14
votes
Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of February 8
This thread is posted weekly - please try to post all relevant US political content in here, such as news, updates, opinion articles, etc. Extremely significant events may warrant a separate topic, but almost all should be posted in here.
This is an inherently political thread; please try to avoid antagonistic arguments and bickering matches. Comment threads that devolve into unproductive arguments may be removed so that the overall topic is able to continue.
Trump has been acquitted.
Seven Republicans joined the Democrats: Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
That's more than I'd thought. Unfortunately, the GOP base has spoken: there will be swift retribution for any GOP elected official who "betrays" Trump. Maybe there'd be a chance if it was a secret ballot.
Out of those who voted for conviction, it was so-called "moderate" block, who enjoy strong independent support in their states, plus likely retiring senators. Sasse is the notable exception; good for him, I suppose. Then again, he is in office until 26, so there's plenty of time for this to be forgotten.
I would be inclined to support this in cases of impeachment.
It's a weird system. In a normal jury trial, the concept of having all the jurors decision's heavily influenced by how they think the public opinion of them will change based on their vote would be absurd. At the same time, there does need to be accountability for public officials and yet there are some circumstances where they need to be able to make decisions that they believe are right without facing a PR nightmare.
Isn't this a requirement for representative democracy? They're supposed to represent the opinion of their constituents, and of course going against that would harm their chances for re-election.
I don't disagree with doing it in special cases, maybe like this situation where some GOP senators have mentioned concerns about their safety influencing their vote, but generally transparency is the best rule here, I'd say. The bigger issue is basically a corrupt voting base.
Yeah, that makes this situation a bit weird. In a way, this is what is supposed to happen, I guess? Impeachment is inherently a political, not a judicial, process. Representatives bend to the will of their constituents. Unfortunately their constituents, uh, have some poor ideas, but what can you do, I suppose.
I'm not convinced that that's the way it should work. I think that representatives should be elected and trusted to carry out legislation that is in the best interest of the people. And I think that sometimes that should involve them doing something that isn't popular, but is what they believe is right. I realize that this is incredibly idealistic though.
I apologize for the wall of text, but I think it could be worth the read. Hopefully I can at least alter someone's perception of how representation in a liberal democracy works.
TL;DR: There isn't any doing what is "right" outside of doing what is "possible"
It seems that the right way, the correct way to be a representative is to synthesize the varied interests of your constituents.
This perfect synthesis doesn't happen, because it cannot happen. If you are a representative, you need to somehow communicate with your prospective constituency that you are a good option, which requires a large amount of capital. Those who have capital can get behind your campaign if you represent them or their industry favorably. Regardless of which party or ideology you espouse, meeting these interests will be how you fund your campaign. Most industries don't care which party you belong to, represent them favorably and you have their financial backing. After all, more than 90 percent of candidates who spend the most win [1].
This is good for the young, idealistic representative. "There's a couple of folks who's toes I can't step on, but ultimately their backing will help me make the changes I like in the world." Problems arise, however. Some industries have antagonistic interests with each other; Comcast would benefit from losing net neutrality, but Netflix would suffer. Now you need to organize which benefactors you will side with. That oil company and the green energy start up have wildly different takes on pending environmental legislation.
Our hypothetical idealist representative now is up for re-election. They realized that they've necessarily put themselves in a position where the money from Exxon and Comcast has decreased since last cycle, and that green start up just doesn't make the ends meet. Their challenger has seen their funds go up. The representative's carefully managed web of benefactors still secures their win.
The topic of carbon taxes, net neutrality, or any other topic comes up again. Now, their position is more "nuanced," they aren't as aggressive on these issues because they are playing the long game. Don't rock the boat too much, and you likely can squeeze another win 3 years from now. Heck, back otherwise objectionable legislation that isn't too horrible on the conscience, win new benefactors, and you might even get to take on the oil company somewhat more aggressively next time. "It's not great, but better it be me in power in three years rather than the guy who is really schmoozing the oil company."
Repeat X election cycles. There isn't any doing what is "right" outside of doing what is "possible," e.g. what comports with their benefactors' interests well enough that they can either continue their campaigns or won't be outspent by their competition.
Are you skeptical? Is this too reductive? Consider that For House seats, more than 90 percent of candidates who spend the most win. There are edge cases that don't comport with this story; the billionaire who can just represent himself, the rare truly grassroots candidate. But these edge cases aren't where power is primarily concentrated in a liberal democracy.
I have far more links and discussion on these sorts of critiques of liberal democracy if anyone is interested, like how the DCCC (the main funding arm of the DNC for house candidates) suppresses left-wing democrats, from trying to get them to drop out [2], putting up primarily challengers [3], or just withholding funding. If I can convince you to do anything, please watch the video on #2.
[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/
[2] https://theintercept.com/2018/04/26/steny-hoyer-audio-levi-tillemann/
[3] https://theintercept.com/2018/01/23/dccc-democratic-primaries-congress-progressives/
Off-topic side note:
For the uninitiated, this can also be used as an oversimplified primer on some basic Marxist concepts, namely that those who own capital, as a class, are the class that holds actual political power. This is why the capitalist class is referred to as the ruling class within Marxist theory.
I think the second contention of Marxism, that the capitalist class (those who own businesses) and the working class (those who work for a wage at said businesses) have interests that are in tension is something worth exploring elsewhere.
I think an intellectually honest defense of capitalism and liberal democracy starts from a "all boats rise" or "best of all possible modes of production" argument, rather than seriously arguing that "the people" hold actual political power.
It seems like there are alternatives? In a jury trial, the jurors are representative of the community without being accountable to it. (Not that jury trials always go the way you want.)
Sure, but I'm not elected to a juror, I'm chosen by the plaintiff's and defendant's lawyers in that case.
I don't completely disagree with the notion of hiding votes like this if needed, like for safety (which is a variable in our current political climate, unfortunately), but not if it's just an issue of public opinion.
They're not hand-picked. It's a random draw, and then the lawyers get to filter it.
I think there's something to be said for choosing representatives randomly. This is called sortition.
The court chooses randomly from a pool of valid jurors, but both lawyers still ask questions and eliminate others in the jury selection process. It's random up to that point, but they pick who they want from who the court presents as options.
The outcome is simultaneously entirely unsurprising, and incredibly dissappointing.
Trump's 2nd impeachment trial recap, day 1 - After four hours of arguments by each side, the Senate affirmed by a vote of 56-44 that it is constitutional to try a former president.
Highlights and details available in the linked article.
Trump lawyer offers bewildering defence statement
https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-lawyers-dddccaa09cfaf5aded0baa963c1f6ce1
(And before you trot out the hung jury fear, realize that the most important function an attorney performs is jury selection. )
Removed yet another instance of the "are all Republicans awful people?" argument, since I already know it was going to go on forever and absolutely nobody was going to change their opinion in the slightest.
Can you at least let the top-level article stay?
‘Its Own Domestic Army’: How the G.O.P. Allied Itself With Militants
A majority of the people arrested for Capitol riot had a history of financial trouble
Senate Votes To Call Witnesses, Throwing Trump Impeachment Trial Into Uncertainty
Warning: Facebook link
Apparently, in addition to calling hundreds of witnesses, the GOP was threatening to filibuster every Democratic nominee and piece of legislation.
I think this impeachment trial is necessary but the conclusion is already known. I listened to the argument for whether it is constitutional or not and it seemed plain and obvious that it is constitutional. So much so, that the 56-44 vote is ridiculous.
If the trial result is also 56-44, we will know that everyone has already made up their minds and it was mostly a waste of time. But I'm curious if anyone with a statistical background knows what the likelihood of change would be. I would hope that some are open-minded enough to change their mind based on the evidence? With one hundred people, is there some expectation that the final number would change? In a reasonable world, would we expect changes in either side to cancel each other out?
I wouldn’t call it an entirely forgone conclusion that Trump is acquitted. The two sides have yet to make their full case. Additionally, the Constitution does not require a two-thirds majority of all 100 Senators, only of those present. So it is entirely possible that a dozen or more Republicans walk out in protest just before the vote, enabling conviction. (The tin-foil side in me thinks Schumer has cut some sort of deal like this with McConnell.)
Really? I was unaware of that. I thought I read during the first impeachment about how all the Senators are required to be seated and not using their electronic devices for the duration, and could in theory be enforced by the Sgt-at-arms.
Article I, Section 3:
“And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.“
Man charged in US Capitol riot worked for FBI, lawyer says
I'll just drop this here again...