The subpoena issue raises an interesting question in my mind about how the adversarial system can function where the prerogative of one adversary is entrusted to a person who may be disinclined to protect it.
On the one hand, the legislature’s prerogative is clear: they need the subpoena power and they need DOJ to back up their authority.
But who is going to zealously advocate for the executive? There may be limits on how far the legislature can intrude on the executive, but if nobody is advocating for them in Court we risk overlooking them and creating precedents which cut into essential functions of the executive.
The problem is Biden may not be sympathetic, in this context, to vigorously defending the executive prerogative. And if he is, can he ask the DOJ to take it on, while at the same time the DOJ is tasked with representing the other party? Does DOJ just build a wall between the departments?
Alternately, the former president and and his cronies do have an interest, clearly in their personal capacity, but also as people who may again take the office. But they don’t have the current institutional role to assert and defend the executive prerogative, and their current private capacity trumps (pun intended) the interests of the office. They positions they advance may not be entirely consistent with what is essential for a healthy executive. Any advocacy on their behalf will prioritize their personal interests over that of the office.
So what independent institution can advocate for the Office of the President in this dispute? Can the Office of White House Counsel intervene independent of President Biden’s direction? Or are those lawyers bound by their agency to follow any lawful directions from the current president?
To be clear, I’m NOT saying that these subpoenas are unlawful or that they intrude on legitimate executive prerogative. I’m just thinking through the strange structural conundrum facing a court that functions by dialectic, where one of the adversaries has no (obvious) suitable advocate.
I wish Biden and the Party would use a simpler and more honestly resonant messaging approach that opens people to hearing what you want to tell them: How about:
“Dems as well as Republicans share blame for leaving too many people behind as our economy globalized. The Republican solution is to beat their chests and blame others (the other). Our solution is to come together, to be better, to do better — #BuildBackBetter
I came up as an Establishment Liberal, which on cursory glance seems probably about right. Some of the Progressive Left and Outsider Left characteristics also apply.
By intuition and inclination, and also by training and choice, I’m an institutionalist. But when confronted with a critical policy or social question, my institutionalism boils down to the core critical structures necessary to sustain a vital and just society— e.g. democracy, the rule of law, due process, and above all freedom of conscience. The edifices we’ve built to operationalize these institutions are always, to me, subject to critical revision and improvement. If the Constitution fails to maximize justice, it’s up for debate how to make it better. But the process of changing the Constitution is an institution itself, which appears to me to maximize the possibility of a just society.
So as someone who believes the core institution of America is largely attuned to promoting liberalism, it makes sense to label me an “Establishment Liberal.”
But my view of a just society is expansive, beyond arbitrary geographical, ethnic, religious and cultural borders. Beyond even a clear boundary between humans and the rest of the living world. In that, I think I have more in common with the Progressive Left. And as someone who is aware that how the core institutions are operationalized often falls far short of promoting the ends of justice, I share some of the skepticism of both the Progressive and Outsider Left toward much of the established institutions.
Though the significant majority of my partisan allegiance has gone to Democrats, it’s a compromised alliance, albeit a compromise I’m usually generally OK with. Most Democrats are going to promote policies I’m generally OK with most of the time. Sometimes they go too far and sacrifice too much, often they don’t go far enough, and frequently it’s some of both. But only rarely are Democratic policy priorities anathema to me.
I can’t say the same about Republicans at all. Many of the policy goals of the party and its base are repugnant to my idea of justice, and how to order a liberal society to promote it.
Pew says I'm the Ambivalent Right. I don't think of myself that way. Pew doesn't have my category. I'll call it the Pragmatic Center. I am unaffiliated, unrepresented, and living in political hell.
HI Charlie, I agree about Liz Cheney. Your quiz says I am a Dem mainstay, but I have felt a little farther right than that, having been called an Enigma from time to time... I have now given to Liz's campaign and also Adam Kinzinger's group as we are in Boo Coo trouble IMHO for the future of our country. I would like to be more vocal about things sometimes, but in my business I deal with many people and so keep my head down so I don't end up living in a van down by the river.
I came out as "Establishment Liberal" which is not where I expected. My primary issue with these sorts of tests are that often we are given a binary choice. I find little in life is actually so clear cut and I want a box that allows to me say "yes, but what about.....?"
Guess I will now have to go buy a tweed jacket with elbow patches.
I did the quiz and got ambivalent right, but i don't see my views reflected in the Bulwark - at least not as much as one would think. I do like the bulwark and read/listen faithfully.
Establishment liberal, though I feel like on almost every single issue I could be persuaded to a more conservative view. Maybe that's what a liberal is? Someone John McCain said won't take his own side in an argument?
Democratic Mainstay here. Would like to point out, however, that answers that offer absolutes as responses will not be good at capturing what might be much more nuanced points of view. (Case in point - the question about corporations and profits. A binary choice doesn't capture my thinking on this at all!).
All that said - there is one topic, however, on which there cannot be a nuanced take. And I think (or rather, hope!) that a lot of us right now - on either side of the aisle - are single issue voters on this particular matter. Which is our support for democracy and our abject terror at all the efforts we see around us that are chipping away at this. None of the categories listed in the survey will matter if we lose ground there.
I heard Shannon Freshour's take on AG Merrick Garland's failure, thus far, to act on the criminal referral regarding Steve Bannon's snub of the 1/6 Committee's subpoena. For the record, we're at about Day 17 with no action. For those who missed Freshour's take, her position is that it takes a long time to develop a federal criminal case and that Garland is doing his job by making sure that all the I's are dotted and T's are crossed before deciding whether to proceed. She cited her experience in a support role in litigating cases, and noted how long it takes to get a case ready.
I've been an attorney since 1987 so let me tell you why she is wrong on this case. She is right that most federal criminal prosecutions require extensive time to develop the facts. But this is an issue of enforcing a subpoena - the facts are already developed and are straightforward. There is no factual record to develop. The only issue is the application of the law to the failure to comply with the subpoena. Research of the case law and statutes regarding federal subpoena enforcement and executive privilege wouldn't take more than a few hours at best.
There is no justification for Garland's delay. None. But it brings me back to my constant emphasis that Congress needs to use its inherent contempt power to enforce its own subpoenas.
Couldn’t take the quiz because I hated the first question. It completely lacks nuance and symbolizes everything that’s wrong with politics. Reminds me of this story I once heard:
A priest once asked a man, “Do you believe there are different types of people?”
He responded, “Of course. There are tall people, short people. There are men and women, rich people and poor people. Do you believe there are different types of people?”
The Priest responded, “Yes, there are two different types of people: those who believe there are different types of people, and those who don’t.”
I joined the SAM Party because it’s the only one trying to break us out of the ideological gridlock this quiz, however unintentionally, reinforces. I love Charlie but hate this quiz.
The subpoena issue raises an interesting question in my mind about how the adversarial system can function where the prerogative of one adversary is entrusted to a person who may be disinclined to protect it.
On the one hand, the legislature’s prerogative is clear: they need the subpoena power and they need DOJ to back up their authority.
But who is going to zealously advocate for the executive? There may be limits on how far the legislature can intrude on the executive, but if nobody is advocating for them in Court we risk overlooking them and creating precedents which cut into essential functions of the executive.
The problem is Biden may not be sympathetic, in this context, to vigorously defending the executive prerogative. And if he is, can he ask the DOJ to take it on, while at the same time the DOJ is tasked with representing the other party? Does DOJ just build a wall between the departments?
Alternately, the former president and and his cronies do have an interest, clearly in their personal capacity, but also as people who may again take the office. But they don’t have the current institutional role to assert and defend the executive prerogative, and their current private capacity trumps (pun intended) the interests of the office. They positions they advance may not be entirely consistent with what is essential for a healthy executive. Any advocacy on their behalf will prioritize their personal interests over that of the office.
So what independent institution can advocate for the Office of the President in this dispute? Can the Office of White House Counsel intervene independent of President Biden’s direction? Or are those lawyers bound by their agency to follow any lawful directions from the current president?
To be clear, I’m NOT saying that these subpoenas are unlawful or that they intrude on legitimate executive prerogative. I’m just thinking through the strange structural conundrum facing a court that functions by dialectic, where one of the adversaries has no (obvious) suitable advocate.
I wish Biden and the Party would use a simpler and more honestly resonant messaging approach that opens people to hearing what you want to tell them: How about:
“Dems as well as Republicans share blame for leaving too many people behind as our economy globalized. The Republican solution is to beat their chests and blame others (the other). Our solution is to come together, to be better, to do better — #BuildBackBetter
That “cheap shot” video is awesome (and awful) to the end:
“From an evolutionary standpoint, women were attracted to your strength because you could protect them from dinosaurs.”
Get out! He really said that.
I came up as an Establishment Liberal, which on cursory glance seems probably about right. Some of the Progressive Left and Outsider Left characteristics also apply.
By intuition and inclination, and also by training and choice, I’m an institutionalist. But when confronted with a critical policy or social question, my institutionalism boils down to the core critical structures necessary to sustain a vital and just society— e.g. democracy, the rule of law, due process, and above all freedom of conscience. The edifices we’ve built to operationalize these institutions are always, to me, subject to critical revision and improvement. If the Constitution fails to maximize justice, it’s up for debate how to make it better. But the process of changing the Constitution is an institution itself, which appears to me to maximize the possibility of a just society.
So as someone who believes the core institution of America is largely attuned to promoting liberalism, it makes sense to label me an “Establishment Liberal.”
But my view of a just society is expansive, beyond arbitrary geographical, ethnic, religious and cultural borders. Beyond even a clear boundary between humans and the rest of the living world. In that, I think I have more in common with the Progressive Left. And as someone who is aware that how the core institutions are operationalized often falls far short of promoting the ends of justice, I share some of the skepticism of both the Progressive and Outsider Left toward much of the established institutions.
Though the significant majority of my partisan allegiance has gone to Democrats, it’s a compromised alliance, albeit a compromise I’m usually generally OK with. Most Democrats are going to promote policies I’m generally OK with most of the time. Sometimes they go too far and sacrifice too much, often they don’t go far enough, and frequently it’s some of both. But only rarely are Democratic policy priorities anathema to me.
I can’t say the same about Republicans at all. Many of the policy goals of the party and its base are repugnant to my idea of justice, and how to order a liberal society to promote it.
Pew says I'm the Ambivalent Right. I don't think of myself that way. Pew doesn't have my category. I'll call it the Pragmatic Center. I am unaffiliated, unrepresented, and living in political hell.
So the survey results tell me that extreme polarization is not a thing. Does anybody see the problem with social media yet?
I got Stressed Sideliner. I'm not disinterested in politics, though. I'm very interested.
HI Charlie, I agree about Liz Cheney. Your quiz says I am a Dem mainstay, but I have felt a little farther right than that, having been called an Enigma from time to time... I have now given to Liz's campaign and also Adam Kinzinger's group as we are in Boo Coo trouble IMHO for the future of our country. I would like to be more vocal about things sometimes, but in my business I deal with many people and so keep my head down so I don't end up living in a van down by the river.
It's frustrating at times.
I love you guys!
I came out as "Establishment Liberal" which is not where I expected. My primary issue with these sorts of tests are that often we are given a binary choice. I find little in life is actually so clear cut and I want a box that allows to me say "yes, but what about.....?"
Guess I will now have to go buy a tweed jacket with elbow patches.
Ambivalent Righty here as well
I did the quiz and got ambivalent right, but i don't see my views reflected in the Bulwark - at least not as much as one would think. I do like the bulwark and read/listen faithfully.
Establishment liberal, though I feel like on almost every single issue I could be persuaded to a more conservative view. Maybe that's what a liberal is? Someone John McCain said won't take his own side in an argument?
Democratic Mainstay here. Would like to point out, however, that answers that offer absolutes as responses will not be good at capturing what might be much more nuanced points of view. (Case in point - the question about corporations and profits. A binary choice doesn't capture my thinking on this at all!).
All that said - there is one topic, however, on which there cannot be a nuanced take. And I think (or rather, hope!) that a lot of us right now - on either side of the aisle - are single issue voters on this particular matter. Which is our support for democracy and our abject terror at all the efforts we see around us that are chipping away at this. None of the categories listed in the survey will matter if we lose ground there.
I also got Ambivalent Right, I think their typology needed more questions on the authoritarian/libertarian axis though.
I heard Shannon Freshour's take on AG Merrick Garland's failure, thus far, to act on the criminal referral regarding Steve Bannon's snub of the 1/6 Committee's subpoena. For the record, we're at about Day 17 with no action. For those who missed Freshour's take, her position is that it takes a long time to develop a federal criminal case and that Garland is doing his job by making sure that all the I's are dotted and T's are crossed before deciding whether to proceed. She cited her experience in a support role in litigating cases, and noted how long it takes to get a case ready.
I've been an attorney since 1987 so let me tell you why she is wrong on this case. She is right that most federal criminal prosecutions require extensive time to develop the facts. But this is an issue of enforcing a subpoena - the facts are already developed and are straightforward. There is no factual record to develop. The only issue is the application of the law to the failure to comply with the subpoena. Research of the case law and statutes regarding federal subpoena enforcement and executive privilege wouldn't take more than a few hours at best.
There is no justification for Garland's delay. None. But it brings me back to my constant emphasis that Congress needs to use its inherent contempt power to enforce its own subpoenas.
Couldn’t take the quiz because I hated the first question. It completely lacks nuance and symbolizes everything that’s wrong with politics. Reminds me of this story I once heard:
A priest once asked a man, “Do you believe there are different types of people?”
He responded, “Of course. There are tall people, short people. There are men and women, rich people and poor people. Do you believe there are different types of people?”
The Priest responded, “Yes, there are two different types of people: those who believe there are different types of people, and those who don’t.”
I joined the SAM Party because it’s the only one trying to break us out of the ideological gridlock this quiz, however unintentionally, reinforces. I love Charlie but hate this quiz.