Mediaboss Marketing

Progressivism, political and social-reform movement that brought major changes to American politics and government during the first two decades of the 20th century.

Progressive reformers made the first comprehensive effort within the American context to address the problems that arose with the emergence of a modern urban and industrial society. The U.S. population nearly doubled between 1870 and 1900. Urbanization and immigration increased at rapid rates and were accompanied by a shift from local small-scale manufacturing and commerce to large-scale factory production and colossal national corporations. Technological breakthroughs and frenzied searches for new markets and sources of capital caused unprecedented economic growth. From 1863 to 1899, manufacturing production rose by more than 800 percent. But that dynamic growth also generated profound economic and social ills that challenged the decentralized form of republican government that characterized the United States.

The Progressive movement accommodated a diverse array of reformersinsurgent Republican officeholders, disaffected Democrats, journalists, academics, social workers, and other activistswho formed new organizations and institutions with the common objective of strengthening the national government and making it more responsive to popular economic, social, and political demands. Many progressives viewed themselves as principled reformers at a critical juncture of American history.

Above all else, the progressives sought to come to terms with the extreme concentration of wealth among a tiny elite and the enormous economic and political power of the giant trusts, which they saw as uncontrolled and irresponsible. Those industrial combinations created the perception that opportunities were not equally available in the United States and that growing corporate power threatened the freedom of individuals to earn a living. Reformers excoriated the economic conditions of the 1890sdubbed the Gilded Ageas excessively opulent for the elite and holding little promise for industrial workers and small farmers. Moreover, many believed that the great business interests, represented by newly formed associations such as the National Civic Federation, had captured and corrupted the men and methods of government for their own profit. Party leadersboth Democrats and Republicanswere seen as irresponsible bosses who did the bidding of special interests.

In their efforts to grapple with the challenges of industrialization, progressives championed three principal causes. First, they promoted a new governing philosophy that placed less emphasis on rights, especially when invoked in defense of big business, and stressed collective responsibilities and duties. Second, in keeping with these new principles, progressives called for the reconstruction of American politics, hitherto dominated by localized parties, so that a more direct link was formed between government officials and public opinion. Finally, reformers demanded a revamping of governing institutions, so that the power of state legislatures and Congress would be subordinated to an independent executive powercity managers, governors, and a modern presidencythat could truly represent the national interest and tackle the new tasks of government required by changing social and economic conditions. Progressive reformers differed dramatically over how the balance should be struck between those three somewhat competing objectives as well as how the new national state they advocated should address the domestic and international challenges of the new industrial order. But they tended to agree that those were the most important battles that had to be fought in order to bring about a democratic revival.

Above all, that commitment to remaking American democracy looked to the strengthening of the public sphere. Like the Populists, who flourished at the end of the 19th century, the progressives invoked the Preamble to the Constitution to assert their purpose of making We the Peoplethe whole peopleeffective in strengthening the federal governments authority to regulate society and the economy. But progressives sought to hitch the will of the people to a strengthened national administrative power, which was anathema to the Populists. The Populists were animated by a radical agrarianism that celebrated the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian assault on monopolistic power. Their concept of national democracy rested on the hope that the states and Congress might counteract the centralizing alliance between national parties and the trusts. In contrast, the progressives championed a new national order that completely repudiated the localized democracy of the 19th century.

In their quest for national community, many progressives revisited the lessons of the Civil War. Edward Bellamys admiration for the discipline and self-sacrifice of the Civil War armies was reflected in his enormously popular utopian novel Looking Backward (1888). In Bellamys utopia, men and women alike were drafted into the national service at the age of 21, on the completion of their education, where they remained until the age of 45. Bellamys reformed society had thus, as his protagonist Julian West notes with great satisfaction, simply applied the principle of universal military service, as it was understood during the 19th century, to the labor question. In Bellamys utopian world there were no battlefields, but those who displayed exceptional valour in promoting the prosperity of society were honoured for their service.

Bellamys picture of a reformed society that celebrated military virtues without bloodshed resonated with a generation who feared that the excessive individualism and vulgar commercialism of the Gilded Age would make it impossible for leaders to appeal, as Abraham Lincoln had, to the better angels of our nature. His call to combine the spirit of patriotism demanded by war with peaceful civic duty probably helped to inspire the philosopher William Jamess widely read essay The Moral Equivalent of War (1910). Just as military conscription provided basic economic security and instilled a sense of duty to confront a nations enemies, so James called for the draft of the whole youthful population to form for a certain number of years a part of the army enlisted against Nature, which would do the rugged jobs required of a peaceful industrial society.

