Finding the Way for Democrats – A Quest for Future Leadership
 |
| Representatives Jason Crow and Alexandria Octavio-Cortez (composite photo from 2021 protests of Capitol insurrection.) |
The Democratic Party seems to be wandering in a desert of disarray. I believe that its future rests with those like Colorado’s Representative Jason Crow, who seems to recognize the importance of those blue-collar, family-oriented voters who might have to shower after a sweaty day at work as opposed to the votes of those who shower before going to work, the mistake that lost them the Presidency and Congress to MAGA Republicans in 2024. Crow is heading up the selection of Democratic Congressional candidates trying to capture currently Republican House seats.
The
Democrats must shed their image of East and West Coast elites, academics, and
leftish progressives. That combination
does not constitute a majority of America’s voters, and appealing to them is a
losing strategy, at least nationally. Without
abandoning the good fight for D.E.I rights, gender equality, and womens’
rights, they must still find a way to focus on the bread and butter issues that win
elections. In 2024, after hiding President Biden’s deterioration for too long,
they had no real alternative other than Vice President Kamala Harris who wasn’t quite ready,
and while Tim Walz offended no one, he didn’t add anything to their losing
ticket.
In
addition, they must improve the kind of media choices they make to deliver
their message (which apparently is still a work in progress) about a government
existing to best serve and protect the nation’s working people, rather than the
wealthy, large corporations, and high-tech oligarchs. They must better target
younger voters, a good number of whom jumped toward Trump for no good reason in
2024, other than he reached them more effectively than did the Democrats.
Even
New York Representative Alexandria Octavio-Cortez, further to the left, recognizes
this and will manage to be part of a new leadership without compromising her
values. She is presently engaged in a
‘road show’ alongside independent (though usually voting with the Democrats) Senator Bernie Sanders, speaking before overflow crowds
at gigantic ‘town halls’ throughout the country in places where Republican
officeholders are either ashamed or afraid to confront the disappointed
audiences that elected them to office but are now showing symptoms of ‘buyer’s
remorse.’ They are looking to the
Democrats for answers, so it is important that they come up with their 2026
campaign’s direction pretty darn soon.
Saying that its time to vote against Republicans isn’t enough and they must wake up to that.
And
speaking of MAGA Republicans, the next time you’re engaging in a friendly
conversation with one of them, ask what period of ‘greatness’ in our history
they want to duplicate in ‘making America great again.’ When they come up with an answer about the
period to which ‘again’ points, if they are able to do that, ask them
how that period of ‘greatness’ would fare in a Presidency headed by Donald
Trump and his Musk-led wrecking crew.
JL
* * *
Changes in the World of Media
In
the Nineteenth and the early years of the Twentieth centuries, the usual, if
not the only media available to the public, were newspapers and less
frequently, magazines. That is pretty much all that social commentators,
politicians, and political parties used to spread their ideas, other than
speaking at rallies to live audiences.
Radio and television soon expanded the range of available media, but
they did not replace existing sources.
In
the Twenty-first century, however, electronic advances have created a
revolution in media sources, all of which might be broadly classified as what
has became known as ‘social media.’
Existing media remained however, but with a lessened effect on the
public.
It first started through widely circulated Emails with or without attachments to which
one might subscribe and soon expanded into more specialized and personalized
internet sites such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter (later ‘X’) and numerous other
sources that were not only available on one’s computer, but on one’s
‘smartphones’ as well. And their
purveyors were often a blend of journalists and entertainers. Over the past few years, the latest
innovation would seem to be Podcasting, an online and personalized version of opinionated ‘talk radio’ shows, often
including video portions. Communication
between many of the newer media sources and their audiences often could be a
two-way street too.
But
existing media didn’t go away either, and still remains in use. Newspapers
may be dying, but they still are around, and like it or not, are the basis
of information we receive each day on our computer or smartphone screens. Jackspotpourri still exists as ideas
transmitted by Email including a link to an attachment, primarily because that
is the limit of my skills, and possibly of most of its audience as well.
If
I had necessary skills to utilize the latest advances in media production,
Jackspotpourri probably would today be a podcast. If I were a dozen years younger, I might
attempt to make that transition. But I
cannot turn back the clock, so please stick with https://jackspotpourri.blogspot.com/ , which I will try to
continue to produce twice a week, with all of its shortcomings, and send to
those on its Email circulation list.
JL
* * *
Abandoning the Constitution for Autocracy
Heather Cox Richardson’s ‘Letter from an American’ dated March 19 must be read to understand the willingness of too many Americans to discard ‘the rule of law’ as established in our Constitution for an autocracy headed by a dictator. CLICK HERE or copy and paste https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/ on your browser line to read it.
(When I use the expression ‘the rule of law,’ I take it to mean the Constitution’s Article One that establishes the Legislative Branch as the ones who make our laws, Article Two that establishes the Executive Branch that is supposed to ‘take care that these laws are faithfully executed,’ and Article Three that establishes the Judicial Branch to interpret such laws when necessary.)
And
while you’re there, check out Professor Richardson's subsequent postings. She is leading the efforts of those who
recognize that Trump, Musk, and their misinformed supporters are following a
path leading to the abandonment of our Constitution and the democracy for which
it provides the structure.
* *
In the last Jackspotpourri (on March 20), it was made clear that the
Executive Branch is in the hands of billionaire oligarchs and the Legislative
Branch is obedient to it. All that is
left to defend the Constitution is the Judicial Branch of our government, and
right now, it is under attack. America’s
representative democracy now hangs by a fragile cord woven by the decisions of
its judges. But our Judicial Branch still
has a lot going for it, because of two early Supreme Court decisions that have survived
over the years. Let’s look at them:
In 1801, the new Secretary of State,
James Madison, refused to
deliver congressionally-approved judgeship appointment papers to one William Marbury, a last-minute appointee of outgoing President John Adams, whom the
new Administration opposed along with other last-minute appointees. Marbury sued
and the Supreme Court agreed with him that Madison was legally required to do
so.
But in that same decision, they also
ruled that the part of the 1789 Judiciary Act that would have allowed the
delivery of Marbury’s appointment to take place, was itself ‘unconstitutional.‘ Chief Justice John Marshall finally ruled
that the Supreme Court could not order the delivery of Marbury’s appointment papers
because the law giving Congress such a power conflicted with the role of the Judicial
Branch as established in the Constitution. Marbury’s appointment papers were never
delivered.
Marbury vs Madison confirmed the supremacy
of the Supreme Court over both the Executive and Legislative Branches through ‘judicial review’ when (1) it overruled Madison’s Executive Branch refusal to deliver
Marbury’s appointment papers but then (2) declared ‘unconstitutional’ that
portion of the 1789 Judiciary Act that allowed acts of Congress to take
precedence over certain Court decisions, enabling the SCOTUS to scuttle Marbury’s
appointment.
Since then, the supremacy of Supreme Court decisions over acts
of both the Executive and Legislative Branches has been made clear through its
function of ‘judicial review.’
In another landmark case in 1819, McCulloch vs
Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that State
laws contrary to Federal laws were also ‘unconstitutional.’ (In that case, Maryland wanted to be able to
tax the federally-chartered Bank of the United States.) Today’s governors of
Texas and Florida twist words, going out of their way to avoid this pitfall,
which clearly places immigration law, now in the spotlight, within Federal, and
not State, law.
For
‘judicial review’ to take place, however, a case
must first manage to reach the Supreme Court.
The present Administration is even attacking the ability of this to
happen by threatening to remove appropriate security clearances from
uncooperative law firms, usually necessary for them to be able to view
government material while handling cases involving the government. Some of these law firms are proving to be
spineless, just like Congress is, in the face of Executive Branch overreach.
(An
interesting contradiction yet to be clarified is President Trump’s supporters’ original
claim that his speech at the ‘Ellipse’ on January 6, 2021 inciting his
listeners to march on the Capitol was an ‘unofficial’ act, not related to the
riotous invasion of the Capitol to prevent the 2020 Electoral College tally
from being confirmed that directly followed.
Once the Supreme Court in 2024, however, provided immunity for otherwise
criminal acts performed as part of a President’s ‘official’ duties, Trump’s
January 6 inciteful words suddenly became such a protected ‘official’ act, even if it were a criminal act. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS acts like a
political animal, at least only until it decides not to.)
* *
And
speaking of judges, the judge whom President Trump attacked for trying to stop,
or delay, his probably illegal deportation of Venezuelan immigrants to El
Salvador, demanding IN CAPS his impeachment, is actually a bi-partisan
appointee, not the Democratic tool as scathingly portrayed by the President.
Quoting
from an article on NBC News, “In 2002, President George W. Bush nominated James
Boasberg as an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia. In 2011, President Barack
Obama selected him to be a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, and he was confirmed by the Senate in a 96-0 vote.” That sounds pretty
bi-partisan to me, appointed by two Presidents from different parties
and confirmed by the Senate with no negative votes. How can it be then, that anyone can support the
President’s ignorant and vindictive tirade?
The answer: misinformation swallowed by a
misled public as well as by many Republicans elected to Congress.
SCOTUS
Chief Justice Roberts correctly intervened by saying that an ‘appeal’ rather
than suggesting impeachment was the way to deal with a court order with which
one disagreed. Roberts did not go any
further because Trump’s law breaking may soon be once again before the SCOTUS
and he did not want to ‘tip’ his hand as to the direction in which he might go.
JL
* * *
Housekeeping on Jackspotpourri
Your
comments on this ‘blog’ would be appreciated.
My Email address is jacklippman18@gmail.com.
Forwarding Postings: Please forward this posting to anyone you think
might benefit from reading it (Friends, relatives, enemies, etc.) If you want
to send someone the blog, you can just tell them to check it out by visiting
https://jackspotpourri.blogspot.com or you can provide a link to that address
in your email to them.
There’s
another, perhaps easier, method of forwarding it though! Google Blogspot, the
platform on which Jackspotpourri is prepared, makes that possible. If you click
on the tiny envelope with the arrow at the bottom of every posting, you will
have the opportunity to list up to ten email addresses to which that blog
posting will be forwarded, along with a brief comment from you. Each will
receive a link to click on that will directly connect them to the blog. Either
way will work, sending them the link to https://jackspotpourri.blogspot.com, or
clicking on the envelope at the bottom of this posting.
Email Alerts: If you are NOT receiving emails from me alerting you each time there is a new posting on Jackspotpourri, just send me your email address and we’ll see that you do. And if you are forwarding a posting to someone, you might suggest that they do the same, so they will be similarly alerted. You can pass those email addresses to me by email at jacklippman18@gmail.com.
JL
* * *
No comments:
Post a Comment