Editor-in-chief: David Suissa
August 6, 2019
The economy is sure to be a talking point in the 2020 presidential election—the only question is who will want to talk about it and how? Democrats want to call out Trump’s trade war and accuse him of serving the super-rich with his tax cuts. They may fear, however, that this will only prompt Trump to tout the strong economy as a proof of his success as president.
…under Trump, something odd has happened: The GOP has presided over the largest two-year deficit increase in American history, outside of a recession… The upshot is that neither side has much to gain from speaking frankly about the economy: Partisan Democrats are unlikely to praise its accomplishments, lest they undercut their 2020 nominee; and conservative Republicans are unlikely to explain its basis, lest they sound like hypocrites—
Democrats are faced with a problem they have not faced since 1988: running to take the White House from the Republicans at a time when the economy has clearly been growing… Democratic presidential candidates, then, the best strategy on the economy is twofold: Switch the subject, and hope for a recession.
The candidates wasted no time attacking him on [the economy].
Over two nights of debates in Detroit, candidates assailed Mr. Trump’s record on trade, tax cuts and wage growth, accusing him of perpetuating economic inequality and a “rigged” system that favors the wealthy and powerful. It was a preview of the economic arguments that are likely only to grow as the 2020 race escalates.
The recent string of devastating shooting attacks in America has revived a familiar conversation about the second amendment and gun control. This time around, more attention is being paid to the culture of guns in America, as opposed to just the legal structures around gun ownership. But what do we mean when we talk about gun culture?
The United States. Home to liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the most mass shootings in the world.
America’s unique relationship to gun ownership — enshrined as a right in its constitution — is also in the middle of an emotional and divisive debate about the meaning of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Twenty-seven words that give its citizens the right to own guns and also, in the views of many critics, helped usher in a culture that sees more of its own people killed by fellow citizens armed with guns than in any other high-income nation in the world.
…culturally, guns aren’t just a reaction to anxieties. In a way gun control advocates rarely consider, but gun owners may find obvious, they’re a meaningful social asset for their owners. In a fragmented society, guns connect people at a time when making connections is ever more difficult.
Guns, for them, are not about hunting or self-defense or the frontier spirit or any of the other fig leaves that are brandished every time their true agenda starts to show. It is about asserting the primacy of a group identity, protecting it from threats both real (inexorable demographic change) and imagined (invasions of Hispanic rapists and murders).
California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a new law, SB 27, requiring anyone appearing on California’s primary ballot to make their federal tax returns available. The new law is clearly an attempt to get President Trump to show his tax returns—but is it constitutional?
We share the governor’s belief in transparency but not his confidence that the new law is constitutional… precedent at least implies it would be unconstitutional to make ballot eligibility contingent on submitting a tax return, as long as a presidential candidate is a 35-year-old natural-born citizen.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom just violated his oath of office by signing a patently unconstitutional law to score a few political points against President Donald Trump… A proliferation of unique state requirements to appear on the ballot isn’t likely to spread around the nation — because California’s new ballot access law will be declared unconstitutional and voided.
As with any information, each voter can decide how much the tax information matters when choosing among candidates. But it is impossible to see an argument that it is inherently irrelevant or that voters should not be able to have access to this information… SB 27 will arm Californians with information to make them better informed voters. Why would anyone object to that?
After the announcement of a number of Texan Republican retirements, people are wondering if Texas might turn into a blue state. The shift, dubbed “Texodus,” would radically change America’s electoral map as well as the Lone Star State’s reputation. But is it more than a Democratic fantasy?
House Democrats have a 38-seat majority in the House, which they’re looking to expand in 2020. These announcements are a clear win for Democrats, who have a path to victory in districts increasingly less interested in what Trump’s Republican Party has to offer.
Texas isn’t just going to “flip” to blue in one election cycle. As Christopher Hooks has documented, “the Republicanization of Texas took nearly a half century to enact.” Similarly, the Democratization of Texas, if you will, has been underway for a while now and will take years to completely materialize.
If nothing else, the wave of Texas Republican congressional retirements will ensure that Democrats put a lot of resources into the state, increasing the chances that it will become a presidential (and perhaps Senate!) battleground. But from a big-picture perspective, nothing would better illustrate the political downside of Trumpism than this state, which Republicans have for years claimed as a veritable showcase of conservative governance slipping from their grip.
On August 8th, famed Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and scholar/Jewish follower of Jesus Michael Brown will debate a question of great import to Jewish-Christian relations: is the New Testament antisemitic? Historically, it has often been used as a tool of oppression against Jews, but Jesus was a Jew himself—so how can the gospels be antisemitic?
The Jews in Christian scripture represent in reality and in metaphor the shadows in the contrast between good and evil. The righteousness of Jesus and his followers is held against the backdrop of Jews who seek to stifle his message and kill him if need be.
For generations, anti-Semites have quoted selections from the Talmud, accusing the rabbis of sanctioning every imaginable crime and perversity. Yet it is only by misunderstanding these texts that they can be used to fuel the fires of anti-Semitism. It is the same with the New Testament writings.
Jews historically have insisted on standing firm against attempts to weaponize Jesus’ status within Christianity. When the need arises, Jewish thinkers have not been bashful in accentuating Jesus’ Jewishness—whether in religious, ethnic or national terms. As Jews increasingly come under attack in Europe and elsewhere, they should once more be prepared, if necessary, to assert Jesus the Jew, even as they have no wish to claim Jesus the Christian.
Ed Razek, chief marketing officer for Victoria’s Secret, is leaving the company after increased scrutiny of his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, a registered sex-offender who was recently charged with sex trafficking of underage girls. Leslie H. Wexner, the company’s chief executive, has also had a relationship with Epstein. But can Victoria’s Secret, already under scrutiny for its own treatment and portrayal of women, really distance itself from its Epstein PR problem?
One might conclude, based on this record, that company leadership at Victoria’s Secret did not take the sexual abuse of young women particularly seriously—an attitude that is perhaps unsurprising, given the company’s merchandise.
…the show’s whole shtick – a parade of almost naked models, each a perfect mix of skinny-curvy, decked in angel wings (an accessory the historians of the future will undoubtedly view with bafflement, if not complete derision) being ogled by men – looks dated after #MeToo. Donald Trump used to be a frequent guest at the shows; Les Wexner, CEO of Victoria’s Secret’s parent brand, L Brands, owned Jeffrey Epstein’s New York mansion and was one of his former financial clients (the brand has distanced itself from Epstein).
Time isn’t being kind to Victoria’s Secret. The lingerie retailer has a problem with the past and a problem with the future—and that leaves the present in a muddle of controversy. Jeffrey Epstein is supposed to be history at Victoria’s Secret—and at its parent company, L Brands Inc., for that matter—but he’s that skeleton that keeps rattling around the closet to remind everyone that he once was an all-too-lively part of the business.