REPUBLICAN REJECTION OF THE JANUARY 6 COMMISSION: IS THIS WORSE THAN MEETS THE EYE?

Why would President Joe Biden say on Memorial Day that “Democracy itself is in peril?” No modern president has issued a comparable warning.

Military veteran and former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a one-time Republican Senator from Nebraska, suggested a military coup could occur in America when he said, “The real threat is internal.” He added that America’s future is “in jeopardy.” What are Biden and Hagel worried about? What are they telling us?

Are they afraid one of our major political parties – the Republican Party – has become the anti-democracy party?

If not Treason, What?

On January 6, hundreds of mostly white people stormed the U.S. Capitol. They hoisted the Confederate flag, constructed a hangman’s noose, and overcame Capitol police with guns, knives, bear spray, clubs, and

poles. They took over both congressional chambers and chanted things like “Hang Mike Pence” and “Kill Nancy Pelosi.” Their invasion ultimately caused five deaths.

For more than four hours, the mob disrupted

congressional certification of Electoral College votes. Securing the Capitol took that amount of time. In all American history, the United States Capitol building had never been taken over by domestic invaders and only once –during the War of 1812 – by foreigners.

Though many in the crowd wore Trump

clothing and carried Trump signs, some in the right wing media claimed the insurgents were actually Black Lives Matter and Antifa members masquerading as Trump supporters. Some suspect

Republican members of Congress may have helped organize the invasion or at least enabled it.

 

Who’s Complicit?

House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi and the ranking

Republican on that committee, New York’s John Katko, drafted bipartisan legislation that would have created an independent commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection. House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy regularly consulted Katko during that process and Thompson gave Katko all he asked for in the negotiations. Still, McCarthy withdrew his support and urged that Republicans vote against the measure. Only 35 GOP members ended up voting with Democrats when the measure passed the House.

In the Senate, Republicans launched a filibuster, meaning the legislation needed 60 votes. Just seven Republicans joined 50 Democrats in voting yes, so the measure failed.

               

Why would 43 of the 50 Republican senators not

want answers to the questions surrounding the insurrection? Who organized it, for example? Why were the invaders determined to overthrow the democratic process by violent means? What were Republican senators afraid of? Why would they not support bipartisan legislation aimed at getting the facts about such an unprecedented domestic attack on the American Capitol?  Something is clearly afloat.

One obvious answer lies in the control Donald Trump still exerts over the base of the Republican

Party. In controlling that base, he controls members of Congress it elects. “He has a grip over politicians because he has a grip over voters,” says Carol Leonnig, author of Zero Fail: The Rise and

Fall of the Secret Service. These elected officials want to maintain their offices  and the benefits that go with serving the interests of movement conservatism. An interlocking set of institutions and alliances wins elections by stoking cultural and racial anxiety while using its power in pushing an elitist economic agenda, as  Paul Krugman writes in Arguing with Zombies. Since Republicans want to regain control of the House and Senate, they know they can’t do so without the white lemming that makes up the Republican base.

In the wake of the GOP’s rejection of the January 6

commission measure, former Trump national security adviser Michal Flynn, once a three-star general in the U.S. Army, told a QAnon conference a military coup “should happen” in the United States. Flynn referred to events in Myanmar, where the military overthrew a democratically elected government on the basis of unproven allegations of voter fraud. Other similarly disturbing statements from Trump supporters haven’t gotten the attention Flynn got, but it appears treasonous comments are becoming common place among Republicans and Trump supporters.

 

So What’s the Bargain?

Lyndon Johnson, the nation’s 36^th president, once said, “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

Donald Trump ran for president in 2016 as the

champion of the little guy. His only significant legislative achievement, however, was a tax cut for the rich that ripped a hole in the social safety net his blue-collar supporters need. So, what do those supporters get out of the deal? Mostly, it seems, what President Johnson told us – a chance to look down on someone.      

Trump no longer pretends he’s going to make life better for working class whites in his base. They get xenophobic diatribes and racist venom directed at blacks, browns, and Asians but not much else. In the final analysis, Trump gives them someone they can look down on. Meantime, with the support of that base, the Republican Party has become the anti-democracy party. It seeks to deprive all but white people of the benefits of democracy. That’s the Faustian bargain. So they can look down on blacks, browns, Asians, and other out groups, Trump supporters discard democracy, with the complicity of their leaders.

So, we ask again – what do Biden and Hagel know? If we ignore the clear and present danger this “deal,” this “bargain” Trump’s supporters and GOP leaders have struck, we could all lose.  

                            

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.

THREE TAKES ON THE BIDEN AGENDA

 President Biden laid out his ambitious agenda in a generally well-received speech to a pared down, socially distant joint session of Congress on April 28. The president apparently has the wind at his back in terms of public support for the measures he’s proposing. Polling indicates voters, including many Republicans, back Biden’s proposals.

That does not mean he has Republican support in Congress. If much of his program becomes law, it will happen because Democrats unify and pass

financially related matters through budget reconciliation. The fate of voting rights and police reform measures, to which reconciliation doesn’t apply, remains doubtful.

Though all three of us count ourselves as supporters of the president and his administration, we don’t have a unified view of all Biden’s proposals.  The differences are sometimes subtle and can turn on political calculations, not substantive policy views:

 

Henry:  All In                                                                   

Biden’s overarching themes hold great appeal for me. I particularly like the fact he has cast his program in terms of creating opportunity out of crisis. The United States still faces the pandemic and the economic fallout it created, not to mention potentially existential

threats in climate change and systemic racism. As Republicans increasingly claim systemic racism doesn’t exist, Biden and other progressives must push for changes in policing and attack economic inequality. These difficult issues offer an opportunity for much needed solutions we’ve put off long enough.

Biden has also struck a chord with me by emphasizing that his plans address the nation’s

need for reality and hope. That means legislation and an administrative approach that tackles problems in

concrete ways and offers Americans hope they can have better futures and an efficient government that works.

As for the individual components of Biden’s legislative agenda, I offer my total support on rejoining the Paris Climate Accords, reforming and revising the corporate tax structure so the wealthy and big business pay their fair share, universal background checks for firearms purchases, an end to so-called ghost guns that law enforcement can’t track, recasting the ways we look at and think of infrastructure, and creating a citizenship path for undocumented immigrants.

President Biden is on the right track and I’m there with him.

Woodson: Congress, Your Move                         

I find little in Biden’s speech with which to disagree. We will have to wait and see how

many of Biden’s policies become law. I hope they all do. These policies are the most progressive since Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.   

                                        

Reminding his fellow countrymen that he is a man of action, Biden opened his speech by pointing out that his AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN had already resulted in $1,400.00 checks reaching 85% of American families and 220 million Americans receiving Covid-19 shots. 

Biden elaborated further on his agenda:

AMERICAN JOBS PLAN – jobs in theconstruction of roads, bridges, rails, transit lines, replacing lead pipes in schools and day

care centers, and bringing high speed internet to the entire country. He urged Congress to pass pay equity legislation for women and endorsed $15.00 as an hourly minimum wage.

AMERICAN FAMILIES PLAN – 2 years of quality preschool and 2 years of free community college; $3,600.00 in childcare tax credits; greater investment in black, and tribal colleges.

AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN – lower premiums and deductibles for persons who get their medical insurance through the Affordable Care Act; and a reduction in the cost of prescription drugs.

Biden will pay for this with no increase in taxes on the middle class or poor. Only individuals and corporations who make more than $400,000.00 annually will experience a tax increase.

Biden announced the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan but remained committed to fighting terrorism abroad and at home,

saying that white nationalists were the greatest terrorist threat that the nation faced. He mentioned George Floyd by name when urging Congress to pass legislation to insure equitable policing and urged the passage of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.

In my view, Biden got the policies and the politics right. Congress should pass the necessary legislation.

Rob: Consider at Least Tapping the Brakes

                         

I’m generally supportive of the administration’s

agenda. We must address infrastructure and climate. The corporate tax structure requires a  fix even if the federal government didn’t need one additional dime for Biden’s program or anything else. I see raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy as the necessary first step in ending our grotesque income inequality problem.

That’s the primary beef I have with the Bernie Sanders – Elizabeth Warren economic and tax

programs from which Biden has borrowed so  heavily. They propose tax increases for new spending. I propose tax increases because we  need a fairer tax system in which everyone pays their just share. Enacting the

tax increases without as much spending as Biden plans would make us a more equitable society and likely spur an economic revival reminiscent of the Clinton years. Forty-two increased taxes on upper income taxpayers and wiped out the deficit in the process. He presided over modest spending increases, but the main impact of higher tax revenue was holding down interest rates. Government borrowing didn’t absorb capital that became available for businesses, large and small.  We experienced prolonged growth that lasted into the George W. Bush years.

We should do much of what Biden proposes. I’m not interested in giving aid and comfort to obstructionist Republicans by opposing him. If I were a senator, when push came to shove,

I’m  sure I’d vote for his bills. We might, however, consider doing what he wants in bite-sized chunks. Just saying, you know.  

WASHINGTON, D.C.: TIME TO MAKE IT THE 51ST STATE

The issue of statehood for Washington, D.C.  has resurfaced with new urgency. This year,the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, as in 2020, passed legislation making the District of Columbia  the 51^st state. Prospects for passage in the almost evenly divided Senate aren’t good, making it unlikely the country will get its first new state in 62 years.

We decided we should tackle the issue because (1) the history isn’t well understood and (2) the matter has become so entangled with racially-tinged partisan politics, it deserves examination in the context of the country’s social justice/racial equality

discussion. Though we each support D.C. statehood, we don’t come  at the issue from the same perspective, so we’ll offer different approaches.   

 

Rob and Henry:  An Idea Whose Time Has 

Come

Why hasn’t Washington, D.C. been a state all along? We mostly can thank James Madison. He contended in Federalist No. 43 that for its own maintenance and safety, the nation’s capital should remain separate and distinct from any other state. He feared “an imputation of awe or influence” dishonorable and unsatisfactory to the other states in the union.

Fair enough. Maybe that rationale made

sense in the late 1700s when the exercise of power by the few people living in the nation’s capital might bring down on them the wrath of the other states. That hardly seems likely now, given the strength of the American military and the difficulty the states would have in taking unified action against Washington.

Opponents of D.C. statehood hardly ever trot out Madison’s argument now. They rely on tradition (that’s how it’s always been), nonsense like Washington’s small geographical size and lack of certain “amenities” (one opponent noted it doesn’t have a landfill), and blatant political concerns (like fear of adding two Democratic senators).

We find the history worth studying because it also shows Americans understood from the

beginning the fundamental unfairness of subjecting Washington’s citizens to the same taxes, military service obligations, and other federally imposed duties the rest of us have, but without representation in Congress (Washington has a non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives, but no representation at all in the U. S. Senate). 

Early in the country’s history political pundits recognized the problem. Augustus Woodward, writing in 1801 under the name Epaminondas, suggested giving Washington one senator and House seats based on population. Over 150 constitutional amendments and  bills have

been proposed since that would allow Washington representation in Congress. Since the mid-1980s, members of Congress have offered more than a dozen statehood bills. Until the 2020 and 2021 measures that passed the House, the bills failed. Most never got a vote in either chamber.

                                      

Support for D.C. statehood has become imbedded in the Democratic Party’s agenda. Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, the last three Democratic presidents, each endorsed the idea. In November 2016, 79% of D.C. residents voted ‘yes’ on a statehood referendum.

            

As we noted, the D.C. statehood issue now

mostly turns on race and party politics. Washington’s population is  about 47% black and the city votes overwhelmingly Democratic in presidential elections. Republicans who oppose D.C. statehood will talk about political “imbalance.” Most won’t, however, come out and say they just don’t want two more black Democratic senators, even if race in many cases underlies their opposition. 

               

We have a hard time seeing a basis for

opposing D.C.  statehood, given the fairness issue -- we did fight a war with England over ‘taxation without representation,’ didn’t we? As for Washington’s characteristics, while it would be the smallest state geographically, it wouldn’t

have the smallest population (fewer people live in Vermont and Wyoming). It would,  however, have the highest median household income among the states, the highest per capita GDP, and the best educated populace, since almost 60% of its residents hold a bachelor’s degree and 34% have graduate degrees. This is an idea whose time has come.                

Woodson Has His Say

The District of Columbia (D.C.) consists of 712,000 U.S. Citizens – 45.1 percent black, 42.2 white, 5.2 Hispanic, 4.1 percent Asian, 0.2 percent Native American and Alaska Native, 0.1 percent Pacific Islander and 3.1 percent from two or more races. All are bound by the Constitution to fight the country’s wars and pay taxes. There are more residents in D.C. than are in Wyoming and Vermont. D.C’s

population is practically equal to that of Alaska, and North Dakota. Each of these states has two senators and one representative in Congress. Because D.C. is not a state, it has no senators or voting representative in Congress.

Should D.C. be granted Statehood? The U. S. House of Representatives thinks so. In April, it voted 208 – 216 to grant D.C. Statehood. Now it must get through the Senate.

            

Granting D.C. Statehood has the benefit of giving this diverse population what they have voted for through a free and fair election. In a 2016 referendum, 79 % of D.C’s residents voted for Statehood. The principle of  “one

man, one vote” should be respected. Granting D.C. Statehood would say to other countries around the world that America believes in democracy no matter the racial makeup of the constituency. Also, because of the diversity of the constituency (the most diverse in the country) D.C. would serve as secure senatorial seats for racial progressives to advance policy discussions and legislation on race, ethnicity, and nationality. Because these officials are almost certain to be persons of color,  it offers the country the opportunity to regularly have brown and black 

faces in high places. The

country could use more of this symbolism. While 

this representation would be more than mere symbolism, symbolism does matter. That would be good for us and our children.