Neil H. Buchanan, a law professor and economist at George Washington University, comments on the recent trend of mainstream liberal opinion makers to express public support for labor unions. Buchanan explains the tumultuous history of liberals and labor unions, and he wonders whether this overdue support is too little too late, in light of a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan discusses a set of issues raised by an op-ed on the public health emergency in Flint, Michigan, written by one of former president George W. Bush’s speechwriters. Buchanan argues that one of the takeaway lessons is that the government—and particularly the federal government—plays an essential role in responding adequately when disaster strikes.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil Buchanan explains how the ways in which Baby Boomers have positively and negatively shaped the world for Millenials. Buchanan points out that Baby Boomers actually did well in some of the areas for which Millenials criticize them, though they also fell short in other areas.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan considers whether any Republican would ever leave the party in light of the increasingly extremist views of the influential party leaders. Buchanan concludes that it is highly unlikely, for a number of reasons, that even Donald Trump could drive away moderate Republicans from the GOP in any permanent sense.
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean argues that Donald Trump’s campaign is showing to the national public what authoritarian politics is all about. Dean ultimately says that he does not find Trump’s rhetoric threatening, because an authoritarian such as Trump—even if he secures the nomination—cannot find broad enough voter support across the country.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton argues that Donald Trump and his extreme comments illustrate the need for civil, accurate discourse, rather than blunderbuss and showmanship. Hamilton points to the work by the Program in Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society at the University of Pennsylvania, which is conducting a social experiment that shows that people from different sides of the political/religious divide can have a meaningful conversation and reach agreement for the common good.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that the Republican presidential candidates fear doing anything risky or unpleasant, such as criticizing the extreme views of Donald Trump or failing to enact meaningful gun control reform.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda critiques Donald Trump’s presidential campaign as falsely claiming to be self-financing. Rotunda explains what Trump is actually doing with the political donations to his campaign, and why it is not self-financing at all.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies calls on us to reflect on the intensifying attacks in the United States against Islam and against the Black Lives Matter movement. Margulies argues that the attacks derive from a common source and that much can be learned from examining them together.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton predicts that the release of the motion picture Spotlight—which is about the cover up of child sex abuse by priests in the Boston Archdiocese—will force the hands of politicians and candidates across the country with respect to their positions on these issues.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan considers the importance of a president himself (or herself) actually having deep knowledge of issues. Buchanan draws upon the presidencies of Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, Obama, and others, in concluding that the president’s advisors are crucial in determining the tone of a president’s impact.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil Buchanan explains why budget deal that temporarily addresses the debt ceiling issue is really a time bomb that will go off on the next president, if he or she is a Democrat.
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean strongly critiques the House Select Committee on Benghazi for conducting itself without decency or civility. Dean compares the committee’s hearings to the so-called Army-McCarthy hearing of June 9, 1954, in which Republican Senator Joe McCarthy charged that the Army had been infiltrated by communists.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan describes the easiest solution to the debt ceiling crisis: for House Republicans to repeal or increase the debt ceiling rather than using it for opportunistic purposes. Buchanan then goes on to explain what the president should do to avoid financial crisis even if House Republicans do not provide this solution.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan describes how Donald Trump’s comments about taxes and the national debt reveal that he is hardly any different from the other Republican candidates. Buchanan argues that, in fact, Trump is in line with mainstream Republican with respect to his views on taxes.
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean describes congressional Republicans’ continued war on women, this time as manifested in their treatment of Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses the sexism Donald Trump displayed during the night of the second Republican presidential debate. Colb points out that Trump’s words reveal his hateful and exploitative attitude toward women and is hopeful that people are prepared to vote accordingly.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses the second GOP presidential debate and the candidates' varied, often concerning, interpretations of the U.S. Constitution.
Author and former counsel to the president John W. Dean discusses the second GOP presidential candidate debate of September 16, 2015—a major political event of the 2016 presidential election cycle.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan describes two cynical tactics by House Republicans to win the political debate over the debt ceiling: (1) redefining what it means to default, and (2) singling out the rich and Social Security recipients to receive their payments in full in the event of government default.