Today’s Edition: The path forward.

June 24, 2021

         What is the path forward for the Democratic Party? On Tuesday, the party collided with the outer limits of its power, encountering a boundary condition imposed by thin majorities in the House and Senate. This much is clear: any legislative effort that is subject to the filibuster will fail. Bills that can be enacted by the budget reconciliation process—like the infrastructure bill—have a chance of passing (because the filibuster does not apply to reconciliation). As a result, many bills important to Democrats—like voting rights, gun safety, and environmental protections—will not advance in the current Congress. Given those facts, the path forward runs through Democratic and Independent voters who believe that government is a force for good in our lives. Fortunately, a strong majority of Americans believe so. The only open question is whether enough of them will show up at the polls in 2022 and 2024 to overcome the obstacles being erected by GOP state legislatures. Voter turnout is a solution that is deceptively simple: It is easy to articulate, but difficult to execute. The good news is that Democrats rose to the challenge in 2020. There is no reason they cannot do so again.

          Many readers of this newsletter are increasingly frustrated with the Democratic Party. Their frustration reflects the broad frustration of progressives, who believed that Biden’s election would result in greater and more rapid change. Instead, it seems that Democrats leaders are moving slowly when urgency is required. See The Guardian, “Progressives criticize Biden and Harris for not doing more to help voting rights.” In fairness to Biden, he was dealt a weak hand and has accomplished much with the cards he holds. But he has indulged the fiction of GOP good faith long enough. On Tuesday, GOP Senators representing 44% of Americans told Senators representing 56% of Americans that they were prohibited from debating whether voting rights reform was a good idea. In a rational political universe, when Senators representing 56% of Americans believe something is a good idea, it should not only be debated, it should become law. When the minority is empowered to tell the majority what topics may not be mentioned on the Senate floor, the system is broken in a way that Joe Biden cannot fix—yet. He needs more Democratic Senators, and it is up to us to elect them.

          In a glimmer of hope, a bipartisan group of Senators announced that they had reached an agreement with the White House on a “framework” for an infrastructure bill. See Politico, “Senators say a deal with the White House is in hand on infrastructure.” That “framework” will be a test of whether bipartisanship is still alive in those areas of legislative prerogative beyond the reach of the filibuster. As I write, the agreement has just been announced, so it is premature to predict what will happen. Progressives and Chuck Schumer have announced that any bipartisan infrastructure bill must have a “bold” climate change component, which the last version of the framework did not include. See The Hill, “Schumer vows to only pass infrastructure package that is 'a strong, bold climate bill'.” And then there is Mitch McConnell, who has remained at a distance from the negotiations, giving him plausible deniability to claim that no one ever asked him about what was acceptable to the GOP caucus.

          By circumventing progressives in an evenly divided Senate, the bipartisan group of Senators may have created a dozen “mini-Manchins,” each wielding de facto veto power. Let’s hope that a compromise can be achieved. But we must recognize that the bipartisan negotiations presume that the GOP is acting in good faith—a presumption they do not deserve at this point. They must prove their bona fides by following through on the commitments they made during the negotiations with Democrats. If they can’t deliver on that promise, Democrats should simply do what they can through reconciliation on a strict party-line basis and not waste any more time negotiating with the GOP. That is a disappointing conclusion, but Democrats should not indulge in fantasies. America is in dire need of rehabilitation and reconstruction. The time to act is now.

Watch General Mark Milley’s Comments on Critical Race Theory.

          During a congressional hearing on Wednesday, Republican representatives heckled General Mark Milley about the military’s supposed “woke” attitude towards race relations, which allegedly includes study of critical race theory. I am no fan of General Milley, but he gave an impassioned defense of intellectual openness to theories that explain racism, white rage, and the continuing effects of our nation’s legacy of slavery. I urge you to watch the video clip. It may restore your faith in our military leadership. See WaPo, “Top U.S. military leader: ‘I want to understand White rage. And I’m White.’.”  General Milley said, in part,

          I want to understand White rage. And I’m White. What is it that caused thousands of people to assault this building and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America. What caused that? . . . I’ve read Mao Zedong. I’ve read Karl Marx. I’ve read Lenin. That doesn’t make me a communist. So, what is wrong with understanding … the country which we are here to defend?

          General Milley’s openness to inquiry and education are commendable. His attitude stands in stark contrast to that of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who signed a bill that will dictate acceptable forms of thought in Florida’s schools. See Yahoo.com, “Gov. Ron DeSantis signs education bills on 'viewpoint diversity,' new civics curriculum in Florida.” The bill signed by DeSantis will require “diversity of viewpoints” in education. Don’t be fooled. The mandate of “diversity of viewpoints” is an attempt to require schools and universities to promote right-wing ideology. DeSantis admitted as much when he said,

          We obviously want our universities to be focused on critical thinking, academic rigor. We do not want them as basically hotbeds for stale ideology.

          Hmm. . . so who gets to decide what constitutes a “hotbed of stale ideology?” The motivation for Florida’s “thought control” legislation is the well-documented phenomenon that people tend to become more liberal as they become more educated. In essence, Florida wants to reverse the natural tendency of education to cause people to be more liberal in their outlook. See Pew Research Center, “Ideological Gap Widens Between More, Less Educated Adults.” Per the Pew report,

          Highly educated adults – particularly those who have attended graduate school – are far more likely than those with less education to take predominantly liberal positions across a range of political values.

          And lest you think that the result is caused by the fact that “the lefties” dominate the liberal arts curriculum, the same phenomenon is present among the science community. See Pew Research Center, “Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media,” (“Fully 52% of the scientists call themselves liberals; among the public, just 20% describe themselves as liberals.”)

          It is both commendable and frightening that our military leaders are more open-minded, well-read, and intellectually curious than Republican leaders. Kudos to General Milley.

Merrick Garland confirms he will not investigate abuses of DOJ under Trump.

Many Democrats have been urging Attorney General Merrick Garland to speak to the American public to confirm that he is investigating abuses by the DOJ during the Trump era. Garland finally broke his silence to make clear that he would not be conducting such investigations. Instead, he will leave the review up to the DOJ Inspector General. See NYTimes, “Garland Says Watchdog Is Best Positioned to Review Trump-Era Justice Dept., Not Him.” If you want a fair presentation of Garland’s reasoning for not conducting the investigations himself, the article lays out Garland’s best case. Among other comments, Garland said,

          I don’t want the department’s career people to think that a new group comes in and immediately applies a political lens. . . . It’s [the Inspector General’s] job to look at these things. . . . I don’t want to prejudge anything. It’s just not fair to the current employees.

          Garland’s comments are deeply disappointing. It is true that having the Inspector General conduct a review is appropriate. But it is not enough. The Inspector General does not have the authority to compel testimony from prior DOJ employees—like Barr, Sessions, and Rosenstein. He cannot issue subpoenas like a grand jury. And he cannot file criminal charges. The fact that Garland believes that the Inspector General is the appropriate person to investigate suggests that Garland has already prejudged the outcome—he will not file criminal charges against the department’s “career people.”

          Garland’s comments miss the point entirely. No one is asking him to “prejudge” anything, nor is anyone asking him to apply “a political lens” to his investigation. His comments prioritize the feelings and professional reputations of “career people” over the search for justice. It is unfortunate that career people may feel awkward about having their actions scrutinized, but there are ample grounds to warrant such scrutiny. The Mueller Report lists multiple instances of obstruction of justice directed at the DOJ; Trump openly commanded the DOJ to investigate his political enemies—which the DOJ promptly did; the DOJ repeatedly misrepresented facts to federal judges when it benefitted Trump; it fired a senior FBI official mere hours before his pension vested because the official had ordered an investigation of Trump, who then demanded that the official be fired. Those instances are part of the public record.  They provide ample predicate for an investigation by Garland, not merely by the Inspector General.

          Garland’s instinct to protect the feelings of the “career people” above all else is corrosive to the DOJ’s commitment to justice. If Trump is reelected in 2024, those career people who may have broken the law under Trump will believe they can do so again with impunity in his next administration. And even if they did not break the law, an honest investigation by Garland will be a bracing reminder to the career people that they serve the Constitution and the American people, not the current occupant of the Oval Office.

          Joe Biden made a mistake in appointing Merrick Garland. It would be a mistake for Biden to order Garland to initiate specific investigations of Trump era misconduct; that would repeat the obstruction of justice committed by Trump. But Biden can tell Garland that he has lost confidence in his leadership and request Garland’s resignation. When I made that suggestion two weeks ago, I received howls of protest from readers who said that I was being unfair to Garland because I had no idea what he was doing in the background. Now, Merrick Garland has answered that question himself: He is doing nothing, and he intends to do nothing. It is time for him to go. The DOJ deserves a leader who will rebuild the trust of the American people in the institution charged with doing justice.

Concluding Thoughts.

I forgot to mention that the DOJ does have one open investigation into the Trump era. Bill Barr appointed US Attorney John Durham as Special Counsel to investigate members of the DOJ and FBI who participated in the investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. So, the only criminal investigation of the Trump era DOJ is designed to punish those men and women of the DOJ who investigated Russia—and by association, Trump. If that isn’t a “political lens,” nothing is. And, yet, Merrick Garland has allowed that political investigation of “career people” to proceed apace. As I said, it is time for Garland to go.

          About a dozen readers sent me a link to Thomas L. Friedman’s op-ed, “Want to Get Trump Re-elected? Dismantle the Police.” I initially rolled my eyes and decided not to read the op-ed because of its title. Democrats have never suggested “dismantling the police.” Friedman’s title repeats a false narrative promoted by Republicans. But after receiving the op-ed about the 12th time, I read it. I wholeheartedly agree with Friedman’s take, which is that “law and order” is an issue that Democrats need to address in a way that speaks to Americans who are frightened by skyrocketing violent crime in cities. As Friedman notes, Biden is focused on this issue. See WaPo, “Biden launches an effort to head off violent crime — and political peril for his party.”

          There is more to discuss on the need for better messaging by Democrats, but I have gone on too long this evening. I promise not to discuss Merrick Garland again, unless it is to apologize because he proved me wrong—which I would gladly do if that happens.

          Talk to you tomorrow!