The Triumph of JFK's Legacy Is Joe Biden -
I really don't see how others have not pointed this out, as far as I know.
Another way of putting this would be that Joe Biden is Camelot 2.1, the Kennedy-dynasty Presidential successor who never happened. Which America longed for over decades, before finally first, forgetting the idea, then fulfilling it--without even knowing it had done so!
The comparisons I've seen between Biden and FDR, or Teddy Roosevelt, or LBJ all seem off the mark to me.
OK, I do know why people aren't seeing this JFK aspect: John Kennedy died so young (47), while Joe Biden didn't even make the White House until he was aged 78. So they don't seem similar in the sense of the arc of their careers, or the visual images they provide us, but I think a few moments' reflection will show countless similarities in character, political ideology (or lack thereof), dedication to public service, pragmatism mixed with purpose, and of course the more superficial similarity in both being Irish Catholics.
On that last point, JFK's preceding JRB made Biden's Catholicism much less a campaign issue (none at all?). Biden managed to avoid the traps which befell RFK, Teddy (to whom Joe was close), and JFK, Jr. Joe's own transgressions (plagiarism probably the most egregious) and errors were not permanently disqualifying, unlike the way assassination, and driving or flying unsafely, turned out to be.
I think it's all to the good with Our Joe (JFK's dad's name, lest we forget). Joe Biden's persistence is heroic, as Kennedy's actions are seen to have been. A profile in courage, to borrow a phrase.
On Democracy
I think it is time to call the bluff of those opposed to expanded Federal guarantees of the right to vote.
The phrase I'm seeing a lot of the right-wingers cite is "election integrity". Well, what is election integrity in the US but "all citizens having ready access to their vote, which is then accurately and efficiently counted and reported"? I can hardly imagine anyone publicly objecting to any part of that; it's not just "bipartisan" in its expression, but non-partisan.
The one thing that phrase is not compatible with is a fear of democracy. It's time to flush those people out, because they are an immoral minority.
Accepting the phrase means a lot of things, though: along with a national Voter ID with 21st-century technological support (yes, that again!), optional methods of voting based on local consumers' expressed preferences (easy to survey), full support for addressing all voter handicaps or language barriers, major revisions to operating standards of voting machinery (though not to make it all over-centralized; that would be too vulnerable), and a national holiday on Election Day. Not to mention a greater commitment to support for local instruction on civic virtues, our government and its Constitution.
The tricky part is the constitutional assignment of the executive power of elections to the states, who as a group are not up to the job. There are some exceptions, states that conduct their electoral business adequately well, but those states' voters are furious at those other states' failures, which just adds to the divisiveness of what should be a consensus. The way to get past that sticky issue of states' rights is with money, enough money per state that none can resist. For an example of how that works, see (late 70's) how the Federal government got every state to agree to make age-21 alcohol use part of their law by threatening to hold up Dept. of Transportation money.
So, yeah--let's do it. It's all germane to the "infrastructure" question. Then we can tackle those knotty problems with our system of representation, but we need an empowered and informed electorate to demand and oversee improvements.
On Packing the Supreme Court
I saw Mitch McConnell gloating about how he denied confirmation to Merrick Garland in 2016, that being his "most consequential achievement as Majority Leader". I have a suggestion for payback to Mitch:
What the Democrats should do, in this Congress and with Biden's collaboration, is to put forward nominees for the next two Supreme Court seats, hold hearings for them, and "pre-confirm" them, with VP Harris providing the tie-breaking vote as needed. Then, whenever Justice Breyer and Justice Thomas get around to resigning or dying, their replacements will be at hand immediately.
The way I see it, and this can be part of the bill, Justice Amy "the Barbarian" Barrett was actually Justice Thomas' replacement, pre-confirmed and even seated in advance of that fine day when he leaves. This means that Justice Ginsburg's replacement and the prospective Breyer one still should be filled, so as to preserve continuity and smooth operation of the Court.
This would gall McConnell heavily. I look forward to seeing him express genuine emotion when this "victory" is taken from him; however, this is not just seeking partisan advantage, as he did. This could be a permanent feature of the landscape, and could extend even beyond the Supremes, with a roster of approved candidates available for several levels of Federal judgeships when vacancies occur. In the end, I think it's constitutional, the Senate merely fulfilling its duty to fill vacancies, but doing it proactively, something anyone in a well-run sizable business should understand. I have no idea about the legality of it, but I firmly believe it's the right thing to do, and an improvement over the effective veto the Senate Majority Leader has, which is not consistent with the Constitution.
And a Borrowed Idea--Thanks to Lula!
Former Brazilian President Lula da Silva has emerged after his prison sentence (undeserved, some say) and appears to be ready to run against incumbent Jair Bolsonaro next year. He has been outspoken in his condemnation of Bolsonaro, particularly his spectacular failure with regard to the Trump Variant (of the COVID-19 virus). Jair relied on the Dickhead45 version of epidemiological non-science for his public and personal policy and thus contributed mightily to his nation's excess death toll.
This kind of abject failure in such a large country (speaking of Brazil, but also of the US) has ramifications going far beyond national borders. Lula, quite rightly, says that the global community has a right--a necessity--to limit national sovereignty for this type of international security threat, even within nations, and mentions the words never heard these days: "World Government".
In this era of reflexive rejection of globalism, this would seem to be swimming against a strong riptide. Some might say that more remote bureaucratic authority would be the last thing we all need in our efforts to combat our many problems; the truth is almost the exact inverse of that. Humanity needs coordinated effort to combat climate change, to handle the flood of refugees from states failed due to environmental or political catastrophe, to deal with the current pandemic and future biological challenges, and to seek long-term progress against massive economic and political inequality.
I'm in favor of a League of Democratic States, which would be able to tackle some problems the UN could not (though, after Groucho Marx somewhat, I'm not sure the US is worthy of membership in it at this point). There is the Security Council, but we now see all its limitations, due to its original conception in the WWII post-war era that has never been changed, and which seems impossible to find agreement to change now. This is different, though; we cannot allow geopolitical deadlock. It requires the participation and support of all nations (read: the UN General Assembly). They should empower a new permanent Committee for Domestic Tranquility (or an updated branding phrase of that nature) that has limited ability to overrule national sovereignty in certain specified situations and has subcommittees of subject matter experts working with respected international public servants. Then we can go from there.
Posts
