Mediaboss Marketing

On Oct. 21, 1967, 100,000 people came together at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. to protest the Vietnam War. Following several speeches, roughly 50% of those gathered walked over to the Pentagon where a few hundred people then attempted to levitate the building.

The striking civic protest against the Vietnam War was noteworthy not just for its unusual call to action, but for the new and inventive ways Americans were flexing their right to peaceably assemble. And the Yippies who put on the event inspired countless creative takes on what protest could be, from the Womens Art Movement (WAM) to the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP).

The tradition of protesting in the United States is older than the country itself. This year, we've seen that historic institution full force with Black Lives Matter protests and, more generally, protests against the storied, systemic racial injustice in the United States. The May 25 death of George Floyd, a Black man, held under the knee of a white police officer in Minneapolis, sparked protests across U.S. cities and around the world. The protesters have called for justice for Floyd and other Black peoplefrom Breonna Taylor to Elijah McClainwho were killed by police, an end to police brutality, a dismantling of racist systems and symbols (including memorials to Confederate soldiers), and a greater investment in communities in need.

The protests prompted widespread dialogue about racial injustice and the political and cultural systems that support it. The four police officers involved in the killing of Floyd were charged with crimes related to the incident. The Minneapolis City Council agreed to dismantle its police force and rethink how it approaches public safety. And many politicians promised to adjust police budgets so money gets reallocated to support communities directly through improved housing, education, and mental health programs, especially in communities of color.

To understand where the Black Lives Matter demonstrations fit into this rich history, Stacker took a closer look at some of the most famous American protests. Research came from the New York Times, The Week, Time, and Business Insider; government archives; and information from unions and mission-driven organizations. The demonstrations that have made their mark on history range from the Boston Tea Party and Temperance prayer protests to demonstrations for modern-day issues, like civil rights, climate change, nuclear disarmament, reproductive health concerns, LGBTQ+ equality, and gun control.

Keep reading to learn about the important issues that motivated Americans to protestand the impacts of those actions on our society today.

[Pictured: A portrait taken during The Day Without an Immigrant protest on May 1, 2006.]

You may also like: Political Cartoons From The Last 100 Years

Original post:
Famous protests in US history and their impacts - Journal Gazette and Times-Courier

You dont want to know whats in there.Reuters/Jim Bourg/Pool

Donald Trump gave his least belligerent debate performance of the campaign on Thursday, keeping a mostly measured tone relative to his first in-person faceoff with Joe Biden (in which he repeatedly shouted over everybody) as well as to his second one (which didnt happen because he refused to participate). It was not, however, an evening defined by respectful, clarifying discourse. Again and again, Trump attempted to make bruising attacks on Bidens policies, background, and familyattempted because youd need to have spent the year pumping nothing but Fox News, Breitbart, and Dan Bonginos Facebook page into your brain to make sense of what the president of the United States was talking about. We, however, are paid to understand exactly that. Heres a rundown, and were sorry.

Youre the big man, I think. I dont know. Maybe youre not.

While answering a question about foreign election interference, Trump told Biden he might be the big man. This is a reference to Hunter Bidens laptop. A quick recap: Last week, the New York Post began running a series of articles based on emails, texts, and pictures that the paper claims were found on a hard drive from a laptop that was abandoned at a Delaware computer repair shop. Journalists and national security officials have pointed to a number of red flags in the Posts reporting, questioning whether the material is real and noting that it has many of the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign. (Trump also referenced the laptop from hell in the debate.)

A daily email update of the stories you need to read right now.

In one of the supposed emails found on the laptop, one of Hunters business associates outlined an equity split from a business deal with a Chinese energy company, with 10 percent going to someone identified as the big man. Conservatives have speculated that the big man is Joe Biden, though no solid evidence has surfaced, and the Biden campaign has denied that he received any stock.

Joe got $3.5 million from Russia and it came through Putin because he was very friendly with the former mayor of Moscow. And it was the mayor of Moscows wife.

Trump said this in response to Bidens accusation that hes been soft on Russia. But the actual allegation here was levied against Hunter Biden, not Joe, by the Republican majority on the Senate Finance and Homeland Security committees in a report citing undisclosed documents. The report claimed that Elena Baturina, the widow of Moscows former mayor, had wired the money to an investment firm co-founded by Hunter Biden. Hunters lawyer has denied that he was a co-founder or had any interest in the firm, or that he received the money, and Republicans have not furnished any evidence to support the claim.

As soon as he [Joe Biden] became vice president, Burismanot the best reputation in the worldI hear they paid [Hunter] $183,000 a month and they gave him a $3 million upfront payment.

Trump said this in the debate section about the candidates foreign entanglements. He was making a reference to Hunters role on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma. Trump has changed his story over time about how much Hunter was making, with figures ranging from $50,000 to $83,000 to $183,000. The amount is actually closer to $50,000. Its unclear where the $3 million figure came from, though it could be a reference to the fact that Hunter may have been able to accrue $3 million in total during his five years on the board based on this monthly salary.

I get treated worse than the Tea Party got treated. Because I have a lot of people in there, deep down in the IRS, they treat me horribly.

This quip, made when Trump was dodging questions about his own taxes, was in reference to an Obama-era episode in which the IRS was accused of targeting Tea Party groups with additional screening and scrutiny during the process of applying for tax-exempt status. The scandal began in 2013 when a report from the Treasury inspector general for tax administration concluded that the agency had delayed conservative groups with burdensome additional requirements. The scandal snowballed to include a number of investigations and hearings (including ones about missing emails Republicans believed would explain things), but the Obama Justice Department didnt prosecute any people at the IRS. Ultimately, the Senate Finance Committee concluded in a report that the division responsible for the process was poorly managed and ill-equipped to handle the surge in right-wing populist applications, but that it hadnt done anything criminal. After Trumps election, thenAttorney General Jeff Sessions declined to reopen the case, and the Trump administration settled a class-action lawsuit from the Tea Party groups.

As for what Trump is referring to about his own treatment, this appears to relate to his ongoing audit. Trump, who only paid $750 in federal taxes in 2017, is part of a class of Americans who often minimize their taxes through creative accounting. For most of a decade, Trump has fought the IRS over a $73 million refund he received because of claimed losses. Trump has consistently complained that the IRS has treated him unfairly.

I guarantee you if I spent one million on you, Joe, I could find plenty wrong. Because the kind of things that youve done and the kind of moneys your family has takenyour brother made money in Iraq. Millions of dollars. Your other brother made a fortune. And its all through you, Joe.

As with the calls for investigations into Bidens son Hunter, many conservatives have homed in on the apparent and ethically iffy perks of being the vice presidents brother. In 2010, James Biden was named the executive vice president of an international construction firm. According to Politico, that position became controversial when James firm, HillStone International, was awarded $1.5 billion to build homes in Iraqwhile Joe Biden was leading the White Houses Iraq policy. HillStone has denied that Joe Biden had anything to do with the deal.

Joe Bidens other brother, Frank Biden, is a real estate developer in Florida who has not been involved in any international scandal, though he has admitted that his name has helped him make connections and secure a contract to open charter schools in the state.

Nobody tougher than me on Russia. While he was selling pillows and sheets, I sold tank busters to Ukraine.

This line of attack is a reference to the Obama administrations decision not to provide lethal aid to Ukraine. In 2015, John McCain complained, The Ukrainians are being slaughtered, and were sending blankets and meals. Blankets dont do well against Russian tanks. But while pillows and sheets may have been part of the Obama administrations aid to Ukraine, it also sent $100 million in security assistance as well as equipment viewed as essential for the functioning of the Ukrainian military. The Trump administration has supplied much of the same aid, as well as weapons.

When you say spike, take a look at whats happening in Pennsylvania where theyve had it closed. Take a look at whats happening with your friend in Michigan where her husbands the only one allowed to do anything.

During his rant about cities and states with Democratic leaders, Trump called out a familiar figure of conservative scorn: Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. In May, Whitmers husband, Marc Mallory, had asked a boat dock company to move up the familys installation. In that phone call, Mallory mentioned his connection to the governor. Whitmer said he had been joking, but she faced heavy criticism when the news broke. She had also faced criticism for strict coronavirus restrictions, and the report about her husband came as she asked Michiganders to stay home ahead of the Memorial Day weekend.

Slate is covering the election issues that matter to you. Support our work with a Slate Plus membership. Youll also get a suite of great benefits.

