Resurrecting Democracy

What's Next

What Next?

            Robert A. Levine  11-7-18

It was an ambivalent Election Day for both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats flipped House but lost ground in Senate and certainly did not have a mandate. Republicans won governorships in Ohio, Florida, and Georgia, three important states for 2020 and future gerrymandering. The winners were deep Trumpers and Cordray’s loss for Ohio governor after all he had done to protect the little guys as head of the Consumer Protection Agency under Obama was a bad defeat.  Trump can look at the elections as a win for him as his candidates won in most of the places he chose to hold rallies- Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, Arizona, Montana, Florida.

So where does America go from here. With Congress split, the Democrats holding the House and the GOP controlling the Senate, does that mean more bipartisanship or more gridlock. Will the two parties be able to work together or will there be more conflict?  Some of the answers lie with the House leadership. If the Democrats start off by concentrating on policy initiatives, they may be able to get something done with the help of Republicans. If they start off with investigations of the Trump administration, conflict with Trump and the GOP is inevitable. This is not to say that investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 election should not occur. But policy moves should come first.

The country is in dire need of infrastructure repair and replacement, from highways, bridges and tunnels, to trains and mass transit. The roads are so congested in so many areas that valuable time is being wasted by people commuting to and from work. And bridges, highways, tunnels, water systems, and sewers are crumbling, many of them built over a century ago and never repaired or modernized. Lead and other toxins are contaminating many water systems besides Flint. Not enough effort is being made to find them and fix them.

And our mass transit systems are a disaster. While China, Japan, and Europe have superfast trains to transport their citizens all around their countries and to commute into and between their cities, America’s trains and subways are hundred year old relics that are constantly breaking down. If the money the federal government lost on the recent tax cut had been used for infrastructure updating, it would have been of much greater economic value to the nation. The time lost in travel and commuting could have been used for much more productive purposes.

Climate change and the use of fossil fuels must also be addressed though it may be difficult with President Trump in the driver's seat. Perhaps he could be made to see the benefit of a carbon tax, or a trade off can be made for some other issue he favors. However, it is done, it must be done.

Health care is another area that demands repair. Not only must care for pre-existing conditions be guaranteed, but care must be made more affordable for everyone. While the price of medications should be made reasonable, physicians should not be paid on the basis of the volume of patients seen or the number of procedures performed. This provides physicians with the wrong incentives and drives costs up.

The recent tax cut should also be reduced and redirected so that the middle classes are the main beneficiaries instead of the ultra wealthy. And punishment of the high tax blue states must be changed to reflect residents real income after state and municipal taxes. Property tax deductions can be argued either way. A DACA deal must also be made to protect those poor kids and young adults who are in limbo.

The Mueller investigation should be completed and protected to see the role Russian actors played in the 2016 election and if any Americans were complicit. And Trump’s tax returns should be made transparent as has been the tradition for American presidential candidates for decades. He may yell and scream about it but many Americans have been wondering what it is he has been hiding.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Democracy In Decline

Democracy In Decline

                        Robert A. Levine  11-1-18

In addition to the horrific episodes that have occurred in America recently to tarnish our democracy, the democratic process appears to be in decline around the world. Under the aegis of Donald Trump, Americans have seen the murder of two black people shot by a white racist because they were black, explosive devices mailed to a number of Democratic officials by a crazed Trump supporter, and the killing of eleven Jews in a Pittsburgh synagogue while they were praying by a white supremacist shouting “all Jews must die.” None of these episodes resulted in phone calls by the president to the targets or families, or Trump halting his campaigning for a few days, carrying on as if nothing had happened. He did not disavow being a nationalist (white), claiming that George Soros might have paid the Central American migrants in the Mexican caravan to invade America, sent more troops to the border to halt this invasion of mostly women and children, did not reunite all the children who had been separated from their parents previously on Trump’s orders,  and said that he was ending birthright citizenship which is guaranteed in the Constitution and beyond a president’s powers to end.

Besides the turmoil in America’s democracy Jair Bolsonaro, a right-wing white supremacist has just been elected as president of Brazil, saying that the police will have orders to kill criminals on sight and left-wing opponents will be killed or deported. Brazil was the world’s fourth largest democracy with a population estimated at over 208 million. Venezuela under Ortega has been a dictatorship for well over a decade, with Maduro following Chavez and the nation in chaos.

Sri Lanka is in the midst of a constitutional crisis with the president firing the prime minister who has a majority in parliament and bringing back a corrupt former prime minister who is close to China. The president had previously supported the prime minister he fired.

Germany, the bedrock of stability in Europe has just seen Angela Merkel, the prime minister give up her position as head of the Christian Democratic Party and will step down from her office with the next election. This is happening during the period that England is due to leave the European Union because of Brexit and the future of the confederation is uncertain. Also during this period, the new populist government of Italy is in conflict with the E.U. over spending limits, unwilling to adhere to previously agreed upon restrictions. In Germany, the AFD, a neo-Nazi party appears to be slowly gaining strength while the centrist parties are shedding members.

Eastern and Central Europe are also straying from the path of democracy. Hungary under Victor Orban has turned into what he calls an “illiberal democracy” but is really an autocratic state. Poland is also turning autocratic, ignoring all the aid they received from the E.U. when Poland was democratic.

India, the largest democracy in the world, is under the control of a right-wing Hindu party led by Prime Minister Modi who is becoming increasingly autocratic. A multi-ethnic country, India is now dominated by Hindu ideology, with vigilante killings of those who disregard sacred Hindu theologic ideas such as killing cows or eating beef.

Pakistan, a supposed democracy and the arch-enemy of India, is really controlled by the military that allows Muslim extremists to flout secular laws. The Talaban is also allowed free rein to cross into Afghanistan and fight the government and American forces, before returning to sanctuary in Pakistan.

The Philippines has turned into a dictatorship under President Dutarte who has exhorted law enforcement to kill all drug dealers and drug users extra-judicially. Dutarte’s enemies are also being killed or winding up in prison. He claims to have killed a number of drug users himself.

Turkey, once the hope for democracy in the Middle East, has become an autocratic state under the aegis of President Erdogan who rules with an iron hand. A populist and Islamist, his main support is from the rural uneducated population who voted him into office.

In the Middle East and North Africa, Tunisia is the only state that could generously be called a democracy. And most of Africa is under autocratic rule.

When the Soviet Union collapsed and Fukuyama declared the end of history, most political scientists believed that liberal democracy was going to be the default governing system for the world. Instead, democracy is now in decline virtually everywhere. And leadership from America to reverse the situation is completely absent.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

When Will The End Be In Sight?

When Will The End Be In Sight?

            Robert A. Levine

Is the end finally in sight? Aren't you tired of politics dominating our lives. We are approaching the finish line of the 2018 election marathon, with the winners still to be determined. Though the results are enormously important, a new election marathon that will finish in 2020 starts immediately after the 2018 race is over. It has reached a point where the competition and electioneering never stops. Is it any wonder that the voting turnout is consistently low? How do you keep citizens’ interest in politics at a constant pitch with warnings of Armageddon if this candidate wins and a nasty depression if his or her opponent triumphs. It’s too much for most Americans to take seriously and keep abreast of what’s happening in Washington and the state capitals. And what will happen if so and so is elected to office.

Our election system would be so much better if the campaigns for office did not start until six months before Election Day, consolidating the political process. Voters would be able to pay much more attention to the candidates and their policies than with our current non-stop campaigns. If other democracies can do it, why can’t we? Of course, that would be a problem for our cable networks that try and get viewers addicted to politics and continuously stir up the political pot. They build the tension that captures viewers’ brains. And the newspapers and other media outlets are compliant in keeping the focus on the future elections.

Of course, the political parties are also guilty, demonizing their opponents with tales of the disasters that await the country if these other people are elected. It is all a ploy to pull in more money from party supporters and those who believe the stories told. To save America from the bad guys, the parties must be strong, each party needing the other as a realistic enemy. But enough citizens accept the tales of disaster to contribute money and watch the political cable networks, replacing Survivor and the game shows.

But the politicizing of our lives is not good for America. Tribalism is increased along with the antagonism between groups, making it more difficult for the parties to compromise and govern effectively. Even if a policy is good, you don’t want to support the other guys who will get credit for it. Politics 24/7 also makes it more difficult to bring people together, denigrating our common heritage and principles. The question is how do we change the pattern when so many people and organizations have an interest in keeping politics at the forefront of our lives, day in and day out. They are content with the continuous electioneering, campaigning, and politicizing the world. Democracy needs a savior, a middle-of-the-roader, who will deemphasize politics, compromise on issues, and have Americans work together for our common good. But where will such a person be found and how will he or she ever get elected?

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

When Will The End Be In Sight?

When Will The End Be In Sight?

            Robert A. Levine

Is the end finally in sight? Aren't you tired of politics dominating our lives. We are approaching the finish line of the 2018 election marathon, with the winners still to be determined. Though the results are enormously important, a new election marathon that will finish in 2020 starts immediately after the 2018 race is over. It has reached a point where the competition and electioneering never stops. Is it any wonder that the voting turnout is consistently low? How do you keep citizens’ interest in politics at a constant pitch with warnings of Armageddon if this candidate wins and a nasty depression if his or her opponent triumphs. It’s too much for most Americans to take seriously and keep abreast of what’s happening in Washington and the state capitals. And what will happen if so and so is elected to office.

Our election system would be so much better if the campaigns for office did not start until six months before Election Day, consolidating the political process. Voters would be able to pay much more attention to the candidates and their policies than with our current non-stop campaigns. If other democracies can do it, why can’t we? Of course, that would be a problem for our cable networks that try and get viewers addicted to politics and continuously stir up the political pot. They build the tension that captures viewers’ brains. And the newspapers and other media outlets are compliant in keeping the focus on the future elections.

Of course, the political parties are also guilty, demonizing their opponents with tales of the disasters that await the country if these other people are elected. It is all a ploy to pull in more money from party supporters and those who believe the stories told. To save America from the bad guys, the parties must be strong, each party needing the other as a realistic enemy. But enough citizens accept the tales of disaster to contribute money and watch the political cable networks, replacing Survivor and the game shows.

But the politicizing of our lives is not good for America. Tribalism is increased along with the antagonism between groups, making it more difficult for the parties to compromise and govern effectively. Even if a policy is good, you don’t want to support the other guys who will get credit for it. Politics 24/7 also makes it more difficult to bring people together, denigrating our common heritage and principles. The question is how do we change the pattern when so many people and organizations have an interest in keeping politics at the forefront of our lives, day in and day out. They are content with the continuous electioneering, campaigning, and politicizing the world. Democracy needs a savior, a middle-of-the-roader, who will deemphasize politics, compromise on issues, and have Americans work together for our common good. But where will such a person be found and how will he or she ever get elected?

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Why Are Political Tribalism and Irrational Behavior Flourishing?

Why Are Tribalism and Irrational Behavior Flourishing?

                        Robert A. Levine

Tribalism, nationalism and populism have exploded over the last several decades. The most important reason for this may be the need for people to belong to a group, often giving them a feeling of superiority to others. In their belonging, they often vote with their group, disregarding facts or ignorant of who stands for what in the contests. Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University believes that most voters are irrational rather than ignorant when they make their choices in the voting booth, examining this concept in his book, The Myth of the Rational Voter. Voters have systemic biases that move policies in certain directions. They may also be more impressionable than expected, accepting false or skewed information as valid without analysis because they are pleased by the way a candidate sounds, looks, or dresses, or because their group supports this candidate. Indeed, voters’ beliefs may not emerge coherently from the facts due to irrationality, from ignorance, a lack of interest or ignoring evidence.

The idea that humans are irrational in their decisions has come from many sources, reinforced by the behavioral psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Twersky. Though their work was applied particularly to economics, it is true in the way people make all their choices, including political ones. Everyone has biases that influence decisions. Emotions and past experiences may play a role. In picking candidates to support, the wording of slogans may strike emotional chords, eliciting positive or negative reactions. A study at University College London suggests that rational behavior may depend on ability to override automatic emotional reactions to stimuli and not a complete absence of emotions. Can citizens with more knowledge about politics and government act more rationally than others when voting?

That our decisions are rational has also been challenged by Steven Sloman and Philip Fernback in their book The Knowledge Illusion. They believe that human beings seldom think for themselves, instead tending to think in groups. Because existence is becoming more complex with knowledge in many areas expanding geometrically, men and women are unable to master the flood of information and depend on experts to explain the universe and how things work. In addition to scientific data, facts regarding politics, economics, technology, and what is happening in the world come from sources other than our own experiences. And many of our beliefs are molded by the groups of which we are a part instead of our own thought processes. Even scientific facts may not change people’s ideas of reality, as we have seen with global warming.

Illustrating this mind set, avid partisans are bound to political tribal cultures that have specific world-views and provide information for their adherents, making it unnecessary for individuals to gather their own data on different issues and candidates. These cultures stamp their supporters with defined identities, making it difficult for tribal members to adopt contrasting ideas or switch political parties. And each tribe gets its news from designated sources, with major differences in how matters are interpreted. Many people vote for a particular party’s candidates because their family, friends and neighbors also back that party. In certain regions of the country, voting for a party’s candidates verge on automatic, without second thoughts.

Large proportions of GOP and Democratic tribal cultures adhere to rigid social beliefs in opposition to each other, such as on abortion, same sex marriage, and gun control. Because of these differences, they demonize each other and have trouble communicating and compromising on other issues. Tribal members’ economic interests may not motivate them to vote for candidates as much as stances on social issues. There are some who see the nation’s elections as a cultural civil war, with white rural Christian America fighting against urban diversity and demographic changes. Tribal cultures may have different viewpoints on morality and virtuous conduct, believing themselves morally superior to opposing tribes. In fact, differing convictions may be seen as immoral, leading to disdain and hatred for other tribes, prompting social separation, in-group loyalty and an unwillingness to work with opponents. This problem escalates when morality is conceived in absolute terms. Political tribal adherence has grown over the years, substituting for other groups that have faded, but once provided a sense of community and belonging. These included unions, churches, clubs, lodges, VFWs, and so forth. Many were remnants of an old-time America that is now mostly gone. Instead, Americans are left with belonging to political tribes which are as divisive as much as inclusive.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

The Kavanaugh Chronicles

The Kavanaugh Chronicles

                        Robert A. Levine  10-3-18

There wasn’t enough chaos in Washington or throughout the country, so President Trump decided to choose Bret Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. He looked like a justice to Trump, big, tough, and masculine, which are apparently the characteristics the president most admires in those he selects for his top positions. However, these same characteristics flourished during Kavanaugh’s teenage years and in his twenties, causing him to drink excessively and likely sexually abuse women. Coming from an affluent, successful family, and attending a private school and then Yale, Kavanaugh felt entitled to behave as he wished, and if people didn’t like it they could screw themselves.

Unfortunately, his feelings of entitlement and unconstrained anger emerged during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee and on national television, showing the world that he did not have what is known as a ‘judicial temperament.’ In a position on the Supreme Court, this would be dangerous, but it is also unseemly and alarming to have someone with this quality on the Court of Appeals, or on any court. A stolid individual in control of his or her emotions is needed to judge other people.

Of course, Trump loved Kavanaugh’s display of yelling and rage, believing that his base would also love the show of male dominance when confronting women who do not accept male superiority. The pent-up anger in Trump’s white male base about their loss of patriarchy was also revealed by Senator Lindsey Graham in an unexpected outburst on the Judicial Committee against the Democrats. (Graham may be auditioning for a post as Attorney General to do Trump’s bidding.)

Though Mitch McConnell wanted to move ahead with Kavanaugh’s confirmation and ram it through the Senate, Jeff Flake’s insistence on having further investigation by the FBI forced a week’s delay in the vote. However, Trump’s direction to the FBI has apparently limited its ‘inquiry’ and many potential witnesses are not being interviewed, possibly including Dr. Blasey-Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. Trump was obviously fearful that an extensive investigation by the FBI might have found information that validated Blasey-Ford’s story or revealed holes in Kavanaugh’s tale, particularly involving his excessive drinking. That would have shown him to have lied to the Judicial Committee and would have likely ended his chances of confirmation. Interestingly, polls have shown that even if Blasey-Ford’s recollection was correct or that Kavanaugh had lied to the Judicial Committee, a majority of Republicans still wanted him to be confirmed and to have a seat on the Supreme Court.

In this day of tribal politics, character appears not to count for anything. Partisans want judges and government officials who agree with their ideological bent, and whether they are liars, thieves or ax murderers does not seem to matter. Having Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court whether or not his transgressions occurred, and whether he lied about them, and whether his temperament is inappropriate for a judge, are all being dismissed by conservatives. The only thing that counts is that he brings a five to four conservative majority to the Supreme Court and is young enough to remain on the Court for decades.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Congressional Inefficiency

Congressional Inefficiency

                        Robert A. Levine

Though this week America is focused on John McCain’s death, and is otherwise mesmerized by Trump, Cohen, Mueller and Manafort, regular life in Washington goes on. The government’s lack of accomplishment under Trump falls squarely on the shoulder of a barely functioning Congress. Given that the last several sessions of Congress have been among the least productive in history, efficiency and Congress are two words that do not belong in the same sentence. The 112th Congress in 2011 and 2012 passed a total of 284 laws, the 113th Congress from 2013 and 2014 296 laws, the 114^th Congress 329 laws in 2015-2016. The first year of Trump’s White House sojourn with the GOP controlling Congress has been even worse with only 123 laws enacted. This compares with 600-800 laws per session twenty to forty years earlier.

All bills dealing with appropriations or revenue are supposed to originate in the House. Confirmations of cabinet members, judges, ambassadors, and treaties are within the province of the Senate through the Constitution’s “advice and consent” provisions. The House is able to indict or impeach federal officials by a majority vote while the Senate has the power to try all impeachments and remove officeholders by a two thirds vote. The growth of Congressional inefficiency and Congress’s inability to enact new laws is directly related to partisanship and the unwillingness of those with extreme ideologies to compromise.

            Another critical factor undermining efficiency is the two year election cycle for the House. Every day Congress is in session, members of both parties use ‘call time’ to solicit funds from potential donors over the phone. In addition, they attend fundraisers in the capital or in their districts. The quest for money never stops. An orientation session for freshman by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee anticipated a nine to ten hour working day for House members. Four hours were to be spent in ‘call time’ and an additional hour for ‘strategic outreach’ devoted to press contact and fundraisers. Another hour was set aside to ‘recharge,’ with three to four hours allotted for the real work of a lawmaker: hearings, discussions, votes on legislation and resolutions, and meetings with constituents. If the latter are potential donors, more time may be required to spend with them.

            Since the Senate has a six year election cycle, there is less pressure in terms of constant fundraising. Legislating, hearings, interacting with other senators, occasional trips back home to make appearances before constituents, and some fundraising are part of a Senator’s schedule.  But as an election approaches, everything changes. According to former Democratic Majority Leader Tom Dasche, during the last two years of a senator’s term, two thirds of every day is spent raising money. Daschle noted Senators had to collect an average of $10,000 for every day of the six years they were in office to come up with the amount spent in most Senate contests. In both House and Senate, fundraising competes with the work of legislating, frustrating lawmakers who want to do a decent job.

The structure of Congress and practices with historical resonance also play a role in inefficiency. Bills may be introduced in either body of Congress and those ratified in the Senate or House go to the other branch. This usually results in some changes in wording or substance. Amendments not connected may also be attached to the original bill, hoping to obtain quick passage of something unrelated. If there are great differences in the Senate and House versions of the bill, it may go to a conference committee of the two branches to work out the differences. Assuming the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader believe the changes will result in passage, the bill then returns to each body of Congress for votes of approval.

Even if a bill has majority support in the House, if there is Republican control, a GOP Speaker may keep it from coming to the floor for a vote because of the ‘Hastert Rule.’ Formulated by Speaker Hastert in the mid-1990s, it requires a majority of the majority (the Republican caucus) to pass a bill before it can go to the floor. This means that even if Democrats and a minority of Republicans support a bill, it cannot be voted upon because consideration will not be allowed. The Speaker has significant power and may also not permit bills to reach the floor if he or she opposes them. On the other hand, bills or resolutions may be rushed through the House if the Speaker favors them.

Usually, there is a lengthy process bills follow in the House before coming to the floor. A subcommittee of a standing committee with jurisdiction holds hearings, interviewing witnesses and possibly experts in the field. Sometimes jurisdiction over a measure is divided between two committees that may hold separate hearings. If the leader of the subcommittee and a majority of its members approve of a bill, it will be sent on to the full committee. Then further hearings may or may not take place before the full committee votes on the bill. Before or after a vote, the Chairman may keep the legislation bottled up in the committee if there are aspects he or she does not like. Special rules on legislation may be generated by the House Rules Committee, (controlled by the majority), when major bills are to be considered.

The Rules Committee may also bring up bills for deliberation pending before Standing Committees, though this is rarely done. Thirty days after a measure has been referred to a committee, a motion to discharge it and bring it to the House floor can occur with approval of 218 members. Filing a discharge petition, or threatening to do so, may hasten committee action on a bill, but it is unlikely to get to the floor over the objection of the Committee Chairman. The Speaker of the House is also responsible for recognizing members, allowing them to speak, and ruling on points of order (which are rarely appealed). Because of the number of Representatives, time allocated to debate a measure is generally limited.

Constitutionally, the Senate needs a majority of its hundred members to be in session. Because the Constitution mandated two senators from each state, senators from the twenty-six least populous states with 18 percent of the nation’s citizens can decide legislation. Gerrymandering also allows House members representing a minority of citizens to control the legislative process. Unfortunately, these are among a number of flaws in the Constitution that conservatives are unwilling to change.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Congressional Inefficiency

Congressional Inefficiency

                        Robert A. Levine

Though this week America is focused on John McCain’s death, and is otherwise mesmerized by Trump, Cohen, Mueller and Manafort, regular life in Washington goes on. The government’s lack of accomplishment under Trump falls squarely on the shoulder of a barely functioning Congress. Given that the last several sessions of Congress have been among the least productive in history, efficiency and Congress are two words that do not belong in the same sentence. The 112th Congress in 2011 and 2012 passed a total of 284 laws, the 113th Congress from 2013 and 2014 296 laws, the 114^th Congress 329 laws in 2015-2016. The first year of Trump’s White House sojourn with the GOP controlling Congress has been even worse with only 123 laws enacted. This compares with 600-800 laws per session twenty to forty years earlier.

All bills dealing with appropriations or revenue are supposed to originate in the House. Confirmations of cabinet members, judges, ambassadors, and treaties are within the province of the Senate through the Constitution’s “advice and consent” provisions. The House is able to indict or impeach federal officials by a majority vote while the Senate has the power to try all impeachments and remove officeholders by a two thirds vote. The growth of Congressional inefficiency and Congress’s inability to enact new laws is directly related to partisanship and the unwillingness of those with extreme ideologies to compromise.

            Another critical factor undermining efficiency is the two year election cycle for the House. Every day Congress is in session, members of both parties use ‘call time’ to solicit funds from potential donors over the phone. In addition, they attend fundraisers in the capital or in their districts. The quest for money never stops. An orientation session for freshman by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee anticipated a nine to ten hour working day for House members. Four hours were to be spent in ‘call time’ and an additional hour for ‘strategic outreach’ devoted to press contact and fundraisers. Another hour was set aside to ‘recharge,’ with three to four hours allotted for the real work of a lawmaker: hearings, discussions, votes on legislation and resolutions, and meetings with constituents. If the latter are potential donors, more time may be required to spend with them.

            Since the Senate has a six year election cycle, there is less pressure in terms of constant fundraising. Legislating, hearings, interacting with other senators, occasional trips back home to make appearances before constituents, and some fundraising are part of a Senator’s schedule.  But as an election approaches, everything changes. According to former Democratic Majority Leader Tom Dasche, during the last two years of a senator’s term, two thirds of every day is spent raising money. Daschle noted Senators had to collect an average of $10,000 for every day of the six years they were in office to come up with the amount spent in most Senate contests. In both House and Senate, fundraising competes with the work of legislating, frustrating lawmakers who want to do a decent job.

The structure of Congress and practices with historical resonance also play a role in inefficiency. Bills may be introduced in either body of Congress and those ratified in the Senate or House go to the other branch. This usually results in some changes in wording or substance. Amendments not connected may also be attached to the original bill, hoping to obtain quick passage of something unrelated. If there are great differences in the Senate and House versions of the bill, it may go to a conference committee of the two branches to work out the differences. Assuming the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader believe the changes will result in passage, the bill then returns to each body of Congress for votes of approval.

Even if a bill has majority support in the House, if there is Republican control, a GOP Speaker may keep it from coming to the floor for a vote because of the ‘Hastert Rule.’ Formulated by Speaker Hastert in the mid-1990s, it requires a majority of the majority (the Republican caucus) to pass a bill before it can go to the floor. This means that even if Democrats and a minority of Republicans support a bill, it cannot be voted upon because consideration will not be allowed. The Speaker has significant power and may also not permit bills to reach the floor if he or she opposes them. On the other hand, bills or resolutions may be rushed through the House if the Speaker favors them.

Usually, there is a lengthy process bills follow in the House before coming to the floor. A subcommittee of a standing committee with jurisdiction holds hearings, interviewing witnesses and possibly experts in the field. Sometimes jurisdiction over a measure is divided between two committees that may hold separate hearings. If the leader of the subcommittee and a majority of its members approve of a bill, it will be sent on to the full committee. Then further hearings may or may not take place before the full committee votes on the bill. Before or after a vote, the Chairman may keep the legislation bottled up in the committee if there are aspects he or she does not like. Special rules on legislation may be generated by the House Rules Committee, (controlled by the majority), when major bills are to be considered.

The Rules Committee may also bring up bills for deliberation pending before Standing Committees, though this is rarely done. Thirty days after a measure has been referred to a committee, a motion to discharge it and bring it to the House floor can occur with approval of 218 members. Filing a discharge petition, or threatening to do so, may hasten committee action on a bill, but it is unlikely to get to the floor over the objection of the Committee Chairman. The Speaker of the House is also responsible for recognizing members, allowing them to speak, and ruling on points of order (which are rarely appealed). Because of the number of Representatives, time allocated to debate a measure is generally limited.

Constitutionally, the Senate needs a majority of its hundred members to be in session. Because the Constitution mandated two senators from each state, senators from the twenty-six least populous states with 18 percent of the nation’s citizens can decide legislation. Gerrymandering also allows House members representing a minority of citizens to control the legislative process. Unfortunately, these are among a number of flaws in the Constitution that conservatives are unwilling to change.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Party Over Country, Again

Party Over Country Again

            Robert A. Levine   4-18-18

It’s getting worse. No matter what new revelations regarding Trump’s actions come to light, the Republicans in Congress refuse to disown him, or even chastise him. They are afraid that any negative remarks about Trump will alienate his base, hurting their chances for re-election. But GOP senators and members of Congress are aware of the damage Trump is doing to the United States and its position in the world, and that he is a terrible role model for the nation’s children. Racist and misogynistic, they realize that his tweets and comments are more lies than truth and that his behavior is turning the presidency rancid. He appears to have no consistent foreign policy and no coherent strategy for dealing with the problems America faces abroad or domestically.

Trump may make a pronouncement about how he will handle some issue one day, then subsequently come out with an opposite method of dealing with the problem. This goes for domestic as well as foreign policy. One wonders if he remembers what he has said previously in a speech or off the cuff, as he is so prone to change his course of action. It is said that he listens to the last person who has given him an opinion on an issue and then he tweets his current policy.

Part of the problem is that there is no continuity on his staff, with firings or withdrawals occurring right and left. There are also enormous voids in his policy-making positions that he has neglected to fill, so he does not have guidance in many areas. And as he has said, he likes to go with his gut, with his instincts which he believes are more valid than working with experts. In fact, he does not like briefings and experts, as his low attention span makes it impossible for him to absorb any complex information.

Thus, it is evident that he is an abominable leader for the United States, unable to deal with complicated problems, uninformed about what the problems are and their possible impact on the nation and the world, and unwilling to seek help from knowledgeable experts. But on top of his failings as a leader, it appears that his campaign team in one way or another was assisted by Russia to help him win the election, whether or not Trump knew the specifics. In writing a statement about his son Donald Jr and others’ meeting with Russian interlocutors during the campaign to gather damaging information on Hillary Clinton, saying that it was about adoptions, Trump was caught in a flagrant lie which could be seen as obstruction of justice. And whether or not Trump colluded with the Russians, they did play a role in getting him elected. Other of his actions as well point to obstruction of justice.

There are also his attempts to cover-up the dirt in his personal life by his lawyer Michael Cohen and other friends, paying off women with whom he had affairs to keep them silent. Whether or not the Russians have information of liasons with prostitutes while he was in Moscow and are blackmailing him, is not yet known, but it seems as if Putin does exert some unusual influence over Trump.

So why do Congressional Republicans refuse to protect Mueller’s investigation of Trump’s actions and are unwilling to condemn the president for some of his comments. The answer is obviously his base which gets its information from Fox and Sinclair and are unaware of what is really going on. They will not abandon their icon and might not vote for any officeholder that criticizes Trump or opposes him in any way. Rather than try to explain to the base about Trump’s shortcomings as a leader, his lurid personal life and his bond with Putin, the Congressional GOP is silent, knowing that Trump is a disaster for the nation and not seeming to care. Time and again, they have chosen party over country regarding Trump and the presidency.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com

Causes of Polarization and Partisanship

                        Robert A. Levine   2-28-18

Increased partisanship and polarization of the nation’s political parties and America itself has been a dominant topic in political discussions for a while, the question being how to reduce partisanship to allow government to function better. What is responsible for the growth of polarization and partisanship when polls seem to show that centrists and moderates are the nation’s largest political bloc? Is Trump a cause of polarization or was his election the result of a nation already deeply polarized? Or perhaps Trump isn’t even part of the equation.

Alan Abramowitz, a Professor of Political Science at Emory University, believes the polarization dominating American politics reflects changes that have occurred in the nation’s culture and society over the last several decades. He points to the growth of racial and ethnic diversity, and the increasing divide in religious and moral values. Through immigration and the higher fertility rate of non-white citizens, the demographic make-up of the nation has been transformed, America close to no longer having a Caucasian majority. With these changes, the two political parties appear to have different constituencies holding different world views. The members of each party are more aligned and homogeneous in their positions on important issues, and further apart from the other party. Republicans can be characterized as the party of (older) white men, with Democrats the party of women and citizens of different ethnic and racial backgrounds. At times, it seems as if the politicians in each party are speaking separate languages when they talk about the needs of the nation and solutions they believe necessary.

Given the life experiences of non-whites, with higher rates of unemployment and poverty, less access to health care, reduced educational achievement and inferior housing, it is not surprising Democrats want to reverse these conditions. To do so, more government spending is necessary, with higher taxes to generate revenue. Republicans, on the other hand, are the party of the status quo. By fighting immigration, they hope to keep America white for as long as possible. And by GOP opposition to tax increases, people of color may have greater struggles to advance to the middle class or affluence through improved education, better health care and housing. (Of course, a more educated population would enhance the economy, with greater productivity and higher incomes augmenting consumer spending.)

            Two other political science professors, Morris Fiorina and Samuel Abrams are convinced the electorate in America has not grown more polarized since the 1970s, though the political class is more partisan. According to them, the aggregate of voters currently appears similar to that of forty years ago, with partisanship fluctuating within a narrow band. Where tracking of individual issues in surveys has been possible over time, centrist opinions appear to be favored in both parties. However, there has been sorting of partisans within the parties, with self-labeled Republicans more conservative and self-labeled Democrats more liberal. Though overlap of opinions is now less common among ordinary members, the divide between the two party’s politicians has become even greater. As recently as 2012, survey data indicated a quarter of Democrats could be considered ‘pro-life’ and a third of Republicans as ‘pro-choice.’ However, Democrats running for office now are generally more liberal and GOP candidates more conservative, the moderate middle politicians having melted away.       

Though partisanship has always existed in politics, it was not too long ago that members of the GOP and Democratic Parties socialized, with comity between them instead of animus. Politicians attempted to understand the positions of their opponents instead of demonizing them. Of course, that was when the face of the Republican Party was formed by New England moderates rather than extreme conservatives from Texas and the South. Is polarization of the political class permanent or will there be movement back towards the center over time?

There is also the issue of ‘tribalism’ critical in the growth of partisanship. In the past citizens were more connected, with identities through families, communities, churches, employment, unions, clubs, lodges, and so forth. People were part of something greater than themselves. But these bonds have been sundered by modern society. Divorce and single parent families are common. Small towns and rural communities are in decline, with young people moving away. Church participation is lessening and jobs no longer secure. This lack of connection and feeling of belonging has impacted Americans negatively. Alcohol and drugs have been an escape for some. And others have chosen to be active members of political parties and have adopted the characteristics of their ‘tribes.’ Social media may also augment the stances partisans take. This makes it hard to negotiate compromise or see the humanity and understand the positions of opponents. Many members of political tribes have joined not because of policy, but because the party consisted of people who were similar to them in terms of class, religion, race, or region.

            For politics to work, there has to be compromise and a willingness between the parties to negotiate. People have to run for office who understand this and do not take extreme positions on important issues. Elected officials also have to be willing to stand up to party leaders and take chances they will lose support when running for re-election. They need courage to do the right thing and not act like lemmings following the party line. Until there is independence of thought among politicians and a willingness to buck the leadership, polarization will remain a defining characteristic of American democracy, continuing or increasing government dysfunction.

Resurrecting Democracy

www.robertlevinebooks.com