Save our Defenders! And more Newer Deals.

For those just now tuning-in... my series about a Democratic Newer Deal aims to emulate the two most 'successful' legislative agendas of the last 30+ years, one of them a massive electoral success, despite being total fraud...

... and the other one a surge of rapid accomplishments. We need to learn from both of them, should Congress be recovered by the Union side in this latest phase of our 250 year civil (culture) war.

How does one measure political 'success'?  

First, does your publicized agenda attract voters so you'll win the next election? 

Second, can you then pass a whole lot of reforms that you and your constituents want, right away, before the political winds shift again?

The first desideratum was achieved in 1994 by the most successful tactical ploy of the last 30 years, Newt Gingrich's deceitful but alluring "Contract With America." His Contract made dozens of promises, half of them sounding reasonable to U.S. voters, enabling the GOP to crush Bill Clinton's Democrats and commence the Neo-Conservative era. That ploy was - of course - a damned lie... every promise betrayed, then forgotten by the GOP masters. And by their voters, distracted down rabbit holes of Fox-hypnosis. Still, such a successful tactic should be studied for why it worked.

The second great political success of the last 30 years came in 2021-22 when Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer - aided eagerly by Bernie, Liz, AOC and pragmatic progressives - used their brief window of opportunity to send to Joe Biden's desk a miracle year's worth of truly terrific bills. Bills that (alas!) far too few Democratic voters remember, distracted as they are by Trumpian antics. 

Unlike Gingrich-era hypocrites, Pelosi/Sanders et. al. truly wanted to rebuild American infrastructure, help poor kids, boost science, get fairness in taxes and the rest. Their action plan? Start any major reform campaign with a tranche of measures that are both urgently needed and that satisfy the 60%+ rule.  

What 60%+ Rule? 

Start with reforms that sell themselves by appealing to more than 60% of voters... and THEN fight the harder fights. Pelosi & co. did that in 2021-22. And for the first time in three decades, the Dems had a good legislative year.

They stopped too soon! Not their fault, but boy did we need more! Including some items to preserve democracy and justice, in case a monster like Trump ever regained power.

That is the pair of drivers behind my Newer Deal proposals.  Your agenda must be clear and dramatically appealing to 60%+ of American voters, so that you will win! 

And you must act on those 60%+ items quickly, to prove that you are not Republican hypocrite-liars. And in order to get in place the urgent stuff immediately!*

...so that opposition delaying tactics - and even a political wind-shift - will not reverse the most important ones.

== Earlier agile judo-proposals for a new Congress ==

As I did in the previous five postings, I will here amplify or examine some of those 35+ proposals, should Democrats regain the power to pass legislation. A dozen of them can be done, even if opposed by a monstrously Kremlin-controlled president! And nine could be enacted by just the House of Representatives, all by itself.

Almost all of the proposals are listed here, in this earlier posting, though I since added a couple based on reader suggestions. So far, we've covered the most urgent, including establishing the Inspectorate, a wholly independent agency to truly empower and protect the auditors and IGs and JAGS and others who can thereupon protect those who protect the rule of law!...

...plus a major step toward solving health care, by defining all children as 'seniors' for purposes of Medicare, a move that can be easily afforded, while cancelling all standard objections...

... plus partial solutions to abuse of presidential pardons and his sale of favors and hoarding bribe-gifts and abusing presidential control over public property like the White House. And I promise you've not seen those particular proposals, before. 

Only now...

 == Okay then, let's appraise four more! ==

The next one seems pretty damn vital, as the current administration drags us all toward an Epstein-distraction war. I'll discuss some of the whys and therefores, below.

 

 THE SECURITY FOR AMERICA ACT will ensure that top priority goes to America’s military and security readiness, especially our nation's ability to respond to surprise threats, including natural disasters or other emergencies. For starters, FEMA and the CDC and other contingency agencies will be restored.

NOTE: amid their all-out war against the brave and brilliant men and women of the U.S. Military Officer Corps, Republicans keep blaring assertions that Democrats have (so far) been too polemically stupid to refute. Foremost among these lies is the claim that the GOP is somehow better at Military Readiness. 

The opposite is true! Across the spans of most GOP or Democratic administrations, military readiness is nearly always rated higher after Democratic ones.  

