John Hendrickson: Is former Vice President Mike Pence’s view on conservatism correct?
Former Vice President Mike Pence, in a speech before the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College and in an article in The Wall Street Journal, warned Republicans and conservatives about the danger of populism. The former Vice President argues, in echoing Ronald Reagan’s 1964 address, that it is “a time for choosing” for Republicans whether to continue to follow the “siren song” of populism or return to true conservatism. It is clear that Pence is not only drawing a line in the sand and forcing a debate over conservatism, but also distancing himself from former President Donald Trump and those who support his policies. Nevertheless, Pence fails to understand that the conservative populism he is denouncing is actually rooted within the American conservative tradition. Debates within and amongst conservatives is nothing new. The conservative movement contains various “schools of intellectual thought” over what conservatism means and how conservatives should shape public policy. Vice President Pence argues that the Republican Party must return to traditional conservatism. “If we are to defeat Joe Biden and turn America around, the GOP must be the party of limited government, free enterprise, fiscal responsibility and traditional values,” wrote Pence. Pence is defining traditional conservatism based upon the principles of limited government, free enterprise, fiscal responsibility, and traditional values. Further, he correctly notes that individual “rights come from God and nature, not from the state.” In addition, Pence argues that just “like our founders, we know the imperfect nature of men and women and that granting them unlimited power imperils liberty.” This is an important pillar of conservatism, that is, that human nature is flawed because of original sin. Pence is also correct in referencing the need for conservatives to uphold and defend constitutional principles such as federalism. Conservatives would largely agree with Pence’s definition of conservatism, but he only offers a surface view of conservatism. Pence warns about the danger of populism, and he argues that this is a political tool of progressives and he references William Jennings Bryan and the “Kingfish” Huey Long as examples. Further, Pence argues that populists within the Republican Party are a threat to limited government, traditional values, and even the Constitution. Further, these Republican populists favor abandoning “American leadership on the world stage” and “embracing a posture of appeasement in the face of rising threats to freedom.” Pence’s other indictment is that Republican populists are abandoning free enterprise. Is Pence correct that populism is not only wrong, but also rooted in liberalism and progressivism and that these Republican populists are not conservative? First, Pence needs to define what policies of the Trump administration were not conservative. Pence acknowledges that the Trump administration governed as conservatives, but now Trump has abandoned conservatism. Does this mean that the Trump America First agenda was conservative according to Pence? In 2016, President Trump campaigned on what was considered to be a new approach to conservatism. He called for restrictions on immigration, building a border wall to secure the border, a restrained foreign policy, and he was highly critical of free trade and openly called for tariffs to protect manufacturing. This agenda has been referred to as America First, conservative nationalism, and conservative populism. It also fits within the framework of the paleoconservative tradition. Nevertheless, the ideas that shaped President Trump were not new, nor were they a departure from conservatism as former Vice President Pence would suggest. In fact, President Trump was rediscovering an older conservative Republican tradition. As an example, Patrick J. Buchanan wrote that “in leading Republicans away from globalism to economic nationalism, Trump is not writing a new gospel. He is leading a lost party away from a modernist heresy – back to the Old-Time Religion.” Buchanan, during the 1990s, campaigned for the Republican nomination championing similar ideas as Trump. The conservative nationalist tradition can be traced back to the American founding. Specifically, Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists. President Calvin Coolidge even credited Hamilton and the Federalists and later the Whigs as the source of the Republican Party’s heritage. Former Vice President Pence should consider the conservatism of the 1920s. Conservatives such as Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge not only challenged progressives, but their policy agenda was based on conservative nationalism. Harding and Coolidge not only supported a restrained foreign policy, but also protective tariffs and restricting immigration. They also placed an emphasis on limiting government by reducing spending, paying down the national debt, and reducing tax rates. Harding and Coolidge actually reduced government. Vice President Pence appears to be fighting against conservative nationalism and embracing the neoconservative agenda that was embraced by President George W. Bush’s administration. Neoconservatism and the Pence-style of conservatism dominated the Republican Party before Trump. What were the results: a full retreat on the cultural war and traditional values, engaging in costly wars to promote democracy, free trade agreements which led to the devastation of manufacturing, middle-class jobs, and massive trade deficits which led to the rise of China, and uncontrolled immigration. Plus, the federal government, along with the national debt, continued to grow. It was this “traditional” conservatism that idolized and worshiped at the golden alter of democracy and free trade. Is this the conservatism that we want to return to as a nation or a movement? In fact, during the first Republican presidential candidate debate Vice President Pence resembled former President George W. Bush more than President Ronald Reagan, especially in his advocacy of sending more dollars and support to Ukraine. This foreign policy approach, along with free trade, has more in common with progressives such as Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Pence’s approach to Ukraine is Wilsonian. Pence is attempting to proclaim himself as the true heir to Reagan. When examining the legacy of President Reagan too many conservatives forget that Reagan, even with all of the free market and liberty rhetoric, often practiced a restrained foreign policy and implemented trade policies that were considered protectionist. Some even argued that Reagan was the most
Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin to visit Birmingham on September 19
The Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama (PARCA) is hosting historian Doris Kearns Goodwin for “An evening of cocktails, discussion, and a special book signing” in Birmingham on Tuesday, September 19. Doris Kearns Goodwin is a world-renowned presidential historian, public speaker, and Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times #1 best-selling author. PARCA is a 501c3 nonprofit whose mission is to work to inform and improve the decision making of state and local leaders in Alabama through objective research and analysis. PARCA studies state and local finances and taxes, school performance, workforce development, and government operations. Since 2020, she has worked as the executive producer for the History Channel’s miniseries events “Washington,” “Abraham Lincoln,” and “Theodore Roosevelt,” with more projects in the pipeline. The event will include a reception for all guests, a private cocktail reception with Goodwin, a fireside chat, a book signing, and a dessert reception. Priska Neely, the regional managing editor for the Gulf States Newsroom, will be the moderator. Goodwin is a frequent news media and late-night TV guest to discuss leadership and provide historical context for current issues, including the impact of the COVID-19 global pandemic, presidential politics, and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ms. Goodwin’s seventh book, “Leadership In Turbulent Times,” was an instant bestseller and published to critical acclaim in Fall 2018. Focusing on Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Baines Johnson, the book provides an accessible and essential road map for aspiring and established leaders in every field and for all of us in our everyday lives. Goodwin graduated magna cum laude from Colby College. She earned a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Government from Harvard University, where she taught Government, including a course on the American Presidency. Goodwin has been a critic of former President Donald Trump. Goodwin previously authored six critically acclaimed and New York Times bestselling books, including the Carnegie Medal winner “The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism,” which is in part the basis for a film being developed about Ida Tarbell, the famous muckraking journalist of the era. Ms. Goodwin’s award-winning “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln” was the inspiration for Steven Spielberg’s film “Lincoln,” which earned 12 Academy Award® nominations, including an Academy Award for actor Daniel Day-Lewis for his portrayal of the 16th president. Ms. Goodwin earned the Pulitzer Prize in History for “No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II.” Her “The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys” was adapted into an award-winning television miniseries. Goodwin worked with President Johnson in the White House and later assisted him in the writing of his memoirs. She then wrote “Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream,” which became a national bestseller and achieved critical acclaim. It was re-released in Spring 2019, highlighting LBJ’s accomplishments in domestic affairs. Goodwin has served as a consultant and has been interviewed extensively for PBS and HISTORY’s documentaries on Presidents Johnson, Roosevelt, and Lincoln, the Kennedy family, and on Ken Burns’ “The History of Baseball” and “The Roosevelts: An Intimate History.” She was a consultant on HBO Films’ “All the Way,” starring Bryan Cranston as President Johnson. She played herself as a teacher to Lisa Simpson on” The Simpsons” and a historian on “American Horror Story.” The event will be held at the Birmingham Red Mountain Theatre Arts Campus. Proceeds for this event will go toward PARCA’s mission to inform and improve the decision-making of state and local leaders in Alabama through objective research and analysis. General admission tickets start at $100. PARCA is a 501c3 nonprofit whose mission is to work to inform and improve the decision making of state and local leaders in Alabama through objective research and analysis. PARCA studies state and local finances and taxes, school performance, workforce development, and government operations. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Joe Biden issues second veto of his presidency on Clean Water Act regulation
President Joe Biden vetoed the second bill of his presidency on April 6, 2023. Biden vetoed H.J.Res.27, a joint resolution of disapproval under the terms of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) that sought to void an Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers rule from 2023 that specified “which bodies of water fall under the scope of the Clean Water Act and are thereby under federal jurisdiction and protected.” In his veto message, Biden said, “The resolution would leave Americans without a clear definition of ‘Waters of the United States’. The increased uncertainty caused by H.J. Res. 27 would threaten economic growth, including for agriculture, local economies, and downstream communities. […] The resolution would also negatively affect tens of millions of United States households that depend on healthy wetlands and streams.” Overriding a presidential veto requires a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers of Congress. The House of Representatives and Senate both initially passed the resolution by a simple majority. The House of Representatives voted 227-198 to approve the resolution on March 9, 2023. The Senate voted 53-43 to approve the resolution on March 29. Rep. Sam Graves (R-Mo.) introduced the resolution on February 2. President Ronald Reagan issued the most vetoes (87) of all presidents since 1981. Biden, with two vetoes, has issued the fewest. President Donald Trump issued the second-fewest vetoes (9) within this timeframe. Presidents have issued 2,586 vetoes in American history. Congress has overridden 112. President Franklin D. Roosevelt vetoed 635 bills, the most of any president. Presidents John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Q. Adams, William H. Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, and James A. Garfield did not issue any vetoes. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Adeline Von Drehle: SCOTUS decision may limit more than just the EPA
The Supreme Court wrapped up its history-making term last week with a shot across the bow at government regulatory agencies. One of its two final rulings, West Virginia v. EPA, saw the court rule 6-3 along ideological lines that the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Ruling for the state of West Virginia, the conservative justices struck down EPA standards designed to fight climate change by reshaping electricity grids. Such standards qualify as “major questions,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in his majority opinion, requiring explicit authorization by Congress. Much of the interest in the case comes from those who fear the United States will no longer be able to meet its climate change commitments. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the court was stripping the EPA of the power Congress gave it to respond to “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.” President Joe Biden, in a statement issued at the White House Thursday, described the ruling as “another devastating decision that aims to take our country backwards.” The opinion completed a term in which an already conservative court lurched further to the right, striking down Roe v. Wade, expanding gun rights, embracing religious expression – and now cracking down on the so-called “administrative state.” Careful vetting of three justices appointed by former president Donald J. Trump by the conservative Federalist Society produced results long dreamed of by self-styled “originalist” theorists. Laurence Tribe, University Professor Emeritus of Constitutional Law at Harvard, told RealClearPolitics that the current court “is going rogue and seems almost drunk with the power acquired with its stacking by Trump and his three new Justices.” West Virginia’s victory may be only an opening salvo in a conservative war against the active federal government called into existence during the Great Depression. If every