This page contains links to recent blogs by Lincoln Mitchell
Posted in: US Politics
A period where there is no pressure from the American president to find a peace deal and where the American president feels no pressure, from himself or others, to deliver peace may, ironically, be precisely the best environment to begin discussions, informally and with no expectations, around what a peace deal might look like.
Americans are fond of citing the founders concerns about tyranny of the majority. However, the system as it is currently constructed not only prevents tyranny of the majority but also simply governance by the majority-or by anybody else.
The most likely outcome of not having a major bipartisan commission to investigate the insurrection while several congressional committees try to pursue some more facts and information about those events is that the insurrection will quickly become just another issue that pushes Americans back into their partisan corners. Democrats will continue to see it as a major event that represented a violent threat to the lives of elected officials, but also to the core functions or our electoral and Democratic processes. However, Republicans will understand the insurrection as something that ultimately was not that big of a deal-a few people in silly costumes that got a little out of hand.
One of the most important debates in American politics today is around the senate filibuster. The filibuster is not in the Constitution, nor is it a law. Rather it is a senate rule that has changed and evolved over time. In its current form it is not so much a real filibuster as it is a requirement for cloture. In layperson’s terms, that means that currently almost any bill requires 60 of the 100 senators to vote to end debate before a vote on the bill can be taken. Practically speaking this means that all it takes to block any legislation is for the minority party to have 41 votes. As the senate has become a more deeply partisan institution, this makes it extremely difficult to pass any legislation.
It is not an exaggeration to say that Joe Biden’s legislative agenda, and, because of the For the People Actthat is currently in front of the senate, the future of American democracy, both depend on abolishing the filibuster. Again, because the filibuster is a senate rule it would only take all fifty Democratic senators, and a tie-breaking vote from Vice-President Kamala Harris, to end the filibuster.
As recently as a year ago, it seemed very unlikely that the filibuster would be significantly altered. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was hesitant to take such a step as were several of the more conservative Democratic senators like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and California’s Dianne Feinstein. This reluctance stemmed from a lingering vision, or perhaps fantasy, of a more cordial senate where there was cooperation across party lines as well as a fear that with no filibuster Democrats would be vulnerable the next time the Republicans controlled both houses of congress and the White House, as the Democrats do now.
In recent weeks, Biden, Feinstein and Manchin have indicated they are open to substantially weakening the filibuster. This may be doable because it is there is a lot of grey area and room for compromise around the filibuster. For example, it might be possible to increase the kinds of legislation that are exempt from the filibuster, as Supreme Court nominations currently are. There is also the possibility of returning to what is now being called the “talking filibuster.” This would require senators seeking to filibuster a bill to remain on the senate floor and talk, rather than simply vote against cloture. It would lead to delays in voting on some bills, but in most cases the vote would still be held.
The most outspoken supporter of the filibuster is probably Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has wielded it expertly in recent months as well as during the first six years of the Obama administration. McConnell understands the value of de facto minority veto in the senate and is clearly terrified of losing that tool. For a Republican Party that has not received a majority of votes in a presidential election since 2004 and whose political base is much older and whiter than the rest of America, this senate veto power means that it is not necessary to compete for more votes or to expand their support. Rather, as long as the Republican Party can hold 41 senate seats, something that is relatively easy, the GOP can stymie progressive legislation.
There is another danger in preserving the filibuster in its current form. The filibuster, if unchanged, will ultimately lead the senate to marginalize itself. The Constitution gives the senate enormous power. It ratifies treaties, confirms the cabinet and federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, and must approve of any legislation before it becomes law. However, if the senate continues to be the choke point in the legislative system where the angry white minority that is the engine of the Republican Party is able to stop any legislation, that power will begin, or more accurately, continue, to wither.
The US system of government has always oddly flexible. If one structure stops working, others will take its place. A dysfunctional senate will mean more governance through executive orders and federal agencies-in other words a stronger presidency. In a democracy, it is best when elected officials discuss and vote on legislation, but when that cannot happen, much of governance falls to unelected bureaucrats and judges. That trend, which is already occurring in the US, will continue to accelerate if the filibuster remains. Additionally, a federal government that cannot pass laws will lead to states and local governments doing more. The impact of that will depend on the state. States like California already have much more progressive laws, policies, budgets and regulations than the national government, while others like Alabama or South Dakota are more conservative than Washington.
In the last several years the notion of abolishing the filibuster has migrated from an obscure idea to an important part of the progressive agenda. The filibuster is now more precarious than at any time in decades. The stakes could not be higher. The senate can either remain a hostage to antiquated rules with their roots in efforts to defend white supremacy or it can once again be an important part of the project of American democracy, but it cannot be both.
Photo: cc/ Sebastian Vital
Today the idea of America as the indispensable, or more charitably, essential, nation is badly frayed. In some respects, the last four years gave the rest of the world, whether friend or foe of the US, a glimpse of what a world without American leadership might look like. No country paid closer attention to that than China, because it is clear by now that if American leadership continues to wane, China is the country that will fill that void.
We will never know how many people Americans died because other Americans couldn’t, or wouldn’t, be bothered to care even a little bit about other people, but the number is probably quite substantial. In addition, it is apparent that the people who refused to wear masks and ignored social distancing protocols not only directly contributed to the deaths of Americans but were free riders who took advantage of an America that was safer because of the sacrifices of others.
Biden’s Foreign Policy Priorities
For most of his career as vice-president and as a member of the US Senate, Joe Biden appeared more interested in foreign policy that domestic politics. That foreign policy expertise and reputation likely played a role in Barack Obama’s decision to make Biden his running mate in 2008. Had Biden become president at another time, or in another political and public health environment, he might have brought that emphasis to the presidency, but that is not possible now. Six weeks or so into Biden’s presidency, it is apparent that he is, wisely and appropriately, spending more of his time and political energy on domestic issues. Biden has not ignored foreign affair as he has sought to persuade America’s allies that the US has moved past the Trump era, had a series of calls with world leaders and recently sanctioned Russia for their treatment of Alexei Navalny. However, it is apparent that Biden’s emphasis remains on domestic policy, primarily his $1.9 trillion Covid-19 recovery bill and getting more Americans vaccinated from the pandemic.
At first glance, this emphasis on domestic policy, which stems from both the numerous domestic crises in the US that include the pandemic, the economic problems precipitated by the pandemic, income inequality, the January 6th insurrection, racial tensions, and from an American population that, due to these multiple crises, is less interested in seeing American involvement in every corner of the globe, may seem like an obstacle for the new President’s foreign policy goals. However, there is another angle for Biden that might make this reality a strategic asset.
The need for Biden to focus on domestic problems give him an odd kind of leverage in the realm of foreign policy. Biden will be able to focus on only a relatively small handful of foreign policy goals, issues and crises. In other words, a more limited presidential involvement will force Biden to set foreign policy priorities. The de facto position of the US is often that everything is a priority, but if everything is a priority then nothing is a priority, and if nothing is a priority then foreign policy is purely reactive.
It is already apparent what some of Biden’s priorities will be. We know that climate change will be a top domestic and foreign policy priority for this administration. Bilateral relationships with both China and Russia are complex and hugely important for the US, so Biden will place some emphasis there. However, the remaining priorities are less clear. For example, the President has already indicated that the Middle East is unlikely to be a top priority.
These limitations may be an asset because they allow the US both to remove itself somewhat from foreign policy challengs in distant countries that may be a of secondary or peripheral importance to the US, while at the same time making Biden’s presence, when he chooses to become personally involved, even more significant. This will not upset the day to day functioning of foreign policy because US foreign policy institutions, particularly now that Biden has returned those bodies to competent leadership, can function well without direct presidential involvement.
Domestic political considerations are part of this framework as well. Back in late 2015 when Donald Trump’s campaign for the White House was just beginning, one of the substantive policy issues where he differed from the majority of the leadership of his party was on the question of how involved the US should be with the rest of the world. Trump’s vision was much more isolationist. This later became his America First policy, a phrase that some may remember was used by the Nazi sympathizers and anti-Semites like Charles Lindbergh who wanted the US to stay out of World War II. This fundamental difference on foreign policy between Trump and the rest of the Republican Party contributed to his winning the nomination. Bernie Sanders’ strong support in both 2016 and 2020 was also, in part, due to his foreign policy views, which were significantly less interventionist than most of the leadership of the Democratic Party. It is clear there is a growing appetite for a reduced US role in the world, but the Covid crisis may have made it, at least for now, something of a necessity.
Biden, a longtime member in good standing of the strongly interventionist foreign policy establishment, was always going to confront the challenge of crafting foreign policy for a country whose population is increasingly looking inward. The multiple domestic policy crises make that a necessity now, but also give Biden an opportunity to do it thoughtfully. If Biden responds to the current dynamic by trying to return to the kind of expansive foreign policy that has characterized most of the last 75 years, but that began to change under the previous administration, he will be fighting an uphill and almost pointless battle. However, crafting an approach to foreign policy that recognizes the reality of America’s challenges and interests while reflecting the needs and priorities of the American people would be very positive way to reframe American foreign policy. This will not be easy, but Joe Biden is uniquely positioned to do it.
