By Stephen Macaulay

In responding to a concern vis-à-vis the term “pro-MAGA,” the writer used “IMHO.” Just as we have come to realize that “IMHO” is shorthand for a phrase, I think it is fair to say that “pro-MAGA” goes to the point of that crowd of people who stormed the Capitol on January 6. To be sure, this isn’t universally accepted, but it has become sufficiently germane. I mean, does anything think “IMHO” is “I Might Have Olives”?

But let’s go a little further. There is an issue about referring to what took place on January 6 as an “insurrection.” The straight-up dictionary definition of “insurrection” is “a violent uprising against an authority or government.”

Was it violent? Yes.

Was it against the law enforcement officials, authority, who were at the Capitol? Yes.

Was it meant to stop the certification of the presidential election by Congress, the government? Yes.

Seems to tick all the boxes.

What I take exception to is the adverb in the phrase “Make America Great Again.”

Again? Really?

His dystopian American-carnage style inaugural address notwithstanding, Trump inherited an economy on the upswing and a country that had respect and stature around the world.

What did he do? There was the debasement of public discourse such that anything goes. He demeaned and belittled people whether they were disabled or victims of a natural disaster or happened to live under heinous conditions (e.g., “shithole countries”). He said he believed Vladimir Putin more than his intelligence agencies. He met with the dictator of North Korea for no apparent purpose besides a photo op.

He had an epic fail when it came to dealing with COVID-19.

Great Again?

Sad.

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

By Todd Lassa

Editors who write for this center column work diligently to be fair and accurate, to provide facts that clearly describe current political news and issues that leave the opinions to the pundits in the left and right columns. 

It’s not an effort to make sure “both sides” of a political issue are evenly described.

Instead, it’s our earnest attempt to give you, the reader, perspectives that are both similar to, and different from, your own. 

Besides offering this range of views from two columns flanking the center-column facts and analysis -- all on the same page -- in order to give you an out-of-the-echo-chamber look at our nation’s politics, another advantage is that the left and right columns can “call out” the center column if the writers in either feel the journalist in the center is swerving out of her or his lane. It’s a kind of check on our balance.

Recently, a constant reader (who follows us assiduously on Twitter @NewsHustings), and not one of the pundits, objected to a sentence in our home page debate on the role of violence in our political system, [https://thehustings.news/does-oppression-justify-political-violence/).

“Most #MAGA Republicans bristle at ‘the pro-MAGA insurrection’ terminology … just as I assume most Democrats aren’t looters and rioters?

“If the reference was just ‘right-wing insurrectionists,” he continued, “that would be fine with me … associating with the #MAGA movement is tainting a lot of peaceful American patriots, IMHO.”

We asked two of our pundits to weigh in on the matter; David Iwinski, our latest addition to our contributors On the Right, and Stephen Macaulay, our pundit-at-large, for the left column.

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

By David Iwinski

Although I thoroughly understand the position the reader has raised with regards to “trigger words” that he might feel unfairly describes parties on the right, I’ve become somewhat insensitive to the minutia of these issues, as I’m now conditioned to expect most mainstream media descriptions of folks on our side of the political spectrum to contain pejoratives. These descriptions often attempt, in ways not-so-subtle, to stain conservatives with negativity about our acts and intentions. 

This is particularly true whenever there is any reference to President Trump or the catchphrase first used in his 2016 campaign, “Make America Great Again” – MAGA. In the matter of The Hustings’ center column previewing the Braver Angels’ June 17 debate on violence in our political system [https://thehustings.news/braver-angels-debate-the-place-of-violence-in-our-political-system/] which referred to what happened at the Capitol January 6 event as a “pro-MAGA insurrection” I am frankly less irritated by the insertion of the MAGA connection than I am about describing the event as an “insurrection.” But such hyperbole has become commonplace and says much more about the embarrassing lack of media neutrality and emphasis on factual reporting than anything else. 

It is unfortunate, yes, but I do not wish to become obsessed with the triviality of triggers as many on left have become, and I do not need the center column of The Hustings to be a safe place. While perhaps irritating, these are essentially small matters and I am generally very pleased at the center column’s neutrality.

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

Note that lead speakers and other debaters in Braver Angels’ debate on the role of violence in our political system did not necessarily align with liberal vs. conservative opinions. To delineate the two sides of the argument, this debate-page of The Hustings posts “negatives” – opinions in opposition to the resolution regarding violence in our political system – in the left column, and “affirmatives” – those in favor of the resolution, in the right column. 

Here are some additional opinions in the negative regarding the resolution:

“I’m surprised by the resolution, which makes it seem as if the language of violence were part of the Constitution. … That’s not part of the American political system.

--Alistair McLeod

“I feel very strongly that violence begets violence. I feel very worried about today’s weaponry.”

--Thomas Mayer

“To quote Gandhi, ‘An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.’”

--Aimee Deconick

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

[Please click on the date tab, above for today's News & Notes.]

By Todd Lassa

Blue and red speakers in Braver Angels’ National Community Debate Thursday, “Resolved: Citizens threatening violence against oppression is a crucial part of our political process” were not as far apart -- and a bit more nuanced -- than The Hustingspreview might have predicted. [Go to https://thehustings.news/braver-angels-debate-the-place-of-violence-in-our-political-system/, https://thehustings.news/life-liberty-and-please-no-violence/, https://thehustings.news/peace-through-strength/.]

“We must reserve the right to use violence against the most extreme oppression only,” Mike Morton began, as the first-affirmative (in favor of the resolution) in the debate. “

His comments led to the obvious question: Who gets to decide what oppression is worthy of violence? A tough question, Morton acknowledged, noting that leaders in the American Revolution had to convince many fellow colonists to resist King George III. 

The first negative, Russian immigrant Michael Abramson, spoke of how nearly 30 years ago he participated in anti-Kremlin demonstrations in his hometown of Yetkaterinburg, as the USSR was crumbling. 

“Resistance can be useful, and even necessary,” he began. “Yet I have serious doubts.”

There are not many examples of violent resistance in the U.S. In other countries, pro-resistance demonstrators did not achieve their goals, Abramson said; the French Revolution resulted in the Emperor Napoleon taking power, and the October Revolution in Russia led to the Red era and Joseph Stalin.

The second affirmative debater, identified only as “Stefani,” said that “Oppressed people should have the right to react with violence if they’re very oppressed by the government. That said, you have to take a long and hard look before you take up arms and start shooting people.”

Stefani called last summer’s riots and what she called Black Lives Matter lootings “appalling.” And although George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer was “terrible,” she said, “But that’s no reason to burn your neighbor’s business down.”

Asked for her opinion on the January 6 Capitol Hill insurrection, Stefani said: “Obviously, a group of people stomping around the halls of Congress was ridiculous,” she replied, but went on to say it was no comparison with what she called last summer’s “riots.”

Erika Munson, the second negative, cited icons of non-violence, Buddha, Thoreau, Gandhi and King. 

“Non-violence asks for an active resistance to evil, without resorting to it yourself.”

Affirmative Bill Altmeier said the threat of violence is an early warning that a nation’s politics is not going well. “We need to … conclude that the fight between the right and the left is taking the country to a bad place.”

Luke Nathan Phillips, a negative on the resolution from Stafford County, Virginia (which was central during the Civil War, including the Battle of Fredericksburg) said he is “haunted by the fact that a generation of Americans in the most honorable war … left 600,000 dead and shell-shocked a generation. … The result [ending slavery in the U.S.] was great but left us with many wounds we’re still working on.”

Silas Kulkarni, like Phillips, a Braver Angels staffer, said those who knew him would be surprised that he was an affirmative on the debate resolution. 

“I’m a committed believer in non-violence resistance,” morally and philosophically, but he noted, Gandhi was not an absolutist on non-violence; he offered a hierarchy. At the top was non-violent resistance, Kulkarni noted, and next was violent resistance. Lowest was “passivity and acceptance” to repression.

Perhaps counter-intuitive regarding the January 6 Capitol Hill riots, and violence in some demonstrations last year, the fourth negative, Harry Hirsch, said the pandemic shutdown has made non-violence resistance easier.

“Peaceful methods have a better chance of succeeding, as of last year,” he said.

What do you think? Email The Hustings with your thoughts, at editors@thehustings.news, or leave a comment at thehustings.substack.com.

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

Note that lead speakers and other debaters in Braver Angels’ debate on the role of violence in our political system did not necessarily align with conservative vs. liberal opinions. To delineate the two sides of the argument, this debate-page of The Hustings posts ”affirmatives” – opinions aligned with the resolution regarding violence in our political system – in the right column, and “negatives” – those opinions voiced against the resolution, in the left column. 

Other opinions in the affirmative on the Braver Angels Community Debate resolution on the role of violent resistance in our political system …

“The question assumes we have an option of violence or non-violence. It is an illusion. A person looking to change the political system would be a fool not to use every tool at his disposal.”

--Fabian

“If convincing people really doesn’t work, what’s the point of non-violence? (There is also the threat of) economic violence, social violence, not just government – cancel culture.”

--Kirk

“If slaves had violently revolted against their owners, I might have supported that.”

--Joe Pratt

“The non-violent movement is only non-violent on one end. [Martin Luther King, Jr., and other Black civil rights leaders met with violent ends.] How do you balance it out?”

--Commander Solarmind

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

By David Amaya

The founding documents of the United States of America are glorious because they enshrine the Enlightenment ideals that liberated us from the oppression of authoritarian governments. There are many forms of oppression that include restrictions of civil liberties and rights, inaccessibility to resources, as well as physical coercion. In our nation, we have inalienable rights that promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When our ability to achieve these ends are obstructed by the state, Thomas Jefferson says in the Declaration of Independence, we have a right to revolution. That is because the state derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed; constituents are the government. If the constituents are not healthy in mind or body, then the government is not a healthy democracy. 

When we think of violence in the political system, myriad issues come to mind, including hate crimes, gun rights issues, police brutality, riots and crimes against the government (e.g. the insurrection of January 6, 2021). These issues are all derived from our nature’s capacity to be selfish, which leads to other problems such as greed or an inability to respectfully air out grievances. Inevitably, one may resort to violence; a state of nature in the Hobbesian sense. 

The truth of the matter is that verbal violence precedes physical violence — mental health affects our physical health. Consequently, when the ailments of the body politic manifest themselves in violent ways, it is an indication we are not in a healthy democracy despite living in a government where we celebrate peaceful transitions of power. We are living in an age where we know the antonym of violence is kindness, yet most civically engaged citizens opt to tune in to news sources that profit enormously off divisiveness. 

Violence in politics is not a novel phenomenon, but its appearance this decade has been magnified, especially through the leadership of our previous president, Donald Trump. This man, who led the country that was the first to use Enlightenment ideals in its Constitution, promoted violence (e.g. offers to pay legal fees of someone who will “knock the crap out” of a dissenter at one of his rallies) and suppressed speech (e.g. impromptu photo-op to get rid of George Floyd protests in front of St. John’s Church). As the man with the most powerful microphone in the world, Mr. Trump infamously silenced and punished those outside his frame of thinking; concurrently, hate crimes went up by 20% under his presidency, according to the FBI. 

The threat of violence is obvious and conspicuous because although we may live in the safest times in history, we also live in the age with the most exposure to violence through news and media. The pinnacle of this paradox can be seen at how close America was to having the American flag removed atop Capitol Hill and replaced with a Trump flag at the January 6 insurrection. The Big Lie, as it is called, moved radicalized people to storm into our legislative halls and vandalize our democracy’s House over perceived oppression (that is, purported voter fraud that silenced the Republican vote). This example of violence was different from what we had seen before because it was a personal attack on not only the culture of democracy but on democracy itself— a noose was allegedly prepared for Vice President Mike Pence and there were reports of attempted kidnapping plots of our elected representatives. 

Naturally, we must ask ourselves: when our fragile democracy is doubted instead of reinforced, is violence a legitimate means to achieve a just end (or just intention)? I say this is a natural question that follows the insurrection because we are headed towards more institutional conundrums and dilemmas that must heed our past. For example: what will happen when 30% of the U.S. population controls 70% of the Senate and 70% of the U.S. population controls 30% of the Senate? Questions like these are worrisome and prophesize a decline in American democracy when authoritarianism is on the rise around the world. 

To ensure the longevity of our U.S. Constitution and our democracy, we must not resort to violence to rectify the anomalies of our political system —  this is why we have civil debates, free and fair elections, a legislative process, and grassroots organizing. The tools to mitigate violence are present, as are the tools for compassion and unity. Instead of destroying our democracy’s reputation, we should build up our capacity to communicate effectively; including holding accountable the for-profit business of divisive rhetoric. 

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

By David Iwinski

America, with all her faults, flaws and weaknesses, is still a beacon to all the people of the world who desire freedom and liberty. It has also been, for much of the last 125 years, not only an outstanding example of political stability but also the one indispensable nation that others turn to in time of strife. 

So, in what way is violent resistance against oppression a crucial part of the political system? 

In America it is woven into our founding and our DNA. Violent and passionate resistance against oppression has been key to significant change throughout our history. From the early American revolutionaries to advocates for the abolishment of slavery to the women suffragists who chained themselves to federal buildings for the right to vote to civil rights advocates -- all, from time to time, have had to resort to violence against the system that was oppressive and would not recognize their legitimate rights. 

From the conservative perspective, I would argue that not only is it a crucial part of the system but that, indeed, it is the very threat of the potential of such violence that prevents the surging and expansive power of government from going too far. 

This is why the most crucial element of the Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment because it alone allows the individual to have that ability to resist tyranny should it arrive on our shores… or should it percolate from within. Thomas Jefferson brilliantly wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

He lay down a clear foundational principle that the people do possess the right to throw off the shackles of tyranny in whatever form they may occur. Those rights fail to have any value unless the people possess the means by which to defend against or abolish abusive governmental systems. Thus, the Second Amendment guaranteeing the people the right to keep and bear arms needs to be understood not as a simplistic trivial matter of hunting or protection from criminals, but as the ultimate guarantee of the option for violence in order to protect life and liberty against that most dangerous foe, an oppressive government.

When one thinks of the power of centralized government (unbalanced by the rights of the individual) we consider the millions slaughtered by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and a whole range of despots through history who have emerged to subjugate people and deny them their very life because the people had no ability to defend themselves. Armed citizens are extraordinarily difficult, maybe impossible, to fully subjugate. 

The same lesson applied when the United States fought the Cold War to a victory by essentially having a modern and fully armed, trained military that would make any incursion by the then USSR at best mutually assured destruction and, most likely, the destruction and ultimate capitulation of the Soviets. So, whether it is King George in the 1700s or the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 20^th century, it is an observable reality that those who seek liberty must often do so with either the reality or the threat of violence. 

Of course, there are many in America who chant the refrain “it can’t happen here”. But when we combine the vision of a long hot summer of burning cities, violence against innocent civilians and police officers targeted, can we honestly say that violence has not already been brought into the political system? Further, the specter of open southern borders may not only disrupt the electoral system, but we currently have a president who has twice very publicly refused to disavow packing the Supreme Court and who has further organized a commission to study the idea. 

Does this scare you? It scares the hell out of me, even more so because it is a fact that the last 20 years we have seen (from both political parties) an on-going expansion in government power, control and surveillance. For example, the Patriot Act has been continually expanded to redefine what activities can be considered possible domestic terrorism. If the electoral system is unreliable and turned upside down and the last vestige of protection from the Supreme Court has been stripped away by packing, we may have arrived at a place where, even in America, violence will become part of the equation. 

