More stories

  • in

    After Dianne Feinstein: as a political giant steps down, California weighs its future

    When Dianne Feinstein arrived in Washington in 1992, her home state of California was solidly purple and Republican Pete Wilson occupied the governor’s office.More than 30 years later, as the oldest member of Congress and California’s longest serving senator prepares to retire, her state is arguably the most reliably blue in the US.Feinstein’s protracted career as a senator also charts the rise of California as a political power player on Capitol Hill, whose 55 electoral votes – the largest block by far, with Texas and Florida as distant seconds – have helped guarantee a Democrat in the White House for six out of the last eight terms.Yet despite Feinstein’s early history as a transformative feminist from San Francisco, her perch in the top rungs of Senate leadership has outlasted its welcome among her increasingly liberal base. Grumblings about her willingness to work with Republicans, as well as concerns about her physical and mental competence, has left many clamouring for a changing of the guard, meaning the race to replace her in November 2024 is destined to become among the most hotly contested and consequential races in Democratic party politics.So far, three candidates have surfaced. Two of them, Adam Schiff and Barbara Lee, are veteran liberal legislators, having been in office since 2001 and 1998, respectively, while Katie Porter, a progressive congresswoman from traditionally conservative Orange county, is a rising star who first took office in 2019. Apparently not one for following party protocols, Porter stunned some observers by announcing her candidacy a full month before Feinstein made her retirement official early this February.Of the three, Schiff, who helped steer two successive impeachments against Donald Trump, has the most experience and name recognition. He also has the backing of the former House speaker Nancy Pelosi, whereas Porter counts Elizabeth Warren among her supporters. Both have more cash on hand than Lee, who also polls lower, despite impeccable liberal credentials that include being the only member of Congress to vote against giving President Bush unlimited war powers after 9/11.One thing that’s clear: that whoever voters choose, it will be someone to the left of Feinstein. Gustavo Arellano, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, describes the changing of the guard as a completion of California’s political arc.In the early 1970s, more than half of Californians voted to reelect Richard Nixon and even San Francisco had a Republican mayor. Fast forward to now, and Democratic state lawmakers in Sacramento outnumber Republicans by a ridiculous margin: 62 Democrats versus 18 Republicans in the assembly, and a senate composed of 32 Democrats and only eight Republicans. California hasn’t elected a Republican to statewide office since 2007, when Arnold Schwarzenegger left the governor’s mansion, and its voters are increasingly the most liberal and diverse in the nation.“Dianne Feinstein leaving office marks the end of an era where California politics were more moderate,” said Arellano, who credits the California Republican party’s racially divisive position on immigration with laying the groundwork for the Democrats’ seemingly permanent lock on state politics. “California has always been a bellweather in so many things,” he said.“The fact that the two leading candidates to replace Feinstein are progressive Democrats is a victory for the left. But it’s also a warning for Republicans: this will be your fate if you don’t get your act together.”A ‘miserable’ beginningFeinstein’s journey from San Francisco’s city hall to Washington began in 1969 when she first joined the city’s board of supervisors. It was a tumultuous era marked by anti-Vietnam war protests and, particularly in San Francisco, rising demands for equality by women and gay people. For Feinstein, the late ’60s and early ’70s provided ample opportunity to challenge sexist stereotypes in American politics.It’s difficult to overstate Feinstein’s role as a political pioneer, said Jerry Roberts, a former managing editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, who wrote a 1994 biography of Feinstein that focused on her role in city politics. “She was a trailblazer who knocked down doors for women,” he continued. “Her legacy is Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Kamala Harris, and all the women who came after her.”Feinstein lost two successive races for San Francisco mayor in the 1970s. “It was largely because voters and women in particular still didn’t feel comfortable with women in office,” Roberts said. Feinstein eventually assumed the role by dint of tragedy, when George Moscone, the city’s Democratic mayor, was assassinated by a disgruntled city official in 1978. The same shooter also murdered Harvey Milk, a city supervisor and the first openly gay man to hold public office in the nation.“She got into office the most miserable way,” said Roberts.Feinstein quickly developed a bipartisan reputation as a hard-nosed workaholic who early on recognized the danger of Aids, crusading against gay bathhouses while defending the dignity of the disease’s victims. She was legendary for responding to the concerns of her constituents, and to the amusement of local journalists would often respond to building blazes dressed in a yellow coat to show solidarity for the city’s firefighters.“She was very hands on, so people hated working for her, which they still do, but the voters liked that,” explained Roberts. “When she left office nine years later, she had a 70% approval rating. It was pretty remarkable.”After losing a gubernatorial race to Pete Wilson in 1990, Feinstein positioned herself to statewide voters as a moderate centrist. Two years later, she won a special election to his vacant senate seat. Her senate victory joined those of fellow Californian Barbara Boxer and Maryland’s Barbara Mikulski to make 1992 the “Year of the Woman”.Feinstein was re-elected two years later and authored the nation’s first federal assault weapons ban. Her hard work on Capitol Hill helped make her the first female chairperson of both the Senate rules and intelligence committees. But as her influence in Washington grew, she also cemented a reputation as a policy hawk who typically voted with Republicans on defense appropriations.After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Feinstein became a key supporter of the US invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. She later changed her position on Iraq, saying she was misled by George Bush, and became an outspoken critic of the CIA’s use of torture in the war on terror. Her investigation into which infamously led the agency to allegedly illegally spy on her office.Outlasting her welcomeHer achievements as senator notwithstanding, the tide began to turn against her in recent years, and as the specter of her retirement loomed, so did questions of who should represent the next chapter of California politics.When Feinstein last ran for her seat in 2018, the California Democratic party, in a display of long-simmering dissatisfaction with her moderate politics, backed her more liberal opponent from the state senate, Kevin De Leon. It’s a shift that makes sense to Mark Baldassare, a survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California and a longtime political observer. “The state’s electorate is more racially and ethnically diverse now, especially among Democrats, a quarter of whom are Latino.”After nearly six full terms in office, Feinstein seemed unfocused and out of touch to both staffers and colleagues. In October 2020, following the confirmation of Donald Trump’s supreme court pick Amy Coney Barrett, Feinstein drew ire if not outright bewilderment among Democrats for hugging Republican Lindsey Graham, who was instrumental in securing the conservative domination of the court, and praising the volatile proceedings as “one of the best set of hearings that I’ve participated in”.The Coney Barrett fiasco led to calls for Feinstein’s ouster from Senate leadership appointments as well as concerns about her mental state. In retrospect, it marked the beginning of the end of her career in Washington. More recent headlines have focused on her physical frailty, particularly after a dose of shingles last month sent her to the hospital.“Progressives have always despised Feinstein going back to her days in San Francisco,” remarked the Times’ Arellano. “Even now, everybody is giving respect to her for retiring but nobody is shedding any tears.”A typical perspective among progressives is that of Marc Cooper, a former Nation magazine writer and journalism professor at the University of Southern California who now publishes an online political newsletter. To him, Feinstein’s legacy in California is the Democratic leadership’s abandonment of grassroots, anti-war politics in favor of large donor-dominated neoliberal elitism.“You can pick apart Feinstein and say there are times she’s acted like a Republican, but it’s a waste of time,” Cooper said. “We have never had a point in my lifetime when the political world is more distant from most people’s lives than it is now. The Democratic party in California used to be quite vibrant and that’s all been replaced by money.”Not everyone is quite so harsh, with others describing Feinstein a venerable figure who simply outlasted her welcome. “Feinstein is a great woman,” argued noted California journalist and author Anne Louise Bardach. “She’s been tremendous, but she overstayed her time.” Bardach believes the longtime illness and eventual death last year of Feinstein’s second husband, Richard Blum, took an immense emotional toll.” I think it was probably a huge burden for her,” Bardach said. “If he had been alive, she would have likely stepped down much earlier.”The Guardian reached out to Feinstein for an interview, but did not hear back.California’s next political chapterCalifornia voters will get their first chance to weigh in on Feinstein’s successor in the March 2024 Democratic primary race. That’s a good eight months before the general election, meaning that the public can expect a long ride of campaigning and political jockeying, including expensive television ads, and the possibility of public debates and even personal attacks.All of that, however, assumes that Feinstein does not retire early or leave office for medical reasons. If that happens, California’s governor Gavin Newsom has the responsibility to choose her immediate replacement, and has already pledged that person will be a Black woman.Jodi Balma, a political science professor at Fullerton College in southern California, believes that Newsom is unlikely to appoint Lee, however, as that would unfairly tip the race in her favor. “I’m sure he’s hoping not to have to make that decision,” Balma said of Newsom. One name that came up among those close to Newsom is Willie Brown, the longtime Democratic kingmaker and retired San Francisco mayor, according to Balma. “To be a caretaker senator would be the crowning achievement of his political career.”Assuming that scenario doesn’t play out, polling has so far suggested that the deep-pocketed Schiff has the lead, with Porter closely behind and Lee a distant third. Making the race more complicated is the fact that California’s primary laws allow the top two candidates from each political party’s March primary race to run for the general election in November.According to Balma, the consensus in Sacramento is that the last thing the party wants is two Democrats splitting a November vote, thus allowing room for a Republican challenger to win. “The Democrats don’t want two candidates fighting between March and November with negative attacks and commercials telling the voters how bad they are.”Regardless, the nation will be watching closely.“It’s a long way to the primary, but this race is attracting national attention because it’s indicative of the new leadership in California and what it means nationally for the future of the Democratic party,” said Baldassare. “There’s no question that there are some big shoes to fill.” More

  • in

    Republican Ted Cruz introduces bill to block US supreme court expansion

    The Republican senator Ted Cruz, whose party defied convention to delay then rush conservatives on to the supreme court, has introduced a constitutional amendment to stop Democrats expanding the court in response.“The Democrats’ answer to a supreme court that is dedicated to upholding the rule of law and the constitution is to pack it with liberals who will rule the way they want,” Cruz said.“The supreme court should be independent, not inflated by every new administration. That’s why I’ve introduced a constitutional amendment to permanently keep the number of justices at nine.”There is no constitutional provision for how many justices sit on the court.Democrats say the current court is not independent of the Republican party.In 2016, when the conservative Antonin Scalia died Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, held the seat open until a Republican president, Donald Trump, could replace a Democrat, Barack Obama, and nominate Scalia’s replacement. Neil Gorsuch filled that seat.In 2020, Democrats were helpless again when Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal lion, died shortly before the presidential election and McConnell changed course, rushing Amy Coney Barrett on to the court before Trump lost to Joe Biden.Those changes and the replacement of the retiring Anthony Kennedy with Brett Kavanaugh produced a court dominated, 6-3, by conservatives.Conservative justices including Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas have claimed not to be influenced by political considerations.Coney Barrett notably did so, saying the court “is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks”, while standing next to McConnell at a political studies centre named for the Republican leader.Among conservative rulings passed down by the new super-majority, a May 2022 decision saw the court side with Cruz in a case concerning personal loans to campaigns. The three liberal justices said the ruling paved the way for corruption.But the Dobbs decision of last year, removing the right to abortion, most enraged Democrats and progressives.On the left, plans have been floated to increase the size of the court and thereby redress its ideological balance.Writing for the Guardian last year, David Daley, author of Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn’t Count, said: “The court’s hard-right majority has neither popular support for its agenda nor institutional legitimacy.“It is the product of a hostile takeover of the courts 50 years in the planning by conservatives who have long understood that unpopular policies … can be thrust upon Americans by an unaccountable and unelected judiciary.“The court must be expanded and reformed to counter a rightwing power play that threatens to remake American democracy and life itself.”Biden ordered a commission to study options for reform. It found bipartisan support for term limits for justices but reported “profound disagreement” on whether the court should be expanded. Biden has said he is “not a fan” of expanding the court.Cruz’s amendment has little chance of passing a Democratic-held Senate but 10 Republican senators supported it nonetheless.Josh Hawley of Missouri said: “For years the left has been desperate to pack the court to promote their radical agenda. We must ensure that we stay true to the court’s founding principles, maintain the precedent of nine justices, and keep the Democrats from their brazen attempts to rig our democracy.” More

  • in

    Mitch McConnell released from hospital after treatment for concussion

    Mitch McConnell was released from the hospital on Monday after the Republican leader of the Senate received treatment for a concussion, and he will continue to recover in an inpatient rehabilitation facility, a spokesman said.McConnell’s office said his doctors discovered over the weekend that he had also suffered a “minor rib fracture” after he tripped and fell at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in Washington on Wednesday evening.“Leader McConnell’s concussion recovery is proceeding well and the leader was discharged from the hospital today,” said McConnell’s spokesman, David Popp, in a statement. “At the advice of his physician, the next step will be a period of physical therapy at an inpatient rehabilitation facility before he returns home.”The office did not give any additional detail on McConnell’s condition or say how long he will be out. Concussions can be serious injuries and take time for recovery, and even a single incident of concussion can limit a person’s abilities as they recover.It is unclear how his extended absence will affect Senate proceedings. The Senate returns to Washington on Tuesday evening after the weekend off and is scheduled to be in session for the rest of March.The Kentucky senator, 81, was at a Wednesday evening dinner after a reception for the Senate Leadership Fund, a campaign committee aligned with him, when he tripped and fell.McConnell’s head injury comes almost four years after he tripped and fell at his home in Kentucky, suffering a shoulder fracture that required surgery. The Senate had just started a summer recess, and he worked from home for some weeks as he recovered.At the start of the Covid-19 crisis, McConnell opened up about his early childhood experience fighting polio. He described how his mother insisted that he stay off his feet as a toddler and worked with him through a determined physical therapy regime. He has acknowledged some difficulty in adulthood climbing stairs.First elected in 1984, McConnell in January became the longest-serving Senate leader when the new Congress convened, breaking the previous record of 16 years.McConnell is one of several senators who have been absent lately due to illness or hospitalization. The 53-year-old Democratic senator John Fetterman, who suffered a stroke during his campaign last year, was expected to remain out for some weeks as he received care for clinical depression. And Senator Dianne Feinstein, 89, said earlier this month that she had been hospitalized to be treated for shingles. More

  • in

    It’s OK to be Angry about Capitalism review: Bernie Sanders, by the book

    ReviewIt’s OK to be Angry about Capitalism review: Bernie Sanders, by the bookThe Vermont senator and former presidential candidate offers a clarion call against the American oligarchsThe Vermont senator Bernie Sanders has a predictably unsparing view of the effects of “unfettered capitalism”: it “destroys anything that gets in its way in the pursuit of profits. It destroys the environment. It destroys our democracy. It discards human beings without a second thought. It will never provide workers with the fulfillment that Americans have a right to expect from their careers. [And it is] propelled by uncontrollable greed and contempt for human decency.”Has Bernie Sanders really helped Joe Biden move further left?Read moreThe two-time presidential candidate makes his case with the usual horrifying numbers about the acceleration of inequality in America: 90% of our wealth is owned by one-tenth of 1% of the population; the wealth of 725 US billionaires increased 70% during the pandemic to more than $5tn; BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street now control assets of $20tn and are major shareholders in 96% of S&P 500 companies.Sanders recites these statistics with religious fervor, and poses fundamental questions for our time: “Do we believe in the Golden Rule? [or] do we accept … that gold rules – and that lying, cheating, and stealing are OK if you’re powerful enough to get away with it?”Bernie believes (and I strongly agree) that it’s long past the time when we should be paying at least as much attention to American oligarchs as we do to those surrounding Vladimir Putin. Our homegrown plutocrats “own” our democracy.“They spend tens of billions … on campaign contributions … to buy politicians who will do their bidding. They spend billions more on lobbying firms to influence governmental decisions” at every level. And “to a significant degree”, the oligarchs “own” the media. That is why our prominent pundits “rarely raise issues that will undermine the privileged positions of their employers” and “there is little public discussion about the power of corporate America and how oligarchs wield that power to benefit their interests at the expense of working families”.We were reminded this week of how this system works. Joe Biden released a budget with perfectly modest proposals for tax increases, like a 25% minimum tax on the wealthiest Americans and a seven-percentage-point raise in the corporate tax rate to 28%, which would still leave it seven points lower than it was before Donald Trump gutted it with his gigantic tax giveaways.Instantly, experts owned and operated by the billionaires started spewing their familiar bilge, like these moving words from the Cato Institute: “Higher tax rates on the wages of a narrow segment of the United States’ most productive executives and business leaders will have strong disincentives against their continued work and other negative behavioral effects that translate into a less dynamic, slower growing economy.“Higher taxes on investment income target the financial rewards to successful entrepreneurs who undertake risks and persevere through failure to build high return businesses that provide welfare enhancing goods and services to people around the world.”Sanders quotes one of the most prescient Americans of the mid-20th century, from 1944: “As our industrial economy expanded [our] political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness. We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.”The name of that dangerous revolutionary: Franklin Delano Roosevelt.Several decades before that, Theodore Roosevelt similarly bemoaned the “absence of effective state, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting” which “has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power”.There is something extremely refreshing about an author who assumes it should be obvious that billionaires should not be allowed to exist – and has perfectly reasonable proposals about how they should be eliminated. At the height of the pandemic, Sanders proposed the Make Billionaires Pay Act, which would have imposed a 60% tax on all the wealth gained by 467 billionaires between 18 March 2020 and January 2021.“But why stop at one year?” he now asks. After all, the 1950s were economic boom times in America – and under a Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, “the top tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was around 92%. America thrived. Unions were strong. Working-class Americans could afford to support themselves and buy homes on a single income.” And the richest 20% controlled a measly (by current standards) 42.8% of the wealth.Bernie Sanders: ‘Oligarchs run Russia. But guess what? They run the US as well’Read moreSanders’ 99.5 Percent Act would only touch the top 0.5% of Americans. “But the families of billionaires in America, who have a combined net worth of over $5tn, would owe up to $3tn in estate taxes.” He would accomplish this with a 45% tax rate on estates worth $3.5m and a 65% rate on those worth more than $1bn.There is much more here, including a convincing case for Medicare for All and an excoriation of a for-profit healthcare system which spends twice as much per citizen as France or Germany and still manages to leaves tens of millions of Americans un- or underinsured, all while nourishing an obscene pharmaceuticals business in which profits jumped by 90% in 2021.I first toured the castles of the Loire Valley as a teenager in the company of the family of my uncle, Jerry Kaiser, a 60s radical and a very early opponent of the war in Vietnam. As we absorbed the opulence of one chateau after another, Jerry had only one question: “What took them so long to have a revolution?”The noble purpose of Bernie Sander’s powerful new book is to get millions of Americans to ask that question of themselves – right now.
    It’s OK to Be Angry About Capitalism is published in the US by Crown
    TopicsBooksBernie SandersUS politicsDemocratsUS SenateUS CongressUS economyreviewsReuse this content More