Podcast (attitude): Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
We “rethink the week” with Valerie Endress, Professor of Political Communication at Rhode Island College; Dean Spiliotes, Professor and Civic Scholar at Southern NH University; and Mark Fernald, attorney and former gubernatorial candidate in New Hampshire.
We wonder why Pete Buttigieg hired two staff members who were recommended to him by the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook is in the midst of mounting attacks from Congress, the press, and the public for making it so easy for Russian bots to interfere with the US election in 2016, and for not taking sufficient steps to prevent more interference in our 2020 election. What exactly is the relationship between Zuckerberg and Buttigieg? It turns out, the two attended Harvard at the same time, and maintained a friendship in the years since, as Buttigieg was pursuing his political career. We wonder whether cronyism will become a problem for Mayor Pete. Would his presidency allow more lenient treatment of Facebook’s monopoly power and its contribution to promoting phony information spewed by Russian bots?
We also discuss Hillary Clinton’s allegations that Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian “asset,” betraying U.S. interests in order to serve her Russian masters. Aside from Hillary’s lack of factual evidence (now that she no longer has access to government information), Hillary has succeeded in raising Gabbard’s profile and giving her lots of free media coverage, whereas her campaign had previously been on the verge of total failure.
We also note Tulsi’s threat to run as a third-party candidate. We address the possibility that we could once again end up with a president who isn’t supported by a majority of the country. (Ross Perot served this purpose for Bill Clinton; Ralph Nader did the same for George W. Bush, and Jill Stein took votes away from Hillary Clinton.) Should we reform our election system to eliminate (or reduce) the risks? Would term limits work? Should we hold runoff elections if no candidate wins more than 50% of the votes?
Finally, we note that the public is growing more impatient to hear more details about the candidates’ proposals regarding health care. Should Warren and other candidates acknowledge that Medicare for All is aspirational, and that it’s going to take a lot of work over years in order for us to implement that desirable goal? Should the media and the public be as aggressive in pressuring Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Harris about the details of *their* health care proposals? How do those candidates intend to pay for their plans? To what extent would their health care plans leave millions of Americans without any health care at all, and for how long?