significant new challenge requires new Congressional authorization to act – as the Roberts opinion suggests – critics fear the executive branch could become just as gridlocked as the legislative branch. Roberts pointed in this direction by describing the dispute at hand as a “major questions case.” The major questions doctrine requires that agencies have explicit statutory authorization from Congress to make “decisions of vast economic and political significance.” The court “typically greet[s] assertions of extravagant statutory power over the national economy with skepticism,” Roberts wrote. To overcome that skepticism, “the Government must – under the major questions doctrine – point to clear congressional authorization to regulate in that manner.” The major questions doctrine plays an important role in administrative law because it allows Congress to find, in theory, a workable space between an unconstitutional delegation of power – a violation of Article I Section I of the Constitution, which states that “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States” – and a complete ban on delegation that would leave an already inactive Congress swamped with day-to-day responsibility for government agencies. One traditional view holds that Congress sets up a target, but agencies decide how to hit the target. In the West Virginia case, the EPA’s target was the reduction of carbon emissions. The EPA aimed to hit that target by requiring a gradual transition to green energy. New York University Law Professor Roderick M. Hills explained to RCP that the Roberts ruling suggests that Congressional legislation “doesn’t only contain the target,” it also regulates the means that the agency can use. So, if the agency chooses a novel or controversial method of achieving the congressionally specified goal, it might be going outside the statute. The issue with a doctrine that says an agency cannot do anything outside its statutory authorization, Hills said, “is that when a new problem arises, agencies are helpless. And the whole point of creating an agency is to respond to unforeseen circumstances.” The modern administrative state was born during the New Deal Era, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought a way to respond to the economic crisis quickly, bypassing bureaucratic red tape – or even congressional intent. There is always a trade-off, Hills said, between “lots and lots of democratic deliberation, and fast action. It’s like Elvis Presley said, a little less conversation, a little more action.” If the court requires agencies to go to Congress each time they seek new ways to address issues of major economic and political significance, Hills asserts, “We’re never going to do anything to respond to new problems because Congress is mired in gridlock.” He has a point, given that Congress currently has a 4% success rate of turning bills into laws. Some would argue that the slow pace of the congressional process is not only desirable, but constitutionally obligatory. Others think it’s unrealistic and, in some ways, undemocratic. Since the 1819 landmark decision McCulloch v. Maryland, the court has held that “the modern administrative state is constitutional,” Tribe told RCP. That case affirmed that Congress can turn over responsibility for detail-oriented action to freestanding government agencies. But it is unclear what is a detail and what is a significant, or “major,” issue. “The Constitution doesn’t say anything about major questions,” Hills told RCP. “If you think the most valuable thing is to have every issue passed upon by elected representatives, [the court] is right. If you think the most valuable thing, or at least an equally valuable thing, is to actually have policy that’s responsive to problems, then [the court] is wrong.” That said, for those who disagree with the EPA ruling, there’s a straightforward remedy that isn’t necessarily available when it comes to the court’s recent gun control decisions or the religious freedom cases. That’s because EPA’s regulatory overreach on climate change – at least according to the Supreme Court – did not run afoul of the pesky First Amendment or Second Amendment. In that sense, West Virginia v. EPA has something in common with the Dobbs decision: namely, the obvious possibility of a legislative fix. In
Social Security checks getting big boost as inflation rises
Millions of retirees on Social Security will get a 5.9% boost in benefits for 2022. The biggest cost-of-living adjustment in 39 years follows a burst in inflation as the economy struggles to shake off the drag of the coronavirus pandemic. The COLA, as it’s commonly called, amounts to an added $92 a month for the average retired worker, according to estimates Wednesday from the Social Security Administration. It’s an abrupt break from a long lull in inflation that saw cost-of-living adjustments averaging just 1.65% a year over the past 10 years. With the increase, the estimated average Social Security payment for a retired worker will be $1,657 a month next year. A typical couple’s benefits would rise by $154 to $2,753 per month. But that’s just to help make up for rising costs that recipients are already paying for food, gasoline, and other goods and services. “It goes pretty quickly,” retiree Cliff Rumsey said of the cost-of-living increases. After a career in sales for a leading steel manufacturer, Rumsey lives near Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. He cares at home for his wife of nearly 60 years, Judy, who has advanced Alzheimer’s disease. Since the coronavirus pandemic, Rumsey said he has also noted price increases for wages paid to caregivers who occasionally spell him and for personal care products for Judy. The COLA affects household budgets for about 1 in 5 Americans. That includes Social Security recipients, disabled veterans, and federal retirees, nearly 70 million people in all. For baby boomers who embarked on retirement within the past 15 years, it will be the biggest increase they’ve seen. Among them is Kitty Ruderman of Queens in New York City, who retired from a career as an executive assistant and has been collecting Social Security for about 10 years. “We wait to hear every year what the increase is going to be, and every year it’s been so insignificant,” she said. “This year, thank goodness, it will make a difference.” Ruderman says she times her grocery shopping to take advantage of midweek senior citizen discounts, but even so, price hikes have been “extreme.” She says she doesn’t think she can afford a medication that her doctor has recommended. AARP CEO Jo Ann Jenkins called the government payout increase “crucial for Social Security beneficiaries and their families as they try to keep up with rising costs.” Policymakers say the adjustment is a safeguard to protect Social Security benefits against the loss of purchasing power and not a pay bump for retirees. About half of seniors live in households where Social Security provides at least 50% of their income, and one-quarter rely on their monthly payment for all or nearly all their income. “You never want to minimize the importance of the COLA,” said retirement policy expert Charles Blahous, a former public trustee helping to oversee Social Security and Medicare finances. “What people are able to purchase is very profoundly affected by the number that comes out. We are talking the necessities of living in many cases.” This year’s Social Security trustees report amplified warnings about the long-range financial stability of the program. But there’s little talk about fixes in Congress, with lawmakers’ consumed by President Joe Biden’s massive domestic legislation and partisan machinations over the national debt. Social Security cannot be addressed through the budget reconciliation process Democrats are attempting to use to deliver Biden’s promises. Social Security’s turn will come, said Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., chairman of the House Social Security subcommittee and author of legislation to tackle shortfalls that would leave the program unable to pay full benefits in less than 15 years. His bill would raise payroll taxes while also changing the COLA formula to give more weight to health care expenses and other costs that weigh more heavily on the elderly. Larson said he intends to press ahead next year. “This one-time shot of COLA is not the antidote,” he said. Although Biden’s domestic package includes a major expansion of Medicare to cover dental, hearing, and vision care, Larson said he hears from constituents that seniors are feeling neglected by the Democrats. “In town halls and tele-town halls they’re saying, ‘We are really happy with what you did on the child tax credit, but what about us?’” Larson added. “In a midterm election, this is a very important constituency.” The COLA is only one part of the annual financial equation for seniors. An announcement about Medicare’s Part B premium they pay for outpatient care is expected soon. It’s usually an increase, so at least some of any Social Security raise gets eaten up by health care. The Part B premium is now $148.50 a month, and the Medicare trustees report estimated a $10 increase for 2022. Economist Marilyn Moon, who also served as public trustee for Social Security and Medicare, said she believes the current spurt of inflation will be temporary, due to highly unusual economic circumstances. “I would think there is going to be an increase this year that you won’t see reproduced in the future,” Moon said. But policymakers should not delay getting to work on retirement programs, she said. “We’re at a point in time where people don’t react to policy needs until there is a sense of desperation, and both Social Security and Medicare are programs that benefit from long-range planning rather short-range machinations,” she said. Social Security is financed by payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers. Each pays 6.2% on wages up to a cap, which is adjusted each year for inflation. Next year the maximum amount of earnings subject to Social Security payroll taxes will increase to $147,000. The financing scheme dates to the 1930s, the brainchild of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who believed a payroll tax would foster among average Americans a sense of ownership that would protect the program from political interference. That argument still resonates. “Social Security is my lifeline,” said Ruderman, the New York retiree. “It’s what we’ve worked for.” Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Joe Biden taking bipartisan infrastructure deal on the road
President Joe Biden will look to sell voters on the economic benefits of the $973 billion infrastructure package while in Wisconsin on Tuesday, hoping to boost the bipartisan agreement that is held together in large part by the promise of millions of new jobs. Biden will travel to La Crosse, population 52,000, and tour its public transit center, followed by a speech about the infrastructure package announced last week. The president presented his message to Democratic donors on Monday that the agreement was a way for the United States to assert the principles of democracy and the economic might that can come from dramatic investments in the country’s economic future. “This infrastructure bill signals to the world that we can function, we can deliver,” Biden said. “We can do significant things, show that America is back.” White House officials issued an internal memo that highlights how the largest investment in transportation, water systems, and services in nearly a century would boost growth. The memo notes that the total package is four times the size of the infrastructure investment made a dozen years ago in response to the Great Recession and the biggest since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s. It also emphasizes an analysis suggesting that 90% of the jobs generated by the spending could go to workers without college degrees, a key shift as a majority of net job gains before the pandemic went to college graduates. “This is a blue-collar blueprint to rebuild America,” the memo says. Potential economic gains were a shared incentive for the group of Democratic and Republican senators who agreed to the deal on Thursday. But the process briefly fell into disarray late last week as Biden suggested the deal would be held up until he also received a separate package for infrastructure, jobs, and education that would be determined solely by Democrats through the budget reconciliation process. Biden said Saturday that this was not a veto threat, and by Sunday, the package appeared back on track. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday that Biden is “eager” for both bills to be approved by Congress and that the president is going to “work his heart out” to make it happen. White House press secretary Jen Psaki listens to a question during a press briefing at the White House Monday. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) “The president intends to sign both pieces of legislation into law,” Psaki said at her daily briefing. Approval of both bills by Congress remains a long haul, with this summer’s initial votes expected in July. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell questioned the legislative process ahead and mounted fresh obstacles while speaking Monday in Kentucky. McConnell said he has not yet decided whether he will support the bipartisan package, but he wants Biden to pressure House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer to say they will allow the bipartisan arrangement to pass without mandating that the much larger and broader follow-up bill be in place. “I appreciate the president saying that he’s willing to deal with infrastructure separately, But he doesn’t control the Congress,” McConnell said at a press conference in Louisville. The two bills had always been expected to move in tandem, and that is likely to continue as Biden drops his veto threat but reaches across the aisle for the nearly $1 trillion bipartisan package as well as his own broader package. The Democratic leaders are pressing ahead on the broader bill, which includes Biden’s families and climate change proposals, as well as their own investments in Medicare, swelling to some $6 trillion. The prospect of additional economic gains might be a way to garner public support and soothe partisan tensions. Biden also faces pressure from Democrats such as New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the spending isn’t as huge as it might seem because the sums are spread out over multiple years. The eight-page White House memo comes from Brian Deese, director of the National Economic Council, and senior adviser Anita Dunn. It indicates that the $110 billion for roads and bridges would help relieve traffic and congestion that costs the economy over $160 billion annually. The memo justifies the $48.5 billion planned for public transit by citing studies that link light rail and buses to increased earnings and employment for workers. It defends the $66 billion for repairs and upgrades for rail lines by saying that current delays and disruptions weigh on growth. The bipartisan agreement also would help nurture the market for electric vehicles, improve broadband access, repair water lines and create resilience against damage from extreme weather events. Meanwhile, the White House and Congress are pushing ahead on separate infrastructure legislation, a top priority of the administration that is shared by many lawmakers interested in securing federal funds for long-sought road, highway, bridge, and other construction projects back home. This week, the House is scheduled to vote on a highway, transit, and water infrastructure bill that would invest up to $715 billion over five years. It overlaps parts of the bipartisan agreement and could become a building block toward the Democrats’ broader package coming later this summer or fall. The bill contains many of the priorities that Biden has set, including $45 billion to replace lead water service lines throughout the nation and $4 billion for electric vehicle charging stations, as well as a big boost in spending for transportation programs focusing on repairing existing roads and bridges. It also opens the door to nearly 1,500 requests from lawmakers that would fund specific projects back in their congressional districts, moving Congress a step closer toward a return to earmarked spending. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Joe Biden takes the helm as president facing pandemic, divisions
Joe Biden became the 46th President of the United States on Wednesday, swearing the oath of office just before noon to take the helm of a deeply divided nation while inheriting a confluence of crises arguably greater than any faced by his predecessors. Biden’s inauguration came at a time of national tumult and uncertainty, a ceremony of resilience as the hallowed American democratic rite unfurled at a U.S. Capitol battered by an insurrectionist siege just two weeks ago. On a chilly Washington day dotted with snow flurries, a bipartisan trio of ex-presidents along with the elite of nation’s government gathered, ensuring the quadrennial ceremony persevered, even though it was encircled by security forces evocative of a war zone and devoid of crowds because of the coronavirus pandemic. Stay home, Americans were exhorted, to prevent further spread of a surging virus that has claimed more than 400,000 lives in the United States. Biden looked out over a capital city dotted with empty storefronts that attest to the pandemic’s deep economic toll and where summer protests laid bare the nation’s renewed reckoning on racial injustice. And he was not applauded by his predecessor. Flouting tradition, Donald Trump departed Washington on Wednesday morning ahead of the inauguration rather than accompany his successor to the Capitol. Though three other former presidents — Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama — gathered to watch the ceremonial transfer of power, Trump, awaiting his second impeachment trial, instead flew to Florida after stoking grievance among his supporters with the lie that Biden’s win was illegitimate. Biden, in his third run for the presidency, staked his candidacy less on any distinctive political ideology than on galvanizing a broad coalition of voters around the notion that Trump posed an existential threat to American democracy. On his first day, Biden will take a series of executive actions — on the pandemic, climate, immigration, and more — to undo the heart of Trump’s agenda at a moment with the bonds of the republic strained. “Biden will face a series of urgent, burning crises like we have not seen before, and they all have to be solved at once. It is very hard to find a parallel in history,” said presidential historian Michael Beschloss. “I think we have been through a near-death experience as a democracy. Americans who will watch the new president be sworn in are now acutely aware of how fragile our democracy is and how much it needs to be protected.” Biden will come to office with a well of empathy and resolve born by personal tragedy as well as a depth of experience forged from more than four decades in Washington. At age 78, he was the oldest president inaugurated. More history was made at his side, as Kamala Harris became the first woman to be vice president. The former U.S. senator from California is also the first Black person and the first person of South Asian descent elected to the vice presidency and will become the highest-ranking woman ever to serve in government. The two will be sworn in during an inauguration ceremony with few parallels in history. Tens of thousands of troops are on the streets to provide security precisely two weeks after a violent mob of Trump supporters, incited by the Republican president, stormed the Capitol in an attempt to prevent the certification of Biden’s victory. The tense atmosphere evoked the 1861 inauguration of Abraham Lincoln, who was secretly transported to Washington to avoid assassins on the eve of the Civil War, or Franklin D. Roosevelt’s inaugural in 1945, when he opted for a small, secure ceremony at the White House in the waning months of World War II. The day began with a reach across the aisle after four years of bitter partisan battles under Trump. At Biden’s invitation, congressional leaders from both parties bowed their heads in prayer in the socially distanced service just a few blocks from the White House. Once at the Capitol, Biden will be administered the oath by Chief Justice John Roberts; Harris will be sworn in by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina member of the Supreme Court. Vice President Mike Pence, standing in for Trump, was sitting nearby as Lady Gaga, holding a gold microphone, sang the National Anthem accompanied by the U.S. Marine Corps band. The theme of Biden’s approximately 30-minute speech will be “America United,” and aides said it would be a call to set aside differences during a moment of national trial. Biden will then oversee a “Pass in Review,” a military tradition that honors the peaceful transfer of power to a new commander in chief. Then, Biden, Harris, and their spouses will be joined by that bipartisan trio of former presidents to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Ceremony. Later, Biden will join the end of a slimmed-down inaugural parade as he moves into the White House. Because of the pandemic, much of this year’s parade will be a virtual affair featuring performances from around the nation. Full Coverage: Biden’s inauguration In the evening, in lieu of the traditional glitzy balls that welcome a new president to Washington, Biden will take part in a televised concert that also marks the return of A-list celebrities to the White House orbit after they largely eschewed Trump. Among those in the lineup: Bruce Springsteen, Justin Timberlake, and Lin-Manuel Miranda. “I protested 45’s inauguration, and I wanted to be here when he left,” said Raelyn Maxwell of Park City, Utah. ”And I wanted to celebrate the new president.” She brought a bouquet of roses she hoped to toss to Harris and some champagne to toast the occasion. Trump is the first president in more than a century to skip the inauguration of his successor. In a cold wind, Marine One took off from the White House and soared above a deserted capital city to his own farewell celebration at nearby Joint Base Andrews. There, he boarded Air Force One for the final time as president for the flight to his Florida estate. “I will
Joe Biden wins White House, vowing new direction for divided U.S.
