WHAT DO WE STAND FOR?
We open with a reflection on the above question, in light of yesterday’s first impeachment hearing in Congress. House Democrats finally took a stand and are digging into the facts — and the evidence on all sides. They are now fully committed to following the facts to whatever corrective action is necessary to end corruption and rebuild our democracy.
Brave diplomats and government agency officials are testifying about everything they saw and heard, in spite of being demonized and retaliated against by Trump and his Republican allies. They understand the difference between right and wrong, and they choose to act in accordance with what’s right. They appear genuine and honest, acting and speaking based on what they believe is true and what they deem best for the country’s founding precepts.
On the other hand, Trump, Giuliani, Cong. Jim Jordan, et al, seem anything but truthful. They change their narratives frequently depending on the circumstances, they invent outright phony stories, and they talk about irrelevant diversions, red herrings.
The difference between the two “sides” of the discussion is palpable. As an example, we examine one Fox News show, complaining that Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax would be bad for the country. Fox was worried that the (unfortunate) billionaires don’t have their wealth invested in liquid assets. So they might, Heaven forbid, have to “sell an island” in order to pay the wealth tax . . . unless they “already have the assets in an offshore account.” A bit later in the show, the guest bragged about how well the Trump stock market was doing, and noted that some middle class people have also benefitted from the market’s rise. Help the billionaires; maybe some crumbs will trickle down to the rest of us.
Part One:
THE UNTHINKABLE — COULD IT HAPPEN HERE?
We speak with Russ Muirhead, Chair of the Government Department at Dartmouth College, about the impeachment process (including the first hearing), and how they relate to the 2020 presidential campaign. Impeachment makes us worry about the fundamental values of our country. Our democracy envisions public officials like the president working exclusively for the benefit of the country. They should not sacrifice the country’s welfare in order to further their own personal interests (financial, electoral, or otherwise).
If public officials do violate the public trust or abuse their power, the Founders provided a process in our Constitution (impeachment) under which the Congress may remove them from office. If they are convicted of (unspecified) “high crimes and misdemeanors,” further harm to the country may be prevented.
Even without a conviction in the Senate, the political process was designed to change leaders in a non-violent way. Democracy expects that only the person who wins an election shall take office. The peaceful transition of power every 4 years is one of the most moving, iconic images of American democracy.
But what if a president (e.g., Pres. Trump) loses the 2020 election, but refuses to relinquish the White House? This no longer seems far-fetched, in light of this president’s lack of respect for the law, his narcissistic “me-first” worldview, his erratic behavior and fantastical stories. We worry that Pres. Trump just might provoke a constitutional crisis, declaring that he has a right to stay in power, use force, and impose autocratic “law and order,” even if he loses the 2020 election.
Part Two:
DO WE NEED MORE BILLIONAIRES TO RUN? OR GOVERNORS?
We visit again with “Dr. Politics,” Steffen Schmidt, professor of political science at Iowa State University. With all the talented candidates already running for president as Democrats, why are several more entering the race? Michael Bloomberg is the fourth wealthiest billionaire in the world. Deval Patrick is a former Governor from Massachusetts who sits on the Board of Bain Capital, a private equity firm, and other uber-corporations. Maybe Patrick is tag-teaming with Terry Sanford, the former Georgia governor who just terminated his candidacy.
We think the explanation for all the new entrants (and desperate efforts to induce other new entrants) is based on the realization, on the part of Wall Street and the wealthy, that Elizabeth Warren actually has a chance to become president. And her policy plans are starting to resonate with a lot of middle class and working class Americans — including her recognition that corporate power has controlled our economy and our politics for a long time, and her pledge to move our country toward a more equitable balance of power between ordinary people (the 99%) and the monied interests.
This same reasoning explains why Pete Buttigieg is starting to surge in the polls, and especially in donor boardrooms. Every time he levels a devastating criticism at Warren, his campaign contributions skyrocket. But just in case he isn’t “electable,” many people in the Democratic “center” are scurrying around to find a savior who can step in – even as the primary race grinds toward its end — and get crowned the nominee. (Of course, although many people talk in hushed terms about who’s “electable,” that means different things to different people, and it may not really mean anything at all. Do people think Joe Biden and Mayor Pete are most electable because they avoid taking clear positions on any issue, so they don’t upset any particular group of voters? Does anyone have any facts to prove that Warren’s (and Sanders’) progressive agenda, if communicated effectively to voters, would not resonate with enough voters to defeat Donald Trump’s angry, flawed, irrational/dangerous reelection campaign?
