or the expert agency – the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening,” Kagan said.In a separate 6-to-3 ruling, the supermajority blocked the Biden administration’s requirement that employees of large businesses vaccinate themselves against Covid or take weekly tests. A dissenting opinion from all three liberal justices said that, here too, the majority had negated the will of the people as expressed in the 1970 law that commanded the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) to protect workers “exposed to grave danger”.On the one hand, the dissent said, there is the Osha trying to protect employees from the “grave danger” of Covid. The agency is responsible to the president, who in turn “is responsible to – and can be held to account by – the American public”.On the other hand, there is the supreme court. “Its members,” the dissenters noted acerbically, “are elected by, and accountable to, no one”.3. Undermining the integrity of the supreme court and the rule of lawThe liberal-leaning justices accuse the supermajority of abandoning long-held legal principles in their rush towards radical change. Foremost of these is “stare decisis” – “to stand by things decided” – a respect for past precedents set by the court.By throwing out the right to an abortion established in 1973 by Roe v Wade, the six rightwing justices had disregarded stare decisis, and shown that “today, the proclivities of individuals rule. The court departs from its obligation to faithfully and impartially apply the law,” Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote.The rightwing justices are very sensitive to the suggestion that they are acting according to political whim rather than legal principle. Last September, Clarence Thomas, arguably the de facto leader of the new supermajority, irritably denied the claim.“The media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference,” he bemoaned.He need not look to the media for such an accusation. Three of his fellow justices have expressed it forcefully.In their dissenting opinion in Dobbs, the liberal justices noted that it took less than two years following the appointment of Trump’s third pick, Amy Coney Barrett, for the court to overthrow Roe v Wade. Such a rapid shift, they argued, could not be explained by any change in the social landscape of the country.The only thing that had changed was the composition of the court, and with it “the new views of new judges. The majority has overruled Roe for one and only one reason: because it has always despised them, and now has the votes to discard them.”The consequences of the highest court being seen to be swayed by personal biases rather than legal principles are potentially cataclysmic. “It undermines the court’s legitimacy,” the dissenters warned.4. One law for the rich, another for the poorIn their Dobbs dissent the three justices spell out the impact of ending of abortion rights for women of contrasting means. Wealthy women will “find ways around a state’s assertion of power”, travelling out of states that ban abortion to those where it is legal.Other women without the resources “will not be so fortunate”. They might resort to an illegal abortion and be harmed “or even die”; they might give birth to the child at great cost to themselves and their families; “at the least, they will incur the cost of losing control over their lives”.The dissenters warned that the consequences go beyond the devastating impact on individual women. A central pillar of the US constitution, of American values, has also been destroyed – equal protection under the laws.“The constitution will, today’s majority holds, provide no shield, despite its guarantees of liberty and equality for all.”5. Turning the clock back to the 18th centuryIn New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen, the supermajority threw out New York’s restricted licensing regime for firearms, opening the door to concealed and loaded handguns being carried publicly in US cities.Thomas, who wrote the ruling, rejected any argument relating to the dangers posed by guns in modern America, where gun violence far exceeds that in comparable countries. Instead, he argued that licensing regimes had to be consistent with “this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” and specifically with the way the US ruled in 1791 when the second amendment right to bear arms was ratified.In his dissent, Breyer said that this “history-only approach” not only ignored the “real and present danger of guns in modern American society”, it set a framework that was so rigid it would be impossible to apply to modern situations “beyond the Framers’ imaginations”.How, for instance, could centuries-old laws “dictate the legality of regulations targeting ‘ghost guns’ constructed with the aid of a three-dimensional printer?”6. This is just the beginningPerhaps the most chilling warning given by the liberal justices is that the hurricane of contentious rulings issued by the supermajority this term is not the end of the revolution – it is just the beginning.“No one should be confident that this majority is done with its work,” they write in their Dobbs dissent.The supermajority could go on to ban all abortions nationwide, from the moment of conception and with no exemptions for rape or incest. They could also use exactly the same arguments deployed to overturn Roe to go after contraception, the right to same-sex intimacy and marriage, and even interracial marriage.The logical conclusion of the supermajority’s legal tactics is that “all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure … Additional constitutional rights are under threat.”Sotomayor closed her dissent in Carson v Makin on a profoundly disturbing note. The 6-to-3 ruling bulldozed decades of precedent on the separation of church and state by insisting that Maine had to extend its taxpayer-funded tuition assistance program to include students attending religious schools.“With growing concern for where this court will lead us next,” Sotomayor wrote, “I respectfully dissent.”TopicsUS supreme courtLaw (US)US politicsRepublicansfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats prepare for showdown over key spending and climate bill – as it happened

      by

      Senate Democrats are working to face off on the reconciliation bill – officially known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Moderate Democratic senator Joe Manchin made the rounds on all the talk shows touting the $740bn legislative package that the senate parliamentarian will go over later this week.
      Meanwhile, John Cornyn, the Republican senator from Texas, tested positive for Covid-19. He vowed to continue fighting the reconciliation bill while in quarantine.
      Joe Biden also remains in quarantine after testing positive again for Covid-19. Though his physician reports that he has minimal symptoms, he still continues to test positive, as expected.
