Parenthetical Politics

(Political Ramblings from a Little Left of Center)

The 2020 Democratic Field

Posted on by admin

Depending on how you count, it looks like there’s going to be between 18 and 25 Democratic candidates for President in 2020.  We’re gonna need a bigger boat.

Commenting on the large field, a Republican-leaning friend sent me a link to this article:  Why are 2020 Democrats so weird?

Funny.  But true enough.

When the first candidate announcements came out, it did strike me that some of them were a bit strange.  I chalked that up to the odd ducks just needing the early press.  Unfortunately, as the list of candidates grew, things didn’t dramatically improve.  The field isn’t without considerable substance but it’s not an abundance of riches, either.  Where is the academic intellectual giant or the brilliant military mind or the popular business executive or the impressively theatrical orator?  So, okay.  Maybe the field is a little weird.

Of course, given the Republican opponent, weirdness is a matter of scale.  No Democrat will ever out-weird Donald Trump.

More importantly, though:  Does it really matter?  This won’t come a huge shock to anyone who reads my blog, but it’s worth repeating…

I simply don’t care if the Democratic candidate is weird or boringly ordinary.  I don’t care if the candidate is young or old, male or female, tall or short, gay or straight, black or brown or white or green.  While I have some strong policy preferences, absolutely nothing is a litmus test for my support and my vote.  I don’t care if the candidate is as dull as a spoon or, to paraphrase Lina Lamont, “a shimmering, glowing star in the political firmament.”

My sole concern is that whoever wins the Democratic nomination must be able to successfully execute a campaign strategy to win 270 Electoral votes in the general election.

In my perfect world, each candidate would need to declare a state-by-state strategy for winning the Electoral College.  Many would have a tough time defending their ability to win all of the states on their lists.  A candidate without control of the math necessary to win the general election is just a waste of oxygen.  And a lot of oxygen is going to be wasted.

Many candidates in the Democratic herd will be able to rack up huge polling numbers in states where anyone not named Trump could win in the general election.  Some candidates will be favored to win the Democratic primary in states where no Democrat could possibly win in the general election.  These states don’t matter.  They. Don’t. Matter.

Even people that know better sometimes miss the point.  FiveThirtyEight keeps track of what they call the “Endorsement Primary” which puts point values on the endorsements that candidates receive from “prominent members” of the Democratic party.  While it might be a clever way of determining who has the best intra-party buzz, it includes no weighting for endorsements in swing-states.  While Cory Booker currently “leads” this FiveThirtyEight construct, he has zero endorsements from anyone in a swing state.  Conversely, while FiveThirtyEight puts Amy Klobuchar in third place, every one of her endorsements comes from a swing state.  As the campaigns progress, and more endorsements are forthcoming, I might have to create my own version of this that includes only swing-state endorsements weighted by the associated Electoral vote count.

For Democrats to win, they’re going to have to recognize that swing-state performance in the general election is the only thing worth considering.  At the moment, unfortunately, it doesn’t even seem to be part of the conversation.  That must change.  The outcome is too important.  Our nation cannot survive another four years of Donald Trump.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be 92 at the end of Trump’s second term.  The oldest Supreme Court Justice to-date was the 90-year-old Oliver Wendell Holmes.  Just sayin’.

I’ve already weighed in on the Democratic Electoral Strategies that I believe have the best shot at winning and I don’t yet have any reason to change those opinions.  The point is that a Democratic win is still well within reach given the correct candidate.

So what candidate(s) can successfully execute one of the winning strategies?  I don’t know yet.  In the coming months, some candidates will run better campaigns than others; some candidates will break out of the pack via some random event; some candidates will do better than others in the debates; some candidates will seriously self-destruct; some candidates will allow the media to build them up and then destroy them.  And, most unfortunately, some potentially good candidates will be successfully marginalized by other, weaker candidates.

In the end, though, it’s a numbers game that screams for meaningful data analytics.  Such analytics require discrete polling data in each of the 18 swing-states.  And, again, it’s a bit too early.

While nationwide polls are abundant, they are actually less than useful.  Not only is overall popularity meaningless given the rules of the Electoral College, some of these polls are being used to push political narratives that simply don’t reflect reality.  My biggest worry is still that progressive activists in very Democratic states will nominate someone who has been forced so far to the left that they will be unable to win in enough swing-states.

The swing-state polls that do exist may not be particularly useful, either.  Without a specific Democratic candidate, current polls are forced to pit a generic Democrat against Trump.  In such polls, the generic candidate benefits from being “Not Trump” without having to deal with any candidate-specific baggage.  Thus, these polls will artificially favor the generic Democrat.  There will also be an issue of accuracy even once the field shrinks enough to allow match-up polls.  Sampling voters in a single state is considerably harder than conducting a national poll.  Given those difficulties, there might not be enough publicly-available state polls to mathematically eliminate the outliers.

I’ll keep looking, though, and will share whatever I gather.  In the meantime, I sincerely hope that someone in the DNC’s new DDEx with access to a lot more data is being paid to do this level of analysis.

But, then, I also sincerely hope that I win the lottery.  Weird, huh?

The Mueller Findings

Posted on by admin

Mueller is finished.  Cool.  So now what?

While I never thought Mueller would indict Trump himself for collusion, I’ll admit that I really wanted to see Trump’s sons indicted.  It’d be fascinating to read the details of the report in that regard – particularly since the public information alone concerning the Trump Tower meeting would seem to meet the legal standard for collusion.  Unfortunately, I suspect that level of detail will never be made available to the public.

In retrospect, however, there is one very good argument to be made for not indicting Don Jr. or Eric.  Frankly, neither of them are nearly bright enough to have substantially colluded with anyone to do any real damage.  They may have been unwittingly courted and used by Russian actors but, sadly, being stupid isn’t itself a crime.

Mueller’s decision to punt on any obstruction of justice charges is the thing that I find most odd.  Again, there would seem to be more than enough proof of obstruction in just the public record.  While I’m loathe to agree with Rudy Giuliani about anything, I actually do in this one case.  Mueller’s decision not to make a prosecutorial call one way or the other in regards to obstruction certainly looks like a major cop-out – and Mueller doesn’t seem at all prone to timidity.

Certainly, the reason given for the Attorney General’s subsequent decision to forego any obstruction indictments is ludicrous.  Obstruction crimes are completely independent of any underlying crime and a lack of indictments after an investigation doesn’t make impeding that investigation okay.  If the AG didn’t want to issue indictments, he should have been smart enough not to use a legal rationale that even I can dismantle.

The full report would shed light in numerous arenas and no politically curated summary will ever be sufficient.  I do hope someone will decide that the country’s interests would be best served by the release of the full report – regardless of the content.  I’m just not holding my breath.

In the meantime, after constantly backing Mueller’s integrity and independence, Democrats have no choice now but to accept the outcome.  And they should.  They should demand the full report, but accept the findings reported to-date.  In addition to charging multiple people in Trump’s orbit with serious Russia-related crimes, Mueller did find a ton of evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election (which had been denied by Trump).  Mueller did considerable good in any case.

Politically, though, Trump scored a huge win with the released summary.  Other large shoes might well drop, but there’s no denying that Trump got a significant boost from what we know thus far.  In fact, had the GOP handled things with just a bit of finesse, it could have been really bad for Democrats.  But, well, we’re talking Trump & Company.  Finesse isn’t a strong suit.

Rather than simply basking in the victory by claiming that the process worked and that Trump was cleared of the collusion he’d denied all along, Trump and the GOP went on the offensive on multiple fronts.  They’re going after any Democrat that backed the process, they’re threatening to open investigations about the investigations, they’re claiming Mueller colluded with Obama (for some strange reason), and – most surprisingly of all – they’re trying to completely change the narrative.

Rather than keep the focus on the report’s findings, Trump has shifted attention to the issue of healthcare and his very unpopular desire to eliminate coverage for pre-existing conditions.  His administration followed that by nominating someone widely believed to be unqualified to the Federal Reserve Board simply because the guy thinks Trump walks on water.  And then Betsy DeVos announced that the administration wants to eliminate funding for the Special Olympics.

Thanks, DT!!

Now the Democrats just have to be smart enough to let the narrative change.  But, again, I’m not holding my breath.

A 2020 Platform – Healthcare

Posted on by admin

The healthcare strategy in the Trump Administration’s recent 2020 budget proposal is a huge gift to Democrats.  Unfortunately, Democrats don’t appear eager to unwrap it.

The Trump proposal cuts Medicare by $800 billion and Medicaid by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.  That includes a cut of $100 billion to nursing homes and home health agencies that care for Medicare patients after a hospital stay.  in 2020, the National Cancer Institute gets cut by $900 million; other medical research gets cut by $1 billion more.  Wow.

Knowing that Trump campaigned in 2016 on a promise not to touch Medicare and Medicaid, his folks are currently on all the talk shows claiming that those budget numbers do indeed increase year-to-year.  While that’s technically true from a raw numbers perspective, when a budget doesn’t account for inflation or the growth of the covered population, it’s a cut.

Seemingly surprised when people notice that fact, Trump officials then randomly claim that massive savings will be realized by reducing fraud and waste (which will require more enforcement that will eat up much of the savings), reducing payments to providers (which will reduce the number and quality of providers), moving accountability to the states (which will only pass the buck on budget shortfalls), and/or anything else they can think of that might distract anyone paying even cursory attention.