Violence, in all forms, is regrettable and to be avoided whenever possible and should be used only when all other avenues of reform fail or are subjugated. At the same time, our constitutional right to bear arms is a key element and check to preventing those in power – including our government – from going too far in oppressing those they rule. As the history of our own country shows, the threat of violent resistance sometimes can serve as the catalyst by which peaceful and positive change can occur.

It is true that violent resistance against oppression is a crucial part of the political system but that maintaining the means to carry out such violent resistance may be our best hope of never having to resort to those terrible means. 

Will Rogers opined that “Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.” I might suggest a corollary that “Peace - domestic and global - might best be secured by reminding those in power that they should continue to be a nice doggie lest they feel the rock.”

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

By Craig Fahle 

Crafting a bipartisan deal on something as expensive, and extensive as infrastructure is always a difficult prospect, especially when Democrats and Republicans can’t even agree on what the term means.  But an even bigger problem for President Biden is trying to negotiate with a party that isn’t really interested in making a deal at all.  

Biden’s original plan called for $2.3 trillion in spending, to be paid for with a partial rollback of the 2017 Trump tax cuts. Naturally, Republicans balked, and their latest counteroffer includes less than half of what Biden is seeking in total, with only $237 billion in new spending … most of it paid for by using unspent COVID relief funds, and possible user fees like gas tax increases and tolls. Biden smartly rejected the proposal as wholly inadequate to meet his policy goals.

HR 3684, the INVEST in America Act sponsored by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio, D-OR, is canted much closer to various Republican offers than even the White House’s latest $1.2-trillion bid, and thus isn’t much better. Even with a price tag of just $574 billion and a concentration on “traditional” infrastructure needs, there’s no guarantee the Senate counterpart to HR 3684 would pass with the 10 Republican votes necessary to avoid a filibuster. 

Republicans have made clear that Biden’s policy goals are not in their interest.  They also aren’t interested in any realistic discussion on how to pay for our infrastructure needs. Any conversation that does not include raising taxes on corporations, even a little bit, isn’t serious.  

Republicans have called tax increases a “red line” they won’t cross. Believe them. 

Without tax increases on corporations and rich people, the bill will naturally fall to the middle and lower classes. Biden shouldn’t take the Republican bait. The Republican “offer” simply allows them to go home to their districts, take credit for projects already paid for, and hammer Democrats for raising taxes on the middle class just in time for the midterms. Meanwhile, left leaning Democrats once again feel betrayed, and bitter about another lost opportunity, and the unwillingness to directly confront Mitch McConnell and his obstructionist methods. A perfect storm for the 2022.

Lastly, what guarantees are there that McConnell and his Senate minions would even honor a deal? Republicans just a few days ago undermined their own negotiator on a January 6^th investigation when they ditched a “bipartisan” agreement on a commission because they were worried about political fallout. That’s all Biden needs to know. If one side isn’t negotiating in good faith, walk away from the table and try to go it alone.  At least that way, everyone will be on record voting against huge infusions of investment into their communities.  That’s the kind of thing that voters will notice. 

_____
Please email your comments to edtors@thehustings.news

By Todd Lassa

Hopes continue to fade that Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV, and President Biden will negotiate an infrastructure bill that could pick up sufficient bipartisan support –

60 votes – in the Senate. Biden and Capito plan to meet for negotiations one more time before the president leaves for a weeklong European trip Wednesday, although the gap between the White House’s latest best offer of a $1.2 trillion package and Capito’s sub-trillion-dollar counteroffer is farther apart than the dollar amounts show. That’s because a large chunk of the Republican’s top bid includes very little new money, most of it leftover COVID-19 relief funds. Meanwhile, the president seems to have given up on funding infrastructure by returning the corporate tax rate to 28%.

“The timing is not unlimited here,” said White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki Monday, The Hill reports. “Nor is the president’s willingness to compromise.”

If Biden-Capito talks go no further – and that would be the way to bet – option two, says The Hill, would be alternative proposals individually from Republican Sens. Rob Portman, of Ohio, Mitt Romney, of Utah or Susan Collins, of Maine, or from Capito’s Democratic counterpart from West Virginia, Joe Manchin III, who has no interest in ending the legislative filibuster and is a likely “no” vote if other Senate Democrats try to push it through the filibuster-proof reconciliation process.

Option Three is a bill circulating through the House of Representatives by Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Peter DeFazio, D-OR, called the Invest in America Act [< https://thehustings.news/daily-news/> News & Notes, Friday, June 4].

Congress members like acronyms but INVEST is relatively descriptive – it stands for Investing in a New Vision for the Environment and Surface Transportation for America. While DeFazio’s bill addresses the nuts-and-bolts fixing and building that Republicans insist the bill should consider exclusively, it leaves cold progressive Democrats who thought some version of Biden’s original proposal would survive to bring FDR-LBJ-level funding to reweave the nation’s social safety net.

In his address to the joint session of Congress, Biden did not hold back on his plans to replace 40 years of supply-side economics with the Keynesian economics President Reagan took apart in the early 1980s.

“Trickle-down economics has never worked,” Biden told the House of Representatives and Senate in April. “It’s time to grow the economy from the middle out.”

Of course, the Trump Administration corporate tax cut to 21%, which apparently will remain in place, is the very epitome of trickle-down economics.

DeFazio’s INVEST in America Act throws out all of the social program funding without cheapening out by reusing unspent funding, as in the Capito proposal. The five-year, $574 billion plan would fund roads, bridges and highway safety to the tune of $343 billion, with another $109 billion for mass transit and $95 billion for rail. That will seem to progressive Democrats what the federal government should have been doing all along, at least as far back as 1981. No doubt, senators and congress members in some oil-producing states – looking at you, Texas and Oklahoma – will raise objections to DeFazio’s de-emphasis on private vehicle travel. The infrastructure bill, he says, is a “once-in-a-generation opportunity to move our transportation planning out of the 1950s and toward our clean energy future.”

Depending on how confident the GOP is about success with Trump-backed candidates in the mid-term elections, even the DeFazio proposal could meet stiff opposition among the more strident MAGA Republicans. If Democrats can get some “unity” on this issue, it will be up to their leaders to parlay it into some unexpected victories in November 2022.

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

By Stephen Macaulay

On the homepage of Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR) on June 5 there were three items under the heading “Latest News.” Two out of three give a good sense of what DeFazio, who was one of the founders—with Bernie Sanders, Ron Dellums, Maxine Waters, Lane Evans, and Thomas Andrews—of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, evidently thinks infrastructure means.

One of the press releases announces the restoration of Amtrak service in Oregon (“As Chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, DeFazio negotiated $1.7 billion for Amtrak in the American Rescue Plan, so service could be restored.”).

The other says that DeFazio managed to get a $5.5 million grant from the Department of Transportation to fix the runway and taxiway lighting system of the Eugene Airport, which is within the boundaries of the district DeFazio represents.

On June 4, a $547 billion bill was presented by DeFazio for infrastructure spending. The monies are to be spent over five years.

Included in the proposal is an increase in investment for roads and bridges by about 54%; this would be $343 billion, or about 63% of the total. Then $109 billion goes to public transit programs (not everyone owns a sport utility vehicle or pickup truck despite what might seem to be the case); and $95 billion for rail, for both people (e.g., Amtrak) and goods (somehow things need to get to those giant Amazon warehouses before they are loaded into Prime trucks).

And there’s your $547 billion.

The devil is in the details, of course, and one of the pointiest portions for conservatives is the part where there is some sense of how this is going to be paid for.

That said, if looked at in the macro, roads, bridges, and rail seem to be reasonable places to spend. And as for the revenue part, well arguably a portion can be received by productivity increases.

That is, according to Infrastructurereportcard.org:

“The U.S. has been underfunding its highway system for years, resulting in a $836 billion backlog of highway and bridge capital needs. The bulk of the backlog ($420 billion) is in repairing existing highways, while $123 billion is needed for bridge repair, $167 billion for system expansion, and $126 for system enhancement (which includes safety enhancements, operational improvements, and environmental projects). The Federal Highway Administration estimates that each dollar spent on road, highway, and bridge improvements returns $5.20 in the form of lower vehicle maintenance costs, decreased delays, reduced fuel consumption, improved safety, lower road and bridge maintenance costs, and reduced emissions as a result of improved traffic flow.”

That was written in 2017.

Does anyone think there have been notable improvements since then?

One of the things that there seems to be bipartisan support on is that there needs to be more reshoring of products that are now largely produced in other countries, things like the PPE and ventilators and such that hobbled the initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. — hobbled it for months. And there are plenty of consumer goods that are produced in other countries.

But given the state of the roadways and rail lines in the U.S., does a corporate executive with fiduciary responsibilities think that a country with an infrastructure that has been treated like a brain tumor at an urgent care (“Take two aspirin and call me in the morning”) rather than at Johns Hopkins is a good place to setup shop? Just-in-time inventory doesn’t work particularly well when one’s trucks are stuck in traffic or one’s inventory is delayed in a railyard.

As Voltaire allegedly said, “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

On the one hand we have President Biden going for the perfect and on the other we have some Republicans who are, at the end of the day, simply providing a dash of spice to the status quo, which is woefully insufficient.

We need the good.

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

Read comments from advocates of HR 1, the For The People Act, as part of our coverage of last week’s Braver Angels National Coliseum debate last week on Voting in America, in this column. 

Also on the home page …

•The Hustings debate on a gas tax hike in place of corporate tax increases to pay for an infrastructure plan.

•A debate on the House of Representatives Republican Caucus’ stripping Rep. Liz Cheney, of Wyoming, from her committee chairwomanship.

•A debate on the return of Congressional budget earmarks.

…and more.

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

MONDAY, JUNE 7, 2021

Coming this afternoon on the home page: Craig Fahle and Stephen Macaulay debate the state of infrastructure negotiations between the Biden administration and Senate Republicans, including HR 3684, the INVEST in America Act introduced by House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Pete DeFazio, D-OR.

•••

MONDAY, JUNE 7, 2021 -- Today begins the Week of Reckoning for Capitol Hill Democrats, whose majority isn’t really a majority. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV, will meet today with President Biden to try and reach a compromise over the Republican and White House proposals on an infrastructure bill, making today a sort of deadline (though we’re dubious about that). Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-WV, has told Fox News he supports a bi-partisan compromise, though he also says he opposes the election overhaul bill, passed in the House of Representatives earlier this year as HR 1. Meanwhile, ex-President Trump spent last Saturday night gearing up for a run for a second term, again, in 2024.

On Tuesday – Stephen Macaulay comments on Sen. Joe Manchin and his quest for bi-partisanship, exclusively in our substack newsletter. Subscribe at thehustings.substack.com

Also this week – The Hustings debates infrastructure, again, in light of the latest Biden vs. Senate Republicans negotiations, coming Tuesday. Coming Thursday; Our debate previewing left-column and right-column arguments for the Thursday, June 17, Braver Angels National Coliseum debate on the role of violence in politics. To read these, click on The Hustings logo to return to the home page. 

_______________________________________________________________

FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 2021

THIS WEEKEND: Pro-Trump Republicans will run the Georgia state GOP’s convention this weekend on Jekyll Island. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan (who is not running for re-election), both of whom have criticized Donald J. Trump for refusing to accept his defeat last November, are not invited.

Read Today’s News & Notes … by clicking on the News & Notes tab above. To subscribe to The Hustings newsletter, go to thehustings.substack.com

____________________________

THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 2021

 Click on the News & Notes tab, above, for today’s file.

____________________________

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 2021

Click on News & Notes, above, for today's daily file.

____________________________

TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 2021

President Biden is scheduled to meet with Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV, tomorrow, Punchbowl News reports, citing sources. Capito introduced Senate Republicans’ alternative infrastructure bill before leaving Washington for the Memorial Day break. Over the weekend, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg warned of a need for ‘clear direction’ on infrastructure by June 7, when Congress returns from the recess. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives’ Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has a markup of its own bill scheduled for June 9. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, wants the markup completed in time for the July 4 recess.

Biden Goes to Tulsa for 100^th Anniversary of Destruction of ‘Black Wall Street’ –President Biden is in Tulsa today to help commemorate the 100^th anniversary of the destruction there of “Black Wall Street” by a white mob, the AP reports. From May 31 to June 1, 1921, Tulsa’s white residents and civil society leaders looted and burned the city’s Greenwood District and used airplanes to drop explosives on it, thus leveling Black Wall Street and driving away prosperous businesses and residents.

•••

Democrats Walk Out of Texas House, Scuttle Voting Rules Bill – Republicans in the Texas legislature were set to approve a strict voting rights bill passed earlier by the state Senate, so it could be signed by Gov. Greg Abbott, R, Sunday night when 60 Democratic members of the chamber walked out, thus removing the quorum necessary for a vote. The bill would have become the most strict in the nation, including language inserted at the last minute “making it easier to overturn an election, no longer requiring evidence that fraud actually altered the outcome of a race,” The Washington Post reported before the walkout Sunday, “but rather only that enough ballots were illegally cast that could have made a difference.” 

Exact rules and language of the 67-page state legislation remains fluid at best, and confusing, at worst, as the Republicans have reportedly have held the provisions close to their vests, making last-minute changes and withholding numerous drafts from the press.

Abbott Tuesday had threatened to shut off pay for state legislators, an action that would affect Republicans as well as Democrats. Sunday night’s vote was to mark the end of the Texas legislature’s session, and now Abbott also has threatened to call a special session for lawmakers to “do their job” so the bill can be sent to his desk. 

Note: It has become increasingly apparent to Democratic Party leaders that the only way for President Biden to get any significant part of his agenda passed by the Senate before next year’s midterm elections -- including the For The People Act written to restore parts of The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and to counter several states’ new voting laws -- would be for his party to put an end to the legislative filibuster. The eternal question is whether Democrats have convinced Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-WV, to join 49 others in the party to vote to kill it.

•••

Did Flynn Call for a ‘Myanmar-Style’ Coup? – By now, the exchange between keynote speaker Michael Flynn and an audience member at QAnon’s “For God and Country Patriot Roundup” in Texas last weekend is well-documented, if not fully agreed upon. The audience question, shouted by someone identified as a “simple Marine” was; “I wanna know why what happened in Myanmar can’t happen here.” 

Flynn replied, according to the HuffPost; “No reason. It should happen.”

Of course, Flynn, the retired Army lieutenant general who served 22 days as Donald Trump’s national security advisor before it was revealed he lied to Vice President Pence about a conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, effectively said in a tweet that he had been misquoted, that he said something along the lines of “no reason it should happen.”

QAnon followers are fans of the Myanmar coup of early this year, in which the military overturned the just-elected government led by Aung San Sui Kyi, and reportedly have killed more than 700 protesters.

Note: Perhaps the most startling issue here is the mainstreaming of QAnon and its followers, who continue to spin conspiracy theories in support of claims from the GOP’s de facto leader, ex-President Trump, that November’s election was stolen from him. But Rep. Liz Cheney, R-WY and retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey have publicly suggested that Flynn’s comments be considered seditious. Army Col. Yevgeny Vindman, who was fired from the National Security Council by the Trump Administration after his twin, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, testified in Trump’s first impeachment hearing, says Flynn should be called back to active duty so he could be court-martialed. – Edited by Todd Lassa and Nic Woods

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

Read comments from opponents of HR 1, the For The People Act, as part of our coverage of last week’s Braver Angels National Coliseum debate last week on Voting in America in this column.

Also on the home page …

•The Hustings debate on a gas tax hike in place of corporate tax increases to pay for an infrastructure plan.

•A debate on the House of Representatives Republican Caucus’ stripping Rep. Liz Cheney, of Wyoming, from her committee chairwomanship.

•A debate on the return of Congressional budget earmarks.

…and more.

_____
Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news