Jamess proposal for a national service was not as ambitious as the one found in Bellamys utopian society; moreover, James called for an all-male draft, thus ignoring Bellamys vision of greater gender equality, which inspired progressive thinkers such as Charlotte Perkins Gilman. But both Bellamy and James expressed the core progressive commitment to moderate the American obsession with individual rights and private property, which they saw as sanctioning a dangerous commercial power inimical to individual freedom. Indeed, progressive presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and the philosopher John Dewey, strongly supported Americas entry into World War I, not only because they believed, with President Wilson, that the country had a duty to make the world safe for democracy, but also because they acknowledged that there was no moral equivalent for the battlefield. Most progressive reformers held a common belief in civic duty and self-sacrifice. They differed significantly, however, over the meaning of the public interest and how a devotion to something higher than the self could be achieved.

The great diversity of progressive reformers and the ambiguous meaning of progressivism have led some to question whether the Progressive movement possessed any intellectual or political coherence. Although many leading political leaders and thinkers joined the Progressive Party (better known as the Bull Moose Party), that organizations brief existence (191216) underscores the movements powerful centrifugal forces. The party was torn apart by fundamental disagreements among its supporters about the role of the national state in regulating society and the economy. For example, the progressives 1912 presidential campaign, with the celebrated former president Theodore Roosevelt as its standard bearer, was deeply divided over whether the reform movement should attack legally enforced racial segregation in the South (see Jim Crow laws). In the end it did not, instead accepting the right of states and localities to resolve the matter of race relations. Most progressives, in fact, called for the enlightenment, rather than the expansion, of popular sovereignty. Their idea of national community did not includeindeed, was threatened byAfrican Americans and immigrants. Moreover, because reformers held such divergent views on the meaning of patriotism, progressives were irrevocably fractured by Americas entry into World War I. More generally, the very notion of progressive democracy is fraught with contradiction, presuming to combine reformers celebration of direct democracy and their hope to achieve more-disinterested governmenttheir ambition to create a modern statewhich would seem to demand a more powerful and independent bureaucracy.

Without denying that the Progressive movement was weakened by a tension between reforms that diminished democracy and those that might make democracy more direct, its central thrust was an attack on the institutions and practices that sustained the decentralized republic of the 19th century and posed an obstacle to the creation of a more-active, better-equipped national state. For all their differences, progressives shared the hope that democracy and administrative efficiency could be combined and that in this combination Americans obsession with self-interest and rights could be tempered by the development of a greater sense of national and international responsibility. For progressives, public opinion would reach its fulfillment with the formation of a modern executivefamously celebrated by Theodore Roosevelt, as the steward of the public welfarefreed from the provincial, special, and corrupt influence of political parties and interest groups.

Although progressives failed in many respects, their legacy is reflected in the unprecedented and comprehensive body of reforms they established at the dawn of the 20th century.

In the most fundamental sense, progressivism gave rise to a reform tradition that forced Americans to grapple with the central question of the founding: Is it possible to achieve self-rule on a grand scale? That was the question that had divided the Federalists and Anti-Federalists at the time of the countrys founding. The persistence of local self-government and decentralized political associations through the end of the 19th century postponed the question of whether the framers concept of We the People was viable. But, with the rise of industrial capitalism, constitutional government entered a new phase. It fell to progressives to confront the question of whether it was possible to reconcile democracy with an economy of greatly enlarged institutions and a society of growing diversity.

Up to a point, the Progressive era validated the Anti-Federalists fears. Despite progressivisms championing of mass democracy, its attack on political parties and its commitment to administrative management combined to make American politics and government seem more removed from the everyday lives of citizens. Yet progressive reformers also invented institutions and associations that enabled citizens to confront, if not resolve, the new problems that arose during the Industrial Revolution. Many of the political organizations that have been central to American democracy from the 20th centurylabour unions, trade groups, and professional, civic, and religious associationswere founded during the Progressive era.

The rest is here:
progressivism | political and social-reform movement ...

There are a few ways to respond to radical demands for campus censorship.

One is rather simple: Enforce decades of constitutional jurisprudence, and clearly signal to disruptive protesters that lawbreaking is grounds for serious discipline. Follow the law and the debate about free speech wont end, but the wave of shout-downs will pass. Students, after all, dont want to sacrifice their shot at a degree to stop, say, Ben Shapiro or Charles Murray from speaking. As a general rule, theyll do what the college allows them to do, and nothing more.

Then theres the opposite response: A number of progressive administrators, professors, and activists (over the objection of more liberty-minded colleagues) are seeking to redefine and ultimately eliminate the very concept of a marketplace of ideas on college campuses. They argue that the ultimate mission of the university is education, not providing a platform for any crazy idea someone wants to share, and that school administrators should thus have the right to determine who speaks on campus and how they speak based on whether the speech in question furthers this educational mission.

That, in a nutshell, is Yale Law School professor (and former dean) Robert Posts argument in an extended piece in Vox. To justify an administrative role in determining not just who speaks on campus but what they are permitted to say, Professor Post says this:

The entire purpose of a university is to educate and to expand knowledge, and so everything a university does must be justified by reference to these twin purposes. These objectives govern all university action, inside and outside the classroom; they are as applicable to nonprofessional speech as they are to student and faculty work.

This is remarkably similar to the arguments made to my colleague Charlie Cooke in a recent and heated debate at Kenyon College. If speech is so offensive, hurtful, or maybe just plain wrong that administrators believe it would impair the educational mission of the university, then, the thinking goes, they should have the power to restrict that expression.

There are multiple problems with this argument, but Ill focus on two: Its both unlawful and absurdly impractical.

First, the law. When analyzing a free-speech case, the first question you need to ask is, Who is speaking? In the context of a public university, there are usually three relevant speakers: administrators, faculty, and students.

Administrators have the general ability to define the mission and purpose of their schools academic departments. They can mandate, for example, that their science departments operate within the parameters of the scientific method and on key issues apply accepted scientific conclusions. But this power isnt unlimited. They cant lawfully decide, say, that evolutionary biology will be taught only by atheists. In that case, the speech of the administrators collides with the First Amendment rights of the professors, and the professors win.

Similarly, while professors have the right to shape and control their classroom (some permit profanity and insults while others sharply limit discussion) and even have the right to require students, within the classroom context, to defend views they may find abhorrent, their control is not absolute. They cant mark down conservatives for being conservative or silence Christians for being Christian. They can grade ideas and expression for academic rigor, but they cannot discriminate purely on the basis of ideology or faith. Just as you cant punch a Nazi, you cant flunk a Nazi if their work meets the standards of the class.

One of my old cases is instructive. Shortly after California voters passed Proposition 8, a ballot measure that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, a speech professor at Los Angeles City College walked into his class and declared that any person who voted for Proposition 8 was a fascist bastard. One of his students, a young man named Jonathan Lopez, decided to respond in a speech assignment. Lopez was asked to deliver a speech on the topic of his choice, and he chose to discuss and define his Christian faith. In the course of discussing the fundamentals of his faith, he briefly addressed marriage. His professor stopped his speech, angrily confronted Lopez, and then dismissed the class. Rather than grade his speech, he wrote on the evaluation paper, Ask God what your grade is. The professors speech thus collided with the students First Amendment rights, and the students rights prevailed.

In sum, individuals at each layer of university life enjoy considerable First Amendment protection. Indeed, no lesser authority than the Supreme Court has decisively declared that the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools. In an extended passage in Keyishian v. Board of Regents, State University of New York, the court put the issue in the starkest of terms:

The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation....Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die. [Emphasis added.]

Applying these principles and precedents, lower courts have time and again struck down speech codes, granted equal access to university facilities, required equal access to student funding, and vindicated professors claiming lost job opportunities because of ideologically motivated viewpoint discrimination. If high-school students or teachers dont shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate, then adult college students enjoy at least equivalent rights.

A public university simply cannot do as Professor Post urges and essentially define all speech as university speech and place it under the umbrella of the schools educational mission. Yet even if the First Amendment did not exist (or does not apply like at private universities), Professor Posts proposed top-down control of speech would be unworkable for all but those colleges with specific ideological or religious missions (think Bob Jones or Oberlin.)

Is it really the case that the university will be the arbiter of proper speech for campus Republicans, Democrats, Christians, atheists, Jews, and Muslims? Can it possibly craft a fair definition of offensive speech that satisfies the numerous and often-at-odds interest groups that populate any campus? Is it even intellectually prepared to anticipate what speech is educationally valuable and what is not?

Experience with modern waves of political correctness has already given us a rather decisive answer. Campuses invariably pick sides, they invariably impose double standards, and they always make fools of themselves. Think of Professor Posts institution, Yale. Not long ago it briefly became a national laughingstock as radical students mobilized against two professors, Nicholas and Erika Christakis, in large part because the latter had the audacity to suggest that adult students could make their own choices about Halloween costumes.

If a private institution wishes to impose the kind of education that Professor Post urges, then it certainly can. It can do what religious colleges do: define an ideological mission, inform students and faculty in no uncertain terms that the purpose of the university is to advance that mission, and then limit speech and expression on campus that undermines that purpose. But there are costs to that approach: You limit your pool of student applicants, you repel faculty who seek greater liberty, and you change the definition of the school in the public imagination. And thats a price places like Yale and Harvard arent willing to pay.

I almost want a public university to adopt the Post approach. Lets see them try. At the conclusion of his piece he says, The root and fiber of the university is not equivalent to the public sphere. If a university believes that its educational mission requires it to prohibit all outside speakers, or to impose stringent tests of professional competence on all speakers allowed to address the campus, it would and should be free to do so. It would be free to do so? Oh really? Earlier in the piece, he declares, The cardinal First Amendment rule of viewpoint neutrality has absolutely no relevance to the selection of university speakers. The Supreme Court begs to differ.

If a school follows Posts advice, the resulting legal defeat would be so decisive that it would serve as a warning for all those tempted to follow its example. The First Amendment does, in fact, offer extensive protections on campus. Generations of precedent teach a clear lesson: So long as men and women retain the courage to defend their liberties, university censorship is doomed to fail.

READ MORE:College Students vs. Free SpeechA University Stands Up for Free Speech and ItselfBetsy DeVos and the Mindless Mob at Harvard

David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Read the original:
Campus Free Speech -- Progressives Restrict Constitution ...

PRINCETON, N.J. To hear some Democratic activists tell it, 2017 is supposed to mark the dawn of the partys new era led by a younger, more aggressively progressive generation.

So why does it look like the establishment may be striking back?

Story Continued Below

In the only two governors races of 2017, Democrats might end up nominating a longtime Goldman Sachs executive and high-level political financier in New Jersey, while in Virginia the top of the ticket could feature a former George W. Bush voter who describes himself as a fiscal conservative.

Both Phil Murphy and Virginia Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam now position themselves as progressives running on liberal platforms in states that voted for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, and both have launched scathing attacks on the president.

But the easy caricatures of their backgrounds make some national Democrats nervous about the caricatures' effect on the grass-roots fires burning through the party early in 2017 and worried that their bruising internal battles about Democrats future may just intensify as a result.

Its not something thats going to be solved by the 2017 primaries. We have a lot of healing to do, and my point of view is you cant have a progressive wing and an establishment wing, said party strategist Rebecca Katz. We need to have a progressive establishment in order to win.

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The elections are the partys first statewide tests with Trump in the White House, and since they land just as Democrats debate their identity and figure out how to harness progressives anti-Trump intensity, they are being monitored increasingly closely especially the neck-and-neck contest in Virginia. And as the political world looks to them for signals about the direction of the party in the Trump era, the divisions are widening.

Adding to the sudden surge in interest: the fact that the Democratic nominee is currently favored to win both races in November in elections that stand to be framed as referendums on the president.

Murphy, a former ambassador to Germany under Barack Obama, is far more likely to win his race on Tuesday: a Stockton University poll from late May showed roughly one-third of New Jerseys Democratic primary voters backing him, compared with just 10 percent for former Bill Clinton Treasury Department official Jim Johnson, 9 percent for Assemblyman John Wisniewski, and less for a handful of others.

That gap hasnt stopped Murphys opponents from going after the likely nominee over his banking and party establishment ties, even after hes gotten vocal support from Bernie Sanders son Levi and liberal groups like the Communication Workers of America, and as he reminds voters that his Democratic National Committee work was under the liberal Howard Dean.

The broadsides from Wisniewski, who served as Sanders New Jersey campaign chairman in 2016, have been particularly strident. And Johnson, who describes his candidacy as a potential guiding light for the national party, has warned that a Murphy win could sap energy from base voters even after the front-runner got campaign help from former Vice President Joe Biden, who at a rally last month in Lyndhurst called the New Jersey race the single most important one of the next three years.

