President Biden Wants To Use State of the Union To Change The Subject
Even though last year’s address to congress was one in all but name, President Joe Biden finds himself preparing his first official State of the Union address with a whole lot going on.
When President Joe Biden began mulling the themes he wanted to strike during his State of the Union address, the President knew he would likely need to include Russia’s buildup of troops near Ukraine.
But in those early drafting sessions late last year, he did not expect the speech to act as a rallying cry for a besieged European nation.
Now, as Biden prepares to deliver his yearly address to Congress and the nation, the White House and Democratic allies are acknowledging the war in Ukraine will assume an outsized role in what his advisers had once viewed primarily as an attempt to reset his economic agenda.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Monday that “there’s no question that this speech is a little different than it would have been just a few months ago.” And Sen. Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary Committee who’s a longtime friend and colleague of Biden’s, said the President’s domestic agenda and any accomplishments he will outline during the address have effectively “been eclipsed by Ukraine.”
While the historic Supreme Court nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will still be part of the President’s message, Durbin said it would understandably take a back seat to escalating conflict in Ukraine by Russia.
“It’s a life and death struggle,” Durbin said, “that will be front and center.”
Russia’s invasion has galvanized Western nations and, in an era of bitter division in the United States, drawn mostly unanimous condemnation from Democrats and Republicans alike. It makes for an urgent illustration of Biden’s animating principle of protecting democracies from a global wave of autocracy.
Biden and his team have revised portions of his speech to reflect the crisis, which the administration has been warning about for months. Once-unthinkable images of missiles and urban warfare in a European capital have gripped the President and his aides as a 70-year peace on the continent is tested anew.
As he was drafting the address with members of his team, Biden was thrust into a foreign policy emergency, sending them into the Situation Room nearly every day over the past several weeks as new intelligence showed the likelihood of an imminent attack growing.
Between his everyday meetings and frequent briefings about the Ukraine-Russia conflict, Biden has been preparing for his address by working with speechwriters and members of his policy team to adjust his message. He’s also been doing run-throughs of his remarks, according to the White House.
His longtime messaging guru Mike Donilon has worked alongside Biden’s top speechwriter Vinay Reddy on the tone and writing in the speech.
Other policy advisers have helped corral the annual litany of requests from across the government to include various agencies’ priorities in the speech.
Psaki told reporters on Monday that Biden is expected to lay out the efforts he has taken “to rally the world to stand up for democracy and against Russian aggression.”
“He will talk about the steps we’ve taken to not only support the Ukrainian people with military and economic assistance, but also the steps he’s taken to build a global coalition imposing crippling financial sanctions on President Putin, his inner circle and the Russian economy,” she continued. “And he will talk about the steps he’s taken to mitigate the impact of President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, on the global economy and the American people.”
Psaki also said Biden is expected to discuss the US’ importance as a global leader and the efforts he’s undertaken to mitigate the impacts of the war in Ukraine on Americans.
President Biden usually puts together a good show for big events like this, as political set pieces play to his strengths; his propensity for gaffes, cringe, and awkwardness more often comes from off-the-cuff remarks. With public support overwhelmingly behind Ukraine in their fight against the invasion of Russian forces at the behest of Vladimir Putin, the President should have a built-in layup in the rare unifying issue to lead off his remarks with. He will talk up his nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson for the Supreme Court, which will illicit partisan huffing and puffing but is not in any doubt of being confirmed.
But then comes the nitty gritty. As usual, most of the State of the Union speech will be a wish list of policies, legislation, and other things the president would like to see happen, intertwined with another list of the administration’s accomplishments thus far. The issue here, of course, is that with a 50-50 senate, narrow margin in the house, and primaries for the 2022 midterm only weeks away President Biden’s legislative wish list is going to be just that. With COVID-19 concerns fading, the economy will once again be the pressing issue on everyone’s mind, and the President has a steep hill to climb on the economic front with data that looks good on paper but real world issues like cost of goods and gas prices hitting Americans directly. Talking up the low unemployment numbers is all well and good, but folks also see all the help wanted signs, notice the labor issues at service sector businesses and how it’s affecting customer service, and feel something very different in their daily lives than U6 unemployment numbers alone can explain.
The State of the Union is big on perception, being the premier dog-and-pony show on the political calendar each year. The pageantry of it is meant to be as politically important as the often quickly forgotten words, as the optics of the President in an overflowing House of Representatives large and in charge. But those optics are also limited, and in a world where we see and hear from the president almost daily anyway with a nationalized news media there is no specialness left to the annoyingly endless clapping and applause of the chamber keeping what is usually an already too-long speech going even longer. The performative applause lines and stand up, sit down, fight fight fight pep rally feel does not endear the State of the Union to folks who aren’t hardcore political junkies. But the spectacle still pulls a rating, and talking heads and commentators will insist that this is a pivotal moment in the Biden Presidency, the history of the country, and the biggest factor in the latest upcoming most important election of our lifetime.
Maybe it will be, but I doubt it. Like most of the Biden administration so far, I expect the after effect of this State of the Union speech to be a microcosm of our president’s current term so far: over promised, under delivered, well planned-out but caught up in forces he cannot control, big on optics and rhetoric but light on accomplishments and achieved goals, not quite matching the realities of a divided country and government with a desire for sweeping, generational change.
Those looking for a big reset, or restart, or change to the President’s fortunes should prepare themselves for disappointment. Those watching and analyzing the State of the Union should prepare themselves for a whole lot of more of the same. Those of us who comment on such things will have to work really hard not to repeat ourselves.
But not to worry; if all else fails, we can all meet right back here same time next year, for that State of the Union speech that is sure to turn it all around, fix everything, and be the new hotness that will sweep us all into a better future. So, something to look forward to.
If you want to know the numbers with which our Commander-in-Chief is entering his groundbreaking speech, you can look at the most recent Quinnipiac poll.
If you look at those numbers and are immediately inclined to ask “WHO IN THE HELL IS QUINNIPIAC ANYWAY?!?!?”, you can read about them here but the line that might be most relevant to your question is this one:
Report
Quinnipiac is a well known polling outfit. I’ve cited them in some of my posts. They also have a history of skewing right.Report
That did not show up in Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, the thing about how they were “most accurate” got in there instead.
