washingtonmonthly--2020-10-05--Princeton, Betsy DeVos, And The Need For a Real Debate About Race

Can we talk about racism at our colleges and universities ?
I mean , really talk .
Not gesture or pantomime , which too often passes for dialogue in this realm .
Can we engage in a full and free exchange of ideas , where people actually say what they think and think what they say ?
That ’ s the real question raised by the latest dust-up over racism in higher education , pitting the Department of Education against Princeton University .
And thus far , unfortunately , the answer seems to be no .
Proclaiming the urgent need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ silencing it .
In response to a statement by president Christopher Eisgruber that acknowledged continued racism at Princeton , the DOE announced last month that it would initiate an investigation of the university .
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars institutions from discriminating based on race if they take money from Uncle Sam .
So if Princeton is as racist as it says , the DOE argued , perhaps it has also flouted federal law .
There ’ s good reason to believe the Education Department wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sudden concern for black lives at Princeton drew happy cackles from conservatives , suggesting that the real motive here was to hoist liberals on their own anti-racist petards .
When the right-wing New York Post congratulates Education Secretary Betsy DeVos for her “ epic trolling ” of Princeton , well , it ’ s fair to suspect that Betsy DeVos is trolling Princeton .
But there was also something disingenuous about Princeton ’ s response and the letter signed by 80 college and university leaders , who charged the DOE with threatening academic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Department appears to believe that grappling honestly with the nation ’ s history and the current effects of systemic racism runs afoul of existing law , ” a Princeton spokesman said .
How can you grapple honestly with racism if you declare it before the discussion even starts ?
A letter signed by 350 faculty members last July flatly asserted that “ anti-black racism has a visible bearing upon Princeton ’ s campus makeup and its hiring practices.
” President Eisgruber of Princeton followed up with his own letter in September , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ university and pledging to recruit more black professors .
Yet we really don ’ t know whether the small fraction of African-Americans on the faculty reflects discrimination on Princeton ’ s part .
Writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education , Harvard law professor and former Princeton trustee Randall Kennedy noted that Princeton has made expansive—and expensive—efforts to recruit black professors .
The real problem lies in the high poverty rates and low educational opportunities of African-Americans in our society , Kennedy argued , which does not generate enough qualified black candidates .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ help Princeton rebut the Department of Education ’ s probe of racism there .
But it probably won ’ t generate frank debate at our universities about the subject , which has been placed out of bounds .
Everybody knows this by now .
Like many faculty members , I ’ ve attended meetings where my own institution is denounced as racist because of its low percentage of minority professors .
Surely there are many people in the audience who—like Kennedy—question this accusation .
But they don ’ t want to make waves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Or consider the recent episode at the University of Southern California , where a business school professor was removed from his class for using a Chinese word that sounded like a racial slur in English .
An anonymous survey of 105 of his colleagues confirmed that many of them were self-censoring after the incident , fearing retribution from their employer .
“ I ’ m scared to death to teach in this environment , ” one professor admitted .
Another charged that USC “ is willing to throw faculty under the bus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appearance of diversity and inclusion instead of opening up dialogues on both sides.
” If we wanted a real dialogue about racism , our faculty reading groups would assign African-Americans like Randall Kennedy—or John McWhorter , or Glenn Loury—alongside , say , Ibram X. Kendi and Ta-Nehisi Coates .
We would engage critics of highly contested concepts such as microaggressions and safe spaces , instead of presenting these ideas as received wisdom .
And we ’ d make it clear that racism on our campuses was a question , not a prima-facie presumption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come to their own conclusions about it .
Let ’ s be clear : like many of our other leading institutions , Princeton was born in anti-black hatred and racism .
Most notoriously , its first nine presidents owned African-American slaves .
As a historian , I applaud every effort to examine that legacy and how it continues to affect us today .
But the effort will be harmed if we are discouraged or prevented from speaking our minds .
That ’ s a formula for cynicism , not anti-racism .
I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government official—telling Princeton what it can and can ’ t say about racism .
But I also don ’ t want our universities to squelch discussion of the subject , even as they proudly trumpet the virtues of honest debate .
A debate with one right answer isn ’ t honest .
It ’ s not even a debate .

Can we talk about racism at our colleges and universities?
I mean, really talk. Not gesture or pantomime, which too often passes for dialogue in this realm. Can we engage in a full and free exchange of ideas, where people actually say what they think and think what they say?
That’s the real question raised by the latest dust-up over racism in higher education, pitting the Department of Education against Princeton University. And thus far, unfortunately, the answer seems to be no. Proclaiming the urgent need for discussion, our universities are effectively silencing it.
In response to a statement by president Christopher Eisgruber that acknowledged continued racism at Princeton, the DOE announced last month that it would initiate an investigation of the university. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars institutions from discriminating based on race if they take money from Uncle Sam. So if Princeton is as racist as it says, the DOE argued, perhaps it has also flouted federal law.
There’s good reason to believe the Education Department wasn’t acting entirely in good faith. Its sudden concern for black lives at Princeton drew happy cackles from conservatives, suggesting that the real motive here was to hoist liberals on their own anti-racist petards. When the right-wing New York Post congratulates Education Secretary Betsy DeVos for her “epic trolling” of Princeton, well, it’s fair to suspect that Betsy DeVos is trolling Princeton.
But there was also something disingenuous about Princeton’s response and the letter signed by 80 college and university leaders, who charged the DOE with threatening academic freedom. “It is unfortunate that the Department appears to believe that grappling honestly with the nation’s history and the current effects of systemic racism runs afoul of existing law,” a Princeton spokesman said.
How can you grapple honestly with racism if you declare it before the discussion even starts? A letter signed by 350 faculty members last July flatly asserted that “anti-black racism has a visible bearing upon Princeton’s campus makeup and its hiring practices.” President Eisgruber of Princeton followed up with his own letter in September, admitting “systemic racism” at the university and pledging to recruit more black professors.
Yet we really don’t know whether the small fraction of African-Americans on the faculty reflects discrimination on Princeton’s part. Writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Harvard law professor and former Princeton trustee Randall Kennedy noted that Princeton has made expansive—and expensive—efforts to recruit black professors. The real problem lies in the high poverty rates and low educational opportunities of African-Americans in our society, Kennedy argued, which does not generate enough qualified black candidates.
Ironically, Kennedy’s article might help Princeton rebut the Department of Education’s probe of racism there. But it probably won’t generate frank debate at our universities about the subject, which has been placed out of bounds.
Everybody knows this by now. Like many faculty members, I’ve attended meetings where my own institution is denounced as racist because of its low percentage of minority professors. Surely there are many people in the audience who—like Kennedy—question this accusation. But they don’t want to make waves, so they sit on their hands.
Or consider the recent episode at the University of Southern California, where a business school professor was removed from his class for using a Chinese word that sounded like a racial slur in English. An anonymous survey of 105 of his colleagues confirmed that many of them were self-censoring after the incident, fearing retribution from their employer. “I’m scared to death to teach in this environment,” one professor admitted. Another charged that USC “is willing to throw faculty under the bus in order [to] preserve the appearance of diversity and inclusion instead of opening up dialogues on both sides.”
If we wanted a real dialogue about racism, our faculty reading groups would assign African-Americans like Randall Kennedy—or John McWhorter, or Glenn Loury—alongside, say, Ibram X. Kendi and Ta-Nehisi Coates. We would engage critics of highly contested concepts such as microaggressions and safe spaces, instead of presenting these ideas as received wisdom. And we’d make it clear that racism on our campuses was a question, not a prima-facie presumption, and that everyone remained free to come to their own conclusions about it.
Let’s be clear: like many of our other leading institutions, Princeton was born in anti-black hatred and racism. Most notoriously, its first nine presidents owned African-American slaves. As a historian, I applaud every effort to examine that legacy and how it continues to affect us today. But the effort will be harmed if we are discouraged or prevented from speaking our minds. That’s a formula for cynicism, not anti-racism.
I don’t want Betsy DeVos—or any other government official—telling Princeton what it can and can’t say about racism. But I also don’t want our universities to squelch discussion of the subject, even as they proudly trumpet the virtues of honest debate. A debate with one right answer isn’t honest. It’s not even a debate.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-05--Getting More Black Men to the Polls

Getting More Black Men to the Polls

Out of roughly 250,000,000 voting-eligible Americans , only around half actually vote .
For Black men , in particular , nearly half who are registered to vote have not gone to the polls in the past five consecutive elections .
Many can ’ t vote under state laws that disenfranchise Black men because of prior felony convictions or incarceration .
Meanwhile , the November election is poised to become one of the most pivotal in American history .
An incumbent president embraces authoritarianism with impunity , some 200,000 Americans are dead from a virus made worse by an incompetent federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hungry , unemployed , or sick .
The only way out of the darkness is through massive voter turnout .
Part of the problem may be that traditional campaigns are doing things all wrong .
This is why , after decades as a Democratic political consultant , Mondale Robinson founded the Black Male Voter Project , an organization devoted to bringing Black men into the electoral process for life .
With a $ 7.9 million budget , this 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) is funded like all other nonprofits–through individual donors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operates with a team of Washington , DC-based consultants , three full-time staffers and nearly 100 organizers working through the campaign season .
When Black men decide to vote , Mondale explains , they become “ super voters.
” Rather than giving the standard speech about the importance of voting to meta-problems like climate change or health-care reform , Mondale argues that the way to get non-voters to vote is to not mention voting at all , at least at the beginning .
Mondale , 41 , is one of 13 children born @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his father , William Robinson , as a “ super amazing creature ” who could do anything—pave driveways , train dogs , and install roofs .
Still , he says , “ We were extremely hungry .
I couldn ’ t understand why we were so poor because this man could do anything.
” William ’ s father was a sharecropper on Lotts Farm—a plot of land that ’ s still visible in Enfield , N.C. His mom ’ s family lived on Ward ’ s Plantation across the street .
Slavery brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young white boy knocked Mondale ’ s paternal grandmother off a porch .
Although the boy was not charged , Mondale ’ s dad faced a felony assault charge for punching back .
With the Ku Klux Klan and law enforcement after him , he ran to Virginia .
Mondale realized that this inequity—criminal “ injustice ” —was the status quo for Black men .
His dad ’ s legacy motivated Mondale to fight for equality , and he ’ s been involved in that fight ever since .
White men have dominated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mondale sees it , even the well-meaning ones craft campaigns the same , tired way : by deciding what will be said , who will say it , and how often it will be said .
With a program he calls the Black Male Engagement Program ( BEMP ) Auditory Approach , Mondale , who has offices in Atlanta and Washington , D.C. , has been turning that model on its head with remarkable success .
This year , in Georgia ’ s primary , his organization was able to get 96,000 Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Obama in the 2008 primary—or any primary since then—to vote in 2020 .
Step one is creating a platform that was carved out of more than 4,000 conversations in focus group settings deemed “ Brothas Be Voting.
” Only Black men are allowed in these sessions , which are different from traditional focus groups that try to provide a cross-sample of a demographic—say , undecided suburban women .
Mondale intentionally didn ’ t invite many men who were politically active , instead of over-sampling for the sporadic and non-voters .
Step two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditional campaigning.
” It goes like this : Every election cycle brings white candidates to black neighborhoods–usually just a couple of months or weeks before balloting begins .
First , there ’ s a knock at the door and then , Mondale says , comes a candidate spiel about “ how this person is the greatest thing since sliced bread ” and is “ going to solve all the problems that you ’ re experiencing.
” The campaign tells would-be voters what ’ s wrong in their lives .
Nobody asks them what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men , this pitch is , not surprisingly , unappealing .
They have shorter life expectancies , are more likely to be tried as adults if arrested as children , are over-sentenced to prison , are least likely to get callbacks in job interviews , and are disproportionately treated as having special needs .
Black men and their families need security and safety .
Promises of self-fulfillment and clean energy mean nothing until voting produces clean water , proper food , stable housing , and an ability to simply rest once in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s team , the first conversations are not about voting , elections , or candidates .
They are about what ’ s important to Black men—what ’ s missing from their lives and their communities .
Only after several of these conversations do things move to the second phase : using the information about what ’ s important to Black men to prompt civic engagement and produce supervoters .
What things tend to be important to Black men ?
Not abstract concepts about the importance of democracy or flaws in the Electoral College @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , pursuing trades that will produce good jobs , police brutality , cash bail , and over-sentencing of Black bodies .
When the connection is made between unscrupulous police offers and mayoral elections , Black men begin to see value in voting .
The same also goes for district attorneys who sit idly by while violent officers go unpunished .
District attorney races are rarely competitive but offer opportunities for real change at the ballot box within Black men ’ s own communities .
At the end of the day , BMVP ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Maslow ’ s hierarchy of needs .
The latter of which poses a model of human needs within a pyramid , with physiological needs at the most basic level , then safety , belongingness and love , esteem and feelings of accomplishment , and self-actualization at the apex .
But it all starts with a simple concept .
Food , water , warmth , rest .
If campaigns began there , maybe we would see real change in America.
” Striving for equity has never been easy , ” Mondale says , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an oppressed person .
”

Out of roughly 250,000,000 voting-eligible Americans, only around half actually vote. For Black men, in particular, nearly half who are registered to vote have not gone to the polls in the past five consecutive elections. Many can’t vote under state laws that disenfranchise Black men because of prior felony convictions or incarceration.
Meanwhile, the November election is poised to become one of the most pivotal in American history. An incumbent president embraces authoritarianism with impunity, some 200,000 Americans are dead from a virus made worse by an incompetent federal response and millions more are evicted, hungry, unemployed, or sick. The only way out of the darkness is through massive voter turnout.
Part of the problem may be that traditional campaigns are doing things all wrong.
This is why, after decades as a Democratic political consultant, Mondale Robinson founded the Black Male Voter Project, an organization devoted to bringing Black men into the electoral process for life. With a $7.9 million budget, this 501(c)(4) is funded like all other nonprofits–through individual donors and foundations, for the most part—and operates with a team of Washington, DC-based consultants, three full-time staffers and nearly 100 organizers working through the campaign season.
When Black men decide to vote, Mondale explains, they become “super voters.” Rather than giving the standard speech about the importance of voting to meta-problems like climate change or health-care reform, Mondale argues that the way to get non-voters to vote is to not mention voting at all, at least at the beginning.
Mondale, 41, is one of 13 children born in rural North Carolina. He describes his father, William Robinson, as a “super amazing creature” who could do anything—pave driveways, train dogs, and install roofs. Still, he says, “We were extremely hungry. I couldn’t understand why we were so poor because this man could do anything.”
William’s father was a sharecropper on Lotts Farm—a plot of land that’s still visible in Enfield, N.C. His mom’s family lived on Ward’s Plantation across the street. Slavery brought them there.
One day, a young white boy knocked Mondale’s paternal grandmother off a porch. Although the boy was not charged, Mondale’s dad faced a felony assault charge for punching back. With the Ku Klux Klan and law enforcement after him, he ran to Virginia. Mondale realized that this inequity—criminal “injustice”—was the status quo for Black men. His dad’s legacy motivated Mondale to fight for equality, and he’s been involved in that fight ever since.
White men have dominated politics for a long time. As Mondale sees it, even the well-meaning ones craft campaigns the same, tired way: by deciding what will be said, who will say it, and how often it will be said.
With a program he calls the Black Male Engagement Program (BEMP) Auditory Approach, Mondale, who has offices in Atlanta and Washington, D.C., has been turning that model on its head with remarkable success. This year, in Georgia’s primary, his organization was able to get 96,000 Black men who didn’t vote for President Obama in the 2008 primary—or any primary since then—to vote in 2020.
Step one is creating a platform that was carved out of more than 4,000 conversations in focus group settings deemed “Brothas Be Voting.” Only Black men are allowed in these sessions, which are different from traditional focus groups that try to provide a cross-sample of a demographic—say, undecided suburban women. Mondale intentionally didn’t invite many men who were politically active, instead of over-sampling for the sporadic and non-voters.
Step two is “overcoming the transactional nature of traditional campaigning.” It goes like this: Every election cycle brings white candidates to black neighborhoods–usually just a couple of months or weeks before balloting begins. First, there’s a knock at the door and then, Mondale says, comes a candidate spiel about “how this person is the greatest thing since sliced bread” and is “going to solve all the problems that you’re experiencing.” The campaign tells would-be voters what’s wrong in their lives. Nobody asks them what their problems are.
For many Black men, this pitch is, not surprisingly, unappealing. They have shorter life expectancies, are more likely to be tried as adults if arrested as children, are over-sentenced to prison, are least likely to get callbacks in job interviews, and are disproportionately treated as having special needs. Black men and their families need security and safety. Promises of self-fulfillment and clean energy mean nothing until voting produces clean water, proper food, stable housing, and an ability to simply rest once in a while.
So, for Mondale’s team, the first conversations are not about voting, elections, or candidates. They are about what’s important to Black men—what’s missing from their lives and their communities. Only after several of these conversations do things move to the second phase: using the information about what’s important to Black men to prompt civic engagement and produce supervoters.
What things tend to be important to Black men? Not abstract concepts about the importance of democracy or flaws in the Electoral College. Black men care about economic issues, pursuing trades that will produce good jobs, police brutality, cash bail, and over-sentencing of Black bodies. When the connection is made between unscrupulous police offers and mayoral elections, Black men begin to see value in voting. The same also goes for district attorneys who sit idly by while violent officers go unpunished. District attorney races are rarely competitive but offer opportunities for real change at the ballot box within Black men’s own communities.
At the end of the day, BMVP’s message is grounded in behavioral psychology and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The latter of which poses a model of human needs within a pyramid, with physiological needs at the most basic level, then safety, belongingness and love, esteem and feelings of accomplishment, and self-actualization at the apex. But it all starts with a simple concept. Food, water, warmth, rest. If campaigns began there, maybe we would see real change in America.” Striving for equity has never been easy,” Mondale says, “but neither is living life as an oppressed person.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-05--COVID-19 Gives Democrats a Chance to Stop the Coney Barrett Nomination. What They Should Do Now.

Greg Miller and Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post describe a nation that has been plunged “ into a vortex of potential vulnerability…probably without precedent , ” which is exactly where a lot of us expected a Trump presidency to lead .
Our country ’ s condition was predictable .
The details of its travail were more difficult to envision .
The U.S. president is hospitalized with a virus he refused to treat as a grave threat , in the final weeks of an election whose results he will not pledge to accept , as the nation confronts a struggling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unrest… …Consumed by its own difficulties , the country is in a poor position to respond to provocations by adversaries , advance its foreign policy interests with support from allies , or serve as a credible model of functioning democracy , former senior national security officials said .
Contributing to this chaos is the uncertainty I discussed on Friday regarding the Supreme Court nomination of Amy Coney Barrett .
The dynamics of Coney Barrett ’ s confirmation hearings seem to be changing almost hourly and , as a result , my advice to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kim of the Washington Post has an excellent explainer on the battle in the Senate Judiciary Committee .
Chairman Lindsey Graham still plans to begin the first of four hearings on Monday , October 12 , but the South Carolina Republican has moved up the committee vote on Coney Barrett from Monday the 26th to Thursday the 22nd .
Two Republican members of the committee , Mike Lee of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina tested positive for COVID-19 on Friday .
Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Ted Cruz of Texas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with people known to be infected .
The Centers for Disease Control ( CDC ) guidelines call for a 14-day quarantine , so these four members should still be in isolation on the 12th when the hearings begin .
However , whether any of them will abide by those unenforceable recommendations is uncertain .
Assuming they all stay in quarantine , Graham ’ s aggressive schedule would be in peril .
He can easily brush past the Senate Democrats ’ complaint that lifetime appointments are too important to be conducted via Zoom because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two U.S. Court of Appeals justices despite several members not being physically present .
He ’ ll have more trouble navigating the rules on quorums and proxy voting .
Citing Judiciary Committee staff , Kim reports virtual votes can only be cast when a quorum ( majority ) of the committee is physically present , and only if the vote does not change the outcome .
The committee is comprised of 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats .
If the Democrats don ’ t show up , all 12 Republicans must be present to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand , if all 10 Democrats show up and vote in unison , that would be a majority of those in attendance , and the four Republican virtual votes would not be allowed to change the outcome .
As discussed in my last piece , it seems likely that Graham is prepared to violate rules to move Coney Barrett through his committee .
Still , there ’ s a difference between ignoring a procedural rule or two and changing the standard for what constitutes a positive or negative report from the committee .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem is to have the quarantining senators show up in person before the recommended 14 days of isolation .
At least in the case of Lee , that appears to be the plan .
Despite learning on October 2nd that he has COVID-19 , Lee told Graham he ’ d be in attendance on the 12th .
Having infectious , or potentially infectious , senators at the hearings might be politically suicidal for the Republicans , and the Democrats should be merciless in their attacks on this disregard for public-health protocols .
Without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Republicans will not be able to launch the hearings before the 16th or 17th .
At that point , the Democrats can fight back with multiple procedural devices .
Graham hopes to report out Coney Barrett ’ s nomination by the 22nd , so Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can have the Senate confirm her before Election Day .
Every delay the Democrats can muster makes it less likely McConnell succeeds .
In theory , McConnell could bypass the Judiciary Committee entirely , but that requires 60 votes .
As things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his caucusITH and 51 committed votes for Coney Barrett ’ s confirmation .
The COVID-19 outbreak among Republicans in the Senate extends beyond the Judiciary Committee members Lee , Tillis , Cruz , and Sasse .
Ron Johnson of Wisconsin is infected , and James Lankford of Oklahoma is in precautionary self-quarantine .
Several other members , including Chuck Grassley of Iowa , 87 , are flouting CDC guidelines and refusing to quarantine or get tested despite being exposed to infected senators .
If two of these Republicans become too sick to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she might be defeated , and if three get sick that outcome is nearly certain .
The math is simple .
Pence can break ties on roll call votes in the Senate , but not mere procedural votes or motions to proceed .
McConnell needs fifty-one votes to have a vote at all .
The Democrats , along with Republican Sens .
Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska , have 49 votes in opposition to the nominee .
The Republicans have 51 votes in favor .
If one vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a 50-49 majority .
If two votes are missing , it ’ s a 49-49 tie .
For this to be sufficient to defeat the confirmation , Collins and Murkowski would have to vote with the Democrats to prevent a vote from occurring .
They haven ’ t committed to that .
If they allow a vote , Pence ’ s vote will give McConnell his victory .
However , if three favorable votes are missing , the nomination is sunk .
Coney Barrett ’ s lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus which she overcame in the Spring .
The Democrats should not wish sickness on their colleagues , but they should not consent to be potentially sickened by them either .
Their focus should remain on procedural delay and the illegitimacy of the process , as I recommended on Friday .
Still , the recklessness of the Republicans ’ disregard for safety is now a potent addition to their arsenal .
It ’ s all part of the “ vortex of potential vulnerability…probably without precedent ” that the Republicans are piling on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heat on , there ’ s a real possibility that Biden will select Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s replacement .

Greg Miller and Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post describe a nation that has been plunged “into a vortex of potential vulnerability…probably without precedent,” which is exactly where a lot of us expected a Trump presidency to lead. Our country’s condition was predictable. The details of its travail were more difficult to envision.
The U.S. president is hospitalized with a virus he refused to treat as a grave threat, in the final weeks of an election whose results he will not pledge to accept, as the nation confronts a struggling economy, an unyielding pandemic and racial unrest… …Consumed by its own difficulties, the country is in a poor position to respond to provocations by adversaries, advance its foreign policy interests with support from allies, or serve as a credible model of functioning democracy, former senior national security officials said.
Contributing to this chaos is the uncertainty I discussed on Friday regarding the Supreme Court nomination of Amy Coney Barrett.
The dynamics of Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings seem to be changing almost hourly and, as a result, my advice to Democrats needs an update.
Seung Min Kim of the Washington Post has an excellent explainer on the battle in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Chairman Lindsey Graham still plans to begin the first of four hearings on Monday, October 12, but the South Carolina Republican has moved up the committee vote on Coney Barrett from Monday the 26th to Thursday the 22nd.
Two Republican members of the committee, Mike Lee of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina tested positive for COVID-19 on Friday. Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Ted Cruz of Texas, are self-quarantining because they came in contact with people known to be infected. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines call for a 14-day quarantine, so these four members should still be in isolation on the 12th when the hearings begin. However, whether any of them will abide by those unenforceable recommendations is uncertain.
Assuming they all stay in quarantine, Graham’s aggressive schedule would be in peril. He can easily brush past the Senate Democrats’ complaint that lifetime appointments are too important to be conducted via Zoom because, in May, the committee approved two U.S. Court of Appeals justices despite several members not being physically present. He’ll have more trouble navigating the rules on quorums and proxy voting.
Citing Judiciary Committee staff, Kim reports virtual votes can only be cast when a quorum (majority) of the committee is physically present, and only if the vote does not change the outcome. The committee is comprised of 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats. If the Democrats don’t show up, all 12 Republicans must be present to create a quorum. On the other hand, if all 10 Democrats show up and vote in unison, that would be a majority of those in attendance, and the four Republican virtual votes would not be allowed to change the outcome.
As discussed in my last piece, it seems likely that Graham is prepared to violate rules to move Coney Barrett through his committee. Still, there’s a difference between ignoring a procedural rule or two and changing the standard for what constitutes a positive or negative report from the committee.
One way for Graham to avoid this problem is to have the quarantining senators show up in person before the recommended 14 days of isolation. At least in the case of Lee, that appears to be the plan. Despite learning on October 2nd that he has COVID-19, Lee told Graham he’d be in attendance on the 12th.
Having infectious, or potentially infectious, senators at the hearings might be politically suicidal for the Republicans, and the Democrats should be merciless in their attacks on this disregard for public-health protocols. Without having infectious or potentially infectious members present, the Republicans will not be able to launch the hearings before the 16th or 17th.
At that point, the Democrats can fight back with multiple procedural devices.
Graham hopes to report out Coney Barrett’s nomination by the 22nd, so Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can have the Senate confirm her before Election Day. Every delay the Democrats can muster makes it less likely McConnell succeeds.
In theory, McConnell could bypass the Judiciary Committee entirely, but that requires 60 votes. As things stand, McConnell only has 53 members in his caucusITH and 51 committed votes for Coney Barrett’s confirmation.
The COVID-19 outbreak among Republicans in the Senate extends beyond the Judiciary Committee members Lee, Tillis, Cruz, and Sasse. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin is infected, and James Lankford of Oklahoma is in precautionary self-quarantine. Several other members, including Chuck Grassley of Iowa, 87, are flouting CDC guidelines and refusing to quarantine or get tested despite being exposed to infected senators. If two of these Republicans become too sick to vote on Coney Barrett’s confirmation, she might be defeated, and if three get sick that outcome is nearly certain.
The math is simple. Pence can break ties on roll call votes in the Senate, but not mere procedural votes or motions to proceed. McConnell needs fifty-one votes to have a vote at all.
The Democrats, along with Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have 49 votes in opposition to the nominee. The Republicans have 51 votes in favor. If one vote in favor is missing, McConnell still has a 50-49 majority. If two votes are missing, it’s a 49-49 tie.
For this to be sufficient to defeat the confirmation, Collins and Murkowski would have to vote with the Democrats to prevent a vote from occurring. They haven’t committed to that. If they allow a vote, Pence’s vote will give McConnell his victory.
However, if three favorable votes are missing, the nomination is sunk. Coney Barrett’s lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is really at the mercy of the coronavirus which she overcame in the Spring.
The Democrats should not wish sickness on their colleagues, but they should not consent to be potentially sickened by them either. Their focus should remain on procedural delay and the illegitimacy of the process, as I recommended on Friday. Still, the recklessness of the Republicans’ disregard for safety is now a potent addition to their arsenal. It’s all part of the “vortex of potential vulnerability…probably without precedent” that the Republicans are piling on the nation. If the Democrats keep the heat on, there’s a real possibility that Biden will select Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-05--Why Won’t the White House Let the CDC Contact Trace Its Rose Garden Event?

It is now more than a week since the White House hosted a Rose Garden ceremony to announce and celebrate the Supreme Court nomination of Amy Coney Barrett .
More than a dozen people who attended have tested positive for Covid since then , including the president of the United States , his campaign manager Bill Stepien , and his press secretary Kayleigh McEnamy , making this a possible “ superspreader event.
” The Centers for Disease Control , standing by to send in a contact tracing team , has been rebuffed .
In any other administration , we would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration , we call it unsurprising .
Dr. Sean Conley said that contact tracing is underway internally , but multiple news sources have tried and failed to find anyone present at the event who was interrogated , and Conley ’ s reputation for truthfulness has taken a few hits this past weekend .
CNN reports that it interviewed “ more than half a dozen people who came into contact with Trump over the past week ” yet “ uncovered little more than a few phone calls and emails to potentially infected people encouraging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House is conducting something that it considers to be contact tracing .
But whatever it ’ s doing clearly doesn ’ t come close to meeting the CDC ’ s guidelines , which is why it wants to keep the CDC out .
Why can ’ t real contact tracing take place ?
Because that would require various parties , starting with the president , to speak truthfully about when they learned they ’ d been exposed to someone with Covid ; when they got tested ; what type of test they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to infect other people .
All of which might furnish an uncomfortably precise answer to Howard Baker ’ s favorite Watergate question , “ What did the president know and when did he know it ?
” Perhaps other top officials in the White House could be counted on to speak truthfully if the president agreed to be truthful .
But Donald Trump has never needed much encouragement to lie even about trivial matters .
And this particular matter isn ’ t trivial .
In this instance , the likeliest explanation for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump learned he ’ d been exposed to Covid much sooner than we ’ ve been told , and that he should have quarantined himself for most of last week .
Trump is already coming under heavy criticism for making various public appearances—a rally in Duluth , a fundraiser in Bedminster , N.J.—after he he knew Hope Hicks had Covid , or at least after he knew she was showing symptoms .
We learned of Hicks ’ s infection not because the White House revealed it , but because a Bloomberg reporter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement on Saturday about Trump having had Covid for 72 hours had to be walked back because it contradicted the official timeline , which is that Trump learned he had Covid on Thursday .
Seventy-two hours would have meant Trump learned he had Covid on Wednesday , and kept it secret for two days .
One compelling question is whether Trump knew he ’ d been exposed to Covid when he debated Joe Biden on Tuesday evening .
While Trump was interrupting Biden and hurling infantile insults at him , was he also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ’ s general direction ?
( Incidentally , as of Monday the CDC now concedesthat the virus can be transmitted to someone who is more than six feet away , information that it tried for awhile to suppress , presumably under pressure from the White House . )
According to Chris Wallace , both candidates were supposed to be tested prior to the debate , but Trump arrived too late to be tested .
“ There was an honor system when it came to the people that came into the hall from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Biden has repeatedly tested negative for the virus , but we won ’ t know for certain for a few days more whether he ’ s in the clear .
Apparently Hicks tested negative on Wednesday morning , then tested positive on Wednesday evening .
If the official story is correct that Trump learned he ’ d been exposed to Covid when Hicks tested positive , that would mean he didn ’ t respond irresponsibly by showing up at the debate on Tuesday .
But what if the official story is untrue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been exposed to Covid before Hicks tested positive ?
Then Trump might have been wildly reckless to show up in Cleveland Tuesday for the debate .
We are talking , after all , about a notorious germaphobe , one who persuaded himself he didn ’ t need to wear a mask because he was constantly being tested , as were the people all around him .
It strains credulity that it took Trump four days after that Rose Garden party to learn of his possible exposure .
What if Trump and Hicks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rose Garden party—and Trump knew he ’ d been exposed as early as Monday ?
Jamie Dupree of Cox Media Group notes that “ two days after the crowded Rose Garden announcement for Amy Coney Barrett , the White House was suddenly using separate speaking spots for the President and other speakers.
” This was sufficiently unusual for Dupree to make note of it at the time .
The White House ’ s stinginess with reporters in sharing even the most basic facts about its Covid outbreak makes clear that it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say how many White House staffers tested positive for Covid , citing privacy concerns—even though nobody ’ s privacy could possibly be violated by a simple number .
What that number might reveal , though , is that the outbreak is further along than was previously known—which would suggest Trump cottoned to it earlier than Wednesday .
Which would come out if CDC sent in a contract tracing team .
I ’ ve seen it reported how very difficult it would be to conduct proper contact tracing on the 150 people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , the opposite is true .
There is nobody easier to track down than a person who has entered the White House grounds , because they don ’ t let you through the gate unless you provide quite a lot of information about yourself .
This information gets logged .
Moreover , the sort of people who show up at such events are not exactly off the grid .
A lot of them were members of Congress , who are laughably easy to track .
A lot of them worked at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone was constantly getting tested and re-tested .
We know who these people are , and where they live , and what their contact information is .
Also : The whole thing was captured on video and in photographs !
We know where everybody sat at the announcement .
I already know more about the whereabouts of people at this event than I do about who talked to whom at my own wedding two years ago .
Apparently Bill Barr had a long natter with Kellyanne Conway , who ’ s tested positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not self-quarantine , because of course he did ; now apparently he ’ s doing it .
The Rose Garden event created the sort of tracing evidence that medical professionals usually can only dream about .
But for some reason , the White House won ’ t let the CDC professionals in .
Might that perhaps be because the president is not being very forthcoming about when he learned he ’ d been exposed to Covid , and when he knew he had it ?
Might Trump ’ s behavior have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been told ?
Perhaps not .
We don ’ t really know .
But it ’ s been a long time since the answer to such questions has turned out , on further investigation , to be “ no .
”

But Prince Prospero was happy and dauntless and sagacious. When his dominions were half depopulated, he summoned to his presence a thousand hale and light-hearted friends from among the knights and dames of his court.
—Edgar Allan Poe, “The Masque of the Red Death”
It is now more than a week since the White House hosted a Rose Garden ceremony to announce and celebrate the Supreme Court nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. More than a dozen people who attended have tested positive for Covid since then, including the president of the United States, his campaign manager Bill Stepien, and his press secretary Kayleigh McEnamy, making this a possible “superspreader event.”
The Centers for Disease Control, standing by to send in a contact tracing team, has been rebuffed. In any other administration, we would call that very odd. In this administration, we call it unsurprising. Dr. Sean Conley said that contact tracing is underway internally, but multiple news sources have tried and failed to find anyone present at the event who was interrogated, and Conley’s reputation for truthfulness has taken a few hits this past weekend. CNN reports that it interviewed “more than half a dozen people who came into contact with Trump over the past week” yet “uncovered little more than a few phone calls and emails to potentially infected people encouraging them to get tested.”
Probably the White House is conducting something that it considers to be contact tracing. But whatever it’s doing clearly doesn’t come close to meeting the CDC’s guidelines, which is why it wants to keep the CDC out.
Why can’t real contact tracing take place? Because that would require various parties, starting with the president, to speak truthfully about when they learned they’d been exposed to someone with Covid; when they got tested; what type of test they received; and what precautions they took not to infect other people. All of which might furnish an uncomfortably precise answer to Howard Baker’s favorite Watergate question, “What did the president know and when did he know it?”
Perhaps other top officials in the White House could be counted on to speak truthfully if the president agreed to be truthful. But Donald Trump has never needed much encouragement to lie even about trivial matters. And this particular matter isn’t trivial. In this instance, the likeliest explanation for White House evasions on this matter is that Trump learned he’d been exposed to Covid much sooner than we’ve been told, and that he should have quarantined himself for most of last week.
Trump is already coming under heavy criticism for making various public appearances—a rally in Duluth, a fundraiser in Bedminster, N.J.—after he he knew Hope Hicks had Covid, or at least after he knew she was showing symptoms. We learned of Hicks’s infection not because the White House revealed it, but because a Bloomberg reporter found out about it. A public statement on Saturday about Trump having had Covid for 72 hours had to be walked back because it contradicted the official timeline, which is that Trump learned he had Covid on Thursday. Seventy-two hours would have meant Trump learned he had Covid on Wednesday, and kept it secret for two days.
One compelling question is whether Trump knew he’d been exposed to Covid when he debated Joe Biden on Tuesday evening. While Trump was interrupting Biden and hurling infantile insults at him, was he also sending aerosolized virus particles in the vice president’s general direction? (Incidentally, as of Monday the CDC now concedesthat the virus can be transmitted to someone who is more than six feet away, information that it tried for awhile to suppress, presumably under pressure from the White House.)
According to Chris Wallace, both candidates were supposed to be tested prior to the debate, but Trump arrived too late to be tested. “There was an honor system when it came to the people that came into the hall from the two campaigns,” Wallace said.
Oh.
Biden has repeatedly tested negative for the virus, but we won’t know for certain for a few days more whether he’s in the clear.
Apparently Hicks tested negative on Wednesday morning, then tested positive on Wednesday evening. If the official story is correct that Trump learned he’d been exposed to Covid when Hicks tested positive, that would mean he didn’t respond irresponsibly by showing up at the debate on Tuesday.
But what if the official story is untrue? What if Trump learned he might have been exposed to Covid before Hicks tested positive? Then Trump might have been wildly reckless to show up in Cleveland Tuesday for the debate.
We are talking, after all, about a notorious germaphobe, one who persuaded himself he didn’t need to wear a mask because he was constantly being tested, as were the people all around him. It strains credulity that it took Trump four days after that Rose Garden party to learn of his possible exposure.
What if Trump and Hicks caught it from a common source—from that Rose Garden party—and Trump knew he’d been exposed as early as Monday? Jamie Dupree of Cox Media Group notes that “two days after the crowded Rose Garden announcement for Amy Coney Barrett, the White House was suddenly using separate speaking spots for the President and other speakers.” This was sufficiently unusual for Dupree to make note of it at the time.
The White House’s stinginess with reporters in sharing even the most basic facts about its Covid outbreak makes clear that it’s hiding something. On Sunday McEnamy refused to say how many White House staffers tested positive for Covid, citing privacy concerns—even though nobody’s privacy could possibly be violated by a simple number. What that number might reveal, though, is that the outbreak is further along than was previously known—which would suggest Trump cottoned to it earlier than Wednesday. Which would come out if CDC sent in a contract tracing team.
I’ve seen it reported how very difficult it would be to conduct proper contact tracing on the 150 people who attended the Rose Garden event. In fact, the opposite is true. There is nobody easier to track down than a person who has entered the White House grounds, because they don’t let you through the gate unless you provide quite a lot of information about yourself. This information gets logged.
Moreover, the sort of people who show up at such events are not exactly off the grid. A lot of them were members of Congress, who are laughably easy to track. A lot of them worked at the White House, where, again, everyone was constantly getting tested and re-tested. We know who these people are, and where they live, and what their contact information is.
Also: The whole thing was captured on video and in photographs! We know where everybody sat at the announcement. I already know more about the whereabouts of people at this event than I do about who talked to whom at my own wedding two years ago. Apparently Bill Barr had a long natter with Kellyanne Conway, who’s tested positive for Covid. Initially he said he would not self-quarantine, because of course he did; now apparently he’s doing it.
The Rose Garden event created the sort of tracing evidence that medical professionals usually can only dream about. But for some reason, the White House won’t let the CDC professionals in. Might that perhaps be because the president is not being very forthcoming about when he learned he’d been exposed to Covid, and when he knew he had it? Might Trump’s behavior have been even more irresponsible than we’ve been told?
Perhaps not. We don’t really know. But it’s been a long time since the answer to such questions has turned out, on further investigation, to be “no.”
This article originally appeared on Backbencher.


The Gray Revolt

The big polling news over the weekend came from the NBC News/Wall Street Journal post-debate poll showing Joe Biden with a 14-point lead over Donald Trump .
That ’ s up from an eight-point lead in their previous poll .
Nate Silver noted that this poll is usually close to the national averages .
It ’ s not likely to be an outlier .
What is even more significant than the topline number , however , is that Trump ’ s biggest decline came from seniors , where Biden leads by 27 points ( 62-35 ) .
While that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have shown Biden with a sizable lead among seniors .
That is a huge reversal from 2016 when Trump won with voters who were over 65 by seven points .
Seniors are , of course , among the most formidable forces in American politics because they vote .
Four years ago , 71 percent of voters over 65 cast a ballot—compared to 46 percent in the 18-29 age group .
About 17 percent of America ’ s adults are seniors , but they make up 25 percent of this country ’ s registered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in any election .
In addition , this is a voting bloc that could swing the election in several battleground states , particularly Florida , Arizona , and Pennsylvania .
According to conventional wisdom , the reason for Trump ’ s declining support among seniors is his mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic .
The president ignored the issue initially , while some of his Republican colleagues suggested that older Americans , who are more likely to die if they contract COVID-19 , can be sacrificed in order to jump-start the economy .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home residents died every hour nationally , according to a recent congressional report co-authored by Sen. Robert Casey ( D-Pa ) .
Beyond that , many seniors have followed the science-based guidelines and have given up everything from attending the funerals of loved ones to hugging their grandchildren .
They ’ ve done this while watching Trump flout the rules , mock those who adhere to them , and eventually contract COVID himself .
Because this pandemic has so dramatically affected seniors personally , journalist Walter Shapiro suggests that they might have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more closely than they did his other actions over the previous three years .
But Biden has actually held an advantage among seniors since last summer , indicating that the coronavirus isn ’ t the only factor .
To understand why , it is helpful to remember that the group we refer to as “ seniors ” can actually be broken down into subsets , as Pew Research did back in 2012 .
As the number of seniors who came of age during the Eisenhower years fades , the slightly more Democratic Boomers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to the 65+ age group per day .
In other words , the senior cohort that voted for Trump in 2016 has changed dramatically .
That alone could explain why Biden held a lead of about five points initially .
But Biden ’ s lead has continued to grow .
In addition to Trump ’ s mishandling of the pandemic , we can perhaps credit those who have provided a permission structure for Republicans to vote for Biden , like the bipartisan group of 489 national security officials who endorsed the former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disparaging those in the military would have resonated more profoundly with seniors and seem to have led to a public endorsement by Cindy McCain , 66 , the wife of the 2008 Republican nominee .
Another blow to Trump ’ s clout with seniors came from the first ( and perhaps the last ) Trump-Biden debate .
Reacting to Biden ’ s 27-point lead among seniors in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll , journalist Ron Brownstein pointed out that “ they have seen enough other presidents to recognize how aberrant his behavior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testimonial to that.
” As a source told Gabriel Sherman of Vanity Fair , “ The thing about the debate is people got to see why no one that has any integrity can work for Trump .
This is what Trump is like in the Oval Office every day.
” Even Fox News couldn ’ t hide that reality from viewers .
Presenting a contrast , Biden has gained a reputation as a stable moderate who actually cares about people at a time when all of us , including seniors , are ready @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We don ’ t know yet how seniors will be affected by the fact that the president has contracted COVID-19 .
But if Biden continues to lead Trump among voters 65 and older by these margins , it is difficult to imagine any path to reelection for the president .

The big polling news over the weekend came from the NBC News/Wall Street Journal post-debate poll showing Joe Biden with a 14-point lead over Donald Trump. That’s up from an eight-point lead in their previous poll. Nate Silver noted that this poll is usually close to the national averages. It’s not likely to be an outlier.
What is even more significant than the topline number, however, is that Trump’s biggest decline came from seniors, where Biden leads by 27 points (62-35). While that is dramatic, other national and state polls have shown Biden with a sizable lead among seniors. That is a huge reversal from 2016 when Trump won with voters who were over 65 by seven points.
Seniors are, of course, among the most formidable forces in American politics because they vote. Four years ago, 71 percent of voters over 65 cast a ballot—compared to 46 percent in the 18-29 age group. About 17 percent of America’s adults are seniors, but they make up 25 percent of this country’s registered voters, giving them an outsized role in any election. In addition, this is a voting bloc that could swing the election in several battleground states, particularly Florida, Arizona, and Pennsylvania.
According to conventional wisdom, the reason for Trump’s declining support among seniors is his mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic. The president ignored the issue initially, while some of his Republican colleagues suggested that older Americans, who are more likely to die if they contract COVID-19, can be sacrificed in order to jump-start the economy. In July and August 2020, 11 nursing home residents died every hour nationally, according to a recent congressional report co-authored by Sen. Robert Casey (D-Pa).
Beyond that, many seniors have followed the science-based guidelines and have given up everything from attending the funerals of loved ones to hugging their grandchildren. They’ve done this while watching Trump flout the rules, mock those who adhere to them, and eventually contract COVID himself.
Because this pandemic has so dramatically affected seniors personally, journalist Walter Shapiro suggests that they might have been tracking Trump’s lies and incompetence more closely than they did his other actions over the previous three years.
But Biden has actually held an advantage among seniors since last summer, indicating that the coronavirus isn’t the only factor. To understand why, it is helpful to remember that the group we refer to as “seniors” can actually be broken down into subsets, as Pew Research did back in 2012.
Those who turned 18 during the Nixon administration – a segment of older Baby Boomers – have tended to be slightly more Democratic than average in their voting. Those who came of age during the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson years – mostly members of the Silent generation and the very oldest of the Baby Boomers –have tended to be more Republican than the average.
As the number of seniors who came of age during the Eisenhower years fades, the slightly more Democratic Boomers are filling the ranks, adding 10,000 people to the 65+ age group per day. In other words, the senior cohort that voted for Trump in 2016 has changed dramatically. That alone could explain why Biden held a lead of about five points initially.
But Biden’s lead has continued to grow. In addition to Trump’s mishandling of the pandemic, we can perhaps credit those who have provided a permission structure for Republicans to vote for Biden, like the bipartisan group of 489 national security officials who endorsed the former vice president. Trump’s remarks disparaging those in the military would have resonated more profoundly with seniors and seem to have led to a public endorsement by Cindy McCain, 66, the wife of the 2008 Republican nominee.
Another blow to Trump’s clout with seniors came from the first (and perhaps the last) Trump-Biden debate. Reacting to Biden’s 27-point lead among seniors in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, journalist Ron Brownstein pointed out that “they have seen enough other presidents to recognize how aberrant his behavior is; the debate was a 90-minute testimonial to that.” As a source told Gabriel Sherman of Vanity Fair, “The thing about the debate is people got to see why no one that has any integrity can work for Trump. This is what Trump is like in the Oval Office every day.” Even Fox News couldn’t hide that reality from viewers.
Presenting a contrast, Biden has gained a reputation as a stable moderate who actually cares about people at a time when all of us, including seniors, are ready for a break from bullying and chaos.
We don’t know yet how seniors will be affected by the fact that the president has contracted COVID-19. But if Biden continues to lead Trump among voters 65 and older by these margins, it is difficult to imagine any path to reelection for the president.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-06--How Robots Will Make Our Work More Human

The COVID-19 pandemic has upended the idea of “ work.
” With face-to-face contact now risky , entire industries—like retail and food service—have been devastated , while the office as we know it , at least for the moment , is dead .
Our interactions with customers and colleagues are muffled by face masks or mediated by the pixelated coldness of a computer screen .
Work for many Americans is now alienating and isolated—assuming there ’ s a job at all .
The pandemic is dehumanizing work in other ways , as companies accelerate efforts to swap out vulnerable humans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Tokyo coffee shops might be just the start .
The Brookings Institution estimates that 36 million U.S. jobs are “ highly ” susceptible to elimination over the next decade , while doomsday futurists like Martin Ford have warned of a “ jobless future.
” This grim prediction is why the former presidential candidate Andrew Yang and others who are worried about mass joblessness believe that a universal basic income is necessary .
In refreshing defiance of this existential gloom is Human Work , a compelling new book on the future of work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Merisotis is a former Washington Monthly staffer and a frequent contributor , and Lumina is one of the magazine ’ s funders . )
In Merisotis ’ s view , automation brings liberation , not threat .
It frees workers to focus on the uniquely human activities that robots can not do—such as thinking , collaborating , and innovating—and to embrace the traits that robots can not have , such as compassion , empathy , and ethics .
“ People can not and should not compete with machines for work , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to focus on what makes us different from machines by developing our knowledge , skills and abilities [ to put ] human capabilities and values first.
” The result , Merisotis argues , could be a collective redefinition of what work means , and perhaps even a new sense of purpose .
A bracing shot of optimism amid the current disruption , Human Work is a reminder of the human values we haven ’ t lost , even as the pandemic has robbed us—at least for now—of physical connection .
History shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than it destroys .
The rise of automobiles , for instance , created millions of new jobs even as horse-and-buggy travel became obsolete .
Some pessimists nonetheless argue that the coming wave of automation poses a unique threat .
While cars are not a direct substitute for human labor , robots can and have replaced human workers .
And when armed with artificial intelligence , as is increasingly the case , some warn that these next-generation robots are not only interchangeable with humans but are also superior .
The potential impact of AI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among technologists and economists .
While one particularly breathless analysis from the McKinsey Global Institute predicts the loss of 800 million jobs worldwide , noted economists like Robert Gordon are far more skeptical of the pace and scale of change .
Though a self-driving truck could deliver goods to stores , as Gordon told Vox , you still need humans to unload the truck and put products on the shelves .
Merisotis sidesteps this quarrel , describing the war over job loss predictions as “ a waste of time and effort.
” Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writes , “ much more complex outcomes are likely than simply ‘ truck driving will disappear.
’ ” Instead , he reframes the debate : “ What ’ s more important than whether a particular job will go away is that everyone will see jobs changed in some way by technology.
” The book ’ s focus , therefore , is on what technology brings to work , rather than what it takes away .
First , Merisotis points out that automation has in many instances improved the quality of workers ’ jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangerous , dirty , or mind-numbingly dull .
( Machines , in short , have taken on the tasks that workers have historically complained make them feel like “ cogs , ” or less than human . )
It has also changed the nature of work , from rote and impersonal to innovative and individual .
Photographers , for instance , spend very little time today on the mechanical task of processing film , leaving more time to focus on creative expression and connection with their subjects .
Their work has become “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes is already rippling through every field .
According to a 2018 Vanguard research analysis he cites , “ across all occupations , half of all tasks are uniquely human , compared to just 30 % of tasks in 2000.
” The net result of this humanization of work , Merisotis argues , will be more new jobs , many of them impervious to automation , even by AI .
In particular , he predicts the growth of four new categories of uniquely human work : “ helpers , ” where customer service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health care , financial counseling , and other services ) ; “ bridgers , ” who combine technical expertise with people skills to help run systems or connect lay people with expert services ( think IT help desk professionals or auto repair shop managers ) ; “ integrators , ” who synthesize a broad base of knowledge and skills but apply them in a personal way ( think social workers and elementary school teachers ) ; and “ creators , ” workers who possess technical skills along with deep creativity ( think architects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instances , these jobs are not only adjacent to technology but also dependent on it .
To illustrate this new paradigm , Merisotis weaves into his manuscript stories of workers who have successfully transformed their own careers or navigated automation in their industries .
Among the latter is Joel Lewis , who started out on the assembly line at Cummins Inc. making engine parts but now trains teams of workers maintaining the robots ( or collaborative robots , known as “ cobots ” ) who now perform his old job .
Many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reinvented themselves , underscoring a principal theme of the book : the importance of lifelong access to training and education .
Included is Rodney Owens , who enrolled in community college at age 40 to study computer-integrated machining ; Malaika White , a single mother who returned to college in her 30s ; and Mark Sciarra , an aging former pro wrestler ( once known as Rip Rogers ) who has cobbled together a profitable freelance career teaching aspiring wrestlers , creating YouTube videos , and authoring books .
But for all these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crucial caveat : While this transformation of work should be embraced , many workers will need help making the leap .
Even as the number of “ good ” jobs is growing , they are primarily going to workers who have some sort of credential above a high school diploma .
Of the 5.6 million jobs lost in the Great Recession for people with a high school education or less , only 80,000 of them have come back , he notes .
No doubt the pandemic has erased even those extremely modest gains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s workers for tomorrow ’ s jobs is the task of the final third of Human Work .
While “ education and training ” has become the default mantra for helping workers manage economic disruption , it will not be enough to simply expand a broken system .
Merisotis argues for deeper , systemic reform as well .
Though the failings of the nation ’ s education and workforce development system could fill—and have filled—many volumes ( as well as the pages of this magazine ) , Merisotis pinpoints three problems that particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a post-automation world .
First is the simple fact that far too many workers lack a credential beyond high school , even as higher education becomes increasingly key to landing a good job .
Government data shows that only about 43 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 64 have some sort of credential beyond a high school diploma , even as two-thirds of jobs today require post-secondary training or education .
The problem is that most colleges and universities are primarily aimed at younger students coming straight out of high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many millions of older students who need a second chance at higher education .
Second , even when students do have access to education , they aren ’ t acquiring the people skills and problem-solving skills they increasingly need to succeed in the workforce .
Instead , schools are still far too focused on academic and technical skills .
“ Human work demands a broader , more integrated kind of learning , ” traditionally associated with the liberal arts , says Merisotis , who cautions against an overreliance on narrowly focused STEM education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he continues , “ the desire and ability to continuously learn new skills across a range of fields is far more important.
” The third and final problem is one that has long occupied high education reformers : What are the specific skills and knowledge that credentials actually signify ?
Employers , students , and parents have long assumed that earning a diploma , especially from a “ prestigious ” institution , means that there ’ s been some meaningful transfer of content from school to student .
But the truth is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one knows what the graduates of our education systems really know and can do , least of all the graduates themselves.
” Employers have no way to judge if a potential worker truly has the requisite skills , and most students have no way to know if the credentials they are working toward ( and paying a lot for ) have value in the labor market .
To remedy these three failures , Merisotis proposes a total rethinking of the traditional school-college-work pathway , where students experience each step in a discrete and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system , students are “ done ” with school , then move on to work .
Career exploration and preparation are often not part of the school experience ; one survey by Gallup and Strada Education , for instance , found that just 20 percent of undergraduates visit their campus career services center .
By contrast , what Merisotis envisions is the integration of learning and work into a continual , iterative experience over the course of a worker ’ s career , where career preparation is part of education and education is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offers a framework for how to achieve these reforms .
Colleges and universities should revamp their business models to meet the demand for lifelong education and serve older students in particular .
Schools should also remake their curricula so that students become what Merisotis calls wide learners , who can think across disciplines .
Companies need to make training a part of their business plan , with expansive on-the-job coaching and apprenticeships aimed at developing the skills that both companies and workers need .
And to solve the problem of what credentials mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of transparency that defines and standardizes the competencies credentials signify so that employers and students understand their value .
Rather than be prescriptive in how these changes need to happen , Merisotis calls for innovation and provides examples of schools and companies that are leading the way .
Amarillo College , a community college in Texas , for instance , has dramatically changed its approach to better serve its students , many of whom are first-generation learners juggling competing demands of work and family .
The school not only offers supports such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and emergency cash assistance , it also has replaced the traditional 16-week semester with more intensive eight-week sessions that better fit students ’ schedules .
As one result , the school has improved its three-year completion rate to 45 percent—a stunning turnaround from the 9 percent graduation rate it reported in 2010 .
Another example of new thinking is the six-week art class now required of medical students at the University of Virginia , a model for the kind of integrated learning Human Work calls for schools to provide .
By studying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only hone their observational skills but also develop capacity for “ personal reflection , tolerance of ambiguity , and awareness of personal bias , ” Merisotis writes .
“ These are very real skills that have big effects on the quality of care their patients will one day receive.
” Merisotis also points to forward-thinking companies that have made big investments in worker training and apprenticeships , although he acknowledges that far too many businesses still see training as an expense or an employee benefit rather than an integral part of their business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything from tax policy to accounting standards to make sure investing in people is seen as essential to the enterprise , ” he writes .
Perhaps Merisotis ’ s most radical proposal is to shift toward so-called competency-based learning , where students and workers are judged by the skills they actually possess rather than their diploma or the perceived reputation of the school that awarded it .
Such a reform would not only ensure that students acquire skills and education of actual value in the labor market , it would also help dismantle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Essential to this reform is the creation of a comprehensive , transparent system for defining , cataloging , and tracking credentials so that students and workers are armed with information about the credentials they can earn , their value , and their cost .
Ultimately , Merisotis envisions a marketplace for credentials , where students , not colleges , have the leverage .
“ Consumers ’ ability to navigate the system means that pressure will be on the established brands to produce results consumers want , ” he writes .
“ A reduction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of better information means that the system overall will be better.
” Human Work is a bold and necessary manifesto for building the education and career pathways tomorrow ’ s students and workers need .
If there is one flaw in this book , it is that Merisotis does not sufficiently acknowledge that there will be failures .
Whether by dint of disability , bad luck , or personal circumstances , not every worker will make a successful transition to human work .
And given the increasing paucity of lower-skilled work , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be unwilling to let go of an accustomed way of life and the sense of identity derived from a long career .
What to do about the workers who have already fallen through the cracks is outside the scope of this book , yet these workers can not be neglected if there is to be systemic change .
In his now-classic oral history , Working , the journalist Studs Terkel captured the hopes and anxieties of dozens of American workers whose jobs—in manufacturing , mining , and other occupations—were then on the precipice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he wrote , was “ the planned obsolescence of people that is of a piece with the planned obsolescence of the things they make.
” Working was published in 1974 , and the worries of these workers were indeed realized , especially as manufacturing jobs cratered beginning in the 1980s .
Public policy failed to help those who lost jobs , and the consequences of that failure are reverberating today .
Donald Trump swept into office in 2016 riding the bitterness of Americans who had lost their place in the old economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one .
Their anger , hardened to resentment and distrust , will continue to be an obstacle to social progress , including the investments necessary for educational and workforce system reform , unless the difficulties they face are also addressed .
Yet the need for change could not be more urgent .
Absent the kinds of reforms Merisotis calls for in Human Work , America runs the risk of creating still another generation of workers cheated of opportunities for success .
Their disappointment will taint our politics .
More tragically , their human @ @ @ @ @

The COVID-19 pandemic has upended the idea of “work.” With face-to-face contact now risky, entire industries—like retail and food service—have been devastated, while the office as we know it, at least for the moment, is dead. Our interactions with customers and colleagues are muffled by face masks or mediated by the pixelated coldness of a computer screen. Work for many Americans is now alienating and isolated—assuming there’s a job at all.
The pandemic is dehumanizing work in other ways, as companies accelerate efforts to swap out vulnerable humans with virus-proof machines. Robots serving cappuccinos in Tokyo coffee shops might be just the start. The Brookings Institution estimates that 36 million U.S. jobs are “highly” susceptible to elimination over the next decade, while doomsday futurists like Martin Ford have warned of a “jobless future.” This grim prediction is why the former presidential candidate Andrew Yang and others who are worried about mass joblessness believe that a universal basic income is necessary.
In refreshing defiance of this existential gloom is Human Work, a compelling new book on the future of work by Lumina Foundation President Jamie Merisotis. (Merisotis is a former Washington Monthly staffer and a frequent contributor, and Lumina is one of the magazine’s funders.) In Merisotis’s view, automation brings liberation, not threat. It frees workers to focus on the uniquely human activities that robots cannot do—such as thinking, collaborating, and innovating—and to embrace the traits that robots cannot have, such as compassion, empathy, and ethics.
“People cannot and should not compete with machines for work,” Merisotis writes. Rather, “people need to focus on what makes us different from machines by developing our knowledge, skills and abilities [to put] human capabilities and values first.” The result, Merisotis argues, could be a collective redefinition of what work means, and perhaps even a new sense of purpose. A bracing shot of optimism amid the current disruption, Human Work is a reminder of the human values we haven’t lost, even as the pandemic has robbed us—at least for now—of physical connection.
History shows that technology tends to create more jobs than it destroys. The rise of automobiles, for instance, created millions of new jobs even as horse-and-buggy travel became obsolete. Some pessimists nonetheless argue that the coming wave of automation poses a unique threat. While cars are not a direct substitute for human labor, robots can and have replaced human workers. And when armed with artificial intelligence, as is increasingly the case, some warn that these next-generation robots are not only interchangeable with humans but are also superior.
The potential impact of AI is now a topic of fierce debate among technologists and economists. While one particularly breathless analysis from the McKinsey Global Institute predicts the loss of 800 million jobs worldwide, noted economists like Robert Gordon are far more skeptical of the pace and scale of change. Though a self-driving truck could deliver goods to stores, as Gordon told Vox, you still need humans to unload the truck and put products on the shelves.
Merisotis sidesteps this quarrel, describing the war over job loss predictions as “a waste of time and effort.” Not only is the answer unknowable, he writes, “much more complex outcomes are likely than simply ‘truck driving will disappear.’ ” Instead, he reframes the debate: “What’s more important than whether a particular job will go away is that everyone will see jobs changed in some way by technology.” The book’s focus, therefore, is on what technology brings to work, rather than what it takes away.
First, Merisotis points out that automation has in many instances improved the quality of workers’ jobs by relieving people of tasks that are dangerous, dirty, or mind-numbingly dull. (Machines, in short, have taken on the tasks that workers have historically complained make them feel like “cogs,” or less than human.) It has also changed the nature of work, from rote and impersonal to innovative and individual. Photographers, for instance, spend very little time today on the mechanical task of processing film, leaving more time to focus on creative expression and connection with their subjects. Their work has become “uniquely human,” a phenomenon Merisotis notes is already rippling through every field. According to a 2018 Vanguard research analysis he cites, “across all occupations, half of all tasks are uniquely human, compared to just 30% of tasks in 2000.”
Automation has in many instances improved the quality of workers’ jobs by relieving people of tasks that are dangerous, dirty, or mind-numbingly dull.
The net result of this humanization of work, Merisotis argues, will be more new jobs, many of them impervious to automation, even by AI. In particular, he predicts the growth of four new categories of uniquely human work: “helpers,” where customer service and personal interaction are paramount (think health care, financial counseling, and other services); “bridgers,” who combine technical expertise with people skills to help run systems or connect lay people with expert services (think IT help desk professionals or auto repair shop managers); “integrators,” who synthesize a broad base of knowledge and skills but apply them in a personal way (think social workers and elementary school teachers); and “creators,” workers who possess technical skills along with deep creativity (think architects and game designers). In many instances, these jobs are not only adjacent to technology but also dependent on it.
To illustrate this new paradigm, Merisotis weaves into his manuscript stories of workers who have successfully transformed their own careers or navigated automation in their industries. Among the latter is Joel Lewis, who started out on the assembly line at Cummins Inc. making engine parts but now trains teams of workers maintaining the robots (or collaborative robots, known as “cobots”) who now perform his old job. Many of his anecdotes feature older workers who have reinvented themselves, underscoring a principal theme of the book: the importance of lifelong access to training and education. Included is Rodney Owens, who enrolled in community college at age 40 to study computer-integrated machining; Malaika White, a single mother who returned to college in her 30s; and Mark Sciarra, an aging former pro wrestler (once known as Rip Rogers) who has cobbled together a profitable freelance career teaching aspiring wrestlers, creating YouTube videos, and authoring books.
But for all these success stories, Merisotis also includes a crucial caveat: While this transformation of work should be embraced, many workers will need help making the leap. Even as the number of “good” jobs is growing, they are primarily going to workers who have some sort of credential above a high school diploma. Of the 5.6 million jobs lost in the Great Recession for people with a high school education or less, only 80,000 of them have come back, he notes. No doubt the pandemic has erased even those extremely modest gains.
How to better prepare today’s workers for tomorrow’s jobs is the task of the final third of Human Work. While “education and training” has become the default mantra for helping workers manage economic disruption, it will not be enough to simply expand a broken system. Merisotis argues for deeper, systemic reform as well. Though the failings of the nation’s education and workforce development system could fill—and have filled—many volumes (as well as the pages of this magazine), Merisotis pinpoints three problems that particularly handicap Americans’ ability to thrive in a post-automation world.
First is the simple fact that far too many workers lack a credential beyond high school, even as higher education becomes increasingly key to landing a good job. Government data shows that only about 43 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 64 have some sort of credential beyond a high school diploma, even as two-thirds of jobs today require post-secondary training or education. The problem is that most colleges and universities are primarily aimed at younger students coming straight out of high school, with little capacity for the many millions of older students who need a second chance at higher education.
Second, even when students do have access to education, they aren’t acquiring the people skills and problem-solving skills they increasingly need to succeed in the workforce. Instead, schools are still far too focused on academic and technical skills. “Human work demands a broader, more integrated kind of learning,” traditionally associated with the liberal arts, says Merisotis, who cautions against an overreliance on narrowly focused STEM education. While technical skills are still vital, he continues, “the desire and ability to continuously learn new skills across a range of fields is far more important.”
The third and final problem is one that has long occupied high education reformers: What are the specific skills and knowledge that credentials actually signify? Employers, students, and parents have long assumed that earning a diploma, especially from a “prestigious” institution, means that there’s been some meaningful transfer of content from school to student. But the truth is, as Merisotis writes, “no one knows what the graduates of our education systems really know and can do, least of all the graduates themselves.” Employers have no way to judge if a potential worker truly has the requisite skills, and most students have no way to know if the credentials they are working toward (and paying a lot for) have value in the labor market.
Government data shows that only about 43 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 64 have some sort of credential beyond a high school diploma, even as two-thirds of jobs today require post-secondary training or education.
To remedy these three failures, Merisotis proposes a total rethinking of the traditional school-college-work pathway, where students experience each step in a discrete and often disconnected way. Under the current system, students are “done” with school, then move on to work. Career exploration and preparation are often not part of the school experience; one survey by Gallup and Strada Education, for instance, found that just 20 percent of undergraduates visit their campus career services center. By contrast, what Merisotis envisions is the integration of learning and work into a continual, iterative experience over the course of a worker’s career, where career preparation is part of education and education is part of the job.
Human Work offers a framework for how to achieve these reforms. Colleges and universities should revamp their business models to meet the demand for lifelong education and serve older students in particular. Schools should also remake their curricula so that students become what Merisotis calls wide learners, who can think across disciplines. Companies need to make training a part of their business plan, with expansive on-the-job coaching and apprenticeships aimed at developing the skills that both companies and workers need. And to solve the problem of what credentials mean, Merisotis calls for a new system of transparency that defines and standardizes the competencies credentials signify so that employers and students understand their value.
Rather than be prescriptive in how these changes need to happen, Merisotis calls for innovation and provides examples of schools and companies that are leading the way. Amarillo College, a community college in Texas, for instance, has dramatically changed its approach to better serve its students, many of whom are first-generation learners juggling competing demands of work and family. The school not only offers supports such as a food pantry, a clothes closet, and emergency cash assistance, it also has replaced the traditional 16-week semester with more intensive eight-week sessions that better fit students’ schedules. As one result, the school has improved its three-year completion rate to 45 percent—a stunning turnaround from the 9 percent graduation rate it reported in 2010.
Another example of new thinking is the six-week art class now required of medical students at the University of Virginia, a model for the kind of integrated learning Human Work calls for schools to provide. By studying art for six weeks, students not only hone their observational skills but also develop capacity for “personal reflection, tolerance of ambiguity, and awareness of personal bias,” Merisotis writes. “These are very real skills that have big effects on the quality of care their patients will one day receive.”
Merisotis also points to forward-thinking companies that have made big investments in worker training and apprenticeships, although he acknowledges that far too many businesses still see training as an expense or an employee benefit rather than an integral part of their business model. “We need to rethink everything from tax policy to accounting standards to make sure investing in people is seen as essential to the enterprise,” he writes.
Perhaps Merisotis’s most radical proposal is to shift toward so-called competency-based learning, where students and workers are judged by the skills they actually possess rather than their diploma or the perceived reputation of the school that awarded it. Such a reform would not only ensure that students acquire skills and education of actual value in the labor market, it would also help dismantle the elitism of current higher education. Essential to this reform is the creation of a comprehensive, transparent system for defining, cataloging, and tracking credentials so that students and workers are armed with information about the credentials they can earn, their value, and their cost. Ultimately, Merisotis envisions a marketplace for credentials, where students, not colleges, have the leverage. “Consumers’ ability to navigate the system means that pressure will be on the established brands to produce results consumers want,” he writes. “A reduction in brand power in higher education because of better information means that the system overall will be better.”
Human Work is a bold and necessary manifesto for building the education and career pathways tomorrow’s students and workers need. If there is one flaw in this book, it is that Merisotis does not sufficiently acknowledge that there will be failures. Whether by dint of disability, bad luck, or personal circumstances, not every worker will make a successful transition to human work. And given the increasing paucity of lower-skilled work, the stakes are higher. Still others may be unwilling to let go of an accustomed way of life and the sense of identity derived from a long career. What to do about the workers who have already fallen through the cracks is outside the scope of this book, yet these workers cannot be neglected if there is to be systemic change.
In his now-classic oral history, Working, the journalist Studs Terkel captured the hopes and anxieties of dozens of American workers whose jobs—in manufacturing, mining, and other occupations—were then on the precipice of disruption. What haunted these workers, he wrote, was “the planned obsolescence of people that is of a piece with the planned obsolescence of the things they make.” Working was published in 1974, and the worries of these workers were indeed realized, especially as manufacturing jobs cratered beginning in the 1980s.
Public policy failed to help those who lost jobs, and the consequences of that failure are reverberating today. Donald Trump swept into office in 2016 riding the bitterness of Americans who had lost their place in the old economy and believed themselves unwelcome in the new one. Their anger, hardened to resentment and distrust, will continue to be an obstacle to social progress, including the investments necessary for educational and workforce system reform, unless the difficulties they face are also addressed.
Yet the need for change could not be more urgent. Absent the kinds of reforms Merisotis calls for in Human Work, America runs the risk of creating still another generation of workers cheated of opportunities for success. Their disappointment will taint our politics. More tragically, their human potential will be lost.