Im-Politic: Objectivity in American Journalism Going, Going….

Tags

Gallup, Im-Politic, journalism, liberals, Mainstream Media, media bias, news media, objectivity, Pew Research Center

No one who’s been paying attention should be surprised by a recent Gallup survey showing that the American public’s trust in journalism is near rock bottom. As the polling company (again) makes clear, it’s been falling steadily for half a century.

What even I was surprised at were the results of another sounding that explains much of the reason why: A wide gulf has opened between the news media and its readers and viewers on the definition of journalism’s fundamental mission. Specifically, according to the Pew Research Center, although by landslide proportions, a majority of Americans believe that “Journalists should always strive to give every side equal coverage” in news reports, a smaller majority of journalists themselves – but still a sizable majority – doesn’t.

Also interesting and important (and seemingly consistent with the above finding), the same July 13 Pew findings make clear that the public gives journalists low marks on what the news media in recent years has often and loudly proclaimed to be its paramount purpose and contribution to American democracy: “Serving as a watchdog for elected leaders.”

First, the “evenhandedness” results. According to Pew, by a 76 percent to 22 percent margin, U.S. adults regard it as a hallmark of good journalism. But by 55 percent to 44 percent, journalists believe that “Every side does not deserve equal coverage.”

There’s a partisan gap in public opinion here, but it’s not enormous. Eighty seven percent of Republicans and Republican leaners value evenhandedness versus 68 percent of their Democratic counterparts.

More troubling, at least to me, the evidence points to a partisan gap that’s wider among news people themselves. The Pew researchers asked journalists who believe their audience “leans right” the evenhandedness question they endorsed this objective by 57 percent to 42 percent. But the journalists who believed their audience “leans left” rejected it by 69 percent to 30 percent. (News people who believe that their audience is “mixed” politically are split on this question.)

In addition, by 32 percent to 20 percent, journalists describe their news organization as leaning left versus leaning right, which strengthens the case for another important finding of partiality – most of it favors left-of-center views. For good measure, these data dovetail nicely with numerous surveys over many years (see, e.g., here) documenting a pronounced liberal tilt in their ranks.

In principle, this imbalance needn’t prevent journalists from effectively and evenhandedly holding the powerful to account. But the Pew results at least show that the public isn’t convinced that journalists perform well in “Serving as a watchdog over elected leaders.” Only five percent graded them “Very good” and just 24 percent “Somewhat good” at this task. The “Very bad” and “Somewhat bad” results were 24 percent and 21 percent, respectively. (Twenty six percent rated journalism as “Neither good nor bad.”)

I’ll acknowledge that the evenhandedness issue isn’t as clearcut as these Pew questions might suggest. For example, when it comes to reporting verifiable facts, every depiction clearly doesn’t deserve equal coverage. At the same time, aside from genuinely settled scientific or mathematical questions, the number of incontrovertible facts isn’t nearly as great as has often been supposed. Think of the Trump-Russia collusion claims, the mainstream media’s treatment of the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, the CCP Virus lab leak controversy, and the whipping Haitian migrants charges. And before the Trump era, these news organizations overwhelmingly cheerled for the second Iraq War, the reckless expansion of trade with China, and Open Borders-friendly immigration policies.

Maybe most depressing: The Pew poll strongly suggests that the news media will keep covering stories in a one-sided manner. Specifically, it found that journalism’s strongest opponents of evenhanded journalism are the youngest journalists – who reject this aim by 63 percent to 37 percent if they’re between 18 and 29 years of age, and by 63 percent to 49 percent if they’re in the 30-49-year old cohort.

Im-Politic: The Supreme Court Mess I

Tags

Antonin Scalia, Barack Obama, Biden Rule, conservatives, Constitution, Democrats, election 2020, elections, Ginsburg, Im-Politic, Joe Biden, lame duck Congress, liberals, Merrick Garland, Mitch McConnell, Republicans, rule of law, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Senate, Supreme Court, Trump

I call this piece “The Supreme Court Mess I” rather than “The Ginsburg Mess I” because the fix in which the nation finds itself regarding the replacement of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reflects a number of much deeper problems America is suffering. These stem from the firestorm-like nature of some recent battles over the roster of this nearly (but not quite paramount) arbiter of the Constitution, which makes it a the nearly last word regarding the entire U.S. legal system and its often decisive, lasting effects on every dimension of American life. (The Roman numeral tells you that there will be another post on this subject coming real soon, probably tomorrow.)

Today we’ll focus on the immediate question at hand: whether the Senate should vote on President Trump’s nominee for a new Justice. To me, the only answer with any merit: Absolutely. Indeed, nothing could be stronger, and more important to affirm, than the conclusion that any President has every right to nominate a new Justice at any time during any of his or her terms in office (i.e, through Inauguration Day, January 20), and that the Senate has every right to vote on his choice during this time. Why? Because it’s what the Constitution says, and neither the Framers nor any American leaders have ever formally tried to change the system since 1789. That is, there are no exceptions made – including for presidential election years, as many Democrats are calling for now.

If you think about it non-hysterically, you can see why. Abandoning this standard opens the door to the kind of bizarrely and indeed laughably convoluted and self-serving case being made now by Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky to explain why (a) he’s decided to allow a vote on a Supreme Court nominee this presidential election year, but (b) refused to allow former former President Obama’s appointment of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland be considered during the previous presidential election year.

According to McConnell, the governing principle for Court nominations is the result of the latest Senate election. As he wrote right after Ginsburg’s passing:

“In the last midterm election before Justice [Antonin] Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.

“By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, To

To which the only serious reaction has to be “Seriously”? Not only is this position even further from the Constitutional standard than the presidential carve-out position. If it’s followed, it’s easy to see how other unscrupulous politicians could use even more arbitrary maxims like this to completely paralyze the Supreme Court nomination process.

