Today’s Edition: Why optimism matters.

December 17, 2021

[The audio version of this newsletter is here.]

“Today’ s Edition Podcast” live interview with Jessica Craven of Chop Wood, Carry Water this Saturday.

          As announced earlier this week, Today’s Edition Newsletter is launching a weekly live podcast that will focus on readers who are helping to defend democracy. The inaugural podcast will feature Jessica Craven, author of the daily newsletter Chop Wood, Carry Water. Her newsletter always contains topical information on how readers can engage to help make a difference now. The podcast interview with Jessica will be live to users of the Callin app on Saturday, December 18, 2021, at 11:00 AM Pacific / 2:00 PM Eastern. I will post a link to a recorded version of the interview in Monday’s newsletter. Anyone who receives Monday’s newsletter will be able to listen to the recorded podcast. Download the Callin app here to join us live! (The app is currently available only for Apple devices; an Android app is coming soon.)

Keeping expectations in check regarding House Select Committee final report.

          The House Select Committee continues to move aggressively in its investigation of the events of January 6th. In the absence of any apparent investigation by the Department of Justice of the leaders of the insurrection, the work of the Committee seems to be the only avenue for holding the ringleaders to account. The Committee has not dodged the hard questions raised by investigating a former president. Instead, it has moved “up the ladder” of Trump aides slowly and methodically, following the template of a prosecutor building a case against the ultimate target.

          The Committee continued its dogged pursuit of accountability on Thursday by issuing a subpoena to a retired army colonel, Phil Waldron, who drafted the PowerPoint presentation that outlined a suggested plan for subverting the 2020 election. See Talking Points Memo, “Jan. 6 Committee Issues Subpoena To Phil Waldron, Creator Of Big Lie PowerPoint.” The PowerPoint presentation was found in Mark Meadows email account, though Meadows claims he never opened the presentation. But Waldron told the Washington Post that he met with Meadows “six to eight times” before January 6th. Did Meadows discuss the PowerPoint with Trump? Since Meadows has invoked executive privilege, the Committee can’t ask Meadows. But the Committee can ask Waldron what Meadows told him about Trump’s knowledge of the PowerPoint. So, we may learn through Waldron what we can’t learn through Meadows. Good.

          These are positive developments, and we should be grateful that we are learning about the Committee’s progress on a real-time basis. But we should recognize that if we learn everything uncovered by the Committee through daily leaks and statements made during hearings, the final report could be viewed as “old news” even though the report will summarize shocking information (previously released) about an attempted coup. The dynamic of “not living up to the hype” blunted the impact of the shocking information contained in the Mueller report. Unfortunately, Trump and Bill Barr used the “expectations game” to good effect in undermining the Mueller Report. Let’s not let that happen again with the Select Committee final report.

          The daily disclosures also create an expectation that the investigative trail will lead to a “smoking gun” that implicates Trump. If that “smoking gun” fails to materialize, it should not matter. We already know enough about Trump’s actions relating to January 6th to justify a referral to the DOJ for criminal prosecution. Let’s not fall into the “expectation gap” trap created by the media’s breathless reporting of every subpoena or leak from the Committee. We know what happened on January 6th. Don’t let anyone tell you it was not a serious assault on democracy because the Committee’s report fails to live up to the media’s “movie script” ending.

          [Some of the analysis in the last two paragraphs was suggested by an article behind a “member’s only” paywall in Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo. Accordingly, I refrained from quoting the TPM article, but want to give credit where it is due—to the editorial team at TPM.]

Of Manchin’s opposition to the reconciliation bill.

          Well, it’s official. Manchin has successfully caused Democrats to delay consideration of the reconciliation bill until January 2022. Biden promises that it will make its way to the Senate floor for a vote, but the bill’s prospects for passage are uncertain.

          Manchin’s stated reason for opposing the bill is its potential inflationary impact—a concern that Manchin did not raise when he voted to approve a defense bill that was four times as large as the Build Back Better bill. Moreover, federal spending has little to do with inflation. Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman examined the likely causes of the current bout of inflation and its possible cures in his op-ed in NYTimes, “The Year of Inflation Infamy.”

          The causes for the current spike in inflation cited by Krugman both relate to the pandemic: disruption of the supply chain and “the Great Resignation” of workers who thought better of returning to their old jobs after spending a year working from home. Krugman does not cite federal spending as a cause of inflation, nor does his proposed solution depend on reducing federal spending. Rather, per Krugman, everyone seems to agree that the Federal Reserve should raise interest rates in a series of steps next year to bring inflation under control.

          Whatever Manchin’s real reasons for opposing the Child Tax Credit, they cannot genuinely include fear of inflation. Manchin previously criticized the reconciliation bill for creating an “entitlement society”—which indicates hostility toward social benefit payments. Of course, as Manchin objects to lifting children out of poverty by providing a tax credit, he has consistently supported subsidies for the fossil fuels industry. See The Intercept, “Joe Manchin Fights to Keep Subsidies for Fossil Fuel Industry.”

Biden asks Supreme Court to reinstate national vaccine mandate for healthcare workers.

          A federal appeals court enjoined a rule by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid that required healthcare workers to be vaccinated as a condition of employment. The Biden administration is seeking review of that ruling in the Supreme Court. See Bloomberg Law, “Biden Asks High Court to Allow Health-Care Vaccine Mandate.” Given the rapid spread of the Omicron variant, the need for vaccines among healthcare workers is manifest. The Supreme Court has demonstrated its ability to act quickly to protect anti-abortion statutes. Let’s hope that it will act with equal dispatch when it comes to vulnerable patients being cared for by unvaccinated healthcare workers.

Concluding Thoughts.

          Times are tough. We shouldn’t fool ourselves by pretending otherwise. But it is always true that times are tough. What matters most is not whether we face daunting challenges but how we respond to those challenges. In this newsletter, I urge readers to remain positive and optimistic. To my surprise, some readers seem intent on persuading me that my optimism is misplaced or (worse) dangerous. I strongly disagree. Remaining optimistic matters because it creates a landscape of possibilities for success that would not exist if we adopted a defeatist attitude. Let me explain with an example.

          Political pundits seem intent on bludgeoning Democrats into accepting defeat in 2022 before a single vote has been cast. They cite historical trends, current polling, and gerrymandering as reasons why Democrats should cry “uncle” and throw in the towel on the 2022 election cycle. That is a destructive and demoralizing message—and I refuse to accept it. The reason we hold elections (rather than allowing pundits to declare the winners) is because election results are uncertain and contingent on lots of variables—including the passion and enthusiasm of the electorate. If you tell people frequently enough that Democrats will lose in 2022, they will believe you and stay home. If you tell them that we still have the possibility of winning, they might show up. And showing up matters—a lot.

          Even Democrats who live in districts whose boundaries have been contorted by gerrymandering should still show up in force—because there will be other elections on that ballot that also matter. It matters whether we elect Democratic city councils, school boards, state legislators, judges, and election commissioners—even if we fall short in electing a congressional representative in a particular district. If we convince Democrats that they shouldn’t bother showing up because we face long odds in one race, we foreclose the landscape of possibilities for success in every other race on the ballot.

          So, do not let the jabbering of political pundits dissuade you from working diligently to elect every Democrat in every congressional race no matter how long the odds. By remaining optimistic, we keep ourselves open to the possibilities of successes that may surprise us. Ask Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock!

          Talk to you on Monday. Join us on Saturday for the live podcast if you can!