Mike Braun – Sheila Kennedy

The Stakes

It may not be 2024 yet, but here in Indiana, Republican candidates for governor have already been blanketing the airwaves with introductory campaign spots. Someone named Doden tells viewers that he will be a champion of small town and rural “values,” identifies himself as the “grandson of a minister” and shows himself exiting a church; Mike Braun, who is leaving the U.S. Senate (where he failed to distinguish himself, to put it mildly) says he’ll “stop China” and make Hoosiers safe (safe from China?? He doesn’t identify the threat from which he’ll protect us, or explain why stopping China is the job of a governor.) Brad Chambers, who identifies as an “outsider,” also focuses on antagonism to China.

All of them–as well as the GOP gubernatorial contenders who aren’t on TV– are making a play for the GOP’s MAGA base and tying themselves tightly to Trump. (So is the likely GOP Senate candidate, odious culture warrior Jim Banks.)

Heather Cox Richardson, as usual, has described in detail just what that fidelity means. These Republican candidates, and those in other states who are lining up with Trump, are explicitly endorsing the agenda that Trump himself has been articulating.

The once-grand Republican Party has been captured by the right wing. It has lined up behind former president Donald Trump and his cronies, who have vowed to replace the nonpartisan civil service with loyalists and to weaponize the Department of Justice and the military against those they perceive as enemies. They have promised to incarcerate and deport millions of immigrants and children of immigrants, send federal troops into Democratic cities, ban Muslims, silence LGBTQ+ Americans, prosecute journalists, and end abortion across the country. They will put in place an autocracy in which a powerful leader and his chosen loyalists make the rules under which the rest of us must live.

Will we permit the destruction of American democracy on our watch?

I’ve now forgotten who said “When someone tells you who they are, believe them,” but I want to strenuously echo that sentiment.

Trump has been very clear about the kind of government he wants to install. Let me be equally clear about the sort of government I want.

I want a civil service filled with people whose loyalty is to the Constitution and Bill of Rights–not to any individual politician or any political party. I want a legal system dedicated to the pursuit of justice and constrained by the rule of law, a system populated with dispassionate, fair-minded lawyers who would refuse to engage in a frivolous pursuit of anyone’s political enemies. I definitely don’t want a military willing to intrude into issues of civilian governance, or a military that throws its (armed) power behind a particular politician or political party.

I am absolutely furious about the bigotry that prompted the Muslim ban that the Trumpers want to reinstate, the racism that clearly motivates the animus toward immigration and immigrants, and the homophobia that permeates Trumper rhetoric.

And don’t get me started on the anti-woman motivations behind GOP efforts to ban abortion. (If they prevail, the most rabid culture warriors have already indicated their intent to come for birth control next. And I thought the Handmaid’s Tale was “out there” science fiction!!)

Republicans running for office in Indiana who have tied themselves to Donald Trump–and that’s most of them–have explicitly and enthusiastically signed onto the agenda that Richardson has accurately outlined. Those like Banks and Braun, who proudly point to Trump’s endorsement of their candidacies, are telling voters exactly who they are and what sort of world-view will animate their activities if and when they are elected.

Even in very Red Indiana, data confirms that there are more people who want to retain democracy and our individual liberties than people who want to dismantle democracy and curtail our rights. The only question is: will they vote?

It has never been more important to Get Out The Vote.

Comments

Leadership Versus Pandering

Let me begin with a disclosure: Michael Leppert–whose recent blog post I will be echoing/quoting–is a personal friend. I have friends with whom I disagree from time to time, but thus far, I’ve found myself in agreement with Mike about pretty much everything–at least, everything political. (The joys of golf, not so much…)

If you don’t subscribe to his blog, you probably should.

Mike’s recent essay, reprinted in the Capital Chronicle, made a point pundits all too often fail to emphasize: the positions candidates take during their campaigns for public office tell us a lot about how they are likely to perform if they are successful.

I’ve made this poiint, albeit not as explicitly, by noting that candidates’ stances on reproductive liberty tell us a great deal about their willingness to use the power of government to impose their preferred beliefs on individuals who don’t share those beliefs. (Or, in the alternative, their willingness to impose the beliefs of the base to which they are pandering.) That’s why I take such positions into account even when the office for which the person is running is unlikely to have any say in the issue–it’s an important insight into the world-view of that candidate.

Of course, there are situations that do call for the exercise of state authority over private behavior. An obvious one is public health, and Leppert’s essay focuses on recent pronouncements by our odious U.S. Senator, Mike Braun, who is vacating that office because he now wants to be Indiana’s governor.

Last week, U.S. Sen. Mike Braun announced that he has co-authored the “Freedom to Breathe Act.” The federal legislation will ban the federal government’s ability to implement mask mandates for domestic air travel, public transit systems and schools.

Casey Smith reported for he Indiana Capital Chronicle last week on the bill Braun authored with three other Senate Republican colleagues. He first said in his Wednesday statement, “We’re not going to go back to the top-down government overreach we saw during COVID.”

Now, here’s the difference between Mike Leppert and Sheila Kennedy. When I read something as asinine as this, I just want to beat my head against the nearest wall and scream about logic and respect for science. Mike, to his credit, unpacks it:

This gubernatorial candidate has some kind of issue with “top-down” leadership? Even when he adds “overreach” to his canned statement, he is signaling how he would have led in 2020, or more aptly, how he would have chosen not to lead. Senator, in a crisis, “top-down” leadership is the name of the game. It’s the job for which you are running. And it is unlike filing dead-on-arrival legislation with three other members of congress looking only to “own the libs.”

After explaining what the purposefully mischaracterized studies actually say–that masks have demonstrably worked, but failure to comply with mask mandates caused thousands of unnecessary deaths–Mike writes that

There’s more to Braun’s statement. He added, “Congress needs to say forcefully that these ineffective, unscientific mask mandates are not coming back in any way, shape, or form.” Again, it’s not the masking, it’s the mandates that failed. Newsflash: Americans routinely resist governmental mandates. If there is a negative sociological companion to our culture’s independence, it often is our collective selfishness. Again, it’s not the masking, it’s our refusal to see how the selfless act of wearing one could help someone else.

But the pronouncement that Braun will not support mask mandates “coming back in any way, shape, or form,” telegraphs that if he faces a public health crisis as governor, he simply won’t lead through it.

It’s hard to disagree with the post’s conclusion:

The world learned plenty from COVID-19. The biggest lesson is to expect the unexpected. The next pandemic could be worse. It will likely be different. And Indiana has a contender for the office of governor who doesn’t want government to lead if or when it comes.

Indiana’s governor is already constitutionally weak by comparison to most states. We certainly don’t need a new one who wants to make it weaker.

Of course, let’s be honest. Braun doesn’t want to be a weaker governor–he wants to appeal to the ignorance and anti-science prejudices of the GOP base, in order to win the right to use the power of government selectively–to advance his own agenda.

That said, I have no idea what Braun’s agenda is, since we’ve seen nothing even approaching thoughtfulness or rational policy prescriptions from him during his single Senate term.

Apparently, like so many of today’s politicians, he just wants to be someone important, rather than wanting to do something constructive or useful.

Comments

A Fighting Chance

A damaging consequence of Republican gerrymandering and the creation of “safe” districts has been the behavior of Democrats, who effectively concede many such districts by failing to put up a candidate.

You would think that statewide elections would be different, since they can’t be gerrymandered, but in Red states like Indiana, the Blue statewide candidates have all-too-often appeared to be tokens. I assume that’s because more competitive politicians opt out because they consider the state party too weak and/or the state too Red. Whatever the reason, that lack of competitiveness has facilitated the political rise of some truly substandard Republicans.

This year, the likely candidates for Governor (Mike Braun) and Senator (Jim Banks) are particularly odious. But also this year–for whatever reason–the Democrats are running two absolute stars for those same positions.

I have previously posted my reasons for admiring and supporting Jennifer McCormick for Governor. More recently, Mark Carmichael has announced a run for Senate.

Carmichael– a self-described “old political warhorse” was elected to Indiana’s General Assembly in 1986, after defeating a sitting Speaker of the House. He says he entered the race because, among other things, he has four granddaughters, and because Indiana deserves better than to be represented by someone as “mean-spirited, blindly partisan and out of touch with the majority of Hoosiers as Jim Banks.”

His attacks on innocent LGBTQ children for purely political gain are disgusting and his vote against certifying the Biden election and dishonest rhetoric on FOX News after that election help lead to the riot at the U. S. Capitol on January 6. He should be ashamed.

Carmichael also issued a list of his ten most important positions and goals–all of which I can enthusiastically endorse.

Believes women’s rights are human rights and will work to codify Roe v Wade at a minimum.
Will work for a ban on military style assault weapons—the weapon of choice for the mass murderers of our children and other innocent victims, and will fight for a national red flag law.
Is concerned about the white nationalism and antisemitism growing in our country thanks to extremists’ ugly rhetoric, and by someone who believes racism is still a cancer on the United States.
Wants to leave our planet better than we found it for our children and grandchildren and will take immediate action on global warming.
Will stand up for the LGBTQ youth who are being used as political pawns by mean-spirited, calculating Republicans who needed a new social wedge issue after Roe v Wade was overturned by the Republican Supreme Court majority. These vulnerable children deserve our help, not scorn, and their healthcare decisions should be left up to their families and compassionate, qualified doctors, not political opportunists.
Is committed to confirming fair and impartial federal judges, not like the partisan appointees that have been foisted on us by Mitch McConnell and the Federalist Society. We deserve judges who don’t lie to get confirmed or accept generous gifts and travel from wealthy patrons.
Is committed to no more gratuitous tax cuts for the rich and corporations who use the windfall to buy back and drive up the price of their own stock.
Believes teachers and librarians deserve our help and respect and not the threat of losing their jobs or getting shot. They shouldn’t have to fear being accused of a felony if someone whines about a book or movie that speaks honestly about life as it really is.
Will push for marijuana to be reclassified at the federal level from a Schedule 1 drug to a Schedule 3 or less.
Will work to lower drug costs and bring adequate medical care to all parts of Indiana, and will push for Medicare for all citizens.

In 2024, Indiana citizens will vote to replace an undistinguished and retrograde MAGA Senator (Braun, who is leaving the Senate to run for Governor). We will either replace him with the even more MAGA Jim Banks, or with someone who has actually read the Bill of Rights and has chosen to live in the 21st Century.

McCormick and Carmichael are immeasurably more attractive candidates than the dour and reactionary Rightwing ideologues they will face. More importantly, according to survey research, their positions–on abortion, on guns, on education, on civic equality–are far more representative of those held by a majority of Hoosiers.

I have friends and family members who believe that all it takes to win statewide office in Indiana is an R beside the candidate’s name–that candidates’ intellect, character and positions on issues are irrelevant to the tribal rural voters who dominate state politics.

If we are ever to have a test of that thesis, the upcoming Senate and Gubernatorial races will provide it.

Comments

Fetterman Hits The Ground Running!

Those of us hoping that John Fetterman would win Pennsylvania’s Senate race and defeat the oleaginous “Dr. Oz” should be very pleased with the initial steps Fetterman is taking as he prepares to assume office.

U.S. Senator-elect John Fetterman on Friday announced two key staff hires for his office on Friday, including tapping the author of a book calling for the abolishment of the arcane Senate filibuster to be his next chief of staff.

The Pennsylvania Democrat said in a statement that he has hired Adam Jentleson to oversee his D.C. office as chief of staff and that longtime party operative and labor organizer Joseph Pierce will be his state director.

A veteran of the Senate who served under former Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Jentleson also wrote the 2021 book, Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern State and the Crippling of American Democracy, which examines Senate rules that powerful interests have exploited to obstruct progressive legislation with overwhelming majority support among the American public”

Jentleson has been a strong voice for ending the filibuster, which he insists is necessary to protect American democracy. I couldn’t agree more.

Those who haven’t followed the Senate’s inner workings may not realize that the filibuster in its current iteration bears little or no resemblance to the original rule. Whatever original purpose the filibuster may have served, for many years its use was infrequent. For one thing, it required a Senator to actually make a lengthy speech on the Senate floor.. In its current form, it operates to require government by super-majority–it has become a weapon employed by extremists to hold the country hostage.

A bit of history is instructive.

The original idea of a filibuster was that so long as a senator kept talking, the bill in question couldn’t move forward. Once those opposed to the measure felt they had made their case, or at least exhausted their argument, they would leave the Senate floor and allow a vote. In 1917, when filibustering Senators threatened President Wilson’s ability to respond to a perceived military threat, the Senate adopted a mechanism called cloture, allowing a super-majority vote to end a filibuster.

In 1975, the Senate again changed the rules, making it much, much easier to filibuster.

The new rules allowed other business to be conducted during the time a filibuster is (theoretically) taking place. Senators no longer are required to take to the Senate floor and publicly argue their case. This “virtual” use has increased dramatically as partisan polarization has worsened, and it has effectively abolished the principle of majority rule. It now takes the sixty votes needed for cloture to pass any legislation.

This anti-democratic result isn’t just in direct conflict with the intent of the Founders, it has brought normal government operation to a standstill.

Meanwhile, the lack of any requirement to publicly debate the matter keeps Americans from hearing and evaluating the rationale for opposition to a measure–or even understanding why nothing is getting done.

There is really no principled argument for maintaining the filibuster in its current form. During the campaign, Fetterman repeatedly promised to support efforts to end the filibuster in the Senate, explaining that abolishing it would allow key legislation to pass on gun control, labor protections, abortion rights, and voting access.

Jettleman has also pushed for Democrats to brand Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination as “illegitimate” in order to pave the way for eventually eliminating the filibuster and adding more seats to the court. In 2020, he had an op-ed in the New York Times a few days after Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, in which he argued that– while Democrats did not have the power to block a nomination by then-President Donald Trump–they could and should work to delegitimize it.