After all, if it’s the Senate’s makeup that counts most of all, then why not bar nominations during the run-up to such elections – which of course take place every two years (when a third of the Senate faces reelection). For by McConnell’s logic, it wouldn’t be possible to know the people’s will on such matters for certain until those Senate results are in. And how would anyone define “run-up”? A month? Two? Six? A full year? On what objective basis could anyone distinguish among these possibilities? The only reasonable answer? None.

Lest you want to blame Republicans alone for this kind of sophistry, keep in mind that its origins lie in the so-called “Biden Rule” – when in 1992, the former Vice President and current Democratic presidential nominee argued that “once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.” And in an example of poetic justice, McConnell and many other Republicans and conservatives cited this reasoning to justify their own Supreme Court positions when former President Barack Obama in March, 2016 nominated senior federal judge Merrick Garland to fill the seat left by Scalia’s death in February.

Three final observations: First, any number of politicians and pundits are citing various supposed historical traditions for justifying their stances on election year Supreme Court votes. (See here for Republicans and conservatives, and here for Democrats and liberals.) To which I can only say, “Tradition, shmadition.” As indicated above, although interpretation is possible and often needed for all laws and many Constitutional provisions, when the latter set out clearcut procedures – as for the nomination and approval of Supreme Court Justices (but not so much for impeachment) – Americans drift away from them at their peril. If you don’t like these procedures, then use the amendment process of the Constitution to change them, rather than pretending that traditions and non-legal precedents and other practices are adequate substitutes.

Second, equally ludicrous and even more dangerous is the claim that the nation’s current divided circumstances justify waiting until after the presidential election to fill the Ginsburg seat. That’s essentially warning that violence may erupt if the President and Senate exercise their Constitutional prerogatives, and in effect supporting a surrender to the threat of mob rule.

It’s absolutely true that practically all decisions made by political leaders – elected and unelected alike – are at least partly political in nature, and can profoundly affect the national interest short term and long term. It’s entirely legitimate, therefore, and even important for President Trump to take into account in his Ginsburg approach non-Constitutional considerations.

But it’s something else entirely, and far more dangerous, to contend that such judgment calls are or should in any way be legally binding. As with federal government personnel choices, Constitutional procedures can be used to protest and overturn presidential or other decisions that are entirely legal but unpopular for whatever reason. They’re called elections, and Americans would do far better to focus on taking all (legal) steps to ensure that their candidates and viewpoints prevail, rather than dreaming up spur-of-the-moment rationalizations for ignoring settled law that may create momentary advantages, but that contain equal backfire potential, and that can only erode the rule of the law to everyone’s ultimate detriment.

Third, my only strong preference in this matter is that a Senate Supreme Court vote not take place during a lame duck session – which would be convened after the presidential election. That’s because a possibly decisive number of Senators who would be considering the nomination would be Senators who have been voted out of office. What an offense to the idea of representative government that would be! At the same time, it’s only my preference. These sessions themselves are entirely legal, and I’m not about to claim that my views should substitute for Constitutional procedures.

Im-Politic: The Surprising Politics of Mask-Wearing

Tags

California, CCP Virus, conservatives, coronavirus, COVID 19, Democrats, Eric Garcetti, facemasks, Florida, Gavin Newsome, Im-Politic, liberals, lockdowns, Los Angeles County, masks, Miami-Dade County, Orange County, Republicans, Ron DeSantis, San Diego County, shutdowns, Trump, Wuhan virus

Republicans and conservatives are recklessly or stupidly or (INSERT YOUR FAVORITE DEROGTORY ADVERB) resisted orders issued by many state and local governments mandating facemask wearing in various circumstances to fight the CCP Virus more effectively. No less than Paul Krugman, one of The New York Times‘ uber-liberal uber pundits, says so. So do a number of Republicans – especially those from the nearly extinct Bush wing of the GOP. And special ire is reserved for Prsident Trump, who until July 11 refused to wear a mask in public, and who still hasn’t issued a blanket endorsement of the practice, and remains opposed to a federal mandate.

In the interests of full disclosure, I wear masks (as required by law) when I patronize indor businesses in Maryland (where I live), and would don them in crowded outdoor areas, too (not required). And I’d abide by any mask regulations elsewhere. Evidently scientific evidence on mask effectiveness has been mixed enough to prevent the World Health Organization (WHO) from encouraging their use until June 5. But these coverings make intuitive sense to me, and although I find tem sort of uncomfortable, they’re anything but unbearable.       

What I do find irksome is how the Mainstream Media and most of the rest of America’s chattering classes have decided that it’s only one half of the political spectrum that’s to blame for shortfalls in America’s mask-wearing record. Because evidence abounds that there’s lots of opposition, or at least indifference, to masks among Democrats and liberals, too. And the experiences of Florida and California – two big states whose governor have taken dramatically differing approaches to handling the CCP Virus – make the point nicely.

In case you’re ignoring national news completely, Florida deserves special attention because of the “ha-ha factor.” As in “Ha ha – Republican Governor Ron DeSantis had been bragging about how the Sunshine State had suppressed the virus with a light regulatory touch, but lately it’s become a major hot spot.”

Specifically, the indictment against DeSantis began with his refusal to close the state’s beaches for spring breakers and Florida natives who relish the shore, continued with his decision to reopen the beaches and the rest of the state after a shelter-in-place order had been in place fairly briefly, and has been reinforced by his own opposition to order mask-wearing state-wide, which is blamed at least in part for Floridians’ continually casual attitude about face coverings and related practices like social distancing, and the state’s recent spike in cases and deaths. (See here and here for examples.)

But if you look at the pattern of infection in Florida, it quickly becomes clear that Democrats as well as Republicans must be ignoring mask-wearing and distancing en masse. After all, the five Florida counties with the biggest numbers of registered Democratic voters are (in descending order) Miami-Dade, Hillsborough, Broward, Palm Beach, and Orange. Indeed, together, they account for nearly 45 percent of the Florida Democratic total. They also happen to be the state’s five most populous counties, adding up to just under 42 percent of its population.

Yet this Big Five has contained more than 54 percent of the 80,236 new CCP Virus cases recorded in Florida during the week ending yesterday. In other words, these Democratic strongholds punched significantly above their new cases weight. And Democratic voter champ Miami-Dade all by itself, whose population represents 12.65 percent of Florida’s total, is home to more than 24 percent of those new Florida virus cases. And with the exception of one tiny black majority panhandle county, it’s also Florida’s most lopsidedly Democratic county. So its even greater “out-perform” is all the more noteworthy.

One possible counter-argument is that these five populous Democratic counties are also more densely peopled than state counties with much smaller populations, where the virus’ impact has been slighter. But that sounds like an excuse to me. If Democrats are less selfish and/or stupid and/or reckless than Republicans, and therefore more committed to mask-wearing and social distancing and the like, then they should be making much greater efforts to tone down their recreational or social lives to slow the spread, and save the lives of their fellow Floridians.

Obviously, not every resident of these counties, or every registered Democrat, is ignoring the need to fight the pandemic. But the prevalence of Democrats in these counties is just as obviously signaling that many are.

California’s a somewhat different story – and an even stronger challenge to the narrative. Unlike Florida, where the Democratic-Republican ratio overall is only 1.06:1, in California, it’s Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 1.90:1 margin. Not surprisingly, the Golden State is governed by a Democrat – Gavin Newsom – and its lockdowns came much earlier, and were much more pervasive, than Florida’s. So Californians were by no means receiving the kinds of mixed messages about responsible behavior from their statehouse than DeSantis has been accused of sending.

But many of the state’s residents evidently decided to ignore them – and pretty quickly. For example, as early as late April, so many Californians were crowding the state’s beaches in violation of social distancing protocols that Newsom decided to close them. A little over a month ago, after major increases in the state’s CCP Virus case numbers, deaths, and deaths followed Newsom’s cautious reopening program, Newsom charged that the problem wasn’t a too hasty lifting of economic restrictions, but Californians’ irresponsible behavior:

“Simply put, we are seeing too many people with faces uncovered — putting at risk the real progress we have made in fighting the disease. California’s strategy to restart the economy and get people back to work will only be successful if people act safely and follow health recommendations. That means wearing a face covering, washing your hands and practicing physical distancing.”

Much of this incautious beach-going is surely going on in Orange and San Diego Counties, where the Democratic-Republican split is smaller than in the state as a whole. So even though both counties combined boast nearly 1.3 million Democratic voters, maybe all of theirDemocrats were well-behaved.

But no such case can reasonably be made for Los Angeles County, the state’s most populous by far, and a jurisdiction where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by more than three-to-one – much higher than the state average. Here, the virus’ comeback has been strong enough that Los Angeles City Mayor Eric Garcetti is warning that he is “on the brink” of imposing another stay-at-home order. And for good measure, he laid much of the blame at the feet of the public:

“It’s not just what’s opened and closed. It’s also about what we do individually. It’s about the people who are getting together outside of their households with people they might know. It might be their extended family, it might be friends. They might think because they got a test two weeks ago that it’s OK, but it’s not… We have to be as vigilant right now as we were the first day…bring 100 percent of our strength the way we did the first or second month.”

Even before the debut of the the Trump face covering, Republican and conservative resistance to mask-wearing had been crumbling, and despite my continued uncertainty that the results will be game-changing it’s a trend I applaud.  And I suspect it would be accelerated if America’s Democratic and liberal leaders admitted that their supporters have considerable work to do on this front, too.   

Im-Politic: When Clerics Lose It

Tags

African Americans, arson, curfews, DC protests, DC riots, Episcopalians, George Floyd, Im-Politic, Lafayette Park, law and order, law enforcement, liberals, Marriann Budde, Muriel Bowser, police brutality, racism, riots, Rob Fisher, St. John's Church, Trump, violence, White House

However spirited it’s been, new – and, to me, surprising – odds-on favorites have emerged in the competition for the title of “Most Guilt-Saturated Liberal of 2020.” The pace-setters? Leaders of the Episcopalian Church in the District of Columbia (D.C.). How have they forged ahead? By expressing much more outrage at President Trump for allegedly using the St. John’s Church located just across Lafayette Park from the White House as a photo op – and for his supposed insensitivity to D.C. protestors’ legitimate racial justice and police brutality concerns – than at the torching of the church on Saturday night.

Think I’m kidding? Then just check out this news wire service account. Don’t bother expecting a syllable of condemnation from these clerics at the destruction of a spiritual center of their own diocese. There weren’t any. In fact, the Rev. Mariann Budde, the bishop of the diocese, belittled this act of violence: “We can rebuild the church. We can replace the furnishings of a nursery,” she said, referring to the damaged area. “We can’t bring a man’s life back.”

I guess she doesn’t agree with her colleague from Connecticut, the Rev. Miguelina Howell, who told her congregants in November, 2015, “Our buildings are holy ground, spaces where we find a sense of community, where we are fed and nourished. It is not only a space in which to dwell, but also a space to be formed, prepared and sent out into the world to bear witness of God’s faithfulness and greatness.” Except in a Tuesday radio interview, Budde also referred to the St. John’s grounds as “our sacred space.” Because the President had the temerity to stand on them.  

