IssuesConnect

27/12/2023

There Is No Plan B

31/07/2022

When will this end?

Those sales tactics are “deeply disturbing, exploitative and reckless,” said Committee chair, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y). “In short, the gun industry is profiting off the blood of innocent Americans.”

29/03/2022

Ukraine Is NATO’s Biggest Test

We all practice the mental shortcut of fitting our new experiences into our past experiences. Often this practice is efficient and can save us the tedium of relearning essential lessons. But sometimes, using previously developed frames can lead to serious miscalculations. The Russian invasion of Ukraine provides a textbook study of both the benefits and costs of applying previously developed frames to our current situations. Also, this invasion shows how we can let the lack of a previously developed frame freeze our actions.

One of the frames some commentators have used is that of race. Some media commentators have used the U.S. experience with race as an overlay for understanding the discrimination faced by African and Indian students living in Ukraine. As these nonwhite students fled the Russian onslaught, some Ukrainian officials refused them access to the trains and buses provided for Ukrainians. Black and brown students, however, are not Ukrainian citizens. Ukrainian officials may have considered Ukrainian citizens at greater risk than international students. Alternatively, officials may have believed that the wives and children of Ukrainian men who fought Russian soldiers deserved special privileges. In either event, racial discrimination is always wrong. But commentators should not suggest that the discrimination faced by international students fleeing Russian invaders is the same as the racial discrimination faced by U.S. nonwhite citizens in the U.S.
Another frame being applied to the Russian invasion of Ukraine is British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's conduct during the early days of World War II. Specifically, the Churchill frame is being used to assess the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky's conduct. Both men rallied the country's flailing spirits during the depths of a war neither country seemed capable of winning. In part, because of Churchill's ability to inspire the British people, Great Britain persevered until the U.S. and Russia joined the fight against fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan. Whether Zelensky will be able to defeat Putin, a new fascist leader, ultimately is unclear. But he has shown the ability to inspire Ukrainians and anti-fascists across the globe.

The "Zelensky as Churchill" frame seems correct because of the number of points shared between Churchill and Zelensky (i.e., a smaller country besieged by a larger one, a valiant struggle that reverses the expected outcome, and a leader whose words inspire the spirit of the smaller country's people. But regardless of the ultimate correctness of the frame, its presence is a template that can help guide decision-making. Alternatively, the lack of a frame can paralyze decision-makers. Putin's nuclear saber-rattling in Ukraine has been reminiscent of the danger posed by the Cuban missile crisis. There are, however, significant differences between the missile crisis and Ukraine. In the Cuban missile crisis, the U.S. was a direct participant, along with Russia, in trying to avert a nuclear exchange. In the Ukraine/Russian conflict, the U.S. is one of several neutral allies trying to avoid escalating the conflict into a nuclear exchange while maintaining cooperation among the allies and militarily supporting Ukraine. As a result, the U.S. must weigh its actions against the allies' potential for escalation and dissensus.

Lacking an optimal frame for charting their course, Biden and the NATO allies seem to be unsure about their approach to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Of course, it isn't easy to reach and maintain consensus as an alliance. Nonetheless, the alliance must be maintained even though the NATO Treaty does not afford Ukraine the protection it offers its members. But how NATO members and the rest of Europe are threatened has changed. Non-state-sponsored terrorists now threaten NATO members, and the member nations recognize this threat. When terrorists attacked the U.S. on 9/11, NATO members, acting according to Article 5 of the treaty, joined the U.S. in military action against the terrorists. As many former members of the former Soviet Union recognize, Russia poses a threat to them if the Russian military is allowed to encroach on Ukraine's territory. Russia has launched secret attacks on neighboring countries using a variety of techniques. It has used "ghost soldiers" who hide their affiliation with Russia; disinformation spread through social media and "agents of influence" to undermine institutions and create chaos, and cyber-attacks to disrupt communications vital services it de-legitimize governments.

While some of NATO's tentativeness may be due to its determination not to escalate the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, NATO seems to be deferring to Putin's possible objections to actions it might take to aid Ukraine. For example, Biden and NATO allies have expressed concern that if it allows Poland to transfer additional MIG fighter jets to Ukraine, Putin might consider this escalatory. The NATO position on the MIG fighter jets seems contradictory because NATO has pledged sophisticated anti-missile missile systems to Ukraine. These anti-missile systems will allow Ukraine to down incoming missiles just as the MIG fighter jets do. In the meantime, Putin continues to escalate the war by choosing to attack more and more civilian targets. NATO's intent to avoid acts that Russia might consider escalatory is laudable. But in effect, NATO is allowing Putin to determine how it can aid Ukraine. Putin has said that he believes the transfer of any weapons to Ukraine by NATO to be escalatory. And he has also said the imposition of sanctions against Russia is escalatory.

NATO's response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been inadequate. Russia has caused the displacement of ten million people from their homes and the destruction of wide swaths of a country. Regardless of what countries are members of NATO, it was formed to prevent such tragedies. The Ukrainian invasion did not start when Russian tanks rolled across the Ukrainian borders. Since March of 2014, when Russia seized the Crimea region of Ukraine, Russian began a ghost war in the Donbas region of Ukraine. Russian soldiers in uniforms without insignia started a years-long plan to seize all of Ukraine. Russia used disinformation and propaganda to blame concern about potential aggression by NATO to justify their aggression against Ukraine. This disinformation campaign coincided with an attack on democratic nations. Russia has corrupted politicians and the political systems of France, the U.S., and other European countries. Also, Russia and other autocracies have attacked democratic countries by undermining their financial institutions through money laundering and dark money. In part, the success of this propaganda war has made NATO leery of "escalating" the conflict in Ukraine. It has led to a severe mismatch between what the western nations say are the consequences of allowing Russia to seize Ukraine and their willingness to go all out in providing the armaments Ukraine needs to win.

NATO and the western nations need to adopt a frame that recognizes how the military and political rules of the game have changed. NATO should consider at least three building blocks for a new frame. First, NATO might need to redefine how it ensures peace in Europe. As Russia has demonstrated, attacking nations includes more than conventional military means. Russia has used disinformation, cyber-attacks, and other forms of deception, such as corrupting other nations' politicians and political institutions and subverting the integrity of their financial markets with dark money. Second, NATO should consider itself in a perpetual war against autocracies rather than responding to occasional eruptions of international violence. It is now clear that the groundwork for Russia's invasion of Ukraine began with Russia's seizure of Crimea. Thus, NATO had eight years to prepare for the Ukrainian invasion. Yet, it failed to meet Russia's preparations with countermeasures. Its primary plan was to hope that Putin could be satisfied with Crimea and then the Donbas. Third, NATO should consider the need to counter disinformation, propaganda, agents of influence, ghost armies, and other deceptions that nations can use to deny their aggression. Over the last 15 years, Russia has used these and other techniques to attack and subvert other countries. Yet, NATO has proven itself helpless to respond. The old rules that guided nations through World War II and much of the Cold War have changed. As a result, NATO must change its approach to security to remain an effective deterrent to aggression.

01/01/2022

http://issuesconnect.com/issues-to-connect/joes-close-call

Senator Joe Manchin accurately described why he would not support President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better Act. Manchin proclaimed that Democrats intended to “reshape our society” with the BBB...

31/12/2021

Senator Joe Manchin accurately described why he would not support President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better Act. Manchin proclaimed that Democrats intended to “reshape our society” with the BBB Act. And reshaping our society is exactly what Democrats promised to do. President Biden explicitly stated, both before and after he was elected, that one of the purposes of the BBB Act was to show that democracy was still capable of transforming society. Regardless of whether the social programs in the BBB Act would squash the anti-democratic well-spring in the country, President Biden has modeled his efforts on Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs.

The efforts of Joe Manchin and a few other Democratic politicians to pare down the BBB Act raises a fundamental dilemma about a minimalist BBB ACT. Will a minimalist BBB Act be enough to demonstrate that democracy works? But one of Manchin’s primary objections to BBB is that it would change our country. FDR successfully defeated domestic fascism because his programs yielded significant changes in our society. If, as some say, the way to gain Manchin’s support for BBB is to strip most of its transformative provisions, President Biden’s ability to save our government may also be reduced.

Manchin has been unable to think of a single reason to support the BBB Act. For example, Manchin has not mentioned his regret for opposing President Biden and the Democratic caucus. Instead, Manchin has put forward many reasons for his opposition, none of which is strongly supported by objective observers. For example, he has argued that the bill is inflationary, even though 56 economists, including 15 Nobel prize winners, say the bill is not inflationary. Further, Eric Levitz has pointed out that although Manchin had succeeded in killing off a key climate provision, he called for eliminating other green energy tax credits in his latest rejection of BBB. And Manchin, as an investor in a coal mine, personally benefits from his opposition to renewable energy. Also, Manchin says that some of his opposition to BBB programs is based on it being partisan. According to Manchin, Republicans, who do not support for the bill, will overturn it when they take control of Congress. One might think legislation that transforms our society could not be easily toppled.
​Because Manchin’s vote is essential for passing the BBB Act, Democrats have an exacting calculation to make about how much they will let Manchin dictate what is in it. Biden and Democrats appear weak, in part, because they have not been able to overcome the opposition of one Democratic Senator and pass their hallmark legislation. Thus, passing this legislation is not simply helping people today with BBB; it is also a matter of maintaining power to help people tomorrow. If Democrats cannot defeat the current style of domestic fascism, then people here will suffer as they do in other countries that have overthrown their democracies. BBB is designed to defeat one of the critical elements undermining our democracy: the perceived sense that democratic government no longer works for them. The passage of a minimalist BBB may not reverse the perception that Democrats, and by extension democracy, cannot solve the problems they face.

Some Democrats persist in believing that all they must do is pass BBB, regardless of its provisions, so that they can run on it. But they forget that the Republicans will quickly point out deviations from a BBB Act that passed from promised one. While Republicans may be hypocrites, they are not mute. Considering the negative consequences of passing a weakened BBB Act, it may be better for Democrats to admit that they cannot pass a meaningful bill. Then they could run against those who opposed BBB and ask voters to help Biden by sending lawmakers who would support him and Democrats. Democrats would still have the rest of their accomplishments to crow about and demonstrate what they could do with a few more good Democrats. It may be that Democratic voters will be more motivated to come out and vote by their losses than by their wins. In any event, Democrats may have no choice.

06/12/2021

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/06/republicans-do-not-disguise-their-indifference-to-human-life/

Democrats should not shy from debate about saving lives

04/12/2021

http://issuesconnect.com/issues-to-connect/building-back-better-and-sorting-democrats

Picture

Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia.Credit...T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times
President Biden and Democratic Congressional leaders have been able to pass their agenda over the objections of Senators Joe Manchin and Kirsten Krysten Sinema. And various pundits in the media have tied themselves into knots trying to explain why Manchin and Sinema have refused to support Biden's agenda. They have attributed this legislative stalemate, in part, to an insufficient number of Congressional Democrats in the Senate. They presume that more Democratic Senators, Biden, and Congressional leaders would not depend on Manchin and Sinema. While this may be true, it depends on the inclinations of any additional Senators. Two or more Democratic Senators could also clash with their party's agenda. Then two other Senators could make the logjam worse.

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) passed their transformative legislation, Democrats enjoyed large majorities in both the House and the Senate of the Congress. More importantly, the opposition to their legislation was less obstructive. The economic turmoil caused by the Great Depression of 1929 encouraged the citizenry to support programs that the plutocracy called extreme or socialist. Southern politicians, for example, were willing to accept FDR's New Deal programs even though they did not wholly believe his pledge to keep them from affecting the social status of race relations in the South. Similarly, John Kennedy's assassination and urban riots due to racial discrimination boosted citizens' concerns about social turmoil and thus eased the passage of LBJ's Great Society programs. Now, U.S. democracy faces the worst threat to its existence since the Civil War. Can Biden and Congressional Democrats pass the agenda designed to thwart the attack on democracy?
Some media pundits, recognizing the weakness of the "more Democratic Senators are needed" contention, have turned to argue that Democrats' messaging is too poor to pressure Manchin and Sinema by swaying their constituents. Messaging can persuade voters, but voters cannot always convince their elected officials. Voters in Manchin's state of West Virginia and in Sinema's state of Arizona favor the Democratic agenda proposed by Biden by about 60 percent. Yet, Manchin and Sinema are impervious to the issues their constituents seem to prefer. Republican donors, however, have been positively affected by Manchin and Sinema's undercutting Biden's agenda. Nelson Peltz, a Trump supporter, and donor says he talks to Manchin every week, and Ken Langone, another Trump supporter, intends to hold "one of the biggest fundraisers he has ever held for him [Manchin]."

Sinema, like Manchin, is raising money from donors who usually contribute to Republicans, including Stan Hubbard, a Minnesota billionaire, and Scott Walker backer; Jimmy Haslam, the Cleveland Brown's owner; and Marc Rowan, a billionaire private equity investor. So far, Sinema has raised 90 percent of her money from donors who are not her constituents. We must ask why two Democratic senators oppose their party's agenda, supported by over 60 percent of their constituents.

Some political observers believe that Manchin, a nominal Democrat in a state Trump won by 50 points and won his last election by only three points, is justified in doing whatever he needs to do to keep his seat. These observers believe that Manchin's support of Republican ideals is necessary to keep his seat. Similarly, Sinema won her 2018 election by only three points, although observers seem less inclined to understand that she must be concerned about her next election. Thus, both Manchin and Sinema may be more worried than most Democratic Senators about having enough campaign funds to fend off opponents in their elections. Both Manchin and Sinema may have a more difficult time being re-elected because they will almost certainly lose Democratic votes. And it is unclear that Republican and swing voters can offset Democratic losses. Of course, if they lose their next election, both senators will need new jobs. Big donors can help provide for their futures.

Other observers are dubious about whether Manchin and Sinema have opposed critical parts of the Democratic agenda to obtain donations and material rewards. Political commentator Ryan Grim, for example, noted that other Democratic Senators are taking money from big donors and corporations while supporting the Democratic agenda. Manchin and Sinema's opposition to the Democratic agenda and the appeal of donors who usually contribute to Republicans may express their beliefs. After all, voters elected Democratic politicians to fulfill their agenda, and voters may not return them to their majority in the Senate, if they do not deliver. Thus, Manchin and Sinema would lose prestige and power, even if re-elected or switched to the Republican Party.

An essential sign of what may underlie Manchin's opposition to the Democratic agenda is his persistent concern about the cost of the Build Back Better (BBB) bill. He claims this concern is due to the risk of inflation. But scores of economists point out that any inflationary pressures are minimized if the programs are paid for. Yet, Manchin refuses to raise taxes on big donors and corporations to pay for those programs. Another concern raised by Manchin is that he does not want to foster an "entitlement mentality" in the citizenry. This "entitlement mentality" phrase echoes Ronald Reagan's dog whistle about blacks, "we're in danger of creating a permanent culture of poverty as inescapable as any chain or bond."

Sinema's beliefs are harder to discern because she does not talk to media as much as Manchin but has changed over the years. For example, when she was running for the Senate, she was highly critical of Trump's tax reduction on plutocrats and big corporations. But she has refused to roll back any of those tax cuts in the BBB bill. Lizzie Widdicombe in the New Yorker suggests Sinema's erratic policy positions are due to her being a "pick me girl." That is, Sinema mirrors girls who "desperately try to seem like they're different" to attract attention. Sinema may be trying to attract the attention of Republican and swing voters to help ensure she is re-elected.

Manchin and Sinema are smart people. They know the difference between investment and spending. They recognize that every program in the BBB bill is an investment. Despite the need for investments in their constituents, both Manchin and Sinema seem to ensure that taxes on their rich donors remain as low as possible. They have worked together as "rotating villains" or "rotating good cop/bad cop." As an example of this rotating villainy, consider they both require that the bill be paid for but alternate in rejecting any proposed means of paying for it. Both have consistently expressed concerns about the bill's total cost and taxing the rich and big corporations to pay for it. However, they have added other drawbacks to BBB, such as inflationary pressures. But as I noted earlier, other Democrats obtain large donations from the very rich and still manage to advance the Democratic agenda. Manchin and Sinema, however, have not only rejected Biden's agenda, but they have also chosen to maintain the social order of the Southern Democratic Party: the primacy of the rich white male.

The primacy of the rich Southern white male was based, in part, on excluding Blacks from most of the social and political life inhabited by whites. The social order of the Southern Democratic Party supported plutocrats who used Blacks to threaten the economic well-being of poor whites. Southern politicians were able to help ensure plutocrats could keep salaries low, benefitting businesses. They could also help keep social services, and thus, taxes low, benefitting the rich. And Southern politicians were able to provide these benefits to plutocrats by pitting poor Whites against Blacks and therefore maintaining their power. The power exercised by southern plutocrats is quite simply authoritarianism and has now been adopted by the Republican Party as its favored form of governance. Lyndon's Johnson and the Democratic Party's, perhaps inadvertently, launched an attack on the primacy of the rich white male with their support of the 1964 Civil Rights and the 1965 Voting Rights Acts. While the Democrats may have thought they were only attacking Southern racism, the Civil Rights Movement helped spawn the Anti-Vietnam Movement, the Women's Movement, and the New Left. These social upheavals caused a realignment or sorting of politicians and voters among the Democratic and Republican parties.

Starting in the South, this sorting has been going on for the last 40 years. Politicians and voters who were more comfortable with the social dominance of plutocratic whites, coupled with exclusionary practices against nonwhites, found a new home in the Republican Party. This shift to the Republican Party included politicians like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and Trent Lott. Instead of altering the social order on which the Southern society and politics had been built from the end of the Civil War to the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the new political alignment sought to extend the Southern social order to the rest of the rest the country. Manchin and Sinema, in their concern for plutocrats' taxes, are more like the old Southern Democrats who switched to the Republican Party. Thus, we can best explain their policy positions as politicians who, until now, failed to sort themselves.

If there is any good news in Manchin and Sinema's failure to sort themselves until now, it is this. Like modern Republicans, Manchin and Sinema are primarily concerned with taxes and power. If the BBB bill can be reduced enough, Manchin and Sinema will likely support it. Also, Biden must exert pressure on Manchin and Sinema. Like most Republicans, they may succumb to hierarchy, and Biden may sway them. Further, if they support the BBB bill, they will help ensure that they can maintain their position in the Democratic Party. And the Democratic Party will allow them to continue to exercise political power more than a jump to the Republican Party, where they would have to compete with longstanding Republicans.

If Manchin and Sinema are unwilling to support a slimmed-down BBB bill, Biden should penalize them as an object lesson. Voters are beginning to see Biden as weak and somewhat doddering because he fails to move his agenda through Congress quickly. The passage of an eviscerated BBB bill will feed into this image and will be reinforced by Republicans. If Biden can exact enough punishment on Manchin and Sinema, he may be able to reverse his ineffectual image. President Bill Clinton said about the presidency, "it is better to be seen as strong and wrong than weak and right."

President Biden and Democratic Congressional leaders have been a ble to pass their agenda over the objections of Senators Joe Manchin and Kirsten Krysten S inema . And v arious pundits ...

15/10/2021

http://issuesconnect.com/issues-to-connect/building-back-better-the-same

Some observers heralded Joe Biden's defeat of Donald Trump as a triumph of U.S. democracy over authoritarianism. Other more knowledgeable observers recognized that for Trump-style authoritarianism...

15/08/2021

https://issuesconnect.com/issues-to-connect/bust-the-filibuster

Not surprisingly, Democratic politicians and strategists have framed their efforts to overcome the Senate filibuster to further their agenda. A filibuster is a delaying tactic to prevent a vote...

18/05/2021

Derek Chauvin’s defense failed to “emotionally distance” George Floyd from the jury. And I believe that failure was a significant contributor to Chauvin being found verdict. The defense...

18/05/2021

The law (SB202) passed in Georgia on March 25, 2021, restricts voting in several different ways. The 96- page bill allows the state legislature to seize the power of county election boards. As a...

18/05/2021

Some Democrats and others refuse to recognize that Republicans signal they intend to sabotage our democracy. Centrist Democrats and others hope each Republican statement or act that undermines our...

18/05/2021

Since he claimed that Barack Obama was not an American citizen, we have known that Trump is a liar. I wondered whether Trump lies to manipulate others or because he is delusional . In either...

18/05/2021

Since the television networks announced Joe Biden the winner of the 2020 Presidential election, cable news commentators have marched across their screens to lament Donald Trump's refusal to cooperate...

18/05/2021

Following the Democrats disappointing showing in the 2020 Congressional elections, losing 10 to 15 House seats and failing to take the Senate majority as predicted, a war between the Progressive and...