newyorker--2020-10-23--The Republican Identity Crisis After Trump

As Trump has outsourced economic policy to the establishment , he has outsourced social policy to the evangelicals .
Years before he launched his Presidential campaign , some instinct led him to create an alliance with the religious wing of the Republican Party .
Nearly twenty years ago , he formed a public relationship with Paula White , a popular televangelist who preaches the “ prosperity Gospel , ” and who has said that she guided Trump toward active Christianity .
Since at least 2011 , Trump has been appearing at the American Conservative Union ’ s annual Conservative Political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists from the Party base .
In 2016 and 2017 , Trump released lists of potential Supreme Court Justices , all of them demonstrably acceptable to both wings of the Republican Party , the evangelicals and the libertarians , and then made appointments only from those lists .
( He released a second-term list this year . )
He selected Mike Pence , an evangelical Christian who had strong support from the Koch brothers and from other major Republican donors , as his Vice-President .
As President , Trump has issued a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as one that rescinded a provision of the Affordable Care Act which required health-care providers to offer birth control .
“ He actually did what he said he ’ d do , ” Albert Mohler told me .
“ It ’ s the oddest thing.
” Leaders of organizations with strong connections to the Republican base have found themselves being courted by Trump .
Norquist may have failed to get Trump to sign his no-tax pledge during the campaign , but he still feels attended to .
“ I ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d say , ‘ You like my tax cut ?
You like my tax cut ?
’ ” he said .
“ He flipped on abortion .
He came down hard on the Second Amendment.
” ( Trump has said he had a permit to carry a concealed weapon . )
Norquist told me that the day after Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court he invited a group of conservatives to the White House , including Norquist , Paula White , and the leaders of the N.R.A.
, the Federalist Society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization .
“ He said , ‘ Grover likes me because I cut taxes.
’ He didn ’ t say , ‘ I like Grover.
’ He said , ‘ Grover likes me.
’ Usually , you want the President to like you.
” Steven Hayward , a well-connected conservative who has written the two-volume history “ The Age of Reagan , ” told me , “ The biggest surprise about Trump is that he has turned out to govern as a conservative , even more than Reagan did .
When George W. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he sent a letter .
When Trump withdrew from the Paris accords , he had a big announcement in the Rose Garden .
And he doesn ’ t know Friedrich Hayek from Salma Hayek .
He sold out—to us !
” Senator Lindsey Graham , who during the 2016 primary season declared that Trump was “ not fit to be President of the United States , ” quickly became one of his most abject loyalists , expecting that the President ’ s support would guarantee his reëlection to the Senate in 2020 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” a veteran South Carolina Republican consultant told me .
“ Republicans in South Carolina didn ’ t like him—but he ’ s getting cheered by Republicans now.
” Graham ’ s strategy may have worked with Republicans in his home state , but he is paying a price for it .
His Democratic opponent , Jaime Harrison , who has raised more money in one quarter than any previous candidate for the Senate , has drawn close to Graham in some polls .
Among the Republicans I spoke to , some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of whom won ’ t , there are three competing predictions about the future of the Party over the coming years .
Let ’ s call them the Remnant , Restoration , and Reversal scenarios .
Most of the 2016 Republican Presidential candidates accepted the post-2012-autopsy argument that the Party , with its overwhelming lack of appeal to nonwhite voters , was in a demographic death spiral .
Trump ran a campaign that seemed designed to appeal only to whites—indeed , only to whites who didn ’ t like nonwhites .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and well enough in the general election for Trump to eke out a victory that would have been impossible without the Electoral College system .
He also did slightly better with minority voters than Romney had , though minority turnout was significantly lower than it had been in the two elections when Barack Obama was the Democratic nominee .
Could somebody else use the Trump playbook to win a Presidential election ?
Those who believe in the Remnant scenario think so .
It would require extremely high motivation among Trump ’ s base—mainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not highly educated—along with a strong appeal to affluent whites , continued modest inroads with minority voters , and a low turnout among Democrats .
If a politician were able to tap into the deep antipathy toward “ élites ” in the Trump heartland , he could compensate , at least in part , for the demographic decline of white voters .
In the years between the elections of 1996 and 2016 , the Democratic Party lost its voting majority in about a thousand of the three thousand counties in the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carried eighty-four per cent of the counties .
Stalwart Trump fans talk about a looming liberal takeover of all aspects of American life , including religious life , and a domination of the middle of the country by sophisticated , prosperous , snobbish , ruthless people .
The ur-text for this viewpoint is “ The Flight 93 Election , ” an essay published in the Claremont Review of Books in 2016 .
Its author , Michael Anton , who worked briefly at the National Security Council in the Trump Administration , has just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : America at the Point of No Return , ” in which he warns that “ red America might quietly—at first spontaneously , but later perhaps through more explicit cooperation—start to make federal operations on their turf more difficult.
” The Remnant strategy entails relentless attacks .
It rests on the idea of an outpowered cohort of traditional Americans who see themselves as courageously defending their values .
The obvious candidate to carry out a high Trumpist strategy in 2024 would be Donald Trump , Jr. , who is an active speaker in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years has published two books that excoriate liberals .
Several other potential Republican candidates , most notably Senators Tom Cotton , of Arkansas , and Josh Hawley , of Missouri , have demonstrated that they see Trump ’ s success as instructive .
Between them , Cotton and Hawley have two degrees from Harvard , one from Yale , and one from Stanford , but both have been steadily propounding populist and nationalist themes .
The forty-year-old Hawley , who is only two years into his first term and is the youngest member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter user , frequently targeting China , Silicon Valley , and liberals who are hostile to religion .
Like Trump in 2016 , he almost never argues for less government , and often calls for programs to help working people .
In the summer of 2019 , he gave a speech at the National Conservatism Conference denouncing “ a powerful upper class and their cosmopolitan priorities , ” which , he implied , had gained control of both parties .
There is also Tucker Carlson , of Fox News , who , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience and a large television audience .
He offers up ferocious attacks on élites almost nightly .
Charles Kesler told me that , no matter who wins , the Claremont Institute , which publishes the Claremont Review of Books , is going to start a Washington branch after the election , to devise Trumpian policies : socially conservative , economically nationalist .
Some Republicans who are vociferously pro-Trump sound , in conversations about the Party ’ s future , more like Restorationists who regard him as a temporary jolt of shock therapy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a conservative radio star , hosted Trump on his show sixteen times .
He applauds Trump ’ s tax cuts and his increases in the military budget .
Hewitt , who was sitting in front of a poster-size photograph of Abraham Lincoln when we spoke over Zoom , told me , “ Trump introduced a combativeness and aggressiveness on the Republican side .
We played by country-club rules .
They didn ’ t .
There ’ s a certain roughness to him .
He was cruel occasionally .
He wakes up ready @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t need to fight every day .
After Trump , the Party will revert to the norm.
” Karl Rove , George W. Bush ’ s chief strategist , also struck a Restorationist note .
One of Rove ’ s recent projects was a book about William McKinley , the twenty-fifth President .
He regards McKinley , who defeated a populist opponent , William Jennings Bryan , in the 1896 Presidential election , as the first modern Republican politician .
Rove doesn ’ t see populism , or division , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Biden has the better hand in this election , ” he told me , meaning that Biden could be running—to use one of Bush ’ s favorite terms—as the uniter .
But , according to Rove , Biden “ won ’ t play it.
” Rove offered up an impromptu speech that he thought Biden should have made about the unrest in Portland : “ The murder of George Floyd tears at every beating heart in America .
But nothing justifies the violence we see on the streets of Portland.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the abiding loyalty of minority voters at all income and education levels , and that it dominates the metropolitan areas where a growing majority of Americans live .
The coming majority-minority , decreasingly rural country will be naturally Democratic over the long term .
But there are holes in this argument .
Because minorities are younger than whites and are also less likely to be U.S. citizens , the electorate could remain white-majority for decades .
Richard Alba , a sociologist who has written a book called “ The Great Demographic Illusion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rapidly arriving majority-minority America , estimates that in 2060 , which is as far into the future as the Census Bureau projects , the electorate will still be fifty-five per cent white .
( It was seventy-three per cent white in 2018 ) .
And minority voters—especially Latinos , who will be the largest group of minority voters in the 2020 election—may not remain as loyally Democratic as they have been in recent elections , especially if the Republican Party has a leader who doesn ’ t race-bait .
