Reasons for hope!

October 4, 2022

          We are in the thick of the fight, but there are many reasons to remain hopeful about the ultimate outcome of our battle to defend democracy. That point was brought into focus for me (again) as I moderated a discussion with John Fetterman and Mandela Barnes on Monday evening. If they represent the future of the Democratic Party, our future is bright, indeed. Fetterman and Barnes are exceptional candidates who connect with the working people of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. They are on the right side of “bread-and-butter” issues in a way that their out-of-touch opponents (Dr. Oz and Sen. Ron Johnson) are not.

          John Fetterman and Mandela Barnes are approachable and empathetic while exuding an understated but noticeable charisma. They are “of the people, for the people.” Dr. Oz and Ron Johnson deny the outcome of the 2020 election, serve as apologists for the violence of January 6th, want to eliminate Medicare and Social Security, deny climate change, seek to abolish women’s reproductive liberty, and have resorted to ugly disinformation campaigns to smear their opponents. And yet, Fetterman and Barnes said that they wanted to remain focused on the issues that are important to the people of their respective states. Good for them!

          It is easy (and justified) to find fault with the Democratic Party’s messaging strategy writ large. But if you look at the quality of candidates that the respective parties have attracted in two of the most important races in 2022, Democrats have won by a large margin. I left the virtual meeting with a renewed optimism about the future of the Democratic Party—-but not only because of the outstanding candidates. There were about 150 concerned citizens on the call (many of whom are readers of this newsletter) who are leading grassroots organizations that did not exist five years ago. As a group, they have donated tens of thousands of volunteer hours and inspired hundreds of thousands of Americans to engage in the democratic process of governing our nation.

          If we can find the courage and stamina to stay the course, we will prevail. It is only a question of when. Things may get worse before they get better, but they will get better. Candidates like John Fetterman and Mandela Barnes have put themselves, their families, and their health on the line for our sake. We can’t ask for more—and we must reward their selfless acts by providing them support in whatever way we can.

          Tonight, I feel more optimistic about the long-term prospects of the Democratic Party than ever. Our cause is just, and our candidates are worthy of high offices of public trust. Over time, that combination will prevail over a party that exists only to perpetuate power and influence. Stay the course, keep the faith, and leave nothing to chance. Support Democratic candidates up and down the ballot by showing up at the polls and encouraging family, friends, and complete strangers to do the same!

The lesson of Ukraine.

          Last week, Russia illegally “annexed” four provinces in Ukraine. This week, Russia has lost control of portions of all of the illegally annexed regions. Indeed, the Ukrainian army is pushing back the Russian army on multiple fronts. See The Guardian, Russia no longer has full control of any of four ‘annexed’ Ukrainian provinces.

          It would be wrong to view these developments through a romanticized lens that claims, “Right makes might.” The success of the Ukrainian army is attributable to many factors, including substantial economic and military support from the US and NATO, advanced US weaponry, and a Russian army whose military readiness was degraded by decades of corruption and an ossified command structure. But it would also be wrong to dismiss the fact that the Ukrainian army is motivated and unified by devotion to the idea of a free and independent Ukraine. So, too, it is with the battle for the soul of America.

          If we were soldiers in Ukraine, maintaining hope would be an existential discipline necessary for survival. It would be easy to feel hopeless; choosing to be hopeful is an act of courage and faith that can affect the outcome of global events. Tom Nichols has applied the lesson of Ukraine to our perilous political moment in The Atlantic, Trump, Putin, and the Assault of Anarchy.

          Although Nichols starts by discussing Ukraine, he quickly shifts to the seemingly unending lists of outrageous conduct that has become normalized under Trump. Nichols asks, “Against all this, how can we not be overwhelmed? . . . How can anyone fight the sense that “the center cannot hold”?” Nichols’s answer is inspiring and deserves to be read in full in The Atlantic. But because it speaks to me so strongly, I quote Nichols’s answer at length:

But we are not helpless. The center can hold—because we are the center. We are citizens of a democracy who can refuse to accept the threats of mob bosses, whether in Florida or in Russia. We can and must vote, but that’s not enough. We must also speak out. By temperament, I am not much for public demonstrations, but if that’s your preferred form of expression, then organize and march. The rest of us, however, can act, every day, on a small scale.

Speak up. Do not stay silent when our fellow citizens equivocate and rationalize. Defend what’s right, whether to a friend or a family member. Refuse to laugh along with the flip cynicism that makes a joke of everything. Stay informed so that the stink of a death threat from a former president or the rattle of a nuclear saber from a Russian autocrat does not simply rush past you as if you’ve just driven by a sewage plant.

None of this is easy to do. But we are entering a time of important choices, both at home at the ballot box and abroad on foreign battlefields, and the center—the confident and resolute defense of peace, freedom, and the rule of law—must hold.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson gives us another reason to be hopeful.

          Many junior justices on the Supreme Court remain silent for years as they attempt to navigate the political and legal crosscurrents that batter the Court. But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson arrived at the Court as a seasoned and confident appellate jurist. On her first day on the job, she served notice on the Gorsuch wing of the Court that their “fact-free” and “precedent-free” brand of jurisprudence will be given no quarter by the newest justice. See Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court debut showed a skill that Stephen Breyer never mastered.

          Stern does a superb job of summarizing Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s masterful performance during her first session presiding over oral argument. Read the entire article if you can, but here is Stern’s conclusion:

What’s different now is that unlike her predecessor Stephen Breyer, Jackson is a sharp interrogator, fast-paced and adroit, adept at drawing out the feeble reasoning propping up meretricious logic. There was an exciting rhythm to Monday’s arguments, especially when Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan teamed up with Jackson to knock down Schiff’s weakest claims.

          Justice Gorsuch will need to step up his legal gymnastics if he wants to avoid being made a fool by Justice Jackson. Spoiler alert: Gorsuch will fail and his bad-faith arguments will be exposed for all to see. But he will not care. Expand the Court. That is the solution. In the meantime, the dissents of Justices Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan will prepare the ground for the rehabilitation of the Court when the grip of the reactionary majority is finally broken.

Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling.

          Putin’s nuclear threats are no one’s favorite topic, so feel free to skip this section. But the NYTimes has published a lengthy analysis of why actually using nuclear weapons in Ukraine is not a viable option for Putin. Instead, it is the threat of use that gives Putin the greatest advantage. See NYTimes, Russia’s Small Nuclear Arms Are a Risk For Putin and Ukraine.

          Per the NYTimes analysis, the use of small tactical nuclear weapons would do almost nothing to advance Russia’s military aims and would result in radiation contamination that would reach Russia and Belarus. Moreover, the target of the attack and surrounding area would become uninhabitable, a result at odds with Putin’s expansionist goals. And Russia would become an outlaw nation isolated from every financial and economic connection necessary for it to remain a modern state. While it is impossible to say that Putin will “never” use tactical nuclear weapons, there is no logical case for him to do so.

The definitive argument against the Independent State Legislature theory.

          Judge Michael Luttig penned a comprehensive essay in The Atlantic that dismantles the arguments for the Independent State Legislature theory. See Michael Luttig, The Atlantic, There Is Absolutely Nothing to Support the ‘Independent State Legislature’ Theory. If you are worried about this theory, Judge Luttig’s analysis explains why the Supreme Court should reject the argument in all of its manifestations, including in Moore v. Harper.

          I can’t do justice to Judge Luttig’s sweeping analysis, but here is an excerpt to whet your appetite for more;

There is literally no support in the Constitution, the pre-ratification debates, or the history from the time of our nation’s founding or the Constitution’s framing for a theory of an independent state legislature that would foreclose state judicial review of state legislatures’ redistricting decisions. Indeed, there is overwhelming evidence that the Constitution contemplates and provides for such judicial review.

Herschel Walker’s son accuses his father of paying for abortion for ex-girlfriend.

          Christian Walker—Herschel Walker’s son—is a conservative social media influencer. In the main, he has been supportive of his father’s run for the US Senate seat in Georgia. But on Monday, Christian Walker posted a series of accusations that are at odds with Herschel Walker’s portrayal of himself as an anti-choice Christian and loving father. See Axios, Herschel Walker’s son accuses father of lying about his past.

          Christian Walker’s tirade against his father followed a report in The Daily Beast, ‘Pro-Life’ Herschel Walker Paid for Girlfriend’s Abortion. Herschel Walker, who has been caught in several lies about his past and accomplishments, denied that he paid for his girlfriend’s abortion. The Daily Beast says, “We have the receipts, literally.”

          Chalk this up to the ongoing Republican hypocrisy about reproductive liberty. Male politicians want to control women’s bodies—including paying for abortions when the unplanned pregnancy of a girlfriend or wife is inconvenient for the man but otherwise forbidding women from making decisions about their own reproductive liberty.

Ron DeSantis’s possible legal jeopardy for moving refugees under false pretenses.

          Joyce Vance takes a deep dive into whether Ron DeSantis could be criminally liable for kidnapping (or conspiracy to kidnap) in connection with his efforts to deceive refugees into accepting flights from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard. See Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance, The Week Ahead (substack.com). Vance reviews the relevant jury instructions and concludes that an argument could be made that DeSantis (and others) conspired to commit kidnapping under federal law. Vance ends on this cautious note:

It’s too early to know whether a criminal investigation will take a serious turn, but no one who was involved should be breathing too easily just yet. [¶¶¶] At a minimum, serious investigation is merited to see who was involved and whether what they did violated the law.

          Let’s hope that someone at the DOJ is reading Vance’s column. A serious investigation might be sufficient motivation to rein in further stunts (read: performative cruelty) by DeSantis.

Concluding Thoughts.

         I listened to an interview of Mandela Barnes on MSNBC on Monday morning. The anchor was interested in spinning the story that the Senate race in Wisconsin is showing signs of tightening after an onslaught of negative advertising against Mandela Barnes. When the interviewer asked Barnes about the polls, he said, “The polls go up; the polls go down.”

          Truer words were never spoken. “The polls go up; the polls go down.” The MSNBC anchor was attempting to create fear and apprehension by suggesting that polls determine the outcome of elections. They do not. Mandela Barnes correctly noted that polls are variable, especially in closely divided electorates.

Polls are not reality; the efforts that we engage in during the coming month are reality. Everything is in flux, which means that the future is ours to shape. Let’s make the “polls go up”—by ignoring the polls and focusing on the hard work of convincing voters that Democrats offer a positive vision for Americans that will be carried out by candidates worthy of high offices of public trust. Over time, that combination will prevail over a party that exists only to perpetuate power and influence. Stay the course, keep the faith, and leave nothing to chance!

          Talk to you tomorrow!