my good friend shawn asked me several weeks back to explore…

why politicians ought to consider pushing for a more medium platform rather than pushing far to one extreme or another. this may not be your belief, but it is an idea i’d like to see explored.

i’ve been ruminating off and on about his question since he posed it to me in a comment to another post. shawn’s one of the brightest people i know, but his framing of the question exposes a misframing of the issue i think he’s trying to get at.

most people see the problem with government and politics today as a question of the right and left not being able to get together on common ground to address important issues of the day.

i’d argue the problem is a result of the entire political spectrum in d.c. (and elsewhere) shifting to the right. in public political discourse, there is no “left” represented. instead, the “left” shawn refers to isn’t represented at all.

the public, i think, sees democrats and republicans arguing over how best to maintain the political and corporate elite while addressing critical issues affecting working and middle-class folks. seeing this battle play out via the news media pitting the middle-democrats and right-republicans against each other. democrats blame republicans. conservatives blame democrats and nothing gets done. the public is fed up.

they’re fed up because the system has stopped working for them. and they’re fed up because no one in government or politics is standing up to champion them first.

so, political debates today are framed with democrats on one side and the republican/tea-party on the other. the problem is the democrats represent “the medium platform” shawn refers to. and the gop represents the “right.”

you can look at any debated issue and see this played out.

the budget: in the last several years, there has been some press coverage on budgets proposed by the president, the republican leadership, and the tea party. did you know that in each instance the congressional progressive caucus (the “left”) also introduced a budget? my guess is no.

guns: republicans blame criminals, crazy people, and terrorists for gun violence. they advocate for fewer (or no) regulation or oversight of firearms. and they love conceal-carry laws. democrats, representing the counter position by the news media, want some increased regulation, generally oppose conceal-carry laws, and want to use the terrorist “no-fly” list as a basis for denying people the right to buy a gun.

there’s virtually no discussion about a broad ban on hand guns and assault weapons, purchase of ammunition, etc.

healthcare reform: there was obama’s middle position of public-subsidized private insurance versus…. well, the republicans didn’t have an alternative other than to let everyone fend for themselves. but the “left” position, where was it? it didn’t exist. neither politicians in d.c. nor the news media discussed a single-payer (medicare for all) option.

climate change: the gop, tea-party folks won’t even acknowledge that it exists. democrats decry republican denial on the issue, but obama has done little strengthen international agreements on emissions reduction. exploratory drilling in domestic waters has increased during his administration.

and both obama and clinton have, implicitly if not explicitly, been supportive of ongoing coal mining and “fracking.” and this year the planet reached the 400 ppm atmospheric co2 milestone for the first time in 4 million years.

again, no serious discussion of “left” solutions have received any attention or debate.

economic justice: democrats nibble around the edges. $12 minimum wage. paying lip service to organized labor in election years, while pushing (or quietly supporting) trade agreements that undermine labor law and hand huge concessions to the corporate elite. bailing out wall street and “too-big-to-fail” banks, while doing little to nothing to bail out working-class america.

republicans want everyone to make their own way, unless they’re filthy rich, in which case they get tax breaks and slack regulations.

only here, because of bernie sanders’ presidential bid, have we seen the needle move just a little to the left. $15 instead of $12 minimum wage. free college tuition, opposition to the trans-pacific partnership and strong labor protections. and these received minimum coverage during the primary season. but from where i sit, those are all squarely on the “left” of the political spectrum.

it’s not a “medium platform” that people are clamoring for. it’s not a “medium platform” that will realign american politics and institutional politicians. rather, it is a corrective shift back to the left that is needed.

this year we’ve watched as the gop has imploded under the weight of donald trump as their nominee. we’ve see anemic enthusiasm for hillary clinton among democrats (except as an alternative to trump). one article i read referred to this year’s presidential race as an “unpopularity contest.”

from the beginning, you had donald trump (and ted cruz) representing the far right. you had hillary clinton representing the center. you had bernie sanders (and jill stein) representing the left.

network news media was basically all trump all the time, because he was so “entertaining” hillary received little coverage because it was just a given that she was going to be the democratic nominee. and bernie only seemed to receive coverage when the media covered an over-flowing-crowd event, or commented on his record-breaking fundraising. his issues were cast aside as crazy or so far afield as to be barely worth mentioning.

so, the problem with american politics isn’t an uncompromising left or right. the problem is there’s no one representing the left anymore. they’ve all been squeezed out by disappointing corporate moderates and right-wing… racist-fascists.

first thing’s first; i voted today!