Black and Latino Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as liberal than white Democratic voters are .
They are also more likely to be actively religious , and to pursue Republican-leaning careers such as military service and law enforcement .
What ’ s more , the practical definitions of who ’ s white and who ’ s a minority are fluid .
During the past hundred years , many Americans who weren ’ t originally considered white , including the descendants of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe , were assimilated into whiteness .
In the future , others who aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too .
Latinos have a high intermarriage rate—close to fifty per cent for the college educated—and twenty per cent of U.S.-born Latinos have a non-Hispanic white parent .
Latinos are also increasingly likely to live in integrated neighborhoods .
Reversalists dream of many Latino voters going Republican because they have become uncomfortable with the prevailing political stance ( more liberal on social issues , less liberal on economic issues ) among college-educated white Democratic voters .
In the 2020 primary season , Bernie Sanders easily defeated Biden in California and Nevada because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who presumably preferred his farther-left economic program , elements of which the Reversalists would like to appropriate for themselves , without using the term socialism .
Black voters are far more loyal to the Democratic Party , and more likely to emphasize racism as a significant problem in their lives , but Trump has made some inroads , especially with younger Black men .
Terrance Woodbury , a leading pollster , said , “ This has been pretty concerning to me .
Trump is picking up among young voters of color .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black men under fifty .
Since Obama left , Black men have dropped in their Democratic support .
Why ?
What is it ?
” He mentioned the Trump campaign ’ s Super Bowl ad featuring a Black woman whose prison sentence had been commuted by Trump , and a Trump advertising campaign on Facebook , which aired last December and went unanswered by Biden until August , touting the First Step Act , a criminal-justice measure that he signed in 2018 .
Woodbury went on , “ I asked a focus group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump , who ’ s blatantly racist ?
’ One young man said , ‘ I don ’ t care .
They ’ re all racist .
At least he tells me what he is.
’ Something about the transparency of the vitriol is trust-inducing to them.
” The Reversalists believe that the Democrats ’ embrace of market economics , and their establishment of a powerful business wing of the Democratic Party , especially in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street , during the Clinton and Obama Administrations , has left them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , socially conservative and economically liberal strain of Republicanism .
Reversalists oppose the Republican donor class .
Several have abandoned donor-funded libertarian and neoconservative think tanks like Cato and the American Enterprise Institute , disillusioned with the Party ’ s indifference to the concerns of middle-class and working-class voters .
Oren Cass , one of the leading Reversalists , has founded an organization called American Compass , which is trying to formulate policies that would appeal to members of the base of both parties .
“ What we ’ re talking about is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ What we have called ‘ conservatism ’ just outsourced economic policy thinking away from conservatives to a small niche group of libertarians.
” Culturally , Reversalists present themselves as champions of provincialism , faith , and work , but they aim to promote these things through unusually interventionist ( at least for Republicans , and for centrist Democrats since the nineties ) economic policies .
Steven Hayward , who calls himself a reluctant Trump supporter , said , “ It ’ s amazing to me the number of conservatives who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s industrial policy from 1984 .
The right and the left suddenly agree .
Reagan was very popular with younger voters .
Younger people then had come of age seeing government failure .
Now young people have come of age seeing market failure.
” It can be a little surreal talking to Reversalists—are you at a seminar at the high-theory , market-skeptical Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen , in Vienna , or with a group of Republican Party strategists ?
People in this camp talk about the failures of “ neoliberalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ market fundamentalism , ” and condemn “ zombie Reaganism.
” A manifesto of the Reversalists , and of young conservatives generally , is the 2018 book “ Why Liberalism Failed , ” by Patrick Deneen , a political-science professor at Notre Dame , which carries a back-cover endorsement from Barack Obama and extolls such writers as Robert B. Reich , Wendell Berry , Christopher Lasch , and Robert Putnam , none of whom is considered conservative .
When I spoke with Rubio a few weeks ago , I asked him to explain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It begins with the understanding that the market is a means to an end , not the end itself , ” he said .
“ The purpose of the economy is to serve people .
It ’ s possible to have an economy that ’ s performing well in the macro sense , but its benefits are distributed in a way that do not benefit the common good.
” Rubio told me that this position came together when he was running for President , as he visited communities outside Florida which were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generation ago , and were now hollowed out .
“ We thought people would be out of work when the factory leaves , but a new job would replace the old one , ” he said .
But , he went on , “ it doesn ’ t work that way in real life .
What ends up happening is that additional job isn ’ t created .
And the people who are left without a job aren ’ t going to be able to make that transition .
Interacting with that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to grapple with.
” I asked him what could be done .
“ It ’ s tough , ” he said .
“ We have a twenty-five-year orthodoxy in the Republican Party centered around market fundamentalism .
Sometimes the most efficient outcome isn ’ t the best one for the country .
Right now , we live in a very binary age , where you ’ re either one thing or you ’ re the other .
Some people want to call it socialism—which I abhor .
Or , if it isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants to call it market fundamentalism .
America needs to take a hard look at its future.
” Trump , he said , “ has certainly revealed these fracture points .
His election caused everybody to go back and ask , ‘ Why ?
Why did people who were not part of the Republican Party decide to vote for him ?
’ ” He said that the next step was to build the intellectual base for this kind of work : “ This is not a four-year project .
This is a generational @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new political coalition.
” What would the new coalition be ?
For the past twenty years , Rubio said , the left has argued that coalitions tend to form around race , gender , and ethnicity : “ I lived in a minority community .
I don ’ t think we ’ d wake up in the morning and the first thing we ’ d realize is ‘ I ’ m a Hispanic.
’ The first thing that comes to mind for people every single day is not your ethnicity , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re a husband or a wife , a father or a mother , an employee , a volunteer or a coach—somebody who has a role to play.
” He continued , “ They want to have a job that allows them to have children , to raise that family in a safe neighborhood , with a house that ’ s safe , that the kids get to go to school , and that , when the time comes , lets them retire .
You can find that identity in every community in America.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the tendency to “ judge the well-being of the economy by how the stock market is performing .
For the past six months , the stock market has had some really good days—and that in no way aligns with what everybody else in the country is going through .
It is possible to have a roaring stock market , and you have millions of people who aren ’ t just unemployed , they may be permanently unemployed.
” He talked about the inevitable disruptions caused by technological change : “ And then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades , to adjust .
In the interim , there ’ s resentment , anger , displacement—all sorts of social consequences .
We are now seeing another wave of technological advancement , combined with globalization , ” accelerated by the pandemic .
“ It ’ s going to produce new coalitions that don ’ t look like the ones we ’ re used to.
” Many Democrats will surely see this vision of the future of the Republican Party as fanciful .
Isn ’ t the Party controlled by ferociously right-wing billionaires ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ supremacists who have been bamboozled by Fox News and televangelists ?
But the Democrats ’ coalition is no less unnatural than the Republicans ’ .
A political system with only two parties produces parties with internal contradictions .
The five most valuable corporations in America are all West Coast tech companies—enemy territory , in today ’ s Republican rhetoric .
The head of the country ’ s biggest bank , Jamie Dimon , of JPMorgan Chase , is a Democrat and a Trump critic .
There was a stir in Republican circles in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on an Amtrak train , on a long phone conversation that Representative Jerry Nadler , of the Upper West Side , was having .
Nadler complained that Democrats were attracting voters who were like the old Rockefeller Republicans—liberal on social issues , conservative on economics .
That ’ s who lives in a lot of the wealthy older suburbs—formerly Republican areas that are now Democratic .
And the Democrats ’ minority voters differ enough on measures such as income , education , ideology , and religion that some of them could potentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that wasn ’ t headed by Trump .
Trump ’ s genius is to command attention , including the attention of people who dislike him .
That makes it tempting to think that , when he ’ s gone , everything he stands for will go with him .
It probably won ’ t ; elements of Trumpism will likely be with us for a long time .
Which elements , taking what form , in the possession of which party ?
Such questions will be just as pressing after Trump as they @ @ @ @

