washingtonmonthly--2020-07-03--The Colleges That Can Spur America’s COVID-19 Recovery

In Washington , D.C. , debates around higher education tend to focus on the Harvards and Yales of the world , forgetting that elite schools don ’ t represent the kind of institutions that most students attend .
Too often absent from these conversations are higher education ’ s true workhorses : so-called “ regional ” public universities .
While the Department of Education offers no official definition of these institutions , they basically occupy the middle space between community colleges and flagship major research universities .
One analysis by Inside Higher Education tallies more than 500 schools nationwide that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are open-access or less selective in their admissions policies and lack the prestige of their more elite counterparts , but they fulfill an essential role in helping millions of Americans advance their lives and careers .
These schools – think Eastern Michigan University versus the University of Michigan—confer nearly 40 percent of all bachelor ’ s degrees in America each year and as many as one-fifth of degrees overall .
They are particularly important in providing higher education access to minority students—and they play an enormous role in supporting their local economies .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to survive .
Even before the pandemic , many regional public universities were facing stark financial challenges , the result of years of declining enrollments and state funding .
But if these schools pull through this period , they could be pivotal to a robust and equitable post-pandemic recovery , as a new Brookings Institution report finds .
A case study of regional public colleges in the Great Lakes region , the study highlights three significant ways that these schools could bolster a post-COVID-19 recovery more broadly .
First , regional public universities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ towns or cities where they ’ re located , providing any number of well-paying jobs ( often as the town ’ s biggest employer ) .
They also often spur regional economic development through research and development activities and partner with local employers to help commercialize new technologies or share best practices .
In past downturns , according to Brookings , this support has cushioned localities from the severest impacts of the crisis .
In the Great Lakes region , for instance , communities with a public four-year school lost fewer jobs during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , study authors Rob Maxim and Mark Muro found .
Second , these universities ’ close ties with their communities means they can be responsive to local employers ’ needs for skilled workers .
One of the biggest challenges currently facing the higher ed community is the frequent mismatch between the skills employers want and the ones newly minted graduates have cultivated .
But Brookings found that in the Great Lakes , the most common majors among regional schools were business , health , and education , indicating that graduates are likely filling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nursing .
Dan Hurley , CEO of the Michigan Association of State Universities , said this function of filling local workforce gaps is bound to become more important as the economy shifts after COVID-19 subsides .
“ Michigan already has an exceptionally high proportion of adults that have some college and no degree and now we have pandemic-induced unemployment and under employment , ” he saidin an interview .
“ These populations are poised to re-enter higher education either for upskilling or to earn longer-term credentials .
There ’ s huge pent up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institutions offer broad access to higher education , which can make them potent engines for achieving greater educational equity and economic inclusion .
Of course , no school is perfect , but these regional public universities have a significantly better track record than elite schools in enrolling and graduating minority and low-income students .
In the Great Lakes region , as many as 71 percent of Black students enrolled in a public university attend a regional public institution , as do nearly three quarters of Native American students , 59 percent of Latinx @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identify as two or more races , researchers Maxim and Muro found .
These schools also award a greater share of bachelor ’ s degrees to Black students , compared to flagships and major research universities ( “ R-1 ” institutions ) .
In terms of absolute numbers , they grant more than twice as many bachelor ’ s degrees to Black students as their elite counterparts .
“ Regional public universities help close racial attendance gaps , ” Maxim and Muro conclude .
Research by Raj Chetty and his colleagues at Opportunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are also among the most successful in recruiting and graduating low-income students .
Among the schools Chetty cites as best facilitating economic mobility are institutions like the State University of New York at Stony Brook and many campuses of the City University of New York .
( This dedication to equity is also one reason why so many regional schools populate the top rankings of Washington Monthly ’ s College Guide . )
By comparison , Chetty finds that state flagship schools and elite colleges largely remain preserves of the rich , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nor have these top-tier schools become more racially inclusive .
A 2017 New York Times analysis found that Black and Hispanic students are actually more underrepresented at top colleges today than they were 35 years ago .
Black students make up just 6 percent of the freshman class at elite schools—a share that hasn ’ t changed since 1980—though their share of the college-age population has grown to 15 percent .
While regional public universities have been doing great work for decades—for both their students and their communities—they may not be doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t endure through the pandemic .
The vast majority of these schools do not have the cushion of fat endowments .
Instead , they rely on student tuitions and state appropriations to keep their doors open .
While state funding was declining even before the coronavirus outbreak , higher education spending now faces much deeper cuts .
“ It ’ s a pretty tough period right now , ” said Maxim .
“ States are seeing double digit revenue declines , and unfortunately higher education tends to be a balance wheel for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools had just gotten to 2007 pre-crisis funding levels , and we ’ re looking at potentially slashing appropriations again .
Moreover , many schools will face steep drops in enrollments as students rethink their fall plans—meaning more revenue losses on top of state budget cuts .
While some analyses find that more college-going students are now opting for in-state schools closer to home , it ’ s flagships and major research universities that are benefiting from the shift .
In Michigan , for instance , Hurley said that Michigan State University is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever , while enrollment is likewise reportedly increasing at the University of Michigan .
“ State flagships have global brand pull , ” Hurley said .
At the same time , students more likely to head off to regional schools are now less able to afford it , even despite tuition freezes and other measures by schools to stave off enrollment declines .
While it ’ s still too soon to tell what impacts the pandemic will have on college enrollment and attendance this fall , regional public universities could suffer enormous economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the students and communities that rely on them—especially low-income and minority students , for whom regional schools might be the only lifeline to greater opportunity .
“ If there ’ s anything that ’ s been laid bare by the past few weeks , it ’ s systemic racism and the continuing inequality of access that people of color have in the U.S. , ” said Maxim of Brookings .
“ If these schools are defunded , it ’ s only going to deepen those inequalities.
” Given the vital role that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to play , the nation can ’ t afford to let these institutions become yet another casualty of the pandemic .

In Washington, D.C., debates around higher education tend to focus on the Harvards and Yales of the world, forgetting that elite schools don’t represent the kind of institutions that most students attend. Too often absent from these conversations are higher education’s true workhorses: so-called “regional” public universities.
While the Department of Education offers no official definition of these institutions, they basically occupy the middle space between community colleges and flagship major research universities. One analysis by Inside Higher Education tallies more than 500 schools nationwide that fit this category. Generally, they are open-access or less selective in their admissions policies and lack the prestige of their more elite counterparts, but they fulfill an essential role in helping millions of Americans advance their lives and careers.
These schools – think Eastern Michigan University versus the University of Michigan—confer nearly 40 percent of all bachelor’s degrees in America each year and as many as one-fifth of degrees overall. They are particularly important in providing higher education access to minority students—and they play an enormous role in supporting their local economies. The problem: They are also struggling to survive. Even before the pandemic, many regional public universities were facing stark financial challenges, the result of years of declining enrollments and state funding.
But if these schools pull through this period, they could be pivotal to a robust and equitable post-pandemic recovery, as a new Brookings Institution report finds. A case study of regional public colleges in the Great Lakes region, the study highlights three significant ways that these schools could bolster a post-COVID-19 recovery more broadly.
First, regional public universities are typically the economic anchor of the towns or cities where they’re located, providing any number of well-paying jobs (often as the town’s biggest employer). They also often spur regional economic development through research and development activities and partner with local employers to help commercialize new technologies or share best practices. In past downturns, according to Brookings, this support has cushioned localities from the severest impacts of the crisis. In the Great Lakes region, for instance, communities with a public four-year school lost fewer jobs during the Great Recession and recovered more quickly, study authors Rob Maxim and Mark Muro found.
Second, these universities’ close ties with their communities means they can be responsive to local employers’ needs for skilled workers. One of the biggest challenges currently facing the higher ed community is the frequent mismatch between the skills employers want and the ones newly minted graduates have cultivated. But Brookings found that in the Great Lakes, the most common majors among regional schools were business, health, and education, indicating that graduates are likely filling high-demand local jobs, such as in nursing.
Dan Hurley, CEO of the Michigan Association of State Universities, said this function of filling local workforce gaps is bound to become more important as the economy shifts after COVID-19 subsides. “Michigan already has an exceptionally high proportion of adults that have some college and no degree and now we have pandemic-induced unemployment and under employment,” he saidin an interview. “These populations are poised to re-enter higher education either for upskilling or to earn longer-term credentials. There’s huge pent up demand there.”
Third, regional public institutions offer broad access to higher education, which can make them potent engines for achieving greater educational equity and economic inclusion. Of course, no school is perfect, but these regional public universities have a significantly better track record than elite schools in enrolling and graduating minority and low-income students.
In the Great Lakes region, as many as 71 percent of Black students enrolled in a public university attend a regional public institution, as do nearly three quarters of Native American students, 59 percent of Latinx students and 61 percent of students who identify as two or more races, researchers Maxim and Muro found.
These schools also award a greater share of bachelor’s degrees to Black students, compared to flagships and major research universities (“R-1” institutions). In terms of absolute numbers, they grant more than twice as many bachelor’s degrees to Black students as their elite counterparts. “Regional public universities help close racial attendance gaps,” Maxim and Muro conclude.
Research by Raj Chetty and his colleagues at Opportunity Insights likewise finds that regional public colleges are also among the most successful in recruiting and graduating low-income students. Among the schools Chetty cites as best facilitating economic mobility are institutions like the State University of New York at Stony Brook and many campuses of the City University of New York. (This dedication to equity is also one reason why so many regional schools populate the top rankings of Washington Monthly’s College Guide.)
By comparison, Chetty finds that state flagship schools and elite colleges largely remain preserves of the rich, with no gains in low-income students’ enrollment. Nor have these top-tier schools become more racially inclusive. A 2017 New York Times analysis found that Black and Hispanic students are actually more underrepresented at top colleges today than they were 35 years ago. Black students make up just 6 percent of the freshman class at elite schools—a share that hasn’t changed since 1980—though their share of the college-age population has grown to 15 percent.
While regional public universities have been doing great work for decades—for both their students and their communities—they may not be doing any work pretty soon if they don’t endure through the pandemic.
The vast majority of these schools do not have the cushion of fat endowments. Instead, they rely on student tuitions and state appropriations to keep their doors open. While state funding was declining even before the coronavirus outbreak, higher education spending now faces much deeper cuts. “It’s a pretty tough period right now,” said Maxim. “States are seeing double digit revenue declines, and unfortunately higher education tends to be a balance wheel for state budgets. A lot of these schools had just gotten to 2007 pre-crisis funding levels, and we’re looking at potentially slashing appropriations again.
Moreover, many schools will face steep drops in enrollments as students rethink their fall plans—meaning more revenue losses on top of state budget cuts. While some analyses find that more college-going students are now opting for in-state schools closer to home, it’s flagships and major research universities that are benefiting from the shift. In Michigan, for instance, Hurley said that Michigan State University is likely to see its largest freshman class ever, while enrollment is likewise reportedly increasing at the University of Michigan. “State flagships have global brand pull,” Hurley said. At the same time, students more likely to head off to regional schools are now less able to afford it, even despite tuition freezes and other measures by schools to stave off enrollment declines.
While it’s still too soon to tell what impacts the pandemic will have on college enrollment and attendance this fall, regional public universities could suffer enormous economic fallout. The consequences could be dire for the students and communities that rely on them—especially low-income and minority students, for whom regional schools might be the only lifeline to greater opportunity.
“If there’s anything that’s been laid bare by the past few weeks, it’s systemic racism and the continuing inequality of access that people of color have in the U.S.,” said Maxim of Brookings. “If these schools are defunded, it’s only going to deepen those inequalities.”
Given the vital role that regional public universities have and will continue to play, the nation can’t afford to let these institutions become yet another casualty of the pandemic.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-03--Trump Cannot Be Convinced to Confront Russia

The Group of Eight ( G8 ) has been the Group of Seven ( G7 ) ever since Russia was suspended for invading and annexing Crimea in 2014 .
Since that time , the Russian Federation has done nothing to restore its good standing .
From America ’ s perspective , they ’ ve added insult to injury by messing with our presidential election and putting a bounty on our soldiers in Afghanistan .
Of course , some in Europe have suggested that Russia be reinstated , but that idea was firmly rejected in 2018 when the other members were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump recently stated that he might invite Russia to the upcoming G7 conference , the idea was not well-received .
In retrospect , people are wondering why Trump floated the offer at all , since he should have been informed about the bounties in his Daily Intelligence Brief in February 2020 .
If Trump were to rescind his tentative intention to offer an invitation , it would hardly amount to a punishment , but it would seem like the bare minimum he could do in response .
Yet , the Daily Beast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get him to agree on this step .
In fact , they can ’ t even get him to focus on it as an option .
When government officials have briefed the president in the past week on the bounty intel and the G7 , as well as the way forward on messaging and possible policy moves , they have encountered a familiar problem : holding Trump ’ s attention .
In at least two instances in recent days when officials or aides have discussed the option of rescinding his offer to Putin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way or the other .
According to two sources familiar with the matter , he instead quickly pivoted to bashing the media , particularly The New York Times , which broke the news of the bounties .
To be honest , this isn ’ t an example of Trump ’ s team trying to come up with an appropriate reprisal .
They ’ re talking to a crazy person who doesn ’ t understand the political damage he ’ s taking over the issue .
He ’ s getting killed for making the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and now they can ’ t convince him to take the offer off the table .
Backing away from offering Putin an invitation to the G7 could be a way for the president to take a public stand against Russia while at the same time preserving the goodwill between the two countries , an official familiar with the administration ’ s G7 conversations said .
And maybe , if worded right , it might not piss off Trump .
The president isn ’ t apprising his political fortunes in any rational way .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ him behind in Kansas , and he thinks he can still invite Russia to the G7 .
Trump is more interested in unilaterally pulling our troops out of Germany than he is in asking Putin to stop killing our troops , and his advisers don ’ t seem to know what to do about it .
My suggestion is that they resign and announce their support for Biden , but I guess they ’ re trying to muddle through .

The Group of Eight (G8) has been the Group of Seven (G7) ever since Russia was suspended for invading and annexing Crimea in 2014. Since that time, the Russian Federation has done nothing to restore its good standing. From America’s perspective, they’ve added insult to injury by messing with our presidential election and putting a bounty on our soldiers in Afghanistan.
Of course, some in Europe have suggested that Russia be reinstated, but that idea was firmly rejected in 2018 when the other members were more inclined to increase sanctions. When Donald Trump recently stated that he might invite Russia to the upcoming G7 conference, the idea was not well-received. In retrospect, people are wondering why Trump floated the offer at all, since he should have been informed about the bounties in his Daily Intelligence Brief in February 2020.
If Trump were to rescind his tentative intention to offer an invitation, it would hardly amount to a punishment, but it would seem like the bare minimum he could do in response. Yet, the Daily Beast reports that his advisers can’t get him to agree on this step. In fact, they can’t even get him to focus on it as an option.
When government officials have briefed the president in the past week on the bounty intel and the G7, as well as the way forward on messaging and possible policy moves, they have encountered a familiar problem: holding Trump’s attention. In at least two instances in recent days when officials or aides have discussed the option of rescinding his offer to Putin, Trump responded by not committing one way or the other. According to two sources familiar with the matter, he instead quickly pivoted to bashing the media, particularly The New York Times, which broke the news of the bounties.
To be honest, this isn’t an example of Trump’s team trying to come up with an appropriate reprisal. They’re talking to a crazy person who doesn’t understand the political damage he’s taking over the issue. He’s getting killed for making the G7 offer in the first place, and now they can’t convince him to take the offer off the table.
Backing away from offering Putin an invitation to the G7 could be a way for the president to take a public stand against Russia while at the same time preserving the goodwill between the two countries, an official familiar with the administration’s G7 conversations said. And maybe, if worded right, it might not piss off Trump.
The president isn’t apprising his political fortunes in any rational way. There’s internal polling that has him behind in Kansas, and he thinks he can still invite Russia to the G7.
In addition to public surveys showing him losing decisively to Joseph R. Biden Jr. in a number of battleground states, private Republican polls in recent weeks show the president struggling even in conservative states, leading Mr. Biden by less than five points in Montana and trailing him in Georgia and even Kansas, according to G.O.P. officials who have seen the data.
Trump is more interested in unilaterally pulling our troops out of Germany than he is in asking Putin to stop killing our troops, and his advisers don’t seem to know what to do about it. My suggestion is that they resign and announce their support for Biden, but I guess they’re trying to muddle through.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-04--The Trump Administration Is Giving Up on Fighting the Pandemic

One of the challenges of writing political analysis in the era of the absurd is that simply repeating the “ straight ” news carries the lurid shock of hyperbole , and there ’ s little more that one can say beyond restating the obvious .
The most appropriate additions to the news would be less a matter of adding context and more inserting furious expletives .
Even the politely serious tone of the traditional pundit itself becomes a form of normalization of and even acquiescence to the outrageous and unacceptable .
So when you read a story as shocking as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one can do is let it speak for itself : After several months of mixed messages on the coronavirus pandemic , the White House is settling on a new one : Learn to live with it .
Administration officials are planning to intensify what they hope is a sharper , and less conflicting , message of the pandemic next week , according to senior administration officials , after struggling to offer clear directives amid a crippling surge in cases across the country .
On Thursday , the United States reported more than 55,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were hitting new records in multiple states .
The American federal government under Trump is functionally giving up on controlling the worst pandemic in over a century .
This is not because the pandemic is uncontrollable–far from it .
Most of the rest of the developed world has brought infection rates to low enough levels that they can begin to reopen and live their lives mostly as usual , tamping down any local outbreaks as necessary .
But not the United States .
Americans already had a cultural predisposition to make controlling a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distrust of collective action or compliance makes just enforcing mask-wearing ( much less stricter measures ) a challenge .
Four decades of Reaganism has rendered much of the public incapable of even imagining the scale of either medical intervention or fiscal stimulus that other countries undertook as a matter of course .
While most other countries were guaranteeing wages and conducting strict contact tracing and isolation , Americans were getting measly one-time $ 1200 checks and figuring out if we should really close down bars and casinos or not .
It would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to overcome America ’ s cultural challenges .
Instead , the Trump administration actively downplayed the threat of the virus for purely political reasons , hoping to minimize even a temporary economic impact .
They polarized Republican America against taking necessary measures , again for political reasons : their base either didn ’ t believe the virus was a threat because Fox News said it wasn ’ t , or didn ’ t care because the first wave of infection mostly hit people of color in urban areas .
Now ?
They ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reality that truly defeating the virus would require mobilization of medical resources , contact tracing and social assistance that Republicans simply will not tolerate , the Trump administration has declared defeat .
The president himself is still engaged in wishful thinking that the virus will simply magically disappear .
The rest of the Republican leadership is simply assuming that people will be desperate enough to go to work and live their normal lives even if it means possibly killing themselves and vulnerable people around them , or becoming violently ill for weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death toll in the United States is 132,000 and climbing .
Infection rates are spiking at record levels .
Most of the rest of the world got it under control .
But America , with 4 % of the world ’ s population , has 25 % of the cases of the disease .
And the President of the United States is simply giving up because it would too politically inconvenient to do anything else .
What else is appropriate to say except words you can ’ t use on public airwaves ?

One of the challenges of writing political analysis in the era of the absurd is that simply repeating the “straight” news carries the lurid shock of hyperbole—and there’s little more that one can say beyond restating the obvious. The most appropriate additions to the news would be less a matter of adding context and more inserting furious expletives. Even the politely serious tone of the traditional pundit itself becomes a form of normalization of—and even acquiescence to—the outrageous and unacceptable.
So when you read a story as shocking as this one, perhaps the best thing one can do is let it speak for itself:
After several months of mixed messages on the coronavirus pandemic, the White House is settling on a new one: Learn to live with it. Administration officials are planning to intensify what they hope is a sharper, and less conflicting, message of the pandemic next week, according to senior administration officials, after struggling to offer clear directives amid a crippling surge in cases across the country. On Thursday, the United States reported more than 55,000 new cases of coronavirus and infection rates were hitting new records in multiple states.
The American federal government under Trump is functionally giving up on controlling the worst pandemic in over a century. This is not because the pandemic is uncontrollable—far from it. Most of the rest of the developed world has brought infection rates to low enough levels that they can begin to reopen and live their lives mostly as usual, tamping down any local outbreaks as necessary.
But not the United States. Americans already had a cultural predisposition to make controlling a pandemic challenging: our libertarian streak and distrust of collective action or compliance makes just enforcing mask-wearing (much less stricter measures) a challenge. Four decades of Reaganism has rendered much of the public incapable of even imagining the scale of either medical intervention or fiscal stimulus that other countries undertook as a matter of course. While most other countries were guaranteeing wages and conducting strict contact tracing and isolation, Americans were getting measly one-time $1,200 checks and figuring out if we should really close down bars and casinos or not.
It would have required strong leadership from the federal government to overcome America’s cultural challenges. Instead, the Trump administration actively downplayed the threat of the virus for purely political reasons, hoping to minimize even a temporary economic impact. They polarized Republican America against taking necessary measures, again for political reasons: their base either didn’t believe the virus was a threat because Fox News said it wasn’t, or didn’t care because the first wave of infection mostly hit people of color in urban areas.
Now? They’re just giving up. Faced with the reality that truly defeating the virus would require mobilization of medical resources, contact tracing and social assistance that Republicans simply will not tolerate, the Trump administration has declared defeat. The president himself is still engaged in wishful thinking that the virus will simply magically disappear. The rest of the Republican leadership is assuming that people will be desperate enough to go to work and live their normal lives even if it means possibly killing themselves and vulnerable people around them, or becoming violently ill for weeks with possible lifelong health repercussions.
The death toll in the United States is 132,000 and climbing. Infection rates are spiking at record levels. Most of the rest of the world got it under control. But America, with four percent of the world’s population, has 25 percent of the cases of the disease.
And the president of the United States is simply giving up because it would too politically inconvenient to do anything else. What else is appropriate to say except words you can’t use on public airwaves?


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-05--A Movement Like Trumpism That Cannot Acknowledge the Flaws of the Past, Also Has No Future

It will surprise no one to note that presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden and Republican president Donald Trump had two very different approaches to celebrating the Fourth of July .
Biden ’ s take on the holiday in his new message was steeped in both appreciation of the idealistic achievements of the founders and acknowledgment of just how poorly those same founders and their descendants fared in living up to those ideals .
Appropriate to the moment , Biden ’ s focus was on the nation ’ s history of racial injustice and white supremacy .
But his tone was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon come closer to putting the vision of true equality into practice .
Through it all , these words [ the Declaration of Independence ] have gnawed at our conscience and pulled us toward justice .
American history is no fairy tale .
It ’ s been a constant push-and-pull between two parts of our character : between the idea that all men and women–all people–are created equal , and the racism that has torn us apart .
We have a chance now to give the marginalized , the demonized , the isolated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the American Dream .
We have a chance to rip the roots of systemic racism out of this country .
We have a chance to live up to the words that founded this nation .
Donald Trump did the opposite .
In a speech filled with overtly racist messages and symbolism , he tried to insinuate that any criticism of America ’ s past was tantamount to erasing America itself , and that 1776 represented not the beginning of an approach toward justice and equality , but the culmination of aspirations toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thousands of years of Western civilization and the triumph of not only spirit , but of wisdom , philosophy , and reason .
And yet , as we meet here tonight , there is a growing danger that threatens every blessing our ancestors fought so hard for , struggled , they bled to secure .
Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history , defame our heroes , erase our values , and indoctrinate our children….Make no mistake .
This left-wing cultural revolution is designed to overthrow the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would destroy the very civilization that rescued billions from poverty , disease , violence , and hunger , and that lifted humanity to new heights of achievement , discovery , and progress .
To make this possible , they are determined to tear down every statue , symbol , and memory of our national heritage .
Hundreds of articles and blog posts have been and will be devoted to analyzing the sickening levels of white nationalism , xenophobia and and straight-up fascist sentiment in Trump ’ s Stephen-Miller-crafted speech .
But here I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ value-judgment-free bird ’ s eye view of the structural contrasts between these two approaches .
Even if you remove all the moral context and history from the equation , only one of these two messages has a dynamic future open to possibility .
The other is inert and dead , a spent ideological force .
It is no accident that the same president who delivered this revanchist , defensive Fourth of July message also could not articulate a single second-term policy priority in front of a friendly interviewer .
The gauzy haze of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind can be good at whipping up certain kinds of votes , but it can not serve as the basis for a coherent policy platform .
It can encode certain sentiments–that America should be primarily for white evangelical Christians and run primarily by older white men–but those sentiments are not only deeply unpopular , they run contrary to the actual words of most of the country ’ s founding documents and the majority of the last century ’ s constitutional jurisprudence .
Trump has failed on policy at every level because his vision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and when articulated almost impossible to enact democratically .
As a substitute for literally Making America White Again , building a big wall , enacting travel bans on certain countries or putting migrant children into cages is not only unpopular and villainous , it ’ s also difficult to do legislatively and simply ineffectual in accomplishing the task .
That ’ s why these sorts of right-wing populist jabs have historically been culture war red meat designed to keep the bigots distracted while the rich people in charge made off the loot in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So has it been also with Trump : his base gets to feel like they owned the “ libs , ” but in actuality the only structurally significant outcomes have been tax cuts and giveaways for rich corporate executives and a raft of corporate-friendly judges .
Meanwhile , everyone else gets the shaft economically–including his own downwardly-mobile supporters .
The left and left-liberal approach in the Biden message has both a past and a future .
It can acknowledge the very real accomplishments of the flawed people who came before , mobilize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which our society has failed to live up to our own promises , and propose a justice-oriented , achievable policy program to put the country on track to improve outcomes for everyone .
It has a future , and contains within it endless possibilities for both fractious debate and productive compromise .
Trump ’ s vision has no future at all and can not be negotiated or compromised with .
Even if it weren ’ t morally repulsive , it would still be a dead-end for what politics is supposed to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more frivolous times that might not be seem like such a big deal : after all , in 2016 many people voted for Trump out of a sense of “ let ’ s see what happens ” bored amusement .
Many thought that the country essentially ran itself , so why not put a showman in charge ?
Well , we ’ ve now seen what happens .
There are big problems to solve .
Trump and Trumpism are morally , ideologically and even structurally philosophically unequipped to solve them .

It will surprise no one to note that presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden and Republican president Donald Trump had two very different approaches to celebrating the Fourth of July.
Biden’s take on the holiday in his new message was steeped in both appreciation of the idealistic achievements of the founders and acknowledgment of just how poorly those same founders and their descendants fared in living up to those ideals. Appropriate to the moment, Biden’s focus was on the nation’s history of racial injustice and white supremacy. But his tone was also hopeful that we could one day soon come closer to putting the vision of true equality into practice.
Through it all, these words [the Declaration of Independence] have gnawed at our conscience and pulled us toward justice. American history is no fairy tale. It’s been a constant push-and-pull between two parts of our character: between the idea that all men and women–all people–are created equal, and the racism that has torn us apart. We have a chance now to give the marginalized, the demonized, the isolated, the oppressed, a full share of the American Dream. We have a chance to rip the roots of systemic racism out of this country. We have a chance to live up to the words that founded this nation.
Donald Trump did the opposite. In a speech filled with overtly racist messages and symbolism, he tried to insinuate that any criticism of America’s past was tantamount to erasing America itself, and that 1776 represented not the beginning of an approach toward justice and equality, but the culmination of aspirations toward achieving it:
1776 represented the culmination of thousands of years of Western civilization and the triumph of not only spirit, but of wisdom, philosophy, and reason. And yet, as we meet here tonight, there is a growing danger that threatens every blessing our ancestors fought so hard for, struggled, they bled to secure. Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children….Make no mistake. This left-wing cultural revolution is designed to overthrow the American Revolution. In so doing they would destroy the very civilization that rescued billions from poverty, disease, violence, and hunger, and that lifted humanity to new heights of achievement, discovery, and progress. To make this possible, they are determined to tear down every statue, symbol, and memory of our national heritage.
Hundreds of articles and blog posts have been and will be devoted to analyzing the sickening levels of white nationalism, xenophobia and and straight-up fascist sentiment in Trump’s Stephen-Miller-crafted speech.
But here I want to take an almost amoral, value-judgment-free bird’s eye view of the structural contrasts between these two approaches. Even if you remove all the moral context and history from the equation, only one of these two messages has a dynamic future open to possibility. The other is inert and dead, a spent ideological force.
It is no accident that the same president who delivered this revanchist, defensive Fourth of July message also could not articulate a single second-term policy priority in front of a friendly interviewer. The gauzy haze of nostalgia that it activates in the conservative mind can be good at whipping up certain kinds of votes, but it cannot serve as the basis for a coherent policy platform. It can encode certain sentiments–that America should be primarily for white evangelical Christians and run primarily by older white men–but those sentiments are not only deeply unpopular, they run contrary to the actual words of most of the country’s founding documents and the majority of the last century’s constitutional jurisprudence.
Trump has failed on policy at every level because his vision is difficult to translate into legislation, and when articulated almost impossible to enact democratically. As a substitute for literally Making America White Again, building a big wall, enacting travel bans on certain countries or putting migrant children into cages is not only unpopular and villainous, it’s also difficult to do legislatively and simply ineffectual in accomplishing the task. That’s why these sorts of right-wing populist jabs have historically been culture war red meat designed to keep the bigots distracted while the rich people in charge made off the loot in the form of subsidies and tax cuts. So has it been also with Trump: his base gets to feel like they owned the “libs,” but in actuality the only structurally significant outcomes have been tax cuts and giveaways for rich corporate executives and a raft of corporate-friendly judges. Meanwhile, everyone else gets the shaft economically–including his own downwardly-mobile supporters.
The left and left-liberal approach in the Biden message has both a past and a future. It can acknowledge the very real accomplishments of the flawed people who came before, mobilize our anger and disappointment at the ways in which our society has failed to live up to our own promises, and propose a justice-oriented, achievable policy program to put the country on track to improve outcomes for everyone. It has a future, and contains within it endless possibilities for both fractious debate and productive compromise.
Trump’s vision has no future at all and cannot be negotiated or compromised with. Even if it weren’t morally repulsive, it would still be a dead-end for what politics is supposed to be all about: solving problems. During more frivolous times that might not be seem like such a big deal: after all, in 2016 many people voted for Trump out of a sense of “let’s see what happens” bored amusement. Many thought that the country essentially ran itself, so why not put a showman in charge? Well, we’ve now seen what happens.
There are big problems to solve. Trump and Trumpism are morally, ideologically and even structurally philosophically unequipped to solve them.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-05--COVID-19 Is Helping to Make the Case for Universal Basic Income

Most conservatives had hoped that Donald Trump ’ s fluke 2016 election would be the harbinger of a new era of conservative backlash against supposed “ liberal overreach.
” But ironically enough , not only has Nixonian silent majority backlash not materialized , the Trump era has actually shifted the popular policy window much faster to the left than might have been possible under more “ normal ” governance .
This is partly due to horror at the openness with which Republicans have embraced sexist white supremacy ; but it ’ s also partly due to the fact that recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how inadequate our current systems and policies are in addressing the needs of the 21st century society and economy .
For instance , Trump ’ s open racism has forced even white suburban America to confront the reality of racist policing and led to a popular consensus around police reform ; the inadequacy of the Affordable Care Act combined with Trump ’ s desperate attempts to roll back even its meager protections have pushed the window heavily toward Medicare-for-All ; aggressive action to combat climate change is increasingly at the top of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Young people under 45 have moved especially far left , with most supporting openly socialist candidates–but even “ moderate ” politicians like Biden are touting platforms well to the left of Clinton 2016 , which was itself well to the left of either of Obama ’ s policy platforms .
But in few policy areas has the leftward shift been more remarkable than on Universal Basic Income .
Once considered a fringe far-left and far-right proposal of Martin Luther King Jr. ’ s most socialist platform and Milton Friedman ’ s most libertarian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unheard-of to unthinkable to unrealistic to active experimentation in barely over five years .
Even the Pope has spoken in support .
In just the last six months it moved from the novelty candidacy of Andrew Yang and fringe Silicon Valley supporters to the support of traditionally liberal mayors across the United States , in no small part as a way of addressing racial inequalities : This week , [ Stockton , CA mayor ] Tubbs announced the formation of the Mayors for a Guaranteed Income Coalition , a group of city leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ launch direct guaranteed income projects in their communities , and advocating for state and federal solutions .
The majority of the mayors are Black , and hail from places like Atlanta , Los Angeles , Compton , Newark , Shreveport , St. Paul , and Jackson , Mississippi ; the 11 cities they govern have a collective population of 7 million , and more cities expected to join .
( Pittsburgh ’ s Bill Peduto announced that he ’ s number 12 , in a tweet . )
“ We don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do agree that our constituents deserve an income floor , ” Tubbs said of the group .
The idea has encountered the expected opposition from the Right , and no surprise there : combined with progressive taxation , it may well be the purest form of social redistribution in the policy toolbox .
Centrists and moderates have long shied away from it because of America ’ s unique obsession with individual moral hazard : Americans consistently support broad social welfare , right up until they feel their “ hard-working tax dollars ” are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” This is obviously inextricably intertwined with white America ’ s history of white supremacy and grievance .
Benefits for white people are just a hand-up in hard times ; benefits for anyone else are a hand-out to the undeserving .
Liberal moderates , stung by electoral defeat after defeat since the days of Nixon , have tried hard to avoid getting stuck too strongly in this cultural vise–much to the frustration of the rising progressive left .
But many not actively engaged in the leftist organizing sphere may not realize that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left .
Anti-UBI leftists see it as a libertarian techbro camel ’ s nose under the tent to weaken social safety nets and undermine the power of labor .
The fear among these leftists is that if social support for the working class is disentangled from actual labor leverage , then all hope of workers ’ empowerment may be eroded .
In a traditional Marxist framework , the only pathway to helping workers is through increasing worker control of the means of production , and maximizing the power of workers by easily enabling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elites who profit from it .
The COVID-19 pandemic , however , has exposed one of the flaws of this framework .
Worker control of the means of production only goes so far when the public policy goal is to minimize production and keep workers at home .
How do you use the power of organized labor for leverage , when workers are increasingly expendable and a pandemic is accelerating the shift to an automated and decentralized workforce ?
And how does one continue to morally justify a workforce-oriented approach to social and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic principally affecting “ essential workers ” who also happen to be primarily people of color–even as middle-class whites are increasingly furloughed with benefits or working from home ?
Labor indeed remains a crucial component of justice organizing .
But never before has the social justice case for , say , automating increasingly obsolete , dehumanizing and now-dangerous grocery cashier or restaurant service work and delivering the dividend straight to the people who used to do that work been more obvious .
Finally , it has also become apparent just how dependent modern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward maintaining wealth .
Capitalists are always finding ways of automating or offshoring labor–but they literally can not make a profit if no one is buying their corporation ’ s products .
It turns out that consumers with money to spend in a democratic society with the power to protest and vote may not be as powerless as once feared .
It has become increasingly obvious that economic support for the downtrodden 99 % will require an all-hands-on-deck approach combining both new and old approaches and frameworks : both increased worker and democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unions , but also baseline cash grants to those for whom a labor-oriented approach may be inadequate in a modern globalized , de-industrialized , decentralized and increasingly automated economy .
It is also increasingly viewed as a potentially essential tool for countering white supremacy and endemic poverty among people of color where means tested benefits add another layer of bureaucratic pain and social humiliation .
And if the UBI benefit is broadly shared across the racial and economic spectrum , it will be harder for wealthy conservatives to use it as a racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , be attempts from both the right and the corporate-friendly center-left to use universal basic income in the way that many leftists fear–as a substitute for traditional benefits and worker empowerment that both undermines labor and decreases net social welfare payments .
But avoiding this pitfall and making sure that UBI complements rather than detracts from existing empowerment structures is simply a matter of political organizing , as with so much else .
The usefulness of a policy should not be discarded simply because of its potential for abuse if implemented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be interesting to see how experiments in Universal Basic Income fare in America ’ s cities .
Experiments abroad in Finland and elsewhere have met with success , especially if you assume that the goal of UBI is to increase happiness and well-being , rather than to drag the unemployed back into the workforce .
Many questions as to scale and implementation remain .
But its rise from the unthinkable to the possible has been remarkable , precipitated in large part by necessity .
Between the pandemic and the scale of white supremacist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , it has never been clearer that we to consider a variety of new leftist approaches to economic , environmental and social justice .
Universal Basic Income is rapidly becoming a key part of the new framework .

Most conservatives had hoped that Donald Trump’s fluke 2016 election would be the harbinger of a new era of conservative backlash against supposed “liberal overreach.” But ironically enough, not only has Nixonian silent majority backlash not materialized, the Trump era has actually shifted the popular policy window much faster to the left than might have been possible under more “normal” governance. This is partly due to horror at the openness with which Republicans have embraced sexist white supremacy; but it’s also partly due to the fact that recent events and economic trends are demonstrating just how inadequate our current systems and policies are in addressing the needs of the 21st century society and economy.
For instance, Trump’s open racism has forced even white suburban America to confront the reality of racist policing and led to a popular consensus around police reform; the inadequacy of the Affordable Care Act combined with Trump’s desperate attempts to roll back even its meager protections have pushed the window heavily toward Medicare-for-All; aggressive action to combat climate change is increasingly at the top of the Democratic agenda; and so on. Young people under 45 have moved especially far left, with most supporting openly socialist candidates–but even “moderate” politicians like Biden are touting platforms well to the left of Clinton 2016, which was itself well to the left of either of Obama’s policy platforms.
But in few policy areas has the leftward shift been more remarkable than on Universal Basic Income. Once considered a fringe far-left and far-right proposal of Martin Luther King Jr.’s most socialist platform and Milton Friedman’s most libertarian one, the policy has moved from unheard-of to unthinkable to unrealistic to active experimentation in barely over five years. Even the Pope has spoken in support. In just the last six months it moved from the novelty candidacy of Andrew Yang and fringe Silicon Valley supporters to the support of traditionally liberal mayors across the United States, in no small part as a way of addressing racial inequalities:
This week, [Stockton, CA mayor] Tubbs announced the formation of the Mayors for a Guaranteed Income Coalition, a group of city leaders who have committed to investigating how to launch direct guaranteed income projects in their communities, and advocating for state and federal solutions. The majority of the mayors are Black, and hail from places like Atlanta, Los Angeles, Compton, Newark, Shreveport, St. Paul, and Jackson, Mississippi; the 11 cities they govern have a collective population of 7 million, and more cities expected to join. (Pittsburgh’s Bill Peduto announced that he’s number 12, in a tweet.) “We don’t necessarily agree on everything, but we do agree that our constituents deserve an income floor,” Tubbs said of the group.
The idea has encountered the expected opposition from the Right, and no surprise there: combined with progressive taxation, it may well be the purest form of social redistribution in the policy toolbox. Centrists and moderates have long shied away from it because of America’s unique obsession with individual moral hazard: Americans consistently support broad social welfare, right up until they feel their “hard-working tax dollars” are going to “those Other lazy people.” This is obviously inextricably intertwined with white America’s history of white supremacy and grievance. Benefits for white people are just a hand-up in hard times; benefits for anyone else are a hand-out to the undeserving. Liberal moderates, stung by electoral defeat after defeat since the days of Nixon, have tried hard to avoid getting stuck too strongly in this cultural vise–much to the frustration of the rising progressive left.
But many not actively engaged in the leftist organizing sphere may not realize that there has also been major opposition from the left. Anti-UBI leftists see it as a libertarian techbro camel’s nose under the tent to weaken social safety nets and undermine the power of labor. The fear among these leftists is that if social support for the working class is disentangled from actual labor leverage, then all hope of workers’ empowerment may be eroded. In a traditional Marxist framework, the only pathway to helping workers is through increasing worker control of the means of production, and maximizing the power of workers by easily enabling them to withhold their labor from the elites who profit from it.
The COVID-19 pandemic, however, has exposed one of the flaws of this framework. Worker control of the means of production only goes so far when the public policy goal is to minimize production and keep workers at home. How do you use the power of organized labor for leverage, when workers are increasingly expendable and a pandemic is accelerating the shift to an automated and decentralized workforce? And how does one continue to morally justify a workforce-oriented approach to social and economic justice, when there is a pandemic principally affecting “essential workers” who also happen to be primarily people of color–even as middle-class whites are increasingly furloughed with benefits or working from home? Labor indeed remains a crucial component of justice organizing. But never before has the social justice case for, say, automating increasingly obsolete, dehumanizing and now-dangerous grocery cashier or restaurant service work and delivering the dividend straight to the people who used to do that work been more obvious. Finally, it has also become apparent just how dependent modern capitalism is on consumption as the path toward maintaining wealth. Capitalists are always finding ways of automating or offshoring labor–but they literally cannot make a profit if no one is buying their corporation’s products. It turns out that consumers with money to spend in a democratic society with the power to protest and vote may not be as powerless as once feared.
It has become increasingly obvious that economic support for the downtrodden 99% will require an all-hands-on-deck approach combining both new and old approaches and frameworks: both increased worker and democratic control of production through more powerful labor unions, but also baseline cash grants to those for whom a labor-oriented approach may be inadequate in a modern globalized, de-industrialized, decentralized and increasingly automated economy.
It is also increasingly viewed as a potentially essential tool for countering white supremacy and endemic poverty among people of color where means tested benefits add another layer of bureaucratic pain and social humiliation. And if the UBI benefit is broadly shared across the racial and economic spectrum, it will be harder for wealthy conservatives to use it as a racist or classist wedge.
There will, of course, be attempts from both the right and the corporate-friendly center-left to use universal basic income in the way that many leftists fear–as a substitute for traditional benefits and worker empowerment that both undermines labor and decreases net social welfare payments. But avoiding this pitfall and making sure that UBI complements rather than detracts from existing empowerment structures is simply a matter of political organizing, as with so much else. The usefulness of a policy should not be discarded simply because of its potential for abuse if implemented by the wrong hands.
It will be interesting to see how experiments in Universal Basic Income fare in America’s cities. Experiments abroad in Finland and elsewhere have met with success, especially if you assume that the goal of UBI is to increase happiness and well-being, rather than to drag the unemployed back into the workforce. Many questions as to scale and implementation remain. But its rise from the unthinkable to the possible has been remarkable, precipitated in large part by necessity. Between the pandemic and the scale of white supremacist sentiments evidenced by the election of Donald Trump, it has never been clearer that we need to consider a variety of new leftist approaches to economic, environmental and social justice. Universal Basic Income is rapidly becoming a key part of the new framework.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-05--Why a Movement Like Trumpism Doesn’t Have a Future


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-06--What Does It Mean to Tear Down a Statue?

Nobody believes in anything .
The trouble with statues is that they are carved in stone or cast in bronze , unyielding to the fluid shifts in surrounding sentiment .
They can not easily be revised .
So they are erected in one time and toppled in another , and neither their creation nor their demise carries the nuances and contradictions of the real world .
Statues that are celebratory and monumental represent myths , not true history .
Some national myths are useful as long as they set high standards that the nation aspires to achieve .
These include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the myth of racial acceptance , the myth of the American Dream ’ s promise that hard work brings prosperity , the myth of blind justice holding impartial scales .
The distance between the myth and the reality is a gap we should seek to overcome .
Therefore , as Americans rally to tear down and deface the offensive symbols of a shameful past , it is worth considering what vacuums will be opened and how they will be filled .
A country without heroes , which is what the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adrift , susceptible to demagoguery and absolutism .
The challenge is to make the empty pedestals into foundations of conscience and self-correction .
If destruction is the only result , trouble looms .
Most historical figures are complicated , not one-dimensional .
Statues , on the other hand , are rarely complicated .
They honor and revere , nothing more .
And they can perpetuate perverse notions of virtue .
The Confederacy was not a noble enterprise , unbecoming as an expression of pride in Southern identity and culture .
Surely there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than treason , slavery , and a lost and bloody cause that left scars on America .
Heroic sculptures of anti-heroes , and military bases named after them , have no place in an honest society .
But they are part of history , it is argued .
Yes indeed , and history should not be erased .
Dictatorships do that with abandon to suit momentary political doctrine .
But neither should history be sanitized and distorted .
Let the Confederacy be taught by scholars who parse the competing impulses of its leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If Confederate figures are retained in public squares , let them be accompanied by their opposites : abolitionists , slaves who joined the Union Army , memorials to all the useless deaths of that war .
If Jefferson Davis must have a statue , stand Abraham Lincoln beside him .
The risk comes not from cleansing the countryside of abhorrent characters but by the spreading outrage of iconoclasts who want to obliterate too widely .
President Teddy Roosevelt is coming down from before the Museum of Natural History in Manhattan , despite his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s finest treasures .
The problem is the demeaning portrayals of an African and American Idian by his side .
You can ’ t edit bronze .
As Bret Stephens suggests , a new statue would be appropriate for a president who “ busted trusts , championed conservation , and caused a scandal by inviting Booker T. Washington to dine with his family in the White House.
” Francis Scott Key and Ulysses S. Grant were deposed in San Francisco ’ s Golden Gate Park .
Key owned slaves and defended slavery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foot on each side of the divide .
He came from an abolitionist father and married a Southern woman whose slave-owning father gave him a man named William Jones .
Grant , then a struggling farmer in Missouri , also employed freed blacks , and he freed Jones before the Civil War , then led the Union army in its defeat of the South .
As President , he supported blacks ’ rights during Reconstruction , ordered his newly formed Justice Department to go after the Ku Klux Klan , and endorsed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But his policies on American Indians were mixed .
He wanted citizenship for them , and he tried to negotiate peace , but met fierce resistance from Congress and the Board of Indian Commissioners .
Ultimately he sent the army into a series of bloody battles with tribes , enough to cost his monuments their justification .
Since real human beings are never perfect , it might be legitimate to regard certain statues as monuments to ideas rather than to people .
Martin Luther King , Jr. was a womanizer , unfaithful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the conscience of the nation .
Should his name be scrubbed from streets and schools , his statues removed because of his philandering ?
Of course not .
As of 2020 , at least , King ’ s statues are safe , as they should be .
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were walking contradictions , both slaveholders but central to the democratic values that ultimately made the country freer and more inclusive than they could have imagined .
Protesters took down Washington ’ s statue in Portland , Oregon , then spray-painted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year the first enslaved Africans landed on the continent .
But what if Washington were cancelled out of our history ?
Would the American Revolution have succeeded ?
Would the disparate states have relinquished autonomy to form a union ?
Without Washington as the presumed president , would a consensus for the Constitution have been possible ?
These were flawed leaders who transcended their limitations at a crucial juncture of history .
Their ideas have proved larger than themselves .
If we see them clearly—Jefferson in particular—we see ourselves vividly , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principles .
Jefferson was a patriarch of the American idea .
His declarations on individual liberty still serve as a moral and political compass , yet his belief in the racial inferiority of blacks also endures , embedded in the stereotypes that afflict African Americans today .
He abhorred slavery as a “ fatal stain ” but never abolished it , not as governor , not as president , not as plantation owner .
He owned enslaved people inherited from his father and his father-in-law , including Sally Hemings , with whom he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests have shown , and probably five others .
His draft of the Declaration of Independence included an excoriation of slavery as a “ cruel war against human nature , violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty.
” He called it “ piratical warfare , the opprobrium of infidelpowers ” and accused England of engaging in “ execrable commerce.
” He was pained when the Continental Congress deleted this denunciation .
Yet in his only book , Notes on the State of Virginia , he describes white skin as “ preferable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the countenances , that immovable veil of black which covers the emotions.
” He asserts that blacks “ secrete less by the kidneys and more by the glands of the skin , which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odor.
” He sees less ability than whites to anticipate consequences .
“ They are at least as brave , and more adventuresome , ” he writes .
“ But this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought , which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present.
” He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emotional capacity , and creative powers .
“ They are more ardent after their female ; but love seems with them to be more an eager desire , than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation .
Their griefs are transient .
.
.
.
Comparing them by their faculties of memory , reason , and imagination , it appears to me that in memory they are equal to the whites ; in reason much inferior , as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and and comprehending the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagination they are dull , tasteless , and anomalous .
.
.
.
Misery is often the parent of the most affecting touches in poetry .
Among the blacks is misery enough , God knows , but no poetry.
” And so on .
Do we cancel Jefferson because of this ?
If we do , then we cancel ourselves , for alongside his prejudices , he nurtured momentous concepts of liberty .
They remain alive , essential to the progress that the nation craves .
Countries without proud histories suffer .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Union in 1985 , just seven years after the teenager quoted above assessed her society as lacking in belief , he tried to open the door to historical condemnation—only partway .
It was suddenly permissible again to criticize Stalin , as Nikita Khrushchev had allowed in the 1950s .
In the bold second chapter of de-Stalinization under Gorbachev , the press was mostly freed to spread the dictator ’ s crimes before the public , which heard from officials and ordinary citizens who had been witnesses , victims , or even perpetrators .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , famine , and even Stalin ’ s failures in World War II were under scrutiny .
It was a heady time .
The delight was hardly unanimous .
Many conservative , antidemocratic citizens were uneasy and resentful that their history was being trashed , especially when other Russians took the denunciations farther than Gorbachev intended .
They expanded back in time , condemning all that had been revered from the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution on .
An ecstasy of revisionist truth-telling swept the country , bringing down statues of Lenin and his henchmen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other public places .
Leningrad reverted to St. Petersburg , as under the czars , whose era of reign became a font of nostalgia .
Lenin ’ s mausoleum remains in Red Square , but the November 7 anniversary of his revolution is no longer observed .
With the exception of the victory against Germany in what Russians call the Great Patriotic War , the reverence for modern Russian history has been practically extinguished .
No sensible argument can be made to preserve it , given the monstrous nature of the Communist Soviet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instructive .
In the vacuum , a kind of chaos developed—economic and political primarily , but also spiritual .
A weightlessness was felt , with nothing much to grab for steadiness .
Where in this exhilarating change could you get a foothold to find solid ground again ?
I asked Russians at the time .
There were no good answers .
Who are your heroes ?
I asked them .
There were no good answers .
Instead , they have settled on a strong hand at the top , abandoning—at least for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States is not at all like the Soviet Union , obviously .
But we have no heroes , either .
We are not divinely ordained to be a pluralistic democracy , either .
And if we discard those whose ideas we rightfully revere as pedestals of that democracy , because they were not also saintly human beings , we lose more than the statues .

Nobody believes in anything.
— Katya Polikanov, age 17, Moscow, 1978
The trouble with statues is that they are carved in stone or cast in bronze, unyielding to the fluid shifts in surrounding sentiment. They cannot easily be revised. So they are erected in one time and toppled in another, and neither their creation nor their demise carries the nuances and contradictions of the real world. Statues that are celebratory and monumental represent myths, not true history.
Some national myths are useful as long as they set high standards that the nation aspires to achieve. These include the founding myth of equality and liberty, the myth of racial acceptance, the myth of the American Dream’s promise that hard work brings prosperity, the myth of blind justice holding impartial scales. The distance between the myth and the reality is a gap we should seek to overcome.
Therefore, as Americans rally to tear down and deface the offensive symbols of a shameful past, it is worth considering what vacuums will be opened and how they will be filled. A country without heroes, which is what the United States is becoming, can be a land adrift, susceptible to demagoguery and absolutism. The challenge is to make the empty pedestals into foundations of conscience and self-correction. If destruction is the only result, trouble looms.
Most historical figures are complicated, not one-dimensional. Statues, on the other hand, are rarely complicated. They honor and revere, nothing more. And they can perpetuate perverse notions of virtue. The Confederacy was not a noble enterprise, unbecoming as an expression of pride in Southern identity and culture. Surely there is more to the traditions of the South than treason, slavery, and a lost and bloody cause that left scars on America. Heroic sculptures of anti-heroes, and military bases named after them, have no place in an honest society.
But they are part of history, it is argued. Yes indeed, and history should not be erased. Dictatorships do that with abandon to suit momentary political doctrine. But neither should history be sanitized and distorted. Let the Confederacy be taught by scholars who parse the competing impulses of its leaders. Let museums educate in context. If Confederate figures are retained in public squares, let them be accompanied by their opposites: abolitionists, slaves who joined the Union Army, memorials to all the useless deaths of that war. If Jefferson Davis must have a statue, stand Abraham Lincoln beside him.
The risk comes not from cleansing the countryside of abhorrent characters but by the spreading outrage of iconoclasts who want to obliterate too widely. President Teddy Roosevelt is coming down from before the Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, despite his legacy of national parks—one of the country’s finest treasures. The problem is the demeaning portrayals of an African and American Indian by his side. You can’t edit bronze. As Bret Stephens suggests, a new statue would be appropriate for a president who “busted trusts, championed conservation, and caused a scandal by inviting Booker T. Washington to dine with his family in the White House.”
Francis Scott Key and Ulysses S. Grant were deposed in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park. Key owned slaves and defended slavery. Grant, however, had a foot on each side of the divide. He came from an abolitionist father and married a Southern woman whose slave-owning father gave him a man named William Jones. Grant, then a struggling farmer in Missouri, also employed freed blacks, and he freed Jones before the Civil War, then led the Union army in its defeat of the South. As President, he supported blacks’ rights during Reconstruction, ordered his newly formed Justice Department to go after the Ku Klux Klan, and endorsed the 15thAmendment giving the vote to African Americans. But his policies on American Indians were mixed. He wanted citizenship for them, and he tried to negotiate peace, but met fierce resistance from Congress and the Board of Indian Commissioners. Ultimately he sent the army into a series of bloody battles with tribes, enough to cost his monuments their justification.
Since real human beings are never perfect, it might be legitimate to regard certain statues as monuments to ideas rather than to people. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a womanizer, unfaithful to his wife but instrumental in raising the conscience of the nation. Should his name be scrubbed from streets and schools, his statues removed because of his philandering? Of course not. As of 2020, at least, King’s statues are safe, as they should be.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were walking contradictions, both slaveholders but central to the democratic values that ultimately made the country freer and more inclusive than they could have imagined. Protesters took down Washington’s statue in Portland, Oregon, then spray-painted it with “1619,” the year the first enslaved Africans landed on the continent. But what if Washington were cancelled out of our history? Would the American Revolution have succeeded? Would the disparate states have relinquished autonomy to form a union? Without Washington as the presumed president, would a consensus for the Constitution have been possible?
These were flawed leaders who transcended their limitations at a crucial juncture of history. Their ideas have proved larger than themselves. If we see them clearly—Jefferson in particular—we see ourselves vividly, in the ongoing clash between our faults and our principles.
Jefferson was a patriarch of the American idea. His declarations on individual liberty still serve as a moral and political compass, yet his belief in the racial inferiority of blacks also endures, embedded in the stereotypes that afflict African Americans today. He abhorred slavery as a “fatal stain” but never abolished it, not as governor, not as president, not as plantation owner. He owned enslaved people inherited from his father and his father-in-law, including Sally Hemings, with whom he had at least one child, DNA tests have shown, and probably five others.
His draft of the Declaration of Independence included an excoriation of slavery as a “cruel war against human nature, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty.” He called it “piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers” and accused England of engaging in “execrable commerce.” He was pained when the Continental Congress deleted this denunciation.
Yet in his only book, Notes on the State of Virginia, he describes white skin as “preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immovable veil of black which covers the emotions.” He asserts that blacks “secrete less by the kidneys and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odor.”
He sees less ability than whites to anticipate consequences. “They are at least as brave, and more adventuresome,” he writes. “But this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present.”
He portrays blacks as primitive in sexuality, emotional capacity, and creative powers. “They are more ardent after their female; but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. . . . Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous. . . . Misery is often the parent of the most affecting touches in poetry. Among the blacks is misery enough, God knows, but no poetry.” And so on.
Do we cancel Jefferson because of this? If we do, then we cancel ourselves, for alongside his prejudices, he nurtured momentous concepts of liberty. They remain alive, essential to the progress that the nation craves.
Countries without proud histories suffer. When Mikhail Gorbachev became leader of the Soviet Union in 1985, just seven years after the teenager quoted above assessed her society as lacking in belief, he tried to open the door to historical condemnation—only partway. It was suddenly permissible again to criticize Stalin, as Nikita Khrushchev had allowed in the 1950s. In the bold second chapter of de-Stalinization under Gorbachev, the press was mostly freed to spread the dictator’s crimes before the public, which heard from officials and ordinary citizens who had been witnesses, victims, or even perpetrators. Capricious arrest and exile, mass execution, famine, and even Stalin’s failures in World War II were under scrutiny. It was a heady time.
The delight was hardly unanimous. Many conservative, antidemocratic citizens were uneasy and resentful that their history was being trashed, especially when other Russians took the denunciations farther than Gorbachev intended. They expanded back in time, condemning all that had been revered from the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution on. An ecstasy of revisionist truth-telling swept the country, bringing down statues of Lenin and his henchmen, revising the names of streets and other public places. Leningrad reverted to St. Petersburg, as under the czars, whose era of reign became a font of nostalgia.
Lenin’s mausoleum remains in Red Square, but the November 7 anniversary of his revolution is no longer observed. With the exception of the victory against Germany in what Russians call the Great Patriotic War, the reverence for modern Russian history has been practically extinguished.
No sensible argument can be made to preserve it, given the monstrous nature of the Communist Soviet Union. But the psychological effects were instructive. In the vacuum, a kind of chaos developed—economic and political primarily, but also spiritual. A weightlessness was felt, with nothing much to grab for steadiness. Where in this exhilarating change could you get a foothold to find solid ground again? I asked Russians at the time. There were no good answers. Who are your heroes? I asked them. There were no good answers. Instead, they have settled on a strong hand at the top, abandoning—at least for a while—their search for pluralistic democracy.
The United States is not at all like the Soviet Union, obviously. But we have no heroes, either. We are not divinely ordained to be a pluralistic democracy, either. And if we discard those whose ideas we rightfully revere as pedestals of that democracy, because they were not also saintly human beings, we lose more than the statues.