The House Knocks Back
“I’m not going to be discussing it any further.”
That definitive statement was issued Thursday evening by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, but it came off as more of a wish. Or a prayer. Good luck with that, Madam Speaker.
With the Democratic Primary in a merciful news lull between debates, the focus of the news and commentariat has returned to the border issues, and the long-simmering discontent in the Democratic caucus that has erupted into a boil since passage of legislation funding aid for said border crisis. As it has for most of this legislative session, the focus swiftly turned to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and “squad” of like-minded progressive newcomers to the House.
Even some progressives who admire AOC, as she’s nicknamed, told POLITICO that they worry she’s not using her notoriety effectively.
“She needs to decide: Does she want to be an effective legislator or just continue being a Twitter star?” said one House Democrat who’s in lockstep with Ocasio Cortez’s ideology.“There’s a difference between being an activist and a lawmaker in Congress.”
It’s an open question whether Ocasio-Cortez can be checked.
Oh, wait, that wasn’t this week, that was back in January, when AOC had barely been in congress for week and had already begun to work with the Justice Democrats in singling out insufficiently progressive members for primary challenges.
Let’s try that again:
Thursday’s meeting threatened to open a new breach. After Democratic moderates joined with Republicans to pass an amendment…Pelosi said they should show more “courage” on politically sensitive votes, according to the people in the room. That struck some as tone-deaf, as did Ocasio-Cortez’s comments about primary challenges.
Ocasio-Cortez in a tweet said she was not making threats but warning that the Democratic defectors “were inadvertently making a list of targets for the GOP and for progressive advocates” by voting with Republicans.
The eruption followed weeks of growing tension between wings of the party. Freshmen who were elected on platforms of cleaning up big-money politics and fixing the heath-care system have found themselves voting on, and answering for, a different set of issues, and some are feeling the heat from their constituents.
Oh, oh dear, no, that wasn’t right either, that was from back in March, and it was a gun control legislation that time that saw 26 Democrats join the Republicans and draw the ire of the true believer caucus.
Ah, here it is, yesterday. So here’s the readers’ digest version of the fallout from that border funding bill and the ongoing rift between AOC and squad vs Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as broken down well by our friend Michael Siegel . Which brings us to this and the Speaker’s presser last evening:
And then the fallout began.
“Didn’t realize this needed to be said, but: you can be someone who does not personally harbor ill will towards a race, but through your actions still enable a racist system. And a lot of New Democrats and Blue Dogs did that today,” tweeted Saikat Chakrabarti, the chief of staff for Ocasio-Cortez. It was an extraordinary attack by a staff member on elected officials.
“This is in reference to my comparing Blue Dogs and New Democrats to 1940s Southern Democrats,” he wrote in another. “Southern Democrats enabled a racist system too. I have no idea how personally racist they all were. And we’re seeing the same dynamic play out now.”
That weekend, in trying to tamp down the divisions, Pelosi dismissed the influence Ocasio-Cortez and the squad — Reps. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich. — in a Sunday newspaper column. But it seems to have only enhanced their stature.
Allies of the foursome swiftly came to their defense, suggesting Pelosi was marginalizing the women of color who are the new face of the party. Chakrabarti tweeted his own critique of Pelosi.
Ocasio-Cortez told The Washington Post on Wednesday that “the persistent singling out…it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful…the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color.”
In a fundraising email Thursday, Justice Democrats, the progressive group that recruited Ocasio-Cortez to run for office, criticized Pelosi for “singling out four new leaders who are progressive women of color.” The group is backing a handful of primary challengers to congressional Democrats, aiming for 25.
On Capitol Hill, the centrists got to work. Aides were quick to point out the co-chairwoman of the Blue Dog Coalition, Rep. Stephanie Murphy, is a refugee and the first Vietnamese-American elected to Congress. Two members of the coalition are African American lawmakers who lived through segregation. One of the members of the New Democratic Coalition, Rep. Terri Sewell, who is African-American, represents her hometown, Selma, Ala., as well as Montgomery and Birmingham, Alabama, and had reached out multiple times to Ocasio-Cortez after the tweets, to no response.
“I personally experienced Dixiecrats’ bigoted policies growing up,” Sewell said in a statement. “So, to even insinuate that I, or any other member of the New Dems, would promote policies that are racist and hateful or ones that would negatively impact communities of color is deeply offensive and couldn’t be further from the truth.”
Rep. Lou Correa, D-Calif., another co-chairman of the Blue Dogs and member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said he has warned his staff off such actions. “It’s sad, it’s very sad.”One freshman, Rep. Mikie Sherrill, who won what had been a Republican-held seat in New Jersey, said the centrist lawmakers “work really hard to build broad coalitions. When people in the progressive wing of the party disagree, I do feel like they’re not kind of lining up their sights on the right target.”
Progressives and those allied with the Ocasio-Cortez and the squad wanted to shift the debate.
One of those friendly fire targets, Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) whose primary challenger is being supported by the Justice Democrats, was less tactful:
“How dare they try to play the race card at this point,” said Rep. William Lacy Clay, an African-American Democrat from Missouri who faces a primary challenge backed by allies of Ocasio-Cortez. He called those making the claims “ignorant” of racial history. “It shows the weakness of their argument. It’s damaging to this party and the internal workings of the Democratic party.”
Rep. John Lewis, the Civil Rights icon, shared his view.
Lewis said it was “a little too far” for the staff member to compare lawmakers to segregationists.
“We all must work together, pull together for the country’s good,” the Georgia Democrat said in an interview. “The great majority of the caucus membership tends to work together and get along. We need to go forward, not backward.”
When the current row first exploded, AOC and her compatriots took umbrage with Pelosi properly placing them as just four members who have large amounts of social media and commentariat attention, but correctly reminded everyone that all the news stories, coverage, notoriety, and Twitter followers still get them exactly one vote each in the House of Representatives. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responded, among other things, with this tweet:
That public “whatever” is called public sentiment.
And wielding the power to shift it is how we actually achieve meaningful change in this country. https://t.co/u6JtgwwRsk
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) July 7, 2019
The problem is the premise is flawed. Twitter isn’t public sentiment. Twitter is microclimate within the larger socio-political ecosystem. It’s a sliver of social media users, about 7% in America, and those user tend to be more urban, younger, with above-average incomes, and much more politically active than the general population.
In other words, on Twitter there are a lot more people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her like-minded colleagues and staff than in the real world.
Every two years, every member of the House of Representatives is up for re-election. Twitter does not get a vote. Nor do the 16,898 folks in NY-14 that propelled AOC past a stunned and out-of-touch Joe Crowley in their 2018 Democratic primary get to vote for anyone in any other congressional district. Besides, that district isn’t going to be anything but blue for the rest of our lifetimes.
The folks the Justice Democrats seem to want to expunge as part of their puritan purge of moderates are the one’s that gave the Democratic Party the House back, and Nancy Pelosi her second stint at the gavel. Back in February, NY Times did some home district visits with the freshmen who weren’t constantly in the news, and discovered that the folks back home had questions:
It was Democrats like Mr. McAdams, Ms. Stevens and Ms. Spanberger who secured the party’s House majority, political moderates who won districts often long represented by Republicans. Of the 67 Democrats in Congress’s freshman class, roughly a third prevailed in districts where President Trump won in 2016.
That serves as another indication that Democrats will have to confront the intraparty tussle between liberals and moderates to decide what they stand for, whom they appeal to and where their electoral future lies.
Last week, home for the first district workweek of their term, moderate Democrats got to see firsthand how the raised voices of a small but vocal number of lawmakers such as Representatives Tlaib, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York are reverberating in far more marginal districts. Some, like Representative Andy Kim of New Jersey, were asked to account for the “uptick of negative rhetoric” coming from the freshman class…
“Many of the newly elected progressive freshmen probably “aren’t thinking that whatever they say might do harm to their class, and that’s not going to change,” said Rodell Mollineau, a Democratic strategist and former aide to Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the former majority leader. “The more progressive messaging is what sells right now. That’s what everyone is talking about, so it will be harder for moderates to break through. But that’s why it’s important to repeat their view of the world to their constituents.”
The key word there is “sell.” It’s telling that while the Justice Democrats were sending out fundraising emails and cranking up the rhetoric at their own leadership on social media for more money and more attention, the moderates were going to their leadership the old-fashioned way — in person. There is a generational aspect here, as to handling interpersonal communication and how it’s perceived. The yutes, of course, see nothing wrong with doing everything on the social media they are so fluent in, while the older generation can take umbrage and find it disrespectful whether it’s intended to be or not.
But for better or worse, closed-door caucus meetings and face-to-face hash-it-out sessions are still how things are done when it comes to legislating. Nancy Pelosi’s call to “come to me” instead of Tweeting out criticism is something most supervisors, leaders, or for that matter parents in the modern age have had to say. Pelosi and the moderates know about and have been through one thing the freshman have not yet: re-election. They know each and every one of them are on the ballot come November 2020, and the record they amass as a group has a lot of sway.
When Rolling Stone’s Peter Travers reviewed “Knock Down the House,” Netflix’s documentary on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other women running in 2018, he wrote this piece of insight:
You could argue that Knock Down the House is gilding the lily by giving so much of its running time to AOC, trading in her burgeoning popularity to win audiences for this Netflix doc. Fair enough. But the inherent and more crucial message in this probing film is that many women would have to fail in order for one to succeed. Lears, who served as her own cinematographer with Blotnick editing, makes it abundantly clear that the other female candidates under her microscope make points at least equally valid as AOC’s and that they would run again in the future.
There is a harbinger there. Mostly identical messages and ideologies, all women, and all with fire and passion to run for office, failed in St Louis, Nevada, and West Virginia for the other three subjects of the documentary. AOC became the superstar because she won, perfectly seizing the moment from an over-confident incumbent in a district she well reflects both in her person and politics.
Paula Jean Swearengin, the candidate for Senate in West Virginia in the documentary, was supported by the Justice Democrats after dust-up on a conference call with incumbent Senator Joe Manchin. The life-long moderate who still wears his blue dog credentials overtly to the annoyance of many in his party, was having none of their calls for a more progressive agenda to earn their support:
As Senator, Manchin made enemies of the progressive left as much as the hard right, but neither are large segments of the mountaineer electorate. During a conference call with supporters of Bernie Sanders who were challenging Manchin from the left, the Senator got contentious:
“What you ought to do is vote me out. Vote me out! I’m not changing. Find somebody else who can beat me and vote me out.”
In the 2018 Democratic primary, Manchin faced a challenger from the left (Swearengin), and won 69.8 percent of the vote.
The Justice Democrats and other die-hard progressives are convinced their message can, and should, work everywhere. But it doesn’t, it won’t, and if they really want to change things they will have to work with those they currently deride as “lesser” to get it done. Fight the power all you want, but if your greatest success in changing popular sentiment is to get those who you need as allies uniformly frustrated and angry at you, you are going about changing the world the wrong way.
For now, though, when the chips were down and legislation needed to be passed, they were four votes on the wrong side of a decisive defeat. Their poor reaction to that defeat is not serving them well, and is becoming a problem for the rest of the left side of the People’s House. It was inevitable that those seeking to knock down the house — the house who have their own constituencies, own concerns, and own political careers to worry about — would start knocking back.
“I warn you to travel in the middle course, Icarus, so that the waves may not weigh down your wings if you go too low, and so that the sun will not scorch your wings if you go too high. Stay between both,” Daedalus warned Icarus. Nancy Pelosi is not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s father, but she has flown this path before, and escaped the political labyrinth more than once like the characters of mythology were attempting to do. Ovid’s Metamorphoses tells the familiar tale thus:
when the boy began to rejoice in his bold flight
and deserted his leader, and attracted by a desire for the sky
he took his path [went] higher. The vicinity of the sun
softens the fragrant wax, the chains of the feathers;
the wax melted: he shook his bare arms
and lacking oarage he takes up no air,
By November of 2020, we will know if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the rest of the Justice Democrats are the new wave, or the Icarian candidates about whom people wonder what went wrong for those who so quickly, if momentarily, soared so high.
Over at Balloon Juice, front pager mistermix references an article in the WaPo about AOC’s chief of staff, who says this:
“The whole theory of change for the current Democratic Party is that to win this country we need to tack to the hypothetical middle. What I think that means is, you don’t take unnecessary risks, which translates to: You don’t really do anything. Whereas we’ve got a completely different theory of change, which is: You do the biggest, most badass thing you possibly can — and that’s going to excite people, and then they’re going to go vote. Because the reality is, our problem isn’t that more people are voting Republican than Democrat — our problem is most people who would vote Democrat aren’t voting.”
The incrementalist and radical wings have always been in tension, and until the last few years I’ve been in the incrementalist camp.
But incrementalism relies on the other side playing by the same rules and norms. When the other side radicalizes, the place for compromise moves further away than is possible to follow.
Except in our current environment, the compromise place hasn’t moved; It’s disappeared altogether. The Trumpists can’t be compromised with because for them, the very existence of liberalism; that is, equality, rule of law, fair play, a loyal opposition- is considered by them to be illegitimate and must be destroyed.Report
Yeah but AoC’s chief of staff doesn’t mention that the incrementalists notched actual policy achievements with their incrementalism while the lefty absolutists have a list of policy achievements that can be summed up as “bupkiss”. Even more importantly the GOP; which they obviously admire for how its incrementalists indulged, then used, then capitulated to their extremists; has similarly achieved very little policy movement for all their wild extremism.
Yes, the leftists deride gay marriage as heteronormative, the ACA as insufficient, the various financial regulations and stimulii as propping up capitalism, but they have no achievements of their own, few concrete proposals that can command a majority even within their own party and no plans to correct either of those.
I’m glad they’re here, for the record. AOC is probably shifting the overton window a bit to the left. She’s making Republicans talk about Pelosi as a moderate which is no small thing and the energy they represent is important to a party and the Dems have, perhaps, suffered for the lack of it. But I am glad that the moderate majority isn’t interested in following the same trail of idiocy and ruin that the GOP went shambling down.
“But incrementalism relies on the other side playing by the same rules and norms. When the other side radicalizes, the place for compromise moves further away than is possible to follow.”
There’s an alternative to this though. It’s to move to the center, capture the center and the left and then do the compromising -internally- rather than with the deranged right wing rump. And that seems like a more plausible plan than some twitter based socialist revolution (Talk about waiting for Godot) or trying to bargain with the utterly captured and deranged Republicans.Report
“AOC is probably shifting the overton window a bit to the left”
There’s your accomplishment right there.Report
That is a political accomplishment; not a policy one. Trump and all the wingbats who came before him shifted the Overton window to the right plenty. I doubt if you time traveled back to the eighties or nineties and told the old GOP crew that indulging their wingers would let their racist, revanchavist and populist demagogues be horrible and become the face of the Republican Party and Conservativism in the USA that they’d be pleased to receive that news.Report
It’s kind of cute that you fellas think there is still only one overton window, instead of two moving equally in opposite directions.Report
Eh, *shrug* two small ones or a big one with two edges, six of one-half a dozen of the other.Report
They’d be displeased because they’d assume that a too-obviously-racist GOP would be electorally doomed, which was indeed conventional wisdom until 2016. Buckley would find Trump uncouth, but he’d definitely vote for him.Report
If you tack away from the middle because you believe you have to fight extremism with extremism, doesn’t that imply the public wants extremism? And yet the polling numbers never show that, nor does the majority of Americans registered as Independents.Report
I’m glad they aren’t yelling ‘RACIST!!!’ at each other, that would just close the circle twerk of a dumpster fire going on over there.
Good stuff AndrewReport
I think AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and the others will be as vital to Republican success in 2020 as Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove ever were. Republicans ran against Nancy in almost every district, but running against AOC is even better.Report
So now Pelosi is the moderate and AoC and her small gang are the dangerous radicals. Looks like having some wingers about is already paying dividends.Report
Note that when there’s a few Congressional Republican nutcases running crazy, Democrats across the country run against them in campaign ads, and ignore McConnell or Hastert or Boehner, because it works.
The they didn’t risk getting caught, the RNC would fundraise for ACO, Omar, and Tlaib.Report
Hah! McConnell and Boehner were the sane ones in the right wing loony bin. Their wingers were scuttling their own legislation. The sane congressional GOP members appear to be the exception now; the loons are the rule and are ruling on the right.Report
Team blue said the same about the tea party. How did that work out for them?Report
I am basically going to just copy what I said on LGM under my other num de internet:
1. The Watergate Democrats were still coming in strong from the tailwinds of the New Deal coalition. Yes Nixon creamed them in 1972 but his victory was not enough to turn either house of Congress to the Republicans. Wikipedia tells me that the Democrats gained one Senate seat in 1972 and only lost 12 House seats.
2. Nancy Pelosi entered in 1987. At this point, they had just regained control of the Senate and lost to Reagan twice and badly.
3. She was around for the grand shellackings of the 1990s and 2000s. She did gain a few huge majorities but saw them go away quickly. Since 1994, Democrats controlled the House in 2007-2011 and then 2019 until ???.
4. I suspect she is quite liberal but remembers all too clearly for most of her political career, liberal was a very dirty word. As I said yesterday, I remember in the mid 90s to early 2000s when it was a thing to say “I am a progressive, not a liberal” because people thought that world act as a shield.
5. AOC is nearly a decade my junior. I think her cohort is going to be much more important politically than my generation of late Generation Xers. This nine years can make a huge difference. My first political memories are the 1992 Presidential election and the 1994 Republican revolution. Her political development around the same age would be 9/11 and Iraq II.
6. This is a very long way of saying she is from a cohort that does not remember decent Republicans, constantly getting kicked during the blowbacks to the New Deal coalition and liberalism of the 1980s through 90s, etc. So they want more action.
7. Nancy Pelosi in learning the lessons from the last war has beecome Bartelby the Scriviner. She thinks any dramatic action can lead to a huge blow back and lost majorities. So this is where the “self impeachment” and “just not worth it” comments are coming from. She thinks letting Donald Trump stay around will help Democrats politically. A failed impeachment means losing the House.
There are some things I suspect. I suspect Pelosi might not have the votes for impeachment in her own caucus but doesn’t know how to say it. The GOP is losing support from college-educated suburban white women who could theoretically go back GOP but might not. My view is that her comment about how Trump is “just not worth it” used to be that she was referring to impeachment and was a major unenforced error. Now I think “it” means losing the House. I still think the comment was poorly phrased and the “self-impeachment” comment is eye-roll worthy.
This being said fights over go big or not have been things since I was in high school and college and I graduated from high school in 1998. I suspect that a lot of newer Democrats learned the lessons of go big.Report
Pelosi can’t tell the truth without making the Democratic Party seem impotent against Trump and the Republicans.Report
There is, bluntly, an entire chunk of the left (I think heavily concentrated online) that seems to think control of the House means “won government” and is confused Pelosi hasn’t ordered the Congressional battalions to storm the WH and drag people before Congress.
They talk about “inherent contempt” and the “Sergeant at Arms” without ever asking themselves “Why have those powers fallen by the wayside in favor of using subpoenas, civil contempt and the DoJ and Courts as mechanisms” instead of sending whatever poor guy is currently SAA with a pair of capitol police to get turned away from wherever their subpoena target is.
They think that, apparently, the mechanisms for inherent contempt have been kept oiled and ready for action for the last 90 years or so, and that it is a magic bullet that will strike forth.
But mostly, they’re impatient as hell and can’t count to 67. They think the House should be able to get the work of weeks done in hours, that this is Nixon again (even though, in the next breath, they’ll quote ‘If fox news had been around, Nixon wouldn’t have resigned’), and frankly that if Pelosi just showed enough willpower, she’d Green Lantern this whole mess into shape.
And when asked to choose between their fantasy that it could all be fixed tomorrow if they just wanted it bad enough and a reality that is ugly, complex, and doesn’t give them the results they want — they go with the fantasy.
“It can’t be done that way” is met with “Of course it can, but it won’t because [insert conspiracy here]”. Whether it’s why subpoeaning and contempt citations took a few months rather than hours or why the President can’t legalize pot via EO. It’s the same from left and right and center.
People don’t like to hear that, well, what they want and what they can get aren’t often the same.Report
The debate among saner liberals and leftists recognizes that the Senate isn’t going to convict. However, many still believe that there are ethical, legal, and strategic reasons to impeach Trump. The other side believes that impeachment with a failure to convict is a big win for Trump but can’t quite say that without giving Trump another win.
I’m growing more supportive of the impeach Trump even though we can’t get a conviction in the Senate or at least hold a series of very loud and very public hearings on Trump’s various wrong doings. Its clear that he is simply one of the vilest if not the most vile man ever to hold the office of the President. Even Nixon wasn’t a plausible child rapist. Trump seems to have committed many vile and base ordinary crimes, extraordinary political crime, and is racist misogynistic demagogue and a thief. There is simply nothing redeeming about him. TLDR for once “we have to do something, this is something, let’s do it” might be correct.Report
I agree with this.
I think that the House should have started impeachment hearings in March or April and, barring that, need to do it the *SECOND* they get back from August recess.
If it’s too close to November 2020, it’ll look like a stunt and they very, very much want it to not look like a stunt.Report
It’ll also look pointless and futile to the point of silliness to do it basically in the election year when it was obviously justified a year or years sooner.
(Additionally, I agree with everything you and Lee said.)Report
It is a truth universally acknowledged that impeachment cannot happen in the first year of a term, because it looks premature, like a political stunt;
It also cannot happen the next year, because that is an election year, which of course makes it look like a political stunt;
Further, it can happen in the third year, but not if the crimes were obvious in the previous year, because then it looks like a political stunt;
Finally, it cannot happen in the fourth year, because, well, this too is an election year and it will look like a political stunt.
These are universal truths revealed by the Cult Of The Savvy, the High Priests of Sophistry.Report
The cameras will give time to whoever is saying the most outrageous thing.
That would be AOC (etc) accusing Trump of running death camps, making children drink out of toilets, etc.
And as Vile as Trump is, he isn’t running death camps, he didn’t create the crisis on the border, the drinking fountain is next to the toilet because they both use water pipes, etc.
So we’ll have many months of the Dems looking insane and Trump looking like the reasonable man in the room.
And then the Senate will pass on the whole thing.
And then we’ll have the election.Report
A border agent literally told the Washington Times, not exactly a liberal publication, that at least one detainee drank from a toilet. He added the preposterous assertion that the woman didn’t know that was the toilet part of it.
This notion that the fact of double units somehow “explains” it all is just erroneous. Everyone in this conversation is perfectly damn aware that it’s a combo; the further allegation is that people are drinking from the toilet part, and even that is being admitted.
Further, the horrible Facebook group is an absolute smoking gun for a culture of abuse — leading members of the agency were in it. They do not perceive their wards as having anything like human rights, the way good Americans do.
Anyway, you really wannq bet money that Trump won’t, at any point, rant that toilets are too good for these people?Report
It takes a lot of work to make him look like the sane person in the room. Arguing that agents were forcing everyone to drink from the toilet in the face of those photos is a good way to start.
And now you’ve arguing we should impeach Trump for things we’re going to find out existed under Obama. That the toilet/sinks/drinking fountains have been standard since then. That facebook was a thing then.
No doubt Trump made it worse, but giving Obama a total pass on this sort of thing while claiming Trump should be impeached will look grand.
I don’t think impeachment is the tool you want here, I think defeating him at the ballot box is.Report
That the toilet/sinks/drinking fountains have been standard since then.
The point isn’t that it’s a fucking double unit. It’s that multiple detainees told multiple members of congress, not just AOC, that they were made to drink from them. One of those congresspeople found no water to go through at least one sink, which corroborates what was going on, and again, a border agent literally said that toilet water was drunk by somebody, so yeah, it happened even if you think everyone but the guards are liars.
Why does this point not go through? Why do people say “Oh, but see, it was a double unit, that’s what you’re talking about, you’re just talking about the fact that the sink overhangs the toilet part. You really thought you had us there, but guess what — it’s actually a double unit! Checkmate!” I don’t even understand it.
I’m torn on impeachment, but we have to have hearings just to discuss what we even stand for. “We can’t do better because Obama is the best that can be expected” isn’t an answer.Report
Links?Report
“We can’t do better because Obama is the best that can be expected” isn’t an answer.
Report
Is “deported” supposed to be read as a catch-all term for all forms of mistreatment? For instance, none of the children taken from their parents were deported, by definition. But I guess if Obama “deported more people” his immigration policy must be crueler.
As for a link, I’ve been saying Washington Times but it was the Washington Examiner: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bordering-on-madness-whats-really-happening-at-the-southern-borderReport
I don’t know. I didn’t read the article either.Report
What are you even trying to argue here? That the detainees aren’t being subjected to cruel and inhumane conditions? And that this is being done deliberately?
When people hear accounts like this and then seize on one minor anecdote to litigate, it makes you sound insincere, like you want to discredit the entire story but can’t.Report
That the BULK of the problem is bad policy, which is also known as “unrealistic laws”. Laws that Dems and Reps got together and agreed upon.
Yes, Trump is trying to implement them from a xenophobic point of view, but the reason there’s so little practical difference between him and Obama on this issue is because the law itself is screwed up. The big difference is the press gave Obama a pass on “children in cages” etc.
With current budget restrictions, the current law results in subjecting the detainees to cruel and inhumane conditions. Increase the budget, and the results will be less cruel and less inhumane… but we’re still going to be doing things which in other contexts would be considered outrageous.
Trying to impeach Trump for this will quickly degenerate into a farce.Report
No, this is not even close to true.
The “law” does NOT force them to do this.
The overcrowding, the lack of facilities, the cruelty of separating children…these are all the result of conscious policy choices, done specifically to inflict suffering.Report
We have something like 10+ million immigrants. Something like half of them came through the southern border.
The law, as previously implemented, didn’t work.
I’d argue it’s along the line of prohibition, but that’s me saying the law needs to change. Back in the day, staring at the failure of prohibition, law-and-order types would say the issue was with not enough enforcement or not stern enough enforcement. That the solution was to punish their way into making the law work.
So you’re right in that the law doesn’t say “make Y happen by doing X”, but it does say “make Y happen”, and everything but X has failed.Report
When people hear accounts like this and then seize on one minor anecdote to litigate, it makes you sound insincere, like you want to discredit the entire story but can’t.
I’ve no desire to discredit the entire story.
My point had to do with what I was responding to.
The line I quoted? I was showing how “We can’t do better because Obama is the best that can be expected” is an answer.
CNN made a story about it.Report
There’s also the problem that, in am impeachment, everything gets run through one Committee — the rest of the business grinds to a halt. (And anything that is ongoing, is utterly lost in the news cycle).
So pragmatically: Is it best to focus your efforts on one Committee and one set of investigations, or continue letting every relevant Committee conduct oversight on it’s own particular area of control?
Pelosi seems to lean towards the latter — she doesn’t think the likely focus of the Judicial Committee (the Obstruction charges Mueller was very careful not to exonerate Trump on) will do the trick, and would prefer to continue to have multiple lines of inquiry making the news.
In the end, the “Let’s make a statement” stance is quite understandable. Except the statement that’ll get made is “We totally disapprove of Trump, but the GOP don’t care” — which everyone already knows.
I think the real problem is the truth is depressing — Trump could shoot a baby on TV, and you couldn’t find enough GOP Senators to successfully impeach over public murder.
That doesn’t make people who want things to get better NOW happy.
Me? I find symbolic gestures…well, pointless here. It’s not going to change anything. Might as well keep digging so that the public has the most possible information on Trump going into 2020, and that if the Democrats win, they have a lengthy list of things to start codifying into law. The “Crap Trump Pulled That Was Only Possible Because We Never Thought We Had to Codify This Crap Into Law” bill. (With the Rider of “Things That Were Legal But Never Subject To Such Abuse, So We’re Putting Our Foot Down” bill).
No concentration camps, no you can’t declare a national emergency and spend money however you want, yes you really DO have to give your tax returns to Congress, we mean no nepotism even if it’s unpaid, you can’t just keep shuffling Cabinet members around to avoid Senate oversight, you can’t just run on “Acting” heads, you have to offer X years of tax returns if you want to run, etc….Report
It isn’t like much of the business gets done anyway with McConnell in the Senate. If Democrats keep the House, win the White House, but not the Senate in 2020, not much will get done then either. Perhaps even less.
The thing about living in the Trump era is that it is vastly demoralizing. The man does not have a rock bottom. He seems able to take every low and then say “hold my beer” to himself. Such as this week’s wonder:
https://www.vox.com/2019/7/11/20690150/trump-tweets-off-the-rails-july-11-2019
Or the “social media summit.” I almost hesitate to bring this stuff up here because I can predict who in this group will basically say “suck it lib” because I called living in this presidency demoralizing.
All this said, I think Pelosi’s language on the subject has not been good. I now get that “it” means “lose the House” when she said “Trump’s just not worth it.” But the comment was ambiguous and easy to misread. It could easily be impeachment and if Trump isn’t worth impeachment, who is? The “self-impeach” line just reads like wish-thinking.
I suspect the other thing that frustrates younger Democrats is that there is a real generational divide over struggles. I suspect even a lot liberal Democrats are guilty of Old Economy Steve thinking. Biden made some comments towards that way. Erik Loomis related on LGM that liberal democratic representatives in Oregon just don’t understand the student debt issue because they are old and went to college in the age when it was free or at least very cheap. The Boomers are still a very large cohort that are not going away anytime soon (because the youngest boomers are only 54) and even if the Democrats win the trip prize, there is a good chance of Old Economy Steve lectures and playing to Joe Manchin.Report
If Pelosi doesn’t have the votes (and couldn’t get them if she were whipping it) it doesn’t much matter what she personally thinks, but for what it’s worth I absolutely think she’s wholeheartedly with the cowards.
She’s not a secret impeacher who’s just letting her caucus get there on its own time. She’s a no. She’s been signaling that since November 2006.Report
This sounds quite a bit like the articles I read as the first waves of tea partiers were arriving in congress. Blah blah actually have to govern now… blah blah Regan rule… blah blah. Turns out the upstart kids had the right strategy. Many are still there and those that followed the above advice got thrown out, Eric Cantor being the most notable.
2020 will be a good test. If this portion of the party sees gains or manages to primary more centrist democrats, I would expect team blue to move strongly in their direction as team red moved in a tea party direction in 2012 and beyond.Report
the tea party failed so completely that a few short years most of those focus enthusiastically embraced Trump, the antithesis of most of what they proported to hold important.Report
I would disagree on the failure part. They are getting a healthy share of what they want with Trump. Large tax cut, de facto deregulation, going hard against immigrants, small government minded judges, expansions of religious liberty definitions. They have positive movement on like 80% of their agenda and nearly no negative movement. He may be a crass asshole, but he is getting it done for them. I expect them to turn out in force for him next year.
The extreme wing of team blue would be over the moon happy to fail that in that policy is stable or moves in their direction for 80% of their agenda.Report
“purported”
I think I found the problem right there, mister!
What the Tea Party purported and what they really cared about is demonstrated exactly by their embrace of the man who shared their hatred for Obama.
Taxes, schmaxes, they hated Obama and liberalism with a passion and found in Trump a kindred soul who was unburdened by the need to drape himself in the decorations of Federalist Society gibberish.Report
Thank you Chip.
To your point, Evidence demands a verdict.Report
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/12/20690910/donald-trump-justin-amash-republicans-primaries-conservatives
It’s worth dwelling on that idea for a moment. One way to think of conservatism is as an ideology, a philosophy that exists separate and apart from politicians and political parties. Another way to think of it is as a social identity, in which being a conservative means identifying with the group of people who call themselves conservatives.
What Barber and Pope figured out was a way to test that precise question. If conservatism was an ideology first and foremost, then a stronger attachment to that ideology should provide a stronger mooring against the winds of Trump — in their formulation, you should see more “policy loyalism” and less “party loyalism” among people who saw themselves as committed conservatives. Instead, “we observe exactly the opposite: strong ‘conservatives’ are the most likely to be partisan loyalists — following Trump in a liberal direction when told of his support for a liberal policy.”
What this experiment suggests — and what Amash, Sanford, and other philosophically conservative politicians have found — is that the Republican form of conservatism is first and foremost an identity group. That identity group sees Trump as their champion, and his critics, be they left or right, as threats to the group’s interests.
Shortly before he left Congress, I sat down with Mark Sanford for an episode of my podcast. I asked him how his constituents expressed their anger at him for his criticisms of Trump. His reply has stuck with me. “People would come up and they say, ‘Look, he’s the quarterback. You got to go with the quarterback.’”Report
When viciously and repeatedly attacked by some party, people often end up identifying with all the other people who are being attacked by that same party.
The Allies in WW-II agreed on virtually nothing except defending each other against the Axis, whereas the Axis had broad philosophical, social, and political agreement on a wide range of issues. The Americans disagreed strongly with Britain’s colonialism and retaining a monarchy. Both were wildly anti-communist, but got in bed with Stalin, and China even joined too. Yet they didn’t start out identifying as a group at all.
Everybody who’s been attacked as a hick, a racist, a bitter clinger, and a deplorable has ended up in the allied camp, dedicated to fighting National Socialism, international socialism, pan-Arab socialism, and eco-socialism.
Ideological purity is completely secondary to winning the war, because if the war is lost then all hope is lost.Report
Yeah Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan really had a lot of social agreement. Strong work there. And lord knows Britain and America had no, NONE AT All, social similarities. That’s just history amairight?Report
When a guy reacts to being called a racist by embracing the party of racism, yeah, that’s pretty much where his head was at all along.Report
The “high ideology” types never had any traction with either party.
A lot of liberals have mocked the Tea Partyiers for riding around in Medicare hovverrounds, but it isn’t hypocrisy, because they never really believed in “small government” crap to begin with, no one does or ever did.
Jonathan Haidt may get a lot of crap from liberals, but I think his perception is more or less correct, that liberals and conservatives care about different moral foundations.
What I think motivates conservatives is less and less the foundations like Authority and Patriotism, and more and more Tribal groupishness and yes, revolving around white culture.Report
One of our libertarians admitted to me recently that very few people are sold on “princepled inaction.” The number of people that do are small and largely exist to make scholastic dancing on a hairpin arguments for billionaires about how Republicans are the party of real liberty.
FWIW I don’t think Haidt gets a lot of crap from liberals for his moral foundations argument. I think he gets crap from liberals for being the kind of middle-aged white guy liberal who decided that fortune awaited on the wing-nut welfare circuit by being the guy that says “I’m a liberal college professor and college students these days sure are coddled.”
The issue with broad left is that we are a coalition with some overreaching sentiments (everyone should have adequate access to healthcare, food, shelter, clothing, education, civil rights, etc.) but very different ideas on how to get there including whether you can have those sentiments and still have capitalism. Chait would say it is necessary. Others, not as much.Report
FWIW I don’t think Haidt gets a lot of crap from liberals for his moral foundations argument.
Did you ever read his book? This liberal is willing to give him some crap, not about the conceptual basis of the theory but about the execution. The problem is he identifies a handful of moral values — he doesn’t explicate how he chose those particular values — and then constructs his survey instruments around those. When he graphs those results out he ends up with more of those values running low to high from liberal to conservatives and a smaller number running the opposite direction.
The end result is a graph, x-axis for liberal/conservative and y-axis for values, with liberals being very high on a few, like 2 or 3 categories, and low on the rest, while conservatives are about the same on all of them. Big spread on the left (liberal end) converging to middling-high values on the right end. From this he concludes that conservatives generally hold all or most of these identified values more or less equally and liberals only value a certain small number of them.
He places way too much faith in the cardinal numbers coming out of his survey instrument, assuming that the a three on one scale, say Purity, is the same as a three on another scale, say Care. He also doesn’t seem bothered by having 3 or 4 value scales directly overlapping on the graph. He never considers that maybe he actually isn’t measuring 3 or 4 separate things but 3 or 4 aspects of the same thing.
Finally, he’s also well entrenched in the uni-dimensional left/right, liberal/conservative paradigm. Libertarians are mentioned only twice, once as libertarians where they’re basically dismissed as oddballs, and later as “economic conservatives” who again don’t really fit into the paradigm. The existence of communitarian types — who are the exact opposite of libertarians in being economically liberal and socially conservative — is completely ignored.
So he’s ignoring data that doesn’t fit his model and that model itself is a bit sketchy, not so much the notion of “foundational values” but the identification and selection of those values. So in the end he concludes that conservatives are fundamentally more moral — or at least hold more moral values — than liberals as opposed to just holding different values. I find that highly questionable.Report
I think the real deal here that’s being exposed by Trump is that “conservatism” isn’t one thing but actually two in a lose coalition called “Republicans”. Similarly, the 2016 primaries also showed liberals (or the Left) as being composed of two distinct groups in a coalition called “Democrats”.
The social cons are indeed motivated primarily by tribal instincts, which explains the phenomenon of certain Evangelicals (not all Evangelicals, h/t Mark Kruger) going all in for very clearly morally bankrupt Trump. For that group, Protestant Christianity is just one aspect of tribal identity, not terribly unlike the way you’re culturally Jewish but not particularly religious.Report
This fight with in the dems is almost as good as Trump winning the pres election. *makes popcorn–sits down to watch*Report
37 has an insight:
Report
Weird mix of metaphors, but okay.Report
Well, Trump patched up this rift with some really racist flex-sealReport
Gaming this out in my head:
“I hope you youngsters read Trump’s tweets and realized that you have to stand in solidarity with us.”
“What the heck? How in the flying heck did you not read Trump’s tweets without realizing that you *BOOMERS* have to stand in solidarity with *US*?”
If I’m wrong about this by Friday, please throw this comment back in my face.Report
In vaguely adjacent news, Beto O’Rourke has announced that he and his wife are descended from slave owners.
Could have been worse.
Could have been Elizabeth Warren.Report
Well, I guess now he’ll have to have that uncomfortable conversion with the black community in which he explains that he’s not actually Mexican.
In any event, I’m surprised that there were any slaves available for his family to own, given Kamala Harris’s family’s bulk buying habits.
The ongoing circular firing squad will likely get much uglier.Report
I know that the main joke being made today about Trump’s tweets was something to the effect of how he is absolutely desperate to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The democrats are infighting but his name isn’t being used… so he tweets out some racist bullshit which, as Kohole joked, flex-seals up the rifts in the infighting.
So in the wake of Trump tweeting racist bullshit, Beto announces that his ancestors were slave owners.
Can’t anybody here play this game?
Luckily, nobody gives a crap about Beto… But if I wanted to pick a worse day to make this announcement, I don’t know that I could.
Maybe if Beto won the nomination and he announced this a week before the election. Maybe.Report
It’s like that episode of “Beavis And Butthead” where Butthead gets stuck in a sewer pipe and the whole town turns out to rescue him and it makes the news, and the end of the episode is Beavis crawling into the pipe and screaming about how he’s stuck.Report
@andrew – I wonder if you might update this post or post a follow up. You outline the issue so well here. But recent events have driven these two D wings back together in common cause against Trump and his racist arrows. I’m now hearing 2 takes on that:
1) As Jaybird put it – Trump is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by providing glue for Democratic cohesion in the middle of an implosion.
2) This is a bad thing for Ds because it forces Pelosi to defend her progressive wing and keeps them in the center of attention – and the RNC is thirsty to make the “squad” the center of the 2020 campaign.
For myself I’m not sure – I certainly think when your enemies are sniping at each other that the best course of action is to stand back and let them. But Trump can stand to NOT be the center of attention. 🙂 On the other hand…
What do you think?Report
Both points are true. Trump drove them back together with his vile comments, but also you just had a national press conference with 4 freshmen, something not other combination would get break-in news coverage. And not being able to help themselves used it to not only defend themselves but to demand impeachment which Pelosi has avoided like the plague. They will use the coverage to push their agenda, which is what Trump wants. This is symbiotic now and will continue, and get worse. Report