Mediaboss Marketing

Fiction writer Anthony Marra joins Fiction/Non/Fiction hosts V.V. Ganeshananthan and Whitney Terrell to discuss how his new historical novel, Mercury Pictures Presents, echoes the rights current embrace of authoritarianism in the U.S. and globally. By looking at censorship in 1940s Hollywood and the fascist regime of Italy during that same period, Marra teases out truths about conservatives current interest in controlling popular opinion.

Subscribe and download the episode, wherever you get your podcasts!

Check out video excerpts from our interviews at LitHubs Virtual Book Channel, Fiction/Non/Fictions YouTube Channel, and our website. This podcast is produced by Anne Kniggendorf.

*From the episode:

Anthony Marra: Mercury Pictures Presents is, shall we say, a long-awaited novel. It was during the run-up to the 2016 election when I first began to really see the parallels between so much of what these characters are struggling with and what many people in the U.S. in 2016 were in terms of trying to understand this rising threat.

Whitney Terrell: One of the ways that your book works, and I was very impressed by, is by resurrecting stories about life under actual fascism, particularly in Italy. It helped me imagine how such a regime might happen here in the United States. I was particularly interested in the character of Giuseppe Lagana, whos a lawyer, and who gets caught up, sort of at odds with, Mussolinis regime. Could you talk a little bit about him and how he gets into trouble?

AM: Yeah, absolutely. So, Giuseppe is the father of the novels central character, Maria Lagana, and he works as a defense attorney in Rome, primarily defending socialists and anarchists prosecuted by the state. And to me, he is this heartbreaking figure in that he continues to believe in the rule of law and the impartiality of the court and the nobility of defending the accused, even as Mussolinis regime chips and chips and chips away at the underpinnings of the justice system, eventually instituting these tribunals that pass sentences without trials altogether.

And Giuseppes way of trying to quietly resist that is simply to document the lawlessness of these tribunals, which eventually leads to his own arrest. And he is sentenced to

Its one of those things where you can see sort of through Giuseppe, through his gradual realization that the world that he believed he was living in had slipped away much earlier than he had thought, and I always felt as I was working on that during the Trump years, just just seeing how much of things that I believed in about America turned out to be empty, and how many aspects of my own relationship to my country were built on this sort of false mythologythat was certainly something that Giuseppes character helped illuminate for me in my own personal life.

V.V Ganeshananthan: Giuseppe is also one of my favorite characters. I was reminded actually of conversations Id had with lawyers who would tell me that they were documenting for precisely the reason that Giuseppe documents, which made it feel very alive to me. Theres a remarkable early scene where Giuseppe and Maria, who you spoke of, are attending a showing of the movie

In LA after Maria has fled Italy, she and her boss Artie Feldman, battle U.S. censors who consider Arties films decadent and too critical of fascism. And I wonder if you can talk a little bit about the role of censorship coming from different actors in the novel.

AM: The forces of reactionary conservatism have obviously long embraced censorship as a way to mold society to their liking. And the great irony in all of it, of course, is that its the very people waving around pocket-sized Constitutions who are the first to ban books. In the period covered by this novel, all movies were censored by an organization called the Production Code Administration.

And a lot of this resulted in truly ridiculous forms of censorship as the production code strove to make movies gratuitously inoffensive. For decades, you couldnt show a pregnant woman on screen because it might raise uncomfortable questions about where babies really come from. You couldnt show a couple on the same bed unless both of their feet were planted on the ground. If you remember the movie Psycho, it was chiefly scandalous for the fact that it was the first movie in about 30 years to show a toilet bowl. In the bathroom scene, theres a toilet bowl, and a toilet bowl had not been seen on screen since the early 30s.

Of course, much more insidious than this priggish sense of morality was the production codes prohibition on politics. If you only received your news in the 1930s from your local picture house, you would have thought that the American South was untouched by Jim Crow, and that Europe was untouched by fascism. By the late 30s, filmmakers were beginning to push back against this censorship often by very convoluted means. For instance, there was a movie made in the late 30s, about the Spanish Civil War.

