[Before I begin today, a program note is in order. I am currently so frustrated with watching the "What are Manchin and Sinema thinking?" show that I really needed a break. So today, I am eschewing politics altogether to opine upon a subject I admittedly know next to nothing about. In the first place, I do not regularly talk to schoolchildren (although I do talk to some parents, so I get secondhand information, at the very least). I don't even know what to call the subject today -- sociology, maybe? (The fact that I'm not even sure of the right term to use should be a good indication of my ignorance.) Branding and marketing? Some combination of these, most likely. In any case, consider yourselves duly warned.]

I recently read an article which defined and explained a not-so-impressive neologism for the current generation of American children:

In 2005, social researcher Mark McCrindle coined the term "Generation Alpha" to identify the group born after Generation Z. He defines the generation as those born from 2010 to 2024, while Gen Z spans 1995 to 2009 and Gen Y spans 1980 to 1994 (though many push the millennial birth years back a bit later).

This is taking silliness to an entirely new level. This entire sequence of "let's just give generations letters" began a long time ago, mostly pushed by Baby Boomers who (perhaps) didn't want any other generation to have a label cooler than theirs. After all, for a good decade or so, the Baby Boomers themselves were referred to (disparagingly) as "the Me Generation." Everything always had to be about them, in other words, so the following generations would just have to make do with "X," "Y," and "Z."

Continue Reading »

All week long, we've been playing a big waiting game on what is going to happen to President Joe Biden's domestic economic agenda in Congress. His promised "Build Back Better" plan initially had three parts. First, there was the immediate relief needed for the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Next, physical infrastructure projects. And finally, human infrastructure investments. The pandemic relief passed soon after Biden took office (back when most Americans hadn't even had the opportunity to get their first vaccine shot). The other two remain undone. The negotiations to get both of them on Biden's desk for his signature are what we've all been seeing play out -- not just this week, but for the past three or four months. We're (hopefully, at least) now in the endgame of the waiting game, to mix a few metaphors with abandon.

Biden had his own metaphor he would use to describe his tripartite legislative strategy. He called it a "three-legged stool." This is a useful image, since if you take any one of those three legs away, the stool does not stand. It collapses. That is precisely how Biden has seen this effort from the beginning.

Continue Reading »

Sadly, the public debate over the budget reconciliation bill in Congress has so far usually been reduced to a single number. I say "sadly" because what this means is that while the media (and, also sadly, too many Democratic politicians) obsess over that one number, it means they seldom (if ever) talk about what is actually contained within the bill itself. Perhaps Democrats can pivot to having this discussion if the bill ever actually passes. But for now, I'd like to put that big, scary $3.5 trillion number into some necessary context.

The first thing Democrats should do when asked the question (over and over again) by journalists is to insist on always pointing out "...over ten years." This is actually happening with more and more frequency, and should be encouraged. Talk about "$350 billion per year" rather than the ten-year figure. Because that is a much more relevant number to any discussion about annual budgets.

I have also heard some Democrats make the following contrast: "We're talking about investing in $350 billion per year on human infrastructure. The annual military budget is over $700 billion per year. All we're saying is it would be worth spending less than half of what we spend each year on the military on things like free preschool education, tuition-free community college, expanding Medicare to include dental and vision and hearing aid coverage, caring for the elderly, and finally doing something about climate change. I think it's worth it to make those investments -- again, which would only cost half as much as we spend each year on the Pentagon." This sounds much more reasonable to most people.

Continue Reading »

The mainstream media, as usual, is mostly presenting the power struggle taking place right now within the Democratic Party in a rather slanted way. The fight, we are told, is a fairly equal one between "moderates" or (as is becoming more in vogue recently) "centrists" and the progressives. The progressives are usually painted as the radicals, while the "centrists" are seen as those cautioning moderation and compromise. Virtually none of this is true, however. What is really going on is the old-guard "New Democrats" are being forced to confront the reality that it is no longer the 1990s, and their particular brand of "Wall Street-friendly" Democratic politics is not only seriously on the wane but has now been almost totally eclipsed. Senator Bernie Sanders was at the vanguard of effecting this drastic shift, but it is almost complete. And the old guard is none too happy about it, as they cling to the remaining leverage they still have.

