tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX Business July 2, 2017 8:00pm-9:01pm EDT
in spite of them. >> there would be a lot of winning. are you tired of the winning ♪ >> it's a very complicated subject. i had hoped, as you know that we could have gotten to the floor this week. but we're not quite there. but i think we got a really good chance of getting there. it will just take us a little bit longer. paul: welcome to the journal editorial report i'm paul guy go. gigot. the senate would break for the july 4 recess without a vote on healthcare. negotiations continue as the republicans scramble to settle on a plan to repeal and replace obamacare. with the impatient president trump tweeting friday if
republican senators are unable to pass what they are working on now they should repeal and then replace at a later date. what are the main obstacles of an agreement and what are the consequences of the g.o.p. if they fail to pass a bill? let's ask "wall street journal" columnist and deputy editor dan henning gear editorial board member and columnist bill mcgern. joe, you cover this for us. what are the divisions inside the republican party that are preventing an agreement? >> well, there are two camps. one it's the conservatives. people like ted cruz, ron johnson who are kind of disappointed that it doesn't do enough on deregulation. i think they are amenable to a deal. the real problem are the moderates. they -- paul: who are you talking about? >> i'm talking about rob portman. paul: of ohio. >> shellie of west virginia. bill cassidy of louisiana. i mean, there is a whole list of them. paul: all right. what's their beef.
>> their main problem is with medicaid. they think the cuts, this bill transitions to a block grant. they think the block grant is not generous enough. and then there is all kinds of cats and dogs. they don't want to cut taxes for the rich. paul: they don't want to repeal some of the obamacare taxes that they campaigned to repeal. >> right. paul: so that's a problem. >> their problem is when they said they wanted to repeal and replace obamacare they really didn't want to repeal all that much. so, the question is where is the vin diagram between these two camps. mitch mcconnell can find it. paul: that's what mcconnell has been trying to negotiate. the bigger problem you are saying though, politically, is the moderates who want to do much less on medicaid reform. aren't some of these people the same people who said, you know, we can't -- oh, my god, the deficit is too large.
we have to do something about healthcare entitlement unless. >> right. they have run on repeal and replace across four elections for nearly a decade. they have -- all these guys have voted in 2015 to repeal obamacare. now that it might actually happen, they are getting cold feet. paul: they are saying don't make me take a tough vote. >> look, paul, it's clear in retrospect to me that the most politically shrewd thing that barack obama and the architects of the affordable care act did was expand medicaid. because there are states like west virginia, ohio, arizona. the states have always been desperate to fund their medicaid. paul: here is the key, dan, medicaid is traditionally funded on a 50/50. >> exactly. paul: this was a 90/10 deal. 90% of the cash to get new people on. >> republican governors like john kasich who took the money and now think are literally
addicted to this medicaid money. and the problem is that if the medicaid reforms go, states who didn't take the money, say like florida, i think they are going to be obligated to buy in to the medicaid expansion and then it's game over. paul: the expansion of the medicaid, it wasn't just more money at a 90/10 rate. it was also extended up to 138% of poverty. >> right. paul: it came not just bill for the disabled and needy and poverty. it became essentially a slowly moving gradually upward middle class entitlement. >> absolutely. it's a huge -- i mean, really it's obamacade. when they talk about people health coverage it's mostly medicaid. one of the issues, medicaid is a great sort of crucible for this. and what's missing is the president on this. he has tweeted. i think he has done some good things. had some senators in. but what this really calls out for is like an oval office address where you address these myths. as this is happening.
