3.28.21: So Much Death, Violence and Acrimony Over A Single Sentence

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is exactly how it is written in the Constitution - punctuation, capital letters and all. One sentence.

When you think about, it's kind of crazy that so much death, violence and acrimony has occurred in this country over one sentence. 

Scholars and Constitutional lawyers and politicians and everyone in between have made arguments to how exactly apply that one sentence into law. Meanwhile... Shootings... Masses of them... Masses of mass shootings. What could we possibly contribute here?

Well, we look at from a grammatical point of view. Those two clauses within the commas? Because they're separated out by commas was the intent that the two were conditions that could change. Those two clauses could be removed and the one sentence would still make sense. A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed. But what does that even mean? Every definition of 'militia' contains some form of the word 'citizen.' If you were to change the word 'militia' to say, 'citizenry' then things would be more applicable to the 21st century. But the big however here, is that we still have the words well regulated. 

No matter how you hash up that sentence the words 'well regulated' are intended to be essential to the sentence, and well regulated we certainly are not. The subtle bit of 'Frank Luntz-like' strategy of reframing the debate terminology is genuinely helpful - from gun control to gun safety. We definitely need more gun safety because things are out of control. And nowhere in that sentence, especially given the 'well regulated' language, does it give the citizenry the civil right to own a gun.

Judging from their respective interviews, Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Pat Toomey (R-PA), incremental steps are the only way forward on gun safety measures, starting with background checks that 90 percent of Americans support. Other reasonable measures could be instituted such as a waiting period (if only for 2 days) and a permit. How modest is that? Republican strategist Al Cardenas later in the panel discussion called for an even stricter measure on assault rifles. However, any measure that mentions restrictions on assault rifles is DOA for Senate Republicans and Joe Manchin. With incremental measures, Mr. Murphy feels that there are 60 votes in the Senate. We'll see...

Mr. Murphy also feels that this could be an opportunity to quell the outcry for the end of the filibuster as passing gun safety legislation could get 60 votes. You would think that modest proposals could get say 70 votes, but even 60 seems like one is setting an unreasonable goal. It's also worth noting here that Mr. Toomey has it wrong when it comes to the filibuster and race. While the filibuster in and of itself isn't racist, it has been a tool throughout its existence for racist and suppressive purposes. You really can't get around that. But even more disappointing was Mr. Toomey's defense of restrictive voting laws that are designed to make it more difficult for minorities to vote.

More difficult to vote, get a driver's license, a fishing license or marriage license than it is to buy a gun. The least we can do is to require similar in terms of guns. We still wouldn't be well regulated but at least better. 

NBC's Vicky Nguyen gave us the easily digestible, but hard to swallow, fact that while Americans make up 4 percent of the population, we own 44 percent of the worlds guns. When Senator Toomey says we do not have too many guns in circulation - over 400 million at this point - one has to wonder how many is too much for him? A buy back program would also be a reasonable step - get guns off the street and put money in people's pockets. Hmmm...

Even after twenty first graders and 17 high school students were gunned down, followed by 61 people people in Las Vegas followed by another 23 in El Paso all the way up to last week in Atlanta and Boulder, we still can not agree on the meaning of one sentence.

Panel: Vicky Nguyen, NBC News; Heather McGhee, Color of Change; Peter Baker, The New York Times; Al Cardenas, Republican Strategist 

 

 

3.21.21: Through Lines Through the U.S.

When you have Princeton professor of distinction like Eddie Glaude Jr., the head of African Studies, the theme for a column easily comes into focus, and that is of 'through lines.' Mr. Glaude explained that the through line of the hour of this week's "Meet The Press" was the anxiety of the loss of whiteness" in the country. From immigration to the surge in domestic terror threats to voting rights to attacks on Asian Americans, white grievance seems to be fueling this domestic unrest and it's not a stretch to make that conclusion. Interestingly, The Nevada Independent's Jon Rolston (dean of Nevada political reporting) said that his through line was that 'words matter,' a more tempered response to accommodate white viewers.

While Mr. Glaude's explanation may be uncomfortable for some to hear, it's necessary because just as Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan explained, if there is a particular community of people saying that they feel under assault or intimidation then you should stop and listen to them. 

This brings us to the last topic first, the shooting in the Atlanta area that left 8 people dead, six of whom were of Asian descent. The reports, including from the shooter's roommate, say that this 21-year old man had a sex addiction and because of his strict religious upbringing, his guilt was so overwhelming that he went on a murderous spree to eliminate people that temped him. There are so many things in just that sentence that speak of societal ills that it's too much for even a series of columns, however, some have opined in the news media that this was not racially motivated, necessarily. 