Almost all the conversations about what the progressives are trying to accomplish start out by framing progressives as "far left" or "lefties," or other similar terms. They are painted as the fringe, either explicitly or implicitly. But the reality is that the things progressives are fighting for (in the "Build Back Better" legislation at the heart of this fight) are actually quite popular with the general public (to say nothing of Democratic voters, where these proposals are actually wildly popular). Three progressives wrote a recent opinion piece for CNN where they made this point plain:

Continue Reading »

It's one of those rare weeks in Washington, where Congress is actually forced into doing its job -- legislating, holding hearings... you know, the things the taxpayers actually pay them to do. As usual, they are facing multiple deadlines. They deserve zero pity, though, since they just returned from their annual month-long summer vacation. If they had stayed and worked instead of gone and played, then they wouldn't be facing all these time crunches simultaneously. Which is why we say: zero pity.

Right now, there are two enormous legislative efforts underway. One is to raise the debt ceiling as well as keep the government functioning past the first of October (when a new fiscal year begins). It's a double-whammy, both a fiscal cliff and a government shutdown rolled into one. The second is to finalize the huge budget reconciliation bill, which has a laughably impossible deadline of next Monday attached to it. As a quick glance at a calendar shows, that doesn't leave a whole lot of time for an enormous amount of work. Right now the media is mostly spotlighting the fight to raise the debt ceiling, but next week the reconciliation bill will also deserve some attention in one way or another.

Continue Reading »

Here we are again. The Washington Kabuki theater is raging while all the media cheerfully go along for the ride. Will the United States reach its debt ceiling without Congress acting, and will the country then default on its debts for the first time in over 200 years? What will that do to the world's economy? What will it do to the American economy? Red flags are waved, warning beacons go off, fire alarms sound, signal flares are launched. It's all merry fun until a way is figured out (at the last minute!) to save us all from the "fiscal cliff" of defaulting on our obligations. It's all as regular as clockwork, now. But it just doesn't have to be this way.

Democrats are already being forced to pass a hike in the debt ceiling completely on their own. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is being a total schmuck about the whole thing, insisting that Republicans want absolutely no part in saving America from financial disaster. Democrats are in control, therefore Republicans are free to vote for the destruction of our entire country's economy. For McConnell, this is really just run-of-the-mill schmuckery, though. It really just feeds into his schmucky brand, to be honest. So he's comfortable enough with it all.

But if Democrats are going to be left to their own devices, why not defuse the issue forever? Instead of passing an increase in the budget ceiling, instead just abolish the concept once and for all. Never again will Republicans get to hold the entire country's economy hostage. Which any sane person would have to admit they will indeed do, if they are not pre-emptively stopped by eliminating the possibility entirely.

Continue Reading »

America may have just turned the corner in the fight against the Delta mutation of the COVID-19 viral pandemic. This is good news, obviously, if the trend continues. It could mean a return to at least the normalcy of the beginning of the summer, which would be a welcome relief to all. And it could signal that the next variant which hits us (whatever Greek letter it happens to have) will be less destructive. And that's really good news for all.

Continue Reading »

In less than a week, congressional Democrats will face a deadline of their own making. Next Monday is the day Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised she would bring to the House floor the bipartisan infrastructure bill that the Senate has already passed. Because it has cleared the Senate, the next step for the bill (if the House passes it) is President Joe Biden's desk, for his signature. But unfortunately, it is increasingly looking like the companion budget reconciliation bill will not be ready for a vote -- perhaps not in either chamber. Since these two pieces of legislation are linked, this may mean neither one of them passes (at least, not next Monday). This would endanger the two bills which not only form the base of Biden's agenda, but also the basis for Democrats to run their campaigns on next year. Either both bills pass, Biden will be seen as a transformative president (on the order of L.B.J. or even F.D.R.), and the Democrats can run on a spectacular record of getting good things done in Washington -- or none of that will take place at all, which would pretty much doom the Democrats chances in the 2022 midterms. In other words, it's an important week -- one that may actually stretch into being an important month.

Continue Reading »

Last night the Senate parliamentarian released the first in a series of opinions about the Democratic efforts to draft an enormous budget reconciliation bill. She said that, in her opinion, legalizing millions of undocumented immigrants should be seen as a policy proposal, not a budget proposal. If Democrats follow her advice, they'll have to remove the path to citizenship from the reconciliation bill. This would be a major blow to immigration reform, although not entirely unexpected.

Continue Reading »

Program Note:

As I warned, there will be no Friday Talking Points column today, as I have other plans. Instead, please enjoy this column from a few years back. I must admit, I forget which particular royal baby had just been born -- and I care so little about it that I refuse to go look it up. Every time one of the British royals procreates I am astonished at the amount of attention Americans (and the American media) heap upon the entire process. After all (as I routinely say whenever anyone brings the subject up in casual conversation), didn't we fight a whole war just so we would never have to pay the slightest attention to the British royalty ever again? I mean, I seem to remember something in the history books about that....

In any case, while the subject isn't current (no royal babies on the horizon that I know of), I had but a limited amount of time to find an old column to run, and this one was just silly enough to catch my eye. So while it's a little late for Silly Season columns, this will have to do for today. And never fear, Friday Talking Points will return next week, same bat time, same bat channel.

Originally published July 22, 2013

[The Scene: A warm Philadelphia evening, 226 years ago. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention -- after a long and miserably-hot day of respectful debate (and quite a lot of just plain bickering) over the text of Article I, Section 10 of the proposed draft of the new United States Constitution -- take up the final item on the agenda. We join the Founding Fathers as they (somewhat-wearily) begin discussion of the final subject of the day. Since the debate was conducted behind closed doors, this re-creation uses no names for the participants, to protect their anonymity.]

Founding Father Number One: And so, fellow delegates, we come to the final item of the day -- should our new United States government confer titles of royalty?

Founding Father Number Two: This is an easy issue to dispose of, so that we may all adjourn to [gestures towards elderly member of the Convention] our beds for a well-deserved rest... or possibly to [gestures towards a crowd of younger, more-boisterous delegates in the back of the room] the local tavern to slake the thirst this long, hot day has raised. [laughter and huzzahs from back of room]. I move that we sweep all the trappings of monarchy aside, and utterly forbid all titles and any other hint of royalty from these newly United States.

FF1: While we can all appreciate adjourning for the day quickly, let us not make haste. Are there any other voices which should be heard?

FF3: [from back of room] Let us all just vote and repair to the ale-house! Enough delay! Nobody wants titles in a nation where all will be equal!

FF4: I rise to differ on this point. [groans from back of room] Please, gentlemen, allow me to speak! [groans subside] I thank you. While every sane man can see quite plainly that royalty and titles and rank are counter to our intentions that all men be treated as equals, I direct your attention to how I just addressed my (ahem) distinguished colleagues just now -- should the term "gentlemen" continue to be used to describe those of a certain standing in society? [room falls silent, as many are taken aback by the concept]

If we were to peer centuries into the future and consider Americans of some far-removed era, it should be obvious that the very notion of royalty will be looked down upon by all, with nothing but the scornful disdain it deserves. Will these unborn countrymen of the future care that some king or queen still reigns in a foreign land? Will the birth of an heir to the British throne even be reported by the newsmongers of the day? The very idea is preposterous, I submit. Americans of such an advanced age will simply not care about such things, since members of royalty will be seen as holdovers from unenlightened times of the past. I simply cannot see any future town crier even bestirring himself to shout such news to the town. I cannot see any American newspaper printing a special edition to harken such news, because Americans will not be interested.

FF5: Prognosticating the future may not be so easy.

FF3: [loudly, from the back of the room] For the love of all that's holy, sit down, Franklin -- nobody wants royal titles, let's vote now and just all go quaff a hearty ale in ten minutes' time! I will buy your first ale myself if you'll just allow us to vote!

FF2: [addressing rowdies in back of room] You sir, are out of order! Dr. Franklin has the floor!

FF5: Thank you for your patience. I am quite sure the taverns will not run out of ale in the short time it takes me to talk, fear not. [laughter from back, and one cry of: "They had better not!"]

I rise merely to point out the vagaries of human nature. We here in America lived under a royal system for centuries before we threw off this yoke of oppression. But since we achieved our freedom from royalty, it seems among some there is still an aching void which must somehow be filled. My friends from New England have largely dropped the term "gentleman," for instance, to show the absolute equality of our new society. Further south, however, the term is still used by all.

Some of us here are not immune to such yearnings. I note that one of the subjects on our agenda is what to call our new executive officer. While some have proposed "Chief Magistrate" as a proper way to address our new executive, and while some favor the shorter "Mister President," there is also a faction which has proposed [consults his notes] "His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties" as the only proper address. What is such a title, if not one of the trappings of royalty?

I remind this body of my own professional origins in a newspaper printing office. I fully remember 1762, when Americans were indeed interested in the news of the birth of the current Prince of Wales. When the man who is first in line to become the British king was born, there was much interest in this babe who will eventually be replacing the hated George III. Given our country's history with Britain, even hundreds of years hence, I could see American citizens still hungering for such news.

When a thing is taken away from the populace, it is often missed in its absence. If we deny the American people titles of honor and rank in society -- as I agree we should and must -- then there may still be intense interest in such news from other lands, since we will have denied the populace the pleasure of speculating on such matters here at home. And I can certainly see town criers of the future, and newspapermen as well, vying to be the very first to spread such news. I can even see these future Americans placing friendly wagers as to what the new heir will be called. [hoots of derision from the rowdy section]

If we deny American citizens royalty, then they may just create their own stylings of royalty to set some above the masses. What direction this could take is open to much speculation. For instance, I could see political dynasties forming, where high political offices are passed from father to son. A common laborer with the Gaelic surname "Cinnéide" down at the Boston docks may one day sire a family which absolutely dominates Massachusetts politics for multiple generations, in such a far future time. [wild and angry protests (complete with anti-Catholic abuse) from the crowd in the back, who also begins tossing wads of paper and other small missiles at Founding Father Number Five]

FF1: Order! Order, I say! ORDER! We will have order, or WE WILL NOT ADJOURN ALL NIGHT!!! [rowdies finally settle down]

FF5: I will go further, if I may be allowed. While it may seem far-fetched that mere politicians will be treated as royalty or sire dynasties, the future could be even stranger -- where an exemplary opera singer and the son of the village blacksmith who performs ablest in the yearly contests of sport during the harvest festival are both given, by the general populace, the fawning attention and riches and respect of some Duke or Earl of our own times. [peals of laughter erupt from everyone]

I give you such ridiculous and unthinkable examples for a reason, dear colleagues. As my Poor Richard might say: "The thing most desired is the thing denied." It is true, Americans will likely be too intelligent and well-thinking to ever accord a sporting champion or a popular entertainer the status a member of royalty now commands -- it would be more proper, I think, if the humble librarian or schoolteacher were to be so lauded in the future. Or, perhaps, the federal treasury might benefit from renting titles of royalty on a yearly basis -- which would be a sort of taxation on people who had more money than common sense. [more laughter]

The twists and turns of the future are impossible to see. The consequences of our actions here today may give rise to unforeseen problems. It is not out of the question for Americans in the future to fill their lack of home-grown royalty by vicariously enjoying the birth of a future British monarch. But I submit to you that it will indeed be only vicarious -- and of no real import to any future American citizen's life or happiness. The newsmongers may be filled with joy at how many papers they can sell touting the news of the birth of such a child, but by the next day such a paper will only be good for wrapping fish.

I move for this debate to be ended immediately, and for the draft language to be voted on as a body. [boisterous cheers from the back benches] We have spent many a long and hot hour here today attempting to perfect Section 10 of Article I -- and we still have many a long and hot day ahead of us to complete our work. Let us all vote on simple language barring forever any American from being addressed as any sort of "Lord" and then quickly repair to the house that gives us cheer -- whether that cheer comes from getting early to bed... or from the tap of an ale keg!

[Explosive huzzahs from the back of the room, as the assembly moves to vote.]

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 10, final sentence

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

[Note: This entire scenario is completely fictional, and was written because I am heartily glad that we will now no longer be getting daily "No news yet!" updates from that London hospital any more, on each and every edition of the nightly news. For historical accuracy: the Federalists in the early Congresses did indeed propose the title "His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of their Liberties" for the president, but it was laughed down by James Madison and others and the simple "Mister President" was accepted instead. For many decades, however, the more-common title used in newspapers and during campaigns was indeed "Chief Magistrate." Oh, and according to some, "Cinnéide" was the Irish spelling of the Kennedy clan, in the dim and distant past. The use of "gentleman" did become regional, as well. What else? George IV was born in August of 1762. The text from the Constitution is real, too. Pretty much everything else, though, is nothing more than the warped product of my own summertime-daydreaming mind.]

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant