washingtonmonthly--2020-08-05--The Constitutional Crisis of Trump Undermining the Election

Those of us who blogged right through to the end of George W. Bush ’ s presidency had already heard enough from John Yoo , thank you , before he decided to become a volunteer legal defender of President Trump .
If you aren ’ t familiar with Yoo , his Wikipedia page is accurate and gets straight to the point .
Yoo is upset that some conservative intellectuals have been harshly critical of Trump ’ s suggestion that perhaps the presidential election should be delayed : But Yoo assures us that threatening to do something unconstitutional is not problematic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justify the threat .
This is like saying that robbing a bank is not possible because robbing banks is against the law .
The Constitution is there to deter and punish , but it can not prevent unconstitutional acts .
Kevin Williamson , most recently canned by The Atlantic for recommending hanging as a punishment for abortion , takes Yoo to task in the National Review : What emerges is a debate about Trump ’ s essential nature .
On one side is an alarmist group who sees Trump as a nascent Mussolini @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for himself .
On the other is a ridiculous group of sycophants who argue that Trump is really a stout defender of constitutional limits on government power .
Williamson seeks to puncture this debate by reminding us that Trump is a thoughtless creature who is incapable of acting on principle or with any significant forethought .
For Williamson , he ’ s a simple-minded , narcissistic sociopath whose actions are best compared to an avaricious gangster .
The “ kickback payment ” Williamson refers to is Trump ’ s demand that “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of money ” in return for approving Microsoft ’ s potential acquisition of TikTok .
That ’ s not how our government works , but Trump doesn ’ t know that .
For Williamson , this isn ’ t some grand tragic theme but more of a nonsensical farce .
Williamson doesn ’ t envy Yoo ’ s effort “ to reverse-engineer a plausible constitutional rationale around President Trump ’ s pinball antics.
” He seems to think Trump ’ s threat is probably more corrosive than immediate , but he notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens automatically.
” I think F. Scott Fitzgerald put it well in The Great Gatsby when he talked about the impact careless people can have on those around them : This may be the best characterization of Donald Trump ’ s adult behavior .
We wouldn ’ t let Tom and Daisy Buchanan run the country , but we wouldn ’ t compare them to Mussolini either .
Trump doesn ’ t know what is and isn ’ t constitutional , or who has the power to delay an election and who doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own carelessness , he will do great damage to the integrity of our electoral process .
He will undermine faith in the result and prevent the country from uniting , however briefly , around his replacement .
He could even inspire violence , especially if it takes a week or more to declare a winner , or he gets it in his head that no one can force him to leave office .
Kevin Williamson is wrong about a lot of things , but he ’ s right when he mocks Yoo ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to delay the election “ does not implicate any constitutional concerns.
” Our republic depends on the consent of the governed , and a president who works overtime to prevent that consent is tearing at the fabric of our constitutional system .
We ’ ll be lucky if all Trump leaves us with is a mess to be cleaned up .

Those of us who blogged right through to the end of George W. Bush’s presidency had already heard enough from John Yoo, thank you, before he decided to become a volunteer legal defender of President Trump. If you aren’t familiar with Yoo, his Wikipedia page is accurate and gets straight to the point.
Yoo is upset that some conservative intellectuals have been harshly critical of Trump’s suggestion that perhaps the presidential election should be delayed:
Donald Trump’s tweet last week that the possibility of mail-in voter fraud might justify postponing the November elections renewed claims that his presidency is a threat to the Constitution. Conservative commentator Henry Olsen, often a stout defender of the administration, wrote in his Washington Post column that the tweet “is the single most anti-democratic statement any sitting president has ever made.” Steven Calabresi, a conservative Northwestern law professor and co-founder of the Federalist Society, declared in the New York Times that “this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment again.”
But Yoo assures us that threatening to do something unconstitutional is not problematic if you lack the constitutional power to justify the threat. This is like saying that robbing a bank is not possible because robbing banks is against the law. The Constitution is there to deter and punish, but it cannot prevent unconstitutional acts.
Kevin Williamson, most recently canned by The Atlantic for recommending hanging as a punishment for abortion, takes Yoo to task in the National Review:
With that in mind, Yoo’s insistence that in toying with the idea of delaying the election Trump “does not implicate any constitutional concerns,” seems to me to be far from self-evidently true. Yoo assures us that things will happen “automatically” in January, but in a democratic republic nothing happens automatically — we rely on republican norms, civic duty, democratic cooperation, and patriotism for the orderly operation of government and the peaceful transfer of power. In raising the possibility of delaying the election, Trump implicitly asserts an extraconstitutional power.
What emerges is a debate about Trump’s essential nature. On one side is an alarmist group who sees Trump as a nascent Mussolini on the cusp of seizing permanent power for himself. On the other is a ridiculous group of sycophants who argue that Trump is really a stout defender of constitutional limits on government power. Williamson seeks to puncture this debate by reminding us that Trump is a thoughtless creature who is incapable of acting on principle or with any significant forethought. For Williamson, he’s a simple-minded, narcissistic sociopath whose actions are best compared to an avaricious gangster.
It is possible to undermine constitutional and democratic norms without having grand Napoleonic ambitions. For example, President Trump’s bizarre demand for a Treasury kickback payment from Microsoft is typical of the Trump style. It is gross and corrosive, but it is not the kind of thing a would-be dictator does — it is the kind of thing a would-be gangster does.
The “kickback payment” Williamson refers to is Trump’s demand that “the Treasury… of the United States get a lot of money” in return for approving Microsoft’s potential acquisition of TikTok. That’s not how our government works, but Trump doesn’t know that. For Williamson, this isn’t some grand tragic theme but more of a nonsensical farce.
We know from the Roman example (of which the Founding Fathers were acutely aware) that ordinary venality can be as dangerous to a republic as grandiose political ambition; and, as it turns out, in our own case that kind of thing is sufficiently destructive without our having to imagine Trump as an aspiring Caesar. This isn’t an opera, and it does not have to be operatic.
Williamson doesn’t envy Yoo’s effort “to reverse-engineer a plausible constitutional rationale around President Trump’s pinball antics.” He seems to think Trump’s threat is probably more corrosive than immediate, but he notes that “in a democratic republic nothing happens automatically.”
I think F. Scott Fitzgerald put it well in The Great Gatsby when he talked about the impact careless people can have on those around them:
“They were careless people, Tom and Daisy – they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”
This may be the best characterization of Donald Trump’s adult behavior. We wouldn’t let Tom and Daisy Buchanan run the country, but we wouldn’t compare them to Mussolini either. Trump doesn’t know what is and isn’t constitutional, or who has the power to delay an election and who doesn’t. But simply through his own carelessness, he will do great damage to the integrity of our electoral process. He will undermine faith in the result and prevent the country from uniting, however briefly, around his replacement. He could even inspire violence, especially if it takes a week or more to declare a winner, or he gets it in his head that no one can force him to leave office.
Kevin Williamson is wrong about a lot of things, but he’s right when he mocks Yoo’s insistence that Trump’s threat to delay the election “does not implicate any constitutional concerns.” Our republic depends on the consent of the governed, and a president who works overtime to prevent that consent is tearing at the fabric of our constitutional system. We’ll be lucky if all Trump leaves us with is a mess to be cleaned up.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-06--Medicaid Expansion Has Passed Every Time It’s Been on the Ballot

It ’ s never a good idea to put too much stock in issue polls .
As we ’ ve seen time and time again , the wording of the question often determines the outcome .
But when it comes to health care—and especially Medicaid expansion—we don ’ t need polls , because even voters in red states are making it clear that they are not aligned with Republicans .
On Tuesday , Missouri became the seventh state to expand Medicaid since Donald Trump was inaugurated .
All but one of those states ( Virginia ) did so by referendum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now add Missouri to the group of orange states on this map .
The 53 percent of Missourians who voted to expand Medicaid probably did so for a variety of reasons , like the fact that an additional 230,000 people will gain insurance coverage , or the fact that a refusal to expand the program has contributed to the closing of 10 rural hospitals in that state since 2014 .
There ’ s also this concern : As Sarah Kliff explains , the group that is behind the strategy of putting Medicaid expansion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So far , they ’ ve had a massive impact , expanding the program to cover an additional one million low-income Americans .
Their next target is Florida , which , if passed , would add coverage for an additional 800,000 .
Republican governors and legislators have fought these gains every step of the way .
But Medicaid expansion has passed whenever it has been put on the ballot .
The lesson here is that , even as Trump and Republicans ask the Supreme Court to overturn the entire Affordable Care Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are telling them that they support a critical element of what that legislation accomplished .
A party that actually cared about what American voters want would be paying attention .

It’s never a good idea to put too much stock in issue polls. As we’ve seen time and time again, the wording of the question often determines the outcome. But when it comes to health care—and especially Medicaid expansion—we don’t need polls, because even voters in red states are making it clear that they are not aligned with Republicans.
On Tuesday, Missouri became the seventh state to expand Medicaid since Donald Trump was inaugurated. All but one of those states (Virginia) did so by referendum at the ballot box. You can now add Missouri to the group of orange states on this map.
The 53 percent of Missourians who voted to expand Medicaid probably did so for a variety of reasons, like the fact that an additional 230,000 people will gain insurance coverage, or the fact that a refusal to expand the program has contributed to the closing of 10 rural hospitals in that state since 2014. There’s also this concern:
“Quite frankly, Missourians are sick and tired of not getting their fair share. They pay their taxes, they’ve seen now 37 other states use that money to expand access to health care. Meanwhile, our economy’s clearly ailing here,” Jack Cardetti, the campaign’s spokesperson, said last week.
As Sarah Kliff explains, the group that is behind the strategy of putting Medicaid expansion on the ballot is the Fairness Project. So far, they’ve had a massive impact, expanding the program to cover an additional one million low-income Americans. Their next target is Florida, which, if passed, would add coverage for an additional 800,000. Republican governors and legislators have fought these gains every step of the way. But Medicaid expansion has passed whenever it has been put on the ballot.
The lesson here is that, even as Trump and Republicans ask the Supreme Court to overturn the entire Affordable Care Act, their own constituents in red states are telling them that they support a critical element of what that legislation accomplished. A party that actually cared about what American voters want would be paying attention.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-06--McConnell’s “Liability Shield” Is a Weapon Aimed at COVID-19 Victims

Last week , Senate Republicans unveiled the HEALS Act , their proposal to address the continued devastation that COVID-19 is wreaking on the country .
The Act , a collection of discrete bills authored by various Senators , would have far-reaching consequences .
One of the bills , Texas Senator John Cornyn ’ s SAFE TO WORK Act , would restrict lawsuits based on coronavirus exposure against employers , businesses , and many other potential defendants .
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated that the liability restrictions are a critical Republican requirement for further COVID-19 relief measures .
Senator Cornyn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those acting in good faith from being sued into oblivion while ensuring bad actors who willingly put their patients , employees , or customers in danger will still be held accountable.
” Employers and businesses no doubt are dealing with great challenges given these extraordinary circumstances .
And it is sensible for legislators to seek a balance between accountability for bad actors who fail to take reasonable precautions and the threat of ruinous liability for employers and businesses doing their best .
Yet the bill ’ s complex procedural requirements make any hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bill actually encourages harmful behavior .
The legislation ’ s provisions are complex , but here ’ s a brief overview of how it works .
It creates a new federal cause of action that preempts other federal , state , or tribal causes of action “ related to recovery for personal injuries caused by actual , alleged , feared , or potential for exposure to coronavirus.
” The federal cause of action requires plaintiffs to prove that the defendant ’ s “ gross negligence ” or “ willful misconduct ” caused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , say , Missouri law permitted a line cook harmed by a restaurant ’ s ordinary negligence that caused them to contract COVID-19 to sue for damages , federal law would forbid the suit .
The only exception is for laws that are more restrictive , meaning the goal isn ’ t uniformity , just limits on liability .
This alone is quite significant .
The bill is purportedly justified under Congress ’ s constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce .
Senator Cornyn himself has previously stressed that “ the states retain the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notion that “ the power to regulate interstate commerce essentially makes the federal government a government of unlimited power.
” Yet he and his fellow Republicans , who extol the virtues of federalism , seem happy enough to make an unprecedented federal power grab here by federalizing tort law—which is normally within states ’ control .
That ’ s especially unjustified given that many states have already begun crafting liability-limitation legislation .
But the bill goes much further .
It contains numerous interlocking procedural restrictions that make it essentially impossible for a plaintiff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill requires proof by “ clear and convincing ” evidence—an unusually high burden for most civil cases .
It requires plaintiffs to detail their factual allegations with a much higher degree of specificity than is usually required .
The bill also creates a “ safe harbor ” for defendants , which says that whenever a defendant can point to any “ written or published policy ” in line with applicable government regulations , the defendant will be presumed to have acted reasonably , even if the “ policy ” is just boilerplate language @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a defendant ’ s motion to dismiss the suit is unsuccessful , it can take an immediate appeal—potentially delaying litigation for years .
Plaintiffs ’ ability to obtain relevant evidence through discovery is sharply limited .
Damages for any plaintiff lucky enough to achieve a victory are restricted .
Each one of these requirements individually puts a big thumb on the scale in favor of defendants .
Collectively , they pose nearly insuperable obstacles to recovery for plaintiffs—even when they seek recovery from actors who engaged in egregious misconduct that caused death or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to discourage entities , such as warehouse operators or meat-packing plants , to take even reasonable precautions to prevent harm .
But few plaintiffs would really ever risk getting this far .
That ’ s because of the worst provisions in what is already a bad bill .
The Act doesn ’ t just make it hard for plaintiffs to win ; it makes it potentially devastating for them to even consider suit .
If a victim requests compensation “ in exchange for settling .
.
.
or otherwise not pursuing a claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brought as part of a coronavirus-related action , ” the recipient of the request can seek compensatory damages , punitive damages , and attorneys ’ fees if the claim is “ meritless.
” Given how hard the Act makes it to win such claims , and how easy it makes it for defendants to demonstrate that they took “ reasonable precautions , ” the Act has all but pre-ordained all COVID-19 claims as “ meritless.
” In practice , an employee who merely emails her employer requesting compensation for COVID-19-related harm caused by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to thousands of dollars in damages .
This provision would discourage reasonable requests for compensation by employees .
And it may well violate the First Amendment ’ s guarantee of free speech , given that it effectively punishes employees for simply communicating with their employers .
Nor will victims easily find legal representation .
Lawyers , too , can be sued for “ meritless ” compensation requests .
The Act also permits the U.S. Attorney General to sue anyone who he “ has reasonable cause to believe .
.
.
is engaged in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for remuneration ” that are meritless .
Each compensation demand exposes the sender to a civil fine of up to $ 50,000 .
Lawyers representing COVID-19 plaintiffs would quickly be put out of business .
At the same time , the bill would create a cottage industry for suits against injured plaintiffs and their attorneys .
These lucrative countersuits are subject to none of the stringent requirements the bill places on injured parties seeking compensation .
In total , the bill represents an assault on the American civil justice system that is without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few instances where Congress has broadly preempted state lawsuits , it has done so alongside federal regulatory schemes designed to promote the public good or alternative systems for compensating injured parties .
Congress preempted lawsuits against the airline industry arising out of the September 11 attacks , but it quickly created a Victims ’ Compensation Fund to compensate 9/11 victims and their families .
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act bars tort claims against vaccine manufacturers , but it also created a compensation program to provide recovery to those injured by vaccines without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manufacturer .
Here , by contrast , Senate Republicans want to prevent states from using tort liability , but they are leaving health regulation to the states and aren ’ t creating any federal mechanisms for compensating victims .
There are steps Congress might take that would strike an appropriate balance between victim ’ s interests , the need to protect essential services acting reasonably , and federalism values .
Instead , this bill gives businesses a free pass at the expense of COVID-19 ’ s victims .
If passed into law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safe for the country to go back to work .

Last week, Senate Republicans unveiled the HEALS Act, their proposal to address the continued devastation that COVID-19 is wreaking on the country. The Act, a collection of discrete bills authored by various Senators, would have far-reaching consequences. One of the bills, Texas Senator John Cornyn’s SAFE TO WORK Act, would restrict lawsuits based on coronavirus exposure against employers, businesses, and many other potential defendants. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has indicated that the liability restrictions are a critical Republican requirement for further COVID-19 relief measures.
Senator Cornyn claims that his bill “would protect those acting in good faith from being sued into oblivion while ensuring bad actors who willingly put their patients, employees, or customers in danger will still be held accountable.” Employers and businesses no doubt are dealing with great challenges given these extraordinary circumstances. And it is sensible for legislators to seek a balance between accountability for bad actors who fail to take reasonable precautions and the threat of ruinous liability for employers and businesses doing their best. Yet the bill’s complex procedural requirements make any hope of accountability impossible. In fact, the bill actually encourages harmful behavior.
The legislation’s provisions are complex, but here’s a brief overview of how it works. It creates a new federal cause of action that preempts other federal, state, or tribal causes of action “related to recovery for personal injuries caused by actual, alleged, feared, or potential for exposure to coronavirus.” The federal cause of action requires plaintiffs to prove that the defendant’s “gross negligence” or “willful misconduct” caused injury. That means that even if, say, Missouri law permitted a line cook harmed by a restaurant’s ordinary negligence that caused them to contract COVID-19 to sue for damages, federal law would forbid the suit. The only exception is for laws that are more restrictive, meaning the goal isn’t uniformity, just limits on liability.
This alone is quite significant. The bill is purportedly justified under Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. Senator Cornyn himself has previously stressed that “the states retain the general lawmaking power” and rejected the notion that “the power to regulate interstate commerce essentially makes the federal government a government of unlimited power.” Yet he and his fellow Republicans, who extol the virtues of federalism, seem happy enough to make an unprecedented federal power grab here by federalizing tort law—which is normally within states’ control. That’s especially unjustified given that many states have already begun crafting liability-limitation legislation.
But the bill goes much further. It contains numerous interlocking procedural restrictions that make it essentially impossible for a plaintiff to prevail. For one, the bill requires proof by “clear and convincing” evidence—an unusually high burden for most civil cases. It requires plaintiffs to detail their factual allegations with a much higher degree of specificity than is usually required.
The bill also creates a “safe harbor” for defendants, which says that whenever a defendant can point to any “written or published policy” in line with applicable government regulations, the defendant will be presumed to have acted reasonably, even if the “policy” is just boilerplate language they did not actually follow. If a defendant’s motion to dismiss the suit is unsuccessful, it can take an immediate appeal—potentially delaying litigation for years. Plaintiffs’ ability to obtain relevant evidence through discovery is sharply limited. Damages for any plaintiff lucky enough to achieve a victory are restricted.
Each one of these requirements individually puts a big thumb on the scale in favor of defendants. Collectively, they pose nearly insuperable obstacles to recovery for plaintiffs—even when they seek recovery from actors who engaged in egregious misconduct that caused death or serious injury. The effect will be to discourage entities, such as warehouse operators or meat-packing plants, to take even reasonable precautions to prevent harm.
But few plaintiffs would really ever risk getting this far. That’s because of the worst provisions in what is already a bad bill. The Act doesn’t just make it hard for plaintiffs to win; it makes it potentially devastating for them to even consider suit. If a victim requests compensation “in exchange for settling . . . or otherwise not pursuing a claim that is, or could be, brought as part of a coronavirus-related action,” the recipient of the request can seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees if the claim is “meritless.”
Given how hard the Act makes it to win such claims, and how easy it makes it for defendants to demonstrate that they took “reasonable precautions,” the Act has all but pre-ordained all COVID-19 claims as “meritless.” In practice, an employee who merely emails her employer requesting compensation for COVID-19-related harm caused by the employer’s negligence exposes herself to thousands of dollars in damages. This provision would discourage reasonable requests for compensation by employees. And it may well violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, given that it effectively punishes employees for simply communicating with their employers.
Nor will victims easily find legal representation. Lawyers, too, can be sued for “meritless” compensation requests. The Act also permits the U.S. Attorney General to sue anyone who he “has reasonable cause to believe . . . is engaged in a pattern or practice of transmitting demands for remuneration” that are meritless. Each compensation demand exposes the sender to a civil fine of up to $50,000.
Lawyers representing COVID-19 plaintiffs would quickly be put out of business. At the same time, the bill would create a cottage industry for suits against injured plaintiffs and their attorneys. These lucrative countersuits are subject to none of the stringent requirements the bill places on injured parties seeking compensation.
In total, the bill represents an assault on the American civil justice system that is without precedent in federal law. In the few instances where Congress has broadly preempted state lawsuits, it has done so alongside federal regulatory schemes designed to promote the public good or alternative systems for compensating injured parties. Congress preempted lawsuits against the airline industry arising out of the September 11 attacks, but it quickly created a Victims’ Compensation Fund to compensate 9/11 victims and their families. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act bars tort claims against vaccine manufacturers, but it also created a compensation program to provide recovery to those injured by vaccines without the need to establish fault by the manufacturer. Here, by contrast, Senate Republicans want to prevent states from using tort liability, but they are leaving health regulation to the states and aren’t creating any federal mechanisms for compensating victims.
There are steps Congress might take that would strike an appropriate balance between victim’s interests, the need to protect essential services acting reasonably, and federalism values. Instead, this bill gives businesses a free pass at the expense of COVID-19’s victims. If passed into law, the bill would make it anything but safe for the country to go back to work.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-06--Is Barr Planning His Own October Surprise?

One of the staples of presidential elections has become the so-called “ October surprise.
” Often occurring in the final days before an election , the targets of such a surprise are constrained from defending themselves because of the lack of time to do so .
As Max Boot suggests , the Trump administration could be in the process of planning several October surprises , which would mean even more chaos in the run-up to the November election .
In addition to what the president and his campaign have planned , Attorney General William Barr is all but promising to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ken Dilanian reports , the federal prosecutor Barr tasked with investigating the origins of the Trump-Russia probe , John Durham , is nearing completion of his work .
As a final step , Durham is in the process of arranging an interview with the man Barr has been targeting all along—former CIA Director John Brennan .
It is important to keep in mind that the attorney general came to a conclusion about this investigation before he was even nominated for his current position .
For example , back in 2017 , Barr told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basis for investigating the uranium deal [ ie , Hillary Clinton ] than any supposed collusion between Mr. Trump and Russia.
” And nearly a year before he determined that Trump had not obstructed justice during the Trump-Russia probe , Barr sent a letter to Rod Rosenstein criticizing the Mueller investigation and suggesting that it wasn ’ t possible for Trump to have obstructed justice .
As attorney general , Barr has repeatedly said that the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign and publicly stated his disagreement with Inspector General Horowitz ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support the launch of the Trump-Russia probe .
Here are a few other public statements the attorney general has made .
• He called the Justice Department ’ s investigation into Russian interference “ one of the greatest travesties in American history , ” claiming that it had been undertaken “ without any basis ” and that the investigators were “ trying to sabotage the presidency.
” • Referring to the Durham investigation he said , “ My own view is that the evidence shows that we ’ re not dealing with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something far more troubling here ; and we ’ re going to get to the bottom of it.
” • In Congressional testimony last month , he vowed to do everything he could “ to get to the bottom of the grave abuses involved in the bogus ‘ Russiagate ’ scandal… ” In other words , Durham ’ s investigation is simply cover for conclusions the attorney general reached long ago .
That is precisely why Benjamin Wittes warned that the least tyrant-proof part of the government is the Justice Department .
Quoting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to describe exactly what Barr assigned Durham to do .
With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes , a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone .
In such a case , it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it , it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books , or putting investigators to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass , or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense , that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies .
It is here that law enforcement becomes personal , and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group , being attached to the wrong political views , or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something .
Then Barr will get to work .
Tossing aside Justice Department guidelines on restrictions against interference in elections , he told Congress last month that he would not wait until after the election to release Durham ’ s findings once they are finalized .
Barr has left no doubt that he is in the midst of planning his own October surprise in a blatant attempt to benefit the incumbent president .
That would be a stunning development , even for an attorney general who has already completely destroyed the independence of @ @ @ @

One of the staples of presidential elections has become the so-called “October surprise.” Often occurring in the final days before an election, the targets of such a surprise are constrained from defending themselves because of the lack of time to do so. As Max Boot suggests, the Trump administration could be in the process of planning several October surprises, which would mean even more chaos in the run-up to the November election.
In addition to what the president and his campaign have planned, Attorney General William Barr is all but promising to launch his own October surprise. As Ken Dilanian reports, the federal prosecutor Barr tasked with investigating the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, John Durham, is nearing completion of his work. As a final step, Durham is in the process of arranging an interview with the man Barr has been targeting all along—former CIA Director John Brennan.
It is important to keep in mind that the attorney general came to a conclusion about this investigation before he was even nominated for his current position. For example, back in 2017, Barr told Peter Baker that he saw “more basis for investigating the uranium deal [ie, Hillary Clinton] than any supposed collusion between Mr. Trump and Russia.” And nearly a year before he determined that Trump had not obstructed justice during the Trump-Russia probe, Barr sent a letter to Rod Rosenstein criticizing the Mueller investigation and suggesting that it wasn’t possible for Trump to have obstructed justice.
As attorney general, Barr has repeatedly said that the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign and publicly stated his disagreement with Inspector General Horowitz’s findings that the FBI had evidence to support the launch of the Trump-Russia probe. Here are a few other public statements the attorney general has made.
He called the Justice Department’s investigation into Russian interference “one of the greatest travesties in American history,” claiming that it had been undertaken “without any basis” and that the investigators were “trying to sabotage the presidency.”
Referring to the Durham investigation he said, “My own view is that the evidence shows that we’re not dealing with just mistakes or sloppiness, there was something far more troubling here; and we’re going to get to the bottom of it.”
In Congressional testimony last month, he vowed to do everything he could “to get to the bottom of the grave abuses involved in the bogus ‘Russiagate’ scandal…”
In other words, Durham’s investigation is simply cover for conclusions the attorney general reached long ago. That is precisely why Benjamin Wittes warned that the least tyrant-proof part of the government is the Justice Department. Quoting Justice Robert Jackson, he went on to describe exactly what Barr assigned Durham to do.
With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.
No matter how inconsequential, Durham will find something. Then Barr will get to work. Tossing aside Justice Department guidelines on restrictions against interference in elections, he told Congress last month that he would not wait until after the election to release Durham’s findings once they are finalized.
Barr has left no doubt that he is in the midst of planning his own October surprise in a blatant attempt to benefit the incumbent president. That would be a stunning development, even for an attorney general who has already completely destroyed the independence of the Justice Department.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-06--Has Trump Realized That Attacking Vote by Mail Hurts Him Politically?