Consider perhaps why this young man went to Asian spas... Because he fetishized Asian women and saw them as a means to his personal ends, not as people essentially dehumanizing them. When taking that into account, race certainly plays a role in these killings.

Then there's the elephant in the room of this tragedy, which Senator Rafael Warnock (D-GA) summed up best, that an individual can buy a gun and hours later use it to kill eight people but citizens cannot register and vote on the same day. There's definitely something wrong.

The Senator from Georgia makes a powerful case that there should be a cut-out in the filibuster rule for voting rights because of its fundamental nature to our democracy. It shouldn't even be a partisan issue but it is because of a Republican party that has embraced white grievance politics, embedded deep by the previous president. Voting rights restrictions are being put in place because the Republican party writ large is running out of ideas and isn't bringing more voters to its side so they're going back to trying to disenfranchising minority voters, especially in Georgia. African-Americans have seen their voting rights under attack since the country's inception. We should listen to Senator Warnock.

As for retiring Senator Roy Blount (R-MO), he comes from a tradition that no longer exists and votes like reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, once a no-brainer for a 'yes' vote, is now a cloture vote. He wants to make that 'yes' because he knows it's coming and but he's also smart enough to know that his unblemished election streak (that he indeed referenced) would come to and end for that vote, among others. Nor does he want to have a primary challenger. 

When asked by Chuck Todd if he agreed more with Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) or fmr. president George W. Bush on whether the attack on the Capitol was by 'people who love their county' or by 'hostile forces' as the fmr. president described it, Mr. Blount agreed with the former president. His other conundrum is on immigration in which he also agreed with President Bush that it has been over-politicized and a complicated issue. 

Ms. Noonan explained that Congress has found a way every time immigration reform comes up in the last 20 years - more actually - it has found a way to screw it up and hence nothing gets done. And contrary to pundits' discussions about the rhetoric and the messaging from the Biden Administration, the surge at the border was coming from the day the former president wasn't reelected. 

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas explained that the previous administration dismantled many of the policies concerning the border and immigration as a whole. We're willing to give the new administration a little time, but not much. More time is needed because unlike other issues, there is a distinct human factor of course with immigration. The secretary explained that the border is closed and they are expelling single adults and have FEMA working on the crisis of unaccompanied children. What gets no more time is essentially this media blackout. As NBC's Julia Ainsley accurately assessed, this isn't the issue the Administration wants to talk about, but it's the one they're confronted with. 

So if there's a through line for us during today's "Meet The Press" it would be that we have to stop dehumanizing people and give more embrace to the ideal of the melting pot. Idealistic, but that's what you get on the second day of spring.

Panel: Julia Ainsley, NBC News; Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; Eddie Glaude, Jr., Princeton University; Jon Ralston, The Nevada Independent

3.14.21: All Republicans Have Left Is 'No'

"It makes absolutely no sense to me that people aren't getting vaccinated because of political reasons," to cite Dr. Fauci today. And yet, eighty-one percent of Republicans who voted for Trump said in a poll that they would not get vaccinated. One must admit that that is a pretzel logic that's difficult to digest, but it's the lingering legacy of the last administration.

Instead of mobilizing constituents in the same of public health, Republican-controlled state houses are enacting laws to restrict voting, weighted toward disenfranchising people of color. Two hundred, sixty new voter-restriction laws in 43 states with Georgia at the epicenter, but the state's Lt. Governor, Geoff Duncan, isn't having it. He called the new voter laws proposed by state Republicans a solution in search of a problem. In addition, Mr. Duncan explained that the laws do not remedy the 'problem,' which Republicans are alleging - voter fraud.  

Void of ideas and the ability to govern, it seems like Republicans are emptying their pockets of any political power currency they have left which is their ability to change voting laws to make it more difficult for people of color (who predominantly support Democrats) from voting.

Stacey Abrams, founder of Fair Fight, described these laws as the most repressive since the Jim Crow era and said that Congress, specifically the Senate, needs to do away with the filibuster for voting laws in light of the House passing HR 1. She also explained that her focus is on our democracy, not just voting rights, because she strongly believes that these newly created laws are undemocratic. In a sense she is correct because the goal of all these laws in essence is to have the minority rule the majority.

