Podcast (attitude): Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Part One:
We speak with Nancy MacLean, Professor of History and Public Policy at Duke University, about the grave threat that dark money poses to our democratic political system in the U.S. Individual contributors like us have limits on the amount of money we can donate to any candidate for office, and that candidate must report our names to the Federal Election Commission along with the amount we contributed. But so-called “independent” political committees (commonly called PACs) may donate as much money as they want, and their candidate never has to report the names of people who’ve contributed — no matter how large the amount donated.
How did this dangerous system develop, and why hasn’t more light been shed on it? The radical right has been planning and strategizing this since the 1970s. Wealthy leaders such as the Koch Brothers, evangelical Christians such as Ralph Reed, and conservative lawyers like the Federalist Society have taken a very patient, long-term view of the process by which they have taken control.
They started by building their networks in the 50 states (and in cities, towns and even school districts). They expanded, tolerated some losses as well as many victories, and now, 30 state governments are controlled by right-wing Republicans — in all branches of government. Donald Trump is president, the federal judiciary is packed with right-wing judges, and the Congressional Freedom Caucus has gained crucial power to prevent anything other than their conservative agenda from being enacted (including Mitch McConnell’s vow to reject any bill or position that Pres. Obama supported – not to mention refusing even to consider Obama’s nominee to fill a vacant seat on the Supreme Court).
Part Two:
We check in with Steffen Schmidt, Professor of Political Science at Iowa State University, about the week in politics. We debated the pros and cons of Joe Biden’s candidacy for president, as well as the need for Democrats to earn the votes of African-American women and men (and not take their votes for granted).
We consider the wisdom of any candidate’s steering clear of any issues that are controversial, or even ones that are not at the very top of the public’s hierarchy of concerns this year. On the other hand, voters may well reject a strategy that sticks to generalities, without presenting a clear vision for the future of our country. Which candidate will be able to walk that fine line, generate enthusiasm on the part of a large swathe of voters, and avoid making any mistakes that could bring their candidate to a screeching halt? Stay tuned.
