Third Way: What We Can Learn From Eric Holder
Eric Holder - Real Time With Bill mahar/hbo
In an age of extreme political polarization, it feels as if Democrats and Republicans are talking past one another, not directly addressing others’ concerns and choosing instead to pivot to intellectually lazy and dishonest methods including virtue signaling, employing talking points, ignoring the issue, or even simply lying.
Some people, however, appear to have a sincere interest in honest discussion and tackling real problems. Eric Holder is one of those people.
Holder served as Attorney General of the United States from 2009 to 2015 and has been an advocate for Democratic candidates and policies since. His priorities are down-to-earth, and he highlights things that matter, even if not obvious to the public eye. And while he does sometimes use partisan language (see below), he generally has a polite demeanor and seems to care deeply about the issues. This is something we could all learn from.
On Real Time with Bill Maher, Eric Holder appeared on a panel with Congress members Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Nancy Mace (R-SC). One of the topics was bail reform, which is an issue that was prevalent during the 2022 midterm elections and still remains a point of contention. The argument against bail reform is that crime is on the rise in part because the policy, which allows more offenders not accused of violent felonies to go free without having to pay bail, incentivizes further criminal activity.
Democrats were weak in promoting bail reform during those midterms, allowing Republicans to promote the narrative that crime is increasing due to this seemingly soft approach. They needed to challenge this notion just as Holder did, unpacking the issue excellently: “If the person is going to be a threat to the community, hold that person. If a person is not gonna show up again, hold that person. Bail or bond discriminates against people who don't have the ability to come up with money to get themselves out of jail and they serve time in jail disproportionately as opposed to their more wealthy counterparts.”
Khanna was awestruck: “I wish the Democratic party could be that eloquent on that issue...we don't explain it well.”
The idea is that danger, recidivism, and flight risk should be the factors determining whether someone should be released pending a court date. Not money, which one could argue is an abstract metric for judgment on that matter.
Holder articulated the Democratic position on that wedge issue very well, perhaps because he actually cares about the issue as opposed to repeating soundbites and talking points. It might be because voters do not care about the nuances of the issue, or it is difficult to communicate the correct response. But Democrats, for one reason or another, allow the Republicans to stomp on them politically by framing bail reform as dangerous criminals simply being let loose. We can learn from Holder’s command of the topic how important it is to actually care and have a well-informed position.
The difficulty living in a polarized society is the lack of the ability to see each other as human, and even more so, to assume that figures in power are acting in good faith. Holder does both of those things in a powerful opinion piece in which he rebukes James Comey’s decision less than two weeks before the 2016 election, to inform Congress of a new find which he determined to be relevant to a closed investigation into candidate Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information.
The title of the article is archaic to modern discourse: “James Comey is a good man, but he made a serious mistake.” Holder seeks not to demonize him or assume bad faith. He very deliberately made the choice to be polite and to emphasize the goodness he saw in Comey. “I served with Jim Comey and I know him well. This is a very difficult piece for me to write. He is a man of integrity and honor. I respect him. But good men make mistakes.”
Holder proceeded to make solid arguments about how Comey broke protocol by making this public and risked undermining the legitimacy of the Justice Department. Not only does Holder’s polite demeanor grant his arguments more weight – it is also a good, and yet so difficult, thing to do.
While prominent political figures and commentators decry Hunter Biden’s laptop or Trump’s election denial, Holder sees beyond the issues in the headlines. He often posts on X, formerly Twitter, about his concerns of gerrymandering and its effects. In one post, he directs us to the “duck” district that got Jim Jordan, one of the most prominent advocates for Trump, elected to Congress.
We never talk about that. We take everyone in Congress for granted, without looking at the process that got them there in the first place. Gerrymandering, as Holder wants to stress, is so important and yet so underrecognized as a powerful force influencing our elections and those who acquire power.
Likewise, speaking to CNN’s Laura Coates, Holder expressed concern over efforts to limit the Voting Rights Act of 1965. “Out of the 8th Circuit there is this new theory that apparently has been found 58 years into the existence of the Voting Rights Act, never seen before, that says only the Justice Department can bring cases under Section 2 as opposed to private litigants.”
Holder then proceeded to note how the vast majority of successful cases under Section 2 were brought by private litigants, and how the history of the act clearly allows for private litigation. This issue of private litigation, he continued, was not even brought up by one of the litigating parties, but rather a Trump-appointed judge.
Certainly, Holder has a sarcastic tone when he describes this effort against the Voting Rights Act as a “new theory that apparently has been found” after nearly 60 years. But that allows him to strengthen his point while not being rude or accusatory.
Unfortunately, this would all sound quite boring to a typical viewer however, as he delves into legal technicalities which may not resonate with a wider audience. But this demonstrates the attention Holder gives to real threats facing democracy which largely remain behind the scenes. The media should give greater coverage to these kinds of concerns, and voters need to make sure they are aware.
Holder’s approach to politics is something we can all learn from. He is polite, assumes the good in people, and looks past the judgments of the media to see other affairs that matter as well — the dangers to democracy just as potent as those which the media chooses to highlight.
These priorities likely inform Holder's outlook on the 2024 presidential election. In light of all the obstacles to a successful criminal prosecution of Trump prior to November, Holder offers a dose of realism to opponents of Trump, reminding us of the most reliable way to ensure Trump can never pose a threat to American institutions again.
“There is no cavalry coming,” he stated on X. “No miracle solution. No saviors. In the end, we, the American people - not any of our institutions - have to save our democracy by voting in defense of that democracy this fall. We are the cavalry. The responsibility is ours.”