Nor has Budde evidently thought about the horror that might have been had the church – and especially the nursery, suffered the greatest damage – not been empty. Or maybe she thinks that the arsonists took great care to make sure that no lives were threatened? Or were able to set a fire skillfully enough to ensure that no bystanders in the park or on H or 16th Sts. NW would eventually become victims?

And these weren’t simply Budde’s initial reactions. By this morning, presumably, she’s had time to reflect further. And here’s what she said on National Public Radio:

“Look, I wasn’t happy about the fire. The violence on our streets right now is heartbreaking to me. I want to keep our focus on the precipitating causes of the events of this week and to concentrate my outrage at the wrongful death of George Floyd and the string of African Americans who have preceded him and the history of abuse and violence. I want to acknowledge the loss of property but in no way equate it with the loss of life….”

The most charitable reasonable translation of these words into plain English: “Morally speaking, I can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.”

Moreover, however valid – indeed, essential – it is to distinguish between property and human life, she – again – shouldn’t be dismissing the grounds of her own church, or any church, as just any property, especially when she’s willing to wave the “sacred space” flag when it suits Never Trumper purposes.

In case you think she’s an atypical voice for her Diocese’s leadership – don’t. Its Facebook page, which it uses actively, contains not a word of condemnation for the church arson, either.

And here’s the reaction of St. John’s rector Rev. Rob Fisher the day after the arson:

“Who knows who set the fire? We have no idea. But I think it’s important to say, we know that one thing for sure is that they weren’t people who were representative of what this is all about..It’s really sad to look in and see the nursery with children’s toys and books and a crib and changing table all just completely torched. But it didn’t get beyond that.”

Not a lot of outrage there, either.

It’s also important to examine critically the references of both Budde and Fisher (and so many others, including DC Mayor Muriel Boswer) to the idea that federal authorities acted “shamefully” when they ordered the St. John’s/Lafayette Park area cleared so that Mr. Trump could walk to the church roughly half an hour before Bowser’s 7 PM widely communicated curfew set in. Their main offense, it seems, was directing federal police to move with dispatch (and, it turns out, in certain instances brusquely) against civilians who were still exercising their pre-curfew legal right to protest peacefully.

What this indictment completely overlooks:

>When you’re protesting peacefully before a curfew begins, if you’re someone with any good will and/or half a brain, you don’t wait until the last minute to leave.

>That goes double when the area is right next door to the official residence of a duly elected head of government.

>That goes triple when the area was the scene of arson and violent attacks on law enforcement just the night before.

>The bomb throwers and the looters and the vandals don’t wear “Trouble-Maker” signs readily readable by the police.

In other words, anyone still hanging around Lafayette Park when the clearing operation began should have known they were asking for trouble.

Finally, I can’t resist noting that before coming to D.C. in 2011, Budde served in…Minneapolis. For eighteen years. Fat lot of good she did there.

Im-Politic: Is This 1968 All Over Again?

Tags

1960s, 1968 election, 1972 election, African Americans, Chicago Democratic Convention riots, conservatives, D.C. riots, Democrats, Derek Chauvin, Garry Wills, George C. Wallace, George Floyd, Hubert H. Humphrey, Im-Politic, John Judis, King assassination, law and order, liberals, Martin Luther King, Minneapolis riots, Nixon Agonistes, political violence, race riots, racism, Republicans, Silent Majority, Trump, Vietnam

The short answer is “in lots of ways.” Not in all ways, though. And the differences could decisively affect the results of the upcoming presidential election. But at this point, the turmoil might still be at such an early stage those of us who aren’t completely clairvoyant can only sketch out the similarities, differences, and plausible scenarios.

First, the similarities. As with the riots that shook and burned numerous U.S. cities following the April 4 assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., today’s violence is both widespread and racially related. As in 1968, public opinion is deeply divided as to whether any of the violence has been warranted by past and ongoing iwrongs, and whether those responsible are mainly the victims of longstanding and widespread bigotry along with their sympathizers, or whether they’re mainly “outside agitators” who either simply want to cause and profit from trouble, or who seek to advance different or broader political agendas. As a result, as in 1968, a seeming chasm has opened up between those who would focus the initial national response on the racial injustices that have clearly contributed to the large-scale protests (if not necessarily the violence), and those who are more concerned with restoring public order.

As in 1968, the national mood has been inflamed for months by anger over issues other than race relations (then the Vietnam War, now all the political and social and cultural conflicts laid bare by President Trump’s rise to power and his policies during his first term – not to mention the pandemic!). Consequently, both in 1968 and today, worries appear to be growing that, as Garry Wills wrote (then) in is brilliant polemic Nixon Agonistes:

“There was a sense everywhere…that things were giving. That man had not only lost control of his history, but might never regain it. That palliatives would not serve, but that nothing but palliatives could be found. That we had slipped gears somewhere, and a chain of mismeshings was chewing the machinery up.”

And as mentioned, as in 1968, Americans are now in the middle of a presidential election year, and the aforementioned split concerning the initial response seems to break down pretty neatly along Left-Right, Democratic-Republican lines.

But don’t forget the differences. And let’s lead off with some badly needed good news: Specifically, so far, the deaths and the damage in 1968 far exceed today’s so far. Then, according to this review, “[I] the 10 days following King’s death, nearly 200 cities experienced looting, arson or sniper fire, and 54 of those cities saw more than $100,000 in property damage.” It continues: “Around 3,500 people were injured, 43 were killed and 27,000 arrested.”

Not that the King assassination riots were the only instances of violent upheaval in 1968. A multi-day conflict erupted outside the Democratic Convention in Chicago that August between protestors on the one hand, and Chicago cops, National Guardsmen, regular U.S. Army troops, and Secret Service agents on the other. Labeled a “police riot” by a federal commission appointed to investigate, the “Battle of Michigan Avenue” nonetheless resulted in no fatalities although 119 police and 100 protestors suffered injuries.

The current violence following the death at a white policeman’s hands of subdued African-American suspect George Floyd may not be over, but so far only about thirty cities have been hit with violence. Moreover, after several days, the toll isn’t nearly as heavy. Especially encouraging, as of this writing, only three deaths seem to have been recorded (in Indianapolis, Indiana, and in Oakland, California). I haven’t yet found a national injury count, but the Associated Press reports arrests at “at least 4,100.” It’s enough to make you wonder whether the social media- cable news-driven 24/7 news cycle in and of itself is heightening anxiety.– and worse – these days.

Moreover, for all the national divides that have opened up recently, broad consensus seems evident on the outrage perpetrated by fired and indicted Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, and a weaker but not negligible consensus that something has been unacceptably wrong between how the nation’s law enforcement system deals with racial minorities in situations ranging from traffic stops to inherently dangerous apprehensions to prison sentencing.

And despite the aforementioned apparent neatness of the Left-Right divide over initial responses, the actual political situation is thoroughly scrambled and confusing. Then, Democrats controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress. Now, a Republican (however unconventional) sits in the White House, and the House and Senate are split.

Therefore, it was readily understandable then that a critical mass of American voters would blame the incumbent President and his party for that Annus Horribilis and reject the Vice President who carried the Democrats’ tattered banner. (Nonetheless, the electoral results were much more mixed than might have been expected. The Democrats held on to the whole of Congress. And although Republican Richard M. Nixon triumphed handily in the Electoral College, his popular vote margin was narrow. Of course, it’s also possible that third party candidate George C. Wallace drew more individual votes from Nixon than from Democrat Hubert H. Humphrey.

It seems clear that President Trump is hoping to avoid the Democrats’ 1968 fate by taking the law-and-order route.that aided Nixon I strongly suspect that this choice is wise in principle. After all, as in 1968, a critical mass of the electorate is likely to value preventing perceived chaos over righting racial wrongs, at least for the foreseeable future. I’d also bet that the failure thus far of the Democrats’ national leaders to condemn the violence forthrightly will boost Mr. Trump’s chances all else equal.

But here’s the catch. They’re not equal. Most important, President Trump himself is incumbent. However legitimate his complaints that protecting public safety is first and foremost the province of mayors and governors, does anyone seriously believe he’ll dodge all blame if events keep seeming to spin out of control? Might even some of his base start asking where his avowed “take charge,” “get things done” qualities have gone in an hour of urgent national need? At the least, for all his tough talk, the longer Mr. Trump seems to dither, the blurrier the contrast he’ll be able to credibly draw with the Democrats.

And perhaps most damaging of all: How will many Trumpers view his failure to maintain order literally in his own backyard, as a church was set on fire last night just a cross Lafayette Park from his (White) house? Sure, District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser screwed up royally by setting the local curfew at 11 PM. But as indicated in this key Supreme Court decision, the Constitution seems to say that the President can unilaterally call out not only the National Guard but the entire U.S. military to “protect each State…against domestic Violence.” And even if it didn’t, how much pushback would he have gotten from even moderate, swing voters from taking emergency measures?

John Judis, a left-of-center political writers whose judgments I greatly respect, has suggested, albeit obliquely, that the most important comparison politically speaking isn’t between now and 1968, but between now and 1972.  During his first term, Republican incumbent Nixon arguably presided over a country just as turbulent and violent as in 1968. Yet his “silent majority” helped him win one of the greatest landslides in the nation’s history. I’m the last person who’d dismiss this possibility altogether. But Nixon wasn’t also dealing with a pandemic and a national economy that had been flattened by shutdowns. Counting President Trump out has been one of the worst bets in recent U.S. political history. But mightn’t there be a first time for everything?

Im-Politic: A Left-Wing Attack on Trump Tariffs that the Offshoring Lobby Could Love

Tags

"resistance", China, Democrats, globalism, globalization, Im-Politic, liberals, multinational companies, NAFTA, Nomi Prins, North American Free Trade Agreement, offshoring lobby, progressives, strange bedfellows, tariffs, The Nation, Trade, Trump, Trump Derangement Syndrome, Trump tariffs

Although I view it as being small-minded, short-sighted, and often over-the-top, I can’t completely fault many left-of-center American trade policy critics for failing to support (and even attacking) most of President Trump’s trade policy initiatives. Not so with Nomi Prins’ new indictment in The Nation. She’s taken this dimension of Never Trump-ism and “Resistance” to a wholly new and troublingly counterproductive level,

Mr. Trump has assaulted many of the trade deals that liberals, progressives, and many Democrats themselves long resisted (like NAFTA – the North American Free Trade Agreement – and the the Trans-Pacific Partnership – TPP). And he’s dealing decisively (so far!) with many other foreign trade policy transgressions and global trade institutions they’ve long assailed (like China’s dumping of steel and aluminum and wide array of other predatory trade practices, and the World Trade Organization, or WTO).

But many on the Left (and indeed, all over American politics) are understandably disgusted with some of the President’s rhetoric and record in immigration and gender issues and race relations, and with his family’s continuing domestic and foreign business ties (including with China), which look like conflicts of interest and at the least can look hypocritical (e.g., using immigrant workers both legal and illegal). Moreover, you don’t have to be a Never-Trumper to be upset with the ties between many Trump administration appointees and industries they’re supposed to be regulating.

Moreover, the President is attacking American trade and related globalization policies from an economic nationalist/America First standpoint. Having worked with left-of-center trade critics for nearly 30 years, I can tell you that this has never been their perspective. Though this is an overly broad generalization, they have been loathe to acknowledge that what’s best for America and what’s best for the rest of the world may not be identical – especially in the short and even medium-terms. As a result, their criticisms of many long-standing U.S. trade policies have often demonstrated at least as much concern for their impact on workers in developing countries as on their counterparts in the United States.

In fact, they tend to reject the idea that the main fault-line in the global economy has been the United States (and even the U.S.’ productive economy) versus “the rest”. In the view of these left-of-center critics, the main fault line instead is between the capital holders of the world versus the workers of the world.

The point of this post is not to insist that the nationalists have been right and the progressives et al have been wrong. It is to note that Prins’ new Nation piece disturbingly edges into Trump Derangement Syndrome territory. The main reasons: Her stated problems with the administration’s trade policies aren’t based on any of the above counter-arguments. Instead, her main anti-Trump points are almost indistinguishable from those made by the establishment supporters of the trade and globalist status quo – including not only the foreign policy “Blob” that has always backed seeking geopolitical and diplomatic gains even when they come at the expense of U.S. workers and the domestic economy, but those multinational business groups comprising the “global capitalist” interests that the trade policy progressives have always targeted!

Thus we hear from Prins both that the actual and prospective Trump tariffs have angered America’s “closest allies” in the Group of 7 industrial countries of Europe and the Far East, along with “our regional partners” in NAFTA. She’s repeated the canard that the President’s trade moves scarily resemble the Hawley Smoot tariff that “sparked the global Great Depression, opening the way for the utter devastation of World War II.” She consistently portrays the world’s other major economies as genuine paragons of free trade. (Not even China is chided.)

Even more striking, the main evidence she cites for the claim that the President “is sparking a set of trade wars that could, in the end, cost millions of American jobs” comes from Offshoring Lobby pillars like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and the Brookings Institution (which, not so incidentally, takes lots of money from most of the leading foreign economies that will be hit by Trump tariffs).

It’s been noted often since the NAFTA’s negotiation in the early 1990s ushered in the offshoring-happy phase of U.S. trade policy that the resulting domestic political divisions have created some “strange bedfellows” alliances – i.e., coalitions that have had little in common other than common views on this front. Will the Prins article help usher in the strangest trade bedfellow coalition yet – between the left-wing anti-Trump resistance and the Fortune 500? Such groups are singing much the same tune on issues like immigration policy, so this prospect isn’t as far-fetched as it might seem. Further, don’t forget that voters who consider themselves Democrats and those leaning in this direction are viewing trade in general much more favorably these days than during any other recent period – at least according to polls. (Republicans and GOP leaners have shifted in the opposite direction.) And the appearance of an article containing these arguments, and evidence drawn from corporate and corporate-funded sources, has appeared in The Nation – long one of the American Left’s flagship publications – is another ominous sign.

One reason for optimism (if you agree that U.S. trade policy needs a big-time overhaul): Many left-of-center trade policy critics have (albeit grudgingly) supported the main thrust of the President’s trade policies. Even though most still retain their “globalist loyalties,” their complaints about the administration’s approach have centered on its instances of backtracking on Mr. Trump’s campaign promises, and (like me) on apparent inconsistencies. So it will be especially interesting to see if they push back strongly, or at all, versus Prins’ views. The answer could help determine the future of the politics of American trade policy – and of the policy itself.

Im-Politic: The Politics and Nature of Confederate Monuments May Not be What You Think

Tags

African Americans, Confederate monuments, Democrats, Hastings-on-Hudson, Im-Politic, Latinos, liberals, Mount Hope Cemetery, New York State, Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War, United Confederate Veterans, Westchester County

The politics of dealing with the nation’s Confederate monuments has just taken a major and, to me, dismaying and surprising turn with the release of a new poll gauging national attitudes on the issue. At the same time, although I remain convinced that the Confederacy and its ideals should be condemned, and certainly never memorialized in public spaces, the more I learn about these statues and plaques and grave sites, the clearer it becomes that a cookie-cutter approach mustn’t be taken to the issue.

First, the poll. Keeping in mind that surveying public opinion is still much more an art than science, the results of yesterday’s NPR-Marist sounding on the monuments are nothing less than stunning. According to the poll, fully 62 percent of all Americans believe that “statues honoring leaders of the Confederacy should remain as a historical symbol.” Especially discouraging for me, the question’s wording makes clear that the subject isn’t some broad category that could include simple burial sites for ordinary Confederate soldiers, and/or even statues or other monuments to these regulars, many of whom were motivated by a wide variety of considerations on top of racism. Instead, respondents were asked their views of monuments honoring the Confederacy’s leaders – who spearheaded the South’s betrayal of the United States and whose declarations of secession leave no doubt that preserving the racist institution of slavery was their top priority.

Even more bizarre – at least for me: Such sentiments were expressed by 44 percent of Democrats, 31 percent of Americans who described themselves as “Very liberal-Liberal,” and 61 percent of self-styled political independents.

Nor were the regional breakdowns what you’d (I assume) expect: Honoring Confederate leaders in this way was endorsed by majorities throughout the country, including 53 percent in the Northeast, 61 percent in the Midwest, 66 percent in the South, and 61 percent in the West.

But the real shock comes from the racial and ethnic results: Honoring Confederate leaders with memorials was backed by 44 percent of African Americans and 65 percent of Latinos (along with 67 percent of whites). Moreover, African Americans registered the largest percentage of those “unsure” (16 percent).

It’s possible that these results were skewed by the phrasing of the “anti” position: The stated reason for removing the statues was that “they are offensive to some people.” That’s an awfully bland formulation, and I wonder if the numbers would have changed much if the wording was changed to something on the order of “because they staged an armed revolt against the United States” or “because slavery would have remained in place had they prevailed.” But over the last week or so, how many African Americans in particular could remain unaware of these facts? And how many liberal Democrats?

So the poll’s findings seem pretty accurate to me. And the big takeaways from them look like the following: There’s a big divide over these matters between the national (bipartisan) political class and especially the national media on the one hand, and the general public on the other; and much of the (current) elite position on these racial issues contains a huge element of anti-Trump posturing. (And don’t forget – I believe that the president is in the wrong on Confederate memorials, too.)

Second, Confederate monuments can’t all be lumped into the same category, don’t all raise the same questions, and shouldn’t arouse the same emotions. Here’s just one example. I’m sure I haven’t been the only American who’s been amazed to learn that these sites can be found in many locations outside the old Confederacy. They’re even located in my home state, New York. But the story of one of these markers shows how varied they can be.

I’m talking about not only a cemetery with the remains of Confederate veterans that’s located in Hastings-on-Hudson in Westchester County, an affluent suburb of New York City. I’m also talking about an obelisk that stands over the graves.

The bodies interred at the Mount Hope Cemetery, beneath the obelisk are those of former Confederate soldiers who moved to the area after the conflict in search of economic opportunity. The inscription on the 60-foot monolith refers to them as “heroic dead” and the complex was dedicated in 1897. And according to one source, these veterans “remained proud of their Southern Confederate heritage.”

So for an opponent of honoring these figures, like me, that set off alarm bells. But as I read further, my first inclination to call for the removal of the obelisk changed. To start with, even though the site is owned and the obelisk funded by the United Confederate Veterans, this means that it’s a private piece of land. So since it’s not a publicly owned space, the owners should have the right to maintain it however they wish. Moreover, the site was sold to the Confederate veterans group by the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War. And this Union group cares for the complex today.

Perhaps most important, a contemporary newspaper account leaves no doubt that the purpose of this particular monument was national reconciliation – a goal no one of good will should oppose provided it’s being sought on the proper basis.

So there are Confederate monuments and there are Confederate monuments. How best to decide their fate? Many voices, including President Trump, believe that the states and/or localities should have the last word – unless the monuments et al are on federal ground. I’m not so sure, partly because it’s a national issue, and partly because policy would likelier become hostage to short-term, and frequently shifting, considerations. Of course, an optimal solution may not be possible, so this outcome might be an acceptable compromise.

One other conceivable option: a presidential commission. Often, these organizations are simply exercises in can-kicking, but some deliberation seems to be exactly what’s needed on the monuments issue now. And its conclusions certainly wouldn’t be ignored – as with the reports of so many other presidential commissions. Best of all, this type of body seems best suited to recognize the variety of Confederate monuments, and propose measures that recognize them adequately – even to the point of case-by-case recommendations.

The big objection to a presidential commission is that it’s not an especially democratic mechanism – although its members would be chosen by a democratically elected leader. Congress could be given a role, too. Especially if its members were well chosen, the result could well be a series of appropriately nuanced decisions that finally, and truly, bring the Civil War to an end.

Im-Politic: The Uses of Anger

Tags

Alexandria shooting, anger, conservatives, Democrats, Im-Politic, liberals, politics, rage, Republicans, Steve Scalise, violence

The more I think about the surge in political rage that’s just produced the terrifying attempt to assassinate Republican Members of Congress in Alexandria, Va., the more I’m convinced that the resulting deluge of well-intentioned commentary and introspection has missed a big reason for doubting that, as so many have urged, Americans will stop demonizing and dehumanizing their political opponents. Moreover, I’m also more convinced that there are real limits to how far this admittedly troubling tendency actually should go.

To clarify right away, this isn’t to say that violence is ever justified in U.S. public life — although history teaches us to be wary even of this generally worthy sentiment. For example, I’m not at all convinced that Americans would have responded even in the inadequate way they did to problems in the country’s then-heavily black inner cities had riots not convulsed many of them. The nation almost certainly wouldn’t have responded as quickly as it did. And I haven’t forgotten that too many of the rioters were simply looters.

I am prepared, though, to say that violence isn’t ever justified in public life nowadays. Ditto for urging violence, either explicitly or through various dog whistles.

But it’s going to be a lot harder to exorcise extreme, hate-filled rhetoric and emotions. For many of the most prominent assumptions and arguments made about most of our major public issues entail the claim that those who disagree aren’t simply motivated by different philosophies and ideologies. They’re motivated by – often appallingly and/or dangerously – selfish interests. And many of these claims by no means should be dismissed out of hand.

Are there inexcusable, purposeful excesses? How could there not be? We’re dealing with human beings here. But take the left-ish view of the whole cluster of economic inequality issues. Do many champions of cuts in various safety net and other social programs sincerely believe that they have on net eroded incentives to work and form families? Obviously the answer is Yes.

But are many others simply selfish? Of course they are. Are many working openly or on the sly for interests that would lose income or profits if taxes were raised to finance such spending – although they would clearly remain affluent by any reasonable measure? Yup. Has American history been filled with the efforts of the affluent and the powerful to maintain their positions at the expense of the poorer and weaker? How could anyone dispute this? Should plutocracy and its defense not be called out? Absolutely not.

Similar points can be made about causes favored by liberals and Democrats. Are many on the left acting mainly out of compassion or other altruistic sentiments when urging legalization and citizenship for illegal immigrants? Do many other genuinely believe that various forms of amnesty-like policies will benefit the economy, including more workers? Definitely.

Do many others back amnesty etc in the hope of creating new pro-Democratic voting blocs or expanding existing ones, regardless of the impact on public safety or social cohesion? No doubt about it. And can’t signs be seen of misplaced senses of guilt so powerful that they shunt completely aside the needs of the existing legal population? Clearly they can. Should this kind of hypocrisy or childishness be ignored? How would that strengthen democracy?

No doubt you all can come up with many other comparable examples – because the creation and maintenance of a democracy can’t possibly guarantee that men (and women) have or will become angels. But the genius of this country’s politics so far (with the mammoth exception of the Civil War) has been to keep political battles battles in name only, and to sustain the consensus that, though opponents may be deeply and justifiably hated, their removal from power or the frustration of their aims according to accepted procedures is the only acceptable goal – not their literal destruction.

The trick, then, or much of it, is for Americans to learn (or re-learn) the ability to decompress once even the most heated political campaigns or legislative contests have ended, to accept as legitimate any winner – even the most seemingly odious – who has triumphed within the specified rules, and to continue pushing causes as fiercely as ever while respecting those bounds. You say you don’t like some of the rules and bounds? Work (again, within the system, or via peaceful civil disobedience if you so choose) to replace them. The system makes such mechanisms available.

As I write these words, I find myself thinking of the human maturation process and to the development of perspective so central to its arrival. And I can’t help but think that’s no coincidence.

Im-Politic: New Evidence that “Hamilton” is (Embarrassingly) Fake History

Tags

"Hamilton", Alexander Hamilton, diversity, Forbes, Founding Fathers, history, Im-Politic, immigrants, Immigration, liberals, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Mike Pence, Ralph Benko, Trump

American elites’ views on immigration issues are just the gift that keeps on giving if you suspect that way too …

Continue reading →

Im-Politic: No Learning Curve for America’s Left on Immigration

Tags

American Muslims, Angela Merkel, assimilation, Attorney General, Cory Booker, Democrats, Elizabeth Warren, Germany, Hillary Clinton, Im-Politic, Immigration, Jeff Sessions, Jeremy Corbyn, Labour Party, liberals, Marketwatch.com, Muslims, national security, Obama, Open Borders, progressive, Social Democratic Party, terrorism, Trump, United Kingdom

I keep waiting for America’s self-styled progressives to start recognizing that they’re going absolutely nowhere in national politics until they abandon their devotion to Open Borders policies, and start responding to their fellow citizens’ legitimate economic and especially security concerns about mass immigration.

Sadly, nothing could be clearer from recent developments than that the wait will continue indefinitely. Even worse, the U.S. Left seems to be even more clueless on the subject than its counterparts in Europe.

Certainly President Obama remains unrepentant about his own record. In his Farewell Address, he touted his record in fighting Islamic terrorism overseas (not that he used the term), and warned against the dangers of domestic radicalization. But his boast that “no foreign terrorist organization has successfully planned and executed an attack on our homeland these past eight years” once again made painfully clear his neglect of the dangerous impact of already having admitting so many newcomers whose original religion or culture creates huge obstacles to successful assimilation into American society. Why else would he have glossed over the deadly attacks by Muslim immigrants in Boston, San Bernardino, and Orlando?

In fact, according to Mr. Obama, the only Americans who need to learn about current and emerging immigration realities are those in the native-born population – because their fear that some immigrants today could “destroy the fundamental character” of the country is not only obsolete, but bigoted.

Other progressives also seem to be doubling down on efforts to address valid immigration concerns with smears. Can anyone reasonably doubt, for example, that Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions’ appointment as President-elect Trump’s Attorney General would be sailing through the Senate if had not so forthrightly championed immigration realism – and enforcing the nation’s existing laws?

Yes, many Senate Democrats have accused Sessions of harboring racist views and neglecting the rights of a wide variety of discrimination victims. At the same time, none of these alleged transgressions prevented New Jersey Democratic Senator Cory Booker – Sessions’ leading Congressional opponent – from feeling “blessed and honored” just last year “to have partnered with Sen. Sessions in being the Senate sponsors” of a Congressional Gold Medal for the voting rights activists of the 1960s. No one else in the Senate protested, either.

Maybe Booker’s Massachusetts Senate colleague, Elizabeth Warren, is moving in the opposite direction? Not if her declaration that she’s running for reelection is any indication. Warren marked the occasion by vowing to “fight back against attacks on Latinos, African-Americans, Muslims, immigrants, women, and LGBT Americans. Our diversity is what makes our country strong – and on this, there will be NO compromise.” As if all these groups can be lumped in the exact same victimization category.

In fact, the only sign of progress I can detect is that no progressives are urging Mr. Obama or Mr. Trump to quintuple the number of U.S. refugee admissions from war-wracked Middle Eastern countries – as failed Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton proposed.

The contrast with European progressive leaders is stunning. As reported in an insightful column on Marketwatch.com, the head of Germany’s Social Democratic Party – and the country’s vice chancellor in the current coalition government – is calling for “ncreased video surveillance…a ban on fundamentalist mosques as breeding grounds for terrorism, and…an end to freeloading on Germany’s generous child-support subsidies by other European Union citizens.”

Another German progressive leader has slammed Chancellor Angela Merkel for “uncontrolled border opening [and]a police force that has been downsized to the point of inefficiency, that neither has the personnel nor the technical resources that would enable it to cope with the current threat situation,”

Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn, who heads the United Kingdom’s struggling Labour Party, is unmistakably rethinking his former opposition to Britain’s decision to leave the European Union in large part because of the grouping’s lax immigration policies. Corbyn had previously opposed “Brexit,” which British voters passed in a referendum in June.

Germany, of course, has experienced Muslim terrorist attacks much bloodier than America’s. The Labour Party seems headed for its worst showing in Parliament since the 1930s. Will it take these kinds of security and political disasters to bring U.S. progressives to their senses on immigration?