Jefferson, while a competent political philosopher, was an unrepentant slave holder. I wonder how much of his distrust of big cities stems from that fact.
I also wonder why the clearly expressed will of the governed is thwarted by the political proclivities of slave holders and their desire to protect their 'property rights' in other human beings.
The Senate and the Electoral College are anti-democratic institutions. Given the power they wield, it's very difficult to consider the US a representative democracy.
9
Bret Stephens is an unusually reasonable Republican, but a more conservative Supreme Court sounds extreme to me. Already there's a danger of slamming the door on some hard-won freedoms such as women's right to control their own reproductive systems, gays' right to marry each other, and some minorities' right to vote. It seems to me that conservative judges are afraid of too much freedom--though they seem fine with letting any lunatic carry a gun.
19
Red state Democrats understand the need for a left center presidential candidate.
We all should understand the need for an acting attorney general who actually believes in the law.
May Judge Ginsberg heal quickly and stay well. I'm one of those praying for her.
I hope Jeff Flake actually stands up for what he says this time. He doesn't have a good track record of voting against Trump and McConnell.
We'd all have been better off if Clinton were president. At the very least, she understands diplomacy and the value of allies, something Mr. Trump will never get.
14
Always divining your true intent from your lead-in pic…
Is this some sort of anti-authoritarian rant, that you decided not to show any heads of state…
Yes, I know – deplorable humor…
(so long as you’re not laughing with me, and not not laughing at me…)
As far as:
“…For a Second There, We Stopped Talking About Trump…
I didn’t realize you’d even found a first there there – in the several years you all have been talking up the man, while talking down his largest-ever thronging throng…
As farther as:
“…the new senator from North Dakota got elected with fewer than 180,000 votes, while the losing candidate in Florida is a guy who got more than four million…
As it happens, there’s a newly unemployed election commissioner from The Sunshine State who could fix that with a wink and a nod…
Within 72 hours of being hired, betcha she – it’s always a she, down there in gator country – could find and collate four million retroactive absentee votes for Heitkamp, from those caravan members who intend to settle in and around Fargo and Grand Forks…
No problem with certification and instant citizenship – they’d all be seeking asylum from that prevaricating authoritarian despot Ted Cruz…
Trump is more outspoken than the average GOP representative, but the story is the samd: The rich deserve to be rich, the poor deserve to be poor. Don't ruin the virtue of the poor by giving them health care, a decent education, or a decent retirement.
13
Interesting stuff! questions for each of you: Bret, is the left-right spectrum still applicable in the presidential oddsmaking business, or did Trump -- and Bernie -- reveal a sleeping populism that might be effective in getting votes from the other side? Gail: Not to contradict the jokes I love about two senators for each state no matter the population, but it got me thinking, do we still need the electoral college for different reasons than before -- i.e. cybersecurity, so that the next state to hacked doesn't suck in the other 49 as easily (does it work that way?) Good discussion, you two, thank you!
1
"Thoughtful conservative" Stephens is all for stacking our courts with extreme conservative judges, thereby establishing a Federalist Society hegemony opposing the wants and needs of most Americans for decades to come. Which is a "good thing"
Then he warns that Democrats should moderate and be wary of their rising "left wing"...a very dangerous proposition which could lead to such catastrophes as environmental protection, and availability of health care to ALL.
DANGER! Commies are after your freedumb.
8
Nice to see so many skirts amidst the black suit pants for a change in that photo of incoming congresscritters.
3
Thank you for the conversation and the photos. I was cheered to see that most of the feet of the female freshmen reps of congress are encased in flat-soled shoes; no 7-inch stilettos a la Trump, although a few 3-inch heels. A sensible bunch. Less cheered to see Whitaker, looking like a smug thug. "I fear for the U.S. (and the rest of the world since we have too much influence). ...My idea of the future U.S. is a Nazi state called Christian America. The people (the majority) who do not bother to vote will find there is no more voting." This quote is by Martha Gellhorn in a letter written on December 28, 1994.
2
Brett still doesn't get it. His talk about a Democratic President who can work with the other side indicates that he still refuses to hold Republicans responsible for their DELIBERATE strategy of refusing to work with the other side, first heralded by Newt Gingrich.
Perhaps he is longing for a return to the day when Democrats helped Conservatives implement their agenda - lifting Glass Stegall, "reforming" (i.e. limiting) welfare, supporting the Presidents foreign initiatives, and in return, getting the blame for Nafta, the financial crisis, the Iraq War, while in the meantime, Republicans steer clear of any legislation that might suggest that compromise is ever necessary, or that their beloved ideas might have casualties - whether it was bailing out the banks, or admitting that Iraq was a mess, or voting for the ACA, or the stimulus package.
Those days are OVER Brett. Deregulated Wall Street almost took down the economy, and have still not accepted responsibility. In fact, they doubled down, and per Paul Volker, we are on our way to becoming a PLUTOCRACY, thanks to Citizens United.
I would love to hear you explain why Volker is a left wing pinko, whose views are too extreme for Republicans to accept.
Face it, the system IS rigged towards those with wealth. Markets certainly are, and Republicans want gov't to be as well - even more than it currently is.
6
1. Super smart and yes, entertaining piece. Gave me a few smiles amidst the overwhelming horrors here and around the world.
So, thank you both for this column! :)
2. Montana Gov. Steve Bullock! If we must go red-dish/purple ... check him out. Frontline's "Dark Money" is where you'll see and hear him sounding awfully darn sensible -- and centrist. Doesn't hurt that he's telegenic either.
There's more:
-- (Kavanaugh, just awful and yes, he did it, all, just as it was laid bare in testimony).
-- Hurrah! for the new Dem class that actually looks like a sharp, spit & polished cross-section of Americans who are also real people. Now, both because and despite their youth, let them rise to the occasion, and become the leaders of next several years, and the next decade or two.
-- Let this 'acting AG' charade / joke of an appointment end fast, and please, oh please, let there be something to the Mueller investigation. That last especially would be Thanksgiving and Christmas and New Year's all wrapped together with a bow!
3
Let's all stop and notice that 12 out of the 19 new members of Congress depicted in the photo, appear to be WOMEN. Progress!
3
How about we stop giving the big baby in the room so much attention. It just feeds his narcissism and makes the news very derivative and predictable. Yes, we know he largely is a complete idiot. How about we start focusing not on him but on issues, on the direction we want to go in, on the people that are making positive contributions to society instead of those ripping the country apart. Boy that would be nice.
7
Beto O'Rourke for president. Young, energetic and so capable of winning the millennials.
4
"If the name of the game is to beat Trump in 2020, the best way to assure that outcome is to steer the party toward the center, not the left".
Mr. Stephens watches too much football. Steer toward the center equals defense or the status quo. Democrats having been playing defense way too long.
4
According to the Constitution, there will forever and always be two Senators per State, no more no less. We might admit Puerto Rico and Washington DC as States to up the total count of Senators - as we once admitted Hawaii and Alaska - but only by two Senators per. Why? Because it was in the House of Representatives where our Founders conceived the legislative processes being 'OF, BY and FOR the People'.
However the Apportionment Act of 1911 locked the number of Reps at 435, based on the census of 1910, and there it has remained. In 1910 the US population was 91 million and has grown north of 321 million since.
By our Founders' standards then, 230 million Americans are either UNDER represented or not represented AT ALL. Simple math says there should something OVER 1530 Representatives in the House now, today, enough that control can't be 'purchased' by Big Money, gerrymandered by political parties or manipulated by the various 'News' Teams.
Consider amending Constitution, yes; consider voting statehood to Puerto Rico and Washington DC, fine. But first consider voting OUT the Apportionment Act of 1911. A simple majority would get it done and the House could start working - after 100 years - as our Founders designed it. Our legislative process was NOT meant to foster oligarchy or national feudalism, but that's the direction 'special interests' have it trending. Forget about the Senate: Concentrate on the House of Representatives.
3
"For a second there, we stopped talking about Trump".
Really it would even help if we stopped talking about Trump all the time.
7
I know that the last reference to Kavanaugh and Thanksgiving was just a good fun jibe but my guess is that Dr. C B Ford received more then one piece of hate mail today. Probably there were more threats on her life. Stephens wrote an article praising Trump for attacking her personally at a rally in Mississippi before thousands, most of whom probably own arms. To use the power of the presidency to intimidate one person who had the courage to speak out is unforgivable. As far as I can tell Bret has never even considered if that column went to far. I write this with the assumption that it will be screened out under a sort of columnist protection program that the Times uses to defend those who have said that which is unconscionable.
12
Almost, Bret, almost. You are coming around. Whether we like it or not, The Donald has had an impact and the country's center has shifted slightly to the right from where it was 10 years ago. We just have to make sure that it doesn't shift any further.
1
...And you never even got to Ivanka's emails.
Speaking of the early line for 2020 Democrat hopefuls, what about the nightmare (for me) of the Democrat's version of how the GOP got Trump: They started with 15 somewhat ideological interchangeable prospects plus the real outlier, Trump. In the early primaries the field split about 70% of the voters, leaving Trump alone with a modest plurality. This gave him the visibility and the mainstream news megaphone to close the deal. What if the Demos have Warren on the far left and the governors Bret mentions and a few just slightly more liberal senators? Could the Democrats end up with Warren, who excites many of them but has a snowball's chance of flipping the PA/Wisc/Mich voters disgruntled 2016 Trump voters?
3
I don't know what Stephens means by "conservative" when he speaks of Supreme Court confirmations. Were Citizens United, Hobby Lobby and overturning parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act "conservative" decisions or regressive and reactionary ones? On the other hand , was Roberts on the "left" when he decided that the ACA was constitutional under the taxing power or Kennedy in voting to uphold same gender marriage?
2
Pick a governor or senator from a purple or even red state. Go center rather than left. Please!! Mr Stephens should be asking for a republican to challenge Trump as an independent in 2020 as loud as he can, rather than constantly trying to bring Dems to the right. Bring Reps to the center is what the US mostly needs. It won't matter to Reps if a centrist or leftist Dem is the candidate. They are all socialists, right? Let the primaries decide. Its incredible how republicans have so much influence on the dems, and the opposite is not true. Look at the Pelosi saga, and compare to a Mitch McConnell in the senate. Dems threatening there most qualified leader in the house (who should work on improving the bench), and McConnell unchecked or unchallenged by the Reps.
6
Talking about the Dems nominating a governor . . . I'm assuming they don't think anybody will pose a challenge to DJT for the GOP nomination. Is that true? NO-body? Hey, I will if you will!
1
The press would have nothing to lose in taking a moratorium on covering Trump. The press conferences with Sanders are a farce. All she does is do Trump's bidding in assailing the "fake" media. When Trump himself holds a press conference it merely serves as a launching pad for his reprehensible insults and self-promotion (he grades his performance as president at the A plus level - did we expect any less?). This is a man totally devoid of compassion, intelligence, and grace who does not deserve to assemble the press corps to be victims of his attacks.
12
That 50 US Senators represent only 17% of the people but many tumble weeds is a fact rooted in the history of distrust of "the people."
Reading about the historical reasons for this is like reading most history: there is the true art of fiction.
But at least part of it had to do with the "small" states of NY, NJ, CT RI and DE worried about the big states which were expected to get bigger (VA, GA, SC, NC) and all (except PA) slave states, outvoting them.
State borders today are an anachronism. People in Northern VA/ the Maryland suburbs of WDC have more in common than with the rural parts of those states.
We have become a less perfect union and our institutions do nothing but exacerbate this divide.
4
@Claudia You are dead right about the anachronisms in state boundaries. People are so mobile now that a large section of the country will move state to state many times in their lives, without much of a thought about it. Certainly the movers do not consider themselves to be changing nationalities when they do so. The Constitution is wonderful, but it is designed to address the political realities of 18th Century America. It has been updated and amended, but less and less so over time, as the dividing lines that it creates (e.g., the increasing disconnection between the popular vote and Senate representation as the country becomes more and more urban) serve to ossify it by making amendments that reflect the popular will more and more difficult with time. At some point, like any agreement that grows anachronistic as it ages, it needs to be amended and restated. However, it will likely take a constitutional crisis for such a restatement to occur.
6
@Claudia And Chicago and New York have little to do with the rest of their states. Still, I think a bicameral legislature remains the best option. And it's worth remembering that Americans identify at least as closely with designations like "Kansans," "Californians" and "Ohioans" as "Americans."
1
Conservative judges. Details matter here.