the democrats are putting out that the republicans are cutting medicaid rather than cutting the growth and so forth. and it would be very helpful for the president to give andreas what the republicans want to do, why they do and explain it that's supposed to be his strength. paul: all right. there's this idea about, joe, that if republicans can't get a deal, somehow they should go -- reach out to schumer, the democratic leader and say let's come reason together and have a bipartisan support -- bipartisan deal. possible? >> no. well, in a limited sense, but the people calling for everybody to come together and kum ba yah circle, never say what that deal would look like. there is no substance there whatsoever. and that's because there is not a bipartisan compromise. what happens if this fails is that mitch mcconnell is forced to go to chuck schumer and say we have got to do something about the exchanges. paul: because they are
failing. >> they are failing. you have high and rising premiums and insurers leaving and tens of thousands of people in counties with zero insurers. so you will get a bailout of the exchanges that will be mainly democrats with a few republicans who are trying to prevent a crisis. paul: it will be a ratification of obamacare essentially with more dough. none of the reform that's in this current bill. you will get bipartisan, but it will be as if hillary clinton got elected. >> it will be worse than the deal republicans probably would have cut if president clinton was in office right now. paul: all right. what about this tweet by donald trump saying if the senate republicans fail, then let's just go to plan b. plan b being we are going to repeal it you all promised to do it. we will repeal it first and then we will go work on replace. ben sasse, the nebraska senator, republican recommended the same thing to donald trump. plausible? >> i don't see how that really works. i mean it, seems to me that if you repeal it, whatever that
may mean, the exchanges the exchanges are up and running out there. more or less, right? i think that throws the burden on tom price and health and human services to start tinkering with the exchanges to keep them afloat until they get to replace. that itself is going to be a mess. paul: the danger is it ruins healthcare markets. >> yeah. look, the larger thing is the republican party is supposed to be offering sliewfertions to the american people. and the real goal of republican healthcare policy is not just to return it to the status quo before obamacare, which was not that good but typically prove it, that to me would be ad abdication. >> they would be responsible. >> that's exactly what the democrats want to transfer ownership to the democrats to the republicans. paul: all right. thank you, all. when we come back, a victory for president trump and the constitution's separation of powers as the supreme court allows most of his travel ban
to go into effect. to go intusaa gives me the peace of mind and the security just like the marines did. the process through usaa is so effortless, that you feel like you're a part of the family. i love that i can pass the membership to my children. we're the williams family, and we're usaa members for life. the toothpaste that helps new parodontax. prevent bleeding gums. if you spit blood when you brush or floss you may have gum problems and could be on the journey to much worse. help stop the journey of gum disease. try new parodontax toothpaste. ♪
paul: parts of president trump's controversial travel ban went into effect thursday night after the supreme court ruled this week that nearly all of the president's directives could go forward in a unanimous decision the justices also agreed to review a series of lower court rulings blocking the implementation of the march executive order which temporarily bars entry to the u.s. by nationals of six muslim majority nations. oral arguments in the case are set for the fall, setting up a supreme court showdown over presidential power. attorney david rifkin served in the white house and in the justice department under presidents ronald reagan and george bush. welcome, david, good to see you. >> good to be with you. paul: so i know you wrote for us. and you believe that this decision was a victory for
presidential power as a legal matter and was the right decision. never mind the policy but just as a legal matter. why? >> because of the lower courts district courts and two courts of appeal the fourth and the ninth have fundamentally deviated from the established supreme court case law that distinguishes between the extent of judicial engagement in domestic affairs where the courts pay some deference to the executive but basically scrutinize particularly in situations where there is alleged violations of fundamental constitutional rights. paul: right. >> executive actions and foreign affairs where the deference is upmost, reflecting recognition that the two political branches possess the totality of foreign affairs power. judiciary not expertise nor the ability to really do very much there. so this basically pushes the pendulum back to where the law should be, let me emphasize, this is way beyond this executive order, paul. the framework most lower courts have adopt would fundamentally destroy the ability of the presidency to carry out foreign policy.
paul: i want to get into that. this is really interesting opinion because it was unanimous in order to reinstate the policy at least until they can hear the merits in the autumn. how much do you read, in how much significance do you read into the fact that it was unanimous? >> quite a bit. not too be too harsh. what the courts of appeal have done is utterly an enter racial. they have paid scant regard to the supreme court case. in a way it was a challenge not only to the presidency because as you know paul, i believe there is a quote resistance portion of the federal judiciary which is bad enough. plift sized judicial making. but it also implicit challenge to the supreme court. remember article three is a hierarchal entity. the supreme court attune the lower courts are suppose to follow the music so to speak. paul: article applies to the supreme court. >> right.
paul: you saying there are plenty of supreme court precedents that says on matters of national security courts must defer to the political branches in particular when those political branches the congress and the president are united behind a povment you are saying that the lower branches here the 40 and ninth circuit, the lower courts really just ran roughshod over this in part because they don't like this president. >> they don't like this president and they have done it in a way that was most disingenuous. as i said they paid no attention to the supreme court precedent. it's just not a matter of deference. what's important here is this, this transcends immigration. the same logic could be applied to the decision to use drones, decision to impose economic sanctions, frankly decisions to use economic force. once it's bonafide reason why doing something, this is it. the judiciary takes it on board. there is no balancing type of analysis that you invariably see in domestic affairs.
