I just finished reading Barack Obama’s book, “A Promised Land,” and it made me think that if Jesus Christ descended upon the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell would immediately say that he would make him a one-term savior. While Barack Obama may not be a savior, in many ways, he is about as good as it can get for a U.S. president. His commitment to the common good, to integrity and ethics, to protecting individual liberties are remarkable in an era of cynicism and alternate realities.

There is the sorrow throughout the book of a man who ascends to the highest office in the world, and then finds that in many ways he is powerless, or with very limited power. The reasons are complicated, but most involve other actors on the stage, not him. Those who oppose his vision and his policies are widespread and varied. They range from Mitch and the Republican Gang to members of his own party to foreign leaders like Vladimir Putin or even Benjamin Netanyahu. In fact, most people on our planet are much more interested in exercising and expanding their individual liberties (certainly a key part of the U.S. Constitution), than they are in promoting the common good (a term that is now coming in vogue with progressives, but is absent from the Constitution).

There is one individual who stands out as Dr. No. That, of course, is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He is like an ambidextrous pitcher. When he is in the minority, he can threaten and then orchestrate the filibuster to stop the consideration of virtually any legislation that is put before the Senate. When he is in the majority, he can refuse to assign bills to committee; nix bills that escape from committee to come to the floor of the Senate and forbid votes on bills that do come before the full Senate. He controls his Republican colleagues as Putin controls his Politburo. He is the Vince Lombardi of legislative leaders – discipline, discipline, discipline. Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing. And that leaves the president of the United States virtually powerless except for those rare occasions when he may agree with McConnell, such as the naming of a post office in Kentucky.

There are those who would say that McConnell was Dr. No with Obama because he wanted to obstruct any successes that an African-American could possibly have. While race was clearly part of the motivation, the primary reason why McConnell does what he does is because he is just plain mean.

Presently, tens of millions of Americans, perhaps more, are suffering because of the coronavirus and the economic hardships that emanate from a listless governmental response to COVID-19. The Democratically-controlled House of Representatives has passed a myriad of bills to aid people including extended unemployment insurance, paycheck protection, assistance to state and local governments. All the bills sit listlessly in the Senate. Mitch McConnell is not inclined to negotiate seriously with Nancy Pelosi. For all intents and purposes, he is unanimously backed by the other Republicans penguins in the Senate.

The meanness of McConnell, his personification of The Republican Brain, as described so brilliantly by Washington Post reporter Chris Mooney in 2012, makes progress a non-starter. It is virtually impossible for anyone with empathy to understand how and why McConnell does what he does. His meanness, his insensitivity is so ingrained that if someone the likes of Jesus Christ happened upon the Senate, McConnell would immediately invoke a strategy to make him a one-term savior.

It’s remarkable how restrained Obama is in his book. The passion to change is there; the commitment to promoting the common good is there, but there is the underlying sadness of how the Mitch McConnells of the world did not even want to give him a chance. It’s remarkable that Obama, or any Democrat, is ever elected president of the United States.

The advancement that progressives want will only come when Democrats and others have a better understanding of the McConnells, and can craft ways to reach them. The best answer is in reforming our schools to make them more empathetic, but that is a long-term project.

The post If Jesus appeared in the Senate, Mitch McConnell would say he would be a one-term savior appeared first on Occasional Planet.

If you happen to have a very stern father, or know someone else who does, wouldn’t Mitch McConnell telling you “no” about anything be housed in your collection of worst nightmares? Here’s this grizzled, remote, empathy-challenged man undermining your hopes for the future.

Why does McConnell have so much power? Hint: although his persona can be very intimidating, the real reason why he strikes fear in the hearts and minds of Americans is not because of who he is. It is because of the power that has been bestowed upon him as the current majority leader of the Senate, power granted through the rules adopted by all one-hundred members of the U.S. Senate.

Our founding fathers and those who followed them as legislators in the federal government threw caution to the wind when it came to distributing power in a democratic fashion in the U.S. Congress. Why is it that the Senate Majority Leader, one of one hundred, can singularly determine such essential to democracy decisions as:

1. Which bills introduced by other Senators can be brought up for discussion, assigned to committees and voted upon.
2. Who gets to serve on each committee within the Senate?
3. Empower committee chairs to once again determine which bills will be considered, whether or not witnesses will be called, and if so, who will be included and who will be excluded.
4. Determine when the advice and consent process of confirming presidential nominees for vital positions, including Justices of the Supreme Court, will be considered by the Judiciary Committee and the entire Senate (remember Merrick Garland).

Bernie Sanders talks about a revolution of the people, but it’s amazing how much would happen if there was a revolution of ninety-nine Senators other that Mitch McConnell to strip him and other leaders of the entire body and its assigned committees of their currently prescribed powers. There is less democracy in the Senate (and the House) than there is among the populaces of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Russian Federation, or the Islamic Republic of Iran. Individual senators have less power than their own children in a 5^th grade class or their older children who are privates in the U.S. Army.

Hell, yes to this revolution. But for some reason, it’s not going to happen. Senators and Members of the House are powerless simply because they choose to be. It is almost as if the status quo has a special gravitational pull on them and they are locked into the current positions.

Among the forces that perpetuate the worst elements of our political process are money and mindless tradition. We know that the only real way to wash the insidious role of money in politics is to eliminate private donations and have a system of public financing. When it comes to mindless traditions like the system of seniority in the U.S. House and Senate, the non-empowered Members need to become the voice of the people and amplify their own personal voices in their chambers. It’s not just about the right to talk; it’s about determining the subjects that can be discussed, studied and voted upon.

As the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump begins, it behooves us to notice the loci of power in the process and to think about how things could be different if each individual senator was (a) not intimidated by “leaders,” and (b) was free to operate as the individual that he or she is.

It probably won’t happen this time, but if we as vigilant citizens enhance our awareness and express our concerns to our elected officials, in time, things can take a positive turn towards legislative democracy.

This post is among a series related to Arthur’s just published book, POLITICAL INTROVERTS: How Empathetic Voters Can Help Save American Politics. The content of this piece is related to the “Organization of Legislatures” section of the Chapter 8, Needed Structural Changes. It is simultaneously published in the Political Introverts blog.

The post Some Thoughts on Smashing Impeachment Gridlock appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Last week, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House of Representatives would launch a formal impeachment inquiry in response to allegations that President Trump pressured Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden’s son in what appears to be an attempt to influence the 2020 election. Whether Hunter Biden’s behavior was ethically dubious is a fair question (it was) or if President Trump’s actions were an abuse of power (they were) is a discussion for a different day. Yesterday according to most whip counts, the House has the votes to impeach the President of the United States and it looks like they will. So, what might come next?

