Citizen Cartwright

Seeing the news through a ‘let’s preserve democracy’ lens

As I wrote last month, the risk to America’s democracy calls on people like me to go beyond the journalistic training that told us to write up what supporters and opponents say and leave it at that.

 

So let’s look at these three trends reported over the weekend by The New York Times:

 

— State secretaries of state, who oversee elections

 

Nearly two dozen Republicans who've publicly questioned or disputed the results of the 2020 election are running for secretary of state across the country, in some cases after being directly encouraged by allies of former President Trump.

 

"Campaigns for secretaries of state this year are attracting more money, more attention and more brazenly partisan candidates than ever before,” says the Times.

 

— State supreme courts, which rule on redistricting

 

These courts have become especially critical since the U.S. Supreme Court said in 2019 that partisan gerrymanders are political matters outside its reach. 

 

Nationwide, 38 of 50 states elect justices for their highest court rather than appoint them. For decades, those races got little attention. 

 

"But a growing partisan split is turning what once were sleepy races for judicial sinecures into frontline battles for ideological dominance of courts with enormous sway over peoples’ lives,” the Times says.

 

And a new report from the Brennan Center for Justice, at New York University, concludes that a record $97 million was spent on 76 State Supreme Court races in the most recent election cycle.

 

— Democrats’ use of money from undisclosed donors to win in 2020

 

"For much of the last decade, Democrats complained — with a mix of indignation, frustration and envy — that Republicans and their allies were spending hundreds of millions of difficult-to-trace dollars to influence politics.

 

"'Dark money’ became a dirty word, as the left warned of the threat of corruption posed by corporations and billionaires that were spending unlimited sums through loosely regulated nonprofits, which did not disclose their donors’ identities.

"Then came the 2020 election.

"Spurred by opposition to then-President Trump, donors and operatives allied with the Democratic Party embraced dark money with fresh zeal, pulling even with and, by some measures, surpassing Republicans in 2020 spending, according to a New York Times analysis of tax filings and other data."

 

Well, readers, as this third Times article also points out, the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision "expanded the kinds of permissible political spending by nonprofits and unleashed a torrent of dark money into elections.”

 

Yes, it’s pretty clear that big money correlates with big corruption. Yes, it's a contradiction to decry the use of dark money while using it.

 

But what are people who want to preserve democracy to do?

Also in the news

Portugal’s center-left Socialists win election in landslide

 

House Jan. 6 committee subpoenas fake Trump electors in 7 swing states

 

Dan Balz in WPost: Do Republicans love Trump as they once did?

FiveThirtyEight: Thirty-six states elect governors this year. Here are 16 that could flip.

 

After huge pandemic losses, state, local governments see rapid rebound

 

How daily life differs for millennials, generation X

 

AP explainer: New federal law targets surprise medical bills 

 

KHN: It’s coronavirus day 6 and a rapid antigen test is positive. Virologists say to stay home.

Being comfortable with the complexity of 'following the science'

My thanks to the reader who sent me this blog post by Emily Knight, an oceanographer and former Capitol Hill staffer who works to link science to policymaking.

 

"To echo Joe Biden and other politicians, we’re all supposed to 'follow the science,'" Knight writes. "But here’s the thing, science doesn’t really lead. Most often, science follows.

"I understand the attraction to 'follow the science.' It implies the  comforting idea that we’re using facts to guide policy decisions. And that’s good. But it is also a false promise of easy answers and clear direction. The facts we have rarely give the full picture, and the more facts we accumulate often complicates that picture. Further, new information may be contradictory or require decision-makers to reverse course, potentially eroding faith in what we thought we knew.

 

"Evolving scientific knowledge can be incredibly frustrating. Especially when scientists or others conveying scientific knowledge are unclear or even impatient with questions about it. A perfect example was the early very confusing messaging on masking in the Covid-19 fight. Or the public debate among experts about the vaccine boosters. These issues also highlight the challenges scientists and leaders face in communicating knowledge and guidance: Is it too early to share? Do you share what you know in real time given it could change? How best to explain uncertainty? When to actively promote specific solutions, like tests, vaccines, and treatment options?

 

"I think one of the most important things in engaging with scientific knowledge is to be more accepting of and open about complexity and uncertainty. Our world, our lives are complicated. I think people can get that and experts and leaders should be unafraid to trust their audience more."

 

And "the role of science … will only be as good as the care and compassion we put into it," Knight says.

Also in the news

On International Holocaust Remembrance Day, NPR revisits stories from survivors

 

Study faults U.S. military on civilian casualties; Pentagon announces a review

 

Judge annuls Gulf of Mexico oil auction over climate impact

 

GAO investigation finds 'persistent deficiencies' in HHS' public health emergency responses since 2007

 

Study: Gas stoves worse for climate than was thought

Medicare patients win right to appeal coverage gap linked to being hospitalized under 'observation'

 

Two drugs, para-fluorofentanyl, metonitazene, now adding to U.S. overdose crisis

 

Dr. Jeremiah Stamler, 'father of preventive cardiology,' dies at 102

Breyer to retire from Supreme Court, Democrats to move fast to replace him

The 83-year-old justice is preparing to retire at the end of the court's term in June, but Democrats plan to begin the process of confirming a nominee to succeed him as soon as President Biden announces a candidate. The new justice then could be seated shortly after Breyer officially steps down, reports Carl Hulse of The New York Times.

 

Democrats are seizing the chance to energize their base, says The Associated Press. And with their Senate majority under “severe threat” in November’s midterm elections, they need to act while they have the 51 votes, says the Times. 

 

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki says Biden will honor his campaign pledge to nominate the first African American woman to the court. Early discussions are focusing on U.S. Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs and California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, says The Associated Press.

 

Let’s take a moment to focus on Breyer’s nearly 28-year tenure on the court.

 

"Two misfortunes have befallen Stephen G. Breyer during his long Supreme Court career,” says Linda Greenhouse, longtime reporter on the court for the Times, in a guest essay.

 

First, his "belief in the power of facts, evidence and expertise was out of step in a postfactual age." Second, requests for him to step down so a Democratic president could replace him "became so vociferous, so belittling, really."

 

To the first point, Greenhouse cites Breyer’s use of data, logic and the language of administrative law — a subject he taught for many years at Harvard Law School — in his dissenting opinion when the court recently blocked the Biden administration’s vaccination rule for businesses:

 

"Underlying everything else in this dispute is a single, simple question: Who decides how much protection, and of what kind, American workers need from Covid-19? An agency with expertise in workplace health and safety, acting as Congress and the president authorized? Or a court, lacking any knowledge of how to safeguard workplaces and insulated from responsibility for any damage it causes?"

 

Here is a profile of Breyer by longtime reporter on the court Nina Totenberg, which aired Wednesday on NPR’s "All Things Considered."

Also in the news

Kurdish-led forces end Syria prison siege, defeating Islamic State fighters

 

Reuters special report: Climate-savvy millionaires buying up huge areas of the Scottish Highlands

 

Politico: Thirteen of the 'smartest Russia and Putin watchers' on whether there will be a war over Ukraine

 

EPA announces enforcement actions to curb air, water pollution in poor communities

Fed likely to hike interest rates in March as Powell pledges sustained inflation fight

 

How Fed interest rate hikes could affect mortgages, car loans, credit card rates

 

ProPublica: A former hacker’s guide to increasing your online security

 

Vaccine mandate to kick in for first wave of healthcare workers

Moderna, Pfizer testing boosters to target omicron

U.S. drops out of top 25 for first time in anti-corruption index

Denmark, New Zealand and Finland tie for first place in Transparency International’s 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index of 180 countries and territories.

 

The United States and Canada are on the group's list of countries that have declined significantly in the last 10 years. 

 

The United States, at 27th, “faces continuous attacks on free and fair elections and an opaque campaign finance system,” Transparency International says in the index released Tuesday.

 

Canada, at 13th, “is seeing increased risks of bribery and corruption in business,” the group says.

 

The index, which has been compiled since 1995, is calculated using 13 different data sources that provide perceptions of public sector corruption from business people and country experts. Sources include the World Bank, World Economic Forum and private risk and consulting firms.

 

Delia Ferreira Rubio, chair of Transparency International, says: “Human rights are not simply a nice-to-have in the fight against corruption. Authoritarian approaches destroy independent checks and balances and make anti-corruption efforts dependent on the whims of an elite. Ensuring people can speak freely and work collectively to hold power to account is the only sustainable route to a corruption-free society.”

How to focus on the aspects of anxiety that are good for you

It’s anxiety-producing to read about increased corruption here and in many Americans’ favorite escape-fantasy destination, Canada.

 

So here is a book that focuses on ways to take advantage of what anxiety originally evolved to do — put us into action that will give us a better outcome.

Also in the news

Mexico now is world's third largest receiver of remittances — money migrants send home to relatives — behind India, China

 

As Islamic State resurges, U.S. is drawn back into the fight

 

Tennessee Democratic Rep. Jim Cooper announces his retirement, cites gerrymandering of his Nashville district

 

U.S. has world’s highest rate of gun ownership, and San Jose votes to be first U.S. city requiring gun liability insurance

 

ProPublica: Despite decades of hack attacks, companies leave vast amounts of sensitive data unprotected

 

SAT to be all onlline, shortened to 2 hours, allow calculators for all math

 

What’s known about omicron variant’s BA.2 version

 

New study hints at 4 factors that may increase chance of long covid

Rebalancing the balance of power over Ukraine

NATO said on Monday it's putting forces on standby and reinforcing eastern Europe with more ships and fighter jets, in what Russia calls Western "hysteria" in response to its build-up of troops on the Ukraine border, Reuters reports.

 

And the Pentagon on Monday ordered 8,500 troops on higher alert to potentially deploy to Europe as part of a NATO “response force” amid the growing concern that Russia soon could make a military move on Ukraine, says The Associated Press.

 

President Biden consulted with key European leaders, and Pentagon press secretary John Kirby says the troops are being put on alert for possible deployment — not to Ukraine but to NATO territory in Eastern Europe as part of an alliance force to signal a unified commitment to deter any wider Putin aggression.

 

Russia denies it's planning an invasion and says Western accusations are a cover for NATO’s own planned provocations.

 

Here is a separate article on possible financial sanctions to punish Putin if Russia invades Ukraine.

 

Fiona Hill, a former intelligence officer on Russia under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama who served under President Trump on the National Security Council, writes in a New York Times guest essay:

 

"Unlike President Biden, Mr. Putin doesn’t have to worry about midterm elections or pushback from his own party or the opposition. Mr. Putin has no concerns about bad press or poor poll ratings. He isn’t part of a political party and he has crushed the Russian opposition. The Kremlin has largely silenced the local, independent press. Mr. Putin is up for re-election in 2024, but his only viable opponent, Aleksei Navalny, is locked in a penal colony outside of Moscow.

"So Mr. Putin can act as he chooses, when he chooses. Barring ill health, the United States will have to contend with him for years to come. Right now, all signs indicate that Mr. Putin will lock the United States into an endless tactical game, take more chunks out of Ukraine and exploit all the frictions and fractures in NATO and the European Union. Getting out of  the current crisis requires acting, not reacting. The United States needs to shape the diplomatic response and engage Russia on the West’s terms, not just Moscow’s."