I’ve not yet voted straight ticket D. I’m grateful that the all R Tex. Sup. Ct. seems fully committed to the idea that statutes mean what they say. It’s not so easy to convince them “the statute is ambiguous” or “applying the statute as written will lead to absurdity” when you just don’t like the law. This is especially important with laws requiring govt agencies to transparently make well-considered policy.
But as to conservative federal judges, the Sup. Ct. decision in Bush v Gore is nothing to be proud of; among other problems my memory is that Scalia made a finding of fact at the appellate court level that machines are more reliable than a bipartisan team of humans in determining voter intent. The voting rights law was also gutted due to an appellate court finding of fact as to its continued necessity, if my memory is correct.
Do the old laws on antitrust and restraint of trade need to be updated for the modern economy? Who knows. They seem to have mostly faded away due to executive and judicial branch hostility as I understand it.
And how did conservative legal scholars maneuver from “corporations, artificial legal creations that encourage risk by limiting liability, can accordingly be regulated more strictly than a natural person” to “corporations often have constitutional rights akin to the rights of a natural person”?
What’s conservative about all that?
4
Every day Republicans flaunt their UnAmerican, UnDemocratic, UnGodly ways and means.
Evangelicals need to repent, *bigly.*
21
Part of the democrats plan to win the presidency in 2020 should include all the reasons why Trump should not be re-elected. The democrat controlled House, the Mueller report and investigative reporting can focus on Trumps's shady dealings and possible corruption while in office by him and his family. The Saudi murder case where Trump sides with the murderer for financial gain for him and his family. Siding with Putin based on the financial interests Russia has had in the Trump family and the corruption of his cabinet. THe Attorney General selected to be his Roy Cohn ,the silence of the GOP IS DEAFENING .
9
I like this! The breadth of it is delightful to witness. Our country faces an interesting next few months and things could happen which will ease my mind (at 4:00AM) so I can skip the Lorazapam just one more infrequent time.
One thing which will help the democrats this time will be someone who can raise the crowd fervor and who will not just harp away at what is currently wrong with our curse of a government. There is nothing wrong with some show business aspects at a rally for a democrat, is there? Democrats need to avoid the trap of seeming to react to the distractions so frequently resorted to by the White House. Keep our collective eyes on the positive things the democrats have to offer and stay away from clever foot work of the Republicans
2
Time to retire all sexist nouns, start with “freshman.”
3
@John Moore
Yes, that's the big problem the country needs to address. Let's make pronouns and nouns the first priority of the new Democratic House. Let's see how fast we can lose the majority again.
7
@John Moore I don't think "freshpersons" is going to fly.
1
@John Moore
How about 'first year' Representatives, Senators?
Much like the Brits who use 'first year' in academics.
No gender bias or inference. It's certainly better than 'freshman'/'men,' which truly is antiquated and out of touch with reality.
Getting more votes and losing the election is not irrelevant. It happens in the Senate because -- small states equal big states. It happens in the House because -- gerrymandering. It happens in the Presidential election because -- electoral college. It happens in Supreme Court nominations because the President, and in confirmations because the Senate. So, until recently, every branch of the Federal government belonged to the party that got fewer votes. That amounts to a special and ugly kind of democracy. And the minority party ruled as if it enjoyed the mandate of heaven.
19
Given there was no "Blue Wave"
though Democrats did all they could to achieve one
and given the two columnists were wrong about the election
it does make you wonder why the NY Times gives them so
much space.
As for Marbury vs Madison,
it was and remains an Un-Constitutional intrusion by
Justice Marshall.
State Nullification is Constitutional when Congress or the
Federal Courts over-reach.
The President can dismiss any Cabinet Officer at anytime -
that was decided twice in our History.
Democrats, nominate a Governor who can talk to those voters
so long alienated from the Democratic party.
2
@John Brown Judicial review is literally the court of last resort for Americans' protection against legislative negation of the Constitution.
2
@John Brown
So state nullification is virtuous and legal. A new on me. The last I heard, such claptrap started a war. And I think it was a big one too. Once and for all settling nullification.
Or maybe not. In the New Confederacy.
2
Hah, yep, you do not want the highest court in the land to be the arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, but you are certainly comfortable taking on that task yourself. Who needs experts or due process? You do you, John Brown.
1
Hey Bret, you know one of the reasons Democrats did so well this midterm was running candidates who fit their districts. I keep hearing pundits talk about the base of the party. What base? There are so many.
The magic of America was always the give and take between Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian ideals. Too much of one tips the balance we have precariously sat on these 250 or so years.
There is plenty of room in the Democratic Party for conservatives, moderates, and liberals, as long as they are putting all of America first.
Republicans haven't done that since Nixon.
I still say that Bill Clinton was the most successful republican President of the 20th Century.
10
" Right now I’m partial to Elliot Richardson, who resigned during the Watergate crisis because he knew his duty was to the rule of law, not Richard Nixon."
Bret, remind us again on your opinion of Robert Bork? Would you say a nominee for the Supreme Court should "know his duty was to the rule of law"?
6
Please, no governors. But especially, let's give another state beside New York a chance. I don't want Andrew Cuomo to get any more ideas in his head.
5
@EMiller Serving as executive of a state is the best training ground for executive of the country.
1
It's November 2018 and life changes in concert with the digital age. A picosecond might be as good as a mile!
IMHO 2020 is to far into the future to predict. Trump might start a trade war with Oceana and if the current stock market declines are a real foreboding. We might see a huge caravan out of New York, not to say an upchucking of the DC crowds.
The Amazon deal was not about talent. Skill and giftedness are ubiquitous. Engineers were always ready to relocate. This native Brooklynite wound up in Texas. It was about fear, and a canary in the coal mine, which partially shaped my 2020, thoughts.
Hillary is like savings stamps without taking inflation into account. Sorry, if I offended anyone, but democrats need to move on.
5
Adam Schiff received 70% of the vote in his California district.
80% of New Yorkers can't stand Trump.
Hickenlooper is excellent.
9
@Thomas
No one named Hickenlooper will be elected President. This I guarantee. No matter his/her qualifications.
Need to go for the two or three syllable names, first and last, total. It's just how the world generally works, in jobs and in politics.
1
Congress shouldn't even think about money for the wall until they come up with a real healthcare plan that actually protects the people of America. Exit polls showed that twice as many people are worried about healthcare than are worried about immigrants. While campaigning, Trump said he had a "beautiful healthcare plan that was cheaper and better than Obamacare." Where is that plan?
The wall won't help any of us with lifesaving healthcare.
13
@Linda - "Where is that plan?"
It's right next to DJT's tax returns that he promised and gave us. Didn't you see it?
3
To stop talking about Trump is wishful thinking.
We should think more of doing something about
Trump.
13
Fun debate. Meanwhile, those of us facing the prospect of buying a "health" plan that costs $800 a month and doesn't pay for anything, or are living in Northern California breathing smoke, are wondering why the elite pundits don't concern themselves with these life or death issues but instead are talking about "progressive" v. "moderate" Democrats as if these words mean something. I'll vote for anyone who takes climate change seriously and who's in favor of Medicare for all.
40
I had to giggle when Bret Stephens decided to provide a provocative arrow but he's wrong, dead wrong, about Kavanaugh and the conservative bias of the Federalist courts.
The problems with Kavanaugh are legion: he lied a lot (lies a lot) and he is for presidential power uber alles. That's why Trump wanted him.
Having a biased court is not a good thing, especially in these benighted days.
Bret's other mistake is ignoring the collapse of our planet's hospitality, and the billions of poor people who are not benefiting from the economic progress made by the rest - quite the reverse, in fact.
Evidence on that planetary collapse is piling up, and tech solutions are proven to be vastly expensive. A good practical sense would send him looking at the scale of earth, and the vastness of history, beyond our human habitation. He would then realize that any method to "capture" carbon is a monster.
Perhaps some recommended reading from planet moderate? Here; he does a good job (only slightly out of date) about the scaling problem. Perhaps a practical guy like Bret Stephens could see for himself instead of spouting theories from profiteering luckwarmers Bjorn Lomborg and Roger Pielke Jr. (Sr. is more sensible), whose specialty is politics and who advocates for Congress on behalf of the do-nothings. These two do not practice the careful scientific skepticism of mainstream scientists in climate and related disciplines..
"Sustainability Without the Hot Air" https://www.withouthotair.com/
3
Bret Stephens is right about the structure of representation, of course, but let's, then, stop pretending that we're a one-person-one-vote all-of-hem-equal democracy, shall we?
If we can start with this indisputable fact, we might then continue the analysis through other forms of corporate interest and clearly see the government we live in.
2
The worst result of the midterms is that Republicans retained control of the Senate. They are are going to stack judgeships so tight with hard right ideologues that rulings might as well come from the Koch Bros. If RBG or Breyer step down, or (God forbid) both, expect new Justices to solidify corporate power and weaken or eliminate civil rights, minority rights, environmental protections, reproductive rights, labor rights, reasonable gun control, etc etc etc. That would go on for decades and the GOP would try to litigate everything to the Supreme Court.
7
Republicans are trying to litigate everything to the Supreme Court now. No new retirements required. The upcoming democratic president is going to have to pull a Roosevelt and add more Justices to the Supreme Court in order to restore a semblance of non partisanship to it's rulings.
7
For a Second There, We Stopped Talking About Trump and Watched the Stock Market Crash in Response to the New House
1
Are you sure it's not in response to two years of presidential mismanagement of government and resources?
14
@Nreb There you go. A silver lining for the GOP re the Blue Wave is that now Trump has a scapegoat when his policies crash and burn. Everything is the Democrats' fault! Smh
1
Ah Brett, that’s the problem. It’s only an “idea that Republicans aren’t simply the Know Nothings of the 21st century.”
The reality is sadly different.
3
Let's consider some recent presidential elections. Obama won in 2008. He won with 53% of the vote: no landslide. He was inexperienced and lacked political capital. He had won the Senate largely because of a bizarre sex scandal. And he ran against the weak McCain/Palin ticket. Otherwise, he would have lost. Fast forward to 2012. Obama won by even less: 51% of the vote. If one person had not hidden a camera under a napkin, Romney very well may have won. And 2016? HRC ran a poor campaign and lacked charisma. She won the votes but still lost. If Trump had run against someone better, he probably would have lost.
The point is that when we win, we have a tendency to invoke a "divine hand." There was a *reason* we won. It was because we were better. But often, the reason is more mundane. It hinges on the vicissitudes of fate -- flukes.
How about the recent midterms? Democrats lost the Senate; they made expected gains in the House. With the Senate and Supreme Court in GOP hands, impeachment is a long shot. Democrats need to be conservative: they are still on the defensive for 2020.
If they run a woman of color for president, to build on their "foundation" of "winning" with Obama and "winning" with HRC, they will be decimated. They will deserve it for continuing to be arrogant and stupid. They should run a white guy and play it safe. Because if they can't win, they can't do anything for anyone. And at that point, maybe we should just finally give up on them.
3
Myself, I find that when I’m painting a picture of history, it’s prolly best not to use a roller and work with my eyes squeezed shut.
5
@Robert
The great thing about testable theories is that we can wait to see what people actually do and what actually happens.
Democrats lost everything in 2016. It will be a long slog back. There are no sweepstakes routes for them. Boring is ok; winning is all.
Despite all the progressive talk over the past two years, where are we, exactly? Trump will not be ousted. The judiciary continues to be lost for liberals. The Senate is lost 47-53. The House was retaken within expected historical norms, nothing more.
You may think this is no game. But that's exactly what it is. And games are about strategy. Democrats need to keep working rationally to figure things out, because they show only weak signs of having done that so far.
Here's the recap: a Democratic white guy who wins can do a lot for women and people of color. He can then work to increase the Democratic margin in the House, regain control of the Senate, and eventually restore balance with the judiciary. But a woman of color who runs and loses? She won't be able to do a thing. We have a future taking bolder chances. I do believe that. It's just not right now.
4
@Blue Moon Wouldn't it be easier for the Democrats to just engage in widespread vote suppression, get their own propaganda arm posing as a news channel, and so on? Maybe they could even start an obedient mindless cult like the one that the Republicans are benefiting from.
2
Wrong again Brett.
You lost this Democrat earlier in the exchange when you offered that you were not 'unalterably' opposed to the wall.
Total waste of money.
Total red-meat-bait for the haters.
Goes against everything we have learned historically about building walls.
Have you forgotten your hero Reagan's declaration to his 'bestie' , Mr. Gorbachev.
11
Remember, almost every where the Dems had many more votes then Repubs yet Repubs have gerrymandered the elections they still won the majority of seats. Hopefully this, as well as the obstructions to voting, will be decreased by 2020. The Dems will then take control.
3
@RichardHead That's not true. In most districts and states where the pendulum swung from "R" to "D," the vote was very close.
1
Hillary? 2020? NO!
10
"Although I do think we need to remind people once in a while that the new senator from North Dakota got elected with fewer than 180,000 votes, while the losing candidate in Florida is a guy who got more than four million."
Thank you, Gail, for slicing and dicing Bret's inept analogy comparing our goofy Senate electoral system to touting one's GPA at a singing contest. The analogy would be perfect, though, if kids were awarded a spot on the select choir based upon their GPA and not their singing.
3
Although I do not agree with Bret on several things, he is right about one thing...in order to beat the Con Man in Chief we do need a political moderate that can stand on a debate stage and show a majority of us how the country has degraded substantially under Trump & Co's leadership and how we cannot afford four more years.
Although I have not decided on anyone to support---it's too early, has anyone noticed what Mike Blomberg is doing?
He registered as a Democrat last month.
He has spent millions on his gun control project
He spent a substantial sums on the midterms mostly for Democrats.
And last week he spent almost $2 billion of his fortune paying off student debt.
Coincidence or is he starting to create a proto-campaign to run? Only time will tell.
Over the past years he has spent over $3 billion on causes
he cares about which dovetail very nicely with the Democratic Party platform...several in the party don't trust him, I know but he is checking the boxes on electability and is considered a fiscal conservative and social liberal.
Btw, he did hold elective office...two terms as the Mayor of New York. My-My!
2
@Mgk
I would love to see Bloomberg run. In any presidential debate he'll make Trump look like the fool he really is.
3
@Anthony
I am all about defeating Trump even if it is with someone I do not agree with 100% or even 80%...I am all about electability at this point.
Mike B. has a sense of government and he has the connections and resources to take Trump down.
Not sure if he has the stamina...time will tell.
1
Trump has already nailed down his place in history as America’s Worst President Ever, By Far.
And has done it so securely that the Guinness Book of Records people must by now be seriously considering awarding him this title forever.
Many -- probably most -- historians already think of him this way.
The pages about him in some future history books will likely just be left blank. There will be serious talk of sticking an asterisk next to his name in all government records as was discussed in the case of Roger Maris’s home run record. It seems highly probable that Hollywood and the movie industry will assign XXX-ratings to all movies and books about him so they never land in the hands of innocent children.
Lately I have begun to think that historians of the future will agree to declare him some sort of aberration, wendigo or evil spirit and not a legitimate President at all.
Other Presidents -- Kennedy, Clinton, and Johnson among them --
had money, or women, or ethical issues, but usually tried to pretend to be Presidents.
Trump never has and never will.
The day that he is rode out of office on a rail cannot come too soon.
7
@A. Stanton "America’s Worst President Ever, By Far."
I don't know. He's clearly the worst *person* to ever hold the office, but he hasn't murdered 4,000 Native Americans the way Andrew Jackson did. Yet.
3
@William Starr If he'd been president then, the count probably would have exceeded 400,000 Native Americans
@William Starr I agree. He has done many stupid things, but I'm not sure he's even passed Dubya yet for the worst in recent history. He doesn't have a singular, havoc-wreaking blunder on the scale of the invasion of Iraq....yet. We'll see!
1
The "stuffing" that Bret refers to relates to all of the Turkeys in the Republican Senate. There are no "good guys" in there. Not Corker or Flake. They were and are do-nothings, from Flake's pretend FBI investigation of Kavanaugh to Corker's mild condemnation of Trump's comments on the Charlottesville "fine people on both sides".
Both of them are probably going to throw their hats into the 2020 Primary for President.
The only Republican Senator that had any redeeming qualities was the late Senator McCain. He is the only one who gave push back an a crucial vote on abolishing the ACA.
Back to Whitaker, he is no worse than the rest of the Cabinet members, except for the fact he has no pretense of fairness. He is Trump's henchman for sure. If the Senate really cared, especially Mitch McConnell, they would protect Mueller. Which would lead one to the conclusion that the Senate really does not want the investigation, nor does the Republican House.
Name one issue that the Republican Senate has accomplished when it comes to fairness and objectivity on issues. There aren't any.
It is time to put Term Limits on the ballot in every State. It is the only thing that will help. This should be true for every Senator, House Member and especially the Supreme Court.
5
Brett Kavanaugh's ter limit should be one hour and he should spend it at an AA meeting.
5
@Daisy He should also go to Temper Tantrum Therapy
1
Dems probably should go center-left to win in 2020, but chances are that as long as the DNC doesn't allow Clinton to run, the next president will be a Democrat. Now, the acting AG needs to be shown the door as soon as possible. Further, I can't believe that Mr. Stephens would allow for a wall with any type of immigration package. That is straight insane.
Mr. Stephens, we will have the stuffing knocked out of us, when Trump is elected to serve a second-term presidency.
Poor man, surrounded by Iagos and orts in The White House; cordial relations with the Russian Bear and the Camel Prince are cooling, while he pardons the Thanksgiving Turkey.
If the national tide turns, and The Mob starts howling, Trump will be in need of a safety-net. The economy remains volatile, the housing market is slumping, the dairy farms are lingering toward a drought, and while politicians, philosophers and pheasants are in abundance, the weather forecast continues bleak.
Gail Collins and Bret Stephens offer some food for the soul, and wishing them, Judge Ginsburg, and All Americans, a moment in time to celebrate this coming holiday, with hope and a renewal of faith that we can do better in helping each other, rebuild and restore our Nation.
1
what will Trump have for Thanksgiving? Perhaps hamburgers as he already is a turkey which will probably be the excuse he uses to pardon himself.
1
Isn't it interesting that nobody, even these two, has a good idea about how to prepare to be president, and therefore who is a good possibility? There really is no farm team, unlike the British shadow cabinet, where there are clear candidates for all offices in the wings, and they are actually shadowing their possible future office, preparing to take over immediately. And everyone can see how they would govern well before they actually had the opportunity.
I also find it interesting how someone like Bill Clinton is praised by Conservatives for being conservative and governing well when that suits them, and disparaging him as a slime ball and a typical Democratic failure when that works for them. They should just admit that our Democratic presidents have done much better jobs than the Republican ones. But that requires some detail and some discussion of the basis of such judgments.
What is problematic is the tendency to throw in gratuitous comments and name-dropping, like Stephens' comments about Clinton and infrastructure projects, which then do not get discussed but appear to be a considered point.
This is what actually leads to nastiness -- almost like Trump's tweets and name-calling, just more sneaky.
Why not stick to a topic, actually discuss it, and then, if interested, suggest another topic to be discussed later, rather than relying on snide remarks and throwing out un-true truisms? Snark is cheap, and usually not funny.
@JustThinkin No farm team?? Look at all the Democratic governors, senators representatives!
It would seem that many thinking Conservatives are owning up to their preferred party's failures.
I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to finally own all three branches of government and only be able to put on a clown show.
All those years of obstruction finally led them to what they thought was the promised land. Then the rural, Christian voters they courted selected a thrice married philanderer from New York City of all places. All he had to do is convince them he thought like they did, hated the same people they did, and make them feel they were the "real Americans".
Don't wish for something too hard, you might get it. Now the dream of "fiscal responsibility", "the rule of law", and America being the "leader of the Free World" is in disarray.
The above mentioned voters were courted for years (Southern Strategy anyone?) and finally delivered. How do you like it now?
1
The Democrats should nominate Admiral William McRaven (USN, Ret) for President in 2020. Young, handsome, eloquent, patriotic, in favor of the Constitution ...I could go on. Read about him. He could absolutely join the rural and urban Democrats.
3
@JP Tolins
Unfortunately, he is ill with leukemia.
1
For starters, I hope Democrats choose a governor or ex-governor, someone with _broad executive experience_ ..."
Would private executive experience count? That would cover John Delaney even though his public experience is as a congressman.
"a candidate who is from a purple or even a red state, and knows how to talk to and bargain with the other side"
Another reason is to convince conservative voters to support them. Simply put, Cuomo could get elected governor of NY without winning a single conservative voter, but one cannot do so in a red state. Reason for purple/red state candidate aside, why did you omit Montana's Steve Bullock? With the possible exception of New Orleans, that's the most red territory governed by a Democrat.
The sentence that jumped out and grabbed me was "Bret: For starters, I hope Democrats choose a governor or ex-governor, someone with broad executive experience, rather than a senator or congressman." Personally, I couldn't care less about our two poxed houses, I'm hoping to cast for someone who knows how to govern.
You stopped talking about Trump, so you could stat talking about the inhouse fights at the Democratic house.
That circus will go on for a few more years. They are bound to be so distracted with their in house squabbles that 2020 will come and go before they decide if Nancy is their leader, or if Ocasio-Cortez will stage another sit down.
Meantime the world and the GOP point and laugh.
Want to have a chance in 2024? Stop the squabbling and get to work, show people why you were a better choice than the GOP. Or prove your critics right and show how you are the party of ‘we can’t agree on anything other than talking about Trump’
Gail and Brett are just too witty. But their comic relief is sorely needed. I'm an agnostic about who the Democrats should run. One theory, which Brett Stephens espouses is the logical centrist course. Intuitively, that makes sense. We need to reduce our exposure from the attacks of the hard right and with a moderate Democrat there is the possibility of peeling off some moderate Republicans and Republican leaning independents who will have no excuse if the Democratic candidate is John Hickenlooper or some other moderate with executive experience. But I think there is the counterargument that what elected Barack Obama was not his moderation but his progressive idealism and the fact that he turned out the African American vote for him like no one else. So, there might be millions of new voters registered or newly registered who will support a charismatic progressive. I think it is up to the primary electorate. In theory, one would think that the electoral map is now so favorable for the Democrats, with that Blue Wall coming back in the Midwest and all of those large red and purple states in play, namely, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and possibly even Texas, that the Democrats should win who ever they run certainly after we spend the next two years exposing Trump's skeletons and especially if the red hot economy cools off. No economy, and Trump is as dead as door nail. Alternatively, he should be beaten by his own personality, cruel and childish as it is.
1
Gail / Why be surprised that Ben Sasse was going to be one of those semi-heroic rebels but he hasn’t really risen to the occasion. After all, he is mostly hype , a big fish in the small pond of Plainview, Nebraska and Midland University.
His vote for Kavanaugh said it all.
1
"Bret: For the record (and because I don’t think I’ve said anything in this conversation yet that will make get our readers hackles up)" Sorry Bret but mine go up every time I see Flake characterized as a principled conservative statesman. You said: "I certainly liked Republican Jeff Flake’s vow not to vote for any more judicial nominations until the Senate votes to protect Robert Mueller." Flake has taken similar 'principled' and 'courageous' stands many times only to vote with the GOP, most recently when he blithely accepted the totally inadequate and rushed FBI investigation into Kavanaugh. And since he is retiring from the Senate, what does he possibly have to lose by keeping his vows?
And then, another hackle raiser: "There’s nothing the party cares about more than those judges. It’d only take one more Republican to make it work." And who pray tell might that be? Collins, the queen of cowardice? Murkowski, who used a quirky Senate rule to vote "present" rather than a conscientious "no" on Kavanaugh? McConnell is on a mission to pack the federal judiciary with right wing partisan judges who, though unelected, will 'legislate from the bench' for the next 30 to 40 years. The only thing that will mitigate the damage is how little time is left on the Senate calendar.
1
I think I appreciate the spirit of Bret's statement, "If the name of the game is to beat Trump in 2020, the best way to assure that outcome is to steer the party toward the center, not the left."
But I don't think "center" is the operative word. I may be projecting my own preferences, but I see convincing evidence that many Americans are receptive to policies that are well to the left of the traditional center, from economic issues to various cultural ones and gun safety.
The thing to steer toward is not moderation on concrete policies, but moderation in attitude and rhetoric. The American people need to see that Democrats are not so carried away with visions of social justice or economic redistribution that they can't tolerate nuanced discussion and can barely tolerate the existence of dissenting minds.
A non-progressive, peering into the Opinion Section of The Times (including these comments sections), could be forgiven for thinking progressives care more about sex and gender than anything else, and that they are represented chiefly by militant feminists who see in the concept of patriarchy a means of putting all males on the defensive as more or less culpable members of an oppressor class; popular variations being "white males" and "heterosexual white males". This is politics for losers.
Democrats should offer progressive choices without being progressive caricatures. What they must steer toward is fellowship with all those they mean to serve, to lead, and to persuade.
2
Whenever progressives complain about our system of federal government, it makes me ponder why they think this tact will help win over voters outside of CA and NYC. We get that you think you are superior to those in flyover country, but the fact remains that NYC and CA have crumbling infrastructure, excess taxes, unaffordable housing, are over-populated, and need to import food and water (NYC from upstate) to sustain themselves. And you wonder why we want conservative judges?
2
@LTJ Well, we wonder what wanting conservative judges has to do with everything else in your comment.
1
Thank you for talking about real issues. Every time we discuss Donald’s immoral, unethical behavior, we stoop to his level. Let’s stay focused and bring this country back.
1
The tragedy of the toxic and incompetent administration in Washington is that we spend so much time in outrage and argument and following the misdeeds of Trump appointees,friends and family. What has just happened in California should be consuming more of our concern.In normal times we would be spending much more time grieving that thousands are homeless because their communities burned to the ground and so many are dead or missing.Thousands are having to breathe unhealthy air .This is a national disaster but it is a footnote to the news from Washington.On Thanksgiving we should keep the victims of wildfire destruction in our thoughts and demote politics.
1
The Democrats aren't even in power in one body and yet they are already squabbling like school-children. What is most clearly evident is that the 2018 Democratic House caucus is going to be a mirror image of the 2010 Republican House conference: filled with their own version of the Freedom Caucus that derailed the Republicans ability to pass legislation without Democratic votes and all the goodies that came along with that.
We are going to see the new Speaker (I presume it's Pelosi, but who can be sure right now?) reaching across the aisle to look for 10-20 votes on all key legislation in order to sideline her own bomb throwers. And with all the goodies the Republicans want.
These early signs are going to give suburban housewives and one time Democrat voters heartburn very quickly, if they already haven't.
As a former 37 year resident of Arizona, I fail to understand the media's love of Jeff Flake. He's all hat and no cowboy. I don't listen to him, because I'm too busy watching his feet.
2
Tacking to the center didn’t work so well for Dems last time. A lot of voters voted for trump who would have voted for Bernie. Standing for something meaningful seems to be the thing.
3
Always good to stop talking about Trump. But in a discussion of elections bringing the country together Bret's comment that the night was "not quite good enough" for the Democrats identifies a serious threat to our democracy. The Senate popular vote was overwhelmingly Democratic while the Senate is not. There were multiple state houses where the majority Democratic vote did not result in the party winning a majority of seats and governors races that arguably hinged on voter suppression laws made in state houses that remained in those same gerrymandered hands. We cannot come together to search for consensus with a government at all levels answerable, if at all, to the minority. People need to see that their vote counts. If not the most "benign" outcome is those who declare it all corrupt and drop out of participation. But chaos lies in other paths that could be chosen by those who are not represented and should not be dismissed.
3
Biggest midterm gain of seats for any party in 40 years, we held losses in the Senate and Bret says "the night was not quite good enough for Democrats." Bret is not a credible person.
3
@Peter
'Biggest midterm gain of seats for any party in 40 years'
2018, Democrats won 37 seats.
2010, GOP won 63 seats.
The 'biggest midterm gain' was by the GOP when Obama was president.
Then again reality never mattered to Democrats
1
@AutumLeaff Don't you recall Karl Rove's REDMAP strategy? It's the reason the GOP won those seats in 2010 and have continued to gerrymander and supress votes to 'win' ever since.
What is left of the Republican ideology that a 'smaller federal government is good', when gutting healthcare & earned benefits to pay for tax cuts for the 1% leaves our most vulnerable citizens sick and destitute? Where 'placing fewer regulations on the people' now means corporations are people (Citizens United ruling), with the right to pollute your air and water with impunity. Republicans also believe in 'the state's rights to make their own laws, based on the beliefs of their citizens.' As all recent data shows, The Will of the People to elect their representatives is disregarded and cheating is acceptable (see https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/mapping-how-gerrymandering-will-affect-2018-vote).
But you say the Trump administration is all in favor of states’ rights. Except when it’s not (see: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/02/trump-states-rights-education-sanctuary-drilling-492784).
So Republicans: What again is your ideology and why do you continue to put up with two-faced lying, cheating and stealing as the only means of achieving it?
2
Yes, Bret, the popular vote for Senators is irrelevant. But sadly, it also shows that democracy in the U.S. is irrelevant.
4
why does everyone and his brother- in- law
have this misplaced hope in Ben Sasse?
this guy pontificates on morality, writes
books about how the rest of us should
admire the way he goes about his business
as a Senator and then votes with Trump
more than 90 percent of the time. I, for
one, do not want him to run for president
or anything else for that matter.we have
more than enough political poseurs in
the United States Congress.
15
He votes not with Trump, because Trump doesn’t come up with his own ideas, let alone legislation. Ben Sasse votes with Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party.
4
You have voiced one of my worst nightmares - Thomas retiring. That allows Trump to replace him with Thomas' ideological twin but 30 years younger. Democrats are nervous about the health of RBG and other more liberal judges but this would be almost as bad.
5
It's fun to speculate about who might come forward out of the Democrat ranks to stake out the center-left. I like the Hickenlooper thought. Also, Inslee though his state is mighty blue. Maybe Northam? Definitely not Cuomo (too scary).
Unfortunately, I think Biden's time has passed -- though it would've been great fun to watch him duke it out (maybe literally) with The Donald on the national stage.
1
How about Jon Tester?
@Tim C
Amy Klobuchar
I've often thought that the beset way to get rid of Trump would be to have the new services, all news services, completely ignore him for a week or two. His head would implode from the lack of attention.
6
Oh, I sooo totally agree. The political cartoon in my head right now!!!. They could find a way to do that. You should start a Twitter campaign. Just think; a day without "fake news!"
1
Whimsy is easier than thoughtful analysis.
1
Thanksgiving stuffing may be a liability alright. But nothing compared to our political hacks 'a la McConnell' and 'a la Trump', stuffing their egos...and pockets...at our expense. In the near future, even when the democrats take the House, I'm afraid your republican 'friends' will maneuver their power to create confusion, if not chaos, to show their 'forte': obstructionism!
1
From 1994 on clinton sold out to the wingers laying the predicate for the great recession.
1
These conversations make the need for Xanax more desirable.
The political condition of America is more than anxiety-ridden and depressing.
Trickle down misery.
If Marbury v. Madison had been decided the other way, we wouldn't be having this argument. We wouldn't have a UNITED States of America, either. The country probably wouldn't even have made it to 1860 before it had a Civil War.
Trump promised the "best and the brightest", huh? Not that anyone with two brain cells to rub together believed him, but David Halberstam's book by that title was about the horrible decisions that can be - and were - made by a bunch of Ivy League school alums; at least they were within the mainstream of intellectual life. Not totally unaware of it.
Whitaker played football in college. I wonder how many times he was concussed - it might explain some things.
Republicans may not be "know-nothings" but their leaders are - or pretend to be.
I would be embarrassed to have to defend their ignorance.
Of course the Senate popular vote -- which the Democrats indeed won overwhelmingly -- is "irrelevant" to an old white guy wishfully thinking that center/left is the only way to beat someone in 2020 who won in 2016 by the skin of his untapped reservoir tip! But squaring the distance of two more years MOVING FORWARD will exponentially earmark tomorrow's higher purpose to void MAGA meanings limited to mere live-for-the-moment yesterdays anyway.
1
If you can't have dialog over Thanksgiving, there is always "Friendsgiving."
@kaydayjay
Friendsgiving
That's the holiday on Friday after Thanksgiving right? the one where you actually have friends over to have a good time, have food and drink and actually enjoy the holiday right?
I like that day.
A few states have more senators (2) than members of the house of representatives (1). Something, someting, summink, sumpin' about that aint right.
Bret, Whitaker is a member of that conclave of conservative legal minds the Federalist Society. He is good friends with the head jerk Leonard Leo.
Who knows how many of those other geniuses believe that Marbury vs Madison was wrong. Or that states can annull laws.
The real test will be if the Supreme Court ever gets to decide if his appointment is legal. Strict constructionists they are supposed to be, but we will see if they find a way around the straight ahead wording in the constitution. The constitution should take precedent over any laws or administrative rulings, especially for strict constructionists.
But dollars to donuts these political hacks (Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and any who join them) will find some wayward interpretation to hang their hats on.
4
Outrage is expressed here about States nullifying Federal law, but what do you call legalizing marijuana, or declaring that you are a Sanctuary city, or a Sanctuary state. Don't these State actions nullify current Federal laws?
1
@Mark Mecham "Don't these State actions nullify current Federal laws?"
No. A state's decriminalization of an action, like possession of marijuana, has no effect whatsoever on the federal law regarding that action. All it means is that where previously the both the federal and state governments arrested and prosecuted people for the action, now only the federal government does it.
1
Trump must have noticed that he wasn't front-page news so has recently - like a 4-year old - fingerpainted on the wallpaper in the bathroom with something only a four-year old in a bathroom would consider to be a good substitute for paint.
1
Line of the day:
… who knew I could still be floored?
1
This is why you will not find me at a polling booth. Yea, we all hate trump, but do the trump haters have a better plan than "money, money, money"? No.
So go shove it where all that money goes. The piggy bank? Where do all the rich people keep the money? We all need to blow the piggy bank and share in the misery.
Money buys nothing worthwhile!
1
No, I’m still not a fan of Bret Stephens. Someone who wants more conservative judges needs to explain how it’s a good idea that our judicial branches at all levels seem to have no problem with looking the other way while rampant partisan gerrymandering is allowed to decide elections. That’s in addition, of course, to blatant disenfranchisement of minorities. Could there be any better examples of judicial partisanship than what was allowed to happen to African-Americans and Native Americans who merely wanted to vote in the recent election?
When the voting rights act was struck down by the Supreme Court several years ago on the grounds that it was no longer needed, no one with a shred of integrity believed that it was anything but a political genuflection to the GOP. What we witnessed in Georgia and North Dakota this year should make us ashamed as citizens. More conservative judges, Bret? No, I’d prefer judges that think it’s a good idea to let American citizens vote.
371
@John Vasi
They had RECORD NA turnout in ND; the law was ruled valid and the tribes made the effort to get everyone in compliance - took less than a week so the ballyhoo was all for nothing.
4
@tbandc
about nothing? intentionally trying to deprive under-served citizens the right to vote is not "nothing". If white people in SD were being deprived their right to vote under a Dem administration I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you would be screaming bloody murder.
81
@tbandc Thanks to the ballyhoo there was an unprecedented effort and success to turn out the Native-American vote. So there!
32
Today, Gail-Bret's discussion was a tad banal, but two issues touched on deserve comment: Senate misrepresentation and attorney general defamation.
Bret said, "I keep hearing people go on about something called the “Senate popular vote,” which Democrats won overwhelmingly, but that’s like mentioning your high G.P.A. at a singing contest: commendable but irrelevant."
"Commendable but irrelevant"? No, Senate misrepresentation is not a joke. A healthy republic is nothing if it is not representative of the people. A "republic" which allows a minority to dictate to the majority is a republic in decline; it is failing, it will fall.
Agreeing to two senators for each state was a compromise to get smaller colonies to join a union with larger colonies by ratifying a constitution for a new republic with a federal government. The compromise was necessary because there was distrust between the 13 original colonies. They had been independent, self-governing, united only in their struggle to end English rule. They wanted assurance their voices would not be drowned out by the larger states.
Today, America's fifty states preserve their sense of identity, individuality, resident allegiance, but national identity and allegiance prevail over state affiliation. What started out as giving small states equal voice has turned into giving small states the biggest voice. It must be remedied.
The other issue is Whitaker as attorney general. It is a Trump mockery of justice and the Constitution.
242
@jabarry
"The other issue is Whitaker as attorney general. It is a Trump mockery of justice and the Constitution."
Don't you mean YET ANOTHER Trump mockery of justice and the Constitution??
42
@jabarry When I travel, I say I am an American. Isn't that what Republicans say they are for as well: why do we have to be hyphenated? We are all inconsistent, of course, but there is a difference between keeping cultural identity (I love the way Southerners can slice someone to shreds and it's okay as long as the insult is ended with a "bless her heart," for example, and bluegrass and Dixie-land jazz) and giving rural areas that often use the most aid and resources more power than than their urban neighbors. On the other hand, the founders gave a lot of thought to keeping the majority from becoming a mob and riding roughshod over the minority's rights. This is the problem Trump has found: more than health care is complicated.
8
@jabarry
You correctly state:
“Agreeing to two senators for each state was a compromise to get smaller colonies to join a union with larger colonies by ratifying a constitution for a new republic with a federal government.” “They wanted assurance their voices would not be drowned out by the larger states.”
But then you argue that this carefully crafted compromise, essential to getting approval of the Constitution, must now be abandoned, presumably to be replaced with a Senate that is population based.
What would make you think that the valid concern (i.e. domination by larger states), which was the reason for the current 2 Senators per state structure, has disappeared?! What makes you think that Wyoming would actually support making the Senate a copy of the House, where their 0.2% of the vote (1 out of 435) is basically meaningless. Why would they entrust all decisions to large-state liberals who despairingly refer to them as “fly-over states” and view them as the intellectual/cultural wasteland between the coasts?!
If you feel strongly about making your change, have at it. The Constitution provides a process. It respects that when parties agree on specific terms (in this case a House that reflects population but a Senate with 2 per state) without which the the overall deal (Constitution) would not have been approvable, then those terms must be honored until/unless those members agree otherwise.
Good luck on getting the small states to agree to their political neutering!
7
"The nation is not going to be a better place for having Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court"
That is true on so many levels. His confirmation did affirm the moral insolvency of the Republican Party, though, which is progress in a way.
300
@Matt
Kavanaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court would be of little impost except for Marbury v. Madison, of which Gail and Brett apparently approve,
1
It's alarming that the Dems aren't raising even more of a stink over the true stink-bomb of Whitaker's appointment. The Republicans are now systemically nominating people who have committed outright fraud, and it's barely an issue all by itself. What's Whitaker doing even walking the streets, free from jail, much less working for someone like Jeff Sessions? Much less appointed to AG? When are people going to see that defrauding innocent people (like Whitaker's company did) is nothing more than stealing? If someone robbed a bank of $25 million and got caught, would he or she be given a job as the nation's top law enforcement official? It's ludicrous to even think about, but that's what we're doing here. And, of course, Donald Trump is even worse, having defrauded the government of hundreds of millions of dollars in addition to all his other scams and still getting elected.
It's time for Dems to take the "law and order" gavel away from the now fully corrupted Republicans and start banging it with all their might. We need major crackdowns on white collar crime and election finance corruption. And no-one is really stepping up to address it with any urgency. I was already completely disgusted with the ultra-hypocritical, criminally-complicit GOP, but if the Dems don't address these issue quickly, we'll lose the opportunity for reform, maybe for generations to come.
4
What I expect from the democrats now are:
a. purity tests that will produce a polarizing non-candidate to run against Trump (so as to ensure that the MAGA set - who temporarily have put away their robes, crosses, and MAGA caps - bring them out in full force to menace others).
b. surrender to Trump while declaring victory in the name of bipartisanship ("you may deport half, and kill half of the people you don't like as long as you do it nicely; we will let the troops fire across the border as long as we can support the habitat for sad sacks in Ohio; and - we beg you - please delay your cash grab until the following Monday").
c. grand plans that can never see light of day (medicare for all; forgiveness of all student loans)
d. Efforts to ingratiate themselves to the most hateful, vituperative segment of MAGA voters by insisting on giving them free money
What I hope they do is:
a. grow a spine
b. focus on redistricting and voter registrations starting now
c. block everything Trump wants - the ugly, the bad, and even the good (if something like that is every proposed)
d. revisit 'a' above.
4
Yeah, but one of those Republican Senators is Mitt Romney , not a Trump fan!
You’re right, Gail, “everybody yearns for a governor” to run against DJ in 2020 - and, regretfully I must say, not a woman. I still believe the main reason DJ is In the White House is because misogyny and toxic masculinity is hiding behind a mask of patriotism and political fervor in a misguided attempt to cling to the “good old days” when men were men and the “gals” didn’t worry their pretty little heads about menfolks business. The “boys” and their “handmades” stuck together and managed to do the stupidest thing ever recorded in the annals of political history - elect the most foolish, clownish, incompetent liar in the USA to hold dominion over theirs and their children’s and grandchildren’s lives for years to come.
So, getting back to governors - howsabout Bob Casey from PA? He’s been in the “family business” for quite a while now and he seems to hold the very high credential of being “normal” and “appropriate” in his political life. Hey! The “bar” is a lot lower than it used to be - 2020 could get really scary as we get closer to it. I’m jus’ sayin’ . . . .
Hey, Mary from Schwenkesville I'm from Slippery Rock!
Yes, Bob's a great guy, but I've never even heard of him making even a rumble on the Senate floor. IF DJT makes it to the 2020 election, I'm not sure Bob would be able to trade punches. Now Warren, man she can truly throw them back without lowering herself to his level. Now playground bully names from her mouth!
Why does a person like Bret Stephens still cling to the notion that he is a republican? The republican party, as he seems to envision it, no longer exists even if it ever did.
Like David Brooks, Stephens seems to love the through-a-gauze-filter Bukleyesque hail-fellow-well-met, pshaw, pshaw men's club style republican. You know, those guys, in empty but well-tailored suits, in dark wood panelled rooms, debating oh so civilly about lofty things like how to take more from the poor and give to the rich.
Saying he is a republican these days is like admitting to a socially unacceptable disease, or belonging to a defunct entity like the Whigs.
5
I am just basking in the fact that Trump made it a mission to take Big John Tester down in Montana, and Tester won by 4 points and his first over 50% of the vote win.
It makes me believe whatever is going on, deep down common sense will prevail over Trumpian rhetoric.
4
I suspect we haven't heard the last from Jeff Flake. I think he may declare as a candidate for president in 2020. What say you Gail and Brett?
1
My dream conversation for this Thanksgiving would be Gail’s and Bret’s. Can we imagine Uncle Archie and Aunt Ruth not throwing the turkey legs and mashed potatoes at each other when the need for sensible and just immigration reform is mentioned? Or when saying grace thanking the Above that our nation is still capable of checks and balances as we witnessed during last week’s elections? But alas I fear that we are not quite there yet but may just be getting closer.
Now Mr. Trump.,. Perhaps, we can eke through one glorious feast without speaking his name. Frankly, out of respect for the hosts we mustn’t. But on any other day he remains front and center in our minds, I’m sure. He has passed awful and crossed over to totally and irreparably unhinged and a clear and present danger to our democracy...heck, to the world. Well, I could go on forever. But instead I will wish for us at least one day, this Thursday, a time of smiles and laughs and love. We can get back to “work” the day after. Mangia bene, all!
2
Flake and Sasse are weak hypocrites. All talk about virtue and no virtuous action. No person who is half-oriented to reality should have any faith that they will DO anything to obstruct Trump's destruction of the politics of the country.
3
Gail and Brett, you're wasting your breath, your time and the Times's digital ink waiting on Ben Sasse to man up. I had hopes for him at one time, too, but he's kept his tail between his legs way more times than his bark would indicate.
8
Perhaps Clarence Thomas and that other Brett can become besties, and drink BEER. After all, they have so much in common and are obviously in way over their heads. Placeholders and frankly, weirdos.
Seriously.
5
Please, Bret, Trump's not a Manhattanite. He's a jumped-up conman from Queens with delusions of adequacy.
15
As for the dispute over whether Democrats should move towards the center or towards the left, consider that the center of our national policy wish list is already far to the left of any Republican goal.
Most Americans will tolerate some forms of abortion. Most Americans want stricter gun safety laws. Most Americans want to address income & opportunity inequality, especially as it contributes to a power imbalance in Washington. Most Americans see affordable healthcare for everyone as desirable. Most Americans see immigration & diversity as good things that enrich our culture and our economy. Most Americans appreciate our traditional role as a refuge for those “huddled masses yearning to breathe free”. Most Americans are proud of our role as the leader of the free world, building international structures of peace & prosperity through the rule of law. Most Americans like our presence on the world stage, not hiding in fear behind walls and barriers. Most Americans acknowledge the reality of climate change and the need to prepare. Most Americans want a President who doesn’t embarrass us or nibble away at the foundations of our republic.
Very, very few Americans are pleased by the deep divisions and antipathy in our country.
Republicans seem to care about none to these aspirations. Their recent behavior suggests that they are really seeking permanent one-party rule in the service of the plutocrats who want to roll back the New Deal and the Great Society.
15
Wow, I would love to have this sent out as an op-ed.
2
As a staunchly former--and never again--Republican, I'm with Bret Stephens in hoping the Democrats don't lurch too far to the left. If they stick with healthcare and the economy, and remember that the big tent includes rural Americans as well as the usual gaggle of urbanites, they will crush the ever shrinking opposition.
8
@Mary
I know what you mean, mary… the horrors of clean water, clean air, educational opportunities for all children...
the evils just never end.
8
@Mary I admire your sentiment but until dark money and gerrymandered distric are dealt with it will remain a pipe dream.
2
You're talking about representation and population, numbers.
You endorse the worst identity group politics: white, rural, angry voters should have more power than larger, more diverse populations concentrated in urban areas.
A permanent gerrymander.
Equally true, what you never say, is that your plan invests power, the say-so in failed states to tell successful, productive states what to do and how.
You put taker states at the helm.
Its like Wells Fargo put their mail room in charge, well...bad example. I mean they could hardly do worse, right?
Honestly, what is that? You want Alabama schooling New York on economics?
Mississippi to run race relations?
Utah explaining religious freedom?
The electoral college was well-meaning, an attempt to calibrate scales already drifting out of balance, a sincere and marginally successful effort to operationalize "One man, one vote", contemporary biases notwithstanding.
But it can never work outside the limited circumstance briefly pertaining at the time of its creation.
It has become a cudgel, a weapon of the failed and the intransigent to keep the forward drive of the nation in neutral.
When the administration, with supine acquiescence from Republicans in Congress, trashes every important rule and tradition of American governance, its bizarre to see enraged arguments from the Right for preserving this antiquated and dangerous relic of our early years on the grounds that its tradition, 'the way we do things'.
24
@oogada I couldn't have said it better myself! How is "one man, one vote" and everybody's vote having the same value, not Democracy. How is a rural trailer-dweller's vote 10 times more valuable than that of a college-educated urbanite's? Both those citizens should most definitely have the same right to have a say in choosing their governing bodies and their president.
3
Bret: "Honestly, I’m somewhat surprised his presence in an office that requires Senate confirmation isn’t triggering a stronger response among Democrats" Stephens is quick to take Democrats to task for not being aggressive enough or for being too aggressive. However he rarely takes a strong stand criticizing Republicans for their complete capitulation to Trump and their failure to provide oversight. The Democrats are taking the issue to court.There is almost no Republican pushback over Whitaker.
39
@PaulM,
Is it that Brett's neglecting to criticize the Republicans on this or is he merely being realistic? I'm no expert, but even I know they're not going to stand up to Trump about Whitaker. They haven't confronted him on much of anything these past two years.
2
@woodswoman
While you may be correct in saying it is unrealistic to expect this group of GOP'ers to criticize or take action against Trump, part of the way to get them to criticize him and to take action against him IS to loudly criticize them AND to agitate them to take action against President Trump and his actions. They would make a good start by joining the Democratic legal suit against Whitaker's 'enshrinement'.
3
Jeff Flake does what Jeff Flake does best: Objects quietly and accomplishes nothing. Kyrsten Sinema is by no means my ideal Senator but at least she'll actually vote to disrupt the Trump agenda on serious issues. Flake only ever cowered.
As for Whitaker, we always knew his appointment was going to the courts. The issue has never been decided. The OLC is arguing the Vacancies Reform Act takes precedent. Democrats are saying the Appointments take precedent because the cited appointments were extremely temporary in nature.
No unconfirmed appointee ever had the time to make a decision worth challenging. They were literally seat warmers. Whitaker's appointment is obviously intended as a semi-permanent work around to appoint Trump's political hatchet man over Mueller. That's illegal.
The Senate lawsuit wasn't Democrats' only reaction though. Democrats are planning to investigate Sessions' dismissal. They are already threatening to subpoena Whitaker. Meanwhile Chuck Schumer plans to use the power of the budget to make McConnell's life difficult.
I think Republicans, for their part, are mostly just stalling for time. If Democrats want to protect Mueller, Republicans will expect concessions. They need to be careful though. If the court rules against Whitaker, McConnell lost his leverage.
4
More than 30 years ago, when newly out of law school, I had had the privilege of working as a law clerk at the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. At that time, there were judges on the court who had been appointed by presidents from Truman through Reagan. Some were more liberal, others more conservative. All, however, were very well qualified to sit on the court in terms of knowledge, character, life experience and judgment. They shared, first and foremost, the goal of deciding cases correctly under the law. In my two years at the court, I cannot recall a single discussion focusing on politics. The "conservative" judges Mr. Stephens so admires are of a very different from the judges of the past. Nurtured in The Federalist Society, they are driven by ideology and political partisanship. The most important characteristic in selecting these men and women to serve as federal judges is an unwavering adherence to political ideology. Everything else is secondary when considering qualifications. They are nominated not by our wholly ignorant president but by the Federalist Society to whom he has outsourced the job. Undoubtedly, the Trump judges will decide cases in ways that please Mr. Stephens. I fear, however, that in the decades to come the decisions they issue are going to undermine American believe in the objectivity and fairness of the federal judiciary.
99
"I certainly liked Republican Jeff Flake’s vow not to vote for any more judicial nominations until the Senate votes to protect Robert Mueller."
Jeff Flake's promises are empty.
But I'm more in awe that Gail and Brett agree about so many things although I tend to trust him as much as I trust Jeff Flake.
6
I just wish a person like Bret had more influence over the Republicans in Congress; just imagine the co-operation and compromise between the two parties! Some good work might actually get done.
In this conversation, he brings up the biggest decision the Democrats will have to face in the next election: will they run Moderate or Progressive candidates? The exciting Far Left has more to offer us, and those candidates did very well in the midterms.This was thanks, I think, to the high Dem. turnout and their resistance to Trump. ("Anyone other than a Republican".) However, if the DNC needs to attract disillusioned Republicans in 2020 they'll have to run a Moderate; even more so if they want to run a woman.
4
What else do Democrats portend? The global sell-off in stock markets is a leading indicator.
The last time the West was influenced by Progressives, it had; low growth; CB bond buying; open borders; cyber attacks; nuclear threats; planes disappearing from radar; mass transit malfunctions; EU breaking apart; outlawing of Christianity; Islamization of European continent, particularly London; virtually everywhere under threat of terror. That was the bright side. Along with, many of the Dem's that won House seats, ran closer to Trump than any other.
5
I think we have the Republicans to thank for all of the above PLUS two unnecessary wars we still can’t find a way to exit with all of the loss of lives and wasted treasure. And I seem to remember George W Bush handing Obama a stock market and a banking system in free fall.
13
@Jabin,
I'm pretty sure you and I don't live on the same Planet. Exactly where is "Home" to you?
5
@Jabin When and under what progressive influence did all these misfortunes happen? Outlawing Christianity? Open borders in the US? Cyber attacks due to progressive ideas? Mass transit malfunctions, due to progressiveness? Threat of terror? Progressive fault? Hasn't US domestic terror sky-rocketed under this administration? Aren't we having an attack weekly as of late? There no blinder blind man that the one who does not want to see.
1
nice to see someone say in print that bill clinton was an effective president. especially a conservative. clinton's 8 years look like an episode of "Happy Days" compared to what we went through with GWB and what we are going through today.
44
Lord help me, I adore Bret Stephens. We will probably disagree about everything once Trump is out of office. But I can't shake the feeling that he's a nice guy who thinks before he speaks. Happy Thanksgiving, Gail and Bret!
171
@Jenna
i guess you know he wants Roe v Wade overturned.
M'jeez saying. he's a wolf in sheep clothing.
52
"He thinks before he speaks." Oh, really? So, you agree with him that the women who came forward with allegations of sexual assault were "part of a conspiracy by the Clintons"? You thought his enraged spitting that he "WENT TO YALE and PLAYED FOOTBALL" was judicial? Grabbing his daughter in a bear hug and inviting the girl's basketball team to the hearing were political theater.
13
@suejax I can like people who have different views than mine. If one consistently reads his columns, it's clear that he's not a wolf, in the cliched sense. If I am to help bridge this divide in the country, i will start by not condemning people who express themselves in a thoughtful and intelligent manner. Disagree with, yes. Condemn, no.
I'd rather the people on the other side of the aisle were like Bret Stephens than like Trump and his sycophants. If one doesn't see the difference, one should look deeper.
26
Refreshing dialogue, intelligent arguments with lots of room for good-natured humor. This was once the American way: free-wheeling debate, an absence of vulgarity and shouting, overriding respect and dignity. Now, thanks to the influence of Fox News and right-wing radio, team Trump invokes the charm of stadium drunks and over-served loudmouths in sports bars.
For Thanksgiving, how about some coast-to-coast prayers for Bob Mueller?
465
@Doc Right wing radio was a travesty as far back as 1992, maybe farther, but that's when I was first exposed to it. I had to work with someone who always listened to Rush Limbaugh and I had no choice when we were in his car. Limbaugh was a blowhard then and he and his colleagues are blowhards now. I don't bother with Fox News. Local Fox is okay, but cable Fox is better called Faux, as so many do call it.
15
Mr. Stephens did "get my hackles up" with his equivalency jab about the "senate popular vote." He noted there are several smaller states that are blue. That is irrelevant if the winners by increasingly larger margins of the popular vote are under represented.
Demographics show that in a few decades 70% of the senate, and thus, the judiciary, will be controlled by 30% of voters.
Elections for senators and House Members are designed so that a shrinking minority of Republicans from small, rural states can control this branch of gov't, select the judicial branch and, increasingly, due to the electoral college, elect the president by a minority of votes. This is a severe and growing problem.
I agree that diIviding power between Washington and the states is a good idea. Like you, I think Whitaker's opinion that states be able to nullify Federal law is crazy. Like my polity being ruled by a minority of "real Americans in "the Heartland." But then, I think it crazy that North and South Dakota are different states with four senators and those who live in D.C. or Puerto Rico have no representation in the senate.
21
“Bret: the best way to assure that outcome is to steer the party toward the center, not the left.”
The Democratic Party moving to be the Republican Party of the 80’s is what has caused them to lose over 1,000 State and Federal seats. The people want an opposition party not Republican-lite. Since Bill Clinton turned away from FDR to Wall Street they have been losing badly.
The people are progressive, when asked about individual issues. Medical marijauna passed in Utah. Felons can vote passed in Florida.
Now is the time for bold ideas.
*Over 55% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats want Medicare for All.
*A vast majority want marijuana legalization.
*Fair gun legislation - majority.
*Ending our vast military expansion and for profit military - majority.
*A Green New Deal to address climate change, while providing good jobs and reduce the worlds dependence on fossil fuels. Would also be a great export , expanding our economy. Another popular idea if taken to the people.
If the Democrats run to the center doing only incremental change, they will lose to Trump and also Congress.
22
It feels like Democrats running to the center is what helped Trump get elected in 2016.
The center is happy to tweak healthcare but keep the system basically in place even as the cost of healthcare is again bankrupting people. The center will fight for the environment as long as that doesn’t disrupt the apple cart too much. Listen to scientists — it’s going to take bold moves to try to fix the mess we’ve made.
There is a great deal of money in the center. We need to get money out of healthcare and education and everything that should be for public good. We need money out of politics. Will the center do that?
6
"It’s strange to think of our Manhattanite president being the political beneficiary of Jeffersonian distrust of big cities."
Charlatan's (even made in NY) have always held more sway in rural environments than in city environments for many reasons.
The spectacular book, "The Power of the Charlatan", pointed at by a NY Times article, outlines how the Charlatan's rise in European rural environments occurred with many detailed examples.
So it is now with Trump. He actually understands that rural begets belief which, properly fed, begets support for him. He actually is using the rural belief system effectively by co-opting people trained from birth to believe that for which there is no proof.
Leveraging belief systems is not illegal. It is quite savvy. But, the same methods Trump is using for ill, could be used and have been used for "good" (Obama used some of the same skills of the Charlatan, but, then, did not leverage his knowledge for destructive goals).
So, Dems. Stop pining for Hillary who defines the path to losing. Learn the power of the Charlatan (read the book). Make use of that power for "good".....IF Dems can do that.
I am not sure if Dems are, really, at the core, just as corrupt as Repubs.
After all, Obama's first speech after shedding the White House was to a Wall Street Bank for $400,000.
so, maybe, he was just a Charlatan too. Maybe that is where Democracy leads when the masses forget the origins of Democracy?
16
@Michael,
I can't blame you for being jaded, there's been Charlatans on both sides forever. But there's new kids starting to come on board who appear to have some real integrity and I'm not sure it's inevitable that they'll lose it. Much of what they become is going to be up to us.
So let's support and encourage them until we see otherwise; after all, we have everything to gain and not one thing to lose. Laying down our expectations because of the past will only guarantee more of what despise in the future. So please be of good heart, the best may be yet to come.
15
@Michael- Obama was an ambitious man and an aggressive politician. But he tried to make some positive changes. And succeeded against a powerful, often racist, opposition. I don't love him and you shouldn't "love" Ronald Reagan either. But he, unlike Trump, has my respect. He served the country far more than himself. "Maybe" it all comes down to percentages, but for the current administration, most of DJT's friends are under indictment. I can hardly wait for criminal charges to be made against him as well. He's hurt a lot of people "all kidding aside".
15
I would think that much of the country....those that watch politics sighed.
"For a Second There, We Stopped Talking About Trump"?
Excellent!
Now, let's make that more than just a few seconds! Really, not everything is about Donald Trump.
4
Sweet discord, Gail and Brett, this Thanksgiving week. Every day is thanksgiving. We are -- despite our dystopian barely functioning Trump government-- filled with gratitude and hope that the tide will turn in the 2020 election, if not well before.
There are pre-holiday season indicators portending change in the Trump White House. President Trump is here in Florida for his Thanksgiving week at Mar-a-Lago (a whole lot o' golfing goin' on), Ivanka Trump Kushner is on the hot griddle for using her personal email account for White House business, and a Democratic House on its way to rolling over the GOP do-nothing Congress. These signs of 2019 to come are harbingers of bigger changes coming down the train tracks, heading right toward Nell Fenwick -- we the people -- tied up on the tracks by Trump's Snidely Whiplash villains. Will Dudley Do-Right of the Mounties save us? (Canada has legalized pot). We're in Bullwinkle and Rocky territory these days, Looney Tunes in trumpworld. "The-the-the - th-th-th-- that's all folks!"
6
This bi-partisan colloquy is refreshing in a political world so often reduced to soliloquy, and a White house capable only of obloquy. But, I yearn for a time when we'll have better things to anticipate than the retiring of Clarence Thomas.
Still, it's Thanksgiving, and there are many things to be thankful for. And the warning too is welcome: Beware of too much stuffing, especially in shirts!
6
While it is true that the Senate disproportionately represents state, the real problem is how it has been weaponized by the polarization in our country. I don’t think the founding fathers ever intended that. They most likely envisioned senators who might actually have intelligent discourse and vote their conscience and the interests of their constituents.
But the there is a lot about our corrupt system they couldn’t have imagined.
3
I hope "modern conservatism" dies with the takeover of Orange County, California congressional seats by Democrats. It has severely damaged the country in so many ways. What I worry about is that Democrats will overreach or fight among themselves, and be voted out of office in 2020. House Democrats need to work hard to enact the legislation they promised to address real problems, even if it stalls in the Senate.
18
Here, Here!
I am time traveling Whitaker, I'm loyal to the Don.
I should have been here months ago Mueller to pick upon,
I also am a Bigfoot fan, conventions I attend
Secretly I think thatTrump is one, just look at his rear end,
Mueller should stop pretending that the Donald did collude,
Cause making that assumption is nasty and it’s rude,
Donald gave me the order, I’ll do as I was told,
And maybe in a month or two the issue will be cold,
And I know just why.
29
Very good discussion, with high marks to Brett, with whom I usually disagree, for elevating the discussion by bringing in Jefferson and Madison, Marbury v. Whitaker. Reminds me to read Joseph Ellis's "American Dialogue--The Founders and Us" for an excellent discussion of this dilemma: federal supremacy, Madison's "deeply held belief" and the compromise of "dual sovereignity--the idea of a nation caught, eternally, somewhere in the balance between the state and federal authority." This from the Sunday, November 4, 2018, review by Jeff Shesol, of the book. Thanks Gail and Brett.
4
"Federalism...is a very good thing, not least for uniting such a big country." It is astonishing that someone as smart as Bret can say this with a straight face. The progress and promise of Blue America will continue to be stunted as long as people keep telling this ridiculous lie. We are the dis-United States of America. Let's face up to this undeniable fact and figure out a responsible course of action.
Here's the peculiar irony of our times. Our 1st Civil War started because of secession. And the only thing that will prevent our 2nd Civil War will be...secession.
5
Although probably a wild card, if I were a democratic strategists, I would pursue Mitch Landrieu for these reasons: 1) he is moderate "liberal"; 2) he is from a red state; 3) he was a governor---we need some management experience desperately; 4) he is bright and articulate---good on his feet; 5) the only one that could make Trump look foolish in a debate (should add that is not as easy as it seems because Trump's base eats up foolish); and finally, this may seem counterintuitive, but he is relatively unknown. All the other candidates carry with them too much baggage or to put it another way too much material for Trump one-liners/insults. The only vulnerability Mr. Landrieu carries with him is his Southern heritage, which, (as he did with Jeff Sessions) I would love to see Trump disparage.
2
Yes! Calling all Democrats! Lets all put on our thinking caps and listen to the brilliant advice of a republican Bret Stephens. The same smart fellow that created Trump over the years with the use of conservative racist dog whistles and adherence to the Nixon Southern Strategy. Can't see any reason not to do that which Bret suggests, can you? Lets, as he says, embrace the democrats republicans embrace: Clintonian "center" political theory, that's the ticket. Lets all get conservative and live in that dreamworld not weighed down with rational thought!
11
If Trump bullies Congress into spending several $billion on the wall while 75,000 Californians and 15,000 Floridians are still climate refugees...
Where is the emergency funding request for FEMA?
12
There are plenty of reasons to be "unalterably opposed to it" (the wall).
1. It won't stop, or slow down even, illegal entry into USA
(think ladders, shovels, person-hoisting drones, breaches)
2. A huge waste of taxpayer mammon (see #1)
3. Ugly: the naked mole rat of infrastructure
4. Makes us akin to Soviet Communism and its morals
(recall a certain wall in Berlin)
5. Landscape damage and wildlife damage
6. Hydrogeographical disruption
OK, I dreamed up that last one, but seems plausible. In short, is a concrete ego-assuager really the best use of $20B?
11
I think the public is tired of talking about Trump---but the media is obsessed.
6
@Newell McCarty The media responds to the public. When the public stops clicking on every link that has the word Trump in it, the media will then know the public is tried of reading about Trump.
1
During Barak Obama's presidency, the Democrats did nothing but pander to Republicans when they had the majority in both houses. They accomplished absolute zero.
Why should we expect anything different from this crowd? With Pelosi being the top candidate for speaker, they're headed for another brilliant display of incompetence.
4
I’m NOT looking forward to them bumping heads. I think the party should unite as quickly as possible behind the strongest, most unTrumplike, best-positioned candidate. Sen. Klobuchar, in my opinion.
6
@RFM
Amy Klobuchar is my favorite prospect, too. She's smart, issues-oriented, down-to-business, beloved in her home state, and always civil.
And she has a spine. She acquitted herself in exemplary fashion at the Kavanaugh hearing, and wouldn't cave to some of her colleagues' pressure to demand Al Franken's resignation before he received the due process of a Senate investigation. And it sure doesn't hurt that she's a woman.
18
Bret's comment about the wall being a "dumb idea" was immediately negated by the "not unalterably opposed to it" continuation.
Ignoring the expense and limited use of such a structure, and the ridiculous ego-trip involved, it would create an environmental disaster. We're not the only species on this planet. Time to climb out of the human bubble and do some research.
Otherwise, this was an interesting read.
11
DT needs, thrives, on publicity-good and bad. Stop writing about him altogether and he'll completely unravel, melt down, and go-or be taken- away. The press has the power, use it.
4
People will be talking about Trump for decades to come.
1
@Mr Chang Shih An True. he will become the example parents use to advise their children of what not to do or what not to become. trump will be the synonym for every bad characteristic possible.
1
Gail,
Once again you prevail with your humor and insight.
Bret once again reveals his true colors in slips of the tongue, i.e., stacking the courts with conservative judges.
Why don't you include his support of overturning Roe v. Wade sometimes in your jovial feel-good show that we can be civil dialogues.
3
Add Eric Garcetti to the list of mayors.
It's frustrating to see Bret Stephens identified as a moderate conservative when he keeps spouting stuff like this about conservative judicial nominations. Bret, you claim to be clear-eyed about the president and the Republicans, so how dare you refer to those right-wing reactionary nuts who are being packed on to the courts as if they were simply a little to the right of middle?
You know as well as we do that the overall impact of all of these highly partisan judges with funny ideas about the rights of the citizenry will be to restrict reproductive rights, and begin to roll back the hard won civil rights in the areas of gender, sexuality, and race.
It's easy to opine about erring on the side of "conservatism," when, like me, you will continue to swim in the sea of white male privilege no matter what they do. When the courts conclude that Trump is within his rights to run and EPA which thinks that asbestosis is a safe product again, and that it's perfectly constitutional for American industry to go back to degrading our quality of air, water, and land, I think it's time for you to turn in your conservative card. I guess you could keep it though, as long as we stamp it "for ironic use only."
27
My wife and I (this is her husband, Norm) have two kids. Both grown.
But when they were young, we showed them movies. One was "Beauty and the Beast." Delightful! Especially the end when (amid glorious music--falling stars--brilliant light) the BEAST turns into--
--the handsome PRINCE we all knew was lurking there underneath.
"Are they going to live happily ever after," inquires the little china cup.
"Of course, they are, dear. Of course they are."
YOU, Mr. Stephens (and don't let it go to your head)--
--but YOU, Mr. Stephens--
--are the handsome prince I continually wish today's GOP would turn into.
Personable. Reasonable. With a touch of humor. Even a touch (and pardon me) of gentle self-deprecation. Articulate. Discerning.
'Cause (to be frank) I look at so many professional Republicans nowadays--
--and I see monsters. The BEAST if you will. Not the PRINCE.
Sigh.
But don't get me wrong, Ms. Collins.
I like you too.
I like BOTH of you.
Please keep it up. Keep up your dialogue.
Manna in the wilderness.
In this dry, dusty partisan wilderness--assailed by sudden windstorms of angry verbiage from left and right.
Mostly right.
But some left too.
Just a little.
Sometimes.
Thanks.
5
Temporary Attorney General Whittaker's support of "nullification" had a big proponent in Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, but that was before the Civil War. I thought the Civil War settled that issue, and no one has raised seriously raised "nullification" for about 150 years.
And Whittaker's private-sector support of a "male" toilet sounds like an investment scam promoted by George "Kingfish" Stevens, who of course was counselled by Algonquin T. Calhoun.
So Whittaker's connections to bad ideas should be obvious to anyone who even superficially vetted him for anything other than his readiness to shut down the Mueller investigation.
10
How can you have a meaningful discussion on any of these subjects without the input of the Finnish President?
8
Now, if only we could get the likes of you two to stop talking about Trumpness and show all our legislators why they need to start talking and doing, instead of just talking.
It's not just the cold temps on the east cost, it's the continued brain freeze on all the estates....including the Fourth.
2
I hoped never to hear mention of Sid Vicious again.
1
I don't think we should talk about Trump, the less we say about him would get his goat. He loves the negative press so he can call it "fake news". Yes, give him his "being a jerk" message, but then go on to talk about all of the good that certain Congressional and Senate men and women are doing for America. Then you can show how Trump is trying to block these benefits to the American people. By just giving Trump a brief recognition of being a jerk he can't say that what he's doing isn't being reported. I know that his ego wants to be center stage. You want to upset Trump, quit talking about him and talk about the good that should be done, but blocked by Trump, McConnell, etc.
3
If any reader had a "who's he?" reaction to Gail's mention of Mitch Landrieu, let me advise you to google his speech on the removal of Confederate monuments.
Absolutely inspiring!
5
@akp3
oops ... it was Bret's mention of Mitch Landrieu!
5
@akp3 Landrieu? Look at where I live. Then, know this. He left the city way worse off than he found it. He didn’t hire new policemen until it was late, Despite billions of dollars of Federal funds, the streets are in worse shape then we took office, He championed a new airport that is a year late and almost double the estimated cost and that’s without building a direct way to get it. He was amazed the the ancient and corrupt Water and sewerage board was allowing our important pumps to not run at anywhere near full capacity allowing the city to flood despite being the board’s president. Shall I go on?
3
Even Texas is starting to supply evidence for your empty v crowded spaces thesis, Gail. Forget the lone cowboy malarkey, Texas is 85% urban and climbing. Its hue to shifting from bright red to now light pink on its way to purple. Go Beto!
5
Not all Americans have acquiesced to rule by political party. According to the Pew Research Center, “the share of independents in the public, which long ago surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans, continues to increase. Based on 2014 data, 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans.” The peculiar thing about our “peculiar system” of government is that we permit political party hacks to devise parliamentary rules—such as the Senate’s 60-Vote Rule and the House’s “Hastert Rule”—that magnify the power of political parties and contradict the Constitution.
The Constitution gives political parties no role in government. George Washington warned us against them in his farewell address,. He said, “the alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” A good start toward nonpartisanship would be a Supreme Court ruling that parliamentary rules based on political party affiliation are unconstitutional. We should also rearrange seating in both houses by states rather than by party affiliation.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/
10
"I think the wall’s a dumb idea, in the same way I think a lot of gigantic infrastructure projects are a waste of money. "
Let's see; the Hoover Dam, the interstate highway network, Tennessee Valley Authority, rural electrification, Nasa moon shot, Pacific Coast Highway, Golden Gate Bridge, The Works Projects Administration, etc...
Yeah, Mr. Stephens; all a waste of money, coulda let Wall Street make a little sumthin' extra with that money, they need it.
62
@James Griffin
I agree the wall is a dumb idea since it is hard to wall off a border that is partly defined by a major river that winds back and forth, but I do like my bridges safe and fewer potholes in the highways.
7
For 2020 please consider Deval Patrick on your list of the competent.
4
"What else does the Democrats’ new House majority portend?"
Currently, not much.
At the behest of a rogue group of Representatives who caved to the dunderheaded impulse to label themselves "Five White Guys" (what the...?), our new House has already squandered much of the optimism and excitement the election occasioned to engage in meaningless, not to say stupid, resistance to that Pelosi women sans even a hint of a worthy successor.
I'm looking forward to two more years of appeasement, favoritism for the economy and corporate rule of law, and the daft political surrender that is now the lode star of Democrat politics.
How many times can a party be given the keys to the kingdom, half of it anyway, and throw the privilege away with nothing to show for the opportunity?
We are, it seems, about to find out.
Keep Pelosi if you like, but make certain she makes way, and prepares a clear path, for newer, younger, more ambitious and diverse members now beating on her door.
And, for Pete's sake, try acting like liberals, like people who care about the non-rich for a change. That is, do something.
Please, while you're at it, somebody smack some sense into the White Guys. They can oppose Pelosi if they want to, but they don't have to make all of us look like idiots in the process. What is wrong with them?
6
I believe at this point Pelosi is the only one who knows how to wield the power the Dems, BUT I agree that she must begin or continue training another, younger one....a female Tip O'Neill.
1
Stephens:
" Vladimir Putin’s favorite Republican member of the House, Dana Rohrabacher of California"
No, Bret, Rep. Rohrabacher is the favorite member of the House of parents everywhere who don't want their children diving into fallout shelters because some psychotic spiritual child of John McCain and Lindsey Graham goaded Russia into WWIII.
1
Wrong Bret, you did tick off one reader, myself. Federalism is not dividing the country by hate and racism. What is the matter with you?
1
The election made only one point in the overall scheme of things political: the President may have his devoted followers, but he does not have a stranglehold on the public's will. We have endured two years of rule by caricature and as fitting as Trump has seemed to the ideals of the intransigent few, those few are, thankfully, still the minority. This election, however, is not a mandate for counter attack by the other and opposite intransigent few and there is not a hint of false equivalence implied in this comment. We are now and long have been a nation of independent voters and we are tired of the incessant verbal warfare that has for so long been waged at the top by the polar parties and mostly want our politicians to grow up, be civil and get useful things done for a change and this can't happen if the Democratic majority chooses to be led by a caricature of its own. As right as the Democrats may feel about their motives, goals and intentions, the only mandate implied by this election has been a call to bind the nation's wounds, not to launch a new era of deadlock.
4
It's a whole new world coming, baby. Peace, harmony, tranquility will spread throughout the country and then to the whole world. Breathe in. Hold it. Breathe out.
++++
Goodness, why didn't we think of handing the keys to Democratic Party leadership before? See: make way for grandma.
This back and forth between Gail and Bret is quickly becoming my favorite read in The New York Times. Two smart people, ostensibly on opposite sides of the fence, with a sense of humor no less, having a discussion without ire and shouting. With that dreaded of all family holidays looming, we should all be having that kind of conversation with those in the 'other tribes'.
Traditionally our harvest bounty is on its way to market a month earlier so our family fun fest has come and gone, although these days that's a crap shoot. We already had our bitter winter in September followed by a welcome bit of summer in October and spring since then.
While there's much to be thankful for, it gets a little harder each year to remember that muchness in the light of all that threatens it. Nonetheless, its called Thanksgiving and its worthwhile to celebrate that and at least try to feel some gratitude the still living crazy uncle has made it to the party after all.
6
Well Bret, you certainly said something that got "my hackles up" (I had to check out what that means I must confess): that Democrats need to "steer the[ir] party toward the center, not the left"!
Oh of course, because that policy has been so successful for Democrats and the US in general in the past generation or so. Not!
Never mind that the decent and rational centre in the rest of the free world is to the left of centrist Democrats - where health care is universally publicly funded, every full time worker gets paid vacation and paternity leave, tertiary and vocational training is subsidised or free, child poverty is lower and social mobility is higher, electorates aren't gerrymandered and mass shootings are rare and much more.
I was really heartened by the brave campaigns and narrow losses of the progressive candidates in Texas, Georgia and Florida. I hope they run again and win - and similar candidates also have success in more hospitable US territory and the country as a whole - in the near(ish) future.
32
@GRW,
If I had my way, Progressives would go even farther to the Left and win every single election. BUT, if the Democrats decide they're going to need Republicans in order to win the Presidency in 2020, they're going to have to run Moderates. If, however, they feel they can win with enough Democrat votes then let the Progressives have it. It's all about the numbers, whether we like it or not.
1
@GRW
And, interestingly enough, Bret Stephens is a strong supporter of Israel which has socialized medicine, free university and universal military service (except for the Orthodox who somehow are more "chosen" than others).
4
The real issue is not who the Democrats put up for president, but rather who the GOP put up for President.
Is there at least one Republican out there who would do a better job than Mr Trump.
The call should be for Republican challengers to step up.
6
@MrC As deplorable as they are, any repub has an even chance of doing a better job than trump. However, since todate they have done nothing to curb their party leader, or to govern for the people, we can expect them to continue to do nothing.
2
"...we have an acting attorney general in Matthew Whitaker who seems to think Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided, and that the nullification by states of federal law is a good idea, and that Robert Mueller has no right to investigate Trump’s financial relationships in connection to the Russia probe. There’s also a reasonable argument to make that Whitaker holds his post unconstitutionally."
But he caught a pass in the Rose Bowl!
I heard a Republican partisan come to Whitaker's defense using this argument: that one can't have played Division 1 football and be lacking in integrity and character. (Because of course there aren't any football players who've gotten in trouble with the law, are there?) I guess when an acting AG is as deeply flawed as Whitaker is, the Rose Bowl defense is all Republicans have got.
But Whitaker was a bench player for most of his career at the University of Iowa. Trump should have left him on his bench.
34
@NA No, the 'Rose Bowl' defense isn't all the Republicans have got. You've forgotten about the 'Twinkie Defense'. (And yes, I know that Twinkies were not mentioned in the trial...)
1
I certainly enjoy the conversation, but I also certainly disagree with much of Mr. Stephen's conservative viewpoints. I do like his willingness--in fact both Stephens and Collins--to listen and realize that there may be more than one valid opinion on an issue. Best thing I've read today. Keep up the good conversations because there are very few I can have out here in red middle America.
20
Gee, I WISH we would or could stop talking abut Trump. I wish we could get him off Front Page news, off Facebook and Twitter...I think we all need a little quiet time with no Trumpisms in our life. Isn't there anything else going on in the world.
7
Note to Mr. Stephens: Canada has a strong Federal system without the need for an undemocratic institution like the United States Senate. Federalism is about separation of powers, not giving people unequal voting power.
84
Mr. Stephens expresses pleasure at the prospect of more appointments of conservative jurists. If I only had to contemplate judges that lean toward conservative economic decision-making, I think I could live with them. But these conservatives are often equally socially conservative. And, frankly, the ever greater imposition of religious views (including the influence of purely religious ideology in developing reproductive rights, i.e., abortion rights based the belief that a “soul” is created even before conception) on law making, is frightening. There is no moral consensus regarding abortion, let alone a religious consensus on the subject. So, frankly, until you can produce judicial officers who are neutral from a purely religious perspective, I cannot support the nominations of conservative judges.
52
I pulled this quote from the NY Times article about President Trump's criticism of the capture of Osama Bin Laden ( oh yeah, he would have done it better) The criticized Mr McRaven, who commanded the raid on Bin Laden's compound, said this :"I admire all presidents, regardless of their political party, who uphold the dignity of the office and who use that office to bring the nation together in challenging times." What a strong yet diplomatic way of calling out President Bone Spurs on yet another ego trip interview.
This is the kind of character that has been missing in our political scene.
183
As its name implies, the United States is a union of states. Under our “very peculiar” system, senators represent states, not people. This only seems peculiar because in 1913 the 17th Amendment permitted residents of states rather than state legislatures to determine who would represent states in the U.S. Senate, something the founders never envisioned. However the founders made the peculiar system inviolate.
The Constitution guarantees states equal suffrage in the Senate. Section 1 says “the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State. Article 5, which describes the amendment process, provides that all parts of the Constitution may be altered by amendment except that “no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.” A state could consent to being allotted only one senator or no senators, but that would never happen.
Equal representation in the Senate is the Constitution's only inviolate provision. If there had been no guarantee of equal suffrage in the Senate, there would have been no union. Calling for an end to equal suffrage in the Senate is the same as calling for the breakup of the United States.
9
Well, that would be good too. The USA is ungovernable at present. No shared core values.
3
@William Case
There are no involate provisions in the Constitution.
Article V is as subject to modification as any other element in the document.
And then there is the prospect of a (shudder) Constitutional Convention.
2
"True, although don’t forget that Vermont gets just as many senators as Texas, and Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Oregon and now Nevada are solidly blue in the Senate."
Bret has clearly identified one of the main problems with the structure of our government: we have prioritized the historical randomness of land acquisition (both pre- and post-colonial) over the value of the votes of the people.
The US should completely decouple its national and state politics. If we must, we can still have 100 Senators and 435 Representatives, but the states shouldn't have anything to do with who those people represent. The federal government should, if only out of self-interest, cut states out of anything to do with representation at the federal level. In every possible way, including the states in the process has made a hash out federal representation.
4
We've had enough of the center. Global warming has just been proved true in California after all these years of head-in-the-sand by both parties. Where are the voices for clean energy? Not in this administration who have sent down the law to never mention climate change. It is up to us progressives to speak the obvious truth that we are killing our people and many others around the world for the sake of big oil, gas and coal.
You guys recommend a governor as a good choice for president--how about Jerry Brown? He has preached against climate change for years, and now faces perhaps a thousand of his people dead from fire (caused by drought caused by global warming.)
There are so many crucial things that could be done not being done because of profits to big business. Please don't keep the go-along-to-get-along democrats in power. We need people who won't be deflected by their donors.
41
@betty durst
The Dems could have had Al Gore. They couldn't get excited about him so we got Bush instead. For the past 30 years, the public's ennui about global climate change is as much to blame for where we are as anything. We can't expect leaders to change habits when we're unwilling to do so ourselves.
49
@betty durso
You are unfortunately in the minority. So if you fight like hell at the presidential level, like Bernie, you will have Trump for another 4 years. It has to be evolutionary not revolutionary, and we took 2 steps back with Trump. Given the electoral map, the less than middle won't win. Fight like hell, get the truth out but a Nader or a Sanders won't win. So support the Democrat for president. There is no other choice, unless the Republicans find climate religion.
9
@Barbara Remember, Gore won the popular vote. Bush Jr. was an accident (much like Trump).
10
Gail and Bret, too bad our Thanksgiving festivities with rural/city cousins won't likely turn out so civil as your dialogue.
Bret's wrong on 'the judges' by the way - because we know he would be one of the loudest protestors if Chuck Schumer/Diane Feinstein had co-operated to undo Senate and committee rules to ensconce judges from a list managed by the political opposite of Don McGahn - all under the aegis of a lawless Dem POTUS which a Dem Senate propped up.
And Bret's also wrong the best Dem mid-term gains in the 44 years (22 elections) since Nixon resigned in 1974 are somehow diminished because Dems now have 1 fewer Senators. After all, Orange County Ca. now has no GOP'ers in the House (out of a possible 7 seats) at all, for the first time in 80 years. And, the House seat that Bush 41 took in the 1960's as a Texas Congressman - held by GOP'ers continuously the last 50+ years - is in Dem hands.
Bret can whistle past the graveyard if he wants, but Pres. Mayhem and the Complicit Crowd are destroying the GOP, because: judges, tax cuts, deregulation.
Lastly, we need more states to negate the Electoral College by joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/opinion/elections-electoral-college-voting.html
like 11 current states with 172 electoral votes - only enough states for 100 more electoral votes, then 'POOF', the GOP'er rural/Senate advantage which could seat a POTUS with only 25% of the popular vote, is cosmic dust :)
139
@R. Law
Yes, the Compact is promising and possible. Equally apt, let's add Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia to make 52 states: 4 more senators to dilute the structural advantage given to empty geography by a 240 year-old compromise that was "commendable but irrelevant" now.
46
Hey Bret, I agree that Mitch Landrieu would be a interesting choice for a Presidential run. The more I think of the idea I think it would be fantastic. The clear problem for even skilled politicians like Mitch is the organizational structure being in place. This is where even the wishful thinking of HRC has a clear advantage and sitting congress persons have a start. At the risk of sounding desperate I might as a last resort embrace a billionaire of the "left" stripe or a celebrity ( think Winfrey or Hanks). As a former Sanders supporter, it is with regret I feel his sun has set but I've still got plenty of $17 contributions to give to oppose this current misfit.
26
@richard neeson
Just because Hanks tends to portray good guys or heroes in the movies, doesn't make him one. When he built his house in Idaho he hired an architecture firm from Texas and a garden designer from New York City. HIs house had leak problems despite warnings from the contractor that the roof design was wrong for snow country, and he insisted on it being built as designed and then sued the contractor into bankruptcy. The garden designer, knowing nothing about Idaho except that her favorite boxwood hedges wouldn't survive there spec'ed yew trees for hedging. The result, lots of dead elk and moose because yew is poisonous. Now the plant is banned in the area. Needless to say, Hanks and his wife are not popular among many of the residents of the Wood River Valley.
1
@Julie Carter...You have an interesting insight for someone who posts from Maine...but I'm posting from Texas....What could I possibly know?...Thanks Julie
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Congress, The President, All Politicians and most importantly, FAMILIES and INDIVIDUALS could and would debate issues like this?
22
I don’t see the point of debating the senate as an electoral punching bag. It was always a leveler, a way for the small states to be on equal footing with the big ones apportioned by population. Its part of the checks and balances system and discussing it as if those balances didn’t factor in weakens the democracy. Next time pretend you’re explaining the Article 1 branch to a kid or a new comer to the country. Would you start with a discussion of the fairness of Montana and California each having 2 senators?
12
@DenisPombriant
I think the point is that the equal number of senators for states with large and small populations was not some genius idea, but a pragmatic one to get all states to join in creating the U.S. way back in time. So it is reasonable to discuss whether it is still practical and even whether it is at all fair. At the same time, we probably do not want to change the structure of our government without very good reasons. Which brings up the issues of gerrymandering and the electoral college. The imbalances brought about by these and the number of senators per state can be made more balanced or they can increasingly grow out of whack. They now seem sufficiently out of whack to deserve attention. Some re-balancing might be due. The easiest one to fix is probably gerrymandering. Ending any voter suppression would be another way of addressing some of these problems. But eventually as the demographic changes grow more drastic, Texans, Californians, New Yorkers, and others will be rightfully annoyed at the disparate amount of power folks have in Wyoming, North Dakota, and even Vermont. We should begin working on this disparity now before it blows up in our faces.
99
@JustThinkin
Senators were originally meant to represent the States at the national level. That is why they were chosen by State legislatures, so they would be accountable to State governments.
It wasn’t until the 17th Amendment in 1912 that we had direct election of Senators by the people.
5
@Bruce Wolfe
That does not change the disparate representation of the populations in each state at the national level. In other words, equality of states does not equal equality of representation of their populations.
5