Archives for category: Ethics
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Peter Greene: Call Them by Their Names

By dianeravitch
August 25, 2024 //
67

Peter Greene wades into the debate about what teachers should call students who ask to be addressed by a different name.

He writes:

Names have power, so it makes sense that young humans, who are generally in search of both identity and some amount of power over their own lives, will often try to exert some control over their own names.

As a teacher, it’s not a fight worth picking. I taught so many students–soooooo many– who wanted to be called by another name. Sometimes it was perfectly understandable– a common nickname for their full name, or going by a middle name. Sometimes it was a leap– “Albert” would prefer to go by “Butch.” I had some unusual cases, like the girl who had the same name as three other students in class, so told me she’d rather go by Andrea (pronounced Ahn-dray-uh). And a few times, I had a trans student who wanted to use a different name.

Did I agree with all of them? No more than I agreed with some of my students’ questionable fashion choices. But it cost me nothing to honor these preferences, to give students that small measure of control over their own identities. It was a small thing for me, but a thing that helped make my classroom a safe, welcoming space where we could get on with the work of learning to be better at reading, writing, speaking and listening.

So I don’t get teachers like Vivian Geraghty, the middle school language arts teacher who found herself with two transgender students and a) refused to call them by their chosen names and b) asked to have them removed from their classrooms.

Geraghty is going to matter because she was told to resign, maybe, and then sued the district. Based on a U.S. District judge decision, this matter is going to trial (at least partly because there seems to be dispute about what actually happened). According to court documents, the students made their request on Day One and Geraghty knew these requests were “part of the student’s social transition” but disagreed because of her religious beliefs and “wanted those students out of her classroom.”

Geraghty cites her religious convictions as the reason she would not honor the student request, and though this is a fashionable hill for christianists to die on these days, I don’t really get it. Why is transgenderism such a heinous crime against religion and conscience that they cannot even acknowledge such people exist is beyond me. 

Part of the dispute is over whether Geraghty jumped or was pushed. Her defense is from theAlliance Defending Freedom, the conservative culture panic law group that has made several trips before SCOTUS, including Dobbs. They say Geraghty could not put aside her beliefs to “affirm untruths that harm children.”

And yet she was okay with treating two actual children like this.

I do not and probably never will grasp the current argument that one cannot practice one’s faith unless one is fully free to discriminate against people of whom you disapprove, and yet that argument surfaces again and again. 

But I do believe this– it is not a teacher’s job (nor, really, that of any adult) to tell a student who he or she is. We can nudge, offer encouragement and support, and create a safe place for them to try to figure it out. But the most basic part of treating a human being like a human being is to call them by the name they have for themselves. If you can’t do that and if you insist that you must have the God-given right to make your disapproval of their identities clear to them in every interaction, then you do not belong in front of a classroom. 

Categories Ethics, Gender, Students, Teachers

Heather Cox Richardson: Democrats Offer a New Vision for America

By dianeravitch
August 25, 2024 //
7

Heather Cox Richardson describes the Democratic National Convention and Kamala Harris offering a vision of community, of neighbors helping neighbors, of government removing barriers to opportunity and lifting up those who need help.. She notes that the party has gone beyond identity politics: Harris did not mention her race or gender even as her nomination was history-making because of her race and gender. Instead of the tired tropes of the past, she appealed to traditional American values.

She writes:

The raucous roll call of states at the 2024 Democratic National Convention on Tuesday, as everybody danced to DJ Cassidy’s state-themed music, Lil Jon strode down the aisle to cheers for Georgia, and different delegations boasted about their states and good-naturedly teased other delegations, brought home the real-life meaning of E Pluribus Unum, “out of many, one.” From then until Thursday, as a sea of American flags waved and attendees joyfully chanted “USA, USA, USA,” the convention welcomed a new vision for the Democratic Party, deeply rooted in the best of traditional America. 

Under the direction of President Joe Biden, over the past three and a half years the Democrats have returned to the economic ideology of the New Deal coalition of the 1930s. This week’s convention showed that it has now gone further, recentering the vision of government that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s secretary of labor, Frances Perkins, called upon to make it serve the interests of communities.     

When the Biden-Harris administration took office in 2021, the United States was facing a deadly pandemic and the economic crash it had caused. The country also had to deal with the aftermath of the attempt of former president Donald Trump to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election and seize the presidency. It appeared that many people in the United States, as in many other countries around the world, had given up on democracy. 

Biden set out to prove that democracy could work for ordinary people by ditching the neoliberalism that had been in place for forty years. That system, begun in the 1980s, called for the government to allow unfettered markets to organize the economy. Neoliberalism’s proponents promised it would create widespread prosperity, but instead, it transferred more than $50 trillion from the bottom 90% of Americans to the top 1%. As the middle class hollowed out, those slipping behind lined up behind an authoritarian figure who promised to restore their former centrality by attacking those he told them were their enemies.

When he took office, Biden vowed to prove that democracy worked. With laws like the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, the Democrats directed investment toward ordinary Americans. The dramatic success of their economic program proved that it worked. On Wednesday, former president Bill Clinton noted that since 1989, the U.S. has created 51 million new jobs. Fifty million of those jobs were created under Democratic presidents, while only 1 million were added under Republicans—a striking statistic that perhaps will put neoliberalism, or at least the tired trope that Democrats are worse for the economy than Republicans, to bed. 

Vice President Kamala Harris’s nomination convention suggested a more thorough reworking of the federal government, one that also recalls the 1930s but suggests a transformation that goes beyond markets and jobs. 

Before Labor Secretary Perkins’s 1935 Social Security Act, the government served largely to manage the economic relationships between labor, capital, and resources. But Perkins recognized that the purpose of government was not to protect property; it was to protect the community. She recognized that children, women, and elderly and disabled Americans were as valuable to the community as young male workers and the wealthy men who employed them.

With a law that established a federal system of old-age benefits; unemployment insurance; aid to homeless, dependent, and neglected children; funds to promote maternal and child welfare; and public health services, Perkins began the process of molding the government to reflect that truth. 

Perkins’s understanding of the United States as a community reflected both her time in a small town in Maine and in her experience as a social worker in inner-city Philadelphia and Chicago before the law provided any protections for the workers, including children, who made the new factories profitable. She understood that while lawmakers focused on male workers, the American economy was, and always has been, utterly dependent on the unrecognized contributions of women and marginalized people in the form of childcare, sharing food and housing, and the many forms of unpaid work that keep communities functioning. 

This reworking of the American government to reflect community rather than economic

relationships changed the entire fabric of the country, and opponents have worked to destroy it ever since FDR began to put it in place. 

Now, in their quest to win the 2024 election, Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota governor Tim Walz—the Democratic nominees for president and vice president—have reclaimed the idea of community, with its understanding that everyone matters and the government must serve everyone, as the center of American life. 

Their vision rejects the division of the country into “us” and “them” that has been a staple of Republican politics since President Richard M. Nixon. It also rejects the politics of identity that has become identified with the argument that the United States has been irredeemably warped by racism and sexism. Instead, at the DNC, Democrats acknowledged the many ways in which the country has come up short of its principles in the past, and demanded that Americans do something to put in place a government that will address those inequities and make the American dream accessible to all.

Walz personifies this community vision. On Wednesday he laid it out from the very beginning of his acceptance speech, noting that he grew up in Butte, Nebraska, a town of 400 people, with 24 kids in his high school class. “[G]rowing up in a small town like that,” he said, “you’ll learn how to take care of each other that that family down the road, they may not think like you do, they may not pray like you do, they may not love like you do, but they’re your neighbors and you look out for them and they look out for you. Everybody belongs and everybody has a responsibility to contribute.” The football players Walz coached to a state championship joined him on stage.

Harris also called out this idea of community when she declined to mention that, if elected, she will be the first female president, and instead remembered growing up in “a beautiful working-class neighborhood of firefighters, nurses, and construction workers, all who tended their lawns with pride.” Her mother, Harris said, “leaned on a trusted circle to help raise us. Mrs. Shelton, who ran the daycare below us and became a second mother. Uncle Sherman. Aunt Mary. Uncle Freddy. And Auntie Chris. None of them, family by blood. And all of them, Family. By love…. Family who…instilled in us the values they personified. Community. Faith. And the importance of treating others as you would want to be treated. With kindness. Respect. And compassion.”

The speakers at the DNC called out the women who make communities function. Speaker after speaker at the DNC thanked their mother. Former first lady Michelle Obama explicitly described her mother, Marian Robinson, as someone who lived out the idea of hope for a better future, working for children and the community. Mrs. Obama described her mother as “glad to do the thankless, unglamorous work that for generations has strengthened the fabric of this nation.” 

Mrs. Obama, Harris, and Walz have emphasized that while they come from different backgrounds, they come from what Mrs. Obama called “the same foundational values”: “the promise of this country,” “the obligation to lift others up,” a “responsibility to give more than we take.”  Harris agreed, saying her mother “taught us to never complain about injustice. But…do something about it. She also taught us—Never do anything half-assed. That’s a direct quote.”

The Democrats worked to make it clear that their vision is not just the Democratic Party’s vision but an American one. They welcomed the union workers and veterans who have in the past gravitated toward Republicans, showing a powerful video contrasting Trump’s photo-ops, in which actors play union workers, with the actual plants being built thanks to money from the Biden-Harris administration. The many Democratic lawmakers who have served in the military stood on stage to back Arizona representative Ruben Gallego, a former Marine, who told the crowd that the veteran unemployment rate under Biden and Harris is the lowest in history. 

The many Republicans who spoke at the convention reinforced that the Democratic vision speaks for the whole country. Former representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) identified this vision as “conservative.” “As a conservative and a veteran,” he said “I believe true strength lies in defending the vulnerable. It’s in protecting your family. It’s in standing up for our Constitution and our democracy. That…is the soul of being a conservative. It used to be the soul of being a Republican,” Kinzinger said. “But Donald Trump has suffocated the soul of the Republican Party.” 

“[A] harm against any one of us is a harm against all of us,” Harris said. And she reminded people of her career as a prosecutor, in which “[e]very day in the courtroom, I stood proudly before a judge and said five words: ‘Kamala Harris, for the People.’ My entire career, I have only had one client. The People.”

“And so, on behalf of The People. On behalf of every American. Regardless of party. Race. Gender. Or the language your grandmother speaks. On behalf of my mother and everyone who has ever set out on their own unlikely journey. On behalf of Americans like the people I grew up with. People who work hard. Chase their dreams. And look out for one another. On behalf of everyone whose story could only be written in the greatest nation on Earth. I accept your nomination for President of the United States of America.”

The 100,000 biodegradable balloons that fell from the rafters when Vice President Harris accepted the Democratic nomination for president were blown up and tied by a team of 55 balloon artists from 18 states and Canada who volunteered to prepare the drop in honor of their colleague, Tommy DeLorenzo, who, along with his husband Scott, runs a balloon business. DeLorenzo is battling cancer. “We’re more colleagues than competitors,” Patty Sorell told Sydney Page of the Washington Post. “We all wanted to do something to help Tommy, to show him how much we love him.” 

“Words cannot express the gratitude I feel for this community,” DeLorenzo said.  

Categories Civics, Civil Rights, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Freedom, Gender, Harris, Kamala, Race

Elie Honig: What Will Happen to Jack Smith’s Case Against Trump Now?

By dianeravitch
August 23, 2024 //
2

Elie Honig is a former federal prosecutor who writes at a site called Cafe, where he and other legal experts follow and explain Trump’s legal entanglements. In this post, he speculates on how Jack Smith’s effort to hold Trump accountable for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election might fare in the months ahead.. Note that he points out that the investigation was hampered by the very late start of the U.S. Justice Department.

He writes:

Dear Reader,

I remember vividly the first time I lost a key piece of evidence. The NYPD had caught our defendant in Washington Heights with a fake police badge around his neck and a loaded gun in his waistband, and we charged him with federal firearms and armed robbery conspiracy crimes. Better yet (for us on the prosecution side), we flipped a cooperating witness who would testify that he and the defendant had committed two prior armed robberies together by posing as cops and ripping off drug dealers.

A week or so before trial began, the judge held a conference to handle routine pre-trial housekeeping. I confidently laid out the cooperator’s expected testimony. “That’s out,” the judge ruled, nonchalantly. “Too prejudicial.” For those who think that every judicial decision is rendered in scholarly prose, replete with probing analysis and citations to applicable precedent: welcome to the real world.

It was a kick in the gut. “That’s such bullshit. He can’t do that,” I whined afterwards. “Sure he can,” my supervisor responded. “He’s the judge.”

My experience is a tiny-potatoes version of what the U.S. Supreme Court has done to Special Counsel Jack Smith and his 2020 election subversion case against Donald Trump. The Court declared, for the first time in our history, that a president is entitled to criminal immunity for official acts. That part was no surprise; the law has long recognized civil immunity, and the justices during oral argument seemed in no mood to affirm the lower courts’ outright rejection of Trump’s claim.

But the breadth of the Supreme Court’s decision was astonishing. The majority held, for example, that “in dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.” (It remains unclear exactly how a judge is supposed to draw that vital distinction.) And the Court ruled that if conduct is immune, prosecutors can’t base a criminal charge on it – nor can they mention it at all during trial, even as necessary context or background.

Now the case has landed back in trial court, before Judge Tanya Chutkan. She originally wanted the parties back before her today, but Smith asked for a few more weeks to gather his thoughts; he clearly has accepted that there won’t be a pre-election trial, despite his prior dogged efforts. Trump’s counsel, ever intent on slowing things down, happily consented to the prosecution’s request for delay. When Court reconvenes on September 5, it’ll be up to the Judge to pick through the wreckage and figure out what can be salvaged.

On that question, the Supreme Court has offered pointed guidance, and it bodes poorly for the core of Smith’s indictment. Trump’s effort to coerce the Justice Department to gin up proof of non-existent election fraud? Almost certainly an “official act,” and therefore immune and out of the case altogether. Trump’s pressure campaign aimed at his vice president, Mike Pence? Probably out. And Trump’s public statements, including his tweets and January 6 Ellipse speech? Likely toast, too.

The Supreme Court conspicuously reminded Judge Chutkan that it’s unimpressed with her work so far and will be watching her closely. The justices in the majority blasted the lower courts for “the expedition of this case, the lack of factual analysis… and the absence of pertinent briefing by the parties.” Indeed, as we’ve noted here before, Smith, Chutkan, and the intermediate appeals court judges tried to shortcut ordinary process to get Trump tried before the election; the Supreme Court noticed and disapproved. Most importantly on the vital timing issue, the Court has specified that Trump can appeal Judge Chutkan’s decisions about what conduct is (and is not) immune, before trial starts. That means, as a practical matter, there’s a zero-point-zero percent chance this trial happens before the November 2024 election.

If you’ve been hoping that Trump faces accountability for trying to steal the 2020 election before voters head to the polls for the next one, don’t despair – not fully, anyway. (For the record, I’m with you. The real problem is that DOJ took over two-and-a-half years to charge the case.) Judge Chutkan still can – and I believe will – order an evidentiary hearing to enable Smith to air some of his most explosive evidence, before voters head to the polls.

The Judge now must sift through the prosecution’s evidence and determine how much of Trump’s alleged conduct was an official act (and therefore immune), and which conduct can remain in the case. She has some leeway here. The Judge could opt to take “proffers” from both sides – detailed statements by the lawyers about what they expect their evidence to show. That’s a little flat, but it’s also perfectly permissible and efficient. And then there’s the more sensational alternative: the Judge can permit Smith to call live witnesses to expound from the stand on what their trial testimony would be.

I expect Smith to push for door number two, and Judge Chutkan to agree. If that happens, brace for a series of dramatic in-court encounters. We could see Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, take the stand to give his first-ever public accounting of what his boss did (and didn’t do) before and on January 6. And Mike Pence could testify about how Trump begged and eventually threatened him in an effort to get him to throw the election – and how, on January 6, he had to run for his life to avoid the frothing mob.

No, an evidentiary hearing won’t hit nearly as hard as a jury trial and verdict. And we won’t actually see or hear any of it, because federal courts don’t permit cameras or live audio streaming. (Fair enough, given that it’s apparently the year 1892 right now.) We likely already know the most damaging information, as revealed in 2022 during the unforgettable January 6 Select Committee hearings in Congress, and the ensuing 800-plus page report. But, really, imagine: Trump’s own former chief of staff and VP taking the stand in, say, September of an election year, to describe firsthand how their former boss trampled on the Constitution to try to steal an election. Even if we all mostly know the story by now, that simply can’t be good for Trump at the polls, just weeks before voters cast their ballots.

It’s unclear how much of Smith’s case will ultimately survive the Supreme Court’s strafing. He might eventually go to trial on a tattered indictment focused on Trump’s effort to pressure state and local officials, without any of the damning evidence relating to DOJ and the VP and incitement of the rally crowd. Or the wounds inflicted by the Supreme Court might ultimately prove fatal.

But if Smith’s goal is to expose Trump’s conduct to the American public before the election – and let’s face it, that’s plainly been a driving force for the special counsel all along, despite his refusal to acknowledge it – he’ll still have a backdoor path to partial success.

Stay Informed,

Elie

Elie Honig served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York for 8.5 years and as the Director of the Division of Criminal Justice at the Office of Attorney General for the State of New Jersey for 5.5 years. He is currently a legal Analyst for CNN and Executive Director at Rutgers Institute for Secure Communities

Categories Accountability, Corruption, Democracy, Disruption, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Justice, Scandals, Trump

The Status Kuo: Why Tim Walz Drives MAGAts Crazy

By dianeravitch
August 22, 2024 //
16

I wrote a post on Monday about the relentless GOP attacks on Tim Walz and his wife. They claim his 34 years of service in the National Guard was tarnished; they say he’s not really a coach; they say he and his wife are left wing radicals; they say the Walz family is worth almost $200 million; they say Tim is possibly a spy for China. All lies. Trumpian lies.

In his blog The Status Kuo, Jay Kuo explains why the GOP is aiming their insults at Walz, not Kamala, and why it’s a good thing.

He writes:

There’s a strange phenomenon occurring with the terminally online right. Ever since Vice President Kamala Harris announced that Gov. Tim Walz would be her running mate, many of the right have acted with fury. They’ve attempted to “Swift Boat” his 24-year service record in the Army National Guard. They’ve called him a racist for talking about “white guy tacos.” And they’ve drudged up a nearly 30-year old DUI—for which he took accountability and after which he stopped drinking altogether—to prove he’s somehow not so perfect a role model.

What they haven’t been able to do is make any of this stick. And yet, Walz continues to draw fire, which could otherwise have been directed at Harris.

In other words, Walz is turning out to be a shrewd pick. At net 11 points positive favorability in polls, Walz is immensely more popular than his counterpart on the GOP ticket, JD Vance, who is underwater by nine. And as they continue to rail against him, the right keeps making his fundamental point about them: They are just really weird.

In today’s piece, I explore some theories about why Walz brings out the worst impulses of the right just by being who he is. Then I’ll lay down some political tarot cards and prognosticate about where I think this leads.

Politico Uno Reverse

By most identity measures, Walz should be one of the MAGA right. He’s a midwestern white dude in his late 50s. He loves to hunt and is a sharpshooter. He served for decades in the military and achieved the highest enlisted rank of Command Sergeant Major. He was a football coach who helped lead his team to the state championship.

And yet, despite all these identity markings, Walz in an unabashed progressive. He is for reproductive rights and an ally and protector of gay teens. And there isn’t a bigoted bone in his body. It’s as if when Harris picked him, she played, as writer Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman succinctly described it, a “political uno reverse.” The Walz card threw it right back at them, as if to say, “I’m a guy just like you, but without any of the weird baggage.”

The MAGA GOP’s base is supposed to include white guys like Walz. But here is living evidence that they don’t have all of them or the best of them. That’s why they’re so eager to discredit him, because if they don’t, as psychologist Julie Hotard notes, then Walz will stand instead as a model of what is possible. On many levels, an appealing, white, male Democrat is a far bigger threat to their sense of identity than even a biracial woman candidate for president.

The 2004 playbook

All this helps explain why Republicans have trained their fire upon Walz and are so determined to sink him. To do so, they tried an old play that Walz and the Harris team saw coming for miles.

In an election 20 years ago, Republican dirty trickster and campaign strategist Chris LaCivita created the “Swift Boat” controversy to tarnish John Kerry’s otherwise unblemished military record. It was character assassination from a group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and it worked—even though there was no basis in fact for any of it. As NPR recently summarized,

“Their accusations are widely understood to be false. Military records (released by Kerry’s campaign) backed up his combat claims. And while most of the swift boat veterans who spoke out against Kerry did not serve with him directly, the ones who did publicly supported his version of events….The swift boating undercut Kerry’s momentum coming out of the Democratic National Convention, and turned one of his greatest strengths into a liability….“

Now LaCivita is back as senior advisor to the Trump reelection campaign, as are attempts to impugn the military record of Walz, another veteran turned politician. The Trump campaign claimed, for example, that Walz resigned from the military in order to avoid the fighting in Iraq, making him a coward with “stolen valor,” but the timeline doesn’t match up. Walz retired months before his unit received any deployment orders to active duty overseas.

This time, however, Democrats were ready for the bad faith attacks, and reporters (outside of the Fox ecosystem anyway) appeared unwilling to take the bait. So far, the swiftboating of Walz is fading fast from the headlines.

