theguardian--2020-09-12--Rage review: Will Bob Woodward's tapes bring down Donald Trump?

The Watergate reporter offers a jaw-dropping portrait of a president he deems ‘ the wrong man for the job ’ .
But Trump ’ s electoral fate is far from clear In the pages of Rage , Jared Kushner acknowledges that Donald Trump is not wedded to the truth .
Rather , both men find exaggeration a potent weapon in stirring opinion .
Asked about the president ’ s propensity to inflate his achievements , Kushner responds : “ Controversy elevates message.
” If so , both the president and his son-in-law should be eternally grateful to Bob Woodward , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By the president ’ s own tape-recorded admission , he was acutely aware of the dangers posed by Covid-19 but elected to lie about the danger faced by the American public .
The plague did not vanish , more than 190,000 are dead .
When Jonathan Karl of ABC News pressed the president at a press conference about his lie , he was on very solid ground .
To say otherwise is delusional – or fan fiction .
Kayleigh McEnany , the latest White House spokeswoman , knows that for sure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was to avoid chaos , the pandemic has fused itself to the social fabric .
As the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged , the effort to eradicate Covid-19 is a marathon not a sprint , and it is far from over .
And yet re-election is a real possibility .
Florida has shifted , no longer leaning Democratic .
A Biden-Harris win in Nevada appears less certain .
Trump is down , but not out .
Rage arrives at what may be an inflection point , formally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most consequential electoral contests .
However you slice it , the US stands polarized , a nation divided .
As expected from Woodward , those in proximity to power share their stories .
James Mattis , the former defense secretary , Dan Coats , the former director of national intelligence , and Kushner all make more than cameo appearances .
Coats is caught musing that Vladimir Putin must have something over the president .
“ How else to explain the president ’ s behavior ?
” Woodward writes .
“ Coats could see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the discomfort of Coats ’ wife .
As fate would have it , Trump dismissed Coats after unexpectedly running into the couple at one of his golf courses .
But what sets Rage apart from the Pulitzer-winning author ’ s earlier works is that Trump consented to be taped , on the record .
In other words , the book possesses more than a patina of similarity to the famous televised interviews between David Frost and Richard Nixon , the president Woodward and Carl Bernstein brought down with their reporting on Watergate nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ famous Nixon quote , from more than 40 years earlier : “ I gave them a sword .
And they stuck it in .
And they twisted it with relish .
And , I guess , if I ’ d been in their position , I ’ d have done the same thing.
” The response is pure Trump : “ Nixon was in a corner with his thumb stuck in his mouth.
” Rage makes clear that Trump ’ s affinity for dictators and strongmen is part of his DNA .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jong-un of North Korea , Woodward quotes Trump discussing his rapport with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey , and others .
“ It ’ s funny the relationships I have , ” Trump says .
“ The tougher and meaner they are , the better I get along with them … Explain that to me someday.
” The answer to that may have been evident to the president .
Senator Lindsey Graham also makes numerous appearances .
According to Woodward , the South Carolina Republican served as a conduit between Bill Barr , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House .
But Graham also appears as a friendly critic .
After seeing Trump wave a Bible in front of St John ’ s church , across from the White House , after peaceful protesters had been cleared with teargas , Graham exclaims that he has “ never been more worried ” .
South Carolina ’ s senior senator explained that Trump could have responded to the racial unrest fomented by the murder of George Floyd like George Wallace , Nixon or Robert Kennedy .
Wallace was a segregationist governor of Alabama .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Kennedy was a slain president ’ s younger brother , who tried to keep the peace after the killing of Martin Luther King and was then killed himself .
As Graham saw things , incumbent presidents lack the luxury of acting as bystanders to events .
In Woodward ’ s account , Trump is portrayed as preferring to claim credit even as he eschews responsibility .
While the coronavirus spread , Trump repeatedly let governors know the burden of shoring up their sick , their doctors and their people would fall on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s reluctance to throw the weight of the federal government behind fighting Covid-19 .
It was to be the world ’ s greatest backstop .
In Graham ’ s words , Trump “ wants to be a wartime president , but he doesn ’ t want to own any more than he has to own ” .
And yet Rage also makes clear that Trump ’ s desire for accolades knows few bounds .
After adopting a partial ban on travel to and from China , as urged by at least five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fathered and birthed the plan on his own .
“ I had 21 people in my office , ” he said .
But only “ one person had said we have to close it down .
That was me.
” Woodward is puzzled by Trump ’ s cooperation .
Unlike Nixon when Frost came calling , the president was not paid to be a witness against himself .
Rage comes with a definite viewpoint .
Woodward contends that a “ president must be willing to share the worst with the people , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead of “ truth-telling ” , Woodward writes , Trump has “ enshrined personal impulse as a governing principal ” .
When Trump ’ s “ performance is taken in its entirety ” , he concludes , history will show that he was “ the wrong man for the job ” .
Perhaps .
3 November comes first .

In the pages of Rage, Jared Kushner acknowledges that Donald Trump is not wedded to the truth. Rather, both men find exaggeration a potent weapon in stirring opinion. Asked about the president’s propensity to inflate his achievements, Kushner responds: “Controversy elevates message.”
If so, both the president and his son-in-law should be eternally grateful to Bob Woodward, his latest book and the ensuing tumult. By the president’s own tape-recorded admission, he was acutely aware of the dangers posed by Covid-19 but elected to lie about the danger faced by the American public.
The plague did not vanish, more than 190,000 are dead. When Jonathan Karl of ABC News pressed the president at a press conference about his lie, he was on very solid ground. To say otherwise is delusional – or fan fiction. Kayleigh McEnany, the latest White House spokeswoman, knows that for sure.
While the president claims his sole aim was to avoid chaos, the pandemic has fused itself to the social fabric. As the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged, the effort to eradicate Covid-19 is a marathon not a sprint, and it is far from over.
And yet re-election is a real possibility. Florida has shifted, no longer leaning Democratic. A Biden-Harris win in Nevada appears less certain. Trump is down, but not out. Rage arrives at what may be an inflection point, formally published seven weeks before one of the most consequential electoral contests. However you slice it, the US stands polarized, a nation divided.
Unlike Nixon when Frost came calling, the president was not paid to be a witness against himself
As expected from Woodward, those in proximity to power share their stories. James Mattis, the former defense secretary, Dan Coats, the former director of national intelligence, and Kushner all make more than cameo appearances. Coats is caught musing that Vladimir Putin must have something over the president.
“How else to explain the president’s behavior?” Woodward writes. “Coats could see no other explanation.”
Rage also catches the discomfort of Coats’ wife. As fate would have it, Trump dismissed Coats after unexpectedly running into the couple at one of his golf courses.
But what sets Rage apart from the Pulitzer-winning author’s earlier works is that Trump consented to be taped, on the record. In other words, the book possesses more than a patina of similarity to the famous televised interviews between David Frost and Richard Nixon, the president Woodward and Carl Bernstein brought down with their reporting on Watergate nearly a half-century ago.
Woodward recalls a famous Nixon quote, from more than 40 years earlier: “I gave them a sword. And they stuck it in. And they twisted it with relish. And, I guess, if I’d been in their position, I’d have done the same thing.”
The response is pure Trump: “Nixon was in a corner with his thumb stuck in his mouth.”
Rage makes clear that Trump’s affinity for dictators and strongmen is part of his DNA. In addition to capturing the bromance with Kim Jong-un of North Korea, Woodward quotes Trump discussing his rapport with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey, and others.
“It’s funny the relationships I have,” Trump says. “The tougher and meaner they are, the better I get along with them … Explain that to me someday.” The answer to that may have been evident to the president.
Senator Lindsey Graham also makes numerous appearances. According to Woodward, the South Carolina Republican served as a conduit between Bill Barr, the attorney general, and the White House. But Graham also appears as a friendly critic.
After seeing Trump wave a Bible in front of St John’s church, across from the White House, after peaceful protesters had been cleared with teargas, Graham exclaims that he has “never been more worried”. South Carolina’s senior senator explained that Trump could have responded to the racial unrest fomented by the murder of George Floyd like George Wallace, Nixon or Robert Kennedy.
Wallace was a segregationist governor of Alabama. Nixon fancied himself as the law-and-order candidate. Kennedy was a slain president’s younger brother, who tried to keep the peace after the killing of Martin Luther King and was then killed himself.
Trump opted to emulate Wallace.
Donald Trump holds up a Bible outside St John’s, across Lafayette Square from the White House in June. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
As Graham saw things, incumbent presidents lack the luxury of acting as bystanders to events. In Woodward’s account, Trump is portrayed as preferring to claim credit even as he eschews responsibility.
While the coronavirus spread, Trump repeatedly let governors know the burden of shoring up their sick, their doctors and their people would fall on their shoulders first. Woodward emphasizes Trump’s reluctance to throw the weight of the federal government behind fighting Covid-19. It was to be the world’s greatest backstop.
In Graham’s words, Trump “wants to be a wartime president, but he doesn’t want to own any more than he has to own”.
And yet Rage also makes clear that Trump’s desire for accolades knows few bounds. After adopting a partial ban on travel to and from China, as urged by at least five advisers, Trump asserted that he had fathered and birthed the plan on his own.
“I had 21 people in my office,” he said. But only “one person had said we have to close it down. That was me.”
Woodward is puzzled by Trump’s cooperation. Unlike Nixon when Frost came calling, the president was not paid to be a witness against himself.
Rage comes with a definite viewpoint. Woodward contends that a “president must be willing to share the worst with the people, the bad the news with the good”. Instead of “truth-telling”, Woodward writes, Trump has “enshrined personal impulse as a governing principal”.
When Trump’s “performance is taken in its entirety”, he concludes, history will show that he was “the wrong man for the job”.
Perhaps. 3 November comes first.


theguardian--2020-09-12--We need to reclaim 'populism' from the right. It has a long, proud leftwing history | Thomas Frank

For the last four years the American commentary class has been in a state of sustained hysteria over what they call “ populism ” .
As our experts use the word , “ populism ” refers to the peculiar views of Donald Trump , whatever they are , or those of the leaders of Hungary and Brazil and Poland .
More formally , “ populism ” is said to be the nightmare “ ism ” in which racist authoritarians attack the news media and ignore the authority of the learned .
I welcome anyone wanting to join the fight against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 40th anniversary of Ronald Reagan ’ s presidential triumph this November .
But whenever we hear our designated authorities and opinion leaders use “ populism ” as a synonym for everything that is wrong with that movement , we should remember that the word was originally invented to designate precisely the opposite sensibility .
Unlike other political terms , we know almost exactly where , when , and why the word “ populism ” came to be .
It was coined in May 1891 by a group of Kansas politicos riding on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; a “ populist ” was to be a shorthand expression for supporters of a third-party movement then beginning to challenge the shibboleths of 19-century politics and economics .
The Populist party , as it came to be known , was part of a leftwing flowering then happening around the world , the rough American equivalent of the labor parties and social-democratic unions springing up in other lands .
“ Populism ” , as its adherents saw it , was a fine and hopeful thing , a mass movement of farmers and industrial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improve the economic situation of ordinary people and , while they were at it , a war on corruption as well .
In an extremely unusual move for the time , the populists tried , in the movement ’ s early days , to enlist black farmers alongside white ones in the south in their fight for economic reform .
( It didn ’ t end well . )
American elites of the day were unanimous in their fear and loathing of populism .
They used the movement ’ s name as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pathologies that upper-class people thought characterized the lesser orders .
According to America ’ s leading editors and men of letters , populism represented the irrational resentments of society ’ s losers and rural ignoramuses , who brayed for silly things like the income tax , a fiat currency and a crackdown on monopolies .
Populism was said to be a kind of collective madness afflicting these lower orders , in which sinister demagogues – often female – beguiled the simple-minded people of the interior .
Because populists questioned the gold standard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economics – elites reviled them as ignorant and anti-intellectual .
Populism , in their thinking , was the class war come to America .
In a climate of unhinged journalistic hysteria , America ’ s ruling establishment of the 1890s proceeded to beat populism down .
( If you ’ re curious , you can peruse a selection of anti-populist political cartoons from that era on my website . )
For a few decades in the first half of the 20th century , American historians thought highly of populism , seeing it as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eventually came into its own in the administration of Franklin Roosevelt .
Then everything changed .
In the 1950s , American intellectuals soured on reform movements made up of working people .
Led by the most famous historian of the period , Columbia University ’ s Richard Hofstadter , the eminent thinkers of that contented era painted populism as the great example of the scary things that could happen when society ’ s lower orders got organized .
Rather than heroes , the pops were now seen as backwoods cranks who had risen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply could not understand .
The men of mid-century rationality redefined populism as a generic shorthand for everything they themselves were not : bigots , xenophobes , anti-intellectual , anti-science , paranoid .
“ Populists ” were people who were uncomfortable with complexity and out of step with modernity .
Although these “ consensus ” intellectuals never acknowledged it , their psychological reinterpretation of populism was pretty much the same bill of hysterical accusations that had been leveled at reformers in the 1890s .
There was something else that should have been familiar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as in the 1890s , it served to justify the rule of society ’ s upper echelons .
The consensus intellectuals of the 1950s , like the propagandists of the 1890s , were defending a new social order in which they were now the elite : this was the dawn of managerial liberalism , with its respected experts , its gigantic research universities , its Organization Men , its collegial interest groups , and its Univac-minded administrators .
In the enlightened 1950s , everyone knew that mass protest movements had no place in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the “ End of Ideology ” .
Uprisings of working people were not how you achieved reform or prosperity ; such blessings could only come through the empowerment of the highly educated personnel who now ran our great corporations and our defense establishment .
And so the consensus thinkers redefined populism as a catch-all noun denoting not merely the farmers ’ movement of the 1890s but any situation in which democracy is out of control or in which ordinary people refuse to genuflect before social standing or scholarly attainment .
As Bell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ populism goes further ” than merely rejecting economic status : “ That some are more qualified than others to assert opinions is vehemently denied.
” An eminent sociologist , Edward Shils , asserted that the populist “ denies autonomy ” to any institution of government .
Populists , he wrote , despise the justice system and politicians , scorn learning and deny the right of privacy .
More desirable by far was a deferential order in which the public accepted hierarchy .
Also : “ a sense of affinity among the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a standard posture of mid-century academic liberalism .
But there was something curious about the 50s generation ’ s scholarly attack on the people who originally invented the word : it was wrong .
As a description of the 1890s populist movement , these attacks had about as much relationship to truth as does the theory that the moon is made of cheese .
Hofstadter , whose 1955 book on populism triggered the redefinition of the word , eventually came in for brutal punishment at the hands of his fellow historians , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-ago reform movement .
Populism , they found , wasn ’ t any more backward-looking than any other movement that protested capitalism .
It wasn ’ t against industrialization .
It wasn ’ t hostile to education or learning .
It was significantly less nativist or xenophobic than other groups of the time ; in fact , the populists competed successfully for immigrant votes .
Nor was the movement irrational or given to scapegoating : by the standards of the day it was well-informed and it kept its attention focused on economic issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s crazy : none of those facts seem to matter .
Academic anti-populism lives on in almost precisely the same form as it did in the 1950s .
Indeed , it thrives .
Today , seemingly every well-educated person in America and Europe knows that populism is the name we give to mass movements that are bigoted and irrational ; that threaten democracy ’ s norms with their anti-intellectual demagoguery .
Out of this famous scholarly mistake of the 1950s – which was descended in turn from the noxious reactionary propaganda of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of global liberalism .
Why is this ?
Because anti-populism is an essential part of a political myth that is dear to a certain class of people .
Hating populism is the built-in corollary to this group ’ s grand vision of how society ought to be directed : which is to say , by responsible professionals , meaning they themselves , always concurring prudently with one another , always doing their best to steer the world through complex problems .
The core of this myth , as the political theorist Michael Rogin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope that if only responsible elites could be left alone , if only political issues could be kept from the people , the elites would make wise decisions ” .
Unfortunately , elites have been making decisions of seismic foolishness for many years now : bank deregulation , Wall Street bailouts , deindustrialization , the opioid epidemic and the Iraq war , to name but a few .
Besides , the context of cold war complacency is long gone .
Self-assured liberalism crumbled decades ago .
Consensus is an ideal that no longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s all about conflict today .
But somehow the old 50s faith continues to play right through it all , tootling its one-note song of anti-populist indignation even as the rightwing night falls .
I doubt that any effort of mine will suffice to rescue the word “ populist ” from its modern-day abusers .
But what I am absolutely certain of is that instructing Americans to show more respect to their enlightened betters – scolding the public on behalf of some great consensus of the learned and the virtuous – will only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power .
The only real answer , to Trump and plutocracy both , is a mass movement of ordinary people , hailing from all different backgrounds , joined together by a common desire to understand and dismantle the forces that make their toil so profitless .
Which is to say that the answer both to rightwing fraud and liberal elitism must come from us – from the democratic public itself .
• None This is an excerpt from The People , No : A Brief History of Anti-Populism by Thomas Frank

For the last four years the American commentary class has been in a state of sustained hysteria over what they call “populism”. As our experts use the word, “populism” refers to the peculiar views of Donald Trump, or those of the leaders of Hungary and Brazil and Poland. More formally, “populism” is said to be the nightmare “ism” in which racist authoritarians attack the news media and ignore the authority of the learned.
I welcome anyone who wants to join the fight against conservatism, a movement that will celebrate the 40th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s presidential triumph this November. But whenever we hear our designated authorities and opinion leaders use “populism” as a synonym for everything that is wrong with that movement, we should remember that the word was originally invented to designate precisely the opposite sensibility.
Unlike other political terms, we know almost exactly where, when, and why the word “populism” came to be. It was coined in May 1891 by a group of Kansas politicos riding on a train between Kansas City and Topeka; a “populist” was to be a shorthand expression for supporters of a third-party movement then beginning to challenge the shibboleths of 19-century politics and economics.
The Populist party, as it came to be known, was part of a leftwing flowering then happening around the world, the rough American equivalent of the labor parties and social-democratic unions springing up in other lands. “Populism”, as its adherents saw it, was a fine and hopeful thing, a mass movement of farmers and industrial workers demanding action by the government to improve the economic situation of ordinary people and, while they were at it, a war on corruption as well. In an extremely unusual move for the time, the populists tried, in the movement’s early days, to enlist black farmers alongside white ones in the south in their fight for economic reform. (It didn’t end well.)
American elites of the day were unanimous in their fear and loathing of populism. They used the movement’s name as a different sort of shorthand, meaning all the pathologies that upper-class people thought characterized the lesser orders.
According to America’s leading editors and men of letters, populism represented the irrational resentments of society’s losers and rural ignoramuses, who brayed for silly things like the income tax, a fiat currency and a crackdown on monopolies. Populism was said to be a kind of collective madness afflicting these lower orders, in which sinister demagogues – often female – beguiled the simple-minded people of the interior. Because populists questioned the gold standard – then the sacred bulwark of academic economics – elites reviled them as ignorant and anti-intellectual. Populism, in their thinking, was the class war come to America. In a climate of unhinged journalistic hysteria, America’s ruling establishment of the 1890s proceeded to beat populism down. (If you’re curious, you can peruse a selection of anti-populist political cartoons from that era on my website.)
For a few decades in the first half of the 20th century, American historians thought highly of populism, seeing it as the beginning of the reform tradition that eventually came into its own in the administration of Franklin Roosevelt.
Then everything changed. In the 1950s, American intellectuals soured on reform movements made up of working people. Led by the most famous historian of the period, Columbia University’s Richard Hofstadter, the eminent thinkers of that contented era painted populism as the great example of the scary things that could happen when society’s lower orders got organized. Rather than heroes, the pops were now seen as backwoods cranks who had risen up against a sophisticated economic system they simply could not understand. The men of mid-century rationality redefined populism as a generic shorthand for everything they themselves were not: bigots, xenophobes, anti-intellectual, anti-science, paranoid. “Populists” were people who were uncomfortable with complexity and out of step with modernity.
Although these “consensus” intellectuals never acknowledged it, their psychological reinterpretation of populism was pretty much the same bill of hysterical accusations that had been leveled at reformers by conservatives in the 1890s.
There was something else that should have been familiar about the mid-century attack on populism: as in the 1890s, it served to justify the rule of society’s upper echelons. The consensus intellectuals of the 1950s, like the propagandists of the 1890s, were defending a new social order in which they were now the elite: this was the dawn of managerial liberalism, with its respected experts, its gigantic research universities, its Organization Men, its collegial interest groups, and its Univac-minded administrators. In the enlightened 1950s, everyone knew that mass protest movements had no place in a period which Daniel Bell smugly characterized as the “End of Ideology”. Uprisings of working people were not how you achieved reform or prosperity; such blessings could only come through the empowerment of the highly educated personnel who now ran our great corporations and our defense establishment.
And so the consensus thinkers redefined populism as a catch-all noun denoting not merely the farmers’ movement of the 1890s but any situation in which democracy is out of control or in which ordinary people refuse to genuflect before social standing or scholarly attainment. As Bell put it in The End of Ideology, “populism goes further” than merely rejecting economic status: “That some are more qualified than others to assert opinions is vehemently denied.” An eminent sociologist, Edward Shils, asserted in 1956 that the populist “denies autonomy” to any institution of government. Populists, he wrote, despise the justice system and politicians, scorn learning and deny the right of privacy. More desirable by far was a deferential order in which the public accepted hierarchy. Also: “a sense of affinity among the elites”.
Hating populism quickly became a standard posture of mid-century academic liberalism. But there was something curious about the 50s generation’s scholarly attack on the people who originally invented the word: it was wrong.
Hofstadter, whose 1955 book on populism triggered the redefinition of the word, eventually came in for brutal punishment at the hands of his fellow historians, who enthusiastically demolished his psychological interpretation of the long-ago reform movement. Populism, they found, wasn’t any more backward-looking than any other movement that protested capitalism. It wasn’t against industrialization. It wasn’t hostile to education or learning. It was significantly less nativist or xenophobic than other groups of the time; in fact, the populists competed successfully for immigrant votes. Nor was the movement irrational or given to scapegoating: by the standards of the day it was well-informed and it kept its attention focused on economic issues.
But here’s what’s crazy: none of those facts seem to matter. Academic anti-populism lives on in almost precisely the same form as it did in the 1950s. Indeed, it thrives. Today, seemingly every well-educated person in America and Europe knows that populism is the name we give to mass movements that are bigoted and irrational; that threaten democracy’s norms with their anti-intellectual demagoguery. Out of this famous scholarly mistake of the 1950s – which was descended in turn from the noxious reactionary propaganda of the 1890s – now grows the common sense of global liberalism.
Why is this? Because anti-populism is an essential part of a political myth that is dear to a certain class of people. Hating populism is the built-in corollary to this group’s grand vision of how society ought to be directed: which is to say, by responsible professionals, meaning they themselves, always concurring prudently with one another, always doing their best to steer the world through complex problems. The core of this myth, as the political theorist Michael Rogin once put it, is “the hope that if only responsible elites could be left alone, if only political issues could be kept from the people, the elites would make wise decisions”.
Unfortunately, elites have been making decisions of seismic foolishness for many years now: bank deregulation, Wall Street bailouts, deindustrialization, the opioid epidemic and the Iraq war, to name but a few. Besides, the context of cold war complacency is long gone. Self-assured liberalism crumbled decades ago. Consensus is an ideal that no longer beguiles the academic mind: it’s all about conflict today. But somehow the old 50s faith continues to play right through it all, tootling its one-note song of anti-populist indignation even as the rightwing night falls.
I doubt that any effort of mine will suffice to rescue the word “populist” from its modern-day abusers. But what I am absolutely certain of is that instructing Americans to show more respect to their enlightened betters – scolding the public on behalf of some great consensus of the learned and the virtuous – will only cement the right’s grip on power.
The only real answer, to Trump and plutocracy both, is a mass movement of ordinary people, hailing from all different backgrounds, joined together by a common desire to understand and dismantle the forces that make their toil so profitless. Which is to say that the answer both to rightwing fraud and liberal elitism must come from us – from the democratic public itself.


theguardian--2020-09-12--Go west: Trump and Biden take campaign to Arizona and Nevada

Donald Trump was headed for Nevada on Saturday , aiming to erode poll leads enjoyed by Joe Biden there and in Arizona , another key state , as the 3 November presidential election draws near .
The president had planned to hold airport rallies in Reno and Las Vegas but they were cancelled due to state coronavirus restrictions limiting public gatherings to 50 .
Instead , Trump was set to hold an event in Minden , about 45 miles south of Reno , on Saturday night , followed by a roundtable with Latino supporters on Sunday morning in Las Vegas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facility in neighboring Henderson .
Nevada hasn ’ t supported a Republican for president since 2004 but polls indicate that Trump is gaining support there among Latinos and non-college educated white voters .
Both candidates have spent about $ 4.5m in the state .
According to the ad tracking firm Kantar/CMAG , Trump has allocated $ 5.5m and Biden $ 2.5m in future ad spending .
In other battlegrounds , North Carolina and Florida are competitive but the Trump campaign ’ s lavish attention to upper midwestern states which delivered the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin , does not appear to be paying off .
On Monday , Trump will visit Arizona for the fifth time this year .
To some analysts , that telegraphs real concern .
“ Probably some internal polling [ is ] telling them that Arizona may be slipping away , ” Richard Herrera , professor emeritus of political studies at Arizona State University , told the Arizona Republic .
“ Polling might be telling them that Biden is making headway with certain types of groups .
This is what you do when you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t publicly available and they tell you that you need to go and shore up your base.
” Both the Cook Political Report and Sabato ’ s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia rate Arizona as a toss-up – and Nevada as “ lean Democratic ” .
If Arizona ’ s 11 electoral votes slip away , Republican officials have privately acknowledged , Trump ’ s path to 270 votes and re-election will be in peril , even if he wins Wisconsin , his most likely midwestern pick-up , Florida and North @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump ’ s effort in the desert states , with both Biden and Kamala Harris making overtures to voters .
“ Nevada families need solutions – from containing the pandemic to building the economy back better to making quality healthcare more accessible to millions of Americans , ” Biden said in a statement .
Harris was due to hold a virtual roundtable with Latino voters in Arizona .
The campaign also released a volley of Spanish-language ads .
The White House announced that Trump will conclude his western trip in California on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devastating wildfires which have stricken much of the west coast .
Breaking a recent silence on the climate crisis , Biden said : “ The science is clear , and deadly signs like these are unmistakable – climate change poses an imminent , existential threat to our way of life.
” Trump , he said , “ can try to deny that reality , but the facts are undeniable .
In the years ahead , there will be no challenge more consequential to our future than meeting and defeating the onrushing climate crisis.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump nationally .
Trump raised $ 210m in August , according to official filings , but Biden raised $ 364.5m .
The Republican National Committee said it expected $ 18m to be raised over the weekend , with couples invited to stump up $ 150,000 for the Las Vegas fundraiser .

Donald Trump was headed for Nevada on Saturday, aiming to erode poll leads enjoyed by Joe Biden there and in Arizona, another key state, as the 3 November presidential election draws near.
The president had planned to hold airport rallies in Reno and Las Vegas but they were cancelled due to state coronavirus restrictions limiting public gatherings to 50.
Instead, Trump was set to hold an event in Minden, about 45 miles south of Reno, on Saturday night, followed by a roundtable with Latino supporters on Sunday morning in Las Vegas and an evening event at a manufacturing facility in neighboring Henderson.
Nevada hasn’t supported a Republican for president since 2004 but polls indicate that Trump is gaining support there among Latinos and non-college educated white voters.
Both candidates have spent about $4.5m in the state. According to the ad tracking firm Kantar/CMAG, Trump has allocated $5.5m and Biden $2.5m in future ad spending.
In other battlegrounds, North Carolina and Florida are competitive but the Trump campaign’s lavish attention to upper midwestern states which delivered the White House in 2016, such as Michigan and Wisconsin, does not appear to be paying off.
On Monday, Trump will visit Arizona for the fifth time this year. To some analysts, that telegraphs real concern.
“Probably some internal polling [is] telling them that Arizona may be slipping away,” Richard Herrera, professor emeritus of political studies at Arizona State University, told the Arizona Republic.
“Polling might be telling them that Biden is making headway with certain types of groups. This is what you do when you’re seeing numbers that aren’t publicly available and they tell you that you need to go and shore up your base.”
Both the Cook Political Report and Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia rate Arizona as a toss-up – and Nevada as “lean Democratic”. If Arizona’s 11 electoral votes slip away, Republican officials have privately acknowledged, Trump’s path to 270 votes and re-election will be in peril, even if he wins Wisconsin, his most likely midwestern pick-up, Florida and North Carolina.
Democrats were quick to react to Trump’s effort in the desert states, with both Biden and Kamala Harris making overtures to voters.
“Nevada families need solutions – from containing the pandemic to building the economy back better to making quality healthcare more accessible to millions of Americans,” Biden said in a statement.
Joe Biden talks to reporters after returning to Wilmington, Delaware on Friday. Photograph: Leah Millis/Reuters
Harris was due to hold a virtual roundtable with Latino voters in Arizona. The campaign also released a volley of Spanish-language ads.
The White House announced that Trump will conclude his western trip in California on Monday, for a briefing on the devastating wildfires which have stricken much of the west coast.
Breaking a recent silence on the climate crisis, Biden said: “The science is clear, and deadly signs like these are unmistakable – climate change poses an imminent, existential threat to our way of life.”
Trump, he said, “can try to deny that reality, but the facts are undeniable. In the years ahead, there will be no challenge more consequential to our future than meeting and defeating the onrushing climate crisis.”
Recent figures have shown Biden out-raising Trump nationally. Trump raised $210m in August, according to official filings, but Biden raised $364.5m.
The Republican National Committee said it expected $18m to be raised over the weekend, with couples invited to stump up $150,000 for the Las Vegas fundraiser.