      House speaker Nancy Pelosi is in Asia and multiple news outlets are reporting that she will be including Taiwan in her itinerary. It would mark the first visit to Taiwan by a house speaker in a quarter of a century, but the White House spent the press briefing talking it down as not a big deal. “The speaker has the right to visit Taiwan, and the speaker of the House as visited Taiwan before, without any incident, as have many members of Congress, including this year,” said White House national security spokesman John Kirby. Kirby said if Pelosi does choose to visit Taiwan, her decision would have no standing on the US stance on the One China Policy that does not support Taiwan’s independence.
      Kirby had strong words for China’s threats that its military would “not sit idly by” if the visit happened. “There is no reason for Beijing to turn a potential visit consistent with long-standing US policy into some kind of crisis or conflict or use it as a pretext to increase aggressive military activity in or around the Taiwan strait,” he said.
      The Biden administration will authorize today a $550m security assistance package for Ukraine, bringing the total aid to $8bn.
      Guy Reffitt, the first of the horde of Donald Trump supporters who stormed the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 to be convicted, has been sentenced to more than seven years in prison. 🚨 SENTENCE: U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich orders Guy Reffitt to serve 87 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release. Warns if he violates terms she will send him back to prison for up to maximum term. $2,000 in restitution. pic.twitter.com/IGZjxFqoXb— Jordan Fischer (@JordanOnRecord) August 1, 2022
      While it is the harshest sentence for any of the individuals involved in the attack on the US Capitol, it is considerably less than the 15 years the justice department had sought with the terrorism enhancement. JUST NOW: Judge Friedrich DENIES prosecutors’ request to impose a terrorism enhancement and other upward departures at the sentencing of Guy Reffitt. His recommended sentencing range will be 87-108 months in prison.— Jordan Fischer (@JordanOnRecord) August 1, 2022
      Senators Tim Kaine and Kyrsten Sinema – Democrats – joined with Republicans Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski to introduce the Reproductive Freedom for All Act today, legislation to codify Roe v Wade, which was recently overturned by the supreme court. Senate Democrats Kaine & Sinema and Republicans Collins & Murkowski introduced the Reproductive Freedom For All Act today,bipartisan legislation to codify the Roe v. Wade decision recently overturned by the Supreme Court. House passed their version of the bill earlier this month. https://t.co/EIRl7ChQMP— Craig Caplan (@CraigCaplan) August 1, 2022
      All close contacts Joe Biden had when he tested positive for Covid-19 have tested negative, said White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. He is not experiencing any reoccurring symptoms. “He’s feeling fine,” Jean-Pierre said. “There’s no reason for this to escalate,” White House national security spokesman John Kirby said of House speaker Nancy Pelosi and her purported Taiwan trip. While House speaker Nancy Pelosi “has not confirmed any travel plans” regarding a decision to visit Taiwan on her trip to Asia, “we have been clear from the very beginning that she will make her own decisions and that Congress is an independent branch of government,” said White House national security spokesman John Kirby “Our Constitution embeds a separation of powers,” Kirby said. “This is well known to the (People’s Republic of China), given our more than four decades of diplomatic relations. The speaker has the right to visit Taiwan, and the speaker of the House as visited Taiwan before, without any incident, as have many members of Congress, including this year.”Pelosi visiting Taiwan on this trip won’t change anything, Kirby said. “Nothing has changed about our One China Policy,” Kirby said. “We have repeatedly said that we oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo from either side. We do not support Taiwan independence and that we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means.”Kirby had strong words for China’s threats that its military would “not sit idly by” if the visit happened. Even before Pelosi arrived in the region, China conducted a live-fire exercise, and Kirby said that China appears to be positioning itself to potentiallhy take further steps in the coming days, be they military provocations, air or naval activities or military exercises. “There is no reason for Beijing to turn a potential visit consistent with long-standing US policy into some kind of crisis or conflict or use it as a pretext to increase aggressive military activity in or around the Taiwan strait,” he said. “We will not take the bait or engage in sabre rattling. At the same time, we will not be intimidated. We will keep operating in the seas and the skies in the western Pacific, as we have for decades. We will continue to support cross-strait peace, stability, support Taiwan, defend a free and open Indo-Pacific, and we’re still going to seek to maintain lines of communication with Beijing. All of that is important and all of that is preserving the status quo.”White House national security spokesman John Kirby kicked off today’s press briefing by celebrating the first ship to successfully leave the port of Odessa in Ukraine carrying agricultural exports and announcing a $550m security assistance package for Ukraine. The ship was allowed out under a recent deal brokered between the United Nations, Turkey, Ukraine and Russia to allow for Ukraine, Europe’s breadbasket, to export some of its agricultural products as a way to ease the world’s food insecurity crisis. Previously, Russia had a blockade on Ukraine’s ports since the start of its invasion. . “We urge Russia to meet its commitments under this new arrangement, including by facilitating unimpeded exports of agriculture products from Black Sea ports in order to ease the food insecurity around the world,” Kirby said. “We will be watching that closely.”The $550m security assistance package stems from the president’s drawdown authority, bringing the total to $8bn that Joe Biden has drawn down for Ukraine since the Russia invasion began, Kirby said. The Associated Press is reporting that the North Carolina state board of elections voted unanimously today to recognize the Green Party as a new political party, reversing a previous decision to reject the party’s petition while the board investigated the signature sheets for fraud.The North Carolina Green Party has submitted more than enough signatures validated by both the state and county elections boards to earn immediate recognition, Katelyn Love, the board’s legal counsel, said. But Green Party candidates still face an ongoing legal battle to appear on the November ballot after the state board’s initial rejection of the petition led the party to miss the 1 July deadline.The elections board’s Democratic majority previously rejected the Green Party petition in a 3-2 vote on 30 June, citing petition sheets with nearly identical handwriting as well as incomplete personal information, duplicate names and deceased signatories.The Green Party sued the board on 14 July, alleging Democratic interference in the petitioning process and asking the court to reverse the board’s decision. The board filed a response to the lawsuit on Friday, opposing the Green Party’s demand that a judge order the board to include its candidates on the ballot. The board agreed the court should extend the candidate filing deadline should the party earn official recognition at Monday’s board meeting, the brief states.Democrats have warned that Green Party certification could divide progressive voters and clear a path for Republican victories in key races — particularly the tight US senate race between Democrat Cheri Beasley and Trump-endorsed Republican congressman Ted Budd. Prior to the board’s initial vote, the Democratic senatorial campaign committee acknowledged contacting signers of the Green Party’s petition to request they remove their names.K Ryan Parker, a plaintiff in the Green Party lawsuit, called the board’s decision “a welcome surprise and a huge win for democracy,” which he believes was prompted by the recent onslaught of media attention and a desire to settle the matter outside federal court.“It doesn’t change the fact that the Democratic party attempted to disenfranchise North Carolina voters like me by hiring operatives to call, text and visit voters in their home, attempting to compel them to remove their signatures from the petition,” Parker said in an interview Monday. “And it doesn’t change the fact that this two-party system, this duopoly, has failed us at every turn and continues to force voters into a dilemma every four years of voting for a lesser evil.”Tomorrow’s a big primary day in a lot of states, and one big race to watch is the Missouri senate Republican primary. With Republican senator Roy Blunt retiring, basically everybody and their neighbor has come out to vie for his seat. Eric Greitens, the former governor of Missouri, initially held the lead, but he has been dogged by scandal after scandal, with his ex-wife alleging that he abused her and their child and a woman accusing him of sexually and physically abusing her and then threatening to release nude photos of her if she told anyone.Trump posts that he plans to endorse today in #mosen ahead of primary tomorrow. Many Rs had long been concerned he could endorse Greitens— Manu Raju (@mkraju) August 1, 2022
      John Cornyn, the Republican senator from Texas, has tested positive for Covid-19. After dodging it for 2+ years I’ve tested positive for COVID-19. I’m fully vaccinated and boosted, and doing fine. While quarantining I’ll continue to fight Chuck Schumer and Joe Manchin’s massive tax increase on working families remotely, consistent with CDC guidelines.— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) August 1, 2022
      Cornyn will be quarantining during a very crucial week for Senate Democrats. They want to pass the reconciliation bill – officially known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 – and once it gets past the senate parliamentarian, they need just a narrow majority to do so. With Cornyn being out due to COVID, this means Dems could potentially pass Manchin bill without VP Harris breaking the tie if all 50 Dems are healthy & are yeas— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) August 1, 2022 More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      This summer may be one of the most consequential in US democracy | Thomas Zimmer

      by

      This summer may be one of the most consequential in US democracyThomas ZimmerThe Long Summer of 2022 began in May, when the abortion opinion draft leaked, and continued through a series of brutal rulings and congressional hearings American politics is about to take a summer break. The supreme court’s next term won’t start until October. Congress will be in recess in August. And the January 6 hearings will be on hiatus until September. Things will calm down for a little while. Or so it will seem on the surface, at least.This supposed respite follows what historians might come to call the Long Summer of 2022. It began in early May, when Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion in Dobbs v Women’s Health Organization leaked – the decision that in June overturned Roe v Wade and abolished the right to abortion. This was not the start, but itself a manifestation and apotheosis of a reactionary assault on the post-1960s civil rights era that originated in Republican-led states and has been consistently enabled and actively advanced by the supreme court. The Dobbs leak, which dominated the political discourse for weeks, clearly indicated an escalation of rightwing attempts to turn the clock back by many decades.In early June, the House select committee on the January 6 attack tried to capture the nation’s attention with the first in a series of televised hearings that, for better or worse, have formed the center of the institutional defense of democracy. It all came to a head in the final days of June, when the central political conflict crystallized in the span of just a little over a week. On Thursday, 23 June, the January 6 committee’s fifth hearing focused on Donald Trump’s outrageous attempts to corrupt the justice department. It is generally not a good sign that such an explosive revelation about how the former president tried to nullify a democratic election was able to dominate the news cycle for only about 12 hours.The very next day, the supreme court published its decision to abolish the right to abortion. It came in the context of a remarkably aggressive assault not just on democracy and civil rights, but also on the state’s ability to handle the challenges of a modern, pluralistic society. Within a week, the court undermined the separation of church and state, weakened the ability of liberal states to regulate guns, basically made it clear that it would tolerate even the most brazen racial gerrymandering, and undercut the administrative state’s attempts to tackle environmental problems.Amid all these decisions that left no doubt about the court majority’s intention to help conservatives impose their will on the entire country, Cassidy Hutchinson, former aide to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, testified in the committee’s sixth hearing, on 28 June. She painted a clear picture of the former president’s deliberate efforts to summon a violent, armed mob. To care about American democracy, in those last days of June, was to exist in a state of constant emergency, whiplash, and exhaustion.Yet even in those hectic days of late June, and certainly throughout the Long Summer of 2022, the experience of most Americans, even those who followed the proceedings in Washington closely, were shaped not just by the political upheavals, but by the normal challenges of everyday life. Stores remained open, people had to go to work, they suffered or celebrated with their favorite sports teams.It would be unfair to denounce these as just illusions of normalcy. In a lot of ways, things really are “normal”, in the sense that most of us continue the routines that dominate our daily lives, even in the midst of a political crisis around us. We have to function, we compartmentalize, we experience a strange mixture of normalcy and emergency that can sometimes feel almost disorienting. Franz Kafka famously noted in his diary on Sunday, 2 August 1914: “Germany has declared war on Russia. Swimming lessons in the afternoon.” Kafka had just witnessed the beginning of what quickly escalated into the first world war. His remark captures the tension between the global and the personal, the extraordinary and the routine, history and everyday life, the outrageous and the mundane.There is always a temptation to resolve that tension by ignoring the emergency and focusing on the ordinariness of it all – because how bad could things possibly be, the sky isn’t ever falling. This, however, is a privilege not available to the women who are dealing with the cruel consequences of their bodily autonomy being denied or the traditionally marginalized, vulnerable groups who are the targets of the reactionary offensive. Such a focus on the markers of normalcy is deceptive and politically dangerous. It is difficult for contemporaries to discern the exact nature and extent of the crisis through which they are living. We can’t necessarily see the democratic backsliding by simply looking out the window – certainly not until it may be too late – but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a continuing crisis underneath.“Crisis”, of course, might be the most overused term in the public discourse. And in its colloquial meaning, in which it vaguely refers to any kind of difficult situation, it certainly doesn’t have much analytical or explanatory value. But if taken seriously, the notion of “crisis” delineates a highly unstable situation in which established strategies, tactics and patterns of behavior don’t work any more, a constellation in which accepted modes of making sense of the world around us prove inadequate and unable to generate viable solutions.The summer of 2022 should have hammered home the fact that all of us who prefer democracy are experiencing such a profound crisis. The supreme court, one of the critical institutions of constitutional government, is not only complicit in the full-on assault on democracy, civil rights and the state’s ability to adequately tackle urgent public policy issues, it is its spearhead. In this situation, simply clinging to the established idea that the public trust in institutions must not be undermined will not be good enough.And it’s true that, in a vacuum, it is highly problematic for authorities to prosecute the leading political opponent of a sitting president. But we are not in a vacuum. We are in a situation in which the former president was the central figure in a multi-layered, multi-month scheme that amounted to an actual coup attempt. Not holding him accountable would gravely endanger the future of constitutional government.In medical terms, the word “crisis” refers to the turning point of a disease: the patient will either recover – or die. In this sense, a crisis is the opposite of a stable equilibrium. And that’s precisely where we find ourselves.After the overturning of Roe, the overwhelming message from all corners of the right has been: We are not done yet – or, as First Things, the pre-eminent intellectual platform of the religious right, put it: Dobbs was just “the end of the beginning” and a “resounding first step”. Nothing more. There’s no appeasing those who are behind the reactionary crusade, no bargain or truce to be had. The refusal to compromise with the vision of multiracial pluralism, with anyone who deviates from their idea of the natural and/or divinely ordained order, is at the heart of their political project. They are not looking for a consolation prize, partial victories, or an exit ramp. They will keep going – until and unless they are stopped.The current situation necessarily marks a turning point. It is a veritable crisis because it will have to be resolved, one way or the other. America will either overcome this reactionary counter-mobilization and make the leap to multiracial, pluralistic democracy – or the country will regress, and let democracy perish before it’s ever been fully achieved in this land.
      Thomas Zimmer is a visiting professor at Georgetown University, focused on the history of democracy and its discontents in the United States, and a Guardian US contributing opinion writer
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionJanuary 6 hearingsUS supreme courtRepublicansDemocratscommentReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Sorry, Andrew Yang – a new third party won’t fix America’s political problems | Andrew Gawthorpe

      by

      Sorry, Andrew Yang – a new third party won’t fix America’s political problemsAndrew GawthorpeThose who care about democracy should advance the Democratic party. Anything else is a vanity project Does the US need a third party, and can one succeed? According to the founders of the new Forward party, the answer to both questions is yes. By targeting disaffected Americans on all parts of the political spectrum, the founders – who include the former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang and the former Republican governor of New Jersey Christine Todd Whitman – hope to create a new force that will lead Americans into a future in which they can “cut out the extreme partisanship, reintroduce a competition of ideas, and work together in good faith”.Sounds great. But unfortunately, the Forward party is ill conceived, based on a faulty idea of how to fix America’s descent into political madness, and likely to collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.At the core of the party’s justification for its own existence is the suggestion that both of America’s two major parties are to blame for the country’s dysfunction, and that the only way to move forward is to replace them with something new. This is a misleading and self-serving diagnosis. Whatever gripes one might have with its policies, the Democratic party is the only one of the two major parties committed to basic democratic