Attacking Mr. Nice Guy

For the past two decades, the GOP has shifted markedly toward being a party of cruelty, of “owning” the libs and drinking their tears, and of being as unpleasant and in-your-face as they can be. That kind of behavior has been rewarded with appearances on Fox and other right wing media, fundraising dollars from the MAGA base, and a spot at the side or in the tweets of the ex-president himself.

As author Patrick S. Tomlinson observed, Walz represents what shouldn’t be an extraordinary notion: that you can be a nice guy, supportive of women, embracing of gay people, and still be all the coded masculine ideals of soldier, football coach, hunter and father that the MAGA right believed it had a lock on. Plus, you can be all those things without ever asking weird questions about menstrual cycles, chromosomes and genitalia.

The right even tried to make a big deal about Walz’s efforts as governor to ensure free tampons were available to girls in school. Rumors circulated that schools had been required to also put tampons in boys’ bathrooms, but those claims turned out to be untrue, while demonstrating how off kilter the right becomes over sexuality and gender. The “Tampon Tim” moniker didn’t stick. On the contrary, there are probably many moms and dads grateful for a governor like Walz who is thinking about their daughters’ needs.

For a party accustomed to attacking its enemies, the GOP is now at a loss over how exactly to attack Walz next. Their latest meltdown over his “racist” comment about eating “white guy tacos” exposed them further as the very “snowflakes” they decry, delicate creatures who don’t understand the basic difference between racism and self-deprecation. And really, don’t they have anything better to do than whine about one of their own making a joke about spice tolerance levels? It’s all very silly, but also bogs them down in their own angry stew. 

And in that obsession to bring him down, the right is walking right into Harris’s trap. Every day that Walz draws their attention is one more day Harris moves closer to the presidency end zone, without anyone getting close enough to tackle her. For his part, Walz appears perfectly happy to distract her would-be assailants.

It’s a play an experienced and successful defensive coach like Walz would appreciate.

The fact is that the GOP hasn’t figured out how to attack Kamala without being racist or misogynistic. Trump has called her “Laughing Kamala,” “Crooked Kamala,” “Lying Kamala,” but none of his schoolyard bully taunts has stuck. He has said she is “low IQ” and the “worst Vice-President in history,” but that didn’t stick either. He also called her a “communist,” but no one takes him seriously. So the empty headed MAGA crowd sticks with “Tampon Tim,” which assumes that none of them have teenage daughters. The girls are grateful to Governor Walz.

Categories Accountability, Elections, Ethics, Fake News, Harris, Kamala, Lies, Propaganda, Republicans, Trump, Walz, Tim

Jonathan V. Last: A Tribute to the Old Man Who Saved Democracy Twice

By dianeravitch
August 21, 2024 //
11

Jonathan V. Last is editor of The Bulwark, a site for Republican Never-Trumpers. I enjoy reading articles on this site because it is not part of a liberal Democratic echo chamber. He was a strong supporter of President Biden. He here refers to him as “the old man who saved democracy. Twice.” He published this article the day after Biden gave his moving speech to the Democratic National Convention.

He writes:

I hope you drank it in last night. It was one of the most human moments I’ve ever seen in politics, from the second the president stepped on stage and embraced his daughter.

But it was more than that. It was America saying goodbye to this ordinary man who has become an extraordinary president. A president who saved our democracy.

This is one of those cases where the transcript doesn’t give you enough context. You need the video. You need to see Biden’s face and feel the vibrations from the crowd. And you absolutely need to watch his final section, when he transitions from a campaign speech to a valediction.

This is the story of a nation grateful to a president not just for his accomplishments, but for his sacrifice. For his ability to understand that he was dispensable.

It was this extraordinary willingness, when American democracy was threatened from within, that made Joe Biden the indispensable man.

I know I’ve said this before but I want to say it again: Biden is our greatest living president. 

Seven years ago Joe Biden was an old man happy in retirement. Then he watched a group of neo-Nazis—emboldened by the election of Donald Trump—take to the streets of a college town in Virginia.

Biden looked around the political landscape and realized that he was the only person capable of defeating Trump in that moment. So he came out of retirement to run not a political campaign, but a fight for the soul of the nation.

And he won.

Biden’s victory set off a new crisis. As president-elect he watched the sitting president attempt a coup d’état—first through legal means, then through extralegal means, and finally through physical violence.

Lost in the analysis of January 6th and the post-election chaos is the critical role Biden played.

He was utterly and completely calm. He spent the post-election period preparing for the transition, even though Trump’s administration refused to cooperate with his team. And here are some of the things Biden did not do:

  • Publicly attack Trump.
  • Attempt to circumscribe Trump’s legal challenges.
  • Spread disinformation.
  • Antagonize Republican voters.
  • Seek to tie “normal” elected Republicans to Trump’s authoritarian designs.

Any of those actions might have helped Biden politically. All of them would have added gasoline to a raging fire.

President-elect Biden chose unity and calm over hysteria and division even as President Trump was attempting to end our democratic experiment. Reflect on that for a moment: Can you think of a single thing Biden said or did during that period?

No, you can’t. And that’s because Biden knew that in order to preserve the legitimacy of our system, the conflict had to be between Donald Trump and the rule of law, not between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. 

As president, Biden passed a large amount of meaningful legislation, but those accomplishments were secondary to his two larger projects, one foreign and one domestic.

On foreign policy, Biden’s big project was re-energizing internationalism. Where Trump had attempted to turn America into an isolated superpower that curried favor with dictators so that it could distance itself from alliances, Biden steeled—and expanded—NATO in the face of Russian aggression and took a hard line against China.

Domestically, Biden created a mechanism for the Republican party to heal itself. Instead of pushing a divisive agenda, Biden focused mostly on popular items with broad bipartisan support, many of which directly benefited Republican constituencies: infrastructure spending, the creation of manufacturing jobs, immigration reform, reducing medical costs for seniors.

Republicans could have supported these policies (which many of them did) while trying to guide their voters away from Trumpism (which almost none of them did).

Over and over Biden tried to make space on the right for a Republican party independent of fascist overtones.

That Republican voters affirmatively chose another run with Trump is no fault of Biden’s. He did everything he could. But his big domestic project failed because the base fact is that a political party can only be as healthy as its voters let it be.

And these days the GOP is a party where voters wear t-shirts bragging about how their nominee wants to be a “dictator.”

Faced with this failure and the resurgence of the authoritarian movement, Biden saved our democracy again—this time by walking away from power. When he realized that he could not win the battle a second time, Biden anointed Kamala Harris—shutting down any contest and giving her the space to establish herself as a force.

Categories Biden, Courage, Democracy, Discipline, Elections, Ethics, Freedom, Republicans, Trump

Republican Judge J. Michael Luttig Endorses Kamala Harris

By dianeravitch
August 21, 2024 //
10

Judge J. Michael Luttig was appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush. He served from 1991-2006 on the Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit.

He issued the following statement to explain his decision:

Almost four years ago now, on January 6, 2021, a stake was driven through the heart of America’s Democracy, and on that day American Democracy was left teetering on a knife’s edge. On that day, the prescribed day for choosing the American president, there was not a peaceful transfer of power in the United States of America — for the first time in the almost 250 years since the Founding of the Nation. As a consequence of the former president’s continued denial of that appalling day, and his defiance of America’s Democracy to this day almost four years later, millions of Americans still believe that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” from the former president, despite the fact that he lost that election fair and square in what has been proven over and over to have been the freest, fairest, and most accurate election in American history. Because of the former president’s continued, knowingly false claims that he won the 2020 election, millions of Americans no longer have faith and confidence in our national elections, and many never will again. Because of the former president’s knowingly false claims, many Americans — especially young Americans, tragically — have even begun to question whether constitutional democracy is the best form of self-government for America. The 2020 presidential election of course was not “stolen” from the former president and he knows that. It was the former president who attempted to steal the 2020 presidential election from the American People, not they from him. To attempt to steal an election in the United States of America is to attempt to steal America’s Democracy. For the former president to continue to persist in the knowingly false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him is a profound affront to American Democracy and to the Constitution of the United States — an affront without any precedent in all of American history.

In his utterly inexplicable obsession to this very day to deny, attempt to justify, even to glorify January 6, and to bludgeon Americans into believing that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him when he knows it was not, the former president has corrupted America’s Democracy. Yet, to this day — to this day still — not only does the former president, and now the Republican Party of which he is again the standard bearer, continue to falsely claim that the former president won the 2020 election. He and his Party defiantly refuse even to pledge that they will honor and respect the vote and the will of the American People in the upcoming presidential election. In this defiant refusal, the Republican candidate for the presidency and the Republican Party have literally taken America political hostage, threatening the Nation with the specter of another January 6, 2021 on January 6, 2025, if the former president again loses his campaign for the presidency by a vote of the American People. Until January 6, 2021, there was a peaceful transfer of power from one President of the United States to his successor for almost 250 years. The peaceful transfer of power from one President of the United States to the next and the commitment of presidential candidates and their respective political parties to the peaceful transfer of power in the next election are fundamental tenets of our constitutional Republic. Adherence to these tenets is essential to American Democracy, American governance and government, and to the Rule of Law in the United States of America. Without the peaceful transfer of power, America would have no democracy. The politicians tell us that America’s Democracy and the Rule of Law are too “abstract” to “resonate” with American voters. If that was ever true in the past, which I do not accept, it is emphatically not true today. For reasons we all know too well, there could not possibly be any more concrete and consequential issues for the Nation and the American voter today than America’s Democracy and Rule of Law. America’s Democracy, and along with it the Rule of Law, were almost stolen from us on January 6, 2021, by the former President of the United States, who is, today, asking us to return him to the Highest Office of trust in the land.

America’s Democracy and Rule of Law are the defining features of our Nation. It is America’s Democracy, Constitution, and Rule of Law that have made America the envy of the world and the beacon of democracy and freedom for the world for almost 250 years. This presidential election is a test of Americans’ commitment to America’s Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law. It is so because the former president and the Republican Party have shamefully made it so. The often lofty, at times even noble, policy differences that have been the hallmark of American Politics and partisan debate for almost a quarter of a millennium pale in comparison to the foundational national policy issues of America’s Democracy, Constitution, and Rule of Law. American Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law are the stakes — the only real stakes — in the upcoming election.. Having made them so, these foundational issues of our times cannot now be wished away by the former president and his Republican Party, as they would have it. And they must not be wished away by the American People. The fact remains to this day that even the loftiest and noblest of policies and policy differences will be comparatively inconsequential unless and until we Americans bring to an end the war on America’s Democracy that was instigated by the former president and his allies on January 6, 2021. For their part, the former president and the Republican Party have determined to prosecute their war against America’s Democracy to its catastrophic end. As a consequence, for our part, “We the People” must bring this unholy war to an end – now. The Founders of our Nation and the Framers of our Constitution feared most of all this very moment in American history, when the American People would be tempted by the seductive demagoguery of a modern-day populist demagogue. In a letter to George Washington in 1792, over 230 years ago, Alexander Hamilton warned of this day and this demagogue, who would “mount the hobby horse of popularity” and whose “objects” “may justly be suspected to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’”

Thomas Jefferson agreed with Alexander Hamilton about very little, except about the existential danger to the Republic of a populist demagogue. “If once elected, and at a second or third election outvoted by one or two votes, he will pretend false votes, foul play, hold possession of the reins of government, be supported by the States voting for him,” Jefferson presciently wrote to James Madison in 1787. The time for America’s choosing has come. It is time for all Americans to stand and affirm whether they believe in American Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law, and want for America the same — or whether they do not. The former president and the Republican Party have cynically framed this choice as a Hobson’s choice and they have cynically forced their supposed Hobson’s choice upon the Nation. But they have chosen as their standard bearer the one man who is singularly unfit to embody and represent not only to the Nation, but to the world, America’s sacred Democracy, Constitution, and Rule of Law. In a word, for America and Americans, this is no Hobson’s choice at all. America’s two political parties are the political guardians of American Democracy. Regrettably, in the presidential election of 2024 there is only one political party and one candidate for the presidency that can claim the mantle of defender and protector of America’s Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law. As a result, I will unhesitatingly vote for the Democratic Party’s candidate for the Presidency of the United States, Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris. In voting for Vice President Harris, I assume that her public policy views are vastly different from my own, but I am indifferent in this election as to her policy views on any issues other than America’s Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law, as I believe all Americans should be.

In the 2024 election for President of the United States, there are no more important issues for America. It is our Democracy, our Constitution, and our Rule of Law that bind us together as Americans. We Americans must never allow ourselves to be put asunder from this that binds us by the siren calls of the politicians and the political sophists, the mercenaries and the opportunists, who entreat us that the only thing that matters in this presidential election is the candidates’ different positions on the sundry policies of the day. All, as if nothing had come before. We Americans know all too well what has come before. We understand what the political class does not want us to understand. That in the presidential election of 2024, the candidates’ policy differences are the least that matters to the United States of America.

J. Michael Luttig

Categories Accountability, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Freedom, Harris, Kamala, History, Trump

RFK Jr. Considering Dropping Out of Race and Endorsing Trump

By dianeravitch
August 21, 2024 //
41

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. continues to amaze. He is a lawyer; he worked for years for environmental protection. Then he became involved in opposing vaccines and spread the claim that vaccines cause autism. Most members of his illustrious family have publicly opposed him as a candidate.

He found a very wealthy running mate, Nicole Shanahan, the ex-wife of Sergey Brin, one of the founders of Google. She poured millions into the campaign.

The Kennedy-Shanahan ticket has had trouble getting onto the ballot in every state. So far, they have succeeded in 19 states. Their ticket has declined in the polls, and it’s running short of money.

Kennedy has approached both of the major candidates about joining forces with them. Trump was enthusiastic and even hinted that there might be an important post for him, something like a major Cabinet post (Health and Human Services, perhaps?). Imagine RFK Jr. with the power to recall or ban vaccines.

He also tried to meet with Democratic leaders, but they rebuffed him. After Biden’s disastrous June debate performance, he offered to take Biden’s place at the top of the ticket. When Kamala became the consensus candidate, he tried to meet with her, but she was not interested.

It turns out that RFK Jr. draws more votes away from Trump than from Harris. The anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, and other conspiracy theorists like him.

The New York Times reported that Shanahan, RFK Jr.’s running mate, was interviewed in a podcast, where she mentioned that they were thinking of joining forces with Trump. She expressed bitterness towards the Democrats and blames them for undermining the Kennedy-Shanahan ticket. She said that one of the options for the future is forming a third party.

Hmmm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. working on behalf of Donald Trump? Trump is a guy who doesn’t believe in climate change. He says it’s a hoax. Will RFK Jr. abandon his many years as an environmentalist to get a shot at political power? Shameful.

Categories Democrats, Elections, Environment, Ethics, Extremism, Health, Science, Trump

Umair Haque: Kamala’s Economic Policies Are “Brilliant”!

By dianeravitch
August 20, 2024 //
46

Umair Haque is an economist. In this post, he takes aim at journalists who have taken potshots at Kamala Harris’s economic proposals. He explains why they are, as he puts it, “brilliant.”

He writes:

It took nanoseconds. Kamala announced her economic policies. Wham! The press pounced. All in unison. Without taking even a second to think. Bad! Terrible! Awful! The Washington Post went so far as to legitimize Trump calling her a communist.

Welcome to the crackpot level of American media, and nowhere is it worse than its commentary on economics.

My friends, I’m here to tell you something. Kamala’s economic policies are brilliant. Absolutely stellar. They are the economic state of the art, reflecting not just the latest thinking, but also aimed directly at solving America’s biggest problems. Price gouging. Housing. Having a family. This is stuff that should be celebrated. America is becoming a leader again through such policies.

I know that for a fact. I’ve been the chief economist of one of the world’s largest corporations. I keep up with the literature. I’ve written peer-reviewed books about the economy. This is why so many of you follow me. I know precisely what I’m talking about.

They don’t. Journalism’s criticism of Kamala’s econ policies isn’t criticism at all. It’s a disgrace. They are just making it all up. I’m going to explain that to you, as well, because I feel that our econ journalists are an embarrassment. They lash out at Kamala—and yet they appear not to know the current state of the field at all. They’re regurgitating tired, obsolete far-right talking points from decades ago. Which have all been discredited in the real world. I’m going to explain that to you, in this dense essay, and it’s dense because I want to do justice to Kamala’s policies, and rebut some of the sheer nonsense coming from these crackpots by teaching you a thing or two about econ.

If you feel like something’s off here, it is. They’re trying to get Kamala. Just like they got Biden. This sort of thing is the equivalent of character assassination, and our media should be doing better. What do I mean?

How to Raise a Society’s (Falling) Standard of Living

The Washington Post minced no words. Instantaneously, their editorial board called Kamala’s trio of policies “gimmicks,” while their columnists savaged them, too. Fair? Spectacularly foolish.

Kamala’s first policy is to offer families a $6K tax break for having a first child. A gimmick? Give me a break. America’s median family income is about $70K. Before taxes. That’s about 10% of median income. Would you like a 10% raise? That’s what you’ll get. I think at this juncture, most Americans would be grateful for 10% more income. Half of families—that’s what “median” means—make less than that, of course. So up to half of American families could get a lift more than 10% of their incomes. 

In this day and age? We’re savaged by a “cost of living crisis.” I put that in quotes to emphasize that I don’t make it up: even the world’s most pre-eminent, and most conservative, financial institutions, like the IMF, call it that. During an historic cost of living crisis, giving people more than a 10% lift in incomes? That’s a Very Big Deal. 

Sound like a “gimmick” to you? The media didn’t even bother doing this basic math. It takes five seconds. But they appear not to even know these fundamental facts about the economy—median incomes, cost of living crisis, etcetera. Like I said: this isn’t criticism. They’re just making stuff up. The IMF itself—one of the world’s, again, most conservative institutions—has recommended governments find ways to help people address the cost of living crisis. Ways just like this.

It’s shocking to me that the editorial board of the Washington Post and their columnists wouldn’t know this. But maybe it shouldn’t be. They seem more focused on gotcha journalism these days than facts. And facts are what I’m trying to teach you. Facts enlighten us, and now you know whyKamala’s first policy is brilliant.

Many readers pointed out to me that the Post is now run by a former Murdoch editor? Does that play a role here? 

Let’s come to the second policy, which is building three million new homes. Targeted directly at the middle and working class, not to be sold to investors, aka private equity funds. Is that a…gimmick?

Three million homes. They will house three million families. That’s twelve million people. Twelve million people is 4% of America’s population. In other words, Kamala’s proposing enough housing for a sizable share of the population. If you’re one of those twelve million, is that a gimmick? Having a new, affordable home to live in? A “gimmick,” if we’re fair, is something that doesn’t really count—maybe it affects .001% of the population. But 4%? That’s very real. Far from a gimmick—that’s a policy with real, and tremendous impact. If it’s repeated in a second term, we’re talking housing for 10% of a society’s population, roughly. A gimmick? You must be kidding.

Let’s think harder about it. To build each of those homes, perhaps 10 people will be employed. Probably more, but let’s stick with ten. That’s 30 million jobs. What do 30 million new jobs do? They raise demand in the economy. What are we currently struggling with? A situation of slow demand, which the IMF—let me say it yet again, the world’s most authoritative financial institution—has called weak and sluggish and a threat to financial stability. Creating 30 million jobs right about now is an incredibly smart move, because it restores health, demand, and growth, the good kind, to the economy, when things are risky and uncertain and difficult.

Again, how hard is this to understand? I’ve explained it to you simply, and yet, media didn’t want to think any of this through for even the few seconds it took me to explain it to you. That’s disgraceful. If a media can’t do that, what purpose does it serve?

Let’s keep going. What do those 30 million jobs do, in turn? They create growth, because now, of course, more demand is flowing through the economy, more money is in people’s pockets, and they can go out and spend and invest it. As they do that, new businesses can roar, and more than that, the magical thing called certainty and confidence return. That in turn sparks a virtuous cycle of investment, which is the key to raising living standards.

And that’s really what all this is about. Raising living standards. That’s the point of an economy, after all. And yet our media, pundits, journalists, editorial boards—they seem deliberately unwilling to engage with that point and fact, instead, just regurgitating discredited talking points. All the above is “communism!” My God. Can you even imagine? If any time we talk about raising living standards, it’s “communism,” then of course, we’re not having a sane conversation anymore. We’re just trying to reason with crackpots, which is what America’s media has become, sadly.

Why American Living Standards Have Fallen

I’ll come back to that. First, let’s tackle the third proposal from Kamala, which is the one that really set the media’s hair on fire.

Price gouging. They went nuts. Price gouging?! Where? Where’s the evidence? The Post’s economics columnist went so far as to equate taking on price gouging to “price controls,” and say that was communist. So there’s the Post, calling Kamala a communist.

Let’s pause there. The Post’s columnist literally made this up. Kamala’s proposal pointedly doesn’t mention price controls. And in fact, there are already price controls in the economy. Here’s one Big One. The…minimum wage. Does it make America a “communist” society because it has a minimum wage? You see how ridiculous this is. And you also see how illiterate economics commentators are not to understand this elementary level of stuff.

Why do we want to stop price gouging, anyways? Far from being “communism,”, because that’s how we restore capitalism to good health. Price gouging is already illegal in most states, and every other developed country besides America. Why? Because it’s usually evidence of, and propelled by, “anti-competitive behaviour.” Anti-competitive behaviour means basically building monopolies. America’s economy is the most highly concentrated on earth—just a handful of gigantic companies control nearly every industry. What we want, if we’re interested in the health of capitalism, is competition.

Competition between market players, which ends up in price competition. Why do we want price competition? Because prices are “signals” in economics. The integrity of the “price signal” is paramount in economics, because it allows economies to allocate resources efficiently. But if prices are out of whack, if they’re bad signals, then an economy can’t do that. And that is why we want no price gouging—not for moral reasons, or because we’re “communists,” but because we want capitalism to be healthy, and for prices to be reliable, meaningful signals.

Again, it’s utterly shocking to me that media wouldn’t know this, or worse, not be able to tell you this. The Washington Post literally legitimized Trump calling Kamala a communist, and people went into an uproar, rightly so. But on an even deeper level, it’s worse than it seems, because, no, it’s not “communism,” we’re actually trying to defend capitalism, by making prices work the way they should.

Whew, it makes my head sort of explode, but let me return to the issue.

How do we know if there’s price gouging or not? The wrong way to do it is the way pundits tried to—revealing, again, that they don’t know what they’re doing. They looked at “longitudinal” data, aka, prices over time, in a narrow way. The correct way to do it is to look at comparative data.

Let me explain, and here’s a brief tutorial in social science, by the way.

Think about any major category of expenditure in America. Let’s take for example healthcare. Healthcare costs in America have exploded by thousands of percent over the last few decades. So has, for example, sending a kid to college. That’s also true for food, and of course housing. 

Now. In most of these categories, the same hasn’t been true in many other countries. In France, my favorite example is that the Sorbonne is free, while sending a kid to Harvard will cost $100K a year or whatnot. Healthcare’s affordable, even if it’s private, in most of the rest of the rich world. Why is that? And what does it tell us?

It tells us that something went badly wrong in America. Americans pay astronomical prices for most basic categories of goods and services compared to most if not many of their peer countries. And that’s clear evidence of price gouging.

And Americans know that by now. We all know that when you get some kind of bill, for example, from an HMO, it’s literally mostly made up. And if you call up and make a fuss, you can get them to drop some of the “charges,” because they’re fictional to begin with. 

One thing that strikes most Americans who’ve lived overseas is how much cheaper food is. It comes as a shock. Fruit, dairy, meat, even snacks—half the price or less. That, too, isn’t just evidence of price problems in America, it’s because Europe’s laws on food have been carefully designed to keep it relatively affordable for people.

Is there price gouging in America? Media and pundits have gone hysterical asking this question, and then tried to answer it in naive and unsophisticated ways. They end up missing the forest for the trees. There’s a much simpler, and yet more sophisticated way, to think about the question. If there’s not price gouging in America, how come life in peer countries is so much more affordable? 

This is all why America’s standard of living has been falling. According to the most authoritative index on the subject.

That’s a fact. Another one that those writing about economics should know. If there’s not price gouging happening, then why are living standards falling? America’s hardly out of money, housing, or jobs, after all. The reason must be that people are having a harder and harder affording the standard of living their parents and grandparents once enjoyed.

How (Not) to Think About Economics

You see my point, perhaps. Let me make it really, really clear though. There’s a lot of crackpot “research” that comes from “think tanks” in America, which is just right wing propaganda, basically. But the last really good paper on all this? By an eminent and internationally respected economist? Here’s what it found:

I review the causes and consequences of rising concentration of market shares that is occurring in most U.S. industries. While concentration is not necessarily harmful to the economy, my assessment of the available evidence leads me to conclude that Increased barriers to entry have resulted in lower investment, higher prices, and lower productivity growth. I estimate that the associated decline in competition has likely decreased aggregate labor income in the United States by more than $1 trillion between 2000 and 2019.

Now connect that to the evidence on falling living standards.

And there are literally tons of papers like that, because this is what the field has found. Its a consensus now in mainstream economics that, yes, this is a problem, monopolies, raising prices, leading to lower investment and growth. But—again—the editorial boards and journalists we’re dealing with don’t appear to actually read, know, or grasp modern economics at all, and so they don’t know this. But then what business do they have teaching you rank disinformation?

All of that’s abysmal and shocking to me. Let me sum up where we are.

Kamala’s policies aren’t gimmicks. They’re brilliant. Because they hold to transform the American economy, by raising living standards again. 

Kamala’s policies aren’t “communism.” They’re designed to keep capitalism healthy. Those are polar opposites, and that journalists and editorial boards have fallen for the former tell us what level their thinking is at—nonfunctional.

Kamala’s policies aren’t some kind of radical leftism. In fact, they are precisely the directions that the cutting edge of the field of economics, the best economists, already suggest. But because journalists and editorial boards don’t read that stuff, they don’t know that, and that’s actually disgraceful, because they’re just making stuff up, and miseducating you. The truth is that 99% of the world’s better economists would nod their heads at Kamala’s plans, and approve whole-heartedly. (And if crackpots from American thinktanks disagree, so much the better.)

We should celebrate policies this smart, innovative, and ferocious. To reflect the cutting edge of economics, to transform living standards, to lay a foundation for growth—these are brave and wise and good things. For media and journalists to paint them as the opposite is, like I’ve said, disgraceful. It betrays that they literally appear to have no idea about the very issues they’re pretending to be authorities opining on, that they hope you listen to. You shouldn’t. Their ignorance is one thing, but when ignorance joins hands with itself, it’s called folly, and nobody should make that mistake.

America Deserves Better

America deserves better than the charade media is playing out with policy. If you don’t understand the first thing about economics, as I’ve proven here, then…keep your mouth shut and go read and learn instead. It’s shocking and alarming that a major American paper, as we discussed above, would call keeping capitalism healthy “communism,” and play right into Trump’s hands, repeating his smear. Just crazy—but irresponsible, too, and egregiously outside the boundaries of good journalism. This is some of the lowest quality writing and thinking I believe I’ve ever seen—I’d flunk it out of a college class—and America deserves better.

Tomorrow, I’ll write some more about this—this is too long already. Take some time with it. This was dense, and I packed a lot of lessons and example into this essay. Let me end on this note.

I’m here to tell it to you like it is. If Kamala’s policies sucked, I’d tell you. If they were pie-in-the-sky, I’d say it. If they were fantastical or brain-dead, you’d hear it from me. The fact is that they are brilliant. Remarkable. Smart. I don’t say that lightly. Don’t let those who don’t know the first thing about economics, don’t read papers or books, and still think the wealth is going to trickle down, or right-wing thinktanks are credible—don’t let them convince you otherwise. Don’t join them in their folly. This moment is too crucial for that.

❤️ Don’t forget…

📣  Share The Issue on your Twitter, Facebook, or LinkedIn.

💵 If you like our newsletter, drop some love in our tip jar.

📫  Forward this to a friend and tell them all all about it.

Categories Democracy, Economy, Elections, Ethics, Harris, Kamala, Media

Right-Wingers Claim Tim Walz Was Not Really a Coach; GOP Investigates Whether He Is a Spy for China

By dianeravitch
August 19, 2024 //
27

Trump supporters are desperate. First, they attacked Tim Walz’s 24 years of service in the National Guard because he retired to run for Congress at a time when his unit knew they might be deployed to Afghanistan in the next two years.

The Trump rumor mill has been working overtime to depict Walz and his wife as dangerous, leftwing radicals.

Snopes debunked a rightwing rumor that Tim and Gwen Walz have a net worth of $182 million and their daughter Hope got a student loan of $82,000 forgiven. In fact, the Walz family has a net worth made up of their pensions; they own no stocks or bonds. In 2023, they had a joint income of $299,000, with almost half coming from pensions. By contrast, Republican VP candidate J.P. Vance is a multimillionaire, with a net income of $1.2 million-$1.3 million in 2022, according to the Wall Street Journal. Some Americans like the fact that Walz is not wealthy, says the WSJ, but others think he lacks the financial acumen of a wealthy man.

Now, says The New York Times, they say Walz wasn’t really a coach because he was not the head coach of the high school football team. Only the head coach, they claim, is a real coach. How petty can they be?

Meanwhile, hard–right Congressman James Comer, chair of the House Oversight Committee, announced that his committee will investigate Walz because of his visits to China as an exchange student and as chaperone for student exchanges. Is he a spy?

All of this is a reflection of Republican desperation and Red-baiting.

Jess Bidgood, a reporter for the New York Times, asked her colleague Alan Blinder of the New York Times to explain whether Walz was really a coach:

Fact-checking questions about Walz’s role as a coach

A surprising argument has emerged from some right-wing circles: that Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota was not a high school football coach because he was his team’s defensive coordinator, not the head coach. I asked my colleague Alan Blinder, a font of football knowledge who wrote about Walz’s coaching career *and* answers my questions about sports whenever I have them, to explain what’s what.

Setting aside that assertion’s spuriousness for the moment, our reporting last week on Tim Walz as Coach Walz suggests just how comfortable he is with not being the top dog.

Rocky Almond, who coached basketball with Walz in Nebraska in the early 1990s, said that Walz had “been the supporting actor for his whole life,” recalling a trip to China that the future vice-presidential pick organized. Even though Walz was the group’s veteran Asia hand, Almond remembered a coach who never tried to seize command.

“He just was always in the background,” said Almond, who thought the vice presidency was “the perfect role” for his old colleague’s temperament.

“I think he had the intensity, but it was a positive energy,” said Jeff Tomlin, the Nebraska high school head football coach who brought Walz aboard to coach linebackers. “He was a very good assistant that way. As the head coach, you sometimes have to be an enforcer and really guard your culture and make hard decisions. As assistant, you want to be loyal to your head coach and back up your head coach, and he was all of those things.”

And as for that question of whether Walz should count as a coach at all? Some players on his Minnesota title-winning team still refer to him as “Coach Walz,” and football staffs are filled with specialty coaches who are, in fact, coaches with headsets and playbooks.

“Defensive coordinator is arguably the most important position on a coaching staff other than the head coach,” the ESPN commentator Paul Finebaum mused to me today. “You can’t win a game, let alone a state championship, without being able to stop someone.”

— Alan Blinder

Categories Character, Elections, Ethics, Lies, Republicans, Trump, Walz, Tim

A Former Student Describes Tim Walz’s Character

By dianeravitch
August 18, 2024 //
5

Doug Vose was a student in Tim Walz’s classroom many years ago. He says he votes Republican more often than Democratic. The one thing he feels strongly about is the character and authenticity of Mr. Walz.

He wrote in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

The idea that “all politics is local” has been more of a theory than a reality when it comes to presidential election cycles.

This idea, however, has taken on a new meaning for me and fellow former students of Tim Walz as news of his announcement as Kamala Harris’ vice presidential running mate led national news cycles last week.

Of particular interest for me — and I imagine for others who’ve sat in his classrooms over the years — has been the GOP’s strategy to paint Walz as an extreme coastal liberal who, if given his way, would love to pull the country into communism.

(Chuckle.)

As a 30-something who’s voted for the other guys more often than Walz’s party, I might have a unique POV on presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign painting Walz this way.

We all remember where we were on Sept. 11, 2001. I happened to be in U.S. history class at Mankato West High School when Walz poked his head in.

“They’ve just hit the Pentagon,” he said, turning to the TV in the corner of the classroom.

“Pay attention,” he told us. “You’re watching history, and your generation is going to remember this day forever.”

And of course, we did.

In the days and weeks that followed, Walz helped students of all kinds cope with their feelings about that horrible day. Students, faculty and friends gravitated to Walz to crystalize their feelings of fear, anger, hostility and sadness. After all, Mr. Walz was an Army National Guard officer, understood the minutiae of global geopolitics, but more than anything — he was a good man.

Tim and Gwen Walz were our faculty advisers for the Mankato West High School newspaper that fall, and in the wake of 9/11 the students on staff quickly pivoted to a big presentation outlining the pros and cons of retaliation in the Middle East for our next edition. A microcosm of our nation in those few weeks, the classroom was full of strong and often divided feelings. What would we say, and how would we say it?

Walz jumped in as he almost always did with student groups — from newspaper to yearbook to the burgeoning Gay-Straight Alliance that we’ve heard so much about in recent days. He challenged students to develop an informed point of view, to consider the value of empathy and to prescribe a path forward for our generation.

These were tough topics for everyone, and “Mr. Walz” served as our conscience.

In those days before his political career launched, it was very difficult for us to ascertain his political leanings. We knew he served at home and abroad in the Army National Guard. We knew he was a gun owner and perhaps the best shot of anyone we knew. We also knew that he was tremendously passionate about equal rights for everyone.

The idea that he’s a coastal liberal was as laughable then as it is now.

Since Walz has been in the governor’s office here in Minnesota, he has continued to stick to his principled approach.

He has been quite fairly criticized for Minnesota’s continued high state income taxes relative to our neighbors. Following widespread riots and looting in 2020, crime became a central issue for Minnesotans entering the 2022 gubernatorial election.

True to his history, though, Walz did not apologize for his convictions or his policies. He told Minnesotans if you don’t like sub-2% unemployment rates, if you don’t want to support a woman’s right to choose, and if you don’t like the way he commanded the National Guard during those fraught days in 2020, go ahead and vote for the other guy.

Walz won by almost 8 percentage points.

So, don’t be fooled by the easy smile and cheesy Dad jokes. When the chips are down and things get hard, this guy sticks to his convictions.

He doesn’t move his support to whichever group yells his name the loudest. He doesn’t take the politically easy route. He actually believes the things that are coming out of his mouth, whether you agree with him or not. When he’s not on TV talking, he is working to make his policies reality.

Walz digs in.

It’s the reason why for years students sought his counsel about hard things when he was a teacher at Mankato West; it’s why he was able to turn the First Congressional District blue for a decade, and it’s why he ran successfully to the right of a DFL-endorsed candidate to win the Democratic nomination for governor in 2018.

Memo to the Trump 2024 team from a dormant Republican and a Mr. Walz student:

Make the campaign about the Trump tax policy. Make it about China. Make it about the border.

Make it about anything other than leadership, decency and competency.

Because if you don’t, and this becomes a character debate, you’re way out of your league.

Doug Vose is a 2004 graduate of Mankato West High School and has been a software sales executive in the private sector for more than 15 years. He lives in Eden Prairie.

Categories Character, Elections, Ethics, Minnesota, Teachers, Walz, Tim
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »