Slow-walking impeachment may look weak. But restraint is Democrats’ greatest strength.

There was only one side of the dais at Tuesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing that mentioned impeachment — and it wasn’t the Democratic side.

There was only one side that hollered and sputtered, one side that lobbed insults at the other and impugned colleagues’ motives — and it wasn’t the majority.

Indeed, Tuesday’s hearing was a study in the asymmetric combat that defines our politics in the Trump era. Some on the left see this asymmetry as a sign of Democratic weakness. I see it as the nation’s best hope for recovery.

At Tuesday’s session, the committee’s chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), spoke in a calm, steady voice about the absence of former White House counsel Donald McGahn, a no-show after President Trump ordered him not to comply with a subpoena. “Mr. McGahn has a legal obligation to be here for this scheduled appearance. If he does not immediately correct his mistake, this committee will have no choice but to enforce the subpoena against him,” Nadler intoned.

Nadler mentioned neither impeachment nor contempt, and he managed to keep the Democratic side — including the gadfly who brought fried chicken to a previous hearing as a prop — quiet.

Then came Nadler’s Republican counterpart, Rep. Douglas Collins of Georgia, who practically yelled out his statement and fired off taunts so quickly that those of us in the room struggled to understand him, and the transcript designated several sections as unintelligible. The words that did come through were mostly caustic and personal. Nadler “rushed to maximize headlines,” was “politically expedient,” issued an “illegal subpoena,” “orchestrated” a “spectacle” and a “drama,” and is “more interested in the fight than fact-finding.” Collins further accused Nadler and the Democrats of “harangues,” “innuendo” and warned of“running roughshod over the Constitution.”

“The theater is open,” Collins said of the sedate proceedings. Because Democrats can’t find anything to “hang their I-word, impeachment, on. . . . We’re here again, with the circus in full force.”

Though accusing Democrats of theatrics by having the empty-seat hearing, Republicans attempted to continue bickering by voting against adjournment. “This is disgraceful!” cried out Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio).

Watching this disparity in demeanor, I tried to imagine how things might look if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency, and, two years later:

• Five of her campaign advisers had been convicted of crimes — one of them implicating her — and a sixth indicted.

• A prosecutor documented numerous instances in which Clinton had interfered with investigators.

• Clinton refused to let aides cooperate with subpoenas and dismissed an unfavorable court ruling as “crazy” and partisan.

• She directed the Justice Department to investigate the front-runner for the Republicans’ 2020 nomination.

• She directed the White House counsel to lie about her deceit, then ordered him not to testify.

Can anybody imagine, in those circumstances, a Republican speaker of the House and the Republican presidential front-runner (the one Clinton ordered investigated) steadfastly resisting calls for impeachment?

There is long-standing tension among Democratic lawmakers and 2020 presidential candidates about whether to answer Trump’s aggression and insults in kind (Republican lawmakers long ago internalized his style) or whether to be the grown-ups in the room. On the campaign trail, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Kamala Harris(Calif.) have called for impeachment, and a growing number of Democrats in Congress, from fiery Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) to Rep. David Cicilline (R.I.), a member of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (Calif.) leadership team, have joined the cause. Liberal activists rage against Pelosi “meeting fire with fecklessness,” as New York magazine’s Eric Levitz put it.

But the mass of voters side with restraint, and even anti-establishment Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has said impeachment “works to Trump’s advantage.” Certainly, Trump has earned impeachment; Republican Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.) has said as much. But with no chance of removing Trump, Democrats can instead show the country that our problem isn’t polarization; it’s that one side has gone bonkers, and the other side is trying to restore adult supervision.

Americans, even reluctant Trump supporters, hunger to end the madness. This is likely why former vice president Joe Biden holds a commanding lead, even though he’s out of sync with the party base ideologically and demographically. And generally, the 2020 Democrats seem to grasp the country’s need for normal. I had feared that, after Trump, Democrats would conclude there’s no penalty for lying. Instead, “anecdotally, I think they are trying to harder to be more factually accurate,” The Post’s Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, tells me.

This is an encouraging sign, as is party leadership’s efforts to resist an impeachment stampede. Impeachment may be inevitable if Trump continues to stiff-arm all inquiries. But Democrats are right not to emulate Trump’s insults, falsehoods and extreme partisanship as they go about their legitimate inquiries.

Maybe such restraint will be proved wrong in 2020, and voters will reward the insult hurlers. But if Americans don’t desire a return to stability, honesty and decency, our democracy is already lost.

Two Capitalists Worry About Capitalism’s Future

James Dimon and Ray Dalio are among the most successful capitalists in the U.S. today. So when they worry aloud about the future of capitalism, it’s worth listening.

I believe that all good things taken to an extreme become self-destructive and that everything must evolve or die. This is now true for capitalism,” Mr. Dalio, founder of hedge-fund manager Bridgewater Associates, writes on LinkedIn.

Mr. Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase & Co., writes in his annual letter to shareholders: “In many ways and without ill intent, many companies were able to avoid—almost literally drive by—many of society’s problems.

Captains of industry have always opined on the issues of the day. Still, these latest missives are noteworthy for three reasons.

  1. First, the authors: Mr. Dalio anticipated the financial crisis; his systematic management and investment style has made Bridgewater the world’s largest hedge-fund manager. Mr. Dimon is arguably the country’s most successful banker, having steered J.P. Morgan clear of the subprime mortgage disaster to become the country’s most valuable financial institution.
  2. Second, the timing: They are speaking out at a time when the free-market capitalism that has served them so well is questioned by many Americans, including prominent Democrats.
  3. Third, the content. Mr. Dalio and Mr. Dimon love capitalism and aren’t apologizing for it. But they recognize the system isn’t working for everyone, and they have ideas for fixing it, some of which might require rich people like themselves to pay more tax. Yet they fear the federal government is hamstrung by intensifying partisanship. So they are putting their money and reputations where their mouths are by speaking out, backing local initiatives and hoping like-minded business leaders join them. In effect, they are breathing life into the shrinking nonpartisan center.

In an interview, Mr. Dalio says many business leaders “don’t want to get into the argument. I can understand that. I say to myself, Should I get in? I do think if everyone keeps quiet, we’re going to continue to behave as we’re behaving, and it’s going to tear us apart.”

Mr. Dalio’s essay was inspired by a longstanding interest in the parallels between the 1930s and the present:

  1. the growth of debt and
  2. the relative impotence of central banks, the
  3. widening of inequality and the
  4. rise of populism.

Capitalism, he says, is now in a “self-reinforcing feedback loop”:

  • companies develop labor-saving technologies that enrich their owners while displacing workers.
  • The haves spend more on child care and education, widening their lead over the have-nots,
  • whose predicament is compounded by underperforming schools,
  • the decline of two-parent families, and
  • rising incarceration.

Mr. Dalio thinks inequality has fueled populism and ideological extremism, which he fears means capitalism will be either abandoned or left unreformed.

His solutions start with taking partisanship out of the mix. He would like government to join with business and philanthropic leaders with proven track records to find, fund and evaluate projects with high potential social returns, such as early childhood education and dropout prevention. The rich might have to pay more taxes, provided the money is used to raise the productivity and incomes of the bottom 60%, or establish a minimum safety net.

Mr. Dimon is less introspective about the flaws of capitalism than Mr. Dalio and more impatient with the recent fascination so many Americans are showing with socialism. His letter, written in the blunt, combative style in which he speaks (it should be read aloud in a Queens accent for full effect), reiterates familiar complaints about excessive postcrisis regulation.

But, like Mr. Dalio, he worries partisanship has crippled the country’s ability to enact basic reforms that elevate economic growth and strengthen the safety net, such as

  • improving high schools and community colleges’ provision of useful skills,
  • more cost-effective health care,
  • faster infrastructure approval,
  • more skilled immigrants coupled with legalizing illegal immigrants, and
  • requiring fewer licenses to start a small businesses.

“Can you imagine me saying, I can do a better job for the Chase customer if I don’t get involved in details, the products, the services, the prices, how we treat people, how call centers work?” Mr. Dimon asks in an interview. “Policy has too often become disconnected from the analytics; we got slogans instead. It’s driving people apart.”

There’s a chicken-and-egg problem with these well-intentioned calls for nonpartisan problem solving: It requires a level of nonpartisanship that doesn’t exist; otherwise the problems would, presumably, have been solved.

If business leaders can’t persuade with words, they may by example. Mr. Dalio and his wife, Barbara, have donated $100 million to the state of Connecticut, to be matched by the state and other philanthropists, to create a $300 million partnership devoted to reducing dropout rates and promoting entrepreneurship in underserved schools and communities.

For its part, J.P. Morgan has under Mr. Dimon combined commercial and philanthropic resources to finance affordable housing, small business and infrastructure and job training in Detroit, announced $600 million in workforce development grants since 2013, and boosted salaries for lower-end employees. Mr. Dimon, in his shareholder letter, called on fellow CEOs to “take positions on public policy that they think are good for the country.”

It doesn’t always work. The Business Roundtable, which Mr. Dimon chairs, successfully pressed Congress and President Trump for lower business taxes, but unsuccessfully for more infrastructure and legalizing illegal immigrants. Says Mr. Dimon: “We should give it the best shot we’ve got.”

Why do people have such divergent perspectives on the Mueller Report, ranging from Trump being completely exonerated to Trump being guilty of obstruction of justice and impeachable?

Bob Sacamano
Bob Sacamano, studied Useless Information. at School of Hard Knocks
I believe that I have an example that may answer this. After Barr released the redacted Mueller report, I watched the first half of the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC and later the first half of the Hannity show on Fox.

Maddow is biased, I have no disagreement about that but the coverage she gave was completely different from Hannity. Maddow took direct quotes from the report and discussed it with her guests. She easily discussed over ten direct quotes from the report in less than half an hour. She may have taken some quotes out of context, I have not read the report yet. Obviously she also chose quotes that would reinforce her narrative. Just remember, I am not claiming that Maddow is not biased.

Hannity spent the vast majority of the first half of his show ranting about Obama, Mueller, Hillary, Loretta Lynch, the deep state, Democrats in general, etc. After about twenty minutes Hannity finally took a direct quote from the report. A quote from Trump. Hannity then went back to ranting about all the people previously mentioned. Maybe he took more direct quotes later, I can only watch so much Hannity before I vomit.

So, Hannity claims that Trump is exonerated but he cited nothing from the report to back this up. Maddow tried to back up everything she said with a direct quote from the report. The reason why people have different perspectives is because of where they get their news. Liberals may watch biased news but at least they try to back it up with facts. Many conservatives get their news from propagandists. Sadly it appears as if many conservatives don’t know propaganda when they see it.

I should probably add this. In the thirty minutes I watched, Maddow asked her viewers to read the Mueller report for themselves several times. Hannity did not ask his viewers to read the Mueller report once in the thirty minutes I watched.

Why you still don’t understand the Green New Deal

Political news coverage tends to focus on strategy over substance, and that’s making it less likely that the public will agree on big policy ideas when we need them the most.

The Green New Deal is an ambitious proposal that outlines how the U.S. might begin transitioning towards a green economy over the next ten years. It includes steps like upgrading our power grid and renovating our transportation infrastructure. But most people watching news coverage likely don’t know what’s in the Green New Deal. And that’s because political news coverage tends to focus on strategy over substance, fixating on a bill’s political ramifications rather than its ability to solve a problem. That approach to news coverage is known as “tactical framing,” and research shows it makes audiences at home more cynical and less informed about big policy debates. The result is a cycle of partisanship, where solutions to big problems like climate change are judged on their political popularity rather than their merit.