On Chris Wallace

Yesterday, Chris Wallace announced he was leaving Fox News for CNN+, CNN’s streaming service. It is reported that his Fox News contract was up, and he’s out of there. As I noted when CNBC News Anchor Shepard Smith left Fox News in 2019, I place the highest credibility upon those willing to speak the truth when the truth is contrary to their own interest. I accordingly considered Mr. Wallace’s approach on Fox News a particularly vital contribution to the ongoing cable news debate of national issues specifically because he was on Fox News, which generates its revenues by serving Trumplican sugar to an audience that laps it up. I observed when noting Mr. Smith’s departure:

“It is no surprise to the readers of these pages that I am generally in agreement with the sentiments expressed by the Morning Joe panel and the rest MSNBC lineup (although I’m occasionally surprised that they don’t asphyxiate themselves on their own hyperventilation); I enjoy the relish with which the majority of the CNN talking heads pursue [former President Donald Trump’s] falsehoods and inanities (although I wonder how they avoid drowning in their own antagonism); but I’m always acutely aware that no matter how sincerely these MSNBC and CNN commentators hold their views, they’re on those networks’ air because their employers’ business models in part involve inciting antipathy toward Mr. Trump and his cohort. What made Mr. Smith different was the fact he was speaking to an audience that generally mostly strongly disagreed with the truth he offered.”

It also made Mr. Wallace different. It has been reported that Mr. Wallace recently objected to Fox News leadership regarding the network’s airing of Patriot Purge, a 3-part series conducted by Fox News Commentator Tucker Carlson. I have been aware without following the situation closely – I want to spend as little of my remaining life space as possible attending to Mr. Carlson, and to the reporting on Mr. Carlson’s pronouncements – that Patriot Purge seeks to rewrite the history of the January 6^th Capitol insurrection, and has been lampooned by credible fact checkers for boosting Trumplican propaganda.

Godspeed to Mr. Wallace in his new endeavors. Although he is reported as leaving of his own volition, I doubt that the Murdoch Family and Fox News leadership care that much.

“The nationalization of the broad masses can never be achieved by half measures, by weakly emphasizing a so-called objective standpoint, but only by a ruthless and fanatically one-sided orientation toward the goal to be achieved.”

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

On the China and Russia Advances

“On one occasion, an eminent Chinese told me that letting Stalin lead Mao into authorizing the Korean War [in 1950] was the only strategic mistake Mao ever made because, in the end, the Korean War delayed Chinese unification by a century in that it led to America’s commitment to Taiwan.”

Henry Kissinger, World Order

“When [Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and] the United States and NATO did not come to Georgia’s aid militarily … [Russian President Vladimir Putin understood that NATO] did not have the political will to fight for partners outside the alliance … that the United States’ security priorities were focused elsewhere. …

The notion that Putin is an opportunist, at best an improviser, but not a strategist, is a dangerous misread. …

The 2014 war [in which Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine] is essentially a big (war) game of “chicken.” Based upon the West’s past performance in Georgia, Putin anticipated that the West would blink first in Ukraine, balking at the high costs of the confrontation, which he had laid out very clearly with his offensive defense. … This game of chicken will be a long one.”

Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy, Mr. Putin

Perhaps a bit lost in some U.S. quarters amid Thanksgiving gatherings, the coming of Omnicron, and the Supreme Court’s consideration of an abortion case, were recent complementary statements and actions by the Chinese and Russian governments. While China was condemning the passage of the USS Milius through the Taiwan Strait that separates Taiwan from the Chinese mainland – although the American destroyer was apparently entirely in international waters and operating in accordance with international law – Russia, while amassing thousands of troops, drones, and electronic-warfare systems at its border with Ukraine, criticized what it called, “significant intensification of the actions of American strategic bomber aviation near the borders of Russia.”

Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe declared that “China and Russia are united together like a great mountain. Our friendship is unbreakable.” The Russian Defense Ministry separately indicated at almost the same time, “The heads of the military departments [of Russia and China] stressed the inviolability of friendship and the strength of ties between Russia and China.”

Presumably to both tire and test Taiwan’s defenses, China increased the number of aircraft it is sending into “gray” airspace near Taiwan, the realm just outside Taiwanese territorial airspace that Taiwan monitors to provide it with additional time to respond to threats. Meanwhile, the head of Ukraine’s defense intelligence agency has claimed that Russia has plans to invade Ukraine this winter. Mr. Putin has indicated that any NATO deployment of troops or advanced missiles to Ukraine would cross a “red line,” and Russia would act, while making reference to Russia’s hypersonic missiles. (Hypersonic weapons travel at more than five times the speed of sound, and are intended to evade American defense systems.)

Although America has sold defensive weapons to Taiwan for decades under the Taiwan Relations Act (the “TRA”), and maintains a token troop contingent on the island, the TRA does not obligate the U.S. to defend Taiwan if it comes under attack. As most are aware, Ukraine is not a member of NATO and thus isn’t covered by Article 5 of the North Atlantic Charter, which obligates NATO members to defend each other if one is attacked. Mr. Putin has warned against admitting Ukraine to NATO. (President Joe Biden reportedly opposes Ukraine’s NATO admission until its government does more to address corruption.) Even so, in response to the Russian buildup, NATO officials have threatened economic and political ramifications for Russia while noting that they have no military obligation to Ukraine. U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has intoned that any further escalation by Russia against Ukraine would be of “great concern” and “trigger serious consequences.”

How seriously can Vladimir Putin be expected to take this verbal posturing? Can anyone who has ever read about the bitter torment that the Russian population endured in defeating the Nazi invasion during World War II believe that the Russian people can’t withstand any hardships caused by any level of NATO economic and political sanctions? Who would one suppose that the vast majority of Russians, fed only Russian media, will ultimately blame for their misery – NATO, or Mr. Putin? As for the steadfastness of the NATO bloc, I found a website indicating that in 2019 (seemingly a sufficiently-current reference for this note), 41% of the European Union’s natural gas, 27% of its crude oil, and 47% of its solid fuel were imported from Russia. With winter looming, how staunch will Mr. Putin believe that the European NATO allies will really be?

This note anticipates a post on foreign policy strategy that has been in the works for some time, but every President faces challenges requiring grand strategy to yield to immediate necessity; President Biden may well be facing such a challenge at present. It is certainly arguable that China and Russia are probing American readiness in contemplation of a de facto pincer movement in the coming months to test American resources and resolve. I would submit that we will be best served if Mr. Biden responds steadily but proactively. A few notions:

The President came to office pledging to make diplomacy rather than militancy the linchpin of American foreign policy. That’s an admirable sentiment, but as Richard Haass noted in A World in Disarray, “As a rule of thumb, diplomacy and negotiations tend to reflect realities on the ground, not change them.” Global strongmen operate according to the same code as grade school bullies; they will be deterred by soft speech only if those they confront are willing and able, as President Theodore Roosevelt observed over a century ago, to accompany their measured tones with a big stick.

America currently maintains the most formidable military and weaponry in the world (although we are behind in some areas; for example, I have read commentary stating that we currently trail China in the afore-mentioned hypersonic missile technology). At the same time, our advantage appears to be waning as both China and Russia are able to prioritize military preparedness in a way that we, with domestic obligations in a democracy, are having and will have trouble matching in coming years. Arguably, time is not on our side.

China’s President Xi Jinping has demonstrated less patience in advancing Chinese territorial interests – principally, in the manner that the Mainland has over the last several years asserted its governmental dominance over Hong Kong in clear contravention of the “One Country, Two Systems” embodied in the 1997 Sino-British Joint Declaration under which the United Kingdom transferred sovereignty of the region to China — than his renowned predecessors, Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. China has threatened that it will not countenance the elevation of Taiwan to nationhood status.

Ms. Hill and Mr. Gaddy make clear in Mr. Putin that the Russian President, in addition to his savvy, is paranoid and aggrieved. While one might assume that the leader of the nation with the world’s second-mightiest nuclear arsenal would be confident that no nation would ever seek to invade Russia, the country’s experience and his own background make him wary and aggressive. Ukraine gained its sovereignty when the Soviet Union dissolved. Most recall Mr. Putin’s 2005 declaration that “the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” He later indicated that he considered the Soviet Union to be Russia, “only it had a different name.” These are dangerous sentiments; they would lead one to believe that Mr. Putin considers Ukraine part of Russia, and perhaps any outside intervention on Ukraine’s behalf a de facto invasion of Russia. That said, the Russian President is perhaps unsurpassed among today’s global leaders at assessing the strengths as well as the weaknesses of his adversaries. It is hard to believe (at least for me) that unless provoked beyond all bounds, he is going to start a confrontation that he believes might result in an escalation that he might not win and could result in nuclear conflagration. He has to assume that despite all of China’s and Russia’s mutual professions of friendship, that if he gets into a major struggle with NATO, Mr. Xi will not stop to aid Russia, but will instead exploit the distraction to advance China’s interests in Asia.

Mr. Biden faces a daunting balancing act. The U.S. Defense Department recently released an unclassified summary of its Global-Posture Review that the Wall Street Journal aptly described as an assessment of how to best deploy our resources as “the U.S. moves to take on Beijing while deterring Russia and fighting terrorism in the Middle East and Africa.” Presidents Biden and Putin are holding a virtual summit about Ukraine today; hopefully, Mr. Biden will take none of his options off the table. If he simply talks at Mr. Putin and hereafter at Mr. Xi and they correctly conclude that he will do nothing more, I would predict that within five years – and perhaps much sooner — Ukraine will again be a Russian satellite and Taiwan will have truly been made into the Chinese province that China now claims that it is. If he pushes back too hard, and presents what either Mr. Xi or Mr. Putin view as too egregious an affront, a military conflict could result. These calculations are complicated by the reality that America’s military might is vast, but it is not unlimited.

I would submit that the time to move is now: that Mr. Biden should press the case while he still holds a relatively stronger military hand than Messrs. Putin and Xi. I would hope that he will be resolute without being foolhardy [obviously easier said than done ;)].

My definition of the difference as to Ukraine: Increase the provision of defensive arms to Ukraine. Despite Mr. Putin’s rumblings and reported Biden Administration disinclinations regarding American troop involvement, arrange for an invitation from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and then station a NATO force (including American troops) in Kiev. (Kiev, Ukraine’s capitol, is removed from Ukraine’s separatist regions and the Russian border.) Unless there are indications that the pervasive corruption in Ukraine is of the kind that would divulge NATO military secrets to Russia, I would expedite Ukraine’s admission into NATO. (Would the West rather have a corrupt Ukraine within its orbit and subject to its pressures, or have another Russian satellite, like Belarus, on its borders?) On the other hand, I would not – repeat not – place missile or other systems in Ukraine which could be used to fire into Russia.

Mr. Putin will seethe. Will he act militarily? I’d warrant that he won’t, if he is convinced that NATO is ready to respond militarily if he does. Despite his bluster, he well knows that neither little Ukraine nor NATO is going to invade Russia. Would he severely restrict energy exports to Europe? At least highly possible; unquestionably a severe concern for Europe. At the same time, Russia’s exports to Europe are almost 40% of its economy. Unless Mr. Putin can find other ready buyers for his oil and gas, his voluntary restriction of trade with Europe in a dispute he has precipitated will seemingly send his own economy into recession and provoke his populace, clearly already restive with his 20-year rule.

The Biden Administration should simultaneously take similar steps with regard to Taiwan. Despite China’s bristling, the U.S. should continue to look for ways to expand its relationship with the island, such as the Administration’s recent invitation to Taiwan to attend its “Summit for Democracy.” It should increase its provision of defensive arms to the island under the TRA. After arranging for an invitation from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, it should increase American troop presence on the island, but – given the ambiguous nature of Taiwan’s legal status — not beyond the point that the force can be called “advisory” or credibly be considered “token.” It should increase its naval presence around Taiwan.

Will Mr. Xi smolder? Undoubtedly. However, I would venture that Mr. Xi seeks to have China control the world, not destroy it. It is hard to believe (again, perhaps only for me) that he will risk a military invasion of Taiwan at this point, if he believes that there is a real possibility that the United States will militarily intervene. It is also hard for me to believe that he will view increased U.S. presence in the Asian theater as an overt threat (although he will certainly consider it an irritant and affront). He knows that we are not going to invade China. In the face of an orchestrated but not overdone U.S. buildup, he will presumably pause. He will hopefully conclude (hopefully incorrectly) that time is on his side with regard to Taiwan; but not yet.

Right now, I suspect that many of those that have gotten this far in this ponderous note are mighty glad that I’m not in a position to advise Mr. Biden ;). I fully understand that America is war-weary after 20 years of grotesquely-squandered blood and treasure in wantonly ill-conceived warfare in a part of the world less strategically important than either Europe or Asia. I fully acknowledge that it’s easy for a retired Midwest blogger to pontificate; I would hate to have actual foreign policy responsibility. That said, I submit that the only manner in which we will maintain equilibrium in an increasingly illiberal world is if those who would take what they believe they can get away with are persuaded that we will act if need be. For any who believe that Russia and China are amenable to reasoned persuasion if they have no fear of military reprisal to their military aggression in their respective spheres, I would respond: Crimea. Hong Kong. If we dither, we will again be perceived as meekly turning our backs on those who asked for our help – to not only their detriment but our own. While the approaches outlined in this post are but holding actions while a broader collective containment strategy, based upon enhancing the capabilities of our allies, can be undertaken, I would suggest that we need to heed a prophetic (and poetic) reminder from long ago:

“All is over. Silent, mournful, abandoned, broken, Czechoslovakia recedes into the darkness. She has suffered in every respect by her association with the Western democracies …

You will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured only by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed ….[T]hat story is over and told. … It is the most grievous consequence of what we have done and of what we have left undone in the last five years – five years of futile good intention, five years of eager search for the line of least resistance, five years of uninterrupted retreat of British power …

Those are the features … which marked an improvident stewardship for which Great Britain and France have dearly to pay. …

Many people, no doubt, honestly believe that they are only giving away the interests of Czechoslovakia, whereas I fear we shall find that we have deeply compromised … the safety … of Great Britain and France. …

You must have diplomatic and correct relations, but there can never be friendship between the British democracy and … that Power which spurns Christian ethics, which cheers its onward course by a barbarous paganism, which vaunts the spirit of aggression and conquest, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses … with pitiless brutality the threat of murderous force. That power cannot ever be the trusted friend of the British democracy.”

Winston Churchill, in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, October 5, 1938

Green Bay at the Bye

As all who care are aware, the Green Bay Packers enjoy their scheduled bye this weekend after a tough victory over the formidable Los Angeles Rams last Sunday. They are currently well positioned in the NFC playoff seeding, trailing only the Arizona Cardinals (whom they have already beaten) by a game in the loss column and maintaining a one game lead over the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. While a higher playoff seed is clearly relatively better than a lower seed, a team’s playoff fortunes are sometimes not all that much a product of its seeding; as the Packer faithful are aware, there have been years in the Favre-Rodgers Eras in which the Green and Gold have enjoyed high seeds and faltered in Lambeau Field, while the team’s last Super Bowl victory, Aaron Rodgers’ only championship, occurred when the team barely squeezed into the playoffs and then rode what had become an outstanding defense through a series of road playoff victories.

What might provide the Green Bay Nation with reason for optimism is the possibility, as noted by former Dallas Cowboys Quarterback and Fox Sports Color Analyst Troy Aikman at the end of the Packer-Ram game, that the Packers, despite their enviable standing, aren’t yet playing their best football. Notwithstanding yeoman performances by what at times has been a somewhat makeshift offensive line, the team needs to give Mr. Rodgers better pass protection. Likewise, its defensive pass rush has been intermittent – for which the team has thus far been able to sufficiently compensate through the stellar play of its secondary. Finally, after years of outstanding performance by Placekicker Mason Crosby, Mr. Crosby has lately been, at best, inconsistent. I would venture that if the Packers suffer no more serious injuries to key contributors, four primary contributors – Offensive Tackle David Bakhtiari, Cornerback Jaire Alexander, Linebacker Za’Darius Smith, and Running Back Aaron Jones – return at close to full strength for their stretch run (Mr. Jones played against the Rams despite a recent knee injury, but except for one run on what for him were limited touches, didn’t look like his normal self), and Mr. Crosby can get his groove back 😉 , Green Bay has a legitimate shot at a Super Bowl berth, and perhaps a championship.

Those are, granted, a lot of ifs. Even so, we Packer faithful should enjoy the ride, since this feels mighty like it could be the last year in Green Bay for Mr. Rodgers, and, unless Mr. Crosby improves his consistency, perhaps his last year with the team as well. If so, judging by what we saw of Currently Heir Apparent Quarterback Jordan Love a few weeks ago, the football talk in Wisconsin at this time next year could center on how the team might best use what could be a high upcoming first round draft pick to begin rebuilding its fortunes in 2023.

On American Kindness: Redux

[The wrenching verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial this past Friday may have been the legally-correct result, but the conclusion is inescapable that the whole situation was a senseless waste caused by a clueless teenager, carrying an assault weapon with no idea as to the potential consequences of his actions, who traveled from his home in Illinois to a Wisconsin city where he had no valid business. On Sunday, we had the senseless tragedy in Waukesha caused by the apparently random act of a man, reported by The New York Times to have “a long, violent criminal history,” who was out of jail on bail that the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office now states was set “inappropriately low.” The families of those killed and injured in Kenosha and Waukesha should be giving thanks this week instead of grappling with unfathomable loss. Although there is no solace for these families, when considering these tragedies I thought of an experience I described in these pages in February, 2019. While there is so much in our current national and global situation to concern us, perhaps the help TLOML and I received on a dangerously cold night — from an elderly African American gentleman who, demographically, probably voted for President Joe Biden and from young Caucasian auto mechanics, at least one of whom, demographically, probably voted for former President Donald Trump — offers some consolation, at least for those not gripped by the deepest despair, that most of our people have good in them. May you and your loved ones, as well as those from afar who have found refuge within our nation, have a warm and healthy Holiday.]

Over the weekend, we were in Milwaukee for a family gathering, and our fairly new Prius was struck, opening a gash on the left rear side that we were pretty sure when we discovered it was at an angle such that wind shear would cause some of the rear fender to rip off if we tried to drive back to Madison without having it attended to. (No note was left.) From an engine standpoint, the car was completely drivable. We were able to make an appointment at a nearby service center (more on the shop below), and at a few minutes past 5 on a Friday night, set off to drive about 4 miles in significant winds and bitter, bitter cold with the dark coming on.

We didn’t make it. About half way to the shop, we heard a bang and realized that part of the fender had flipped back due to the wind. We pulled over in the now almost-dark to retrieve what had come loose, cars moving around us, fairly concerned about what we were going to do.

A van slowly pulled up behind us and stopped. Its motor kept running, its headlights stayed on, and its emergency flashers came on. An African-American gentleman, in his mid-50’s – warm, friendly, reassuring — got out of the van, came up, and — with cars continuously going by us and in temperatures and wind cold enough to numb your bare hands in a couple of minutes — helped us put the pieces temporarily back in place, and with duct tape he provided, we got the fender patched sufficiently so we could finish the drive. Then we exchanged names, we thanked him – I don’t think it was possible for us to thank him profusely enough – shook hands, and … he bid us good night, and went on his way.

Got to the service center. The shop is for engine repair, not body work, but the rep and a couple of the technicians came over and when they heard that our goal was simply to make the car secure enough to get back to Madison, they said they thought they could attach a couple of fasteners that would hold the left rear together, and told us to go to dinner (we had family with us in another car) and come back in about an hour.

When we got back, the car looked like it had a few stitches, and was clearly sturdy enough for us to get it home. We asked what we owed; we heard: One of the guys had some time. No charge. Glad we could help.

For those of us that tend to focus on the seemingly paralyzing political acrimony we have at home and the serious issues we face here and internationally, it’s good to recall: There exists, as there always has, a good will, a kindness, a generosity of deed and spirit in America.

The Pew Research Center’s Political Typology

For those not aware, Pew Research Center (“Pew”) has recently published a “political typology” that it says “… sorts Americans into cohesive, like-minded groups based on their values, beliefs, and views about politics and the political system.” A link to its conclusions is set forth below. Pew lists nine groups, four leaning or avidly Democratic, four leaning or avidly Republican, with one unaffiliated “Stressed Sideliners” (the group that Pew nonetheless observes still “… tend[s] to fall close to the average American on many issues”). Pew notes in its piece that there is actually a fairly wide divergence in views between the different groups that respectively consider themselves – either tightly or loosely – affiliated with the same political party. What I found as interesting was the finding that there was at least some convergence in the views of groups that for the most part wildly differed. In Pew’s descriptions of the beliefs of each of the nine groups, and no matter how troubling I might have found the majority of a group’s views, there was at least one position held by each segment with which I agreed. At the same time, no one fits neatly into one mold; despite being placed in the “Democratic Mainstay” group after taking Pew quiz, I, apparently unlike the typical Democratic Mainstay, don’t “feel particularly warm toward Democrats.”

Pew’s results did underscore for me an impression that I’ve had for some time: while the chasm of cultural issues will always separate them, Progressives and Trumplicans think very similarly in some areas; I would venture that both favor higher taxes on the wealthy and restrictive trade policies, and have relatively lesser interest in America’s maintenance of its interests across the world. Each of these positions is a marked deviation from the views held by their respective “mainstream” party mates.

The second link is to Pew quiz that enables one to determine within which of its nine political groupings one belongs. Enjoy.

How the political typology groups compare

Political Typology Quiz

A Summer Town Hall: A Postscript

Back in August, I posted a note about a town hall meeting conducted earlier in that month in a central Wisconsin park by a Republican Congressman. I observed in the piece:

“There was appreciable attendee support for the bipartisan Senate infrastructure bill, particularly as regards expanded broadband access. The Congressman indicated that he generally supported the bill (since then, Mr. Trump has expressed his opposition to the bill; it would be instructive to learn whether the Congressman has changed his position).”

Devoting greater space to broadband wasn’t warranted in the context of the post, but there was actually a meaningful discussion during the town hall about the area’s need for broadband. One constituent identifying herself as a realtor specifically told the Congressman that she was having trouble selling certain homes in the area because they did not yet have access to broadband.

As all who care are aware, on November 5, the House of Representatives at long last passed the bipartisan Senate infrastructure bill discussed during the town hall. President Joe Biden will sign it into law today. The measure addresses national infrastructure needs which both parties acknowledge are necessary – such as assistance for roads, bridges, rail, water quality, and broadband. This was a bill that even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell supports and voted for. 13 Republican members of the House of Representatives broke ranks with Republican House Leadership and voted for the measure — support that was required for passage given six Democratic defections (we’ll get to them in a minute).

Wisconsin has five Republican members of Congress. At least three of them represent rural districts that probably all desire broadband expansion. Not one – including the Congressman whom we witnessed being told by his constituents in that summer session that they needed broadband and supported the bill, and indicating to them that he supported it – voted for it. They were clearly afraid of former President Donald Trump, who issued a statement after the bill passed, declaring in part, “Very sad that the RINOs in the House and Senate gave Biden and Democrats a victory on the “Non-Infrastructure” Bill. All Republicans who voted for Democrat longevity should be ashamed of themselves … [Emphasis Added].”

This is a package that the American people overwhelmingly support and need. One could not ask for a more naked indication from the former President that his focus is all about winning, not about serving – which is the basis upon which we supposedly elect our representatives. While there may well be a handful of Republicans that opposed the measure due to concerns that it will increase the deficit, perhaps spur inflation, or the like – valid policy positions, even if one does not agree with them – it is manifest that the vast majority of Republicans that voted against the measure did so, although they know it’s a good bill, because they cower before Mr. Trump. In a characterization that is gentler than it could be, they lack the fortitude we have a right to expect in our representatives.

The six Democratic House members who voted against the measure containing provisions that they clearly supported – the four members elected in 2018 who have gained significant notoriety as the self-styled “Squad,” and two representatives elected in 2020 whom I understand have publicly associated themselves with the “Squad” — exhibited the same tribal intransigence and disregard for what is in the interest of the American people as did the goose-stepping Republicans who opposed the bill. Their vote amounted to stamping their feet because they couldn’t have their way on the Democrats’ “human infrastructure” package. In this context, it doesn’t matter whether the programs within “human infrastructure” measure that they seek are good or bad; President Biden — whose “whole agenda” these six Democrats claim to support — wanted them to vote for the infrastructure package now. They refused. The American people need adults representing them, not children throwing hissy fits. These six Democrats are at the very least immature, arguably wantonly selfish.

It is sometimes difficult to see a way forward in a political atmosphere so saturated with tribalism, fear, distrust, and antipathy. I consider the votes against the infrastructure bill by those Republicans and Democrats who actually supported the substance of the measure and understood that it would help their constituents – whether the votes arose from political subservience or stubborn unwillingness to accept that ours is a system of compromise – to be disheartening betrayals of – in the Constitution’s phrase – Offices of Trust.

The FVA, the Constitution, the “Ryan Syndrome,” and the Filibuster: a Postscript

On November 3, Republican senators utilized the filibuster to block consideration of another measure proposed by Democrats to safeguard the voting rights of all Americans, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. I need to note that one of the moderate Republican Senators whom I called out in Part II of this post for failing to fairly consider federal voting rights legislation, U.S. AK Sen. Lisa Murkowski, voted with Democrats to allow debate on the bill.

By coincidence, shortly before Part II was posted, U.S. UT Sen. Mitt Romney – another of the Republican Senators I specifically took to task for obstructing consideration of voting rights measures intended to protect all Americans’ voting rights — published an opinion piece in the Washington Post defending the filibuster, in which he stated in part, “The need to marshal 60 votes to end a filibuster requires compromise and middle ground. It not only empowers the minority but also has helped to keep us centered …. Have Democrats thought through what it would mean for them for [former President Donald] Trump to [be re-elected and] be entirely unrestrained, with the Democratic minority having no power whatsoever?”

I have genuinely high regard for Mr. Romney; over the last several years he has stood, sometimes alone among in his party, against Mr. Trump’s untoward conduct of the presidency. If in his place, I hope that I would have had the courage to act as he did, but honorable sentiments such as I express are easy until one is put to the test. That said, the Senate filibuster fosters the compromise of which Mr. Romney speaks only if both sides are acting in good faith. It is a disheartening irony that it is the tribal failure of Mr. Romney and his sensible Republican Senate colleagues (now, save Ms. Murkowski) to break with the patently obstructionist and partisan members of their caucus over voting rights that has caused somebody like me, who values traditional institutional safeguards like the filibuster, to call for its abandonment. As for Mr. Romney’s allusion to the danger the country will face if Mr. Trump is re-elected – a fear (indeed, a fright) that I absolutely share — I would suggest to him that the voting laws that Republican legislatures are implementing across the nation – statutes that the safeguards set forth in the Freedom to Vote Act (the “FVA”) are intended to circumvent – will, if unchecked, increase the potential that Mr. Trump will return to the White House. If Mr. Trump returns, he will almost certainly be accompanied by Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress; and if such is the case, it takes no prescience to suggest that the first thing an obsequious Republican Senate majority will do is end the filibuster to do Mr. Trump’s bidding.

Senate Democrats must discard the filibuster, at least insofar as it blocks their ability to pass voting rights protections such as those set forth in the FVA. I would readily give up the entire human infrastructure package that Democrats continue to haggle over if that was what was required to get Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema to vote to modify the Senate’s filibuster rule to enable the passage of voting rights legislation. There will always be benefit programs to consider. As I suggested in Part II of this post, the race this year by state Republican-led legislatures to enact new voting laws, notwithstanding the lack of any credible evidence that voter fraud materially affected the outcome of the 2020 Presidential and Congressional races, cannot help but cause one to conclude that their efforts are no more than an entirely partisan attempt to tilt the electoral landscape in their favor. I would submit that their obvious lack of good faith, if left unchecked, is an existential threat to our republic.

On Aaron Rodgers’ COVID-Related Absence

As all who care are aware, Green Bay Packer Quarterback and reigning NFL Most Valuable Player (“MVP”) Aaron Rodgers has been diagnosed with COVID-19, and under NFL COVID protocols has accordingly been ruled out of the Packers’ game this Sunday against the Kansas City Chiefs (who are led by their own recent MVP, Quarterback Patrick Mahomes) in Kansas City. As all NFL fans are aware, Kansas City’s Arrowhead Stadium is renowned as one of the toughest, if not the toughest, arena in the NFL for a visiting team.

While Mr. Rodgers certainly left the impression and acted like he had gotten his COVID vaccination, apparently he didn’t. He will be replaced this week by Packer Backup and former Utah State University Quarterback Jordan Love. Anybody who hasn’t spent the last two years in a cave is aware of the friction existing between Mr. Rodgers and the Green Bay front office caused by Packer General Manager Brian Gutekunst’s selection of Mr. Love in the first round of the 2020 NFL draft (although Mr. Rodgers professes no ill will toward Mr. Love personally, who is obviously an innocent bystander in the dispute). Three reactions:

First: Packer fortunes. Even the most rabid backer of the Green and Gold will concede that the team has not played as well as its 7-1 record would indicate. That said, as things sit today, the team has, based primarily upon Mr. Rodgers’ extraordinary play, maneuvered its way into an excellent position in the NFC playoff race. His absence as the Packers visit an extremely tough venue certainly endangers the team’s current enviable playoff position. While this is little consolation for a significant segment of the roster who, statistically, will be out of the league three years from now, I’m glad that Mr. Rodgers is out. The Packer Nation has already had enough discussion to last a lifetime about Mr. Love’s potential to be a fitting successor to Mr. Rodgers and a couple of his predecessors, Hall of Famers Bart Starr and Brett Favre. On the road against a still-formidable 4-4 Chief team that is struggling to find itself, we’ll finally get a real chance to see if Mr. Love is any good. Hopefully, the Packer receiving corps – Allen Lazard, Marquez Valdes-Scantling and, obviously most importantly, Davante Adams – are back from their COVID-related absences to make it a fair opportunity for Mr. Love. For me, the test for him is not whether the team wins, but how well he plays. (Since, as my mother used to say, one swallow does not a summer make, I actually wouldn’t mind if Mr. Love had to start Green Bay’s following home game against another struggling team with a proud tradition, the Seattle Seahawks.)

Second: Given Mr. Rodgers’ prominence, perhaps this fiasco will bring home to the vaccine hesitant and resistant among the Packer faithful the consequences that can result from one’s misguided failure to get vaccinated, and cause some to get the shot. If lives are saved as a result of Mr. Rodgers’ obstinate miscalculation – which, of course, will never be known — it will have been worth it.

The third reaction: in taverns throughout Wisconsin this weekend, discussions will be nonstop among Green Bay fans regarding various points related to Mr. Rodgers’ inability to play. These positions will be earnestly and enthusiastically urged. However, I would venture that even after the state’s most avid progressives and wildest Trumplicans accompany their fish fries with one, two, or perhaps even three refreshers [of course, never more, given the need to drive home safely 😉 ], Packer fans share such a bond – allegiance to the Green and Gold – that no matter how strongly their views of the Rodgers situation may differ, the talk will remain amiable. Disagreements will be expressed … agreeably.

Were it so on issues that matter.

On the McAuliffe-Youngkin Virginia Gubernatorial Race: a Postscript

Of course, former Virginia Governor and Democratic Candidate Terry McAuliffe lost the Virginia Gubernatorial race to Republican Candidate Glenn Youngkin. In this October 30 post, I made an off-hand remark that Mr. McAuliffe’s electoral prospects might be adversely affected by, among other factors, the fact that “Congressional Democrats currently don’t look like they can run a two-car funeral.” Although a number of pundits have opined that Mr. McAuliffe’s defeat was due more to his politically unwise debate declaration that parents shouldn’t be telling schools what they should teach than to Congressional Democrats’ currently cloudy national fortunes, three thoughts:

The first: having now had a chance to see a few more clips of Mr. Youngkin, I think he could present a long-term disquieting picture for Democrats. He is conservative, but appears happy and upbeat. He seems to have a likable visage more akin to former President Ronald Reagan’s than to not only former President Donald Trump’s, but to the dark, angry, confrontational demeanors exhibited by Trump Wannabes such as FL Gov. Ron DeSantis and TX Gov. Greg Abbott. In Tuesday’s election, Mr. Youngkin demonstrated Mr. Reagan’s ability to attract strident conservatives while appealing to moderate Republicans and Independents. For a Republican in a “blue” state, he won by a respectable margin. We’ll see how he does, but if Mr. Youngkin governs moderately and seemingly successfully, he may have that “something” that the Trump Wannabes lack – which is a scary prospect for Democrats.

The second: I saw it reported yesterday that House progressives are reportedly seeking to reinsert the recently-eliminated paid leave measure into the human infrastructure package notwithstanding the apparently continuing opposition to the provision of U.S. WV Sen. Joe Manchin, without whose vote nothing (that’d be: nothing) will pass the Senate. Putting aside whether paid leave is substantively good or bad policy, one is left to wonder:

Should it stay or should it go now? If it goes, there will be trouble; and if it stays, it will be double. Democrats need to come on, and let us know: Should it stay or should it go now?

I apologize for putting the lyrics in your head that will stay with you for the rest of the day; but the Democrats’ philosophic … er … Clash … has now reached comedic proportions ;).

Finally: after the post, a good friend that follows these pages sharply disagreed with my characterization of Congressional Democrats’ management abilities; his assessment: that they can’t run a one-car funeral. I fear that the American electorate is already making up its mind as to whether they should stay or go.

The FVA, the Constitution, the “Ryan Syndrome,” and the Filibuster: a Correction

In the first published version of Part II of this note, I indicated that U.S. OH Sen. Rob Portman had voted to convict former President Donald Trump in the impeachment proceedings brought before the Senate earlier this year. Sen. Portman did not. I regret the error. Not as deeply, however, as Mr. Portman should regret that it was an error.