Care to bet $$$ on that?  Anyway, the CDC and FEMA are just as important to defense against unexpected dangers, as well as replenishing the Trump-undermined counter-terrorism staffs who have been reamed-out and demoralized under Tulsi Gannard and Kristi Noem, almost as if the administration wants another 9/11. And maybe they do.

But let's continue with this Defense-related act.

 When ordering a discretionary foreign intervention, the President must report probable effects on readiness, as well as the purposes, severity and likely duration of the intervention, as well as credible evidence of need. 

All previous Congressional approvals for foreign military intervention or declared states of urgency will be explicitly canceled, so that future force resolutions will be fresh and germane to each particular event, with explicit expiration dates.

NOTE: These two pragraphs have been desperately needed for a long time. And I do fault Joe Biden for not doing this.

Emergency resolutions must expire and new ones be required for each "urgency'!  

These resolutions are the last vestiges of Congress's Constitutional power over declaring war. And they must remain meaningful!  

Continuing...

 Reserves will be augmented and modernized. Reserves shall not be sent overseas without submitting for a Congressionally certified state of urgency that must be renewed at six-month intervals. 

NOTE: The paragraph above refers to a travesty of George W. Bush, calling up reserve units of men and women with families and jobs and lives and hurling them directly, without preparation into the (lie-based) Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Such a call-up of reserves for overseas conflict may be necessary some times... though arguably it was not, in those cases, when it was - in effect - a Bushite cheat. 

In any event, Congress ought to be able to weigh in, on behalf of their constituents... and the Constitution.

Continuing...

Any urgent federalization and deployment of National Guard or other troops to American cities, on the excuse of civil disorder, shall be supervised by a plenary of the nation’s state governors, who may veto any such deployment by a 40% vote or a signed declaration by twenty governors. 

The Commander-in-Chief may not suspend any American law, or the rights of American citizens, without submitting the brief and temporary suspension to Congress for approval in session. 

NOTE: in case you are puzzled why I give such authority to an ad hoc panel of a minority of governors... think about it!

1. Governors are normally the commanders of their state militias or National Guard units! They damn well should be involved in determining whether a president's nationalization has good cause. Sure, George Wallace showed us that any one governor can be awful and should not have such veto power, alone. But TWENTY would give a good sense that something is very, very wrong with the order.

2. Why TWENTY? Why not a majority? Because the nation is badly divided and for a matter like this, no narrow majority should be able to impose its will, with military force on a large, objecting minority. If 40% of governors say "You may not turn our states' own citizen volunteers into a force to impose your will upon our citizens," then that should be enough to force a pause. "Stay out of our cities and we'll handle this ourselves."

3. Governors?  Heck yeah. Several reasons. First that Congress has been useless for all but two years out of the last 35, ever since Dennis Hastert declared a GOP rule absolutely forbidding Republicans in Congress against negotiation. We have to turn somewhere! And a council of governors is a locus of truly elected sovereignty that has been (I assert) way under-utilized.

Governors can do plenty nationally!  Look up the Uniform Business Code. If a bunch of states pass coordinated legislation, a whole lot can get done. 

And a final note: Look at the current Republican governors. A third of them are actually sane grownups! Sincere, patriotic and at least slightly-decent, old-fashioned conservatives. USE THIS!  Approach them and talk to them. Working with Democrats, they can supply one area of American sovereignty in which a sane majority holds sway.

== Another one... more brief but essential! ==

Want more unconventional proposals? You might expect the author of The Transparent Society to offer one dealing woth excessive secrecy, so here goes:

THE SECRECY ACT will ensure that the recent, skyrocketing use of secrecy – far exceeding anything seen during the Cold War - shall reverse course.  

Independent commissions of trusted Americans shall approve, or set time limits to, all but the most sensitive classifications, which cannot exceed a certain number. If a new document is classifed into the highest layers, then another must descend the ladder.

 These commissions will include some members who are chosen (after clearance) from a random pool of common citizens.  Secrecy will not be used as a convenient way to evade accountability.

Congress shall act to limit the effect of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs)that squelch public scrutiny of officials and the powerful. With arrangements to exchange truth for clemency, both current and future NDAs shall decay over a reasonable period of time. 

NOTE: Yes, I know, all of this will be hard to pass, amid paranoia. Especially when (I believe) a fair percentage of folks in DC are being blackmailed. But elsewhere in the 35 proposals is an endeavor to lure the blackmailed or fearful into coming forward.  Anyway, a party that promises this... and goes at least part of the way... may be taken more seriously.

