Elizabeth Warren is voting to confirm Ben Carson at HUD. She says why:
I gotta say, that doesn’t cut it for me. As a Senator, you can have your own standards, not the crappy ones foisted on you by an administration that pretty explicitly wants to destroy government, from health care to intelligence to diplomacy. Nothing is immune.
Ben Carson is not a housing expert. Never was, doesn’t pretend to be. He might be well-intentioned. The answers he gave to her questions might have been encouraging. (I haven’t read them.) He said he was concerned about lead in public housing. Good for him.
That’s not the standard. Is he a person who knows, you know, Housing? Or Urban Development? There have got to be many thousands of people who are more qualified and prepared to deal with that. Obama’s HUD chief Shaun Donovan had a Masters in Public Administration and an architecture degree; he was Commissioner of Housing in New York City. That’s qualified. Even Alphonso Jackson, George W. Bush’s secretary of HUD who eventually resigned for refusing contracts to a bidder who “didn’t like Bush”, was a qualified public servant who had worked in several relevant areas.
Can’t we stand up for high standards of qualification for Cabinet positions? Or do we just accept that this is the best that’s going to issue forth from the swamp?
The Democrats who habitually want to work towards a functional government have to realize that they’re up against an administration (and a party) with no such interest. There’s no upside in normalizing low standards.
Peter Porcupine says
Julian Castro did not have specific housing experience – his focus as mayor was on education and he was originally considered for Transportation.
Carson has one (I think) unique qualification. He grew up with his single mother in poverty. He has BEEN there in a real way. The daily lives of too many people of color are ruined in some of these projects, and having a black man who has stood in their shoes at its head sends a powerful message to the children growing up – or at least surviving – there.
To date, Carson and Haley are the only cabinet picks I do really like. And face it – elections have consequences, and the administration will not be nominating the people who were on Hillary’s list that is being floated around.
stomv says
I wish it were true that Dr. Carson was the only person who grew up with a single mother in poverty.
Of course, it isn’t true. Many, many have — including many who have gone on to be far more educated and far more experienced in housing, urban development, architecture, urban planning, sociology, etc. — including folks who have experience managing departments or organizations far bigger than Dr. Carson has.
I’m not arguing that Dr. Carson is <not qualified under the “grew up poor and black and without two stable parents” metric. I am arguing that there are loads of others who meet that qualification and also meet the more traditional resume qualifications. Mr. Trump would have done better to choose one of those people, maybe even one with high energy.
doubleman says
Carson’s views on a host of other issues, from LGBT rights to choice (where he’s on the dangerous, unhinged fringe), are absolutely disqualifying to lead any department that deals with families in any way.
jconway says
He’s gonna get confirmed whether she votes for him or not, this sends a signal that it’s ok to lower the bar. And it gives cover to other Democrats to vote for worse oicksmlike Sessions or DeVoss “well if Warren can vote for Carson”.
doubleman says
This is incredibly dumb.
Maybe vote for the VA guy, but nearly everyone else should be a hard no. Any thoughts of being reasonable now to get reasonable treatment later from the GOP is literally effing stupid (and basically suicidal).
Christopher says
…though I’m not 100% sure the one to Warren took because the screen went blank and I never received an acknowledgement.
bob-gardner says
. . . is that this thread is the only thing about HUD and low income housing that I’ve seen for a long time. And it’s not really about low income housing.
stomv says
It’s a specialty for which lots of folks at BMG don’t have experience. Folks on BMG value the things that HUD does (or should do), but that doesn’t mean we have much to add to the conversation.
What we did have is confidence in a President and, by extension, a HUD secretary. We don’t have that confidence now.
bob-gardner says
if you don’t know anything about HUD policies?
If it’s just about who you have confidence in, why don’t you have confidence in Senator Warren?
stomv says
jconway says
At least to Sen. Warren. And it apparently doesn’t matter enough to the people on this thread arguing “she has bigger fish to fry”. I bet none of you have family living in public housing like I do. Their lives will get worse because this man will be running a department that has an inordinate impact on their lives.
Mark L. Bail says
appointment, but she can’t stop it. If she can’t stop it, how can it matter is she supports Carson’s nomination?
Warren also seems to have received some assurances from Carson and was reassured in her meeting with him. So was Sherrod Brown. It’s fair to criticize their judgement, but what makes everyone think they know more than two of our most progressive senators?
jconway says
You do realize this right? Reid’s deal means they will all get confirmed by party line votes. Collins endorsing Sessions sealed that disaster;
McCain, Graham and Rubio folded on Tillerson; DeVoss could be derailed since Republicans on the committee have been pushing back-but I see the rest getting easily confirmed. There’s no political price to pay for obstructionism as Garland should’ve taught us and it couldn’t be deployed as a tactic against a worse bunch of people.
As everyone around here likes to remind me-we already won the popular vote! Trump has no popular mandate for any of these choices so there is no need to confirm anyone who isn’t qualified or mainstream. Carson isn’t qualified and his ideology will make this department worse. Trump won’t send someone worse since the GOP will confirm Carson with or without us.
If we block his nominees so what-if they can keep a court seat unfilled for this long we can damn sure keep HUD staffed by interim heads. I suspect they might know a thing or two about housing, which is more than the nothing Carson knows.
Mark L. Bail says
appointment?
jconway says
Matt Yglesias lays out a compelling case:
All voting yes does is demoralize the base and piss us off without any clear benefit. This was not the fighter who reenergized me on Saturday but just another Democrat rolling over and playing dead-without having anything to show for it. I’m was tired of compromising when we had the presidency, now we have the least qualified executive with the lowest recorded popular mandate in electoral history leading the least qualified cabinet and we still let him win?
Mark L. Bail says
sends and we’re not going to take it anymore”?
This non-issue is so unimportant that it will be forgotten in ten days. There will be plenty of opportunity to oppose Trump’s cabinet picks in the next two weeks. DeVos. Sessions.
It would help if the base actually understood the fact that there is a difference between “sending a message” and actual lawmaking. Getting upset about stuff like this is one reason the Left gets marginalized in the Democratic Party: sending a message to Elizabeth Warren that they don’t like the message she sent by not making a symbolic gesture against Ben Carson who may, according to Warren, try to do his job. Symbols can matter, but the Left, whom you’re really referring to, tends to care more about them than actually having an effect.
doubleman says
This is the argument that keeps the Democratic party from actually supporting the things the base wants (and thus being that well-liked by the base). “Oh that will never pass” is the answer, so things don’t even get proposed, or what gets proposed is the already watered-down policy. How are we doing on “actual lawmaking” by the way?
We should look at the success of the Tea Party and try to replicate on the left. They were incredibly successful and they didn’t even have a cohesive theory of governance, which I think the left does (or at least can).
I think the Democrats should oppose every single one of Trump’s nominees and let the Republicans own everything. I admit that some of the nominees are less problematic than others. Carson, however, is not one of those nominees. He’s one of the least qualified and most dangerous.
As this discussion shows, I think this was a bigger misstep than Warren anticipated. Of course there are bigger issues and this will soon be in the back of our minds, but I strongly believe that opposing Trump at every turn is the smartest political move any blue state Dem can make at this time. And after this disgusting Muslim ban, that seems even more clear.
Mark L. Bail says
didn’t expect the blowback. Electoral-vote.com, which has become my daily digest of political stories, offers 5 explanations of the Dems behavior on this. The signal to noise explanation makes the most sense to me. I understand the idea of trying to emulate the Tea Party, but I have my doubts about our people carrying it out.
doubleman says
I get that they are probably picking their battles, but I think they are wrong, and Carson is also in the top (or lower) tier of terrible. DeVos, Mnuchin, and Price should all be hard NOs.
And for Sessions, any Dem who votes for him should be chased from the party.
jconway says
Moles: Carson won’t be one of them and isn’t qualified for the role, the other three were. I don’t see Mattis lasting a year. He was enjoying retirement and came back to serve-when he sees Bannon calling the foreign policy shots he’ll bail.
2018: why is it when a Democrat is President its smart strategy to run away from him in a midterm but when a Republican is President it’s better to embrace him and seem bipartisan? In my short lifetime this strategy has literally failed every single time. 02, 10, and 14. We finally fought Bush back in 2006 and had our biggest majority since 94′. Just dumb.
Precedent:
After Garland? The other side already is obstructing everyone. And we aren’t-Matti’s, Kelly and Chao are qualified and mainstream. Not who Hillary would’ve picked, but good choices. Carson is not.
Noise/Signal:
Agree with Mark that this is fair, but they could’ve voted no while making other no’s a bigger deal. Now Warren voting Yes is the story.
Not Machiavellian Enough
True, my whole life Democrats would rather lose the battle and lose the war than get their hands dirty. They always play nice and play safe and get fucked.
petr says
There are worse things in life than to be fucked. One of which is to be a victimizer solely for the sake of not being a victim.
It’s an ordinary, very human, response to not want to get fucked. Resist that response. Where it will lead you is to fuck somebody else. If it is wrong to be fucked, it is even more wrong to be the fucker.
No, James, you’re not immune from the same impulses and the same motivations that drive Trump. The difference is, you still have a choice.
jconway says
Standing up for victims of bad policies does not make one a victimized. Should we turn the other cheek and support refugees or fight this? Should we vote for Carson who supports this illegal and immoral ban, and might enforce it in public housing or do we fight it by voting no?
I am really not getting the pathological need to defend every poor decision a Democrat makes around here-it doesn’t make our party smarter, better or more principled. It actually has the opposite effect.
Elizabeth Warren thinks it’s ok that someone who supports banning Muslims, killing abortionists, privatizing all public housing and recriminalizing sodomy is in charge of an agency he has no qualifications to lead. That’s what her vote signals to me and there is nothing symbolic or clever about voting to affirm that past bigotry and lack of qualifications doesn’t matter when it comes to leasing an agency responsible for my sisters housing and the housing of millions of Americans. Including the undocumented homeowners and renters fearing deportation I worked with in Chelsea. Really glad liberals have nonsaid it’s ok for someone who doesn’t support their human rights to be in charge of their loans.
petr says
Yes.
“Thinks it’s Ok”? Your own hyperbole is getting the better of you. I don’t think Senator Warren thnks “its ok.” I think, like all true hearts, she’s choosing her battles. Just because you don’t want to admit defeat, however temporary, doesn’t meant the rest of us have to eschew reality.
We have been forced into retreat. This is part of the retrenchment. If you don’t like it, you need to grow the fuck up.
jconway says
And I for one thought that’s what our elected progressives were going to do. You can’t say the refugee ban is illegal and put one of its proponents in charge of our housing system. Fighting creeping fascism is part of one battle, and voting to confirm an unqualified bigot for this position is not the way to fight.
petr says
Where do you think that’s gonna getcha.
Do you want elected progressives who will tilt at windmills? Is that what you want?
Or do you want elected progressives who understand reality and choose their battles?
You think the rogering is ahead of us, don’t you? How naive.
We got fucked on Nov 8th. This is just the following on pain. You can’t prevent it. You can’t avoid it. You can’t look away. That’s the horror of it. Welcome to reality. Your only job, right now, is to survive it. Yeah, it’s painful. Yeah, it sucks. No one expects you to like it but no one, also, expects you to have any affect upon it whatsoever. The storm is here and you can curse the cold and the wind and the snow, but it is of no effect. Elizabeth Warren understands this. You do not. The sooner you accept it, the better and more effective you’ll be for the cause.
George VI was the King of England during the Battle of Britain. He would, I suspect, loved to have gone to Germany and put a bullet or two in the brain of as many NAZI’s as he could find. I suspect to, that if he could give his own life for the life of his nation, he would have done so unhesitatingly. Those option, however, weren’t available to him. Instead, he got in his convertible, put the top down and drove around London publicly displaying a conspicuous lack of fear. He then took to the radio and straightforwardly said, ‘we are down, but we are not out…’
Never once did he deny the reality that was before him. You would do well to think on that.
jconway says
I certainly don’t know.
doubleman says
It sounds like justification for keeping one’s head down and letting your opponent do whatever.
The King George example is particularly hilarious since the UK was literally at war at the time. A more apt analogy would have been if the UK was saying “you’re bad Nazis, but we’ll work with you on building some train routes through Europe for your trains to the camps.”
petr says
Letting your “opponent do whatever” is, actually, part of the strategy. Not, I don’t hesitate to add, by choice. Some people won’t believe you when you say that so-and-so is capable of whatever. Sometimes they have to be shown, outright, that so-and-so is going to do whatever in furtherance of their goals. It is at that point we must ask them, forthrightly and deliberately, if this is what they wanted when they first voted for him. So, aside from the ‘keeping one’s head down, ” yeah. “Letting your opponent do whatever” is key for letting the electorate know what your opponent is both capable of and willing to do. I’d very much like for them to take my word for it, of course, and avoid the actual horror of it. But that’s no longer an option. They already invested the guy with the power of the office. Are you shocked that he uses the power of the office?
Consider this: those who, as has been alleged, voted for Donald Trump merely upon ‘economic anxieties’ and other, rather prosaic, concerns… should they not be alerted to the ultimate goal and the nature of the Trump presidency? Anybody who voted for Trump on the grounds, merely, that he would bring back jobs… should they not be alerted that their votes has been usurped by xenophobia?
That the return of their jobs might be predicated upon others pain?
Sure, a large portion of them might accept that bargain… but all of them? A majority, even?
Donald Trump is President. He has already done horrible things. No doubt he plans more. I was cautioned, during the election, not to falsely accuse Donald Trump of being capable of horrible things. With that sentiment I agree: I will not accuse Donald Trump falsely, but base my accusations on what he does and what he says. No doubt, those who warned me of accusing him falsely thought that sufficient to fend agains any and all accusations, whatsoever.
It is not. However much reality is denied, temporarily, it is not stymied permanently. And so I accuse Trump, truly, of perfidy in the extreme. More importantly, I ask those who voted for him if, in fact, this is what they wanted and, in fact, what they hoped to get when they voted for him? For many, this is undoubtably what they wanted… but for all? For a majority?
doubleman says
I think I get your position and what I think is clear is that it is:
1) Remarkably cruel
2) Has no likelihood of working to the desired effect – based on historical evidence or on logic.
petr says
… to tell me what my ‘desired effect’ is? How arrogant of you…
That’s not my choice. If Trump is remarkably cruel and I say that i cannot prevent that cruelty… that’s my fault? What is, is. You are fighting reality. I won’t help you in this endeavor.
The desired effect, it is clear, is completely outside your ability to conceive. Logic is not confined to your ability to discern it.
petr says
Yeah, you do. And your attempts to bring others into your “perspective” is all the proof that is needed that, in fact, you do. You just don’t want to admit it.
Mark L. Bail says
that Warren knows something we don’t know. She may not. And if Carson ends up a shit show, she’ll be very sorry.
Democrats suck at getting their hands dirty, partly from inexperience, partly because we actually believe in government and democracy, and partly because we think too abstractly for the electorate. The Tea Party would primary a candidate who didn’t toe their purist line. If Lefties tried that, they would get laughed halfway across the country.
What’s the Left going to do? Have a march? I hear they’re going to protest out Markey’s and Warren’s offices from now on. She’s nice, she’ll care, but that’s what the Lefties do: wave a sign.
jconway says
If it were lefties mad that she voted for one of the Bushies I’m on your side. Part of the reason our primary threats are laughed at is because we never really follow through on them. I can’t think of a single left of center primary challenger who beat a centrist for a major office. Lieberman and he still managed to win the general. That’s about it. Locally a few here and there, and usually against problematic incumbents like Tierney or Wilkerson.
I think they were hollow in the past and over things that aren’t as important as what’s going on right now. Warren through this vote is normalizing beliefs and activities that shouldn’t be normalized. This isn’t Jack Kemp-a conservative but one who supported civil rights and had experience in housing policy. This is someone who is supports bigotry and has no relevant experience to run his agency.
So I think it’s different. I think trying to be the better side will get innocent people hurt, because this administration different is different from any other in our history and far more radical in its worldview.
I asked Zinn how he would’ve stopped the Nazis without war, and he said with massive non violent resistance. That kind of purity in the face of evil is. Have and gets us in trouble. And it’s not violating Goodwins Law when we see such a heartless and shameful policy that Bush never would’ve condoned, nor even Nixon at his worst. And it shows no respect for norms, process, or even the law let alone morality.
So it’s no, housing isn’t as important as resisting education and justice secretaries. But it’s still important, and if we let him get away with the small stuff it’ll snowball into something big. Housing refugees is one area where Carson is going to be problematic and isn’t a normal Republican.
Christopher says
I’m not sure where to find them now, but I recall seeing polls during the Obama years indicating that GOP voters like it when their electeds take no prisoners whereas Dem voters prefer finding common ground. That said, someone might want to take that poll again now to see if Dem attitudes have shifted, which wouldn’t surprise me.
Mark L. Bail says
away with it! We don’t have the votes.
jconway says
A) we actually can and suffer no consequences.
Ask Merrick Garland
B) we actually aren’t
Mattis, Kelly, Chao and the VA pick are solid, competent mainstream nominees. I have no problem with confirming them. Voting for 4 that are reaonsbake is different from voting Yes in everyone. Carson is neither but qualified nor mainstream. He just isn’t. He might be a nice guy-Tom Price and Jeff a Sessions seem nice too. Their policies are terrible and out of the mainstream.
jconway says
What were John Lewis and Cory Booker doing if not symbolic politics? Sit ins were symbolic, symbols matter a great deal. Opposing extremist and unqualified nominees isn’t radical, confirming them is. And it’s sends a dangerous signal that if we will cave on the small stuff we will cave on the ground stuff.
Your argument is a great argument for voting for repeal and replace “we are here to govern and make laws and a replacement is better than a repeal”. Fuck that. And we actually can filibuster the ACA repeal and should.
But African Americans are right to be angry that Jeff Sessions has spent a career opposing their right to vote. Housing advocates are deeply disturbed by his lack of experience and commitment to their issue.
You don’t live in section 8 housing my sister does. Putting this guy in charge kf her future isn’t symbolic to me. Sorry Mark-I respect you but this is a very dangerously naive position for you to hold. I the last 16 years have taught us anything it’s that by working with them we let them move the goalposts further and further to the right on every issues.
petr says
… abandoning the process, because we don’t like the outcome, is to prefer the outcome to the process. You may want that… but if you do, don’t pretend you don’t.
But if the norms that have been trashed have value, then the greatest protest is to hold steadfastly to those norms, whatever the outcome.
Otherwise, it’s just thug against thug and whoever goes full thugee first, wins. You may want that. If you do, don’t pretend you don’t.
jconway says
That’s why the process argument doesn’t make sense. Finegold got similar flack voting for Ashcroft, whom I might add Warrens predecessor did not vote for, because he said Bush was entitled to his cabinet choices. Fine. Then vote for Sessions, vote for DeVoss and vote for Price.
We are being more inconsistent by voting for Carson and voting against Price. Both are hard right ideologues opposed to their agency functions, but Price is a long time health economist. Does Carson have any commensurate experience? No. He’s just as extremist and even less qualified.
Sessions was an AG and a long time Juduciary Committee veteran. Why not confirm him? Because he is an extremist who is more qualified than Carson.
What process based consistency do you differ to the President on one set of extremist and unqualified nominees and fight him on another set? Especially since it’s likely they all get confirmed by party line votes anyway. Even DeVoss. Even Sessions.
To me the metric has always been is this a mainstream pick and a qualified pick. I’d have voted for Mattis, Chao, Ross, Kelly, Pompeo, Coats and the VA pick. That’s it. The rest are unqualified and/or out of the mainstream. The same standard they are using to oppose DeVoss should apply to Carson.
Mark L. Bail says
was merely a problem on your part. I’m not sure I’m being clear.
Mark L. Bail says
I don’t really think you understanding what I’m saying and this is such a non-issue, it won’t even be a topic by next Thursday. It’s not even a topic today.
jconway says
I think Sen. Warren is well meaning and had the right intentions with this vote, it’s just not the vote I would’ve made in her shoes. This was a shameful weekend for our country, our constitution, and the institution of the presidency and this is just the beginning. And I’ll agree Carson is the least oir problems right now.
Christopher says
I started out assuming Dem opposition to any nominee would ultimately be futile given the partisan composition of the Senate, but that doesn’t mean you should not vote either your conscience or constituent preference anyway.
jconway says
So it’s incumbent on Warren to explain why her conscience was comfortable with Carson and why she feels he will represent her constituents well. Neither she nor her defenders have made an articulate case here.
Mark L. Bail says
Unlike the rest of us who have the luxury of turning our noses up at Trump’s nominees, Warren and Sherrod Brown know more about how to do their jobs and how Capitol Hill works than most of us. Vox has a run-down, which I think is persuasive:
Among the Carson statements they’ve highlighted:
doubleman says
Norms are fucking bullshit at this point. We adhere to them at our peril.
Mark L. Bail says
action to make Lefties feel more pure? Ivory soap politics: 99% pure, but no better than alternative soaps.
I accept the “at our peril” phrase because things have gotten that bad; it’s usually BS. I don’t know that a race to the normative bottom is the right answer, though that’s one alternative the GOP has given us.
