REPUBLICANS V. DEMOCRATS: A MATTER OF CELEBRITY

 

Both major political parties are lining up candidates

for next year’s elections. Anyone who made a political contribution during 2020 has probably been inundated with fundraising letters, e-mails, and text messages from 2022 campaigns.  We see a defining difference between the kinds of candidates emerging for Republicans and Democrats. Republicans very often present celebrities.

Democrats more often offer independent-minded candidates with roots in social and community movements. We find the difference fascinating.

Many states have spring filing deadlines and potential candidates continue making decisions about whether they’ll seek office. But, fundraising and campaign infrastructure require time. The clock is ticking, especially for high profile statewide races.

The Tuberville Model

Tommy Tuberville enjoyed a successful career as a college football coach, including at Auburn. Now

thanks to the celebrity that went along with that, Alabama’s inherent red hue, and Tuberville’s allegiance to Donald Trump, he’s a United States Senator. Tuberville brought no political or governing experience to his 2020 race against Democratic incumbent Doug Jones.  He campaigned carefully and said little about any issue. Tuberville’s case rested on the fact he’s a Republican (and, therefore, not a Democrat), he enjoyed Trump’s support, and name recognition from coaching. We aren’t saying he wasn’t qualified, but he never said much about what his qualifications were.  He spoke in generalities,

espousing well-worn right wing talking points. His record to date reflects little except following directions from Trump and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.      

That strategy – sports-based celebrity, support of

and from Trump, and keeping quiet beyond platitudes – rests at the heart of legendary running back Herschel’s Walker’s bid for the U.S. Senate in Georgia. Walker hopes he can unseat Democrat

Raphael Warnock, the Baptist minister who won a runoff in January for the unexpired term of retired Republican Johnny Isakson.

Walker has two potential Republican primary opponents, but he’s a strong favorite to win the GOP nomination thanks to his celebrity and his relationship with Trump. Before his time in the National Football League, Walker played for the New Jersey Generals of the United States Football League, a team Trump owned. Relying on their USFL relationship, at the 2020 Republican convention Walker vigorously rejected the idea Trump is a racist.  

Like Tuberville, Walker presents no governing or political experience. He also carries quite a bit of baggage, including allegations of violence toward women, some of which he admitted in his memoir. That makes some Republicans nervous, but most political operatives believe the nomination is his to lose. Also like Tuberville,  he’s keeping a low

profile, dodging interview requests except from friendly outlets like Fox News. Assuming Walker wins the primary, smoking him out likely will become Warnock’s first task in an expensive, high stakes race.

 

Fame Via Media

People who’ve earned fame through media have become another source of Republican candidates. Take J.D. Vance, author of the  acclaimed Hillbilly

Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis. The book spent good parts of 2016 and 2017 on the New York Times best seller list. It made Vance, a former Marine turned Yale Law School graduate, wealthy and famous.  Now he’s seeking the U.S. Senate seat held by retiring Republican Rob Portman.

 

Vance caused a stir in 2016 by slamming Trump as “reprehensible” and saying his policy proposals, “such as they are range from immoral to absurd.” Now faced with the GOP primary electorate in Ohio, Vance has gotten religion. He says Trump was a good president and he regrets the nasty things he said about him.  Having repented, Vance’s celebrity helps make him the favorite in some quarters for the Republican senate nomination.  His political career now represents just another case of elevating expediency over principle.

Oh, and we can’t forget another recent candidate who made his name through the media.  Larry Elder got more votes than any of the other would-be replacements for California Governor Gavin Newsome in the failed September recall election. Elder spent over 25 years as a radio talk show host before seeking the California governor’s chair. His failure hasn’t dissuaded celebrity GOP candidates long on name identity and short on political experience as the Walker and Vance bids attest.

A Different Way for Democrats

The likely contenders for Democratic nominations for U.S. Senate in states like Pennsylvania and

Ohio are men and women with political experience. In Pennsylvania, Lt. Governor John Fetterman and Congressman Conor Lamb lead the way. In Ohio, Congressman and former presidential

candidate Tim Ryan and one-time  Consumer Protection Bureau adviser Morgan Harper probably have the inside track, though others might emerge.

Beyond that, intriguing Democratic newcomers elsewhere spring from social movements aimed at

promoting change. One of the most impactful freshman members of Congress has been Missouri Representative Cori Bush. A registered nurse and minister, she’s led the fight against COVID-related evictions, even sleeping on the U.S. Capitol steps to make her

point. Georgia Representative Lucy McBath ran for Congress so she could

work on gun safety following the shooting death of her son by a man angry about loud music. Transportation Secretary

Pete Buttigeg ran for president because he wanted to be president, but also so he could show that an openly gay man could seek the nation’s highest office.

