Public Policy and Governance – Page 13

The Real GOP Platform

Well, the GOP has produced a platform. I suppose we should consider that a welcome change from 2020, when the party didn’t bother. (The excuse then, as I recall, was “whatever Trump wants is our platform;” now, they evidently realize he has no policies; his sole agenda is “look at me!”)

But as Robert Hubbell has pointed out, the real GOP Platform is Project 2025. As he has also noted, although the “official” Republican platform is pretty horrific, Project 2025—the actual platform–is a fascist wet dream. The GOP Platform, appalling as it is, whitewashes that vision.

For example, the GOP Platform mentions the word “abortion” only once to say that the decision has been returned to the states. Project 2025 references “abortion” 922 times to describe how access to abortion will be denied at the national level through congressional legislation and how access will be restricted in every program possible—from emergency medical treatment to foreign aid to healthcare in the military.

It isn’t just abortion. The same extremism is true of other issues.

Project 2025 promises to “dismantle the administrative state,” gut the civil service, strip the EPA of its ability to protect the environment, actively discriminate against LGBTQ people (including by excluding transgender people from the military), promote the role of “faith-based” organizations in delivering government services, and more.

As truly horrifying and unAmerican as Project 2025 is, the “official” platform intended to “soften” GOP intentions is pretty terrifying too. Hubbell listed several of its White Nationalist, xenophobic planks.

1. Seal The Border, And Stop The Migrant Invasion

2. Carry Out The Largest Deportation Operation In American History

9. End The Weaponization Of Government Against The American People

10. Stop The Migrant Crime Epidemic, Demolish The Foreign Drug Cartels, Crush Gang Violence, And Lock Up Violent Offenders

15. Cancel The Electric Vehicle Mandate And Cut Costly And Burdensome Regulations

16. Cut Federal Funding For Any School Pushing Critical Race Theory, Radical Gender Ideology, And Other Inappropriate Racial, Sexual, Or Political Content On Our Children

18. Deport Pro-Hamas Radicals And Make Our College Campuses Safe And Patriotic Again

19. Secure Our Elections, Including Same Day Voting, Voter Identification, Paper Ballots, And Proof Of Citizenship.

A number of the far Right members of Congress aren’t waiting for the election and the GOP’s presumed victory. As Common Dreams has recently reported, they are taking advantage of the fact that media attention has largely turned to the election campaign, and are using that comparative lack of public scrutiny to embark on what the publication called “an austerity rampage” that would “demolish public education” and “let corporate price gouging run rampant.”

With much of the public’s attention on the looming presidential election and high-stakes jockeying over who will take on Donald Trump in November, congressional Republicans in recent weeks have provided a stark look at their plans for federal spending should their party win back control of the presidency and the Senate.

The appropriations process for Fiscal Year 2025, which begins in October, is currently underway, with congressional committees engaging in government funding debates that are likely to continue beyond the November elections.

In keeping with their longstanding support for austerity for ordinary Americans, Republicans in the House and Senate have proposed steep cuts to a wide range of federal programs and agencies dealing with education, environmental protection, Social Security, election administration, national parks, nutrition assistance, antitrust enforcement, global health, and more—all while they pursue additional deficit-exploding tax giveaways for the rich.

These proposals are more evidence–if any was needed– that the goals outlined in Project 2025 now represent the basic philosophy of a once-respectable political party.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, has been attempting to sound the alarm over the GOP’s proposals, which she has warned would “demolish public education,” endanger the health of women and children, gut mental health programs, “let corporate price gouging run rampant,” and “expose children to dangerous products.”…

Congressional Republicans’ spending proposals for next fiscal year are in line with the draconian cuts pushed by Project 2025, a sweeping far-right agenda from which Trump—the presumptive GOP presidential nominee—is attempting to distance himself as horror grows over the initiative’s vision for the country.

Project 2025’s 922-page policy document calls for more punitive work requirements for SNAP recipients, massive cuts to Medicaid, the abolition of the Department of Education, the elimination of major clean energy programs, and the gutting of key Wall Street regulations.

If this “laundry list” seems insane–a roadmap to anarchy and a new Dark Ages–it is. We are living at a time when a major political party has developed a mass psychosis.

It turns out that Trump isn’t the only Republican who is bat-shit crazy. He’s just more incoherent than the others, so it’s more obvious.

Comments

The Price Of Ideology

In posts to this blog, I often criticize ideological rigidity. Hopefully, those criticisms come in a context that makes the meaning of “ideological” clear, but it may be worthwhile to focus on just what it means to be “ideological” rather than simply convinced of the likelihood that some phenomenon is true.

Ideology has a lot in common with prejudice, which means “pre-judging.” (We all know people who firmly believe that “those people” [insert your chosen group here] are lazy, unintelligent, shifty…whatever–and who dismiss any inconvenient evidence to the contrary.)

Ideology extends beyond such categorizing of one’s fellow humans, of course, and its most obvious characteristic is a stubborn refusal to adapt belief to evidence, and to change or at least modify one’s opinion when that evidence is too persuasive to ignore.

The problem, of course, is that persistent rejection of an unwanted reality usually prevents people from coping with very real problems.

The situation in Florida is an excellent illustration of the foregoing, somewhat abstract discussion. A while back, I came across a discussion of the impact of climate change on Florida residents and businesses. It began by focusing on the closure of assisted living facilities in that state as a result of huge increases in the cost of property insurance–not to mention the growing inability to even find a property insurer willing to write such coverage in Florida.

The state of Florida is incredibly vulnerable to climate change and to the newly numerous and severe weather events that change is triggering. Thanks to its shape and location, it is also uniquely vulnerable to rising sea waters–the Miami airport has spent some seven billion dollars “modernizing” and raising the elevation of the facility due to the speed at which Florida’s sea level is now rising. (Currently, by as much as 1 inch every 3 years.)

Right now, the most obvious effect of climate change on the state is the crisis of property insurance rates and availability.

It is not just business that is taking it on the chin. Floridians pay the highest home insurance rates in the country. The good old gator boys love to point out how expensive the Socialist Republic of New York is. But like all conservative rhetoric, it is vacuous self-congratulation with no foundation in reality.

Homeowners in the Sunshine State do not pay state income tax. But, while a married New Yorker earning $70,000 p.a. pays c.$2,726 in state income tax, a married Floridian living in a $300,000 house will pay c.$4,733 more ($6,366 vs. $1,633) than the NYer for home insurance.

Any effort to solve that crisis runs into DeSantis’ ideology–which denies the evidence every sensible Floridian can see.

Global warming denial is a state religion in Florida. As early as 2014, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection bosses banned their subordinates from saying “climate change” and “global warming.” Because, as everyone knows, the most effective way to tackle a problem is to deny it.

In March 2015, The Miami Herald reported what DEP employees had to say on the matter:

“We were told not to use the terms ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’ or ‘sustainability,’” said Christopher Byrd, an attorney with the DEP’s Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee from 2008 to 2013.

“That message was communicated to me and my colleagues by our superiors in the Office of General Counsel.” Kristina Trotta, another former DEP employee who worked in Miami, said her supervisor told her not to use the terms “climate change” and “global warming” in a 2014 staff meeting. “We were told that we were not allowed to discuss anything that was not a true fact,” she said….

Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation deleting even the mention of climate change from state laws. It gets worse. As CNN reported:

The wide-ranging law makes several changes to the state’s energy policy – in some cases deleting entire sections of state law that talk about the importance of cutting planet-warming pollution. The bill would also give preferential treatment to natural gas and ban offshore wind energy, even though there are no wind farms planned off Florida’s coast.

The bill deletes the phrase ‘climate’ eight times – often in reference to reducing the impacts of global climate change through its energy policy or directing state agencies to buy ‘climate friendly’ products when they are cost-effective and available. The bill also gets rid of a requirement that state-purchased vehicles should be fuel efficient.

I’m not sure when ideology morphs into insanity…

A popular cartoon posed the question: what if there isn’t climate change and we made the world more livable for nothing?

Comments

More On Project 2025

In a weird way, it really doesn’t matter who heads up either the Republican or Democratic national tickets–because this election is rapidly becoming a referendum on the U.S. Constitution and what it means to be an American.

If Republicans win the Presidency and Congress, we are very likely to jettison the Constitution in favor of the provisions of Project 2025. The forces that produced Project 2025 represent the real power structure of today’s GOP; its members see Trump as a convenient “front” because he is ignorant, stupid (those aren’t the same thing) and interested only in garnering attention–thus easily manipulated. Should he be replaced at the top of the ticket, it would either be with someone equally malleable or with a Project 2025 true believer.

Fortunately, the Democrats–unlike the Borg (look it up)–don’t believe that resistance is futile. As Joyce Vance has recently reported, Democrats have created a task force to combat what can accurately be described as an extension of the January 6th coup attempt. The task force has been created by California Congressman Jared Huffman, who described its formation and purpose.

We started by getting leaders from groups across the political spectrum of our House Democratic Caucus to sign on – Progressives, New Dems, CHC, CBC, API, Pro-Choice, Labor, LGBTQ Equality, and, of course, the Congressional Freethought Caucus I co-founded with Jamie Raskin! From there, several other members signed on, including two from leadership (Joe Neguse and Ted Lieu). Our ranking Appropriator, Rosa DeLauro, just joined us this week, bringing the Task Force to 15 members, including some of the most effective communicators in Congress.

We’re working closely with experts from more than a dozen leading advocacy groups, including Accountable.US, Democracy Forward, Center for American Progress, ACLU, Protect Democracy, Court Accountability, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and more.

Our work plan starts with over half a dozen subject matter briefings for Task Force members and staff by the end of August. We’ve already had the first two: last week on messaging/communications, including some recent polling on Project 2025, and this week, an ominous briefing on how the various elements of Project 2025 link together in a very strategic attack on democracy and civil liberties. As we complete these “deep dive” briefings, we’re developing and pushing out messaging materials for Task Force members, outside partner groups, and the media. In September, we will have a big, congressional hearing-like event where we publicly roll out highlights of the various briefings in conjunction with the outside groups. The hearing will feature testimony from leading experts and different Task Force members will take the lead in presenting different parts of Project 2025. We believe this event will get a lot of attention and will distill Project 2025 for the American people in a way that helps them understand how radical and destructive it is, why it must be taken very seriously, and how we can stop it.

After added discussion about the task force plans, Huffman addressed the central issue: what would the enactment of Project 2025 mean for the American experiment?

As Huffman explained, Project 2025 is a sweeping attack on democracy and fundamental American freedoms–an attack on health care and reproductive liberty, social justice, the livability of our planet, and much more.

It aims to systematically dismantle our democratic checks and balances and consolidate unprecedented power in a second Trump presidency. It’s truly a roadmap to make Trump, already an aspiring dictator, into a real one, and to impose a radical social/religious order on all of us. It exudes an “any means necessary” philosophy, including the explicit embrace of dystopic authoritarian measures like domestic military deployments, detention camps, mass deportations, an unprecedented political purge of the federal workforce, political weaponization of federal law enforcement, and more. These are my greatest concerns because they would end American democracy as we know it.

There are certainly other worrisome parts of Project 2025, including dramatically weakening public education (with a goal of ending secular public education), sweeping attacks on the environment and rollbacks of climate action, clear threats to our social and retirement safety net, and privatization schemes and other reckless giveaways to powerful special interests.

Rick Wilson has said that Project 2025 “polls like Ebola,” which explains why Trump is suddenly trying to dissociate himself from it, but Heritage worked with over 100 extreme Rightwing groups that are at the heart of Trump’s political base, along with several of the most loyal (and scary) members of the prior Trump administration –- Mark Meadows, Stephen Miller, Peter Navarro, and several others.

The GOP roadmap that is Project 2025 is breathtakingly clear. Those of us who want to keep the Constitution need to ensure that voters know where that roadmap would take us.

Comments

Heritage Makes It Explicit

When I was much younger, I would have bristled if someone told me to vote a straight ticket. I was one of those scolds who insisted that one’s duty as a citizen was to research the bona fides of all candidates, from President to coroner, and vote accordingly. And in a perfect–or even marginally better–world, I would probably stand by that assertion.

But we are in uncharted territory. Thanks, ironically, to decades of weakening political party structures and influence, the voting public has separated itself into two blocs, one of which is a more-or-less normal political party spanning a fairly wide range of policy preferences and engaging in relatively typical intra-party disputes, while the other has morphed into a cohesive racist cult that threatens the most fundamental bases of the American Idea.

The accuracy of that last paragraph is demonstrated by the fact that I don’t have to tell you which is which.

A vote for anyone in the cult is a vote for the goals of Project 2025, because even Republicans who are personally conflicted about or even opposed to the MAGA zealots have shown zero willingness to confront the crazies who are firmly in control of their party. Those who recognize the threat and retain their spines have all declared their intent to vote Democratic.

And let’s be quite clear about that threat.

Heather Cox Richardson has described it accurately and succinctly:

Project 2025 stands on four principles that it says the country must embrace: the U.S. must “[r]estore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children”; “[d]ismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people”; “[d]efend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats”; and “[s]ecure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution calls ‘the Blessings of Liberty.’”

In almost 1,000 pages, the document explains what these policies mean for ordinary Americans. Restoring the family and protecting children means using “government power…to restore the American family.” That, the document says, means eliminating any words associated with sexual orientation or gender identity, gender, abortion, reproductive health, or reproductive rights from any government rule, regulation, or law. Any reference to transgenderism is “pornography” and must be banned.

The overturning of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized the right to abortion must be gratefully celebrated, the document says, but the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision accomplishing that end “is just the beginning.”

Dismantling the administrative state starts from the premise that “people are policy.” Frustrated because nonpartisan civil employees thwarted much of Trump’s agenda in his first term, the authors of Project 2025 call for firing much of the current government workforce—about 2 million people work for the U.S. government—and replacing it with loyalists who will carry out a right-wing president’s demands.

The plan asserts “the existential need” for an authoritarian leader to dismantle the current government that regulates business, provides a social safety net, and protects civil rights. Instead of the government Americans have built since 1933, the plan says the national government must “decentralize and privatize as much as possible” and leave “the great majority of domestic activities to state, local, and private governance.”

It attacks “America’s largest corporations, its public institutions, and its popular culture,” for their embrace of international organizations like the United Nations and the European Union and for their willingness to work with other countries. It calls for abandoning all of those partnerships and alliances.

The current head of the Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts, has remade what was formerly a Rightwing think tank into an organization focused upon “institutionalizing Trumpism.” Heritage has negotiated a formal partnership with Viktor Orban and is working to bring the neo-fascist policies of Hungary to the United States.

Unlike members of the MAGA base, Heritage and other Rightwing activists are well aware that Trump is an ignoramus wholly incapable of ushering in their desired policies; he’s basically a convenient tool.

In January 2024, Roberts told Lulu Garcia-Navarro of the New York Times that Project 2025 was designed to jump-start a right-wing takeover of the government. “[T]he Trump administration, with the best of intentions, simply got a slow start,” Roberts said. “And Heritage and our allies in Project 2025 believe that must never be repeated.”

The only thing that will stop the completion of the January 6th coup and the remakng of America along the lines of a Rightwing wet dream is a massive and comprehensive rejection of the GOP, from top to bottom.

If the French could do it, surely we can.

Comments

A Way Out Of The Doom-Loop?

I recently re-connected with an old friend who had moved out of state many years ago. Like so many of us “back in the day,” she was heavily involved in Republican politics, and like virtually all of us in that cohort, she is appalled by today’s GOP. Because she is politically sophisticated, she also understands that the takeover of that party and its successes at the polls have been enabled by manipulation of structural factors: gerrymandering, the Electoral College, the two-party system, etc.

Her question to me–which I was unable to answer–was: what avenues exist to modify/replace the structures that are obsolete, and/or might make it harder to misuse the others? What changes to our electoral systems could we work toward that might re-invigorate moderation and genuine, small-d democratic outcomes?

Not long after that conversation, I came across an interesting article in The New Republic, authored by two experienced political actors, one Republican, one Democrat, outlining one such possible change: fusion voting. (In the 1980s and 1990s, one had worked for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush; the other had worked in Jesse Jackson’s presidential campaigns and co-founded a progressive third party.)

If America survives November, I think their approach offers hope…

The thesis of the article is fairly simple: while minor-party candidates are a waste of time, minor parties that can cross-endorse major-party candidates can make a huge difference.

What unites us is the understanding that our government is failing because politics is failing. At the heart of that political failure is a two-party system that pushes the citizenry into two hyper-polarized camps and discourages the coalitions and compromises essential to public problem-solving…

Substantial majorities tell pollsters that they want a way out of the “two-party doom loop.” But the solution is not a third party or independent presidential candidate: That always fails. At best they get a flurry of attention before fading into obscurity. A few are remembered, but only because they are seen, rightly or wrongly, as having played the role of a “spoiler.”

Still, the predictable failure of third-party candidates should not distract us from the need to solve the structural problems of the two-party system. The incentives baked into our system are in no small part responsible for bringing us to the precipice of authoritarianism.

The authors stress that this doesn’t require the invention of something new. Instead, they want to revive fusion voting, which was once commonplace in America. Fusion voting is the practice of a third party “cross-nominating” a candidate of one of the major parties. “This candidate appears on the ballot under two different labels, with the votes tallied separately but then added together—fused—to determine their total.”

I remember when New York’s Conservative Party still engaged in that “fusing,” typically endorsing a Republican candidate for Mayor or Governor in return for certain policy commitments. As the authors of the article explain,

In a fusion system, minor parties are both independent and relevant. They retain a “threat of exit” should neither major party nominate an acceptable candidate. More commonly, fusion parties will push or prod a major-party candidate to be better on a few key issues, and in return will nominate them. This is more constructive for the polity and more satisfying to the voter than a spoiler or wasted vote. “Vote for the candidate you prefer,” says the fusion party organizer, “under the party label closest to your values.

Fundamentally, fusion voting produces more choices for the voter—but it’s more parties, not more candidates. The path out of the two-party doom loop runs not through eliminating or weakening parties but rather through a system that encourages and rewards coalitions between parties.

Fusion allows minority parties to demonstrate that they have meaningful support among voters, support that allows them to negotiate with a major-party ally.

No doubt the major parties disliked having to bargain with minor-party partners, but bargaining is essential in politics. The Whigs were mushy on slavery, and Free Soilers spined them up. Democrats were nervous about taking on the trusts, but the Populists insisted that they stand up for debtors and farmers. Fusion creates incentives for compromise between groups that do not agree on everything but do agree on enough to get things done.

The two major parties managed to get fusion voting outlawed in most states, but reinstating it would work to re-energize the multitude of voters who shrink from extremism of either Left or Right and are unwilling to identify wholly with either party.

It’s certainly worth a try.

Comments