Photo: cc/U.S. Secretary of Defense
The recent CPAC convention was the world’s first glimpse of the post-Donald Trump Republican Party and that glimpse made it clear the Republican Party is not post-Trump at all. Donald Trump’s speech on Sunday, which in tone, style and duration was very similar to one of his campaign rallies, capped off a weekend where it was made clear that fealty to Donald Trump, and the alternate reality that he created, is still the price of admission into today’s Republican Party.
The absence of a consensus that the events in question merit an investigation into the insurrection of January 6th are an obstacle to the process, but to let it preclude any commission or investigation would be to grant a victory to those who seek to minimize the insurrection. Accordingly, finding a nonpartisan way to probe the role of a former president who is still extremely popular in his own party is the essential conundrum facing the Speaker; and her success in this endeavor is important for anybody who believes that we need to learn more about the insurrection and why it occurred.
Faced with overwhelming evidence that Donald Trump incited, encouraged and seemingly enjoyed the violent insurrection at the Capitol on January 6th, 43 of the 50 Republican senators voted to acquit the former president, making it clear that they did not think what Trump did was worthy of impeachment. There are only two reasons why those 43 senators voted to acquit Trump; either they were afraid of a primary from a Trump-backed opponent or they are true believers in what can perhaps best be described as the cult of Trump.
This coming acquittal, born of strong partisanship, combined with a president who, while in office, displayed no interest in democratic norms, fair elections and lawful conduct, has ripped a hole in the theory and structure of the Constitution. In short, we can either acquit Donald Trump or we can continue to have a Constitutional system that checks presidential power and protects our freedoms, but we cannot do both.
False equivalencies are like oxygen to the alternate realities, fealty to Donald Trump and affinity for angry conspiracy theories that now define the Republican Party.
The poisoning of Navalny and the demonstrations around Russia that followed have begun to become an important tension in US-Russia relations. The new Secretary of State Antony Blinken, has condemned the Russian mistreatment of demonstrators and journalists involved in those demonstrations in a tone that suggests the Biden administration, unlike its predecessor, will not be letting the Kremlin call the shots when it comes to US policy on Russia.
he Republican Party facilitated Trump’s rise, enabled and supported his efforts to undermine American democracy and were overwhelmingly silent in the face of his crimes against the Constitution and the American people. If Trump wants to take the Republicans for yet another ride, one that will end earlier and uglier than the first one, it should not be the responsibility of the Democrats to prevent that.
The ceremony, including the evening video, was very well done and even moving at times. It was also a reminder of the potency of American soft power when it is in the right hands. Outside of the US, those who like America and see it as an ally or potential ally saw a country that was diverse, strong, sober and aspiring to deeply admirable values-in short the kind of country you want on your side. For those who see America as a rival or enemy, the inauguration was a reminder that America has the ability to move past the democratic rollback of the Trump era and still has enormous human and other resources.
The view that the Republican Party is about to tear itself apart trying to wrestle with the legacy of the Trump administration is another case of the American political class wanting to believe the crisis is less acute than it really is. If we convince ourselves that Trumpism is on its way out, we can also convince ourselves that American democracy is still strong. This is intellectually lazy and politically dangerous. As partisan and ugly as it sounds, Trumpism is the Republican Party. There is no way to purge the latter of the former. Rather, they both need to be summarily defeated.
From long before the first vote in the 2020 election was cast, it was apparent that Donald Trump was not going to leave office peacefully. The violence in Washington Wednesday is the direct result of Trump’s rants, threats, fantastical thinking and angry dishonest Tweets, not just since the election, but since he became a public figure. The people who stormed the capitol did so with more than a nod and a wink, more like a cheer and a thumbs up, not just from the president, but from his enablers-every single one of them, even those who in the last few weeks have sought to distance themselves from Trump.
As the Covid-19 pandemic now enters its second year, it is useful to assess its global impact. As of New Year’s Day, roughly 1.8 million people around the world had died of Covid-19. However, the death toll from Covid-19 only tells a small part of the story because had people around the world not radically changed their behavior, that number would have been much, perhaps exponentially, higher. Thus, theimpact of the Covid-19 on things like economic activity, mental health, years of education lost and the like are major parts of the toll of this pandemic.
The election was a clear victory for the Democrats, but while the electoral college made Biden’s victory seem bigger than it was, the senate map and the way many states are gerrymandered, benefited the Republicans. This is significant, because it points to the intuitive conclusion that voters responded to this campaign by hardening their partisan positions and, in the huge majority of cases, voting a straight party ticket.
Over the last few years, it has become increasingly apparent that the three biggest threats to American security, and that of most countries, are climate change, cyberattacks and disease.