I wrote a piece on June 24 , 2020 , called “ Trump Has Destroyed the GOP ’ s Vote-by-Mail Advantage in Florida.
” On Wednesday , August 5 , 2020 , you got the opportunity to read the same thing in the Washington Post .
At some point between these two articles , someone finally got through to Trump and made him understand his error : As Greg Sargent notes , the campaign ’ s goal here is “ to delegitimize vote-by-mail in states where they think it will hurt Trump , while legitimizing it in places where they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a fallback position — an effort at mitigation .
As I predicted , Republican voters were not able to make fine distinctions about where mail voting is good and desirable and where it is bad and corrupt .
When Trump attacked expanded mail voting in states like Michigan , it made his base reluctant to trust mail voting in states like Florida where the practice has been long established .
Rather than admit a strategic blunder or completely change course , the attempt at a solution involves promoting mail voting where there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ great Republican Governors ” and dissuading it where it is being newly introduced by Democratic governors .
To be clear , this really was a blunder : As of Wednesday , more than 600,000 more Democrats had requested mail ballots than Republicans , according to the University of Florida ’ s Michael McDonald .
For comparison : in the 2018 governor ’ s race , Republican Ron DeSantis beat Democrat Andrew Gillum by fewer than 50,000 votes .
Similarly , a recent CNN/SSRS poll found that 59 % of voters who “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote via mail ballot compared to just 21 % of Republican-leaning voters .
When I wrote my piece in June , the Democrats ’ advantage was only 302,000 voters , and I already considered that catastrophic for the president .
Fortunately , he doesn ’ t listen to me , but he did eventually get the message after losing in every survey of Florida taken in July .
There ’ s a secondary play here , too , that we must consider .
A lot of votes will be uncounted on election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states may not be called for either candidate .
Trump may want to argue that the counting should stop , especially if he has a narrow lead that is likely to evaporate once all the mail votes are included .
He ’ s preparing the ground for that argument , so this is more serious than just a laughable effort at mitigation .
Biden needs to prep the battlefield in response .

I wrote a piece on June 24, 2020, called “Trump Has Destroyed the GOP’s Vote-by-Mail Advantage in Florida.” On Wednesday, August 5, 2020, you got the opportunity to read the same thing in the Washington Post. At some point between these two articles, someone finally got through to Trump and made him understand his error:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1290967953542909952?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1290967953542909952%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fopinions%2F2020%2F08%2F05%2Ftrump-his-spinners-are-suddenly-freaking-out-about-florida-heres-why%2F
As Greg Sargent notes, the campaign’s goal here is “to delegitimize vote-by-mail in states where they think it will hurt Trump, while legitimizing it in places where they think it will help him.” This is a fallback position — an effort at mitigation. As I predicted, Republican voters were not able to make fine distinctions about where mail voting is good and desirable and where it is bad and corrupt. When Trump attacked expanded mail voting in states like Michigan, it made his base reluctant to trust mail voting in states like Florida where the practice has been long established.
Rather than admit a strategic blunder or completely change course, the attempt at a solution involves promoting mail voting where there is a “great infrastructure” and “great Republican Governors” and dissuading it where it is being newly introduced by Democratic governors.
To be clear, this really was a blunder:
As of Wednesday, more than 600,000 more Democrats had requested mail ballots than Republicans, according to the University of Florida’s Michael McDonald. For comparison: in the 2018 governor’s race, Republican Ron DeSantis beat Democrat Andrew Gillum by fewer than 50,000 votes. Similarly, a recent CNN/SSRS poll found that 59% of voters who “lean Democratic” said they would prefer to vote via mail ballot compared to just 21% of Republican-leaning voters.
When I wrote my piece in June, the Democrats’ advantage was only 302,000 voters, and I already considered that catastrophic for the president. Fortunately, he doesn’t listen to me, but he did eventually get the message after losing in every survey of Florida taken in July.
There’s a secondary play here, too, that we must consider. A lot of votes will be uncounted on election night, and as a result some states may not be called for either candidate. Trump may want to argue that the counting should stop, especially if he has a narrow lead that is likely to evaporate once all the mail votes are included. He’s preparing the ground for that argument, so this is more serious than just a laughable effort at mitigation. Biden needs to prep the battlefield in response.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-07--Trump’s Latest Attack on Biden: Photoshops and Cheap Shots

Last week Trump ’ s new campaign manager , Bill Stepian , temporarily suspended all television advertising nationwide in an attempt to re-calibrate the campaign ’ s messaging .
By Friday afternoon , the president was tweeting that they ’ d have a new campaign ad on “ Sleepy Joe Biden.
” Here ’ s the first one they came up with .
They didn ’ t get the facts all wrong .
Biden will raise taxes on the wealthy and has promised a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants .
But the main point was to paint the former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the far left .
That is supposed to scare moms .
Things went downhill from there .
Here is the ad they released two days later .
The three issues from the previous ad were repeated .
But this one begins by suggesting that Biden is in his basement alone , hiding , and diminished .
The first thing to note is that Biden is doing the same thing a lot of Americans are doing : practicing social distancing to slow the spread of a pandemic .
I suspect that a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Trump campaign had to photoshop images of Biden to create some visuals to dramatize their claims .
The first image is of Biden at an event outside .
It has been photoshopped to look like it was taken in his basement and the microphone in his hand has been edited out .
The second one is of Biden attending an event at the home of the mayor of Coralville , Iowa .
The vice president apparently gave up his seat to someone else and sat on the floor .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken by their photographer Liz Martin and the Trump campaign not only edited it to remove the people around Biden , but failed to get permission to use it .
The third one was taken by an AP photographer on June 1 when Biden met with community leaders in a Black church in Wilmington , Delaware to discuss the George Floyd protests .
The specific image was taken as Biden bowed his head in prayer with the group .
It has been used in the ad to make him look alone and dejected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing Stepien halted the president ’ s ad campaign in order to produce , it certainly doesn ’ t speak well to his skills as a campaign manager .
Blatant photoshopping is child ’ s play , and to misuse an image of the former vice president in prayer is beyond the pale .
That is particularly true as the president seems to have simultaneously launched an initiative to suggest that Biden is against the Bible and God .
For example , during a “ telerally ” with Pennsylvania voters on Sunday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the radical Democrats are against fracking , they ’ re against guns , and they ’ re against the Bible , essentially , they ’ re against God.
” Here is what he said in Ohio on Thursday .
One can only assume that Trump thinks that kind of thing works with the Christian nationalists .
He ’ s probably right , but they ’ re already voting for him .
Everyone else knows that it ’ s nothing but an offensive cheap shot .
So there you have the Trump campaign ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : photoshops and lies about the vice president ’ s faith .
But it is hard to simply fault Bill Stepian .
When it comes to his candidate , the guy doesn ’ t have much to work with .

Last week Trump’s new campaign manager, Bill Stepian, temporarily suspended all television advertising nationwide in an attempt to re-calibrate the campaign’s messaging. By Friday afternoon, the president was tweeting that they’d have a new campaign ad on “Sleepy Joe Biden.” Here’s the first one they came up with.
They didn’t get the facts all wrong. Biden will raise taxes on the wealthy and has promised a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. But the main point was to paint the former vice president as weak and beholden to the far left. That is supposed to scare moms.
Things went downhill from there. Here is the ad they released two days later.
The three issues from the previous ad were repeated. But this one begins by suggesting that Biden is in his basement alone, hiding, and diminished.
The first thing to note is that Biden is doing the same thing a lot of Americans are doing: practicing social distancing to slow the spread of a pandemic. I suspect that a lot of voters identify with him. But secondly, the Trump campaign had to photoshop images of Biden to create some visuals to dramatize their claims.
The first image is of Biden at an event outside. It has been photoshopped to look like it was taken in his basement and the microphone in his hand has been edited out.
The second one is of Biden attending an event at the home of the mayor of Coralville, Iowa. The vice president apparently gave up his seat to someone else and sat on the floor. According to The Gazette, the original photo was taken by their photographer Liz Martin and the Trump campaign not only edited it to remove the people around Biden, but failed to get permission to use it.
The third one was taken by an AP photographer on June 1 when Biden met with community leaders in a Black church in Wilmington, Delaware to discuss the George Floyd protests. The specific image was taken as Biden bowed his head in prayer with the group. It has been used in the ad to make him look alone and dejected.
If this is the kind of thing Stepien halted the president’s ad campaign in order to produce, it certainly doesn’t speak well to his skills as a campaign manager. Blatant photoshopping is child’s play, and to misuse an image of the former vice president in prayer is beyond the pale.
That is particularly true as the president seems to have simultaneously launched an initiative to suggest that Biden is against the Bible and God. For example, during a “telerally” with Pennsylvania voters on Sunday, Trump said, “Joe Biden, the radical Democrats are against fracking, they’re against guns, and they’re against the Bible, essentially, they’re against God.” Here is what he said in Ohio on Thursday.
One can only assume that Trump thinks that kind of thing works with the Christian nationalists. He’s probably right, but they’re already voting for him. Everyone else knows that it’s nothing but an offensive cheap shot.
So there you have the Trump campaign’s new attack strategy on Joe Biden: photoshops and lies about the vice president’s faith. But it is hard to simply fault Bill Stepian. When it comes to his candidate, the guy doesn’t have much to work with.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-07--Can Biden Break Through Trump’s Base of Hispanic Voters?