paul: i think the lower courts were so out of line the supreme court should have reinstated the whole injunction, barred rather the whole injunction should have allowed it to proceed, the travel ban. yet, they did say that the travel ban, they did overrule the travel ban in certain narrow cases of individuals who have ties to american families, the families in america or institutions such as a college or university where you have been accepted for admission. and, yet, there was a dissent on that from three justices. what do you make of that disagreement? >> i frankly think, paul, it's a slight disagreement. i think the chief justice has accepted this fairly narrow category of people who will come in. again, this is not about policy equity, paul. this is about constitution at the highest level. getting nine justices on board is perfectly fine except for the exception the supreme court exercised own equitable discretion. what's important to underscore
for the viewers if the lower courts were right nobody could be stopped under this executive order. the very fact that vast majority of people are going to be stopped now for a duration underscores how thoroughly they have taken this off the table. the legal theories. again, what troubles me the most are not the policy consequences, frankly, of stopping this ban. but the legal consequences of eviscerating established case law says, again, on foreign affairs, political branches reign supreme. >> you don't want justices making second guesses they don't have the expertise or knowledge to do. so i want to ask you what to expect in the fall when the justices address this on the merits. you could go for a 9-0 decision. we know the chief justice likes those kinds of decisions. but would veto too many concessions to the get the liberals on board and would you prefer a 5-4 split that makes a really thunder russ ruling on behalf of presidential power? >> again, the policy stakes here in my opinion are quite minor.
i think speaking with a clear voice, some chastisement in a measured fashion and proper paradigm for judicial engagement in this area is absolutely essential. this was a reasonable compromise to get 9 on board for the stay. when we get to the merits, oral argument coming i think the first week of october, look, i hope we're going to get 9 perfect decision. but probably not. so, 6-3, 5-4 would be wonderful. this would not be the time to pull punches. by the way, as you point out in your h editorial, snroi doubt that the left is going to put serious pressure on the chief justice the way they have done with obamacare, for example. very important to keep up the countervailing pressure as well. paul: thank you david rifkin, when we come back the supreme court wraps up big victory for religious liberty. why will take a closer look at this week's rule and what it says about the court's newest justice. ♪
paul: the supreme court wrapped up its term this week with a big win for religious liberty in a closely watched case the justices ruled 7-2. missouri acted improperly when it denied public funds to a lutheran church seeking assistance from a state program providing grants for playground improvements. we're back with dan henninger and bill magern and james torrent also join us. bill, how big a victory was this for religious freedom. >> i think it's a big victory. i said before in mid evil times they debated angels on pinheads. today we debate whether a playground that's lutheran can qualify for funds.
i will say i don't think these are the biggest religious liberty cases because it's about funding or the previous cases, the supreme court that was 9-0 about running their own business. where it's really going to clash are the cases that they are going to take like the cake baker cases from colorado. paul: whether or not they can exercise conscience in relation to gay marriage. >> lesbian rights. that's where the real nasty clashes are going. paul: 7-2 elena kagan joined the majority. >> and stephen breyer. >> societ society thaso hethat>> gorsuch didn't jy deciding the limited circumstances of this case. so the majority is leaving willinwiggle room for future ca. paul: what do you make of the cases between the liberals. >> this is a case in which
it's a question of how absolute do you want to be about the separation of church and state. the argument here was the state had a policy of giving grants to organizations and it was discriminating against religion as opposed to supporting religion for the sake of religion. paul: that's where some liberals might say okay, that's just not right. >> right. >> interestingly, the next day, the supreme court then sent orders back to the supreme courts of colorado and new mexico which had ruled against the public funding being used for religious purposes, religious school programs. paul: schools? >> schools. paul: private school vouchers. >> the supreme court told those two courts reconsider your opinion. that's a big deal. because there are these so-called blaine amendments all over the country that forbid using public money for religious schools. >> by the way when the courts said about 15 years ago that states could, not must but could extend voucher programs to parochial schools that was a 5-4 decision.
paul: that was a 5-4 decision. these blaine amendments, bill go, back to the 1880s, i think. >> right. paul: they were aimed at a period proximate result the protestant majorities in this country were trying to say no no money for all these upstart italian and irish immigrant schools. we don't want catholic schools. >> the way they did it the public schools were protestant schools and sectarianment catholics and we are stuck with this. look this is where donald trump gets credit for neil gorsuch. if you read his opinions, they are very subtle and he also rejects kind of these distinctions. he talked about someone who says grace before a meal is, that a religious meal or religious man or so forth. this is far more important than, for example, the president's executive order on religious liberty which i don't think amounts to as much. paul: yeah. let's talk, fellows, about gorsuch. because we got our first glimpse of him as a justice this week or this term. and i don't think you can
reach conclusions about any justice in a few weeks. maybe in a couple of years. it takes a while to see how they do. but what do you think about his debut? >> well, the thing that strikes me most about it is he is a wonderful writer. my job is finding good writers. i think he has only written three opinions so far. most of them have been about boring subjects like the regulation of debt collection agencies. buff you read them and they are marvelously clear and just a pleasure to read. but the clarity is also important. i think that cearsz over to the way he thinks about the law. paul: yeah. and i would just elaborate on that, dan. the clarity shows to me, anyway, a justice who is very confident in his -- in what he thinks about the law. this is somebody who feels very comfortable with the text of statutes, knows that that that's how he interprets statutes. goes to the text. and then is -- so it's not i'm going to make it up as i go. you know, he knows what he is doing and looking at these cases.
and you can almost sense, you know, that he is going to be a force intellectually on the court. >> sounds like you are describing justice scalia without the doubts. he did align himself several times. paul: without the scalia self-doubt. >> that's ironic point just for the record. >> for instance, he aligned himself with justice thomas where the court declined to hear a case on whether people could carry guns outside their home for their personal use. justice thomas and justice gorsuch wanted to take that case. and that's is the kind of area where scalia might have had a little bit of doubt. he aligned himself with justice thomas on what bill was talking about, a more forceful, vigorous defense of the free expression of religion. so i think he is going to be solidly there with justice thomas and probably justice alito on everything. paul: it was 4-4 for much of it there was a big cases on free speech, james. >> yes. this was the case involving
the slants, asian american rock band. they had been denied a trademark on the grounds that it was disparaging and they challenged this. and the supreme court struck down the patented trademark's office disparagement clause. which means the washington redskins will continue to be around. what was really important about this case is the cultural statement the court made, two opinions one by justice alitani toe and one by justice kennedy kennedy. both affirmed in strong terms, no separate category of hate speech protected by the first amendment. a common misunderstanding these days. paul: fascinating. still ahead the white house issued a rare public warning for the syrian government this week. and finds that they are planning another chemical attack. so did the warning save lives? and is there a long-term
one laugh, and hello sensitive bladder. ring a bell? then you have to try always discreet. i didn't think protection this thin could work. but the super absorbent core turns liquid to gel. for incredible protection... snap! so it's out of sight... ...and out of mind. always discreet. for bladder leaks. i've discovered incredible bladder leak underwear that hugs every curve. can't tell i'm wearing it, can you? always discreet underwear. for bladder leaks. i wanted to know where i did my ancestrydna. the most shocking result was that i'm 26% native american. i had no idea. it's opened up a whole new world for me. ♪
♪ paul: the white house warned this week that syrian forces would, quote, pay a heavy price times when the assad government may be planning another chemical attack on its people. the pentagon on tuesday said a detective acted preparations for chemical weapons at airfield the site of a cruise missile site. nikki haley told congress wednesday that the administration's warning may have averted the attack and saved innocent lives. >> i think that by the president calling out assad, i think by us continuing to remind iran and russia that
while they choose to back assad, that this was something we were not going to put up with. so i would like to think that the president saved many innocent men, women, and children. paul: cliff may is the president of the foundation for defense of democracy. he joins me now from washington. welcome back, cliff, good to see you. so you really think that the assad regime would tempt fate again and try another chemical attack after what happened to them the first time? >> i certainly think the warning has given them pause and may be that they are not going to do that again that they recognize that if they cross that red line there is a president now who will take action and make them feel some pain. i hopefully feel that's true for the sake of saving innocent lives. important to show again as the u.s. has in this instance that it is a power to be reckoned with. the other ways that it's been done in recent days shooting down a syrian plane and shooting down iranian made drones. those are important signals among other things. paul: so what you are seeing
here is the refresh your recollection, the revival of the u.s. deterrent effect against rogue behavior. and that was, of course, missing for many, many years under the previous administration. is that how you see it? >> absolutely i do. if the deterrent is credible, it means you probably don't have to take action. having used missiles once against assad, it may be that we don't have to do it another time in this instance. although there is plenty more we have to do and that has to be done if this part of the world -- if the fires in this part of the world are going to subside much less be put out. paul: i want to talk about that. you mentioned the drone and the airplane shootdown. now, when that happened, the u.s. was aattack was taking down aircraft that look to be threatening american forces -- forces allied with america on the ground in fighting islamic state. russia and iran reacted and said don't do it again. we're going to challenge your aircraft. and, yet, we haven't seen that
at all since then. was that just a false threat? >> well, i think it was a bit of game of chicken. i think the russians and others have to decide whether they think they can make the current u.s. administration back down. as you inferred or implied. i don't think they had any fear whatsoever of the obama administration. they knew that obama would also back down would always stay away from action. now they have to say do we want to escalate. there is a possibility of escalation. they have to decide if they go out at high noon and draw their gun are they going to be first and more accurate. paul: we know, we have heard this week mostly and iraq is about to be libertied from islamic state. raqqa and syria may not be far behind. going on the road to defeat at least on major enclaves. what happens then? is there a strategy that you see here that the united states has? >> yeah. this is a key question. look, i think the defeat of the most ambitious and
adventuristic jihadist expression of the reestablishment of the caliphate in the 21st century, if we defeat that, that's a good day. let's celebrate that let's be careful because we have a big day after problem. what do we do after -- we do not want to be the expeditionary force for iran and russia and assad and others in syria. and that's -- that could be the case. as far as a policy or a strategy. paul: that's what i want to hear. what's the u.s. strategy? >> i do not think if we have a strategy i it has not been clearly articulated yet. it's not going to be easy to come up with, because whatever strategy we have is going to have some serious down sides there are no good strategies. bad strategies and worse it's going to take a bit of thought and consideration to figure out which is which. so i do think the day after problem is enormous. i think there are things that there are aspects of a strategy such as safe zones or i call themself protection zones. there are enclaves that have been in place really since 2012 that we can fortify.
but we do not want to do it. certainly what we did in iraq. which is we take the country away from a terrible ruler such as shasm and end up giving the -- having that rebound to the benefit of iran which is trying to establish a new empire of she a crescent. paul: that's the point i wanted to ask you about. i think i know after isis is defeated what iran and syria and russia want. being? syria wants -- iran wants a shiite ark of power from tehran all the way to the mediterranean. and the russians want an ally that they can say we helped survive. and you give us a couple of military bases and a port. but it isn't clear that any of that is in the united states interest. and how do we stop that from happening because those forces on the ground are going to keep pressing that. and it seems to me that we are going to have to respond with some kind of military force, either enforcing the enclaves for the kurds or for the sunnies or maybe air power.
>> i think that's exactly right. and that's why it is so difficult because we could win the battle today and lose the war tomorrow. and that's why we do need a policy and a strategy and i think the least -- some of its components are going to be set up enclaves to have the sunnies not feel threatened by the she a, by the iranians because if they do, they will look for any champion, including a champion like isis. we haven't mentioned al qaeda. al qaeda is very strong. it hasn't gotten media attention. it hasn't gotten military attention. there are various al qaeda affiliates also looking to take advantage of the situation. assad and he is supported most of his ventricle tha vecta forco move toward the iraqi border. we have all of these problems. i have to think that secretary mattis and national security advisor mcmaster needs to be thinking about this very hard and saying how do we at least frustrate the ambitions of iran and of russia and of
♪ ♪ making every stay a special stay. holiday inn, smiles ahead. whether for big meetings or little getaways, member always save more at holidayinn.com >> queer here to issue in new american policy. one that locks millions and millions of jobs and trillions of dollars in wealth. my administration will seek not only the american energy independence that we have been looking for so long, but american energy dominance. >> from independence to dominance, that was president trump thursday unveiling his administration's new energy policy and vowing to reduce regulations and boost u.s. production of oil, natural gas and coal to export around the world. it's a move the white house says will create american jobs
and help american allies. we're back with dan henninger, joe rago and bill mcgern. it was supposed to be energy week. the president's tweets got in the way of that instead of energy week it was energy hours, energy day. nonetheless, a lot going on behind the scenes on policy. what's happening? >> that's right, paul. that speech was given around 3:30. about the hour the entire media was, you know, obsessing over the mika bi brins tweet. he is going to allow drilling for artic and atlantic. is he going to accelerate the creation of pipelines. going to have a re-think of nuclear policy. more permitting for new coal mines. he is going all out full speed ahead on energy policy which arguably at this point, paul, is the strongest card donald trump has played since he has become president. >> what do you mean the strongest card you mean
economically, strategically or both. >> economically and strategically. economically, because the united states is now beginning to export up to a million barrels of oil a day, unprecedented because of the revolution in fracking. strategically because energy secretary rick perry was talking about energy dominance. and what he means by that is the united states now exporting all of this energy out there, regarding to establish new relationships with trading partners that we haven't had before. probably reducing the dominance of russia, because formerly all the liquified natural gas would go through pipelines. now we will be able to ship it directly to europe. and opec and saudi arabia. so it's a big deal. paul: it is a big deal, joe. let's just kind of break that down a little bit. it's really got two big components. let's leave coal aside. liquified natural gas building terminals. that gas is being introduced fracking revolution.
new way of tapping into horizontal drilling. tapping into natural gas reservoirs underneath the ground. and also oil exports. the congress basically forced president obama to lift the oil export ban. and that's paying big dividends. >> crude oil exports have doubled over the last six years. it's really a sea change. and it's incremental policy win of the kind that pays dividends over time. a lot of conservatives timed well, the export ban wasn't sufficient to justify a deal. but, we're really seeing the economic results of that right now. paul: that's helped american producers find new markets, bill. >> right. paul: which is crucial because with oil prices falling in half, a lot of them might have gone out of business, drillers, if we didn't have this new exmort market. exmort -- export market.
now we are being able to displace you will some the imports in oil that we otherwise would have had to buy. >> allowing markets to develop. one of the problems we is have had over the years is the countries that had oil that we were dependent upon were generally not great actors, russia, vends, the arab countries and we were very vulnerable. that's why the pitch to american energy independence was so strong for every president rhyme a little skeptical of that because you want a global market. paul: yeah you want a global market. we have new jobs everywhere because of this especially with mr. putin in europe. it gives some assurance he is not going to use his energy into bully them into something. it's a win all around for this. and a lot of this was -- a lot of reason it didn't develop was because of regulations and that's where he -- that's really where is he going. paul: that's really the difference, huge difference between the obama
administration and trump even obama couldn't stop the fracking revolution it was so strong. he could slow it down and make it harder. what trump is doing unleashing it. >> yeah. it relates as bill was suggesting to our foreign policy. we moved away from this kind of pointles pointless argument t energy independence. there is never going to be any such a thing with global energy markets. trump has recognize you had that energy markets are global. is he using our skills in energy to establish relationships economically and strategically with allies throughout in europe. this has moved the energy conversation entirely more productive direction. paul: thank you, all. when we come back, false black power. a provocative new book by the "wall street journal's" own
isn't this fun, living like the pioneers of olden times? i hate the outside. well, i hate it wherever you are. burn. "burn." is that what the kids are saying now? i'm so bored, i'm dead. you can always compare rates on progressive.com. oh, that's nice, dear. but could you compare camping trips? because this one would win. all i want to do is enjoy nature and peace and quiet! it's not about winning. it's about helping people find a great rate even if it's not with progressive. -ugh. insurance. -when i said "peace and quiet," did you hear, "talk more and disappoint me"? ♪ do do do do ♪ skiddly do do ♪ camping with the family ♪ [ flame whooshes ]
♪ ♪ paul: false black power. that's the title of "wall street journal" columnist and manhattan institute senior fellow jason riley's new book out this week. jason joins us now. his or her we go. it's a spritely read, jason, provocative. what do you mean by false black power? >> well, the book is a critique of a civil rights strategy that's been in place since really the 1960's, that is to focus on gaining political power for blacks. electing more black officials in the hopes that that will bring along socioeconomic advancement. i thought obama's presidency was sort of the culmination of this strategy. paul: in the white house. >> let's look back and see how that strategy has fared. paul: what do you think? where has it failed. >> it's failed for a number of
reasons. but, we should never have thought it would succeed based on how other groups have risen from poverty to prosperity. they haven't focused on -- paul: irish they put a premium when they came here boston and new york. >> um-huh. paul: you would think that has had some success. >> well, they are an example of a group that has followed a similar path to what blacks are following. turns out the irish were the slowest to grow economically of all the immigrant groups from europe. paul: in contrast to the germans. >> the italians, the asians and so forth. all of whom did not place their focus on attaining political clout first. they focused on building human capitol. cultural development, skills and attitude and so forth. politics came later. >> politics is not this promised land. it can help but so what -- where should the focus be? >> i think the focus should be on what it was before the civil rights establishment
adopted this strategy. and so a lot of people don't like comparisons between blacks and immigrant groups because of the history of slavery and so forth. paul: of course. >> i say compare blacks today to blacks in the first half of the 20th century. if you look back on that period when focus was not on politicsenned when blacks had no political clout. you saw racial gaps closing in income and attainment and lifting ourselves out of policy and so forth. after the 1960s, after the shift in the strategy to gaining political clout, a lot of those trends stalled, slowed, even retrogressed. and i think we need to get back to building that human capital which is what blacks were more focused on before the attention turned to pursuing politics. paul: you are not saying that jim crow did not have to be destroyed. and that was a foe cut on political power. >> no. it was. paul: that had to happen. >> what i'm saying is that political power is neither necessary nor sufficient for a group to rise. and, by the way, this strategy has worked on its own terms.
the number of black elected officials in this country grew from something like 1500 or less than 1500 from 170 to more than 10,000 by 2010. including a black president. but you look at how the black poor has fared in the wake of all this gaining of political power and it's not well. we should have learned this lesson from what was happening in cities where blacks had been run. your detroits, your clevelands, your philadelphia. you look at young's detroit. marion barry's washington, d.c. the black did not do well during those periods. paul: was the break from a policy and intellectual point of view, in the 1960's you had the great success of the civil rights movement. you had the smashing of jim crow. you had the voting rights act. you had the civil rights act and the empowerment of millions, tens of millions of black americans because of that but then the focus shifted away from things where it -- focus then become economic empowerment.
economic growth and things like education opportunities. >> yes. and that's what's happening before and that was working and closing these racial gaps. when that strategy was abandoned or when the emphasis shifted. that is when, again -- we talk a lot about the legacy of slavery and jim crow. we don't talk about the leg geaflts welfare state. paul: that's where the focus shifted. suddenly the political power they all said we are going to give, provide these benefits to you. >> yeah. paul: you are saying that's been destructive? >> it's been extremely destructive. and can you look at case studies in places like atlanta where in the 1970s and 180s, black mayors like maynard jackson and andrew young came in and gave black city contractors special permissions and catered to affirmative action. and set aside for minority contracts. the black poor lost ground in this period. in this age of more black political impairment, the black pooempowerment both have t
ground. so the strategy is not working. we ought to revisit it. paul: all right, jason riley, thanks for being here. we have to take one more break. when we come back, hits and misses of the week. ♪ i joined the army in july of '98. our 18 year old was in an accident. when i call usaa it was that voice asking me, "is your daughter ok?" that's where i felt relief. we're the rivera family, and we will be with usaa for life.
time now for our business of the week. >> one of america's worst cover states, illinois. how bad is the tax-and-spend crisis? $14.6 billion in unpaid bills. this is to hospitals, dentists, airports, universities, governor and the democratic legislator are locked in a battle over unfunded pension liabilities. boy, what a mess. >> thanks, joe. >> this is the ten -month-old
charlie guard to be taken off life support. charlie was terminally ill but this is not a question of resources. his parents had raised more than 1 million pounds, british pounds, two paper experimental treatment in america. the court not only said that he couldn't go but they said he couldn't take him home to die. the court said that the decision for the government to make, not the parents. >> awful. bill. >> in europe, gun control is an article of faith and never mind that it didn't stop these body attacks in paris. the czech parliament, lower house, past the provision altering the constitution to allow for gun ownership. they are going up against this and it looks like it will pass their upper house. good message to the terrorists, you attack someone in a check, in prague, someone makes you back. >> thank you all and remember if you have your own hit or miss,
be sure to tweets us. thanks to my panel. thanks to all of you for watching. i'm paul and it's nice to see you right here next week tonight on "war stories." he was a texas school teach chore became a washington power house. >> johnson is a mixture of huge achievements and tragic failures. >> envisioning what he called the great society. but war in vietnam turned his dream into a never-ending nightmare. >> i think he taped over that war. >> i shall not seek another term as your president. >> the life and times of lyndon baines johnson. next on "war stories." ♪ this was the home of one