Friday News Roundup — March 6, 2020
Biden’s Super Tuesday; Calling Out Justice; A Deal for Afghanistan?; Plus News You May Have Missed
Good morning, and happy Friday from everyone here at CSPC. After a whirlwind week in the presidential race, things seem to be settling into a two-person race between former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (although Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard remains in the race{!?}).
The Covid-19 also continues to spread, with at least 11 Americans succumbing to the disease since the outbreak began. The CDC has advised taking many of the same precautions one would take with any other illness: wash hands thoroughly and frequently, cover the mouth correctly when coughing or sneezing, and stay home if feeling ill whatsoever. This week, Congress passed an $8.3 billion spending bill aimed at curbing the spread of the virus, and we certainly hope their efforts succeed.
In this week’s Roundup, Dan covers former Vice President Biden’s remarkable comeback victories on Super Tuesday, Chris discusses Chuck Schumer’s threat against members of the Supreme Court, and Joshua analyzes the proposed peace deal in Afghanistan. As always, Aida and Wyatt provide us with some News You May Have Missed.
Biden’s Bounceback
Dan Mahaffee
The turnaround in the campaign prospects for former Vice President Joe Biden is nothing short of historical. Following his poor performances in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, South Carolina seemed like his last hope. Even if he did win in the Palmetto State, there were plenty of naysayers, myself included, who wondered how he could continue to compete. A week ago, Mayor Bloomberg’s wealth covered the airwaves, Senator Sanders’ vociferous supporters were clamoring for revolution, and paths forward for Vice President Biden, Mayor Buttigieg, Senator Klobchar, and Senator Warren were unclear. Across the country, Republican candidates waited with “glee” at the thought of tying down-ballot Democrats to Sanders, his socialism, and segments of his supporters.
Vice President Biden’s comeback started with Senator Warren’s all out debate stage attack on Mayor Bloomberg. The Mayor’s well-financed juggernaut could not overcome the baggage of his mayoral policies, the #MeToo-era, and his business-like charisma. While Bloomberg’s campaign team was, perhaps, running the campaign of the future, old-fashioned momentum — and pragmatic, practical politics — won the day.
When retold, the story of a potential Biden presidency will start last Wednesday, when Representative Jim Clyburn’s endorsement of Biden launched the former Vice President’s turnaround. As Ed Luce of The Financial Times notes about Clyburn, “to hear the former civil rights activist speak is to be reminded that politics is a serious business — not a branch of the entertainment industry.”
Biden was elected by a coalition that believes politics is a serious business. They believe that business has one goal in 2020: defeating President Trump. It is the same coalition that made Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House in 2018. Biden’s Super Tuesday performance was shaped by resounding victories among African American voters and college-educated suburban voters — especially women. While Biden’s support had appeared to falter among the African Americans, none of the other center-left candidates were able to succeed in taking advantage of Biden’s missteps. Klobuchar’s and Buttigieg’s endorsements of Biden — along with the external and self-inflicted headwinds of the Warren campaign — helped provide a sense of “party decision” to solve the collective action problem facing suburban voters.
At the same time, Mayor Bloomberg was able to bombard the airwaves with powerful messages about the need for competent, technocratic government and defeating Donald Trump in 2020; voters were driven to the polls by this message, however, they decided that Joe, not Mike, could get the job done. For example, a majority of voters considered the Covid-19 outbreak one of their important issues as they went to Super Tuesday polls. Mayor Bloomberg was highlighting his experience in crisis response and had bought Sunday night airtime to “address the nation” on the coronavirus. Once the voters went to the polls, of those who considered the outbreak important to their decision, 47% went for Biden.
Sanders and his surrogates have long argued that they would be able to drive up turnout with their revolutionary brand of politics. Yet, their turnout of young voters, leftists, and socialists has stayed roughly the same size or shrunk slightly — though it has seen some success in garnering Latino support. On the other hand, it has been the Biden coalition that drove up turnout, nearly doubling the Democratic Primary turnout in the Commonwealth of Virginia. If the Old Dominion is a new bellwether, remember that it was “the squad” of Jennifer Wexton, Abigail Spanberger, and Elaine Luria who actually flipped red seats to blue by harnessing this very coalition. What’s getting people to the polls to support progressive candidates are messages about “kitchen table” and “pocketbook” issues — not revolution — as well as a belief that the paramount goal in 2020 is to make President Trump a one-term president.
For Biden, however, the path is hardly clear. Yes, political tradition tells us that Democratic candidates quickly enjoy a “rally around the (party) flag” effect when it becomes clear that they have consolidated the pathway to the nomination. At the same time, the Sanders brand is one that has very passionate supporters. The Democratic Party cannot afford to have any part of its lineup on the bench in November, so the eventual reconciliation of these two wings of the party is a must. Next week’s primaries in key states like Michigan, as well as changing Democratic strongholds like Washington, will show whether Biden is quickly consolidating support or whether Sanders will be able to drag this out. The need for eventual reconciliation is why we’re likely to see President Obama remain on the sideline, for now.
Again the presumptive nominee, Biden will also face the onslaught of GOP attacks. Wisconsin GOP Senator Ron Johnson is already moving to force a vote on Senate investigations into Hunter Biden and Burisma — though the 2020 election may be one of glass houses and thrown stones. It is clear what the tone for 2020 will be, the divisiveness and rancor of our politics are apparent. Still, take a moment to look at the coalition Joe Biden is building and the message sent from voters to partisans, populists, and revolutionaries in both parties.
The Audacity of Threatening Justice
Chris Condon
The Trump era has not been an easy one for federal judges, who face increasing levels of attacks from both sides of the aisle on a daily basis. As individuals who actually take their jobs seriously (unlike many in government), they almost always decline to respond, preferring to preserve the tradition of judicial independence by ignoring even their harshest critics. Chief Justice John Roberts is both the greatest defender of this concept and the individual under the most pressure to respond to attacks, an exceptionally difficult position. Even when President Trump attacked the chief justice by name during the campaign, Roberts maintained a purposeful silence. This week, he saw fit to break his customary silence in response to an attack by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Minority Leader Schumer is certainly not known for his conscientiousness or bipartisanship. During the confirmation process of Justice Neil Gorsuch, Schumer led a filibuster on the Senate floor in an attempt to block Gorsuch’s nomination. In a battle exponentially more fierce than that over Gorsuch, Schumer again led the opposition to Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the Senate, throwing every trick in the book at the nominee before losing by a single vote. These activities were apparently not sufficient to satisfy Schumer’s partisan instincts, however, because he attacked both justices by name in remarks this Wednesday. Speaking to a group of abortion activists in front of the Supreme Court, Schumer stated the following in regard to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch: “You have unleashed the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Almost immediately, Schumer was met with widespread criticism for his threat. Most notably, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement: “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.” Justice Roberts, in a statement of less than a paragraph, succinctly expressed why statements such as this are so inappropriate: they damage judicial legitimacy and politicize the Court. Even Laurence Tribe, a liberal law professor from Harvard University, tweeted the following: “These remarks by @SenSchumer were inexcusable. Chief Justice Roberts was right to call him on his comments. I hope the Senator, whom I’ve long admired and consider a friend, apologizes and takes back his implicit threat. It’s beneath him and his office.”
Of course, Chuck Schumer did not apologize in short order. After initial criticisms of his statement surfaced (including that of the Chief Justice), a spokesman took the opportunity not only to defend the remarks but to criticize Justice Roberts himself. Speaking to the press, he said that “Senator Schumer’s comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court, and a warning that the justices will unleash a major grass-roots movement on the issue of reproductive rights. For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Senator Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg last week, shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.”
Beyond even the gall of his employer’s vitriol, the spokesman’s doubling down on Schumer’s statement is unthinkable. It is clear that the interpretation of the Senator’s remarks that he peddles is incorrect at best and wholly dishonest at worst. Further, he decides to attack the credibility of Justice Roberts, widely regarded as one of the most unbiased, dedicated public servants in the federal government. Such cheap political theatrics were last on display when recently failed presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren forced Justice Roberts to read the following question out loud during the impeachment trial of President Trump: “At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court and the Constitution?” For people who insist they are deeply concerned over America’s norms and institutions, some congressional Democrats are certainly not afraid to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
For their part, Republicans are certainly not innocent. President Trump has repeatedly attacked federal judges, including the justices of the Supreme Court. Most recently, he insisted that Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor recuse themselves from all cases regarding the Trump administration due to perceived bias. He has also criticized “Obama judges” for their supposed bias against his administration, comments that Chief Justice Roberts has also rebuked. In his refusal to entertain the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Court, Sen. Mitch McConnell also participated in this shameless partisanship. Up to this point, however, congressional Republicans have largely refrained from attacking Supreme Court Justices, let alone threatening them.
As a New Yorker, I am absolutely ashamed of Chuck Schumer. Threatening the safety of a Supreme Court justices, especially ones who faced unprecedented challenges in the midst of their confirmation processes, is absolutely inexcusable even in today’s vitriolic political environment. Although Schumer now insists that his remarks were directed at Senate Republicans and were only intended as a political threat, anyone who listens to the statement understands that the Senate Minority Leader is engaging in blatant dishonesty. Moving forward, even the most partisan politicians must be far more conscious of their words and actions, especially those regarding the Supreme Court. The legitimacy of the judicial branch demands it; after all, it’s the only branch still doing its job.
Afghanistan: Beginning of the End?
Joshua Huminski
At the beginning of March, the United States signed a peace agreement with the Taliban, potentially ending the nearly two-decade old conflict. Much remains uncertain, but this could well be, at the very least, the beginning of the end of America’s longest war.
The Devil is in the Details
Under the agreement — formally titled: “Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan between the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban and the United States of America” — signed in Doha, Qatar between the United States and the Taliban (but notably not the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan) all American troops would leave the country in the next 14 months.
Additionally, the United States will:
Within the first 135 days, U.S. forces will draw down to 8,600 and withdraw from five bases.
Withdraw all forces in the following 9.5 months.
Release up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners will by March 10, 2020.
Review sanctions with the goal of removing these sanctions by August 27, 2020.
Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Afghanistan or intervening in its domestic affairs.
For its part, the Taliban will:
Not allow any of its members, other individuals or groups, including al-Qa’ida, to use the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the security of the United States and its allies.
Send a clear message that those who pose a threat to the security of the United States and its allies have no place in Afghanistan, and will instruct members of the Taliban not to cooperate with groups or individuals threatening the security of the United States and its allies.
Prevent any group or individual in Afghanistan from threatening the security of the United States and its allies, and will prevent them from recruiting, training, and fundraising.
Will not provide visas, passports, travel permits, or other legal documents to those who pose a threat to the security of the United States and its allies to enter Afghanistan.
How Viable is it?
To say that this is a substantial undertaking is an understatement. There is no guarantee that the Taliban can or will abide by the agreement as it stands. It neither controls the entirety of the country nor is it a unified movement. Parts of the country are controlled by the Islamic State-Khorasan (IS-K) and yet others are controlled by splinter Taliban movements. Thus far the Taliban has yet to reject al-Qa’ida, its associated movements, or IS-K.
The deal itself could be rescinded should President Trump decide to do so and should the violence not ebb. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper warned as much saying, “The United States will not hesitate to nullify the agreement” if the Taliban did not stick to its commitments. Indeed, earlier peace talks were nominally derailed by attacks on U.S. forces and in the days since the agreement was signed, the United States carried out strikes in Helmand province against Taliban forces. This could be seen as an effort by the United States to maintain pressure on the Taliban, but it nonetheless highlights the fragility of the situation.
Further, the question of the Taliban prisoner release remains contentious. The Taliban stated it will not begin negotiations with the Government of Afghanistan until those prisoners are released, something President Ashraf Ghani already rejected.
This highlights another challenge — the reconciliation between or the resolution of the conflict between the Government of Afghanistan and the Taliban itself.
And End or an Exit?
Whether or not the agreement holds remains to be seen. As aforementioned, there are numerous obstacles to the implementation of the agreement even if both parties are keen to do so. Again, even if the commitments are met, this will only result in the withdrawal of U.S. and coalition forces from Afghanistan, ending nearly 18 years of conflict. That is, of course, to be welcomed, but it will not end the conflict in Afghanistan.
There are shades of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. The U.S., which had a massive hand in Moscow’s defeat in Central Asia, appears to be simply exiting Afghanistan, but not necessarily ending the conflict or providing for lasting stability in that country. That may be enough. The American public, despite the distance and unequal sacrifice, is increasingly reluctant to engage in or support open-ended conflicts. President Trump campaigned on an America-first platform and promised to end foreign adventures. He, with this agreement, could well claim success in meeting this effort.
The danger is in what is left behind and avoiding a necessary return to the country as what happened in Iraq and the subsequent return of forces to combat the Islamic State. Here, how the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and special operations forces play into the deal (which is unknown at this time) will be critical.
What happens to the people of Afghanistan, the rights of women, and those who sacrificed at great cost to support the U.S. and coalition forces in that country also remains to be seen. The Taliban controls a considerable portion of the country and is in the strongest position in years, and there is nothing to say that they could not resurge, take greater control, and rollback the gains made to date.
News You May Have Missed
Netanyahu Wins Plurality in Third Attempt to Form Israeli Government
Wyatt Newsome
Israel’s third election in a year took place on Monday night, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won a plurality of the vote, but failed to win a majority again. Israel has been unable to form a coalition government and appears somewhat likely to hold a fourth election soon. Netanyahu was able to have an impressive showing while still under indictment for corruption charges. While the Israeli public is largely divided between Netanyahu’s religious and conservative platform and the more secular proposals from challenger Benny Gantz, both politicians campaigned on similar positions on the Israeli-Palestinean conflict. In all, Netanyahu’s coalition won an estimated 59 of the 120 seats in government, compared to Gantz’s 54 seats.
Cuellar Edges Out Liberal Challenger in Texas
Aida Olivas
The conservative House Democrat, Texas Representative Henry Cuellar, narrowly won against a progressive newcomer, 26-year-old immigration attorney, Jessica Cisneros, in South Texas’ 28th district Congressional primary. The race was called 52 to 48 percent on Wednesday morning after Super Tuesday. During her campaign, Cisneros spoke in favor of “Medicare for All” and the Green New Deal, and received endorsements from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Cal.). Despite her high profile endorsements, Cuellar and his team did not believe Cisneros’ growing national grassroots support would become local support in the 28th district due to the rural area’s high dependence on the oil industry and seemingly opposite ideologies. In spite of Cuellar’s public brush off of Cisneros’ potential, his allies claim he took the race seriously since the beginning, heavily investing in political ads for all types of platforms and hiring paid canvassers. Cisneros was one of many new progressive and liberal democrats running for public office during the 2020 election cycle in Texas that seek to unseat incumbent Republicans and conservative Democrats.
Maine Voters Approve Law to Eliminate Vaccination Exemptions
Wyatt Newsome
Amidst the Super Tuesday excitement, voters in Maine rejected a referendum that would have allowed religious and philosophical exemptions from obligatory childhood vaccinations in the state. Last May, Democratic Governor Janet Mills signed the narrowly passed LD 798, which eliminated such exemptions from vaccination requirements for public school, allowing exemptions only as directed by doctors. The bill was introduced in response to a confirmed measles case in Maine, but fits into a broader narrative of public health and choice. Leading up to the 2019 law, Maine’s kindergarten vaccination exemption rate was at 6.2%, well above the national average. Religious and parental advocates pushed a referendum to overturn the mandate, but with 85.9% of all precincts reporting, Maine voters rejected the motion by a vote of 73% to 27%.
Greta Thunberg Brands EU’s New Climate Law ‘Surrender’
Aida Olivas
On Wednesday, leaders of the European Union joined together in Brussels to discuss a proposed law for the “European Green Deal” that would legally require a reduction of carbon emissions for the EU to be carbon neutral by 2050. However, climate activist Greta Thunberg, who was invited to the meeting, sharply criticized the law and the EU, stating the European Union was “’pretending’ to be a leader on climate change,” and that the proposed law would not have enough of a positive, significant impact in the fight against climate change. Thunberg claimed the deal meant “the EU was “giving up” on the Paris Agreement.” Known as the face of the Climate Change movement and her hard stances against many politicians, Thunberg continues to criticize the law, citing analysis that it would make reaching the original goals of net neutrality by 2050 and half emissions by 2030 even more difficult, if at all possible, to achieve.
The views of authors are their own, and not the views of CSPC.