Mediaboss Marketing

Progressives are making a mistake by pushing Senate Democratic leaders to do away with the filibuster. If their agenda is worth fighting forand it isits worth the inconvenience involved in confronting the threat of the filibuster and forcing the obstructors to stand up and talk for days on the Senate floor.

Some argue that President Bidens agenda can only be realized if the requirement for a 60-vote supermajority to end debate is eliminated. Actually, the opposite is true. Democrats should force Republicans who are bent on obstruction to state their objections to the presidents policies on the Senate floor. Most of the time, the mere threat of a filibuster is permitted to prevent a vote, but many issues would lack enough senators to sustain a real filibuster.

Admittedly, if the number of filibustering senators is large, it may be hard to wear them down physically. But progressive programs are popular, and the way to advance them is by highlighting exactly who is standing in the way of progress. Drawing media attention and building public support increases the pressure on the obstructionists to end their unpopular activity.

Abolishing the filibuster is shortsighted, but reform may well be necessary. Heres how: First, foreclose senators ability to filibuster the procedural motion to bring a bill to the floor by limiting debate to one hour. Second, change the cloture rule for ending debate from three-fifths of all senators (a supermajority of 60 when no seats are vacant) to three-fifths of senators voting. Those senators blocking cloture should be required to do so by being present and voting. Finally, the majority leader should eliminate or curtail the senatorial courtesy known as a hold, which is a de facto filibuster.

The Democrats elimination of the filibuster for judicial nominations in 2013 led to the confirmation by majority vote of three Supreme Court justices and 54 federal appellate judges, appointed to life terms by President Trump. It was a strategic mistake that will reshape the judiciary for decades to come. (One of us, Mr. Levin, cast one of three Democratic no votes in 2013.)

Read more here:
Progressives Would Miss the Filibuster - The Wall Street Journal

Theres a growing argument, coming mostly from the left, that President Joe Bidens foreign policy is essentially the same as former President Donald Trumps.

It goes something like this: Two months into his administration, Biden is pursuing many of the same objectives as his predecessor. Sure, the tone has changed namely, talk of rebuilding alliances and defending democracy and human rights but much of the substance remains the same.

For example, Biden has taken an adversarial stance toward China and Russia; sold billions in weapons to a dictator in Egypt; kept the economic sanctions Trump imposed on Iran and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in place; declined to sanction Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman for his role in ordering the killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi; and is unlikely to drastically slash the Pentagon budget.

In effect, they argue that US foreign policy right now is Trumps with Bidenesque characteristics.

That critique is coming from a small but vocal chorus of analysts, activists, and noted commentators like Noam Chomsky. Stephen Miles, executive director of the progressive foreign policy group Win Without War, recently told Politico that Theres this fear of being attacked on the right of not being tough enough on China or Iran or other issues. The problem, he adds, is there doesnt seem to be as much concern about the overwhelming majority of the Democratic Party.

Its a provocative case, but its not very convincing. While there are some similarities between the two presidents, Biden and Trump have extremely different foreign policies. Any claims that theyre the same are incomplete at best.

In December, I wrote a story about how Biden wanted the US to pursue a traditional, post-World War II foreign policy to defend the liberal international order essentially the diplomatic and economic rules and norms that run the world. As Biden formed a team to do just that, progressives I interviewed couldnt mask their displeasure.

Americans are looking for a complete, fundamental shift in US foreign policy, Yasmine Taeb, a senior fellow at the progressive Center for International Policy whos leading the lefts critique of Bidens team, told me at the time. I hope they recognize that the vast majority of the American people have rejected establishment foreign policy and the trajectory that weve been on for decades.

Now, Taeb and others are essentially saying, I told you so. They argue that two months into Bidens presidency, its clear that complete, fundamental shift in US foreign policy hasnt happened yet. What Americans have gotten instead is a Biden foreign policy that echoes Trumps more than progressive critics like.

Take Biden selling $200 million in missiles to Egypt, a country led by a dictator who has routinely violated human rights, jailing thousands of political dissidents and killing hundreds more. Bidens detractors compare that to Trumps decision to sell $8 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia, even after Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the 2018 murder of US resident Jamal Khashoggi.

They also point out that Bidens team hasnt lifted sanctions the Trump administration placed on the ICC. Trump took that action because the ICC was considering opening two investigations: one into alleged war crimes committed by US troops during the Afghanistan war, and one into alleged war crimes committed by Israelis and Palestinians during the 2014 Gaza War; the court was also considering making a determination on whether Israeli settlements in the West Bank constitute a war crime.

Two months in, Bidens team has kept those sanctions in place. Its not exactly clear why; when asked by reporters, the administration usually declines to comment. But Axios and the Guardian last month noted that Jerusalem is lobbying allies, including the US, to keep the financial pressure on the court in hopes that it will drop the case.