But the only way that the filmmakers could get past the censors was to make it an absurdly unfaithful depiction of the conflict. So they actually brought experts in who had participated in the Spanish Civil War in order to make sure that the movie was meticulously inaccurate. They made sure that the uniforms were all wrong, that the settings were incorrect. And so the only way to make a movie about a true and contentious subject was to turn it into pure fantasy.

In September 1941, there were enough of these anti-fascist movies that isolationists in the U.S. Senate began to hold hearings to investigate so-called Hollywood war propaganda. The heads of the major studios all testified there, and they really acquitted themselves brilliantly. They more or less used the opportunity to reveal the hypocrisy behind the investigations themselves. And three months later, following Pearl Harbor, those filmmakers and executives were fully vindicated.

VVG: One of the ways the different kinds of censorship intersect across borders here is in the figure of Maria, who corresponds with her father, who is confined in the manner that you described earlier. Theyre corresponding and his letters are censored, and then she uses her knowledge of how things are censored or how to get things past censors in the film industry, which I thought was so interesting. There are characters who are in really quiet ways censoring themselves or by strategizing about censorship or who, behaving in response to censorship, are altering what they might say in ways that they almost dont recognize.

AM: I feel like we have a certain number of themes that we keep returning to, a certain number of ideas that kind of animate our work. And for whatever reason, censorship is one that Ive returned to in several of my books. Do you all find that in your own work that youre kind of almost like reshuffling the same deck of cards in each new project?

WT: Yeah, I have themes that I go back to you all the time. Sure, absolutely. I think thats true for everyone. I wanted to point out, back to the lawyer thing, when Trump was appointing so many judges, thats when the way that the legal system in Italy changed in the 30s, to cease to be really a legal system and be like an authoritarian legal system that doesnt apply rule of law any more I started realizing, Oh, that was kind of the idea. Thats why it was so important to him to get judges. If you can end the way the court system works, you get around that, then you start moving toward authoritarianism.

Similarly, when you start controlling information and you start leaning on calling things decadent, you can use decadence, like the kiss in the recent Buzz Lightyear movie, or whatever it is you want to call decadent, to suppress political content that you dont like. And thats what youre also talking about here is that the real reason that censorship was going on in the 30s and 40s, and in your novel, the head censor is a Catholic, surely not an accident, and he is really concerned about not hearing a lot of criticism for fascism. So he uses sex as an excuse to basically censor that political side. And I feel like thats exactly whats happening today.

AM: Yeah, absolutely. Criticisms toward changes in culture are camouflage for these very specific and intense political ideologies and agendas. Im curious what you all think about the changes in censorship over time, because one of the things that I was thinking about over the last several months, just reading the news and seeing, talking about, book bannings and all of that is just how much less effective censorship is today.

Im not sure if its a result of technology, just giving us so much access to information that if your local library bans a particular book, there are just so many more venues for you to find it in. Maybe its also that in the present day, weve just become hopefully somewhat more educated about the intentions and motivations behind the censorship But I could be talking complete bullshit. So Id love to hear your thoughts, Sugi.

VVG: I dont think youre talking complete bullshit, but I guess I wonder who are the we who know how censorship operates? Because theres obviously a whole set of people who are buying whats being sold. Theres this list of books that have been banned in, I think, Utah, thats going around, and it has a huge number of LGBTQIA-associated books, and then some of them are bestsellers.

And so theres this increased surveillance, but then theres also these increased ways to get around it and a population that maybe is better at getting around some of the things that we might expect to be censorship. But then it does seem like theres this other set of people who are whos the audience for the propaganda? Someones putting out the propaganda movies and someone sits in the audience and cheers and feels good about watching it. There are parts of me that like a good montage and a movie with a rousing Hans Zimmer score; I cant pretend that that part of me is not there. How has censorship changed over time? I think that my wariness of the American government has certainly increased. Im curious what you would say about this, Whitney.

WT: We did a couple episodes on book banning earlier on. And one of the things that came out is that when youre in a conservative state or a state thats run by conservatives like Florida, the teachers start getting really worried about what they can and cannot teach. So when youre dealing with public school teachers, or even public university professors, professors are a little bit more protected than school teachers. But I do think that censorship and state rules on what you can and cannot teach really will start to affect what high school and middle school and elementary school teachers feel comfortable teaching. And that actually can change how the kids are educated. I think thats why conservatives are concerned with that.

*

Selected Readings:

Anthony Marra Mercury Pictures Presents The Tsar of Love and Techno A Constellation of Vital Phenomena

Others:

Frankenstein Psycho Lightyear S5 Episode 13: Farah Jasmine Griffin: Censoring the American Canon S5 Episode 12: Intimate Contact: Garth Greenwell on Book Bans and Writing About Sex Doctor Faustus by Thomas Mann Billy Wilder Three Days of the Condor Jason Bourne franchise Ban on 52 Books in Largest Utah School District is a Worrisome Escalation of Censorship PEN America

__________________________________

Transcribed by https://otter.ai. Condensed and edited by Anne Kniggendorf.

Visit link:
Fascism Past and Present: Anthony Marra on What the Censorship of 1940s Hollywood and Italy Can Teach Us - Literary Hub

Former CNN anchor Chris Cuomo defended his interview with a former Trump campaign chairman Tuesday after receiving backlash from a social media user.

Cuomo interviewed Paul Manafort on his podcast, The Chris Cuomo Project, to discuss the FBI raid in Mar-a-Lago, Trumps potential presidential run in 2024, and the Mueller investigation following the 2016 presidential election. One social media user called the interview pathetic.

So you didnt listen. Didnt watch. And already know what you think, Cuomo responded. Thats why there is no progress. Change the game. Listen to who and what you oppose. You will sharpen your own arguments. Censoring is not the answer.

Cuomo has made an effort to cross partisan lines in his comeback to the media since CNN fired him over his involvement in his brothers sexual assault allegation case. The former anchor questioned Manafort on him being too generous to the former president regarding his storage of classified documents in Mar-a-Lago. (RELATED: Egregious And Insulting: Don Lemon Battles With Chris Cuomo For Bringing Rick Santorum On His Show)

I think your analysis is a little too generous, no? Cuomo asked.

No, I dont agree, Manafort said. Theres more to come out as there always is in instances like this. I think the affidavit redacted to keep names of things protected that would explain what the motivations were. You can say its such an egregious act that there has to be something there. But after going through five years of Russian collusion has to be real, I dont know whats real anymorethis sends a terrible example around the world.

In 2018, a federal jury found Manafort guilty of eight counts of tax evasion and bank fraud surrounding accusations that he hid income as part of his consulting work for former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. The government alleged that he hid money in companies located overseas.

Trump pardoned Manafort in late December 2020, while he served his sentence at home due to COVID-19 protocols.

During his podcast in early August, Cuomo accused the January 6 Select Committee of playing the gotcha game since they know those investigated will not face criminal charges.

Fomenting tension, lying to inflame just to create more outrage, wanting to watch a run on the Capitol, ignoring violent intentions, these are all terrible, he said. But treason? You wind up undercutting your purpose when you exaggerate the desired outcome or consequence the January 6 hearings lose their impact on consensus because of the intended consequences pursued.

Read the original post:
'Censoring Is Not The Answer': Chris Cuomo Defends Interview With Paul Manafort - Daily Caller

Current immigration policies are straining hospices ability to grow and retain their workforce amid widespread shortages.

Immigrant workers help to fill some of the biggest areas of need in the hospice and palliative care labor supply. But national policies are contributing to a diminishing pool of these workers, putting pressure on providers capacity to accept patients, according to OpusCare President and CEO Dr. Ismael Roque-Velasco.

Whats happening in our country during the last few years in immigration has really impacted the health care labor force, Roque-Velasco told Hospice News. What weve seen is that immigration policies arent helping, they are jeopardizing health care access without enough workers to provide care.

OpusCare offers hospice and palliative care in Florida, Texas and Georgia. Two of those states Florida and Texas along with California, are home to nearly half (45%) of the countrys overall immigrant population, according to Pew Research Center data.

National immigration policies are limiting the scope of hospice workforce growth in these states, as well as many others nationwide, said Roque-Velasco.

Foreign-born workers represent 38% of hospice and home health aides, a quarter of personal care aides and 28% of all highly-skilled health care professionals such as physicians and nurse practitioners, according to the National Immigration Forum.

Additionally, immigrant workers make up 22% of the nations nursing assistants and 17% of the entire health care and social services industry, reported the Migration Policy Institute.

With fewer immigrants available to take those jobs, hospices may be particularly vulnerable.

Immigration policies disproportionately impact hospice employees in comparison to other health care settings, according to Mollie Gurian, vice president of home based and home- and community-based services policy at LeadingAge.

Theres an extra step and levels to having qualified people, and immigration is a big part of that, Gurian told Hospice News. Weve heard from hospices that utilize immigration-specific programs to help with the soup to nuts process of obtaining worker visas that it can be harder to hire and train somebody whos just arrived in the country to provide the care needed at the end of life.

U.S. immigration laws are a complex web of rules. Generally, the federal government bases these on principles that include admitting workers with skills that are valuable to the U.S. economy and promote diversity, among others, according to the American Immigration Council.

Duration and eligibility requirements for visa classifications vary, but some allow employers to hire foreign-born workers on either a permanent or temporary basis.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) requires annual caps for the number of working visa recipients across various business categories. The law stipulates that the president must consult with Congress each year on setting those thresholds. The annual limit for permanent employment-based immigrants is 140,000, including eligible family members.

Prospective employers can sponsor an individual for a visa, but the U.S. Department of Labor in some cases requires them to first prove a need in the labor market before even filing a petition.

Immigration processes can take considerable time and effort to complete. This, along with varying levels of eligibility requirements, can hinder hospices ability to recruit and retain this workforce, according to Ben Marcantonio, interim president and CEO, and COO of the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization.

It can take years, even decades, to navigate your way through the system to get to the United States with a work permit, Marcantonio told Hospice News in an email. While there hasnt been significant immigration reform in decades, policies by the Trump administration, set during the COVID-19 pandemic, increased the backlog of individuals waiting to come to the United States for work. Our aging population and workforce has only exacerbated this worker shortage.

The Trump Administration tightened restrictions on immigration and stepped up deportations. Among other policies, the administration placed firmer limits on incoming workers from certain countries such as Mexico and India, among others.

All told, the White House implemented more than 470 administrative changes during Trumps presidency, an unprecedented pace compared to previous executive actions, reported the Migration Policy Institute.

The fluctuations in immigration policies are creating a self-perpetuating cycle of labor and patient access pressures, said Gurian.

Its important to have a domestic and international pipeline of workers, Gurian told Hospice News. We need all the people we can get specifically for aging services in our demographic reality and make it easier to come to the country by providing wrap-around funding and support when they get here.

Congress and the Biden Administration during the past two years have made attempts to expedite processes for bringing in immigrant workers, including some specific to health care.

In early 2021, the U.S. Citizenship Act died in committee. The bill would have raised the green card limit, eliminated per-country caps, and excluded dependents from the annual maximum on employment-related immigration.

Report language associated with the 2023 State Department appropriations bill, recently approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, urged the agency to streamline the visa process overall, as well as take action to improve processing of immigration applications from medical professionals.

Through report language, Congress makes recommendations to federal agencies on how to use their resources. However, agencies are not required to implement those recommendations.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security 2023 appropriations bill contains similar language pertaining to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) processing of backlogged and delayed applications. It also increased the USCIS budget by $273 million above 2022 levels, but falls below the agencys funding request by $230.0 million.

The current immigration environment is creating dangerous and detrimental situations for those who want to work in U.S health care, according to Roque-Velasco. Organized and controlled immigration is needed to help create pathways of staffing change in serious illness and end-of-life care, he added.

The only thing were doing is making a lot of criminals very rich, said Roque-Velasco. Some of these immigrants pay thousands just to get across the border and are risking their lives in some areas. If we had a way of bringing people into training and education programs with some kind of controlled immigration, to create some incentives for an immigration policy that will give legal pathways to licenses in different areas, then we might find a great solution to the problems were facing now.

In the absence of reform, hospices can take steps in their own training and education programs to include immigrant pathways to clinical, caregiving and other supportive roles, said Roque-Velasco.

For instance, they can offer sponsorship programs for hospice or home health aides to receive nursing or other clinical education in hopes of advancing their careers into those professions, he stated. The education process could begin remotely before they enter the United States, he added.

Advocates in the hospice space have said that training and education pathways need to be built into immigration policy.

If the current immigration system isnt fixed, then the nation could see more eligible patients die waiting for hospice care without enough workers to provide it, according to Marcantonio.

We need to renew a pathway specifically for those with a health background and training to come and work, said Marcantonio. The need for more health workers is more urgent.

See the original post here:
How Immigration Policy Impacts the Hospice Workforce - Hospice News

Immigration or Invasion?

A report published in an article by the Federation for American Immigration Reform had staggering statistics. During the first year of Bidens Administration, the illegal alien population increased by 1 million, adding $9.4 billion in cost to American taxpayers! Currently, a total of 15.5 million illegal aliens reside in the USA, and the costs of providing taxpayer funded services and benefits to these and their US-born children now is at a whopping $143.1 billion per year! Bidens policies such as terminating the construction of the border wall, cancelling of the Mexico Agreement, and the purposeful defiance of Federal Laws has accelerated this illegal invasion.

This is unfair to American Citizens and to those immigrants who came legally. It creates a humanitarian crisis where illegal aliens are being victimized by drug cartels and sex traffickers for profit. Security issues are compromised where vetting for terrorists ties has been practically impossible because of the sheer numbers invading our country!

Bidens favoritism for the illegal immigrants over American citizens have been obvious. For example, DHS made sure that ample baby formula was available to illegal immigrants and their infants, while American Moms faced empty shelves!

President Biden took an oath to protect and defend our Constitution, our Laws, and our citizens. But he has failed miserably on all counts! We are a welcoming Nation. But immigration must be controlled with common sense. Without a strong, secure and cohesive America, we cannot give security or help to anyone else.

Lucia Hunter

Regarding the Win Waste Proposal

Dear Editor,

As a former longtime City Councillor in Revere, I feel compelled to offer my thoughts on the WIN Waste proposal for a Host Community Agreement in Saugus.

First and foremost, it is important to acknowledge that this is a Saugus issue that should be decided by Saugus officials as well as the state when the time comes. In my two decades on the Revere City Council, I cant recall a situation in which an elected official from another community tried to influence a matter that was before us in Revere.

That does not mean Revere should be without a voice in this discussion. But it should be a voice supported by science and facts, not opinion and emotion.

Revere residents should be aware that the trash that is collected curbside in our city is brought to WIN Waste for disposal and, ultimately, is converted into electricity. The landfill at the WIN Waste facility is used only for the ash that is generated as part of the waste-to-energy process.

Unlike some who are vocal opponents of WIN Waste, I have taken the time to tour the plant and landfill on several occasions, in order to get a first-hand look at the operation and ask any questions or state any concerns I may have had. Through those opportunities, as well as research I have done on my own, I came to the conclusion that any fair-minded person would reach: WIN Waste operates in compliance with all permits and poses no risk to public health or the environment.

One of the first questions I asked when I went there concerned the unlined landfill that we have heard so much about. As it turns out, the landfill is surrounded by a barrier wall that provides as much or even more protection than a traditional plastic liner. That is not an opinion, but rather a conclusion reached by MassDEP in endorsing the use of that type of groundwater protection system.

The City of Revere and Town of Saugus have enjoyed a productive working relationship. I think it is fair to say we each want what is best for the other community. Perhaps we would be better served by allowing our counterparts in Saugus to determine what that is.

Anthony T. Zambuto

Read the original:
Letters to the Editor - Revere Journal

(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