Category Archives: Op-Eds

Op-Eds

Election Omens: Blue Wave or 2018 Flushes?

2 Comments

RGBStock.com Vote Pencil

Coming out of the 2016 presidential election, Democrats had reason for optimism about their House and Senate prospects in 2018. In the last 21 midterm elections (starting with FDR’s first term), the president’s party has gained seats in both houses of Congress only twice (1934 and 2002) while gaining seats in one house but not both four times (1962,  1970,  1982, and 1998). On average, the president’s party loses 30 House seats and four Senate seats.

So, are we in for a “Blue Wave,” or for the electoral equivalent of a commercial for blue-toned  water swirling in the toilet?

As I write this, no combination of Republican/Democratic control of the houses is trading at more than 41 cents (of a possible dollar) on PredictIt, where people have real money riding on the outcome.  That’s a bad sign for the opposition.

Democrats are outpacing Republicans on the national “generic ballot,” but each House district is a separate contest, most of them gerrymandered as a “safe” seat for one party or the other. The CBS/YouGov Battleground Tracker, as of early June,  rates the House as a tossup: Democrats climbing from 194 seats to a one-seat majority of 219, but with a nine-seat margin of error.

The Blue Wave isn’t shaping up as a tsunami. Why?

One clue might be the gigantic collective yawn greeting rumors that former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz might run for president in 2020. His centrist “Democrats need to look more like Republicans to win” message — also pushed by the Democratic National Committee versus upstart progressive midterm  primary candidates around the country — just doesn’t excite anyone very much.

A second clue: In California’s June 5 primaries,  five independents, two Greens, and one Libertarian battled their way past the state’s “Top Two” primary barrier and onto November’s general election ballot, from which the “Top Two” scheme was expressly designed to exclude them in favor of Republicans and Democrats (mostly Democrats). Independents come in all flavors, but Greens and Libertarians reliably run from the Democratic establishment’s left on civil liberties issues.

The message: Putting a “D” next to your name,  not liking Donald Trump, and telling scary stories about the Russians is not enough this year.  Traditionally Democratic constituencies are up for grabs because their usual party of preference isn’t offering them anything of substance.

In the short term, Democrats are courting losses that could have been wins. In the long term, they may finally be creating an opening for the third party America desperately needs.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

Trump the Politician: Anti-Abortion vs. Anti-Immigration

Leave a comment
CC0 Public Domain dedication, via Max Pixel

In early June,  Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (“the gay wedding cake case”) soaked up most of the Supreme Court decision media limelight, even though (or perhaps because) the court’s ruling doesn’t really dispose of the major issues in the case. Another case, also not decided on its merits, got much less attention. But that case reveals conflicting priorities in, and signals from, the Trump administration.

In Hargan v. Garza,  a pregnant teen immigrant (“Jane Doe”) in federal detention was forbidden by Trump administration policy  to procure an abortion (at her own expense or with voluntary assistance from others, not on the taxpayer’s dime). SCOTUS dismissed the matter as “moot” because Doe’s supporters took her to a clinic for the procedure in the middle of the night, after a supportive lower court ruling and before the federal government could appeal that ruling.

Donald Trump has spent considerable time railing against, and his administration has tirelessly worked to find,  detain, and deport, immigrants who don’t get permission slips from politicians before coming here to enrich America’s culture and boost its economy. In particular, we’ve heard plenty of invective from Trump about “chain migration,” “anchor babies,” and “birthright citizenship.”

When it comes to abortion, on the other hand, Trump has been much less consistent. He went from sponsoring National Abortion Rights Action League (1989) to declaring himself “very pro-choice” (1999), to suddenly becoming ardently “pro-life” during his failed first presidential campaign (for the Reform Party’s 2000 nomination; he dropped out when he realized he was going to lose to Pat Buchanan, from whom he’s shamelessly cribbed ever since). But as late as 2016, he opined to CBS that “at this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way.”

Trump’s position on immigration is seemingly long-held and consistent. Consistently wrong, but consistent. His position on abortion, though is transparently political and changes as politics requires.

Hargan v. Garza  tells us which side Trump really thinks his bread is buttered on: The politics as usual, grease the squeaky pro-life wheel side. His administration holds, as a matter of policy so important that it deserves escalation to the Supreme Court if necessary, that pregnant immigrants absolutely, positively, must be forced to deliver shiny new “birthright citizens,” even if they’re willing to pay for their own abortions.

I wonder what his “build the wall, deport them all” base thinks about that?

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

“Progressives” Against (Economic) Progress

1 Comment

RGBStock traffic tunnel

One week it’s ride-sharing. The next week it’s home-sharing. The week after that, cryptocurrency.  There’s no end of economic change to perpetually wring one’s hands over or, worse,  demand government action against.

Most opponents of the sharing economy, the gig economy, the cryptocurrency economy, etc., posture as “progressives” even as they openly side with corporate dinosaurs and parasitic bureaucrats and  against  workers and the entrepreneurs who empower those workers.

Let’s call these self-styled “progressives” what they really are: Reactionaries.

They’re desperate to preserve a post-World War Two American economic order which they themselves admit hasn’t worked for regular Americans for decades, if it ever really did.

How often do we hear from these “progressives” about “wage stagnation” and “lack of family leave” and what “Americans who work hard and play by the rules” should get but aren’t getting?

But when a company like Uber comes along and makes it possible for people to make more per hour than those who drive for state-privileged “medallion” taxi monopolies, while setting their own hours and taking off any time they need to, our “progressive” reactionaries side with the monopolists and support legislation and litigation to force drivers back onto the wage labor plantation.

Oh, about that extra room in your house — don’t even think about renting it out by the night for extra income via Airbnb. The well-heeled hotel lobby hates that idea and their allies, the “progressive” reactionaries, want you cleaning rooms at Super 8 and waiting patiently for another decade or three for them to deliver on their “living wage” promises, not taking financial matters into your own hands. If that means you can’t afford to keep your house, too bad — they’ll slam you for contributing to “gentrification” when you sell it to someone who CAN afford it.

When it comes to reproductive rights, these supposed “progressives” are proudly “pro-choice.” But watch that support for “choice” evaporate the instant you choose money (cryptocurrency) that can’t be easily taxed to finance their schemes. They’re a lot less interested in a bigger pie for you than they are in preserving their own ability to take a slice of that pie at will.

The late William F. Buckley, Jr. defined a conservative as “someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.” Sound familiar, “progressives?”

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY