NANCY PELOSI’S INFRASTUCTURE TASK: TOASTERS, CAR WASHES, AND TIGHTROPES

 In the motion picture Apollo 13, as the crippled spacecraft hurtled home after the aborted moon landing, the astronauts tackled the delicate job of powering up their frozen command module after days of what amounted to cold storage in space. Astronaut Jack Swigert, portrayed by actor Kevin Bacon, noticed condensation forming on many of the craft’s instruments as the crew turned them on. “What’s the deal on this stuff shorting out?” Swigert asked mission control. “Just have to take it one step at a time, Jack,” came the reply. Swigert then said, to no one in particular, “This is like trying to drive a toaster through a car wash.”    

Almost every American wants improved infrastructure. People know that we suffer

from crumbling roads and bridges and that many countries in the industrialized world with which the United States competes are far outspending us in that arena. Democrats and Republicans, who often can’t concur on whether the sky is blue, agree about infrastructure. 

That being the case, why has getting infrastructure legislation through Congress been so difficult? As work on the issue resumes, it’s clear the path has gotten harder, not easier.  The reasons lie in the culture of the two political parties. If the United States is

going to get an infrastructure package this fall – and this year may represent the last, best chance for a while – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have to pull off something like driving that toaster through a car wash.

Pelosi’s Divided Caucus

There’s an old saying in politics that “My enemies I can handle, but God save me from my friends.” That’s the source of Pelosi’s infrastructure dilemma. She doesn’t need Republicans for much of anything. Democrats have the majority in the House, though it’s slimmer than before the 2020 election. If all Democrats vote for any infrastructure bill it passes, pure and simple. But it’s not that simple. Pelosi must keep the Democrats pulling in the same direction. In this instance, they’re the house divided.

Two factions make up the Democratic caucus

in the House. First, there are moderates like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and representatives from competitive, swing districts like Lizzie Fletcher of Houston and Tim Ryan of Ohio. Then, there are progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ayanna Pressley from Massachusetts.  The two factions get along sometimes and sometimes they don’t. They stuck together and passed the Biden COVID relief plan, but the love fest may end over infrastructure.   

The Senate has passed what’s usually called the “bipartisan” infrastructure bill, a $1 trillion plan that emphasizes traditional projects like roads and bridges. A bipartisan group of senators hashed it out and 19 Republicans supported it when it came up for a vote.

Moderates in the  House Democratic caucus want to pass that bill immediately and send it to President Biden for signature. Not so fast, say the progressives.

 

“Human” Infrastructure

Biden originally proposed an infrastructure package that not only included what’s in the bipartisan bill, but also significant new

spending on health care, education, immigration, child poverty, and climate change. Republicans, including those in the senate who voted for the bipartisan bill, oppose these programs. In trying to make sure an infrastructure bill passes, Biden agreed on

splitting the measure in two –

the bipartisan bill containing

traditional infrastructure spending

that could pass with enough

Republican support to break a senate filibuster and a bigger nontraditional bill Democrats might have a chance at passing with only   Democratic votes through what’s called budget reconciliation.

The plan had been for the House to act on the bipartisan bill, leaving the president and

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer the job of wooing moderate Democrats like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema. They might vote for the

“human” infrastructure bill and they might not.  Both say they don’t like the cost, about $3.5 trillion, though they have voted with the other Democratic senators on the procedural measures that allow consideration.

 

Progressives and Pelosi’s Tightrope Act

Democratic moderates, desperately seeking something they can run on in the perilous 2022 midterms, don’t want to chance that no infrastructure bill gets to the president’s desk this year. They’re afraid if the bipartisan bill doesn’t pass quickly, chances increase that no bill passes this year, the issue will become embroiled in next year’s campaigning, and all the work will have been for naught.

Progressives, however, want a guarantee the “human” bill will pass before they commit on

the bipartisan bill. They’ve concluded the best way of assuring that outcome is not voting for the bipartisan bill unless the senate first passes the “human” bill.  Pelosi must walk this tightrope – in essence drive Swigert’s toaster though the congressional car wash – so that an infrastructure package gets enacted in this Congress.  She knows that if Republicans take the House next year, no major legislation will get passed. It’s now or never.

       

Both progressives and moderates want things in the two bills. While some moderates have reservations about the price tag – and the taxes – associated with the “human” bill, most are generally sympathetic to its objectives. But the battle is about what the Democratic Party truly stands for. What hill will it die on? Both sides are heavily invested in their objectives and that’s what makes Pelosi’s job so difficult. She’s got to find a way through that car wash.                   

ANDREW CUOMO’S EXIT: A TALE OF TWO PARTIES – ONE REPUBLICAN, ONE DEMOCRAT - YOU CHOOSE

Two things happened Tuesday, August 10, in which Democrats – and the nation – could take

pride. First, the U.S. Senate passed President Biden’s $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill. Second, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced his resignation in the wake of a sexual harassment scandal. The infrastructure deal isn’t done. The bill that passed the Senate may not clear the House unless Biden and his allies can pass a companion $3.5 trillion “human infrastructure” bill through budget reconciliation. That means we’ll have opportunities for talking about infrastructure for months.

We want to talk about the Cuomo development now! It showed the fundamental difference in our

two major political parties. Cuomo’s situation provided an apples-to-apples comparison of how Democrats and Republicans handle sexual harassment. Both have faced exams on sexual

harassment charges against one (or more) of their stars. With Cuomo’s announced departure, Democrats, in our view, passed their test. Republicans flunked the same exam numerous times.

The fact of this starkly different result makes even clearer just how much our political system has changed, and not for the better. The parties look like they evolved in separate societies; that they didn’t come from a common tradition in which decency, civility, accountability, and dedication to the rule of law triumph over the imperative of retaining power.

The Cuomo Challenge

Andrew Cuomo hails from a powerful political

family. He’s accomplished a great deal in politics on his own. His father, Mario Cuomo, served three terms as New York governor, perpetually flirting with running for president and delivering eloquent convention speeches in 1984 and 1992 that stirred Democratic hearts nationwide. Andrew Cuomo served as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Clinton administration, New York attorney general, and nearly three terms as New York’s governor. He’s been an immensely effective political operative, to the point of leaving office with an $18 million campaign war chest. He’s, also, been known as someone you don’t cross in New York politics.

Despite the fear Andrew Cuomo once struck, there he was on August 10 announcing he’d  step aside,

effective 14 days later. He left to a chorus of “Amens” from local, state, and national Democrats. Unfinished business remained: (1) post-resignation impeachment proceedings that could permanently bar him from office; (2) criminal investigations; and (3) civil suits brought by his alleged harassment victims. Legislative leaders appeared genuinely divided over the first question. They must consider Cuomo’s potential complicity in a nursing home scandal and ethical

transgressions involving a book deal. They found themselves torn between moving on and a desire for accountability. Some former prosecutors thought the criminal cases might go away. The civil suits, however, will go forward and probably get settled when Cuomo pulls out his checkbook.   

 

Democratic Unity

Democrats forced Cuomo from office. First, fellow Democrat, Attorney General Letitia James,

conducted the investigation and authored the damning report that forced his hand. Second, New York’s political leadership quickly called for Cuomo’s resignation. They’re all Democrats – U.S. Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand,  New YorkCity Mayor Bill de Blasio, and strong majorities in the state legislature. After the James report, they all said Cuomo should leave.  Third, President Biden weighed in early, asserting that if the James investigationproved the allegations against Cuomo, he should resign. Biden restated that position once the report came out. It showed credible evidence supporting the allegations of 11 women who charged Cuomo with offensive touching, creation of a hostile work environment in his office, and other transgressions. 

The Democratic unity left Cuomo no running room. Nobody defended him. As legislative impeachment machinery moved into high gear, Cuomo ran out of options. Timing represented the major surprise in the August 10 resignation announcement.  Many expected he’d leave eventually, but most observers thought the combative Cuomo would fight long and hard in an effort to hang on as long as he could.

 

And Republicans?

As suggested, we believe the most important aspect of the Cuomo resignation story resides in the difference between how Democrats reacted to his difficulties versus how Republicans handled similar situations. First, of course, there’s former President Donald Trump. Must we reiterate the facts of the Access Hollywood tape and the Stormy Daniels payoff? Those Trump sins (and others) were arguably worse than Cuomo’s, but Republicans stood by him.  Had Republican leaders abandoned Trump in October 2016 after the Access Hollywood tape emerged, the nation likely would have been spared the disaster that was the Trump presidency.

Then, there are the Republican second stringers like

Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz, accused of sex trafficking in underage girls, and Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, who allegedly helped cover up sexual abuse allegations in the Ohio State University wrestling program while he coached there. In each instance, Republican members of Congress and other GOP elected officials stood by these bad actors or remained silent, which is as bad (or worse).

We’ve said we think America needs two viable political parties arguing over ideas and policy.  We’ve also said we don’t need this Republican Party because it’s not interested in character ideas or policy, only in keeping power. The Cuomo affair demonstrated that we have one party that will police itself in the name of fidelity to our values and institutions.  The other party, as currently led and configured, won’t do that. It deserves that special place in hell for those who thrash those cherished values and institutions.  

                     

GEORGIA ON OUR MINDS: A TALE OF TWO SENATE RACES THAT COULD DETERMINE BIDEN’S EFFECTIVENESS

Something of a death struggle rages in Georgia as 2020 fades away and 2021 emerges. Democrats and Republicans have mobilized for runoff elections in two U.S.

Senate races with enormous implications. Those January 5 battles will decide control of the senate and, perhaps, the fate of much of incoming President Joe Biden’s agenda.

The Peach State ended up with these two

contests because its law requires that senators win a majority of the vote, even in a general election. Nobody in either race got a majority on November 3. Historically, Democrats don’t do well in runoff elections in Georgia. With the allure of the presidential race gone, many Democratic-leaning voters don’t show up. Biden’s narrow victory this year notwithstanding, Georgia has been a red state for a long time. Republicans have a structural advantage and much of the political community expects GOP wins in both races. Not every factor, however, points in that direction.

 

The Players

In one race, 33 - year old Democrat Jon Ossoff, a London School of Economics graduate who nearly won a congressional seat in a 2017 special election, faces incumbent Republican David Perdue for a full six - year term. Perdue,71, narrowly missed getting a majority in the general election. He’s seeking his second senate term.

Democrat Raphael Warnock, 51, serves as senior minister at Atlanta’s Ebenezer Baptist Church. The man who occupies Martin Luther King’s pulpit faces Senator Kelly Loeffler, 50, in the race for a two-year term. Georgia Governor Brian Kemp appointed Loeffler

earlier this year to fill

the seat of Johnny Isakson, who resigned. Loeffler, a devoted Trump supporter, has extensive business interests, including ownership of the Atlanta Dream of the WNBA.

Corruption charges have dogged the Republican candidates as both have been accused of insider stock trading. They

allegedly sold stocks based on information received in closed-door senate meetings earlier this year about the damage certain industries would suffer in the coronavirus pandemic. In the current polarized political environment, the charges haven’t gotten much traction. Democrats apparently believe the worse about both Perdue and Loeffler and Republicans appear not to care much. Republicans make the usual they’re-too-liberal arguments against Ossoff and Warnock. Again, it’s unlikely the claims make much difference. The races come down to which tribe can get its members to the polls.    

 

The Stakes

When it was all said and done on November 3,

Democrats had 48 U.S. Senate seats (including two independents who affiliate with them) and Republicans 52. If Ossoff and Warnock knock off the Georgia incumbents, Democrats would control the senate by virtue of Vice President Kamala Harris’s tiebreaking vote. With that control, Democrats woul chair  committees and

Democratic leader Chuck Schumer would control the calendar and the ability to bring up bills. He could exercise the powers current majority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky now wields so ruthlessly.

Control of the senate will say much about Biden’s ability to confirm cabinet and other

officials, make judicial appointments, and fulfill campaign promises on matters like climate change and racial equity. Biden believes he can work with Republicans, but he knows Democratic control of the senate would make

things so much easier and so much more possible. Biden and Harris have campaigned in Georgia for Ossoff and Warnock and one or both of them could make additional appearances before the election.

 

The Campaigns

For Democrats, the races are about turnout. If organizers like 2018 Democratic gubernatorial nominee Stacey Abrams can approach duplicating the turnout of black, Hispanic,

narrow win in the Asian, and young voters, especially in the fast growing, rapidly diversifying Atlanta suburbs that gave Biden his residential race, they believe they can win the senate races, despite the structural GOP advantages.

For a long time, Republicans fought among themselves about these runoffs. President

Trump claimed he lost Georgia because of voter fraud, despite a Republican governor and secretary of state. Some normal Trump allies suggested Republican voters should stay home and skip the runoffs because the system was rigged and their votes wouldn’t count. No evidence of that exists, of course; recounts produced the

same result as the initial tally in the presidential race. Still, some people believe Trump and that has created massive upheaval in Republican ranks.

The GOP infighting has subsided. Some trends in the polling have favored Perdue and Loeffler. Though both races remained statistically tied for much of the campaign, the incumbents edged upward in later polling.

Turnout, however, could tip things toward the Democrats. Early voting exceeded expectations and broke records for a runoff election. In the first week, the numbers approached those of the same time frame in the general election. No one knows if voters will sustain that pace, but that’s the goal of Abrams and her cohorts. If they reach it, Ossoff and Warnock have a chance.

Money and campaign workers have flooded

into 

the state. In races with razor thin margins like the polls show, anything can happen. Georgia is on the nation’s political mind and the January 5 outcome means a lot.

The tale is still to be told.

CIVIL UNREST OR REVOLUTION?: GOING DEEPER

Our June 22, 2020, post explored whether the uprising we’ve seen since the May 25 murder of 46-year-old George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer differs from previous civil rights

protests. We examined competing police reform measures and considered political calculations that may affect proposed legislation.

Now we explore broader questions about the same topic. Are we witnessing civil unrest that

subsides once emotions die down or real revolution that leads to systemic societal changes? People ask because many aspects of this look different, certainly than the 1960s civil rights protests the three of us witnessed in our formative years. We start with some basics.

Multi-ethnic sacrifice

The civil rights struggle in America has always been diverse and multi-ethnic.

Consider the lost lives of Viola Liuzzo, Reverend James Reeb, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, four white people killed while doing civil rights work in the South. Viola Liuzzo, a Detroit housewife, went to Alabama in 1965 to help with Martin Luther King’s voter registration campaign. As she drove marchers between Selma and Montgomery on March 25, four Ku Klux

Klansmen shot and killed her. Southern resisters attacked and killed Reeb, a Unitarian minister from Boston, in Selma two

weeks earlier. A Klan-led mob murdered Goodman and Schwerner, along with black Mississippian James Cheney, in Neshoba County, Mississippi as they tried registering black voters during the Freedom Summer of 1964.

White people who didn’t make the sacrifice

Luizzo, Reeb, Schwerner, and Goodman made still contributed mightily to the civil rights cause in the 1960s. This isn’t the first time the races have joined forces in the struggle for equality.

A different feel

All that said, some things seem different this time. White participation in the protests following Floyd’s death just looks bigger. In

foreign countries, organic protests erupted in the streets. At a qualitative level, hope has surfaced that whites participating in this round of protests “get it.” White marchers seem invested in the grievances African Americans have with police brutality and systemic racism. White people are talking both with blacks and among each other about racial problems and seem fueled by a sense of responsibility.

Another big difference lies in the availability of social media. Platforms like Twitter,

Facebook, and Instagram mean the voiceless aren’t voiceless anymore. People have more opportunities for expressing themselves. They need worry less about accessing broadcast and print outlets controlled by others. People can speak out knowing many will hear.

Positive involvement of the corporate sector distinguishes what’s happening now from previous protest cycles. Large companies acknowledge they must respond to how their customers view racial justice issues. After consumer pressure, for example, Starbucks changed its policy so employees could wear “Black Lives Matter” shirts.

           

Finally, people hungry for information about racial matters can access more credible writing on the subject now than in the ’60s. More scholars, some black and some white, research and write about racial issues. Popular writers contribute to this growing, robust race discrimination literature. We suggested popular and scholarly works in a recent post concerning the education of white America about race.

Challenges

If this is different, what obstacles could derail the movement and destroy the moment? Revolutions

often have generals – commanders who lead foot soldiers, develop strategy, and direct operations. The 1960s civil rights movement certainly had a supreme commander in Martin Luther King, Jr.  A capable staff

assisted him, led by notables like his Southern Christian Leadership Conference deputy Ralph Abernathy, NAACP Executive Director Roy Wilkins, union stalwart A. Phillip Randolph, and Urban League leader Whitney Young. Ascending figures like Fannie Lou Hamer, John Lewis, and Andrew Young made significant contributions. Such a leadership team isn’t around today.

An argument also exists that protest movements don’t need a general on the order of a Martin Luther King. Eric Hoffer suggested in The True

Believer that mass movements require three elements: (1) readying the ground by those “whose chief claim to excellence is their skill in the use of the spoken or written word,” (2) the temperament and talents of fanatics, and (3) “final consolidation” by practical people of action.

We see elements of such an array forming. Writers like legal scholar Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow, essayist Ta-Nehisi Coates, and

sociologist Robin Diangelo, who wrote the best-selling White Fragility: Why it’s so Hard for White People to Talk about Racism might serve as Hoffer’s women and “men of words.” Identifying fanatics isn’t easy, but they’re showing themselves. Take, for example, the young people who’ve spearheaded the nationwide Justice for Breonna movement protesting the March shooting death of 26-year-old medical technician Breonna Taylor by police in her home in Louisville, Kentucky during execution of a no-

knock drug case warrant. As for practical people of action, we nominate William Barber, the North Carolina cleric who sometimes functions as the conscience of the nation on equality and fairness issues. Then there’s House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, trying to steer substantive police reform legislation

through Congress. Perhaps she can get help next year from a President Joe Biden and a Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

We point out Henry does not accept Hoffer’s concept of “fanatics,” but recognizes the importance in social movements of those with “firm commitment and zeal.” 

We must end with a note of caution. The opposition has its general – the current occupant of the White House – and its chief of staff, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. We need say no more.