Quantcast

Katrina vanden Heuvel | The Nation

  •  
Katrina vanden Heuvel

Katrina vanden Heuvel

Politics, current affairs and riffs and reflections on the news.

Congress’s Sorry Dereliction of its War Powers Duty

Capitol

(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

In a Washington paralyzed by partisan division, there is apparently one area of bipartisan agreement: Congress should ignore its constitutional mandate to vote on war with the Islamic State, a conflict that President Obama admits will take years.

The president says he’d “welcome” congressional support but doesn’t need it. Democratic leaders Rep. Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Sen. Harry Reid (NV) agree. Republican House Speaker John Boehner (OH) argues Congress should postpone any debate until next year. He allows it might be in the “nation’s interest” for members of Congress to weigh in, but it certainly isn’t an imperative. The leaders of Congress treat their own body as vestigial, offering little beyond symbolic gesture on the vital question of war and peace.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

This bipartisan consensus about expanding the executive’s war-making powers directly contradicts the Constitution of the United States. The founders gave Congress, not the president, the power to declare war. Their purpose was clear. War was the instrument by which kings and dictators consolidated power and impoverished nations. They feared that the executive by its nature was more given to war. James Wilson, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, summarized the consensus: Giving the power to Congress “will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress.”

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Read Next: We cannot win in Iraq

New Deal Liberalism Lives On

FDR

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

In the age of trickle-down economics and unrelenting attacks on the social safety net, there have been few greater champions of progressive values than Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who hosted his final Steak Fry this year as the senior senator from Iowa. Throughout his storied career, Harkin has remained a “prairie populist.” From his landmark Americans With Disabilities Act, to his principled vote against Clinton-era financial deregulation, to his recent sponsorship of the Fair Minimum Wage Act, Harkin has always been unapologetically loyal to the fundamental belief that government can—and should—play a role in improving people’s lives. And for Harkin, who proudly displayed his father’s Works Progress Administration card on his office wall, this brand of progressivism was deeply rooted in President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal philosophy.

Indeed, as Ken Burns’s remarkable fourteen-hour PBS documentary The Roosevelts reminds us, we are, in so many ways, living in a country shaped by FDR. “Maybe you know somebody who went to college on the GI Bill. Maybe you’ve flown out of LaGuardia Airport or through the Lincoln Tunnel. Or you can turn on a light switch and have power and build planes at Boeing,” Burns said recently. “That’s all Franklin Roosevelt.” Our modern debate on inequality mirrors “the central questions of Roosevelt’s day,” the filmmaker said in another interview. Burns also noted that Eleanor Roosevelt’s vital legacy of fighting for social justice remains especially relevant now. “She understood the issues of the day about health, about race, about women, about poverty, about immigration, all of the issues that we still grapple with today.”

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Our current political battles, as they have been for the past seventy years, are largely defined by the right’s bitter desire to roll back the gains of the New Deal and the Great Society. And as Harkin prepares to retire next year, many have been writing obituaries for his brand of progressive politics. “Today he is seen as one of a dying breed of Democrats,” the Post’s Dan Balz observed. “[H]e remains an unabashedly and old-fashioned liberal.”

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Read Next: PBS Loves Its ‘Roosevelts’—and Its Kochs, Too

Why Has Obama Caved to the ‘War Party’?


More ABC news videos | Latest world news

On Sunday, Katrina vanden Heuvel joined ABC’s This Week for a roundtable discussion on President Obama’s plan to use air strikes against ISIS and whether he even has the authority to unilaterally make that decision. “I think the president has surrendered to the war party, in both parties, to a media that has lathered up hysteria about a threat that is not an immediate threat to this country,” vanden Heuvel said. She praised Obama’s previous declaration that our foreign policy should be “don’t do stupid stuff,” but also observed that “too often in this country we equate doing something with doing something militarily.”
—Jessica McKenzie

Why Hillary Clinton Needs Competition

The Ed Show

On Monday, Katrina vanden Heuvel joined The Ed Show to discuss Hillary Clinton’s likely presidential run and whether progressives are ready to embrace her candidacy. “I don’t think it’s settled,” vanden Heuvel told Ed Schultz. “In fact, her candidacy might be sharpened and might be better if there is competition. After all, primaries are about expanding debate, about bringing new ideas into the process, about allowing citizens to be participants, not just spectators.” We are living through a populist moment, vanden Heuvel says—visible around the country in city and state elections—and there is a real hunger for alternative options.
Jessica McKenzie

Obama Reneges on His Foreign-Policy Promises

Barack Obama

Barack Obama (AP Photo/Saul Loeb, Pool)

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

President Obama’s commitment to go into Iraq and Syria to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State, the brutal terrorist group that vows to carve a “caliphate” out of Iraq and Syria, should be seen for what it is: a capitulation to bellicose folly.

Obama was elected in no small part because he challenged the catastrophic “war of choice” in Iraq, and pledged to bring an end to US entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Slowly, against the bluster and macho posturing of the opposition, he tried to introduce a modicum of common sense and prudence into our foreign policy.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

The United States, the president has explained in the past, faces few genuine threats to its national security. Many of these—catastrophic climate change, global economic stagnation—aren’t susceptible to military solution. Nor can the United States afford to police the world. “Why is it,” he observed in April, “that everybody is so eager to use military force after we’ve gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget?”

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Can the US Defeat ISIS Without Bombs?

ISIS fighter with flag.

(Reuters)

What’s the best US response to ISIS? That’s the question that Katrina vanden Heuvel and Rich Lowry of National Review tackle on this episode of the radio program Both Sides Now. Vanden Heuvel explains that “when there are no military solutions the alternative is not nothing.” For vanden Heuvel, patience and diplomacy have fallen out of favor—yet she affirms the fact that there are voices of dissent going against the current jingoistic, hawk-like calls for increased militarism.
—Muna Mire

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Read Next: Time to end the bloody Ukraine conflict

Time to End the Bloody Ukraine Conflict

pro-Russian separatist

An armed pro-Russian separatist (Reuters/Sergei Karpukhin)

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

If the United States and Europe were thinking rationally, the NATO summit in Wales last week would have been an opportunity to discuss a lasting resolution to the violent crisis in Ukraine, which has claimed thousands of lives and crippled the country’s economy. Instead, amid a fragile cease-fire agreement between Kiev and pro-Russian rebels in the east, the assembled world leaders used the summit for more belligerent talk and reckless saber-rattling, with their ultimate goal increasingly unclear. The goal seemed more preparing the NATO alliance for a new Cold War with Russia than exploring how to make peace, even as Moscow was helping to bring about the cease-fire agreement.

The meeting was just the most recent disturbing example of how cavalierly and cynically the NATO leaders—including President Obama—have escalated tensions, while dismissing opportunities to bring the conflict to a reasonable conclusion quickly. Absent from the discussion in Wales, among other things, was any recognition of NATO members’ own roles in triggering the crisis. Despite the dominant narrative that Russia is to blame for Ukraine’s uncertain future, history tells a different story—one in which the West’s provocative behavior has had predictable repercussions.

Please support The Nation. Donate now!

There would have been no civil war if the European Union’s leadership had not insisted on an exclusive association agreement that prejudiced Ukrainian industry in the east and trade with Russia, or if the United States and European nations had used their influence with the demonstrators to abide by the February 21 agreement then-President Viktor Yanukovych signed, which would have handed more power to parliament and called for elections in December, or if the United States and Europe had been willing to work with Russia to restore the February 21 agreement and calm worries in Crimea and the east about the rights of Russian-speaking Ukrainians.

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

 

Read Next: The 2014 NATO Summit: Giving war a chance.

Katrina vanden Heuvel: Don’t Overstate the Threat ISIS Poses

Katrina vanden Heuvel

Katrina vanden Heuvel appeared on CNN’s Reliable Sources Sunday to talk about media coverage of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and the risk it poses to the United States. During the segment, vanden Heuvel said there’s no question that ISIS wants the United States to overreact and that members of the media are making that more likely to happen. “There is a trivialization—a tabloidization of news coverage,” vanden Heuvel said, “that has infected and affected” the way many outlets cover global issues.

—Edward Hart

Mitch McConnell Reveals His True Colors

Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (AP/J. Scott Applewhite)

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

A year ago, President Obama convulsed the White House Correspondents Dinner when he responded to complaints that he wasn’t meeting enough with the Republican leaders in the Congress: “Why don’t you get a drink with Mitch McConnell?’ they ask. Really?” Obama asked the audience incredulously. “Why don’t you get a drink with Mitch McConnell?”

The Kentucky senator, continuously partisan and mean spirited in public, earned the jab by leading a record number of filibusters as Senate minority leader during Obama’s tenure, forcing more than a quarter of all cloture votes in the history of the Senate since the beginning of the Republic.

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Now, many political bookies, however prematurely, have made Republicans favorites to win the Senate majority. What will McConnell do if he must go from opposition to governing? Last week, The Nation magazine, which I edit, along with Lauren Windsor of the Undercurrent, released an audiotape of McConnell’s revealing remarks to a private June strategy session of deep-pocket Republican billionaire donors, convened by the Koch brothers.

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

 

Read Next: Laura Windsor on McConnell’s plan to shut down Obama’s legislative agenda.

US Condemnation of Press Restrictions Abroad Is Starting to Look Hypocritical

Memorial for James Foley, US journalist killed by ISIS, 220 miles north of Baghdad (AP Photo/ Marko Drobnjakovic) 

Editor’s Note: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

This is a terrible time for journalists.

Just last week, the world watched in horror as James Foley, a freelance photojournalist for GlobalPost and Agence France-Presse, was beheaded by a jihadist from the Islamic State. The disturbing video suggests that the perpetrators intend to target more journalists if their demands are not met.

There is something particularly chilling about murdering those seeking only to inform, about reporters around the world having to fear for their lives. But right here at home, we’re seeing a less lethal, yet still deeply troubling threat to journalism.

In recent days, all eyes have been on Ferguson, Missouri, where the shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown on August 9 touched off citywide protests and a national debate over racism, equal justice and police brutality. But if local Ferguson police had their way, there would be little or no coverage at all.

Since the killing, Ferguson law enforcement have arrested or detained at least 10 journalists , and tried to silence many more. They’ve escalated violence against the media, shooting tear gas canisters at reporters and dismantling cameras and lighting equipment. The Post’s Wesley Lowery was slammed into a soda machine and arrested after disregarding an illegal order to stop filming. “Don’t resist,” one cop threatened an Al Jazeera reporter. “I’ll bust your head right here.”

Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!

Some media critics have argued that journalists are behaving irresponsibly, that instead of providing unbiased coverage, they risk becoming the story. But it is a story—an essential one—when our supposedly free press is prevented from doing its vital duty.

Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.

Read Next: Someone is going to need to address tax inversion

Syndicate content