“Bad For The Party, Bad For The Country”: The GOP’s Clamorous, Counterproductive 2016 Circus
Another day, another trio of new candidates for the Republican presidential nomination.
A brain surgeon with no particular feel for politics. A business executive who lost the only election she ever entered. And the most famous graduate of Ouachita Bible College, who made a stop in the Arkansas’ governor’s house before becoming a talk-show host. Just throw Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and Mike Huckabee on the pile.
It’s already a big pile: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio are official. Jeb Bush is officially unofficial, just as Rick Santorum, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, and George Pataki are. Lindsey Graham and John Kasich are unofficially unofficial. But they are thinking about it! A few of these would-be candidates are sure to find the likelihood of embarrassment too great, and will stop before they officially start. But I’m betting that the first debates will include 10 or more candidates.
So has the addition of this week’s candidates added to the ferment of ideas? No, not really.
In some ways, Fiorina understands the minds of many modern primary voters. She’s all but promised to be a paladin of the existing orthodoxy of her party’s conservative base. So she sells herself on her ability to sell. And she sells her identity. On day one of her campaign, she rattled off the talking points her nomination would cross off Hillary Clinton’s list. She told reporters: “Because I am a woman, there are many things she can’t say. She can’t play the gender card. She can’t talk about being the first woman president. She can’t talk about the war on women.” Mutually assured decorum, I guess.
In a lineup of politicians, the non-politician Ben Carson is easily the most impressive and accomplished person in the room. But his charm is almost entirely in being charmless. He speaks with great poise, which is refreshing. But his professed political views, and his manner of expressing them, are distinguishable only in volume and lack of spittle from the apocryphal “paranoid right-wing uncle” that is the foil of every annual Thanksgiving advice column.
Mike Huckabee is the most plausible of the three, actually having been elected to a statewide office. He also performed not-terribly when he ran for president in 2008. As a bonus, he offers some good and some bad populist critiques of the party’s establishment. Is the magic still there? I’m not sure. Ted Cruz has already soaked up so much of the “I hate the Establishment and they hate me” cred. And Cruz is going directly after Huckabee’s base of evangelical voters, while Huckabee himself has yet to prove he can win the middle-income Catholics and moderate voters of the Midwest. It’s Iowa or bust for Huck.
Is any of this good for the party or the nation? No, not really.
There is broad agreement among elite Republicans that the sheer number of serious and unserious candidates may hurt the party. It crams the debate stage, elicits shallow questions, and reduces the nationally televised answers to the tiniest sound-bites or hand-raises. It’s bad for the party, and the country. It’s also a can’t-lose deal for any would-be candidate willing to endure flights to Des Moines and house parties in Nashua.
A losing campaign can generate new interest in your career. It connects you with the wealthiest backers of your party. And it generates mailing lists and emailing lists of people who are not quite as wealthy but whose contacts can be useful for selling books, or filling up a local venue and making you seem like an important voice in the life of the Republic. Because the Republican Party has a para-party shadow in the institutions of the conservative movement and conservative-media complex, even a failed presidential campaign can be quite a successful life-proposition.
And hey, if worse comes to worst, and the bottom falls out of your “candidacy,” you can just rent or sell outright the names and whatever data you collected to the highest-bidding erection pill or diabetes-treatment interests. I see you voted for Ben Carson. Are you interested in seeds that will help you survive the collapse of our currency?
By: Michael Brendan Dougherty, The Week, May 5, 2015
“We Will Not Obey”: Taking The Law Into Their Own Hands
It’s going to take me a while to absorb this document, and remember (probably with Sarah Posner’s help) the backgrounds of some of the signatories. But the newly released “Pledge of Solidarity in Defense of Marriage”, drafted by Vision America’s Rick Scarborough, semi-retired culture-war maven James Dobson, and Liberty University law school dean Matt Staver, represents the boldest effort yet of Christian Right types to claim a revolutionary right of resistance to marriage equality. Without question, the “pledge” asserts that marriage discrimination is part of the warp and weave of the universe, via divine fiat and natural law, and that no Court has the power to overturn it. Thus, the signatories announce their intention not to obey any such decision, as explained by Todd Starnes at townhall:
“We will not obey.”
That’s the blunt warning a group of prominent religious leaders is sending to the Supreme Court of the United States as they consider same-sex marriage.
“We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross that line,” read a document titled, Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. “We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve.”
“While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross,” the pledge states….
“Yes, I’m talking about civil disobedience,” Staver said. “I’m talking about resistance and I’m talking about peaceful resistance against unjust laws and unjust rulings.”
That’s quite a shocking statement. So I asked Mr. Staver to clarify his remarks.
“I’m calling for people to not recognize the legitimacy of that ruling because it’s not grounded in the Rule of Law,” he told me. “They need to resist that ruling in every way possible. In a peaceful way – they need to resist it as much as Martin Luther King, Jr. resisted unjust laws in his time.”
Yes, of course, the Pledge of Solidarity is loaded with references to the civil rights movement (they predictably secured the signature of Aveda King, the niece of MLK who has long been a committed right-wing culture warrior) and comparisons of any SCOTUS decision upholding same-sex marriage as illegitimate, just like Dred Scott. So what grievous harm do they claim for themselves that makes them and their largely well-fed suburban flocks qualified to stand with protesters like King and Gandhi fighting for the most basic rights?
[Scarborough] referenced the “outrageous penalties” being assessed against people of faith simply because they don’t want to participate in a same-sex union.
An Oregon bakery is facing a $135,000 fine for refusing to make a cake for a lesbian wedding and a Washington State florist faces fines for refusing to participate in a gay wedding.
Yep, it’s still the bakers and florists of conscience on whose behalf these birds are calling for an overturning of the Rule of Law and the shattering of a constitutional order that’s worked reasonably well in the past. Almost to a man or woman, of course, they’d call themselves “constitutional conservatives,” a term that means pretty much the opposite of both words, insofar as they claim “higher laws” like fetal rights, absolute property rights, and yes, a heterosexual monopoly on marriage, have to be imposed on the Constitution. No wonder David Barton, the author of so much historical fiction on the theocratic designs of the Founders, is a signatory of the Pledge, along with a rogue’s gallery of Christian Nation radicals he helped inspire.
So, too, are two candidates for the presidency, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee. You kinda get the impression they would really love to find a way to get themselves arrested for their brave defense of “traditional marriage,” so they could campaign from a jail cell like Eugene Debs in 1920. Maybe they could take up baking or flower arranging.
By: Ed Kilgore, Contributing Writer, Political Animal Blog, The Washington Monthly, April 29, 2015
“Doesn’t Remotely Comport With The Evidence”: Why The GOP’s War Against Welfare Programs Is Both Cruel And Pointless
Why do people work?
That question is at the center of the conservative case against anti-poverty programs. Republicans like Rand Paul conclude that policies like disability insurance or the Earned Income Tax Credit take away a key motivation — putting food on the table — that propels people to look for work. Thus these policies must be reducing labor supply and economic growth.
Liberals often don’t confront this point head-on, arguing instead that it’s unjust for people to starve because they’re out of work. It’s an inevitability, given that conventional understandings of market capitalism require around one out of 20 people to be unemployed at all times.
This is a good point, but the conservative argument is worth confronting on the merits. While there is an inherent trade-off between work and economic output, the story is not so simple as conservatives make out. Austerity — which often requires cutting anti-poverty programs — also kills labor supply.
For an example of the conservative position, let’s go to Daniel Mitchell, who wrote up some new findings from the National Bureau of Economic Research:
The mid-1990s welfare reform apparently helped labor supply by pushing recipients to get a job. Disability programs, by contrast, strongly discourage productive behavior, while wage subsidies such as the earned-income credit ostensibly encourage work but also can discourage workforce participation for secondary earners in a household. [The Federalist]
There is some surface plausibility to this argument. Social Security reduced poverty among the elderly by 71 percent, but in so doing probably also reduced the number of old people working. On some margin, there is a trade-off between work and poverty reduction, because a lot of jobs suck and people will quit them if they can.
However, it leaves a great deal out. Most critically, it doesn’t consider the business cycle. At the bottom of the Great Recession, for instance, the ratio of job seekers to job openings was nearly seven to one. That means it was mechanically impossible for six out of seven unemployed people to get jobs then. In order for “pro-work” welfare reform to have a prayer of working, the jobs you’re pushing people into actually have to exist.
In other words, when there is a recession, fiscal and monetary stimulus is the way to preserve labor supply, and austerity is the way to destroy it. But if you refuse to accept the logic of aggregate demand, as Mitchell did back in the very pit of the Great Recession, you’re stuck arguing that soup kitchens caused the Great Depression.
The international context presents an even more obvious problem. The conservative account of anti-poverty programs straightforwardly implies that the larger the welfare state, the lower the labor force participation rate (that is, the fraction of people who are working or actively looking for a job). If people don’t have to work due to generous government benefits, then they won’t work.
This doesn’t remotely comport with the evidence. In point of fact, by developed world standards, the U.S. welfare state is extremely stingy and our labor force participation rate is quite low. Take Sweden, for instance. It boasts the welfare benefits of Ayn Rand’s deepest nightmares: universal health and dental insurance, 480 days of paid parental leave per child, a monthly child benefit of about $120 up through age 16, two weeks sick leave, government pension at age 65, and so on.
Overall, if we look just at market incomes, then Sweden has about the same market poverty rate as the U.S. — but its welfare benefits cut the actual poverty rate down to half that of the U.S. That’s the scale of transfers we’re talking about, and other Nordic nations do even better. Yet Sweden’s labor force participation rate was 64.1 percent as of two years ago, more than a percentage point better than the U.S. rate, which has been hovering below 63 percent for the last couple years.
Again, at some point there has to be a trade-off between work and output. In decades previous, the U.S. beat European nations in labor force participation, because those nations chose relatively more free time as they became richer, instead of maniacally ratcheting up GDP for its own sake.
But correct macroeconomic policy also matters a great deal. If there is a catastrophic collapse in aggregate demand that is not fixed for years and years, that’s also going to burn up labor supply — in a way that is both cruel and pointless.
By: Ryan Cooper, The Week, April 28, 2015
“Adjudicating From The Legislature”: Yes, Constitutional Conservatives Are Radicals
This morning Brother Benen looked at a proposal by Steve King to strip the federal judiciary of jurisdiction over any case involving marriage and noted its provenance in prior right-wing court-stripping measures. But he also suggested such advocacy ought to debar King from calling himself a “constitutional conservative.”
Whatever one thinks of marriage equality, court-stripping is itself ridiculous. The constitutional principles of “separation of powers” hasn’t disappeared just yet, so the idea that the legislative branch will dictate to the courts what kind of cases judges are allowed to hear is more than a little crazy – it undermines the very idea of an independent judiciary.
And it sure as heck isn’t “constitutional conservatism.” Indeed, it’s effectively the congressional version of “legislating from the bench” – King and his cohorts want to adjudicate from the legislature.
I think a clarification is appropriate here. People like King use the modifier “constitutional” before “conservative” to indicate that they are not interested simply in opposing change or in going back to very recent public policies. Their eyes are fixed on a distant vision of the perfect governing order that they believe the Founders spelled out before it was ruined by courts and legislators and presidents alike. And it certainly does not include the right of final judicial review as understood by the rest of us. And so their expedient is court-stripping schemes which they believe help restore the proper constitutional order, or at least prevent current disorders from getting worse.
Just as “constitutional conservatives” tend to believe that absolute property rights and even fetal rights were embedded in the Constitution, never to be removed without an explicit amendment, they believe in an eternal scheme of states’ rights that would most definitely include all matters related to marriage. So in their minds, that eternal scheme, not recent precedents, in what defines “conservatism,” and thus the most radical measures are justified to bring back the “Constitution” as they understand it.
Of course constitutional conservatives are radicals. But many of them believe they are fighting for a governing model quite literally handed down by God Almighty, who intended it to be maintained quite literally forever. And that is indeed a conservative–and a radical–way of looking at things.
By: Ed Kilgore, Contributing Writer, Political Animal Blog, The Washington Monthly, April 23, 2014
“They Should Stop And Take A Second Look”: Ending Forced Arbitration Is A No-Brainer For Conservatives
The Obama administration is preparing to issue consumer protection regulations that will force Republicans to choose between their Wall Street allies and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases. Republicans will be tempted to denounce the new rules as yet another example of this president’s customary imperial overreach, but on this issue, they should stop and take a second look.
The problem is called forced arbitration, and if you’ve ever taken the time to read a consumer service contract or end-user license agreement before signing it (which makes you an admirable human being, and very rare), you’ll almost certainly have seen a clause that revokes your right to go to court in case of a breach of the agreement by the corporation.
Such clauses are found everywhere, from credit cards and checking accounts to cable TV and car rentals. When you sign, you agree to accept the decision of a private, for-hire arbitrator. Unfortunately, the arbitrator is usually hired by the same company that breached the agreement and is not legally required to follow statutory or common law precedents. Its decisions are almost impossible to appeal. Most consumers have no idea that’s what they’re agreeing to.
Enter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has been authorized by Congress to step in to study this problem and, based on its findings, restore Americans’ ability to hold financial institutions accountable. Under the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, the bureau is authorized to issue regulations that limit or ban the use of forced arbitration in consumer financial services and products. Regulations to do just that are expected to be promulgated sometime this year.
The regulations may turn out to be poorly framed or excessive – we’re talking about the same administration that gave us Lois Lerner and executive amnesty, after all – but the problem Congress wanted the agency to address is real.
Recently, while traveling to Topeka on business, I needed to rent a car. I stopped at the Thrifty counter at the Kansas City airport. While filling out the usual paperwork, I asked the gentleman behind the counter, “What happens if I don’t check this box that says I waive my right to sue?” He blinked at me uncomprehendingly for a moment and then replied, “Um, it means you don’t get the car.” I checked the box, disgusted. My destination was 80 miles away, I was in a hurry, and I didn’t have time to haggle or shop around with Thrifty’s competitors, all of whom undoubtedly have the same policy.
Today, a big company like Thrifty can effectively insist that we waive our Seventh Amendment rights on a “take it or leave it” basis; and market forces are not sufficient to police the problem. We’re stuck. And it isn’t just car rentals. When you buy a hair dryer or click “I agree” to a software download, you’re probably forfeiting your right to go to court.
Statistics show that, more often than not, the arbitrator hired by the company you’re disputing with will rule in the company’s favor, likely because he’s eager to be hired again by that company in the future.
Even consumers who think they understand what they’re signing usually have no clear idea of how arbitration really works. They mistakenly equate it with mediation or some other court-like procedure. In reality, forced arbitration is conducted in secret and lacks the procedural safeguards that allow consumers to prove their case. Arbitrators typically keep their reasoning private, making it hard for the losing party to know why he lost, and results are rarely published, making it difficult for similarly situated parties to know they’re entitled to relief.
To be sure, arbitration can be a great option when it’s voluntarily agreed to by both parties after a dispute has arisen, but to be truly voluntary, all parties need to be free to say no. In the case of consumer financial services and products (the kinds of agreements the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is authorized to regulate), most individual consumers have no bargaining power, as anyone who’s tried to negotiate with his credit card company can attest.
Voluntary arbitration agreements have always been lawful, but up until the 1920s pre-dispute arbitration clauses like the one I had to sign at Thrifty were rarely enforced by American courts. Americans have long cherished the common-law right to a jury trial in civil cases. Indeed, preserving that right was one of the top demands of the Antifederalist skeptics of the proposed Constitution, and the Seventh Amendment was ratified precisely to preserve that ancient right in the courts of the newly constituted federal government.
In 1925, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act to make arbitration a viable alternative for resolving contractual disputes between corporations. That strikes me as constitutionally tolerable, so long as agreements are voluntary and the parties are of roughly equal bargaining power, and if recourse to the courts is still possible if the arbitration process itself is disputed. But recent interpretations of that act by the U.S. Supreme Court have expanded its reach to cover all kinds of contracts, including consumer and employment contracts, and have even overridden state-level laws permitting class actions. (One of the reasons most corporations favor arbitration is that it forces each claimant to pursue his claim individually.)
So in disputes between individual Americans and big companies, the Seventh Amendment has become Swiss cheese, and with more holes than cheese. Many genuinely aggrieved consumers are being denied access to the civil justice system.
How can we fix this? The Supreme Court should reverse its errors, and Congress should amend the Federal Arbitration Act to ensure agreements are truly voluntary. (A bill to do that, dubbed the Arbitration Fairness Act, has been introduced in recent Congresses, but has gone nowhere, thanks to fierce opposition by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.) Realistically, in the near term, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s forthcoming Dodd-Frank regulations are the best hope consumers have for relief. But that only applies to consumer financial services and products. So there’s no avoiding a legislative remedy.
This issue should be a no-brainer for conservatives. Ending the un-American practice of forced arbitration should be on the agenda, not just of traditional consumer advocates, but of everyone who loves liberty and the Bill of Rights. As a freedom issue, it’s right up there with things like repealing health care mandates, allowing cell-phone unlocking, ending corporate subsidies and eliminating cronyist tax breaks.
By: Dean Clancy, Thomas Jefferson Street Blog, U. S. News and World Report, April 17, 2015
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 