But I'm afraid Joe Manchin's segregationist alliance with the Republicans means that we're back in the position that Obama found himself: The Democrats control the Presidency and both Houses of Congress but can't pass their own legislation.
Obviously, there will be some things like the military budget that will gain Bipartisan support. But for major initiatives, the party that controls the Presidency and both Houses of Congress is restricted to using the "reconciliation" procedure that they used for the COVID Relief bill for infrastructure or longterm green economic programs.
And there are limitations on the reconciliation rule, also buried in genuinely arcane Senate procedures. There is a parliamentarian who works for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer who gives nonbinding advice on what can be included in reconciliation and not. Schumer could fire the parliamentarian and hire a new one. Vice President Kamala Harris as the chair of the Senate could overrule the parliamentarian's recommendations. But they've so far chosen to hide behind the non-elected parliamentarian who given nonbinding recommendations.
That's not on Joe Orbán-Manchin. That's on Harris and Schumer.
And it's also on Joe Biden. The Democrats' constant invoking of bipartisanship muddles their own message in any case, particularly when the Republicans have spent decades showing their complete contempt for any "bipartisanship" that isn't Democrats completely surrendering to Republicans.
But Biden used his own experience in making deals with Republicans like Strom Thurmond a major element of his political pitch, both in the Democratic primaries, as a major selling point for his candidacy.
Promising successful bipartisanship is foolish in this environment. Because the opposition party controls whether you can fulfill that promise. And Mitch McConnell has been mocking Biden for not achieving bipartisanship as he openly declares his partisan objective is to block Biden's agenda.
Reporters and political junkies and partisan activists love immersing themselves in this stuff. But for most voters, even partisan voters, it means the Democrats are sounding a proverbial uncertain trumpet. What voters see, though is:
- The Democrats control the Presidency and both Houses of Congress but can't pass their own legislation.
- The Democrats control the Presidency and both Houses of Congress but can't pass their own legislation.
- The Democrats control the Presidency and both Houses of Congress but can't pass their own legislation.
What this means is that Biden's aggressive use of Executive power and his administration of the government to achieve important aims so far as that is possible.
But it also means that for at least the next year and a half, it will be a struggle for Democrats and people on the left who would like to see the Democrats' more progressive policies advanced to parse the constructive parts of the Biden-Harris Administration.
Here's an example of the challenge.
Attorney General Merrick Garland's Justice Department is required to uphold the rule of law. This is not an essentially partisan point, because that's its job in the American legal and Constitutional system. But in the era where democracies worldwide are facing authoritarian challenges, i.e., fascist-like challenges, undermining the rule of law is a major goal of the authoritarians. So, in that sense, defending the impartial rule of law becomes itself a partisan issue.
A critical failing of the Obama Justice Department was not prosecuting obvious crimes of the Cheney-Bush Administration, particularly the torture crimes. I haven't seen explicit reporting on this. But Obama even before he took office was using his infamous look-forward-not-backward slogan to justify giving effective impunity from prosecution for the previous President and his administration. So it's a circumstantial judgment. But given the well-publicized corruption (remember Halliburton?) and various abusive conduct in the Cheney-Bush Administration, and given Obama's explicit and repeated invocation of the look-forward-not-backward formula, it's very hard to believe that Obama's Justice Department was not acting on his direction to not enforce the rule of law in those very high-profile cases. (Related: Obama admits CIA 'tortured some folks' but stands by Brennan over spying Guardian 08/01/2014)
Garland's Justice Department is doing better. There have been hundreds of arrests of accused participants in the treasonous attack on the Capitol of January 6. (Although I don't believe anyone has literally been charged with treason yet.) Justice seems to be taking a normal course on those prosecutions.
And I've also seen no indication that the Justice Department is trying to impede the normal investigations of US Attorneys (who are part of the Department) from pursuing legitimate criminal investigations involving Trump's businesses.
Those are all good signs. Another is not directly related to the Justice Department, but is a very good sign: Zoë Richards, Biden Moves To Begin Closing Guantánamo Bay TPM 06/09/2021. Obama had also promised to end this blight on the rule of law by the US, and made a bid in 2009 to do so, but backed away in the face of Republican opposition. To be fair, it really was a bipartisan opposition, to the disgrace of all the Democrats who supported that, when Obama made a bid in 2009. The Senate voted 90-6 against Obama’s proposal. (Spencer Ackerman, ‘No one but himself to blame': how Obama's Guantánamo plans fell through Guardian 02/24/2016)
And just to be clear: the 90-6 vote in the Senate to limit Obama's ability to close out the Guantanamo disgrace is extremely unlikely to have happened if Obama wasn't sending strong signals to the Democrats that he wanted to see a strong vote against it, despite his official public position. Bipartisanship!
On the other hand, The Justice Department does have to make decisions about which cases to prioritize. And if the Department has been pursuing a dubious or even fraudulent case, they are also required to put a stop to it. In this case, Garland's Justice Department is making a disturbing call: Jeff Hauser and Max Moran, Why Is Merrick Garland Defending Donald Trump? New Republic 06/08/2021
Shaunna Thomas of Ultraviolet tweets:
Another important and detailed response for all of you persuaded by the defense of the @DOJPH's decision to protect Trump's right to slander a rape survivor.
— Shaunna Thomas (@SLThomas) June 9, 2021
The House Judiciary agrees and sent a letter to Merrick Garland urging him to stop acting as Trump's personal attorney. https://t.co/fkbpwjPrfO
And there's this: Olafimihan Oshin, DOJ says it can 'vigorously' defend exemption to anti-LGBT discrimination laws for religious schools The Hill 06/09/2021. I'm not familiar enough with the case to evaluation the following. But the Department claims they are doing this to defend LGBTQ rights! "The Justice Department is not only following its general obligation to defend federal laws; it’s also trying to prevent a Christian organization from taking over the defense and mounting extreme arguments that could lead to a devastating subversion of civil rights law." (Mark Joseph Stern, No, the Biden Administration Isn’t Betraying Its Support for LGBTQ Rights Slate 06/09/2021.
I sometimes find Rachel Maddow's chronically perky style annoying. But she addresses some of the relevant issues around the Biden-Garland Justice Department in Trump Corruption of DOJ Lingers Under Garland, Risks Precedent MSNBC 06/09/2021:
The brief "FDR 2.0" phase was nice while it lasted. Now we're into the Democrats-control-the-Presidency-and-both-Houses-of-Congress-but-can't-pass-their-own-legislation phase.
No comments:
Post a Comment