Tag: Theodore Roosevelt

2022 Election, Political Reform, Politics

2022 Nationalist Voting Index – Political Reform

Bob Claude |

Longtime followers of this site will remember the American Nationalist Voting Index developed during the 2020 election to compare the two main presidential candidate’s positions on key issues. This series of posts will attempt to craft a similar list of nationalist issues for the upcoming midterm elections. 

We begin with the one most dear to Theodore Roosevelt himself – preserving and broadening our democracy to  give the average American an effective voice in Washington.  At a time when the durability and even the legitimacy of American democracy has been questioned, political reform is not merely desirable, but critical to insuring our strength here at home and our credibility as a champion of freedom abroad.

Freedom to Vote Act

This bill started out life as the “For the People Act” and proposed significant and important reforms in campaign finance, voter registration and rights, lobbying rules, election integrity and congressional ethics.  You can see more of my analysis of it under the “Politics – Political Reform “ tab on the website. Thanks to Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the bill was amended to eliminate many of the more overreaching provisions. Unfortunately, congressional ethics reform was one of the casualties of the process. However, as I discussed here, the Manchin compromise incorporated the best of the other reforms and deserved support from American nationalists.

Sadly, while the bill passed the House in February of this year, it failed in the Senate.  Your House member’s vote on it can be found at this link (ignore the reference to a NASA appropriation. If you click on the bill number, it will take you to the Freedom to Vote Act:

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/20229 

In the Senate, a motion to bring the bill to a vote failed and your Senator’s position can be found here

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1171/vote_117_1_00420.htm

Ban Congressional Stock Trading

Insider trading by corporate and securities elites has been unlawful for decades, but recent revelations have shown the current rules to prevent similar profiteering by congress members are largely toothless. Several bills to ban stock trading by members of Congress were introduced, but the Democratic leadership in both houses prevented them from coming to a floor vote.

Thus, the only record of congressional support for this reform is the identity of the co-sponsors of those bills. Here is the list of co- sponsors of the House bill (HR 6678, the Bipartisan Ban on Congressional Stock Ownership Act)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6678/cosponsors?r=43&s=1

A similar bill was introduced in the Senate (S 3494, the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act) and the list of co-sponsors can be found here

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3494/cosponsors

If your House representative or Senator is not on these lists, you may want to ask them what they’re trying to hide.

Electoral Count Act

The horrifying January 6 attack on the Capitol during the 2020 presidential election certification highlighted the weaknesses of the nineteenth century law governing that critical process.  One of the pretexts for the attack was the theory that Vice-President Pence had the unilateral power to reject the results of the election.  This bill clarifies that the Vice-President has no such power. It also prevents frivolous challenges by providing that any objection to a state’s electors must have the support of one- third of each house of Congress. 

This should have been non-controversial. However, it only passed the House and never came up for a vote in the Senate. You can see the results of the roll call vote in the House here at

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022449

A list of the co-sponsors of the companion bill in the Senate can be found at

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4573/cosponsors

Conclusion

TR spent much of his New Nationalism speech attacking the influence of special interests on the political process, comparing its importance to the fight against slavery in the Civil War.  If we are to avoid the modern-day civil war many observers fear, we must reinvigorate our own commitment to democracy to insure it works for all Americans, not just a narrow elite.

Nationalist Theory, Political Reform, Politics, Uncategorized

Who Lost America – A Guest Column

Bob Claude |

https://jamesstrock.substack.com/p/who-lost-america?utm_source=%2Finbox&utm_medium=reader2

Through my membership in the Theodore Roosevelt Association, I have had the pleasure of corresponding with James Strock, one of the TR Association’s advisory board members. He hosts a blog on the Substack platform named “The Next Nationalism”, which also promotes TR’s philosophy in the present age. I can heartily recommend his well-written articles and thought-provoking podcast interviews.

One of his recent posts combines beautiful writing and a sharp perspective to deliver a biting assessment of the state of our current politics. However, it also points out that we have been here before as a nation and always overcame similar internal crises through deepening our commitment to our democratic values and our own national community. It is a long piece and, at the same time, the best summary of what is wrong with current American politics and why American nationalism is the cure.

Domestic Policy, Government

A Constitution By the People and for the People

Bob Claude |

I have not previously commented on social issues like abortion because they are so divisive in a world where national unity is a key element of strategic strength. Personally, I am a practicing Roman Catholic and am pro-life on the issue. However, as an attorney, it has been heartbreaking to see the division over this issue corrupt the judicial nominating process.  The branch of the federal government once called “the least dangerous” now mirrors our divisions instead of healing them.

The Supreme Court’s Dobbs opinion feeds this polarization by punting a fundamental human rights issue to the vagaries of federal, state and local politics.  It overrules Roe v. Wade on the theory that the right to an abortion and indeed, the question of when life begins, is not deeply rooted in the concept of American due process and human rights and thus protected by the 14th Amendment.  The majority opinion rules it is thus “time to heed the Constitution” and return these issues to the states.

Herein lies the one concept on which pro-life and pro-choice activists can both oppose; namely, that the question of when human life is entitled to protection should be allowed to differ from state to state.  This is a fundamental national value enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the due process clause of the Constitution.  Instead, the definition of this right will now be subject to the whims of state legislatures, which can change the definition after each election. At the same time, pro-choice advocates are pushing a federal stature legalizing abortion nationwide even though it also could be repealed by a subsequent Congress. Many states will continue to offer liberal abortion services and structures are now being developed to allow women from anti-abortion states to travel to those states to obtain one. In the end, the rate of abortions may change little because of this opinion.

The Constitution provides a nationalist solution to this dangerous political chaos – a constitutional amendment creating a national standard.  If the pro-life movement had put its energy since Roe into evangelizing for such an amendment instead of trying to reshape the courts, we might now have one that bans abortion nationwide.  Conversely, the pro-choice movement also could propose a constitutional amendment overruling Dobbs and legalizing abortion nationwide. The adoption of either amendment would require supermajorities at both the federal and state levels. Thus, the eventual solution would have to be supported by a broad consensus achieved through an open democratic process rather than judicial fiat. Each would clearly involve a period of intense debate, but the eventual solution would have more legitimacy in the eyes of the American people. 

As Theodore Roosevelt says above, the Constitution was designed to insure that, in the end, the American people always had the last word. The constitutional amendment process is an integral part of the checks-and-balances system designed to insure it reflects the fundamental values of the American people.  It has been used several times in the past to overrule Supreme Court rulings.  If the issue of abortion must be addressed through the democratic process as suggested by the Supreme Court’s opinion, the two sides should concentrate on building the support necessary to propose and adopt an amendment that reflects their position.  This is the best way to achieve a resolution of the issue in a way that also preserves our unity in the long run.