1. The House votes to impeach and Majority Leader McConnell refuses to hold a trial in the senate.
   • As of the writing, there are reportedly 221 members of the House who are prepared to vote for impeachment which is a couple votes more than the majority that the constitution requires. The transcript and the whistleblower report don’t look good for the President. In fact, everything looks very bad and probably worse than the Mueller report because these new documents actually make a value judgement about the President’s behavior. We should not be shocked if the House votes to impeach because this is likely as close to a smoking gun that Congress is going to get. This charge is particularly damaging because we already litigated this issue and we already decided that foreign election interference is bad. It would still be a historic move for the House to vote to impeach the President, it’s only happened once every century, but this kind of corruption is historic. But of course, that’s not the end of the impeachment process, the Senate also plays a role and they are meant to hold a trial. If these were normal times then we’d expect it to happen without question, but after Majority Leader McConnell held the Supreme Court hostage in 2016 then we really have no reason to expect McConnell to respect constitutional norms. Although McConnell has said that he will follow Senate rules if impeachment makes its way to the Senate, trusting Mitch McConnell has never been a well-reasoned decision. It’s easy to imagine McConnell just refusing to hold a trial but it’s unclear if that would actually be beneficial to Republicans. President Trump would not be able to claim he had been acquitted because he literally wouldn’t be, he’d just be in some state of impeachment limbo. Furthermore, impeachment is polling a lot better than it was a few weeks ago and the imagery of Republicans refusing to even acknowledge their constitutional duty probably wouldn’t play well with voters. That doesn’t mean it still won’t happen, McConnell has continued to gamble with the constitution, and he continues to win so maybe he can win again.
2. The House fails to impeach because some moderates change their votes
   • It took around 80 days for the House to decide to launch an impeachment inquiry to actually voting for Impeachment in 1998. If we assume that we’re looking at a similar timeframe for President Trump, then we should expect a vote sometime in December. A lot could happen between now and then and given the chickenshit like nature of some Democrats I don’t have too much confidence in our caucus. I’m especially concerned about the New Democrat Coalition, which is made up of moderates, centrists, and your assorted third-way types. Many of these members come from purple districts and are rightly concerned with their electoral prospects. As a very likely hypothetical, let’s say that by December Elizabeth Warren is leading in the polls in the Democratic primary and is followed by Bernie Sanders while Joe Biden has slipped to a distant third. What is going to go through the minds of members like Sharice Davids of Kansas or Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey or any of the newly elected Orange County Democrats? Many of them have made clear that they’d rather Biden were the nominee. Will they feel like they’ll be able to run as a moderate with a progressive or a leftist at the top of the ticket and vote for impeachment? I think it’s an open question.
3. The House votes to impeach and the Senate acquits the President without Republican defections
   • Maybe the Democrats will impeach the President. It’s been a long time coming and we’ve probably crossed the Rubicon on impeachment. The evidence against the President is pretty damning and the timeline of events shows a pattern of corruption that is hard to ignore. Well actually it may be very easy to ignore if you’re a Republican senator and live in a perpetual state of fear because of your constituents cult like devotion to the President. Donald Trump has an approval rating among Republicans that is probably in the high 80s which means something. The President in the past has successfully rallied his supporters to oust incumbent members of Congress and there are a number of elected officials who if not for Donald Trump would not be in Washington. Also relevant is that the GOP lacks any ideological mooring and seems to exist solely for promoting the interests of corporations, Christians, and caucasians. This has produced some senators who are genuinely from the Republican base and are not rational actors and may actually believe that the President is acting in good faith. Josh Hawley, Marsha Blackburn, and Cindy Hyde-Smith come to mind but there are certainly others. Then of course there are the so-called “profile in courage” Republicans that liberals love. I’m talking about Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Rob Portman. These are the Republicans who are always “deeply concerned” about the President’s behavior and are “reluctantly” voting for some evil multi-billion-dollar legislation to torture immigrant children. They’ll go on MSNBC, they’ll furrow their brows, and they may even cobble together a joint editorial and send it to the Washington Post. Then they’ll vote not to convict because they are cowards.
4. The House votes to impeach and the Senate acquits the President with several Republican defections
   • We’ve established that the Democrats are going to impeach the President and that Republicans are cowards. However, this time may actually be different because there are a lot of Senators who are still waiting to go on the record and haven’t instinctively jumped to Trump’s defense. Of course sycophants like Josh Hawley have but his senior counterpart Roy Blunt has not. That’s notable because for several reasons. First, Blunt was only narrowly re-elected in 2016 (underperforming Trump by 15.7 points) and likely would’ve lost if not for Trump’s landslide victory in Missouri. Second, Blunt played an integral role during the 2017 inauguration and commenced the ceremony. Finally, Blunt is the number four Republican on the Senate Leadership team. If anyone was going to defend Trump immediately it was going to be Blunt, yet he’s still “waiting and seeing”. If Blunt is a barometer for other Republicans, then maybe we can expect some Republicans to actually vote for impeachment which isn’t to say that Blunt won’t in the end vote to acquit. There are a lot of Republicans who have made clear their distaste for the President and although the votes to remove him from office likely aren’t there (Joe Manchin and Doug Jones are Democrats who might vote to acquit), we may still be looking at as many as a dozen Republican defections. If I had to guess who might vote to impeach, I’d look at retiring senators and Bush Republicans like Lamar Alexander (retiring), Pat Roberts (retiring), Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, and Lisa Murkowski.
5. The President is impeached and removed from office
   • This is the least likely outcome. I would sooner expect an Andrew Yang nomination than a Trump conviction. But it could happen, we may still be missing a piece of the puzzle. Donald Rumsfeld famously said “there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know”. There is almost certainly an unknown unknown out there and it could be one that is so repugnant and disturbing to the conscious of the nation that Republicans will literally have no choice but to impeach. I was tempted to lay out an addendum to this scenario because perhaps the Republicans could convince the President to resign in a similar fashion to what happened to Nixon. But we know Donald Trump and we know in our heart of hearts that he is not going to resign. Unlike other politicians who can be compelled to act by fear or shame or threat to their future in the party, Trump exists outside of conventional norms and he knows it. Trump has captured the racist zeitgeist and will have millions of followers no matter what happens next and that’s enough for him. The only way the President is leaving the White House is through impeachment or at the end of his term, whether that’s 2021 or 2025. There may come a point when Republicans begin to ask themselves, “Is this worth it? Could we achieve the same ends with Mike Pence?” and then the President will be in trouble.

There’s also a number of wild card scenarios that we should be prepared for because the moment we’re in is very fluid and it’s hard to predict anything anymore.

1. Clarence Thomas resigns or some other Supreme Court Vacancy
   • It’s probably time we stopped pretending that the Supreme Court isn’t partisan. It is. We don’t select justices based on merit, we select them based on reading their rulings, so we understand their judicial philosophy and ideology. There’s a reason that liberal and conservative groups create lists of preferred nominees, it’s because they know where they stand on the issues. The Supreme Court is a broken institution and it can be manipulated for partisan purposes. Enter Clarence Thomas, who has a very conservative world view and witnessed first-hand the kind of mobilizing force a Supreme Court vacancy can have on an election (see 2016 and to a lesser extent 2018). Clarence Thomas has served on the Court for nearly 30 years and hasn’t exactly hidden his conservative leanings, his wife Virginia worked for the Heritage foundation and currently contributes to Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller. He may just decide to announce his resignation at the end of the 2020 SCOTUS term and that would probably be enough for Republicans to circle the horses around President Trump. If the worst should happen, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer (or both) should die, then we’d be faced with a more significant realignment of the Supreme Court that actually would likely mean the realization of many conservative goals like outlawing abortion and same-sex marriage. That would almost certainly mean either impeachment would be completely abandoned by Democrats or Republicans would engage in some historically ugly campaigning.
2. President Trump Resigns from Office and then continues to run for re-election

• • Donald Trump did not win the Republican nomination because he had institutional support from the party. He won in spite of it because he was what Republican voters wanted, an anti-establishment figure who was willing to be unorthodox and dress down an elite that they loathe. If he needed to, he could probably do it again and if impeachment looks likely then that’d probably be a viable path forward. Would Mike Pence be willing to lead a caretaker government while Trump campaigned for President? He might have to because his choices are pretty limited. Would Pence defeat Trump in a Republican primary? Doubtful because even with the unlimited resources of the RNC, Trump is still Trump (ask Jeb how far $140 million will get you). Does Pence want a future in Republican politics? Probably, and he’s tied his fortunes to Trump and needs to stay in his good graces and for Trump to remain popular. That’s the thing about Faustian bargains, the Devil always gets the better end of the deal. Trump may well reason that he’d have a better chance of staying in power by giving it up. Trump appreciates a good story and the populist president who promised change is stymied by the Washington Establishment and is running an insurgent campaign on behalf of the people…that’s pretty good.

I don’t know what’s going to happen next, but we shouldn’t be surprised if it’s something we don’t expect. I wouldn’t hold my breath for the more outlandish scenarios that involve “President Pelosi” or “Hillary Clinton 3.0” but there’s a lot that could happen in the coming days and weeks. The President probably abused his office and attempted to have a foreign power influence our elections. That’s serious not just for President Trump but for our democracy. It’s time to see the full extent of the Article One powers in the Constitution.

The post 7 Paths Forward for Impeachment appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Nancy Pelosi has done what no other Democrat has seemed to be able to do. She has befuddled Donald Trump, gotten under his skin, and essentially made him impotent in her presence. Is she using Kryptonite?

For a number of reasons, Pelosi is not going to run for the Democratic nomination for President in 2020. Tops among them may be that she is too valuable where she is as Speaker of the House.

In three words, here is why the Democrats need a presidential nominee who can get under the skin of not only Donald Trump, but also Mitch McConnell and other Republican congressional leaders: Carter, Clinton, Obama. None of the last three Democratic presidents have been able to master Congress, even at times when there were Democratic majorities in both houses. There used to be this breed of Democrats called “Blue Dogs” who were a lot like Republicans. Between them and those who were also Republicans-in-name, there wasn’t been much budging that could be done by Democratic presidents. So, when it comes to legislation, Carter, Clinton and Obama were essentially not successful.

No matter how good each of these men were at talking about a progressive agenda, none had much success when it came to passing meaningful and sustainable legislation. If we want to see that in a Democratic president, we need to go back to Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s, and before him, Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s and 1940s.

Presently, there are twenty-three announced major Democratic candidates for president in 2020. There has been no lack of punditry handicapping the race. Generally, each Democratic voter is told that he or she has a binary choice to make. Does he/she want (a) a candidate who can defeat Donald Trump, or (b) a candidate who most closely aligns with one’s political philosophy.

But suppose that whoever is selected has the legislative power and finesse of a Carter, Clinton or Obama as opposed to an FDR or LBJ? Then the Democrats could win the 2020 election and once again have a Republican leader like Mitch McConnell say that he wants the new Democratic president to be a one-term president and he would do everything in his power to make that happen.

Considering that possibility, it becomes more and more imperative that Democrats nominate a man or woman who comes closest to Nancy Pelosi in neutralizing Republicans like Trump or McConnell. Democrats need a candidate who carries an ounce of kryptonite wherever he/she goes and sprinkles it in the vicinity of any Republican who is unreasonably obstinate and counterproductive.

It will not be that simple, but the Democrats need a president who can irritate the hell out of Republican leaders, just the way that Pelosi does to Trump. Such a candidate will likely have the best chance of unrattling Trump during the campaign and perhaps showing to his supporters that the emperor is missing some of his clothes. In a conventional sense, Hillary Clinton was an outstanding debater in 2016, but she never rattled Trump the way Pelosi has. The Dems have to nominate someone who can do that and more.

If that feisty candidate would win, then he or she would have important leverage in dealing with Republicans in Congress. To progressive America, other than Trump, there are few fools as nasty as Mitch McConnell.  The new president will have to shine a light on McConnell that lets others see what a literal and figurative dirty old man he is. He is like Dr. No out of a James Bond thriller.

So, the question remains, who among the current twenty-three may have the special skill to throw Trump, McConnell and other Republicans off their game.

Just to get the conversation going, I’ll suggest someone who others might disagree with, even mock. Elizabeth Warren. In her mild and even meek way, she seems to be fearless. She is quick with comebacks. She can take a punch. She is not a bully, but a very good counterpuncher. In her own way, she’s about as close to middle America as any of the other candidates. She just may have the magic touch.

Just a thought; we have time.

The post Democratic Nominee must have Pelosi Mojo appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Somehow, I was led to believe that voting was a fundamental part of democracy. And when a majority exists, and no vote can take place – well, that is more than just a shame; it’s not democracy.

At center stage on this is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). There are currently forty-seven Democratic senators who want to pass legislation to open most of the closed departments and agencies of the federal government. There are also at least four Republicans; that makes a total of fifty-one; i.e. a majority of the one hundred members of the Senate.

But McConnell refuses to allow the Senate to vote on the bills that have already passed the House. His reasoning is that the president has said that he would veto such legislation.

McConnell was not born yesterday. The fact that Donald Trump is unpredictable and not good to his word is not a surprise to most people, and that includes him. If McConnell would allow the Senate to vote to reopen most of the agencies that are currently closed, who knows what Trump would do? In a sense, McConnell is now doing Trump’s bidding. A more responsible Majority Leader would let democracy prevail, and if the president would want to veto the bills, he would be free to do so. We have no way of knowing what he actually would do, because Trump himself has no idea.

The problem is not just McConnell. It is a system that has existed in Congress since its origins. Each house has its leadership. It makes sense to have men and women in positions to organize the legislation that is considered before Congress. There need to be traffic cops; one who will say let’s deal with Bill ‘D’ before Bill ‘A’ because it currently is more urgent. For example, it is far more important now for each house of Congress to deal with issues reopening the government, and even addressing border security, than it is to vote on a bill that would rename a post office.

We often talk about presidential abuse of power, and we are certainly seeing quite a bit of it with Donald Trump. Seldom do we talk about abuse of power with Congressional leaders, but it may be more prevalent and nearly as insidious. This is what we are seeing now with Mitch McConnell. He is essentially ostracizing fifty-one or more members of the U.S. Senate, leaving them with as much power to effect policy as you and I, as ordinary citizens, have.

We talk a great deal about structural changes necessary to improve our democracy. These include abolishing the Electoral College, eliminating gerrymandering, and eradicating voter suppression. But equally important is for Congress to drastically reduce the power of its leaders, including committee chairpersons.

Right now, Mitch McConnell is being cowardly, loyal, undemocratic and savvy all at the same time. It seems that he prefers to think of himself as loyal and savvy rather than cowardly and undemocratic. But his audience is more than a crowd of one – Trump. It is the American people, and in particular the 800,000 government workers who did not receive their paychecks yesterday.

Come on, Mitch, show Trump what courage and good judgment look like. It’s a way to try to rejuvenate the Republican Party.

The post McConnell As Much at Blame as Trump appeared first on Occasional Planet.

This is mainly about Mitch McConnell and the archaic rules of Congress. But first let’s give a kudo to Chuck Schumer and the other Democrats who voted to re-open the federal government on Monday. They quickly recognized that they better apply “the first law of holes, or the law of holes.” It is an adage which states that “if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging”.

If logic prevailed, the Democrats had the high ground going into the shutdown. They were standing up for dreamers, children, and perhaps most importantly, a return to an orderly way of governing. But as Democrats have had to learn time after time, logic does not prevail in the world of the Republican Brain. Thus, Schumer wisely recognized that he and his fellow Democrats were digging themselves into a hole, and the best thing to do was to turn tail. He and they did, and this chapter will probably be quickly forgotten.

On the other hand, the whole processes revealed, and continues to demonstrate, that there may be some Republicans who really do care about governing and providing good government for the American people. The “Gangs of Eight,” the “Number Twos” and other bi-partisan groups that were seeking solutions to immigration issues and beyond, showed for the first time in years that there might be middle ground.

Plaudits to Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, Susan Collins and others who were willing to talk about compromise. And there were Democrats who reached out as well, particularly Illinois’ Dick Durbin and West Virginia’s Joe Manchin. But because of Senate rules, in many ways, the compromise discussions are fruitless.

You see, there is this paragon of virtue named Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who essentially can do whatever he wants to when it comes to what is discussed and voted upon on the Senate floor. The same is true with Paul Ryan (R-WI), Speaker of the House of Representatives. This is not a partisan problem; Democrats have historically used the same obstructionism, witness the reigns of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

The problem is that these legislative chambers do not work in any way that resembles a democracy. Suppose that you were in a room of one hundred people, theoretically equal. Actually, in the House of Representatives where there are 435 members, the equality is clearer as each member has roughly the same number of constituents in his / her district as everyone else.

Whether it’s 100 or 435, the question is, how do you establish a system which best provides for expressing the will of the majority, while protecting legitimate interests of the minority? In a high-tech world, finding the will of the majority can be relatively simple with electronic voting.

Suppose that ten members of one of the houses of Congress sign a petition saying that they would like to have discussion today and possible vote on reforming immigration policy. On a good day, there could be a simple vote on whether to consider the issues. But most days are more complicated, and there may be numerous other issues which other members of Congress want to consider. But regardless of how complicated it might be, we have at our disposal methods of putting issues in a logical order, and then establishing a reasonable amount of time to discuss and vote on any issues. For insight as to how to do this in an orderly fashion, check out ranked voting. There can be complications, but regardless of how detailed the process becomes, every effort should be made to work to allow the majority will to prevail.

This means that no Mitch McConnells should stand in the way of the democratic process. He is no more important than any other member of Congress. The rules that give him such stature are not based on anything logical or fair.

To enact this reform, considerable thought, involving compromise, is involved. But the process should not involve obstructionism. None of this is easy, but the one thing that is clear is that there is no place for autocracy in a democratic system.

So, when we hit the next possible roadblock on keeping the government open, possibly by Feb. 8, let’s not forget how arbitrary and undemocratic the current system is. We won’t have real change in the outcomes until we change the process. It’s not sexy, but it’s where results actually happen.

Follow-up: In an effort to circumvent Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s stranglehold on how the shutdown was debated, Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill attempted to get the unanimous consent of the Senate to ensure that military personnel were paid through the course of the shutdown. McConnell shot her down.  Video Link

The post Don’t lose the forest from trees with the shutdown appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Mitch McConnell, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and most other Republicans are champions when it comes to playing “Kick the can down the road.” You can fill in the blank after the euphemistic six words: “Now is not the time to …” Sometimes they add two more words to make a full sentence, “Now is not the time to play politics.”

The mass shooting in Las Vegas is just another example of avoidance and distraction. The gunman, Stephen Paddock, had over forty rifles. He had an arsenal sufficient to kill nearly sixty people and wound over five hundred. But it’s not the right time to talk about gun control.

Well, I suppose that you could say that if a meteor landed on your head, “now would not be the right time to discuss gravity.” Unlike gun violence, being bopped upside the head by a meteor is not something that is man-made, and it does not require a man-made solution.

When, if ever, do Republicans think that it is the right time to talk about gun control? We all know that this is a specious question, because they never want to talk about. Whether we’re talking about Sandy Hook or the Pulse Nightclub shooting, or Las Vegas, it doesn’t matter. Now is not the time and there never will be a time.

It’s not that different from their views on health care. The myriad of plans that Republicans had to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act all seemed to be missing something. In a word, we’re talking about talking.

Some people think that Senator John McCain’s reasons for opposing the latest versions in the Senate of repeal and replace were minimalist. He did not necessarily say that he opposed the policies presented by his Republican colleagues. Instead, he said that a process was not being followed, a process that involves study, dialogue, deliberations and conversation. He was saying to Mitch McConnell and others, “Now is the time to talk about health care.” That seemed to be too much for his Senate leadership to accept; after all, with health care, we were only talking about one-sixth of the entire American economy.

Republicans are good at playing the news cycles. They know the drill. Something serious happens, the media comes in and covers it with varying degrees of serious consideration followed by what often is a maudlin aftermath. By then, we’re all worn out and ready to move on. And by then, Republicans can be confident that America does not have the appetite to give serious consideration to issues like gun control or health care.

One of the things that we work with students on is “B.S. Detection.” Five-year-olds begin to get the hang of it; by the time that kids are ten, they have a good handle on it. But there seems to be a certain numbing and dumbing nature to much of our education system and Republicans definitely know how to capitalize on that. So, they can say, “now is not the time to …” and they get away with it because not enough of the public sees the B.S. in it. Shame on them; shame on us.

The post Mitch, Sarah, I’m getting antsy. When can we talk gun control? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Political observers such as David Gergen and Jeffrey Toobin have said that what we need now is another Howard Baker. For those who may not remember, or were too young to know, Howard Baker was the Republican Senator from Tennessee during the Watergate era. He was the ranking minority member of the Select Senate Committee on Watergate.

What made him special was that he was a Republican member of Congress who was just as interested in getting to the bottom of President Richard Nixon’s transgressions as the Democrats on the committee. We often hear about placing country above party, but it rarely happens. With Baker, it did.

His work stood as an example of a good deed which did indeed go unpunished, even by his party. His work on the Watergate Committee in 1970s was in part responsible for him become first the Minority Leader and then the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate in the 1980s.

It may be easy for us to call for a new Howard Baker now, but it is not as easy as it was at the time of Watergate.

First, the Republican Party has become more extreme. Those on the far right of the party have done an excellent job of “primarying out” moderate incumbents. It’s hard to believe, but even grumpy nasty Mitch McConnell warranted a strong primary opponent in Kentucky when he ran for reelection in 2014. The Republican party is become more evangelical and less contemplative. That combination does not produce Howard Bakers.

Second, legend has it that in years past there was more bi-partisanship. That is probably true, particularly in the Eisenhower and Reagan years. It even happened for LBJ with civil right legislation. Now it’s virtually impossible to get Congress to act in a bi-partisan manner, even when the issue is naming a post office.

Third, and perhaps most important, is that the Republicans are now in charge of both houses of Congress. They were in charge of neither at the time of Watergate. This means that they are not the opposition party. They have an agenda which is not negative in the sense that they want to oppose everything Democrats propose. Now it’s more of an insidious negativity. They want to tear down virtually everything positive that the federal government has done since the New Deal. Whether we are talking about health care, infrastructure, job training, school lunches, housing, education, support for the arts, Republicans want to take away from those in need so that the wealthy can become richer.

McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan have long since come to accept Donald Trump as a “legitimate president” because he provides them cover and ensures a considerable base so they can try to advance their agenda. This means that any Republican, whether in the House or the Senate, wanting to assertively want to investigate Trump will run the risk of tearing down the cover that the extreme right has been seeking for years to undo the government safety net.

Who Donald Trump is and what he has done has been an “inconvenient truth” to the Party. He helped put them in power, but he is an endless source of embarrassment, unpredictability and fragility.

This is not to imply that there are no congressional districts or no states from which a sitting Republican could become a new “profile in courage.” It is just more difficult to do now than it was forty-five years ago. Of course, if any Republican is so bold as to step forward, he or she may ultimately be seen as a greater figure than even Howard Baker.

The post It’s harder to be a Howard Baker now than then appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Gridlock, contentiousness, do-nothing …. these are all good descriptors of what the Republican Party has recently done to American politics. To progressives, this is very frustrating because we see government as an instrument for positive societal change. For Republicans, it’s rather meaningless. It’s difficult these days to locate a Republican who really cares about improving the conditions of all Americans, particularly those who are immersed in economic and social struggles.

Republicans are in a bit of a quandary. They do not seem to care much about government, but they are compelled to value it at least to the extent that they seek the power that comes with being an elected official. Republicans are willing to sacrifice quite a bit so that they can be in positions of power to prevent government from acting on behalf of the common good.

But then what? Have you ever looked at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell? He seems to constantly have that smug look on his visage as nothing seems to faze him. The fact that nothing seems to be happening in and around the space that he occupies is not a matter for concern. He is a very content customer.

His appearance is one that would lead others to conclude that he is just an old man who is amused by the passing world around him. An historical comparison might be to Nero, the famous Roman ruler who fiddled as his city burned to ashes.

It’s not just the Republican officials who are unconcerned about government doing anything to benefit the American people. It’s also a majority of the voters who put Republicans in office, particularly those who propelled Donald Trump to an electoral college victory. Getting these voters to see that they are being “What’s the Matter with Kansas-ed,” is a task for Democrats, at least progressive Democrats, to take on in upcoming elections.

In the meantime, it has become apparent that Republicans really prefer politics and governance to be a reality TV show rather than public service. At the time when there were seventeen Republican candidates vying for the presidential nomination, Donald Trump was far and away the most entertaining. The media both recognized and promoted this notion, beginning with Trump’s “stairway from heaven” announcement of his candidacy. When the first Republican debate came along in August 2015, Trump was asked the first question from Fox News’ Megyn Kelly about his misogynistic treatment of women. He never even bothered to try to answer the question; instead he worked to amuse himself, Megyn Kelly and the audience. Ms. Kelly did not find his non-answer to be either informative or entertaining. But the audience did. It may have been at that very point that the sixteen other Republican candidates knew that they were confronting a force that could not be stopped.

Part of the responsibility for this has to go to Democrats. Selling the idea that government can do good for people was very successful in the FDR-Harry Truman years and then the JFK-LBJ years. Unfortunately, the Clinton and Obama years did not further advance this notion. After the first two years of both the Clinton and Obama Administrations, Republicans mastered the art of gridlock. They combined that with a successful assault on many voters’ intelligence, which has lead us to politics being more for “fun” than for progress.

It should not take long for a preponderance of Americans to see that they have been swindled by Trump and his fellow Republicans. This will matter only if Democrats can sell a convincing story of how government can work for people. It won’t work for Democrats to be “Republican-Lite.” They need to have a coherent progressive message and convince a preponderance of the American people that the laughs are over and now we have to pick up the mess.

The post Republicans play politics for fun, not progress appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Occasionally we see the underbelly of the Republican Party when members make outrageous remarks. But what really goes on when House or Senate Republicans caucus? These meetings are all secret (as are the Democratic ones).

Early in the first Obama Administration, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said “his number-one goal was to make sure that Barack Obama was a one-term president.” Was he speaking only for himself for all or most Senate Republicans? After he said it, what was the reaction within the Republican caucus?

These are all questions to which we don’t know the answers. And it’s doubtful that any non-Republican will sneak a hidden camera into a caucus meeting the way it was done at a Mitt Romney fundraiser in May, 2012 (but not revealed until September of that year).

Is there any Republican in either the Senate or House GOP caucus who finds the meanness of many Republicans to be so repugnant that he or she feels compelled to inform the whole world of what’s going on behind closed doors? Is there any Republican who feels that the GOP is too negative about the role of government, that it’s only defined by negativity, or that he or she came to Washington to do something other than further tighten the grip of gridlock?

If there is such a person, it would be a true act of statespersonship to come forward and tell the rest of us what’s going on in these meetings. It’s doubtful that such a “whistle blower” would come from a district that is solidly red. But there are Republicans who won in competitive districts and those Republicans have the same right to attend the caucus meetings as anyone else.

Acts of courage in Congress are not unprecedented; John F. Kennedy and Theodore Sorenson wrote about them back in 1956 in their book Profiles in Courage. This Republican would not only receive praise from Progressives, but also from many moderates including the remaining vestige of “mainstream Republicans.” He or she might not win re-election, at least as a Republican, but this person could receive high accolades in the present time and very positive assessment when viewed through the eyes of history.

Other Republicans in Congress, such as McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner, would have to scramble to try to convince the general public that they are not as bad as the whistle-blower depicts. But the reality would be best expressed through the words of one of their deceased own (former Vice-President Spiro Agnew), they are “nattering nabobs of negativity.” Many of the destructive elements of the Republican machine are available to all of us now; others lurk behind closed doors. Now is the time for the rest of us to see the full Republican Party as it really is. Will a courageous and not so nasty Republican please step forward?

The post Time for a Republican whistle blower appeared first on Occasional Planet.