Mediaboss Marketing

(Photo by Erik McGregor/LightRocket/Getty Images.)

The past few years have made clear that most of American politicsnot just progressive politicshas become centered around identity and not governance. A recent New York Times piece by Stephanie Muravchik and Jon A. Shields documenting Rep. Liz Cheneys primary loss drives this point home, noting that Republicans are succumbing to the same impulses they associate with their liberal opponents: a shrill hostility to different viewpoints, an obsession with virtue signaling and a willingness to purge their own ranks. So too with the increasing contempt that Republicans and Democrats feel for one another. As Jonathan Rauch memorably put it in National Affairs: We are not seeing a hardening of coherent ideological difference. We are seeing a hardening of incoherent ideological difference. What if, to some significant extent, the increase in partisanship is not really about anything?

This uniquely abstract form of politics likely cannot go on forever, as the Times authors note, because any party that elevates symbolism over governing risks stirring mass revolt down the road. Results matter even in the age of identity politics. But an awful lot of damage can be done in the interim before reality comes crashing down.

Localizing more issues might help concretize our politicsto make it more about real policies than symbols, resentments, and identities. But even if our nationalized status quo doesnt budge an inch, there are reforms to be had at the federal levelparticularly in Congressthat could help make politics more about something again.

One step that could work is to transform the Senate filibuster. Calls from the left to abolish the filibuster outright have become louder and more frequent, and are the result of frustration among progressives that they cant easily push their agenda through Congress. Ending the filibuster altogether has its problems, but if done properly, reforming the filibuster could make it a tool for fostering a politics that is grounded more in issues and less in identities.

Congressional dysfunction breeds popular dysfunction. Although we dont like to admit it, our leaders (particularly those of our own party) shape our perceptions of politics. When they cant work together and do anything meaningful with those on the other side of the aisle, many of us internalize the message: The other side is hopelessly misguided or hateful, and the only path forward is to win at all costs and go it alone.

But a Senate governed by simple majorities could further heighten the stakes of national elections and enhance partisans threat perceptions and fears of one another. Scrapping the filibuster could further divide us.

Maintaining the status quo has considerable drawbacks: If normal legislation can pass the Senate only with a 60-vote supermajority and neither party is willing to compromise when its in the minority, not much gets done except in the event of a crisis or through reconciliation. Politicians make promises, nothing happens, and the people grow frustrated. Most of us sit on the sidelines, leaving only the most zealous left on the political playing field. Its a nasty, self-perpetuating cycle.

Moreover, the actual concrete stakes of politics become rather low. This incentivizes uscitizens and politicians aliketo act like the most irresponsible versions of ourselves in the political realm. Words no longer have consequences. We double down on our identities, symbolism, and vague and overblown rhetoric, raising the temperature of a politics where partisan fights arent exactly about anything concrete anymore.

So, if were concerned about division, scrapping the filibuster doesnt seem like the best idea, but neither does maintaining the status quo. Maybe there is a way out of this morass.

Perhaps clearing the filibusters de facto 60-vote hurdle to pass legislation should be just one of two ways to pass normal legislation through the Senate rather than the only way.

By revising the rules of the filibuster, a piece of legislation could pass through the Senate in either of two ways:

First, legislation could immediately pass with a 60-vote filibuster-proof supermajorityas is the case today. Plenty of legislation, particularly time-sensitive legislation with a broad basis of bipartisan support like the COVID relief bills of 2020 and 2021, already passes under this framework.

Second, if legislation cant attain the 60 votes required to invoke cloture and end debate, it should be able to go through the Senate with a bare majority (50 votes plus a vice presidential tiebreaker, or 51 votes), with a crucial caveat: It would have to pass again the next Congressbefore being sent to the presidents desk.

Under this proposal, the Senate rules would be changed so that a bill destined to fail the 60-vote cloture threshold could instead be put up for a vote to the entire Senate sitting as a committee of the whole. Thus, its passage would not trigger the presentment requirement of Article I Section 7 (if the House has already passed the bill). Then, bills that have passed the Senates committee of the whole via simple majority in the prior Congress would be taken up at the beginning of the new Congress, with a filibuster carveout in effect (i.e., these bills passed by the committee of the whole would be able to make it to a floor vote with just a simple majority). If a bill makes its way through the Senate on round two, it would have to pass through the House again since its a new Congress.

What would this look like in action?

Say the Senate was able to muster 55 votes for a comprehensive immigration reform package. Fifty-five doesnt equal 60, but instead of letting the immigration reform legislation die at the hands of the filibuster, this second option would allow the bill to stay alive within the Senate sitting as a committee of the whole. Then, it would sit in the Senatenot yet triggering the presentment requirement of Article I Section 7until the start of the next Congress. Next, for the bill to become law, the Senate would have to repass the legislation with a bare majority during that next Congress following the election cycle. The bill would then have to pass through the House again and be signed by the president.

The key value-add of this reformed filibuster would be its effect on our political discourse: It would help clarify the stakes of campaigns, thereby nudging us (and our elected leaders) to focus a bit more on the actual pending bill and the policy questions it encompasses.

Making available this second, simple majoritarian but slow-moving route to passing legislation could help make our elections revolve around tangible issuesindeed, actual legislation!once again. Senators and their challengers would campaign on whether they support X bill, which had passed through the Senate committee of the whole. That, in turn, could help turn down the temperature as we inch back toward a more concrete and less symbolic politics. We would be debatingand candidates would be forced to run onactual legislation rather than vague, often unattainable promises or fear-driven, overhyped accusations regarding the other side of the aisle. Then, the American people would have the chance to indirectly voice their opinion on the most relevant pieces of legislation, as they could choose to elect a pending bills supporters or its opponents.

Having this second option available for passing legislation in the Senate could also save us from rash legislation that could fundamentally alter American life with a bare majority because, by design, it would build in a cooling off period. The legislation would have time to percolate through the public square before gaining the force of law. Americans could have time to formulate informed opinions regarding itand frankly, so too could our politicians for a change. In fact, it might even bring more Americans into the political process. While appearing on The Remnant podcast with Jonah Goldberg, Sen. Ben Sasse once stressed how so many centrists have washed their hands of politics; they have ceded the political playing field to the politically addicted extremists. They see a politics full of fringe policy proposals and heated, bad-faith arguments, and they conclude that their time is better spent on alternative pursuits. This amended filibuster proposal stands the chance of pulling some of those centrist types back into the political fray, because it will make the stakes of politics clearer. It will make the (as of now) fairly rational calculation to sit on the political sidelines a bit less rational.

In sum, this revised filibuster rule could advance both democracy (the most legitimate, nonpartisan call to arms of the filibusters detractors) and deliberation (the most legitimate, nonpartisan rallying cry of the filibusters defenders). In addition, it might even help foster a less extremist politics.

The net result of this would be a more democratic, yes, but also a more reasonable legal regime. As founders like James Madison well understood, time and reason go hand-in-hand in day-to-day life as well as in politics. Legislation that takes longer to pass is more likely to be the product of reason than passion. At the same time, Madison was a majoritarian through and through; the minority ought not be empowered to indefinitely block the majoritys (constitutional) will.

By championing this additional option as an alternative to the standard filibuster-proof supermajoritarian path of passing legislation through the Senate, our senators can advance democratic values and lay the groundwork for a more reasonable, less vitriolic, less divisive, and more concrete politics.

This might help bring a much-needed dose of reality back to American politicsbefore its too late.

Thomas Koenig is a student at Harvard Law School, and the author of the Toms Takes newsletter. Follow him on Twitter @thomaskoenig98.

See original here:
ReformingNot Abolishingthe Filibuster Could Improve Our Politics - The Dispatch

Women are threatening to stop having sex with men until abortion rights are restored across America. Will women bring men to their knees and save Roe v Wade?

The Thom Hartmann Program covers diverse topics including immigration reform, government intrusion, privacy, foreign policy, and domestic issues. More people listen to or watch the TH program than any other progressive talk show in the world! Join them. #MorefromThom

The Thom Hartmann Program is on Free Speech TV every weekday from 12-3 pm EST.

Missed an episode? Check out Thom Hartmann Playlist on our Youtube channel or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling and online at freespeech.org

@Thom_Hartmann Abortion Bans Abortion Rights America Roe V. Wade The Thom Hartmann Program Women

Read the original:
Will Women Stop Having Sex To Protest Abortion Bans? - Free Speech TV

On August 18, NPRs Morning Edition ran the results of a poll the outlet conducted with research outfit Ipsos on respondents perceptions of immigration. More than half (53 percent) believe it is either wholly or partially true that there is an invasion occurring at the Southwest border, while support for immigration is falling and a border wall is becoming more popular. That poll also reveals the toll Bidens Border Fiasco is inflicting on Americans support for immigration.

Invasion. That poll was conducted between July 28 and 29, surveying 1,116 U.S. adults. As Ipsos described its findings, most Americans are buying into the idea of invasion at the southern border, itself a form of spin. When was the last time that you heard a polling outfit talk about how many citizens are buying into the idea of a second Biden presidency, for example?

