MOVING AHEAD WITH A JANUARY 6 SELECT COMMITTEE PROBE

DEMOCRATS TAKE THE HIGH ROAD AND

DO WHAT NEEDS DOING

                                                

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) has moved ahead with plans for a select committee that will investigate the January 6 insurrection at the U.S.

Capitol. Pelosi named eight committee members and designated Mississippi Congressman Bennie Thompson the chair. She  took the action following a June 30 House vote, mainly along party lines, favoring establishment of such a panel. That, in

turn, followed Senate rejection of a bipartisan, 9/11-style commission that would have investigated the events of January 6. Five people died as a result of the riot, including a police officer.  The dangerousness and brutality of the insurrectionists become more evident with each Justice Department release of new January 6 video.

Despite our preference for a bipartisan commission, we say Democrats have taken the only reasonable course Republicans left to them. It was a step they had no choice but to take. Congress had to fulfil its obligation to investigate what happened and decide who’s ultimately responsible.

A fierce urgency demands that  Congress find out who bears responsibility for the January 6 insurrection. In a democracy, not moving forward with an investigation of a matter like this would have been a dereliction of duty.

After Senate Republicans nixed the bipartisan commission option, only the select committee approach remained.  Republicans can complain all they want about the “partisan” nature of a select committee inquiry, but they could have prevented this circumstance. They declined the bipartisan commission under pressure from former President 

Donald Trump, who wants  nothing that might pin the blame on the person likely most responsible -- him. Republican fidelity to Trump’s wishes eviscerates the party’s viability as a defender of democracy and the nation’s most cherished ideals.       

 

The Urgency

Anyone who looks at the video or reads the published accounts of January 6 can only conclude that what occurred was an insurrection in the classic sense of the term – an effort at overthrowing the democratically expressed will of the people. We contend those who won’t recognize the events of January 6 as such now stand as opponents of democracy and are at war with the United States. A functioning democracy seeks out and holds accountable people who did what the insurrectionists did.

Fidelity to core American values requires that both

the general public and elected officials pursue full accountability for those who orchestrated and participated in what happened.  The public should, through social media, blogging, letters to the editor, and every other legal means, promote the need for that full accountability.

Meanwhile, elected officials owe a duty because of an oath they must uphold. That oath obligates them to protect and defend the United States Constitution. Those who won’t do that should resign their offices.

No one should believe the forces unleashed that day will just disappear. Trials of some of the 500 people already charged may tell us something

about the continuing threat posed by the right wing, white supremacist groups believed at the center of the January 6 riot. Trials, however, with their focus on the guilt or innocence of individuals, can never reveal the whole story of something like January 6.  That limitation makes the work of the select committee essential. It must find out who bears responsibility and let the nation know. Then, the country and its government can take steps that would prevent a repeat.

 

Committee Membership

Pelosi’s selection of Republican Representative Liz Chaney of Wyoming generated the most attention

among the members named. Republicans kicked Cheney out of her leadership role in their caucus because she voted in favor of Trump’s impeachment. She was one of two Republicans who backed a select committee

investigation (Adam Kinzinger of Illinois was the other). Chaney’s been adamant that Congress should get to the bottom of the January 6 incident.

In addition to Chairman Thompson, Pelosi put three Californians, Zoe Lofgren, Adam Schiff, and Pete Aguilar on the panel. Florida’s Stephanie Murphy, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, and Elaine Luria of Virginia round out the group.

That left the question of who, if anyone, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy would name.

McCarthy led the Republican complaints about “partisanship” in the process. His whining sounded hollow, given the fact he rejected the bipartisan commission, despite having gotten everything Republicans asked for in talks that led up to the vote on the measure that would have created a commission.

Thompson indicated the select committee won’t waste time getting to work. Its first hearings could come before the end of July. We’d welcome that. We believe those unwilling to find out what really happened now stand in opposition to democracy. The sooner Congress and the public can call out

exactly who falls into that category, the better. Are we or are we not a democracy? Congress bears the responsibility, starting with the work of this select committee, of providing us with an answer to that central question.

CRUNCH TIME ON BI-PARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE: CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR JOE BIDEN

The American people need an infrastructure program because the roads and bridges they use every day are crumbling around them and

because the country needs it to remain competitive with the world’s other industrialized nations. President Biden needs an infrastructure bill that keeps his

administration’s positive momentum and shows ordinary citizens government can work for them. Congressional Democrats need infrastructure

legislation as a signature accomplishment they can run on in 2022. Moderate Republicans need infrastructure legislation so they can show their voters the virtue of being something other than the party of “no.”

