Ordinary World for 7 January, 2019

Ordinary World for 7 January, 2019

As always, all linked pieces are for discussion and consideration, not as implied endorsement of the author’s views by Ordinary Times

[OW1] The Progressive Case for Centrism by Roger Sollenberger: “The truth is, whether you like it or not, progressives need to learn to embrace centrists, if for no other reason than to maximize their own influence on policy. Centrists in turn need to yield over time to an increasingly progressive agenda, and if American history is a guide, this is inevitable. Political tactics aren’t political platforms. It’s critical that liberals, whether we identify as Democrats or not, recognize what we have in common. That’s far more important for 2020 than jamming crowbars into the cracks between us.”

[OW2] As Big Retailers Seek to Cut Their Tax Bills, Towns Bear the Brunt by Patricia Cohen: “This is not an entirely new idea. In 1921, the New York Stock Exchange appealed its property tax assessment, arguing that because its building could not be adapted for any other use, it should be considered only a “tear-down proposition” that decreased the value of the land. A State Supreme Court judge disagreed. Sales comparisons often make sense for homes, experts say, because they can estimate what a willing buyer would pay by looking at recent sales of similar houses or apartments on the same block or in the neighborhood.”

[OW3] The Division Caused By Romney’s Op-Ed Is Just What the GOP Needs by Kimberly Ross: “If this “further division” causes some to look distastefully at Trumpism, then I applaud it. If this “further division” spurs (actual) conservatives to stand against poisonous rhetoric that is too easily dismissed, then it should be praised. There is nothing admirable about uniting behind a leader, placing a blindfold on, and marching in lockstep because of a romanticized duty to party. It removes all thought and common sense from the process and asks that we disregard substance in favor of the superficial. Then again, that’s what many Republican voters did on November 8, 2016.”

[OW4] What the Hell Is the ‘Military Version of Eminent Domain’? Whatever it is, it can’t be good. by Joe Setyon: “In all seriousness, federal law does allow for military department secretaries to “acquire any interest in land” if “the acquisition is needed in the interest of national defense.” But defining building a wall on the southern border as an issue of national defense is a stretch. It’s also worth noting that calling for a “military version of eminent domain” may not be the best way for Trump to sell his wall to the American people. Polls already show that a majority of Americans oppose the project. Further reducing the due process available to border property holders is unlikely to increase that number.”

[OW5] We Need More Martin Van Burens by Eric Medlin: “Politicians should still aspire to be like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. These prominent leaders transcended their era and led the country through its most challenging years. But not every president will have a Great Depression to overcome or a Civil War to win. The vast majority of presidents will have to secure partisan accomplishments through deal-making and compromise. Instead of attempting to be the greatest president, they should strive to be like Martin Van Buren and enact rules and laws that will influence American society for decades to come.”

[OW6] Tucker Carlson’s Monologue Insults His Viewers by Conor Friedersdorf: “The monologue was compelling. It is easy to imagine large swaths of the viewing audience concluding that, if nothing else, the host is on their side. But Carlson failed the most basic test of respect for his audience: He told them blatant lies, falsehoods, and untruths, assuming that they wouldn’t notice. Some of us did. A broadcaster’s untruths can be difficult to hear in real time, especially if he’s talented at modulating his voice and looking into the camera. But Carlson ranged across so many different subjects that he inevitably covered some terrain that the educated viewer would know a lot about. In those moments, his mendacity was unmistakable.”

[OW7] Why Aren’t Democratic Governors Pardoning More Prisoners? By Matt Ford: “Pardoning incarcerated people or commuting their sentences largely fell out of vogue during the tough-on-crime era at both the state and federal level. Harry Truman issued more than 1,900 pardons during his tenure, while Dwight D. Eisenhower handed out more than 1,100 throughout his eight years in office. That number fell even as prison populations exploded in the 1980s and 1990s: George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush collectively issued fewer than 700 pardons during their quarter-century in power. Though comparable figures for the nation’s governors aren’t readily available, they’ve reportedly shown a similar aversion to clemency since the 1960s. What would it look like if governors pursued a more aggressive approach to their clemency powers?

[OW8] The case against the case for Beto O’Rourke by O.T. Ford: “If Beto O’Rourke is the Democratic nominee in 2020, I will vote for him, and not just with great reluctance. Donald Trump and the Republican Party must be soundly defeated, it goes without saying. Moreover, I like Beto, and I see him as a politician with great potential. But he will not be my choice in the Democratic primaries. The problem is not just that there are good reasons for nominating someone else. It’s that people are supporting Beto O’Rourke for bad reasons. They don’t want Beto to run the government. They want Beto to take us all to prom.”

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWbuvh9tneQ&w=560&h=315]