What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Oexmelin]

The question I posed to Oex was a hypothetical of what occurs after a court has made its finding and only on the question of whether or not he was corrupt.

I don't know how to answer that. Has the person been left off the hook on technicality? Has it been decided at the end of a super transparent process? Do I think that the law is too lenient? Is it okay for a Prime Minister to spend so much time with that private citizen with a clear political interest? Or even: do I think that the end justified the means - which, I should note, is the conclusion that many thought re: wartime profiteering.

I think you are making this too strict an either/or proposition. Either it's decided in a court, and therefore facts, or it's all hearsay, therefore fake news. By its very nature, corruption cannot fit neatly in these boxes.

(As an aside, I recommend Zephyr Teachout's Corruption in America for a neat intro to the matters of corruption in (US) democracy.)

[crazy canuck]

The question I posed to Oex was a hypothetical of what occurs after a court has made its finding and only on the question of whether or not he was corrupt.

I don't know how to answer that. Has the person been left off the hook on technicality? Has it been decided at the end of a super transparent process? Do I think that the law is too lenient? Is it okay for a Prime Minister to spend so much time with that private citizen with a clear political interest? Or even: do I think that the end justified the means - which, I should note, is the conclusion that many thought re: wartime profiteering.

I think you are making this too strict an either/or proposition. Either it's decided in a court, and therefore facts, or it's all hearsay, therefore fake news. By its very nature, corruption cannot fit neatly in these boxes.

(As an aside, I recommend Zephyr Teachout's Corruption in America for a neat intro to the matters of corruption in (US) democracy.)

Fair questions.  lets assume for our hypothetical that no evidence was excluded because it was unlawfully obtained and so there was a full record of all the evidence.  The process is transparent in the sense that the court set out all the evidence of importance in its decision that was available (as is the usual practice). 

I don't think I am being overly restrictive at all.  Rather I am pointing out that a court process is much preferable to anything that might be achieved in a Senate impeachment trial.  After such a process the facts come out and can be known by the public.  The alternative is the word of rumour and innuendo (and actually worse, false facts) which I think leads further to the destruction of Liberal Democracy.

[Sheilbh]

It's true that in the current operating mode of the American democracy, the process would have required a thorough deconstruction. The temptation to turn this into grandstanding, cheap one-liners, infantile presentations may have been too strong on both sides of the aisle, and the compulsion of 24h news network would have been to exhaust every possible talking point within a couple of days. But I still think that part of the solution - in this case - would have been to stretch procedures to a very long time. Or perhaps to simply hold the same type of trial, but removed from the immediate moment, if only for Democrats to hone the message and the delivery. Some things take a long time to set in. Let some police inquiries unfold. Get some of the Capitol stormers arrested. Use that time to hone message and delivery.

Perhaps. My counter would be the trial gets power from its immediacy - I think that is part of the reason why McConnell didn't deal with it when the House voted up charges on January 7. I think it's possible that you can construct a better argument and you can develop that, but I think it's equally likely that through 24 news, multiple news cycles and nomination fights and politics as usual between January 6 and a trial that the shock and the impact of the Capitol being stormed dissipates. I think there is a risk that it just becomes memory holed.

I'm not convinced of what was right, but I think there's good arguments for "rushing" it and for not wanting witnesses. Plus I think there's a Sorkin tendency on the American left that one act of political theatre or speech will be enough to transform things. I don't believe that and I think some - not you or AR - of the people who'd like a longer trial imagine that there could be a successful impeachment and it would serve that purpose.

Just a nuance: corruption is a fundamentally political judgment because it concerns the appropriate uses of authority, which transforms what is either theft, or a personal act, like gift-giving, into something reprehensible. And it thrives on ambiguity and time (which is why people indicted for corruption have usually left office). This is why it is often quite difficult to prove, in courts, and why the idea that someone is corrupt ought to rest upon non-judiciary criteria. In other words, one should be able to judge Sarkozy as corrupt, even if courts don't find him guilty of such. Danger comes when either people think politicians are *all* corrupt (and thus, like Berlusconi, it doesn't matter much), or that corruption is only a legalistic matter - for which a ton of loopholes and reasonable doubt can easily be found.

The other side to Berlusconi - which I think Trump plays on - is that his argument is all politicians are corrupt, and the legal system is corrupt and (or perhaps because) it is political.

But I think the US is quite far gone in both of the dangers you've highlighted (I think the UK is pretty far gone down the "all politicians are corrupt" route).

Indeed, it's not likely at all. This is why any hope of change requires a multi-pronged strategy by Democrats. Aggressively disempower Republicans at every level, which requires dropping a lot of stupid ideals about bipartisanship. Aggressively invest in local politics, which Democrats have abandoned for much too long. And a continuous effort of education in the media and in the institutions about principles. Reclaim the language of ideals and the Constitution. Democrats have been afraid to talk of big ideas, because they always feared to be tarred with the brush of the evil "Isms". The Republicans were the party of principles. That is clearly gone now. Republicans can't claim principles. They don't have good parry against such speech today.

There's a lot I agree with here - though as a long-standing Labour party member I come out in hives at people suggesting "political education" as a solution to almost anything

But I actualy think the most helpful thing would be if Democrats were able to get things done. The GOP has in many ways run against the idea of government and even of politics as a way of doing anything for a long time. And I know technocracy and populism are normally seen as enemies but there's huge overlap: they're both very sceptical of politics, politicians and ideology which is the way, in a democratic, we negotiate alternative visions of our future. Trump was in a way a technocratic and populist candidate - "I alone can fix it". But he wasn't a million miles away from Romney's campaign focusing on his time as a consultant/businessman/Olympic-Games-Saviour or, for that matter, McCain's which emphasised that he's a different kind of politician (because of his military history) who'd put country first. I think America is uniquely susceptible to this type of technocratic pitch - the generals have been successful with this pitch, so have some businessmen like Hoover - but every election there's a yearning for the technocrat who, allied with the people, can resolve political issues - Bloomberg most recently, Clark not too long ago etc. The European equivalent is probably the Central Banker summoned to save his country.

One way to counter that I think would actually be to achieve things - just pass legislation (and sell it in the media).

[Valmy]

Glad the House finally passed Covid Relief. Better late than never. Now pass a version in Senate ASAP. We needed this a month ago. Get something out there Dems.

Any chance you could get a Marijuana decriminalization bill out there as well? And I only mean a FEDERAL decriminalization. Texas can still lock up all the potheads it wants, as is its right.

[Caliga]

I would LOVE that.  I usually connect thru Denver when I fly to California, and I'd love to toke up in the airport.

[Valmy]

Well you probably still cannot smoke anything in an Airport Cal

Also this business with the minimum wage is why I wanted these bills passed on day one. Suddenly the Senate cannot pass it because of some rule. Better to pass the bill first and ask for forgiveness later. Now moderate Dems can easily refuse it on principle.

[Caliga]

Well you probably still cannot smoke anything in an Airport Cal

Something tells me that if the federal ban on marijuana is abolished, DEN will suddenly have some smoking rooms.

If not, I'll settle for gummies I guess.

[Admiral Yi]

Did Denver finally close down its smoking bar?  They had one when I flew through a while back. 

[Tonitrus]

Well you probably still cannot smoke anything in an Airport Cal

Something tells me that if the federal ban on marijuana is abolished, DEN will suddenly have some smoking rooms.

If not, I'll settle for gummies I guess.

You strike me more of a brownie guy anyway. 

[Oexmelin]

Plus I think there's a Sorkin tendency on the American left that one act of political theatre or speech will be enough to transform things. I

That's very true. I seem to recall Jill Lepore making a similar point - perhaps on the Talking Politics/LRB podcast which I think you listen to.

as a long-standing Labour party member I come out in hives at people suggesting "political education" as a solution to almost anything

I'd call it "reeducation" but I suspect it may be objectionable.

In all seriousness, it's a fair reaction - but I think mostly because the left (and it is the same here) imagines their/our perspective to be self-evidently superior, and thus simply in need to be taught to the ignorant awaiting their epiphany. I'd perhaps characterize what I favor as "indexing", i.e., linking policy to principle.

One way to counter that I think would actually be to achieve things - just pass legislation (and sell it in the media).

Sure. But you'd have to ruthelessly exploit the division between the rump Republicans and the Trump Republicans.

[Sheilbh]

That's very true. I seem to recall Jill Lepore making a similar point - perhaps on the Talking Politics/LRB podcast which I think you listen to.

Quite possibly - normally I consciously steal ideas from there but this one may be sub-conscious

In all seriousness, it's a fair reaction - but I think mostly because the left (and it is the same here) imagines their/our perspective to be self-evidently superior, and thus simply in need to be taught to the ignorant awaiting their epiphany. I'd perhaps characterize what I favor as "indexing", i.e., linking policy to principle.

I agree with that I think that's a better way of putting it. But yeah I've spoken to enough people on the left who basically think that if we do enough screenings of Ken Loach we'll end up winning elections again.

Sure. But you'd have to ruthelessly exploit the division between the rump Republicans and the Trump Republicans.

Yes. And that's just good politics in my view and it's the basic pre-condition for anything else the Democrats do to work. Given that, I am profoundly pessimistic.

[Admiral Yi]

"Stop what you're doing, or I'll be even more outraged than I already am!"

[Caliga]

Did Denver finally close down its smoking bar?  They had one when I flew through a while back.

Dunno.... if there's one there, I don't know where.  All I know is that there's a killer tamale restaurant and a good coffee place called Moose coffee or some shit.

[Admiral Yi]

Looks like they still had the Smokin' Bear Lounge in 2018, but killed it since then.

[PDH]

Everyone knows smoking weed doesn't hurt your lungs.  At least everyone here in Santa Cruz knows that.