| New DNC Chairman Tom Perez Is No 'Moderate' at All One of the amazing things about the now-completed Democratic National Committee chairman's race was how former labor secretary Tom Perez became perceived as the "moderate" or "centrist" choice. This occurred in part because he was aligned with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic primary, and partially because his biggest rival was Representative Keith Ellison, former member of the Nation of Islam, the congressman who meets with radical terror-sponsoring Saudi clerics, the one with the anti-gay imam, the one who used to "go on all the time about 'Jewish slave traders.'" "Less radical than Keith Ellison" is an awfully low bar to clear. Relax, fans of the Nation of Islam, Perez says he wants to make Ellison "the face of the Democratic Party," and I am sure many Republicans are ready and willing to help him out in that task. But consider the possibility that Perez is no less radical than Ellison, and merely focuses his energies in a different area. Last year, when there was some buzz about Perez being Hillary Clinton's running mate, I took a long look at the labor secretary's relatively unexamined career: Perez's liberal credentials are as impeccable as they come. Mother Jones called him "one of the administration's most stalwart progressives." Conservative policy experts who have followed his work in the Justice and Labor Departments consider him perhaps the Obama administration's most radical and relentless ideologue. Iain Murray, the Competitive Enterprise Institute's vice president of strategy, calls Perez "possibly the most dangerous person in the administration right now." "His rewriting of U.S. labor law is probably the most fundamental attack on the free-enterprise system going on at present," Murray says. "If he has his way, we won't just revert to the 1930s. We'll do things that even Franklin Roosevelt couldn't do, like eliminate vast numbers of independent-contractor jobs and unionize those that remain." Murray sees Perez's ideological vision as driven by an arrogant insistence that most workers are oblivious to their own exploitation by employers, and need the state to intervene to help them understand proper "work-life balance" or to make basic choices about work. His work in the Justice Department was just as extreme. "He essentially operationalized Eric Holder's radicalization of the Department of Justice," says Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute. "No civil-rights theory too crazy to pursue, no litigants too awkward to pay off." "Perez has shown a glaring inability to tell the truth and dispassionately apply the basic constitutional tenet of 'equal justice under law,'" declared Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. Long before Obama stepped into the Oval Office, Perez stood out as a Democratic lawmaker willing to ignore or contravene laws that impeded his agenda. As a member and then chairman of the Montgomery County Council, Perez promoted driver's licenses and in-state tuition eligibility for Maryland illegal immigrants. In 2006, Perez ran for state attorney general and pushed for one of his favorite ideas at the county level, a program to have state residents import low-cost prescription drugs from Canada. But the federal Food and Drug Administration said the program would be illegal, and county attorneys concurred in a formal review, adding, "one need not be a lawyer nor clairvoyant to see the potential for civil liability." Perez responded that, "Sometimes you have to push the envelope in pursuit of the right thing." Throughout his career, Perez has touted "disparate-impact theory" in discrimination law, which contends that discrimination exists in just about any circumstance where statistical data point to a racial disparity, regardless of whether discriminatory intent can be proven. He was willing to go to unprecedented lengths to protect this touchstone of his legal thinking. Back in 2014, Perez was asked about inequality in America and in particular, whether the Department of Labor was doing enough to ensure interns weren't being exploited as free labor by unscrupulous employers. Perez responded: I was in the U.K. and Germany and went to Volkswagen and learned about their apprenticeship model—young people become paid apprentices in trades. It's not a coincidence that youth unemployment is far lower in Germany than the United States because there are paid opportunities for young people to get experience. So, yes we need to and do investigate [internship violations], but I think the broader solution will help more people faster to transform the culture of America around this earn-while-you-learn idea. If he believes in the "earn while you learn" idea, does this mean the interns at the Democratic National Committee will be paid? Right now they aren't, even if they're working 40 hours a week in the summer. 
CPAC Roundup From our old friend Tim Alberta, now writing in Politico: After a three-day celebration of Trumpism, the announcement of the straw poll results on Saturday afternoon told the whole story. A full 86 percent of attendees approved of Trump's job performance so far, compared with just 12 percent who disapproved. More consequentially, on the question of whether Trump is "realigning the conservative movement," 80 percent agreed and only 15 percent disagreed. Both statistics were met with cheers inside the main ballroom. Let's observe that CPAC tickets cost $300 (or $150 a day), and that's not counting hotel rooms, transportation to get there and back, or meals. As I noted in the Facebook Live chat, the attendees of CPAC are the most passionate die-hards, a self-selecting sample. If you're a conservative who doesn't like Trump, you're a lot less likely to shell out three Benjamins just to attend a conference where you'll often be surrounded by red-hatted Trump fans. And if you don't like the idea of Trump realigning the conservative movement, why would you attend? Then note this assessment from McKay Coppins: Here, in what conference organizers have dubbed "The Hub," hundreds of blue-blazered and high-heeled young conservatives roam the cavernous hall—crammed with booths set up by right-wing think tanks, media outfits, pressure groups, and publishers—shopping for future careers. The general vibe is that of a trade show, with attendees perusing pamphlets about D.C. internships, swapping Twitter follows, and taking selfies with minor cable news celebrities. They buy t-shirts with cheeky messages on them ("God is great, beer is good & liberals are crazy"), and the lucky ones make off with a satchel full of swag (the Sheriff David Clarke bobblehead was a particularly hot item this year). This is where the right wing's marquee annual conference most nakedly displays its true animating force — not conservatism, but careerism. Once a pep rally for rank-and-file grassroots activists, CPAC has mutated in recent years into a networking event for young ladder-climbers and fame-seekers looking to get ahead. And this year, an army of aspiring pundits, politicos, and policy wonks are being tempted with an exciting new professional path: Trump-style nationalism. Careerism is defined as sacrificing integrity for one's ambitions, and I wonder how easy it is for an outsider to distinguish careerism from old-fashioned ambition and the usual professional networking. CPAC has always had a pep-rally element (and certainly didn't lose it this year) and has always been a big schmoozing opportunity for political professionals – campaign consultants, policy wonks, media, aspiring candidates, authors. You see the same exchanging of business cards, talks over coffee and lunch, people looking for work, and people looking to hire. It's not that different from what you would find at any industry conference. And the circus element is bigger than it was a decade ago, it's nothing particularly new, and certainly distinguishes CPAC from, say, the Heritage Foundation's Resource Bank. As my podcast co-host put it: The spectacle part of CPAC is something I enjoy as much as anything else. I might be alone in my love of the guy who dressed up like a Revolutionary General. This bothers me not. There's a "Trump Truck" in the parking lot? Hold my drink, I need to see it. So yes, there are always going to be some spectacle and attention-seekers. The conservative policy wonks are probably at Heritage Foundation's Resource Bank. Speaking of the conversations and business cards you find in your pocket at the end of CPAC… I'm told Chuck Warren's Expanding the Tent has some really thought-provoking ideas for GOP grassroots organizers and state-level initiatives: Require high-school students pass the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services test; allow no state, district, or school administrator to make more than twice the average salary of teachers under them; enact state laws permitting dying patients to try treatments involving drugs that have only passed the first stage of FDA approval. Jon McNaughton's portrait of Andrew Breitbart, entitled No Fear, grabs your eyes from across the room… His work can really surprise you and almost instantly starts a conversation, such as Separation of Church and State, which depicts non-specific politicians of both parties jeering and rebuking Jesus in a State of the Union-like setting… If you think Barack Obama was the worst president in history, Matt Margolis has written the perfect book for you, entitled, appropriately, The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama. Democrats Get a Much-Needed Win in Delaware Is there a Democratic wave coming? Last week I noted the five special state legislative elections so far this year hadn't shown results outside of the normal range. But on Saturday, Democrats won a special election in Delaware by a wider margin than usual. Democrat Stephanie Hansen won the special election for the 10th District Senate seat Saturday, capturing 58 percent of the votes cast and preserving her party's control of the Legislature. The race drew national attention and donations from across the country. Former Vice President Joe Biden and former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley both campaigned on Hansen's behalf in the weeks leading up to the election. In 2014, Democrat Bethany Hall-Long beat Marino, 51 percent to 49 percent. Democrats outpaced the 2014 regular Election Day turnout, while Marino was a little behind his. Give the Democrats credit, they brought out their vote – but they had a lot of advantages in terms of money and big names. ADDENDA: Gizmodo's Libby Watson describes CPAC as "the Right Wing Nightmare Circus," and describes the Townhall-sponsored happy hour. Half the attendees seemed to be college Republicans, mostly male; most of the rest were members of the conservative media. Purple media badges identified attendees from publications ranging from the Washington Examiner and the Daily Caller to something called website describes him as "The Millennial Conservative." Jim Geraghty, of the decidedly not-millennial National Review, was there as well. Next time you see me, Libby, say hello! I know it may seem surprising, but many, many conservatives don't bite. I'm sure she could have written a much less flattering description, i.e., "Jim had at least three of the giant cookies when he didn't think anyone was looking." | 
Comments
Post a Comment