Democrat Joe Biden defeated President Donald Trump to become the 46th president of the United States on Saturday, positioning himself to lead a nation gripped by a historic pandemic and a confluence of economic and social turmoil. His victory came after more than three days of uncertainty as election officials sorted through a surge of mail-in votes that delayed the processing of some ballots. Biden crossed 270 Electoral College votes with a win in Pennsylvania. Biden, 77, staked his candidacy less on any distinctive political ideology than on galvanizing a broad coalition of voters around the notion that Trump posed an existential threat to American democracy. The strategy proved effective, resulting in pivotal victories in Michigan and Wisconsin as well as Pennsylvania, onetime Democratic bastions that had flipped to Trump in 2016. Biden was on track to win the national popular vote by more than 4 million, a margin that could grow as ballots continue to be counted. Trump seized on delays in processing the vote in some states to falsely allege voter fraud and argue that his rival was trying to seize power — an extraordinary charge by a sitting president trying to sow doubt about a bedrock democratic process. As the vote count played out, Biden tried to ease tensions and project an image of presidential leadership, hitting notes of unity that were seemingly aimed at cooling the temperature of a heated, divided nation. “We have to remember the purpose of our politics isn’t total unrelenting, unending warfare,” Biden said Friday night in Delaware. “No, the purpose of our politics, the work of our nation, isn’t to fan the flames of conflict, but to solve problems, to guarantee justice, to give everybody a fair shot.” Kamala Harris also made history as the first Black woman to become vice president, an achievement that comes as the U.S. faces a reckoning on racial justice. The California senator, who is also the first person of South Asian descent elected to the vice presidency, will become the highest-ranking woman ever to serve in government, four years after Trump defeated Hillary Clinton. Trump is the first incumbent president to lose reelection since Republican George H.W. Bush in 1992. It was unclear whether Trump would publicly concede. Americans showed deep interest in the presidential race. A record 103 million voted early this year, opting to avoid waiting in long lines at polling locations during a pandemic. With counting continuing in some states, Biden had already received more than 74 million votes, more than any presidential candidate before him. More than 236,000 Americans have died during the coronavirus pandemic, nearly 10 million have been infected and millions of jobs have been lost. The final days of the campaign played out against the backdrop of a surge in confirmed cases in nearly every state, including battlegrounds such as Wisconsin that swung to Biden. The pandemic will soon be Biden’s to tame, and he campaigned pledging a big government response, akin to what Franklin D. Roosevelt oversaw with the New Deal during the Depression of the 1930s. But Senate Republicans fought back several Democratic challengers and looked to retain a fragile majority that could serve as a check on such Biden ambition. The 2020 campaign was a referendum on Trump’s handling of the pandemic, which has shuttered schools across the nation, disrupted businesses and raised questions about the feasibility of family gatherings heading into the holidays. The fast spread of the coronavirus transformed political rallies from standard campaign fare to gatherings that were potential public health emergencies. It also contributed to an unprecedented shift to voting early and by mail and prompted Biden to dramatically scale back his travel and events to comply with restrictions. Trump defied calls for caution and ultimately contracted the disease himself. He was saddled throughout the year by negative assessments from the public of his handling of the pandemic. Biden also drew a sharp contrast to Trump through a summer of unrest over the police killings of Black Americans including Breonna Taylor in Kentucky and George Floyd in Minneapolis. Their deaths sparked the largest racial protest movement since the civil rights era. Biden responded by acknowledging the racism that pervades American life, while Trump emphasized his support of police and pivoted to a “law and order” message that resonated with his largely white base. The president’s most ardent backers never wavered and may remain loyal to him and his supporters in Congress after Trump has departed the White House. The third president to be impeached, though acquitted in the Senate, Trump will leave office having left an indelible imprint in a tenure defined by the shattering of White House norms and a day-to-day whirlwind of turnover, partisan divide and the ever-present threat via his Twitter account. Biden, born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and raised in Delaware, was one of the youngest candidates ever elected to the Senate. Before he took office, his wife and daughter were killed, and his two sons badly injured in a 1972 car crash. Commuting every night on a train from Washington back to Wilmington, Biden fashioned an everyman political persona to go along with powerful Senate positions, including chairman of the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committees. Some aspects of his record drew critical scrutiny from fellow Democrats, including his support for the 1994 crime bill, his vote for the 2003 Iraq War and his management of the Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court hearings. Biden’s 1988 presidential campaign was done in by plagiarism allegations, and his next bid in 2008 ended quietly. But later that year, he was tapped to be Barack Obama’s running mate and he became an influential vice president, steering the administration’s outreach to both Capitol Hill and Iraq. While his reputation was burnished by his time in office and his deep friendship with Obama, Biden stood aside for Clinton and opted not to run in 2016 after his adult son Beau died of brain cancer the year before. Trump’s tenure pushed Biden to make
Could hard-right Supreme Court haunt GOP? History says maybe
Be careful what you wish for. That’s the history lesson for Republicans eagerly anticipating Brett Kavanaugh’s ascension to the Supreme Court, which could cement conservative control of the court for a generation. The GOP may ultimately pay a political price. When and how steep? That depends on how momentous the issues and how jolting the decisions, according to legal scholars who’ve studied the high court’s impact on electoral politics. The past century is replete with cautionary tales for political parties that rejoice when the Supreme Court’s ideology turns their way. That track record, coupled with today’s intensifying partisanship, suggests that when it comes to high court nomination fights, both sides should be careful what they wish for. “In a democracy, what matters is winning votes,” said Michael Klarman, a Harvard Law School professor who has studied constitutional history. “And you shouldn’t trust the courts to win your battles for you, because there’s going to be a backlash if they go too far, too fast.” Such words of caution won’t have a discernible impact on senators, who have little incentive to abandon their own or their parties’ ideological preferences. “I’ll vote to confirm Kavanaugh and I’ll take my chances,” said No. 2 Senate GOP leader John Cornyn of Texas. But since Kavanaugh’s confirmation could tip the court decisively to the right for years, the past consequences of some such shifts are instructive. In the 1930s, a conservative Supreme Court knocked down many of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs aimed at hoisting the country out of the Depression. Statutes letting industries and unions set wages and prices, raising farm income and regulating the coal industry were declared unconstitutional, as was a New York minimum wage law. That helped fuel a 1936 FDR landslide that also gave Democrats 76 Senate and 334 House seats, Election Day majorities neither party has ever matched. The triumph paved the way for congressional control that Democrats didn’t relinquish until after World War II. The Warren Court’s liberal decisions of the 1960s helped power Richard Nixon’s law-and-order rise to the White House in 1968. Rulings buttressing criminals’ rights, like the Miranda vs. Arizona decision requiring authorities to inform arrested people of their rights, provided potent ammunition for Nixon at a time of racial unrest and growing crime rates. “Some of our courts in their decisions have gone too far in weakening the peace forces as against the criminal forces in this country and we must act to restore that balance,” Nixon said in his acceptance speech 50 years ago this week at the Republican national convention in Miami Beach, Florida. The 1973 Roe v. Wade case legalizing abortion has been backed by strong majorities of Americans but spurred the rise of the anti-abortion movement and helped galvanize political involvement by Christian conservatives. Both remain vital factors in American politics and a driving force for the GOP. The disconnect between the court’s ideological leanings and voters’ preferences occurs because justices are appointed for life. With turnover on the bench infrequent, the court’s views often lag behind the election results of the presidents and senators who pick them. “Over the long course of time, the court follows broader political trends,” said Thomas Keck, a Syracuse University political scientist who studies the Supreme Court and political movements. “But it doesn’t tend to turn as quickly as the elected branches” of government. Kavanaugh’s nomination could be pivotal. He would replace the retiring Anthony Kennedy, who’s been the nine-member court’s swing vote on issues including same-sex marriage, corporate campaign contributions and gun rights. Yet Kavanaugh’s confirmation wouldn’t guarantee that the court would veer firmly rightward because forecasting justices’ long-term viewpoints is historically tricky. Chief Justice Earl Warren, a GOP California governor appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, steered one of the most liberal courts in history. Anthony Kennedy was appointed by conservative icon President Ronald Reagan but protected abortion rights. Chief Justice John Roberts was selected by President George W. Bush but cast the decisive tally preserving Obama’s health care law. But there will inevitably be numerous opportunities for the court to address politically searing issues. In its coming term alone, the justices might face cases about special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian intrusion in the 2016 presidential race, religious liberty and sexual orientation. Future cases could emerge over curtailing Obama’s health care statute, revoking protections against deporting young immigrants and curbing abortion rights — issues that galvanize conservative and liberal voters alike. Joseph Ura, a political scientist at Texas A&M University, says the impact of a sharp, rightward court shift could be felt quickly enough to affect a Trump re-election bid in 2020, if not sooner. In a 2014 study, Ura used computer modeling to compare five decades of important court decisions to the public mood. He concluded that there is a quick backlash against shifts in the court’s ideology that lasts about two years before eroding, followed by a slight, longer-term swing toward the justices’ viewpoints. Ura’s guidance to Democrats, should a Kavanaugh confirmation produce high-profile court decisions invalidating liberal programs? “My advice to them is to campaign on this,” he said. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Martin Dyckman: A visit to Franklin D. Roosevelt Hyde Park home gives insight, solace
HYDE PARK, N.Y. — Finding ourselves in the neighborhood, we made a point of visiting a most famous site Friday to pay our respects to a First Couple who truly did make America great again. No matter what anyone else pretends, the nation is still great. Whether we can remain so is in some doubt. Sad. For a chilly, gray January day, there were more than the usual number of pilgrims to the home and grave site of Franklin D. and Eleanor Roosevelt. “It’s a little busier today. People are seeking solace,” the ticket-taker said. Springwood — the actual though little-known name of the tasteful mansion — was a place to find that solace, to forget for a little while that FDR’s office now belongs to a man who could not possibly be more unlike him in education, temperament, intelligence, and — what matters most — character. Compare their inaugural addresses — easily found on the web — and you’ll see what I mean. The contemporary problems that Donald J. Trump delights in rubbing in, like salt into a wound, are nothing compared to what FDR faced on his first day in office in March 1933. Nearly one in every four Americans were unemployed, almost 13 percent of the workforce, and many of the rest weren’t earning enough and lived in daily fear of losing their jobs. There was no safety net. Americans knew, as FDR reminded them, that misconduct in high financial circles had contributed to their misery. But that was not the point he wanted to stress, that he wanted them to most remember. He began his inaugural address on an uplifting note. “So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is … fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance,” he said. “In every dark hour of our national life, a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.” The superbly organized museum at the presidential library details how swiftly he and Congress moved to confront the crisis. Among them, barely three months later, was the enactment of the Glass-Steagall Act, which built a firewall between the banks entrusted with other people’s money and the risks that they had been taking on Wall Street. The repeal of Glass-Steagall six decades later, in which both Democrats and Republicans were complicit, helped to bring on the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Now, Republicans in Congress see Trump’s election as an opportunity to unleash even more predatory greed. I’m speaking of Dodd-Frank and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which proved its worth again last week in going after fraud in the student loan racket. It is now probably as endangered as the honey bee. Nothing in Trump’s inaugural address lends itself to confidence that he really understands what the nation needs most to do, let alone that he is prepared to be honest about it. American corporations haven’t lost anything to foreign competition. Our corporations are fat. But too often their workers haven’t shared in the prosperity they have helped to create. Most of the jobs Trump promises to restore have been lost to automation, not globalization. He gives no sign of understanding that. We read this week that Trump fancies himself in the mold of Andrew Jackson, another radical populist. That’s undoubtedly true. We also hear that he has never really read in detail the biography of any American president, which is also likely true because it’s well-known that he just doesn’t read anything. What history teaches about Jackson should make us worry about Trump fancying his example. Jackson’s fixation with destroying the Second Bank of the United States brought on hard times. His treatment of the Cherokees and other Native Americans in the Southeast was ethnic cleansing, if you prefer a euphemism and outright genocide if you care to be honest about it. Like Trump, Old Hickory knew how to evoke discontent and anger to get himself elected. Whether Trump will be a better president than Jackson will depend, as David Brooks wrote in The New York Times Friday, on whether Congress can manage to control the helpless excesses of the unprepared man Brooks calls “Captain Chaos,” and whether we, the public, can compel Congress to heed the better angels of our nature. Visitors to the FDR home and museum learn the story of a man who was born to wealth and privilege, whose mother would not let him apply to the Naval Academy because she thought a gentleman of his status was meant for Harvard, and who overcame his protected upbringing to become the best friend that ordinary Americans ever had. And when you hear the story of the polio that paralyzed his legs and see the heavy, cumbersome braces that helped him give the illusion of walking, you understand how the child of privilege became the champion of the people. The disease that withered his leg strengthened his character and inspired his compassion. Trump is another child of wealth and privilege. What would inspire him to connect, really connect, with ordinary people? ___ Martin Dyckman is a retired associate editor of the Tampa Bay Times. He lives in Asheville, North Carolina.
Martin Dyckman: A European perspective on Donald Trump
“Associate yourself with Men of good Quality if you Esteem your own Reputation; for ‘tis better to be alone than in bad Company.”– George Washington‘s 56th rule of civility and decent behavior. A recent cruise in the Baltic Sea took us to eight northern European nations where we were impressed yet again with how much alike all the world’s people are. But there is a dark side to that. In 1932, amidst a grave worldwide depression, Americans elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a decent man who told us we had nothing to fear but fear itself. At almost the same moment, the people of Germany — perhaps the most advanced nation in Europe — got Adolf Hitler. When we toured Berlin and beheld a friendly and prosperous city with an enviable quality of life, the hideous events of the Nazi era seemed almost improbable. A visit to the impressive Jewish Museum Berlin is the antidote to selective memory. To see the exhibits of Jewish life in Germany in the millennium before the Shoah, one first must pass the exhibits dedicated to the Holocaust. Nothing is held back Yes, the people who did that were decent and highly civilized by all the standards of their times. I have never thought that what happened there could not happen here in similar circumstances. And now it is happening here. A man who emulates Adolf Hitler in significant ways is poised to be the nominee of a once great, now degraded political party, and could become president of a nation whose proudest boast is to be the leader of the free world. If you doubt the parallels, read the British historian Alan Bullock‘s magisterial biography, “Hitler: A Study in Tyranny.” Like Hitler, Donald Trump inflames the latent, and not so latent, prejudices of a substantial element of the populace. The targets are different, but not the hate-filled rhetoric. Like Hitler, Trump is capitalizing on the public’s justifiable dissatisfaction with the apparent political paralysis in Washington. Hitler’s promise to end a similar situation and make government function again was his primary issue in the pivotal 1932 campaign that he won with only a plurality. Like Hitler, Trump spews hate at people — not just journalists but critics in his own adopted party — who oppose or criticize him. Like Hitler, he would tame and muzzle the judiciary. Could any threat be clearer? Like Hitler, Trump has no coherent policy positions — other than bigotry — and is conspicuously disinterested in the details of how government works. He would have his vice president do all the real work. Nothing in the Constitution contemplates that. No president has been so blissfully ignorant and lazy. Many industrialists and politicians in Germany rationalized that Hitler, their inferior in every respect but cunning, could be put to their use. They learned better, to their sorrow. Rick Scott, Paul Ryan and the other opportunists scurrying aboard Trump’s ship figure they can use him too. Ryan, for one, claims to believe that Trump would promote the congressional Republicans’ entire far right agenda. Can’t they see that Trump will do only that which promotes himself? They don’t love their country half as much as they hate Democrats in general and Hillary Clinton in particular. They would sooner see America ruined than muddle along, if not prosper, under Clinton. Why do I say that? It’s because Trump’s presence would defile an office in which almost every occupant has tried to project the senses of dignity and responsibility that are so grossly lacking in that vulgar, thuggish, bombastic, bullying, fundamentally amoral man. Trump as a successor to George Washington? Abraham Lincoln? Teddy Roosevelt? FDR? George H.W. Bush? It makes one want to vomit. Vladimir Putin likes Trump. The bloodstained boy dictator of North Korea likes him. David Duke, the professed Nazi and Ku Kluxer, likes him. What company you keep, Speaker Ryan. Welcome to the sewer, Governor Scott. Where is your integrity, Mel Sembler? Have you forgotten the Holocaust? The foreign dictators relish the prospect of someone so unfit, unprepared, unworthy and amoral defiling the White House. They figure that America would become a laughing stock, an irrelevancy, a faded former power in the hands of such an unfit, unprepared, unworthy person. You have to wonder, though, whether they weigh the risk of such a thin-skinned, irascible bully’s finger on the nuclear button. Trump’s apologists argue that he can’t be compared to Hitler because he has never had a perceptible, consistent ideology and lacks the organized cadres — the Hitler Youth, the brownshirts — who put the muscle and murder into Hitler’s campaigns. But he does have an ideology. It’s his Id, his ego, the persistent, insatiable promotion of himself, his greed. No one could be more dangerous. And he has the brownshirts too, lacking only similar organization. The people harassing Muslims and other foreigners, roughing up protesters at Trump rallies, bedeviling journalists with unspeakably anti-Semitic emails and telephone calls, are their equivalent. And, as in Germany, their vocal and physical violence is provoking the opposition into replying in kind. Two wrongs make no ri0ght. Clinton is far from a perfect candidate but, as intellectually honest conservatives have observed, the country would survive her. That it would survive Trump is far too great a risk for any honest patriot to want to take. ___ Martin Dyckman is a retired associate editor of what is now the Tampa Bay Times. He lives in Asheville, North Carolina.
