University of Florida Levin College of Law professor Neil H. Buchanan laments the current precarious situation of our constitutional democracy. He argues that a constitutional democracy becomes unsustainable and ultimately dies when a party abuses and changes the system to maintain its power, which he observes Republicans are doing now.
University of Florida Levin College of Law professor Neil H. Buchanan considers whether America, having elected Donald Trump, must consequently accept everything he does as “democracy at work.” Buchanan argues that constitutional processes exist not only to protect democracy not only in word but also in spirit, and that extreme consequences of legal action can still threaten the future of democracy.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan points out that while liberals reject radical left-wing ideas, conservatives do not similarly reject radical right-wing ideas. By way of example Buchanan discusses the theory of Modern Monetary Theory, a persistent fringe theory has been embraced by a few prominent left-leaning politicians despite being rejected by economists across the political spectrum.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan continues his series of columns discussing how the establishment left, particularly the media, is treating the policy and politics of Senator Bernie Sanders (and others) irresponsibly and superficially as “extreme left,” reinforcing false equivalence and “bothsidesism.” Buchanan provides additional support for his thesis across these columns that the supposedly extreme ideas of Sanders and others are actually hugely popular and not at all radical.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that Democrats’ supposedly unpopular extreme-left policy proposals are actually both moderate and popular. Buchanan points out that polls show that Americans overwhelmingly embrace policies that are mischaracterized as extreme left.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that pundits on the anti-Trump right erroneously conflate two different categories of objections, substance and process. Buchanan points out that by attacking the substantive policies supported by Democrats and not distinguishing substance from process, Republicans risk weakening the Constitution’s political processes.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan responds to a Washington Post guest column by Ian Birrell—a speechwriter for the United Kingdom’s former prime minister David Cameron—in which Birrell argues that Brexit is worse than Trump. Buchanan makes the case that Trump’s negative legacy is likely to be both worse and longer-lasting than Brexit’s.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan looks at recent electoral developments in the United Kingdom and the United States (Brexit and Trump’s election) and argues that the justification that Leave/Trump voters “voted their pocketbooks and fears” is no longer supportable. Buchanan points out that democracy does not require that one side excuse the choices of voters who, in the face of overwhelming evidence, voted the wrong way.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that Democrats should embrace progressive policies rather than shy away from them in an effort to avoid being described as “extreme left” by Republicans. Buchanan points out that many of Democrats’ progressive policies are hugely popular, and Republicans will vilify them regardless.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that while rhetoric and symbolism have always played an important role in politics, today’s Republicans are running an entire campaign on an incorrect definition of “socialism.” Buchanan points out that many people are discovering—to the chagrin of Republicans—that socialism means progressive taxation, increasing workers’ pay, and reducing the costs of higher education, rather than collectivist worker camps, and that it might actually be a good thing.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why Senator Elizabeth Warren’s proposal of a wealth tax is not only constitutional, but good policy. Buchanan points out that even in the worst case scenario, Warren’s proposal can pass constitutional muster.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains the benefits of a tax policy that eliminates the “realization requirement” but describes how a hyper-conservative Supreme Court might go to great lengths to strike down such a policy. Buchanan points to an all-but-overturned Supreme Court decision from 1920 and suggests that the conservatives on the Court could ignore the (well deserved) criticism that decision has received in order to strike down progressive tax legislation.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan revisits his exploration of how vastly different U.S. government and politics might look today if Hillary Clinton had won the presidential election in 2016. In this alternate history, Buchanan points out how Republicans might use extreme tactics to undermine a Democratic president and discusses in what ways the 2018 midterm elections may have had a drastically different outcome.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan continues his series of columns considering how much damage the US Supreme Court will inflict after Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement. Drawing upon the nation’s experience with a conservative Court during the Lochner era, Buchanan predicts that one of the most consequential results of Republicans’ theft of a Supreme Court seat could be to seriously undermine one or more of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan describes the immediate consequences that should persuade all voters, but particularly young voters, to vote in this year’s midterm election. Buchanan points out that the short-term consequences of Republican victories this week will mean the likely shutdown the special counsel’s investigation of Trump’s 2016 campaign, continued vilification of the FBI and intelligence services, environmental ruin, increasing economic inequality, and more.
GW Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan describes why President Trump’s recent attacks on the nation’s independent central bank, the Federal Reserve, is dangerous and worrisome. Buchanan explains the reason the Fed is independent of politics and highlights the importance of its continued existence and independence, regardless of who is in the White House.
GW Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why Brett Kavanaugh’s defiant responses to questioning by senators about his conduct while drinking ignore common knowledge about the effects of alcohol and illustrate the toxic combination of drinking culture and young men who think their actions have no consequences.
GW Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan writes a letter that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh could have written (but didn’t) in response to allegations that he sexually assaulted and attempted to rape a 15-year-old girl when he was a 17-year-old high school student. Using a fictional letter as a rhetorical device, Buchanan points out that Kavanaugh could have acknowledged that he, like anyone who has ever drunk to excess, does not recall exactly what he did or did not do while drunk, particularly on the night in question, but instead, Kavanaugh flatly denied that the allegations could be true. Buchanan argues that Kavanaugh’s response to the allegations demonstrates that he does not belong on the US Supreme Court.
In this second part of a series of columns, GW law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan considers how the United States, and indeed the world, would shift substantially to the right with a Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. Buchanan explains not only what might change, but how we can expect that change to come about, as well.
GW Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why the notion of a completely “free” market is nonsensical and argues that Senator Elizabeth Warren’s proposed Accountable Capitalism Act would make capitalism in this country work better. Buchanan points out that there is not a baseline of “no rules” in any society; rather, the government has already simply set certain rules, and those who disproportionately benefit from those rules do not wish them to change.