[ad_1]
A month ago, Michael Avenatti – the lawyer of Stormy Daniels, antagonist of Donald Trump, and yes, presidential candidate of the 2020 presidential – is expressed at a fundraiser of Democratic Party of Iowa and declared that our party and our nation "What" how "the Democrats are fighting. He rebuked the Democrats for "tending to carry out firearm fights" while they should fight "fire with fire". Avenatti is the main storm hunter on the front little noticed during the 2020 presidential campaign: -Trump the president in place by going as far as possible to break the procedural "norms"?
Even though Avenatti is unlikely to win the nomination, he could still hurt the 2020 race. In fact, he is already doing it, using his considerable media skills and his political instincts to launch the debate on the extent of Democrats in exercising power and putting pressure on rivals to follow his example. If we begin to measure candidates on the basis of those who are least attached to the written and unwritten rules that have stabilized American democracy for centuries, the country will be seriously threatened.
History continues below
The reverberations of Avenatti became evident during hearings of the Senate Judiciary Committee for the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court, with two presidential candidates probably trying to prove their willingness to reverse the norms. Senator Cory Booker bragged about risk of deportation by launching documents deemed to be classified by the Republican-led committee, protesting attempts to minimize access to Kavanaugh's e-mails when he was working in the United States. George W. Bush administration. And Senator Kamala Harris shared on Twitter a truncated video clip of Kavanaugh referring to the contraceptive pill as an "abortion-causing drug," which has ceased to give him the sentence to Catholic anti-abortion plaintiffs. Then, when the media controllers called her, Harris, apparently following Trump's "never apologize" philosophy, refused to admit an error or recalibrate his accusations.
Democratic frolics at Kavanaugh's auditions took place just after Avenatti ultimatum on Twitter: "In light of [Merrick] The garland seat that has been stolen, today's events and the concealment of documents, etc., the court must be expanded to 11 seats after 2020. The resignation candidate must either commit himself or not receive the IMO application. , Avenatti went to Bird-Dog both Booker and Harris. In a thread of two tweets, which follows a dramatic interrogation of Kavanaugh by Harris who gave nothing, he warned, "I sincerely hope (1) that these four papers released this morning by Mr. Booker were still confidential, so that he could prove that the GOP is lying and (2) that Mrs. Harris reveals the evidence of the communications that she suggested last night and then eviscerates Kavanaugh. Because if not … "
We can finish his sentence: Otherwise, it shows that these suitors do not know how to fight as I do.
Following the call to drop the clippers and pick up the gun with a full hug clarifies what exactly means Avenatti by fighting harder: to fight unrestrained by the standards in effect. Avenatti exploits a left-wing desire to burn the rule book that has been simmering since the 2000 presidential recount. Fahrenheit 9/11Al-Gore, who resisted the unofficial count for 35 days, finally got the better of the legal and constitutional reality. Moore's film revisited the show when Gore, as Senate President, had the unfortunate ceremonial role of certifying the count of the 2000 Electoral College. Several Democrats in the House made one last attempt at objection, but Gore rejected them because their petition did not have a Senate sponsor. Moore did not recognize that Gore's actions were necessary to avoid a constitutional crisis that could easily have led to violence. He just lowered Gore as weak and insensitive. "One after the other," Moore said, mainly African-American dissidents "were invited to sit down and shut up."
This mistrust of Democrats vis-à-vis binding norms has intensified during the Obama presidency, which was constantly shaken by the Republicans' obstruction tactics. When Congressional Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling in order to obtain concessions, some (including Bill Clinton) called on Barack Obama to extend a provision of the 14th amendment relating to the civil war and to declare the ceiling of the unconstitutional debt. Others, like New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman supported another legally questionable and economically risky proposition: for Obama, order the US Treasury to hit a trillion dollar coin to bypass the debt ceiling and pay its obligations. Of course, these proposals responded to Republican threats against the prevailing norms, namely to seize US confidence and credit as a currency of exchange. But you can not protect the sanctity of public debt obligations by undermining the sanctity of public debt obligations.
In the final days of Obama's term, calls were made for Obama to give Garland, the Supreme Court's candidate that the Republicans refused to consider, a suspension appointment. As David Dayen of the New Republic pointed out on January 3, 2017, there would have been a "metaphysical" space between the end of the 114th Congress and the beginning of the 115th day that Obama could claim that the Senate was on leave and Garland without confirmation of the Senate.
After none of these fantasies occurred, and after seeing Trump chewing and spitting norms as part of his daily routine, the movement of progressive norm breakers has developed. Roosevelt University Political Science Professor David Faris published this year It's time to fightwhich called for the closure of the Supreme Court, the end of the filibuster and the dissolution of California in the hope of creating more blue states and more Democratic senators. Now, Avenatti is about to elevate the ranking amicably at the level of the progressive test case.
If the progressive benchmarks of the 2020 domain are judged on the basis of their disregard for norms, the progressive movement, the Democratic Party and the American democracy will all suffer. If Democrats and Progressives are seen as driven by the accumulation of personal power, and not by the improvement of America as a whole, they will find it difficult to claim moral superiority by advocating for their preferred policies. . And if both parties continually rewrite the rules to consolidate their power whenever they have the opportunity, faith in democratic institutions will erode and sow the seeds of authoritarianism.
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, government professors at Harvard University, How democracies are dying"This is how elected autocrats overthrow democracy – bringing together and" arming "courts and other neutral agencies, rewriting the rules of politics to tilt the rules of the game against opponents." Faris finds this strange concern At a time when the governance of scorched earth, similar to "worry about whether you should shoot the terrorist sitting next to you during your flight after that" he has already made a hole in the hull ".
The hyperbole of Faris obscures the fact that Democrats have benefited not only from the respect of norms, but also from their occasional suppression. Consider the disappearance of systematic obstruction. While Republicans lamented that Senator Harry Reid had largely abandoned him in 2013, only to mark the path of Trump's nominees, the rule change helped Obama defeat the Republican filibuster and name two more judges than George W. Bush. Yes, Trump is going to get his share of the judges, but the Democrats will have another round soon enough. This change of rule has not fundamentally compromised our standards; this allowed the usual political swings to maintain a rough judicial balance.
Nevertheless, if Obama had tried, during his first term, one of these dubious and legally dubious debt-reduction schemes, the full faith and credibility of the US government would have been called into question, risking an economic crisis his presidency .
And if Reid and the Democrats had put an end to the legislative obstruction, whatever ambitious laws were passed under the new rules, they would have been repealed by a Republican Congress exploiting the same thing. Instead, today's Republican legislative production and the ability to roll back Obama's political legacy are severely limited.
Or if Obama's Democrats undermined the legitimacy of the judiciary with a blatantly illegal Garland recreation rendezvous, Republicans could ignore the illegitimate Supreme Court decisions today. Keep in mind that there are conservatives – Mike Huckabee in mind – who denigrate the "false god of judicial supremacy" and urge Republicans from other branches of government to ignore unfavorable judicial decisions.
Yet Trump and the Republican Congress did not go that far. Although we appropriately opposed Trump's authoritative reflections, he did not dare to violate the essential standard of judicial review, even though this standard stifles his plan to dismantle Obama's regulatory heritage. The judges, several of whom have been appointed by Obama, have blocked attempts to roll back Obama's rules to protect student borrowers, preserve the safety of chemical plants, reduce pollution by methane and ozone. and fight against the segregation of housing.
Democrats like Avenatti, who are looking for parquets, do not seek the inspiration of Obama or Reid, but Franklin D. Roosevelt, who attempted to do so in 1937. In their speech, Congress n & # 39; He did not follow Roosevelt's plan. The Supreme Court underwent ideological change shortly after its proposal, suggesting that the struggle against normalization won the global war.
But this version of history misses an essential fact: the Supreme Court judge who made the "change in the time that saved the nine," Owen Roberts, committed a minimum wage deal in December 1936, two months before Roosevelt has announced its packaging plan. Scholars are still debating why Roberts has changed. Although it is possible that speculations about a judicial court plan were taken into account in his reflection (although Roberts denied it), Roosevelt did not no need to bring the courts together to get what he wanted.
More importantly, Roosevelt's insistence on lobbying Congress for his proposal after the court changed was a political disaster. The public was dismayed by the takeover. Roosevelt's growing alienation from conservative Democrats contributed to a mid-1938 debacle that prevented his national agenda from remaining in his presidency. An old adage to chess has turned out correct: the threat is stronger than the execution.
In the same vein, Booker and his colleagues at the Judicial Committee of Democrats were not irrelevant in disclosing "confidential" documents that were not confidential. Booker's mistake was not in flight, but in bragging – suggesting that his willingness to break the rules was proof of his courage. Harris is far from being the first politician to be too zealous to give meaning to another's words. But it is difficult to condemn Trump for denigrating the media and not submitting to the judgment of his controllers. Even if the transgressions are not equivalent when they are evaluated in isolation, they can feed a perception, even unfair, that "both parties" do.
When Avenatti says, "When they are low, I say, we hit harder," he explicitly encourages both parties to do so. Such an attitude can become terribly common, as Avenatti sets the tone of the primary. Democrats are not necessarily angels. A pointed elbow used strategically for its uses. But a race for ethics should not be welcome. A party that has correctly warned the Trump presidency that "it's not normal" should be careful not to become abnormal.
[ad_2]
Source link
