Leonardo had a good question last week. Is Monday’s topic on resisting Trump about how big D Democrats or small d democrats should do it? I kind of envisioned a “where to now” discussion of issues facing the Democratic Party. CivCon usually avoid partisan strategy topics, since cable news supplies plenty of it. But, I thought this one was too important to avoid.
Now Leo, I’m not so sure we should limit the scope. It’s not just Democrats anymore that peer out from the wreckage of Trump’s first month and see a genuine threat to our constitutional democracy. Maybe our topic – and Dems’ strategy in general – should be to focus on finding ways to rally all of the other small d Republicans and independents American institutions to stand together to restore a functioning govt and oppose Trump’s movements towards strongman rule. Even if you disagree with this characterization of our new President and worry that any effort to unite elites against him would itself endanger democracy, Democrats have pretty much united around a strategy of total resistance to Trump.
For CivCon, I think that leaves us with three big questions to mull over at this meeting. (Four, if you want to debate whether Trump really poses an existential threat to our democracy). First, who and what exactly should we be resisting; everything Trump says/does or just the damages democracy/checks ‘n balances stuff? If Democrat self-limit this way, will they find any allies in the GOP and in other institutions, like the Media, the courts and the bureaucracy? Would it be worth the costs?
Second, does any bigger-than-usual opposition extend to congressional Republicans and their entire agenda? Progressives think some of them endanger our democracy all by themselves by tilting the electoral system towards permanent one party rule: Restricting voting rights, removing all remaining restrictions on campaign finance, crippling labor unions, and welcoming authoritarian White nationalists into the fold. Maybe this is overblown. Yet, Democrats bitterly oppose it all, as well as GOP plans to transform practically every area of national policy, like taxes, immigration, health care, the social safety net, and education.
Third , how specifically can resistance be implemented and maintained? Where’s the plan, the decision makers, the priorities, the resources, etc.? A large-scale resistance has sprung up quickly. How can it be used to maximum benefit in the months and years ahead? How can it translate into a revived Democratic Party?
My expertise is in federal-level policy and institutions, not activism. So, I will open our meeting with a few quick comments on where the opportunities will come in the near future (budget process, nominations, special elections, etc.) to stop or dilute the Trump/Republican agenda. Then, in discussion I hope to learn from our more activist-type members what they think The Plan is, and from our more conservative members.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- Is he really so different as to merit total “resistance?”
- Do Dems have areas of agreement with him? If so, should they cooperate w/him, even if it normalizes him?
- Where should Democrats draw the line? Rhetoric? Personnel? Policy? Foreign policy? Anti-democratic actions?
- Resist to the max everything they do, like they did to Obama? Or, horse trade on highest priorities?
- What are those top priorities and which will resonate with the voters?
- Resisters: Who will do this resisting? Who’ll make the decisions? Federal versus state and local level Democrats.
- Resistance: What strategy and tactics might work? How can you plug into the movement/get involved?
- Pro-Trump/conservatives: How should your leaders respond to Dem “resistance” and how should you defend him/GOP?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
Is there hope for Democrats?
- Yes, because Trump is so unpopular and can be made more unpopular.
- Yes, because 2020 is the election that really matters and Dems are likely to win it. Recommended
- Why did trump win? An honest assessment of Dems’ mistakes. Recommended.
- A basic, 10-step strategy. Recommended.
- Resisting autocracy:
- The 25th Amendment option, explained.
- GOP: How to resist the GOP agenda since fighting Trump is not enough.
- Maybe stop calling it a “resistance.”
Republican/conservative POVs –
- The GOP Congress should do what it was elected to do – without overreaching. Recommended.
- Democrats should oppose within normal limits but not “resist.” Opposition should be inclusive not further divide us.
NEXT WEEK: What is religion’s proper role in politics?
Several members of our Meetup group asked what I had in mind by “elites.” I deliberately left it undefined to make a point. Americans have some very different ways of defining the horrible, no good elite that everyone supposedly voted to overthrow. In fact, I think vast differences in the way we define our elites lay at the core of our political polarization even before we elected Donald Trump president.
Trump’s populism claims to be a call to arms to overthrow the “Washington establishment” and its collaborators here and abroad. As he said in his inaugural address (in between the talk of carnage and despair):
“For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. “
Trump’s parasitic elite seems to be our national governing elite, the establishment politicians and the permanent “deep state” that they command. His Hellish vision of a collapsing America sold out by its own elite is pretty stark, that’s for sure.
But, how specific is it, and how accurate? Who exactly are these quislings and what did they do, and to whom? Maybe history helps. When CivCon discussed modern American populism last June, I noted that populist movements everywhere share a basic characteristic. They identify some despicable, self-dealing elite that exploits the virtuous but powerless masses. The elite is not only privileged; it is unfairly privileged. The elite can be a real or imagined; Its victims all of “the people” or just a subset.
Moreover, Right and Left populist movements in U.S. history usually pick a different elite to resent and not quite the same “We, the people” to champion. Left-wing populism’s villain is concentrated private power, like the Robber Barons and their trusts or today’s giant corporations and the 1% that help them rig the game for plutocracy’s sake. Its victims are everybody else (well, except people of color, until recently), but especially the lower classes and the poor. In contrast, right-wing populism has tended to see a conspiracy of both the top and the bottom against the middle. Its corrupt overlords are government insiders helping an undeserving underclass and/or foreigners redistribute wealth and cultural prestige away from hard-working real Americans.
I’m not trying to dismiss this whole topic nor one side’s POV. Quite the contrary. I feel confident in saying that elites have failed the country, as do large majorities of Americans in poll after poll going back years. But, I am pretty knowledgeable about this stuff. I believe I can connect our country’s worst problems to specific failures by the people with all of the power and influence. I picked this topic so we can explore why just about everyone else thinks the same – even though they seem t disagree about who the elites are and what they are doing wrong and why.
We have plenty to talk about on Monday. Here are some discussion ideas and readings.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- Who are America’s elites? Are there multiple elites with different interests and power sources, such as…
- Economic class versus social/cultural elites.
- Racial and ethnic elites?
- Educated and regional/cosmopolitan elites.
- Do our elites perpetuate power unfairly, or are they a meritocracy?
- Why is everybody so mad at elites? Do Americans agree on who to be mad at and why?
- Are elites indeed responsible for the mess we are in? Why?
- Is Trump just scapegoating? What should/could be done to reduce the power of American elites?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- It happens: In many countries corrupt elites use “extractive institutions” to enrich/perpetuate themselves and immiserate everybody else.
- Liberal hatred of elites versus conservatives’ hatred of elitism. Recommended.
- Short: Economic inequality always leads to political inequality.
Long: Politicians deliberately created our “Robin Hood economy.”
- Conservative POV:
NEXT WEEK: A change of pace – What’s going right in the USA these days?
This one was Bruce idea, as a kind of follow-up to our 2015 meeting on the Founders’ view of government powers and in expectation that Hillary Clinton would be elected president. Now, of course, President Trump will fill the Supreme Court seat that congressional Republicans stole by refusing to fill Justice Scalia’s vacant seat for a year. Funny, but I can’t find the passage in the Constitution that allows the Party of strict constructionists and originalism to do this.
At any rate, no shift away from the long, conservative arc of constitutional law is going to happen in the next decade. Quite the opposite. That list of possible SCOTUS appointees that Trump issued during the campaign came straight from the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. An ultra-conservative constitutional restoration is on the launching pad, in the lower courts as well as SCOTUS.
Nevertheless, understanding progressive views (there are more than one) of constitutional interpretation is still relevant, for several reasons. First, presidents usually find a way to appoint federal judges that share their highest constitutional priorities. For example, the liberal Obama appointed judges that agreed with his expansive view of executive power in anti-terrorism matters. Donald Trump is an authoritarian figure unmatched in American history and he might try to stack the judiciary with cronies that place loyalty to him above ell else. If Trump does this and the GOP refuses to stand up to him, progressives and their living Constitutionalism will have to bear the full weight of opposition.
Second, being in the wilderness sharpens the mind. Over the next four years the Democrats must decide whether and how to revamp their message. A lot of people feel that the New Coke must include a version of constitutional interpretation that can compete with the simplistic but effective “original intent” and “obey the written Constitution” marketing slogan of the Right. Lastly, esoteric matters of law aside, the public is on progressives’ side on most major constitutional issues. They do not believe that Medicare, federal aid to education, and Social Security are unconstitutional. They don’t want Roe overturned or the last limits on corporate campaign contributions to be swept away.
Unfortunately, the progressive POV on constitutional law does not easily fit on a bumper sticker. The Left views the Constitution as a “living document,” one that laid down timeless principles but that still must be interpreted non-mechanically in order to apply it to the today’s real world. But, beyond that commonality, progressive experts differ on specific methods and priorities. There are competing camps with catchy names like “ordered liberty,” “progressive originalism,” “democratic constitutionalism,” and others.
I’m not qualified nor interested enough to explain these nuances. But, I do know a bit. I will open our meeting on Monday with the basic ideas behind progressive constitutional interpretation as I understand them. Then, we can talk.
- Originalism: Why do progressives consider it unworkable and even kind of fraudulent?
- Basic liberal stance: Why do progressives say the Founders intended the Constitution to be a “living document” that must be interpreted for modern times?
- Rules for deciding: Okay, but how? What rules/priorities do progressives think we should use for interpretation? Original meaning, precedent, societal consensus, modern values, outcomes? Can these add up to a coherent philosophy?
- Differences/Labels: What are the biggest disagreements among progressives on this stuff and how do they end up as “democratic constitutionalism, “ordered liberty,” “New Textualism,” etc.
- Future: How will progressive react to the coming conservative constitutional revolution? Will they find any common ground with (some) Republicans?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Why constitutional theory should matter, including to progressives. Recommended.
What might have been and what will be –
- How a liberal SCOTUS would have changed America.
- Trump’s SCOTUS will be radical — if he gets a 2nd pick. Recommended
- Some conservatives are afraid, too.
Critique of Conservative Methods –
- It is wrong to think Constitution not meant to be flexible. Easy read, recommended.
- A measured critique of originalism and defense of a living constitution.
- A conservative rebuttal.
Progressive constitutional interpretation –
- The Founders intended a flexible, non-dogmatic Constitution. Easy read.
- A progressive Constitution. Harder, recommended.
- More: The “Framers’ Constitution” is progressive. It is a “Distributive Constitution.”
[Update: I should have linked to the New Textualism – the best of the 3 articles.]
NEXT WEEK: Are we living in the “Asian Century?”
Well, the Democrats seem united, and with a clear strategy, too. As you know, it’s pretty typical for a party’s presidential nominee to tack to the center after the convention. But, it seems the Dems really are going to try to take advantage of the GOP nominating a nut job for president by moving both leftward and rightward at the same time.
As everybody knows, Bernie Sanders’ surprising success resulted in a party platform that is farther to the left than it has been in living memory. As we’ll discuss on Monday, it’s generational changeover that are driving this bus. Millennials are very liberal (or just incoherent?), on both social and economic issues. The Republican Party has no idea how to appeal to young people and the Dems are trying to cement their loyalty for a generation.
But, the Dem convention made it crystal clear (in that showy and repetitive way party conventions do) that Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Party wants to expand the Obama coalition, not just replicate it. They are making a play to peel off college-educated White moderate voters from the GOP, a group that’s been loyal to the latter since roughly the Reagan era. If they can pull it off over a few back-to-back elections, the Democrats will have pulled off a rare, historic political realignment that could last decades.
Except…how can the Democrats go in both directions at once? Even if they do so successfully this electoral cycle, can it last? Can the Dems satisfy the growing progressive sentiments of Democratic voters and pick off the low hanging fruit of an increasingly extremist GOP without flying apart from the internal contradictions?
I suggest we grope for tentative answers to these questions the same basic way we did last week when we discussed the future of the Republican Party. In brief opening remarks, I will try to lay out how the basic building blocks of the Democratic Party are changing: Its leadership, institutions, and voting blocs. The “emerging Democratic majority” that was confidently predicted in a well-known 1999 book hasn’t actually emerged in a stable form. But, it might, helped along in the near-term by Trump and in the longer-term by other factors that created Trump (last week’s discussion) and within the Democratic Party (this week’s).
