All posts by Dr. ESP

The Other Grand Old Party

Politics

This morning former Republican congressman Adam Kinzinger posted the following on the social media site formerly know as Twitter.

As a proud conservative, I’ve always put  America’s Democracy and our Constitution above all else.  And today, as a proud conservative, I am endorsing Joe Biden for reelection!

While I certainly don’t agree with President Biden on everything, and I never thought I’d be endorsing a Democrat for president, I know that he will always protect the very thing that makes America the best country in the world: our democracy.

The Huffington Post suggested the timing was no accident.  “Kinzinger’s announcement comes on the eve of the opening presidential debate and gives Biden an example he can raise Thursday night of a well-known Republican supporting him over Trump. ”  Kinzinger joins a growing list of former Republican leaders, including  representatives Susan Molinari (NY), David Jolly (FL) and Charles Dent (PA), governors John Kasich (OH) and Christine Todd Whitman (NJ) and former RNC chairman Michael Steele, who have endorsed the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Questions about the reason for their conversion are usually followed by inquiries related to the future of the Republican party.  Premiere among them is, “Do you still have hope that the GOP can ever shed the influence of Donald Trump and the extreme MAGA wing of the party?”  Oh, for the good old days of Lincoln, bipartisan camaraderie (Reagan and Tip O’Neill) and presidential nominees slightly to the right of center.

As an over-educated political scientist and practitioner of party politics for most of my life, I find it strange Democrats do not share the same longing for their “good old days.”  With the exception of the 80th and 83rd Congress (1947-49 and 1953-55), Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 50 years (1931-1981).  And not by small margins.  I hesitate to call these “the good old days.”  It was the “best of times” from a macro national perspective.  Americans survived the Great Depression, defeated fascism in Europe and the Pacific, expanded higher education and housing opportunities through the GI bill, rocketed to the moon and passed landmark legislation like the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, Social Security and Medicare.  This progressive agenda continued even when Republicans occupied the Oval Office as evidenced by the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Nixon administration.

However, we must not forget that for some Americans, particularly minorities and women, much of this era was “the worst of times.”  Segregation and the glass ceiling presented seemingly impenetrable barriers for these folks to reach their full potential.  Even de jure responses such as civil rights legislation, the Fair Housing Act and Title IX did not immediately resolve the de facto inequities.

In his book Jumpstart Your Brain, Doug Hall explains how stimulus/response is the key to creative solutions. Observations and experiences are triggers which open new avenues of exploration.  This morning, Adam Kinzinger was the trigger that opened my eyes to why our country is so divided and why partisanship is a barrier to reasonable political leadership and civil discourse.  More importantly, now may be the most opportune time to take a leap of faith to reverse this corrosive segmentation of American society.

I suggest it is time for the Democratic Party to remember why it it was so successful during that 50-year run.  It was the party of economic opportunity during the depression.  It was the party of global democracy in World War II.  It was the party of the middle class in the post-war era.  And it was the party of individual rights in the 1960s.  And it never faltered from its support for the Constitution and the rule of law.   The best example may be Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 attempt to add seats to the Supreme Court to counteract the justices who questioned the constitutionality of some New Deal programs.  Although Democrats controlled the Senate 74-22, Roosevelt’s plan died in the Democratic dominated Judiciary Committee which saw the scheme as nothing more than a power grab.

You know what it did NOT have?  Ideological purity. Democratic Senators in the 73rd Congress (1933-35) ranged from liberal Robert Wagner (NY) to conservative Richard Russell (GA).  The ideological spread was no different in the 96th Congress (1979-1981) with the likes of Ted Kennedy (MA) and Russell Long (LA).  Legislating within the Democratic conference was certainly messy, but compromise was the order of the day and passage was usually ensured.

So let’s stop worrying about whether moderate Republicans can ever retake control of the GOP.  It is now the MAGA party, and if Democrats focus on a pro-democracy, pro-Constitution strategy, could be doomed to minority status for decades to come.  If, and only if, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries reach out to disaffected Republicans the likes of Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney and Mitch Romney.  And invite them to run as conservative Democrats with the full backing of the Democratic National Committee. 

Why would either side do it? Imagine the following conversation between the Democratic leadership and potential GOP recruits.

Nobody thought we could ever pass the Affordable Care Act.  But we had 60 Democratic senators.  And we had hoped some of  you would join us.  So we dropped single payer and other provisions that even some of our own members objected to.  And we got the 60 votes and, [Biden jumps in] you must admit, I was right.  It was a big f***ing deal. 

We both know immigration reform is long overdue.  If we had 60 members today, the compromise we agreed to with Jim Lankford would be the law of the land.  The same is true for sensible gun safety legislation.  The environment. Saving Social Security.  Reproductive choice.  You’ve seen the polls.  These are 70/30 or 80/20 issues.  Voters want us to do something.  Conservatives and liberals can disagree on approaches and some of the details, but we can work that out.  What we cannot abide is having extremists blocking any chance of passage, promising to primary anyone who is willing to compromise.

The only thing that is not negotiable is loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law.  But we never believed that was an issue for you.  We think you’ll find a home in the New Democratic Party where your loyalty will be to your constituents, not a cult leader, and you can speak your mind without fear of retribution.

I know many of you think this is a pipedream.  And it may be.  But it has a better chance of succeeding than MAGA world reverting to the party of Lincoln.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Deep State EXPOSED

Politics

The response outside the Supreme Court to the June 13, 2024 decision in the case of FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine was more a “phew” than a “hooray.”  The reason being, rather than ruling on the merits, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ attempt to nullify FDA approval of the abortion drug mifepristone on a technicality, lack of standing.  Speaking for the Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, acknowledging the plaintiffs “have sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to to elective abortion,” wrote:

But under Article III of the Constitution, those kinds of objections alone do not establish a justiciable case or controversy in federal court.  Here, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that FDA’s relaxed regulatory requirements likely would cause them to suffer an injury in fact. For that reason, the federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs’ concerns about FDA’s actions. The plaintiffs may present their concerns and objections to the President and FDA in the regulatory process, or to Congress and the President in the legislative process.

Standing in court requires evidence of actual harm.  And while the plaintiffs argued that the availability of abortion drugs such as mifepristone might weigh heavily on their consciences, Kavanaugh said, in not so many words, “No one is forcing you to recommend it for your patients.”

Kavanaugh, in the above language, wittingly or unwittingly, exposed an example of the massive conspiracy MAGA world calls the “deep state” dating back to the drafting of the Constitution and applied specifically to FDA with the passage of the Federal Food and Drugs Act in 1906.  According to FDA historian John P. Swann, the 1906 legislation created the FDA to replace the Bureau of Chemistry in the Department of Agriculture and authorized the new agency to (1) go into plants where food and drugs were produced and (2) regulate the labeling on such products.  However, it did not require pre-commerce approval for drugs.

Pre-market approval of drugs was authorized by the Congress in 1938, following over 100 deaths related to the production and sale of elixir sulfanilamide which contained a toxic ingredient.  With the sole focus on safety, the 1938 amendments did not address the efficacy of a marketed drug.

In response to the 1962 deaths and infant deformities connected to the use of thalidomide, Congress passed the Kefauver-Harris Drug Act which expanded FDA’s regulatory authority related to the efficacy of a drug before it could be marketed in the United States.  In subsequent years, Congress further expanded FDA’s regulatory authority including, but not limited to, “orphan” drugs which were used to treat rare diseases, requirements to inform users of the specific dangers and side effects of a medication and the ability to charge drug manufacturers fees to cover the the agency’s cost of drug evaluations.

One point of contention in the mifepristone case was the FDA’s use of REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies) to make the the drug available initially and later to expand its use up to 10 weeks following conception.  REMS was authorized by Congress in 2007 amendments to the FDA Act.  REMS purpose, according to the Center for Health Policy at the Brookings Institute, “…is to ensure that the benefits of a given medical product outweigh the associated risks.”

To recap, four private organizations argued before the Supreme Court that a cabal of bureaucrats in the FDA have exceeded their authority by making a drug available to the general public in violation of the Constitution.  Where could they get such an idea?  Maybe from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.  In a March 6, 2017 interview with New York Times reporter Julie Davis, Gingrich shared the following.