and liberal norms. The problem that ails America is that Republicans are not.The absurdity of this attempt to create a false equivalence becomes even clearer when the new party’s founders talk details. They argue that “most Americans” agree neither with “the far right’s insistence on eliminating gun laws” nor with “calls from the far left to confiscate all guns and repeal the Second Amendment”. But these two things are not the same: the first is what is actually happening in America right now, whereas the second is a view that was attributed to Kamala Harris as part of a fabricated smear on Facebook and enjoys approximately zero support in the Democratic party.On abortion, the party’s founders similarly contrast “the far right’s quest to make a woman’s choice a criminal offence” with “the far left’s extreme views on late-term abortions”. Once again, the false equivalence is startling. It’s thanks to the mainstream Republican party, not the “far right”, that abortion is now illegal in eight states, with many more expected to follow. “Late-term abortion”, meanwhile, is a medically meaningless term used by conservatives to imply that women who have life-saving surgery late in their pregnancy are in fact having elective abortions, cheered on all the way by baby-killing liberals.When they avoid talking specifics, the founders can sound more convincing. Who could disagree with “welcoming new ideas” and “creating a political home” for people from both parties? But in the America of today such bromides feel – to borrow, in the spirit of bipartisanship, a phrase from Sarah Palin – “hopey-changey”. In reality, there is only one responsible place for anyone to be if they want to protect America’s democratic, liberal norms – and that place is in the Democratic party.Instead of strengthening this one last realistic defense that the US has left, the Forward party will weaken it. The party’s founders draw on old polling data from just after the January 6 insurrection to claim that 50% of Americans now identify as independents. In fact, the figure is now nearer 40%, and political scientists will tell you that there are very few “true” independents in America’s polarized political landscape. Of that small pool, the Forward party – whose most recognizable face is Andrew Yang, a former Democrat – seems much more likely to siphon votes from the left than from the right. Even if it doesn’t, it will have helped spread propaganda about liberals wanting to end the second amendment and legalize third-trimester abortion, benefiting Republicans. Even a small electoral effect could spell disaster – especially with Republican state governments poised to steal close elections in swing states.The final problem with the Forward party is its internal incoherence. The party promises “common sense” solutions, but common sense means very different things to different people. The fact that the party is trying to stitch together supporters from across the political spectrum is probably one reason it is offering so few details about what its actual policies will be. Political tents can only get so big before they collapse under the weight of their own contradictions, and it is hard to see how the Forward party can avoid a similar fate if it wants to move beyond platitudes.The Democratic party may not be perfect. But the two-party system, and the threat to America’s democracy posed by Republicans, has a stark and brutal logic. Those who care about democracy and liberalism should advance the cause of the Democratic party. Republicans who cannot bring themselves to do that should work to change the Republican party from within. Anything else is a vanity project. Such projects might have value to politicians who had their personal ambitions thwarted in the regular party system. But what do they possibly have to offer the American people?
      Andrew Gawthorpe is a historian of the United States at Leiden University and host of the podcast America Explained
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionDemocratsRepublicanscommentReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      How Bernie Sanders and conservatives united against US semiconductor bill

      by

      How Bernie Sanders and conservatives united against US semiconductor billVermont senator opposed ‘corporate welfare’ to firms paying huge salaries to executives – but Chips and Science Act passed Congress When it comes to alliances in Washington, few are as unlikely as the common ground the democratic socialist senator Bernie Sanders briefly found with the Heritage Foundation and Americans for Prosperity, two architects of conservative policies across the United States.Yet that is what happened this week when Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with the Democrats, made a lonely and unsuccessful stand against a $280bn bill funding scientific research and, controversially, giving computer chip manufacturers financial incentives to build more production in the United States – one that rightwing groups also encouraged lawmakers to make.Pro-Israel group pours millions into primary to defeat Jewish candidateRead more“The question we should be asking is this: should American taxpayers provide the microchip industry with a blank check of over $76bn at a time when semiconductor companies are making tens of billions of dollars in profits and paying their executives exorbitant compensation packages? I think the answer to that question should be a resounding no,” Sanders said during a Monday speech on the Senate floor.The senator’s objections ultimately amounted to naught. The bill passed Congress on Thursday, and Joe Biden is expected to soon sign it.But the episode underscores the tensions that arise when Washington moves to help an industry facing tough times. In this case, the stricken businesses were semiconductor makers who are struggling to keep up with demand and fearful of the threat from ascendant Chinese industry.“The left in this country has generally sort of failed to recognize the importance of capital investment. At the same time, they’re sort of complaining about companies not investing in America, they haven’t actually supported the companies that do invest in America,” said Michael Mandel, chief economist and vice-president of the Progressive Policy Institute thinktank.“My personal view is that capital investment is absolutely essential, and anything we can do to get more investment in this country is a plus for workers and a plus for consumers.”Dubbed the Chips and Science Act, the measure represents Washington’s response to the shortage of semiconductors that began during the pandemic and has snarled the assembly lines of US industries while helping drive up inflation. The bill would offer computer chip manufacturers $52.7bn in incentives to build factories in the United States, as well as $24.3bn in tax breaks.The proposal has taken a tortuous path to passage, with the Senate first approving a version of it last year, before the idea was caught up in the legislative logjam that struck Biden’s agenda in the closing months of 2021.But, unlike some of what the Democratic president hoped to get out of Congress, many Republicans supported the concept of helping the semiconductor industry, particularly because it was seen as an effort to counter China, which has heavily invested in its own microchip industry.And while the US ally Taiwan is one of the biggest manufacturers of computer chips globally, another motivation for Chips is concern about what would happen to its supply if Beijing moves against the island. In July, the commerce secretary, Gina Raimondo, and defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, wrote a letter to the Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress, saying that the measure was “critical for our national security”.Mike Pompeo, a former secretary of state under the Republican president Donald Trump, made an unlikely contribution to calls for its passage. “Congress must pass the Chips Act for both our national and economic security. We have to become less dependent on China for critical technologies – and this is how we do it,” he tweeted as the House of Representatives was considering it.But some of the most influential conservative groups in Washington didn’t buy in.“The answer to the [Chinese Communist party’s] malevolent ambitions is not spending billions of dollars to help Fortune 500 companies, with no guarantee those dollars won’t end up supporting these companies’ business operations in China,” the Heritage Foundation president, Kevin Roberts, said in a statement.“Additionally, the act’s $250bn price tag will contribute to record inflation and increase the already historic cost of living for working- and middle-class Americans.”Americans for Prosperity, which was funded by the conservative industrialists Charles Koch and his late brother David, who are well known for their work promoting climate change denialism, sees the bill as “corporate welfare”.“The United States didn’t become the strongest and most prosperous society in the history of mankind by emulating the Chinese government’s central planning, and we shouldn’t start now,” the group’s vice-president of government affairs, Akash Chougule, said. “If we want to see more American investment, the US government needs to stay out of the way.”The effort ultimately failed, with 24 Republicans voting for Chips in the House and 17 Republicans in the Senate, along with almost all Democrats. While Sanders voted against it, none of his usual allies in that chamber or the House joined him in opposition.It wasn’t just the Biden administration that lawmakers were hearing from. Semiconductor firms invested heavily in lobbying to make the bill become law, with Bloomberg reporting major manufacturers spent $19.6m in just the first half of this year, after $15.8m in the same period of 2021.Particularly vocal was Intel, which has announced a $20bn investment in two new semiconductor factories in Ohio. But amid the Chips Act delay in June, the company announced those plans could be pushed back or curtailed without the funding.“My message to our congressional leaders is: hey, if I’m not done with the job, I don’t get to go home. Neither should you. Do not go home for August recess until you have passed the Chips Act, because I and others in the industries will make investment decisions. Do you want those investments in the US?” Intel’s chief executive, Ryan Scott, said in an interview on CNBC. “Get the job done.”Ro Khanna, a California Democrat who sponsored a bill that was a precursor to Chips, denied that the legislation was corporate welfare, saying there were guardrails in its text to stop corporations from using the funds for their own enrichment. Instead, he likened it to a return of 1940s-era industrial policy, in which the government makes investments in industries deemed strategically important.“I think there’s understandable concern about corporate welfare, but corporate welfare is different than the FDR model of mobilizing for production,” he said, referring to the Democratic president Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who led the country through most of the second world war.He envisioned Chips as a template for future efforts that could boost green technologies such as electric vehicles, and solar and wind energy.“I think it’s a first step for how we continue to industrialize America, how we bring our production back, how we reduce our trade deficits. I absolutely think this should be a model,” Khanna said. “And the commerce department should enforce this so none of the money is going to stock buybacks, that it is going to building factories.”TopicsBernie SandersDemocratsUS politicsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      The Big Lie review: Jonathan Lemire laments what Trump hath wrought

      by

      The Big Lie review: Jonathan Lemire laments what Trump hath wrought The Politico reporter and MSNBC host’s book is an indictment of the former president but also his Republican partyJoe Biden sits in the Oval Office but Donald Trump occupies prime space in America’s psyche. Mike Pence’s most senior aides have testified before a federal grand jury. An investigation by prosecutors in Georgia proceeds apace. In a high-stakes game of chicken, the message from the Department of Justice grows more ominous. Trump’s actions are reportedly under the microscope at the DoJ. He teases a re-election bid. Season two of the January 6 committee hearings beckons.Thank You For Your Servitude review – disappointing tale of Trump’s townRead moreInto this cauldron of distrust and loathing leaps Jonathan Lemire, with The Big Lie. He is Politico’s White House bureau chief and the 5am warm-up to MSNBC’s Morning Joe. He has done his homework. He lays out facts. His book is a mixture of narrative and lament.Lemire contends that Trump birthed the “big lie” in his 2016 campaign, as an excuse in the event of defeat by either Senator Ted Cruz in the primary or Hillary Clinton in the general election. Trump held both opponents in contempt.In the primary, Trump lost Iowa – then falsely claimed Cruz stole it.“Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified,” Trump tweeted.In the general, a half-year later, he dropped another bomb.“I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged. I have to be honest.”In the final presidential debate he upped the ante, refusing to say he would accept the electorate’s verdict.“I will look at it at the time,” Trump said. “I will keep you in suspense.”He definitely warned us. Lemire’s first book is aptly subtitled: “Election Chaos, Political Opportunism, and the State of American Politics After 2020.”Then and now, Trump posited that only fraud could derail him. After he beat Clinton in the electoral college, he claimed he actually won the popular vote too. In Trump’s mind, he was the victim of ballots cast by illegal aliens.“In addition to winning the electoral college in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,” Trump tweeted.To those within earshot, he said people who didn’t “look like they should be allowed to vote”, did.To soothe his ego, he appointed a commission headed by Kris Kobach, a nativist Kansas secretary of state, to vindicate his claims. It found nothing.In a blend of fiction and wish-fulfillment, Sean Spicer, Trump’s first White House press secretary, and Kellyanne Conway, a senior adviser, embarked on flights of fantasy. Spicer declared that Trump’s inaugural crowd was larger than that for Barack Obama. Conway introduced us to alternative facts.Lemire’s indictment goes way beyond that offered by Clinton, who called Trump voters deplorable. He casts the issue as systemic – and punches up. He is angered but does not condescend. The Big Lie is also about elite conservative lawyers, Ivy League-educated senators, Republican House leadership and Mike Lindell, the My Pillow guy.Like Gollum in Tolkien’s Rings trilogy, the House Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy, wants to get his hands on the speaker’s gavel that badly. Peter Navarro, Trump’s trade adviser and author of the ill-fated “Green Bay Sweep” plan to overturn the election, faces charges of criminal contempt. Such acolytes know exactly what they do.Extremists in Congress like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert are vocal totems, empowered by an enraged ex-president and a vengeance-filled base. In such a world it seems no surprise cries of “hang Mike Pence”, makeshift gallows and Confederate battle flags in the halls of the Capitol came to supplant “fuck your feelings”, the mantra of Trump 2016.As expected, Steve Bannon appears in The Big Lie. He loves dishing to the press. It is in his DNA. The former Trump campaign guru and White House aide, now convicted of contempt of Congress, trashes his former boss as a reflexive liar.According to Lemire, Bannon said: “Trump would say anything, he would lie about anything.” On cue, a Bannon spokesperson disputed Lemire’s sources, telling the Guardian they were inaccurate.In Jeremy Peters’ book, Insurgency, Bannon mused that Trump would “end up going down in history as one of the two or three worst presidents ever”. In Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury, he described the Trump Tower meeting between Don Jr and a group of Russians amid the 2016 election campaign as “treasonous” and “unpatriotic”.And yet Bannon’s role in Trump’s bid to stay in power remains of central interest to the January 6 committee. On 5 January 2021, Bannon announced on-air that “all hell is going to break loose tomorrow”. He spoke to Trump that morning.Despite his thoroughness, Lemire does omit the role of one group of Republicans in giving the big lie added heft. In May 2021, the Washington Post reported on the efforts of Texas Republicans led by Russell Ramsland, a businessman with a Harvard MBA.After the 2018 midterms, Ramsland and colleagues pressed convoluted theories concerning “voting-machine audit logs – lines of codes and time stamps that document the machines’ activities”. Pete Sessions, a defeated congressman, didn’t buy what Ramsland was selling. Trump did.For Trump’s minions, this remains a war over lost place and status.“Republicans need to prove to the American people that we are the party of … Christian nationalism,” says Greene, a first-term congresswoman from Georgia.Like a toxic weed, the big lie has taken root.“It is now part of the Republican party’s core belief,” Lemire writes. Violence and insurrection have become legitimate. “The Big Lie was who they were.”Our cold civil war grows hotter.
      The Big Lie: Election Chaos, Political Opportunism, and the State of American Politics After 2020 is published in the US by Macmillan
      TopicsBooksPolitics booksUS politicsDonald TrumpTrump administrationUS elections 2020US midterm elections 2022reviewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Jared Kushner: I stopped Trump attacking Murdoch in 2015

      by

      Jared Kushner: I stopped Trump attacking Murdoch in 2015In forthcoming memoir, obtained by the Guardian, former adviser claims to have made hugely consequential intervention In a forthcoming memoir, Jared Kushner says he personally intervened to stop Donald Trump attacking Rupert Murdoch in response to the media mogul’s criticism, at the outset of Trump’s move into politics in 2015.Trump said sorry to Cruz for 2016 insults, Paul Manafort says in new bookRead moreIn the book, Breaking History, Kushner writes: “Trump called me. He’d clearly had enough. ‘This guy’s no good. And I’m going to tweet it.’“‘Please, you’re in a Republican primary,’ I said, hoping he wasn’t about to post a negative tweet aimed at the most powerful man in conservative media. ‘You don’t need to get on the wrong side of Rupert. Give me a couple of hours to fix it.’”Kushner says he fixed it. If his claim is true, he could be seen to have made a hugely consequential intervention in modern US history.Murdoch’s support, chiefly through Fox News, did much to boost Trump to victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016. Despite persistent reports of friction between the two men, Murdoch supported Trump through four tumultuous years in power which culminated in Trump’s refusal to admit defeat and the deadly attack on Congress.The Guardian obtained a copy of Kushner’s book, which will be published next month.The book lands at a time when Murdoch’s newspapers and to some extent Fox News are widely seen to be pulling away from Trump, amid congressional hearings into his election subversion and the January 6 attack, speculation about criminal charges and as he prepares another White House run.In his book, Trump’s son-in-law, who became a senior White House adviser, describes a friendship with Murdoch built on time on Murdoch’s yacht and at Bono’s house in France, watching the U2 frontman sing with Bob Geldof and Billy Joel. Kushner also describes how Wendi Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch’s third wife, helped get him back with Ivanka Trump after a breakup.Kushner claims to have convinced Murdoch to support Trump in 2015.Trump and Murdoch were not close before Trump entered politics. But in July 2015, after Trump launched his explosive campaign for the Republican presidential nomination with a racist rant about Mexicans, the Fox News owner tweeted: “When is Donald Trump going to stop embarrassing the whole country?”A week later, the New York Times described Murdoch disparaging Trump. Trump was furious and threatened to tweet. Kushner was not then an official adviser to his father-in-law but he writes: “I called Rupert and told him I had to see him.