Three days into the Biden administration and lots of commenters are noting the return of calm in the media, and the return of a sense of stability in the government.
As an alternative perspective, not necessarily more accurate or important just different, on Biden’s (via Psaki) approach to questions on the filibuster or an impeachment trial, I offer this. Biden is attending to the responsibilities of the Executive branch of government, as he should. He enters the Presidency with an overfull plate of crises, the pandemic, a faltering economy needing a jump start, massive unemployment, racial strife, domestic terrorism, climate change, a need to rebuild infrastructure too long ignored, and much more. He need not spend time trying to tell the other two branches of government what to do and how to tend to their own assigned roles. He is putting in place his own competent team of players to work with those other branches of government for the benefit of the American people. Trump, on the other hand, wished to direct everything and, despite his own incompetence, pushed to bend all three branches of government to his own will and misplaced priorities, not those of the country.
It is apparent even in only a few days what a dramatically differing contrast these styles are. Biden and his team are performing the roles and responsibilities assigned to them by our Constitution. Congress as the legislative branch is fulfilling its assigned role, and apparently the judicial branch is doing likewise. This is a constitutional democracy as intended by the founders, not an autocracy in which all power is centered in the Executive branch. What a refreshing change.
I couldn’t agree with you more Bruce. What a breath of fresh air we have been tasting since noon on Wednesday. We can expect some mistakes, the appointees are all human after all, but they won’t be intentionally made, for their own benefit, which is the exact opposite of what we have experienced for the last 4 years. Breathe deeply..........
Yes Bruce! I’m glad we all understand this but many Americans don’t know much about the 3 branches. Biden is driving in his lane. Smart and steady. The chaos that Trump created by trying to control and bend everyone to his will is criminal. I’m hoping that Americans will be open to learning about their government and that Biden’s transparency on how all the wheels turn will be wonderful teaching opportunities. I’ve already heard him explaining things in simple terms and I take that as an indication he will be a teaching POTUS.
Believe me, I understand your point. It disturbs me that for a variety of reasons, inclulding "teaching to the test" bending of curriculum priorities in schools the teaching of comprehensive civics seems to be disappearing in many school systems. I feel this is a huge error in setting priorities. A good grounding in and understanding of civics is required for responsible participation in citizenship. I find it shameful that legal immigrants applying for citizenship are required to take and pass a test in civics and basic American history, but not already American citizens in order to register to vote. I feel most immigrants have a much better undersanding of civics than many American voters. While it will likely never happen, I would be very much in favor of the same test taken by immigrants applying for citizenship being given to those registering to vote for the first time, with exceptions and accomodations being made in appropriate circumstances that could easily be described and dealt with accordingly. Perhaps if we don't use it for voter registration we could at least use this approach for testing those who wish to run for a political office. It would avoid electing Senators like Tommy Tuberville who cannot name correctly the three branches of government, but is now replacing a competent Senator David Jones from Alabama.
Every high school student should be required to take the American citizenship test before graduation. I would not tie test results to voting registration, though. All citizens have the right to vote.
I still feel a passing grade should also be required to run for a political office as well. Just being a citizen, and tall enough to ride the roler coaster is not a strenuos enough a test.
That gets iffy. There are students who are terrible test takers. Don't want even appearance of voter suppression. The testvitself can be a tool for the class to learn democracy.
"I find it shameful that legal immigrants applying for citizenship are required to take and pass a test in civics and basic American history, but not already American citizens in order to register to vote."
Want the civics exam to have a real impact? A lot more people drive than vote, & will make a greater effort with test results linked to driving. Make a solid, even high pass a requirement for a driver's license. It also begins instilling lessons & values two years before voting age. NB, There's currently a connection with voting in states with motor-voters laws. We're already killing two birds with one stone (sorry, birds).
"Hey, you know, there are well-paid unelected career 'bureaucrats' who are there to mostly climb the career ladder and protect themselves who don't necessarily want to do what the elected leader wants. Why do they think they can get away with having their own policy agendas? Elections have consequences. Get with the program or get out."
Now, let's find a term that vaguely recalls the espionage term "mole" but sounds like a meaningful discovery. They've been there all along making regulations 'n' such.
Please understand the vast majority of government workers at local, state, and federal levels are hard working, well intentioned, dedicated career professionals. Just as with almost every organization there are almost always a few who hold the others back and have their own individual agendas. I usually refer to them as "lurkers," but fortunately in most places they represent a small minority and are usually able to be ferreted out and isolated if not dismissed.
Well, when I wrote this comment it seemed as if Congress was performing its assigned role. We could now observe that in the case of at least one house of Congress, the Senate, there seems to be a lot of foot stamping and demands being issued about "organizing rules" that are preventing getting anything accomplished. Let us all hope fervently this is only a temporary snit by some and will not turn into a long period of truculence by Senators who we hope can still behave like rational adults to agree a on a set of rules for their behavior. We have a right to expect more of them than behavior less respectable than that of children in a daycare program.
“Reporters for the Washington Post called it “obfuscation” when Press Secretary Jen Psaki refused to say what Biden’s position was on whether Trump should be convicted of inciting the Capitol riot. “Well, he’s no longer in the Senate, and he believes that it’s up to the Senate and Congress to determine how they will hold the former president accountable and what the mechanics and timeline of that process will be,” Psaki said.”
Thank you for including this in today’s Letter. Ms. Psaki has been asked some version of this question during each Press briefing to date. I had hoped she would simply say that we have a system of government with three co-equal branches, and even though the lines have been blurred to the point that they seemed not to exist during the previous administration, the President does not intend to insinuate himself in the Impeachment and Removal process, which is the exclusive domain of Congress.
I was heartened, however, by her response to a question about whether the President felt the former president was unfit to hold the office, and she responded with yes, that’s why he ran against him.
The Press sells papers with controversy and conflict – Ms. Psaki appears more than capable of pushing back without being mean-spirited.
How quick we are to start bashing the press, just like Trump did. Remember that the way Ms. Richardson and the rest of us found out about all the Trump skullduggery for 4 years was the women and men of the press corps who put up with a lot of verbal and physical harassment to get those stories.
I worked in journalism in DC for 25 years. Contrary to the assertion below that they are “otherwise unemployable,” the vast majority of the hundreds of reporters and photographers who cover our government are smart, well-educated and dedicated to telling the public what goes on in government.
Yes! I never understood blanket bashing of the press. But then I’m a teacher. My profession is also often looked down upon, “those who can do...” If it weren’t for investigative journalism we’d be in the dark about so much. Thanks for pointing this out.
Jane, I don't think those are the people to whom HCR was referring, unless you are talking about the pundits who populate Fox News and the new new-fascist news outlets: no one is vilifying the press here. But I do agree with R Dooley--and this was discussed at length this week on NPR by some of the best journalists in the business, including the DC-based program One-A. The print, radio, and tv folks on the roundtables all expressed a certain level of regret that they let the EX-potus direct the news cycle through tweets in ways that, once begun, were very difficult to alter or control. The WaPo Opinion pages are also full of people who say much the same thing. I also think credit should be given to Jen Psaki because she stepped into the maelstrom and simply by doing her job--and doing it elegantly--she changed the tone in the Briefing Room from Day 1.
Let’s be clear, Hannity, Carlson and Limbaugh, as well as opinion writers in the Post and other pubs and TV shows are NOT the press corps, they produce opinions, not news. As for letting Trump control the news cycle : the president — any president — does that in one way or another. The challenge is to report what is said or done and also tell why it happened and the longer term implications. That’s very hard to do on a daily news cycle because it’s difficult to get perspective in the few hours or minutes a reporter has to get the information and publish or broadcast it. Also, fact-based journalists don’t like to call people liars unless they can prove they are. Trump actually made this a bit easier with time because he repeated the same lies over and over again.
Would be great for you to do that, but the focus would really be on local print and local news coverage, not directly on the big Natl issues you usually focus on. Tho one mite argue that all the two- and three-bit towns that lost their papers don’t really hold their US Reps and Senators to account any more. Could be that this disadvantages the sensible people on Main St. Vs the wing nuts.
Works for me! One thing I wonder is how the online newspapers fare. I know paper-papers struggle, especially since the lack of revenue from classifieds, but are papers making any money through subscriptions online? And what does that do to funding and how does that affect investigative reporting and staying non-biased?
I wonder if the whole profession has been tarnished by the likes of Hannity, Ingraham, and others in the disinformation-entertainment faction of broadcast, who are not journalists although I suspect their watchers think so.
In France the government allows a very wide definition of who is a journalist (including people running talk shows) and the profession as it is normally defined (illiciting and explaining facts and labelling opinions clearly) is disappearing fast. They have also given them a big tax break which isn't of course intended to influence them!!!!!!!
They’ve made it worse, but press have had poor reputations since the days of yellow journalism and muckraking. We need to not blame them, but the people that buy the sensationalist lack-of-truth “reporting.” Education and producing a populace that can think is imperative.
"Muckraking" was a positive development in journalism. Those were the people who dug into the lies and exposed the truth of oppression and corruption. We could do with a lot more of them. They were particularly missed as most (not all) of the "mainstream" at least normalized Trump's aberrant and abhorrent behaviors where they did not promote it. Unfortunately, we now see the NYT firing Lauren Wolfe (who may not be a real muckraker, but still) because of phony right wing outrage while their stable of diner-frequenting Cletus hunters plods on.
"Muckraker" is part of a long but not distinguished tradition of hostile outsiders nicknaming groups that stir things up, often ones making "good trouble." Levellers, Diggers, Ranters, Quakers, Shakers, Mugwumps; also the mis-application of Know-Nothings since the 1850s.
Surely, we can agree that all press outlets and reporters are not created equal. When USA Today first appeared, late-night comedians joked that there was a new Pulitzer category: Best Investigative Paragraph. For me, Ms Psaki’s declaration on Day One that the Administration believed in and valued the role of a free press was music to our ears, after four years of all legitimate journalism being characterized as “fake news” by the most powerful person on the planet.
The reference in today's Letter was to the WP's use of the word. It was a slam, but a soft one. It struck me as more tongue in cheek than serious criticism.
Here's the quote from the WP:
"Biden’s team says it plans to bring back the practice of daily news briefings, and promised transparency with the American public. But that doesn’t mean they are above the timeless tradition of skilled obfuscation: Psaki, for instance, has repeatedly declined to share Biden’s position on whether he believes Trump should be convicted of inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol riot in the upcoming Senate impeachment trial."
The crux of the question goes to what the President “believes”, and Ms. Psaki doesn’t want to go there – rightly, IMHO. So, she doesn’t answer the question directly and that is what the WP is calling, “the timeless tradition of skilled obfuscation”.
As I mentioned above, a more forceful statement of principle might help to quell this line of questions.
I still say that she was at least implying that Biden believes in the separation of powers and that a president should not presume to tell the Senate how to vote. The principles he enunciated during his campaign are what got him elected. He has way more on his plate to deal with.
Let's restore accuracy: The House of Representatives and the Senate constitute the Congress. Perhaps if we returned to addressing members of the House as Representatives that confusion might abate. In addition, the Framers made Congress, the legislature, the first branch of government. It holds a long list of delegated powers, both enumerated and implied. Sadly, over the years Congress has given over too much of the powers intended by the Framers for a variety of reasons. Is it not time to restore the balance. The branches are not co-equal! The courts can only respond to cases brought to them. And the President while given functions "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
I imagine the President was using the common shorthand, “Congress” to mean the House – you’re right that this usage is inaccurate and lazy, but the point Ms. Psaki (and the President) were making is nonetheless clear.
You also said,
“The branches are not co-equal! The courts can only respond to cases brought to them. And the President while given functions "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Although there is some debate among attorneys, legal scholars and linguists, the Supreme Court and lower courts, regularly use the term “co-equal / coequal” when referring to the three branches of our government.
FYI, below you will find two excerpts from a recent decision in the D.C. Circuit.
"As the Court explained in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Nixon II), the mere act of “regulat[ing] ... Presidential materials,” “without more,” does not “constitute[] ... a violation of the principle of separation of powers.”433 U.S. 425, 441 (1977).Instead, rejecting “the argument that the Constitution contemplates a complete division of authority between the three branches,” the Court reaffirmed its reliance on “the more pragmatic, flexible approach of Madison in the Federalist[] Papers.” Id. at 442–43. “In...dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three coequal branches,” the Court explained, “the Framers of the Constitution” did not intend “the separate powers ...to operate with absolute independence.” Id.at 443 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). The Court therefore announced the following test: “in determining whether [a statute] disrupts the proper balance between the coordinate branches, the proper inquiry focuses on the extent to which it prevents the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions.”
"But to accept the Trump Plaintiffs’ suggestion that Congress may impose no disclosure requirements whatsoever on the President, see Oral Arg.Tr. 51–52(stating it is “very difficult to think of” a constitutional law Congress “could pass” with respect to the President)—or, put another way, that the challenged subpoena could result in no valid legislation—would be to return to an “archaic view of the separation of powers” that “requir[es] three airtight departments of government,” Nixon II, 433 U.S. at 443 (internal quotation marks omitted). That is not the law. Instead, “our constitutional system imposes upon the Branches a degree of overlapping responsibility, a duty of interdependence as well as independence[,] the absence of which ‘would preclude the establishment of a Nation capable of governing itself effectively.’” Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 381 (1989) (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 121 (1976)). As the Supreme Court has observed, “separation of powers does not mean that the branches ‘ought to have no partial agency in, or no control over, the acts of each other.’” Clinton, 520 U.S. at702–03(quoting The Federalist No. 47, at 325–326 (J. Cooke ed.1961) (emphasis in original)); see also 44Nixon II, 433 U.S. at 442-43 & n.5 (affirming “the more pragmatic, flexible approach of Madison in the Federalist Papers and later of Mr. Justice Story” to the separation of powers); Nixon, 418 U.S. at 703 (“In designing the structure of our Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three coequal branches, the Framers of the Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive system, but the separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence.”). As the Nixon cases teach, the “proper inquiry focuses on the extent to which [another branch’s actions] prevent[] the Executive branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions. ”Nixon II, 433 U.S. at 443 (citing Nixon, 418 U.S. at 711-712). Congress can require the President to make reasonable financial disclosures without upsetting this balance.”
Source: Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, No. 19-5142 (D.C. Cir. 2019)
It's somewhat similar to the definition of personal freedom..... ending when it impinges on the freedoms of the other.....applied to government and sounds eminently reasonable
Most of the modern Washington Press Corpse can be filed under "otherwise-unemployable." For every one of them who's any good, there are 50 whose sole effort involved stealing oxygen.
"some right-wing Republicans have howled that Biden’s firing of burrowing Trump loyalists betrays his promise of “unity".....
A persistent theme is, and has been, Republicans' failure to see the irony in their denunciations of Biden or, more broadly, Democrats. Let me count the times Trump pursued unity - across parties, between allies or states or ethnicities or citizen groups. Uh, yeah, that'd be about never.
And it wasn't just Trump. It was the GOP as a whole. Amy Coney Barrett's SCOTUS nomination; blowing up the deficit with the 2017 tax bill; early reopening of states with no additional restrictions to slow the spread of the coronavirus; twisting themselves into knots trying to justify not voting to impeach Trump - not once but twice; threatening to stall Biden's Cabinet nominations; dragging their feet on power sharing arrangements now that they lost the Senate majority. I could go on, but it's early Sunday morning and I have other things to do.
Per Merriam Webster, unity is a condition of harmony. It is to grant or give, especially as appropriate, due, or earned. Earned suggests that unity cannot be imposed. Restoring "unity" shouldn't mean kowtowing to the lowest common denominator. It shouldn't be validating the complaints of the injured parties. And it certainly shouldn't mean making concessions on decisions in an effort to avoid charges of "politicization."
You know why? Because the Republicans have not, and probably will not, return the favor. For too long Democrats have tried to pursue the high road. Obama failed to charge executives responsible for the 2008 financial crisis for the sake of "looking forward, not behind." In the 1970s they became the party of civil rights to the exclusion of being perceived to be sensitive to other voter concerns. Al Gore conceded the 2000 election too soon. Hillary Clinton conceded the 2016 election too soon. Obama didn't publicly address Russian interference in the 2016 election, in large part because McConnell* threatened that such an investigation would be "politicizing" the issue in an attempt to manipulate the election.
Let's not fool ourselves. Democrats, Independents, and/or "reasonable" Republicans must recognize that taking the high road in order to be liked doesn't work. In no way am I suggesting making decisions strictly for political gain, or via inappropriate or underhanded means, or just to rub it in the GOP's face. Engage whenever and wherever possible, but in a post Trumpian world, Biden should, in the words my kids' school emphasized for 13 years, "Never give in, never give up."
If Biden imposes his will to attack some of the most urgent problems Trump left on the Resolute Desk with some effect, he just might open the eyes of voters who supported Republican Senators and Representatives. If those same Congresspeople won't make some effort on their own to help Biden turn things around, maybe their own constituents will send them a message: lead or get out of the way.
Since at least 2010 the mantra of the Republicans in Congress has been "No." They've refused to posit alternatives and have chosen to obstruct rather than collaborate. This Administration has no obligation to achieve unity through any means other than pursuing practical solutions, reinstituting function expertise over political posturing, and attempting to serve all Americans, not just those who voted for them. In other words, "Do no harm, but take no shit."
Yes! And Democrats need to bring up exactly what you mentioned rather than let the Republicans dominate the narrative.
Where did Republicans stand on unity when they withheld a SCOTUS nominee from a Democratic president while cramming through one nominated by a Republic “president” weeks before an election?
Where did they stand on unity when they refused to call witnesses in an impeachment trial and then nearly voted unanimously not to convict?
How did they embody unity when they enabled an administration to gut these departments and install loyalists in the first place?
Republicans are astute at utilizing “whataboutisms”. It’s time Democrats give back spoonfuls of this bitter rhetorical medicine.
Am I the actual first commenter tonight? Yes, I am sleeping somewhat better but still concerned about McConnell and the filibuster and the Fairness Doctrine and Citizens United... I've been writing to my Senators almost daily to let them know my concerns and feelings about how things should progress under President Biden. I can hardly express how much joy I feel just typing those words: President Biden.
Write postcards instead of letters. Letters take longer to filter through and postcards go quickly to their destination. I’m in a postcard therapy group. And we’ve sent postcards for like trump’s Ides of March and Moscow Mitch drive. Feels great to speak up!
I’m glad you’re doing this! We have to speak up! I don’t want to come that close to losing our democracy ever again!
I sent hundreds of postcards all of last year until GA runoff in support of candidates nationwide managed by my local Indivisible team. I’m itching to stay involved. Please tell me more about your postcard therapy group. Is it local? National? Can anyone join! ❤️🤍💙
I didn’t know I was going to set off such a flurry! I will contact the person that I know and see what she us comfortable sharing with such a large group. It is a small group that we get on zoom but I believe it’s organized from a bigger state group. Maybe people need details on how to start a local group?
Deborah, has your Indivisible group disbanded? Our amazing leadership team sent a note that I believe cam from national, that their mission was accomplished when we elected Joe B, and the group no longer exists.
My group is Indivisible Westchester. They are on pause, figuring out what's next, but not disbanded. My 3 "managers" were in contact with national groups that had access to voter rolls and campaign voter strategies, along with money to message, design, print and distribute the actual postcards. Indivisible (in D.C.) sends me emails, and they don't appear to be disappearing either. They all seem to be figuring out where to focus their energy next to make the biggest difference.
Apparently, each group has the decision about its future. Since Jan, 2017, four people have organized a table at EVERY farmers market once per week, save for an occasional absence. We are all thankful for their leadership, ad grieve the dissolution of their/our network
Can you share the name of your group? I did cards for AbbytheDemocrat for the Presidential race and the one in Georgia but haven’t seen anything regarding the ides of March or Moscow Mitch that you mention. Thank you!
Indivisible has myriad Facebook groups, most are local. Search "indivisible" on Facebook to see if there is a local group in your area. Otherwise, join the nearest.
There are several groups in local areas listed on Facebook. I’m in several for various reasons. Neighborhood, liberals, democrat, education. There was a group that just supported each other for things needed like toilet paper and diapers. That’s how I connected with the postcard tribe.
Let me get in touch with this group and find out how much they feel comfortable sharing. They buy the postcards in bulk just plain white cardstock. I’ve also purchased prestamped cards at USPS. And like now when I’m working and can’t join them on zoom, I buy them a roll of stamps and drop them off. It is organized through the state level Democrat party. But if you have an address and a cause, you can just begin sending them!
You can buy prestamped postcards at any post office. Cheaper to mail than letters, and more likely to be read by Congress critters than email. The short format makes you be succinct.
Is there a postcard group to urge Democratic Congresspeople to stand unified in the face of Republicans? It will take only a few defections (only one in the Senate) to doom the Democrats to ineffectual impotence.
I haven’t been writing since I had to get back to teaching. But start one! Give us all a link to addresses! My friend gives us blank postcards that we write messages and then she has address labels and stamps them for us. I donate rolls of postcard stamps, which just went up in price, whenever I can. Sounds like we could start our own Dr HCR group!
I remember posts from this very comment board during the past couple of months featuring lists showing the addresses of members of Congress. I managed to bookmark the one for the Senate, already updated to show Ossoff and Warnock:
We have to keep these people corralled. They are pulled in so many different directions that keeping their unity will require constant attention, I'm afraid.
Maybe...it's a nice idea. Perhaps to congressional members. Voter info is public; we operate under strict guidelines; and it seems a complicated process to obtain, cull and message. xo
This is the kind of good idea that needs momentum. I'm hoping Vote Save America will connect with Stacey Abrams Fair Fight, et. al. or similar to keep us in the fight.
Yes, please share how/for which group are you writing for the "Moscow Mitch drive." I have written for Postcards to Voters, but see nothing about these movements.
Are you a member of a Democrat group in your area? I’m a member of a women’s group in my county. Let me ask more questions of the organizers! I’ve just been a worker bee and didn’t think too much about the nuts and bolts.
Am not a member of any Democrat group in part as I'm not a "group" type. Prefer working at my desk writing, writing,Maybe I'll encourage Postcards to Voters to branch out and begin addressing the inequities in Congress as well as writing for specific democratic candidates. Thanks for responding, Denise.
In this situation, I doubt that speed is of the essence. Volume and consistency seem more important in convincing doubtful Democratic Congresspeople that unity is their only way forward.
As an alternative perspective, not necessarily more accurate or important just different, on Biden’s (via Psaki) approach to questions on the filibuster or an impeachment trial, I offer this. Biden is attending to the responsibilities of the Executive branch of government, as he should. He enters the Presidency with an overfull plate of crises, the pandemic, a faltering economy needing a jump start, massive unemployment, racial strife, domestic terrorism, climate change, a need to rebuild infrastructure too long ignored, and much more. He need not spend time trying to tell the other two branches of government what to do and how to tend to their own assigned roles. He is putting in place his own competent team of players to work with those other branches of government for the benefit of the American people. Trump, on the other hand, wished to direct everything and, despite his own incompetence, pushed to bend all three branches of government to his own will and misplaced priorities, not those of the country.
It is apparent even in only a few days what a dramatically differing contrast these styles are. Biden and his team are performing the roles and responsibilities assigned to them by our Constitution. Congress as the legislative branch is fulfilling its assigned role, and apparently the judicial branch is doing likewise. This is a constitutional democracy as intended by the founders, not an autocracy in which all power is centered in the Executive branch. What a refreshing change.
Beautifully put.
I couldn’t agree with you more Bruce. What a breath of fresh air we have been tasting since noon on Wednesday. We can expect some mistakes, the appointees are all human after all, but they won’t be intentionally made, for their own benefit, which is the exact opposite of what we have experienced for the last 4 years. Breathe deeply..........
Yes Bruce! I’m glad we all understand this but many Americans don’t know much about the 3 branches. Biden is driving in his lane. Smart and steady. The chaos that Trump created by trying to control and bend everyone to his will is criminal. I’m hoping that Americans will be open to learning about their government and that Biden’s transparency on how all the wheels turn will be wonderful teaching opportunities. I’ve already heard him explaining things in simple terms and I take that as an indication he will be a teaching POTUS.
Believe me, I understand your point. It disturbs me that for a variety of reasons, inclulding "teaching to the test" bending of curriculum priorities in schools the teaching of comprehensive civics seems to be disappearing in many school systems. I feel this is a huge error in setting priorities. A good grounding in and understanding of civics is required for responsible participation in citizenship. I find it shameful that legal immigrants applying for citizenship are required to take and pass a test in civics and basic American history, but not already American citizens in order to register to vote. I feel most immigrants have a much better undersanding of civics than many American voters. While it will likely never happen, I would be very much in favor of the same test taken by immigrants applying for citizenship being given to those registering to vote for the first time, with exceptions and accomodations being made in appropriate circumstances that could easily be described and dealt with accordingly. Perhaps if we don't use it for voter registration we could at least use this approach for testing those who wish to run for a political office. It would avoid electing Senators like Tommy Tuberville who cannot name correctly the three branches of government, but is now replacing a competent Senator David Jones from Alabama.
Every high school student should be required to take the American citizenship test before graduation. I would not tie test results to voting registration, though. All citizens have the right to vote.
I still feel a passing grade should also be required to run for a political office as well. Just being a citizen, and tall enough to ride the roler coaster is not a strenuos enough a test.
To that I FULLY agree!
Agree, and that goes for the office of president as well.
Agree, if you add the stipulation that they must pass the test to graduate.
That gets iffy. There are students who are terrible test takers. Don't want even appearance of voter suppression. The testvitself can be a tool for the class to learn democracy.
"I find it shameful that legal immigrants applying for citizenship are required to take and pass a test in civics and basic American history, but not already American citizens in order to register to vote."
Ditto that!!
Want the civics exam to have a real impact? A lot more people drive than vote, & will make a greater effort with test results linked to driving. Make a solid, even high pass a requirement for a driver's license. It also begins instilling lessons & values two years before voting age. NB, There's currently a connection with voting in states with motor-voters laws. We're already killing two birds with one stone (sorry, birds).
Very nicely stated, Bruce. Thank you for this.
Bravo! You are exactly lining out what SHOULD happen in a functioning democracy. Where did all this “deep state” stupidity originate anyway!
The "deep state" -- a novel idea with allure.
"Hey, you know, there are well-paid unelected career 'bureaucrats' who are there to mostly climb the career ladder and protect themselves who don't necessarily want to do what the elected leader wants. Why do they think they can get away with having their own policy agendas? Elections have consequences. Get with the program or get out."
Now, let's find a term that vaguely recalls the espionage term "mole" but sounds like a meaningful discovery. They've been there all along making regulations 'n' such.
Please understand the vast majority of government workers at local, state, and federal levels are hard working, well intentioned, dedicated career professionals. Just as with almost every organization there are almost always a few who hold the others back and have their own individual agendas. I usually refer to them as "lurkers," but fortunately in most places they represent a small minority and are usually able to be ferreted out and isolated if not dismissed.
Absolutely spot-on, Bruce. Spot-on.
Well, when I wrote this comment it seemed as if Congress was performing its assigned role. We could now observe that in the case of at least one house of Congress, the Senate, there seems to be a lot of foot stamping and demands being issued about "organizing rules" that are preventing getting anything accomplished. Let us all hope fervently this is only a temporary snit by some and will not turn into a long period of truculence by Senators who we hope can still behave like rational adults to agree a on a set of rules for their behavior. We have a right to expect more of them than behavior less respectable than that of children in a daycare program.
“Reporters for the Washington Post called it “obfuscation” when Press Secretary Jen Psaki refused to say what Biden’s position was on whether Trump should be convicted of inciting the Capitol riot. “Well, he’s no longer in the Senate, and he believes that it’s up to the Senate and Congress to determine how they will hold the former president accountable and what the mechanics and timeline of that process will be,” Psaki said.”
Thank you for including this in today’s Letter. Ms. Psaki has been asked some version of this question during each Press briefing to date. I had hoped she would simply say that we have a system of government with three co-equal branches, and even though the lines have been blurred to the point that they seemed not to exist during the previous administration, the President does not intend to insinuate himself in the Impeachment and Removal process, which is the exclusive domain of Congress.
I was heartened, however, by her response to a question about whether the President felt the former president was unfit to hold the office, and she responded with yes, that’s why he ran against him.
The Press sells papers with controversy and conflict – Ms. Psaki appears more than capable of pushing back without being mean-spirited.
How quick we are to start bashing the press, just like Trump did. Remember that the way Ms. Richardson and the rest of us found out about all the Trump skullduggery for 4 years was the women and men of the press corps who put up with a lot of verbal and physical harassment to get those stories.
I worked in journalism in DC for 25 years. Contrary to the assertion below that they are “otherwise unemployable,” the vast majority of the hundreds of reporters and photographers who cover our government are smart, well-educated and dedicated to telling the public what goes on in government.
Yes! I never understood blanket bashing of the press. But then I’m a teacher. My profession is also often looked down upon, “those who can do...” If it weren’t for investigative journalism we’d be in the dark about so much. Thanks for pointing this out.
Jane, I don't think those are the people to whom HCR was referring, unless you are talking about the pundits who populate Fox News and the new new-fascist news outlets: no one is vilifying the press here. But I do agree with R Dooley--and this was discussed at length this week on NPR by some of the best journalists in the business, including the DC-based program One-A. The print, radio, and tv folks on the roundtables all expressed a certain level of regret that they let the EX-potus direct the news cycle through tweets in ways that, once begun, were very difficult to alter or control. The WaPo Opinion pages are also full of people who say much the same thing. I also think credit should be given to Jen Psaki because she stepped into the maelstrom and simply by doing her job--and doing it elegantly--she changed the tone in the Briefing Room from Day 1.
Let’s be clear, Hannity, Carlson and Limbaugh, as well as opinion writers in the Post and other pubs and TV shows are NOT the press corps, they produce opinions, not news. As for letting Trump control the news cycle : the president — any president — does that in one way or another. The challenge is to report what is said or done and also tell why it happened and the longer term implications. That’s very hard to do on a daily news cycle because it’s difficult to get perspective in the few hours or minutes a reporter has to get the information and publish or broadcast it. Also, fact-based journalists don’t like to call people liars unless they can prove they are. Trump actually made this a bit easier with time because he repeated the same lies over and over again.
Amen. And do you know what we need? We need a piece on how news organizations have been starved of money since the 1980s. Hmm....
Would be great for you to do that, but the focus would really be on local print and local news coverage, not directly on the big Natl issues you usually focus on. Tho one mite argue that all the two- and three-bit towns that lost their papers don’t really hold their US Reps and Senators to account any more. Could be that this disadvantages the sensible people on Main St. Vs the wing nuts.
Works for me! One thing I wonder is how the online newspapers fare. I know paper-papers struggle, especially since the lack of revenue from classifieds, but are papers making any money through subscriptions online? And what does that do to funding and how does that affect investigative reporting and staying non-biased?
I wonder if the whole profession has been tarnished by the likes of Hannity, Ingraham, and others in the disinformation-entertainment faction of broadcast, who are not journalists although I suspect their watchers think so.
In France the government allows a very wide definition of who is a journalist (including people running talk shows) and the profession as it is normally defined (illiciting and explaining facts and labelling opinions clearly) is disappearing fast. They have also given them a big tax break which isn't of course intended to influence them!!!!!!!
“Illiciting” opinions. Unintended irony?
My unconscious is frequently expressing itself despite the best efforts that one can try to impose
Interesting. It never occurred to me different countries had different definitions of journalism.
LOL!
They’ve made it worse, but press have had poor reputations since the days of yellow journalism and muckraking. We need to not blame them, but the people that buy the sensationalist lack-of-truth “reporting.” Education and producing a populace that can think is imperative.
"Muckraking" was a positive development in journalism. Those were the people who dug into the lies and exposed the truth of oppression and corruption. We could do with a lot more of them. They were particularly missed as most (not all) of the "mainstream" at least normalized Trump's aberrant and abhorrent behaviors where they did not promote it. Unfortunately, we now see the NYT firing Lauren Wolfe (who may not be a real muckraker, but still) because of phony right wing outrage while their stable of diner-frequenting Cletus hunters plods on.
Yes - response to yellow journalism. Yin and Yang.
"Muckraker" is part of a long but not distinguished tradition of hostile outsiders nicknaming groups that stir things up, often ones making "good trouble." Levellers, Diggers, Ranters, Quakers, Shakers, Mugwumps; also the mis-application of Know-Nothings since the 1850s.
Surely, we can agree that all press outlets and reporters are not created equal. When USA Today first appeared, late-night comedians joked that there was a new Pulitzer category: Best Investigative Paragraph. For me, Ms Psaki’s declaration on Day One that the Administration believed in and valued the role of a free press was music to our ears, after four years of all legitimate journalism being characterized as “fake news” by the most powerful person on the planet.
The simple fact that the word “obfuscation” was enunciated in a WH press briefing is in itself refreshing.
Great word.
The reference in today's Letter was to the WP's use of the word. It was a slam, but a soft one. It struck me as more tongue in cheek than serious criticism.
Here's the quote from the WP:
"Biden’s team says it plans to bring back the practice of daily news briefings, and promised transparency with the American public. But that doesn’t mean they are above the timeless tradition of skilled obfuscation: Psaki, for instance, has repeatedly declined to share Biden’s position on whether he believes Trump should be convicted of inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol riot in the upcoming Senate impeachment trial."
I don't believe she was obfuscating, simply stating that Biden respects the division of power and that it is up to the Senate to convict or not.
The crux of the question goes to what the President “believes”, and Ms. Psaki doesn’t want to go there – rightly, IMHO. So, she doesn’t answer the question directly and that is what the WP is calling, “the timeless tradition of skilled obfuscation”.
As I mentioned above, a more forceful statement of principle might help to quell this line of questions.
I still say that she was at least implying that Biden believes in the separation of powers and that a president should not presume to tell the Senate how to vote. The principles he enunciated during his campaign are what got him elected. He has way more on his plate to deal with.
I agree.
Hahahaha! Fair enough.
Let's restore accuracy: The House of Representatives and the Senate constitute the Congress. Perhaps if we returned to addressing members of the House as Representatives that confusion might abate. In addition, the Framers made Congress, the legislature, the first branch of government. It holds a long list of delegated powers, both enumerated and implied. Sadly, over the years Congress has given over too much of the powers intended by the Framers for a variety of reasons. Is it not time to restore the balance. The branches are not co-equal! The courts can only respond to cases brought to them. And the President while given functions "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
this is important. Drives me nuts when people say "the Democrats" impeached the president. NO. The House of Representatives did!
I imagine the President was using the common shorthand, “Congress” to mean the House – you’re right that this usage is inaccurate and lazy, but the point Ms. Psaki (and the President) were making is nonetheless clear.
You also said,
“The branches are not co-equal! The courts can only respond to cases brought to them. And the President while given functions "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Although there is some debate among attorneys, legal scholars and linguists, the Supreme Court and lower courts, regularly use the term “co-equal / coequal” when referring to the three branches of our government.
FYI, below you will find two excerpts from a recent decision in the D.C. Circuit.
"As the Court explained in Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Nixon II), the mere act of “regulat[ing] ... Presidential materials,” “without more,” does not “constitute[] ... a violation of the principle of separation of powers.”433 U.S. 425, 441 (1977).Instead, rejecting “the argument that the Constitution contemplates a complete division of authority between the three branches,” the Court reaffirmed its reliance on “the more pragmatic, flexible approach of Madison in the Federalist[] Papers.” Id. at 442–43. “In...dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three coequal branches,” the Court explained, “the Framers of the Constitution” did not intend “the separate powers ...to operate with absolute independence.” Id.at 443 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). The Court therefore announced the following test: “in determining whether [a statute] disrupts the proper balance between the coordinate branches, the proper inquiry focuses on the extent to which it prevents the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions.”
"But to accept the Trump Plaintiffs’ suggestion that Congress may impose no disclosure requirements whatsoever on the President, see Oral Arg.Tr. 51–52(stating it is “very difficult to think of” a constitutional law Congress “could pass” with respect to the President)—or, put another way, that the challenged subpoena could result in no valid legislation—would be to return to an “archaic view of the separation of powers” that “requir[es] three airtight departments of government,” Nixon II, 433 U.S. at 443 (internal quotation marks omitted). That is not the law. Instead, “our constitutional system imposes upon the Branches a degree of overlapping responsibility, a duty of interdependence as well as independence[,] the absence of which ‘would preclude the establishment of a Nation capable of governing itself effectively.’” Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361, 381 (1989) (quoting Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 121 (1976)). As the Supreme Court has observed, “separation of powers does not mean that the branches ‘ought to have no partial agency in, or no control over, the acts of each other.’” Clinton, 520 U.S. at702–03(quoting The Federalist No. 47, at 325–326 (J. Cooke ed.1961) (emphasis in original)); see also 44Nixon II, 433 U.S. at 442-43 & n.5 (affirming “the more pragmatic, flexible approach of Madison in the Federalist Papers and later of Mr. Justice Story” to the separation of powers); Nixon, 418 U.S. at 703 (“In designing the structure of our Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three coequal branches, the Framers of the Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive system, but the separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence.”). As the Nixon cases teach, the “proper inquiry focuses on the extent to which [another branch’s actions] prevent[] the Executive branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions. ”Nixon II, 433 U.S. at 443 (citing Nixon, 418 U.S. at 711-712). Congress can require the President to make reasonable financial disclosures without upsetting this balance.”
Source: Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, No. 19-5142 (D.C. Cir. 2019)
It's somewhat similar to the definition of personal freedom..... ending when it impinges on the freedoms of the other.....applied to government and sounds eminently reasonable
That doesn't stop all people being free together....it encourages it!
I didn't want to be wordy. Checks and balances stands alongside separation of powers.
Thank you for putting it this way. I really haven't seen anything that seemed out of line from her, and that piece bugged me.
Most of the modern Washington Press Corpse can be filed under "otherwise-unemployable." For every one of them who's any good, there are 50 whose sole effort involved stealing oxygen.
Rough night?
At least he didn't ask me to die off today.
"Do no harm, but take no shit."
"some right-wing Republicans have howled that Biden’s firing of burrowing Trump loyalists betrays his promise of “unity".....
A persistent theme is, and has been, Republicans' failure to see the irony in their denunciations of Biden or, more broadly, Democrats. Let me count the times Trump pursued unity - across parties, between allies or states or ethnicities or citizen groups. Uh, yeah, that'd be about never.
And it wasn't just Trump. It was the GOP as a whole. Amy Coney Barrett's SCOTUS nomination; blowing up the deficit with the 2017 tax bill; early reopening of states with no additional restrictions to slow the spread of the coronavirus; twisting themselves into knots trying to justify not voting to impeach Trump - not once but twice; threatening to stall Biden's Cabinet nominations; dragging their feet on power sharing arrangements now that they lost the Senate majority. I could go on, but it's early Sunday morning and I have other things to do.
Per Merriam Webster, unity is a condition of harmony. It is to grant or give, especially as appropriate, due, or earned. Earned suggests that unity cannot be imposed. Restoring "unity" shouldn't mean kowtowing to the lowest common denominator. It shouldn't be validating the complaints of the injured parties. And it certainly shouldn't mean making concessions on decisions in an effort to avoid charges of "politicization."
You know why? Because the Republicans have not, and probably will not, return the favor. For too long Democrats have tried to pursue the high road. Obama failed to charge executives responsible for the 2008 financial crisis for the sake of "looking forward, not behind." In the 1970s they became the party of civil rights to the exclusion of being perceived to be sensitive to other voter concerns. Al Gore conceded the 2000 election too soon. Hillary Clinton conceded the 2016 election too soon. Obama didn't publicly address Russian interference in the 2016 election, in large part because McConnell* threatened that such an investigation would be "politicizing" the issue in an attempt to manipulate the election.
Let's not fool ourselves. Democrats, Independents, and/or "reasonable" Republicans must recognize that taking the high road in order to be liked doesn't work. In no way am I suggesting making decisions strictly for political gain, or via inappropriate or underhanded means, or just to rub it in the GOP's face. Engage whenever and wherever possible, but in a post Trumpian world, Biden should, in the words my kids' school emphasized for 13 years, "Never give in, never give up."
If Biden imposes his will to attack some of the most urgent problems Trump left on the Resolute Desk with some effect, he just might open the eyes of voters who supported Republican Senators and Representatives. If those same Congresspeople won't make some effort on their own to help Biden turn things around, maybe their own constituents will send them a message: lead or get out of the way.
Since at least 2010 the mantra of the Republicans in Congress has been "No." They've refused to posit alternatives and have chosen to obstruct rather than collaborate. This Administration has no obligation to achieve unity through any means other than pursuing practical solutions, reinstituting function expertise over political posturing, and attempting to serve all Americans, not just those who voted for them. In other words, "Do no harm, but take no shit."
Scott I agree with you: "do no harm, but take no shit" needs to be on a t-shirt.
Yes. And remove the “but”—
Do no harm
Take no shit
I’d buy one!
Yes! And Democrats need to bring up exactly what you mentioned rather than let the Republicans dominate the narrative.
Where did Republicans stand on unity when they withheld a SCOTUS nominee from a Democratic president while cramming through one nominated by a Republic “president” weeks before an election?
Where did they stand on unity when they refused to call witnesses in an impeachment trial and then nearly voted unanimously not to convict?
How did they embody unity when they enabled an administration to gut these departments and install loyalists in the first place?
Republicans are astute at utilizing “whataboutisms”. It’s time Democrats give back spoonfuls of this bitter rhetorical medicine.
I wish I could "like" your wonderful commentary 1,000,000 times!
Bravo!
Superb summation!
Am I the actual first commenter tonight? Yes, I am sleeping somewhat better but still concerned about McConnell and the filibuster and the Fairness Doctrine and Citizens United... I've been writing to my Senators almost daily to let them know my concerns and feelings about how things should progress under President Biden. I can hardly express how much joy I feel just typing those words: President Biden.
Write postcards instead of letters. Letters take longer to filter through and postcards go quickly to their destination. I’m in a postcard therapy group. And we’ve sent postcards for like trump’s Ides of March and Moscow Mitch drive. Feels great to speak up!
I’m glad you’re doing this! We have to speak up! I don’t want to come that close to losing our democracy ever again!
I sent hundreds of postcards all of last year until GA runoff in support of candidates nationwide managed by my local Indivisible team. I’m itching to stay involved. Please tell me more about your postcard therapy group. Is it local? National? Can anyone join! ❤️🤍💙
I didn’t know I was going to set off such a flurry! I will contact the person that I know and see what she us comfortable sharing with such a large group. It is a small group that we get on zoom but I believe it’s organized from a bigger state group. Maybe people need details on how to start a local group?
That would be helpful!
Deborah, has your Indivisible group disbanded? Our amazing leadership team sent a note that I believe cam from national, that their mission was accomplished when we elected Joe B, and the group no longer exists.
My group is Indivisible Westchester. They are on pause, figuring out what's next, but not disbanded. My 3 "managers" were in contact with national groups that had access to voter rolls and campaign voter strategies, along with money to message, design, print and distribute the actual postcards. Indivisible (in D.C.) sends me emails, and they don't appear to be disappearing either. They all seem to be figuring out where to focus their energy next to make the biggest difference.
Apparently, each group has the decision about its future. Since Jan, 2017, four people have organized a table at EVERY farmers market once per week, save for an occasional absence. We are all thankful for their leadership, ad grieve the dissolution of their/our network
Can you share the name of your group? I did cards for AbbytheDemocrat for the Presidential race and the one in Georgia but haven’t seen anything regarding the ides of March or Moscow Mitch that you mention. Thank you!
Postcards to Voters is still running campaigns for state and local races. www.PostcardsToVoters.org
Thank you!
Indivisible has myriad Facebook groups, most are local. Search "indivisible" on Facebook to see if there is a local group in your area. Otherwise, join the nearest.
There are several groups in local areas listed on Facebook. I’m in several for various reasons. Neighborhood, liberals, democrat, education. There was a group that just supported each other for things needed like toilet paper and diapers. That’s how I connected with the postcard tribe.
Let me get in touch with this group and find out how much they feel comfortable sharing. They buy the postcards in bulk just plain white cardstock. I’ve also purchased prestamped cards at USPS. And like now when I’m working and can’t join them on zoom, I buy them a roll of stamps and drop them off. It is organized through the state level Democrat party. But if you have an address and a cause, you can just begin sending them!
I'd love to know more!
I too would be interested in a "postcard group." Can't seem to find actual postcards, though.
You can buy prestamped postcards at any post office. Cheaper to mail than letters, and more likely to be read by Congress critters than email. The short format makes you be succinct.
Google for blank postcards. Or cut them out of cardstock. But I’ll find out more information. Postcards hit their mark much faster than letters.
Cutting them out of cardstock works really well.
Is there a postcard group to urge Democratic Congresspeople to stand unified in the face of Republicans? It will take only a few defections (only one in the Senate) to doom the Democrats to ineffectual impotence.
I haven’t been writing since I had to get back to teaching. But start one! Give us all a link to addresses! My friend gives us blank postcards that we write messages and then she has address labels and stamps them for us. I donate rolls of postcard stamps, which just went up in price, whenever I can. Sounds like we could start our own Dr HCR group!
I remember posts from this very comment board during the past couple of months featuring lists showing the addresses of members of Congress. I managed to bookmark the one for the Senate, already updated to show Ossoff and Warnock:
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
And here's a page that shows all the members of the House, the address of each shown by clicking on the pretty pictures:
https://clerk.house.gov/Members#MemberProfiles
We have to keep these people corralled. They are pulled in so many different directions that keeping their unity will require constant attention, I'm afraid.
Thank you, Dan, very much for this information.
Maybe...it's a nice idea. Perhaps to congressional members. Voter info is public; we operate under strict guidelines; and it seems a complicated process to obtain, cull and message. xo
This is the kind of good idea that needs momentum. I'm hoping Vote Save America will connect with Stacey Abrams Fair Fight, et. al. or similar to keep us in the fight.
Yes Denise, please share!
Yes, please share how/for which group are you writing for the "Moscow Mitch drive." I have written for Postcards to Voters, but see nothing about these movements.
Are you a member of a Democrat group in your area? I’m a member of a women’s group in my county. Let me ask more questions of the organizers! I’ve just been a worker bee and didn’t think too much about the nuts and bolts.
Am not a member of any Democrat group in part as I'm not a "group" type. Prefer working at my desk writing, writing,Maybe I'll encourage Postcards to Voters to branch out and begin addressing the inequities in Congress as well as writing for specific democratic candidates. Thanks for responding, Denise.
I thought that postcards were "last" in terms of priority. My bad. I hope I'm wrong. Any way to "verify" that postcards go thru the system quickly?
Postcards go through quickly because they don’t have to be opened and cleared. At least that’s how I understand it.
In this situation, I doubt that speed is of the essence. Volume and consistency seem more important in convincing doubtful Democratic Congresspeople that unity is their only way forward.