(Of course, I could see how some might interpret “accurate” as “right wing”.)Report
You got me curious and I started googling.
Here is a wonderful Voxsplainer explaining why Quinnipiac had Donald Trump ahead of Hillary Clinton in 2016. (That’s probably part of why they are considered to have skewed right.)
Here is a Quora talking about how they’re not that biased but, jeez, anybody can answer those questions.
Here is 538 giving Quinnipiac an A-. But 538 is kind of right-wing too, kinda.
Anyway, I couldn’t find the sources you used to get you to the conclusions you’ve reached.Report
A polling outlet can have a skew and still be good. If the skew is relatively consistent, it can be accounted for.
I’ve seek Quinnipiac sited everywhere for years… it always stood out because I know someone who went there decades ago. I thought no one even knew about the school!Report
While I might be willing to agree that an outlet can have a skew and still be good, I need it explained to me how a sufficiently good outlet’s skew would be more important to its interpretation than as a way for people who have a skew in the other direction to deflect away from the outlet’s goodness.
Like, a way to talk about the polling company instead of the content of the polls.
Again: all of the research I’ve done has gotten me to “this polling outlet is pretty good, all things considered” rather than “they have a history of skewing right”.
If you have a “they skew right” source, I’d love to see it!
Because I haven’t found one.
And, instead, I’m discussing how a skewed place can still be pretty accurate in theory.Report
You lost me.
I’m on board with using polling data gathered by Quinnipiac. When I said, “I’ve seen them everywhere,” I meant that they have always seemed to exist as a fairly mainstream, reliable polling outlet. Apologies for vagueness.
I don’t know if they have a skew. I was merely offering that polls can have skew and still be worthwhile. It’s kinda like the whole accurate vs reliable thing.Report
Skew definitely goes both ways, and its important to know the skew of a polling organization because it gives you some shorthand on questions they may or may not ask, and responses they may or may not make public.
For instance, Fox News has an in-house poling arm that gets all sorts of interesting data. I have occasionally cited it here. Often, however, their most interesting questions and answers never see the light of day unless someone digs them out because the data they present doesn’t comport with Fox’s preferred narrative.
As to the poll skew itself. yes, according to 538, Quinnipiac skews 0.5 points D. That’s roughly as far as Mason-Dixon and Sienna college skew Republican, and not nearly as republican as Rasmussan (R +1.5) or MRG Research (R+3.1) (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/)Report
So their history of skewing right is “0.5 points D”?
I am willing to run with that.Report
You know what might have avoided a discussion of Quinnipiac’s quality? You not starting a discussion about Quinnipiac’s quality.
Congrats, you baited Phillip.Report
I kind of see any discussion of Biden’s polling as inspiring a discussion of the quality of the polling outlet.
I was hoping to cut it off at the knees by pointing to its Wikipedia page.
Alas, I picked a polling outlet that only skews Dem by half a point so *OF COURSE* it inspired comments about trending right.
I’d ask for a polling outlet that wouldn’t be controversial but the last time I did that we ended up with Sam Wang.Report
Lots of people would argue Jaybird baits me quite routinely.
Its ok, I long ago accepted I’d be drawn into stuff like this because I seem to lack the cognitive ability to understand what people are “really saying” when they write stuff. Like if Jay were to write the moon was green I’d be expecting a discussion of why the moon appeared green, not a discussion of the morality of the moon or the color green.Report
So sad to hear about Phillip’s loss of agency.Report
That was not a defense of Phillip. Far from it.
Jaybird detracted from his own point then got all huffy when his point was lost in the detraction.Report
I was trying to establish that Quinnipiac was a respectable polling institution. Like, and *AVOID* the accusation that it was unduly biased to the point where its bias was interesting.
Philip pointed out that it leaned right, only weighting Democrats +0.5.
Once we hammered that its bias was extant (because who in this vale of tears is not biased?) but not biased enough to have its bias be particularly interesting, I was delighted to talk about the numbers.Report
They’re racist and skew Right, it’s impossible for HRC to lose, just look at the Huffington Post’s conclusions.
That’s a great link.Report
Well, now that we have hammered out Quinnipiac’s skew, maybe we can look at their numbers.
I gotta say, it’s that last one that surprises me. I would have thought that Biden wouldn’t be underwater on Ukraine.
Oh, now it makes sense. It’s because people are FREAKING INSANE.
The Supreme Court announcement is weird. It’s only 48% to 22% with 29% not offering an opinion.
No idea how to interpret that. Maybe Biden cut himself off at the knees by announcing things in the wrong order. “I’m going to nominate the best gol-danged judge you’ve ever seen!” and then picking Ketanji Brown Jackson strikes me as a smarter play, but, of course, the “that’s because so many people are racist” is sitting right there and I’m hesitant to use it.
Maybe someone else can pick it up.Report
“I gotta say, it’s that last one that surprises me. I would have thought that Biden wouldn’t be underwater on Ukraine.”
I gotta find the link but Trump-voters (not to be confused with Republicans or conservatives) poll pretty consistently at 80-90% against whatever Biden says or does, including on Ukraine. So that is a major factor in him being underwater there.
That same link also showed some inconsistency among the populace at large, including a large group thinking Biden/the US should be doing more but then being against most specific measures that would constitute “more”.
Which, hey, people are gonna people.Report
Here it is: https://news.yahoo.com/poll-74-percent-of-americans-call-russias-ukraine-invasion-unjustified-142128676.htmlReport
538 gives YouGov a B+ (slightly lower than Quinnipiac’s A-) and has them with a slight D lean (.7).
These ratings seem based on how they perform during major election cycles so now sure how applicable they are to things like this. But I don’t see any particular reason to think these results are unreliable.Report
Well Even Fox News could have told you that:
https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-president-biden-not-tough-russiaReport
What’s most striking to me is how refreshingly low key and effective Biden has been throughout the entire Ukrainian crisis, which I think explains the befuddlement of a lot of media outlets.
Rather than strutting across a flight deck in a Halloween costume, or firing off incoherent belligerent tweets, he has quietly and effectively mustered a global coalition which has completely overhauled the post-Soviet order.Report
Don’t jinx it, I agree Biden has done well so far but he still has a long way to go.Report
I know I have a deserved reputation here for being a super-partisan Democrat because I am one but it strikes me that a lot of Americans see the Presidency (whoever occupies it) as being the equivalent of a Bronze Age shaman-priest-magician-king who is supposed to solve all the problems or get thrown into ocean as a sacrifice to appease the Gods. I remember an Obama era cartoon with two captions. One was “what the President does” and it showed Obama reading through a massive number of policy papers on every subject imaginable. The second caption was “what people think the President does” and it showed Obama fiddling with a bunch of dials and levers that stated things like “gas prices” (always a sore subject for Americans). I think there is a lot of unfortunate truth in this cartoon.
My (will be accused of bias) view re Ukraine is that this is probably one of the best foreign policy performances I have seen from a President in my lifetime. Biden has kept the people of this country informed, up to date, our intelligence was good and shared. He has also not committed any troops to Ukraine. Though that remains a trillion dollar question for the west.
But things like supply-chains, coming out of a pandemic fucked up by an incompeten,t syphilitic vainglorious POS, inflation, and dealing with the moronic Let’s Go Brandon crowd, and a highly partisan and biased Federal Court system with easy venue shopping is hard.* So people just wail “But Biden is not fixing all the problems.”
*Fed Courts are going to be the gift that keeps on giving for firebreathing reactionary Republicans for another 30-40 years. A District Court judge in Arkansas ignored precedent from his own circuit and the Supreme Court to launch an attach on the VRA. He is a year older than me and can be on the bench for a long time. So can many of Trump’s reactionary appointments.Report
Its still early and events are still unfolding, but one of the things I’ve noticed about calamities like war is how they blow away much of the trivia that passes for politics in our culture.
Most of the furor and dialogue in 2016 was over ephemera- stories about emails, tweets filled with Pepe memes, and was mostly conducted like a reality show contest of personalities. In the media coverage nothing seemed real or of any particular significance.
Notice the sudden silence of people who only a short time ago had voices that seemed worthy of attention. People like Tucker Carlson, the former guy, the Fox News mediaverse- they are either now meekly walking back their previous idiocy or suddenly shifitng tone and pretending to be something they are not.
Because they never had anything of value to say in the first place. Their voices and opinions were always nothing but snark and glib sarcasm, when they were bitter resentment and grievance. They never had serious thoughtful analyses of world events, no deep insights or thoughts.
And so, when we see videos of women desperately throwing Molotov cocktails at tanks with their terrified children behind them, how ridiculous do those former voices appear, how grotesque is their whining sense of grievance and how petty and utterly without meaning were their smarmy tweets and sneering jokes.Report
On the one hand, I’ve always thought one of the more laughable aspects of the admiration by Tucker et al. for illiberal eastern European types was the apparent belief that such rulers would let people like them live.
Of course I’ve also seen a lot of MSM folks crowing about the reported death of Magomed Tushayev in a manner suggesting they believe the gay rights situation in the Islamic Gangsta’s Republic of Chechnya is remotely relevant to the war in Ukraine.
So you know, delusions abound, even in times of strife.Report
For years I’ve thought the talking heads weren’t much. It’s most obvious on the financial news, “because of X the stock market went down”, “in spite of X the stock market went up”.
Oh, and if you have something really insightful on predicting the market you can earn tens of millions of dollars.Report
” and a highly partisan and biased Federal Court system with easy venue shopping is hard.* So people just wail “But Biden is not fixing all the problems.””
“*Fed Courts are going to be the gift that keeps on giving for firebreathing reactionary Republicans for another 30-40 years.”
Awww…..kinda like when Clinton and Obama got to put judges on the courts?Report
Well other then all the Obama judicial appointments McConnell intentionally held open, sure.Report
In fairness I think this complaint has become a bit outdated. An unsung accomplishment of the Biden admin and Senate has been a massive injection of non-federalist society judges into the federal judiciary.Report
indeed. But this notion that somehow only the democrats have shaped the modern federal judiciary is laughable. And historically incorrect.Report
Exactly, which was my point. Every pres, by his appointments that are approved, shapes the judiciary.Report
Under Clinton, the GOP Senate refused to hold hearings, to the point that CJ Rehnquist complained publicly that the Federal courts couldn’t do their jobs.
But sure BSDI.Report
Well yeah because they do. And if you’ve got the Senate, you stall and block the other side’s nominations. The repubs have just had the Senate a lot more than the Dems. Shesh.Report
Find a time when a D senate blocked so many nominations that they got called out by the CJ. During Nixon, Ford, Reagan, W, even Trump. Go ahead, I’ll wait.Report
Speaking of, is the Republican plan to only appoint Federalist judges different than the Democratic plan to appoint one Black woman to SCOTUS?
I mean, there has been lots of talk that by narrowing the field, the Dems were making it impossible to just the most — or even A — qualified candidate. But doesn’t limiting your selections to Federalist Society members/recommendations do the same thing? Or is this totally different because reasons?Report
Considering the number of not qualified ratings this has yielded from the American Bar Association for Republican appointees . . .Report
Every four years, America goes to the polls and hopes the person they are selecting to be President is the return of King Arthur.Report
“Ukraine in their fight against the invasion of Russian forces at the behest of Vladimir Putin, the President should have a built-in layup in the rare unifying issue to lead off his remarks with”
I think the temptation will be to do more than take the lay-up and move on… I’d advise against making the Ukraine situation a cornerstone of any sort of pivot. Like building on sand.Report
Yea as much as I’d like to see the Ukranians shock the world I think we’ve already done as much as we can. If we can play some role in helping Putin find a face saving exit ramp we should be open to it but we certainly can’t control the outcome. Beyond that it’s quietly telling the Europeans they need to make good on filling in the credibility gap the West has created to make sure nothing like this happens again, then move on to other things.Report
Right, but I think that’s the temptation that makes it so….tempting. Or that’s what I’m hoping we avoid.
It’s one thing to play the prudent statesman on guiding the US through this episode while striking the right balance between respect for sovereignty and diplomacy, the resolve of the world community to discourage military adventurism (not including Yemen and other sundry places), signaling encouragement for Ukraine, talking about the anvil of NATO and it’s refurbishing, but then avoiding going twitter hot-take on how Ukraine will be the pivotal moment of human history and the end of the evil empire of Russian and Mr. Putin in particular thereby ushering in the NEW NATO World Order(tm) it’s the “Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women!” I’m hoping we steer clear of… should be easy enough, right?
Problem is, the last part is what people want to hear… that’s the temptation.Report
No that’s what people are trained to believe they will get. They want more then that.Report
More than lamentations? People are mean.
Not sure I’m following exactly… I think the sentence parses as agreeing that people want more than a measured “lay-up” and therefore the temptation will be to over-promise/over-extend on Ukraine?Report
I assume what everyone wants to see is this.Report
Even the lunatic fringe on the Right wants more then pabulum. They want action, but they have been conditioned to believe all they will get is rhetoric. Its why so many American’s consistently poll as distrusting government. The folks trying to burn down America’s house at the moment are animated by being ignored by their own team for 4 to 5 decades.
So everyone expects Kabuki theatre tonight. They expect to be lied to, coddled and told why their guy won’t fix it all. And even when their guy is 100% right factually about why he can’t fix it all, its not what they want. It is what they have been trained to believe they will get.Report
Awesome move.Report
Time to bring back the letter. Save the campaign speeches for the campaign trail.Report
Would love that.
The Marchmaine passive aggressive presidency:
“To whom it may concern…
[list of congresses short comings]
Warmest Regards,
Pres. MarchReport
You have my vote, sir.Report
A passive aggressive presidency? Could I be your Secretary of Defensiveness?Report
Renaming Treasury to Secretary of Appropriations, just sayin’Report
Oh! Oh! The Department of Laboriousness!Report
Administrator of Small Business
becomes
Administrator of Businesses Trying their BestReport
HUD= Homelessness and Urban Decay.Report
Secretary of the Interior LifeReport
Secretary of Home Land-AcknowledgementsReport
Secretary of Aggravation
Secretary of Commiseration
Secretary of Health. Because as long as you’ve got that.Report
As an ironic twist, you could have the Secy. of State deliver it every year.Report
Under my Administration I pledge he will be the Secretary of ALL the States.
I’m a uniter.Report
Dibs on Ambassador to Canada. It’d be a great pay bump plus I could visit my mum more regularly.Report
Sure, but you wouldn’t actually go to Canada, you’d ask why the Canadians never come visit your embassy in the US.
All of our Embassies are relocated to American soil. If it’s really important they’d come see you.Report
Love it!Report
I’ve been reminded of the history of the 1920s and 30s lately.
Specifically how in those eras, political pundits and cultural critics spoke often about fascism, communism, and things like eugenics with glowing admiration. The thing about these people, was that they themselves were almost all living in liberal democracies, even as they waxed favorably about illiberal undemocracies which in many cases were just hypothetical constructs.
I’m thinking of how in the past decade we’ve seen so many people, from Steve Bannon to Adrian Vermuele to Sohrab Amari, from Rod Dreher to Jason Brennan to the Trumpists all offer various flavored criticisms of democracy and liberalism. And all of these people are of course safely ensconced in liberal democracies.
But just as in the late 30s, now we are witnessing the blitzkrieg, the Rape of Ukraine where suddenly the logical end point of illiberalism is made clear. When people like Ben Garrison and Jon McNaughton draw gauzy heroic portraits of a muscle bound Trump defeating the little people, and when the participants of NIck Fuentes’ white supremacist conference chanted Putin’s name, they are dreaming of an American Putin, the shirtless Man On Horseback who will Make The Rabble Obey.Report
The more insightful half of your list are pretty straight forward that they haven’t figured out the alternative successor ideology to liberalism is. That deficiency remains the most glaring problem for any would be replacers of liberalism on both the left and right- finding something that is coherent enough to replace it AND would actually appeal to people.Report
They have an answer – authoritarian oligarchy. Is what they are aiming for, are openly supporting, and believe solves their problems. Because they don’t care about other people’s problems.Report
Doesn’t work. Authoritarian oligarchy is neither philosophically coherent nor even remotely appealing to anyone except the oligarch which means liberalism thumps it like a drum.Report
And you presume they care why, exactly?Report
Because the list of writers who propose a new world order that no one is interested in and no one pays attention to is so long that and inconsequential that they don’t even keep a list of it. Whereas if you propose a new world order that actually appeals to people then wealth, fame and historic acclaim beat a path to your door. In one corner is Marx, Smith et all, in the other corner is, I dunno, some dude writing an MLP fanfic (actually I’m being mean to MLP fanfic writers- they have no delusions about the weight of what they write).Report
One branch of authoritarian oligarchy is currently attacking Ukraine to prove its right. Another major branch is currently cheering them on from Mar-A-Lago. This isn’t about writers.Report
Well I was talking to Chip about writers and political thinkers.Report
Most of the theorists in the early 20th century were the same way.
Like, eugenics was very popular across a broad swath of intellectuals and Serious People, an idea that reasonable people talked about.
I guarantee that every single one of them were shocked, shocked, by what was discovered at Auschwitz.
Really, Mr. Harvard Perfessor, Doctor Galaxy Brain Deep Thinker, you couldn’t put 2 and 2 together to see where the caliper brigades were going?
And that’s the thing. They weren’t all crypto-Notsees. They just so enjoyed the thrill of imagining a world in which they were part of an exalted class they never bothered to think very hard about the consequences.Report
Well sure, from the integralist imagining he’ll be the next Pope or Holy Emperor to the identarian imagining they’ll be one of the Twitter Elect proclaiming day to day principles of intersectional reality; everyone pushing an ideology like that tends to think they’ll be in charge in the new world order.Report
That’s a natural evolution of Protestantism.
Okay. We’ve dismantled the old order.
NOW WE NEED A POPE!
(With a smattering of “why are these ingrates trying to dismantle our new order?”)Report
Huh? 500 years and no Protestant popes. Or is this an analogy?Report
Oh, they’re not *CALLED* “pope”.
Hell, if you read up on what popes actually do, they’re not that either.
But they’re the authority who authoritatively speaks on matters under his authority (which is pretty much everything).Report
You don’t spend much time hanging around with actual Protestants, do you? Cause we’d be happy to tell you how our denominations actually work . . . if you cared.Report
Oh, it’s worse than that, Phil.
I came up in a Young Earth Creationist corner. Wrote an essay about it and everything.
One of the things that our little corner did was explain to each other how people who didn’t do this or that or the other thing “weren’t really Christian”. Being Calvinist, it meant that those other people were deceived from the get-go.
You wouldn’t *BELIEVE* the minutia that could get you cast into the outer darkness!
Anyway, there was always a little bit of sadness that the limits to our jurisdiction only extended to our little corner instead of to all of Christendom.
Wait. I just reread your comment. “actual Protestants”.
I see that you’re familiar with that of which I speak.Report
That really only works as an analogy, then. And anyway, Chip’s and North’s idea was about an elite class claiming authority, not the masses seeking an individual to claim authority. I mean, one can discuss that idea, but it wasn’t in the previous comments.Report
My take might make a little more sense if you see that I think that “Woke” is that it is the next step in the evolution of Protestantism.
And Protestant Protestantism might as well be the Orthodox Church.Report
Speaking of which, I read a tweet today explaining that the real breaking point was when the Ukrainian Orthodox Church became independent of the Russian one.Report
Yes. That was freakin’ *HUGE*.Report
I wish Christians were more like Jews. We just start a new congregation and talk shit about the old one.Report
I dunno. I heard the Judean People’s Front versus the People’s Front of Judea got pretty violent.Report
It was Purim, and they were all drunk on sweet wine. It was less violent than Mr. Creosote-ish.Report
Liberalism is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Perhaps procedural liberal democracy would hit better. Another issue is that the center-left to left can have plenty of very vocal disagreements amongst itself about what is and what is not liberalism or good policy.Report
Sure they can, but most of it is, by and large, liberal from the Reaganite rump on the right all the way out to AOC and Bernie level socialists on the left. You gotta go pretty far out into the weeds on the left to find the “freedom of speech/capitalism/etc is racist” or the Jacobin tankies before you’ve left the bounds of liberalism. It’s a shorter drive rightward now days, alas, but liberalism still stretches pretty far out there.Report
On social issues, I agree. On economic issues, I think there are real divides. Representative Gottheimer decided now is a great time to go no labels on Biden and Tilab is also going to have a response. I don’t think either will get that much traction but both are pretty dumb actions.
My view of the Democratic Party is this: we are a party of many factions by virtue of not being insane. The factions have some but not many overlapping interests and they certainly do not talk with each other very much. However, every faction seems to think it is the real base on the Democratic Party and has some issues that is hoping mad about that are simply non-issues to the other factions.
I think the left broadly agrees that people should have access to adequate food, healthcare, safety, warmth, shelter, and clothing, etc. The question is how adequate is defined and what needs to be done to get there. A good chunk of the population (I think bigger than you imagine) thinks a lot needs to be radically reformed to get here. Others like Gottheimer and Rice end up doing the “we can do anything to help reduce healthcare costs but we can’t do that if it”. That is always something that will help a lot. Or we have the weird gas tax holiday in-fighting.
The thing that is perplexing about people like Rice, Gottheimer, Sinema, and Manchin is that they end up being against things which have huge popularities.Report
“Tilab is also going to have a response”
Do liberals on this site just not care about spelling funny names?Report
The Democrat Party is beyond petty concerns like spelling.Report
It’s “Souljah,” Pinky.Report
When did typos become partisan?Report
Ibraham X. Kendy wrote that typos are a guerilla tactic of the oppressed.Report
We’re talking about Kendi here, whatever it is- it’s a sign of racism.Report
Definitely racist when he used to get killed in every episode of South Park.Report
I think his comment was meant to be satirical, not actual and a response to Pinky brining out the old saw on the Democrat Party.Report
Yet here we are, and if I’d misspelled Tlaib’s name, or yesterday I misspelled Sister Souljah, or if Trump’s press secretary had misspelled Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s name, you know there would be people making a stink about it. And this is like the last few days. Your accusation that I’m “brining out the old saw” hints at an explanation even as it raises a new question.Report
Remember back when J. Danforth and Mario used to make fun of each other’s names? Good times, good times.Report
Soaking a saw in salt water doesn’t seem like a good idea.Report
I assume everyone has seen the tweets from Tod Kelley and others reporting that Texas is actively investigating families of transgender children.
As before, I am sure there will be whining from some very reasonable and moderate people who are shocked, shocked, that such a thing could happen.
Really? When the Joe Rogans and Quillette crowd were furrowing their brows in concern over men in dresses in little girls restrooms and Just Asking Questions that perhaps this is some we should listen to conservatives about, the Very Intellectual Big Brains couldn’t foresee exactly this development?Report
Do you think that Biden will talk about that in his speech tonight?Report
I doubt it.Report
He did! I honestly didn’t expect him to.Report
He mentioned ithttps://twitter.com/EricaChenoweth/status/1498858730431127554?s=20&t=skzRWvT3t2vEmasX71OfwAReport
Good for him, I’m surprised.Report
Since I’m not on Twitter, no I haven’t. I’m not in any way surprised however.Report
Here’s the prepared text of the SOTU.
Highlights (if you ask me):
“Last year COVID-19 kept us apart. This year we are finally together again.”
“We will buy American to make sure everything from the deck of an aircraft carrier to the steel on highway guardrails are made in America.”
“It won’t look like much, but if you stop and look closely, you’ll see a “Field of dreams,” the ground on which America’s future will be built. This is where Intel, the American company that helped build Silicon Valley, is going to build its $20 billion semiconductor “mega site”.”
“I have a better plan to fight inflation. Lower your costs, not your wages. Make more cars and semiconductors in America. More infrastructure and innovation in America. More goods moving faster and cheaper in America. More jobs where you can earn a good living in America. And instead of relying on foreign supply chains, let’s make it in America.”
“Let’s increase Pell Grants and increase our historic support of HBCUs, and invest in what Jill—our First Lady who teaches full-time—calls America’s best-kept secret: community colleges.”
“I cannot promise a new (COVID-19) variant won’t come. But I can promise you we’ll do everything within our power to be ready if it does.”
“Let’s use this moment to reset. Let’s stop looking at COVID-19 as a partisan dividing line and see it for what it is: A God-awful disease. Let’s stop seeing each other as enemies, and start seeing each other for who we really are: Fellow Americans.”
“We should all agree: The answer is not to Defund the police. The answer is to FUND the police with the resources and training they need to protect our communities.”
“And for our LGBTQ+ Americans, let’s finally get the bipartisan Equality Act to my desk. The onslaught of state laws targeting transgender Americans and their families is wrong.”
“As hard as these times have been, I am more optimistic about America today than I have been my whole life. Because I see the future that is within our grasp. Because I know there is simply nothing beyond our capacity. We are the only nation on Earth that has always turned every crisis we have faced into an opportunity. The only nation that can be defined by a single word: possibilities. So on this night, in our 245th year as a nation, I have come to report on the State of the Union. And my report is this: the State of the Union is strong—because you, the American people, are strong.”
Not a bad speech, all told.
The Ukraine stuff felt… I dunno. I kept waiting to get to the real part of the speech.Report
Odd, I thought the foreign policy bit was Biden’s’ strongest element (though it’s a low bar, SotU speeches almost always are just hodge podges of laundry lists).
Over all I thought it was fine. I was especially pleased by the general centrist tack. Of course now that no major Democratic politicians have endorsed or moved on legislation to defund the police and Biden has once again stated we should do the opposite maybe the canard that the Dems want to defund the police can be put to bed? /sarc
My grade: B+ overall. A on foreign policy and B on domestic policy.Report
the canard that the Dems want to defund the police can be put to bed?
Depends on the Dems.
I think that you could more easily argue that “the Democrats who want to defund the police aren’t representative of anything in particular.”Report
How many Democratic politicians are we talking about? I see one so far. I double checked the Congressional Black Caucus and they don’t seem to be with Rep. Bush on this.Report
A non-zero amount.
I’m cool with saying something like “At this point, ‘Defund’ isn’t a *STRAWMAN*, per se… but it’s definitely nutpicking.”Report
Here’s a list of various Dems black letter saying “Defunding the police means defunding the police”. I also have a youtube video going over them.
https://rsc-banks.house.gov/democrats-push-defund-police
This has quotes and links and what not. There’s about a dozen elected politicians saying it.Report
Canard? For many, it’s their platform.Report
Many? Who? Which congressfolks? Which Senators or Governors? How many?Report
Huh? You already commented on one of them. But which Dems argue against BLM, aside from a few mayors who’ve seen their cities fall apart?Report
You said “many” support Defund the Police and Jay was kind enough to spot you one Congressperson. So it shouldn’t be difficult to pick out a couple dozen more names right? After all there are many of them yes?
We’re not talking about BLM, we’re talking about Defund the Police. Expecting Dems to oppose or argue against BLM is deranged- you might as well expect the GOP to oppose or denounce the Heritage Fund crowd or deficit funded tax cuts; but on the subject of Defunding the Police the Dems have not pushed it and generally spoken against it but it still gets thrown at them ad nauseum.Report
Are you asking about DTP supporters TODAY?
Yeah, that list is now small because it’s a suicidal political position heading into the midterms.
Two years ago. it was common. To insist otherwise is gaslighting.
https://www.newsweek.com/which-lawmakers-support-defunding-police-1510556Report
That article doesn’t say what you think it says. It cites a few Congressmembers who support it (by my count three but it formatted oddly on my phone so it was hard to read). And it cited at least one who pushed back on it. So, yea, I guess maybe 75% of people in that article supported it. But I’m not sure that qualifies as “common.”Report
It was the first article of many you will find on a simple google search. You’re free to memory hole the summer of 2020, but no one but partisans are going to buy the spin.Report
“Here’s proof I’m right!”
“That doesn’t prove you’re right.”
“The internet is full of proof I’m right.” [Offers no proof]Report
Two years ago. it was common. To insist otherwise is gaslighting.
LMAO it’s Squad saying they support it, and Clyburn and a couple others saying it’s a bad idea.
Come on.Report
No reasonable Democrat argues for such a silly policy and any Democrat who still argues for it can be dismissed out of hand.
What is today’s position on Police Unions?Report
I’m not saying the supporters of DTP are being unreasonable. I’m on the fence about whether they’re even wrong, and plenty of people I think are quite reasonable support it.[1]
I’m saying that supporting DTP is uncommon among elected Democrats.
[1] I believe our own Sam Wilkinson is one of themReport
So it’s a reasonable position that may even be correct, but it’s a smear to accuse more than one Democratic politician of supporting it?
I wish you the best of luck with your messaging in the coming months.Report
I’m not doing “messaging”.
I happen to think that a reasonable position, which may be correct, is unpopular, and not many Dems hold that position.Report
Looking at the ground game necessary to get from here to there, I think that, at best, you’ve got an unreasonable and unpopular position that may be correct.
As a former libertarian, this isn’t a criticism as much as an assessment.Report
It’s funny. Supporting BLM isn’t akin to supporting Defund The Police yet it’s clearly stated in their demands. Read #5 for yourself.
https://blacklivesmatter.com/blm-demands/
Why don’t the Dems don’t hold themselves to the same rules of affinity that they hold lunatic Republicans?Report
Those goalposts are moving so fast they’re turning red.Report
More than 20 U.S. cities defunded their police departments. I assure they were not Republican jurisdictions.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/07/us-cities-defund-police-transferring-money-community
It’s weird that Dems have adopted this denial tactic when confronted with their own failed and/or unpopular policies.
CRT is not being taught in schools.
The southern border is not a crisis.
Russian sanctions were not intended to be a deterrent.
We never supported Defund the Police.
Nobody but the true believers buy it.Report
Nice use of the “what actually happened” card.Report
“…reduced police funding in some form…”Report
Nope, still not. CRT has informed some pedagogical approaches in some university courses and some DEI trainings received by some school districts. Its not a direct named part of any public school curriculum anywhere, and even when it forms the basis of some teacher’s approach, its at most a crutch from trying to simply teach critical thinking skills.
True statement. The Biden Administration has kept in place nearly all of Trump’s border policies and is even defending some of them in court. Apprehensions and explusions remain up (see https://www.factcheck.org/2022/02/cotton-distorts-border-apprehension-impact/) and while COVID has complicated the process, there is no sign of the Biden administration letting up on Trump’s gas pedal.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/biden-administration-sanctions-russia-for-cyber-attacks-election-interference.html
Many of us in the trenches did and still do. Most elected Democrats at the State or federal level didn’t and don’t.Report
The linked article isn’t exactly a catalog of destitute police departments. In fact, it links to this:https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-city-budget-police-funding/ which highlights a hodgepodge of cuts and increases.
So, as with all things, YMMV.Report
Who elected the guys at blm.com as the Voice of BLM?Report
Chip has informed us that AOC is a good representation of the Democratic Party. BLM hasn’t been shy about wanting to defund the police, and North says that a Democrat would be deranged if he opposed BLM.
D = BLM
BLM = DFP
D = don’t DTP
I’ll admit it’s tough to reconcile equations A, B, and C, but that difficulty reflects the predicament in the party, rather than being a demonstration of faulty reasoning.Report
Somewhere around 40% of Americans support BLM.
I guess that means Defund The Police is a lot more popular than even I thought.Report
Truly, Joe Biden cut Democrats off at the knees last night.Report
About 15% of Americans support defunding the police.
About 40% support BLM.
If less than half of BLM supporters also support DTP, equating support of BLM with DTP is a pretty silly thing to do.Report
I wouldn’t conflate Black Lives Matter with black lives matter.
I mean, *I* support black lives matter.
I don’t support Black Lives Matter.
And conflating them is likely to end up in some weird places where you’re defending the democrats against holding positions that you wish they held.Report
I think Chip is mistaken that AOC is a good representation of the Party as a whole.
For good or ill, she’s the most visible, popular, and (IMO) talented representative of the leftmost fringe of the party.Report
Fair point.
Biden is perhaps the most representative Democrats as a whole.
But if someone wanted to smear Democrats by pointing to AOC, I for one would say “Please proceed Governor.”Report
I’m replying to pillsy but I think the whole lot of you (Jay, Chip, Pinky, John, Kazzy) are going full bore Very Online in this thread and totally whiffing on reality because of it.
Matt Yglesias has a whole schtick about how the median voter is a white person in their 50s without a college degree who lives in an unfashionable suburb. I think it’s fair to say that the median Democratic voter approximates to something like a middle-aged woman who works outside of the home, maybe with a degree but maybe not, living in the burbs of a 2nd or 3rd tier metropolitan area. On balance they are probably to the left of their husbands or the average guy they know, and are definitely more likely to place value in public health and support systems. But they don’t cut a particularly radical cloth. You know this because you probably work with them every day.
The disconnect is that the Democratic party and aligned organizations at the elite level are staffed mostly by the urbanized, young, UMC and above grad school set that is pretty radical or at least got used to talking like they are when they got their degrees. The result is a lot of cringey mumbling of buzz words by the geriatrics being fed the lines by their younger staffers despite the core rank and file politicians still basically being triangulating Clintonites.
Ironically that gets us to a place where both the progressive, activist left, and conservatives share a common vision of what all Democrats are or aspire to be. And they feed each other and feed each other and it all works as long as no one actually looks at the rather mundane, piecemeal, generally business and finance friendly governing records.Report
Yeah this sounds right.
Except for the part where I’m losing sight of reality because I’m Extremely Onl… just kidding that part is right too.Report
Ilhan Omar
Ayanna Pressley
Kirsten Gillibrand
Bernie Sanders
Rashida Tlaib
Jamaal Bowman
Maxine Waters
Mondaire Jones
Cori Bush
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Rep. Mark Pocan
Senator Mazie Hirono
Rep. Pramila Jayapal
Rep. Katie Porter
Rep. Barbara Lee
Rep. Nydia Velazquez
Rep. Zoe Lofgren
David Cicilline
Earl Blumenauer
Yvette D. Clarke
https://rsc-banks.house.gov/democrats-push-defund-police
That link has what they said and when. Multiple members are in there multiple times but I think I filtered out the duplicates.
That’s only 20 (not dozens) but I think they’re all high level politicians.Report
I encourage everyone to read the quotes in there.
E.g.:
ICE has kept a 7 year old captive & alone for FOUR MONTHS with no parents around.
This is cruel and unusual punishment. The Eight Amendment strictly prohibits government from acting this way.
THIS is what we need to “shut down until we figure out what’s going on.” Defund ICE. https://t.co/l47AcpudDZ
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) March 12, 2018
Yes. I am radical enough to oppose holding a 7 year old child alone in captivity without contact with her parents, for months on end.
I think any such agency should have its very purpose and budget challenged.Report
Another radical monster:
Do we really think our local police departments need weapons of war like:
Grenade Launchers?
Bayonets?
Explosives?
Weaponized Drones?
None of these weapons belong on our streets against American civilians.
We must #DemilitarizeThePolice today. It’s past time we did.
— Senator Mazie Hirono (@maziehirono) July 21, 2020
I am enough of a wild eyed zealot to think that grenade launchers and weaponized drones are not legitimate tools of policing.Report
Wow, I don’t know how much more of this humiliating exposure radical Democrats can take:
Roughly 1 in 4 fatal police encounters end the life of someone with mental illness, so it’s no surprise that this program is saving lives. Sending healthcare professionals—not police—when someone is experiencing a mental health crisis makes our communities safer for all. https://t.co/9FDbAxtGas
— Rep. Katie Porter (@RepKatiePorter) February 8, 2021Report
And do we have the ability to tell the difference between “mental health crisis” and “other problems” when someone dials 911?
If the answer is “not normally” then we either need imperfect solutions or we need time travel.Report
Thank you Dark. I went down the list in the (very helpful- thanks) article myself and I ended up with five people, all congressfolk:
Ilhan Omar
Ayanna Pressley
Rashida Tlaib
Jamaal Bowman
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
All the rest of the examples in the article didn’t advocate for defunding the police. A number were “reform the police” or “demilitarize the police”. Oh and they lumped in people who were advocating for reforming or abolishing ICE as defund the police which is knee slappingly idiotic.
Uncle Bern didn’t even go that far. He said:
“Instead of spending $80 billion a year on jails and incarceration, we need to be investing in more jobs and education. One thing is abundantly clear: Every police department violating people’s civil rights must be stripped of federal funding. Period.” That could have come out of the mouth of a libertarian for fish’s sake.
Considering how the author of this article had to stretch and mangle the quotes they got to try and mash them into the defund the police category I’m going to assume they were pretty comprehensive with what they could find.
That puts us at five congressfolk out of two hundred and twenty six. That is 2.21%. If I were ludicrously generous and accepted the loosest interpretations of the quotes given we could, maybe, bump that up a few more but there really aren’t many edge cases.Report
What’s remarkable is that those quotes are provided by a rightwing site as a form of oppo research.
That is, being outraged about a 7 year old child held in jail for four months or arming the police with weaponized drones, is what Republicans think is an embarrassment!
According to the “logic” of this then, we can say that Republicans support jailing 7 year old children, and arming the police with weaponized drones, and letting the police just shoot mentally ill people instead of helping them.Report
Or maybe they just have a better sense of scale.
In CHOP, shortly after the police were eliminated, children were killed just from a lack of law. Adjusted for size and length of the experiment we have an appalling death rate.
The strong implication is no matter what you want to cherry pick the police doing over the entire nation, the moment you get rid of them it will get MUCH worse even by your own yard stick.
Similarly Joe Biden probably “supports jailing 7 year old children” right now just because he views the alternatives as worse.Report
Yes. The sane Left is lumped in there with the loony Left.
ICE is an arm of law enforcement. If you view border control as a law enforcement issue then getting rid of ICE is deep into “defund” territory.
Are we going to have laws controlling the border or aren’t we?
IMHO serious immigration reform would mean reducing the pressure put on law enforcement by decriminalizing a lot of stuff.
Short of that (and lots of people don’t want that) we have crazy high levels of people refuse to follow the law. No amount of “reforming ICE” can change that underlying problem.
This would be why Obama/Biden controlling the Southern border looks a lot like Trump doing it.Report
Yes and that’s my point. I said that ascribing the loony idea of defunding the police to the Democratic Party is a ludicrous canard. Pinky retorted that for many Dems it was their platform. Then, once we counted noses, using the least charitable enumeration that one can find, the number of elected Dems who actually and literally advocate for defund the Police is 2.3% on a strict reading or up to around 4% if we ludicrously stretch the meaning of their words. That isn’t many. That barely meets the threshold for a few.Report
I’m fine with that standard.
I’d like everyone to remember that standard the next time we have a Team Red politician do something stupid/toxic.Report
Heh, sure, but the problem for Team Red lately has been that the stupid/toxic stuff has been coming from the leader of their party. Bit harder to disavow.Report
Trump is crazy.Report
When some dude is crazy you shake your head and say “that dude is crazy.” When that dude gets nominated and elected to the Presidency by a political party you may not say that party is crazy but you have to admit that something is seriously wrong with that party.Report
” Let’s stop seeing each other as enemies, and start seeing each other for who we really are: Fellow Americans.””
Talk about being out of step with the times.Report
Biden tried to change the subject to gravely ill veterans, but Lauren Boebert didn’t let him get away with it.Report
Watched a good chunk of the speech… well, had it on in the background while I did computer stuff… but good enough.
A couple observations:
1. Ukraine: I missed the first part of his Ukraine portion so baring anything in that portion:
* He avoided being shouty/pointy Joe regarding Ukraine, so I give him props for that.
* Per my comments above, I think he hit the major points he needed to hit… so, full marks.
2. Domestic stuff
* I think he’s got the right tone/instincts here and that’s probably all that really matters…
* But, some stuff is just too silly for prime time.
* The whole Lower Costs riff was worse than nonsense…
* Price Controls vs. Negotiations? The first won’t work in a meaningful way and the second will work, but not in the miraculous way people imagine.
3. Culture Wars
* I think he did a reasonable job sounding like Joe from Delaware
* Not going to lie, his canned leftist culture war stuff makes me weep for his Catholic soul… it’s not even RadTrad.
* Covid: decent attempt to deescalate but I don’t think he really pulled it off.
4. Personal
* Guys, this is a man emptying the tank… there’s no 2024 here – what’s your succession plan?Report
As some of you know I live near DC and have some very high inside sources in all walks of government that will occasionally slip me insider material that no-one else will see.
This time I got the SOTU Biden Edits and the last minute counter edits from an increasingly worried staff:
—
We the United States of America stand with the
UkrainianIranianUKRRAINIAN peopleTo get there, I call on Congress to fund
NASA,SpaceX,FauciDARPAARPA-H, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health.What’s ARPA-H??? [Edit] Do Not READ: It’s based on DARPA—the Defense Department project that led to the Internet, GPS, and so much moreWe should all agree: The answer is not to Defund the police. The answer is to
DOUBLE-FUNDREFUNDFUND the policeOne way to fight inflation is to drive down wages and make Americans poorer. I have a better plan to fight inflation. Lower your costs,
andNOT your wages.[Edit] DO NOT READ: it’s COSTS, dear God, LOWER COSTSMay God bless you all. May God protect our troops.
Let’s go PuuuuutinNo, just no… Go get him.—
I will never reveal my sources.Report
If anyone wants a serious (as opposed to silly) discussion of police reform and politics, police reform continues to make slow but steady progress.
Data points:
Both Washinton and New Jersey have some form of reform legislation moving through the system;
Candidates who back reform don’t seem to be harmed by the issue, while here in LA, the two candidates for mayor who are opposed to the reformist district attorney, are struggling to gain traction.
It’s early but I’m open to being hopeful that “soft on crime” isn’t the poktical kill shot it once was.Report