Although Trump’s campaign didn’t emphasize traditional Republican-base issues like guns and abortion, it built strong ties to the base’s major political organizations. That has paid off for Trump, who got about eighty per cent of the white-evangelical vote in 2016. Members of the religious right don’t always mingle comfortably with corporate executives at social events, and establishment Republicans have sometimes made them feel that they are slightly embarrassing. “Evangelicals used to get a pat on the head and sent away. Trump brought them in,” Erick Erickson, the radio host, who did not support Trump in 2016, said. “I still think character counts. Half the days I think I’ll hold my nose and vote for him. If he can’t be faithful to three wives, how can he be faithful to us? I cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate. I am not excited about 2020 at all.”
As Trump has outsourced economic policy to the establishment, he has outsourced social policy to the evangelicals. Years before he launched his Presidential campaign, some instinct led him to create an alliance with the religious wing of the Republican Party. Nearly twenty years ago, he formed a public relationship with Paula White, a popular televangelist who preaches the “prosperity Gospel,” and who has said that she guided Trump toward active Christianity. Since at least 2011, Trump has been appearing at the American Conservative Union’s annual Conservative Political Action Conference, a large gathering of activists from the Party base. In 2016 and 2017, Trump released lists of potential Supreme Court Justices, all of them demonstrably acceptable to both wings of the Republican Party, the evangelicals and the libertarians, and then made appointments only from those lists. (He released a second-term list this year.) He selected Mike Pence, an evangelical Christian who had strong support from the Koch brothers and from other major Republican donors, as his Vice-President. As President, Trump has issued a number of executive orders that evangelicals approve of, such as one that rescinded a provision of the Affordable Care Act which required health-care providers to offer birth control. “He actually did what he said he’d do,” Albert Mohler told me. “It’s the oddest thing.”
Leaders of organizations with strong connections to the Republican base have found themselves being courted by Trump. Norquist may have failed to get Trump to sign his no-tax pledge during the campaign, but he still feels attended to. “I’d run into him, and he’d say, ‘You like my tax cut? You like my tax cut?’ ” he said. “He flipped on abortion. He came down hard on the Second Amendment.” (Trump has said he had a permit to carry a concealed weapon.) Norquist told me that the day after Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court he invited a group of conservatives to the White House, including Norquist, Paula White, and the leaders of the N.R.A., the Federalist Society, and the National Right to Life organization. “He said, ‘Grover likes me because I cut taxes.’ He didn’t say, ‘I like Grover.’ He said, ‘Grover likes me.’ Usually, you want the President to like you.”
Steven Hayward, a well-connected conservative who has written the two-volume history “The Age of Reagan,” told me, “The biggest surprise about Trump is that he has turned out to govern as a conservative, even more than Reagan did. When George W. Bush withdrew from the Kyoto accords, he sent a letter. When Trump withdrew from the Paris accords, he had a big announcement in the Rose Garden. And he doesn’t know Friedrich Hayek from Salma Hayek. He sold out—to us!”
This is likely to be Trump’s last campaign. In talking to dozens of conservatives over the past few months, I didn’t find anybody who likes or admires him in any conventional way. The Republican officeholders who opposed his nomination but don’t stand up to him are displaying either party loyalty or fear: he remains extraordinarily popular with Republican voters, especially in red states, and he is so vengeful that to displease him is to risk political death. Jeff Sessions experienced this firsthand during his run, earlier this year, for the Republican Senate nomination in Alabama. Sessions had a long, successful history in politics in Alabama and in the Senate, and a record of Trump-like views on immigration. He incurred Trump’s wrath when, as Attorney General, he recused himself from any investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election, which led to the appointment of Robert Mueller as the special counsel. For months, Trump relentlessly mocked and attacked Sessions on Twitter before firing him, in November, 2018. This year, he endorsed Sessions’s Republican opponent, Tommy Tuberville, a former football coach making his first run for political office. Trump tweeted that Tuberville was “a REAL LEADER.” Sessions lost the primary.
Senator Lindsey Graham, who during the 2016 primary season declared that Trump was “not fit to be President of the United States,” quickly became one of his most abject loyalists, expecting that the President’s support would guarantee his reëlection to the Senate in 2020. “Lindsey was scared of being primaried,” a veteran South Carolina Republican consultant told me. “Republicans in South Carolina didn’t like him—but he’s getting cheered by Republicans now.” Graham’s strategy may have worked with Republicans in his home state, but he is paying a price for it. His Democratic opponent, Jaime Harrison, who has raised more money in one quarter than any previous candidate for the Senate, has drawn close to Graham in some polls.
Donald Trump is far too bizarre to be precisely replicable as a model for the generic Republican of the future. That raises the question of where the Republican Party will go after he leaves office. The jockeying for the 2024 Republican nomination is already well under way. Did Trump’s ascension represent a significant change in the Party’s orientation, and, if so, will the change be temporary or lasting?
Among the Republicans I spoke to, some of whom will vote for Trump and some of whom won’t, there are three competing predictions about the future of the Party over the coming years. Let’s call them the Remnant, Restoration, and Reversal scenarios.
“So nobody’s talkin’, eh? Well, let’s see what they have to say down at forensics.” Cartoon by Tom Chitty Copy link to cartoon Copy link to cartoon Shop Shop
Most of the 2016 Republican Presidential candidates accepted the post-2012-autopsy argument that the Party, with its overwhelming lack of appeal to nonwhite voters, was in a demographic death spiral. Trump ran a campaign that seemed designed to appeal only to whites—indeed, only to whites who didn’t like nonwhites. That worked well in the Republican primaries, and well enough in the general election for Trump to eke out a victory that would have been impossible without the Electoral College system. He also did slightly better with minority voters than Romney had, though minority turnout was significantly lower than it had been in the two elections when Barack Obama was the Democratic nominee.
Could somebody else use the Trump playbook to win a Presidential election? Those who believe in the Remnant scenario think so. It would require extremely high motivation among Trump’s base—mainly exurban or rural, actively religious, and not highly educated—along with a strong appeal to affluent whites, continued modest inroads with minority voters, and a low turnout among Democrats. If a politician were able to tap into the deep antipathy toward “élites” in the Trump heartland, he could compensate, at least in part, for the demographic decline of white voters. In the years between the elections of 1996 and 2016, the Democratic Party lost its voting majority in about a thousand of the three thousand counties in the United States—none in major population centers. Trump carried eighty-four per cent of the counties.
Stalwart Trump fans talk about a looming liberal takeover of all aspects of American life, including religious life, and a domination of the middle of the country by sophisticated, prosperous, snobbish, ruthless people. The ur-text for this viewpoint is “The Flight 93 Election,” an essay published in the Claremont Review of Books in 2016. Its author, Michael Anton, who worked briefly at the National Security Council in the Trump Administration, has just published a book called “The Stakes: America at the Point of No Return,” in which he warns that “red America might quietly—at first spontaneously, but later perhaps through more explicit cooperation—start to make federal operations on their turf more difficult.”
The Remnant strategy entails relentless attacks. It rests on the idea of an outpowered cohort of traditional Americans who see themselves as courageously defending their values. The obvious candidate to carry out a high Trumpist strategy in 2024 would be Donald Trump, Jr., who is an active speaker in Trump-admiring circles and in the past two years has published two books that excoriate liberals. Several other potential Republican candidates, most notably Senators Tom Cotton, of Arkansas, and Josh Hawley, of Missouri, have demonstrated that they see Trump’s success as instructive. Between them, Cotton and Hawley have two degrees from Harvard, one from Yale, and one from Stanford, but both have been steadily propounding populist and nationalist themes. The forty-year-old Hawley, who is only two years into his first term and is the youngest member of the Senate, is a relentless Twitter user, frequently targeting China, Silicon Valley, and liberals who are hostile to religion. Like Trump in 2016, he almost never argues for less government, and often calls for programs to help working people. In the summer of 2019, he gave a speech at the National Conservatism Conference denouncing “a powerful upper class and their cosmopolitan priorities,” which, he implied, had gained control of both parties. There is also Tucker Carlson, of Fox News, who, like Trump in 2016, has no political experience and a large television audience. He offers up ferocious attacks on élites almost nightly. Charles Kesler told me that, no matter who wins, the Claremont Institute, which publishes the Claremont Review of Books, is going to start a Washington branch after the election, to devise Trumpian policies: socially conservative, economically nationalist.
Under the Restoration scenario, if Trump loses, Republicans, as if waking from a bad dream, could recapture their essential identity for the past hundred years as the party of business. They could revive a Reagan-like optimistic rhetoric of freedom and enterprise; resume an internationalist, alliance-oriented foreign policy; and embrace, at least notionally, diversity and immigration. One veteran Republican campaigner with Restorationist leanings says that, if Trump wins, “it’ll blow up the Republican Party. In the 2022 election, we’ll have an epic disaster—a wipeout of epic proportions.” Instead of Trumpism, “economic growth with an emphasis on character, and treating the Democrats as opponents and not as the enemy, is a way forward for the Party.” Many Never Trumpers would feel comfortable again in a Restorationist Republican Party. Restoration could entail a conventionally positioned Presidential candidate, such as Mike Pence or Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State, if it’s possible for them to shake off their close association with Trump. But the most discussed Restorationist candidate is Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and a former U.N. ambassador. Haley is the child of immigrants from India (one a professor at Voorhees College, a historically Black college, the other a schoolteacher who started a successful business selling clothing and accessories from around the world) and the sister of a military veteran. She achieved the rare feat of serving in the Trump Administration without either going full Trumpist or falling out with the President. She left, evidently on good terms with Trump, shortly after it emerged that she had accepted rides on private planes from businessmen in South Carolina. She was given a starring role at Trump’s renomination convention, this past August.
Some Republicans who are vociferously pro-Trump sound, in conversations about the Party’s future, more like Restorationists who regard him as a temporary jolt of shock therapy. During the 2016 campaign, Hugh Hewitt, a conservative radio star, hosted Trump on his show sixteen times. He applauds Trump’s tax cuts and his increases in the military budget. Hewitt, who was sitting in front of a poster-size photograph of Abraham Lincoln when we spoke over Zoom, told me, “Trump introduced a combativeness and aggressiveness on the Republican side. We played by country-club rules. They didn’t. There’s a certain roughness to him. He was cruel occasionally. He wakes up ready to fight every day, and you don’t need to fight every day. After Trump, the Party will revert to the norm.”
Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s chief strategist, also struck a Restorationist note. One of Rove’s recent projects was a book about William McKinley, the twenty-fifth President. He regards McKinley, who defeated a populist opponent, William Jennings Bryan, in the 1896 Presidential election, as the first modern Republican politician. Rove doesn’t see populism, or division, as a winning stance for the Republicans. “Biden has the better hand in this election,” he told me, meaning that Biden could be running—to use one of Bush’s favorite terms—as the uniter. But, according to Rove, Biden “won’t play it.” Rove offered up an impromptu speech that he thought Biden should have made about the unrest in Portland: “The murder of George Floyd tears at every beating heart in America. But nothing justifies the violence we see on the streets of Portland.”
The Reversal scenario, though perhaps the least plausible, is the most threatening to the Democratic Party. The parties would essentially switch the roles they have had for the past century: the Republicans would replace the Democrats as the party of the people, the one with a greater emphasis on progressive economic policies for ordinary families. Some Reversalists have praised Elizabeth Warren; criticizing Wall Street and free trade is pretty much a membership requirement. Michael Podhorzer, who works at the A.F.L.-C.I.O., sent me a chart he had made that showed the vote in congressional districts, ranked by median income, from 1960 to today. For most of that time, districts in the bottom forty per cent of income were far more likely to vote Democratic. But by 2010 the lines had crossed—perhaps because of the financial crisis and the Great Recession, perhaps because of the Presidency of Barack Obama—and today poorer districts are far more likely to vote Republican and richer districts are far more likely to vote Democratic. The ten richest congressional districts in the country, and forty-four of the richest fifty, are represented by Democrats. The French economist Thomas Piketty has produced a chart showing that for highly educated voters, who were once mainly Republican, the lines started crossing back in 1968. In 2016, Trump carried non-college-educated whites by thirty-six points, and Hillary Clinton carried college-educated whites by seventeen points. Could Republicans become the working-class party, and Democrats the party of the prosperous? That would bode well for Republicans because, especially in a time of rising inequality, there aren’t enough prosperous people to make up a reliable voting majority.
“Descend seven stairs. At the foot of the staircase, go straight three feet. Turn left at the door. Go straight two feet. Make a sharp left turn, where you will reach your final destination—your chair at the dinner table.” Cartoon by Edward Koren Copy link to cartoon Copy link to cartoon Shop Shop
The Democratic Party appears confident that it has the abiding loyalty of minority voters at all income and education levels, and that it dominates the metropolitan areas where a growing majority of Americans live. The coming majority-minority, decreasingly rural country will be naturally Democratic over the long term. But there are holes in this argument. Because minorities are younger than whites and are also less likely to be U.S. citizens, the electorate could remain white-majority for decades. Richard Alba, a sociologist who has written a book called “The Great Demographic Illusion,” which challenges the idea of a rapidly arriving majority-minority America, estimates that in 2060, which is as far into the future as the Census Bureau projects, the electorate will still be fifty-five per cent white. (It was seventy-three per cent white in 2018). And minority voters—especially Latinos, who will be the largest group of minority voters in the 2020 election—may not remain as loyally Democratic as they have been in recent elections, especially if the Republican Party has a leader who doesn’t race-bait. Black and Latino Democratic voters are substantially less likely to identify as liberal than white Democratic voters are. They are also more likely to be actively religious, and to pursue Republican-leaning careers such as military service and law enforcement.
What’s more, the practical definitions of who’s white and who’s a minority are fluid. During the past hundred years, many Americans who weren’t originally considered white, including the descendants of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, were assimilated into whiteness. In the future, others who aren’t now considered white may do so, too. Latinos have a high intermarriage rate—close to fifty per cent for the college educated—and twenty per cent of U.S.-born Latinos have a non-Hispanic white parent. Latinos are also increasingly likely to live in integrated neighborhoods. Reversalists dream of many Latino voters going Republican because they have become uncomfortable with the prevailing political stance (more liberal on social issues, less liberal on economic issues) among college-educated white Democratic voters. In the 2020 primary season, Bernie Sanders easily defeated Biden in California and Nevada because he did far better among Latino voters, who presumably preferred his farther-left economic program, elements of which the Reversalists would like to appropriate for themselves, without using the term socialism.
Black voters are far more loyal to the Democratic Party, and more likely to emphasize racism as a significant problem in their lives, but Trump has made some inroads, especially with younger Black men. Terrance Woodbury, a leading pollster, said, “This has been pretty concerning to me. Trump is picking up among young voters of color. He has a thirty-three-per-cent approval rating among Black men under fifty. Since Obama left, Black men have dropped in their Democratic support. Why? What is it?” He mentioned the Trump campaign’s Super Bowl ad featuring a Black woman whose prison sentence had been commuted by Trump, and a Trump advertising campaign on Facebook, which aired last December and went unanswered by Biden until August, touting the First Step Act, a criminal-justice measure that he signed in 2018. Woodbury went on, “I asked a focus group, ‘How could you consider supporting Donald Trump, who’s blatantly racist?’ One young man said, ‘I don’t care. They’re all racist. At least he tells me what he is.’ Something about the transparency of the vitriol is trust-inducing to them.”
The Reversalists believe that the Democrats’ embrace of market economics, and their establishment of a powerful business wing of the Democratic Party, especially in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street, during the Clinton and Obama Administrations, has left them vulnerable to an attack from a new, socially conservative and economically liberal strain of Republicanism. Reversalists oppose the Republican donor class. Several have abandoned donor-funded libertarian and neoconservative think tanks like Cato and the American Enterprise Institute, disillusioned with the Party’s indifference to the concerns of middle-class and working-class voters. Oren Cass, one of the leading Reversalists, has founded an organization called American Compass, which is trying to formulate policies that would appeal to members of the base of both parties. “What we’re talking about is actual conservatism,” he told me. “What we have called ‘conservatism’ just outsourced economic policy thinking away from conservatives to a small niche group of libertarians.” Culturally, Reversalists present themselves as champions of provincialism, faith, and work, but they aim to promote these things through unusually interventionist (at least for Republicans, and for centrist Democrats since the nineties) economic policies. Steven Hayward, who calls himself a reluctant Trump supporter, said, “It’s amazing to me the number of conservatives who are talking about, essentially, Walter Mondale’s industrial policy from 1984. The right and the left suddenly agree. Reagan was very popular with younger voters. Younger people then had come of age seeing government failure. Now young people have come of age seeing market failure.”
It can be a little surreal talking to Reversalists—are you at a seminar at the high-theory, market-skeptical Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, in Vienna, or with a group of Republican Party strategists? People in this camp talk about the failures of “neoliberalism,” “financialization,” and “market fundamentalism,” and condemn “zombie Reaganism.” A manifesto of the Reversalists, and of young conservatives generally, is the 2018 book “Why Liberalism Failed,” by Patrick Deneen, a political-science professor at Notre Dame, which carries a back-cover endorsement from Barack Obama and extolls such writers as Robert B. Reich, Wendell Berry, Christopher Lasch, and Robert Putnam, none of whom is considered conservative.
The favored Presidential candidate for 2024 among the Reversalists is Senator Marco Rubio, of Florida, one of the promising Republicans whom Trump vanquished in 2016. In 2018, Rubio hired Mike Needham, a former employee of an organization affiliated with the Heritage Foundation who had converted to Reversalism, as his chief of staff. Needham is on the board of American Compass. Rubio has recently been making speeches that call for “common-good capitalism,” which would entail a strong government role in managing the economy and would attempt to attract religious and minority voters. Rubio has also been strongly critical of China, so much so that he has been banned from traveling there. This has the potential of alienating the business wing of the Party, which regards China as an important trading partner. Rubio gave a speech last year accusing “policy élites across the political spectrum” of ignoring the “growing threat” that China represents. Nikki Haley recently gave a speech that didn’t name Rubio but clearly had him in mind as one of a new species of Republican critics of capitalism, who “differ from the socialists only in degree.”
When I spoke with Rubio a few weeks ago, I asked him to explain what he meant by common-good capitalism. “It begins with the understanding that the market is a means to an end, not the end itself,” he said. “The purpose of the economy is to serve people. It’s possible to have an economy that’s performing well in the macro sense, but its benefits are distributed in a way that do not benefit the common good.” Rubio told me that this position came together when he was running for President, as he visited communities outside Florida which were less vibrant than they had been a generation ago, and were now hollowed out. “We thought people would be out of work when the factory leaves, but a new job would replace the old one,” he said. But, he went on, “it doesn’t work that way in real life. What ends up happening is that additional job isn’t created. And the people who are left without a job aren’t going to be able to make that transition. Interacting with that, hearing those stories—it’s something you have to grapple with.”
I asked him what could be done. “It’s tough,” he said. “We have a twenty-five-year orthodoxy in the Republican Party centered around market fundamentalism. Sometimes the most efficient outcome isn’t the best one for the country. Right now, we live in a very binary age, where you’re either one thing or you’re the other. Some people want to call it socialism—which I abhor. Or, if it isn’t socialism, the other side wants to call it market fundamentalism. America needs to take a hard look at its future.” Trump, he said, “has certainly revealed these fracture points. His election caused everybody to go back and ask, ‘Why? Why did people who were not part of the Republican Party decide to vote for him?’ ” He said that the next step was to build the intellectual base for this kind of work: “This is not a four-year project. This is a generational goal. And it could lead to a new political coalition.”


newyorker--2020-10-23--A Deftly Moderated Debate Bottles Trump

A Deftly Moderated Debate Bottles Trump

There were no surprises at the final Presidential debate of 2020 , in Nashville , on Thursday night .
There may be no surprises left in the campaign .
The explosion the President had planned concerned the overseas business dealings of his rival ’ s son , Hunter Biden .
But , when it was Trump ’ s turn to explain why Americans should vote for the President based on their view of the business arrangements of Biden ’ s adult son , he couldn ’ t seem to remember the details .
Trump had invited to the debate hall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the magnificently named Tony Bobulinski , but Bobulinski was never invoked .
In the first debate , the President had called attention to Hunter Biden ’ s history of drug abuse , and for a moment he seemed to head down the path again .
Hunter Biden left “ the military service , ” Trump began .
Then , perhaps recalling the bad reviews this attack had received several weeks ago , he pulled back .
“ I won ’ t get into that.
” Had Trump .
.
.
mellowed ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ adjusting to a changed environment .
In response to Trump ’ s interrupting performance in his first debate with Biden , the Commission on Presidential Debates decided for this one to mute each candidate ’ s microphone while his opponent was talking at the beginning of each segment .
But mostly it was shaped by Kristen Welker , the NBC News anchor , who spoke with the rat-a-tat efficiency with which business broadcasters read off the stock reports .
Especially in the debate ’ s first half , each time Trump began to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Welker was there to shepherd him back to pasture .
“ I guarantee if I spent one million on you , Joe , I could find plenty wrong , ” Trump said to Biden .
“ All right .
.
.
” Welker said , the first word an eye roll , the second an arrow pointed back to the topic at hand .
The effect on Trump was not instantaneous , but it was quick .
“ I have to respond to that , ” the President of the United States said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his shoulders .
Even Trump seemed taken with Welker ’ s moderating : “ I respect very much the way you ’ re handling this , I have to say.
” For the first time in many years , a stage on which the President appeared was not dominated by him .
It belonged to Welker , which is to say , to the news .
A decisive exchange came after nearly an hour .
Welker mentioned a story that broke this week : of the thousands of migrant children who were taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at Trump ’ s directive , more than five hundred still have not been reunited with their parents , many of whom were deported back to their home countries , while their kids remained .
Trump argued that these children had been brought here by coyotes , or human smugglers , but Biden , once it was his turn , snapped back : “ Coyotes didn ’ t bring them over .
Their parents were with them.
” Biden described the situation of a child on the banks of the Rio Grande @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and dad .
Did the child have any option but to cross ?
Now , without their parents , Biden said , “ Those kids are alone .
Nowhere to go.
” Lately , as Trump has returned to holding big rallies in small cities , the memory of the 2016 campaign has been renewed .
In some ways , it seems like the part of the Presidential experience that is most real for Trump : the crowds , the last-call-at-a-beach-bar soundtrack , the emotional dial that he keeps rotating from rage to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s campaign has come with a gloss of nostalgia that it didn ’ t have four years ago : there are still more “ Hillary for Prison ” T-shirts than there are significant digs at Biden ; the crowds are full of Trump-rally veterans who , like Deadheads , can tell you which spots they ’ ve hit before .
This summer , the President and his allies kept insisting that the uprisings and violence in some cities were part of “ Joe Biden ’ s America , ” when , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under Trump ’ s control for nearly four years .
Trump ’ s last campaign , and what he told those crowds to excite them , and what he did to try to deliver on that excitement , is now bedeviling his reëlection effort .
Having insisted that the experts could not correct the nation ’ s course , that , as he said at the 2016 Republican Convention , “ I alone can fix it , ” Trump ignored the advice of doctors and health-policy officials and blithely allowed COVID-19 to spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health-care plan that would replace Obamacare , Trump could not conjure one .
Having campaigned , more than anything , on getting tough on immigration , Trump has had no recourse when his family-separation policy horrified many Americans .
In this debate , tellingly , it was Biden who made the emotional connection that previously was Trump ’ s strength , of empathy with working-class suffering .
It was Biden , not Trump , who spoke about men and women who have lost a spouse to COVID-19 and who insisted that the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential workers .
Biden said , “ People are making six , seven , eight bucks an hour—these first responders we all clap for as they come down the street , because they ’ ve allowed us to make it .
What ’ s happening ?
They deserve a minimum wage of fifteen dollars.
” Not that Biden was exceptional .
By the end , it was no easier to picture a Biden Administration than it had been before .
But Biden is winning handily , and if Trump has a plan to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no sign of it on Thursday night .
The evening ’ s most significant exchanges involved Welker and Trump , not Biden , as she kept finding ways to point out that the President was still running as though he were the insurgent of 2016 , not the person responsible for the country .
Trump insisted that a coronavirus vaccine would be available within weeks , but under questioning from Welker he revised the date to the end of the year , and she pointed out that this was far more optimistic than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggested .
When Welker asked Trump why there has not been a second stimulus , he tried to blame the Speaker of the House , Nancy Pelosi , even though the House passed a large stimulus bill at the beginning of May .
Read More About the 2020 Election • The fall and rise of Kamala Harris .
• When a sitting President threatens to delay a sacrosanct American ritual like an election , you should listen .
• To understand the path Donald Trump has taken to the 2020 election , look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class .
• What happens if Trump fights the election results ?
• The refusal by Mitch McConnell to rein in Trump is looking riskier than ever .
• Sign up for our election newsletter for insight and analysis from our reporters and columnists .

There were no surprises at the final Presidential debate of 2020, in Nashville, on Thursday night. There may be no surprises left in the campaign. The explosion the President had planned concerned the overseas business dealings of his rival’s son, Hunter Biden. But, when it was Trump’s turn to explain why Americans should vote for the President based on their view of the business arrangements of Biden’s adult son, he couldn’t seem to remember the details. Trump had invited to the debate hall a former business partner of Hunter Biden, the magnificently named Tony Bobulinski, but Bobulinski was never invoked. In the first debate, the President had called attention to Hunter Biden’s history of drug abuse, and for a moment he seemed to head down the path again. Hunter Biden left “the military service,” Trump began. Then, perhaps recalling the bad reviews this attack had received several weeks ago, he pulled back. “I won’t get into that.”
Had Trump . . . mellowed? At least, he seemed to be adjusting to a changed environment. In response to Trump’s interrupting performance in his first debate with Biden, the Commission on Presidential Debates decided for this one to mute each candidate’s microphone while his opponent was talking at the beginning of each segment. But mostly it was shaped by Kristen Welker, the NBC News anchor, who spoke with the rat-a-tat efficiency with which business broadcasters read off the stock reports. Especially in the debate’s first half, each time Trump began to drift into conspiratorial speculation or hyperbole, Welker was there to shepherd him back to pasture.
“I guarantee if I spent one million on you, Joe, I could find plenty wrong,” Trump said to Biden.
“All right . . .” Welker said, the first word an eye roll, the second an arrow pointed back to the topic at hand.
The effect on Trump was not instantaneous, but it was quick.
“I have to respond to that,” the President of the United States said, holding up a hand and hunching his shoulders.
“Very quickly,” Welker said.
Even Trump seemed taken with Welker’s moderating: “I respect very much the way you’re handling this, I have to say.” For the first time in many years, a stage on which the President appeared was not dominated by him. It belonged to Welker, which is to say, to the news.
A decisive exchange came after nearly an hour. Welker mentioned a story that broke this week: of the thousands of migrant children who were taken from their parents at the southern border, at Trump’s directive, more than five hundred still have not been reunited with their parents, many of whom were deported back to their home countries, while their kids remained. Trump argued that these children had been brought here by coyotes, or human smugglers, but Biden, once it was his turn, snapped back: “Coyotes didn’t bring them over. Their parents were with them.” Biden described the situation of children on the banks of the Rio Grande, in the company of their mom and dad. Did the child have any option but to cross? Now, without their parents, Biden said, “Those kids are alone. Nowhere to go.”
Lately, as Trump has returned to holding big rallies in small cities, the memory of the 2016 campaign has been renewed. In some ways, it seems like the part of the Presidential experience that is most real for Trump: the crowds, the last-call-at-a-beach-bar soundtrack, the emotional dial that he keeps rotating from rage to quips and back. This time, Trump’s campaign has come with a gloss of nostalgia that it didn’t have four years ago: there are still more “Hillary for Prison” T-shirts than there are significant digs at Biden; the crowds are full of Trump-rally veterans who, like Deadheads, can tell you which spots they’ve hit before. This summer, the President and his allies kept insisting that the uprisings and violence in some cities were part of “Joe Biden’s America,” when, in fact, the country has been under Trump’s control for nearly four years.
Trump’s last campaign, and what he told those crowds to excite them, and what he did to try to deliver on that excitement, is now bedeviling his reëlection effort. Having insisted that the experts could not correct the nation’s course—that, as he said at the 2016 Republican Convention, “I alone can fix it”—Trump ignored the advice of doctors and health-policy officials and blithely allowed COVID-19 to spread. Having promised a “beautiful” health-care plan that would replace Obamacare, Trump could not conjure one. Having campaigned, more than anything, on getting tough on immigration, Trump has had no recourse when his family-separation policy horrified many Americans. In this debate, tellingly, it was Biden who made the emotional connection that previously was Trump’s strength, of empathy with working-class suffering. It was Biden, not Trump, who spoke about men and women who have lost a spouse to COVID-19 and who insisted that the country needs to do more to honor its essential workers. Biden said, “People are making six, seven, eight bucks an hour—these first responders we all clap for as they come down the street, because they’ve allowed us to make it. What’s happening? They deserve a minimum wage of fifteen dollars.”
Not that Biden was exceptional. By the end, it was no easier to picture a Biden Administration than it had been before. But Biden is winning handily, and if Trump has a plan to turn this race around, he gave no sign of it on Thursday night. The evening’s most significant exchanges involved Welker and Trump, not Biden, as she kept finding ways to point out that the President was still running as though he were the insurgent of 2016, not the person responsible for the country. Trump insisted that a coronavirus vaccine would be available within weeks, but under questioning from Welker he revised the date to the end of the year, and she pointed out that this was far more optimistic than what even his own health advisers had suggested. When Welker asked Trump why there has not been a second stimulus, he tried to blame the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, even though the House passed a large stimulus bill at the beginning of May.
“But you’re the President,” Welker said.
For now.
Read More About the 2020 Election


newyorker--2020-10-23--Natasha Lyonne and Maya Rudolph on Comedy and Collaboration

For this year ’ s New Yorker Festival , Maya Rudolph and Natasha Lyonne spoke , over Zoom , with the magazine ’ s culture correspondent Michael Schulman .
Lyonne is known for her role as a gravel-voiced Casanova on “ Orange Is the New Black ” and for her bingeable , existential Netflix series “ Russian Doll ” ; she is also beloved for her lead role in the L.G.B.T.Q .
fantasia “ But I ’ m a Cheerleader.
” Rudolph is an icon of early two-thousands “ Saturday Night Live ” and a two-time Emmy recipient ( most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Kamala Harris ) who has also delivered one of the past decade ’ s most indelible comedic moments , from the film “ Bridesmaids ” : a woman in a wedding gown , stricken with incontinence , slowly deflating in the middle of the street .
In highlights from the event , which you can watch in the video above , the two describe the foundation of their long friendship and how each helps bring a pitch meeting home .
Rudolph describes how she fell in love , artistically , with Lyonne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hills , ” saying , “ I felt like I was watching my person.
” Their friendship began during Rudolph ’ s first year on “ S.N.L.
, ” when she and Lyonne crossed paths amid a group of cast members and assorted “ cool New Yorker kids.
” Rudolph reënacts Lyonne ’ s fateful overture : “ She sauntered over and said ” —here , Rudolph ’ s voice drops into a replica of Lyonne ’ s throaty twang— “ ‘ You wan na be in a fashion show ?
’ ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge grin that , like Rudolph ’ s half-smiles , broadcasts the semi-private pleasures of seeing an old friend do her thing .
Such pleasures are gratifying to witness , both for laypeople and fans of their collaborations , which include a surrealist short film for the fashion house Kenzo and a joint production company , Animal Pictures .
Rudolph , the child of the composer Richard Rudolph and the singer Minnie Riperton , offers an explanation for her uncanny mimesis : “ Music is really , truly , for me , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
.
because it ’ s just about being a human parrot , reënacting the sounds that I hear.
” Having given voice to Michelle Obama , Ivanka Trump , and Lisa Kudrow alike , Rudolph knows something about the strange song of humanity .
So , too , does Lyonne , who offers a reflection on the current moment , saying that the pandemic has “ forced everyone to do a slowdown .
And , you know , life is this fast-moving train of warped ideas about what ’ s important.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who has been wearing pajamas during Zoom pitches , she was “ just enjoying the slower pace and time to think instead of run.
” Rudolph nods sagely .
“ I ’ m a big fan of that , ” she said .
“ I ’ m a big fan of thinking instead of running .
”

