Tag Archives: Jennifer Rubin

Memorial Day

Monday was Memorial Day. In my city of Indianapolis, Memorial Day concludes a “big deal” weekend that features the City’s famous 500 Mile Race and numerous attendant festivities. The original meaning of the holiday tends to get buried in the weekend’s hustle and bustle, as thousands of visitors descend on the city to drink, eat and watch the race.

I hope that–in the midst of the festivities–at least some of us stop to remember that Memorial Day is intended to honor those who have lost their lives serving in the U.S. Military.

In The Contrarian, Jennifer Rubin recently issued that reminder. Memorial Day was intended to “memorialize” the sacrifices of the American soldiers who fought to preserve democracy around the globe. Writing from Spain, where she is traveling, she noted that but for America’s military and financial sacrifices, the world we inhabit today would look very different. If not for the young men and women who were ready to lay down their lives for others, Europe today would not be free.

It’s an appropriate time, as Donald Trump and his MAGA know-nothings throw aside American values (e.g., empathy, selflessness, ingenuity, inclusion), to appreciate the sacrifice of all those who have served. In the midst of debates about Medicaid cuts, debt, and tax cuts for billionaires, we should not lose track of honoring our veterans, whom Trump has nonchalantly kicked to the curb…

While he cuts billions from the Veterans Affairs Department and lays off tens of thousands of vets, Trump wants to throw away tens of millions on a cringeworthy military parade on his birthday, which also happens to be the US Army’s 250th birthday and Flag Day. Rather than honor others’ service by keeping our commitments, he preens amid military pomp like every two-bit dictator on the planet.

Trump cares not one wit about those who, unlike him, risked their lives. Quite the opposite: he has made life notably challenging for vets. Thanks to some masterful Washington Post reporting on the trauma he intentionally inflicted on tens of thousands of government workers, we have learned about the inexcusable toll on veterans in particular, who disproportionately serve in the federal government. Sadly, “Phone operators for the Veterans Crisis Line said they’d seen a rise in calls from federal employees and others worried about cuts to the VA.”

Given that Trump considers those who serve to be “losers and suckers,” it’s hardly surprising that concern for veterans is nowhere on his “to do” list. And the damage isn’t limited to the reckless and illegal DOGE cuts. As Rubin notes, almost every part of the horrific MAGA budget will hit vets especially hard. From the federal personnel firings (vets make up 30% of the federal workforce) to the draconian cuts to Medicaid and VA spending, to the layoffs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, to the petty purge of the Pentagon archives that documented diversity in the military, veterans have been disproportionate targets of Trump’s cruelest actions. 

That cruelty has prompted the emergence of veterans’ organizations challenging the administration and the MAGA Republicans who are complicit–even enthusiastic–in the Trumpian assault. Vote Vets has proved to be a particularly effective voice for the nation’s veterans, but there are many others.

One wonders how those lawmakers who actually served–Senator Todd Young comes to mind–rationalize their support for the constant assault on veterans’ well-being. During the Memorial Day recess (ending June 2), constituents should ask them.

As Rubin concludes,

Veterans and their families have remained undaunted in military service and in the face of grotesque betrayal by the MAGA ingrates. They deserve better than this president, his cronies, and MAGA flunkies have offered. During their Memorial Day recess, Republican lawmakers who have enabled Trump’s cruelty should take a moment to reflect on what it truly means to put country above self.

Unfortunately, putting country above self is a concept absolutely foreign to MAGA and to the racist madman who occupies–and routinely desecrates–the Oval Office.

Comments

The Merits Of Federalism

I have always been ambivalent about American federalism. I know that many in the legal community, including Supreme Court Justices who came after him, agreed with Justice Brandeis that federalism encourages the states to be “laboratories of democracy,” but I also know that many states–including the one I inhabit–use “states’ rights” as their defense against compliance with national rules, especially– but certainly not exclusively–the extension of civil liberties to their own citizens.

The election of Donald Trump, however, has made me a federalism fan.

In a recent opinion piece, Jennifer Rubin focused on the possibilities for resistance that our federalist system provides to Blue state governors in the face of Trump’s assault on rational federal governance.

The positive news: Governors are constitutionally empowered and morally obligated to check the federal government and fill the gaps where the federal government has abandoned vulnerable people. They will be the last line of defense against an irresponsible and reckless Trump administration.

Fortunately, an extraordinary batch of Democratic governors including Tim Walz of Minnesota, JB Pritzker of Illinois, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Wes Moore of Maryland, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Maura Healey of Massachusetts appear ready to both protect their residents from a reckless administration and offer an alternative vision that benefits average Americans.

Keith Ellison, the attorney general of Minnesota, told the New York Times, “States in our system have a lot of power — we’re entrusted with protecting people, and we’re going to do it.” He added, “They can expect that we’re going to show up every single time when they try to run over the American people.”

What can states do to counter what Rubin calls Trump’s “grab bag of crackpots?” His bizarre choice of RNK, Jr., who has declared war on medicine, is joined by his pick for secretary of defense, a man who doesn’t appear to believe in germs, and a nominee to head up Medicare who championed the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, (Her column appeared before the CEO of the Wide World of Wrestling was chosen to head up the Department of Education.)

In the face of growing evidence that Trump intends to decimate the federal government, what can governors do? According to Rubin, plenty. With respect to health issues,

they can stockpile vaccines and abortion medications, offer medical school students from red states a transfer to their schools, loosen rules for telemedicine, ease requirements to license doctors accredited elsewhere, reiterate vaccine requirements for schoolchildren (and fund free vaccine programs for vulnerable communities), expand their own health departments and pool resources to fund medical research. In short, they can develop an alternative model of responsible health-care governance.

Governors’ actions can go well beyond healthcare. If Trump’s government tries to enforce his promises to roll back overtime and worker safety rules, governors can enforce state laws protecting workers. They can defend the environment by bringing a steady stream of litigation to protect air, water and natural resources. (Rubin notes that Democracy Forward, a legal group formed after Trump’s 2016 win, has built a “multimillion-dollar war chest and marshaled more than 800 lawyers to press a full-throated legal response across a wide range of issues.”)

On other fronts, they can sue to enforce consumer protection rules or challenge coercive action depriving states of federal funds. (States filed roughly 160 suits against the first Trump administration.) Bob Ferguson, Washington’s Democratic attorney general and governor-elect, recently said that, according to Associated Press, “offices of Democratic attorneys general have been in touch for months to talk about how to push back against Trump’s policies.” They also can maintain strict gun safety regulations, bring suits against gun manufacturers and fund research on gun violence….

To promote democracy, they can offer enhanced civics education, public media literacy programs and public service requirements for high school and college graduates. And, as leading legal minds have been arguing for some time, they can creatively expand multistate compacts on everything from “social services delivery; child placement; education policy; emergency and disaster assistance; corrections, law enforcement, and supervision; professional licensing; water allocation; land use planning; environmental protection and natural resources management; and transportation and urban infrastructure management.” A new entity, Governors Safeguarding Democracy, may be just the vehicle to facilitate this activity.

Finally, Rubin notes that governors can counter the right-wing media ecosphere by highlighting the damage caused by anti-family, anti-child and anti-life MAGA policies.

Rather obviously, Red state governors won’t take such measures, so the resistance won’t be uniform. But it will be instructive. And it will offer Americans options– places to relocate to if and when their own state’s compliance with the wrecking crew becomes too onerous.

Comments

Which End Is The Deep End?

What does it mean to call a political figure “conservative” or “liberal” today? Our political communication has been (accurately) described as a “fire hose” of propaganda and misinformation, and in that chaos, the original meaning of much terminology has been lost. MAGA Trumpers are anything but conservative. (Just ask some of the genuinely conservative “Never Trumpers,” who will explain the significant differences between conservative beliefs and fascism.)

Liberalism used to mean embrace of the political positions first articulated in the Enlightenment–beginning with what has been called the libertarian principle requiring government to respect the rights of individuals–among them, the rights to speak freely, worship or not as they choose, and go about their business without official interference unless government has probable cause to think a (legitimate) law has been violated. Over time, it came to include issues of fundamental social fairness.

Efforts to denigrate the “liberal” label may have begun earlier, but they really gained steam when the late, un-lamented Rush Limbaugh used it as a term of opprobrium, along with his own constructs like “feminazi.”

The debasement of language has certainly had an effect on America’s political discourse. These days, terms like liberal and conservative are more often used as insults than efforts to communicate a point of view. But a column detailing a recent exchange on CNN with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz points to a possible way out of the linguistic morass. Walz responded to what was intended as an attack on his “liberalism” by putting new meat on the bone of that phrase.

Told that he’d been labeled “too liberal,” Walz responded

What a monster. Kids are eating and having full bellies, so they can go learn, and women are making their own health-care decisions. And we’re a top five business state, and we also rank in the top three of happiness.

Look, they’re going to label whatever they’re going to label. He’s going to roll it out, mispronounce names to try and make the case. The fact of the matter is, where you see the policies that Vice President Harris was a part of making, Democratic governors across the country executed those policies, and quality of life is higher, the economies are better, all of those things.

Educational attainment is better. So, yes, my kids are going to eat here, and you’re going to have a chance to go to college, and you’re going to have an opportunity to live where we’re working on reducing carbon emissions. Oh, and, by the way, you’re going to have personal incomes that are higher, and you’re going to have health insurance.
So, if that’s where they want to label me, I’m more than happy to take the label.

Walz took the opportunity to redefine liberalism as the delivery of things Americans want. As the linked article notes, at least 75 percent of Americans favor: green energy subsidies for the cost of equipment to produce clean energy; requiring police officers to intervene when another officer is using excessive force; establishment of a national database or registry of police misconduct; responding to 911 calls related to mental health issues with mental health professionals rather than police officers; taxing capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income for those making more than $1 million; adopting a 4 percent surtax on income above $5 million; adopting a 1 percent surtax on corporate income above $100 million; and making wages over $400,000 subject to the payroll tax; keeping the Affordable Care Act; allowing Americans over the age of 55 to purchase Medicare; increasing SNAP benefits; expanding the earned income tax credit and raising the minimum wage.

That same 75% also agree that DACA recipients deserve full legal status and a path to citizenship, that visas for skilled workers should be increased, and that the U.S. should hire more personnel to speed up processing asylum claims. They also want to reaffirm our commitment to NATO.

Sizable majorities also want to protect abortion and gay rights, and ban assault weapons.

The liberalism of Walz and Kamala Harris are reflections of that widespread public consensus–not, as MAGA Republicans assert, evidence that liberals have gone “off the deep end.”

Today’s liberals continue to support the “libertarian principle” that individual rights and civil liberties must be protected from government interference. But they also recognize government’s important role in providing an economic and physical infrastructure within which individuals can flourish. Government’s role has always been to prevent the strong from preying on the weak (the problem with that “state of nature” Hobbes wrote about). That role extends beyond protecting citizens’ physical safety–it includes guarding against misuses of economic power and includes measures to mitigate economic hardship.

If that’s the “deep end,” I plan to swim in it.

Comments

An Excellent Reminder

A recent column by one of my “go to” pundits, Jennifer Rubin, reminded me once again why political communication is so difficult. Terms like “liberal” and “progressive” have been redefined by ideologues to facilitate their use as labels, rather than as explanatory terms. Perhaps the saddest example is misuse of the word “conservative,” which the media continues to apply to MAGA politicians, despite the fact that they embrace positions and arguments that are far–far–from traditional conservatism.

Rubin has tackled yet another term that is widely misunderstood: centrism. As she writes,

Centrism isn’t a mushy tendency to compromise. It isn’t a brain-dead fondness for style over substance. Above all, it is not to be confused with “moderation” — the futile and frankly foolish attempt to carve out a space halfway between the extremes of MAGA authoritarianism on the right and rabid nihilism from the left.

If climate change is a fact, to take one example, then splitting the difference with climate deniers is nonsensical. And if the MAGA movement assaults truth, then telling half of the truth or telling the truth half the time isn’t centrism. It’s absurdism, and a sure path to meaninglessness and nihilism.

Centrism, rather, is a mind-set. It’s more than humility, tolerance and restraint, although all of those are necessary elements. Above all, it’s an approach to governance, and not a list of specific policy prescriptions. It can be bold, pragmatic and popular.

Rubin defines centrism as a willingness to admit that all wisdom does not reside on one side of the political or ideological  spectrum. It “recognizes that capitalism and regulation, individual merit and social justice, and diversity and cohesion not only can coexist but must operate in tandem within a healthy, balanced society. Centrism, in short, stands for the proposition that ideological tensions are best resolved when we incorporate elements from conflicting perspectives.”

The essay proceeds to show how Biden’s immensely successful Presidency has benefitted from a (properly understood) centrist approach to undeniably progressive goals, and how centrism (again, properly understood) has won elections around the globe. As Rubin reminds us, centrism rejects Manichaeism, and respects coequal branches of government. As she also observes, ideologically extreme courts that abandon that measured, centrist approach lose legitimacy. (Someone should tell John Roberts…)

As she concludes:

We can attribute democracy’s woes around the world to failure to spread economic prosperity, demographic change and the decline of civics education, as well as religious fundamentalism, information bubbles and globalism. Some combination of these factors inevitably leads to support for strongmen who vow to fix intractable problems that “messy” democracy cannot solve. But we are looking in the wrong places for our answers.

We can address all those challenges provided the spirit of centrism prevails. Centrism can accommodate diversity, secure democratic norms, and preserve a credible and independent judiciary, all essential and foundational to liberal democracy.

I agree with all of the points Rubin makes, especially her definition of centrism. But that definition prompts another observation. Centrism–understood as Rubin defines it–looks an awful lot like another quality in short supply in our political class: maturity.

Mature individuals are reflective. They exhibit self-awareness. They embrace civility. Maturity includes the ability to consider all sides of a debate, the ability to embrace persuasive elements from different perspectives. If there is any evidence that any segment of the MAGA movement is mature, I’ve missed it.

It isn’t simply the childish and increasingly nasty response to Kamala Harris’ candidacy. Trump’s entire vocabulary (which apparently stopped expanding in third grade) is that of a playground bully. He doesn’t try to communicate–he merely spews insults. (He is guilty of many things, but civility is certainly not one of them.) His MAGA supporters happily emulate his crude and childish behavior. The trolls that occasionally post here underscore that observation–they simply insult, evidently unable to make anything remotely like rational arguments for considered positions.

Rational arguments. Considered positions. Those are markers for Rubin’s “centrism” and for what I define as maturity–and far too many of our contemporary political figures lack both. The GOP is currently the party of Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Green, and it would be hard to find more immature, unreflective (or more embarrassingly ignorant) standard-bearers.

I applaud Rubin’s effort at actual communication, but that effort fails to take into account the fact that today’s MAGA Republicans aren’t just incapable of actual communication, but disinterested in it. They remind me most of monkeys in the zoo throwing feces.

We need to start electing people who display a modicum of self-awareness, and are actually interested in communicating and governing. That apparently excludes MAGA.

Comments

Let’s Talk Specifics

One thing most Americans can agree upon is that this year’s election is abnormal.

We have a presidential contest featuring a convicted felon– supported by a fact-averse cult–who routinely lies, threatens violence, and violates long-established political norms. (I would add that–although we’ve had some unfortunate political actors in our history–we’ve never previously faced a presidential campaign by someone so obviously, seriously mentally ill.)

Perhaps as a result of that novelty, the traditional press consistently fails to convey the actual stakes of the upcoming election–and those stakes are monumental. Handwringing pundits have complained about that failure, but very few have made specific recommendations for change. For that matter, grousing without suggesting what actions might be helpful characterizes most conversations about the upcoming election. 

What should the media do? What should each concerned citizen do?

Jennifer Rubin recently answered that question for the media. She began with a statement of the obvious:

The United States has never had an election in which: a felon runs for president on a major party ticket; a presidential candidate lays out a detailed plan for authoritarian rule; an entire party gaslights the public (e.g., claiming the president was behind their candidate’s state prosecution; pretending they won the last election); and, prominent leaders of one party signal they will not accept an adverse outcome in the next election. Yet, the coverage of the 2024 campaign is remarkably anodyne, if not oblivious, to the unprecedented nature of this election and its implications.

Rather than indulging an obsession with meaningless early polling, Rubin says, show a minute or two of unedited video of Trump’s rambling, incoherent and deranged rants. Rather than “fact checking” the nonsense blizzard, focus on the unprecedented nature of his rhetoric. Illustrate the deterioration in his thinking and speech. Quote experts discussing “how an obviously irrational and unhinged leader casts a spell over his devoted following.”

 

Rubin says the media should refuse to entertain “laughable MAGA spin,” such as claims that Trump’s conviction will help him win the election. (Those polls they love to cite rebut that premise.) Real journalists would debunk other MAGA lies, including the frequent ones about crowd size. 

 

Reporters should stop giving spineless Republican officials a free pass when they parrot Trump’s obvious falsehoods. Interviewers should be prepared to challenge and debunk them.

 

You can read the rest of her litany at the link, but the call for specificity also applies to each of us. After all, fulminations on this blog–including mine– are not actions. Sharing memes and “liking” posts on social media aren’t actions.

 

Other than the obvious–casting our votes and donating to underfunded candidates–what specific activities are available to those of us who understand the gravity of the threat posed by MAGA? 

 

Let me suggest three:

  • If everyone who recognizes that threat, everyone who agrees that voting Blue up and down the ballot is essential, would find just one rational person who has not previously voted– or who has not voted regularly–and would take it upon herself to ensure that person is registered and casts a ballot, we would assure a Blue tsunami. (Women who have previously skipped elections ought to be prime candidates this year, given the GOP’s unremitting attacks on abortion and birth control.)
  • When you come across examples of news media engaging in the behaviors Rubin has described, write and complain. If the offending outlet gets enough complaints, especially if those complaints come from subscribers, they’ll notice. They may defend their coverage, but they’re likely to be more careful.
  • If you are on social media, post accurate, credible information about the actual state of the economy, real numbers about criminal activity, and other facts that rebut widespread misinformation–with links to official sources, if possible. You needn’t get into online arguments (if someone has posted that the stock market is down, or unemployment is up, all you need to do is post an article from, say, the Wall Street Journal or other business publication reporting the fact that the market has hit an all-time high and employment is the highest in fifty years.) The people posting misinformation on Facebook or Tiktok or wherever aren’t people who read the New York Times or Washington Post–or, here in Indiana, the Indianapolis Business Journal. At the very least, you’ll be ensuring that they see something other than Rightwing media misinformation. 

If you have the time and can join an activist organization, that would be great, but if large numbers of people just did these three things, it would change the dynamic of America’s upcoming election.

This is our (much safer) beach at Normandy. Storm it.

Comments