So, with so many divergent groups needing something done on infrastructure, why has it become one of the heaviest legislative lifts in recent times? The answer lies in the complex web of political alliances that have put the president in a precarious position. The dilemma illustrates the difficulty America faces in getting things done in an era of extreme partisanship.

A Deal – Maybe

After weeks of talking, the president and a group of senators from both parties announced agreement on a $1 trillion infrastructure package that supposedly has the backing of 11 Republican senators (Burr, Cassidy, Collins, Murkowski, Portman, Romney, Rounds, Graham, Young, Tillis, and Moran) and two key Democratic moderates, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. The unspoken reality was that Democrats would still try to pass the rest of Biden’s original $2.3 trillion package through budget reconciliation, meaning no need for Republican votes in the

Senate.  Biden first said he would veto the smaller bill if he didn’t get both. The 11 Republicans who were on record as supporting the bill balked and the president walked back that statement. The dust up showed the political peril that infests the whole infrastructure issue.

                                

           

With Manchin and Sinema (and maybe some other Democratic senators) apparently caring more about the appearance of bipartisanship

than the substance of an infrastructure package,  Biden now finds himself trying to thread a needle that can sew together waring elements in his own party with Republicans who might agree to pass something.

Progressive Democrats, particularly in the House, have begun expressing exasperation

with the whole idea of a bipartisan deal. A few, like Pramila Jayapal of Washington, chair of the Congressional Progressive  Caucus, think the whole bipartisan

effort has been “wasted.” A few in the group have hinted they won’t vote for the kind of narrow bill worked out with Senate Republicans. Given the slim Democratic majority in the House, Biden can’t lose many Democratic votes in the lower chamber, since it’s not clear any Republicans will vote “yes.”

 

Shortcomings

Make no mistake, the deal with Republicans

has major weaknesses.  First,  it’s paid for with gimmicks – smoke and mirrors ideas that placate Republican refusal to raise taxes on the  wealthy. Second,

it doesn’t address a number of real needs Biden’s original big bill took head on.

Paying for the smaller bill will come from a combination of things like unused unemployment benefits money and  increased tax collections generated by a bigger IRS

budget. We’re not keen on that idea in particular. Experience suggests the yield from such an effort often comes up short. Beyond that, the country must address income inequality and the fact the wealthy currently don’t pay their fair share in taxes.  Even without the country’s massive infrastructure need, those earning over $400,000 a year should pay more.

Most experts who’ve analyzed the infrastructure proposals think the bill Biden and the bipartisan group agreed on doesn’t really tackle climate change. With the recent heatcatastrophe in the Pacific Northwest and an already raging Atlantic hurricane season (more named storms earlier than ever), we can’t imagine anyone thinking we don’t face a real climate crisis. Other shortcomings in the bill agreed on concern not enough emphasis on high speed rail and not enough money for improving the nation’s electric grid. That’s especially needed if more electric vehicles and devices come online in transportation and other industries.

 

Who Do You Trust?

Part of the dilemma Biden now faces rests in the fact he must deal with both outright enemies in the other party and skeptics in his own. Most Republicans in both houses of Congress don’t want to do anything except

obstruct him. Some House Democrats now don’t trust him to follow through and fight for a bill based on reconciliation, so some now appear reluctant to give him the smaller bill as a start.

Biden may have to wait until after the 2022 mid-terms before he can complete this process. Democratic prospects don’t look bad now for picking up a seat or two in the Senate. For one thing Republicans must defend 20 seats, Democrats only 14. For another, Republican incumbents in swing states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina aren’t seeking re-election, potentially giving Democrats opportunities. That might diminish the importance of problem Democrats like Manchin and Sinema and pave the way for a doable reconciliation bill with tax increases and meaningful spending on pressing needs like climate change and electric grid development. But, Democrats are in real danger of losing the House in 2022 because of redistricting, Republican voter suppression, and the historical fact a president’s party usually loses seats in the mid-term elections right after that president takes office.

One irony in all this resides in the fact Biden’s original proposal enjoys 68% support among the people. Republicans in Congress apparently listen only to the 29% opposed.

