Now what?

 

Let me be clear that I am as relieved as most of the country who turned out to vote Donald Trump out of office, and while I am not a dyed-in-the-wool fanboy of Joe Biden, he does have my utmost respect and I certainly wish him and Kamala Harris the very best. This comes with all the feet to the fire that our elected leaders need to be held by.

That there will be a lot of work to be done (and I have a wish list to that I will get to), we can celebrate that not only is the most toxic president this nation has seen been voted out by the people and the Electoral College, we will also lose his attorney general who was surely hopeful that Donald Trump would be his guinea pig to try out the ‘unitary executive’ theory that many on the right believe is foreordained. To be sure, the theory is not a monolithic structure; there is a spectrum along which the powers of the executive office are weak or strong.

The support for the theory largely springs from Article II of the Constitution. I would ask that you read this and review Section 2, in particular. This defines the structure and powers of the president and the executive branch. NOTE: it does not, as the 45^th president of the United States once proclaimed, give the president the right to do anything he wants.  That said, Attorney General Barr has repeatedly enacted policies and actions that would buttress the idea that a unitary executive is tantamount to imperial fiat.

Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Witte in the Atlantic from this past January, sums up the general idea of the unitary executive powers nicely: “The Constitution creates a unitary executive branch in which, in the pure version at least, the president supervises the staff and they actually do what he tells them to do—or are removed if they do not. Constitutionally speaking, notwithstanding the internal processes that have built up over time, the executive branch is run by the president, and the president at some level supervises the entire branch.”(1)

Attorney General Barr and others feel that the Presidential powers need not necessarily answer to Congress (though it is explicitly stated that is indeed the case). Eiiot Spitzer’s take on Barr’s thesis is worth the read, but what leaps out is Barr’s ahistorical thinking: “Barr insists that by the time of the Constitutional Convention there was “general agreement” on the nature of executive power and that those powers conformed to the Unitary vision—complete and exclusive control over the Executive branch, foreign policy preeminence, and no sharing of powers among the branches. Barr dismisses the idea of inter-branch power-sharing as “mushy thinking.” Yet the essence of checks and balances is power-sharing. As the political scientist Richard Neustadt once noted, the Founders did not create separate institutions with separate powers, but “separate institutions sharing powers.”” (2)

Barr’s – one has to assume – forced reading of history and Article II are indicative of the philosophy that a stronger unitary executive is a pillar, if not the cornerstone – of the ascendancy of Movement Conservatism and neoliberal political and economic theory. No one should be impressed. The intentional misreading of historical documents, the lack of comprehension at change in the political landscape of the United States toward greater diversity and often accompanied by different needs, are significant elements in what drive the more arch-conservative members of society.

Barr once accused the Democrats of being power hungry. This is utter projection and again, if he paid attention to history, genuinely paid attention to history, he would know that he is kidding himself and projecting the militant conservative Republican bias.

In any case, what goes overlooked and not just by the supporters of Trump and his enablers, but by so-called progressives, is that it is this will to power that characterizes the right – not merely the “alt-right” but your garden variety “fiscal conservative” who can’t see the point of investing in the environment or education because it costs too much. The other motivator, of course, is fear.

Fear of the Other, fear of some nebulous socialism that is going to overwhelm the country, fear that the Democrats are going to take away their guns. And so on. I don’t want to be dismissive of another element, as well; anger.

In many cases, people have had a right to be angry. The American Dream has not been there for many of the citizens of this country. The rural poor, oppressed people of color, the un(der)-educated with no recourse to receiving an education, and the vilified immigrant or refugee who arrives here in the hope of building a better future and escaping tyranny and death in their own country. Stagnant wages, increased economic inequality, and an often indifferent federal government.

While many of our presidents have been able to express empathy and compassion, often we feel let down by their actions. We are often maddened by stone-walling legislative bodies often owing to bi-partisan antipathy. There is good reason to be pissed.

However, coupled with a lack of contextual understanding, coupled with a deeply rooted in our society’s apathy, said frustrations and fear manifest in toxic expression. The very idea of protest strikes them as absurd (though they have no problem arming themselves and driving into protesters). When they have decided to assemble, it’s not been peaceful, but outright provocative and confrontational. “Oh, but that’s happened with antifa and Black Lives Matter!” Most often, any actions by “antifa” – not a group, by the way; it’s a movement and BLM have been in reaction to violence perpetrated by the police or by reactionary elements; i.e., armed and dangerous right-wing yahoos.

Even this, though, is the result of a kind of divide and conquer mentality that so-called “leaders” have be employing since ancient times. It is easy to do. It is easy to play on people’s fears of losing whatever “power” they think they have, when – if they’d take time to truly examine the issue – they have very little to none.

The past four years are not an aberration. They are the logical extension of the direction this country has been headed in since, at least, - at least – 1968.  The Nixon administration was the actual test run for the expansion of presidential powers (“whatever the president does is legal”) and we have seen those powers expand and be quite effective when it comes to warcraft; not so much, at all, when it comes to getting vital legislation passed or presidential appointments to the Supreme Court (unless, of course, the president making the appointment is a “useful idiot” to use old communist rhetoric).

In other words, yes, there is a double standard regarding the executive branch and what it can or cannot do even with expanded powers. It is not news that under the current administration, the Senate has been in charge and supported the executive branch over Congress repeatedly. This matters because bills that are intended for vital infrastructure and social relief sit dormant in limbo on Mitch McConnell’s desk. He himself has stated that he will not review any legislation passed by a Democrat-led Congress. Likewise, he has begun stonewalling already regarding the president-elect. (3)

We begin to see that the grandiose theories that men like Barr and his ilk attempt to practice have devastating effects on the electorate; both in terms of unanswered legislation and decreasing quality of life (eradication of regulations, drilling on national park land, failure to provide genuine access to healthcare, and of course, as part of that last point: the mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic). In other words, as a man thinketh – and if enough think like him – the greater the chance that a) the federal government will continue to fight against the people that voted in these elected officials and b) the more debased and divided the populace will become.

You may now say that this all about to change, come January 20, 2020. No. No, it’s not. While it is true that some things may change, of necessity, many will not. We will still see a continuing presence in both houses that will be fighting militantly to cripple the incoming administration and if they have the majority, the chances are good that will be the case. Even if there is a Democrat majority come the change in administration, we have seen in the past how easily cowed Democrats tend to be. The possible saving grace will be the Squad.

I want to look at, however briefly, what Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Omar, and Pressley are attempting to do and why their road will continue to be uphill.

The New Green  Deal and Medicare for all should not be controversial topics, but in a nation where corporate interests drive governmental policy, it is no surprise that the bulk of elected representatives balk at promoting legislation that would weaken those ties to private interests. Economics in the United States is tied to profit only. Libertarians are fond of saying that a laissez-faire or absence of governmental oversight/control is healthy because “the Market” will follow the dictates of the people naturally (via purchasing power, we assume) and that if the government were smaller/non-interfering, all would be well.

This shows a distinct lack of understanding of market forces, capitalism, and common sense. But it is just this view that has led to the Republican adoption of increased ties with big business under the guise of “doing what’s right for the economy”. Be aware that there is no small number of Democrats who feel similarly.

The adoption of this perspective by both elected officials, policy makers and the public has proven ruinous to the social fabric of the country. The Squad represents a contrarian voice, however, that the ruling elites would do well to take note of. Let us be clear, the Democratic Party is not progressive; not really.

This does not mean that I think Democrats are “bad” people any more than I think Republicans are. I have far more disagreements with Republicans than Democrats, but it is often a matter of degree. Again, policies to protect the environment and access to healthcare for all – genuinely affordable healthcare – are not outside the realm of possibility. The canard that what Ocasio-Cortez, et al. are proposing would bankrupt the country or “turn us socialist” is empty of both vision and substance.

Vision and substance have rarely been the forte of American politics. Vision is often reduced to mere platitudes that people lap up like water. Substance is a thing hoped for, but rarely delivered. And let us not kid ourselves, these two bullet points alone require more than most politicians are able to muster. However, at some point, it will have to happen. At some point, the United States is going to have to address – really address – its environmental degradation and its shoddy healthcare. But mention regulation or allocating funds from defense to either (and education), and DC goes nuts.

That AOC, Tlaib, Pressley, and Omar have survived in Congress this long is a testimony to their work. Obviously, these are smart, strong women who know how to work with their colleagues, but it says something about how well they continue to represent their constituents.

However, they are the exceptions. The bulk of our officials are well-meaning (I truly believe most are) men and women who do want to make a difference, who do want to serve, and who would disagree with me vehemently about how to go about altering the power structures in place, structures that have been present since the founding of the republic.

It is these structural issues that lead me to say that even with a change in regimes, very little is going to change. Chances are, we will see a return to a president who can be human and even humane, but I have extreme doubts that the balance of power that genuinely drives American policy is going to shift dramatically.

I don’t expect to see draw-downs in Afghanistan or dramatic censure imposed on U.S. government supported corruption in Latin America, nor do I expect to see anything like additional funding for education, or expanded healthcare access. Having said this, we may see restorative processes; i.e., environmental protections returned, some form of the ACA restored, and other Obama-era policies and mandates reinstituted, but I would argue that many of these were at best, baby steps in the right direction.

It might be that the Biden administrations four years will be spent attempting to get the country back to where it was pre-Trum, but without a forward looking and forward movement of genuinely radical progress, I think we can see the U.S returning to a business-as-usual model.

The social fissures that have come to a head are not going to be resolved in four years. Nor is it necessarily the sole responsibility of any elected leader to do so, but it is their mandate to do try. Most important is that we the people are going to have to do this work ourselves. White people can no longer ignore their complicity in preserving the racism and brutality  (often at the hands of law enforcement) in recent years.

It shouldn’t be left to elected representatives to be decent human beings; many of them are not (though many are). The work on healing needs to start with us. It most needs to start with us so-called progressive whiteys. It really does. We know what to do; a lot of us have worked for and supported progressive causes; but a lot of us are weak when it comes to listening and not butting in, to being present and not whitesplaing. Not me, of course….

Am I hopeful? No, not particularly. I feel like I can breathe easier, but there are still on-going issues that existed long before 45 and that if we don’t thoroughly address them now, then the next Trump, the next demagogue that comes along will be much more dangerous. That’s not the only reason why we should address our racism, our mutual distrust, and our divisions, though. We should address them because we – each of us – are human and if we are to be more fully human, we need to listen to each other, we need to be there for each other, and we need to try as often as possible to be decent to one another.

We also need to organize better. I’ve noticed that bipartisan legislation happens more than we hear, and this is something we do on a regular basis. In our jobs, our households, even in shopping; it’s simply that we recognized shared goals – your work group needs to finish this project; no one cares about party affiliation. Someone needs to pick up the kids and grab take-out; one spouse is an anarchist and the other is a fascist (I don’t know…) Even in shopping; you wait your turn because it’s just easier and more considerate; everybody’s happy and no one is consumed with rage if you are Democratic Socialist.

The Wish List for Action Items

What follows is based on an outline of an idealized projected To Do list for the incoming administration. None of it is binding and my heart will not break if this does not play out the way I hope. There are a number of items on the list that I believe are non-negotiable, but then, that’s politics; sometimes you get what you want, sometimes you don’t.

I structured this in terms of timeframes. Immediate action, Intermediate, and Long Term. I jotted down a few observations that I think can serve us well; oh, for sure, this is not merely political porn – I set down what matters to me (and naturally, what I think is self-evident, but I’ve been wrong before) and even some ideas about how we, as individuals, can help out.

I.                     Immediate actions: Health, Environment, Immigration

a.       Health

                                                               i.      Restore the CDC

                                                             ii.      Initiate more robust (and free) Covid testing

                                                           iii.      Shore up rent relief and hospitalization costs

b.       Environment

                                                               i.      Stays against drilling on national parks

                                                             ii.      Restoration of land

                                                           iii.      Halt any and all dumping of waste into estuaries

c.       Immigration

                                                               i.      Vigorously pursue reuniting families

                                                             ii.      Abolish ICE – and if you are not going to do that, curtail its activities until its mission and operations are redefined

II.                   Intermediate – Governance, Civil Rights, Education, and Defense

a.       Governance

                                                               i.      Establish new approach to bipartisanship – don’t be afraid to call bullshit where necessary and institute a process of censure that can be enforced with real consequences for stalling legislation and/or specious arguments to waste time

                                                             ii.      Enact legislation to reduce corporate involvement in government; meaningful and actionable legislation. At the very least – and this falls more under election reform – impose limits on corporate sponsorship of candidates.

                                                           iii.      Overturn the 14^th amendment

                                                           iv.      Enforce the emoluments clause

                                                             v.      Eliminate the Electoral College; possibly the filibuster

b.       Civil Rights

                                                               i.      Defend Roe v. Wade

                                                             ii.      Support women’s rights to healthcare across the board

                                                           iii.      Investigate police unions

                                                           iv.      Hold everyone accountable for their actins in all branches of the federal government

                                                             v.      Support the marginalized; the federal government should subsidize states attempting to strongly assist the disenfranchised; a wider safety net for senior/low-income housing and healthcare

                                                           vi.      Restitution for family members who have lost a loved one to police murder/malfeasance

c.       Education and Defense (yes, I combined them…just watch)

                                                               i.      REDUCE THE PENTAGON’S BUDGET

                                                             ii.      REALLOCATE FUNDS TO EDUCATION (and housing and healthcare, while you’re at it)

III.                 Long Term

a.       Rights, Not Privileges

                                                               i.      All of the following need to be seen as rights, not privileges. Taxes should primarily be distributed to supporting these three primary, existential necessities:

1.       The Environment

2.       Healthcare

3.       Education

There’s plenty of other stuff I could go on about. I didn’t mention international relations or foreign policy because frankly, that’s not something many of us have much of a say in. Someday, with a more informed electorate, who knows? Maybe out diplomacy will change to a more mature and responsible model.

On this last note, I’ve already said I don’t have high hopes that our foreign policies regarding Latin America and elsewhere will change markedly. I don’t see the point in repeating that here.

Last thoughts:

No one – Republican, Democrat, anarchist, etc. should have to work their asses off just to ensure that they have a place to live, food to eat, and access to better health.

We are the only developed, wealthy nation with such tremendous resources that continues to treat access to BASIC HUMAN NECESSITIES as a “privilege” “to be earned”. This is what taxes are for.

Contra JFK: I and others are asking what our country can do for us because we do support it – with commerce, with labor, with blood, with engagement.

This most recent administration consistently failed to provide basic safeguards for its people at the federal level. Ask the Californians about federal assistance for fighting wildfires, ask Puerto Ricans about assistance in the wake of Hurricane Maria, ask the nearly 250,000 dead from COVID about the lack of coordinated effort and response to the pandemic. I am using this to stress the importance of a federal government which some say is too invasive, too big, too much. We now have an idea of what it is like when it is too little. Not in size, but humanity.

The federal government is not just about bombs and interstates. If we are allegedly “united” and “created equal”, it stands to reason that the federal government is us. Local and state governments have local and state issues to deal with; but as American citizens, we all have common problems that need to be addressed.

We have a couple of more months of havoc to be wrought. After that, it is a new administration, one that will appear radically different – and in some regards, perhaps substantively, will be. But in many, if not most ways, I am hardened to expect more of the same in terms of corporate power, ham-handed approaches to healthcare and education, a hands-off approach to dealing with gun control and police brutality, and naturally, funneling a limitless supply line of mon-ay to the D.O.D.

What do I recommend? The same thing as ever. Get to know at least one of your representatives. Organize or help out organizations that align with your values. If you have the time, resources, and desire to serve, run for an office!

We have a new incoming administration. I wish them the best. I really do. With any hope – and with this election – I also hope that they understand that their future is in our hands. I hope we do, too.

 

Notes:

1.       Hennessey, Susan and Wittes, Benjamin. “The Disintegration of the American Presidency.” The Atlantic, January 20, 2020. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/trump-myth-unitary-executive/605062/.

 

2.       Spitzer, Eliot. “William Barr’s full-throated defense of the Unitary theory of executive power is built on a fictional reading of constitutional design”. Alternet, December 5, 2019. https://www.alternet.org/2019/12/william-barrs-full-throated-defense-of-the-unitary-theory-of-executive-power-is-built-on-a-fictional-reading-of-constitutional-design/

 

3.       Singer, Emily. “McConnell is already planning to stop Biden from running the country”. The American Independent, November 5, 2020. https://americanindependent.com/mitch-mcconnell-senate-joe-biden-cabinet-obstruction-confirmation-acting-2020-election/