Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Garrett78
Garrett78's Journal
Garrett78's Journal
June 27, 2018
...more at the link.
Republicans have been fighting a "procedural war," while Democrats fight a "policy war."
The posting of a David Faris article and this SCOTUS news reminded me that someone had asked me to re-post the following article, which is one I think Democrats better take to heart once they are back in power or sooner:
https://www.vox.com/2018/5/1/17258866/democratic-party-republicans-trump-election
Sean Illing
I definitely want to get into some of these structural barriers, but let’s be clear about this point you’re making. A lot of people still think there’s some meaningful connection between policy outcomes and voter decisions, but there’s a good bit of political science research to suggest that’s just a fantasy.
David Faris
Right. People just don’t seem to make the connection between policies and the party in power.
So, for example, the Democrats passed Obamacare and gave millions of people heath care, and yet tons of people who benefited from it have no idea what it is or how they benefited. And it’s like that with a lot of policies — voters simply don’t connect the dots, and so they reward or punish the wrong party.
I think the idea that we’re going to deliver these benefits to people and they’re going to be like, “Thank you Jesus, thank you for everything that you’ve done, let me return you with a larger majority next time,” is just nonsense. It’s the wrong way to think about politics.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do things for people, but we’ve got to be serious about how elections are won. And they’re not being won on the basis of policy proposals or policy wins.
Sean Illing
In the book, you say that Democrats are engaged in “policy fights” and Republicans are waging a “procedural war.” What does that mean?
David Faris
The Constitution is a shockingly short document, and it turns out that it’s extremely vague on some key procedures that we rely on to help government function at a basic level. For the government to work, cooperation between parties is needed. But when that cooperation is withdrawn, it creates chaos.
Since the ’90s, when Newt Gingrich took over Congress, we’ve seen a one-sided escalation in which Republicans exploit the vagueness or lack of clarity in the Constitution in order to press their advantage in a variety of arenas — from voter ID laws to gerrymandering to behavioral norms in the Congress and Senate.
Sean Illing
What the Republicans did to Merrick Garland was one of the most egregious examples I’ve ever seen.
David Faris
Right. They essentially stole a seat on the Supreme Court — a swing seat, no less. But they correctly argued that they had no clear constitutional obligation to consider the president’s nominee for the seat. They didn’t violate the Constitution. They violated the spirit of the Constitution. They violated the norms that have allowed these institutions to function normally for years and years.
This is the sort of maneuvering and procedural warfare I’m talking about, and the Republicans have been escalating it for two decades. And they’ve managed to entrench their power through these dubious procedures.
The result is that the structural environment is biased against Democrats and the Republicans have engineered it that way.
I definitely want to get into some of these structural barriers, but let’s be clear about this point you’re making. A lot of people still think there’s some meaningful connection between policy outcomes and voter decisions, but there’s a good bit of political science research to suggest that’s just a fantasy.
David Faris
Right. People just don’t seem to make the connection between policies and the party in power.
So, for example, the Democrats passed Obamacare and gave millions of people heath care, and yet tons of people who benefited from it have no idea what it is or how they benefited. And it’s like that with a lot of policies — voters simply don’t connect the dots, and so they reward or punish the wrong party.
I think the idea that we’re going to deliver these benefits to people and they’re going to be like, “Thank you Jesus, thank you for everything that you’ve done, let me return you with a larger majority next time,” is just nonsense. It’s the wrong way to think about politics.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do things for people, but we’ve got to be serious about how elections are won. And they’re not being won on the basis of policy proposals or policy wins.
Sean Illing
In the book, you say that Democrats are engaged in “policy fights” and Republicans are waging a “procedural war.” What does that mean?
David Faris
The Constitution is a shockingly short document, and it turns out that it’s extremely vague on some key procedures that we rely on to help government function at a basic level. For the government to work, cooperation between parties is needed. But when that cooperation is withdrawn, it creates chaos.
Since the ’90s, when Newt Gingrich took over Congress, we’ve seen a one-sided escalation in which Republicans exploit the vagueness or lack of clarity in the Constitution in order to press their advantage in a variety of arenas — from voter ID laws to gerrymandering to behavioral norms in the Congress and Senate.
Sean Illing
What the Republicans did to Merrick Garland was one of the most egregious examples I’ve ever seen.
David Faris
Right. They essentially stole a seat on the Supreme Court — a swing seat, no less. But they correctly argued that they had no clear constitutional obligation to consider the president’s nominee for the seat. They didn’t violate the Constitution. They violated the spirit of the Constitution. They violated the norms that have allowed these institutions to function normally for years and years.
This is the sort of maneuvering and procedural warfare I’m talking about, and the Republicans have been escalating it for two decades. And they’ve managed to entrench their power through these dubious procedures.
The result is that the structural environment is biased against Democrats and the Republicans have engineered it that way.
...more at the link.
June 27, 2018
Had roles been reversed, what would Republicans have done?
Had Democrats refused to consider a Republican president's nominee for the SC, what would Republicans have done?
I suspect there would have been torches and pitchforks involved.
June 27, 2018
...more at the link.
Regarding the supposed "identity crisis" within the Democratic Party.
Why There Is No 'Liberal Tea Party'The lack of a “liberal Tea Party” reflects a fundamental and longstanding asymmetry between Republicans and Democrats. The Republican Party is the agent of an ideological movement; most Republican politicians, activists and voters view their party as existing to advance the conservative cause.
Because their goals of reducing the scope of government and reversing cultural change are difficult to achieve in practice, Republican officeholders are vulnerable to accusations of failing to uphold principles. They risk becoming targets of interest groups, media outlets and rival politicians who see their role as enforcing symbolic commitment to conservative orthodoxy.
The Democratic Party, by contrast, is organized as a coalition of social groups. Democratic voters tend to view politics as an arena of intergroup competition rather than a battlefield for opposing philosophies, and the party is dominated by an array of discrete interests that choose candidates on the basis of demographic representation and capacity to deliver policy. Tensions within the party coalition have eased over time — to the benefit of Democratic leaders, who are now better able to satisfy the various demands of their members and avoid facing a mutiny from within.
Democratic voters detest Mr. Trump just as much as Republicans disliked Barack Obama, but they have different ways of expressing their opposition. The Tea Party movement reflected a popular dissatisfaction with cultural change, of which Mr. Obama’s election was a powerful symbol. Politicians, media personalities and interest group leaders on the right encouraged these sentiments but channeled them into opposition to Democratic economic priorities such as the Affordable Care Act by activating broader symbolic conservative predispositions.
Republican critics accused Mr. Obama of imposing socialism and favoring runaway government; Democrats attack Mr. Trump for his mistreatment of vulnerable social groups. The most visible manifestations of Democratic mobilization since Mr. Trump’s election have been a series of protests, each focused on one issue and led by a specific element of the group coalition. Large-scale national events have highlighted the concerns of feminists, racial minorities, young people, environmentalists and unionized public employees. Democrats promote a different cause nearly every week, with each rally promoted as an opportunity to mobilize social groups for elections and a practical policy agenda.
Mr. Trump’s rise has jump-started political activity among Democrats, but this resurgent energy has seldom produced fierce internal battles. Lara Putnam and Theda Skocpol, who have studied emerging grass-roots networks of Democratic activists, report that they “hail from across the broad ideological range from center to left” but are “working shoulder-to-shoulder” rather than igniting intraparty squabbles — a pragmatic mobilization, they explained, aimed at winning general elections.
This year, Democratic candidates remain focused on challenging vulnerable Republican-held seats more than purging ideologically impure incumbents. Unlike Republican debates over philosophical fidelity, Democratic primaries produce arguments about who will do a better job addressing the real-world priorities of key constituencies as well as competition to secure endorsements from party-aligned interest groups.
Because their goals of reducing the scope of government and reversing cultural change are difficult to achieve in practice, Republican officeholders are vulnerable to accusations of failing to uphold principles. They risk becoming targets of interest groups, media outlets and rival politicians who see their role as enforcing symbolic commitment to conservative orthodoxy.
The Democratic Party, by contrast, is organized as a coalition of social groups. Democratic voters tend to view politics as an arena of intergroup competition rather than a battlefield for opposing philosophies, and the party is dominated by an array of discrete interests that choose candidates on the basis of demographic representation and capacity to deliver policy. Tensions within the party coalition have eased over time — to the benefit of Democratic leaders, who are now better able to satisfy the various demands of their members and avoid facing a mutiny from within.
Democratic voters detest Mr. Trump just as much as Republicans disliked Barack Obama, but they have different ways of expressing their opposition. The Tea Party movement reflected a popular dissatisfaction with cultural change, of which Mr. Obama’s election was a powerful symbol. Politicians, media personalities and interest group leaders on the right encouraged these sentiments but channeled them into opposition to Democratic economic priorities such as the Affordable Care Act by activating broader symbolic conservative predispositions.
Republican critics accused Mr. Obama of imposing socialism and favoring runaway government; Democrats attack Mr. Trump for his mistreatment of vulnerable social groups. The most visible manifestations of Democratic mobilization since Mr. Trump’s election have been a series of protests, each focused on one issue and led by a specific element of the group coalition. Large-scale national events have highlighted the concerns of feminists, racial minorities, young people, environmentalists and unionized public employees. Democrats promote a different cause nearly every week, with each rally promoted as an opportunity to mobilize social groups for elections and a practical policy agenda.
Mr. Trump’s rise has jump-started political activity among Democrats, but this resurgent energy has seldom produced fierce internal battles. Lara Putnam and Theda Skocpol, who have studied emerging grass-roots networks of Democratic activists, report that they “hail from across the broad ideological range from center to left” but are “working shoulder-to-shoulder” rather than igniting intraparty squabbles — a pragmatic mobilization, they explained, aimed at winning general elections.
This year, Democratic candidates remain focused on challenging vulnerable Republican-held seats more than purging ideologically impure incumbents. Unlike Republican debates over philosophical fidelity, Democratic primaries produce arguments about who will do a better job addressing the real-world priorities of key constituencies as well as competition to secure endorsements from party-aligned interest groups.
...more at the link.
June 27, 2018
https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/june-26-election-results/
Nate Silver's take on Ocasio-Cortez's victory.
Looks like soon we’re wrapping up for the evening, so I’d like to reiterate one last time the not-so-hot take that primaries are extremely idiosyncratic and one ought to be cautious about global conclusions from local events. On the one hand, Ocasio-Cortez’s win was extremely impressive in New York 14 tonight against the establishment Democrat Joe Crowley; on the other hand, Chelsea Manning received only 6 percent of the vote in her challenge to establishment Democrat Ben Cardin in Maryland’s U.S. Senate primary. (Cardin won with 81 percent.)
I think pundits might do better to focus on the particular combination of attributes that Ocasio-Cortez brought to the table: young, Latina, from the community, media-savvy enough to draw a lot of coverage from lefty outlets (but not very much from mainstream outlets, which she may not have wanted anyway), ran some good ads, very openly and proudly a progressive Democratic socialist, but also running against an old white dude who, while mostly a party-line Democrat, was asleep at the wheel in a district that had undergone a lot of demographic change. And the race was maybe in an in-between zone whereas it was just competitive enough that her voters were excited and turned out, but also enough to the periphery of the radar enough that Crowley’s voters didn’t.
Which of those elements were most essential to her success? Which of those factors might be replicated elsewhere? It’s hard to say. My personal bias is to think being cut from the cloth of the district is pretty important, whereas candidates who are famous for other reasons, such as Cynthia Nixon (who hasn’t made up her deficit with Andrew Cuomo in the polls) aren’t going to resonate in the same way and won’t have the same underdog quality. But maybe the combination is pretty unique — and will be hard to replicate — given that she’s the first challenger to defeat a Democratic incumbent for the U.S. House since 2014.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/june-26-election-results/
June 26, 2018
Protesting racists and liars is not equivalent to being a racist and liar.
I can't believe I have to make that point.
June 26, 2018
Violating the emoluments clause: that alone would have had Obama impeached.
Even if Democrats had the majority, Obama would have been impeached.
We know Republicans won't allow for Trump to be impeached, even if Democrats were to take back the House and Senate by slim margins. But at what point are Democrats duty-bound to bring forth articles of impeachment? Only after Mueller reveals concrete evidence that Trump colluded with Russia?
June 25, 2018
Political affiliation is holding pretty steady.
At least according to this: https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
Does anyone have a link that shows something different?
June 21, 2018
Trump's lies and contradictions work.
We aren't the target audience, nor do our posts impact the narrative. That said, it's worth countering Trump's lies for the benefit of those who don't really know any better. This would be a full-time job. The DNC should hire someone to hold a daily press conference for the purpose of responding to Trump propaganda.
Something like this:
"As many of you are well aware, Donald Trump has a problem. He can't tell the truth. So, I'll be here every afternoon to set the record straight on the previous 24 hours. For instance, today Donald Trump and other Republicans stated that the economy was faltering under President Obama..."
June 21, 2018
More at the link.
Ending separation doesn't mean reunification will happen, at least not right away.
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17486446/family-separation-reunification-trump-executive-order-immigrationThe separation of families was never intended to be permanent, but advocates and immigration lawyers say the government doesn’t have a coherent process of reuniting families — or even putting children and parents in contact while they’re separated. Parents have been deported, while children are left behind in the US. Some children are transferred thousands of miles away from the border — and their parents.
The Trump administration has halted the brutal practice of dividing parents and kids, which may reduce some strain on an already overburdened system. But it won’t erase the trauma many of these kids likely have experienced — and it’s not clear it will remedy the chaotic process of bringing families together, or even guarantee speedy reunification.
The Trump administration has halted the brutal practice of dividing parents and kids, which may reduce some strain on an already overburdened system. But it won’t erase the trauma many of these kids likely have experienced — and it’s not clear it will remedy the chaotic process of bringing families together, or even guarantee speedy reunification.
More at the link.
June 21, 2018
More at the link.
Trump's Executive Order Explained
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17485488/executive-order-immigration-trump-families-togetherTrump’s executive order clears the way for DHS to detain families together
Here’s what the executive order actually does.
Allows people to be prosecuted for illegal entry without being sent into the custody of the Department of Justice — thus allowing parents to be kept with their children. The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to keep families in its custody until both the criminal case against the parent and the immigration case against the family are completed. When a family is seeking asylum, that can take weeks or months.
The Trump administration directs the Department of Justice (which runs immigration courts) to prioritize the immigration cases of detained families — which raises concerns about due process (given the last time that families were detained in an expedited process). The directive will also result in other immigration cases being pushed back even further in the backlogged immigration courts.
Uses other departments — including the military — to house migrant families if needed. Immigration and Customs Enforcement doesn’t even have room for all the adults it’s keeping in detention — which is why it had to send 1,600 detainees to federal prisons two weeks ago. Now it’s being told to detain thousands of children as well. To accommodate this, the Trump executive order allows the military and other departments to provide space and facilities if needed for migrant families.
Tells Attorney General Jeff Sessions to ask the courts to change their mind and declare family detention to be legal. The Flores settlement, as it was interpreted by courts under President Obama, prevents the federal government from keeping children in immigration detention for longer than necessary — and that applies to children who are being kept with their parents as well as those who come to the US without adults. Under Obama, the courts ruled that 20 days was about the limit of how long “reasonable” would be — but any asylum proceeding that takes 20 days or less is going to be legally suspect from a due process perspective.
So it’s very likely that this executive order will lead the government to violate the Flores settlement as it stands now. Trump’s solution is to tell Sessions to ask the federal courts to amend the settlement to allow him to detain families together as long as needed.
Here’s what the executive order actually does.
Allows people to be prosecuted for illegal entry without being sent into the custody of the Department of Justice — thus allowing parents to be kept with their children. The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to keep families in its custody until both the criminal case against the parent and the immigration case against the family are completed. When a family is seeking asylum, that can take weeks or months.
The Trump administration directs the Department of Justice (which runs immigration courts) to prioritize the immigration cases of detained families — which raises concerns about due process (given the last time that families were detained in an expedited process). The directive will also result in other immigration cases being pushed back even further in the backlogged immigration courts.
Uses other departments — including the military — to house migrant families if needed. Immigration and Customs Enforcement doesn’t even have room for all the adults it’s keeping in detention — which is why it had to send 1,600 detainees to federal prisons two weeks ago. Now it’s being told to detain thousands of children as well. To accommodate this, the Trump executive order allows the military and other departments to provide space and facilities if needed for migrant families.
Tells Attorney General Jeff Sessions to ask the courts to change their mind and declare family detention to be legal. The Flores settlement, as it was interpreted by courts under President Obama, prevents the federal government from keeping children in immigration detention for longer than necessary — and that applies to children who are being kept with their parents as well as those who come to the US without adults. Under Obama, the courts ruled that 20 days was about the limit of how long “reasonable” would be — but any asylum proceeding that takes 20 days or less is going to be legally suspect from a due process perspective.
So it’s very likely that this executive order will lead the government to violate the Flores settlement as it stands now. Trump’s solution is to tell Sessions to ask the federal courts to amend the settlement to allow him to detain families together as long as needed.
More at the link.
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Aug 19, 2015, 04:47 AMNumber of posts: 10,721