Infrastructure provides Biden with a major test and a real opportunity. If he gets his two bills, he will have done his own party and the country a major service. Maybe he simply lives to fight another day with a new Congress. In today’s political circumstances, that can rank as a major accomplishment.

THE DOLLARWAY SYNDROME: RACE, INDIVIDUAL GOODWILL, and the CONTINUING STRUGGLE FOR EQUALITY

This time Rob introduces an idea he's developing for a book. We'll explore it with him over the coming months.

Fifty plus years ago, I first observed something in American race relations I've never forgotten. I now call what I saw the Dollarway Syndrome. I noticed it while attending Dollarway, the Pine Bluff, Arkansas high school from which I graduated in 1969. I didn't call my observation the Dollarway Syndrome then. Naming it and getting an understanding of it required college, graduate school, law school, and the ensuing 50 years of living. Even though I can now define and describe it, explain its manifestations, and offer conjecture about what it means, I continue grappling with why it exists and how we deal with it individually and as a nation.

A Definition 

The Dollarway Syndrome is the inclination of white Americans to treat individual  black Americans with respect, kindness, civility, and compassion while, at the same time, supporting and espousing political and social policies and outcomes that oppress black people. After a rough start, at Dollarway I found acceptance, companionship, and caring. High school for me turned out like high school should — a time of personal growth and exploration punctuated by special memories, with a few enduring friendships thrown in for good measure.  I also saw and experienced insensitivity, cruelty, and hostility directed at an entire people. Many of my classmates loudly expressed indifference or even glee at the killings of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy and championed the political causes of George Wallace and other Southern human right violators.

King and Kennedy - 1963

In the intervening years, I've seen this duality in the workplace, sports, business, interpersonal relations, and other facets of American life. That such phenomena exist and thrive remains disconcerting. Exploring this now represents a late-in-life effort at getting my arms around it and offering a perspective those who've observed and experienced the Dollarway Syndrome might find helpful.

Changing Times

Since I noticed the Dollarway Syndrome, I've seen great racial change in America, including the end of de jure segregation, a rising black middle class, election of the first black President of the United States, and increasing incidence and acceptance of interracial marriage. These and other changes in America's racial picture signal progress toward equity and a just society. Nevertheless, the United 

States remains a nation troubled by racial discord, with significant gaps between blacks and whites in wealth, income, educational achievement, professional advancement, political strength, and other indicators of status and power. The Dollarway Syndrome persists and, in my view, promotes marginal progress while preventing real equity.

What I've seen also counsels that I accept the challenge of exploring how those who care about creating a just society can make the Dollarway Syndrome serve that goal. White people otherwise hostile to black political and social progress, in their respectful and civil treatment of individual blacks, show a capacity for finding common ground with those seeking societal change. Woodson argues racial 

justice requires finding allies who can see improving America's racial landscape as in their best interest or in the best interest of the country. They view it that way despite the continuing prevalence of partisanship, racial isolation, and tribalism. Woodson's notion prompts an important question: How do blacks and whites form alliances that can extract America from the racial ruts in which we've found ourselves since my Dollarway days?

The last ten years have shown us hope and despair on matters of race. Barack Obama's election in 2008 provided  

the tantalizing, if ultimately false, hope of a colorblind society. During Trump’s first years, we've seen ugliness we thought we'd left behind. Obama's ascension and what's happened early in the time of Trump, signal opportunity and challenge. They show what we can do and what we haven't done. By looking through the prism of the Dollarway Syndrome and its maddening duality, perhaps we can see how we build on the opportunities while tackling the challenges.

The Personal Part

My history affects my view of this. I was born at the tail end of

the Jim Crow era and grew up in a small, segregated Arkansas town. I experienced the good fortune of being the child of educated parents who cherished learning, promoted hard work, and, by example, steered me away from hate. They kept their eyes open for injustice, but believed in the promise of better days and taught me optimism, not hopelessness. Partly because of them, I kept seeking education, which has served me well and shielded me from much of the world's harshness.

Race, however, always lurked in the background of my life. What I experienced and observed at Dollarway never left my consciousness. Things have changed, but, then again, they've stayed the same. That fact informs and defines my exploration of the Dollarway Syndrome.

Perhaps readers have experience with the Dollarway syndrome.  We invite them to share.