Q&A with The New York Times Journalist, Carl Hulse
An interview with the political reporter, author and expert on America’s judicial politics
The next national election in the United States is almost exactly one year away. But the political stakes are already high. Volume of party rhetoric, tweets from the White House and corresponding media coverage is even higher.
I spoke with Carl Hulse, chief Washington correspondent of The New York Times and a veteran of more than three decades of reporting in the nation’s capital. He shared an inside look at the politics and the critical issues that are shaping today’s policymaking. (And a little sports. Because it’s fun.)
You’ve just published a book, Confirmation Bias, on the fight to fill Justice Scalia’s seat. You’ve covered a lot of Beltway fights. How’d you decide to dig deep on this one?
I thought the impact the poisonous judicial confirmation fights are having on our governing institutions was under-covered and underappreciated, particularly the role the battle over filling the Scalia vacancy played in electing Donald Trump to the presidency. I’ve been following what I call judicial politics in the Senate since the 1980s and have seen an awful lot first hand so I figured I could bring a unique perspective. The implications for the future are significant for the credibility of our courts.
The sharp partisanship around the Court, and judicial nominations, helped to decide the 2016 election. How are the same political dynamics influencing the 2020 election?
As you saw in the October Democratic primary debate, the future of the court is going to be center stage for Democrats this time around with proposals to impose term limits on justices or add seats to the court. Republican voters traditionally tend to place a greater emphasis on the court when voting for president. President Trump has made his record on filling vacancies on the federal bench a centerpiece of his administration. That all adds up to a big focus on the courts. If another vacancy occurs in 2020 in the heat of the campaign, it will be monumental.
Is bipartisanship dead in America — or just in Washington?
Well, it certainly seems dead for now in Washington. My experience as a product of Middle America is that Americans like to think they can get along and come together to solve mutual problems. But it just doesn’t seem to be happening right now. We are a highly polarized country. American politics tends to run in cycles, so it doesn’t mean we will always be so divided.
What do you think Congress can accomplish before the end of the year?
They will be lucky to get the annual spending bills done without a shutdown, but they will get there eventually. I think the only other real legislative possibility is the new trade deal with Mexico and Canada, the so-called USMCA. It only makes sense to update NAFTA; it’s the only piece of legislation that has support in the Democratic-led House, the Republican-led Senate and at the White House. Not much else happening — unless you count impeachment.
Chicago’s best: Jordan, Payton, Banks or Mikita?
Wow, that’s tough. As a life-long Cubs fan, I love Ernie Banks and have an authentic Cubs hat that he signed when he visited the Senate once. Walter Payton was just voted by the Chicago Tribune as the greatest Bear and Jordan is probably the greatest NBA competitor ever. But, I’m a defensive guy and I’m going with Butkus!
*The opinions expressed in this article are Carl Hulse’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of Powell Tate or Weber Shandwick.
Want to work with us? Reach out to Ellen DeMunter at EDeMunter@powelltate.com.
Article edited by Lexi Mondot