Here is the original post:
A Guide to All the Nutty Things Trump Said That Youd Need Fox News Brain to Understand - Slate

WASHINGTON Five dozen bright-eyed Democrats rode an electoral wave into the House nearly two years ago on a promise to shake up Congress and enact ambitious social reform on health care, climate policy and immigration. They were younger, more female, less wealthy and less white than any previous freshman class.

And although these first-term representatives were noticeably more outspoken and defiant than their predecessors culminating in President Donald Trump's impeachment they face reelection with no major legislative achievement to their credit. The 116th Congress is on pace to enact the fewest number of laws in recent history.

"Our mark is more institutional than it is legislative," said Rep. Katie Porter, one of seven Democrats from California elected in 2018. She said the impact of the 2018 class had yet to be fully seen. "Changing the institution to make it work better will ultimately produce better legislation."

Though some freshman lawmakers succeeded in pushing through narrow bills that helped their constituents, several acknowledged their frustration at the lack of any major legislative wins.

"Results speak for themselves, and it's pretty clear there hasn't been enough progress on these issues," said Rep. Josh Harder, another first-term Democrat from California. "Obviously it's hard when you control one half of one branch of government."

At the same time, however, these new lawmakers helped reshape and redefine the traditional role of a first-term House member. They have generally been more active on social media and more engaged with their constituents than their elder statesmen. Several quickly established national profiles by speaking out on issues at hearings and in public or pushed narrow bills that helped their constituents.

Though they've largely eschewed corporate PAC money, several became mammoth fundraisers by focusing on small-dollar donors. And when the pandemic hit, they led the calls for Zoom hearings and remote voting. Harder hosted a drive-thru town hall.

"C-SPAN has never been more popular," quipped Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., who was elected by her colleagues to act as co-president of the 2018 freshman class.

First-term House members also point to their defense of the Affordable Care Act and efforts to hold Trump accountable as important parts of their legacy.

The 2018 Democratic takeover of the House ended GOP efforts to repeal the 2010 health care law, although it is under threat of elimination in a lawsuit set to be taken up by the Supreme Court in November.

Late last year, the House impeached the president for soliciting Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election and obstructing Congress' investigation.

But outside of legislation to address the coronavirus pandemic and keep the government funded, this Congress has enacted 175 bills so far, according to GovTrack.

That figure will certainly rise by the end of 2020, but there is little chance the 116th Congress will surpass the last record low in recent history 284 bills passed during the 112th Congress that ended in 2012, when tea party conservatives and Republicans controlled the House during the Obama administration.

"They struck me as freshman lawmakers learning the ropes," said Joshua Huder, a senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University. "I didn't see a revolution or unique freshman class fingerprints on congressional operation."

Though stymied by the GOP-led Senate from realizing major reforms, House Democrats on their own approved several largely symbolic bills to address prescription drug prices, immigration, climate change, gun policy, LGBTQ equality and voting rights.

There was no real negotiation between Republicans and Democrats Trump and Pelosi have an almost nonexistent relationship except in the most dire situations, such as funding the government and enacting coronavirus relief measures. Even those have been exceedingly difficult.

"There would be compromise if we agreed on the goals," said Rep. TJ Cox, a California Democrat. "We don't agree on the goals."

Voters appear to be nonplussed about the lack of major legislative wins by the new House Democratic majority. Polls show that even many of the freshman who were elected in Republican-leaning districts and were once thought to be vulnerable are expected to win reelection. Democrats could even expand their majority in the House.

Of the seven Democrats from California elected for the first time in 2018, only three Cox, Rep. Gil Cisneros and Rep. Harley Rouda are facing hotly competitive races. (One of the seven, Rep. Katie Hill, left office in 2019 amid the release of nude photos without her consent and allegations that she had a relationship with a congressional staffer. Republican Rep. Mike Garcia was elected to the seat.)

If Democrats take control of the White House and Senate this fall, the next two years will be the real test of House Democrats' effectiveness in enacting legislation and their political longevity, particularly after two years dominated by a historic government shutdown, impeachment, a pandemic and a national reckoning on race.

Democrats will be eager to quickly capitalize on their majority to move on major legislation. But the political fissures that emerged this year between the moderate and progressive ends of the House Democratic caucus are likely to grow when legislation becomes more realistic. Many of the major policy bills the House passed this year such as those addressing gun control, immigration and prescription drug reform were messaging bills because the House knew the GOP-controlled Senate would never take them up.

"It's easier to vote along party lines if it's not going anywhere," Rouda said, adding he might have voted differently on some of them had they had a chance of becoming law.

Several first-year lawmakers took an outsize public role over the last two years, becoming some of the most well-known members of Congress outside of leadership. Four young female members of color Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley and Ilhan Omar became known as "the squad." They drew rebukes from Trump and were among the freshmen most willing to buck Democratic leadership in public votes or private meetings.

Another group of lawmakers with national security experience, including Cisneros, wrote a Washington Post op-ed article detailing why the House should impeach the president, a pivotal moment in the Democrats' decision to go forward with impeachment.

Porter, with her now-trademark whiteboard, became known as one of the most successful questioners in Congress for putting corporate executives or government officials, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director, Robert Redfield, through a public grilling.

"There a lot of members of the freshman class that don't hold anything back," Cisneros said.

But while much of the public attention focused on the progressive newcomers, behind the scenes Pelosi and Democratic leaders worked to protect the more moderate freshmen, who rode dissatisfaction with Trump in the midterm to wrest away formerly GOP districts. These more politically vulnerable members had perhaps even more of an influence on the direction of House Democrats in the last two years.

Although progressives were eager to move articles of impeachment sooner, Pelosi didn't move forward until the more moderate Democrats were on board. The House hasn't had a floor vote on the Green New Deal or "Medicare for All" measures that progressives want to advance but that would put moderate Democrats in a tough squeeze.

Many of the moderates, dubbed "front-liners," were set up by Democratic leadership to succeed by putting them on high-profile committees or having them chair subcommittees. Several front-line freshman members got at least one minor bill signed into law an important accomplishment to tout at home.

Rep. Mike Levin, a California Democrat and chairman of a subcommittee on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, has focused away from the high-profile fights and drilled down instead on bipartisan bills to reform veteran housing vouchers and training programs.

"If you just kind of look at the national narrative of what happens here," he said, "I wouldn't blame you for thinking that we're not getting much done and that the whole place is overrun by gridlock."

Harder spent months on a bill to help California eradicate nutria semi-aquatic rodents that destroy wetlands and can damage water infrastructure, as they did in the Central Valley. He even carried a taxidermic swamp rat around the Capitol as a prop. The bill is now waiting for Trump to sign it into law.

Said Harder: "You really can do a lot of good, if you focus on issues that are important but no one else is leading the charge on."

(c)2020 Los Angeles Times

Visit the Los Angeles Times at http://www.latimes.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

PHOTOS (for help with images, contact 312-222-4194): CONGRESS-2018-CLASS

To see what else is happening in Gallatin County subscribe to the online paper.

Original post:
Young, outspoken and diverse, the 2018 House class began with high hopes. Did it deliver? - The Bozeman Daily Chronicle

Senate Democrats were stuck.

There was never much they could do to sidetrack the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court.

They could complain about the process, contending Republicans went back on their word.

They could blame their favorite foil.

(Senate Majority Leader Mitch) McConnell is angry. Why? Because we Democrats have exposed that he has defiled the Senate as an institution, more than any other person in this generation, thundered Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

LISA MURKOWSKI ANNOUNCES SUPPORT FOR AMY CONEY BARRETT DURING RARE SATURDAY SENATE SESSION

They could invoke the ghost of Merrick Garland.

Democrats could cite Senate precedent.

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett Oct. 21, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Jim Lo Scalzo/Pool via AP)

They could talk aboutlooming Supreme Court cases on Obamacare and Roe v. Wade.

But sometimes in politics, you just cant tip the field in your direction. The odds simply arent in your favor.

Such was the case with Barrett.

Barretts confirmation hearing came and went. Nothing nefarious arose about her past.

MCCONNELL TEES UP FLOOR VOTE ON AMY CONEY BARRETT NOMINATION AFTER SCHUMER ATTEMPTS DELAY TACTIC

Thats notable. Not because its Barrett. But just because thats the way things just seem to go down on Capitol Hill.

Weve had other charges arise just after a Supreme Court confirmation hearing concludes. Consider the allegations leveled by law professor Anita Hill at Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991. That came after Thomass hearings wrapped up.

An eerily similar scenario unfolded in 2018 with now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Allegations from Christine Blasey Ford also emerged after Kavanaughs hearings were complete.

But Barrett is hurtling toward confirmation.

And theres nothing Democrats can do about it.

There probably never was.

Democrats were hamstrung both by choice and circumstances.

Progressives railed at Democrats. They raged at Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.,the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, for appearing too deferential toward Barrett. And, way too conciliatory toward Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Grahams locked in a tight battle to hold his seat against Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison. Many Democrats hold particular enmity for Graham lashing out at the left during the Kavanaugh hearing two years ago. Thats to say nothing of Grahams transmogrification from a Never Trumper back in 2015 to the presidents golf buddy.

Thats why some on the left would have preferred a political brawl over Barrett.

Nothing crystallized that left-wing groups viewed as wrong with the Barrett confirmation process. Feinstein hugged Graham perhaps drawing the ire not only from NARAL on political grounds, but from health experts on pandemic grounds.

AMY CONEY BARRETT CONFIRMATION: WHAT TO EXPECT IN THE SENATE OVER THE NEXT FOUR DAYS

This is one of the best sets of hearings that Ive participated in, Feinstein complimented Graham.

Now some liberal groups want to strip Feinstein of her seniority on the committee. If Democrats win the Senate this fall, Feinstein is poised to become the first female chair of the Judiciary panel. But some on the left would prefer replacing her with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., or even Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. Leahy used to lead the Judiciary and has the most seniority of any senator.

Its not unheard of for the Senate to sideline senior lawmakers from a chairmanship. But thats usually due to health concerns.

Unseating Feinstein would be messy.

Schumer was terse when asked about Feinsteins future.

Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., speaks during a news conference after boycotting the vote by the Republican-led panel to advance the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to sit on the Supreme Court, Thursday, Oct. 22, 2020, at the Capitol in Washington, as other Democratic committee members look on. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Ive had a long and serious talk with Sen. Feinstein, Schumer said about concerns of her stewardship on the Judiciary panel. Thats all Im going to say about it right now.

Democrats frankly dont want to rock the boat at this stage. Theyre content with their standing in the polls just before the election. Despite a push from the left, Senate Democrats feared Barretts hearings could devolve into a melee. They didnt want anything mirroring the 2018 cage match to confirm Kavanaugh.

They also worried about how a raucous hearing could impact Democratic vice presidential nominee and Judiciary member Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif.

So Democrats pulled the political and parliamentary levers they had.

LIBERAL GROUP CALLS FOR FEINSTEIN TO STAND DOWN FROM JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ROLE AFTER GRAHAM HUG

They boycotted a committee vote to send Barretts nomination to the floor. In place of senators, Democrats left gigantic cardboard cutouts of constituents with health care stories in their seats in the committee room. The Democratic side of the dais resembled the third base mezzanine at Citi Field, adorned with picture cutouts of Mets fans.

The boycott today, frankly, is a stunt to appease the left-wing, activist base thats angry, said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Theyre angry that the Democrats are not able to stop this nomination.

But Cruz was wrong. The Democrats stunts did nothing to mollify the left.

Democrats met opposition from their own side when they attempted to conduct a socially distanced press conference on the Senate steps, explaining their committee absences. Boisterous demonstrators some decked out in scarlet togs from The Handmaids Tale hectored Democrats as they tried to speak.

Should we just go forward? asked Schumer over the din.

I wonder if its going to stop, said Feinstein.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.,tried to reason with the activists but got nowhere.

You showed up and legitimized the process, shouted one protester.

This division is emblematic of problems which could await Democrats should Joe Biden win the White House and Democrats capture the Senate. Theres a growing schism between liberal and moderate Democrats. Democratic wins next month could exacerbate the division as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and others try to lug the party to the left on economic and environmental issues.

This fracture is similar to internecine fights Republicans have wrestled with since the tea party emerged in 2009. These days, mainstream GOPers have to deal with President Trump and QAnon.

But theres some Republican dissent on Barrett as well.

Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Susan Collins, R-Maine,immediately expressed concerns about the Senate moving at breakneck speed to confirm any nominee so close to an election. Murkowski Saturday acknowledged she lost the fight to delaythe confirmationand would vote yes on Monday to confirm Barrett on her merits.

I oppose the process that led us to this point, but I do not hold it against her, Murkowski said.

Collins supported Kavanaugh two years ago and took heat for her decision. Collins is locked in a pitched battle for re-election this fall.

AMY CONEY BARRETT HEARINGS LEAVE REPUBLICANS PROUD, DEMOCRATS DECRYING SHAM

Murkowski opposed Kavanaugh but ultimately voted present on the nomination in 2018. That was an effort to offset an absence by Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont. Daines supported Kavanaugh. But the vote fell on the same day his daughter was getting married in Montana.

There are 53 Republicans in the Senate. If Collins is a nay, that means Barretts nomination likely has a maximum of 52yeas one vote past the bare minimum necessary for confirmation

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill on Oct. 20, in Washington. (Photo by Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images)

On Friday afternoon, Schumer tried to toss one last monkey wrench into the parliamentary gearboxes. For the first time since 2010, the New York Democrat shifted the Senate into a brief, secret session. Schumer said senators should have a candid discussion about what Republicans were trying to do to confirm Barrett.

The doors to the Senate chamber were closed and locked. Cameras were turned off. Reporters and most aides were shooed out of the gallery and off the floor.

The Senate usually only meets in a secret session to consider grave national security matters or even articles of impeachment although there was no closed session in the impeachment trial of President Trump. The Senate mostly met in secret during the 1790s. Schumers maneuver was reminiscent of a 2005 tactic by then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.,slipping the body into a closed session to discuss faulty intelligence which sparked the war in Iraq.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

But even Schumers move for a secret session lacked impact. During the closed session, McConnell,R-Ky., simply called a vote to immediately re-open the doors. Which the Senate promptly did.

Democrats were again stuck. Their left flank is crying for more. But theres nothing they can do to derail the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett.

Read the original:
Democrats, trying everything, fail to derail Amy Coney Barrett confirmation - Home - WSFX

KeyPoints

Read the PDF.

On March 27, 2020, the House of Representatives passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act via a voice vote. The bill amounted to trillions of dollars in aid for hospitals, businesses, and individuals affected by the coronavirus. An overwhelming majority of membersleft, right, and centersupported the initiative, but it was not unanimous. Rep. Justin Amash (L-MI), a Republican turned Libertarian who opposed the bill, took to Twitter to blast his former GOP colleagues for hypocrisy. Just ten years after the Tea Party movement, he wrote, Republicans in Congress are defending a $500 billion corporate welfare fund for a select group of large companies.1

Thisviewthat Republicans had betrayed their principles by supporting a large,deficit-financed relief packageis hardly the majority opinion on the right,but it is nevertheless worth asking if it is true. Just as there are noatheists in foxholes, are there no economicconservatives in a national crisis?

The answer inevitably depends on how one defines the phrase economic conservatism. As Amash understands it, it implies a commitment to minimal government involvement in the economy, regardless of the circumstances. Amashs view, while no doubt honestly held and certainly worth consideration, has never been the dominant understanding of economic conservatism in the Republican Party. And while conservativism can mean virtually anything to anybody at any point in time, there is a voluminous historical record of speeches, party platforms, and laws that clearly establishes the parameters of Republican orthodoxy on economic conservatism.

Republican economics, as we might understand it, has had a strong and consistent orientation toward business. It sees the success of American business as the key to national unity, domestic prosperity, and international security. In that view, supporting business is an essential government function. The party has never really advocated for a minimalist government but rather a government that supports private industry.

The intellectual origins of this approach stretch back to the period before the Republican Party existed, in the political philosophies of leaders such as Whig Henry Clay and Federalist Alexander Hamilton. After the collapse of the Whig Party following the Compromise of 1850, ex-Whigs in the North combined their economic policies with a free-soil approach that restricted slavery in the territories to form the Republican Party. The triumph of the Union made the free-soil position obsolete, but the party continued its commitment to Whig economics.

While the specifics of Republican policies have often changed since the Civil War, the partys core commitment to supporting business has remained consistent. Indeed, the evolution of many policy positionsfor instance, on the debate over free trade versus protectionismhas closely tracked American business changing needs. While there is no doubt a lot to criticize about the connection between the party and business interests, Republican support of the CARES Act was consistent with its historical beliefs.

Read the full report

Notes

Read more:
'Reasonable encouragement to our home industry': The Republican Party's response to the coronavirus - American Enterprise Institute