That rationale that the Biden administration is keeping Trumps sanctions on partly at Israels behest tracks with comments some US officials have made.

We have serious concerns about the ICCs attempts to exercise its jurisdiction over Israeli personnel, State Department spokesperson Ned Price said in a February statement. The United States has always taken the position that the courts jurisdiction should be reserved for countries that consent to it, or that are referred by the UN Security Council.

For these and the other reasons cited above, critics say Bidens foreign policy represents more continuity than change from the Trump years. That seems fair on the surface, but the truth is Bidens foreign policy is nothing like Trumps. Not even close.

Consider either what Biden has done or has said he wants to do on foreign policy:

Theres more, but its already notable that Biden and Trump just dont see the world the same way.

Whats more, Bidens different tone defending democracy and supporting human rights, among other things is in itself a substantive policy change from the Trump years.

I made it clear that no American president [should] ever back down from speaking out of whats happening to the Uyghurs, whats happening in Hong Kong, whats happening in-country, Biden said during a press conference last week about his conversations with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

The moment a president walks away from that, as the last one did, is the moment we begin to lose our legitimacy around the world, he continued. Its who we are.

Biden has followed through on his rhetoric by sanctioning Chinese officials for human rights abuses against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang and for cracking down on Hong Kongs democracy.

But dont take it from me or Biden. Trump administration officials also note the wide gap between the current presidents positions and the old ones.

Indeed, the list above didnt just come from my head. It came from conversations with Trump-era staff who said US foreign policy would be a bit different, according to one, if the Republican had won a second term.

Among other things, they said the US wouldnt have extended New START for five years, rejoined the WHO, lifted the terrorist label on the Houthis, or pushed for a return to the UN Human Rights Council.

And already former Trump administration officials, like then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby, are blasting Biden for pursuing a foreign policy built around defending democracy and human rights instead of pure national interests.

The central theme of President Bidens foreign policy is a global, muscular liberalism, he wrote in the Washington Post last week. But it is not a sensible policy today, he wrote, partly because the US is no longer the unquestioned global power.

While he didnt specifically mention Trump in the piece, he argued the more economic-focused course Trump took making sure we can determine our future free of external coercion and being able to trade and invest overseas on terms that promote a broad-based national prosperity would be better.

So no, Bidens foreign policy isnt nearly the same as Trumps. But the meme persists, it seems, mostly because Biden has yet to return the US to the Iran nuclear deal.

Those who argue Biden is pursuing a Trump-like foreign policy have one overriding complaint: that Biden hasnt lifted Trump-imposed sanctions on Iran as a way to return swiftly to the nuclear pact a decision praised by Jared Kushner, Trumps senior adviser and son in law.

But Bidens team says the situation isnt as simple as progressives and Iran doves make it out to be. Tehran is in violation of the agreement, namely by enriching uranium at levels beyond caps outlined in the deal. Until the US can verify Iran has come back into compliance, theres no reason to remove the economic leverage America has.

Indeed, Bidens team feels they inherited a bad situation. After Trump withdrew the US from the pact in 2018, Iran decided to violate the deal as a way to pressure the US back into the accord. Dropping the sanctions now, some in the new administration would say, rewards Tehran for no longer abiding by the nuclear deals terms.

Hence the delay. The US would have to evaluate whether they were actually making good if they say they are coming back into compliance with their obligations, and then we would take it from there, Secretary of State Tony Blinken said in his January confirmation hearing.

But even here theres a yawning gap between how Trump and Biden handle the issue. The Trump administration wanted Iran to change nearly every aspect of its foreign policy before winning sanctions relief. Biden just wants Iran to abide by the nuclear pact again, and has even proposed partial sanctions removal for partial compliance.

Ryan Tully, who served as a top official on Trumps National Security Council, confirmed his team wouldve pursued a different course. We wouldnt give sanctions relief to get to the negotiating table with Iran, he told me.

The US may not be back in the nuclear deal, then, but its at least trying to get there. Biden is offering Tehran a way out that doesnt involve either its capitulation or collapse, said Henry Rome, an expert on US policy toward Iran at the Eurasia Group consulting firm. Its a very different ballgame.

A very different ballgame goes not only for Bidens Iran policy, but his entire foreign policy. There are clearly some similarities between the last two administrations its been only two months, after all but overall, they are vastly different.

An informed electorate is essential to a functioning democracy. Vox aims to provide clear, concise information that helps people understand the the issues and policy that affects their lives and its never been more vital than today. But our distinctive explanatory journalism is expensive. Support from our readers helps us keep our work free for everyone. If you have already made a financial contribution to Vox, thank you. If not, please consider making a contribution today from as little as $3.