When Juan Suarez-Rivas was 17 , he volunteered to join a CIA-sponsored group of Cuban exiles who wanted to overthrow Fidel Castro from power .
He had only been living five months in Miami before flying to Guatemala in the spring of 1961 to train in the shadow of a volcano .
They were preparing for what would later be known as the Bay of Pigs invasion .
Things didn ’ t go as planned .
During the invasion , Suarez-Rivas was captured by Castro ’ s army and imprisoned with 214 others on an island off the coast of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of them , the showers barely worked , and he slept on the floor .
After negotiations between the United States and Cuba , which culminated in the U.S. giving up $ 53 million in baby food and supplies , Suarez-Rivas was on a plane to America on Christmas Eve , 1962 , after a year in captivity .
Now , he lives in Miami , and he ’ s part of the 31 percent of Florida ’ s Latinx voters who are standing by President Trump and who plan to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you see is what you get , ” Suarez-Rivas said of Trump .
It may seem hard for some to imagine that Hispanic voters would be willing to vote for Trump this fall .
Trump launched his 2016 campaign by calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals .
As president , he has ordered ICE to separate immigrant families and lock children in cages .
He has tried get rid of the DACA program .
He has begun the process of wasting billions in tax-payer dollars to build a Southern border wall .
Still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters nationwide hold a favorable view of him .
According to a June poll conducted by Latino Decisions , which surveys the political opinions of the Latinx community in the U.S. , 42 percent of Latinx voters across six swing states approve of the job Trump has done as president , including Arizona , Florida , Texas , Nevada , North Carolina and Pennsylvania .
At this point four years ago , Trump ’ s favorability was 12 percentage points lower than it is now , per polling conducted by Latino Decisions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ key states that Biden will need to win to clinch the Electoral College—most obviously , in Florida and Pennsylvania , where Hispanic voters make up 20.5 percent and 5.3 percent of voters , respectively .
Luckily , there are also plenty of Hispanic voters who can still be persuaded : 11 percent of the Latinx community does not know who they will vote for in November , according to new polling .
In other words , Biden and the Democrats have more work to do with turning Latinx voters than perhaps even they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some activists and Biden allies worry that , with only three months to go before the election , the campaign doesn ’ t have a strategy—or the organization in place—to get started .
Last month , Biden field organizers wrote an internal letter that leaked to the Miami Herald that argued there wasn ’ t a coordinated plan for reaching the state ’ s Hispanic voters .
They cited examples of Spanish-speaking organizers being assigned to the predominantly non-Spanish speaking parts Northern Florida .
The letter also described a toxic work environment in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ field organizers and the recruitment of volunteers but leaving them stranded .
“ It is necessary to emphasize that despite this lack of preparedness by leadership , existing productive work was halted and the little strategy that was shared is ill-suited for the new dynamics of remote organizing , ” the signatories wrote in the letter .
Of course , any attempt to reach out to the Latinx community—or any community , for that matter—is hindered by the pandemic .
But COVID-19 itself should be a major vulnerability for Trump with Hispanic Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up 32 percent of positive cases throughout the country .
That helps explain why healthcare has been polled as a top concern among Latinx voters : 40 percent in battleground states cite it as their single biggest reason for voting in 2020 .
Thus far , the Biden campaign ’ s strategy has mostly entailed coordinating virtual community chats with local leaders throughout the country .
But Latino advocacy groups say that he will have to do far more to make inroads with undecided Hispanic voters , and those who are Trump supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a non-profit organization that works to increase Latinx turnout , has endorsed Biden and steered online organizing to support his presidential bid .
“ There is a huge population of Latinx voters that has been untapped and there needs to be more outreach and investment from our political parties , ” the group ’ s campaign coordinator , Dulce Rojas , told me .
One of the biggest things the party needs to do , she said , is ramp up its campaign to educate voters about their vote by mail options and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s where she hopes Voto Latino can come in .
It has already built a young grassroots outreach effort to Hispanic voters , including through their peer-to-peer text campaign .
That has so far proven successful vis-à-vis voter registration—Voto Latino says it has already registered 218,000 voters in the 2020 cycle—but now they are also focusing on expanding vote by mail access and persuading GOP Hispanic voters to switch over to Biden .
Dr. Stephen Nuño-Perez , Senior Analyst and Communications Director at Latino Decisions , which is now working in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republican Party ’ s grip on Latinx voters has been decades in the making .
“ Whatever their appeal to Latinos are , it ’ s been on the same appeals that it is based on for other Republicans and that is a value system that prioritizes patriarchal power , ” said Nuño-Perez .
“ A value system that is utterly , in one sense , individualistic , but in another sense , communal , and in terms of its defense of white males.
” That goes all the way back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the most recent issue of the Washington Monthly .
The GOP was able to capitalize on the anti-communist and religious sentiments held in the Cuban-American and Mexican-American diaspora durin President Nixon ’ s administration , which fostered strong relationships with community leaders to create a solid base .
Those efforts paid off dividends in years to come .
Hispanic Republicans in Texas helped President Reagan win a majority in a state Carter had won four years earlier .
Reagan was also the first president Juan Suarez-Rivas voted for as an American citizen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Republican presidential candidates every election since then .
Suarez-Rivas told me he likes Trump , in part , because he relaxed business regulations and represents a population of upper-class Hispanic Americans who think the Republican Party ’ s interpretation of capitalism will serve them best .
That said , there ’ s still a reason for Democrats to be optimistic : a large enough share of Latinx Americans remain undecided .
Latino political organizers and analysts argue that the way for Biden to make inroads is to have a comprehensive outreach strategy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities in each state .
“ We are not a monolith , ” said Grecia Lima , National Political Director at Community of Change , a non-profit involved in grassroots organizing .
“ We will see differences in terms of support and in terms of engagement for Trump or against Trump in the different communities.
” To the Biden campaign ’ s credit , they have already released ads in Spanish in different states , with accents that correlate with the predominant communities that live there ; with a Mexican accent for one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Orlando .
This is part of an effort to micro-target Latinx communities .
But television advertising can only do so much .
If the Biden campaign really wants to disrupt Trump ’ s surprising hold on a third of Latinx voters , it will have to prioritize winning these communities over by crafting a specific strategy for the key swing states .
Otherwise , Trump could win in November by getting enough votes from the constituency he has spent his entire political career attacking .

When Juan Suarez-Rivas was 17, he volunteered to join a CIA-sponsored group of Cuban exiles who wanted to overthrow Fidel Castro from power. He had only been living five months in Miami before flying to Guatemala in the spring of 1961 to train in the shadow of a volcano. They were preparing for what would later be known as the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Things didn’t go as planned. During the invasion, Suarez-Rivas was captured by Castro’s army and imprisoned with 214 others on an island off the coast of Havana. There were two toilets for all of them, the showers barely worked, and he slept on the floor. After negotiations between the United States and Cuba, which culminated in the U.S. giving up $53 million in baby food and supplies, Suarez-Rivas was on a plane to America on Christmas Eve, 1962, after a year in captivity.
Now, he lives in Miami, and he’s part of the 31 percent of Florida’s Latinx voters who are standing by President Trump and who plan to vote for him in November. “What you see is what you get,” Suarez-Rivas said of Trump.
It may seem hard for some to imagine that Hispanic voters would be willing to vote for Trump this fall. Trump launched his 2016 campaign by calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals. As president, he has ordered ICE to separate immigrant families and lock children in cages. He has tried get rid of the DACA program. He has begun the process of wasting billions in tax-payer dollars to build a Southern border wall.
Still, a substantial percentage of eligible Latinx voters nationwide hold a favorable view of him. According to a June poll conducted by Latino Decisions, which surveys the political opinions of the Latinx community in the U.S., 42 percent of Latinx voters across six swing states approve of the job Trump has done as president, including Arizona, Florida, Texas, Nevada, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. At this point four years ago, Trump’s favorability was 12 percentage points lower than it is now, per polling conducted by Latino Decisions.
That could prove to be significant in key states that Biden will need to win to clinch the Electoral College—most obviously, in Florida and Pennsylvania, where Hispanic voters make up 20.5 percent and 5.3 percent of voters, respectively. Luckily, there are also plenty of Hispanic voters who can still be persuaded: 11 percent of the Latinx community does not know who they will vote for in November, according to new polling.
In other words, Biden and the Democrats have more work to do with turning Latinx voters than perhaps even they realize. The bigger problem is that some activists and Biden allies worry that, with only three months to go before the election, the campaign doesn’t have a strategy—or the organization in place—to get started.
Last month, Biden field organizers wrote an internal letter that leaked to the Miami Herald that argued there wasn’t a coordinated plan for reaching the state’s Hispanic voters. They cited examples of Spanish-speaking organizers being assigned to the predominantly non-Spanish speaking parts Northern Florida.
The letter also described a toxic work environment in the campaign, including the mistreatment of field organizers and the recruitment of volunteers but leaving them stranded. “It is necessary to emphasize that despite this lack of preparedness by leadership, existing productive work was halted and the little strategy that was shared is ill-suited for the new dynamics of remote organizing,” the signatories wrote in the letter.
Of course, any attempt to reach out to the Latinx community—or any community, for that matter—is hindered by the pandemic. But COVID-19 itself should be a major vulnerability for Trump with Hispanic Americans, who are disproportionally impacted, making up 32 percent of positive cases throughout the country. That helps explain why healthcare has been polled as a top concern among Latinx voters: 40 percent in battleground states cite it as their single biggest reason for voting in 2020.
Thus far, the Biden campaign’s strategy has mostly entailed coordinating virtual community chats with local leaders throughout the country. But Latino advocacy groups say that he will have to do far more to make inroads with undecided Hispanic voters, and those who are Trump supporters but could defect.
Voto Latino, a non-profit organization that works to increase Latinx turnout, has endorsed Biden and steered online organizing to support his presidential bid. “There is a huge population of Latinx voters that has been untapped and there needs to be more outreach and investment from our political parties,” the group’s campaign coordinator, Dulce Rojas, told me.
One of the biggest things the party needs to do, she said, is ramp up its campaign to educate voters about their vote by mail options and ensure ballots are accessible in Spanish. That’s where she hopes Voto Latino can come in. It has already built a young grassroots outreach effort to Hispanic voters, including through their peer-to-peer text campaign. That has so far proven successful vis-à-vis voter registration—Voto Latino says it has already registered 218,000 voters in the 2020 cycle—but now they are also focusing on expanding vote by mail access and persuading GOP Hispanic voters to switch over to Biden.
Dr. Stephen Nuño-Perez, Senior Analyst and Communications Director at Latino Decisions, which is now working in collaboration with the Biden campaign, said the Republican Party’s grip on Latinx voters has been decades in the making.
“Whatever their appeal to Latinos are, it’s been on the same appeals that it is based on for other Republicans and that is a value system that prioritizes patriarchal power,” said Nuño-Perez. “A value system that is utterly, in one sense, individualistic, but in another sense, communal, and in terms of its defense of white males.”
That goes all the way back to the 1960s, as Cecilia Muñoz wrote in the most recent issue of the Washington Monthly. The GOP was able to capitalize on the anti-communist and religious sentiments held in the Cuban-American and Mexican-American diaspora during President Nixon’s administration, which fostered strong relationships with community leaders to create a solid base. Those efforts paid off dividends in years to come. Hispanic Republicans in Texas helped President Reagan win a majority in a state Carter had won four years earlier.
Reagan was also the first president Juan Suarez-Rivas voted for as an American citizen. He has continued to only vote for Republican presidential candidates every election since then. Suarez-Rivas told me he likes Trump, in part, because he relaxed business regulations and represents a population of upper-class Hispanic Americans who think the Republican Party’s interpretation of capitalism will serve them best.
That said, there’s still a reason for Democrats to be optimistic: a large enough share of Latinx Americans remain undecided.
Latino political organizers and analysts argue that the way for Biden to make inroads is to have a comprehensive outreach strategy that crafts a tailored messaging for these communities in each state. “We are not a monolith,” said Grecia Lima, National Political Director at Community of Change, a non-profit involved in grassroots organizing. “We will see differences in terms of support and in terms of engagement for Trump or against Trump in the different communities.”
To the Biden campaign’s credit, they have already released ads in Spanish in different states, with accents that correlate with the predominant communities that live there; with a Mexican accent for one in Phoenix and a Puerto Rican accent in Orlando. This is part of an effort to micro-target Latinx communities.
But television advertising can only do so much. If the Biden campaign really wants to disrupt Trump’s surprising hold on a third of Latinx voters, it will have to prioritize winning these communities over by crafting a specific strategy for the key swing states. Otherwise, Trump could win in November by getting enough votes from the constituency he has spent his entire political career attacking.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-07--David Brooks Wants a Nicer, More Competent Form of Trumpism

One of the most pressing questions that will emerge if Trump loses in November will be , “ what happens to the Republican Party ?
” We know that Stuart Stevens has answered that one by saying that it ’ s time to “ burn the whole thing down and start over.
” But start over with what ?
David Brooks took a shot at answering with a column titled , “ Where Do Republicans Go From Here ?
” He suggests that even if the party repudiates Donald Trump , his worldview will remain the paradigm on which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The thing I found most fascinating about Brooks ’ take on things is that he thinks it is past time to denounce the Reagan paradigm that has been the central driving force in the Republican Party since the 1980s .
It was the Reagan paradigm that came to a head during the 2012 presidential election when Obama used the words “ you didn ’ t build that ” to explain that even successful individuals have benefited from collective efforts .
The point is , is that when we succeed , we succeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also because we do things together .
There are some things , just like fighting fires , we don ’ t do on our own .
I mean , imagine if everybody had their own fire service .
That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires .
So we say to ourselves , ever since the founding of this country , you know what , there are some things we do better together .
That ’ s how we funded the GI Bill .
That ’ s how we created the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam .
That ’ s how we invented the Internet .
That ’ s how we sent a man to the moon .
We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people…You ’ re not on your own , we ’ re in this together .
Mitt Romney and the Republican Party went nuts—going so far as to make “ You built that ” the theme of their 2012 convention .
Brooks says that it was Trump and Bannon who finally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump got the emotions right .
They understood that Republican voters were no longer motivated by a sense of hope and opportunity ; they were motivated by a sense of menace , resentment and fear .
At base , many Republicans felt they were being purged from their own country — by the educated elite , by multiculturalism , by militant secularism .
During the 2016 presidential campaign , Trump and Bannon discarded the Republican orthodox — entitlement reform , fiscal restraint , free trade , comprehensive immigration reform .
They embraced a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Close trade .
We have nothing to offer the world and should protect ourselves from its dangers .
It would have been interesting if Trump had governed as a big-government populist .
But he tossed Bannon out and handed power to Jared Kushner and a bunch of old men locked in the Reagan paradigm .
We got bigotry , incompetence and tax cuts for the wealthy .
The point Brooks makes is that even though Trump didn ’ t govern as a populist , he opened the door for other Republicans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ core assumptions : • Everything is not okay .
The free market is not working well .
• Economic libertarianism is not the answer .
Free markets alone won ’ t solve our problems .
• The working class is the heart of the Republican Party .
The first two have been core beliefs of the Democratic Party for decades—which is where some liberals find common ground with the so-called “ populist right.
” But with numbers three and five , Brooks telegraphs what populism contributes to the Republican need to divide and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class should be mobilized to fight what he refers to as the “ managerial class , ” who are often simply referred to as “ elites.
” They are the ones who , according to Brooks , are making working class folks feel “ a sense of menace , resentment and fear ” with all of their multiculturalism and militant secularism .
Finally , the inclusion of the item about China is a continuation of the Republican strategy of always identifying a foreign enemy to rally the troops against .
In short , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican Party of the future should become a nicer , more competent version of Trumpism than we ’ ve experienced over the last four years .
The answer to the sense of alienation he referred to can be found by coming together with a common sense of fear and anger at those who are identified as enemies .
Perhaps it now makes sense that he is looking to politicians like Marco Rubio , Josh Hawley , Tom Cotton , and Ben Sasse as the ones who will pick up the mantle of creating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Despite all that Brooks gets wrong , however , it is important to give credit where it ’ s due .
He nailed this : That one wins the prize for the most likely scenario to carry the party forward over the next four years—which is a set-up for another round of Trumpism at the top of the ticket in 2024 .

One of the most pressing questions that will emerge if Trump loses in November will be, “what happens to the Republican Party?” We know that Stuart Stevens has answered that one by saying that it’s time to “burn the whole thing down and start over.” But start over with what?
David Brooks took a shot at answering with a column titled, “Where Do Republicans Go From Here?” He suggests that even if the party repudiates Donald Trump, his worldview will remain the paradigm on which the future of the GOP will be built.
The basic Trump worldview — on immigration, trade, foreign policy, etc. — will shape the G.O.P. for decades, the way the basic Reagan worldview did for decades. A thousand smarter conservatives will be building a new party after 2020, but one that builds from the framework Trump established.
The thing I found most fascinating about Brooks’ take on things is that he thinks it is past time to denounce the Reagan paradigm that has been the central driving force in the Republican Party since the 1980s.
For decades conservatives were happy to live in that paradigm. But as years went by many came to see its limits. It was so comprehensively anti-government that it had no way to use government to solve common problems. It was so focused on cultivating strong individuals that it had no language to cultivate a sense of community and belonging.
It was the Reagan paradigm that came to a head during the 2012 presidential election when Obama used the words “you didn’t build that” to explain that even successful individuals have benefited from collective efforts.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people…You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.
Mitt Romney and the Republican Party went nuts—going so far as to make “You built that” the theme of their 2012 convention.
Brooks says that it was Trump and Bannon who finally overturned the Reagan paradigm.
Bannon and Trump got the emotions right. They understood that Republican voters were no longer motivated by a sense of hope and opportunity; they were motivated by a sense of menace, resentment and fear. At base, many Republicans felt they were being purged from their own country — by the educated elite, by multiculturalism, by militant secularism. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump and Bannon discarded the Republican orthodox — entitlement reform, fiscal restraint, free trade, comprehensive immigration reform. They embraced a European-style blood-and-soil conservatism. Close off immigration. Close trade. We have nothing to offer the world and should protect ourselves from its dangers. It would have been interesting if Trump had governed as a big-government populist. But he tossed Bannon out and handed power to Jared Kushner and a bunch of old men locked in the Reagan paradigm. We got bigotry, incompetence and tax cuts for the wealthy.
The point Brooks makes is that even though Trump didn’t govern as a populist, he opened the door for other Republicans to pick up the mantle based on these core assumptions:
Everything is not okay. The free market is not working well. Economic libertarianism is not the answer. Free markets alone won’t solve our problems. The working class is the heart of the Republican Party. China changes everything. The managerial class betrays America.
The first two have been core beliefs of the Democratic Party for decades—which is where some liberals find common ground with the so-called “populist right.” But with numbers three and five, Brooks telegraphs what populism contributes to the Republican need to divide and conquer. It suggests that the working class should be mobilized to fight what he refers to as the “managerial class,” who are often simply referred to as “elites.” They are the ones who, according to Brooks, are making working class folks feel “a sense of menace, resentment and fear” with all of their multiculturalism and militant secularism. Finally, the inclusion of the item about China is a continuation of the Republican strategy of always identifying a foreign enemy to rally the troops against.
In short, what Brooks is suggesting is that the Republican Party of the future should become a nicer, more competent version of Trumpism than we’ve experienced over the last four years. The answer to the sense of alienation he referred to can be found by coming together with a common sense of fear and anger at those who are identified as enemies. Perhaps it now makes sense that he is looking to politicians like Marco Rubio, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, and Ben Sasse as the ones who will pick up the mantle of creating a future for the Republican Party.
Despite all that Brooks gets wrong, however, it is important to give credit where it’s due. He nailed this:
[I]f Joe Biden defeats Trump and begins legislating, as seems more and more likely, there’s also the possibility that Republicans will abandon any positive vision and revert to being a simple anti-government party — a party of opposition to whatever Biden is doing.
That one wins the prize for the most likely scenario to carry the party forward over the next four years—which is a set-up for another round of Trumpism at the top of the ticket in 2024.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-07--Pelosi’s In the Catbird Seat On COVID-19 Stimulus Negotiations

“ We are very far apart .
It ’ s most unfortunate.
” That ’ s how Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi characterized her negotiations with the White House .
It was typical of her often laconic style when she is in the driver ’ s seat .
What she meant was that Donald Trump ’ s emissaries must be spending a lot of time smoking a crack pipe if they think she ’ s going to follow their directives .
White House officials and Democratic leaders ended a three-hour negotiation Thursday evening without a coronavirus relief deal or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both sides remaining far apart on critical issues .
“ We ’ re still a considerable amount apart , ” said White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows after emerging from the meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) , Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin .
President Trump called into the meeting several times , but they were unable to resolve key issues .
Pelosi called it a “ consequential meeting ” in which the differences between the two parties were on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take the virus seriously in the beginning , they ’ re not taking the consequences of the virus seriously at this time , ” she said .
“ And that ’ s why it ’ s hard to come to terms.
” Pelosi knows that the country urgently needs the federal government to offer more relief from the ravages of the COVID-19 crisis , especially with the moratorium on evictions expiring at the end of July .
There are more than 30 million Americans who are relying on enhanced unemployment benefits , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refuse to sign off on her House bill , so they now must convince her to provide something less all-encompassing .
Yet , she ’ s feeling comfortable in her position .
Failure to reach a deal in the midst of a global pandemic just three months before an election could create major political issues for lawmakers .
A group of endangered Senate Republicans whose elections in November could determine control of the chamber have expressed particular anxiety about the impasse .
The small-business Paycheck Protection Program will expire on Saturday , leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lapses will cost money that Republican negotiators don ’ t want to spend .
Despite the weak economic conditions and the continued spread of the virus , a compromise has remained distant .
In an interview on CNBC on Thursday , Pelosi said Republicans ’ refusal to recognize the needs that exist in the country is standing in the way of getting an agreement .
“ Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn , ” Pelosi said .
“ That ’ s the problem .
See , the thing is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governance.
” Over in the Senate , Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is helpless .
He doesn ’ t have the votes to pass anything unless it relies almost entirely on Democratic votes .
That ’ s why Pelosi is just waiting for the White House to cave to her demands .
She wants money for food stamps and childcare .
She wants money for the post office , so it can handle all the ballots that will be cast by mail in the upcoming election .
She wants generous unemployment benefits .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the states .
And she doesn ’ t want to offer legal immunity against anyone getting sued for exposing their employees to the virus .
The Republicans ’ best play is to give her what she wants , so she will either win substantively or politically .
In fact , it ’ s possible she ’ ll get what she wants and also get the credit , although that ’ s usually too much to ask .

“We are very far apart. It’s most unfortunate.” That’s how Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi characterized her negotiations with the White House. It was typical of her often laconic style when she is in the driver’s seat. What she meant was that Donald Trump’s emissaries must be spending a lot of time smoking a crack pipe if they think she’s going to follow their directives.
White House officials and Democratic leaders ended a three-hour negotiation Thursday evening without a coronavirus relief deal or even a clear path forward, with both sides remaining far apart on critical issues. “We’re still a considerable amount apart,” said White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows after emerging from the meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. President Trump called into the meeting several times, but they were unable to resolve key issues. Pelosi called it a “consequential meeting” in which the differences between the two parties were on display.
“They didn’t take the virus seriously in the beginning, they’re not taking the consequences of the virus seriously at this time,” she said. “And that’s why it’s hard to come to terms.”
Pelosi knows that the country urgently needs the federal government to offer more relief from the ravages of the COVID-19 crisis, especially with the moratorium on evictions expiring at the end of July. There are more than 30 million Americans who are relying on enhanced unemployment benefits, which have also expired. But the Republicans refuse to sign off on her House bill, so they now must convince her to provide something less all-encompassing. Yet, she’s feeling comfortable in her position. Failure to reach a deal in the midst of a global pandemic just three months before an election could create major political issues for lawmakers. A group of endangered Senate Republicans whose elections in November could determine control of the chamber have expressed particular anxiety about the impasse. The small-business Paycheck Protection Program will expire on Saturday, leading to more layoffs. Dealing with these lapses will cost money that Republican negotiators don’t want to spend. Despite the weak economic conditions and the continued spread of the virus, a compromise has remained distant. In an interview on CNBC on Thursday, Pelosi said Republicans’ refusal to recognize the needs that exist in the country is standing in the way of getting an agreement. “Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn,” Pelosi said. “That’s the problem. See, the thing is, they don’t believe in governance.” Over in the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is helpless. He doesn’t have the votes to pass anything unless it relies almost entirely on Democratic votes. That’s why Pelosi is just waiting for the White House to cave to her demands. She wants money for food stamps and childcare. She wants money for the post office, so it can handle all the ballots that will be cast by mail in the upcoming election. She wants generous unemployment benefits. She wants a huge package of aid for the states. And she doesn’t want to offer legal immunity against anyone getting sued for exposing their employees to the virus. The Republicans’ best play is to give her what she wants, so she will either win substantively or politically. In fact, it’s possible she’ll get what she wants and also get the credit, although that’s usually too much to ask.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-08--Will It Ever Really Be the Year of the Woman?

The first two decades of this century held the promise of a steady—if slow—march toward greater gender equality .
The Internet and social media gave a microphone to millions of formerly voiceless women all over the world .
The # MeToo movement brought consequences to perpetrators of sexual harassment and violence .
Nancy Pelosi won the Speaker ’ s chair and an unprecedented number of women are serving alongside her in Congress .
The Democratic primary field had several qualified female contenders , and Joe Biden has promised to choose a woman as his vice president .
Finally , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West last year by $ 35 million .
By all indicators , it seemed highly plausible that 2020 might be the long elusive Year of the Woman .
Yet the kudzu-like grip of traditional expectations for women is so tightly wound round the neck of our culture that even the advances mentioned above will not kill the vine .
Today , gender stereotypes are what Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman calls Zombie Ideas : “ Ideas that should have been killed by contrary evidence , but instead keep shambling along , eating people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is scary out there for women challenging the traditional stereotype of nurturing caregiver without professional ambition or creative inspiration of her own .
Even after so much progress , women who behave outside the confines of expected gender roles , continue to be perceived and treated as deviant .
Take Elizabeth Warren for example .
When she dropped out of the presidential race , she said issues of sexism and likeability were factors .
In a New Hampshire poll , voters thought highly of her overall competence—67 percent—but her likability numbers were a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , her competence was unattractive and off-putting , so she was pushed to the outside .
Sadly , research and experience show that Elizabeth Warren is not alone .
A 2018 Ohio State study found that hiring managers preferred women of modest academic achievement to those who had top grades .
That was because they thought the not-so-smart women would be nicer .
Managers “ not only gravitate toward women who are moderate achievers who are described as sociable and outgoing , but regard high-achieving women with much more skepticism , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a 2016 study in the Psychology of Women Quarterly discovered that gender stereotypes remained constant between 1983 and 2014 , despite impressive gains for women over the past forty years .
Women are still expected to be passive , suited more for caring roles than for leadership , and primarily concerned with the welfare of others .
Shockingly , the survey found that expectations that women will behave in these narrow , constricted ways are actually growing stronger .
Other research has more or less confirmed this .
A 2018 global online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 200,000 participants came to similar conclusions .
Worse yet , the COVID-19 pandemic will most likely accelerate these trends .
An ongoing study by researchers in the U.S. and Germany finds that the crisis is likely to make inequities worse , “ as more women than men will be strongly affected by the rise in child-care needs.
” When a family with school-aged children faces the reality of closed schools , the mother is likely to assume the bulk of childcare because , as the data overwhelmingly shows , she most likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many marriages , her paying job will be the expendable one .
That will mean thousands of women losing potential earnings and disrupting their career progression ; many will drop out of the labor force entirely .
So , why are these gender paradigms so strong ?
And why do they hold on so relentlessly ?
As Time reports : “ In almost every society , from Baltimore to Beijing , boys are told from a young age to go outside and have adventures , while young girls are encouraged to stay home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a 2017 six-year study of 10- to 14-year-olds and their parents in 15 countries .
Early adventures give boys a sense of freedom and power that they don ’ t associate with girls .
In later years , this power can morph into male dominance in the workplace .
That is the way it has been for decades now .
And as we know , once a group has power , it rarely surrenders without a fight .
Up until now , the fight has been on legal grounds , andwomen have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the workplace .
But we haven ’ t yet fully won the battle of breaking down the stereotypes that led to such discrimination in the first place .
In today ’ s world , young women are in a Catch-22 .
They are caught between the progressive voices urging them to live authentic lives , and the deeply entrenched forces determined to push them back to traditional roles .
The “ Please Others ” imperative is a huge ball and chain dragging down the dreams of girls and women .
Facebook ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major force holding women back as they try to rise .
She writes , “ As a man gets more successful , he is better liked by men and women , and as a woman gets more successful , she is less liked by men and women.
” Many men are champions of women and support their advancement .
Yet even those men sometimes inadvertently slide back into traditional mores .
Malcolm Gladwell says they are in the grip of what behavioral scientists call “ moral licensing.
” As the author of Blink @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group performs an act of generosity toward an outsider , it doesn ’ t necessarily signal that more acts of generosity are coming .
Sometimes it just gives them license to then go back to their old ways.
” How , then , can young women pursue their dreams without second guessing themselves ?
So far , our efforts to counter harmful gender stereotypes have been scattered , not given high priority and have not kept up with the newest research .
We need a new approach , especially as the pandemic puts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First , we need to address the problem from the root .
We need to break the strangle-hold of one-size fits all gender stereotypes for toddlers and young children .
Then , we need to broadly recognize that traits are not all innate ; most are learned and developed .
As a society , we need to celebrate the girl who takes risks , dares to follow her interests , and takes her cues from her passions .
Luckily , there are a set of policies we can embrace to help us with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eliminating the “ Gender Gap.
” Women employed full-time had to work three months into 2020 to earn what men made in 2019 .
Women earn 82 cents for every dollar that men make .
Black women have it worse , making only 62 cents for every dollar earned by a man .
• Repairing the “ Broken Rung.
” Females often stall out in entry level jobs , whereas “ men hold 62 percent of manager-level positions .
Women hold just 38 percent of them .
• Getting rid of the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less well financially than both non-mothers and men , the Harvard Business Review has reported.Mothers are perceived as “ less committed to their jobs , less dependable , less authoritative , more emotional , and more irrational ” than non-mothers .
Disturbingly , men who have children get a substantial “ Fatherhood Bonus ” in wages because they are perceived as stable and committed to work .
But that ’ s not all .
It will take a calibrated and well-coordinated effort among policymakers , activists , and scholars to think of ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embedded into everyday American life .
If we want today ’ s young girls to take the Nancy Pelosis and Elizabeth Warrens of the world as real role models , we must stop treating high-achieving women as outliers .
We must see them as they are—people who have realized their own potential .
Otherwise , the so-called Year of the Woman will remain out of reach .

The first two decades of this century held the promise of a steady—if slow—march toward greater gender equality. The Internet and social media gave a microphone to millions of formerly voiceless women all over the world. The #MeToo movement brought consequences to perpetrators of sexual harassment and violence. Nancy Pelosi won the Speaker’s chair and an unprecedented number of women are serving alongside her in Congress. The Democratic primary field had several qualified female contenders, and Joe Biden has promised to choose a woman as his vice president. Finally, and not insignificantly, Taylor Swift out-earned Kayne West last year by $35 million.
By all indicators, it seemed highly plausible that 2020 might be the long elusive Year of the Woman. Yet the kudzu-like grip of traditional expectations for women is so tightly wound round the neck of our culture that even the advances mentioned above will not kill the vine. Today, gender stereotypes are what Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman calls Zombie Ideas: “Ideas that should have been killed by contrary evidence, but instead keep shambling along, eating people’s brains.”
No wonder life is scary out there for women challenging the traditional stereotype of nurturing caregiver without professional ambition or creative inspiration of her own. Even after so much progress, women who behave outside the confines of expected gender roles, continue to be perceived and treated as deviant.
Take Elizabeth Warren for example. When she dropped out of the presidential race, she said issues of sexism and likeability were factors. In a New Hampshire poll, voters thought highly of her overall competence—67 percent—but her likability numbers were a dismal four percent. In other words, her competence was unattractive and off-putting, so she was pushed to the outside. Sadly, research and experience show that Elizabeth Warren is not alone.
A 2018 Ohio State study found that hiring managers preferred women of modest academic achievement to those who had top grades. That was because they thought the not-so-smart women would be nicer. Managers “not only gravitate toward women who are moderate achievers who are described as sociable and outgoing, but regard high-achieving women with much more skepticism,” the researchers said.
At the same time, a 2016 study in the Psychology of Women Quarterly discovered that gender stereotypes remained constant between 1983 and 2014, despite impressive gains for women over the past forty years. Women are still expected to be passive, suited more for caring roles than for leadership, and primarily concerned with the welfare of others. Shockingly, the survey found that expectations that women will behave in these narrow, constricted ways are actually growing stronger. Other research has more or less confirmed this. A 2018 global online research study by Harvard University of more than 200,000 participants came to similar conclusions.
Worse yet, the COVID-19 pandemic will most likely accelerate these trends. An ongoing study by researchers in the U.S. and Germany finds that the crisis is likely to make inequities worse, “as more women than men will be strongly affected by the rise in child-care needs.”
When a family with school-aged children faces the reality of closed schools, the mother is likely to assume the bulk of childcare because, as the data overwhelmingly shows, she most likely earns less than her husband. In many marriages, her paying job will be the expendable one. That will mean thousands of women losing potential earnings and disrupting their career progression; many will drop out of the labor force entirely.
So, why are these gender paradigms so strong? And why do they hold on so relentlessly?
As Time reports: “In almost every society, from Baltimore to Beijing, boys are told from a young age to go outside and have adventures, while young girls are encouraged to stay home and do chores.” These findings come from a 2017 six-year study of 10- to 14-year-olds and their parents in 15 countries.
Early adventures give boys a sense of freedom and power that they don’t associate with girls. In later years, this power can morph into male dominance in the workplace. That is the way it has been for decades now. And as we know, once a group has power, it rarely surrenders without a fight. Up until now, the fight has been on legal grounds, andwomen have won many anti-discrimination battles in society and the workplace. But we haven’t yet fully won the battle of breaking down the stereotypes that led to such discrimination in the first place.
In today’s world, young women are in a Catch-22. They are caught between the progressive voices urging them to live authentic lives, and the deeply entrenched forces determined to push them back to traditional roles. The “Please Others” imperative is a huge ball and chain dragging down the dreams of girls and women. Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg sees this issue as the major force holding women back as they try to rise. She writes, “As a man gets more successful, he is better liked by men and women, and as a woman gets more successful, she is less liked by men and women.”
Many men are champions of women and support their advancement. Yet even those men sometimes inadvertently slide back into traditional mores. Malcolm Gladwell says they are in the grip of what behavioral scientists call “moral licensing.” As the author of Blink describes: “When a favored majority group performs an act of generosity toward an outsider, it doesn’t necessarily signal that more acts of generosity are coming. Sometimes it just gives them license to then go back to their old ways.”
How, then, can young women pursue their dreams without second guessing themselves? So far, our efforts to counter harmful gender stereotypes have been scattered, not given high priority and have not kept up with the newest research. We need a new approach, especially as the pandemic puts this issue on the back burner.
First, we need to address the problem from the root. We need to break the strangle-hold of one-size fits all gender stereotypes for toddlers and young children. Then, we need to broadly recognize that traits are not all innate; most are learned and developed. As a society, we need to celebrate the girl who takes risks, dares to follow her interests, and takes her cues from her passions. Luckily, there are a set of policies we can embrace to help us with this task. They include:
Eliminating the “Gender Gap.” Women employed full-time had to work three months into 2020 to earn what men made in 2019. Women earn 82 cents for every dollar that men make. Black women have it worse, making only 62 cents for every dollar earned by a man.
Repairing the “Broken Rung.” Females often stall out in entry level jobs , whereas “men hold 62 percent of manager-level positions. Women hold just 38 percent of them.
whereas “men hold 62 percent of manager-level positions. Women hold just 38 percent of them. Getting rid of the “Motherhood Penalty.” Mothers who work do less well financially than both non-mothers and men, the Harvard Business Review has reported.Mothers are perceived as “less committed to their jobs, less dependable, less authoritative, more emotional, and more irrational” than non-mothers. Disturbingly, men who have children get a substantial “Fatherhood Bonus” in wages because they are perceived as stable and committed to work.
But that’s not all. It will take a calibrated and well-coordinated effort among policymakers, activists, and scholars to think of ways we can reverse the gender stereotypes profoundly embedded into everyday American life.
If we want today’s young girls to take the Nancy Pelosis and Elizabeth Warrens of the world as real role models, we must stop treating high-achieving women as outliers. We must see them as they are—people who have realized their own potential. Otherwise, the so-called Year of the Woman will remain out of reach.