“‘Rupert, I think he could win,’ I said, as we sat in his office. ‘You guys agree on a lot of the issues. You want smaller government. You want lower taxes. You want stronger borders.’“Rupert listened quizzically, like he couldn’t imagine that Trump was actually serious about running. The next day, he called me and said, ‘I’ve looked at this and maybe I was misjudging it. He actually does have a real following. It does seem like he’s very popular, like he can really be a kingmaker in the Republican primary with the way he is playing it. What does Donald want?’“‘He wants to be president,’ I responded.“‘No, what does he really want?’ he asked again.“‘Look, he doesn’t need a nicer plane,’ I said. ‘He’s got a beautiful plane. He doesn’t need a nicer house. He doesn’t need anything. He’s tired of watching politicians screw up the country, and he thinks he could do a better job.’“‘Interesting,’ Rupert said.“We had a truce, for the time being.”Kushner also writes about Trump’s clashes with Fox News during the 2016 campaign, including a clash with the anchor Megyn Kelly. Kushner says he agreed a deal with Roger Ailes, then in charge of Fox News, for a donation of $5m to a veterans’ organisation of Trump’s choice, in return for Trump choosing not to skip a debate.Murdoch rejected the deal, Kushner writes, saying if he took it he would have to “pay everyone to show up to debates”.Kushner also describes how Murdoch helped shape his view of why the US needed Trump. At a rally in Springfield, Illinois in November 2015, Kushner was reminded “of a book that Rupert Murdoch had given me months earlier: Charles Murray’s Coming Apart, which makes a case that over the last 50 years America has divided into upper and lower classes that live apart from each other, geographically and culturally”.Trump, Kushner writes, appealed to the “forgotten and disenfranchised”. For his son-in-law rally in Illinois “was a wake-up call”.Is Murdoch tiring of Trump? Mogul’s print titles dump the ex-presidentRead moreKushner’s version of another call with Murdoch, on election night 2020, has been widely reported. He says Murdoch told him Fox News’s call of Trump’s defeat by Joe Biden in Arizona, a decision which infuriated the president and his advisers, was “ironclad – not even close”.Arizona played a central role in Trump’s attempt to overturn the election through lies about voter fraud. Fox News is now the subject of a $1.6bn defamation suit from a maker of voting machines, over conspiracy theories pushed by Trump and his allies and repeated on the network.Fox News has said it is “confident we will prevail as freedom of the press is foundational to our democracy and must be protected, in addition to the damages claims being outrageous, unsupported and not rooted in sound financial analysis, serving as nothing more than a flagrant attempt to deter our journalists from doing their jobs”.TopicsBooksJared KushnerDonald TrumpRupert MurdochRepublicansUS politicsPolitics booksnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      House-passed assault weapons ban appears to be doomed in the Senate

      by

      House-passed assault weapons ban appears to be doomed in the SenateBill would require support from at least 10 Senate Republicans, and it isn’t certain that all 50 Democratic senators are onboard The assault weapons ban in America passed by the House appears set to be doomed in the Senate amid implacable Republican opposition to gun reform, even in the wake of a series of mass shootings in the US.The legislation in the House, which would ban assault weapons for the first time since 2004, is interpreted as a sign that Democrats plan more aggressive gun violence prevention after a series of mass shootings using the military-derived weapons, including in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas.It was passed 217-213, with two Republicans voting in favor and five Democrats opposing. The legislation would criminalize the knowing sale, manufacture, transfer, possession or importation of many types of semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines.“Our nation has watched in unspeakable horror as assault weapons have been used in massacre after massacre in communities across the country,” the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said on Friday before the vote. “We know that an assault weapons ban can work because it has worked before.”The Democrat-controlled House judiciary committee estimated last week that the five major gun manufacturers have collected more than $1bn from the sale of assault rifles in the past decade.New York Democrat Carolyn Maloney said that gun manufacturers use “dangerous selling tactics to sell assault weapons to the public”, including “marketing to children, preying on young men’s insecurities and even appealing to violent white supremacists.”.Cogressman Brad Schneider, who represents Highland Park in Illinois where a mass shooter recently disrupted a Fourth of July parade with a hail of gunfire, killing seven, said at the hearing that “the shooter was able to fire off his bullets so fast that they couldn’t even identify where they were coming from”.But in the 50-50 evenly-split Senate, the bill is unlikely to pass despite a political breakthrough last month in bringing the bill forward. In that chamber, it would require support from at least 10 Republicans. Nor is it certain that all 50 Democrat senators are on board.Congressional Republicans argue that the legislation is unconstitutional and would result in the confiscation of firearms. “Today, they’re coming for your guns,” said rightwing Ohio congressman Jim Jordan, a senior member of the judiciary committee. “They want to take all guns from all people.”The last time the legislature passed an assault weapons ban was in 1994. A 2019 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery showed the number of mass shooting deaths declined while the law, which expired in 2004, was in effect.Since then, the number of assault-style weapons in private hands has proliferated to 19.8m, according to a November 2020 statement by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, with mass-shooting growing in frequency alongside.The legislation has not yet been scheduled in the senate for before or after the August recess. On Friday, Joe Biden said he welcomed the House vote, saying a majority of Americans “agree with this common sense action”.“There can be no greater responsibility than to do all we can to ensure the safety of our families, our children, our homes, our communities and our nation”, he added in a statement issued by the White House.TopicsUS SenateUS gun controlHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsDemocratsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More