And that's enough of the super-serious stuff. Now for a couple of head-scratchers... till you slap your forehead with 'of course!'

== Get past blather to... intent! ==

These are two more items that Congress could enact, without caring a whit about presidential vetoes! Because they are about the internal running of Congress... or even just the House!

 

We shall use anonymous conscience polling to probe for coercion: 

Once per day, the losing side in a House vote may demand and get an immediate non-binding secret polling of the members who just took part in that vote, using technology to ensure reliable anonymity. While this secret ballot will be non-binding legislatively, the poll will reveal whether some members felt coerced or compelled to vote against their conscience. Members who refuse to be polled anonymously will be presumed to have been so compelled or coerced.

I've wanted this one for a long time, but it's especially redolent and compelling today.

Do you honestly think that most of Donald Trump's current bestiary of mad-ludicrous cabinet members would be there, if today's GOP weren't by far the most tightly-disciplined political machine in the history of the republic?  

Look at the faces, during those hearings and confirmation ballots! HALF of the Republicans who voted for Pete Hegseth, RFK Jr., Kristi Noem, or Tulsi Gabbard wore expressions of agony!  Or else stone, cold, frozen resignation.

I have elsewhere offered my own theory as to how they are being coerced. But just the tight discipline - all by itself - speaks volumes! Hence the purpose of my proposal for daily anonymous polls would be to give such members a chance to 'vote' as their conscience truly would have wished.

Sure, these anonymous polls would not be binding or have legislative effect. The reps' constituencies still have final say. And being on record before voters is democracy. Moreover, I believe that - if this were tried - the GOP leadership would threaten hard any Republican representative who cooperated, even a little. Even to answer a simple poll.

Still, that top-down repression of their own caucus, in itself, would say a lot. And chip away at something monstrous.

== okay, here's another obscure one! ==

THE INTENT OF CONGRESS ACT: We shall pass an act preventing the Supreme Court from canceling laws based on contorted interpretations of Congressional will or intent. For example, the Civil Rights Bill shall not be interpreted as having “completed” the work assigned to it by Congress, when it clearly has not done so. In many cases, this act will either clarify Congressional purpose and intent or else amend certain laws to ensure that Congressional intent is crystal clear, removing that contorted rationalization used by the current Court majority to make-law, rather than adjudicate.

This will not interfere in Supreme Court decisions based on Constitutionality. But interpretations of Congressional intent should at least consult with Congress, itself.

Yeah, that one seems kinda obscure. You must first understand the contortions that John Roberts and Clarence Thomas and their accomplices have performed, in some cases, to justify betraying American democracy and all that. For example, in excusing the outrageous theft-crime of gerrymandering, Roberts concocted a reasoning - or Roberts Doctrine - that no neutral map-making commission can ever do a perfect job of fairness. And hence -- (they 'reasoned') - we might as well leave it to a state assembly majority that has already outrageously cheated to keep itself in power. (I offer a way around that Roberts rationalization here**, with a gerrymandering solution that evades it, completely.) 

Another rationalization used by the Roberts cabal is "intent of Congress." They opine that this or that law was never meant to do what decades of Americans assumed that it would do. In fact, they have several times ruled that Congress clearly intended the exact opposite!

Um, why not ask Congress what it intended? 

Again, nothing can stop the Court, no matter how badly suborned, from issuing rulings based on contortedly rationalized interpretations of the Constitution, as with the absurd notion of presidential immunity (dealt with in another of these proposals.) But with this act, Congress might at least say: "Stop using Congress's intent as your excuse for doing your judicial legislating."

== Jeepers, Brin, are you done yet? ==

Dunno. Do you mean, am I done beating my head against walls, knowing that this series will get just as much attention from the political caste as I got with Polemical Judo? In other words... crickets? Zilch? Like the number of folks who are still reading here?

Yeah, I know. I should stay in my lane. Put it all into scifi stories! Get back to blogging about cool things coming out of Science. Or better yet, give up both because no one reads, anymore.

Sorry. Can't help it. Ideas are the sparks coming off my loose wires. If you want me to stop... call a good electrician.

=============================================

* ... and yes, that means YOU must stop all your fantasies about Constitutional amendments. Stop that. Just please stoppit, willyou? That won't happen.  

** Here's a proposed legal argument that demolishes the "Roberts Doctrine" that he concocted to protect gerrymandering. https://david-brin.medium.com/the-minimal-overlap-solution-to-gerrymandered-injustice-e535bbcdd6c 

...and a more general deep-dive into this wretched crime: https://www.davidbrin.com/nonfiction/gerrymandering1.html

Four MORE Newer Deals... and why they'll work better than the Reich 'pledges'

Continuing my series about a proposed Democratic Newer Deal. 

Here I'll dive deeply into four more of the 30+ suggested reforms that were briefly listed here... organized in a way that both learns-from and satirizes the hypocritical but politically effective 1994 Republican Contract With America. 

But first some pertinent news. A couple of weeks after I started posting this series -- offering voters a clear agenda of positive steps -- economist and columnist Robert Reich issued a shorter list of “What Democrats Must Pledge to America.” And no, I am not asserting that my series triggered him to hurry his. 

Well, probably not. Though Reich's list overlaps mine in overall intent! We both aim to make progress toward better health care, aid to parents and children, and sound economics while limiting the power of oligarchies and cheaters and monopolies. Alas, Reich's 'pledges' also make up a wish list that might as well be directed at Santa Claus, for all of its political impracticality.

What distinguishes even very smart/moderate leftists like Reich from their centrist allies (like me) is not the desired direction, or even our degree of passion (you all know that I have plenty!), but awareness of one pure fact, that most of our progress across the last 250 years – even under FDR – was incremental. Each plateau building from the previous ones, like upward stairs of progress. Not letting the perfect be the enemy of the possible.

Alas, not one of Reich’s proposals satisfies the “60%+ Rule” that was so politically-effective for Newt Gingrich in 1994, and that Pelosi-Schumer-Sanders applied with terrific effectiveness in 2021-22.  

Start with steps that can be steam-rollered quickly, with 60%+ strong public support, right away! Only after that do you try for the long pass.

Big Gulp endeavors, like those tried by Clinton and Obama, always get bogged down and savaged by "Who pays for it?" and "They want communism!" Then, the GOP wins the next Congress and that's that - opportunity window closed. What we discovered in the 2021-22 Pelosi miracle year was that you can make great strides in multiple directions, if you start from that 60% consensus in order to push solid increments. Steps that then create those new plateaus!

Contrasting with Reich's "pledges," my list emphasizes restoring a functioning republic - civil service, reliable institutions, elections and rule-of-law - in ways that can't be withdrawn by future demagogues... along with incremental steps toward our shared goals (e.g. get all CHILDREN coverable under Medicare, in a single stroke, easily afforded and canceling every objection to Medicare-for-all.)

Look, I like and respect Robert Reich. But here he should have added an equally realistic 11th wish to the other ten... that every American gets a unicorn or pegasus, or at least a pony

== Those "Newer Deal" proposals we appraised last time ==

Could the news this month have better supported my list? If we had the Inspectorate right now, under IGUS (a totally independent Inspector General of the United States), Trump could not have fired or transferred most of the IGs and JAGs in the federal government. Honest scrutiny would abound when we need it most! And officers would have somewhere to turn, when given illegal orders. (I have recommended IGUS for fifteen years.)

The Truth & Reconciliation Act - discussed last time - would have staunched Trump's tsunami of corrupt pardons and the Immunity Limitation Act would clarify that no President is above the law. And yes, there are ways to judo-bypass the Roberts Court in both of those realms.

Some other proposals from my last two postings may seem obscure, like the Cyber Hygiene Act that could eliminate 90%+ of the 'botnets' that now infest tens of millions of home and small business computers, empowering our enemies and criminals. Or one that I personally like most... a simple House-internal reform to give every member one subpoena per year, which would likely transform the entire mental ecology in Congress!

But onward to more proposals! Most of which (again) you'll see nowhere else.

== Appraising another four "Newer Deal" proposals ==

I've mentioned the 1994 Newt Gingrich Contract With America several times and in so doing I likely triggered visceral, gut wrenching loathing from many of you! 

Well tough. You must understand how the 'contract' seemingly offered voters clear and crisp reforms of a system that most citizens now distrust. 

Yes, Newt and especially his replacement - the deeply-evil Dennis Hastert - betrayed every promise when they took power. Still, some (a minority) of those promises merit another look. Moreover, Democrats can say "WATCH as we actually enact them, unlike our lying opponents!

Among the good ideas the GOP betrayed are these:

 

•   Require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress; 

•   Arrange regular audits of Congress for waste or abuse;

•   Limit the terms of all committee chairs and party leadership posts;

•   Ban the casting of proxy votes in committee and law-writing by lobbyists;

•   Require that committee meetings be open to the public;

•   Guarantee honest accounting of our Federal Budget.

 

…and in the same spirit…

Members of Congress shall report openly all stock and other trades by members or their families, especially those trades which might be affected by the member’s inside knowledge.

Some members may resist some of those measures. But those are the sorts of House internal reforms that could truly persuade voters. Especially with the contrast. "Republicans betrayed these promises. We are keeping them."

Here's another one that'd be simple to implement. Even entertaining! While somewhat favoring the Party that has more younger members. Fewer creaky near-zombies. And so, swinging from the House to the Senate:

While continuing ongoing public debate over the Senate’s practice of filibuster, we shall use our next majority in the Senate to restore the original practice: that senators invoking a filibuster must speak on the chamber floor the entire time.

No explanation is needed on that one! Bring back the spirit of Jimmy Stewart.

Only now, here's one that I very much care about. Do any of you remember when Gingrich and then Hastert fired all the staff in Congress that advised members about matters of actual fact, especially science and technology? Why on Earth would they do such a thing? 

Simple. The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) would often say to members: "I'm sorry (sir or madam), but that's not actually true."

Oh, no, we can't have that! Gingrich asserted that OTA said that dreaded phrase far more often to Republicans than to Democrats. And... well... yes, that is true enough. There's a reason for that. But true or not, it's time for this proposal to be enacted:

Independent congressional advisory offices for science, technology and other areas of skilled, fact-based analysis will be restored, in order to counsel Congress on matters of fact without bias or dogma-driven pressure. 

Rules shall ensure that technical reports may not be re-written by politicians, changing their meaning to bend to political desires. 

 

Every member of Congress shall be encouraged and funded to appoint from their home district a science-and-fact advisor who may interrogate the advisory panels and/or answer questions of fact on the member’s behalf.

Notice how this pre-empts all plausible objections in advance! By challenging (and funding) every representative to hire a science and fact adviser from their home district, you achieve several things:

1. Each member gets trusted factual guidance -- someone who can interrogate OTA and other experts, on the member's behalf. And this, in turn, addresses the earlier Gingrich calumny about "OTA bias."

2. Members would no longer get to wriggle and squirm out of answering fact or science questions -- e.g. re: Climate Change -- evading with the blithe shrug that's used by almost all current Republicans: "I'm not a scientist." 

So? Now you have someone you trust who can answer technical or factual or scientific questions for you. So step up to the microphone with your team.

3. Any member who refuses to name such an adviser risks ridicule; "What? Your home district hasn't got savvy experts you could pick from?" That potential blowback could ensure that every member participates.

4. Remember, this is about fact-determination and not policy! Policy and law remain the member's domain. Only now they will be less unconstrained in asserting false, counter-factual justifications for dumb policies.

And finally (for this time)... a problem that every Congress has promised to address, that of PORK spending. Look, you will never eliminate it! Members want to bring stuff home to their district. 

But by constraining pork to a very specific part of the budget, they'll have to wrangle with each other, divvying that single slice of pie among themselves. And it will lead to scrutiny of each other's picks, giving each pork belly a strong sniff for potential corruption.

New rules shall limit “pork” earmarking of tax dollars to benefit special interests or specific districts. Exceptions must come from a single pool, totaling no more than one half of a percent of the discretionary budget. These exceptions must be placed in clearly marked and severable portions of a bill, at least two weeks before the bill is voted upon. (More details here.)

Notice that all four of the proposals that we covered this time are internal procedure reforms for the houses of Congress! Which means they would not be subject to presidential veto. 

These... and several others... could be passed if Democrats take either house of Congress in January 2027, no matter who is still in the White House.

There are other procedural suggestions, some of them perhaps a bit crackpotty! Like occasional secret ballot polls to see if members are voting the way they do out of genuine conscience or else out of fear or coercion... but you can find those here.

Next time, we'll get back to vitally-needed laws.

-------------

And this project continues...