That said, 28 percent of respondents believe that its completely true that an invasion is occurring at the border, including 51 percent of Republicans, 24 percent of independents, and 12 percent of Democrats.

An additional 25 percent of respondents opined that it was somewhat true that there is an invasion at the U.S.-Mexico line. Most troubling for the administration, that includes 29 percent of Democrats, as well as 25 percent of Republicans and 23 percent of independents.

Nineteen percent of respondents dismissed the idea of an invasion as completely false, with Democrats leading the way at 34 percent, independents next at 18 percent, and Republicans at 8 percent. Twenty-seven percent dont know: 36 percent of independents, 25 percent of Democrats, and 16 percent of Republicans.

The midterm congressional elections are less than 90 days away, so this spells trouble for the president and his fellow partisans, and an opportunity for the GOP (if they were willing to seize it).

Immigration is an issue that stirs Republicans to vote, but it will be the undecided independents who will move the needle in tight races, and they are more than twice as likely to view the chaos at the Southwest border as an invasion than not.

Worse, however, Democrats are overall more likely to entertain the idea of a border invasion than to dismiss it out of hand, by a 41 percent to 34 percent margin. That likely doesnt matter much to progressives or casual Democrats in Vermont or Minnesota, but there is a major Senate race in Arizona and incumbent Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) likely doesnt want to be tied to such impressions about his states border with Mexico.

Declining Support for Immigration. That poll also reveals declining support among Americans for immigration. While 56 percent of respondents agreed that immigrants are an important part of our American identity, thats down from May 2021, when 62 percent took that position, and way down from February 2018, when 75 percent agreed.

Similarly, just over half (51 percent) believed that Dreamers aliens brought to the United States as children and here illegally should be given legal status. Thats a drop from 59 percent in July 2020, and from 65 percent in February 2018. That said, it has been static since May 2021, when again 51 percent were in favor of amnesty for Dreamers.

Support for a wall or fence along the Southwest border is also growing, with 46 percent in the latest Ipsos poll in favor of such barriers, up slightly from 45 percent in May 2021, but a big jump from the 38 percent who agreed in February 2018.

Barbara Jordan Vindicated, Again. NPR cant figure out why Americans responded in this manner, naively stating: It's not clear why those numbers have shifted. For her part, Ipsos Mallory Newall suspects the explanation is tied to broader concerns about inflation and the economy, while the outlet itself notes: There's also a theory that support for immigrants tends to fall when there is a perception of chaos at the southern border.

Gravity is technically a theory, but dont test it out by jumping from an airplane without a parachute. And, with due respect to Newall, if broader concerns about inflation and the economy were driving these numbers, why would support for immigrants be lower now than during the depths of Covid-19 in the summer of 2020?

As I noted recently in my analysis of similar polling numbers, civil-rights icon Barbara Jordan and then-chairwoman of the federal Commission on Immigration Reform warned in 1994 that popular support for immigration would so decline if the government couldnt keep illegal immigration in check:

If we cannot control illegal immigration, we cannot sustain our national interest in legal immigration. Those who come here illegally, and those who hire them, will destroy the credibility of our immigration policies and their implementation. In the course of that, I fear, they will destroy our commitment to immigration itself.

Illegal immigration has never been less controlled than it is right now. In fact, with two months to go in the fiscal year, Border Patrol has already apprehended more illegal migrants at the Southwest border in FY 2022 than in any previous year, already breaking the dubious apprehension record set by Biden in FY 2021.

Why cant NPR just admit these facts? Remember in March 2021 when the Washington Post contended The migrant surge at the U.S. southern border is actually a predictable pattern? Those were the findings of experts, and thus likely more than a theory, according to Morning Edition. Or when Biden himself proclaimed that month:

The truth of the matter is, nothing has changed. As many people came 28 percent increase in children to the border in my administration. Thirty-one percent in 2019 before the pandemic in the Trump administration ... It happens every single solitary year. There is a significant increase in the number of people coming to the border in the winter months of January, February, March it happens every year.

Both of those assertions were demonstrably wrong, but both the experts and the president advanced them. Logic should not take a holiday simply because the left-leaning (and taxpayer-supported) NPR doesnt like the logical results.

Nor does it serve the public that, again, helps fund its operations, or the immigrants themselves. As Jordan herself stated, we disagree ... with those who label our efforts to control illegal immigration as somehow inherently anti-immigrant. Unlawful immigration is unacceptable.