However, the Senate isn't going to get rid of the filibuster for that, simply not going to happen. The column has long felt that Democrats always want to go big, which isn't an issue, but they go too big and then the load gets dropped on their foot. With that in mind, what if the Democratically controlled House passed a law that made the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November every four years a national holiday? (As it should be.) Instead of the one killer blow, maybe they should try a death-by-1,000-cuts strategy. Make it more difficult for Republicans to say 'no.' And in terms of the filibuster, Senators should be forced to actually do it instead of just threatening. Force them to stand on the Senate floor for 18 hours giving a speech. Some of the octogenarian Senators will think twice.  

To bring it full circle, Dr. Fauci doesn't understand how wearing a mask or taking a vaccine could be political, but for Republicans it has to be all cynical politics - power for the sake of power. With a party bankrupt of ideas as they are, all they is no.

Panel: Hallie Jackson, NBC News; Maria Teresa Kumar, Voto Latino; Lanhee Chen, Hoover Institute; John Heilemann, NBC News

3.7.21: Has Everyone Gone Home A Little Unhappy? Good.

He's a Democrat and he's holding up the bill... How dare he? 

This is where we are that if a Senator, in this case Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), who supports the $1.9 trillion Covid Relief bill sees something added late in the process that he doesn't like and calls it out, parts of people's brains begin to melt sending the neocortex into full retreat. 

Take a breath...

This shouldn't be a problem and it isn't. Yes, there is an urgency to passing this bill because employment benefits for millions are going to run out in a week, but Democrats should appreciate having a check like Senator Manchin in their party. Just as he explained today to Chuck Todd, he may not always heed Republican Senators' advice or counsel but he wants to hear what they have to say, Democrats should do the same with Mr. Manchin. Granted, the senator from West Virginia has incredible leverage to have his voice heard called 'the deciding vote' for the Democratic agenda. 

This is a good example of compromise (at least among Democrats) because the bill was passed in the Senate, but some things had to be left out effectively leaving all interlocutors a little disappointed. 

With that mind, not raising the minimum wage is something in which his column disagrees with Senator Manchin Senate and Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ). We get it that they are trying to thread the needle that raising the minimum wage isn't directly related to Covid relief and the parliamentarian gave them an out if they wanted, but this was a political needle so that conservative donors in their respective states don't come after them for it. Take that as you will.

As we've said in the past, raising the minimum wage will not be as hard on businesses as the rhetoric allows, but what it does do is giving a better baseline to reach and negotiate for better opportunity. The way we see it is that Republicans in Congress take the position that there shouldn't even be a minimum wage as most people make more than $15 an hour... Most people that they know.  Democrats on the other hand that there should be a minimum wage and that wage should be enough so that you're not working 40 hours per week and still living in poverty, as opposed to just the minimum that an employer is obligated to pay a worker. When considering that nuance, you're bound to end up with some 'no' votes. [Aside: as for the aforementioned, Senator Sinema and her 'no' vote on the minimum wage increase, appreciable sass but very poorly timed.]

As for the price tag of this Covid Relief bill - $1.9 trillion - it's an eye-opener for sure and at the top of the program Mr. Todd mentioned that we've thrown $6 trillion at the pandemic in a year, which definitely raises more than an eyebrow. When Danielle Pletka brought up this very fact, we were right on the same page. The cold fact is that there is no moving on from the pandemic unless we spend this money, and the question has to be asked of how the previous $4.1 trillion was spend - it wasn't all direct payments.

Also, it's interesting to note that when it comes to spending, Republicans and Democrats spend the same amounts - the big differences are to whom and the duration of time. Republicans when in power will give a $2 trillion tax cut to the richest one percent over the course of ten years whereas Democrats will give the same amount to the middle class and working poor immediately.

This bill is designed to do two things: 1) get the pandemic under control and get the population vaccinated and 2) create an economic 'reset' for all the millions of Americans who have suffered to make them somewhat whole again.

If you don't think that should be the goal of the government, just remember that one day you woke up and heard that Amazon effectively pays zero in federal income tax, a company that could pretty much fund the direct payments with one quarter's revenue. 

Yeah, that's what we thought - spend the money.

Panel: Yamiche Alcindor, PBS News Hour; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Jeh Johnson, fmr. Secretary Homeland Security; Jonathan Allen, NBC News

One more thing...
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo... should resign his office immediately. Even if you're a supporter of the governor think about it - the remainder of his current term will not be centered on the greater good of the state and will only serve to distract from governing. The credibility of these women's stories is unequivocal, but even with that aside, Governor Cuomo should not be getting his due process at the expense of the citizens of New York state. A true leader would understand this, the people of the state are more important than one man's political self preservation. (Seriously, who do you think we are? Senate Republicans?)

.