IF HE [Manchin] VOTES YES FOR KAVANUAGH, are we still going to hear people go "we have to keep our powder dry" even as this guy spends a good 30 years making sure rape victims have to go to the back alleys?Reality: If Manchin goes, a Republican takes the seat. Manchin is no liberal, but he does caucus with the Democrats. West Virginia is what it is: The gorgeous, downtrodden home of Mothman and happy-pill-swillers and Trump-addled arch-conservative conspiracy junkies. Joe Manchin is the best we can hope for from that lot. He will not cast the deciding vote for or against Kavanaugh, but he will probably do what he deems necessary to save his political ass.
There is keeping your powder dry, and there are moments which will literally carve themselves into history, affecting you grandchildren. If Manchin does not vote our way, he is not only as bad as a GOP, he is worse, and he must GO!
A Democratic majority in the Senate means that the next Supreme Court battle will be a very different affair. It also means that impeachment -- of Kavanaugh, and more importantly, of Trump -- is much more do-able.
Before you say it: No, I am not suggesting that Dems will ever have the two-thirds supermajority necessary for a conviction. I am stating that it will be far more difficult for the Republicans to stonewall or to deceive if Democrats control the committees. If the Dems controlled the Senate right now, a creature like Brett Kavanaugh would never have gotten this far, and probably would not even have been nominated. If the Dems controlled the Senate right now, the intelligence committee could do the job that Robert Mueller is doing.
Of course I favor abortion rights. Well before Christine Blasey Ford came forward, I asked readers to barrage the Senate with "No on Kavanaugh" messages. The man is a fiend, a liar, a right-wing hatchetman with no values.
But at this point, I see no way for Kavanaugh to lose. Sacrificing Joe Manchin on the altar of progressive purity is precisely what the Trumpists want.
On the topic of impeaching a Supreme Court Justice: Allow me to repeat (in a slightly-rewritten fashion) something I said in the comments...
The history of impeaching Supreme Court Justices is not promising. That said, the perjuries Kavanaugh has committed warrant impeachment. Even before the first sexual allegations became known, his penchant for perjury was intolerable.
We've all heard talk of resurrecting FDR's plan to "pack the Court." That seems a dangerous path, even though one can argue that the Merrick Garland outrage offers a moral justification for such a move. Between the two alternatives -- impeachment and expanding the number of justices -- I would prefer impeachment.
The tactic is a long shot that is worth a shot.
An economic note: If the economy turns sour, impeachment becomes much more do-able. But as long as Trump continues a path of deficit spending (the same path advocated by many liberals back in 2008), he can keep the show going.
Lloyd Bentsen summed it up nicely back in 1988: "You know, if you let me write $200 billion worth of hot checks every year, I could give you the illusion of prosperity too." Trump is going way over the $200 billion mark, and he is doing so at the high point of the business cycle. When that high point comes to end -- as inevitably must happen, for one cannot outlaw the business cycle -- what then?
You write hot checks as a last resort, when the economy becomes dire; when the economy regains health, you must turn the red ink black again. That is the essence of Keynesianism. I don't know why so many people misrepresent what Keynes actually stood for, and why so few want to heed his sensible (and quite conservative) advice.
One of the uncomfortable facts of history is that Adolf Hitler managed to make Germany prosperous, even as the rest of the world wallowed in Depression. He pulled off the trick the same way Trump is doing it: Through the "miracle" of deficits. In Hitler's case, he spent the money on arms and intended to pay down the debt by plundering other countries. (Robbing the Jews also played no small role in this scheme.) "Prosperity through debt" thus leads to "prosperity through war."
A warning from history.
4 comments:
Supposedly Jimmy Carter's sin, going Austerity instead of a big infrastructure rebuilding push to take the place of Vietnam spending that was driving the economy.
The short term of having Joe Manchin in the Senate only works if Democrats make gains in 2020 bc after that a SCOTUS with Koathanger Kavanaugh on the bench will start to dismantle voting rights ensuring a permanent republican majority.
Joe - I agree with all your points, just want to comment that Trump’s deficit spending couldn’t happen without both parties support. The votes to approve those huge spending bills register little resistance. All of Washington welcomes the deficit spending.
Also - What do we collectively think will happen between now and the Nov. elections? I’ve learned a lot following this blog and garnering thoughts from others. Do the Dems win both houses? My gut is that the Dems pretty much end up tied in the House and that the Repubs actually gain a seat or two in the Senate. It’s not the preferred outcome, but at least the Dems would be in a place of leverage in the House.
Anonymous 9:55: Both parties did not approve of the tax cut. No D voted for it in the House or the Senate. It was passed by the reconciliation process to avoid the filibuster, 51-49. That is part of the deficit increase.
Joe, Hitler reprised Lincoln's issuance of debt-free money (greenbacks), and therefore did not borrow it or increase Germany's debt. Churchill wrote in his multi-volume history of the war that this action sealed his fate before he invaded Poland, since it deprived international financiers their expected share of the debt interest. The Times of London had condemned Lincoln's similar action as intolerable, in its time. Neither issue was backed by precious metals, and was literally simply printing (fiat) money.
XI
Post a Comment