The Politics Guys

Will talks with political scientist Brian Smentkowski, an Associate Professor at the University of Idaho. He’s the co-author of Misreading the Bill of Rights: Top Ten Myths Concerning Your Rights and Liberties with Craig Freeman and Kirby Goidel.

Topics Will & Brian discuss include:

• • • The top myths Americans hold regarding the Bill of Rights
    • Whether a Bill of Rights is necessary for democracy
    • Our changing understanding of religion in the United States
    • America’s paradoxical view of security
    • How a free press and an informed citizenry impacts democracy
    • The differences between punishment and torture

Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.

Will is joined by a new co-host, Brian Smentkowski, a political scientist from the University of Idaho. They begin the show by discussing the current status of the Mueller Report and Democratic efforts to get President Trump’s tax returns released. Will sees little value with releasing the report in full while Brian argues that if nothing else it is symbolically necessary. Both agree, however, that the report will be twisted to fit partisan desires. Regarding income tax returns, both note how tradition is guiding discussions more than law at present.

Next, they turn to discussing the harassment allegations raised against potential presidential nominee Joe Biden. While Will argues that Biden is from a different era and seems genuinely unsure of what he’s done wrong without being malicious, Brian argues there’s nothing funny about the allegations and when combined with Biden’s past could raise red flags for some voters. Will ties the conversation back to whether the average Democratic voter would risk a Biden nomination (and polling that suggests he’s the best chance against Trump in 2020) over the current allegations or not. They then turn to discuss the current field and Tim Ryan’s decision to irrelevantly enter the race. Both find Mayor Peter to be an interesting case study.

Lastly, the Guys talk about three recent example of government intervention and regulation. First, they look at the focus on self-regulating industries brought to light by the FAA and Boeing’s Super Max debacle. Brian argues that self-regulation can work, but it comes with definite risks while Will worries about the cost-benefit of government becoming too involved. Both Will and Brian share concerns over New York City’s current proposal for a consumption tax to relieve traffic concerns south of Central Park. Brian isn’t sure there will be any impact while Will believes money should be spent on better public transportation to influence ridership. Lastly, both Will and Brian lament the upcoming statewide ban on plastic bags in the state of New York, albeit for very different reasons.

Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.

Subscribe: iTunes | PocketCasts | Overcast | Stitcher | RSS

In this listener mail episode, Mike and Jay respond to the following listener questions:

• Will employers pocket insurance premium money they’d potentially save under a Medicare For All system?
• Why might Trump have wanted to obstruct justice, even if he wasn’t working with the Russians?
• Where do Mike and Jay differ from their parties?
• What do Mike and Jay think about Pete Buttigeig?
• Why do so many Democrats seem to be anti-Israel?
• Will gerrymandering get worse after the 2020 Census?
• How can we trust a media that first told us that Trump was working with the Russians and is now disappointed that he wasn’t working with the Russians?

Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.

Subscribe: iTunes | PocketCasts | Overcast | Stitcher | RSS

Jay and Mike open the show with a discussion of what we currently know about the recently ended Mueller investigation. Jay says there was ‘no collusion’ while Mike points out that there was ‘not enough evidence to prove collusion’ which he sees as an important distinction. They also discuss why Mueller refrained from making a determination about obstruction of justice and what’s next for Democrats intent on continuing their investigations into President Trump.

After that is a look at the administration’s recent change of position on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Previously, they stated that while the individual mandate was unconstitutional, the rest of the law could stand (not that they were enthusiastic about it). This change of position seems to be both constitutionally questionable and a potential political problem for Congressional Republicans. However, viewed in light of what’s good for President Trump, Jay believes the change of position may make good political sense.

Finally, the Guys discuss a federal judge halting Medicaid work requirements in Arkansas and Kentucky. Mike argues that the administration overstepped when it granted the work requirements waivers which he believes amounted to the executive branch rewriting a law it didn’t like. Jay counters that work requirements are related to health outcomes, and that the programs should be allowed to continue.

Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.

Subscribe: iTunes | PocketCasts | Overcast | Stitcher | RSS

Trey & Ken start the show this week breaking from the normal format and discussing a topic that does not cover “American politics and policy” directly. Instead the pair discuss Brexit. After talking about the complex potential outcomes of Brexit and the looming hard deadline the pair turn to discus the idea of nationalism more broadly.

Trey begins by suggesting nationalism is the underlying cause of Brexit. Ken sees nationalism as inherently racist. Trey, a supporter of open borders at home, cautions that nationalism is a more important variable than he has given credit. He sees a credible argument against his own position for open borders and wonders if the two of them have not missed reasonable pushback.

Trey & Ken close the episode with a listener question. The question concerns what would happen to American presidential elections if electoral college votes were given out on the basis of proportional representation instead of winner take all. Both Trey & Ken have slightly different views but agree that any of these changes depend on how much you value democratic majoritarianism vs. republicanism’s fear of majorities.

Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.

Subscribe: iTunes | PocketCasts | Overcast | Stitcher | RSS

Trey & Ken start the show by discussing the novel constitutional law case District of Columbia v. Donald J. Trump. The question in the case concerns an antiquated word, emolument, found in only three places in the constitution. The question pivots on if foreign and domestic entities are involving themselves with Trump properties to get a better reception from President Trump. Ken thinks the case is relatively straightforward, but Trey wonders how much the Supreme Court would want to involve itself in a potentially ignorable decision.

After that, they talk about President Trump’s executive order concerning free speech on college campus. Trey & Ken learn they are both supporters and members of the same free speech organization and are happy with the principles laid out in the order. The order itself, however, seems to do nothing that isn’t already taking place on college campuses. Trey suggests it is more of a position stance than a policy stance.

Then it’s time to discuss the economy. Recent economic conditions are showing a deeply healthy economy. The only cloud being the ballooning federal deficit. Trey & Ken have a bit of disagreement over the causes of this good news. Then the two discuss the economic models that suggest that President Trump would easily win reelection in this climate. Trey & Ken talk political vs. economic forecast models and debate the extent to which minimum wage increases explain weekly worker wage growth.

Trey & Ken close the show by talking about the robust Democratic primary field. Ken discusses his top three candidates while Trey ponders if Booker has not been given his due. Trey thinks Democrats have a tougher general election regardless of the winner given the current economic conditions and Ken is worried his predictions are too early to matter.

Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.

Subscribe: iTunes | PocketCasts | Overcast | Stitcher | RSS

In this listener response episode, Mike and Kristin address these listener questions:

• In the light of recently released testimony, can we conclude that elements in the intelligence community worked to sabotage Donald Trump?
• Is online media transparent enough about changing stories?
• Is opposition to the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act tantamount to support for infanticide?
• Is Mike being naive about border security?

Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.

Subscribe: iTunes | PocketCasts | Overcast | Stitcher | RSS

Mike & Kristin start the show by discussing the Senate’s vote to rescind the national emergency declared by President Trump, and Trump’s veto of the Congressional resolution. They agree that there’s little chance the veto will be overridden, but it’s still likely to be a long time before any more walls get built given all the legal hurdles the administration will have to overcome.

After that, they talk about why the U.S. trailed the rest of the world in grounding the Boeing 737 Max 8 in the wake of the Ethiopian Airlines crash. Mike thinks it may have something to do with Boeing’s political clout in the U.S., which Kristin also sees as a factor. Kristin says that we should be at least somewhat concerned that the world took its cue from China as opposed to the U.S. and that we may need to more carefully consider commercial aircraft regulation.

Then it’s a look at President Trump’s 2020 budget. Like almost all presidential budgets, it’s largely dead on arrival but even so it gives us a sense of what the administration’s priorities are – in this case defense and walls. Kristin argues that this makes sense – President Trump is looking toward 2020 and wants to keep his base supportive and engaged. Mike points out the chicanery the administration engaged in to boost the defense budget and laments what he sees as incredible fiscal irresponsibility of ‘tax cut & borrow’ Republicans.

Next, Mike & Kristin talk about Beto O’Rourke’s entry into the crowded Democratic presidential hopeful field. Kristin doesn’t think much of O’Rourke, but Mike likes his more moderate stances, at least compared to a number of other prominent Democratic candidates. But he thinks O’Rourke isn’t experienced enough and favors former governors like Colorado’s John Hickenlooper.

They close the show by talking about the college admissions scandal. Mike makes the point that this, while troubling, is much less of a problem than the larger system of legal privilege that gives kids from wealthy families a leg up in the admissions process. Kristin agrees, and both Mike & Kristin feel that there need to be some fairly fundamental changes to our education system (which may be the topic of a special policy show they hope to do at some point in the future).

Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.

Subscribe: iTunes | PocketCasts | Overcast | Stitcher | RSS

Mike and Jay start the show by discussing H.R. 1, the ‘For The People Act’ recently passed by House Democrats. Mike thinks it’s a great start toward fixing some of the basic flaws in our representative system. ALthough Jay agrees with Mitch McConnell about the horribleness of the bill, Mike and Jay do find some common ground, both for and against elements of the legislation.

Next, they get into the remarks made by Rep. Ilhan Omar and the resulting House resolution against anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim speech. Mike feels that Omar’s comment was taken out of context and that she makes some important points about how we often label those who question U.S. policy toward Israel. Jay argues that while Omar may not be an anti-Semite, she has a record of previous remarks and she surely knew that the words she used were unnecessarily inflammatory.

After that, the Guys talk about the latest Trump investigations. Mike believes that the House is casting a broad net because there’s so much corruption in the Trump administration to investigate, whereas Jay – while not denying ethical issues in the administration – feels it’s more of a partisan fishing expedition.

Finally, Mike & Jay discuss the sentencing of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. Mike believes that Judge T. S. Ellis may have let his personal bias influence both his conduct toward the prosecution during the trial as well as his sentence of Manafort. Jay’s no fan of judicial bias, but he doesn’t see the Ellis’ sentence as being an abuse of discretion.

Listener support helps make The Politics Guys possible. If you’re interested in supporting the show, go to patreon.com/politicsguys or politicsguys.com/support.