theguardian--2020-02-14--The trouble with anti-populism: why the champions of civility keep losing

You ’ ve probably heard some version of it in recent years .
Maybe you ’ ve even said or thought it yourself .
“ Politicians are always fighting !
” “ Politics has become totally irrational !
” “ Why can ’ t politicians just compromise , find some consensus and solve our problems ?
” For many people , these views have come to seem like basic common sense .
In this era of extreme partisanship , the argument goes , what we need is more unity and moderation to bring us together .
And if there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blamed for the sorry state we find ourselves in , it is populists .
Since the twin shocks of 2016 – the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump – a cottage industry of authors , pundits and organisations has emerged with the shared goal of fighting populism .
Books with names such as The People vs Democracy : Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How Save It , and Anti-Pluralism : The Populist Threat to Liberal Democracy have been published on both sides of the Atlantic .
Tony Blair has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to find “ an answer to the new populism of left and right which exploits the anger and drives the world apart ” .
Elsewhere , two of the most prominent politicians defeated by populist competitors , Hillary Clinton and Matteo Renzi , have offered their tips about how to stop populists ( too little , too late ) .
And in a truly remarkable bit of chutzpah , populist extraordinaire Silvio Berlusconi has tried to reinvent himself as a pro-EU unifier , here to save Italy from populism .
Even the pontiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Francis stating that “ populism is evil and ends badly ” .
What unites these self-styled defenders of democracy , ready to roll up their sleeves and take the apparent populist scourge head-on ?
It ’ s certainly not a clear ideology .
Nor is it opposition to a particular variety of populism .
It is something far more disparate than that .
So how about we just call this phenomenon , simply , anti-populism ?
While populism itself has received an enormous amount of media attention over the past several years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somewhat curious , given that anti-populism – with its call for a more sensible , moderate politics – has become one of the most widely held views across the western political mainstream .
It ’ s not hard to see why anti-populist ideas are popular : they have intuitive appeal in a time when two-party politics seems to be breaking down in the US , UK and Australia ; when genuinely dangerous rightwing populists are winning power across the world ; and when politics and public debate seem increasingly divisive and volatile .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of anti-populism – civility , maturity , deliberation – sound rather nice .
Yet it is worth asking how we got to this point , and considering how opposing populism – a term that in some contexts , particularly in the US , until recently had positive connotations – became the supposedly sensible position to take .
Crucially , it is also worth asking whether anti-populism is effective .
If the aim is to defeat populists , do the solutions proposed by the anti-populists – running the gamut from borrowing some populist policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all – actually work ?
Or do they ultimately succumb to what the philosopher Slavoj Žižek has called “ the populist temptation ” : where the self-declared opponents of populism end up becoming a watered-down version of the thing they were fighting against in the first place ?
Unlike other “ isms ” , anti-populism is not a clear ideological disposition or mode of governance , but rather an odd mix of ideological and strategic allies pulled together in a temporary coalition .
Anti-populism can draw together politicians from all over the left-right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shared view of the role of the state , military intervention , fiscal regulation and so on – but what they do share is a broader vision of how politics should be “ done ” .
Although populists on the left and right clearly have very different stances , there are a number of things that tend to unite them – and mobilise anti-populists ’ concerns .
First , while populists appeal to “ the people ” against “ the elite ” , anti-populists see this as a crude and patently false @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theorist Jan-Werner Müller argues that populists ’ “ idea of the single , homogenous , authentic people is a fantasy ” .
Instead , anti-populists argue that we should acknowledge that there are many overlapping , competing characterisations of “ the people ” in society , and that such collective identities are only ever made up by individuals anyway .
This liberal individualism chafes against populism ’ s insistence on groups – the people and the elite – as the primary actors in political struggles .
Anti-populists also tend to object to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea of “ the people ” implies .
While populists of both the right and left tend to be critics of globalisation – variously blaming it for increasing migration , weakening national sovereignty or lowering wages – anti-populists tend to defend a world of free markets and free movement of peoples , as well as acknowledging the important role of transnational economic and political bodies in our globally interdependent era .
Second , populists tend to champion political mechanisms that allegedly give voice to the people ( such as referendums , plebiscites and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-populists see such mechanisms as rather crude and divisive , potentially leading to mob rule .
For anti-populists , politics is a relatively rational activity in which politicians debate one another , hopefully finding consensus by convincing the other side with the strength of their arguments .
For them , politics is not a battle of passions , but rather something of a puzzle to be solved .
This is a supposedly rational view of politics – sober , mature and graceful – against the allegedly immature , kneejerk and sensational politics of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ central to anti-populism .
Populists are cast as peddlers of lies , manipulating people ’ s emotions , playing on their basest fears and whipping up hysteria , while anti-populists see themselves as taking a clear-eyed view of the world .
This is evident in the way “ fake news ” and “ post-truth ” have somehow become synonymous with populism : while populists are relativists who bend reality to their will , anti-populists see themselves as concerned with the capital-T Truth .
Anti-populists also share an opposition to the way that populists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populists are often defined by their bad manners – think here of Donald Trump ’ s lack of respect for any modicum of decorum , or of President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines calling Barack Obama a “ son of a whore ” – anti-populists find such breaches of the supposed rules of political conduct inexcusable .
Furthermore , they are dismayed by populists ’ lack of respect for proceduralism – that is , populists ’ tendency to crash through the usual processes of checks and balances .
Anti-populists have a more West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people with ( generally ) good intentions , who might have different ideological views , but who above all respect the rules of the game .
Connected to all this , perhaps the most important tendency of anti-populism , is a valourisation of consensus in politics .
For anti-populists , we are no longer living in “ ordinary times ” in which consensus rules .
Characterising these good old days , the political scientist and journalist Yascha Mounk notes that for decades , “ developed democracies in North America , western Europe and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moderate parties and politicians were dominant .
Independent institutions were strong .
A broad political consensus created a sense that the future was highly predictable.
” For anti-populists , a return to this consensus would represent a healthy return to “ normal ” politics .
Yet it is worth asking the question : when it comes to politics , what is normality anyway ?
Behind such calls for consensus and order , there are some significant problems with anti-populism .
For one thing , there is little questioning of who this particular consensus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the alleged consensus of post-cold war politics was actually the result of the capitulation of the centre-left to the right , rather than any real moderation .
The anti-populist call for consensus politics in many ways resembles the third way “ beyond left or right ” position offered by Blair and the British sociologist Anthony Giddens in the 90s , and adapted by parties and leaders across the world .
One can not help but feel a sense of deja vu – in 2002 , in the face of populist Jean-Marie Le @ @ @ @ @ @ @ round of the French presidential elections , Giddens wrote that “ the renewed polarisation of politics on the left and right is plainly threatening to political stability ” , and that “ the third way can beat the far right by modernising , liberalising and being tough on immigration ” .
Fast-forward 16 years , and we find Blair singing from the same hymnbook , claiming that “ the political space for argument and debate has become very , very hard to curate and understand because everything is just sucked into this vortex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of position without people trying to really reach much common ground ” , and arguing that the way to fight the far right is by forcing migrants to integrate more .
And it ’ s not only Blair and his coterie : the international enthusiasm for Emmanuel Macron ’ s “ not left , nor right ” politics in France is also evidence of an attempted rehabilitation of the third way , with Macron decrying the “ populist and nationalist leprosy ” of Europe .
Here , one starts to get the feeling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less about fighting actual populism , and more about rehabilitating and rebranding the third way for a new era .
But it ’ s not clear that the third way ’ s vision of consensus politics is actually desirable in a democracy .
As the late political scientist Peter Mair argued , a world in which major parties ideologically converge is one where party democracy becomes hollowed out and politicians become unresponsive to the demands of voters .
The second weakness of anti-populism is that it creates an atmosphere where any politician that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is , the centre-left or centre-right – risks being tarnished with the populism label .
This can have sometimes end up delegitimising worthy challengers to the existing political consensus , which in turn means that we get stuck with more of the same .
The populism label is also often used to bundle together very different figures or parties .
It is true that anti-populists usually acknowledge , correctly , that the threat posed by radical right populists , with their often explicit threats against minorities , tends to be far greater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left , who focus their anger on the economic elite .
To see just how dangerous rightwing populism can be , look to India , where the prime minister , Narendra Modi , has passed new laws that effectively make the country ’ s Muslim minority into second-class citizens , or the US , where Trump ’ s incendiary rhetoric has inspired a spate of violent attacks on minorities , journalists and opponents .
Yet that doesn ’ t stop some of the more fervent anti-populists drawing an equivalence between the populist left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg ’ s comments , from 2019 , about populist sentiment in the US : “ It just kind of turns you against the system in general , and then you ’ re more likely to want to vote to blow up the system .
Which could lead you to somebody like Bernie , and it could lead you to somebody like Trump .
That ’ s how we got where we are.
” The message here is that Trump and Sanders are the same in being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that such anti-system sentiment is immature , destructive and dangerous .
Similarly , Mounk , who bills himself as “ one of the world ’ s leading experts on the crisis of liberal democracy and the rise of populism ” , argues that there are good reasons to worry about the “ authoritarian tendencies ” of left-populists “ whether it ’ s the Chavistas in Venezuela or even Podemos in Spain ” .
This is because “ the populist logic ultimately works the same way on the left as it does on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that you alone speak for the whole of the people , any form of opposition to you immediately becomes illegitimate.
” While this may be the case in Venezuela , it is absurd to claim that the likes of Podemos , or more importantly , left populists who have actually held government – such as Syriza in Greece or Andrés Manuel López Obrador in Mexico – pose as great a threat to democracy to someone like Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil or Viktor Orbán in Hungary , who have well and truly set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries .
A third weakness of anti-populism is that when it becomes a dominant frame in our thinking about liberal-democratic politics , it tends to reinforce the false opposition between liberalism ( with its rule of law , freedom of speech and checks and balances ) and democracy ( with its popular sovereignty and majoritarianism ) – a binary , ironically , that populists also tend to promote .
On one side , populists tend to argue that within liberal democracies , we ’ ve gone too far towards the liberal side of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undermining the voice of the people .
On the other side , we have anti-populists seeking to fight populism tooth and nail , even if this means playing into arguably not-so-democratic solutions ( such as attempting to rerun or ignore referendums that give the “ wrong ” result ) or rigidly defending distant and not particularly representative or responsive institutions or bodies ( such as the European troika in the battles over the Greek government debt crisis ) .
But this opposition is too simplistic .
As the political theorist Chantal Mouffe has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy is that it is characterised by the productive tension between these two forces .
If we go too far towards majoritarian-style democracy , we end up with mob rule ; if we go too far towards liberalism , we end up with detached technocracy .
Instead , we need liberalism and democracy to keep one another in line – pushing the other back when it oversteps its mark or is out of balance .
Setting aside these criticisms of anti-populism , there is a much simpler question that needs to be answered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it an effective way to stem the rise of populists ?
When it comes to opposing individual populist leaders , the answer often seems to be no .
With Trump , for instance , the anti-populist approach favoured by Hillary Clinton in 2016 – symbolised by her disastrous “ basket of deplorables ” comments – enhanced the feeling of ostracism and victimhood among his supporters , and burnished Trump ’ s claims that he is hated by the elite , which only added to his populist appeal .
Even when anti-populist leaders who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have prevailed , such as Macron in France , the recipe has quickly soured .
Macron ’ s politics have taken a rightward turn ; his popularity has taken an enormous hit ; he faced sustained protest from the gilets jaunes ; and some have accused him of “ enabling the populism he was supposed to defeat ” , as the standing of Marine Le Pen , the leader of National Rally , continues to rise .
On the level of party politics , the evidence of anti-populism ’ s efficacy is more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most explicit form of anti-populism has come in the form of the cordon sanitaire , a French phrase that was originally used to describe the use of barriers to stop the spread of an infectious disease , but now means refusing to co-operate , negotiate or govern with the populist right .
This worked in Belgium throughout the 1990s and 2000s , leading to the demise of the far-right Vlaams Blok and the poor showing of its successor party , Vlaams Belang .
However , the same tactic has failed in Sweden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats has played into their voters ’ sense of aggrievement .
The party ’ s share of the vote increased from 12.9 % in 2014 ( when the cordon sanitaire began ) to 17.5 % in 2018 .
A very different anti-populist tactic has been to try to beat populists , particularly rightwing populists , at their own game by co-opting their policies on immigration or multiculturalism – in the hope of stemming the “ demand ” for populist alternatives to mainstream parties .
In the Netherlands ’ 2017 elections , centre-right Dutch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the challenge from the populist radical right Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom by telling immigrants who did not integrate to his liking to “ behave normally or go away ” , and defending racist traditions such as the Dutch Christmas character Black Pete ( Zwarte Piet ) .
When his party won the election , Rutte then claimed that his “ good populism ” had defeated the radical right ’ s “ bad populism ” ( a tactic he has since abandoned as new right-populist challengers have emerged in the Netherlands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place in the Labour parties of the UK and Australia following their recent electoral defeats , where some are suggesting the left needs to move rightwards on immigration .
The problem with this tactic is that while it might sometimes work in the short term , it doesn ’ t defeat populism in the long term .
In my native Australia , the centre-right Coalition shut down the political success of the populist radical right One Nation party in the late 90s by co-opting many of its policies .
While One Nation itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the political mainstream and legitimised , leading to a depressing race to the bottom by the major parties on issues of immigration and asylum seekers in Australia .
The result is that Australia now has one of the most punitive asylum detention regimes in the western world – to the extent that Trump , in a leaked conversation with Australia ’ s prime minister in 2017 , admiringly said of the system : “ That is a good idea .
We should do that too .
You are worse than I am.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adulation of Trump , along with other radical right populists , this does not seem like a great anti-populist victory .
This is the great danger of co-opting populist policies : it is hard to avoid ending up actually doing many of the things that you criticise populists for .
In the name of staving off the threat of National Rally in France , the centre-right Republicans party has adopted much of its platform ; mandatory assimilation or integration classes have been put in place by several European governments , such as Denmark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise present themselves as active in the fight against populism ; and while the leader of the European People ’ s party in the EU parliament , Manfred Weber , has presented himself as an anti-populist and defender of liberal democracy , he has in reality shielded arch-populist Orbán and his Fidesz party from any serious sanctions for years .
The hypocrisy on show here is unavoidable .
The populist temptation is strong for a reason : the elite often deserve their unpopularity and disdain ; the media landscape favours populist messaging ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis to crisis .
All of this plays into the hands of those who can speak cannily in the name of the people against the elite .
Anti-populism , by contrast , struggles in this context .
It is clear that we are not living in times conducive to consensus politics .
Rather , it seems that populists and anti-populists alike are driven by a nostalgia for days gone by .
Populists seek a simpler imagined time , where jobs were plentiful , national sovereignty was intact and borders were stronger .
Anti-populists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past , imagining a time of consensus politics , a supposedly sane and rational period where consensus reigned , and representatives worked together to solve political problems for the greater good .
The reality is that we are no longer living in either of these situations .
The question is which side will snap out of its daydream first – and in the long term , what the ultimate cost will be if we choose to stay asleep .
• Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @ gdnlongread , and sign up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

You’ve probably heard some version of it in recent years. Maybe you’ve even said or thought it yourself. “Politicians are always fighting!” “Politics has become totally irrational!” “Why can’t politicians just compromise, find some consensus and solve our problems?”
For many people, these views have come to seem like basic common sense. In this era of extreme partisanship, the argument goes, what we need is more unity and moderation to bring us together. And if there is one group of politicians who have been blamed for the sorry state we find ourselves in, it is populists.
Since the twin shocks of 2016 – the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump – a cottage industry of authors, pundits and organisations has emerged with the shared goal of fighting populism. Books with names such as The People vs Democracy: Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How Save It, and Anti-Pluralism: The Populist Threat to Liberal Democracy have been published on both sides of the Atlantic. Tony Blair has set up his Institute for Global Change to find “an answer to the new populism of left and right which exploits the anger and drives the world apart”.
Elsewhere, two of the most prominent politicians defeated by populist competitors, Hillary Clinton and Matteo Renzi, have offered their tips about how to stop populists (too little, too late). And in a truly remarkable bit of chutzpah, populist extraordinaire Silvio Berlusconi has tried to reinvent himself as a pro-EU unifier, here to save Italy from populism. Even the pontiff has warned against populism, with Pope Francis stating that “populism is evil and ends badly”.
What unites these self-styled defenders of democracy, ready to roll up their sleeves and take the apparent populist scourge head-on? It’s certainly not a clear ideology. Nor is it opposition to a particular variety of populism. It is something far more disparate than that. So how about we just call this phenomenon, simply, anti-populism?
While populism itself has received an enormous amount of media attention over the past several years, anti-populism has not. Yet this is somewhat curious, given that anti-populism – with its call for a more sensible, moderate politics – has become one of the most widely held views across the western political mainstream.
It’s not hard to see why anti-populist ideas are popular: they have intuitive appeal in a time when two-party politics seems to be breaking down in the US, UK and Australia; when genuinely dangerous rightwing populists are winning power across the world; and when politics and public debate seem increasingly divisive and volatile. In this context, the key values of anti-populism – civility, maturity, deliberation – sound rather nice.
Yet it is worth asking how we got to this point, and considering how opposing populism – a term that in some contexts, particularly in the US, until recently had positive connotations – became the supposedly sensible position to take. Crucially, it is also worth asking whether anti-populism is effective. If the aim is to defeat populists, do the solutions proposed by the anti-populists – running the gamut from borrowing some populist policies to refusing to negotiate with them at all – actually work? Or do they ultimately succumb to what the philosopher Slavoj Žižek has called “the populist temptation”: where the self-declared opponents of populism end up becoming a watered-down version of the thing they were fighting against in the first place?
Unlike other “isms”, anti-populism is not a clear ideological disposition or mode of governance, but rather an odd mix of ideological and strategic allies pulled together in a temporary coalition. Anti-populism can draw together politicians from all over the left-right spectrum. They don’t have a shared view of the role of the state, military intervention, fiscal regulation and so on – but what they do share is a broader vision of how politics should be “done”.
Although populists on the left and right clearly have very different stances, there are a number of things that tend to unite them – and mobilise anti-populists’ concerns.
First, while populists appeal to “the people” against “the elite”, anti-populists see this as a crude and patently false way to divide society. The political theorist Jan-Werner Müller argues that populists’ “idea of the single, homogenous, authentic people is a fantasy”. Instead, anti-populists argue that we should acknowledge that there are many overlapping, competing characterisations of “the people” in society, and that such collective identities are only ever made up by individuals anyway. This liberal individualism chafes against populism’s insistence on groups – the people and the elite – as the primary actors in political struggles.
An anti-Brexit march in London, during which protesters called for a second referendum to remain in the EU. Photograph: Matt Dunham/AP
Anti-populists also tend to object to the nationalist and even isolationist visions that that idea of “the people” implies. While populists of both the right and left tend to be critics of globalisation – variously blaming it for increasing migration, weakening national sovereignty or lowering wages – anti-populists tend to defend a world of free markets and free movement of peoples, as well as acknowledging the important role of transnational economic and political bodies in our globally interdependent era.
Second, populists tend to champion political mechanisms that allegedly give voice to the people (such as referendums, plebiscites and forms of direct democracy), whereas anti-populists see such mechanisms as rather crude and divisive, potentially leading to mob rule. For anti-populists, politics is a relatively rational activity in which politicians debate one another, hopefully finding consensus by convincing the other side with the strength of their arguments. For them, politics is not a battle of passions, but rather something of a puzzle to be solved. This is a supposedly rational view of politics – sober, mature and graceful – against the allegedly immature, kneejerk and sensational politics of populists.
This notion of rationality is central to anti-populism. Populists are cast as peddlers of lies, manipulating people’s emotions, playing on their basest fears and whipping up hysteria, while anti-populists see themselves as taking a clear-eyed view of the world. This is evident in the way “fake news” and “post-truth” have somehow become synonymous with populism: while populists are relativists who bend reality to their will, anti-populists see themselves as concerned with the capital-T Truth.
Anti-populists also share an opposition to the way that populists behave in the political sphere. While populists are often defined by their bad manners – think here of Donald Trump’s lack of respect for any modicum of decorum, or of President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines calling Barack Obama a “son of a whore” – anti-populists find such breaches of the supposed rules of political conduct inexcusable. Furthermore, they are dismayed by populists’ lack of respect for proceduralism – that is, populists’ tendency to crash through the usual processes of checks and balances. Anti-populists have a more West Wing-esque vision of politics as full of people with (generally) good intentions, who might have different ideological views, but who above all respect the rules of the game.
Connected to all this, perhaps the most important tendency of anti-populism, is a valourisation of consensus in politics. For anti-populists, we are no longer living in “ordinary times” in which consensus rules. Characterising these good old days, the political scientist and journalist Yascha Mounk notes that for decades, “developed democracies in North America, western Europe and beyond appeared to be remarkably stable. Moderate parties and politicians were dominant. Independent institutions were strong. A broad political consensus created a sense that the future was highly predictable.” For anti-populists, a return to this consensus would represent a healthy return to “normal” politics.
Yet it is worth asking the question: when it comes to politics, what is normality anyway? Behind such calls for consensus and order, there are some significant problems with anti-populism. For one thing, there is little questioning of who this particular consensus actually worked for. Some would argue that the alleged consensus of post-cold war politics was actually the result of the capitulation of the centre-left to the right, rather than any real moderation.
The anti-populist call for consensus politics in many ways resembles the third way “beyond left or right” position offered by Blair and the British sociologist Anthony Giddens in the 90s, and adapted by parties and leaders across the world. One cannot help but feel a sense of deja vu – in 2002, in the face of populist Jean-Marie Le Pen’s progression to the second round of the French presidential elections, Giddens wrote that “the renewed polarisation of politics on the left and right is plainly threatening to political stability”, and that “the third way can beat the far right by modernising, liberalising and being tough on immigration”.
Fast-forward 16 years, and we find Blair singing from the same hymnbook, claiming that “the political space for argument and debate has become very, very hard to curate and understand because everything is just sucked into this vortex of highly inflamed political rhetoric and exchanges of position without people trying to really reach much common ground”, and arguing that the way to fight the far right is by forcing migrants to integrate more. And it’s not only Blair and his coterie: the international enthusiasm for Emmanuel Macron’s “not left, nor right” politics in France is also evidence of an attempted rehabilitation of the third way, with Macron decrying the “populist and nationalist leprosy” of Europe.
Here, one starts to get the feeling that addressing the so-called populist threat is less about fighting actual populism, and more about rehabilitating and rebranding the third way for a new era. But it’s not clear that the third way’s vision of consensus politics is actually desirable in a democracy. As the late political scientist Peter Mair argued, a world in which major parties ideologically converge is one where party democracy becomes hollowed out and politicians become unresponsive to the demands of voters.
The second weakness of anti-populism is that it creates an atmosphere where any politician that deviates from the “norm” – that is, the centre-left or centre-right – risks being tarnished with the populism label. This can have sometimes end up delegitimising worthy challengers to the existing political consensus, which in turn means that we get stuck with more of the same.
Get the Guardian’s award-winning long reads sent direct to you every Saturday morning
The populism label is also often used to bundle together very different figures or parties. It is true that anti-populists usually acknowledge, correctly, that the threat posed by radical right populists, with their often explicit threats against minorities, tends to be far greater than that posed by populists on the left, who focus their anger on the economic elite. To see just how dangerous rightwing populism can be, look to India, where the prime minister, Narendra Modi, has passed new laws that effectively make the country’s Muslim minority into second-class citizens, or the US, where Trump’s incendiary rhetoric has inspired a spate of violent attacks on minorities, journalists and opponents.
Yet that doesn’t stop some of the more fervent anti-populists drawing an equivalence between the populist left and right. Take, for example, the Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg’s comments, from 2019, about populist sentiment in the US: “It just kind of turns you against the system in general, and then you’re more likely to want to vote to blow up the system. Which could lead you to somebody like Bernie, and it could lead you to somebody like Trump. That’s how we got where we are.” The message here is that Trump and Sanders are the same in being expressions of democratic discontent: the subtext is that such anti-system sentiment is immature, destructive and dangerous.
Similarly, Mounk, who bills himself as “one of the world’s leading experts on the crisis of liberal democracy and the rise of populism”, argues that there are good reasons to worry about the “authoritarian tendencies” of left-populists “whether it’s the Chavistas in Venezuela or even Podemos in Spain”. This is because “the populist logic ultimately works the same way on the left as it does on the right: once you’ve said that you alone speak for the whole of the people, any form of opposition to you immediately becomes illegitimate.”
While this may be the case in Venezuela, it is absurd to claim that the likes of Podemos, or more importantly, left populists who have actually held government – such as Syriza in Greece or Andrés Manuel López Obrador in Mexico – pose as great a threat to democracy to someone like Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil or Viktor Orbán in Hungary, who have well and truly set about dismantling liberal democracy in their respective countries.
A third weakness of anti-populism is that when it becomes a dominant frame in our thinking about liberal-democratic politics, it tends to reinforce the false opposition between liberalism (with its rule of law, freedom of speech and checks and balances) and democracy (with its popular sovereignty and majoritarianism) – a binary, ironically, that populists also tend to promote. On one side, populists tend to argue that within liberal democracies, we’ve gone too far towards the liberal side of things, with unelected bodies and elites undermining the voice of the people. On the other side, we have anti-populists seeking to fight populism tooth and nail, even if this means playing into arguably not-so-democratic solutions (such as attempting to rerun or ignore referendums that give the “wrong” result) or rigidly defending distant and not particularly representative or responsive institutions or bodies (such as the European troika in the battles over the Greek government debt crisis).
But this opposition is too simplistic. As the political theorist Chantal Mouffe has argued, the very strength of liberal democracy is that it is characterised by the productive tension between these two forces. If we go too far towards majoritarian-style democracy, we end up with mob rule; if we go too far towards liberalism, we end up with detached technocracy. Instead, we need liberalism and democracy to keep one another in line – pushing the other back when it oversteps its mark or is out of balance.
Setting aside these criticisms of anti-populism, there is a much simpler question that needs to be answered: does anti-populism actually work? Is it an effective way to stem the rise of populists? When it comes to opposing individual populist leaders, the answer often seems to be no. With Trump, for instance, the anti-populist approach favoured by Hillary Clinton in 2016 – symbolised by her disastrous “basket of deplorables” comments – enhanced the feeling of ostracism and victimhood among his supporters, and burnished Trump’s claims that he is hated by the elite, which only added to his populist appeal.
Even when anti-populist leaders who claim to be beyond left or right have prevailed, such as Macron in France, the recipe has quickly soured. Macron’s politics have taken a rightward turn; his popularity has taken an enormous hit; he faced sustained protest from the gilets jaunes; and some have accused him of “enabling the populism he was supposed to defeat”, as the standing of Marine Le Pen, the leader of National Rally, continues to rise.
On the level of party politics, the evidence of anti-populism’s efficacy is more mixed. On one hand, the most explicit form of anti-populism has come in the form of the cordon sanitaire, a French phrase that was originally used to describe the use of barriers to stop the spread of an infectious disease, but now means refusing to co-operate, negotiate or govern with the populist right. This worked in Belgium throughout the 1990s and 2000s, leading to the demise of the far-right Vlaams Blok and the poor showing of its successor party, Vlaams Belang. However, the same tactic has failed in Sweden, where a cordon sanitaire against the Sweden Democrats has played into their voters’ sense of aggrievement. The party’s share of the vote increased from 12.9% in 2014 (when the cordon sanitaire began) to 17.5% in 2018.
A very different anti-populist tactic has been to try to beat populists, particularly rightwing populists, at their own game by co-opting their policies on immigration or multiculturalism – in the hope of stemming the “demand” for populist alternatives to mainstream parties. In the Netherlands’ 2017 elections, centre-right Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte sought to stem the challenge from the populist radical right Geert Wilders and his Party for Freedom by telling immigrants who did not integrate to his liking to “behave normally or go away”, and defending racist traditions such as the Dutch Christmas character Black Pete (Zwarte Piet). When his party won the election, Rutte then claimed that his “good populism” had defeated the radical right’s “bad populism” (a tactic he has since abandoned as new right-populist challengers have emerged in the Netherlands). Similar debates are currently taking place in the Labour parties of the UK and Australia following their recent electoral defeats, where some are suggesting the left needs to move rightwards on immigration.
Demonstrators hold up flares during a gilets jaunes (yellow vest) protest in Paris against Emmanuel Macron’s government. Photograph: Loïc Venance/AFP via Getty
The problem with this tactic is that while it might sometimes work in the short term, it doesn’t defeat populism in the long term. In my native Australia, the centre-right Coalition shut down the political success of the populist radical right One Nation party in the late 90s by co-opting many of its policies. While One Nation itself suffered, its ideas were transferred into the political mainstream and legitimised, leading to a depressing race to the bottom by the major parties on issues of immigration and asylum seekers in Australia. The result is that Australia now has one of the most punitive asylum detention regimes in the western world – to the extent that Trump, in a leaked conversation with Australia’s prime minister in 2017, admiringly said of the system: “That is a good idea. We should do that too. You are worse than I am.” When you are attracting the praise and adulation of Trump, along with other radical right populists, this does not seem like a great anti-populist victory.
This is the great danger of co-opting populist policies: it is hard to avoid ending up actually doing many of the things that you criticise populists for. In the name of staving off the threat of National Rally in France, the centre-right Republicans party has adopted much of its platform; mandatory assimilation or integration classes have been put in place by several European governments, such as Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany, that otherwise present themselves as active in the fight against populism; and while the leader of the European People’s party in the EU parliament, Manfred Weber, has presented himself as an anti-populist and defender of liberal democracy, he has in reality shielded arch-populist Orbán and his Fidesz party from any serious sanctions for years. The hypocrisy on show here is unavoidable.
The populist temptation is strong for a reason: the elite often deserve their unpopularity and disdain; the media landscape favours populist messaging; and we seem to be pinballing from crisis to crisis. All of this plays into the hands of those who can speak cannily in the name of the people against the elite.
Anti-populism, by contrast, struggles in this context. It is clear that we are not living in times conducive to consensus politics. Rather, it seems that populists and anti-populists alike are driven by a nostalgia for days gone by. Populists seek a simpler imagined time, where jobs were plentiful, national sovereignty was intact and borders were stronger. Anti-populists, too, are stuck in the past, imagining a time of consensus politics, a supposedly sane and rational period where consensus reigned, and representatives worked together to solve political problems for the greater good.
The reality is that we are no longer living in either of these situations. The question is which side will snap out of its daydream first – and in the long term, what the ultimate cost will be if we choose to stay asleep.


theguardian--2020-02-14--Barr says Trump's tweets 'make it impossible for me to do my job' – as it happened

Before the president met with the New York governor , Andrew Cuomo , today , he not only insulted Cuomo ’ s brother – the CNN political analyst Chris Cuomo – he also implied that the administration ’ s policies toward New York were linked to the state ’ s ongoing investigations into Trump ’ s finances .
“ New York must stop all of its unnecessary lawsuits & harassment , start cleaning itself up , and lowering taxes , ” he tweeted , before the meeting .
The administration and New York have been at odds over a state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for drivers licenses .
Federal officials banned New York residents from applying to a federal program that lets travelers avoid long security lines .
Picking up on Trump ’ s ask that New York drop lawsuits , the representative Val Demings , one of the impeachment managers who made the case to remove Trump from office , said the president is “ holding New York state hostage to try to stop investigations into his prior tax fraud ” .
“ The president is now expanding his abuse of power to blackmailing US , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nor Cuomo has commented on whether they reached a resolution after today ’ s meeting .
The acting homeland security secretary , Chad Wolf , described the meeting as “ productive ” .
“ New York is the only state that restricts CBP access to their data across the board – from law enforcement , customs , trade and travel facilitation purposes , ” Wolf said .
“ Despite that , we will continue discussions with the State of New York to find a mutually agreeable solution.
” New York is one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have drivers licenses .
Still , last week , Ken Cuccinelli , the homeland security department acting deputy secretary , said that New Yorkers would no longer be eligible to apply or reapply for the Global Entry program because the state ’ s policies made it harder for border agents to confirm immigration status .
New York responded with a lawsuit against the administration .

Maanvi Singh, Joan E Greve and Paul Owen (earlier)

14 Feb 2020 01.08 GMT Summary Bill Barr , the attorney general, complained that Donald Trump ’s tweets about justice department cases “make it impossible for me to do my job” and said he would not be “bullied” into doing the president’s bidding. The White House responded that Trump “wasn’t bothered” by Barr’s comments.
, the attorney general, complained that ’s tweets about justice department cases “make it impossible for me to do my job” and said he would not be “bullied” into doing the president’s bidding. The White House responded that Trump “wasn’t bothered” by Barr’s comments. Critics have questioned Barr’s sincerity, given his record going along with what the president wants.
A f ederal judge dismissed Trump’s criticisms of the court’s handling of the Roger Stone case, issuing a rare statement to say, “The judges of this court base their sentencing decisions on careful consideration of the actual record in the case before them” and not based on “public criticism or pressure”.
dismissed Trump’s criticisms of the court’s handling of the case, issuing a rare statement to say, “The judges of this court base their sentencing decisions on careful consideration of the actual record in the case before them” and not based on “public criticism or pressure”. The Democratic National Committee had oversight of the faulty app used in the Iowa caucuses, according to a report.
had oversight of the faulty app used in the Iowa caucuses, according to a report. Nevada’s influential Culinary Union declined to endorse a candidate ahead of the caucuses next week. The union has criticized Bernie Sanders ’ health plan and complained of “vicious attacks” from Sanders’ supporters.
declined to endorse a candidate ahead of the caucuses next week. The union has criticized ’ health plan and complained of “vicious attacks” from Sanders’ supporters. Elizabeth Warren’s campaign is carrying on after placing third in Iowa and fourth in New Hampshire. Roger Stone case: chief justice urged to step in as Trump's 'abuse of power' condemned Read more
Updated at 01.10 GMT
14 Feb 2020 00.33 GMT
Donald Trump will be the guest of honor at a fundraiser where donors are paying $580,600 per couple to attend. The Washington Post reports that the dinner on Saturday will take place at the Palm Beach estate of billionaire Nelson Peltz: The dinner, taking place just a few miles from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club, shows how enthusiastically Trump has embraced big-dollar fundraising in his bid for a second term — a dramatic about-face from 2016, when he criticized the influence of wealthy donors on the politicians who court them. It also shows the special access enjoyed by many of Trump’s wealthiest donors, including business executives and lobbyists, who get the chance to air their grievances with the president’s tariffs or promote their pet projects, often while dining on Trump’s favorite foods. The event will be the most expensive fundraising event for Trump since he took office.
14 Feb 2020 00.05 GMT A federal judge dismissed Donald Trump’s criticisms of the Roger Stone case. “Public criticism or pressure is not a factor” in the court’s decisions, said Beryl Howell, the chief US district judge of Washington.
Howell issued a rare statement in response to Trump’s criticisms of her colleague Amy Berman Jackson, the sentencing judge in the Roger Stone case. “The Judges of this Court base their sentencing decisions on careful consideration of the actual record in the case before them; the applicable sentencing guidelines and statutory factors; the submissions of the parties, the Probation Office and victims; and their own judgment and experience,” she said.
13 Feb 2020 23.41 GMT Report: the Democratic National Committee had oversight of app that caused chaos in Iowa The DNC was involved throughout the development of the mobile app that was meant to collect and tally results of the Iowa caucuses, according to Yahoo News. Party officials had access to the software – designed by Shadow – for testing before it was used Iowa, according to a contract obtained by Yahoo: An unaffiliated Democratic operative in Iowa provided Yahoo News with a copy of the contract between Shadow and the Iowa Democratic Party. The contract, which was signed on Oct. 14 and refers to Shadow as the “Consultant,” specified that the company had to work with the DNC and provide the national party with access to its software for testing. “Consultant agrees to work with the DNC Services Corporation / Democratic National Committee (‘DNC’) on an on-going basis as Consultant develops the software,” the contract reads. The contract also specifies that Shadow agrees to “provide DNC continual access to review the Consultant’s system configurations, security and system logs, system designs, data flow designs, security controls (preventative and detective), and operational plans for how the Consultant will use and run the Software for informational dissemination, pre-registration, tabulation, and reporting throughout the caucus process.” The DNC has tried to distance itself from the debacle in Iowa; chair Tom Perez has blamed state Democratic party, which directly oversaw the caucuses. After this election cycle, the party will “have a further conversation about whether or not state parties should be running elections”, Perez said in an interview with CNN. In his resignation letter, the Iowa Democratic party chair, Troy Price, said, “I am deeply sorry for what happened and bear the responsibility for any failures on behalf of the Iowa Democratic party.” Following the app’s failure in Iowa, the DNC abandoned plans to use a similar system from Shadow in the upcoming Nevada caucuses.
Updated at 01.03 GMT
13 Feb 2020 23.24 GMT On Fox News, Senate leader Mitch McConnell said the president should listen to attorney general Bill Barr. “I think the president should listen to his advice,” McConnell told Fox News host Bret Baier. “If the attorney general says it’s getting in the way of doing his job, the president should listen to the attorney general.”
13 Feb 2020 23.10 GMT Donald Trump “wasn’t bothered” by the attorney general Bill Barr’s comments, according to the White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham. “President Trump uses social media very effectively to fight for the American people against injustices in our country.” NEW: White House press sec. Stephanie Grisham says President Trump "wasn’t bothered" by Attorney General Bill Barr's comments to @ABC News. https://t.co/crNbWi6YpG pic.twitter.com/eK4dd9BdZ0 — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) February 13, 2020 In an interview with ABC, Barr said “the president has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case” but added that the president’s tweets about the Roger Stone case and the Department of Justice’s work “make it impossible for me to do my job”.
Updated at 23.24 GMT
13 Feb 2020 22.51 GMT Before the president met with the New York governor, Andrew Cuomo, today, he not only insulted Cuomo’s brother – the CNN political analyst Chris Cuomo – he also implied that the administration’s policies toward New York were linked to the state’s ongoing investigations into Trump’s finances. “New York must stop all of its unnecessary lawsuits & harassment, start cleaning itself up, and lowering taxes,” he tweeted, before the meeting. The administration and New York have been at odds over a state law that allows undocumented people to apply for drivers licenses. Federal officials banned New York residents from applying to a federal program that lets travelers avoid long security lines. Picking up on Trump’s ask that New York drop lawsuits, the representative Val Demings, one of the impeachment managers who made the case to remove Trump from office, said the president is “holding New York state hostage to try to stop investigations into his prior tax fraud”. “The president is now expanding his abuse of power to blackmailing US,” she said.
Neither the president nor Cuomo has commented on whether they reached a resolution after today’s meeting. The acting homeland security secretary, Chad Wolf, described the meeting as “productive”. “New York is the only state that restricts CBP access to their data across the board – from law enforcement, customs, trade and travel facilitation purposes,” Wolf said. “Despite that, we will continue discussions with the State of New York to find a mutually agreeable solution.” New York is one of several states that allow undocumented immigrants to have drivers licenses. Still, last week, Ken Cuccinelli, the homeland security department acting deputy secretary, said that New Yorkers would no longer be eligible to apply or reapply for the Global Entry program because the state’s policies made it harder for border agents to confirm immigration status. New York responded with a lawsuit against the administration.
Updated at 23.24 GMT
13 Feb 2020 22.24 GMT Vindman attorney: the president is ‘encouraging breaking the law’ The president claimed that “many of the people in the building started applauding” when Lt Col Alexander Vindman was escorted out after he was fired from his post at the National Security Council. Vindman and his twin brother were abruptly recalled from their positions in a campaign of retribution against officials who cooperated with the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump.
“Vindman was the guy that, when we took him out of the building, the building applauded,” Trump said in a radio interview with host Geraldo Rivera. “I don’t know if you heard that.”
“Just so you understand, many of these people I’ve never met,” Trump added. “But I’m not a fan of Vindman, no question about it.” JUST IN: Vindman’s attorney is out with a statement on Trump’s Geraldo interview. He says the president is “encouraging breaking the law” by attempting to intimidate and punish Vindman. pic.twitter.com/VsZXnW1L5J — Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 13, 2020 In response, an attorney for Vindman responded that the president’s public attacks are “designed to intimidate and punish” the Ukraine expert, who provided key testimony in the impeachment case.
“By using the power of his office to repeatedly humiliate and punish those following the law, the president is encouraging breaking the law,” said attorney David Pressman.
Updated at 22.29 GMT
13 Feb 2020 22.00 GMT Evening summary That’s it from me today. My west coast colleague, Maanvi Singh, will take over the blog for the next few hours. Here’s where the day stands: Attorney general Bill Barr said he would not be “bullied” into allowing the president to influence justice department decisions after Trump tweeted about the case of his former associate, Roger Stone. Barr complained that Trump’s tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job”.
said he would not be “bullied” into allowing the president to influence justice department decisions after tweeted about the case of his former associate, Barr complained that Trump’s tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job”. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi , said Trump’s comments on Stone represented “an abuse of power”.
, said Trump’s comments on Stone represented “an abuse of power”. The Senate passed a resolution aimed at limiting Trump’s authority to launch military operations in Iran, but the proposal seems unlikely to survive the president’s expected veto.
A judge has temporarily halted Microsoft’s cloud-computing work for the Pentagon in response to a lawsuit from Amazon, which claims the company lost the contract partly because of Trump’s bias against Jeff Bezos.
The Pentagon informed Congress it intends to shift $3.8bn in funds away from projects like fighter jets and national guard equipment to pay for Trump’s border wall. Maanvi will have more coming up, so stay tuned.
Updated at 22.32 GMT
13 Feb 2020 21.50 GMT Nevada's influential Culinary Union declines to endorse presidential candidate The Culinary Union, which represents 60,000 workers in Nevada, declined to endorse a Democratic presidential candidate ahead of the state’s caucuses next Saturday. “We’ve worked really hard to make sure members know what’s going on with the candidates, and we’re not stopping that,” the union secretary-treasurer Geoconda Argüello-Kline said during a press conference. “We’re going to endorse our goals, what we’re doing. We’re not going to endorse a political candidate.” There was some speculation that the union would endorse Joe Biden, the only specific candidate Argüello-Kline mentioned during the press conference. But although she described Biden as “our friend”, the union did not offer an explicit endorsement. The announcement comes after the union distributed a flier criticizing the Medicare-for-all plans embraced by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The union later said it was subjected to “vicious attacks” by Sanders’ supporters over the flier.
More details: @Culinary226’s spokeswoman tells me they have received “hundreds” of attacks, in the form of mentions, DM’s, calls and emails, including threats to their personal safety. She says she and Geoconda Arguello-Kline have been doxxed, their personal addresses shared. — Megan Messerly (@meganmesserly) February 13, 2020
Updated at 22.30 GMT
13 Feb 2020 21.29 GMT The White House reportedly received little notice about attorney general Bill Barr’s comments to ABC News. Senior level White House sources tell @ABC the president and top aides were unaware of the Barr’s intentions in today’s interview with ABC and were only informed of the content just before it aired - w/ @KFaulders — John Santucci (@Santucci) February 13, 2020
13 Feb 2020 21.27 GMT Interestingly, Bill Barr said he hoped Trump would respond to the attorney general’s criticism of the president’s comments on Roger Stone. “I hope he will react,” Barr told ABC News’ Pierre Thomas. “And respect it?” Thomas asked. “Yes,” Barr replied.
13 Feb 2020 21.21 GMT Despite attorney general Bill Barr insisting he will not be “bullied” by Trump on Justice Department matters, some commentators were skeptical that Barr was actually trying to distance himself from the president. From an Obama-era Justice Department official: Don't be fooled by this one, people. Barr is telling the president that his impulsiveness is making it politically harder for him to deliver the results he wants. If Trump would just shut up, Barr could take care of him much more effectively. https://t.co/6CmHHgxy9u — Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) February 13, 2020
13 Feb 2020 21.16 GMT In his ABC interview, attorney general Bill Barr ackowledged his comments about Trump could leave him open to backlash from the president, who is notoriously intolerant of criticism from his aides. But Barr said he was determined to lead the Justice Department without being influence by outside forces, including the president. EXCLUSIVE: Attorney Gen. Bill Barr tells @PierreTABC “the president has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case”—but should stop tweeting about the DOJ because his tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job.” https://t.co/YGa2AhcH5v pic.twitter.com/GSRRrJadSU — ABC News (@ABC) February 13, 2020 “I think the essential role of the attorney general is to keep law enforcement, the criminal process sacrosanct to make sure there is no political interference in it. And I have done that and I will continue to do that,” Barr said. “And I’m happy to say that, in fact the president has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.” The attorney general insisted he made his own decision that the sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone, the president’s former associate, should be revised, but Trump’s tweets on the matter complicated the issue. “Do you go forward with what you think is the right decision or do you pull back because of the tweet?” Barr said. “And that just sort of illustrates how disruptive these tweets can be.”
13 Feb 2020 21.05 GMT Barr: Trump's tweets 'make it impossible for me to do my job' In an interview with ABC News, attorney general Bill Barr said Trump’s tweets about Roger Stone’s case “make it impossible for me to do my job.” “I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases,” Barr told ABC. The attorney general emphasized Trump “has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case,” but he acknowledged the president’s comments undercut his authority. “I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody ... whether it’s Congress, a newspaper editorial board, or the president,” Barr said. “I’m gonna do what I think is right. And you know … I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me.”
13 Feb 2020 20.51 GMT Trump suggested he may stop allowing aides to listen in to his calls with foreign leaders, a clear reaction to the Ukraine controversy. “That’s what they’ve done over the years, when you call a foreign leader, people listen,” the president told Geraldo Rivera in a radio interview that aired today. “I may end the practice entirely, I may end it entirely.” The impeachment inquiry was sparked by a whistleblower complaint stemming from Trump’s July phone call with the Ukrainian president, during which the US president asked for a “favor” and went on to discuss potential investigations of Democrats. It’s a long-running practice to allow administration officials to listen in on presidential calls with world leaders to keep senior advisers updated on foreign policy.
13 Feb 2020 20.29 GMT Pentagon intends to shift $3.8 billion for Trump's border wall The Pentagon has informed Congress of plans to shift $3.8 billion away from fighter jets and National Guard equipment, among other resources, to pay for Trump’s border wall. Politico reports: The surprise reprogramming of another $3.8 billion ... means the Pentagon will have forked over nearly $10 billion since last year to help pay for President Donald Trump’s border wall. But this shift in funding marks a new phase for the administration, which until now had used money set for military construction and counterdrug operations, not combat equipment. The fiscal 2020 money will be moved into drug interdiction accounts that the Pentagon tapped last year to fund border barrier projects. The money will be drawn from a host of procurement accounts, many of which are popular on Capitol Hill. The move includes a cut of two Marine Corps F-35B fighter jets at a cost of $223 million; $100 million from the Army National Guard’s Humvee modernization program; $650 million cut from the Navy’s amphibious assault ship replacement; and $261 million from the Expeditionary Fast Transport ship. The reprogramming also trimmed two Air Force C-130J transport aircraft for a cut of $196 million and $180 million from the service’s light attack aircraft program. The plan sparked criticism from at least one Republican lawmaker, congressman Mac Thornberry, but he has already said he will not seek reelection next year. Representative Mac Thornberry of Texas, the top Republican on House Armed Services Committee, says President Trump's latest raid on DOD funds to spend more taxpayer money on a Mexico border wall than Congress was willing to appropriate is unconstitutional. pic.twitter.com/JiorGw1LKt — Charlie Savage (@charlie_savage) February 13, 2020


theguardian--2020-02-14--William Barr says Trump's tweets 'make it impossible to do my job'

The US attorney general , William Barr , publicly rebuked Donald Trump on Thursday , saying that the president ’ s tweets about the case of Roger Stone “ make it impossible for me to do my job ” and that he would not be “ bullied or influenced ” over justice department decisions .
In an interview with ABC News , the attorney general acknowledged his comments could leave him open to backlash from the president , who is notoriously intolerant of criticism from his aides .
But Barr said he was determined to lead the justice department without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president .
“ I think it ’ s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases , ” Barr told ABC .
The attorney general emphasized Trump “ has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case ” , but he acknowledged the president ’ s comments undercut his authority .
Despite Barr insisting he will not be “ bullied ” by Trump on justice department matters , some commentators were skeptical that Barr was actually trying to distance himself from the president .
An Obama-era justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter : “ Don ’ t be fooled by this one , people .
Barr is telling the president that his impulsiveness is making it politically harder for him to deliver the results he wants .
If Trump would just shut up , Barr could take care of him much more effectively.
” “ The best indicator of future performance is past performance , ” wrote the US congresswoman Val Demings , of Florida .
“ Attorney General Barr ’ s past performance was to mislead the American people ( about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up wrongdoing by the president .
Why shouldn ’ t we believe that ’ s exactly what he ’ s doing now ?
” In his interview with ABC , Barr added that public statements and tweets about the department and its pending cases “ make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we ’ re doing our work with integrity ” .
He added : “ I ’ m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody ... @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newspaper editorial board , or the president .
I ’ m gon na do what I think is right .
And you know … I can not do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me.
” The White House press secretary , Stephanie Grisham , responded by saying the president “ wasn ’ t bothered ” by Barr ’ s comments : “ [ Barr ] has the right , just like any American citizen , to publicly offer his opinions .
President Trump uses social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American people against injustices in our country.
” The attorney general ’ s remarkable rebuke comes amid an intensifying fallout over the Stone case , after the justice department overruled its own prosecutors who had recommended that Stone , a longtime Trump ally and confidant , be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison .
The four prosecutors on the case subsequently resigned in protest .
The department has insisted the decision to undo the sentencing recommendation was made on Monday night before Trump ’ s tweet calling the recommended sentence “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a Trump loyalist , is also under fire for the reversal , which has drawn fierce condemnation from former justice department figures and leading Democrats who have warned of an “ abuse of power ” .
The Senate majority leader , Mitch McConnell , speaking on Fox News , said the president should heed Barr ’ s advice .
“ I think the president should listen , ” McConnell told the host Bret Baier .
“ If the attorney general says it ’ s getting in the way of doing his job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney general.
” Barr is not the only high-profile figure to have criticized Trump this week .
On Wednesday , the former White House chief of staff John Kelly spoke out against the treatment of the fired impeachment inquiry witness Alexander Vindman .
Stone was convicted in November of tampering with a witness and obstructing the House investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia during the 2016 election .
He is scheduled to be sentenced next week .

The US attorney general, William Barr, delivered a remarkable public rebuke of Donald Trump on Thursday, saying that the president’s tweets about the Roger Stone case “make it impossible for me to do my job” and that he would not be “bullied or influenced” over justice department decisions.
In an interview with ABC News, the attorney general acknowledged his comments could leave him open to backlash from the president, who is notoriously intolerant of criticism from his aides. But Barr said he was determined to lead the justice department without being influence by outside forces, including the president.
“I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases,” Barr said.
Ignoring Barr’s criticisms, Trump tweeted on Friday morning, denying that he had attempted to interfere in the case but claiming he could have if he wanted to: “‘The President has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.’ A.G. Barr [–] This doesn’t mean that I do not have, as President, the legal right to do so, I do, but I have so far chosen not to!”
Barr’s interview came as he faces fierce criticism from Democrats over his intervention in the case of Roger Stone, a longtime confidant of Trump who was convicted in November. Barr this week overruled prosecutors who had recommended that Stone be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison.
The move prompted a crisis of credibility for the US justice system, as top lawyers warned it could undermine the integrity of federal prosecutors, politicize the legal handling of Trump’s friends and enemies, and ultimately threaten democracy itself.
The sense of crisis at the justice department continued to build through Friday, as multiple news outlets reported that Barr has appointed an outside prosecutor to look at the criminal case against Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Last month, Flynn asked a judge to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea to charges he lied to the FBI during the Robert Mueller investigation into Russian election collusion, accusing prosecutors of “bad faith, vindictiveness, and breach of the plea agreement”.
Flynn’s petition was denied this week.
According to NBC News, justice department officials have already intervened to help change Flynn’s sentencing recommendations from a six-month sentence to probation.
But the appointment of outside prosecutors to examine cases normally handled by justice department career staff – in Flynn’s case reportedly US attorney for St Louis, Jeff Jensen – points to a broader breakdown of normal procedure. The New York Times, which first reported the Flynn development, said that over the past two weeks outside prosecutors have begun grilling Washington-based prosecutors over a number of cases.
The move corresponds with another Barr decision to allow outside prosecutors to consider material sourced by Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, on what Trump and his lawyer have claimed points to corrupt activities concerning Joe Biden and his family in Ukraine.
The justice department also announced Friday that former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe would not be charged over lying to investigators about a media disclosure.
McCabe, who had approved the investigation into alleged links between the 2015 Trump election campaign and Russia-linked operatives, leading to Mueller’s investigation and report, has long been accused of playing partisan politics by the president, who also repeatedly called for McCabe’s prosecution.
In his interview with ABC, Barr emphasized that Trump “never asked me to do anything in a criminal case”, but he acknowledged the president’s comments undercut his authority.
Despite Barr insisting he will not be “bullied” by Trump on justice department matters, some commentators were skeptical that Barr was actually trying to distance himself from the president or was working to protect the justice department from interference.
“I don’t think he’s fit for the office because I think what he’s done is undertake a campaign to undermine the Department of Justice,” former deputy attorney general Donald Ayer, told MSNBC.
Ayer, who preceded Barr as deputy attorney general under George HW Bush, added that Barr’s “pattern of conduct” since becoming attorney general involves “intervening out of usual course to protect Donald Trump”.
Former US attorney Preet Bharara tweeted: “I think Bill Barr is shrewd, deliberate, smart, calculating, careful, and full of it.”
An Obama-era justice department official, Matthew Miller, wrote on Twitter: “Don’t be fooled by this one, people. Barr is telling the president that his impulsiveness is making it politically harder for him to deliver the results he wants. If Trump would just shut up, Barr could take care of him much more effectively.”
“The best indicator of future performance is past performance,” wrote the US congresswoman Val Demings, of Florida. “Attorney General Barr’s past performance was to mislead the American people (about the Mueller Report) in order to cover up wrongdoing by the president. Why shouldn’t we believe that’s exactly what he’s doing now?”
In his interview with ABC, Barr added that public statements and tweets about the department and its pending cases “make it impossible for me to do my job and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we’re doing our work with integrity”.
EXCLUSIVE: Attorney General Bill Barr: If the president "were to say ‘go investigate somebody’...and you sense it’s because they’re a political opponent, then an attorney general shouldn’t carry that out, wouldn’t carry that out." https://t.co/lBtFOWpLkC pic.twitter.com/YcJ0GruGeB — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) February 13, 2020
He said: “I’m not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody ... whether it’s Congress, a newspaper editorial board, or the president. I’m gonna do what I think is right. And you know … I cannot do my job here at the department with a constant background commentary that undercuts me.”
The White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, responded by saying the president “wasn’t bothered” by Barr’s comments: “[Barr] has the right, just like any American citizen, to publicly offer his opinions. President Trump uses social media very effectively to fight for the American people against injustices in our country.”
The attorney general’s comments come amid an intensifying fallout over the Stone case, after the justice department overruled its own prosecutors who had recommended that Stone, a longtime Trump ally and confidant, be sentenced to seven to nine years in prison. The four prosecutors on the case subsequently resigned in protest.
The department has insisted the decision to undo the sentencing recommendation was made on Monday night before Trump’s tweet calling the recommended sentence “very horrible and unfair”.
Barr, a Trump loyalist, is also under fire for the reversal, which has drawn fierce condemnation from former justice department figures and leading Democrats who have warned of an “abuse of power”.
The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, speaking on Fox News, said the president should heed Barr’s advice. “I think the president should listen,” McConnell told the host Bret Baier. “If the attorney general says it’s getting in the way of doing his job, the president should listen to the attorney general.”
Barr is not the only high-profile figure to have criticized Trump this week. On Wednesday, the former White House chief of staff John Kelly spoke out against the treatment of the fired impeachment inquiry witness Alexander Vindman.
Stone was convicted in November of tampering with a witness and obstructing the House investigation into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia during the 2016 election. He is scheduled to be sentenced next week.
Agencies contributed reporting


theguardian--2020-02-14--Black Americans are not a monolithic group so stop treating us like one | Rashawn Ray

Donald Trump ’ s 2020 State of the Union speech featured a series of cameo appearances by black Americans .
Similar to his Super Bowl ad , Trump aimed to signal to black people that he cares about education and addiction in inner cities , the military service of black Americans and the plight of returning citizens trying to find work in an economy that is not kind to black people or ex-felons .
Despite some people framing Trump ’ s address as a black exploitation film , particularly by giving out a scholarship to a black child in Philadelphia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , awarding the Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh , and not acknowledging the cancer diagnosis of the civil rights icon and congressman John Lewis , Trump attempted to do what political pundits and voting polls often do not – treat black people as the heterogeneous group that they are who have different experiences and care about a series of important policy issues .
As I ’ ve written before , black Americans vote on par or higher than their state population .
They represent a significant share of Democratic voters , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 60 % ) .
Despite representing this large voting bloc , polls such as Quinnipiac continue to frame black Americans as a monolithic group , while disaggregating white people by age , political identification and education .
I argue it is important to see the heterogeneity of black Americans .
Others agree .
Professor Eddie Glaude Jr said : “ We have to be more nuanced in how we talk about black voters .
I would love to see the breakdown of the Q poll .
Age .
Class .
Etc.
” Rolling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve examined the newest Quinnipiac poll very thoroughly … and unfortunately , it does not break down black voters by age , class , education , or even gender .
Just ‘ Black.
’ White respondents receive more nuanced treatment in the poll.
” This is puzzling considering black people ( 84 % ) report being just as likely as white people to pay a lot or some attention to the 2020 election .
Though black Americans represent only 13.4 % of the population , the more than 40 million of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and political attitudes .
Our votes will be on full display in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday in states with high black populations such as Alabama , Arkansas , North Carolina , Tennessee , Texas , Virginia and California ( particularly in Oakland and the southern part of the state ) .
So , what are the key demographic factors that should be focused on when addressing black American voters ?
First , black Americans comprise many ethnicities and ancestral nationalities .
Immigrants represent roughly 10 % of black people in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identify as black .
Second , geography matters .
Similar to the end of slavery and Jim Crow , black people are concentrated most in the south , mid-Atlantic and select cities such as Chicago , Detroit and New York City .
Third , gender is different for blacks than the general population .
There are nearly 5 % more black women relative to black men , while women outnumber men by about 1.6 % generally .
Fourth , education matters and intersects with gender .
About 25 % of black women who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a graduate or bachelor ’ s degree ( compared with only 18 % of black men ) .
There are important educational differences among cities as well .
While over 30 % of black Americans in some cities have a bachelor ’ s degree or higher ( Washington DC , Austin , Raleigh , Durham and San Francisco ) , other cities have black populations where less than 20 % are college-educated ( Milwaukee , Cleveland , Las Vegas , Charleston , St Louis and Detroit ) .
These differences among black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The most affluent black metropolitan areas , Washington DC and Atlanta , feature some of the highest forms of income inequality .
Furthermore , black people are least concentrated in the highest-growth geographies .
Cities like Baltimore , Detroit and St Louis are expected to continue losing jobs .
It should be no surprise that these cities were part of the Great Migration north as black people searched for better work opportunities outside of the south and fled the potential of lynching .
Hampered by race riots and redlining , these cities have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the largest state employers , universities in these areas need to continue to provide opportunities for the communities they have historically neglected and used as research guinea pigs .
But , all of these areas have historically black colleges that should receive the same investments as the predominantly white universities down the street .
Additionally , racial composition of neighborhoods within cities plays a role in the voting attitudes of black Americans .
Black support for Trump increases as the black population of a neighborhood decreases .
Though some of it may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religiosity , abortion and smaller government , it is often about political attitudes being influenced by the conversations that people have daily , the news channel that is on at work or the gym , and the prominent role that geography plays in social media algorithms .
Trump understands the role that social media played in the 2016 election so he isn ’ t just signaling to whites in suburbia , he is also signaling to blacks .
Trump also touts low unemployment for blacks .
However , unemployment reversed and decreased most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black Americans are mostly concentrated in low-wage jobs that have poor benefits .
Black people represent roughly 16 % of laborers and food service and janitorial staff .
College-educated blacks have the most college debt of any racial group .
This is why Trump rolling back policies that reduce students ’ ability to receive subsidized loans is important to black people .
Despite black Americans having some of the biggest increases in business ownership , they are unable to access economic and social capital to thrive and create jobs .
This is why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key for federal , state and local policymakers .
Black Americans have the ideas , work ethic and resiliency to make businesses successful .
What they need are the same investments and access to capital that white small businesses receive .
Concerns about the racial wealth gap are deeply embedded in the Quinnipiac Poll .
Blacks ( 62 % ) more than any other voting group are most likely to report wanting a candidate that shares their views versus being most electable ( 31 % ) .
More than any other voting group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most likely to report that the economy is poor or not so good , most likely to report being dissatisfied ( 44 % ) with the way things are going for them financially , and most likely to report being financially worse off ( 41 % ) than in 2016 .
In discussions with family members , friends , fraternity members , colleagues and fellow church members , they all have a variety of concerns .
Black Americans ’ linked fate often mutes our ability to selfishly only think about ourselves .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individually-oriented may dictate their political attitudes .
Black Americans are not only concerned with criminal justice reform and voter disenfranchisement , they are worried about some blacks deciding not to vote because they don ’ t have a candidate who speaks to their economic concerns , as I ’ ve written about before .
So maybe instead of engaging in identity politics , church pop-ups and offbeat dances , political candidates should focus on speaking to the real policy concerns of all Black Americans instead of a so-called ideal type .
I definitely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who want equitable education , high-quality jobs with healthcare benefits , and neighborhood infrastructure won ’ t work .
But , if you are going to view blacks as a monolith , then deal with the Goliath that links us – structural racism .
• None Rashawn Ray is a David M Rubenstein fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution , an associate professor of sociology at the University of Maryland , and executive director of the Lab for Applied Social Science Research

Donald Trump’s 2020 State of the Union speech featured a series of cameo appearances by black Americans. Similar to his Super Bowl ad, Trump aimed to signal to black people that he cares about education and addiction in inner cities, the military service of black Americans and the plight of returning citizens trying to find work in an economy that is not kind to black people or ex-felons. Despite some people framing Trump’s address as a black exploitation film, particularly by giving out a scholarship to a black child in Philadelphia who already attends a high-quality charter school, awarding the Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh, and not acknowledging the cancer diagnosis of the civil rights icon and congressman John Lewis, Trump attempted to do what political pundits and voting polls often do not – treat black people as the heterogeneous group that they are who have different experiences and care about a series of important policy issues.
As I’ve written before, black Americans vote on par or higher than their state population. They represent a significant share of Democratic voters, especially in states like South Carolina (nearly 60%). Despite representing this large voting bloc, polls such as Quinnipiac continue to frame black Americans as a monolithic group, while disaggregating white people by age, political identification and education.
I argue it is important to see the heterogeneity of black Americans. Others agree. Professor Eddie Glaude Jr said: “We have to be more nuanced in how we talk about black voters. I would love to see the breakdown of the Q poll. Age. Class. Etc.” Rolling Stone writer Jamil Smith said, “I’ve examined the newest Quinnipiac poll very thoroughly … and unfortunately, it does not break down black voters by age, class, education, or even gender. Just ‘Black.’ White respondents receive more nuanced treatment in the poll.” This is puzzling considering black people (84%) report being just as likely as white people to pay a lot or some attention to the 2020 election.
Though black Americans represent only 13.4% of the population, the more than 40 million of us represent a diverse array of backgrounds and political attitudes. Our votes will be on full display in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday in states with high black populations such as Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and California (particularly in Oakland and the southern part of the state).
Immigrants represent roughly 10% of black people in the US and a substantial percentage of Latinos identify as black
So, what are the key demographic factors that should be focused on when addressing black American voters?
First, black Americans comprise many ethnicities and ancestral nationalities. Immigrants represent roughly 10% of black people in the US and a substantial percentage of Latinos identify as black. Second, geography matters. Similar to the end of slavery and Jim Crow, black people are concentrated most in the south, mid-Atlantic and select cities such as Chicago, Detroit and New York City.
Third, gender is different for blacks than the general population. There are nearly 5% more black women relative to black men, while women outnumber men by about 1.6% generally. Fourth, education matters and intersects with gender. About 25% of black women who are 25 years of age or older have a graduate or bachelor’s degree (compared with only 18% of black men). There are important educational differences among cities as well. While over 30% of black Americans in some cities have a bachelor’s degree or higher (Washington DC, Austin, Raleigh, Durham and San Francisco), other cities have black populations where less than 20% are college-educated (Milwaukee, Cleveland, Las Vegas, Charleston, St Louis and Detroit).
These differences among black Americans manifest within and across cities. The most affluent black metropolitan areas, Washington DC and Atlanta, feature some of the highest forms of income inequality. Furthermore, black people are least concentrated in the highest-growth geographies. Cities like Baltimore, Detroit and St Louis are expected to continue losing jobs. It should be no surprise that these cities were part of the Great Migration north as black people searched for better work opportunities outside of the south and fled the potential of lynching. Hampered by race riots and redlining, these cities have struggled to attract commerce. As some of the largest state employers, universities in these areas need to continue to provide opportunities for the communities they have historically neglected and used as research guinea pigs. But, all of these areas have historically black colleges that should receive the same investments as the predominantly white universities down the street.
Trump understands the role that social media played in the 2016 election so he isn’t just signaling to whites in suburbia, he is also signaling to blacks
Additionally, racial composition of neighborhoods within cities plays a role in the voting attitudes of black Americans. Black support for Trump increases as the black population of a neighborhood decreases. Though some of it may be about choice related to views about religiosity, abortion and smaller government, it is often about political attitudes being influenced by the conversations that people have daily, the news channel that is on at work or the gym, and the prominent role that geography plays in social media algorithms. Trump understands the role that social media played in the 2016 election so he isn’t just signaling to whites in suburbia, he is also signaling to blacks.
Trump also touts low unemployment for blacks. However, unemployment reversed and decreased most dramatically under President Obama. Nonetheless, black Americans are mostly concentrated in low-wage jobs that have poor benefits. Black people represent roughly 16% of laborers and food service and janitorial staff. College-educated blacks have the most college debt of any racial group. This is why Trump rolling back policies that reduce students’ ability to receive subsidized loans is important to black people.
Despite black Americans having some of the biggest increases in business ownership, they are unable to access economic and social capital to thrive and create jobs. This is why investment in black small businesses is so key for federal, state and local policymakers. Black Americans have the ideas, work ethic and resiliency to make businesses successful. What they need are the same investments and access to capital that white small businesses receive.
Concerns about the racial wealth gap are deeply embedded in the Quinnipiac Poll. Blacks (62%) more than any other voting group are most likely to report wanting a candidate that shares their views versus being most electable (31%). More than any other voting group, blacks (63%) are most likely to report that the economy is poor or not so good, most likely to report being dissatisfied (44%) with the way things are going for them financially, and most likely to report being financially worse off (41%) than in 2016.
In discussions with family members, friends, fraternity members, colleagues and fellow church members, they all have a variety of concerns. Black Americans’ linked fate often mutes our ability to selfishly only think about ourselves. However, whether blacks are more community-oriented or individually-oriented may dictate their political attitudes. Black Americans are not only concerned with criminal justice reform and voter disenfranchisement, they are worried about some blacks deciding not to vote because they don’t have a candidate who speaks to their economic concerns, as I’ve written about before.
So maybe instead of engaging in identity politics, church pop-ups and offbeat dances, political candidates should focus on speaking to the real policy concerns of all Black Americans instead of a so-called ideal type. I definitely know that handing out cash to black people who want equitable education, high-quality jobs with healthcare benefits, and neighborhood infrastructure won’t work. But, if you are going to view blacks as a monolith, then deal with the Goliath that links us – structural racism.