Cagle World

At one point in his running, four-year war with the news media, former President Donald Trump referred to it as “the enemy of the people,” a remark which rightfully drew a cascade of denunciations from news organizations, academics, members of Congress and the punditocracy which inhabits cable television opinion studios.

The remark was needlessly provocative, inflammatory and profoundly stupid. It revealed the occupant of the highest elected office in the land and a leader of the free world as a petty, petulant, thin-skinned bully who sought refuge in insults and undisguised contempt for those who expressed views contrary to his.

Now, as President Joe Biden is reeling from an onslaught of criticism for his administration’s chaotic handling of the military withdrawal from Afghanistan, those who gleefully belabored Trump and stoutly defended the media have turned on it, complaining bitterly that news organizations have become obsessed with the unfolding debacle and have unfairly and incorrectly blamed the president.

In a clear-cut case of the warning “Live by the media, die by the media,” last year’s cheerleaders have become this year’s boo birds.

Biden’s defenders have rushed to his side to refute those who disagree with the administration’s characterization of the withdrawal as a resounding success. The president handled the evacuation brilliantly, they argued, even in the face of horrific television images of desperate Afghanis storming the airport in Kabul hoping to board a plane to safety.

The deaths of 13 American military personnel and nearly 200 Afghanis in a suicide bombing at an airport gate effectively destroyed the “resounding success” claims.

Report piled atop report from sources deemed reliable and credible by the media that the administration was slow to react as the Taliban swept through the country, putting the Afghani forces to flight and seizing complete control in less than two weeks.

These reports were compounded by accounts of a divided White House and a president who disregarded the advice of his military leaders in his zeal to end American involvement in a 20-year war, the longest in the nation’s history.

One of the more vocal critics of the coverage has been Philippe Reines, a longtime adviser to Hillary Clinton, who argued the media has deliberately treated Biden unduly harshly to justify its treatment of Trump and to prove it can be even-handed.

Reines, still suffering from the psychological trauma by Clinton’s defeat in 2016, was joined by longtime Clinton family political guru James Carville who described the media coverage as “stupid and hysterical.”

Biden has been supported by some in the media chattering class who pop up on Sunday morning talk shows to promote the Administration narrative and in particular, to blame Trump for negotiating a lousy withdrawal deal with the Taliban in the first place.

But what must be most galling to the Biden team is the torrent of criticism from major media outlets who’ve been generally and often openly supportive in the past.

If the administration expected they’d fall in line and dutifully record the White House crafted narrative, it was a glaring and naïve misunderstanding of the media’s foundational obligation to report as factually and accurately as humanly possible on a rapidly developing, perilous and chaotic sequence of events.

What reporters saw on the ground in Afghanistan and conveyed to their viewers and readers was often sharply at odds with the administration’s repeated assurances that the situation was under control and successful.

There was simply too much visual evidence proving otherwise and reporting it was an example of journalistic professionalism and integrity, unsullied by partisan spin.

While the president’s defenders had the good sense to avoid for the most part the low-level rhetoric employed by his predecessor, they went down the same path – blaming the media for reporting objectively and deviating from their preferred story line.

Biden was elected in significant measure because he was not Trump, a conclusion supported by post-election polling which showed a majority of his votes came from those who wanted Trump driven from the White House rather than out of a favorable response to Biden policies.

Much remains to be seen and experienced before the final chapter in the Afghanistan tale is written. The situation is unsettled and will exert a lingering impact American politics – including the 2022 Congressional midterm elections.

What is irrefutable, though, is that the media has done its job and has nothing to apologize for.

–

Copyright 2021 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

As the world watches, the United States effort to withdraw the military from Afghanistan and evacuate Americans has turned into a political, diplomatic, and public relations disaster. It threatens to define the Biden presidency, undermine its legislative agenda and become a dominant issue in the 2022 Congressional midterm elections.

In the run up to the withdrawal, the Biden strategy seemed to be:

• Order the military draw down by Aug. 31, fulfilling a campaign promise to leave the country after 20 years of warfare.
• If the effort collapses, blame former President Trump for negotiating a lousy deal with the Taliban in the first place.
• If the effort succeeds, take a victory lap, soak up the credit for ending a conflict and satisfying a war weary nation.

When television screens filled with horrific images of desperate Afghanis storming the airport, climbing aboard airplanes and clinging to handholds only to fall to their deaths, the administration appeared befuddled and indecisive.

The “blame Trump” narrative was quickly undercut when critics pointed out that in the early weeks of the administration, Biden had repealed dozens of his predecessors’ executive orders and mandates and could easily have exercised the same authority to delay or negate the departure agreement.

The Biden administration next turned to a “we always knew this would happen” rationale, a stunningly callous explanation that calls into question why they failed to anticipate, strategize and react decisively. No one, the administration argued, foresaw a collapse in little more than a week, despite evidence that the capability of the defense forces was highly suspect.

Biden next chose to lay responsibility on the Afghani military forces, accusing it of throwing down their arms and fleeing in the face of Taliban forces, in effect blaming the victim.

Spokespersons for both the Department of Defense and Department of State were embarrassingly inept as they bumbled their way through news conferences while attempting to convince millions of television-watching Americans the situation was under control.

In one of the more bizarre performances, a Department of State spokesperson insisted the effort was not an evacuation, but a reduction of the U.S. footprint. While he doggedly forged ahead, he was flanked by the split screen coverage of the lowering of the American flag over the embassy in Kabul while diplomatic personnel scrambled for transportation to the airport and a flight to safety.

The administration response to the rapidly changing events on the ground was a mishmash of conflicting reports, dubious explanations and confusing rationalizations which melted quickly upon harsh examination.

Biden continued to insist the decision to withdraw the military from Afghanistan was his and his alone – never has “the buck stops with me” been invoked by a chief executive more often than it has been in the past two weeks.

The president was also struck with the out of touch brush when he claimed U. S. allies had not criticized his decision when, in fact, European leaders warned of disastrous consequences, including former Great Britain prime minister Tony Blair who publicly called the president’s decision “imbecilic.”

Biden further claimed that American citizens’ access to the airport was unhampered, only to be embarrassingly contradicted on the same day by the Secretary of Defense who related instances of Americans being harassed and beaten at Taliban-manned checkpoints.

As the situation worsened, Administration officials sought to distance themselves from any responsibility. Memos and cables were leaked to the media, an unmistakable first sign they’d begun to turn on one another to cover their actions and advice.

Biden now faces extending a military presence in the country beyond the Aug. 31 deadline, a move the Taliban warned would result in deadly consequences, including, presumably, renewal of a shooting war.

Afghanistan will cling to the Biden presidency, as Richard Nixon was defined by the Watergate scandal, Gerald Ford by his pardon of Nixon, Jimmy Carter by the Iran hostage stalemate, Ronald Reagan by the Iran-Contra affair, Bill Clinton by Monica Lewinsky, George W. Bush by the Iraq war, and Donald Trump by the siege of the U. S. Capitol.

Coming so early in his administration, the breakdown in Afghanistan will haunt this president for at least the next three years.

–

Copyright 2021 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

Even as the delta variant of the COVID-19 virus rips through the country, sending infections and hospitalizations soaring to levels not experienced in months, many Congressional Republicans cling stubbornly to the notion it’s no more serious than a hangnail and preventive or protective steps are unnecessary.

From the onset of the most serious public health crisis in a century, efforts to combat and ultimately overcome it have been afflicted by political polarization and ideological divisions that have stymied much of what was expected from the current Congressional session.

Chafing at lockdowns, school closures, economic disruptions and restrictions on social gatherings erupted into recriminations and accusations of power grabs when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently reinstated a mask wearing mandate for members and staff.

Republicans defied her order, ambling maskless throughout the Capitol and the legislative chamber, accusing the Speaker of seeking to amass greater control by using the surge in infections as a political weapon rather than a public health measure.

The environment deteriorated to a personal level when Pelosi called Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy “a moron” for his anti-mask remarks while a Congresswoman reportedly threw a mask back at a House staffer who offered it to her.

McCarthy took up the power grab cry, although neither he nor his colleagues offered any rationale for or examples of what additional powers Pelosi would accrue by ordering safety precautions in Congress.

Despite the evidence that unvaccinated individuals are at greatest risk and account for more than 90 percent of new infections, more than 40 percent of Americans remain unvaccinated.

The bitterness playing out daily in Congress has contributed to so-called vaccine hesitancy, as Americans seized on the arguments at the highest level of government as justification for refusing the vaccine.

They are swayed by individuals like Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who has led a crusade against Anthony Fauci, director of the U. S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He was joined by Congressman Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina who called for Fauci’s prosecution, characterizing him as a pawn of Communist China, while attacking a government program to go door to door to urge the unvaccinated to receive protection as a sinister plot to confiscate guns and bibles.

The seeds of mistrust they’ve sown have reinforced misgivings people hold about the vaccine.

The speed with which the variant has spread outpaced the ability of several states to deal with it and forced reversal of the earlier easing of restrictions.

At the same time, numerous governors and legislatures have prohibited mask wearing mandates and disregarded recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to restore measures such as social distancing and limits on indoor gatherings.

The Biden administration as well has stumbled badly, guilty of confusing and conflicting messaging and offering muddled explanations of its position.

The president has continued to emphasize vaccination rates as the most effective response, but has not taken the most controversial step of mandating immunizations, fearing a popular rebellion against big government encroachment on privacy rights.

He has, though, ordered all federal employees to either receive the vaccine or submit to testing procedures every few days. His directive was quickly interpreted as a clear example for the private sector to follow, thus avoiding the uproar a mandate would produce but gaining progress in the broader effort toward increased vaccinations.

Republican critics have framed the debate as a matter of privacy, insisting that the decision to seek a vaccination or reject it is highly personal and government should not rely on coercion.

If persuasion fails, individual choice must be respected.

The spectacle of the nation’s elected leaders – ideally men and women of intellect and temperament – falling into a public brawl while a pathogen that has sickened 36 million Americans and killed nearly 630,000 rages on is an embarrassment and diminishes them in the eyes of the nation and the world.

In the meantime, Americans will continue to fall ill and enter hospitals and some will not survive. The nation deserves better.

–

Copyright 2021 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

About 34 million people have fallen ill with COVID-19 in the U.S. and nearly 610,000 have died. Protection is readily at hand, but is going to waste in storage and in some cases while millions refuse to avail themselves of it.

Americans, usually among the most responsive people on the globe when confronted by a widespread and out of control contagion, have resisted accepting a highly effective vaccine out of doubts about its safety. Some believe the pandemic is a false narrative, while other think government-sponsored inoculation is a violation of their constitutional right to privacy.

It is small wonder that Anthony Fauci, director of the U. S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, will likely appear in the Guinness Book of World Records for the most consecutive days of mind-bending frustration.

Fauci, who also serves as chief medical advisor to the president, has been the most outspoken for the COVID-19 vaccine, appearing almost daily on network and cable talk and interview shows expressing his bewilderment and shock that fewer than 60 percent of the nation has received the vaccine while large swaths of the country continue to ignore a proven lifesaving, rapid and painless procedure .

He’s become a flash point for harsh criticism and relentless assaults from some elements of the media who’ve accused him of peddling false information about the disease’s severity and the vaccine’s efficacy. His pleas for greater vaccine acceptance have been dismissed by those who see government’s involvement as a conspiracy to exert greater and insidious control of the private lives of Americans.

Fauci and the Biden Administration have been castigated for efforts to send emissaries into neighborhoods where vaccination rates are the lowest to knock on doors and urge the unvaccinated to agree to the protection.

Rather than recognize the door-to-door effort as a worthy attempt to stop the spread of the most serious public health crisis in a century, critics demeaned and derided it.

Congressman Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina, for instance, told the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Dallas the effort was a plot by government to confiscate guns and Bibles from people’s private homes, a dangerous quasi paranoid notion.

At the same conference, his like-mind conspiracy promoters Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia belittled those participating in the outreach effort as “needle Nazis” and “medical brown shirts.” The audience cheered.

How effective their attacks will be is unclear, but the mere fact that wild theories and personal insults have gained a foothold – however tenuous – in Congress is stunning.

How does Fauci refute what to most is sheer lunacy? Denying a government plot to confiscate guns and Bibles merely serves to give it additional attention.

How do public health personnel respond to accusations they are today’s equivalent of Hitler’s storm troopers?

Distrust in government runs deep and the anti-vaccine movement is illustrative of the point. At the current level of mistrust, people are open to the kinds of suggestions offered by Cawthorn and others, even though logic and commonsense would reject them as absurd.