People will take a really hard look at the party [nominating] process in New Jersey and determine if its truly small-d democratic or the result of the machine doing what the machine has done for a long time, Johnson told POLITICO. And I think some people will be dispirited by that.

Yet its next week's vote in Virginia thats captured more attention from national Democrats, largely because of the more competitive primary race between Northam and former Rep. Tom Perriello. The latter, while far from a standard progressive on hot-button issues like gun control and abortion, has sought to portray himself as the candidate of the future, tying himself not only to Obama, but also to prominent liberals like Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Perriello and Northam the No. 2 statewide official and a pediatric neurologist who has leaned heavily on backing from state Democratic leaders including Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine appear headed for a toss-up, according to a recent Washington Post/George Mason University poll.

Entering the contest only in January, Perriello has worked to increase attention to the race while he and Northam criss-cross Virginia, aiming to raise money and national recognition to counter the existing support and statewide familiarity with Northam.

Phil Murphy, a former ambassador to Germany under Barack Obama, is far more likely to win his race in New Jersey. | AP Photo

This is, in some ways, less a primary than a test of what the next generation of the Democratic Party is going to look like, Perriello told POLITICO, pointing to the level of attention he received by aggressively going after Trump early on in the race.

Nonetheless, while New Jersey's and Virginias off-year races often offer hints about the next years midterms, they are rarely direct predictors of a partys fortunes or decision-making processes the states are more suburban and highly educated than many others, and Clinton beat Sanders in both primaries by over 25 points. Plus, Northam launched his run in early 2015 and Murphy in mid-2016, so many contours of both campaigns were largely set even before Trump won.

And its not like activists who argue for the party to take a more liberal tack have lost all their fights so far this year: They've taking over a few state parties and nominated Rob Quist in last months congressional special election in Montana.

The last-second injection of interest into the years two largest races, which have largely been overshadowed by day-to-day news from the White House, has still provided an opportunity for the partys leaders to take stock.

Democrats, as voters, are not in a place now where theyre only going to elect the farthest left of candidates. A lot of Democrats are taking positions that are far more progressive than they have in the past, and I think thats a good thing. But we dont want to cross the Rubicon where you have to be considered the left-most of the candidates to win every election. Thats a strategy for losing," said longtime party operative Dave Hamrick.

I dont think that this party has moved to a purity test party where we cant elect candidates who fit the district or states theyre running in. And thank God."

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

Continue reading here:
Meet the new Democrats - POLITICO

Albany

A group of progressive organizations on Monday gathered to voice their opposition to holding a constitutional convention, which voters will decide on Nov. 7.

We have far more to lose than we have to gain, said Ron Deutsch, executive director of the labor-backed Fiscal Policy Institute. We think this is a recipe for disaster.

While supportive of ideas such as a constitutional amendment ensuring a right to clean air and water, Peter Iwanowicz, executive director of Environmental Advocates of New York, said he believes a convention could endanger existing environmental protections.

It places them on a chopping block where they are subject to political trades, Iwanowicz said.

Charles Khan, organizing director at Strong Economy for All Coalition, another labor-backed group, said he feared a constitutional convention could turn out to be a Trojan Horse, during which billionaire activists could use their money and influence to help choose the delegates and create policies.

Every 20 years New Yorkers can choose whether to have a constitutional convention. If they do, delegates would then be selected to develop a slate of potential amendments to the state constitution. Voters in 2019 would decide whether to approve any amendments.

Supporters including the New York Bar Association and the New York Peoples Convention, backed by activist Bill Samuels, say a convention could fix the states partisan redistricting process, as well as create more environmental protections and measures to close campaign finance loopholes. Amendments could also simplify the states voting process and court system, advocates say.

Opponents such as Fiscal Policy Institute and New Yorkers Against Corruption, fear it could set the stage for rolling back protections and rights such as public-sector pension guarantees and legal protections for immigrants and the poor.

Monday's conference comes as opponents have been pouring money into ad campaigns for a "No" vote.

Opposition forces have already shelled out more than $1 million on their efforts in the run up to the final month, some bigger money is flowing as the Nov. 7 vote draws near.

Convention opponents went up on the airwaves last week with two ads slamming the process and urging New Yorkers to vote no on convening a convention this November.

According to filings with the Board of Elections on Friday, New Yorkers Against Corruption backed by labor unions, environmental groups, women's groups and others dropped nearly $600,000 on the TV ads.

The group spent more than $1 million total, raising $1.8 million (bolstered by $500,000 from NYSUT, $350,000 from AFSCME and $250,000 from CSEA).