theguardian--2020-09-12--Trump uses Fox News interview to accuse Biden of taking drugs

Fox News broadcast an interview on Saturday night in which Donald Trump without any evidence accused Joe Biden of taking drugs to get him through debates .
“ I think there ’ s probably – possibly – drugs involved , ” Trump told Jeanine Pirro .
“ That ’ s what I hear .
I mean , there ’ s possibly drugs .
I don ’ t know how you can go from being so bad where you can ’ t even get out a sentence … ” Trump did not finish his own sentence , but he went on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic presidential nominee ’ s hesitant performances in early primary debates , before his surge to victory on the back of a win in South Carolina .
“ You saw some of those debates with the large number of people on the stage , ” Trump said .
“ He was , I mean , I used to say , ‘ How is it possible that he can go forward ?
” According to the president , Biden won the nomination because the progressive vote was split .
“ And he only won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out , ” he said .
“ Had she dropped out Bernie [ Sanders ] would ’ ve won Super Tuesday , every state , and you would ’ ve had Bernie instead of Biden.
” Trump ’ s claim came not long after his oldest son , Donald Trump Jr , denied claims he used cocaine before speaking at the Republican convention .
Remarkably enough , it was also not the first time Trump , 74 , has accused Biden , 77 , of taking drugs .
Speaking to the Washington Examiner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We ’ re going to call for a drug test , by the way , because his best performance was against Bernie [ in the final debate ] … It wasn ’ t that he was Winston Churchill because he wasn ’ t , but it was a normal , boring debate .
You know , nothing amazing happened .
And we are going to call for a drug test because there ’ s no way – you can ’ t do that.
” In the Fox interview broadcast told Fox News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly ” any leftwing protests .
“ Look , it ’ s called insurrection .
We just send in and we , we do it very easy .
I mean , it ’ s very easy .
I ’ d rather not do that , because there ’ s no reason for it , but if we had to , we ’ d do that and put it down within minutes , within minutes.
” Trump has sent federal agents to confront protesters , most prominently in Portland .
In the Fox interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when US Marshals shot dead a suspect in the Portland killing of a member of a rightwing group .
Trump and Biden are due to debate in Cleveland on 29 September , in Miami on 15 October and in Nashville on 22 October .
The vice-presidential nominees Mike Pence and Kamala Harris will meet in Salt Lake City on 7 October .
Trump is famously teetotal and disapproving of drug use but his political rise has been fueled by a well-documented love for Diet Coke and junk food .
Beset by speculation about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this month the president was moved to deny rumours that a “ series of ministrokes ” prompted a short-notice visit to hospital in Washington last November .

Fox News broadcast an interview on Saturday night in which Donald Trump without any evidence accused Joe Biden of taking drugs to get him through debates.
“I think there’s probably – possibly – drugs involved,” Trump told Jeanine Pirro. “That’s what I hear. I mean, there’s possibly drugs. I don’t know how you can go from being so bad where you can’t even get out a sentence … ”
Trump did not finish his own sentence, but he went on to say he was referring to the Democratic presidential nominee’s hesitant performances in early primary debates, before his surge to victory on the back of a win in South Carolina.
“You saw some of those debates with the large number of people on the stage,” Trump said. “He was, I mean, I used to say, ‘How is it possible that he can go forward?”
According to the president, Biden won the nomination because the progressive vote was split.
“And he only won because Elizabeth Warren didn’t drop out,” he said. “Had she dropped out Bernie [Sanders] would’ve won Super Tuesday, every state, and you would’ve had Bernie instead of Biden.”
Trump’s claim came not long after his oldest son, Donald Trump Jr, denied claims he used cocaine before speaking at the Republican convention. Remarkably enough, it was also not the first time Trump, 74, has accused Biden, 77, of taking drugs. Speaking to the Washington Examiner last month, the president said: “We’re going to call for a drug test, by the way, because his best performance was against Bernie [in the final debate] … It wasn’t that he was Winston Churchill because he wasn’t, but it was a normal, boring debate. You know, nothing amazing happened. And we are going to call for a drug test because there’s no way – you can’t do that.”
In the Fox interview broadcast told Fox News he would happily “put down very quickly” any leftwing protests. “Look, it’s called insurrection. We just send in and we, we do it very easy. I mean, it’s very easy. I’d rather not do that, because there’s no reason for it, but if we had to, we’d do that and put it down within minutes, within minutes.”
Trump has sent federal agents to confront protesters, most prominently in Portland. In the Fox interview Trump said it was “retribution” when US Marshals shot dead a suspect in the Portland killing of a member of a rightwing group.
Trump and Biden are due to debate in Cleveland on 29 September, in Miami on 15 October and in Nashville on 22 October. The vice-presidential nominees Mike Pence and Kamala Harris will meet in Salt Lake City on 7 October.
Trump is famously teetotal and disapproving of drug use but his political rise has been fueled by a well-documented love for Diet Coke and junk food. Beset by speculation about his physical and cognitive health, earlier this month the president was moved to deny rumours that a “series of ministrokes” prompted a short-notice visit to hospital in Washington last November.


theguardian--2020-09-12--Susan Collins has cause for concern on Trump in Maine race key to US Senate

The Maine Republican senator Susan Collins repeatedly refused to say if she would vote for Donald Trump in November , as her own Democratic opponent pressed hard in their first debate .
Collins is seeking a fifth term , having long enjoyed a reputation as a moderate open to reaching across the aisle .
Democrats view unseating her as key to retaking the Senate , and with it prized control of the appointment of federal judges .
Sara Gideon , the Maine House speaker , has established a polling lead .
In the debate on Friday night , she sought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several times that Collins say whether she will vote for him against Joe Biden .
Collins has said she did not vote for Trump in 2016 but she has backed him since , including voting against both articles of impeachment earlier this year .
She insisted voters were more interested in talking about issues .
“ I don ’ t think the people of Maine need my advice on whom to support for president , ” Collins said , in a state where Biden holds a lead of around 10 points .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handling of the coronavirus pandemic .
The president acknowledged on tape , to journalist Bob Woodward , that he deliberately played down the danger .
“ I believe that the president should have been straightforward with the American people , ” Collins said .
“ The American people can take hard facts .
He had an obligation as president to be straightforward.
” In attack ads , Democrats have hammered away at Collins ’ votes for Brett Kavanaugh for the supreme court and for Trump ’ s tax cuts .
Gideon forced Collins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who denied accusations of sexual assault .
Collins said she had supported judges nominated by Democrats and Republicans , as long as they were qualified and committed to precedent and the rule of law .
Gideon said many of the federal judges nominated by Trump were incompetent .
“ What we have seen over the past four years is a concerted effort to change the face of the judiciary , ” she said , “ and we have seen nominees come from this president that are unqualified and not fit to be judicial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as of this week , for 170 of them.
” Collins asked Gideon if she would have voted for supreme court chief justice John Roberts , who was nominated by George W Bush in 2005 but who has recently joined the court ’ s liberals in rulings favorable to Democratic causes .
Gideon said she would have to “ fully study ” the issue .
Two independents , businessman Max Linn and educator Lisa Savage , also appeared .
Savage told voters that because of ranked choice voting , they could select @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoiler and thus promote issues of the Green New Deal , climate change and demilitarization .
The voting system , adopted in 2016 , lets people rank the candidates .
It incorporates extra voting rounds , the elimination of last-place finishers and reallocation of votes .
All four candidates decried the role of money in the race , the most expensive in Maine history .
Gideon has raised more than $ 24m , not including $ 3.8m crowdsourced by critics of Collins during the debate over Kavanaugh .
Collins has raised more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more debates .
Collins has agreed to six .

The Maine Republican senator Susan Collins repeatedly refused to say if she would vote for Donald Trump in November, as her own Democratic opponent pressed hard in their first debate.
Collins is seeking a fifth term, having long enjoyed a reputation as a moderate open to reaching across the aisle. Democrats view unseating her as key to retaking the Senate, and with it prized control of the appointment of federal judges.
Sara Gideon, the Maine House speaker, has established a polling lead. In the debate on Friday night, she sought to link Collins with Trump, demanding several times that Collins say whether she will vote for him against Joe Biden.
Collins has said she did not vote for Trump in 2016 but she has backed him since, including voting against both articles of impeachment earlier this year. She insisted voters were more interested in talking about issues.
“I don’t think the people of Maine need my advice on whom to support for president,” Collins said, in a state where Biden holds a lead of around 10 points.
But she was critical of Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic. The president acknowledged on tape, to journalist Bob Woodward, that he deliberately played down the danger.
“I believe that the president should have been straightforward with the American people,” Collins said. “The American people can take hard facts. He had an obligation as president to be straightforward.”
In attack ads, Democrats have hammered away at Collins’ votes for Brett Kavanaugh for the supreme court and for Trump’s tax cuts.
Gideon forced Collins to defend her support for Kavanaugh, who denied accusations of sexual assault. Collins said she had supported judges nominated by Democrats and Republicans, as long as they were qualified and committed to precedent and the rule of law.
Gideon said many of the federal judges nominated by Trump were incompetent.
“What we have seen over the past four years is a concerted effort to change the face of the judiciary,” she said, “and we have seen nominees come from this president that are unqualified and not fit to be judicial nominees. Yet Senator Collins has voted, as of this week, for 170 of them.”
Collins asked Gideon if she would have voted for supreme court chief justice John Roberts, who was nominated by George W Bush in 2005 but who has recently joined the court’s liberals in rulings favorable to Democratic causes.
Gideon said she would have to “fully study” the issue.
“She’s ducking the question,” Collins said.
Two independents, businessman Max Linn and educator Lisa Savage, also appeared. Savage told voters that because of ranked choice voting, they could select her without fear of her being a spoiler and thus promote issues of the Green New Deal, climate change and demilitarization.
The voting system, adopted in 2016, lets people rank the candidates. It incorporates extra voting rounds, the elimination of last-place finishers and reallocation of votes.
All four candidates decried the role of money in the race, the most expensive in Maine history. Gideon has raised more than $24m, not including $3.8m crowdsourced by critics of Collins during the debate over Kavanaugh. Collins has raised more than $16m.
Both sides expect several more debates. Collins has agreed to six.


theguardian--2020-09-13--Mike Bloomberg will spend $100m to help Biden beat Trump in Florida

The former New York mayor and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination Mike Bloomberg will spend at least $ 100m to support Joe Biden in Florida , in an attempt to counter any infusion of personal cash by Donald Trump .
“ Voting starts on 24 September in Florida so the need to inject real capital in that state quickly is an urgent need , ” Bloomberg adviser Kevin Sheekey told the Washington Post .
“ Mike believes that by investing in Florida it will allow campaign resources and other Democratic resources to be used in other states , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before a rally in North Carolina , another swing state , Trump told reporters he might spend his own money on his campaign .
The president has been out-raised by Joe Biden , amid reports of cutbacks which Trump has called fake news .
“ If I have to , I will , ” Trump said .
“ Whatever it takes , we have to win.
” Florida offers 29 electoral college votes , vital in a close race .
No Republican has won the White House without it since 1924 .
Infamously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two-term Republican president , won Florida against Al Gore in 2000 after multiple recounts and with the intervention of the US supreme court .
In 2016 , Trump beat Hillary Clinton in Florida by 1.2 % .
The state is close again , polling averages putting Biden ahead but not by much more .
Bloomberg aims to encourage early voting , to counter Trump ’ s unsubstantiated claims that such voting is vulnerable to fraud and fears that the president may use any uncertainty over the result on election day to attempt to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a technology firm funded by Bloomberg , caused a splash earlier this month when it detailed what it called a “ red mirage ” , meaning an apparent win for Trump on election day that would disappear when all votes were counted , after delays likely to be exacerbated by coronavirus precautions .
“ We are sounding an alarm and saying that this is a very real possibility , that the data is going to show on election night an incredible victory for Donald Trump , ” Hawkfish chief executive Josh Mendelsohn told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legitimate vote is tallied and we get to that final day , which will be some day after election day , it will in fact show that what happened on election night was exactly that , a mirage .
It looked like Donald Trump was in the lead and he fundamentally was not when every ballot gets counted.
” Bloomberg adviser Howard Wolfson told the Post heavy early voting for Biden in Florida “ would give lie to what we expect to be Trump ’ s election night messaging that Democrats are stealing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states , Florida counts its absentee ballots on or by election day .
We think Florida is incredibly close but winnable.
” Bloomberg , a media billionaire reported to have 17 times as much money as Trump , is reckoned to have spent more than $ 1bn on his failed bid for the Democratic nomination .
Such spending did however appear to get under Trump ’ s skin .
The former Republican and independent endorsed Biden and spoke at the Democratic convention .
He has also used his money to back groups including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Swing Left .
In May , Abe Rakov , a veteran Democratic operative , told the Guardian Bloomberg “ was one of the biggest contributors to Democratic causes before he ran and he still is after .
There are a lot of organizations and programs across the country that would be in really bad shape if he decided to disengage after he ran.
” The Post reported that an unnamed Democratic consultant said large sums would be needed for effective advertising in Florida , where such buys are expensive .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources , you can solidify your voters and then communicate with those who are still on the fence for some reason , ” Florida representative Val Demings said .
“ One hundred million can do just that .
”

The former New York mayor and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination Mike Bloomberg will spend at least $100m to support Joe Biden in Florida, in an attempt to counter any infusion of personal cash by Donald Trump and to seek a decisive victory in early voting.
Bloomberg, a media billionaire reported to have 17 times as much money as Trump, is reckoned to have spent around $1bn on his failed bid for the Democratic nomination. Such spending did however appear to get under Trump’s skin.
News of Bloomberg’s intervention in Florida prompted a characteristic response from the president, who was campaigning in Nevada.
“I thought Mini Mike was through with Democrat politics after spending almost $2bn,” Trump tweeted, with a familiar insult aimed at Bloomberg’s height. He also used a racist nickname for the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, who famously attacked Bloomberg on the debate stage, and advised the former mayor to “save New York City instead”.
Speaking to the Washington Post, Bloomberg adviser Kevin Sheekey said: “Voting starts on 24 September in Florida so the need to inject real capital in that state quickly is an urgent need. Mike believes that by investing in Florida it will allow campaign resources and other Democratic resources to be used in other states, in particular Pennsylvania.”
Trump has been out-raised by Joe Biden, amid reports of cutbacks which the president has called fake news. Earlier this week, before a rally in North Carolina, another swing state, Trump told reporters he might spend his own money.
“If I have to, I will,” he said. “Whatever it takes, we have to win.”
Florida offers 29 electoral college votes, vital in a close race. No Republican has won the White House without it since 1924. Infamously, George W Bush, the last two-term Republican president, won Florida against Al Gore in 2000 after multiple recounts and with the intervention of the US supreme court.
In 2016, Trump beat Hillary Clinton in Florida by 1.2%. The state is close again, polling averages putting Biden ahead but not by much more. Among Democrats, concern is rising that Trump is gaining among Latino voters, a key constituency in Florida and other contested states including Nevada.
Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Biden senior adviser Symone Sanders insisted the campaign was “doing the work” despite restrictions on travel given coronavirus concerns.
“You saw [Biden’s running mate Kamala] Harris out in Florida just this past week,” she said. “She also did virtual events in Arizona. Vice-President Biden himself will be traveling to Florida next week and we’ll be doing virtual events and interviews.”
On the same network, senior Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller predicted “a big increase in spending from the Trump campaign this week, we’re expanding into new battleground states. We’ll have ads up in Arizona and Pennsylvania.”
Bloomberg is aiming to encourage early voting, to counter Trump’s unsubstantiated claims that such voting is vulnerable to fraud and fears that the president may use any uncertainty over the result on election day to attempt to hold on to power.
Hawkfish, a technology firm funded by Bloomberg, caused a splash earlier this month when it detailed what it called a “red mirage”, meaning an apparent win for Trump on election day that would disappear when all votes were counted, after delays likely to be exacerbated by coronavirus precautions.
“We are sounding an alarm and saying that this is a very real possibility, that the data is going to show on election night an incredible victory for Donald Trump,” Hawkfish chief executive Josh Mendelsohn told Axios on HBO.
“When every legitimate vote is tallied and we get to that final day, which will be some day after election day, it will in fact show that what happened on election night was exactly that, a mirage. It looked like Donald Trump was in the lead and he fundamentally was not when every ballot gets counted.”
On Sunday Bloomberg adviser Howard Wolfson told the Post heavy early voting for Biden in Florida “would give lie to what we expect to be Trump’s election night messaging that Democrats are stealing the election, because unlike other battleground states, Florida counts its absentee ballots on or by election day. We think Florida is incredibly close but winnable.”
Bloomberg, a former Republican and independent, endorsed Biden and spoke at the Democratic convention. He has also used his money to back groups including Everytown for Gun Safety, Fair Fight and Swing Left.
In May, Abe Rakov, a veteran Democratic operative, told the Guardian the former mayor “was one of the biggest contributors to Democratic causes before he ran and he still is after. There are a lot of organisations and programs across the country that would be in really bad shape if he decided to disengage after he ran.”
The Post reported that an unnamed Democratic consultant said large sums would be needed for effective advertising in Florida, where such buys are expensive.
“The bottom line is when you have additional resources, you can solidify your voters and then communicate with those who are still on the fence for some reason,” Florida representative Val Demings said.
“One hundred million can do just that.”


theguardian--2020-09-13--Trump's political play: can his Covid vaccine bet bring election success?

“ We ’ re gon na have a vaccine very soon , ” Donald Trump told reporters last week .
“ Maybe even before a special date .
You know what date I ’ m talking about.
” Never in the history of US elections , perhaps , has a so-called “ October surprise ” been so thoroughly telegraphed by a sitting US president .
Trailing rival Joe Biden in the presidential race and running out of money , Trump in recent weeks has repeatedly teased the imminent arrival of a coronavirus vaccine , and explicitly tied it to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the fear for Democrats , is that the promise of an imminent vaccine will move the election away from the question of who can beat the virus , and toward the question of who can restart the economy – the one area in which Trump has consistently outpolled Biden , and a perennial top issue for voters .
Trump does not have to actually unveil a safe and effective vaccine before election day on 3 November for the strategy to work , the analysts reason .
He needs only to convince @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basically been defeated , so that when they enter the voting booth , they are thinking about what comes next .
“ Biden has to move the number on the economic stuff , ” Mike Murphy , a veteran Republican political strategist who opposes Trump , said on his podcast .
“ Because if we have a vaccine mania , whether it ’ s real or not , and people start getting relieved , and it ’ s down to who can start the economy again , for the last three weeks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turf.
” Trump ’ s seeming ability to manipulate the key federal agencies involved in vaccine approval has given credibility to the scenario of a vaccine surprise .
It also has given rise to fears that the Food and Drug Administration could improperly grant emergency use authorization to a vaccine candidate that has not been sufficiently tested , potentially endangering public health .
The tragedy of such an outcome would be compounded by the fact that multiple effective and safe vaccines appear to be on the horizon in the United States , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phase-three clinical trials , public health officials say .
But the political calculations that surround the Trump strategy for a coronavirus vaccine might not be so airtight as the Trump camp seems to believe .
A successful vaccine rollout , public health experts say , relies on coordinated , good-faith efforts by the independent boards that oversee vaccine trials ; pharmaceutical companies ; public health officials ; public-facing experts ; and regulators .
In recent weeks , those voices have been uncommonly united in a message that runs precisely contrary to Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates enter the last stages of clinical trials that could result in their eventual adoption .
“ Certainly , to try to predict whether it happens on a particular week before or after a particular date in early November is well beyond anything that any scientist right now could tell you and be confident they know what they are saying , ” Dr Francis Collins , the director of the National Institutes of Health , told a Senate panel last week .
In an extraordinary gesture nine leading pharmaceutical companies recently published a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a premature vaccine rollout .
“ We believe this pledge will help ensure public confidence in the rigorous scientific and regulatory process by which Covid-19 vaccines are evaluated and may ultimately be approved , ” the companies said .
The pharmaceutical companies could profit enormously from producing a vaccine , but they also have a lot to lose if an ineffective or unsafe vaccine is introduced to the public , said Michael Osterholm , director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy , on his podcast .
“ If there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will pay a price in the immunization world for as long as I will be on this earth , ” Osterholm said .
“ They know that if they ’ re a company that had a vaccine that should ’ ve or could ’ ve been further vetted , that there will be a price for them to pay , not just financial.
” The public health officials closest to Trump have echoed those warnings .
Dr Anthony Fauci , a member of the White House coronavirus taskforce , has called a pre-election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out that even after the approval of multiple effective vaccines , it could take up to a year for enough people to adopt the vaccine to make mass gatherings safe .
“ I think it ’ s gon na be a combination of a vaccine that has been around for almost a year and good public health measures ” before theaters can safely reopen , Fauci said in an Instagram live chat .
At the same time that he ties the race for a vaccine to the election calendar , Trump has accused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of playing politics with the prospect of a coronavirus vaccine .
“ They ’ re going to make the vaccine into a negative , ” Trump said last weekend .
Analysts warn that there is a risk that Democrats who raise an alarm about Trump ’ s political play on vaccines could seem to be rooting against the arrival of a vaccine .
Harris drew criticism along those lines last week after stating flatly that she “ would not trust Donald Trump ” on any vaccine announcement .
But if the question of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential election must be political , Biden , the Democratic nominee , floated a different message .
“ If I could get a vaccine tomorrow , I ’ d do it , ” he said .
“ If it cost me the election , I ’ d do it .
”

“We’re gonna have a vaccine very soon,” Donald Trump told reporters last week. “Maybe even before a special date. You know what date I’m talking about.”
Never in the history of US elections, perhaps, has a so-called “October surprise” been so thoroughly telegraphed by a sitting US president. Trailing rival Joe Biden in the presidential race and running out of money, Trump in recent weeks has repeatedly teased the imminent arrival of a coronavirus vaccine, and explicitly tied it to the election calendar.
The hope for Trump, and the fear for Democrats, is that the promise of an imminent vaccine will move the election away from the question of who can beat the virus, and toward the question of who can restart the economy – the one area in which Trump has consistently outpolled Biden, and a perennial top issue for voters.
Trump does not have to actually unveil a safe and effective vaccine before election day on 3 November for the strategy to work, the analysts reason. He needs only to convince enough swing voters that the coronavirus has basically been defeated, so that when they enter the voting booth, they are thinking about what comes next.
“Biden has to move the number on the economic stuff,” Mike Murphy, a veteran Republican political strategist who opposes Trump, said on his podcast. “Because if we have a vaccine mania, whether it’s real or not, and people start getting relieved, and it’s down to who can start the economy again, for the last three weeks of the election – that’s Trump turf.”
Trump’s seeming ability to manipulate the key federal agencies involved in vaccine approval has given credibility to the scenario of a vaccine surprise. It also has given rise to fears that the Food and Drug Administration could improperly grant emergency use authorization to a vaccine candidate that has not been sufficiently tested, potentially endangering public health.
The tragedy of such an outcome would be compounded by the fact that multiple effective and safe vaccines appear to be on the horizon in the United States, where companies have at least three candidates in phase-three clinical trials, public health officials say.
But the political calculations that surround the Trump strategy for a coronavirus vaccine might not be so airtight as the Trump camp seems to believe.
A successful vaccine rollout, public health experts say, relies on coordinated, good-faith efforts by the independent boards that oversee vaccine trials; pharmaceutical companies; public health officials; public-facing experts; and regulators.
In recent weeks, those voices have been uncommonly united in a message that runs precisely contrary to Trump’s, urging patience as multiple vaccine candidates enter the last stages of clinical trials that could result in their eventual adoption.
“Certainly, to try to predict whether it happens on a particular week before or after a particular date in early November is well beyond anything that any scientist right now could tell you and be confident they know what they are saying,” Dr Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, told a Senate panel last week.
In an extraordinary gesture nine leading pharmaceutical companies recently published a co-signed letter vowing not to participate in a premature vaccine rollout.
“We believe this pledge will help ensure public confidence in the rigorous scientific and regulatory process by which Covid-19 vaccines are evaluated and may ultimately be approved,” the companies said.
Experts say there is a risk that Democrats who raise the alarm could seem to be rooting against the arrival of a vaccine
The pharmaceutical companies could profit enormously from producing a vaccine, but they also have a lot to lose if an ineffective or unsafe vaccine is introduced to the public, said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, on his podcast.
“If there is a problem with that vaccine, we will pay a price in the immunization world for as long as I will be on this earth,” Osterholm said. “They know that if they’re a company that had a vaccine that should’ve or could’ve been further vetted, that there will be a price for them to pay, not just financial.”
The public health officials closest to Trump have echoed those warnings. Dr Anthony Fauci, a member of the White House coronavirus taskforce, has called a pre-election vaccine “unlikely” – and pointed out that even after the approval of multiple effective vaccines, it could take up to a year for enough people to adopt the vaccine to make mass gatherings safe.
“I think it’s gonna be a combination of a vaccine that has been around for almost a year and good public health measures” before theaters can safely reopen, Fauci said in an Instagram live chat.
At the same time that he ties the race for a vaccine to the election calendar, Trump has accused Biden and his running mate Kamala Harris of playing politics with the prospect of a coronavirus vaccine.
“They’re going to make the vaccine into a negative,” Trump said last weekend.
Analysts warn that there is a risk that Democrats who raise an alarm about Trump’s political play on vaccines could seem to be rooting against the arrival of a vaccine. Harris drew criticism along those lines last week after stating flatly that she “would not trust Donald Trump” on any vaccine announcement.
But if the question of a coronavirus vaccine so close to a presidential election must be political, Biden, the Democratic nominee, floated a different message.
“If I could get a vaccine tomorrow, I’d do it,” he said. “If it cost me the election, I’d do it.”


theguardian--2020-09-13--Has Trump spent his election war chest before the war really starts?

More than $ 180,000 per second .
That is what Donald Trump ’ s two TV ads during the Super Bowl worked out at in February , offering vivid proof of the outsized role of money in American politics – and of his re-election campaign ’ s premature and profligate spending .
The 2020 presidential election has been described by both sides as the most important in living memory and is certainly proving the most expensive .
Hundreds of millions of dollars have flooded both campaigns and , in the pandemic-enforced absence of shaking hands and kissing babies , may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But while Joe Biden and the Democratic National Committee ( DNC ) raised a record $ 365m in August , it was revealed this week that the Trump campaign has surrendered what was once a $ 200m cash advantage .
It has already spent more than $ 800m , the front page of the New York Times reported , leaving its coffers dangerously depleted for the critical final phase .
“ There ’ s so much about the Trump campaign that is unorthodox , ineffective and counterproductive : the fact they ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an obvious example , ” said Larry Jacobs , director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota .
Elections have long been a point of collision for two American ideals : democracy and capitalism .
Whatever a candidate ’ s policies or eloquence , huge efforts go into elaborate , splashy fundraisers so they can spend on advertising and other expenses .
In September 2018 the FiveThirtyEight website noted that , in the House of Representatives , more than nine in 10 candidates who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 election Trump and his allies raised about $ 600m , including $ 65m from his own pocket , a figure dwarfed by the $ 1bn taken in by rival Hillary Clinton and groups working on her behalf .
But his unprecedented carnival-barker persona drew TV cameras like moths to a flame and gained the equivalent of $ 5bn in free advertising , according to the media tracking firm mediaQuant .
Trump also outplayed Clinton on Facebook and staged rollicking campaign rallies in swing states that she could not match .
But there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making a comeback .
Both parties have become adept at using digital tools to raise small-dollar donations from vast grassroots armies .
The pandemic has forced Trump to shrink his rallies into airport hangars where , no longer offering much novelty value , he receives less media coverage as an incumbent president than he did as an outsider candidate .
Jacobs said : “ Money is maybe more important this time around because Trump can ’ t do the mega rally and is not getting the kind of free press he got in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s getting now is toxic and he ’ s unable to focus on the campaign themes that win him votes .
So Trump needs a large war chest to run ads that will actually provide a disciplined message because he can ’ t do it himself.
” Biden and the DNC raised $ 365m in August , smashing a previous one-month record of $ 193m set by Barack Obama in 2008 and eclipsing the Trump campaign and Republican National Committee ’ s ( RNC ) tally of $ 210m .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big contributions from Wall Street and Silicon Valley , but the lion ’ s share came from grassroots donations online .
According to financial reports , while Biden and the DNC spent about $ 414m through July , Trump and the RNC have burned through more than $ 800m so far .
The New York Times reported this was from a total of $ 1.1bn raised and “ now some people inside the campaign are forecasting what was once unthinkable : a cash crunch ” .
The largesse included a car and driver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign manager , and more than $ 800,000 promoting his Facebook and Instagram pages .
The campaign also squandered cash on legal bills and highly paid consultants , spent $ 156,000 for planes to pull aerial banners and paid nearly $ 110,000 to a company that “ makes magnetic pouches used to store mobile phones during fund-raisers so that donors could not secretly record Mr. Trump and leak his remarks ” , the Times said .
Trump ’ s pair of Super Bowl ads , which ran for 30 seconds each , appeared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to match the short-lived Democratic candidate Michael Bloomberg ’ s own slots during the game .
Nine months and one pandemic later , the ads have had no discernible impact on the polls .
Ed Rogers , a political consultant and veteran of several election campaigns , commented : “ What a puff of smoke that was .
Did that really drive any votes ?
They ’ d give anything to have that money back .
“ If you haven ’ t been around a lot of campaigns , it ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when you shouldn ’ t .
A lot of campaigns get down to October and they think , ‘ My God , if only I had back what I spent in April and May .
What on Earth was I thinking ?
What did I do in April and May that drove any votes ?
’ ” Rogers , who served as senior deputy to George HW Bush ’ s campaign manager , Lee Atwater , in 1988 , added : “ So they probably spent a lot of money in the spring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In retrospect , ‘ What did we get for that money ?
Nothing .
We thought it was important at the time.
’ .
“ That said , Trump is going to have enough money .
Biden is going to have enough money .
In the states that we ’ re talking about , maybe five or six , there ’ ll be saturation spending .
Nobody ’ s going to be short of money .
There will be less to buy than they can spend , if that makes sense.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parscale ’ s successor , Bill Stepien , has been forced to make urgent cuts .
Whereas it outspent Biden by $ 40m to $ 4.9m on TV ads in May and June , it scaled down to just $ 4.8m in the last two weeks of August , whereas Biden forged ahead with $ 35.9m .
Stepien claims it is strategically targeting the ads in early voting states .
Trump , whose mantra is that he is purportedly a successful businessman and steward of the economy , denies that he is running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he needs it most .
He tweeted : “ My Campaign spent a lot of money up front in order to compensate for the false reporting and Fake News concerning our handling of the China Virus .
“ Now they see the GREAT job we have done , and we have 3 times more than we had 4 years ago – & are up in polls .
Lots of $ ’ s & ENERGY !
” But critics suggest that the president , who filed for re-election on the day of his inauguration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Bob Shrum , a Democratic strategist who was an adviser to the Al Gore and John Kerry campaigns , said : “ I think they always assumed that they would have a huge financial advantage and it ’ s disappeared .
“ In the past week the Biden campaign had $ 24m on television and the Trump campaign had $ 6m .
The Biden campaign puts on a very powerful social security ad , whatever you think of its accuracy , in Florida and the Trump people don ’ t have the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a kind of triage situation at this point .
They spent like drunken sailors.
” Television is now often “ cutting away ” from Trump ’ s rallies , added Shrum , director of the Center for the Political Future at the University of Southern California Dornsife .
“ Because of Covid , television advertising and social media advertising is more important than it usually is in a presidential campaign .
So I think money does make a big difference here .
”

More than $180,000 per second. That is what Donald Trump’s two TV ads during the Super Bowl worked out at in February, offering vivid proof of the outsized role of money in American politics – and of his re-election campaign’s premature and profligate spending.
The 2020 presidential election has been described by both sides as the most important in living memory and is certainly proving the most expensive. Hundreds of millions of dollars have flooded both campaigns and, in the pandemic-enforced absence of shaking hands and kissing babies, may prove even more influential than usual.
But while Joe Biden and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) raised a record $365m in August, it was revealed this week that the Trump campaign has surrendered what was once a $200m cash advantage. It has already spent more than $800m, the front page of the New York Times reported, leaving its coffers dangerously depleted for the critical final phase.
“There’s so much about the Trump campaign that is unorthodox, ineffective and counterproductive: the fact they’ve spent their war chest before the war is an obvious example,” said Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota.
Elections have long been a point of collision for two American ideals: democracy and capitalism. Whatever a candidate’s policies or eloquence, huge efforts go into elaborate, splashy fundraisers so they can spend on advertising and other expenses. In September 2018 the FiveThirtyEight website noted that, in the House of Representatives, more than nine in 10 candidates who spend the most win.
In the 2016 election Trump and his allies raised about $600m, including $65m from his own pocket, a figure dwarfed by the $1bn taken in by rival Hillary Clinton and groups working on her behalf. But his unprecedented carnival-barker persona drew TV cameras like moths to a flame and gained the equivalent of $5bn in free advertising, according to the media tracking firm mediaQuant. Trump also outplayed Clinton on Facebook and staged rollicking campaign rallies in swing states that she could not match.
Donald Trumps pre-game Super Bowl interview with Fox News is broadcast in a bar in Washington, DC. Two ads during the game cost the campaign $180,000 a second. Photograph: Mario Tama/Getty Images
But there are signs in 2020 that mammon is making a comeback. Both parties have become adept at using digital tools to raise small-dollar donations from vast grassroots armies. The pandemic has forced Trump to shrink his rallies into airport hangars where, no longer offering much novelty value, he receives less media coverage as an incumbent president than he did as an outsider candidate.
Jacobs said: “Money is maybe more important this time around because Trump can’t do the mega rally and is not getting the kind of free press he got in 2016. The kind of free press he’s getting now is toxic and he’s unable to focus on the campaign themes that win him votes. So Trump needs a large war chest to run ads that will actually provide a disciplined message because he can’t do it himself.”
Biden and the DNC raised $365m in August, smashing a previous one-month record of $193m set by Barack Obama in 2008 and eclipsing the Trump campaign and Republican National Committee’s (RNC) tally of $210m. Some of the Democrat’s haul comprised big contributions from Wall Street and Silicon Valley, but the lion’s share came from grassroots donations online.
According to financial reports, while Biden and the DNC spent about $414m through July, Trump and the RNC have burned through more than $800m so far. The New York Times reported this was from a total of $1.1bn raised and “now some people inside the campaign are forecasting what was once unthinkable: a cash crunch”.
The largesse included a car and driver for Brad Parscale, the recently demoted campaign manager, and more than $800,000 promoting his Facebook and Instagram pages.
The campaign also squandered cash on legal bills and highly paid consultants, spent $156,000 for planes to pull aerial banners and paid nearly $110,000 to a company that “makes magnetic pouches used to store mobile phones during fund-raisers so that donors could not secretly record Mr. Trump and leak his remarks”, the Times said.
What a puff of smoke that was. Did that really drive any votes? They’d give anything to have that money back Ed Rogers
Trump’s pair of Super Bowl ads, which ran for 30 seconds each, appeared to be an $11m vanity project to match the short-lived Democratic candidate Michael Bloomberg’s own slots during the game. Nine months and one pandemic later, the ads have had no discernible impact on the polls.
Ed Rogers, a political consultant and veteran of several election campaigns, commented: “What a puff of smoke that was. Did that really drive any votes? They’d give anything to have that money back.
“If you haven’t been around a lot of campaigns, it’s the most common mistake that you spend money when you shouldn’t. A lot of campaigns get down to October and they think, ‘My God, if only I had back what I spent in April and May. What on Earth was I thinking? What did I do in April and May that drove any votes?’”
Rogers, who served as senior deputy to George HW Bush’s campaign manager, Lee Atwater, in 1988, added: “So they probably spent a lot of money in the spring they wish they hadn’t. In retrospect, ‘What did we get for that money? Nothing. We thought it was important at the time.’.
“That said, Trump is going to have enough money. Biden is going to have enough money. In the states that we’re talking about, maybe five or six, there’ll be saturation spending. Nobody’s going to be short of money. There will be less to buy than they can spend, if that makes sense.”
The recently reopened Racine county Democratic party headquarters in Wisconsin. Both campaigns will spend big in battleground states such as Wisconsin. Photograph: Mark Hertzberg/Zuma Wire/Rex/Shutterstock
But for now the Trump campaign, under Parscale’s successor, Bill Stepien, has been forced to make urgent cuts. Whereas it outspent Biden by $40m to $4.9m on TV ads in May and June, it scaled down to just $4.8m in the last two weeks of August, whereas Biden forged ahead with $35.9m. Stepien claims it is strategically targeting the ads in early voting states.
Trump, whose mantra is that he is purportedly a successful businessman and steward of the economy, denies that he is running out of money at the very moment he needs it most. He tweeted: “My Campaign spent a lot of money up front in order to compensate for the false reporting and Fake News concerning our handling of the China Virus.
“Now they see the GREAT job we have done, and we have 3 times more than we had 4 years ago – & are up in polls. Lots of $’s & ENERGY!”
I think they always assumed that they would have a huge financial advantage and it’s disappeared Bob Shrum
But critics suggest that the president, who filed for re-election on the day of his inauguration, spent not wisely but too well. Bob Shrum, a Democratic strategist who was an adviser to the Al Gore and John Kerry campaigns, said: “I think they always assumed that they would have a huge financial advantage and it’s disappeared.
“In the past week the Biden campaign had $24m on television and the Trump campaign had $6m. The Biden campaign puts on a very powerful social security ad, whatever you think of its accuracy, in Florida and the Trump people don’t have the resources to respond. They’re in a kind of triage situation at this point. They spent like drunken sailors.”
Television is now often “cutting away” from Trump’s rallies, added Shrum, director of the Center for the Political Future at the University of Southern California Dornsife. “Because of Covid, television advertising and social media advertising is more important than it usually is in a presidential campaign. So I think money does make a big difference here.”


theguardian--2020-09-13--How the South Won the Civil War review: the path from Jim Crow to Donald Trump

Heather Cox Richardson ’ s How the South Won the Civil War is not principally about that war .
Instead , it is a broad sweep of American history on the theme of the struggle between democracy and oligarchy – between the vision that “ all men are created equal ” and the frequency with which power has accumulated in the hands of a few , who have then sought to thwart equality .
What she terms the “ paradox ” of the founding – that “ the principle of equality depended on inequality ” , that democracy relied on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who were considered “ equal ” , principally white men , could rule , led to this continuing struggle .
She draws a line , more or less straight , between “ the oligarchic principles of the Confederacy ” based on the cotton economy and racial inequality , western oligarchs in agribusiness and mining , and “ movement conservatives in the Republican party ” .
More specifically , she writes that the west was “ based on hierarchies ” .
California was a free state but with racial inequality in its constitution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from lynchings of Mexicans and “ Juan Crow ” to killings of Native Americans and migrants who built the transcontinental railroad but were the target of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 .
There , aided by migration of white southerners , “ Confederate ideology took on a new life , and from there over the course of the next 150 years , it came to dominate America.
” This ranged from western Republicans working with southern Democrats on issues like agriculture , in opposition to eastern interests , to shared feelings on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with it black voting in the south , Republicans looked west .
Anti-lynching and voting rights legislation lost because of the votes of westerners , and new states aligned for decades more “ with the hierarchical structure of the south than with the democratic principles of the civil war Republicans ” , thanks to their reliance on extractive industries and agribusiness .
For Richardson , Barry Goldwater ’ s opposition to the Civil Rights Act in 1964 was thus not an electoral strategy but a culmination of a century of history between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oligarchic government in “ a world defined by hierarchies ” .
Richardson sees Lyndon Johnson ’ s Great Society and the reaction against it as “ almost an exact replay of Reconstruction ” .
What she terms the “ movement conservative ” reaction promoted ideals of individualism – but cemented the power of oligarchies once again .
But isn ’ t America the home of individualism ?
Richardson agrees , to a point .
The images of the yeoman farmer before the civil war and the cowboy afterwards were defining tropes but ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintain power .
Indeed , she believes , during Reconstruction , “ to oppose Republican policies , Democrats mythologized the cowboy , self-reliant and tough , making his way in the world on his own ” , notably ignoring the brutal work required and the fact that about a third of cowboys were people of color .
These tropes mattered : “ Just as the image of the rising yeoman farmer had helped pave the way for the rise of wealthy southern planters , so the image of the independent rising westerner helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industrialists.
” And for Jim and Juan Crow and discrimination against other races and women , which put inequality firmly in American law once again .
Yet ironically , as in the movies , the archetype came to the rescue : “ Inequality did not spell the triumph of oligarchy , though , for the simple reason that the emergence of the western individualist as a national archetype re-engaged the paradox at the core of America ’ s foundation.
” In the Depression , “ when for many the walls seemed to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cowboy turned the American paradox into the American dream.
” ( Wayne ’ s Ringo Kid in Stagecoach marked the emergence of the western antihero as hero . )
Indeed , the flame was never fully extinguished despite the burdens of inequality on so many .
In Reconstruction , the Radical Republicans fought for equality for black people .
The “ liberal consensus ” during and after the second world war promoted democracy and tolerance .
Superman fought racial discrimination .
In all it is a fascinating thesis , and Richardson marshals strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal connections to voting patterns in Congress over decades .
She errs slightly at times .
John Kennedy , not Ronald Reagan , first said “ a rising tide lifts all boats ” ( it apparently derives from a marketing slogan for New England ) ; she is too harsh on Theodore Roosevelt ’ s reforms ; and William Jennings Bryan – a western populist Democrat who railed against oligarchy even as he did not support racial equality – belongs in the story .
Richardson has achieved prominence for her Letters from an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latest from the Trump administration .
As with many American histories these days , Trump and Trumpism form a backdrop to her work .
She subtly draws connections between echoes of the past and actions of the Trump administration which appear as their natural , if absurd , conclusion .
As Richardson writes , after the Kansas-Nebraska Act extended the possibility of slavery in those territories , “ moderate Democrats were gone , and slave owners had taken control of the national party ” .
She needn ’ t finish the analogy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t ] he world of 2018 looked a lot like that of 1860 ” .
The broader question is vital : does American democracy somehow require the subjugation and subordination of others ?
Richardson eloquently and passionately accounts why that principle is so dangerous and damaging .
Refuting it – precisely by asking America to extend the benefits of the founding to everyone – is the principal task for Americans today .
She concludes that “ for the second time , we are called to defend the principle of democracy ” – something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its definition in practice to match the ideal .
Only in that way can the American paradox be resolved .
Or , as Joe Biden recently said in fewer words : “ Democracy is on the ballot .
”

Heather Cox Richardson’s How the South Won the Civil War is not principally about that war. Instead, it is a broad sweep of American history on the theme of the struggle between democracy and oligarchy – between the vision that “all men are created equal” and the frequency with which power has accumulated in the hands of a few, who have then sought to thwart equality.
What she terms the “paradox” of the founding – that “the principle of equality depended on inequality”, that democracy relied on the subjugation of others so that those who were considered “equal”, principally white men, could rule, led to this continuing struggle. She draws a line, more or less straight, between “the oligarchic principles of the Confederacy” based on the cotton economy and racial inequality, western oligarchs in agribusiness and mining, and “movement conservatives in the Republican party”.
More specifically, she writes that the west was “based on hierarchies”. California was a free state but with racial inequality in its constitution. Racism was rife in the west, from lynchings of Mexicans and “Juan Crow” to killings of Native Americans and migrants who built the transcontinental railroad but were the target of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
There, aided by migration of white southerners, “Confederate ideology took on a new life, and from there over the course of the next 150 years, it came to dominate America.” This ranged from western Republicans working with southern Democrats on issues like agriculture, in opposition to eastern interests, to shared feelings on race.
Does American democracy somehow require the subjugation and subordination of others?
Once Reconstruction ended, and with it black voting in the south, Republicans looked west. Anti-lynching and voting rights legislation lost because of the votes of westerners, and new states aligned for decades more “with the hierarchical structure of the south than with the democratic principles of the civil war Republicans”, thanks to their reliance on extractive industries and agribusiness.
For Richardson, Barry Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act in 1964 was thus not an electoral strategy but a culmination of a century of history between the south and west, designed to preserve oligarchic government in “a world defined by hierarchies”. Richardson sees Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and the reaction against it as “almost an exact replay of Reconstruction”. What she terms the “movement conservative” reaction promoted ideals of individualism – but cemented the power of oligarchies once again.
But isn’t America the home of individualism? Richardson agrees, to a point. The images of the yeoman farmer before the civil war and the cowboy afterwards were defining tropes but ultimately only that, as oligarchies sought to maintain power. Indeed, she believes, during Reconstruction, “to oppose Republican policies, Democrats mythologized the cowboy, self-reliant and tough, making his way in the world on his own”, notably ignoring the brutal work required and the fact that about a third of cowboys were people of color.
These tropes mattered: “Just as the image of the rising yeoman farmer had helped pave the way for the rise of wealthy southern planters, so the image of the independent rising westerner helped pave the way for the rise of industrialists.” And for Jim and Juan Crow and discrimination against other races and women, which put inequality firmly in American law once again.
The flame was never fully extinguished, despite the burdens of inequality on so many
Yet ironically, as in the movies, the archetype came to the rescue: “Inequality did not spell the triumph of oligarchy, though, for the simple reason that the emergence of the western individualist as a national archetype re-engaged the paradox at the core of America’s foundation.” In the Depression, “when for many the walls seemed to be closing in, John Wayne’s cowboy turned the American paradox into the American dream.” (Wayne’s Ringo Kid in Stagecoach marked the emergence of the western antihero as hero.)
Indeed, the flame was never fully extinguished despite the burdens of inequality on so many. In Reconstruction, the Radical Republicans fought for equality for black people. The “liberal consensus” during and after the second world war promoted democracy and tolerance. Superman fought racial discrimination.
In all it is a fascinating thesis, and Richardson marshals strong support for it in noting everything from personal connections to voting patterns in Congress over decades. She errs slightly at times. John Kennedy, not Ronald Reagan, first said “a rising tide lifts all boats” (it apparently derives from a marketing slogan for New England); she is too harsh on Theodore Roosevelt’s reforms; and William Jennings Bryan – a western populist Democrat who railed against oligarchy even as he did not support racial equality – belongs in the story.
Barack Obama addresses the Democratic national convention, in August. Photograph: DNCC/Getty Images
Richardson has achieved prominence for her Letters from an American series, which daily chronicles the latest from the Trump administration. As with many American histories these days, Trump and Trumpism form a backdrop to her work. She subtly draws connections between echoes of the past and actions of the Trump administration which appear as their natural, if absurd, conclusion.
As Richardson writes, after the Kansas-Nebraska Act extended the possibility of slavery in those territories, “moderate Democrats were gone, and slave owners had taken control of the national party”. She needn’t finish the analogy, other than to say that “[t]he world of 2018 looked a lot like that of 1860”.
The broader question is vital: does American democracy somehow require the subjugation and subordination of others? Richardson eloquently and passionately accounts why that principle is so dangerous and damaging.
Refuting it – precisely by asking America to extend the benefits of the founding to everyone – is the principal task for Americans today. She concludes that “for the second time, we are called to defend the principle of democracy” – something that can be done only by expanding its definition in practice to match the ideal. Only in that way can the American paradox be resolved.
Or, as Joe Biden recently said in fewer words: “Democracy is on the ballot.”