The budget also endorses renewed efforts to repeal what’s left of the Affordable Care Act, despite the fact that the repeal effort failed back when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.  Trump, however, still wants to blame ObamaCare for everything wrong with the world when, in practice, the ACA is now mostly just a guarantee of coverage for pre-existing conditions.  A repeal at this point would only mean that some people couldn’t even get expensive health insurance when 3/4 of the voting population favors requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.

[ Here’s a thought experiment:  What do you think would happen if Congress put a repeal-and-replace bill on Trump’s desk that was EXACTLY the features of ObamaCare but renamed to TrumpCare?  Does anyone believe Trump wouldn’t claim it was a brilliant idea and sign it without hesitation?  Yeah.  I’m fine with that.  Obama would be fine with it, too. ]

The Trump budget is DOA in Congress, but the GOP is now stuck with either defending it or running afoul of Trump & Company.  Piss off Trump and put a giant target on your right side.  Piss off the AARP and write off the voters who are the most likely to actually vote.  Heh.

You’d think that Democrats could ride this to an easy win in 2020.  You’d be wrong.

Many Democrats seem enamored with some version of Medicare-For-All – essentially a move to a single-payer system either gradually or immediately.  The former is well-intentioned and may someday be a decent idea but, since 2/3 of the country doesn’t yet support it, it’s simply not worth the political capital to push it too hard in 2020.  The latter is just a horrible idea all around as it would quickly kill a trillion-dollar U.S. industry with devastating economic impacts.  And, oh yeah:  a comprehensive Medicare-For-All could cost in the neighborhood of $32 trillion over the next 10 years.  Yikes.

And yet, Progressives are quite vocally claiming that anyone on the left who dares to question Medicare-For-All is in bed with the healthcare industry.  And, okay, that may well account for some small portion of the opposition.  However, some of us would simply prefer to pursue policies that (a) have a chance to become law rather than rally chants and that (b) increase the chances of a Democratic win of the White House in 2020.  Most of us don’t impugn progressive motives no matter how ill-informed and naïve we may consider their positions.  We’d appreciate the same respect.  Thanks.  And have a nice day.

From my perspective, there’s plenty of sane, left-of-center ground that I’d love to see some Democratic presidential candidate(s) loudly claim.  A 2020 Platform for healthcare might include some of the following ideas:

ACA Protection:  Protect what’s left of the ACA.  Guarantee reasonably-priced insurance coverage for everyone, including people with pre-existing conditions.

ACA Expansion:  Improve and strengthen the ACA.  For example, reinstate the mandate that all individuals carry health insurance OR sign a binding agreement to forego ANY government-funded medical assistance.  Such an agreement would be clearly noted on all drivers licenses and other government-issued IDs.  This isn’t just about giving insurance companies a broad customer pool in order to reduce their coverage costs – although that’s a great side benefit.  Frankly, I don’t want to pay for anyone’s emergency medical care just because they decided they didn’t want to pay for health insurance.  Someone doesn’t like the individual mandate?  Call their bluff.  See if they’ll state a willingness to die if they’re in car wreck without health insurance or the ability to pay up-front.  If so, cool.  Their call.

Medicare Protection:  Medicare is a contract our country currently has with over 60 million Americans.  We also have a ton of baby-boomers who are quickly approaching eligibility and the contract must apply to them as well.  Healthcare for seniors must to be sacrosanct.  It’s good policy; it’s good politics; it’s the right thing to do.  Win; Win; Win.

Medicare Improvement:  Allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug costs.  It’s insane that this isn’t already allowed.  The Empowering Medicare Seniors to Negotiate Drug Prices Act of 2019 is currently making its way through Congress.  Despite opposition from the pharmaceutical industry, this bipartisan bill needs to pass.  Now.

Medicare Expansion:  Allow people between the ages of 55 and 64 to optionally buy into Medicare at some reasonable cost.  The program is already there, it works, and it could use the cash influx from a healthier population than it currently serves.  It also removes a portion of the older population from the ACA marketplace thus helping to keep costs under control there as well.

Prepare for the Future:  Recognize that some version of a single-payer system might be a valid long-term goal.  Do the research.  Hold hearings.  Determine how to pay for it.  Get buy-in from the major players.  Convince the public.  And THEN introduce legislation.

Improve Healthcare:  Recognize the difference between healthcare and health insurance.  Most of the above is a discussion of health insurance – despite the fact that we all call it healthcare.  The interesting part of the semantic distinction is that government could have immediate impact enabling true healthCARE reform.  Screwing with just the insurance market is like focusing on optimizing a 911 service but forgetting that someone has to respond to the call.  Here’s just a few arenas where the government could help improve healthcare through education, regulations, and/or tax incentives:

  • Require healthcare providers to empower patients with more information.  Data is good.  It’s better all around to have fully informed patients who are heavily involved in the purpose and cost-effectiveness of their own care.  This includes readable care plans, cost transparency, bill simplification, and an easy means of evaluating alternatives.  For example, the cost of a simple colonoscopy can vary by 600% from one location to another.  There’s no reason why value shopping can’t apply to healthcare if consumers have easy access to the information.  Consider an Amazon for healthcare.
  • Encourage the creation and usage of low-cost healthcare alternatives.  Competition is good.  Mergers are currently rampant in the healthcare industry and many doctors are choosing to associate with hospitals rather than remain in private practice.  When there’s only one store in town, there’s only one price.  While there’s definitely a role for the personal physician who knows the patient and can customize care when needed, there’s also a role for a doc-in-a-box that can simply prescribe a Z-Pack for a minor infection.  Even within a doctor’s office, task shifting from doctors to nurse practitioners can dramatically reduce costs for some care needs.  Consider a Southwest Airlines for healthcare.
  • Encourage portable, consumer-owned health records enabling consumers to manage their own healthcare rather than simply outsource it to physicians.  Require providers to share all care data with consumers in common formats so that they can, in turn, share it with other providers as they see fit.
  • Encourage technology-based healthcare solutions ranging from digital therapeutics to e-health.  Technology can reduce costs while improving care.  Regulatory barriers need to fall; tax incentives should be considered.
  • Promote competition in the pharmaceutical industry.  Reduce barriers for the development of generic and biosimilar products and expedite their approval.
  • Increase funding of medical research.  There are major national health issues that require funding beyond what the market can reasonably afford.  In the long term, a healthier populace is the best way to reduce healthcare expenditures.  Cancer, Alzheimer’s, and HIV come to mind as deserving of government attention.  Of course, such funding needs to come with conditions that prevent pharmaceutical companies from claiming excessive profits when the underlying research is publicly funded.

My healthcare bottom lines for 2020 Democrats:  Be compassionate.  Be creative.  Don’t be stupid.

The Iowa Caucuses

Posted on by admin

As the 2020 Democratic Presidential candidate field solidifies, the nation begins to focus on… Iowa?

Since 1972, Iowa has been the first state in the nation to weigh in on the selection of Presidential candidates for both the Democratic and Republican parties.  While someone obviously needs to go first, Iowa is a remarkably lousy choice.

Rather than holding a primary election, several states use presidential preference caucuses.  Iowa is unfortunately one of them.  While the state’s caucus rules and processes for 2020 are still being tweaked, here’s the basic timeline and structure:

Starting even before the 2018 mid-term elections, potential 2020 Democratic candidates for President flocked to Iowa.  At first, the candidates mostly visited party leaders and influencers, with the candidates paying their respects, requesting campaign assistance, and seeking endorsements from the Iowa Powers-That-Be.  Consider the opening scene of The Godfather and you’re got the idea.

Now, the 2020 candidates are beginning to court Iowa voters – voters who have grown so self-important that they demand early and continuous personal attention from everyone.  The potential nominees, trailed by teams of eager reporters, will proceed to canvas the state where they will suck up to very small groups of Iowa voters in barns, cafes, drug stores, VFW halls, bowling alleys, and any other quaint venue they can find.  They will extol the virtues of old-school, hand-shaking, baby-kissing political campaigns as they trek from living rooms to town square gazebos.  They will take the obligatory photo from at least one of the Pizza Ranch locations across the state.  They will most definitely attend the Iowa State Fair this August where they will be impressed by the butter cow, judge the tallest corn stalk, and try to correctly eat something on a stick that doesn’t belong on a stick.

During the 2016 primary season, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders combined for a total of 50 separate trips to Iowa and spent a total of 96 days in the state.  The platoon of 2020 Democratic candidates will put those numbers to shame.  The intense retail politics that Iowans expect will consume an inordinate amount of resources and time from all of the campaigns.  That’s just the way it is.

To finally make their choices, Iowans will gather in one of the 1,681 precinct locations to which they’ve been assigned at 7:00 PM on February 3, 2020.  There, they will listen to speeches, wander around, argue among themselves, and vote twice – with the first vote eliminating candidates that don’t meet a predefined percentage threshold.  Each individual precinct will have been tasked with selecting a given number of party convention delegates based on its population and each will eventually determine their delegate(s) based on the percentage of caucus votes that each candidate receives.

And that’s the short version.

Iowans claims that the above combination of retail politics and caucus voting structure represents true democracy in action.

No.  It does not.

The caucus system itself favors voters that have the schedule flexibility, physical stamina, and personal inclination to spend hours in a loud, crowded room on one specific date and time, endure boring speeches and pushy neighbors, and eventually cast votes.  If someone was designing a system to discourage participation in an election, this might be it.

The Iowa instance of this system is mostly a huge national gift to Iowa.  While the Iowa hotel, restaurant, and rental car industries certainly thrive from all of the candidate visits and media attention, Iowa is not exactly a microcosm of America.

41% of Iowans live in rural areas as opposed to 19% nationwide.  Ethanol subsides suddenly become a critical policy position for the candidates when there might be just one or two other issues of greater national importance.  Iowa is also 91% Caucasian.  While there are a few states with an even whiter population and Obama did win Iowa twice, the fact remains that the U.S. population is only 76% Caucasian.

We are already seeing Iowa polls for 2020.  A recent one puts Biden and Sanders even at 27% each with everyone else polling under 10%.  Interesting?  Not really.  Biden hasn’t even announced yet and the Iowa caucuses are still 11 months away.

But isn’t Iowa a swing state, you ask?  Yes, it is.  And Iowa’s eight Electoral votes could come in handy for Democrats.  There’s just one small problem.  Ignoring all incumbent Presidents seeking a second term (since that’s a different game), there have been nine competitive Democratic presidential preference caucuses in Iowa since 1972.  Five of the Iowa winners went on to win the Democratic nomination, including all of the last four.  While that’s a decent track record of predicting the Democratic nominee, exactly one of the Iowa winners in the past half-century has gone on to win the general election (Barack Obama).  On the other hand, two of the Iowa losers went on to win the general election (Jimmy Carter & Bill Clinton).  The Iowa caucuses could thus be deemed counter-predictive of a Presidential victory.  Dandy.

Is the Iowa process charming?  Sure.  With Iowans acting as proxies for the rest of America, the candidates’ performances in intimate settings are useful data points as the electorate gets to know the players.

Is the Iowa process a good means of kick-starting the selection of a winning candidate?   No.  The Iowa caucuses and the preceding circus are expensive, non-representative, counter-predictive anachronisms.  We’re unfortunately stuck with them for 2020.  But perhaps this time we can take the Iowa results with a grain of salt… or at least with a kernel of corn.

Beto

Posted on by admin

Beto O’Rourke announced today that he’s running for President.

Look.  I live in Texas.  I like the guy.  I contributed multiple times to his Senate campaign against Ted Cruz.  I certainly voted for him.  He came closer to winning than anyone initially expected.  He generated a ton of excitement in Texas and nationally.  He functioned as the de-facto top of the ticket in Texas helping to drive some minimal Democratic gains in a very red state.  He’s young, energetic, charismatic, a phenomenal fundraiser, and a natural politician.

But he lost.  He lost against one of the few politicians in the country that just might be even more unpopular than Donald Trump.  Yes, this is Texas and the fact that he ran a close race here against an incumbent Republican Senator is very impressive.  He came closer to winning than any Texas Democrat in the last 40 years.  But he lost.  To Ted Cruz.

If he couldn’t win against Cruz in Texas, his chances of winning nationally against Trump just aren’t good.  He served three terms as the congressman from a reliably Democratic district with a population of about 750,000.  Before that, the full extent of his political experience was serving six years on the El Paso City Council.  He’s just not ready for a national campaign.  Sure, the media loves him now.  Let’s see how long that lasts.

If O’Rourke had decided to run in 2020 against John Cornyn for the other Senate seat in Texas, he’d have had my enthusiastic support.

But as the Democratic nominee for President?  Not yet.  Not this cycle.

While he does have a long shot at winning the nomination given his popularity, I see no path to victory in the Electoral College.  He can’t reasonably execute any sane 2020 Electoral Strategy to get 270 votes.  While he could possibly define his own set of target states, it’d be tough to imagine a custom strategy that didn’t include his home state of Texas.  And he lost in Texas just last year.  To Ted Cruz.

If O’Rourke does somehow win the Democratic nomination, I’d definitely contribute to his general election campaign.  I’d most certainly vote for him over Trump.  If we want to win the Presidency, however, this likely isn’t our guy.  Could he come close?  Maybe.  But just like in the Texas Senate race, close doesn’t count.

Data Matters II

Posted on by admin

A quick follow-up to my Data Matters post:  Progress has been made but the jury is still out.

Last month, the DNC approved the creation of the Democratic Data Exchange (DDEx), a legally separate entity that looks a whole lot like the RNC’s successful data trust.  They also named Howard Dean to chair the effort.  Dean, a former DNC chair who is well-respected by state parties, seems to be an inspired choice to allay fears on both sides.  This is all good news.

The devil, as always, will be in the details – and there’s little to no public information about the underlying mechanics and capabilities of the DDEx.  Two random commentaries I’ve seen do concern me, though.

First, the agreement apparently allows state parties to withhold “certain data” which they can independently sell to campaigns.  While I understand the economics from a state party’s perspective, this could be a huge loophole.  If state parties decide to withhold a ton of their data, the DDEx will be useless.

Second, beyond a DNC press release saying that “campaigns will … become the beneficiaries of cutting-edge investments in voter-contact strategies,” there’s no public definition of what the DDEx will do with the data they gather.  If the DNC sees the DDEx as a shared digital Rolodex, they’ve entirely missed the point.  I would certainly hope that the DNC just doesn’t want to show their hand.  However, given that their historic approach to data is uninspiring at best, I’d really prefer to see a card or two.

Standardized augmentation of voter data is likely something best done in the shared repository.  A massive amount of raw data can be gathered about individuals by mining numerous online government databases, social networks, online media, dating apps, etc.  Additional commercial data can be purchased from numerous vendors.  That raw data can be run through numerous algorithms (e.g. an AI-based psychometric analysis) to build a remarkably accurate (and downright creepy) voter profile.  These profiles can be used for direct voter outreach and can be aggregated to build national, state, district, and neighborhood profiles.  In turn, these multi-level profiles can be fed into shared analytics to inform a campaign’s fund-raising strategies, advertising content and buys, state/district/voter targeting, campaign prioritization, inter-campaign coordination, etc.

None of this is easy, implementation time is short, and the DNC/DDEx hasn’t yet released anything that implies they’ve started searches for technical talent nor built a game plan beyond a press release.  I guess I just have to hope that Dean is on top of it.

While the 2020 elections won’t be won entirely with data analytics, they can certainly be lost without them.

A 2020 Platform – Gun Rights

Posted on by admin

This should be interesting.  My personal positions here are likely to piss off just about everyone on both the left AND the right.  So be it.  I’m choosing this as my first 2020 Platform post mostly since there’s been some recent Congressional activity in this arena.

I’ll start with a statement that might be just a tad presumptuous from someone whose entire legal education consists of two semesters of business law:  I contend that the Supreme Court’s 2008 DC vs. Heller opinion was wrongly decided.  In essence, that 5-4 decision ignored precedents and declared that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to possess a firearm, completely disjoint from service in a militia.  As Justice John Paul Stevens much more eloquently stated in his dissent, that’s just crap.

The Second Amendment reads, in full:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Constitutional right to bear arms is unrelated to a militia?  It’s the introductory clause of the single sentence in the Amendment!  If the clauses are independent, the Amendment could well have read:

A future set of Supreme Court justices, being complete idiots, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Also, given that the most lethal firearm in 1787 was the musket, it is preposterous to assume that the Founding Fathers intended any interpretation of the Second Amendment to extend to today’s automatic weapons.  The Heller majority generally claimed to be strict constructionists.  So much for the consistent application of a judicial philosophy.

Thus, from my perspective, the Second Amendment simply does not apply to this conversation.

That said, …

I also see nothing in the Constitution that explicitly disallows individual gun ownership.  The libertarian in me sees little reason for the federal government to tell Americans that they can’t own something that they want to own.  I may not personally understand why someone needs an AK-47 unless they’re vacationing in Afghanistan, but okay.  As long as I’m not at risk, I really don’t give a damn.  AS LONG AS I’M NOT AT RISK.  I’ll respect others’ rights only as long as they don’t impact my rights.

Some on the left want very strict federal gun control.  They are wrong.  They argue that other countries with strict laws don’t have the mass shootings that we have in the U.S.  That is quite unfortunately correct.  However, while extolling “the price of freedom” sounds trite and hollow in the aftermath of tragedies, there is truth in the argument that individual freedoms have always been paramount in the American implementation of democracy.  Those on the left need to remember this fact even when the exercise of such freedom doesn’t support their worldview.

Some on the right want no gun controls whatsoever.  They are wrong.  There are no “slippery slopes.”  Does setting speed limits lead to the suppression of car ownership?  Of course not.  Defining reasonable limitations on personal liberties for the public good is indeed the whole job of government.  Those on the right need to remember the valid purposes of government even when the exercise of such a purpose doesn’t support their worldview.

The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 recently passed the House.  The legislation closes a glaring loophole by merely mandating that background checks be performed for all gun sales.  Under current law, a background check is already required for anyone purchasing a gun from a licensed gun dealer.  However, private gun sales and sales made at gun shows require no checks at all.  That’s just stupid.  This bill corrects the problem while exempting transfers between close relatives and the temporary loan of a firearm.

How could any reasonable person object to this sane adjustment to existing laws?  We require background checks on healthcare workers, lawyers, and public school teachers.  Shouldn’t the purchase of a lethal weapon require a similar validation, regardless of the source?

Sadly, despite the name, the House vote on the bill was largely along party lines (240 to 190) and Senate passage is doubtful at best.  The NRA is powerful enough to make this yet another example of why we can’t have nice things.

The federal government should rightfully own the laws related to reasonable background checks, waiting periods, and registration requirements where interstate coordination is obviously required.

Beyond that, however, most gun rights and limitations should largely be defined at the state and local level as appropriate for their communities.  This isn’t a Constitutional issue; it’s a legislative issue.

I am most definitely not personally in favor of the ridiculously broad concealed and open carry laws in my home state of Texas.  I can reluctantly accept that someone wants to own an AK-47 after passing a background check; I’m not thrilled that someone can legally brandish that weapon in front of a Chuck-E-Cheese.  I’m not thrilled that someone can legally bring a gun into a classroom at the University of Texas despite the fact that the University’s administration, faculty, and students object.  However, this is a Texas problem.  The federal government has no role here and our asinine Texas laws should have no impact on how citizens of other states want to deal with their guns.

I firmly believe that the public good can be served via some limited forms of legislated gun restrictions with all levels of government playing a role.  I’d personally like to see the level of that control tied to the destructive force of the weapon with the specifics left to state and local governments.  However, there is simply no rational reason why there is even a debate about universal background checks.

A 2020 Platform

Posted on by admin

I railed on the progressive agenda in a previous post so I thought I’d start to share “my” policy agenda for others to ridicule.

Don’t worry.  It’s not going to all be in one post.  Rather, I’ll try to devote occasional entries to one particular platform topic.

Disclaimers:  I do not have all the answers – nor any answers, for that matter.  I just have some thoughts and a few ideas, none of which are fully-formed legislative solutions.  I don’t expect anyone to agree with me on everything and I’d love to hear thoughtful contrarian ideas.  If the ideas are less than thoughtful, I reserve the right to mock them.

Given my self-described slightly-left-of-center preferences, I will contend that my positions could form the rough basis for a winning platform for Democrats executing one of the preferred 2020 Electoral Strategies.  Your mileage may vary.

Here’s my work-in-progress topic list, in no particular order and likely missing some important ones:

  • The Economy
  • Health Care
  • National Security
  • Foreign Policy
  • Immigration
  • Gun Rights
  • Reproductive Rights
  • Civil Rights
  • Marijuana Legalization
  • Transportation Infrastructure
  • Education
  • Retirement Security
  • Climate Change
  • Science & Technology
  • Government Reform

 Wow.  This could take a while…

The Progressive Agenda

Posted on by admin

This is getting out of hand.  The progressive movement is quickly becoming an albatross around the necks of Democrats in 2020.  Democrats most definitely do not need a far-left version of the right’s Freedom Caucus.

Don’t get me wrong.  It seems that many (not all) of those on the far left truly believe in their positions while many (not all) on the far right seem to be just political opportunists.  Yeah, yeah.  I’m obviously biased.  But if anyone truly thinks that a majority of far-right “Christian” politicians have actually read the Bible, I have a bridge I want to sell you.

As every Democratic politician in the country throws their hat in the 2020 ring, it seems that many of them are constantly trying to outflank their opponents from the left.  This has led to a flood of proposals that are radical by any sane standard.  Here’s just a sampling of “progressive” ideas that have been proposed in recent weeks:

  • Immediately implement a single-payer health insurance program
  • Eliminate the Senate filibuster
  • Provide universal child care
  • Tax the super-rich at a rate of 70%
  • Require the U.S. to be 100% carbon-free in 10 years

I could go on.  And each could be a separate blog topic if I felt these ideas deserved the attention.  They don’t.  A quick move to a single-payer system would effectively kill an industry with annual revenues just south of one trillion dollars; eliminating the filibuster would ensure that whichever party happens to be in power can completely ignore the minority and reshape American democracy entirely at their own discretion; etc.

There’s actually some decent ideas buried in these proposals, but they are largely lost in a morass of nonsense.  The more the Democratic Presidential candidates pander to the ultra-progressive crowd, the more ammunition they give Republicans.  The GOP has effectively ceded all middle ground; Trump has seen to that.  To win the White House, Democrats just need to hold their own turf AND give folks in the middle a reason to either vote for them or at least stay home.  The progressive agenda is anathema to that goal and it simply cannot be a litmus test for a Democratic Presidential candidate.  The stakes are way too high.

The enthusiasm of progressives is undeniable and their voices need to be heard.  The problem is their approach.  If they are serious about their objectives, they should initially concentrate on taking control of Congress — and even that path decreases Democrat’s chances of gaining legislative seats that could prove useful in limiting Republican damage.  However, progressives must at least understand that without Congressional backing of their agenda, an extremely progressive President – unelectable in the first place – would be largely useless if he/she somehow managed to actually win.

Most elections are decided in the center of the political spectrum.  Leaning to the left is more than okay and is quite reasonably expected; falling off the left side is insane.  There is much that Democrats need to restore in America after the Trump-led devastation.  There is likewise much progress to be made in the center on issues that enjoy massive popular support.  My vote?  Let’s do that.

The West Wing Weekly

Posted on by admin

Just giving a shout-out to an excellent podcast:  The West Wing Weekly.

For those of you who pine for the return of President Josiah Bartlet, this may be the next best thing.  (For those of you who don’t know who Jed Bartlet is, I have no clue why you’re reading my blog.)

Each weekly podcast episode is (mostly) a discussion of one episode of The West Wing – an award-winning political drama series from a couple of decades ago.  The podcast covers the episode itself, the behind-the-scenes production, and the real-world issues being addressed.  It’s a fascinating mix of politics and television as told through the series narratives of a phenomenal show.  I’ve been amazed how often both the show and the podcast are reflective of current events – from government shutdowns to Supreme Court confirmations to presidential pardons.

The two hosts are Hrishikesh Hirway and Joshua Malina.  Hrishi is a very knowledgeable fan of The West Wing and Josh played Will Bailey on the final four seasons of the show. The podcast runs sequentially through the TV series and brings on numerous cast members, guest stars, writers, directors, and other people associated with the show.  It also interviews guests who have lived the show’s issues in real life and people from politics and the arts whose lives were influenced by The West Wing.

The podcast is nostalgic without being fawning, enlightening without being pedantic, and fun without being silly (well, most of the time).  With all seven seasons of The West Wing available on Netflix, the podcast provides a great way to revisit the show from new perspectives.  The TV series itself more than stands up; it is still one of the very best television shows of all time.

While the podcast is already into Season Six, all of the previous episodes are still available.  I personally came across it well after it began and I spent some considerable time catching up.  I’ve found it to be a wonderful drive-time listen.  I skipped around quite a bit myself but that may have only worked since I was already very familiar with the story arcs of The West Wing.  Just see what works for you.

With over 130 podcast episodes to-date, there is no shortage of material.  Here’s a few episodes (okay, more than a few) that I’d suggest to-date of both the podcast and the show:

  • 1.01: Pilot
  • 1.03: A Proportional Response (with Dulé Hill)
  • 1.10: In Excelsis Deo (with Richard Schiff)
  • 1.15: Celestial Navigation (with Jay Carney)
  • 2.0A: Special Interim Session (with Aaron Sorkin)
  • 2.01: In the Shadow of Two Gunmen (with Thomas Schlamme, Bradley Whitford, and Michael O’Neill)
  • 2.04: In This White House (with Emily Procter and Ambassador Deborah Birx)
  • 2.10: Noël (with Bradley Whitford and Ellen Totleben)
  • 2.18: 17 People (with Richard Schiff, Emily Procter, Rebecca Walker, and more)
  • 2.21: 18th and Potomac (with Oliver Platt)
  • 2.22.1: Two Cathedrals (Part I, with Lawrence O’Donnell and Mary Graham)
  • 2.22.2: Two Cathedrals (Part II, with Aaron Sorkin and Kirsten Nelson)
  • 3.08: The Women of Qumar (with Allison Janney, Fmr UN Ambassador Sarah Mendelson, and Tim Ballard)
  • 3.09: Bartlet For America (with John Spencer)
  • 3.15: Dead Irish Writers (with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau)
  • 3.22: Posse Comitatus (Live with Aaron Sorkin, Allison Janney, and Melissa Fitzgerald)
  • 4.0A: President Bartlet Special (with Martin Sheen)
  • 4.06: Game On (with Rob Lowe, Bradley Whitford, and Joshua Malina)
  • 4.0B: Hamilton Special (with Lin-Manuel Miranda and Thomas Kail)
  • 4.20: Evidence of Things Not Seen (Live with Richard Schiff and Marlee Matlin)
  • 5.12: Slow News Day (with Eli Attie and Nancy Altman)
  • 6.02: The Birnam Wood (with Fmr. Ambassador Jacob Walles)
  • 6.07: A Change Is Gonna Come (Live with Mary McCormack and Roman Mars)
  • 6.08: In the Room (with Penn & Teller)

Enjoy!