It's that kind of money that convention supporters have known they'd have trouble competing with.

New York People's Convention reported $55,000 in spending since Oct. 6 in their latest financial filings released on Friday. That included nearly $22,000 for radio ads, digital ads, ad production and campaign literature, but no television spots.

Another group, the Committee for a Constitutional Convention, reported no advertising or literature spending part of about $5,500 in expenditures.

Matthew Hamilton contributed.

rkarlin@timesunion.com 518 454 5758 @RickKarlinTU

Read the original:
Progressives urge "No" vote on constitutional convention ...

To this day, Republicans havent forgiven Chief Justice John Roberts for casting the deciding vote that upheld the core of the Affordable Care Act. But along with his tie-breaking vote in the 2012 decision, Roberts also did something conservatives give him far less credit for, and he even convinced two of his more liberal colleagues to join him. He dealt a crippling blow to Obamacares Medicaid expansion, declaring that the requirement was essentially extortion: Agree to expand health-care coverage or lose all of your existing Medicaid funding. This, Roberts wrote, was akin to a gun to the head of the states, and thus unconstitutional.

Blocking that kind of unlawful coercion is federalism in action, which conservatives have fought long and hard to defend as a local check against federal overreach. And now that Donald Trump is running the federal government, its a principle that liberals and progressives are embracing with open arms, as Democratic-leaning states and localities mobilize to shield themselves from federal policies they consider retrograde or just plain damaging to their residents and interests. Hand over undocumented immigrants to Trumps deportation machine? Perish the thought. Let the chief executive faithlessly sabotage the health-insurance market in an otherwise liberal bastion? Over our dead bodies. Or how about Jeff Sessionss intended crackdown on local marijuana laws? Get out of town.

Progressive federalism is not a phrase you hear often, but the Trump era may have prompted a liberal awakening to the benefits of local pushback against centralized executive fiat. When the president announced his ill-begotten travel ban a week after he took office, it was up to states like Washington and Minnesota to score the first major victory against the executive orders implementation. And so its been with other hotly contested legal battles over sanctuary cities, clean air, the payment of certain subsidies under Obamacare. It has fallen to Democratic attorneys general and municipal leaders to be standard-bearers for the legal resistance against Trump, who otherwise seems committed to trampling on states rights, conservative principles be damned.

For Heather Gerken, the new dean of Yale Law School and one of the leading scholars in support of progressive federalism, Republican control of Congress and the presidency has given new urgency to her work. In the aftermath of the election, she co-authored a users guide in the journal Democracy on how localities can best harness the power of federalism to serve progressive ends. Thats not to say Democratic enclaves will necessarily carry this flag for the long haul. In an interview, she told me that people on both sides of the political spectrum tend to opportunistically wield federalism for their partisan ends and not because of some high-minded constitutional commitment. Both sides are fair-weather federalists. Both sides use it instrumentally to achieve their goals, she said.

The leaders of the liberal resistance, naturally, wont just cop to favoring federalism because it now suits them. During a recent press conference to announce a new lawsuit challenging Sessionss war against jurisdictions that wont turn over undocumented immigrants to the feds, Xavier Becerra, Californias attorney general, suggested his effort wasnt about opposing Trump, but rather about standing up for our founding document. I dont see this as a fight against the federal government, Becerra said, according to the Recorder, a legal publication. Were fighting to protect the Constitution.

Thats the kind of lofty and legalistic talking point that Republicans have elevated to an art form. For example, Becerras counterpart in Texas, Ken Paxton, has insisted time and again that the scores of lawsuits his office felt compelled to file against President Obama were all about the rule of law and preventing federal encroachment in local affairs. To protect civil liberties and prevent the concentration of power, the Constitution divides authority through the separation of powers and federalism, Paxton wrote in a recent letter defending his decision to threaten more litigation over an Obama-era program aimed at protecting young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. If Texas really cared about federalism, it shouldve gone after the federal program that helps these kids years ago.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, Democrats are the ones relying on similar litigation tactics and conservative precedents to oppose Trump. And theyve won some significant victories so far, which in turn have had the effect of slightly moderating the administrations stance on some issues. In April, a federal judge in San Francisco admonished the Department of Justice that it cant just threaten to strip funding from cities and counties simply because they refuse to do the governments bidding on immigration. And he did so borrowing from Chief Justice Robertss language in the first Obamacare challenge before the Supreme Court: The threat is unconstitutionally coercive, wrote U.S. District Judge William Orrick about Trumps executive order against immigrant-friendly sanctuary cities.

More dramatic still is whats been happening in the second most powerful court in the country, the federal appeals court in Washington, where the Trump administration has been waging a fierce regulatory battle with New Yorks Eric Schneiderman and other state attorneys general who insist that their states have skin in the game of how the federal government should enforce its own laws. In back-to-back decisions earlier this month, judges in that court recognized that these states should be able to intervene in cases where Trump, if left to his own devices, could simply decide that ozone pollution standards dont matter, or stop making millions in cost-sharing payments to insurers that make coverage affordable to poor Obamacare beneficiaries.

In these court confrontations, tellingly, lies a key difference in how progressives and conservatives employ federalism. For conservatives, its all about stopping executive policy they dont like: Texas alone spearheaded efforts to invalidate federal rules and directives aimed at protecting transgender students and patients, workers considering joining a union, and the undocumented parents of American citizens and permanent residents all in the name of upholding the Constitution and laws and their state budgets and businesses. Progressives, on the other hand, really like some of these policies and have jumped in the fray to save them from non-enforcement or outright repeal by the Trump administration. And in the face of new actions by Trumps team, their strategy has been to play offense, as in the bid by sanctuary states and localities to get the federal government to leave them alone on immigration.

These interventions have emboldened the Democratic base and maybe even contributed to the political aspirations of attorneys general and other local politicians. Federalism is now a tool to #resist. But is there a principled way for progressives to seize the moment and learn to love federalism for federalisms sake, rather than just as a means to score political points against Trump or salvage a policy they favor?

Writing in National Review, Ilya Somin, a George Mason University law professor and longtime libertarian scholar of federalism, expressed hope that the Trump era could well be the time to make federalism great again for both progressives and conservatives a moment for politicos and legal thinkers from both sides to find common ground and form a new bipartisan and cross-ideological appreciation for limits on federal power.

Yale Laws Gerken, for her part, is skeptical that one can make a bright-line rule for federalism, but she says that there are issues, such as national security and the enforcement of federal civil-rights laws, that everyone should agree belong in the realm of the national government vis--vis the states. Ive never met a [federalist who says] that a state should control our nuclear arsenal, she says. There are always things no matter what side youre on that you believe should be centralized. And there are almost always things that you think should be decentralized. The real question is, how much weight do you put on the scale for the values of federalism, and what you think federalism can achieve, given your goals?

Convicted killer Mark James Asay lost his last appeal, and was executed on Thursday night.

Weeks ago, nearly 50 counties had no insurer selling Obamacare plans. Despite Trumps many acts of sabotage, that number is now zero.

So long as the president has an internet connection, hes bound to read and, occasionally retweet all manner of far-right wing nuts.

Weve had the time of our lives, and we owe it all to him.

If Trump were to be removed from office via impeachment, the GOP would continue to rule with much the same policies. So why all the talk of a coup?

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke says hes recommending changes to a handful of national monuments.

Its an acknowledgement that the sailors are not expected to be found alive.

History shows the party in the White House struggles to knock off incumbent senators in midterms. Its one of many cross-cutting factors for 2018.

Fix the Debt is now fixin to get paid.

Police are reporting that one person died, and the suspect was shot and taken to the hospital.

It could become a Category 3 storm and cause potentially devastating floods by dumping close to two feet of rain in some areas.

Now that the president has put a government shutdown squarely on the table, Democrats must decide if they want a deal, or just a Trump defeat.

A primer on how the Houses struggle to pass a 2018 budget could blow up tax reform and Americas credit rating.

The White House chief of staff is controlling the flow of information to the president and presenting him with decision memos.

The president plays backseat Majority Leader, as relations between the White House and Capitol Hill continue to sour.

Progressives have taken up a conservative principle as a shield against the federal government. But is it just a marriage of convenience?

Rick Dearborn, who is now deputy chief of staff, reportedly passed along information about someone trying to connect Trump officials with Putin.

The charges stem from his use of pepper spray at the rally in Charlottesville, which he says was justified.

They said his words have given succor to those who advocate anti-Semitism, racism, and xenophobia.

The reported plan gives Mattis six months to figure out what Trumps tweets mean for service members and by then the courts may have weighed in.

Here is the original post:
A New Romance: Trump Has Made Progressives Fall in Love With Federalism - New York Magazine