For this year’s New Yorker Festival, Maya Rudolph and Natasha Lyonne spoke, over Zoom, with the magazine’s culture correspondent Michael Schulman. Lyonne is known for her role as a gravel-voiced Casanova on “Orange Is the New Black” and for her bingeable, existential Netflix series “Russian Doll”; she is also beloved for her lead role in the L.G.B.T.Q. fantasia “But I’m a Cheerleader.” Rudolph is an icon of early two-thousands “Saturday Night Live” and a two-time Emmy recipient (most recently for her “S.N.L.” portrayal of Kamala Harris); she has also delivered, in the film “Bridesmaids,” one of the most indelible moments in the past decade of comedy: a woman in a wedding gown, stricken with incontinence, slowly deflating in the middle of the street. In highlights from the event, which you can watch in the video above, the two discuss the foundation of their long friendship, new habits of life in lockdown, and how each helps bring a pitch meeting home.
Rudolph describes how she fell in love with Lyonne, artistically, watching the then teen-ager in “Slums of Beverly Hills” and feeling like “I was watching my person.” Their friendship began during Rudolph’s first year on “S.N.L.,” when she and Lyonne crossed paths amid a group of cast members and assorted “cool New Yorker kids.” Rudolph reënacts Lyonne’s fateful overture: “She sauntered over and said”—here, Rudolph’s voice drops into a replica of Lyonne’s throaty twang—“ ‘You wanna be in a fashion show?’ ” At this, in the adjacent Zoom window, Lyonne breaks into one of her lucent grins, which like Rudolph’s recurring half-smiles, broadcasts the semi-private pleasures of seeing an old friend do her thing. Such pleasures are gratifying to witness, both for laypeople and fans of their collaborations, which include a surrealist short film for the fashion house Kenzo and their production company, Animal Pictures.
Rudolph, the child of the composer Richard Rudolph and the singer Minnie Riperton, offers an explanation for her uncanny skill as a mimic: “Music is really, truly, for me, the key into any sort of impression . . . because it’s just about being a human parrot, reënacting the sounds that I hear.” Having given voice to Michelle Obama, Ivanka Trump, and Lisa Kudrow alike, Rudolph knows something about the strange song of humanity. So, too, does Lyonne, who offers a reflection on the current moment, saying that the pandemic has “forced everyone to do a slowdown. And, you know, life is this fast-moving train of warped ideas about what’s important.” For her, a recent convert to Zelda, who has been wearing pajamas during Zoom pitches, she is “just enjoying the slower pace and time to think instead of run.” Rudolph nods sagely. “I’m a big fan of that,” she said. “I’m a big fan of thinking instead of running.”


newyorker--2020-10-23--Driving Through the Pandemic, and the Future of Trumpism

Donald Trump ran as a populist insurgent ; his accomplishments in office , though , have largely fallen in line @ @ @ @ @ Nicholas Lemann considers whether , if Trump loses this election , his movement will survive @ @ @ @ @ will revert to its norms .
A New York City bus driver recalls the terrifying @ @ @ @ @ , and reflects on the current state of frayed nerves and danger .
And the @ @ @ @ @ how the sound of Korean pop is becoming part of the American mainstream .
Donald @ @ @ @ @ insurgent ; he has governed largely according to Republican priorities .
If he loses the @ @ @ @ @ of his movement ?
A New York City bus operator recalls the terrifying early days @ @ @ @ @ reflects on the current state of danger and frayed nerves .
The music critic describes @ @ @ @ @ pop is becoming part of the American mainstream .

Illustration by Golden Cosmos
Donald Trump ran as a populist insurgent; his accomplishments in office, though, have largely fallen in line with G.O.P. priorities. Nicholas Lemann considers whether, if Trump loses this election, his movement will survive him—or if the Republican Party will revert to its norms. A New York City bus driver recalls the terrifying early days of the pandemic, and reflects on the current state of frayed nerves and danger. And the music critic Carrie Battan describes how the sound of Korean pop is becoming part of the American mainstream.
The Future of Trumpism
Donald Trump ran as a populist insurgent; he has governed largely according to Republican priorities. If he loses the election, what will become of his movement?
Driving Through the Pandemic
A New York City bus operator recalls the terrifying early days of the pandemic, and reflects on the current state of danger and frayed nerves.
Carrie Battan on K-Pop
The music critic describes how the sound of Korean pop is becoming part of the American mainstream.


newyorker--2020-10-23--When Public Television Had a Little “Soul!”

This summer , Netflix announced that it would add seven Black sitcoms from the late nineties and early two-thousands to its streaming catalogue : “ Moesha , ” “ The Game , ” “ Sister , Sister , ” “ Girlfriends , ” “ The Parkers , ” “ Half & Half , ” and “ One on One.
” Most of these shows originally aired on UPN , a now defunct network that launched in 1995 and produced all manner of Black televisual entertainment , from beloved teen sitcoms to some less well-conceived projects .
The announcement came as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lead programming block , an initiative started in the wake of the # OscarsSoWhite debacle to amplify the work of Black creators and to address the shortage of major film and television projects made for , by , and about Black people .
Netflix ’ s acquisition of these shows , and the company ’ s apparent push to brand itself as the preëminent streaming home for Black content , is a notable stage in the long , complicated history of Blackness , representation , and authorship in popular American media .
Melissa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soul !
” , from 2018 , examines an earlier , similarly fraught period of this history .
In the late sixties , the federal government sought to redress the grievances of Black communities by giving Black people a louder voice ( or simply a voice at all ) in public media .
It was in this atmosphere that an unusual show was born .
Premièring in the fall of 1968 , on the New York public-television station WNDT/Channel 13 , “ Soul !
” was one of a cadre of Black public-affairs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the country .
Like its Channel 13 sister program , “ Black Journal , ” the hour-long variety show was nominally meant to showcase an intrinsically Black perspective on art and politics .
In practice , it proved to be something far more radical .
As the film illustrates , “ Soul !
, ” from its inception , was uniquely daring in its mission to present a panoramic display of Black artistic sensibilities and political expression .
In a pre- “ Soul Train ” time , the show was an unrivalled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an alchemical mix of the era ’ s icons ( Stevie Wonder , Tito Puente , Bill Withers ) , nascent stars ( Earth , Wind & Fire ; Al Green ; Ashford & Simpson ) , and stalwarts of the Black avant-garde ( Rahsaan Roland Kirk , the Last Poets , and Pharoah Sanders ) .
It was also perhaps one of the only places on television where one could see the writer and leader of the Black Arts Movement , Amiri Baraka , perform a thunderous rendition of his poem “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a darting Sanders improvisation , or watch contemporary Black dance , such as the delicate number choreographed by George Faison for the hour-long Stevie Wonder episode , in 1972 .
Most pivotally , “ Soul !
” was a hub of candid , ranging , and often radical Black social and political discourse .
Melissa Haizlip explained to me that the show ’ s producer , host , and creative architect—her uncle Ellis Haizlip—had “ an expansive approach toward Black culture.
” At a time when a burgeoning Black nationalist movement called upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideology of liberation , Haizlip said that her uncle saw to it that “ Soul !
” presented the true “ fluidity of Black thought and Black identity.
” As “ Mr .
Soul !
” documents , to Ellis , an openly gay Black man , this commitment could mean hosting the anti-Semitic and notoriously homophobic Nation of Islam representative Louis Farrakhan , interviewing the mother of the late Black radical George Jackson , or producing a two-hour conversation between the young poet Nikki Giovanni and her exiled idol James Baldwin .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in London and aired as a two-part special , is one of the more astonishing artifacts in the show ’ s archive .
Quite unlike the sensationalized and overproduced appointment-viewing events of the modern era , the Giovanni-Baldwin conversation is quiet , humming with the kind of casual intensity that only people who have dedicated long , solitary thought to the ideas they ’ re expressing tend to convey .
Two of the most important artist-intellectuals of the twentieth century were engaged in intimate communion on national television .
Magic moments like these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vision , were , in large part , a by-product of its ambitious host .
Through extensive archival footage , recitations from Ellis ’ s personal journals , and testimonials from an exhaustive who ’ s who of friends , collaborators , and admirers , “ Mr .
Soul !
” paints a picture of a figure every bit as well versed , well connected , and well respected as any of the era ’ s important entertainment figures , but whose legacy and immense contributions have largely been left out of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a beacon of the New York art and entertainment world , known for his convivial air , penchant for playful fibbing , and teeming black book .
He was a stage manager for plays that helped give James Earl Jones and Cicely Tyson exposure early in their careers .
He enlisted the help of the famed Beatles manager Brian Epstein to bring a dance show choreographed by Donald McKayle called “ Black New World ” on a tour across Europe .
And , even after his tenure at “ Soul !
” ended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Black arts in New York and beyond : he served as a friend and mentor to future legends such as Luther Vandross and Michael Jackson ( Ellis produced Jackon ’ s twenty-first birthday celebration at Studio 54 ) and was the director of special programs at Harlem ’ s Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture until his death , in 1991 .

This summer, Netflix announced that it would add seven Black sitcoms from the late nineties and early two-thousands to its streaming catalogue: “Moesha,” “The Game,” “Sister, Sister,” “Girlfriends,” “The Parkers,” “Half & Half,” and “One on One.” Most of these shows originally aired on UPN, a now defunct network that launched in 1995 and produced all manner of Black televisual entertainment, from beloved teen sitcoms to some less well-conceived projects. The announcement came as part of Netflix’s Strong Black Lead programming block, an initiative started in the wake of the #OscarsSoWhite debacle to amplify the work of Black creators and to address the shortage of major film and television projects made for, by, and about Black people. Netflix’s acquisition of these shows, and the company’s apparent push to brand itself as the preëminent streaming home for Black content, is a notable stage in the long, complicated history of Blackness, representation, and authorship in popular American media.
Melissa Haizlip’s documentary “Mr. Soul!”, from 2018, examines an earlier, similarly fraught period of this history. In the late sixties, the federal government sought to redress the grievances of Black communities by giving Black people a louder voice (or simply a voice at all) in public media. It was in this atmosphere that an unusual show was born. Premièring in the fall of 1968, on the New York public-television station WNDT/Channel 13, “Soul!” was one of a cadre of Black public-affairs shows that popped up in major markets around the country. Like its Channel 13 sister program, “Black Journal,” the hour-long variety show was nominally meant to showcase an intrinsically Black perspective on art and politics. In practice, it proved to be something far more radical.
As the film illustrates, “Soul!,” from its inception, was uniquely daring in its mission to present a panoramic display of Black artistic sensibilities and political expression. In a pre-“Soul Train” time, the show was an unrivalled destination for Black music performance, hosting an alchemical mix of the era’s icons (Stevie Wonder, Tito Puente, Bill Withers), nascent stars (Earth, Wind & Fire; Al Green; Ashford & Simpson), and stalwarts of the Black avant-garde (Rahsaan Roland Kirk, the Last Poets, and Pharoah Sanders). It was also perhaps one of the only places on television where one could see the writer and leader of the Black Arts Movement, Amiri Baraka, perform a thunderous rendition of his poem “It’s Nation Time” over a darting Sanders improvisation, or watch contemporary Black dance, such as the delicate number choreographed by George Faison for the hour-long Stevie Wonder episode, in 1972.
Most pivotally, “Soul!” was a hub of candid, ranging, and often radical Black social and political discourse. Melissa Haizlip explained to me that the show’s producer, host, and creative architect—her uncle Ellis Haizlip—had “an expansive approach toward Black culture.” At a time when a burgeoning Black nationalist movement called upon Black Americans to coalesce under a single ideology of liberation, Haizlip said that her uncle saw to it that “Soul!” presented the true “fluidity of Black thought and Black identity.”
Ellis Haizlip, in his office at Channel 13, in 1970. Photograph by Alex Harsley
As “Mr. Soul!” documents, to Ellis, an openly gay Black man, this commitment could mean hosting the anti-Semitic and notoriously homophobic Nation of Islam representative Louis Farrakhan, interviewing the mother of the late Black radical George Jackson, or producing a two-hour conversation between the young poet Nikki Giovanni and her exiled idol James Baldwin. The latter segment, which was shot in London and aired as a two-part special, is one of the more astonishing artifacts in the show’s archive. Quite unlike the sensationalized and overproduced appointment-viewing events of the modern era, the Giovanni-Baldwin conversation is quiet, humming with the kind of casual intensity that only people who have dedicated long, solitary thought to the ideas they’re expressing tend to convey. Two of the most important artist-intellectuals of the twentieth century were engaged in intimate communion on national television.
Magic moments like these, and the show’s pioneering vision, were, in large part, a by-product of its ambitious host. Through extensive archival footage, recitations from Ellis’s personal journals, and testimonials from an exhaustive who’s who of friends, collaborators, and admirers, “Mr. Soul!” paints a picture of a figure every bit as well versed, well connected, and well respected as any of the era’s important entertainment figures, but whose legacy and immense contributions have largely been left out of the annals of popular memory. Ellis was a beacon of the New York art and entertainment world, known for his convivial air, penchant for playful fibbing, and teeming black book. He was a stage manager for plays that helped give James Earl Jones and Cicely Tyson exposure early in their careers. He enlisted the help of the famed Beatles manager Brian Epstein to bring a dance show choreographed by Donald McKayle called “Black New World” on a tour across Europe. And, even after his tenure at “Soul!” ended, he continued to be a patron of Black arts in New York and beyond: he served as a friend and mentor to future legends such as Luther Vandross and Michael Jackson (Ellis produced Jackon’s twenty-first birthday celebration at Studio 54) and was the director of special programs at Harlem’s Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture until his death, in 1991.


newyorker--2020-10-23--Desperate Trump Alleges Ties Between Joe Biden and Jill Biden

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report ) —In an attempt to gin up an “ October surprise , ” an increasingly @ @ @ @ @ an investigation into alleged links between Joe Biden and Jill Biden .
“ People are @ @ @ @ @ close to her , ” Trump told Sean Hannity , of Fox News .
“ @ @ @ @ @ on.
” Trump said that there are “ tens of thousands of e-mails ” between @ @ @ @ @ , a state of affairs that he called “ disgraceful.
” “ We need to @ @ @ @ @ e-mails , and also on the bank records , ” Trump said , arguing that @ @ @ @ @ ” between the two Bidens for decades .
In his most serious accusation , Trump @ @ @ @ @ Biden would be “ under the influence ” of Dr. Jill Biden because of their @ @ @ @ @ Biden has been listening to a doctor for forty-three years , ” he alleged .

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In an attempt to gin up an “October surprise,” an increasingly desperate Donald J. Trump demanded an investigation into alleged links between Joe Biden and Jill Biden.
“People are saying that he is very close to her,” Trump told Sean Hannity, of Fox News. “There’s something going on.”
Trump said that there are “tens of thousands of e-mails” between Joe Biden and Jill Biden, a state of affairs that he called “disgraceful.”
“We need to move quite strongly on the e-mails, and also on the bank records,” Trump said, arguing that money has “flowed freely” between the two Bidens for decades.
In his most serious accusation, Trump warned that a President Joe Biden would be “under the influence” of Dr. Jill Biden because of their extensive ties.
“Joe Biden has been listening to a doctor for forty-three years,” he alleged.


newyorker--2020-10-23--Trump at the Debate Was Like America in 2020: Not Winning

But he did not .
To anyone who has been watching Trump closely these past few years , that is not a surprise .
He did not , because he could not .
Instead , he said that a vaccine he once promised by October would be approved any day now .
“ I take full responsibility , ” he said of his Administration ’ s response to the virus .
And , also , “ It ’ s not my fault that it came here.
” The plague was China ’ s doing , he said , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ package was all Nancy Pelosi ’ s .
He promised a health-care plan soon , and to release his tax returns whenever that mysterious , long-running I.R.S .
audit is done .
He called Biden a crook , and himself the greatest thing to happen to Black Americans since Abraham Lincoln .
“ I am the least racist person in this room , ” he insisted to the Black moderator .
Biden , meanwhile , is so corrupt that he somehow managed to get money from Russia and China and Ukraine in ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Trump ’ s contorted telling , completely unclear .
Trump is never Trumpier than when he is behind , and he only knows one mode—of slashing attack and personal grievance—when asked to defend his indefensible record .
This does not , of course , mean that the race is over and Biden has definitely won .
That asteroid currently hurtling toward Earth could actually hit .
The Russian hackers could strike again : just this week , U.S. intelligence agencies said that Vladimir Putin ’ s agents are , once more , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Trump ’ s behalf .
Attorney General William Barr or some super-secret F.B.I .
investigation could yet smear Biden in the replay of 2016 that Trump so palpably craves .
The polls , while leaning Biden ’ s way , are still close in battleground states .
Trump effectively bashed Biden on Thursday night as a career politician , and career politicians are still not exactly popular in this country .
Anything could happen .
It won ’ t be because of Thursday ’ s debate , however , which may well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Neither a debacle nor a shouting match , it fell well short of the race-altering reset that Trump needed , even as it cleared the very low bar for mostly civil discourse set by the first encounter between Trump and Biden , an interruption-filled disaster for the President that caused Trump ’ s already weak poll numbers to sag .
This time , after the Commission on Presidential Debates threatened to cut off his microphone , Trump responded by more or less following the rules , and there were fewer outrages to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rhetorical sort .
He steered clear of white supremacy and QAnon , and he even complimented the moderator , NBC ’ s Kristen Welker , at one point , after he and his campaign had spent days beforehand attacking her as biased and unfair .
Over on Fox News , Chris Wallace , who moderated that first debate to general dismay , had perhaps the line of the night .
Asked what he thought about the second contest between the two men , Wallace replied , “ I ’ m jealous.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win the debate , the likelier scenario all along was that Biden might still lose it .
Few Americans are undecided about Trump after four years of his divisive , inescapable Presidency , but , if the polls are to be believed , there remain at least some swing-state voters who are not yet sure about Biden .
For months , Trump and his surrogates have gone on and on about the former Vice-President , suggesting he is too old , too incoherent , and just too sleepy to survive the debates with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s session , the Fox commentator Brit Hume once again came right out and called Biden “ senile.
” But Biden seemed neither sleepy nor senile during the heated ninety-minute debate .
He held his own against the inevitable Trump barrage .
He delivered prepared one-liners with the right amount of outrage and incredulity .
“ He ’ s a very confused guy , ” Biden said of Trump when the President claimed , per usual , that Biden was some sort of radical socialist pawn .
“ He thinks he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially strong on the issue that matters most of all , Trump ’ s incoherent , lethal response to the coronavirus , and he promised a government that might actually act in the face of the country ’ s metastasizing crises .
Biden , in short , came into the night as the consistent leader in the race , ahead in the national polls and in all the major battleground states , and that is how he left it .
“ Biden did not do a face plant , ” the nonpartisan election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That is all he needed to do.
” There are no new plays in the Trump playbook .
Everything is a repeat of 2016 , when he pulled off the impossible and beat Clinton .
Everything .
Hence the last-minute announcement of Trump ’ s guest for the evening debate : Tony Bobulinski , Hunter Biden ’ s estranged former business partner , who has accused the younger Biden son of dirty dealings abroad , in a wannabe scandal that Trump & Co. are determined to elevate to a last-minute campaign issue , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump was even willing to get impeached over his effort to dig up dirt on Hunter Biden in Ukraine , and now , in the final days of his campaign , the President is willing to do just about anything to put that dirt out there , even if it is manufactured by his allies .
It was hard to understand from Trump ’ s account at the debate just what he was accusing Biden of , beyond being right in the middle of his family ’ s affairs , but even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so when , the same evening , the Wall Street Journal published a major debunking of the allegation that Biden had anything to do with his son ’ s overseas business .
Bobulinski was at the debate in Nashville to take the attention off everything else : the pandemic , the economic crisis , the lies , Trump ’ s own heavily indebted businesses , his Chinese bank account , his payment of just seven hundred and fifty dollars in federal income taxes during each of his first two years in office .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the way that Trump intended .
For one thing , the President had a hard time explaining exactly what Hunter Biden had done wrong and , most important , how Joe Biden was connected to it .
There was something about a “ laptop from hell ” and how Biden was hardly an “ innocent baby.
” Anyone who does not watch Fox News intensively would have been hard-pressed to decipher Trump ’ s claims .
There is also the problem , for Trump , that Hunter Biden is not running for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actual opponent mostly avoided descending into complicated arguments about his son ’ s business dealings , instead attacking Trump for his own questionable foreign business ties and less than transparent finances .
I ’ m not sure that Bobulinski ’ s name will be remembered next week , never mind next year .
That ’ s because , whether Trump admits it or not , the country is in a historic crisis on his watch .
On the same day that Trump appeared on national television attacking his opponent ’ s son , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and more than seventy-four thousand new cases of the disease were recorded , one of the highest single-day totals in the U.S. since the pandemic began .
With cases rising in almost every state , expect more such days as the election approaches .
Yet Trump , who has remained a fierce coronavirus denier even after contracting the disease , insisted once again that it was no big deal .
“ It ’ s going away , ” he said peevishly , during the debate .
“ We ’ re rounding the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and there ’ s a horrific American body count—the highest in the world—to prove it .
A whole lot of talking followed , but Biden ’ s opening salvo about the pandemic may have been the only one-liner that mattered on Thursday night .
“ Anyone who is responsible for that many deaths should not remain as President of the United States of America , ” he said .
Trump , more obsessed with Hunter Biden ’ s e-mails than with the plague stalking Americans , hardly bothered to rebut that statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters will deliver their answer .
Read More About the 2020 Election • The fall and rise of Kamala Harris .
• When a sitting President threatens to delay a sacrosanct American ritual like an election , you should listen .
• To understand the path Donald Trump has taken to the 2020 election , look at what he has provided the executive class .
• What happens if Trump fights the election results ?
• The refusal by Mitch McConnell to rein in Trump is looking riskier than ever .
• Sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and analysis from our reporters and columnists .

Donald Trump blew it. Thursday night was his last, best chance to save his Presidency. With a national television audience and a reprieve after his horrible first debate performance and coronavirus hospitalization, the President could have used his second, and final, debate with Joe Biden to make a late play to win the election, which is only eleven days from now. He could have spoken to Americans’ pain and suffering during this unprecedented pandemic and economic crisis. He could have offered a program for recovery, and for his next four years in office.
But he did not. To anyone who has been watching Trump closely these past few years, that is not a surprise. He did not, because he could not. Instead, he said that a vaccine he once promised by October would be approved any day now. “I take full responsibility,” he said of his Administration’s response to the virus. And, also, “It’s not my fault that it came here.” The plague was China’s doing, he said, and the blame for failing to pass a coronavirus-relief package was all Nancy Pelosi’s. He promised a health-care plan soon, and to release his tax returns whenever that mysterious, long-running I.R.S. audit is done. He called Biden a crook, and himself the greatest thing to happen to Black Americans since Abraham Lincoln. “I am the least racist person in this room,” he insisted to the Black moderator. Biden, meanwhile, is so corrupt that he somehow managed to get money from Russia and China and Ukraine in ways that were utterly nefarious and also, in Trump’s contorted telling, completely unclear. Trump is never Trumpier than when he is behind, and he only knows one mode—of slashing attack and personal grievance—when asked to defend his indefensible record.
This does not, of course, mean that the race is over and Biden has definitely won. That asteroid currently hurtling toward Earth could actually hit. The Russian hackers could strike again: just this week, U.S. intelligence agencies said that Vladimir Putin’s agents are, once more, acting to interfere in the American election on Trump’s behalf. Attorney General William Barr or some super-secret F.B.I. investigation could yet smear Biden in the replay of 2016 that Trump so palpably craves. The polls, while leaning Biden’s way, are still close in battleground states. Trump effectively bashed Biden on Thursday night as a career politician, and career politicians are still not exactly popular in this country. Anything could happen.
It won’t be because of Thursday’s debate, however, which may well be remembered for what it was not. Neither a debacle nor a shouting match, it fell well short of the race-altering reset that Trump needed, even as it cleared the very low bar for mostly civil discourse set by the first encounter between Trump and Biden, an interruption-filled disaster for the President that caused Trump’s already weak poll numbers to sag. This time, after the Commission on Presidential Debates threatened to cut off his microphone, Trump responded by more or less following the rules, and there were fewer outrages to dissect, of either the behavioral or the rhetorical sort. He steered clear of white supremacy and QAnon, and he even complimented the moderator, NBC’s Kristen Welker, at one point, after he and his campaign had spent days beforehand attacking her as biased and unfair. Over on Fox News, Chris Wallace, who moderated that first debate to general dismay, had perhaps the line of the night. Asked what he thought about the second contest between the two men, Wallace replied, “I’m jealous.”
As much as Trump proved unable to win the debate, the likelier scenario all along was that Biden might still lose it. Few Americans are undecided about Trump after four years of his divisive, inescapable Presidency, but, if the polls are to be believed, there remain at least some swing-state voters who are not yet sure about Biden. For months, Trump and his surrogates have gone on and on about the former Vice-President, suggesting he is too old, too incoherent, and just too sleepy to survive the debates with Trump. Right before Thursday night’s session, the Fox commentator Brit Hume once again came right out and called Biden “senile.” But Biden seemed neither sleepy nor senile during the heated ninety-minute debate. He held his own against the inevitable Trump barrage. He delivered prepared one-liners with the right amount of outrage and incredulity. “He’s a very confused guy,” Biden said of Trump when the President claimed, per usual, that Biden was some sort of radical socialist pawn. “He thinks he’s running against somebody else.” Biden was especially strong on the issue that matters most of all, Trump’s incoherent, lethal response to the coronavirus, and he promised a government that might actually act in the face of the country’s metastasizing crises.
Biden, in short, came into the night as the consistent leader in the race, ahead in the national polls and in all the major battleground states, and that is how he left it. “Biden did not do a face plant,” the nonpartisan election analyst Charlie Cook tweeted afterward. “That is all he needed to do.”
Four years ago, in his final debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump called the upcoming election—which everyone, including Trump, still thought he was going to lose—“rigged.” In the previous debate, he sought to distract from the many allegations of his misconduct toward women—the infamous “grab ’em by the pussy” tape had been released days earlier—by bringing along as his guests several of the women who accused Clinton’s husband of sexual abuse. This time, Biden’s son, not his spouse, was the target, but the gimmick was essentially the same.
There are no new plays in the Trump playbook. Everything is a repeat of 2016, when he pulled off the impossible and beat Clinton. Everything. Hence the last-minute announcement of Trump’s guest for the evening debate: Tony Bobulinski, Hunter Biden’s estranged former business partner, who has accused the younger Biden son of dirty dealings abroad, in a wannabe scandal that Trump & Co. are determined to elevate to a last-minute campaign issue, no matter the facts or lack thereof. Trump was even willing to get impeached over his effort to dig up dirt on Hunter Biden in Ukraine, and now, in the final days of his campaign, the President is willing to do just about anything to put that dirt out there, even if it is manufactured by his allies. It was hard to understand from Trump’s account at the debate just what he was accusing Biden of, beyond being right in the middle of his family’s affairs, but even that seemed tenuous, all the more so when, the same evening, the Wall Street Journal published a major debunking of the allegation that Biden had anything to do with his son’s overseas business.
Bobulinski was at the debate in Nashville to take the attention off everything else: the pandemic, the economic crisis, the lies, Trump’s own heavily indebted businesses, his Chinese bank account, his payment of just seven hundred and fifty dollars in federal income taxes during each of his first two years in office. But inviting Bobulinski didn’t work out the way that Trump intended. For one thing, the President had a hard time explaining exactly what Hunter Biden had done wrong and, most important, how Joe Biden was connected to it. There was something about a “laptop from hell” and how Biden was hardly an “innocent baby.” Anyone who does not watch Fox News intensively would have been hard-pressed to decipher Trump’s claims. There is also the problem, for Trump, that Hunter Biden is not running for President. Trump is, and his actual opponent mostly avoided descending into complicated arguments about his son’s business dealings, instead attacking Trump for his own questionable foreign business ties and less than transparent finances. I’m not sure that Bobulinski’s name will be remembered next week, never mind next year.