i love “going to the polls”. i do walk-in voting. there’s just something so satisfying about standing in the booth, surrounded by others fulfilling their civic duty just like me, that i enjoy.

anyway, on to two news stories that piqued my interest (ire?) today.

the first is one with the headline, Breaking: Megyn Kelly is Supporting Hillary Clinton For President, Civil War At Fox News. i’ve never heard of this news site before, but the headline was provocative enough for me to check out. here’s the bit that bothers me:

Megyn Kelly and Trump have a long history of hating each other – and it’s obvious that by denouncing Trump in everything she does, it’s de facto support of Hillary Clinton, simply by default. By attacking Donald Trump on her show, she is directly supporting Hillary, either way you look at it.

its that simple?

this version of the story strikes me as “click-bait”. i find it poorly written and even more poorly conceived.

the only thing that’s “obvious” to me is that she’s disturbed by Trump and his candidacy, both as a conservative and as a woman.

that the mainstream news media has treated this campaign as a circus, or a school yard fight is a travesty. but now that trump is so close to stepping into the white house, pretty much everyone with any sense (or moral compass) is freaking out.

and that’s all i’ve seen in the handful of video clips of megyn kelly’s coverage of trump. she’s been challenging trump’s credibility and practicality as the gop nominee. that, to me, doesn’t equate to support of clinton.

what it is, to me, is the smallest sign of a “journalist” (i’m not sure i’d call her one) doing her fucking job. it is the new’s media’s job to be critical. to challenge standing assumptions that may not prove true. to point out flaws in political logic. and to show when something, or in this case, someone would be a terrible, terrible, terrible thing for this country.

a quick google search found other references to the exchange between hannity and kelly. not one among the main news sites came to the conclusion that kelly was a trump supporter. they all, accurately i’d say, refer to hannity’s comments as what they are, an accusation.

facebook can be a great news aggregator, but we need to view the things we see with skepticism. if a story sounds strange, unlikely, or too good to be true, look for other credible sources. don’t just repost it.

the second story, in a lot of ways, is far more disturbing.

the senate is contemplating taking a stand against any clinton nominations to the supreme court (or any other?).

while browsing news headlines over lunch, i came across this one: This Could Be The Beginning Of The End Of The Supreme Court As We Know It.

the gist of the article is that the cato institute says the senate is well within its constitutional right to never hold hearings on or confirm another supreme court nominee ever again.

the libertarian (and in this context constitutional constructionist) cato institute, it should be noted, is a creation of the koch brothers. so, you might expect this kind of position from them.

i tend to take the huffington post with a grain of salt, as their reporting strikes me as hit and miss, occasionally sensationalist, and typical of mainstream news media. still, this is a concerning claim from the cato institute and one that comes just days after senator mccain said as much would be the case should clinton win.

on the other hand, i found another article on the same subject that suggests an equally radical solution for clinton and the democrats: appoint without confirmation. its radical and, at least for me, completely unheard of.

but this is what at least one progressive lawyer and national common cause board member is suggesting should the senate continue to shirk their constitutional responsibility. i recommend reading the while article, but here’s the core point, i think:

The Constitution glories in its abilities, however, and it is possible to read its language to deny the Senate the right to pocket veto the president’s nominations. Start with the appointments clause of the Constitution. It provides that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint… Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States.” Note that the president has two power: the power to “nominate” and the separate power to “appoint.” In between the nomination and the appointment, the president must seek the “Advice and Consent of the Senate. What does that mean, and what happens when the Senate does nothing?

the common knowledge has always been that the president cannot appoint without the “advice and consent of the senate.” the question here is an interesting one. at least the author seems to believe that if the senate chooses not to act, the president has nonetheless met his constitutional obligation to present the nomination to the senate. why should the president, the supreme court, and arguably our democracy suffer if the senate refuses to “advise and consent?”

It is altogether proper to view a decision by the Senate not to act as a waiver of its right to provide advice and consent. A waiver is an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. As the Supreme Court has said, “‘No procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right,’ or a right of any other sort, ‘may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.’”

its an interesting interpretation of the constitution. one that certainly differs from that of the cato institute’s view.

not being a legal scholar of any kind, i have no idea how it would play out, but it’d be interesting (and possibly entertaining) to watch play out.

taking this course of action, obama or, should she be elected, clinton, would be a bold step to rebalance the checks and balances of our democracy. any such action would certain wind up in court, but that’s ok with me. i’d like to see democrats take a stand and call the republicans on their nonsensical bullshit.