I first read about Fetterman when he was the very unorthodox Mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania, and (while I’ll admit to being somewhat puzzled by his choice of clothing) I was impressed. Here was a person who actually wanted to be mayor, wanted to improve his community, unlike the many politicians who clearly view local office solely as a stepping-stone.

Fetterman is evidently bringing that same sensibility to the Senate. His choices of staff are indications that he will focus on the nuts and bolts of actual governance, rather than following the culture war/negative partisanship of Senators like Indiana’s Mike Braun. (Braun is so uninterested in the nuts and bolts of legislating that he has announced he’ll leave the Senate and run for Governor.)

Fetterman joins other Democrats who seem intent upon actually addressing the problems we face. Getting rid of the filibuster would allow them to do so.

Comments

Braun: Another Indiana Embarrassment

As if the election of a truly abysmal legislature, courtesy of gerrymandering , wasn’t bad enough, Indiana’s voters keep giving the state hugely embarrassing statewide officials. I have posted several times about Todd Rokita, Indiana’s widely-despised egomaniac Attorney General; currently, it’s intellectually and morally-challenged Senator Mike Braun who is reflecting negatively on Hoosiers.

The Washington Post was one of several media outlets reporting on Braun’s defense of “state’s rights” during the confirmation hearings for Judge Jackson.

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) said Tuesday that he would be open to the Supreme Court overturning its 1967 ruling that legalized interracial marriage nationwide to allow states to independently decide the issue.

Braun — who made the comments during a conference call in which he discussed the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court — also said he’d welcome the rescinding of several key decisions made by the court in the past 70 years to pass the power to the states.

Heather Cox Richardson had a historically-grounded response to Braun’s assertion that the country would be “better off having states manifest their points of view rather than homogenizing it across the country as Roe v. Wade did.” As Richardson reminds us, the whole point of the 14th Amendment was to “homogenize” the fundamental rights of American citizens.

After World War II, the Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment to protect civil rights in the states, imposing the government’s interest in protecting equality to overrule discriminatory legislation by the states.

Now, Republicans want to return power to the states, where those who are allowed to vote can impose discriminatory laws on minorities.

Richardson points out that it’s impossible to limit an evisceration of the Fourteenth Amendment to a single issue. If states are empowered to award or deny rights as they wish –if they are free of federal restraints on their ability to strip reproductive rights from women, for example–“the entire body of decisions in which the federal government protects civil rights, beginning with the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending segregation in the public schools, is illegitimate.”

Voters need to realize that the GOP’s assault on fundamental rights goes well beyond efforts to overturn Roe. Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn has challenged Griswold v. Connecticut, the decision that legalized contraception, and Texas Senator John Cornyn has attacked Obergefell, the decision recognizing same-sex marriage.

Braun and the other Neanderthals in the GOP would undoubtedly cheer such results. Most Americans, not so much. Richardson points out that they are “quite literally” making the same “states’ rights” argument used to justify enslaving people before the Civil War.”

More recently, it is the argument that made birth control illegal in many states, a restriction that endangered women’s lives and hampered their ability to participate in the workforce as unplanned pregnancies enabled employers to discriminate against them. It is the argument that prohibits abortion and gay marriage; in many states, laws with those restrictions are still on the books and will take effect just as soon as the Supreme Court decisions of Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges are overturned.

Eviscerating the Fourteenth Amendment provision that prohibits states from withholding the “privileges and immunities” of U.S. citizenship from their citizens would invalidate the existing jurisprudence of Equal Protection, a jurisprudence that requires all states to respect the fundamental rights protected by the Bill of Rights–to “homogenize” them.

Richardson points out that Braun’s desired reversal of Loving v. Virginia would criminalize the marriages of both Judge Jackson and Justice Thomas in certain states.

Braun’s willingness to abandon the right of Americans to marry across racial lines was pointed, since Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, whose confirmation hearing for her elevation to the Supreme Court is currently underway in the Senate, is Black and her husband is non-Black. The world Braun described would permit states to declare their 26-year marriage illegal, as it would have been in many states before the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision declared that states could not prohibit interracial marriages. This would also be a problem for sitting justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Ginni.

Braun is today’s version of a mainstream Republican, and Richardson revisits a frequently-quoted paragraph written a decade ago by respected scholars Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein, who concluded

“The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition. When one party moves this far from the mainstream,” they wrote, “it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.”

So we’ve seen–and it has only gotten worse.

These days, as the Jackson hearings are painfully illustrating, Republicans have made both civil discourse and basic, substantive governance virtually impossible.

Comments