Immigration is good but controlling immigration is essential (and not anti-immigrant), too, if for no other reason than to guarantee that support stays strong by ensuring that immigration is in the national interest. As these numbers suggest, the American people question whether that is still true.

Invasion or Invitation? All of that said, a majority of Americans likely believe theres an invasion at the Southwest border in part because, as noted, the number of illegal entrants is massive by any historical standard, but also because the Biden administration which once promised to bring transparency and truth back to government is hiding its own role in this debacle.

In just 18 months under Biden, Border Patrol agents at the Southwest border have apprehended close to as many illegal entrants as during the full 96 months of the Obama-Biden administration. If current trends continue (and there is no reason to assume they wont), Bidens border total will beat his old boss by the middle of September.

That leaves Americans to wonder why this is happening now. Opinion polls show low support for Bidens handling of the border, suggesting that they blame him for not doing more there, but I doubt they realize that the administration is spurring this humanitarian disaster.

How? Shortly after taking office, Biden ditched nearly all of the successful policies his predecessor implemented to bring the border under control.

That includes the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), better known as Remain in Mexico. Trump implemented MPP in 2019 in response to a then-border emergency at the Southwest border, and it was an effective response.

DHS determined in its October 2019 assessment of the program that MPP was an indispensable tool in addressing the ongoing crisis at the southern border and restoring integrity to the immigration system, particularly as related to alien families.

Indispensable is defined as absolutely necessary and not subject to being set aside or neglected, but Biden has not only eagerly cast the program aside, his DHS secretary has twice tried to kill it, and his administration has fought state efforts successfully to this point to terminate it.

The same is true of CDC orders directing the expulsion of illegal entrants at the border, issued under Title 42 of the U.S. Code in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Even though DHS warns that up to 18,000 migrants will enter the United States daily once Title 42 ends, Biden is fighting a federal district court injunction that requires the administration to keep the CDC orders going.

Why would Biden want to end an indispensable MPP, and terminate Title 42 even if that means that the number of illegal entrants will more than double from already historic highs?

Because, as his DHS secretary explained in May, the Biden administrations objective is not reducing the total number of illegal immigrants coming across the southern border.

Rather, the objective of the Biden administration is to make sure that we have safe, orderly, and legal pathways for individuals to be able to access our legal system, that is, to ensure that every migrant who makes it here can apply for asylum, regardless of the strength of their claim or how long it takes to hear it.

The resulting surge is not an invasion its an invitation to enter illegally that tens of thousands of foreign nationals are accepting every month. The administration is not ineffective in its border efforts; to the contrary, the results at the U.S.-Mexico line speak for themselves.

That said, the people working in the West Wing are smarter and more compassionate than the folks whom they purportedly serve (or at least think they are), so they cant just come out and tell the less-enlightened what they are doing as openly as the secretary did in May.

The problem, as this poll reveals, is that in its efforts to throw the nations Southwest border open to all comers, the Biden administration is helping to stir a backlash that could, and probably will, adversely affect millions of would-be legal immigrants for years to come. Enforcement is not anti-immigrant, but sometimes ironically non-enforcement is.

Visit link:
NPR/Ipsos Poll: Majority of Americans Believe There's an 'Invasion' at the Southwest Border - Immigration Blog

Ulster County Executive Pat Ryan has won the Democratic primary in New York's 18th Congressional District, setting up a fight with state Assemblyman Colin Schmitt, the Republican nominee.

Ryan beat out two competitors for the Democratic nod in the Hudson Valley district, while Schmitt was unopposed as the Republican nominee. The redrawn 18th District will be a competitive seat and was left open when Democratic Congressional Committee Chairman Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY) decided to run in the new 17th District, which was more favorable to Democrats.

NEW YORK COURT CEMENTS DEMOCRATIC BLOODBATH WITH NEW MAP

Ryan is also on the ballot for the special election in the old 19th District and if he wins would have the advantage of being an incumbent in his bid for a full term representing the 18th District. In that campaign, he focused on upholding abortion access and addressed economic concerns by pledging to go "after price-gougers who are harming customers, guarantee middle-class voters get a tax cut, and make sure billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share."

Schmitt, who has served in the state legislature since 2019, has listed as his top priorities reducing crime, lowering gas prices, immigration reform, and ensuring parental rights in education. He is a sergeant in the Army National Guard.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The new district is rated as a "toss-up" by the Cook Political Report, "lean Republican" by RealClearPolitics, and "lean Democrat" by Inside Elections, signaling uncertainty about the new electorate.

Maloney sparked vicious Democratic infighting by announcing that he would not seek reelection in the new version of his district, instead launching his reelection bid in the safer 17th District, which at the time was represented by Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY). Rather than endure a member-on-member primary, Jones moved into the open 10th District, which covers parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Follow this link:
Pat Ryan wins Democratic nomination in New York's 18th District - Washington Examiner

Clay Jenkinson humanities scholar, author and social commentator who has devoted most of his professional career to public humanities programs and is considered one of the most entertaining public speakers in the United States; hes also one of the most popular guests that Vali Symposium has hosted. Next week, he returns for two special programs. On Wednesday, Aug. 24, at Vail Interfaith Chapel, hell moderate the second in a new series called Conversations on Controversial Issues: Moderated by Clay Jenkinson with a panel of four experts discussing U.S. Immigration. On Thursday, Aug. 25, he returns to the stage at Edwards Interfaith Chapel as Thomas Jefferson, channeling the Founding Father and third president of the United States for a stirring performance before answering audience questions.

Clay Jenkinson is one of our most popular guests and were thrilled to welcome him back to the valley for two special programs, said Kris Sabel, executive director of Vail Symposium. The first program gathers an incredible panel of experts to discuss a controversial topic U.S. immigration. Then we go back in time for a special fundraising performance as Clay becomes Thomas Jefferson. This is a program that we presented last year but had to limit numbers due to COVID. We hope that anyone who missed out last year will attend; its worth seeing a second time as well!

U.S. immigration policy is center to extensive debate yet stands in stalemate. Current policy is not serving and has not served for decades, for either the United States or immigrants. How did we get to where we are today? How could we address the 11 million undocumented immigrants that live in the U.S. currently? What is needed to address the United States southern border immigration issues? How might the legal visa process become more streamlined/efficient? How do we move to both a civil and humane approach to immigration reform? How do we discuss politics, security, and the economy with a new immigration mindset?

On Wednesday, Aug. 24, guest presenters Violeta Chapin, University of Colorado Law School; Jorge Loweree from the American Immigration Council; Alex Nowrasteh, director of economic and social policy studies at Cato Institute and Jessica Vaughan, director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, join Jenkinson as they examine immigration in American life.

Then, on Thursday, Aug. 25, Jefferson Hour creator Jenkinson channels Thomas Jefferson, arguably one of the most accomplished Americans to have ever lived. Five decades of public service included serving as president of the new United States, vice president, secretary of state, diplomatic minister, congressman, governor of Virginia and still others. He was a lawyer, architect, writer, farmer, gentleman and scientist. Yet Jefferson was also a man of contradictions: He was a champion of freedom and democracy while also owning slaves. For this program, Jenkinson will deliver a stirring performance before answering audience questions.

About the speakers

Clay Jenkinson is a humanities scholar, author and social commentator. His performances are always humorous, educational, thought provoking and enlightening, while maintaining a steady focus on ideas. Jenkinson is widely regarded as one of the most articulate public speakers in the country and he brings a humanities perspective partly learned as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University to everything he does. Jenkinson is also one of the nations leading interpreters of Thomas Jefferson. He has lectured about and portrayed Jefferson in 49 states over a period of over 20 years. Clay also portrays Theodore Roosevelt, Meriwether Lewis, John Wesley Powell and Robert Oppenheimer.

Professor Violeta Chapin joined the Colorado Law faculty after serving for seven years as a trial attorney with the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia (PDS). Professor Chapin has represented both adult and juvenile indigent defendants charged with serious felony offenses at all stages of trial.

Jorge Loweree is the Managing Director of Programs and Strategy at the American Immigration Council where he oversees the Councils legal, policy, state and local, immigration justice campaign work. He previously served as Policy Director from 2019-2022 directing the Councils administrative and legislative advocacy efforts to provide lawmakers, policymakers, advocates, and the general public with accurate and timely information about the role of immigrants in the United States.

Alex Nowrasteh is the director of economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute. His popular publications have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Washington Post and most other major publications in the United States.

Jessica M. Vaughan is Director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, DC-based research institute that examines the impact of immigration on American society and educates policymakers and opinion leaders on immigration issues. Her area of expertise is immigration policy and operations, covering topics such as visa programs, immigration benefits and immigration enforcement. Vaughan is an expert on immigration enforcement and public safety, having directed a Department of Justice-funded project on the use of immigration law enforcement in transnational gang suppression.

View post:
Clay Jenkinson returns to Vail Symposium for two special events discussing immigration and a controversial Founding Father - Vail Daily