A glimmer of hope.

October 2, 2023

          On Sunday morning, President Biden spoke for all Americans when he said the following to House Republicans:

Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of the brinkmanship. Enough is enough is enough. This is not that complicated. The brinkmanship has to end, and there shouldn't be another crisis.

Don't waste time as you did all summer. Pass a year-long budget agreement. Honor the deal we made a few months ago.

          Biden also demanded that Republicans honor their agreement to hold a vote on funding the defense of Ukraine:

We cannot under any circumstances allow America’s support for Ukraine to be interrupted. I fully expect the speaker to keep his commitment to secure the passage and support needed to help Ukraine as they defend themselves against aggression and brutality.

          The dust has not settled from Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s decision to rely on Democratic votes in the House to pass a continuing resolution. McCarthy’s decision shifted the power dynamic in the House GOP caucus—but it is not clear how that shift will play out. But we should know sooner rather than later. The universally reviled Rep. Matt Gaetz announced Sunday that he will file a motion to “vacate the chair”—a vote of “no confidence” on McCarthy.

          McCarthy responded to the threat by saying, “Let's get over with it. Let's start governing.”

          While Gaetz’s motion may not succeed in removing McCarthy, there is no way McCarthy will emerge with a mandate to govern. Based on the Saturday vote on the continuing resolution, McCarthy can deliver only 126 Republican votes when it matters.

          McCarthy’s future is in the hands of House Democrats. If they vote against McCarthy on the motion to vacate, McCarthy’s tenure as Speaker will end. If Democrats vote “present,” McCarthy will survive—but he will be dependent on Democrats if he hopes “to start governing.”

          The email responses I received from readers regarding the omission of funding for Ukraine were among the angriest I have received in six years of writing this newsletter. They included words like “disgusted,” “betrayal,” “cowardice,” and “Putin’s useful idiots.” But at least one reader in the Comments section noted that many Americans oppose all military aid to prolong conflict with nuclear powers—which includes opposing support for Ukraine (and without intending to support Putin).

          Reader James Schumaker, a retired Foreign Service Officer, notes that the question of the US commitment to funding Ukraine is coming at the precise moment that Russia is dropping pretense about its territorial aims:

Putin's propagandists have dropped their "NATO is to blame for Ukraine" line and are now, for once, telling the truth. They are saying that the Putin regime's overarching objective is to restore the Russian Empire. (Russian State TV Lays Out Plans for New Empire (newsweek.com))

This means a philosophy of endless expansion that will probably not stop at the high-water mark of empire, which, to remind people, was when Russia controlled Finland, Poland, the Baltic States, and the territory of all the former Republics of the Soviet Union.

MAGA Republicans are operating as Putin's handmaidens and should be called out for that early and often. Their "America First" predecessors in the 1930s were similarly sympathetic to aggressive dictators and opposed an active US policy to support our friends and allies in Europe. If Americans do not want a repeat of the mistakes of the 1930s -- which will result in even worse consequences for us and the world -- it is time to wake up and remember who we are, and just who and what we must defend.

          Democrats made a difficult decision to support a continuing resolution that did not include funding for Ukraine. They did so in reliance on assurances from Kevin McCarthy—the man who failed to honor the assurances he gave Biden on the debt increase agreement, a breach that led to the shutdown crisis.

The dramatic events of Saturday are just the beginning of a reorientation in congressional power. House Democrats are now negotiating from a position of strength despite being in the minority. It will be an interesting 45 days until the next shutdown crisis.

California Governor Gavin Newsom appoints replacement for Senator Dianne Feinstein.

          Under the US Constitution, a state may delegate to its governor the right to appoint a US Senator when a seat is vacated due to death, disability, resignation, or removal. California has granted its governor that authority. On Sunday evening, California Governor Gavin Newsom confirmed that he will announce on Monday that he will appoint Laphonza Butler to replace Senator Dianne Feinstein, who passed away last week. See Politico, Gavin Newsom picks Laphonza Butler as Dianne Feinstein replacement.

          Laphonza Butler previously served as a Regent of the University of California and President of SEIU United Long Term Care Workers. She is currently President of EMILY’s List.

          Importantly, Governor Newsom did not place any restrictions on Laphonza Butler’s appointment. Per Politico,  

Newsom is making his appointment without putting limitations or preconditions on his pick running for the seat in 2024. That means Butler could decide to join the sprawling and competitive field of Democratic contenders seeking to succeed Feinstein, with special elections now layered on top of the March primary and November runoff.

Butler is expected to be sworn-in to the U.S. Senate on Wednesday by Vice President Kamala Harris.

          Laphonza Butler is a fabulous choice to complete the remainder of Feinstein’s term, and it was appropriate for Newsom to make the appointment without preconditions or limitations. Butler should be viewed by her new Senate colleagues as a full and equal partner in the important work of the Senate.

          At the same time, Newsom told California voters that he wouldn’t pick a current candidate in the primary field because “the primary is just a matter of months away [and] I don't want to tip the balance of that.” Can the unqualified appointment of Laphonza Butler be reconciled with Newsom’s promise not to “tip the balance” of the Democratic primary? Those are not mutually inconsistent statements/acts on Newsom’s part, and Laphonza Butler is not a party to those statements.

          The current candidates are undoubtedly anxiously trying to understand whether Laphonza Butler will seek the Democratic nomination to be a US Senator from California in 2024. My advice is for everyone to take a breath and allow the candidates and Laphonza Butler to work through the ambiguities to determine what is in the best interests of California residents.

Trump's civil trial in New York to begin Monday.

          The remaining issues in New York state’s civil trial against Trump for fraudulent business practices will begin Monday. Trump will reportedly appear on the first day of trial. He appears on the witness lists for the state and the defense, but Trump would be an idiot to testify (as opposed to invoking his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment). Since anything Trump says in the New York trial will be a lie, testimony in the New York civil trial can only prejudice his defense in his criminal trials.

          According to reports, Trump believes he can turn the New York civil trial to his benefit by appearing in person. That calculation is wrong, as Trump will discover when he learns that he cannot interrupt, bluster, harangue, or bully the judge. He may try, but he will quicky be held in contempt.

Opportunities for reader engagement.

          Next week is National Banned Book week. See this announcement from BigTentUSA:

2023 Banned Book Week is upon us, and we are thrilled to announce that Suzanne Nossel, CEO of PEN America, will join us for a virtual conversation with Rick Dresser, President of the Writers Guild Initiative, on Wed. Oct. 4 at 7pm ET. They will examine the current movement to ban books in public schools and libraries across the country, underscoring the impacts of increased censorship on students and schools, as well as authors and artists. With a lens to the past, Nossel and Dresser will discuss whether these threats to free expression are novel, as well as ways for individuals to use their voices in defending the #FreedomToRead.  RSVP here.

          Force Multiplier is hosting Simon Rosenberg this week:

 Force Multiplier is hosting the terrific Simon Rosenberg on Zoom on Thursday October 5 at 7:00 PM Eastern! Simon will be talking about how "things get better with Democrats" and about why he would "rather be us than them" for the 2024 election. There will be a Q&A.  This fundraising support is in support of Force Multiplier's carefully curated slate of vulnerable House incumbents.  Register and Donate Here. 

Concluding Thoughts.

          Once again, we have averted disaster only hours after there appeared to be no prospect for victory. Lurching from crisis to crisis is no way to govern because—sooner or later—one of the crises will not be averted. But there is a valuable lesson in what happened on Saturday:

• When push came to shove, nearly 60% of Republicans in the House voted in favor of sanity and order over insanity and chaos.

• Even better, 80% of all members of the House voted in favor of sanity and order, while only 20% voted in favor of a senseless shutdown.

          Reflect on those numbers: 80% vs. 20%. Those percentages map neatly onto a widely applicable pattern in life where most natural phenomena demonstrate breakpoints at the 80% vs 20% dividing line. We should not be shocked that 20% of the members of the House would vote in favor of a government shutdown. We should be comforted by the fact that 80% of all House members—and 60% of all Republicans—voted in favor of the rational path forward.

          Until the moment of the successful vote on the continuing resolution on Saturday, the media devoted 80% of its attention to the 20% outliers in the House. The over-emphasis on a small minority of irrational Republicans distorted the reality of the situation in the House and unnecessarily heightened anxiety in a situation that was already anxiety producing enough.

          Here’s my point: When it came time on Saturday for Republicans to declare whether they were part of the chaos caucus or the reality caucus, they chose the latter. When the masks finally dropped away, we learned that there is more ground for hope than most of us assumed. Getting to “Yes” on Saturday was an ugly process. But the fact that we got to “Yes” should give us hope that there remains a central core of rational legislators around which a functioning Congress can be built. It is a small glimmer of hope, but we should welcome any possibility of progress that comes our way.

          On that optimistic note, I will say, “Talk to you tomorrow!”