Obviously, the future is too contingent to predict with much confidence. But, I think we can have another great discussion like the one we had picking over the GOP’s bleached bones last week.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- What does “progressive” mean right now? Policies: Econ + social issues? Rhetoric? Abstract beliefs like size/reach of govt? Inclusiveness? Exclusiveness?
–> Is Left/Right too simple a way to describe our politics, or at least many voters?
- How liberal are Dem right now, in terms of their (1) elected officials and (2) voters? Has the Party really been moving rapidly leftwards recently?
- If so (or if not), why? Leaders, institutions, voters, events?
- Is it permanent?
–> Will the forces moving Dems leftwards last? Will new trends emerge?
–> What about countervailing forces, including the GOP response?
–> If Dem coalition gets bigger, must it get more centrist?
- Ought: What do you think the Democrats should do (morally + strategically)?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Why the “emerging Democratic majority” coalition never happened.
- Demographics do NOT guarantee a new era of Dem dominance. Recommended.
Movement leftwards so far –
- On economics, both Obama and Dem electorate have moved left.
- Conservative POV: Really, really left on everything.
- Wrong. As this graph shows, Dem elected officials even in the House have moved only a little left since 1980. It is House Republicans that moved far to the right.
The future Democratic Party will be…
- More progressive:
- Too progressive: If Dems chase ideological purity like the GOP has. Recommended.
- Less progressive:
Next Week (Aug 8): Is Obamacare working? What comes next?
Debating the meaning and importance of “political correctness” (PC) is James’ idea. It’s well-timed. Conservatives are practically obsessed with it these days. When they’re not beating up on each other, all the remaining GOP presidential candidates routinely accuse Democrats of failing to honestly face the true causes and culprits of our national problems out of fear of offending someone. Usually that someone is either minorities, foreigners, or the Democrats’ own PC posse.
This is the accusation even on terrorism. Donald Trump: “We’re losing the war on terror because of political correctness.” Ted Cruz, as part of his post-Belgium call to have U.S. law enforcement patrol “Muslim neighborhoods,” said “We need a president who sets aside political correctness [and] tries to deny this enemy exists out of a combination of political correctness and fear. The days of the United States voluntarily surrendering to the enemy to show how progressive and enlightened we can be are at an end.” I could scare up dozens of similar quotes on most major political topics. I really believe Republicans will try to make political correctness and its allegedly grip on Democrats the main theme of the entire 2016 election. Not kidding.
Still, I think (some) accusations of being politically correct deserve more of a response than sarcasm. Just because the GOP is abusing the term does not mean there is no such thing as PC or that it isn’t a problem – at least in some contexts. A number of progressive commentators have expressed concern about the chilling effects of political correctness on intra-Party debates. President Obama has called out political correctness on college campuses as an impediment to honest, inclusive debate. Regular people complain about PC, too, not just bigots and professional political rabble rousers.
To be sure, other progressives have pushed back hard on the notion that leftists have hijacked honest political dialogue for any reason, much less petty ones. I will take a little time to explain their arguments in my opening remarks Monday night. They are important because there are much larger issues here than just peer pressure over nouns and adjectives. Language is a tool of power, often invisibly so. The terminology we use and feel constrained not to use when we talk about politics or culture (or rights of justice) tends to reflect who has power and who doesn’t. To me, the issue of power is just one of many subterranean aspects of our escalating political correctness war – and nt all of them favor the progressive POV. If we are to take both sides of this conflict seriously (they sure take themselves seriously), then we need to explore these larger issues percolating below the surface.
In my opening, I’ll try to
- Explain the traditional meaning(s) of political correctness and, to the extent I grok it, the conservative arguments as to why it’s such a big problem; and
- Briefly lay out the arguments people on the Left use to argue that PC is just a slur and an excuse to be rude or biased.
I’m really looking forward to hearing what you all think of this issue.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- What has being “political correctness” traditionally meant? Who/what was the label directed at and what actual problems were attributed to it?
- How do conservatives use the term today? What specifically do they say the term means and what problems do they say it causes?
- Do they have a point? Are progressives too quick to argue by accusing others of bad faith or bigotry?
- Why is fighting PC so urgent to the Right? Which individuals, institutions, and events are driving this obsession? Root causes?
- LIBS WHO AGREE:
- Why do some progressives agree that PC is out of hand?
- Who do they say is being harmed by it and how much?
- IN DEFENSE OF PC:
- Politeness: Is being PC benign, mostly an insistence on respecting people?
- Power: Is PC really about trying to broaden our dialogue by dropping labels that bias discussion and perpetuate some peoples’ power and privilege? Are growing diversity and minority power in U.S. society the real story here?
- Past: Is PC really worse today and on the Left? Don’t both sides police rhetoric and accuse each other of bad faith?
- Offense/defense: Is crying “PC” itself PC, an effort to silence/delegitimize critics? Is it a sword instead of a shield?
- ISSUES: Is there anything to the PC accusation conserving terrorism, illegela immigration, etc.?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- A liberal complains about PC’s malign influence. (well-argued but long)
- Obama has criticized PC at on campus and it’s a real problem there.
- Conservative POV: Political correctness on the Left created Trump.
- [Update] Here’s a great short comment from a center-left commentator I respect that shows some sympathy – and empathy – for regular people that feel suffocated by political correctness.]
- [Update II] Has PC infested San Diego city govt? I link you decide.
- “Political correctness” is mostly just code for “don’t insult or stereotype people.”
- The real reason why GOP candidates are obsessed with PC. Recommended.
- Crying “PC” turns punching down into punching up; victimizers into fake victims. Recommended.
- PC is mostly a good and necessary thing.
- Kareem Abdul-Jabbar op-ed: Every GOP candidate is wrong about political correctness. Recommended. Seriously.
Next Week: Is our legal system being privatized?
Socialism lives. In the United States. At least as an abstract idea. Bernie Sanders’ no-longer-quixotic presidential campaign seems to be reviving the label’s popularity almost single-handedly. “Socialism” was the most searched for word at the Mirriam-Webster website in 2015, and surveys show public approval of “socialism” is rising fast, especially among Millennials. Go, Bernie, I suppose. And, yet…
A couple of yets. First, Bernie’s version of socialism seems to be more like European-style Democratic social democracy than any of the old-style forms of socialism, in which the government or workers own the means of production. Second, he has yet to flesh out a lot of the details of his version of socialism. Abstract ideas are often more popular than their detailed policies/programs version. (See “conservatism.”) Also, Bernie’s socialism has not yet been subjected to the white hot flame of full on news media scrutiny – or to the supernova of GOP attacks.
Finally, socialism is still a dirty word to most Americans, especially older ones that vote a lot. Perhaps it even deserves to be or, at least, so many Americans’ objections to a large expansion of government need to be taken seriously by progressives. (FYI, at the last debate Bernie repeatedly dodged the question of how much he would expand government)
Before any of this extended combat happens, I thought it might be a good time for us to explore what socialism could mean in the 21st century. Bernie’s isn’t the only possible version of socialism, to say the least. Europe alone has 2-3 different varieties of social democracy, not just the Scandinavian model. Asia has its own successful models of what today’s American conservatives would pan as “socialism” in Korea, Taiwan, and (gulp) China. Some socialists still believe that unless concentrated private power is abolished all versions of socialism are just window dressing (see link).
I’m hoping we have a good turnout on Monday, so I will not prepare any lengthy opening remarks. I’ll probably just briefly summarize Bernie’s vision of socialism and briefly compare it to other social democratic systems around the world.
Many of you are big Bernie fans. I urge you to read the links below to make sure you know what he actually stands for and how it differs from the socialism many of us remember from an earlier time.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- THEN: What did socialism used to mean?
- NOW: What models of social democracy exist around the world today? How “socialist” are they?
- BERNIE: What does he mean by socialism? How does it really differ from
–> The policy consensus within the Democratic Party?
–> Hillary’s platform?
- WHY has “socialism” gained popularity in America? What do you think people think it means?
- HOW do American conservatives define socialism and why do they despise it?
–> Do they have a point?
- FUTURE: What version of socialism in the 21st century could”
- Work to solve USA’s problems?
- Be popular enough with the public to actually be enacted and endure?
OPTIONAL/SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Why did socialism never take hold in America? Other CivCon meetings on socialism.
- Bernie Sanders’ version of socialism:
- DSA: The Democratic Socialists of America explains socialism. Recommended.
- Can Sanders win?
- The future:
Next Week: Is our country’s safety really in danger?
By the time we meet Monday it will have been six days since the first Democratic presidential debate. The instant Media analyses of who won and lost will be old news, new polling will show who got a bump from their debate performance and who didn’t. And, I imagine we’ll be back to obsessing over the fringe candidates leading the Republican field again. Maybe Ben Carson will have declared that Christian martyrs in the Coliseum would have beaten the lions if only they had been packing heat, or something [oops – guess not.] What will be left for us to ponder?
Well, substance, for one thing. Despite moderator Anderson Cooper’s best efforts, the five Democratic candidates – Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley, Lincoln Chafee, and Jim Webb – talked a lot about substantive issues facing the country. These included gun control, banking regulation, criminal justice reform, and foreign policy. They also debated each other’s political philosophy, especially during Hillary and Bernie’s colloquy on the meaning of socialism and progressivism. It’s still very early and no one votes until late January, 2016. Still, I think we got some clues on how Hillary, assuming she wins the nomination, will run a general campaign against a zealous GOP determined to stop her from succeeding Obama.
Below are links to watch the debate, some instant analyses of it, and a few deeper think pieces on the 2016 election. I’ll see you all Monday 7pm.
Discussion Questions –
- SO WHAT? Do presidential debates ever matter? Could they matter more this election than most, because of Trump or some other factor?
- GOALS: What was each of the 5 candidates trying to accomplish in the debate? Which constituencies were they trying to impress?
- SUBSTANCE: What policy issues did they discuss and what did they agree and disagree on? What did we learn that’s new or important?
- SUBSTANCE? Were any really important topics ignored or fudged by the candidates? Why? Are Benghazi and the emails dead issues?
- STYLE: Who failed to impress?
- WHO WON: What constitutes “winning” a debate and who decides? How does the Media define it? How do you think people watching decided?
- BROADER ISSUES: What is Hillary’s basic strategy to become president? What is Sanders’s strategy?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
This debate –
- The 2-minute version. The full transcript.
- A decent summary of it. The 11 best quotes from it.
- [NEW must-see TV: Saturday Night Live version of the Dem debate. Larry David as Sanders!]
The Commentary –
- Good example of the conventional wisdom of who won.
- Hillary: She won by solidifying her base. She won by explaining how high the stakes are in the 2016 election. The Hillary Panic is now over. Recommended
- Sanders: Bernie Sanders won. No, he lost bigtime.
- The big, huge different between Hillary and Bernie. Recommended.
- Webb: He lost because he represents the Democratic Party’s more centrist past. Important.
- Conservative POV: The Democrats have moved far to the left [link fixed]. This debate will hurt Hillary in the general election.
What they ignored:
The Bigger Picture –
- Debates seldom change anything. Recommended.
- Hillary’s basic strategy = “Safe Change”
- Dems will label GOP as “Party of the Past.”
Next Week: The Transgendered in America.
Two years go one of my favorite political analysts predicted that immigration policy was going to be the big sleeper issue of the 2016 election. I thought this was overstated. But, I also believed the elite news media was missing the importance of immigration in our politics. In the last 20 years a substantial chunk of the electorate has developed a thick crust of anti-immigrant hostility, especially but not exclusively on the Right. It is a minority within the GOP, but a much-feared and influential one. At the same time, the Media also was failing to understand that public opinion towards immigration was complex and divided by class and other socioeconomic characteristics, too.
Well, thanks to Donald Trump, immigration is back on the front burner. Since I haven’t the slightest doubt that the Media will fail to do its job again, I’m glad this topic came up for Civilized Conversation now, before elite Media memes have hardened into stone. We can do better. We could hardly do worse.
I’m very short of time this week. But, I will try to do enough research to open our discussion by describing the basic topography of public opinion on (legal and illegal) immigration. Then, we can debate the incentives politicians in both parties face on this issue. My hope is the understanding we gain will help us understand what happens the next year and a half.
Discussion Questions (detailed) –
- WHAT does the U.S. public really think about immigration issues and how important is this issue to them? How do opinions vary by
- Partisanship and ideology?
- Socioeconomic status, religiosity, geography, and other factors?
- WHY do people hold these opinions? Rational interest? Support for rule of law? Economic scapegoating? Racism/xenophobia? How can we tell which motive rules?
- HOW has public opinion influenced political leaders’ strategic calculations?
- In general.
- On specific issues, like on comprehensive reform, border security, path to citizenship? How about on Obamacare and criminal justice reform?
- Do the most anti-immigrant base votes rule the roost? How much room for maneuver do GOP leaders have?
- What role has conservative talk radio/news media played?
- Will immigration politics determine the GOP presidential nominee? How anti-immigrant will the GOP congress be
- Trump: How many GOP voters really support his wall + deport all POV? Is he saying anything not said every day in conservative news media? Will he harden the party’s stance on immigration or is this xenophobia’s last hurrah?
- Obama: How supportive are they of Obama’s immigration policies? Who dissents?
- Clinton: What’s in Hillary’s new immigration plan?
- Motives: Is this all about winning Latino votes, or is it principled?
- Will Dem policies drive away White working class voters? Is it worth it?
- FUTURE: How might politics of immigration change in the next 2 yrs? In 10?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Substance: Our 2013 mtg on what policies would “work” on immigration reform. .
- Public opinion:
- Obama’s policies: Their big political upside for Dems.
- Presidential candidates: Hillary Clinton’s plan and Jeb Bush’s plan. Read with the politics in mind.
- Future challenges:
- Trump: He’s the monster the GOP created. Word.
Next Week: Anti-Science Views of the Political Right and Left.
By my count, Bill Clinton – our 42nd president and possible future First Gentleman – will be the seventh presidency our group has evaluated. We’ve done Jackson, Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, and Obama’s first term. We also debated the best and worst presidents and the power of the office itself. The topic of George W. Bush’s tenure may have come up a few times, too, but my mind’s a blank.
We already know that Bill Clinton never will be on Mount Rushmore. He fought no major American wars nor battled any terrible economic catastrophes. He had to share power with his Republican tormentors and with some conservative Democrats. So, he spent most of his presidency compromising and triangulating. Conservatives despised him and progressives distrusted him.
Yet, Bill Clinton’s presidency was a consequential one. Moreover, he left office still popular, scholars are ranking him in the top 10 all-time presidents (!) these days, and his wife is running implicitly on a platform to bring back her husband’s era’s widely-shared prosperity. I also think we need to rethink Clinton’s presidency in light of 14 years of post-Bill perspective.
As I indicated last meeting, I will open Monday by listing the major accomplishments, good and bad, of President Bill Clinton. Then, I’ll take a brief stab at providing some context I think might be helpful to us in evaluating his presidency (and, maybe his wife’s?)
- What was Clinton elected to do? What did he promise to do?
- Achievements: What was accomplished during the Clinton years in terms of:
- Domestic policy,
- Foreign policy,
- Politics (building an enduring political movement and coalition)?
- Evaluating him:
- Context: How were the domestic and international contexts within which he operated different from todays?
- Credit: Does Clinton deserve all of the credit/blame for these achievements, or do others share both?
- Standards: By what standards was Clinton judged at the time? How might those standards be different today?
- So, how good or bad a president was Bill Clinton?
- Any lessons for how Hillary would or should govern if elected?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Wiki ‘presidency of Bill Clinton” entry.
- A better recap of his foreign policy achievements
- Why was he so despised by conservatives? A cultural explanation. (NYT)
- Liberal POVs:
- Conservative POVs (relatively positive ones!):
Next Week: Cry, Robot. Will technology revolutionize the nature of work?