As it stands, I accept that Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown know more about who to support and not support than those of us sitting behind our computers passing judgement.
jconway says
And there is no indication Carson has the qualifications or inclination to actually govern. Tom Price also says he thinks every American should have health care-despite an entire legislative career spent contradicting that notion. Should we vote for him too? He’s also a doctor and unlike Carson he actually has a strong policy background in this area. It’s just advocating the wrong policies. Should we confirm DeVoss simply to defer to the President? Sessions is a former state AG and Juduciary Chair-he’s far more qualified for his role than Carson. We could also vote for him using the logic Warren employed.
Have we already forgotten about Garland? A moderate older guy with nearly unanimous Republican support in the past and they still held up his nomination for no good reason. Obama always assumed they wanted to govern the country and preemptively met them half way in good faith only to have them act like Lucy and pull the football.
Now they are returning the favor by selecting unqualified and ideological partisans to important government positions. It’s one thing to confirm Matti’s and Kelly who are actually sensible people that might reasonably check Trump. I see them both resigning in a year when they realize how fucking stupid he really is.
But Carson? How is our good faith rewarded? What concession did she get in this exchange other than giving cover to red state senators to do the same and vote for more vile nominees she will oppose? Is there any new indication Trump has moderated his stance on any issues.
He will actually try and build the wall. He will actually ban refugees. He will actually repeal the ACA without a replacement. He really is caving entirely to Russia. The time for decorum passed long ago when Mitch McConnell abused every privilege the Senate had to offer to delay and obstruct a perfectly moderate agenda and hundreds of qualified moderate nominees. We have no reason to confirm a single one of his choices. This is an unprecedented president aided and abetted by a feckless majority leader who has no respect for any institutions in an unprecedented era where objective reality is denied by half the country. Massive resistance is the only way forward.
Mark L. Bail says
appointment, but she can’t stop it. If she can’t stop it, how can it matter whether she supports Carson’s nomination? Filibuster him? Filibuster them all? The GOP is already looking to weaken the filibuster.
I have no problem with abject partisanship, if it leads to our power or our policies. I don’t see how Warren’s rejection would lead to more power for Dems. Warren apparently thinks Carson is the best we can get for HUD. She thinks we can get or maintain some of our policies by supporting him. It makes sense to me.
jconway says
1) Reid already got rid of the filibuster
There is nothing the Democrats can do to stop any of these cabinet picks-even the bad ones like Sessions. They could all get confirmed by party line votes and it’s unlikely Republicans break ranks. DeVoss is in trouble, the rest seem to be sailing right through.
2) Carson was gonna get confirmed either way, Trump couldn’t appoint someone worse
And frankly that’s such a weak starting point that really messed us up during grand bargain and ACA debates. Let’s fight from a position of strength instead of making excuses from a position of weakness.
3) He was lying to the committee
Everything he said in his career up until last week indicated someone whose only opinions on federal housing was that we should abolish federal housing and replace it with block grants to the states, end racial mixing and other “socialist experiments” and let the free market set mortgage rates. Not a good look.
4) Trump isn’t normal
An opposition party unanimously rejecting cabinet pick after cabinet pick indicates the president is way out of the mainstream-and the popular vote and polling seem to indicate he is. This is how we claw our way back to power. It worked for the GOP in 2010 and it will work for us.
petr says
It is not time for the norms to protect us. It is up to us to protect the norms. They are what the democracy rests upon. It is not about us wresting back power, that will come, but what we will do when we get there.
There really have been few finer public servants in our recent history than Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. And there have been none so feckless as Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and, of course, Donald Trump. We must not forget that it is the feckless who broke it, who trashed the norms and who undermine our very democracy.
And we cannot be feckless ourselves, not only are they better suited to it and have more practice, but it is tearing down and destroying. It is not building.
And when we get back to a normal democracy it is going to be people who are like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, people who believe in the norms and who are going to repair the damage. Elizabeth Warren has the chance, now, to aspire to that. I believe she is taking it.
doubleman says
We’re in a street fight and we’re hoping the refs will come in and save us. They won’t.
Really? How’d Obama do rolling back executive overreach from the Bush administration? He had more than enough chances. Instead, Trump now has all those tools and toys. (Also, how’d John Kerry and Hillary Clinton do winning against garbage people?)
I think Trump’s election demonstrated what American politics is really all about – constant grifting and racism. We’re clutching to certain norms and still believing in these supposedly great and worthy institutions. It hasn’t been going well for a generation.
I wonder if Merrick Garland would agree.
On a related note – punching Nazis is a good thing.
Mark L. Bail says
hurt my feelings. And I have no problem fighting, even fighting a little dirty. I would like to see the Republican Party completely destroyed. That’s what we should be working on.
Complaining about Elizabeth Warren supporting Carson’s appointment, however, isn’t fighting to me. It’s just complaining, justified or not.
The GOP has been on a 25 year campaign to destroy political norms. Doing so is a gambit: if they do it and then we do it, then “both sides do it.” If we don’t break norms, we often lose. Either it’s a race to the bottom or a gradual descent.
In terms of disagreement, I don’t mind. I’m not always right.
jconway says
She eloquently said science matters, women matter, people of color matter and the middle class matters. Ben Carson doesn’t believe any of those things matter. He is on record denying climate change, opposing women’s rights, embracing very outdated views of race, and his economic policies would’ve benefitted the wealthy at the expense of the middle. He has zero experience in housing policy. This pick should’ve been insulting to a policy expert like her denied a fair hearing to run an agency tailor made for her talents.
Instead she rolled over. Had Lieberman done this back in the day you would’ve rightly called him out. If Warren won’t fight for us it gives cover to other Democrats to roll over on the other nominees. And sorry “trust us we got this” doesn’t cut it anymore-that’s what Democratic leadership said every day before the election and they were wrong.
If the most decent and fair minded man to be elected president in my lifetime can’t get decent and fair minded people appointed then you better believe this cabinet of deplorables should be vigorously opposed. If just so historians looking back on can see some of us opposed this President when it counted.
petr says
I’m not fighting back. I’m not hoping for anybody to come and save us.
I’m hoping to confront them with their savagery and let them decide to continue with it, or not. But I’m steadfastly not going to be savage in return.
You have to ask yourself, are you angry merely because they might have the upper hand? Or because you saw them trample something precious? If the latter, is it better, in response, to attempt to get the upper hand by ‘streetfighting’ or to remember, and thus someday be able to rebuild, that precious thing?
I said they were fine public servants. I didn’t say they were successful. Part of their fineness is in their resolute willingness to keep trying in the face of failure. But, here’s the thing: Trump cannot possibly succeed. He has the position and he’s only going to destroy with it. He loses. They lose. We lose. He can burn the whole thing down and destroy, but he can’t govern successfully. There’s no way to do so on the terms he’s already willing. This is true, also, for the feckless Republicans in Congress.
Success will be a return to a fully function society run upon the norms we long held dear, however insufficiently they’ve been practiced. Success lies not in defeating Trump — he’s going to do that to himself– but in upholding and ultimately returning to the norms and customs we hold dear, then leaving him and his followers upon the dung heap of history. Will that happen soon? I don’t know. Will it be painless for the rest of us? Not in the least. Can we do anything about that? No. We can try to inflict pain in return, but that’s not gonna bring about the victory.
It has never gone perfectly. I doubt very much it will ever go perfectly. Why do you think it should?
Most Nazi’s died, unpunched, at the hands of their own incompetence and venality. It always and has ever been thus. This is no different. The fire of Donald Trumps savagery will someday die out — not before many people will feel the heat of it, to be sure, but we can’t stop that now — we con only uphold our norms and practices and be ready to re-implement them when it’s time.
doubleman says
Umm. Sure.
Let’s just wait it out.
In other news – enjoy the camps!
petr says
… but if you’re concerned that I’m simply going to wait passively, let me allay those concerns. I won’t fight. But I will speak. I will stand. I will accuse them with their own behavior. If I thought I could win an election, I’d run for office myself.
But I won’t fight.
doubleman says
That strategy will lose.
Some of the rest of us will fight and maybe your hope will become a reality.
Waiting and accepting massive social pain for a generation or two I think is always a terrible move, but these days even more so because there might only be a few generations left for the planet if we lose.
jconway says
Still waiting for an answer…from anyone
jconway says
The GOP spent eight years destroying precedent and institutional norms and its resulted in a President who cares about neither. We owe him zero deference.
terrymcginty says
I obviously see the validity if the critique of fringy and quite scary Carson.
But I, for one, trust Elizabeth Warren to steer the ship through this fog. Period. She’s no fool, and she knows what she is doing. I am not referring the author of this post in particular, why oh why do progressives sometimes seem more interested in showing how brilliant they are, and in displaying their uncanny ability to see all sides of an issue, instead of having the back of our leaders? Look where this perfectionism has gotten us.
doubleman says
Because we’ve lost basically every battle we’ve had recently while hoping that certain norms and institutions will protect us.
It’s not about showing how brilliant we are, it’s about beating this monster in the street fight we’re in.
petr says
And when it’s done I’ll get up and ask for another one. Until either the monster kills me, gets tired and slumps away or recognizes he’s not going to defeat me in this manner.
Then I’m going to use my brilliance to re-iterate and re-institute the norms that are the bedrock of a functioning democracy.
terrymcginty says
Who could not have the same view of Carson? But as terrible as this is to say, we need to choose one, two, or st the Most three of these nominees if what we really care about is defeating them to keep them out of power. For me, at least, the focus should be on Jeff Sessions.
jconway says
The genteel salad days of the Senate where Kennedy and Hatch could have dinner and create SCHIP are over. Where a young, moderate Republican Senator named Mitch McConnell could challenge his own party’s president on an important issue like freeing Mandela. Those days are dead, and have been dead since the last Bush administration.
John Breaux voted for Bush tax cuts and got rewarded with a strong challenger that scared him away from re-election. Crippled Vietnam vet Max Cleland got rewarded for his bipartisan support of the Iraq War with negative ads comparing him to bin Laden. War hero John Kerry had the albatross of Iraq hung around his neck and got swift boated anyway. Every overture Obama made to the Republicans got met with obstructionism.
My prediction. Every single one of Trump’s deplorable nominees will get confirmed. Zero Republicans will vote against them. So why waste our time pretending to be civil when our opposition is anything but? Why waste time pretending to govern when our opposition will destroy our government? Delay, delay delay is what candidate Trump said about supporting Obamas nominee. Time to give him the same medicine. After all-it’s what they have continually done to us.
bob-gardner says
That kind of gives the game away, doesn’t it? You’ve been arguing as a purist but you would have voted for “Matti” , who was sitting behind Trump when he signed his Muslim ban?
Just who is the worst Trump appointee and who is the least objectionable is a question of judgement. At some point politicians have to decide where to draw the line. Your judgement has already been proved wrong– there is nothing acceptable about Mattison.
So maybe your judgement is not as good as Elizabeth Warren’s. Maybe she has information you didn’t bother to find out. On the other hand, maybe she miscalculated–but if she did, it’s a miscalculation, not a stab in the back.
jconway says
I respect Gilibrand voting against him because of the waiver, and I respect your concerns about him too. So far he has already contradicted his testimony in the hearing regarding standing up to Trump on torture and the Muslim ban. Ditto Kelly. Which is why Warrens excuse that Carson said the right things is even more troubling in retrospect.
Is Mattis a mainstream pick? Defense experts in both parties highly praised him and it’s likely he would’ve had a role in the Clinton administration. Mattis tried to hire Michele Flournoy, Clinton’s deputy as his deputy and was overruled by Trumps team. He was wincing at this order. I don’t see him lasting. But he’s mainstream and qualified. Carson is not.
Voting no on all is also a consistent and principled stance, it’s just not my principle. I would argue Carson fails both tests, we can quibble about whether Mattis is mainstream based on his actions so far and his hawkishness toward Iran. He was definitely qualified, a more basic test Carson fails.
Christopher says
…(and I forget now whether it was an elected official or a pundit), when the sanest member of your cabinet is nicknamed “Mad Dog”…:)
terrymcginty says
…and Mulvaney at OMB.
fredrichlariccia says
She gave new meaning to my Goethe quote : ” There is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action.”
Fred Rich LaRiccia
terrymcginty says
She’s a disaster. But the Department of Justice in the office of management and budget I just more important as plain as that. The education department at the federal level has a relatively minor role compared to those other gargantuan entities.
hesterprynne says
is another grave threat — a career in the fast food biz and a long series of public statements that demonstrate he’s expressly opposed to DOL’s mission.
His hearing has been postponed four times now, and it’s starting to seem that his nomination may be in doubt — that would be an important blow to Team Trump’s “f#@k you” stand.
Senator Warren is all over this one. Her statement yesterday:
jconway says
The vote for Carson undermines not strengthens her opposition to other nominees. The only ones I’d vote for at this point are the VA pick, Matti’s, Kelly and Ross. The rest were deliberately chosen to weaken their agencies and damage the credibility of the federal government so Trump can consolidate power in the White House. He is already ignoring the advice of Mattis and Tillerson for what it’s worth.
scott12mass says
A legacy of political corruption is costing a number of U.S. states much more than their reputation, according to a new study.
The study, authored by Cheol Liu of the City University of Hong Kong and John Mikesell of Indiana University and published in the May/June 2014 issue of Public Administration Review, links political corruption to excessive state spending in the nation’s 10 most corrupt states. The result is what essentially amounts to an annual “corruption tax” estimated at $1,308 per person, based on the researchers’ analysis of about 25,000 corruption-related convictions between the years 1976 and 2008.
If corruption in the nation’s 10 most corrupt states — identified and ranked in order as Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Alaska, South Dakota, Kentucky and Florida — had been reduced to just an “average” level between 1997 and 2008, spending in those states would have been reduced a total of 5.2 percent of their existing expenditures, according to the study.
Look in your back yard of Mass, the Democrats running things have not shone as a beacon of ethical governing. Mass didn’t make the top 10 most corrupt, but it must be up there. This is what got Trump elected. It finally boiled over and when people were presented with another career politician or “something else”, they collectively said what have we got to lose. Now he wants and will get his own men. Trump really isn’t much of a Republican, he used the Republican party (they have been unable to handle him) as a conduit to power. Will things be better, who knows. Plenty of people have said what have we got to lose.
Mark L. Bail says
I question the findings, but being an academic article, the methodology is clear. I’m skeptical, but it’s interesting.
Your conclusions based on the article would be more interesting if they were even close to being based on the facts presented in the article. You write:
In fact, the article itself ranks Massachusetts as the 23rd least corrupt. That’s 2 states below the middle. Nothing to brag about, but hardly “up there.”
The actual variable is questionable as well. As the authors note,
stomv says
But mine was laced with thicker sarcasm and disgust.
Mark L. Bail says
It’s fucking killing me.
stomv says
Your first three paragraphs make the case that this academic study helps us understand a “corruption tax”, and that it’s a good study. Cool.
Your fourth paragraph completely ignores the study to make a claim about Massachusetts corruption. “It must be up there” you say. Here’s the study, The Impact of Public Officials’ Corruption on the Size and Allocation of U.S. State Spending. Go ahead and scroll down to Table 1, where the two corruption tables reside.
I’ll wait.
Oh, I see you’re back. Great! Where was Massachusetts again? If you said 23rd least corrupt on one, and 25th least corrupt on the other, bingo! Go get yourself a biscuit from the kitchen.
I’ll wait.
Great, you’re back again. So, to recap, not only did Mass not “make the top 10 most corrupt,” but it was not “up there.” In the future, if you could go ahead and just browse the studies you cite before making demonstrably alternate truth claims about them, that would be great, m’kay.
scott12mass says
my bad. I didn’t look up Massachusetts specific place. You all must be so proud that Mass is only average in corruption. My point was that Trump is outside the political norm, the norm which most people feel is full of politicians who are corrupt and steal from their constituents instead of working for them.
He is outside the political norm for both Dems and Republicans, so don’t think I’m only saying Dems are corrupt.
Mark L. Bail says
is a potentially useful political issue. Government reform (aside from corruption) is an issue that appeals to many voters. The real issue is not illegal corruption, but legal, systemic corruption. I’ve never talked to anyone who expressed a concern about corruption.
I don’t know your background, but Stomv and I both have extensive experience reading and critiquing research. This isn’t very persuasive research. The value of a lot of research is in extending methodology. This article may have value in this regard, but their corruption index is not compelling. I’m not great with numbers, but rankings are one of the cruder versions of statistics, one reason being that they don’t tell how far apart the ranked items are.
scott12mass says
Blue collar factory right after high school. Night school (actually worked nights and went to school during the day). A couple of stats courses.
But I go out of my way to talk (respectfully) to as wide a swath of people as I can. I happened to be travelling the east coast this last campaign stopping in PA, NC and now I’m in Fla. MOST people I talk to view politicians as corrupt, based on their experiences with their own elected officials. Being from Mass I’m familiar with “our” Speakers of the House. Daily I talk to people from Minn, Ohio, Indiana (a dozen others) and they all have stories of their own local political crooks.
Mark L. Bail says
somewhat supports your corruption thesis.
http://thedemocraticstrategist-roundtables.com/?page_id=192
scott12mass says
what I think and hear every day.
scott12mass says
Oxford Mass has no municipal trash pick-up. People choose their carrier (5-6 to choose from), they can even be real feminists and sign up with Dirty Girlz a female only trash hauler (owned and operated by) if they want. If you’ve ever been there it’s a great town and very clean.
Someone in town management wanted to change things and developed a plan to have a “preferred” town waste company. Not even a town employee system (viewed widely as being open to cronyism), just a preferred hauler. You would be automatically enrolled, then could opt out if you provided proof you had your own hauler. The assumption in the local coffee shops was the preferred hauler had an “in” in town hall. It was brought up at the town meeting and loudly voted down.
As often happens at town meetings when the really important things are done and decided (in this case trash) quite a few people go home. They attempted later in the meeting to bring up the trash plan again, after people had voted it down and gone home, and the only way it was stopped was someone went out in the corridor and pulled the fire alarm.
Mark L. Bail says
went out to bid three years ago. We had three bids. No one had an in.
The big sticking point was should people pay through a fee or through taxes. The select board pushed for a tax because we didn’t know if there would be enough people opting out on the fee to support the program. A no-vote on the override meant households would be individually responsible for their own trash. In some extreme cases (a handful of residences), some households pay for more than they might have paid for trash pickup. My house is worth about $240,000 and my trash bill is about $160 a year. It would have been about $400 had we gone private. The vast majority of people pay $200 or less. Surveys and anecdotal evidence strongly suggest that people are very happy with the system. The value is in a group bid.
Based on experience, I use Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity,” or “Don’t assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.” In my experience, people make stuff up to explain what they don’t understand due to lack of information or wishful thinking. I’ve seen this in Granby, but it also happened recently in Hampden, MA.
Here’s a hypothesis for Oxford’s situation: some people clearly opposed the municipal trash; the rumor started that a company had an “in.” After all, how could anyone promote something that was clearly a bad idea? There are few or no channels of communication to correct misunderstandings and inform reasonable people.
I have a Facebook group with more than 10% of the town’s electorate as members. People are allowed to disagree, but not make up shit. Anyone who suggests that the Town has done something nefarious I hit them hard. Here’s an example: a former select board member (someone I don’t care for) is selling her house. She listed it a $550,000. Zillow listed it for $400,000. According to one person, she was getting a break on her taxes! This is the kind of thing that can work up to an accepted truth.
scott12mass says
I live in Charlton and it’s a smaller town than Oxford. I pay for my own trash pick-up. I don’t want any change, even if it might save me $200. As it is if I have an overflowing bin or a large item I know the private company will take it and not charge extra. If it were run by the town I doubt that would be the case. I don’t know for sure but I don’t want to find out.
petr says
… I feel compelled to point out that two, of the three, states you mention, are on the list, which you cite, of “top 10” corrupt states. Of course, if you are in the most corrupt states you are, very likely, to hear more about corruption. But then you generalize from the specific instances… If I were to similarly generalize I’d make note of the fact that, with the exception of Illinois, every one of the “top 10” states is, decidedly, a so-called ‘red state’ (Pennsylvania has see-sawed between Democratic and Republican representation, both at the Senate and the Gubernatorial level, but I’d argue that their Republicans were rabidly more Republican and/or Conservative and their Democrats were only very tepidly Democratic and/or Progressive…)
There is a dynamic at play which you do not take into account: those who are most often charged, and tried, for corruption are Republicans and those who are most often accused are Democrats. (note well, I do not say only Republicans are charged and tried. Nor do I say only Democrats are merely accused) For the Republicans, this is a great boon, since if both houses are seen as equally corrupt, there will be less appetite for reform amongst the electorate who are, ultimately, responsible for the political makeup of the state. Any anger at any corruption is blunted by the notion that any response is, supposedly, likely to be equally corrupt. This extends to mistakes that are often viewed with the lens of corruption: Hillary Clintons’ email server was a mistake, no doubt, but is most widely interpreted in the context of corruption.
Where the idea of what is corrupt is thinned out, but where the boundaries of what is corruption are broadly interpreted… what do you think should obtain?
jconway says
He is a nominee to represent an agency that controls the very housing for millions of our fellow citizens. He is an extremist who is ideologically opposed to the agenda of that agency and has zero qualifications to lead it. Why is voting no on him suddenly controversial?