The motivations and styles of figures like Bush, McBath, and Buttigeg seem much different than the celebrity-based campaigns of the Walkers and Elders of the world. These more independent minded candidates have bucked their own party, not just followed it. Their approach seems more likely to discourage the rush toward autocracy Trump and Republicans now seem hell bent on promoting. 

                                            

JOE MANCHIN: POWER BROKER OR JUST A PAIN?

Pundits increasingly describe West

Virginia Senator Joe Manchin as the second most powerful Democrat in the country or as a royal pain. Maybe he’s both. That’s what makes taking a hard look at the 73 - year old third term senator and former governor of the Mountain state worthwhile. Manchin now plays a huge role in every political calculation in Washington and he’s apparently enjoying it.

With Democratic control of the

senate hanging by a thread, Manchin’s made his mark. He blocked President Joe Biden’s nomination of Neera Tanden as budget director and kept the $15.00 minimum

wage out of stimulus legislation. He opposes D.C. statehood, objects to universal background checks on gun purchases, and apparently won’t back eliminating the senate filibuster.

Manchin isn’t on board with the size of Biden’s $2 trillion infrastructure bill. He says he wants a bipartisan infrastructure deal that doesn’t “abandon” Republicans.

So, we ask: what’s up with Manchin. We look at the same facts, but see different things:

                  

Woodson: A Democrat in 

Republican Appearance? 

Understanding Manchin requires understanding West Virginia. The state is 92 percent white, four percent black, 0.997 percent Hispanic, and 0.737 percent Asian. It’s wracked by poverty, addiction, and low household incomes. Richard Ojeda, a West Virginia politician says the choices for high school graduates are, “dig coal, sell dope, or join the Army.”

Until 2005, the West Virginia Senate was 21-13 Democrat. Its House was 72-28 Democrat.  In 2014 West Virginia’s House turned Republican for the first time in 83 years. The state elected its first GOP U.S. Senator in 60 years and sent a totally Republican House to Washington for the first time in 60 years. Donald Trump trounced Hillary Clinton by 42 points in 2016 and Biden by 39 in 2020.

Manchin, nonetheless, has maintained his senate seat since 2012. Until Biden’s election, Manchin was relatively insignificant. Now holding a decisive vote, he has become significant. Conservative votes increase his re-election prospects. He is not beholden to Democrats. They need him more than he needs them. He might be the only Democrat capable of holding that seat.

West Virginian Christopher Reagan, Jr. recently wrote in the Atlantic that “Manchin does not have an overarching ideology.”  True? Perhaps Manchin votes conservatively with political calculation. He voted to confirm more than 100 of Trump’s nominees. None required his vote. He voted for Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination after it became clear Republicans had enough votes for confirmation.

Manchin voted to save Obama Care,saying Medicaid expansion was good for West Virginia. While he made sure top income earners were excluded from Biden’s stimulus package, he voted ‘yes.’  He agrees that if Republicans won’t support an infrastructure package Biden will have to proceed without them.

Will Manchin become a Republican? He’s not fond of GOP leader Mitch McConnell who vowed he’d “crush Manchin like a grape” in the 2018 midterms. After his three-point victory, Manchin delivered a jar of hand crushed grape jelly to McConnell’s office.

Manchin said of Biden in The Hill, “I

think he’s a good human being, just a good heart and a good soul, and he’s the right person at the right time for America.”

Manchin may not be an ideologue. But, he’s a Democrat in a state where Democrats are an endangered species.  

           

Henry: Mixed Motives?

It seems Manchin has different values

and goals than his fellow Democratic senators. Other Democrats may share some of his ideas, but they don’t act on them with the force and determination he exhibits. Whether his behavior represents political expediency, principle, or the enjoyment of personal political power, he walks a tightrope.   

The turn in his West Virginia constituency away from its Democratic roots likely explains some of his actions. Manchin can win in his state, but he’s not so popular he can deviate far from the views of white West Virginians. If he seeks another term in 2024, he’ll find

himself on the ballot with a strong Republican candidate atop the ticket. His political position offers little margin for error, so the last thing he needs is being on record in support of things the West Virginia electorate would find objectionable.

But home state political considerations

may not totally explain Manchin. Perhaps he believes in what he espouses, even if he’s not an ideologue. Beyond that, Manchin occupies a unique position in the American government. He has some control over the nation’s agenda. That he can use that control in service of his own political survival could mix with principle and the hubris all political figures experience when other people must come to them for things they want. Maybe all of that is going on with Joe Manchin.            

 

Rob: All About West Virginia

As much as any state, West Virginia symbolizes the changing appeals of America’s two parties. West Virginia

was solidly Democratic when the party’s fundamental appeal was economic populism aimed at white, working class voters. West Virginia has many more coal miners, factory employees, and construction workers than tech types, suburban professionals, and financial industry workers, now the backbone of the Democratic coalition in blue states. Add that to the dearth of voters of color and it’s no wonder West Virginia votes as it does in presidential elections. So, Manchin must represent this constituency while being part of a national party that wants a more progressive nation.  

Culture plays a huge role in this. When the Democratic Party became the party of protecting reproductive freedom, promoting LGBQT rights, and supporting gun safety measures, West Virginia’s white voters fled. Those issues drive the margins Republicans rolled up in recent presidential elections. Manchin knows where the voters are in his state and he’s not risking getting on the wrong side of them, economically or culturally.

WHY BOTHER WITH A SENATE TRIAL FOR TRUMP?: LET US COUNT THE WAYS

 

As expected, the United States Senate acquitted former President Donald Trump on impeachment charges last Saturday. Seven Republicans joined 48 Democrats and two independents in support of convicting Trump, making it 57-43, ten votes shy of the 67 needed. Trump was charged with inciting the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, and not trying to stop the carnage.

The seven Republican votes made it the most bipartisan impeachment trial in U.S. history.

Though House impeachment managers put on a brilliant case, Republicans fearful of a back-lash from the Trump base, ignored the evidence and acquitted him, leaving Trump still eligible for public office.

Many GOP senators hid behind the discredited jurisdiction rationale – the idea the Senate couldn’t convict a former president since he’d already left office. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell relied on

that rationale in justifying his own acquittal vote, despite admitting the House managers proved their case. The no jurisdiction theory flew in the face of established precedent and the plain text of the constitution. The idea, however, provided enough of a fig leaf that Republicans exonerated Trump with the semblance of a straight face.

Even some progressives, knowing the likely outcome, asked why the senate

bothered with the trial. They said it distracted from President Joe Biden’s agenda (time will tell about that) and put Trump in the spotlight when the country should move on to other things. With all due respect to such views, we saw at least five reasons the senate proceeded as it should have:

        (1) Democracy Matters

The riveting presentations by the House managers – tightly scripted, efficient, and brimming with new video evidence – showed the United States values democracy and the rule of law. An effort at holding Trump accountable for the January 6 insurrection mattered more in terms of preserving basic principles of our system than outcome. Besides, the chance of bringing Trump to justice hasn’t passed. He still faces criminal investigations, including a new one by a prosecutor in Georgia over his attempts at reversing the election outcome in that state. Trump’s impeachment lawyers seemingly invited criminal prosecution as an alternative to conviction in the senate, as did

McConnell. We’re not reticent about seeing a former president found guilty of criminal charges thrown in jail. If the Secret Service must learn how it guards a protectee in prison, so be it.  

 

      (2)  A Nation Watching

We won’t know the full impact of the trial on public opinion for a little while. As it began, most polls showed a narrow majority in favor of conviction, 52-48 in several surveys. Those polls didn’t fully reflect the effect of the

prosecution’s case. We can’t imagine the horrendous scenes of assaults on police officers and lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence running for their lives didn’t change some minds. Republicans who 

voted ‘no’ presumably are betting whatever negative effects the trial had on their party will fade.  Maybe, but we can already envision Democratic consultants screening the video for use in television and internet ads against Republicans in future campaigns. Is this really what Americans want from their leaders? Republicans who decided they couldn’t cross Trump and his supporters may find themselves in disfavor with other voters in coming elections, even if they survive dreaded primary challenges.

 

(3)  A World Watching   

Whatever the public reaction in this country, the fact the trial happened should have helped

America’s tattered reputation around the globe. The United States is making an international comeback, having rejoined the Paris Climate Accord and the World Health Organization. The new president’s effort at controlling the virus should help show the U.S. as a responsible world citizen again. Holding the trial demonstrated to countries around the world we will at least try drawing lines at abhorrent behavior by our presidents. We will use our institutions in service of protecting our values, even if we fail.

 

(4) We Care

Going forward with the trial demonstrated a level of concern about doing the

right thing, even if we didn’t get the right outcome. The trial was as much for the history books as for today. No one 100 years from now can say we just didn’t care when a lawless president incited an armed insurrection aimed at overturning the outcome of a free and fair election and preventing a peaceful transition of power. No, it didn’t turn out right, but we tried, and posterity will take note of that.

 

      (5) Trials and Truth

Trials are not perfect vehicles for arriving at truth, but they’re better than most anything else this society or any other has for achieving that goal. As a result of hearing and seeing the difference between the exquisite presentations

by the House managers and the disjointed, angry, sometimes unintelligible offerings by Trump’s overmatched lawyers, Americans got a clear picture of what’s true and what’s not. Anyone who watched any significant part of the proceedings understands exactly what happened on January 6 and the implications of that tragic event.

All three of us tried lawsuits during our legal careers and one of us presided over hundreds of them as a judge. We know firsthand how the presentation of conflicting

stories helps clarify an event and reveals the truth as best we can ascertain it. The second impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump served that function for the American people, an exercise they very  much needed.    

THOUGHTS ON THE NEW ADMINISTRATION’S AGENDA: A LITTLE ADVICE FROM FRIENDS

 

In a month, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. takes the oath of office as the 46^th President of the United States and Kamala Devi Harris the oath as the 49^th Vice President of the United States.  She becomes the first woman to hold either office.

They take over at a difficult, perilous time. A once-in-a-century pandemic rages, accompanied by devastating economic consequences. The country remains politically and racially divided as killings by police of African Americans continue and criminal justice reform remains undone. Climate change poses an existential threat to the entire planet. Biden and Harris have plenty to do and we have some advice for them on their agenda.

COVID, COVID, COVID
Biden has long acknowledged subduing the Coronavirus pandemic would represent his first and most pressing challenge. It’s difficult not to view the leadership void on COVID-19 as the Trump Administration’s greatest failure. As to Biden’s challenge, we recognize that not only did Trump fail through inaction (e.g., never effectively using the Defense Production Act) and lies (“We’re turning the corner.”), he made things worse by poisoning the well with the public in ways that will make Biden’s job more difficult. 

Biden thinks (correctly) we can tamp down the virus through measures like mask wearing and social distancing until vaccines essentially eviscerate the disease. Because of Trump’s politicization of mask wearing and social distancing, Biden will have difficulty getting buy-in on sacrifices that fight the virus in the interregnum between now and widespread vaccine distribution next spring and summer.

By tying vaccine development to his re-election campaign, Trump made some think vaccines now being rolled out were rushed for political purposes. Combine that with a growing, general anti-vax crowd and skepticism about medical researchers based on history in the black community, not as many people may take a vaccine as needed for complete effectiveness.

Biden must enlist every political icon (former Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama say they’ll get vaccinated publicly), celebrity, community leader, and trusted religious figure in encouraging vaccination and adherence to the measures still needed for suppressing the virus. Without beating COVID-19, Biden can’t get the economy going. He must push for a new stimulus/relief package from Congress. Yes, we know Mitch McConnell will likely stand in the way, but Biden must make clear to the American people who stands with whom. A president who pushes for what many Americans need so badly could make a difference. Biden can show there remains that thing called the “bully pulpit.” 

Race
At some point, every American president gets an exam question on race. Nearly all fail. Biden has a unique opportunity because, based on the protests last summer, much of the country seems ready to try. The old political barriers remain, but that’s no excuse for inaction. We see several legislative approaches Biden should support and push for:
·    enactment of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act (it’s already passed the House);
·    revising many of the actions taken in the 1994 crime bill Biden played a role in passing, emphasizing reducing incarceration for minor drug offenses;
·    limiting criminal and civil immunity in police shooting cases;
·    ending no-knock warrants; and
·    reform measures that would foster increased use of psychologists and social workers, not police officers, in certain domestic situations and other encounters that often lead to police shootings.

State and local governments probably can accomplish more on some of these things, but federal legislation could establish goals and guidelines.

We also think there’s merit in dusting off President Clinton’s “National Conversation on Race” idea. We have an open mind about what form such an effort should take. We know one thing: if we won’t talk about a problem as big, as morally important as this, it won’t ever get solved.

Climate
We’ve written on this a few times, but not enough. We promise we’ll do better. This year – this awful 2020— demonstrated the issue’s importance. Wildfires in the west, storm damage in the middle of the country, and hurricanes and tropical storms in the Southeast and on the Gulf Coast represent the most visible examples of the gravity of the climate change problem.  At least now we have a president who doesn’t deny the science and accepts that not much time remains for addressing the problem.

Biden has taken two steps we heartily endorse. He says he’ll immediately put the United States back into the Paris Climate Accord. This signals the new administration’s seriousness about making America a major participant in anti-climate change efforts. 

Second, Biden has named former State Secretary John Kerry his special climate advisor. Kerry knows this issue well and will sit on the National Security Council since climate change constitutes a national security issue.

We suggest an “all of the above” climate 

approach that advocates multiple ideas. Some special interest will fight every climate proposal. Even corporations professing

support for action on climate change present much different ideas than climate activists. The administration, therefore, should not hang its hat on any one solution. It will lose legal, legislative, and administrative battles, so it needs a comprehensive, multi-faceted approach. We see this problem as so big and so important; Biden must remain creative and push every idea that might do some good.  

       What advice would you offer on the Biden-Harris agenda?