Here is the original post:
Bidens foreign policy isnt the same as Trumps - Vox.com

Progressives are trying to sell President Biden's infrastructure initiative with new cable TV ads arguing clean energy projects will immediately create thousands of jobs.

Why it matters: White House press secretary Jen Psaki suggested Sunday that Biden will split his potential $3 trillion package in two investments in infrastructure, followed by billions more for the caregiving economy. The first political fight may be over what qualifies as infrastructure.

Our thought bubble: "There may be resistance to making the infrastructure bills too climate-heavy, unless the public views clean energy spending as a win/win for jobs and the environment," writes Axios energy and climate reporter Andrew Freedman.

Between the lines: White House officials know theres a limit to the number of shovel-ready jobs in any infrastructure package.

The big picture: By dividing Bidens Build Back Better agenda into two legislative proposals, the White House is trying to suggest the first one wont engender much controversy.

By the numbers: Like Bidens $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, Democrats insist the presidents infrastructure proposals have national bipartisan support, even if House and Senate Republicans have signaled their opposition.

Between the lines: More than two-thirds of voters would be more likely to support the Build Back Better plan if it prioritizes oil and gas workers for new clean energy jobs, and if they have the chance to unionize.

The bottom line: Democrats insist any laid-off workers in the oil and gas industry will be able to find employment in the green energy economy.

Read more:
Progressives try to sell climate spending with jobs pitch - Axios

$200 billion, $2.2 trillion, $900 billion, $1.9 trillion. Over a year, Congress has passed $5.2 trillion in extraordinary spending and President Biden wants another $3-4 trillion, split between infrastructure and social spending.

When a normal federal budget, pre-COVID, was $4.4 trillion, and with borrowing, not taxes, funding nearly half of federal spending, its not crazy to ask how much is too much, before we risk huge inflation.

Modern monetary theory is a trendy philosophy AOC is a fan that holds that the government can spend as much money as it wants. Drinks all around! Even if bondholders dont feel like lending to us to make up the difference in spending and revenues, the Federal Reserve can create new money through keystrokes, argues the first-ever MMT textbook, published in 2019.

The Fed has been doing that. In early 2008, the amount of money available in the U.S. economy was $7.5 trillion. By 2012, it had risen to more than $10 trillion. Much of this was the Fed printing electronic dollars, to encourage people to spend after the economy crashed: the Fed grew its own holdings from less than $1 trillion to more than $3 trillion.

(This may sound confusing, but it is no different than if you received a bank statement listing the amount of money in your checking account, didnt like it, and so took a pen and added some zeroes.)

That didnt cause inflation (sort of), so why should this?

But this time is different. In a year, the Fed has nearly doubled its own holdings (again, that pen!) from $4 trillion to $7.7 trillion. Money in the U.S. economy has risen from $15.4 trillion to $19.7 trillion, partly because people who have kept their jobs have so little to spend on, with travel and entertainment off limits.

People who lost jobs need relief. But relief is different from hosing the economy with cash.

The danger of too much spending is that it doesnt create productive goods or services; it just makes things cost more. Thats especially true because, when the economy opens up, people will spend the money theyve saved theyre already searching for plane flights.

As people can go places, theyll use stimulus to bid up the price of travel, or a restaurant meal. Its theoretically great if the flight attendant or the waiter get paid more, but they will also pay more for rent and gas.

What about infrastructure, Bidens new multi-trillion-dollar push? We need better, faster trains, and dams that dont break.

Obama spent $60 billion a year on infrastructure, so why not spend $500 billion a year, as the Biden plan reportedly proposes? Why not spend $500 trillion?

This could mean classic inflation: too much money chasing too few goods. Windmills need huge amounts of steel or fiberglass; burrowing tunnels requires specialized machines and experienced or trained workers. The price of key commodities such as copper is soaring, on the expectation of higher demand.

The academic version of modern monetary theory actually warns against inflation. Inflation is a real danger, wrote economist Stephanie Kelton in her MMT book. But the politicians havent read the fine print or dont really care.

Nicole Gelinas is a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institutes City Journal.

Read more:
$1 trillion? Why not $5 trillion! For progressives, the sky is no longer the limit on spending - New York Post

CLEVELAND, Ohio - There was a time, I think, when people not only knew what they stood for and why, but they basically understood what drove people on the other side of the political and philosophical spectrum. They might not agree, but at least they generally knew why they didnt agree.

In that way, the world made a certain amount of sense to us all.

But more and more, that seems not to be the case. We are an ever-increasing mystery to each other. This does not bode well for the chances of us reinstituting a cohesive society a shared goal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness even if we have different ideas on how to get there.

For one example, I spent much of the last four years answering questions from my liberal friends that went something like this:

How can you defend such a (pick your disparaging description) as (pick your orange-themed insult) to be your president?

Sometimes the questioners were combative and demeaning, deserving of neither time nor geniality. But often enough they were earnestly attempting to understand how I, a person they liked, could vote for such a man. I would try to explain that I separated the boorish human being from the policies I preferred over what I considered to be a catastrophic alternative and was generally met only with sad, perplexed looks and a shake of the head.

For my part, Ive had questions too, and now that liberals seem to be in charge of everything, its as good a time as any to ask them.

The questions arent focused on one person, as had been the case from the other side during the recent quadrennial. Not that Im a Joe Biden fan but most of these issues predate him. And besides, I know that the only reason he is president today is that hes not Donald Trump.

My confusion stems from cancel culture, which is nothing new. But although it has become the province of the left, I have a hard time putting the liberals I know and respect together with it. To paraphrase the most famous thing that Mark Twain didnt say, everyone complains about cancel culture but nobody does anything about it.

And my question is, why not?

Who really supports the excesses of cancel culture? And if most on the left dont, then how and why has it amassed such power?

The urge to ridicule is strong, but lets keep it respectful and earnest, because Id truly like to know the thinking.

Bari Weiss, a former columnist and editor for The New York Times who resigned last summer after her own brush with cancel culture, earlier this month wrote a powerful indictment of the movement, and a call to action in opposing it. You can find it at tinyurl.com/baricol, and it is well worth reading

Weiss left after an outcry from her Times colleagues forced the ouster of editorial page editor James Bennet for the sin of publishing an op-ed by U.S. Senator Tom Cotton that called for using military force against recent rioters, which they said made them feel in danger. In her recent piece, she offers a partial list of those who have been punished by what she calls the illiberal left because of public wrongthink:

They are feminists who believe there are biological differences between men and women. Journalists who believe their job is to tell the truth about the world, even when its inconvenient. Doctors whose only creed is science. Lawyers who will not compromise on the principle of equal treatment under the law. Professors who seek the freedom to write and research without fear of being smeared. In short, they are centrists, libertarians, liberals and progressives who do not ascribe to every single aspect of the new far-left orthodoxy.

And instead of rebuttals, they are met with vengeful efforts to silence or punish.

Examples are everywhere:

A Rutland, Vermont, school principal named Tiffany Riley was fired last year because she made the following and similar statements on her personal Facebook page: While I want to get behind BLM, I do not think people should be made to feel they have to choose Black race over human race.

A UCLA lecturer named William Peris was investigated and condemned by the university for showing a film clip and reading Martin Luther King Jr.s Letter from a Birmingham Jail, in a virtual class on the history of racism, because both included the N word.

Actress Gina Carano was fired from her role in the Disney hit series The Mandalorian, and her action figure withdrawn, because she commented on social media that she thought there was fraud in the recent presidential election, and was skeptical about wearing masks during the pandemic.

In Burbank, California, middle and high school English teachers were warned not to use To Kill a Mockingbird, Of Mice and Men, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and other classic novels because of concerns over racist passages in the books.

And J.K. Rowling, author of the beloved Harry Potter books, has come under fire in recent months from several actors from the Harry Potter movies and many others, who have branded her transphobic, and a TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist).

Among her sins were her defense of a British government worker who lost her job for saying that people cannot change their biological sex, and for making fun of a headline on the environmental website devex, that used the term people who menstruate instead of women.

Dress however you please, Rowling responded in a tweet. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult wholl have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?

That seems a logical response to me, but that didnt stop her from being savaged by the woke mob and a host of former friends.

There are dozens hundreds of other examples, and more every day.

If your politics are progressive, does any of that make sense to you? If so, Id love to know why. And if not, why arent you calling your fellow progressives out on it? Is it just that youre afraid of being canceled yourself?

As Bari Weiss wrote, It is our duty to resist the crowd in this age of mob thinking. It is our duty to speak truth in an age of lies. It is our duty to think freely in an age of conformity Keeping the spirit of liberty alive in an age of creeping illiberalism is nothing less than our moral obligation.

Strong words, but is anyone listening?

Ted Diadiun is a member of the editorial board of cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer.

To reach Ted Diadiun: tdiadiun@cleveland.com

Have something to say about this topic?

* Send a letter to the editor, which will be considered for print publication.

* Email general questions, comments or corrections regarding this opinion article to Elizabeth Sullivan, director of opinion, at esullivan@cleveland.com.

Read more:
Why are progressives allowing cancel culture free rein? Ted Diadiun - cleveland.com