This is a question we sometimes ask and political groups give their own answers. Today the Democrats and Republicans not only have different answers, but their answers are in conflict. This is not because they/we are stupid or evil, but because of the natural instincts of two of the most fundamental things in our society. It may even be human nature and therefore common in all places of the world. It is causing us severe problems and many who are watching closely are afraid of what may result if this dynamic does not change.
I'll give two examples from our history: at the nation's founding and at the time of the Civil War.
When this nation was founded and the Constitution was written (admittedly not on the same day) there were two groups of people who were in conflict about whether the Constitution should be explicit about certain Rights. Some wanted the Constitution to be simple and complete without being very explicit. They felt that to be explicit might turn those Rights which were not mentioned into second-class Rights or leave them ignored altogether. Others worried the Constitution didn't make explicit enough and that it was only by adding some specificity and we could depend upon the Supreme Court to protect anything as a Right. Those prefering explicit rights won that fight and got the Bill of Rights, the first ten (10) amendments.
It could be said, on the one hand, that Article five (5) of the Constitution enabling the amending of our Constitutional law, allowed those who favor explicit law and adding things to have an edge in the 'fight' between those who preferred no change and those who preferred more and more explicit language. But, on the other hand, it can be said those who favor simplicity and an unchanging Constitutional document have succeeded because the ability to change the Constitution by amendment has tended to become more and more difficult as our society has accepted the existing amendments and has not changed so radically as to require more (in their opinion).
At the time before the Civil War, America was growing and spreading across the continent. Some political leaders felt it was time to put a halt to slavery before it was allowed to also spread across the continent. The issue had not been resolved at the time of the Constitutional Convention to the satisfaction of either the southern slave holders or the northerners who favored abolition. This was one of the key issues which resulted in the conflict.
As so often happens in the world, there are conflicts which involve long-held beliefs and territorial or financial interests and they cannot easily be resolved by peaceful dispute resolution. As a people we have become better at this and our attempt to assist the world with the creation of the United Nations still stands as a great, if somewhat muted, achievement. Unfortunately there are still wars and other kinds of violence when resolution is not successful. The (seemingly perpetual) Palestinian-Israeli conflict is one of those.
Today it would seem the differences are not so large, but I fear something has recently (during the last fifty years) changed in the makeup of the Republican Party constituency and this has exacerbated the problem. From the time of Franklin Roosevelt until Lyndon Johnson the Democratic Party was in the ascendancy and the Republicans could only field presidents like Dwight Eisenhower (who was so centrist that both major political parties wanted him to run on their ticket), and Richard Nixon (who was personally quite Conservative, but as president was quite pragmatic). After Johnson and during the Nixon administration there began the "Southern Strategy" which was to reform the voting bases of the two parties as Conservative southerners moved from the Democratic to the Republican Party. At the end of the administration of Jimmy Carter many Jews (who felt betrayed by Carter's efforts in the Middle East) also shifted toward the Republican Party and this gave the Republicans a strong majority in the nation. Their next president, Ronald Reagan, won his first term narrowly, but won a huge landslide victory for his second term. The Republicans were jubilant and felt they would win forever with that voter base. They also courted the religious Conservatives and their leaders who wanted to counter the religious voters who had supported Pres. Carter. Success breeds success and where they had the support of the super rich before, it became much stronger thereafter. But, the Democrats began to win with presidents who knew how to campaign and govern well. Also, the nation's demographics were changing, pulling the voter base advantage out from under the Republicans. Slowly but surely the blacks, latinos, asians, the young, and even the American Jews began to vote more for Democrats. Successful presidencies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama encouraged them and the balance between the parties was reestablished.
But, the Right felt they were losing!
The reason is that the (seemingly) inexorable piling up of Law had not changed. Their primary goal of retaining the America they knew and accepted had not been achieved.
The first thing they did was move the party Rightward and to demand more of their politicians or the politicians would risk "being primaried" (challenged in the next primary election by another Republican who was even more aligned with the radical voters). As they moved to the Right they were also expected to fulfill much more of the agenda and for many that was difficult or impossible. It seems that this "taking back of America" is far from the mainstream and is simply difficult to achieve.
Then the rich radical Conservatives began founding organizations such as think tanks and Political Action Committees and even Conservative legal organizations like the Federalist Society.
I don't know whose idea prevailed, but along the way I believe the radical Conservatives decided that they would not be entirely able to roll back Law using only the Legislative and Executive branches. It may have been after they supported Republican presidents George H. W. Bush and his son George W. Bush who didn't satisfy their goals. They began to formulate plans to "pack the Court" and use Justices of the Supreme Court to overturn laws they disapproved.
One of their key ideas was to prevent Democratic presidents from sitting in office (so they impeached and tried to remove Bill Clinton) and they began during the Obama administration to simply not confirm nominees to the Court (the federal court judgeships). The most recent power play in this plan was to deny Pres. Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a hearing and vote and to delay confirming an appointee until they could get a nominee from a Republican president. They even went so far as to say that it wouldn't matter if, after Obama, another Democratic president were elected. They simply would not confirm a Liberal nominee. It is unclear at this time how many times in a row they felt they could do this, but I suspect they had some number or percentage of the bench they wished to seat before they would be satisfied. The number of silent filibusters of Obama nominees had never been seen before in the history of this nation. The refusal to hear or vote on the nomination of a Supreme Court nominee had never before occurred in America's long history.
Today with a Republican president they looked at a list of candidates selected by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, two Conservative organizations, and picked one who is smart, experienced, Conservative, and able to keep his mouth shut (as judge Roberts had done before). The only question remaining about this nominee is whether they will crush a filibuster with a rules change to end the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees. It would fit this plan I am suggesting.
What will all this mean for America? Whose lives will be harmed? Surely in this plan, there is nobody who will truly benefit except the rich. Even the social Conservatives do not seek gain, only a more comfortable mind, knowing the America they think they prefer is at hand. But, even they will suffer from the rollback of many of these laws they say they oppose. It has been suggested the last forty (40) years of law is oppressive or undesirable to them.
Suppose the voter base continues to change and the Democrats regain the upper hand and win Congress and the White House. What kind of war would ensue if all their laws are simply overturned by the Supreme Court? How long would such a situation exist, considering the longevity of the federal Appeals Court judges who could continue to rule in favor of corporations and give them the economic advantages which would inspire the rich to continue to fund Republican candidacies? What would this do to America?
You may ask, why did the Republican politicians NOT fulfill the wishes of their radical Conservative voters and funders when they clearly had the upper hand? Why were the radicals NOT satisfied? I believe the politicians used the radicals for their votes and the rich for their money, but otherwise didn't want to do the radical things which they knew would hurt America. Only when some of their voter base and their funding had begun to disappear, did they choose to change their policies and tactics. I mentioned above that the nation's demographics were changing and the Republican campaign operatives could see that and begin to devise another approach. And, only when the religous Right ceased their full support with funding, did they have to seek out more less religious billionaires (such as Sheldon Adelson and [I speculate] perhaps Vladimir Putin and the other Russian oligarchs). Those rich supporters weren't necessarily supporters of the radical Conservative political agenda. But, there were some radical Conservative billionaires: the Mercers, the DeVos's and likely others I don't know. The presence of the party's policies tells me they have backers demanding it.
What I find hard to reconcile is how any policies Russian president Putin might desire could sit well with the radical Conservatives or the religious Right or even the traditional Republicans. It's a bad fit and it can't last long. Of course, it is also dangerous to America, so it can't be allowed to continue now that it is known. The Republicans, if they were receiving financial support from Putin, will be more than ever in a frenzied search for other funding which they cannot get from American billionaires, corporations, or ordinary citizens. The Religious Right isn't especially interested in the radical Conservative "taking back America" agenda, but if the Republicans aggressively try to impose the Religious Right agenda, America will have the worst of all worlds (short of war). A radical Conservative "taking back America" agenda to roll back law and the Religious Right agenda to inflict their bad policies on Americans who do not want them.
America may be in for some very hard times.
I'll give two examples from our history: at the nation's founding and at the time of the Civil War.
When this nation was founded and the Constitution was written (admittedly not on the same day) there were two groups of people who were in conflict about whether the Constitution should be explicit about certain Rights. Some wanted the Constitution to be simple and complete without being very explicit. They felt that to be explicit might turn those Rights which were not mentioned into second-class Rights or leave them ignored altogether. Others worried the Constitution didn't make explicit enough and that it was only by adding some specificity and we could depend upon the Supreme Court to protect anything as a Right. Those prefering explicit rights won that fight and got the Bill of Rights, the first ten (10) amendments.
It could be said, on the one hand, that Article five (5) of the Constitution enabling the amending of our Constitutional law, allowed those who favor explicit law and adding things to have an edge in the 'fight' between those who preferred no change and those who preferred more and more explicit language. But, on the other hand, it can be said those who favor simplicity and an unchanging Constitutional document have succeeded because the ability to change the Constitution by amendment has tended to become more and more difficult as our society has accepted the existing amendments and has not changed so radically as to require more (in their opinion).
At the time before the Civil War, America was growing and spreading across the continent. Some political leaders felt it was time to put a halt to slavery before it was allowed to also spread across the continent. The issue had not been resolved at the time of the Constitutional Convention to the satisfaction of either the southern slave holders or the northerners who favored abolition. This was one of the key issues which resulted in the conflict.
As so often happens in the world, there are conflicts which involve long-held beliefs and territorial or financial interests and they cannot easily be resolved by peaceful dispute resolution. As a people we have become better at this and our attempt to assist the world with the creation of the United Nations still stands as a great, if somewhat muted, achievement. Unfortunately there are still wars and other kinds of violence when resolution is not successful. The (seemingly perpetual) Palestinian-Israeli conflict is one of those.
Today it would seem the differences are not so large, but I fear something has recently (during the last fifty years) changed in the makeup of the Republican Party constituency and this has exacerbated the problem. From the time of Franklin Roosevelt until Lyndon Johnson the Democratic Party was in the ascendancy and the Republicans could only field presidents like Dwight Eisenhower (who was so centrist that both major political parties wanted him to run on their ticket), and Richard Nixon (who was personally quite Conservative, but as president was quite pragmatic). After Johnson and during the Nixon administration there began the "Southern Strategy" which was to reform the voting bases of the two parties as Conservative southerners moved from the Democratic to the Republican Party. At the end of the administration of Jimmy Carter many Jews (who felt betrayed by Carter's efforts in the Middle East) also shifted toward the Republican Party and this gave the Republicans a strong majority in the nation. Their next president, Ronald Reagan, won his first term narrowly, but won a huge landslide victory for his second term. The Republicans were jubilant and felt they would win forever with that voter base. They also courted the religious Conservatives and their leaders who wanted to counter the religious voters who had supported Pres. Carter. Success breeds success and where they had the support of the super rich before, it became much stronger thereafter. But, the Democrats began to win with presidents who knew how to campaign and govern well. Also, the nation's demographics were changing, pulling the voter base advantage out from under the Republicans. Slowly but surely the blacks, latinos, asians, the young, and even the American Jews began to vote more for Democrats. Successful presidencies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama encouraged them and the balance between the parties was reestablished.
But, the Right felt they were losing!
The reason is that the (seemingly) inexorable piling up of Law had not changed. Their primary goal of retaining the America they knew and accepted had not been achieved.
The first thing they did was move the party Rightward and to demand more of their politicians or the politicians would risk "being primaried" (challenged in the next primary election by another Republican who was even more aligned with the radical voters). As they moved to the Right they were also expected to fulfill much more of the agenda and for many that was difficult or impossible. It seems that this "taking back of America" is far from the mainstream and is simply difficult to achieve.
Then the rich radical Conservatives began founding organizations such as think tanks and Political Action Committees and even Conservative legal organizations like the Federalist Society.
I don't know whose idea prevailed, but along the way I believe the radical Conservatives decided that they would not be entirely able to roll back Law using only the Legislative and Executive branches. It may have been after they supported Republican presidents George H. W. Bush and his son George W. Bush who didn't satisfy their goals. They began to formulate plans to "pack the Court" and use Justices of the Supreme Court to overturn laws they disapproved.
One of their key ideas was to prevent Democratic presidents from sitting in office (so they impeached and tried to remove Bill Clinton) and they began during the Obama administration to simply not confirm nominees to the Court (the federal court judgeships). The most recent power play in this plan was to deny Pres. Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a hearing and vote and to delay confirming an appointee until they could get a nominee from a Republican president. They even went so far as to say that it wouldn't matter if, after Obama, another Democratic president were elected. They simply would not confirm a Liberal nominee. It is unclear at this time how many times in a row they felt they could do this, but I suspect they had some number or percentage of the bench they wished to seat before they would be satisfied. The number of silent filibusters of Obama nominees had never been seen before in the history of this nation. The refusal to hear or vote on the nomination of a Supreme Court nominee had never before occurred in America's long history.
Today with a Republican president they looked at a list of candidates selected by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, two Conservative organizations, and picked one who is smart, experienced, Conservative, and able to keep his mouth shut (as judge Roberts had done before). The only question remaining about this nominee is whether they will crush a filibuster with a rules change to end the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees. It would fit this plan I am suggesting.
What will all this mean for America? Whose lives will be harmed? Surely in this plan, there is nobody who will truly benefit except the rich. Even the social Conservatives do not seek gain, only a more comfortable mind, knowing the America they think they prefer is at hand. But, even they will suffer from the rollback of many of these laws they say they oppose. It has been suggested the last forty (40) years of law is oppressive or undesirable to them.
Suppose the voter base continues to change and the Democrats regain the upper hand and win Congress and the White House. What kind of war would ensue if all their laws are simply overturned by the Supreme Court? How long would such a situation exist, considering the longevity of the federal Appeals Court judges who could continue to rule in favor of corporations and give them the economic advantages which would inspire the rich to continue to fund Republican candidacies? What would this do to America?
You may ask, why did the Republican politicians NOT fulfill the wishes of their radical Conservative voters and funders when they clearly had the upper hand? Why were the radicals NOT satisfied? I believe the politicians used the radicals for their votes and the rich for their money, but otherwise didn't want to do the radical things which they knew would hurt America. Only when some of their voter base and their funding had begun to disappear, did they choose to change their policies and tactics. I mentioned above that the nation's demographics were changing and the Republican campaign operatives could see that and begin to devise another approach. And, only when the religous Right ceased their full support with funding, did they have to seek out more less religious billionaires (such as Sheldon Adelson and [I speculate] perhaps Vladimir Putin and the other Russian oligarchs). Those rich supporters weren't necessarily supporters of the radical Conservative political agenda. But, there were some radical Conservative billionaires: the Mercers, the DeVos's and likely others I don't know. The presence of the party's policies tells me they have backers demanding it.
What I find hard to reconcile is how any policies Russian president Putin might desire could sit well with the radical Conservatives or the religious Right or even the traditional Republicans. It's a bad fit and it can't last long. Of course, it is also dangerous to America, so it can't be allowed to continue now that it is known. The Republicans, if they were receiving financial support from Putin, will be more than ever in a frenzied search for other funding which they cannot get from American billionaires, corporations, or ordinary citizens. The Religious Right isn't especially interested in the radical Conservative "taking back America" agenda, but if the Republicans aggressively try to impose the Religious Right agenda, America will have the worst of all worlds (short of war). A radical Conservative "taking back America" agenda to roll back law and the Religious Right agenda to inflict their bad policies on Americans who do not want them.
America may be in for some very hard times.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.