In the early stages of the pandemic, President Trump reacted slowly, for which he deserves criticism. It was Trump’s administration, though, who launched Operation Warp Speed, which developed a vaccine in record time.

To be sure, accepting or declining a vaccination is a personal decision. It should not be forced upon anyone and government should not use its coercive powers to achieve compliance.

The person who answers a knock on the door to find someone attempting to persuade them to accept a vaccination always has the option to shut the door just as they would on a door-to-door solar panel salesman.

At the same time, they must accept the consequences of refusal; becoming a statistic like the 64 million infected and 610,000 dead.

If they are not moved by the clear correlation between high vaccination rates and low infection levels, it’s unlikely they’ll be impressed by other compelling data or public health arguments.

As for Fauci, he likely goes to bed wondering what he can do or say next to convince reluctant Americans to look objectively without bias or outside influence at all the evidence in the hope it will be sufficiently persuasive.

The U. S. is not alone. Nearly 190 million people worldwide have been sickened, and a staggering four million have died.

But America leads the globe in deaths Why?

–

Copyright 2021 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

In their zeal to mollify the leftist progressive wing of their party, President Biden and the Democratic leadership in Congress have seriously jeopardized what was intended to be the Administration’s signature accomplishment – a $4 trillion infrastructure program, the largest national public works project since the New Deal.

Deep divisions between progressives, to whom bipartisanship is the equivalent of surrender, and moderates, who understand compromise is the only realistic path in a closely divided Congress, threatens to leave the President empty-handed.

It would be an embarrassing loss with long term implications.

Inadvertently or not, Biden contributed to the danger of defeat when he announced he’d reached an agreement with a bipartisan group of 10 Senators – 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans – on a $1.2 trillion infrastructure program, only to go off script and imply he’d veto the legislation if it was not accompanied by a far larger bill supported by the Democratic majority.

To no one’s surprise, the Republicans went into orbit, crying about standing with him in the White House driveway to announce the agreement only to be blindsided by the president conditioning his approval on linking the two bills.

Their threats to scuttle the entire deal reached a crescendo and, within 48 hours, Biden issued a retraction/explanation, saying he didn’t intend to raise the possibility of a veto and went on urge support for the larger Democratic approved bill.

That didn’t sit well with the progressives who, lined up behind Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, vow: “No reconciliation bill, no deal.”

Sanders has called for a program of up to $6 trillion – a figure dismissed by most as unrealistic – to provide, among other things, tax increases, a massive expansion of Medicare coverage, universal childcare, a permanent child tax credit, elements of the “Green New Deal,” and addressing climate change.

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi both expressed their support for tying together the two proposals, despite all indications that the Democratic larger proposal would fail in the Senate.

Pelosi went so far as to pledge that should the bipartisan plan win Senate approval, she would refuse to schedule a House vote unless the Democratic plan was approved, a stance which places her in direct conflict with the president.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell has called on Schumer and Pelosi to follow the president’s lead and keep the two proposals separate.

Normally a shrewd judge of the political environment, Pelosi, by taking such an unyielding stand, may have painted herself into a corner and risks being held responsible for the death of any infrastructure bill at all.

Sanders and his like-minded colleagues in the House have been dismissive of the bipartisan approach, attacking Republicans as less than serious and urging Biden to ditch trying to work across party lines and go it alone.

Senate Democrats intend to rely on a reconciliation process to bring their proposal to a vote, a maneuver which avoids reaching the 60-vote threshold to prevent a filibuster.

Even the prospect of securing the support of all 50 Democratic senators for reconciliation is dicey. West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, who’s emerged as the legislator with the greatest leverage in an evenly divided Senate, and Arizona’s Krysten Sinema have been adamant in their opposition to overturning the filibuster rule, potentially blocking any hope of approving the Democratic program.

The progressive bloc appears to have overlooked or purposely disregarded Biden’s 46-year history in public life in the Senate and as vice president, a career highlighted by compromise, consensus and bipartisan coalition building.

His quick retreat from a veto threat sent a message to Sanders and others that while he is willing to accommodate them on certain issues, there’s a limit to caving to the demands of a minority when it endangers the centerpiece of his domestic agenda.

Biden, sensing a major legislative triumph at hand, will use his power of persuasion to bring the vocal left to his point of view.

He’s dealing, though, with hardcore political ideologues, many of whom believe those with the largest number of Twitter followers hold the power. Their influence is largely a negative one; more about what they oppose than what they support and they are not the least bit reluctant to express their views in often coarse and personally offensive language.

For Biden, the finish line is in sight and he can’t afford to allow his own party to trip him on the way there.

–

Copyright 2021 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

While the half dozen Republican Senators who supported the creation of an independent commission to investigate the Jan. 6 assault on the U. S. Capitol did so to obtain a more complete understanding of the incident, their colleagues’ opposition was a straightforward political calculation.

The strategy, developed by Leader Mitch McConnell, called for blocking the commission by arguing it was an expensive duplication of effort. The Department of Justice and two Senate committees are in the midst of ongoing inquiries into the siege of the Capitol and dozens of well-publicized arrests have already been made.

By thwarting the commission, McConnell took House Speaker Nancy Pelosi up on her threat to appoint a select committee armed with subpoena power to conduct its own investigation, a step he believes plays into his hands by tainting the panel with a partisan mission.

Republicans will portray the select committee not as a seeker of truth, but as a pursuer of political advantage whose eventual findings will lack credibility and will be neither trustworthy nor acceptable. They will work overtime to raise doubts about the fairness and objectivity of the committee and depict it as a Democratic National Committee campaign tactic.

Despite the broad support for the independent commission proposal, McConnell has gambled it can be neutralized in the 2022 midterm Congressional elections and overpowered by Republican driven issues like immigration and border security, increased taxes and spending, and Democratic support for defunding the police, issues which cut far more deeply with voters than a politically motivated Congressional committee investigation.

Republicans will establish a campaign narrative that the Democratic strategy is based on running against four years of Trump, utilizing the select committee’s inquiry to claim the ex-president was responsible for the assault on the Capitol, while Republicans will campaign against two years of Biden.

With Republicans within striking distance of regaining the House majority as well as breaking the 50-50 draw in the Senate, party leaders believe opposition to an outside commission will fail as a deciding factor in the midterms.

Democrats are acutely aware that history does not favor them and the disastrous 2020 election in which they very nearly lost control of the House is still fresh in their minds.

While Trump still maintains a tight grip on the party, his departure from office diminishes his value as a target of opportunity for Democrats, who’ve turned to the lunatic fringe conspiracy theories of first term Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene as evidence the Republican Party is controlled by its most radical elements and can’t be entrusted with Congressional majorities.

By engineering the defeat of the independent commission inquiry, McConnell rejected the advice of leading scholars and public figures that only a bipartisan panel modeled after the 9/11 commission is capable of unearthing the truth of what transpired, who was accountable, why law enforcement was quickly overpowered and develop recommendations for structural policy and procedural changes to avert a recurrence.

Their argument was a powerful one, and in a less polarized and divisive political environment would have carried the day, arguably with Republican support.

At a time when overheated, apocalyptic rhetoric accompanies and dominates virtually every issue debate and eliminates the possibility of across the aisle agreement, the opportunity for an unbiased examination of the worst assault on American democracy in modern history vanished.

Democrats and Republicans alike compared Jan. 6 with Sept. 11 twenty years ago, while others insisted nothing out of the ordinary occurred despite disturbingly graphic video evidence to the contrary. Bridging that divide is out of reach.

In another 18 months, McConnell’s high stakes gamble on his party’s future will either pay off or turn out to be a monumental political blunder.

If he triumphs, he’ll share the winner’s circle with Trump, who will elbow his way front and center, bask in the accolades, and remind McConnell that 2024 is not far off.

–

Copyright 2021 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

When a group of 150 Republicans and independents issued its “A Call for American Renewal” manifesto, speculation abounded that it represented the first step toward creating a third party to someday compete on an equal footing with the establishment organizations that rule American politics.

In the preamble to its 13-point statement of principles, the group characterized its mission as an effort to “catalyze an American renewal and to either reimagine a party dedicated to our founding ideals or else hasten the creation of such an alternative. We call for a rebirth of the American cause and do so in partnership and loyal competition with others committed to the preservation of our Union.”

There followed its pledge to be guided by the principles of democracy, founding ideals, Constitutional order, truth, rule of law, ethical government, pluralism, civic responsibility, opportunity, free speech, conservation, common defense & welfare, and leadership.

Noble goals all, but the singular most critical objective of all is missing: Prying the fingers of former president Donald Trump from the throat of the Republican Party.

The manifesto never mentions Trump, but his presence looms large throughout the document, with such rhetoric as: “We recognize truth and reason as essential to a free and just society and expect our leaders, citizens and press to seek and promote them. We oppose the employment of fear mongering, conspiracism, and falsehoods and instead support evidence-based policymaking and honest discourse.”

Similar language crops up regularly throughout the manifesto and there is no attempt at disguising the target of its wrath.

With each passing day since Joe Biden entered the White House in January, Trump has tightened his stranglehold on the party, highlighted by its Congressional leadership bowing to his demand that Wyoming Congresswoman Liz Cheney be expelled from her role as chair of the party conference in retaliation for refuting his claims of election fraud.

Trump has marginalized those in the party who were convinced that following his defeat he would retire to his Mar-A-Lago resort and weigh in periodically on politics and party affairs. He turned their beliefs into wishful thinking.

The constant stream of members of Congress, candidates and others seeking his support has solidified his role as the face of the party.

His suspension from social media sites Facebook and Twitter, for instance, hasn’t hampered his public omnipresence or his ability to draw outsized media attention.

He’s weighed in on all manner of policy and issues and the performance of his successor while critiquing in his trademark personal terms the shortcomings and flaws of those who oppose him.

Above all other considerations, though, Trump has become increasingly strident in his insistence that massive voter fraud led to his defeat. Supportive evidence is non-existent and dozens of legal challenges have all failed but more than 60 percent of self-identified Republicans agree with his contention.

His characterization of the Jan. 6 assault on the U. S. Capitol as a largely peaceful demonstration protesting the election outcome has been taken up by a few Congressional Republicans willing to exceed the boundaries of human understanding.

It is, however, testimony to the power Trump has asserted over the party. He’s its most dominant figure whose favor is sought eagerly by leadership and who remains a favorite of many Republican voters as the 2024 presidential candidate.

He’s given every indication he intends to play a major, if not dominant, role in the 2022 midterm Congressional elections, raising money and endorsing candidates.

If Republicans, already in striking distance of the majority in the House and in a deadlocked 50-50 Senate, regain control, Trump will emerge stronger than ever, potentially even unassailable.

Unless the American Renewal group can break that hold, it will go the way of other third party movements. This country is steeped in the two party tradition and has consistently rejected all efforts to turn away from it, no matter the circumstances.

There is no question of the sincerity of the group nor any doubt they recognize the danger in clinging to a cult-like figure such as Trump has become.

The task on which they’ve embarked may be the equivalent of a moon shot but it’s one worth taking. It’s left the launch pad successfully into the unknown. Godspeed.

–

Copyright 2021 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

On paper, it appears to be the kind of lopsided contest that even the Vegas bookies won’t take any action on – Representative Liz Cheney, a 54-year-old two term Congresswoman from Wyoming versus ex-president Donald Trump, a 74-year-old one-term billionaire president from Florida by way of Queens.

At stake is the control of the national Republican Party at a time when prospects appear bright for the party to re-take control of both houses of Congress in 2022.

That goal is only attainable, according to Cheney, if the party leadership breaks cleanly from Trump, escapes from under his influence and leaves behind his four years of chaos, erratic behavior and bitter partisan conflict marked by two impeachment trials.

Cheney, third ranking Republican in the House and daughter of former vice president Dick Cheney, was one of 10 Republicans to support impeachment proceedings and has drawn lines in the sand for her party going forward – Trump no longer has any role in party affairs and she’ll oppose him should he mount a comeback in 2024.

Her outspokenness drew furious pushback in her home state where she now faces a primary challenge as well as a cool reception from party leadership.

She has, though, forced a conversation many Republicans wished to avoid – how to deal with Trump in the 2022 midterm Congressional elections and the runup to the 2024 presidential contest.

Trump has made it clear he will not stand down, he’ll endorse candidates, raise money and campaign for or against the party’s selections.

His involvement, in Cheney’s view, is a disaster waiting to happen and could destroy the party’s chances of gaining the handful of seats it needs to win control.

Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, on the other hand, believes appeasing Trump and his base of support is crucial, and the political baggage the former president brings will not turn voters against Republicans.

The relationship between Cheney and McCarthy grows frostier by the day and the prospect of a meaningful thaw seems remote. Their differences over dealing with Trump are not likely to be resolved. The best that can be hoped for is a truce and a pledge to refrain from attacking each other.

Awarding a campaign role and platform to Trump is fraught with risk. He’ll re-litigate the 2020 election, insist that millions of votes were cast fraudulently or changed by mysterious forces to deny him a second term.

He has refused to move on, despite the dismissal of more than 60 legal challenges to the election outcome. His repeated complaints have morphed into irritating whining, grating on the ears of the American people.

He’ll likely once again defend or rationalize the horror of the Jan. 6 assault on the U. S. Capitol, one of the blackest days in the history of the democracy.

The media will eagerly frame the midterms around Trump, challenging Republican candidates to tell voters if they agree the election was stolen and the Capitol siege was a peaceful protest.

Cheney clearly believes that if these issues and the cult of Trump dominates, Republicans will pay a price.

While her concerns are shared by others in the party, there is a reluctance to follow Cheney’s lead out of a desire to avoid offending Trump’s devoted followers.

Their hope is they can finesse the issue of Trump’s presidency and thread the needle to demonstrate their fealty to him without appearing his captive.

Cheney appears to believe such a strategy will fail badly, that drawing that fine a line will be seen as an exercise in weaseling to have it both ways.

There is a great deal to play out as Congress acts on the Biden Administration agenda, leaving ample opportunity for Republicans to make their case that tax and spend Democrats are back in control to enact far left wing policies, bankrupt the country and pave the way for socialism.

In Cheney’s strategy, campaigning in opposition to the Biden administration and his Democratic Congress will be far more rewarding than defending the Trump presidency. A clean break with the former chief executive is the most effective way to achieve that end.

In her confrontation with Trump, Cheney may be punching above her weight class, but she stands a fair chance of winning on points. Even the Vegas bookies understand that.

–

Copyright 2021 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

Disregard the policy, the law school lecture language, the obfuscation and don’t be misled by the bureaucratic psychobabble.

President Joe Biden’s executive order creation of a commission to study of the U. S. Supreme Court is about one thing – court packing, expanding the nine-member court by an as yet undetermined number whose only qualification will be a pledge to carry out the Democratic Party’s left wing agenda.

The order is another in the administration’s inch by excruciating inch leftward, attempting mollify the party’s vocal progressives to whom expanding the court and stocking it with jurists who share their views is a non-negotiable demand.

The left’s lukewarm reaction to Biden’s order, however, is a warning to the president that the progressives’ appetite for imposing their rigid ideology on government is insatiable.

As a candidate, Biden opposed court expansion, once describing it as “boneheaded.”

Weeks before his election he declared he was open to a broad study of the court, including but not confined to its membership.

In broad and often vague terms, the announcement promoted the task of the 36-member commission as “providing an analysis of the principal arguments for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals.”

The commission would address such topics as “the genesis of the reform debate; the Court’s role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the court; the membership and size of the court; and the court’s case selection, rules and practices.”

Tucked in there near the conclusion, one finds the only issue that genuinely matters – “the membership and size of the court.”

At his core, Biden is an institutionalist who believes in a government of order and balance with each branch respecting the Constitutional prerogatives of the others and paying deference to the principle of co-equality.

He is also a centrist, a believer in building consensus, receptive to negotiation and compromise – qualities dismissed by the far left and many on the right as outdated and quaint notions no longer relevant in today’s polarized political environment.

It was little noticed, but the White House provided further explanation of the commission’s role: It will not deliver specific recommendations to Biden at the conclusion of its report and its findings will merely guide Biden’s thinking on the matter.

The clarification prompted suspicion Biden intends to use the study to put court packing to rest, a not uncommon tactic to buy time, use the interval for the issue to fade, and eventually move toward a predetermined decision.

Biden’s long history has shaped his conviction that expanding the court to achieve ideological ends would turn the tribunal into a political arm of the party in power – a politicization that will undermine the court’s independence and destroy public confidence in it as an unbiased, fair-minded arbiter of justice.

Requiring nominees to the court to commit to rule in favor of a politically driven outcome would crumble the institutionalist foundation so revered by Biden.

It is contrary to the view of every judicial nominee of both parties to refrain from pre-judging cases or engaging in discussions of specific issues which could come before the court.

Many in Congress worry also that increasing court membership invites retaliation should partisan control swing to Republicans who would move to repeal the expansion, no matter the ensuing administrative chaos.

Biden has indicated his openness to working with the left wing but he’s also made clear their style – “we give you a list of demands and you accede to them or face mayhem” – isn’t acceptable.

Biden’s attempt at appeasement is understandable (unity is preferable to factionalism), but his patience and understanding have limits.

He may have better served himself as well as served notice on his critics on the left that he still believed court packing is “boneheaded.”

Moreover, convincing the razor thin majority in the House and the numerical tie in the Senate to support legislation to add justices is impossible.

Biden could have emerged from the controversy with his institutionalist posture burnished and with broad political and popular support if he had acted quickly and decisively.

It seems that with the commission report due in six months, Biden’s Christmas gift to the left will be a refusal to satisfy its appetite.

–

Copyright 2021 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.
Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

Whatever faint flicker of hope remained for the creation of a commission to investigate the Jan. 6 storming of the U. S. Capitol has been extinguished, another casualty of the polarization gripping Congress.

The idea of a commission similar to that established following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 gained momentum in the immediate aftermath of the assault on the Capitol, but floundered when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell disagreed over the makeup of the commission and its scope of responsibility.

Pelosi sought an 11-member panel of seven Democratic appointees and four Republicans, while McConnell suggested the commission expand its inquiry to the violent protests that erupted in several American cities last summer.

Despite their initial expressions of support for a commission, the suspicion lingers that neither was seriously committed to it.

Both have been in Congress long enough (Pelosi for 34 years and McConnell for 36) and are intimately familiar with its traditions, customs and maneuverings to understand the most effective way to bury an idea is to create a stalemate based on seemingly reasonable grounds.

Each knew in advance the other would reject their suggestions, normally a preliminary step toward a negotiated compromise. Not this time.

The longer a standoff drags on, interest wanes, other issues emerge to demand attention, the media moves on and it fades from the public consciousness.

McConnell attacked the proposed partisan makeup of the commission as Pelosi’s attempt to guarantee a predetermined outcome, placing blame on former President Trump and the Republican Party for inciting their supporters to storm the Capitol to prevent Congressional certification of the Electoral College vote tabulation.

Pelosi criticized expanding the scope of the commission’s duties as a distraction to focus on the civil unrest and the demands of protestors to defund the police, an issue which many Democrats blamed for the party’s stunning loss of 15 House seats in 2020.

Neither is eager for a Democratic-dominated commission to spend months – potentially spilling over into the 2022 midterm elections when control of Congress hangs in the balance – in a public debate over the role of ex-president Trump in the Capitol assault (McConnell’s fear) or on the politically dangerous demands to defund police departments (Pelosi’s concern).

While they arrived at the conclusion independently, Pelosi and McConnell share the political calculation that abandoning the commission proposal poses a far less risk than the perils of thrusting the issue into next year’s campaigns.

Both are adept at navigating the cross currents and competing agendas endemic to Congressional politics to achieve a desired outcome. More importantly, each has mastered the inside game – the unspoken wink and nod deal and the promise of future rewards – to either secure a victory or assure a defeat.

With the enactment of the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package, the migrant crisis at the southern border, rising demands for action on a massive infrastructure program, tax increases, voting rights and climate change, the Jan. 6 commission tumbled far down the priority list.

Committees in the House and Senate have held hearings on the Capitol siege, taking testimony primarily from law enforcement, the military and intelligence community.

Many believe Congressional committees are the proper and appropriate forum to conduct inquiries into the assault and to propose legislative action to address reported failures in security preparedness, communications protocols, and the role of the military.

The Biden Administration expressed general support for a commission, but emphasized it was a matter for Congress to decide – a pledge of non-interference and a promise the President would not pressure Democrats to back its creation.

It will be left to historians to sift through the evidence and formulate a comprehensive, definitive account of the most serious assault on the center of U.S. government by its own citizens in history.

For now, the American people will confront two truths – a Democratic truth and a Republican one – each promoting explanations and conclusions colored by partisanship and ideology.

Both sides can and will blame a paralyzing polarization for the failure to reach a consensus in support of an independent inquiry, one that, like the 911 commission report, will win the confidence of the American people.

It didn’t have to be that way.

–

Copyright 2021 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.