What President Trump is discovering is that he has a huge, huge problem underneath him, and I think he’s shocked that the system is as hostile as it is.  We’re up against a permanent bureaucratic structure defending itself and quite willing to break the law to do so.

If that is the case, why didn’t Donald Trump direct the Department of Justice to investigate, indict, convict and jail these renegade conspirators?  Perhaps because the defendants would include the Founding Fathers who in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution granted Congress the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with Indian Tribes.”  And while the Supreme Court denied Congress could wholesale delegate this regulatory authority, it authorized delegation by legislation for specific activities.  And then there are all those Senators and Representatives who, over time, authorized FDA and added specific regulatory authorities to its portfolio.  And finally, all the staff at the FDA who followed the Administrative Procedure Act to promulgate and implement the regulations assuring public input.  To paraphrase Amity Island sheriff Martin Brody in Jaws, “We’re going to need a bigger courtroom!”

As if that was not enough proof, let us not forget the latest affirmation that the so-called “deep state” is grounded in the Constitution, using plain English even Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito can understand.  Reviewed and affirmed by the Supreme Court.  And authorized by the ELECTED representatives of the American people.  And last week blessed by Justice Kavanaugh, who suggested the plaintiffs in the mifepristone case can address their grievance through the appropriate regulatory and legislative processes.

“Deep state,” consider yourself exposed.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

The Worst of Times

Culture, Politics

Americans love to celebrate the events and people responsible for our nation’s 248 year old experiment in government “of the people, by the people and for the people.”  Premiere among national holidays is July 4, Independence Day, the day the experiment left the laboratory. Some, such as Juneteenth National Independence Day (June 19), laud the addition of previously excluded populations from the full benefit of the American experience.  Though I would argue it is way past time for Congress to designate August 18 a national holiday, the day in 1919 when Vice-President Thomas Marshall signed the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote.  On Labor Day, we acknowledge the work ethic of those who built and maintain the physical and organizational infrastructure that underpins the nation’s economic success.  Others, more observances than celebrations, honor the men and women who fought and died to preserve the principles and institutions that ensure these benefits for future generations.  These holidays represent the best of times, when Americans moved ever closer to the ideal of a “more perfect union.”

Unfortunately, many of these advances are responses to equally sad days in American history.  And as the memory of these events fade in the national consciousness, perhaps it is time for Congress to designate days of remembrance and reflection to remind each of us why so many of our rights and benefits were not automatic.  Let me suggest just a few.

August 20, 1619.  Kidnapped Angolans first arrive in the British colony of Virginia, the beginning of almost 250 years of slavery in North America.

December 6, 1830.  President Andrew Jackson, in a address to Congress promotes removal of Native Americans from their homelands “to relieve Mississippi and Alabama of Indian occupancy and enable those states to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power.”

December 29, 1890.  The Wounded Knee Massacre during which American soldiers killed more than 300 members of the Lakota nation.

May 31, 1921.  Known as the Black Wall Street Massacre, a two-day rampage by white supremacists in Tulsa, Oklahoma resulting in the destruction of black-owned businesses and residences and approximately 300 deaths.

February 20, 1939.  Twenty thousand Americans attend a Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden sponsored by the the German American Bund, a pro-Hitler organization.

Each of these events ran counter to the promise embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In this context, I suggest it is time to add one more day of remembrance and reflection–June 24, 2022, the second anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.  For the first time in American history, the Supreme Court repealed a right previously granted by the Court.  Furthermore, the 6-3 majority, several of whom swore before the U.S. Senate during their confirmation hearings that Roe v. Wade was settled law, overruled every lower court ruling which upheld Roe.

U.S. District Court Judge Carlton W. Reeves, who originally heard the case, wrote Mississippi has “…no legitimate state interest strong enough, prior to viability, to justify a ban on abortions.”  On behalf of the Fifth District Court of Appeals, following a 3-0 decision to uphold Roe, Judge Patrick Higginbotham wrote:

In an unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability. States may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman’s right, but they may not ban abortions.

Yet, when appealed to the Supreme Court, Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett might as well have exchanged their robes for Melania Trump’s raincoat with the words, “I really don’t care, do you?”  They did not care that every lower court had abided by a deference to legal precedence that they had publicly sworn to honor. They did not care that there was no dissension among lower court judges which is usually required to trigger Supreme Court consideration.   Nor did they care that the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution reads:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Which begs the question of these supposed originalists, where is the specific language in the Constitution which denies women the right to make decisions about their reproductive health without interference from the government?

And most importantly, they did not care the reasoning behind their decision, embodied in Alito’s majority opinion and especially in Thomas’ concurring opinion, opened a Pandora’s box that potentially nullifies legal precedence and settled law in every previously decided case. Thomas specifically pointed to past decisions related to the right to contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), bans on homosexual activity (Lawrence v. Texas) and gay marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges).

…in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,”

Notably, Thomas left out Loving v. Virginia, without which he could possibly have been prosecuted and jailed for having married his white, insurrectionist wife, ironically, named (drum roll) Virginia.

June 24, 2022 is a truly sad day for America which needs to be observed annually.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

The Wall Street Enquirer

Media

The Past Is Prologue.

~William Shakespeare/The Tempest

For those with very short-term memory issues, let me remind you of the three key elements in the conspiracy between Donald Trump and America Media, Inc. publisher David Pecker for which Trump was convicted on 34 felony charges.

  • Publish good stories about Trump.
  • Kill bad stories about Trump.
  • Make up stories about Trump’s opponents.

After such a decisive verdict from 12 of Mr. Trump’s peers, one would think “main stream media” outlets would understand the difference between journalism and propaganda.  Based on the June 6, 2024 front-page article about President Joe Biden’s mental acuity in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), it is obvious publisher Almar Latour and editor-in-chief Emma Tucker did not get that message.

The article titled “Behind Closed Doors, Biden Shows Signs of Slipping,” according to the WSJ, is based on “accounts from both Republicans and Democrats.” It did not take long for real investigative journalists to provide evidence that the only thing happening behind closed doors is that MAGA interviewees were telling the WSJ the exact opposite what THEY were saying in private.  The best example involves former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. He told the WSJ that “[Biden] would ramble.  He always had cards.  He couldn’t negotiate another way.”

Kevin, it was a frigging budget/debt ceiling negotiation.  Could you reel off revenue, expense and interest numbers from memory?  And there are innumerable photographs with you speaking from cards.  Then you complained that he seemed to rely on staff.  If it was so important that the president be the only spokesman for the administration, was not the same true for you?  Yet you delegated further negotiations to representatives Garret Graves (LA) and Patrick McHenry (NC).  But don’t take my word for it.  Immediately following the debt agreement, McCarthy told Capitol Hill reporters that Biden had been “…very professional, very smart.  Very tough at the same time.”

And look at the results. Biden got a two-year debt ceiling deal the House Democratic caucus would support, and Kevin McCarthy lost his job.  How ironic is it the Wall Street Enquirer questioned Michael Cohen’s veracity in order to exact revenge against Trump because the latter did not offer him a White House job?  Yet, never considered McCarthy’s motive for changing his tune to bolster the WSJ’s hit job might be the fact Biden ate his lunch and cost him the third most powerful position in America.  Is this not just one degree of separation from the National Enquirer’s making up stories about Trump’s opponents?

To recap, Rupert Murdoch and the WSJ have grabbed the baton from David Pecker and the actual Enquirer.  In fact you can make the case based solely on one edition (June 14, 2024).

  • Print good stories about Trump.  “Virginia Hasn’t Backed a Republican for President in Two Decades. Is It About to Flip?”
  • Kill bad stories about Trump. No mention of Trump’s calling Milwaukee, the site of the Republican National Convention, a “horrible city.”
  • Print bad stories about Trump opponents. “Merrick Garland Earned Congress’s Contempt.”

The only difference is we do not know (yet) if the similarity is based on a unilateral decision by Murdoch and the WSJ to boost their preferred candidate or a meeting between WSJ operatives and the Trump campaign.  For all we know it might have been hosted by Harlan Crow at Bohemian Grove.

POSTSCRIPT: I KNOW IT’S WRONG

Georgia O'Keeffe on the Art of Seeing – The MarginalianI find it hard to pass up a great joke just because it is politically incorrect.  This morning I crossed that red line when I learned that Georgia O’Keeffe was born in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, a one-hour drive on I-94. west of Milwaukee.  My first thought?  Instead of the actual headline in yesterday’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Donald Trump calls Milwaukee ‘a  horrible city’ weeks before RNC comes to town,” would a more appropriate headline be, “Trump Grabs Milwaukee by the O’Keeffe.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Two Verdicts

Culture

This post is not a comparison of the verdicts in New York and Delaware.  It is about the second verdict delivered by a jury of Hunter Biden’s peers.  One completely overlooked by the post-verdict analysts on every major news outlet.

Most of the attention is being paid to the political impacts, especially which of the two major presidential candidates is the beneficiary of the guilty verdict.  The early consensus was Joe Biden, for the following reasons.

  • The split screen with Biden’s respect for the rule of law on one side versus Donald Trump’s ranting about a rigged system on the other, a contrast that should resonate with still undecided voters.
  • Voters with family members and friends who are dealing with drug addiction will identify with the pain the Biden family faces in the wake of the guilty verdict.
  • A guilty verdict in the “friendly confines” of Delaware undercuts Trump’s and his lemmings’ malarky that Hunter had the benefit of a venue populated by individuals who likely had voted for a Biden (Joe or Beau) at least once.

However, there is one more reason.  With this jury’s demographics, most legal pundits thought a hung jury was likely.  And were surprised it took just three hours of deliberations for the panel to reach a unanimous decision.  I would argue the quick result was due largely to those very demographics and the fact that members of a  jury can put aside their partisan loyalties, but it is infinitesimally harder to cast out their values.

Delaware is ranked #12 in the U.S. for gun law strength, according to the non-profit Everytown for Gun Safety.  In recent years, the state legislature has enacted laws that include:

  • Increasing the age for handgun ownership from 18 to 21.
  • Requiring a permit to purchase a gun.  To obtain a permit, applicants must provide their fingerprints and attend gun safety training.
  • Increasing protection for victims of domestic violence.
  • Requiring secure storage and preventing child access.
  • Prohibiting certain assault weapons originally designed for military use.
  • Limiting magazine capacity to 17 rounds.
  • Repealing special immunity for gun manufacturers.

In other words, it did not matter who the defendant might be.  Delaware residents favor sensible gun safety regulation, and their 12 representatives on the Hunter Biden jury would not be hypocrites and selectively apply this core value.  As another recently convicted felon would say, “This jury would convict Mother Teresa of violating gun laws in Delaware.”

This jury, by convicting the president’s son, may have further tilted the sanity scale in favor of a Biden victory in November.  A recent decision by the 5th District U.S. Court of Appeals, “ruled that drug users shouldn’t automatically be banned from having guns.” (NBC News) If affirmed by the Supreme Court, the justices will again be siding with a minority, Americans who believe the Second Amendment is absolute.  Today, a carefully vetted sample of Delaware voters, told America they believe universal background checks are not too much to ask of someone who wants to own and operate a deadly weapon.  They believe no one needs an assault weapon to ensure their personal safety.  They believe law enforcement, following due process, should be able to confiscate guns from individuals who represent an imminent danger to themselves and others.

In short, MAGA world believes drug addicts should be able to purchase firearms.  Joe Biden supports sensible gun safety laws.  And his refusal to intervene in his own son’s violation of such laws is proof positive of his commitment to this position.  One more irrefutable side-by-side comparison of the choices voters face this November. 

Ironically, Biden previously scheduled an address at a Washington, D.C. training session for gun safety activists, sponsored by Everytown for Gun Safety, three hours after his son was convicted of violating federal gun purchase and ownership laws.  Attendees would have understood if he cancelled and went to be with his son in Delaware.  But that’s not who he is.  Unlike his presumptive opponent, being president is not about public versus personal interests.  Joe Biden understands the connection between the two and that there is time for both.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP