washingtonmonthly--2020-06-15--The Racial Stereotypes Infecting American Police Departments

Within the array of stereotypes inflicted upon black people in America over many generations , the image of violence stands out .
From slavery on , they have been seen as dirty , ugly , stupid , immoral , alien , and dangerous .
These fictions become more or less prominent with time and circumstance , but they never quite die away .
Even when they are not translated into law or practice , they can lurk as “ implicit bias ” that contaminates behavior .
The label “ dangerous ” is especially pernicious .
Much of the brutal policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expectation that black men and women will be violent .
That supposed trait appears regularly in surveys and simulations .
It is an old prejudice ingrained in American society , readily activated by stress and triggering an officer ’ s split-second fear , which sometimes leads to a shooting , but more often to warrantless frisks and auto searches , handcuffing , and non-lethal physical force .
The role of racial thinking is difficult to measure precisely .
Thoughts and actions do not inevitably coincide , and official statistics record end results , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no arrests over a thirteen-month period in 2013-14 , for example , police in Oakland , California , handcuffed 1,466 African Americans but only 72 whites , Stanford psychologists reported .
While 72 percent of the department ’ s officers had handcuffed a black person who wasn ’ t arrested , 74 percent had never done so to someone who was white .
Handcuffing black Americans was “ a script for what is supposed to happen , ” the study concluded , a routine presumably based on the violent stereotype but maintained as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant driver of behavior , ” the psychologists observed .
Other experts have seen that rules issued from on high can not readily overcome a police department ’ s culture .
Where the stereotype of violence exists , it can be reinforced by the slice of society the police usually encounter—the criminal suspect , not the upstanding citizen .
That daily experience becomes a filter through which a world of hostility and risk passes into perceptions , corrupting context and distorting reality .
A 2019 study of 100 million traffic stops nationwide found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stopped , but less so after dark when an officer couldn ’ t see a driver ’ s race .
Blacks who were pulled over were more likely than whites to be searched .
A 2016 examination of files and mug shots determined that “ the Whiter one appears , the more the suspect will be protected from police force.
” Off-duty officers of color trying to stop crimes are more at risk of being shot by fellow officers than their white counterparts—comprising 10 of the 14 killed between 1995 and 2010 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New York governor ’ s office .
“ Inherent or unconscious racial bias plays a role in ‘ shoot/don ’ t-shoot ’ decisions made by officers of all races and ethnicities , ” the study declared .
The words , “ all races and ethnicities ” deserve attention .
When a group of psychologists examined fatal shootings from 2015 , they discovered that “ black officers were just as likely to shoot black citizens as white officers were , ” said Joseph Cesario of Michigan State University .
The report put it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of White officers in a fatal officer-involved shooting increased , a person fatally shot was not more likely to be of a racial minority.
” But it added a possible reason : White victims were more prevalent because more whites than blacks were mentally ill , and some whites were actually trying to get shot , committing “ suicide by cop.
” Furthermore , black-on-black shootings rise when more black officers are assigned to black neighborhoods , as they frequently are in big cities .
A question is whether black officers are as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blacks , and whether they share anti-black stereotypes .
“ People can have biases against their own demographic groups , ” said Lorie Fridell , a criminologist at the University of South Florida .
“ Women can have biases about women .
Blacks can have biases about blacks.
” But while minority group members often internalize stereotypes held by the majority , how those figure in the mix of motives for violence by black police is far from clear .
Class is probably a factor .
Some poor inner city residents resent black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some black officers return the contempt .
Others can reduce tensions .
I saw this while researching books on civil liberties .
When I spent nights reporting on an undercover narcotics unit in Washington , D.C. , I watched anger build among white cops as hostile black residents hassled and berated them for arresting drug dealers .
As tempers reached a pitch , one black officer intervened skillfully to talk both sides down .
The unit called him “ the reverend.
” The vast majority of police officers are white males with less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that voted strongly for Donald Trump , who was endorsed by their union , the Fraternal Order of Police .
They generally hold views on race typical of the country ’ s white conservatives , according to a 2016 survey of 8,000 officers by the Pew Research Center .
White cops were nearly unanimous ( 92 percent ) in believing that the country had made the changes needed to guarantee equal rights for blacks ; only 6 percent thought that continued change was needed .
Their black colleagues said the opposite : only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent wanted more .
A similar divide existed on whether fatal encounters between blacks and police were isolated incidents ( 72 percent of white officers , 43 of blacks ) or part of a broader problem ( 27 percent of whites , 57 percent of blacks ) .
Only 11 percent of law enforcement academies overall require trainers to have four-year college degrees , according to President Obama ’ s Task Force on 21st Century Policing .
The qualification is required in just 7 percent of state police academies , 4 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those for sheriff ’ s deputies .
The militarization of police , both in training and equipment , has been a major concern of reformers .
Officers ’ military backgrounds are correlated with the use of force .
About 6 percent of the country ’ s population has served in the military , but 19 percent of the police .
Indeed , policing is the third most popular job following active duty , after driving trucks and the general category of managing .
Dallas officers who had been deployed overseas with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than cops with no military service , and those who hadn ’ t been deployed were 1.94 times as likely , the University of Texas School of Public Health reported in 2018 .
In 2017 , the Marshall Project found that use-of-force complaints were more common against Boston and Miami police who ’ d been in the military .
In Albuquerque , one-third of the fatal police shootings from January 2010 to April 2014 were by cops with military backgrounds .
Attempts to quantify racial bias using simulations have produced contradictory results .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ University of Colorado , has run tests since 2000 with a video game showing images of black and white young men , some holding guns , others cellphones or soda cans .
Participants tended to shoot armed blacks more often and sooner than they did armed whites , and to decide more quickly to refrain from shooting unarmed men if they were white .
In a later study , police officers reacted most quickly , and correctly , to armed blacks and unarmed whites—that is , they shot the blacks and did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more racial bias in the shooting decisions by officers of special units who had contact with minority gang members .
Training failed to diminish bias .
Other studies , however , have failed to document a correlation between bias and action .
Even when officers hold the stereotype of blacks as violent , they don ’ t always behave accordingly , at least in the simulations .
Two experiments in police simulators recorded brain waves and physiological signs of a heightened threat perception when black “ suspects ” were pictured .
But neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found that racial bias translated into faster , more frequent shootings of blacks .
The simulation , in 2012-13 by Washington State University , enlisted 80 officers in Spokane , 76 of whom were white , who were paid to participate in uniform and with infrared guns that looked like actual weapons—an attempt to get as close to reality as possible .
The cops took written and oral exams designed to document prejudice , including the Harvard Implicit Association Test , which documents participants ’ propensity to link pictures of black and white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the officers registered implicit racial bias ; 78 percent associated blacks with weapons , none associated whites .
In four sessions with six scenarios each , the officers were shown videos of actors playing people in similar situations and clothing .
The cops were more careful with blacks .
They were three times less likely to shoot unarmed blacks than unarmed whites .
( The ratio was corrected for the smaller number of black scenarios ; in the raw numbers , 54 unarmed whites and two unarmed blacks were shot . )
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second longer to decide to shoot armed blacks than armed whites , a delay that researchers regarded as significant .
This was called “ a counter bias ” by Lois James , one of the investigators .
The report was ultimately titled “ The Reverse Racism Effect.
” She postulated that the hesitation to shoot blacks grew out of “ people ’ s concerns about the social and legal consequences of shooting a member of a historically oppressed racial group…paired with the awareness of media backlash that follows an officer shooting a minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but a simulation is hardly reality .
It contains no danger , no risk of death , no adrenalin flowing , no actual fear .
In the Navy , I attended a survival school that concluded with being “ captured , ” crammed uncomfortably into a wooden box , and “ interrogated ” with the threat of “ torture.
” It was the final lesson of the last day of training , so I was extremely brave and recited only my name , rank and serial number .
The simulation ’ s results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s database of fatal shootings by police , who have killed unarmed blacks since 2015 at a rate two to three times the Africa American representation in the country at large .
African Americans constitute 13 percent of the population but between 25 and 40 percent of the unarmed citizens shot to death by police .
The fitful start of a tentative downward trend is visible , both in absolute numbers and percentages .
But it ’ s too early for optimism .
The table above shows deaths recorded to June 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s numbers are already on track to match or exceed last year ’ s .
Furthermore , they do not include deaths that don ’ t involve firearms , hence George Floyd is not in the figures .
Nor is Freddie Gray , who died in a Baltimore police van in 2015 from injuries to his spinal cord .
How many others have escaped the database is unknown .
What is known is the resilience of racial stereotyping , conscious and unconscious , which corrupts society until , as in the civil rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act .

Within the array of stereotypes inflicted upon black people in America over many generations, the image of violence stands out. From slavery on, they have been seen as dirty, ugly, stupid, immoral, alien, and dangerous. These fictions become more or less prominent with time and circumstance, but they never quite die away. Even when they are not translated into law or practice, they can lurk as “implicit bias” that contaminates behavior. The label “dangerous” is especially pernicious.
Much of the brutal policing now being protested appears driven by the expectation that black men and women will be violent. That supposed trait appears regularly in surveys and simulations. It is an old prejudice ingrained in American society, readily activated by stress and triggering an officer’s split-second fear, which sometimes leads to a shooting, but more often to warrantless frisks and auto searches, handcuffing, and non-lethal physical force.
The role of racial thinking is difficult to measure precisely. Thoughts and actions do not inevitably coincide, and official statistics record end results, not causes. During traffic stops producing no arrests over a thirteen-month period in 2013-14, for example, police in Oakland, California, handcuffed 1,466 African Americans but only 72 whites, Stanford psychologists reported. While 72 percent of the department’s officers had handcuffed a black person who wasn’t arrested, 74 percent had never done so to someone who was white. Handcuffing black Americans was “a script for what is supposed to happen,” the study concluded, a routine presumably based on the violent stereotype but maintained as standard practice. “Norms are a significant driver of behavior,” the psychologists observed. Other experts have seen that rules issued from on high cannot readily overcome a police department’s culture.
Where the stereotype of violence exists, it can be reinforced by the slice of society the police usually encounter—the criminal suspect, not the upstanding citizen. That daily experience becomes a filter through which a world of hostility and risk passes into perceptions, corrupting context and distorting reality. A 2019 study of 100 million traffic stops nationwide found blacks more likely than whites to be stopped, but less so after dark when an officer couldn’t see a driver’s race. Blacks who were pulled over were more likely than whites to be searched. A 2016 examination of files and mug shots determined that “the Whiter one appears, the more the suspect will be protected from police force.”
Off-duty officers of color trying to stop crimes are more at risk of being shot by fellow officers than their white counterparts—comprising 10 of the 14 killed between 1995 and 2010, according to a nationwide study commissioned by the New York governor’s office. “Inherent or unconscious racial bias plays a role in ‘shoot/don’t-shoot’ decisions made by officers of all races and ethnicities,” the study declared.
The words, “all races and ethnicities” deserve attention. When a group of psychologists examined fatal shootings from 2015, they discovered that “black officers were just as likely to shoot black citizens as white officers were,” said Joseph Cesario of Michigan State University. The report put it another way: “As the proportion of White officers in a fatal officer-involved shooting increased, a person fatally shot was not more likely to be of a racial minority.” But it added a possible reason: White victims were more prevalent because more whites than blacks were mentally ill, and some whites were actually trying to get shot, committing “suicide by cop.” Furthermore, black-on-black shootings rise when more black officers are assigned to black neighborhoods, as they frequently are in big cities.
A question is whether black officers are as quick as some whites to shoot unarmed blacks, and whether they share anti-black stereotypes. “People can have biases against their own demographic groups,” said Lorie Fridell, a criminologist at the University of South Florida. “Women can have biases about women. Blacks can have biases about blacks.” But while minority group members often internalize stereotypes held by the majority, how those figure in the mix of motives for violence by black police is far from clear. Class is probably a factor. Some poor inner city residents resent black officers and let them know it. Some black officers return the contempt.
Others can reduce tensions. I saw this while researching books on civil liberties. When I spent nights reporting on an undercover narcotics unit in Washington, D.C., I watched anger build among white cops as hostile black residents hassled and berated them for arresting drug dealers. As tempers reached a pitch, one black officer intervened skillfully to talk both sides down. The unit called him “the reverend.”
The vast majority of police officers are white males with less than a college degree, the cohort that voted strongly for Donald Trump, who was endorsed by their union, the Fraternal Order of Police. They generally hold views on race typical of the country’s white conservatives, according to a 2016 survey of 8,000 officers by the Pew Research Center.
White cops were nearly unanimous (92 percent) in believing that the country had made the changes needed to guarantee equal rights for blacks; only 6 percent thought that continued change was needed. Their black colleagues said the opposite: only 29 percent saw adequate change and 69 percent wanted more. A similar divide existed on whether fatal encounters between blacks and police were isolated incidents (72 percent of white officers, 43 of blacks) or part of a broader problem (27 percent of whites, 57 percent of blacks).
Only 11 percent of law enforcement academies overall require trainers to have four-year college degrees, according to President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. The qualification is required in just 7 percent of state police academies, 4 percent of academies for municipal police, and none of those for sheriff’s deputies.
The militarization of police, both in training and equipment, has been a major concern of reformers. Officers’ military backgrounds are correlated with the use of force. About 6 percent of the country’s population has served in the military, but 19 percent of the police. Indeed, policing is the third most popular job following active duty, after driving trucks and the general category of managing.
Dallas officers who had been deployed overseas with the military fired their weapons 2.9 times more than cops with no military service, and those who hadn’t been deployed were 1.94 times as likely, the University of Texas School of Public Health reported in 2018. In 2017, the Marshall Project found that use-of-force complaints were more common against Boston and Miami police who’d been in the military. In Albuquerque, one-third of the fatal police shootings from January 2010 to April 2014 were by cops with military backgrounds.
Attempts to quantify racial bias using simulations have produced contradictory results. Joshua Correll, a psychologist at the University of Colorado, has run tests since 2000 with a video game showing images of black and white young men, some holding guns, others cellphones or soda cans. Participants tended to shoot armed blacks more often and sooner than they did armed whites, and to decide more quickly to refrain from shooting unarmed men if they were white. In a later study, police officers reacted most quickly, and correctly, to armed blacks and unarmed whites—that is, they shot the blacks and did not shoot the whites. Further simulations showed more racial bias in the shooting decisions by officers of special units who had contact with minority gang members. Training failed to diminish bias.
Other studies, however, have failed to document a correlation between bias and action. Even when officers hold the stereotype of blacks as violent, they don’t always behave accordingly, at least in the simulations.
Two experiments in police simulators recorded brain waves and physiological signs of a heightened threat perception when black “suspects” were pictured. But neither that study nor a more intricate simulation found that racial bias translated into faster, more frequent shootings of blacks.
The simulation, in 2012-13 by Washington State University, enlisted 80 officers in Spokane, 76 of whom were white, who were paid to participate in uniform and with infrared guns that looked like actual weapons—an attempt to get as close to reality as possible. The cops took written and oral exams designed to document prejudice, including the Harvard Implicit Association Test, which documents participants’ propensity to link pictures of black and white faces with weapons. Ninety-six percent of the officers registered implicit racial bias; 78 percent associated blacks with weapons, none associated whites.
In four sessions with six scenarios each, the officers were shown videos of actors playing people in similar situations and clothing. The cops were more careful with blacks. They were three times less likely to shoot unarmed blacks than unarmed whites. (The ratio was corrected for the smaller number of black scenarios; in the raw numbers, 54 unarmed whites and two unarmed blacks were shot.) The cops also took about two-tenths of a second longer to decide to shoot armed blacks than armed whites, a delay that researchers regarded as significant.
This was called “a counter bias” by Lois James, one of the investigators. The report was ultimately titled “The Reverse Racism Effect.” She postulated that the hesitation to shoot blacks grew out of “people’s concerns about the social and legal consequences of shooting a member of a historically oppressed racial group…paired with the awareness of media backlash that follows an officer shooting a minority suspect.”
She might be right, but a simulation is hardly reality. It contains no danger, no risk of death, no adrenalin flowing, no actual fear.
In the Navy, I attended a survival school that concluded with being “captured,” crammed uncomfortably into a wooden box, and “interrogated” with the threat of “torture.” It was the final lesson of the last day of training, so I was extremely brave and recited only my name, rank and serial number.
The simulation’s results do not coincide with the Washington Post’s database of fatal shootings by police, who have killed unarmed blacks since 2015 at a rate two to three times the African American representation in the country at large. African Americans constitute 13 percent of the population but between 25 and 40 percent of the unarmed citizens shot to death by police.
The fitful start of a tentative downward trend is visible, both in absolute numbers and percentages. But it’s too early for optimism. The table above shows deaths recorded to June 11, 2020, and this year’s numbers are already on track to match or exceed last year’s. Furthermore, they do not include deaths that don’t involve firearms, hence George Floyd is not in the figures. Nor is Freddie Gray, who died in a Baltimore police van in 2015 from injuries to his spinal cord. How many others have escaped the database is unknown.
What is known is the resilience of racial stereotyping, conscious and unconscious, which corrupts society until, as in the civil rights movement, it mobilizes enough Americans to act.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-15--No One Is Attempting to Silence White Men

Andrew Sullivan characterizes the movement in journalism away from objectivity ( read : bothsiderism ) as a threat to civil discourse .
In reference to an article about how revolts are erupting in American newsrooms , Sullivan also takes issue with the foundational beliefs being put forward as media organizations grapple with police brutality .
For Sullivan , all of this is an attempt to silence the voices of dissent .
Similarly , in 2007 , Glenn Greenwald suggested that there were speech rules that silenced discussions about race .
It is always preferable to have views and sentiments — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the open rather than forcing them into hiding through suppression .
And part of the reason people intently run away from discussions of race…is because it is too easy to unwittingly run afoul of various unwritten speech rules , thereby triggering accusations of bigotry .
That practice has the effect of keeping people silent , which in turn has the effect of reinforcing the appearance that nobody thinks about race ( which is why nobody discusses it ) , which in turn prevents a constructive discussion of hidden and unwarranted premises .
Writing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t attempt to spare his feelings in calling that out .
In this analysis ( or this part of his post at least ) the problem is the various unwritten speech rules .
But guess what ?
There really aren ’ t any .
There are just poor attitudes we keep about people who look different .
Or who we ’ ve been taught to think of differently .
And there is a “ White ” attitude of deciding for everyone else how they should live , be , self-identify , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old slurs and old tropes that hurt people .
These are the things that are flushed out when people speak : attitudes , thoughts , beliefs , manners of speaking that hint at lurking attitudes .
People avoid talking about race because they are scared of exposing their thoughts and views on race…They are not afraid of “ unwritten speech rules.
” They are afraid that what they really think and feel will cause them to be ridiculed or ostracized in public , or that they may see a part of themselves they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they keep the potential to themselves .
Our country is going through a fundamental transformation—especially when it comes to both patriarchy and white supremacy .
In referring to presidential politics , here is how Rebecca Traister put it .
The first time this country grappled with these questions it resulted in a civil war that ended slavery .
In the 1960s a civil rights movement rose up to challenge Jim Crow laws , resulting in laws that both prohibited discrimination and guaranteed the right to vote .
As Reverend William Barber has suggested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a Third Reconstruction .
While laws such as those designed to rein in police brutality and hold officers accountable are currently on the table , activists like those involved in the 1619 Project at the New York Times are going deeper , attempting to expose the ways that racism and misogyny have been built into our systems and culture .
That isn ’ t sitting very well with a lot of folks .
As the saying goes , “ When you ’ re accustomed to privilege , equality feels like oppression.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only white man who feels silenced .
The editors at the Washington Examiner expressed similar thoughts .
No one is silencing Sullivan or the editors at the Washington Examiner , as the publication of these articles proves .
What has changed is that their views have to compete with others in a culture in which the power structure is being altered .
As these movements begin to delve more deeply into the systemic nature of racism and sexism in our culture , foundational beliefs are being challenged .
We can see that in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizing human relations is being challenged due to its overt embrace by both Trump and law enforcement .
Here is how Riane Eisler explained the issue in her book Chalice and the Blade .
These days , even the idea of wearing a mask during a pandemic is being challenged as weak and unmanly .
So we ’ re having these conversations that are making a lot of people uncomfortable .
That does not mean that there are speech rules or that anyone is being silenced .
What activists are attempting to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways that patriarchy and racism have been cooked into the culture that aren ’ t as obvious as calling someone the “ n ” word .
As the power dynamics shift , that kind of conversation is going to be inevitable and terribly threatening to those who are intent on clinging to the past .
None of this is to suggest that we all need to simply embrace the views of feminists or those involved in the Black Lives Matter movement .
Here ’ s where I actually agree with Sullivan .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a place where patriarchy and white supremacy aren ’ t merely differences that need to be tolerated , but represent moral challenges that need to be exposed and eliminated .
That process will require listening and being able to tell the difference between the truth and something that simply makes us uncomfortable .

Andrew Sullivan characterizes the movement in journalism away from objectivity (read: bothsiderism) as a threat to civil discourse. In reference to an article about how revolts are erupting in American newsrooms, Sullivan also takes issue with the foundational beliefs being put forward as media organizations grapple with police brutality.
And what is the foundational belief of such moral clarity? That America is systemically racist, and a white-supremacist project from the start, that, as Lowery put it in The Atlantic,“the justice system — in fact, the entire American experiment — was from its inception designed to perpetuate racial inequality.”
For Sullivan, all of this is an attempt to silence the voices of dissent.
Question any significant part of this, and your moral integrity as a human being is called into question. There is little or no liberal space in this revolutionary movement for genuine, respectful disagreement, regardless of one’s identity, or even open-minded exploration. In fact, there is an increasingly ferocious campaign to quell dissent, to chill debate, to purge those who ask questions, and to ruin people for their refusal to swallow this reductionist ideology whole.
Similarly, in 2007, Glenn Greenwald suggested that there were speech rules that silenced discussions about race.
It is always preferable to have views and sentiments — even ugly ones — aired out in the open rather than forcing them into hiding through suppression. And part of the reason people intently run away from discussions of race…is because it is too easy to unwittingly run afoul of various unwritten speech rules, thereby triggering accusations of bigotry. That practice has the effect of keeping people silent, which in turn has the effect of reinforcing the appearance that nobody thinks about race (which is why nobody discusses it), which in turn prevents a constructive discussion of hidden and unwarranted premises.
Writing at the Unapologetic Mexican, Nezua didn’t attempt to spare his feelings in calling that out.
In this analysis (or this part of his post at least) the problem is the various unwritten speech rules. But guess what? There really aren’t any. There are just poor attitudes we keep about people who look different. Or who we’ve been taught to think of differently. And there is a “White” attitude of deciding for everyone else how they should live, be, self-identify, and do many other things. There are old slurs and old tropes that hurt people. These are the things that are flushed out when people speak: attitudes, thoughts, beliefs, manners of speaking that hint at lurking attitudes. People avoid talking about race because they are scared of exposing their thoughts and views on race…They are not afraid of “unwritten speech rules.” They are afraid that what they really think and feel will cause them to be ridiculed or ostracized in public, or that they may see a part of themselves they have to feel bad about. So they keep the potential to themselves.
Our country is going through a fundamental transformation—especially when it comes to both patriarchy and white supremacy. In referring to presidential politics, here is how Rebecca Traister put it.
The public spectacle of this presidential election, and the two that have preceded it, are inextricably linked to the racialized and gendered anger and violence we see around us… Whatever their flaws, their political shortcomings, their progressive dings and dents, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton mean a lot. They represent an altered power structure and changed calculations about who in this country may lead.
The first time this country grappled with these questions it resulted in a civil war that ended slavery. In the 1960s a civil rights movement rose up to challenge Jim Crow laws, resulting in laws that both prohibited discrimination and guaranteed the right to vote. As Reverend William Barber has suggested, we are now facing the possibility of a Third Reconstruction. While laws such as those designed to rein in police brutality and hold officers accountable are currently on the table, activists like those involved in the 1619 Project at the New York Times are going deeper, attempting to expose the ways that racism and misogyny have been built into our systems and culture.
That isn’t sitting very well with a lot of folks. As the saying goes, “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” So Andrew Sullivan isn’t the only white man who feels silenced. The editors at the Washington Examiner expressed similar thoughts.
A republic in which people are not tolerant of those who disagree, in which the mob aims to erase parts of culture that are uncomfortable, is not one that can long endure.
No one is silencing Sullivan or the editors at the Washington Examiner, as the publication of these articles proves. What has changed is that their views have to compete with others in a culture in which the power structure is being altered.
As these movements begin to delve more deeply into the systemic nature of racism and sexism in our culture, foundational beliefs are being challenged. We can see that in the way that the dominance model of organizing human relations is being challenged due to its overt embrace by both Trump and law enforcement. Here is how Riane Eisler explained the issue in her book Chalice and the Blade.
The underlying problem is not men as a sex. The root of the problem lies in a social system in which the power of the blade is idealized – in which both men and women are taught to equate true masculinity with violence and dominance and to see men who do not conform to this ideal as too soft or effeminate.
These days, even the idea of wearing a mask during a pandemic is being challenged as weak and unmanly. So we’re having these conversations that are making a lot of people uncomfortable. That does not mean that there are speech rules or that anyone is being silenced.
What activists are attempting to do is to get at some of the ways that patriarchy and racism have been cooked into the culture that aren’t as obvious as calling someone the “n” word. As the power dynamics shift, that kind of conversation is going to be inevitable and terribly threatening to those who are intent on clinging to the past.
None of this is to suggest that we all need to simply embrace the views of feminists or those involved in the Black Lives Matter movement. Here’s where I actually agree with Sullivan.
Liberalism is not just a set of rules. There’s a spirit to it. A spirit that believes that there are whole spheres of human life that lie beyond ideology — friendship, art, love, sex, scholarship, family. A spirit that seeks not to impose orthodoxy but to open up the possibilities of the human mind and soul. A spirit that seeks moral clarity but understands that this is very hard, that life and history are complex, and it is this complexity that a truly liberal society seeks to understand if it wants to advance.
The issue is that our culture is evolving to a place where patriarchy and white supremacy aren’t merely differences that need to be tolerated, but represent moral challenges that need to be exposed and eliminated. That process will require listening and being able to tell the difference between the truth and something that simply makes us uncomfortable.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-15--Trump’s Self-Defeating Campaign Against Vote by Mail

To get an idea of how important vote-by-mail is for Republicans , let ’ s look at the numbers from Florida in 2016 .
The Sunshine State offers two options for voting early .
They have designated polling stations where you can go and cast a vote in person , and you can also request a ballot in the mail which you can fill out and send in at your leisure .
Democrats have historically preferred the former option , while Republicans have preferred the latter .
The Democrats made a major effort to close the vote-by-mail advantage in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overall trend remained the same .
According to the Florida Department of State ’ s Division of Elections , 1,080,808 Republicans cast their votes by mail compared to 1,053,254 Democrats– a net advantage of 27,554 .
That was important because 1,139,103 Democrats utilized the early voting stations while only 1,026,600 did so , giving Hillary Clinton a 112,503 vote edge .
This meant that Clinton had about an 85,000 vote advantage when Election Day started , but it would have been over 100,000 if not for vote-by-mail .
Trump ultimately won Florida by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got about 200,000 more in-person votes on Election Day .
As you can see , Trump ’ s victory wasn ’ t dependent on his vote-by-mail advantage , but it definitely gave him a much needed cushion .
Without James Comey announcing that Clinton was under renewed investigation in last days of the campaign , she may have been able to carry a 100,000 vote early vote advantage to victory .
I ’ m sure Joe Biden would like to eliminate the Republicans historic vote-by-mail advantage in Florida completely , but that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disappointment for Donald Trump ’ s campaign .
It would be particularly painful if it came about because of the president ’ s own rhetoric .
Consider what happened in Michigan on Friday .
These protestors were offended that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson mailed absentee ballot applications to all registered voters .
In part , they were misled by Trump who falsely claimed that actual ballots were mailed rather than applications for ballots , but the greater point is that it is widely believed on the right that making voting easier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will be even more harmful than that because it will make it easy for the Democrats to commit voter fraud .
This belief , too , has been stoked by Trump .
So , rather than take advantage of vote-by-mail , Republicans are burning the applications .
And it ’ s not just happening in Michigan .
In the lead-up to the June 2 primary in Pennsylvania , the Republicans learned the hard way that Trump ’ s rhetoric was making it hard to turn out their vote : That was in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but things were much the same in the east .
When the first returns came in after the June 2nd voting , I was alarmed that many more Republicans had voted than Democrats despite the state ’ s closed primary system and a big Democratic registration advantage .
Those results did not hold up once all the vote-by-mail votes were counted , and a big reason is that by the Thursday before the election , 1.3 million Democrats had requested mail ballots compared to only 524,000 Republicans .
In the end , about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than Republicans .
This didn ’ t have any immediate negative effect on the GOP because these were not head-to-head contests , but the reluctance to use mail ballots could have a huge impact in November , especially if the Covid-19 outbreak is still raging and making people leery of showing up to the polls in person .
These three states , Florida , Michigan , and Pennsylvania , are vital to Trump ’ s prospects of winning reelection , and he is sabotaging himself in each of them .
Floridians may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to voting by mail , but this is still like a mental contagion that is ripping through conservative circles .
Trump shouldn ’ t think his numbers won ’ t suffer in Florida to some degree , as well as in every state where mail is an option .
It seems to be an article of faith on the right that voter suppression is a key to victory , but it seems to backfire more often than it works .
We just saw this in Georgia , where some urbanites who were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls opened were still waiting to cast their ballot at 12:30 in the afternoon .
You ’ d think that making Atlantans wait several hours to vote would discourage them and that many would give up and go home or to work .
It appears that for every vote the Republicans suppressed , they somehow created several more votes out of pure defiance .
This doesn ’ t make their tactics any less disgraceful and illegal , but it calls into serious question whether they actually work .
I can ’ t really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign against vote-by-mail won ’ t ultimately make it harder for him to win , and so if he wants to keep it up , I won ’ t discourage him .

To get an idea of how important vote-by-mail is for Republicans, let’s look at the numbers from Florida in 2016. The Sunshine State offers two options for voting early. They have designated polling stations where you can go and cast a vote in person, and you can also request a ballot in the mail which you can fill out and send in at your leisure. Democrats have historically preferred the former option, while Republicans have preferred the latter. The Democrats made a major effort to close the vote-by-mail advantage in 2016 and had some success, but the overall trend remained the same.
According to the Florida Department of State’s Division of Elections, 1,080,808 Republicans cast their votes by mail compared to 1,053,254 Democrats– a net advantage of 27,554. That was important because 1,139,103 Democrats utilized the early voting stations while only 1,026,600 Republicans did so, giving Hillary Clinton a 112,503 vote edge. This meant that Clinton had about an 85,000 vote advantage when Election Day started, but it would have been over 100,000 if not for vote-by-mail. Trump ultimately won Florida by about 113,000 votes, meaning that he got about 200,000 more in-person votes on Election Day.
As you can see, Trump’s victory wasn’t dependent on his vote-by-mail advantage, but it definitely gave him a much needed cushion. Without James Comey announcing that Clinton was under renewed investigation in last days of the campaign, she may have been able to carry a 100,000 vote early vote advantage to victory.
I’m sure Joe Biden would like to eliminate the Republicans historic vote-by-mail advantage in Florida completely, but that would be a historic reversal and a major disappointment for Donald Trump’s campaign. It would be particularly painful if it came about because of the president’s own rhetoric.
Consider what happened in Michigan on Friday.
People burned letters informing them that they can vote by absentee ballot in future elections during a protest near Grand Rapids. The applications were burned Friday during an event called Operation Incinerator outside the DeltaPlex Arena in Walker. Many people had flags, shirts and signs showing support for President Donald Trump and Republicans.
These protestors were offended that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson mailed absentee ballot applications to all registered voters. In part, they were misled by Trump who falsely claimed that actual ballots were mailed rather than applications for ballots, but the greater point is that it is widely believed on the right that making voting easier will benefit the Democrats. Many believe it will be even more harmful than that because it will make it easy for the Democrats to commit voter fraud. This belief, too, has been stoked by Trump.
So, rather than take advantage of vote-by-mail, Republicans are burning the applications. And it’s not just happening in Michigan. In the lead-up to the June 2 primary in Pennsylvania, the Republicans learned the hard way that Trump’s rhetoric was making it hard to turn out their vote:
With Pennsylvania’s June 2 presidential primary fast approaching, local Republican leader Mark Hrutkay took to Facebook to remind supporters they have the option to vote by mail as coronavirus sweeps the state. “I had one woman, using a lot of four-letter words, tell me ‘didn’t you know Trump hates mail-in balloting,’” said Hrutkay, the Republican chairman of Washington County, a Trump-friendly region just outside Pittsburgh.
That was in the western part of the state, but things were much the same in the east.
The Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Legislature had been trying to expand vote-by-mail even before the coronavirus upended the 2020 election, raising fears about the safety of in-person voting, according to the Inquirer this week. Local Republican Party officials there told the outlet that GOP voters in the state, however, were listening to Trump’s claims of fraud. “Our county kind of is a Trump county. We’re kind of listening to Trump on this,” Lee Snover, chairwoman of the Northampton County GOP, told the Inquirer. “He’s spoken about it. He’s tweeted about it. He doesn’t want us to do it.”
When the first returns came in after the June 2nd voting, I was alarmed that many more Republicans had voted than Democrats despite the state’s closed primary system and a big Democratic registration advantage. Those results did not hold up once all the vote-by-mail votes were counted, and a big reason is that by the Thursday before the election, 1.3 million Democrats had requested mail ballots compared to only 524,000 Republicans. In the end, about 400,000 more votes were cast by Democrats than Republicans.
This didn’t have any immediate negative effect on the GOP because these were not head-to-head contests, but the reluctance to use mail ballots could have a huge impact in November, especially if the Covid-19 outbreak is still raging and making people leery of showing up to the polls in person.
These three states, Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, are vital to Trump’s prospects of winning reelection, and he is sabotaging himself in each of them. Floridians may be less influenced because so many there are used to voting by mail, but this is still like a mental contagion that is ripping through conservative circles. Trump shouldn’t think his numbers won’t suffer in Florida to some degree, as well as in every state where mail is an option.
It seems to be an article of faith on the right that voter suppression is a key to victory, but it seems to backfire more often than it works. We just saw this in Georgia, where some urbanites who were first in line to vote when the polls opened were still waiting to cast their ballot at 12:30 in the afternoon. You’d think that making Atlantans wait several hours to vote would discourage them and that many would give up and go home or to work.
But a funny thing happened:
Despite massive problems at the voting booth, Democratic turnout in Georgia’s primaries skyrocketed — with three times as many votes cast in the Senate primary as in 2016. With 91 percent of the vote in as of Friday, nearly 960,000 voters had cast ballots in the Democratic Senate primary race won by Jon Ossoff, compared to 310,000 who voted in the Senate primary in 2016.
It appears that for every vote the Republicans suppressed, they somehow created several more votes out of pure defiance. This doesn’t make their tactics any less disgraceful and illegal, but it calls into serious question whether they actually work.
I can’t really envision any scenario where Trump’s campaign against vote-by-mail won’t ultimately make it harder for him to win, and so if he wants to keep it up, I won’t discourage him.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-16--How Television Has Distorted Our View of Police and Crime

Those of us who grew up watching television were surprised at some point to find out that there were professions other than being a police officer , lawyer , or doctor .
An incredibly disproportionate number of TV shows are dedicated to plots involving those three professions .
And because the purpose of television is to attract eyeballs for advertisers ( or to sell cable subscriptions ) , everything was dramatized .
We were trained to assume that police work involved tracking down really bad guys , which always ended in fights , shoot-outs , or car chases .
None @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As an example , Philip Bump took at look at the data on police calls for service in New Orleans during 2019 , which can be placed into seven categories .
1 .
Checks on people and property 2 .
Vehicles and traffic 3 .
Property crimes 4 .
Minor crimes 5 .
Sex-based offenses 6 .
Major crimes 7 .
Crimes involving bodily harm While television cop shows focus exclusively on the last three , those calls make up less than five percent of the total .
On the other hand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of the calls .
Bump provided this helpful chart .
Jerry Ratcliffe found something similar with data from the Philadelphia Police Department .
Of course , it ’ s not just television that presents this distorted view of police work .
News organizations do the same thing by focusing their reporting on that five percent in the bottom righthand corner .
That explains why , as Pew Research found , voters ’ perception of crime is at odds with reality .
The facts are that , “ between 2008 and 2015 ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are available ) , U.S. violent crime and property crime rates fell 19 % and 23 % respectively.
” Nonetheless , 57 percent of Americans said crime had gotten worse since 2008 .
That perception is at least part of the reason for this disconnect .
As you can see , while crime rates have fallen , spending on police has continued to skyrocket .
Former Dallas Police Chief David Brown explained part of the problem after several of his officers were killed during a protest against police brutality .
[ W ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too much in this country .
We are .
We ’ re just asking us to do too much , ” Chief Brown said .
“ Every societal failure , we put it off on the cops to solve .
Not enough mental health funding .
Let the cop handle it .
Not enough drug addiction funding .
Let ’ s give it to the cops .
Here in Dallas , we ’ ve got a loose dog problem .
Let ’ s have the cops chase loose dogs .
You know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cops…Policing was never meant to solve all of those problems , ” Brown said to reporters .
Those who are suggesting that “ defund the police ” is politically damaging for Democrats have a good point .
But that is primarily because television shows and news organizations have completely distorted both the job of police officers and the level of crime in our communities .
When you get the facts , it ’ s not hard to imagine cops continuing to respond to that 5 percent of calls for service that are covered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s list up above ( albeit with some of the reforms currently being considered ) .
But other groups of trained professionals would be perfectly capable of handling the other 95 percent of calls for service .
I happen to know from experience how that can work .
For almost 20 years the non-profit organization I worked for partnered with the police to respond to calls for domestic service that involved a mental health crisis with a child or teenager .
You might be surprised ( or maybe not ) how often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or daughter has gotten out of control .
Our organization had teams of staff that were available 24 hours per day , 7 days per week to respond in the home to those situations .
Talking with trained professionals worked .
Over 95 percent of the cases didn ’ t require further police involvement or placement in a treatment facility .
We were able to accomplish a lot of the same goals by assigning behavior intervention specialists to schools to replace an over-reliance on the use of police and suspensions .
That is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in all of our communities .
It requires leaders being prepared to envision something different , including the role of police officers .
We just have to get away from thinking that guys with guns are the answer to everything .

Those of us who grew up watching television were surprised at some point to find out that there were professions other than being a police officer, lawyer, or doctor. An incredibly disproportionate number of TV shows are dedicated to plots involving those three professions. And because the purpose of television is to attract eyeballs for advertisers (or to sell cable subscriptions), everything was dramatized. We were trained to assume that police work involved tracking down really bad guys, which always ended in fights, shoot-outs, or car chases.
None of that, however, represents reality. As an example, Philip Bump took at look at the data on police calls for service in New Orleans during 2019, which can be placed into seven categories.
1. Checks on people and property
2. Vehicles and traffic
3. Property crimes
4. Minor crimes
5. Sex-based offenses
6. Major crimes
7. Crimes involving bodily harm
While television cop shows focus exclusively on the last three, those calls make up less than five percent of the total. On the other hand, the first category made up 70 percent of the calls. Bump provided this helpful chart.
Jerry Ratcliffe found something similar with data from the Philadelphia Police Department.
Of course, it’s not just television that presents this distorted view of police work. News organizations do the same thing by focusing their reporting on that five percent in the bottom righthand corner. That explains why, as Pew Research found, voters’ perception of crime is at odds with reality. The facts are that, “between 2008 and 2015 (the most recent year for which data are available), U.S. violent crime and property crime rates fell 19% and 23% respectively.” Nonetheless, 57 percent of Americans said crime had gotten worse since 2008.
That perception is at least part of the reason for this disconnect.
As you can see, while crime rates have fallen, spending on police has continued to skyrocket.
Former Dallas Police Chief David Brown explained part of the problem after several of his officers were killed during a protest against police brutality.
[W]e’re asking cops to do too much in this country. We are. We’re just asking us to do too much,” Chief Brown said. “Every societal failure, we put it off on the cops to solve. Not enough mental health funding. Let the cop handle it. Not enough drug addiction funding. Let’s give it to the cops. Here in Dallas, we’ve got a loose dog problem. Let’s have the cops chase loose dogs. You know, schools fail. Give it to the cops…Policing was never meant to solve all of those problems,” Brown said to reporters.
Those who are suggesting that “defund the police” is politically damaging for Democrats have a good point. But that is primarily because television shows and news organizations have completely distorted both the job of police officers and the level of crime in our communities.
When you get the facts, it’s not hard to imagine cops continuing to respond to that 5 percent of calls for service that are covered by the last three categories in Bump’s list up above (albeit with some of the reforms currently being considered). But other groups of trained professionals would be perfectly capable of handling the other 95 percent of calls for service.
I happen to know from experience how that can work. For almost 20 years the non-profit organization I worked for partnered with the police to respond to calls for domestic service that involved a mental health crisis with a child or teenager. You might be surprised (or maybe not) how often parents call the police because their son or daughter has gotten out of control. Our organization had teams of staff that were available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week to respond in the home to those situations. Talking with trained professionals worked. Over 95 percent of the cases didn’t require further police involvement or placement in a treatment facility. We were able to accomplish a lot of the same goals by assigning behavior intervention specialists to schools to replace an over-reliance on the use of police and suspensions.
That is the kind of thing that is possible in all of our communities. It requires leaders being prepared to envision something different, including the role of police officers. We just have to get away from thinking that guys with guns are the answer to everything.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-16--Will the World Ever Know Who Really Killed Olof Palme?

One of the world ’ s most mysterious murders ultimately remains a cold—and now closed—case .
In 1986 , Sweden ’ s Prime Minister Olof Palme was gunned down on a busy downtown Stockholm street .
Investigators just named the only suspect , a guy who committed suicide in 2000 .
For skeptics and conspiracy theorists , the mystery of who killed Palme lives .
Palme represented a moral Sweden in a messy , immoral world .
His global detractors were many .
His life was cut down too early , and I miss him .
The first time I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Stockholm ’ s old-town Gamla Stan .
It was a weekend , and the prime minister was casually picking up a few staples before waiting in line to pay .
Astoundingly , the nation ’ s most recognizable and powerful person was not only out shopping without personal security , he was doing so unhindered—not approached , stopped , acknowledged or greeted by anyone around him .
It was as if he was invisible .
My instincts were to go up to him and introduce myself as an American journalist , tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Kenyon College and to ask about his critical stance on America ’ s foreign policy — especially Vietnam—that caused a diplomatic rift between the United States and Sweden .
The person I was with was horrified that I would dare to brashly assert myself .
She dissuaded me from interrupting .
Why ?
“ Because it is Saturday and he is going shopping—he is not working right now .
Everyone has to respect that.
” Everyone did respect that .
Swedes in the 1980s had a real and deep understanding of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ My non-Swedish presumptuousness and American journalistic sensibility meant that I did not view public officials as being entitled to private lives .
I felt they lived in the public eye and thrived on attention .
Politics was full-time and all-encompassing .
It sometimes felt like total war—especially with journalists .
That ’ s how I felt when I got to Sweden .
Things changed .
After a year at Stockholm University ’ s International Graduate School , I learned a thing or two about the country and its people .
One of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Somehow , during my entire upbringing and throughout my undergraduate years , I failed to understand that politicians are people — not villains , not superhumans .
Fallible , emotional , desirous , greedy , complex , loving , silly , funny , egotistical , relatable , stand-offish , simple people .
It sounds trite to write something as simplistic as politicians are people , too , but in this moment in history , the divide between governed and government feels vast and unbridgeable .
In a small country of 10 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direct than representational , the relationship between people and politicians was intimately close .
That ’ s how it felt with Olof Palme .
While Palme the politician was a bit aloof and a smarty-pants politico who comfortably traveled the world , criticized powerful nations and walked the United Nations ’ hallways with authority , he was still a man who could go to the grocery store to pick up provisions like a regular Joe—or Sven .
He was normal .
Unfortunately , Swedish normalcy is also what got Palme killed .
Date @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the cinema was his undoing .
No security .
No attempt at anonymity .
Just another night out during his off-time to go see a movie .
This time , however , someone did pay attention to his movements and possibly understood his patterns .
Sweden ’ s relaxed social environment was a weakness , and its authorities were unprepared for and inexperienced with this type of political violence .
It happened at night .
The movie just let out .
A tall man shot Palme twice , point blank in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He fell dead , bleeding on a downtown Stockholm sidewalk .
There were witnesses , but it was an era without cell phones and incidental video footage .
It was also an innocent era .
Palme died , and Sweden lost its innocence .
The real world suddenly encroached on that distant , quiet and safe nation .
Sweden awoke to a violent modern world that shoved its ugly face into the nation ’ s consciousness .
Anyone recalling Palme ’ s murder remembers how everything changed that night .
Palme was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ midlife and early political career .
I regularly saw him during my two years as a Radio Sweden journalist .
Generous with his thoughts and cutting in his criticism , he also appreciated an American who understood his country and its global standing .
Again , I still miss him .
On Wednesday , Swedish officials gave an unsatisfying answer to who killed Palme .
Speculation ranged from Kurdish PKK sympathizers to agents for apartheid South Africa out to silence a harsh and vocal critic .
It turns out the blame is put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took an opportune potshot .
The case is now closed , but too many questions remain open .

One of the world’s most mysterious murders ultimately remains a cold—and now closed—case. In 1986, Sweden’s Prime Minister Olof Palme was gunned down on a busy downtown Stockholm street. Investigators just named the only suspect, a guy who committed suicide in 2000. For skeptics and conspiracy theorists, the mystery of who killed Palme lives.
Palme represented a moral Sweden in a messy, immoral world. His global detractors were many. His life was cut down too early, and I miss him.
The first time I saw Palme was in a grocery store in Stockholm’s old-town Gamla Stan. It was a weekend, and the prime minister was casually picking up a few staples before waiting in line to pay. Astoundingly, the nation’s most recognizable and powerful person was not only out shopping without personal security, he was doing so unhindered—not approached, stopped, acknowledged or greeted by anyone around him. It was as if he was invisible.
My instincts were to go up to him and introduce myself as an American journalist, tell him I knew he graduated from Ohio’s Kenyon College and to ask about his critical stance on America’s foreign policy — especially Vietnam—that caused a diplomatic rift between the United States and Sweden. The person I was with was horrified that I would dare to brashly assert myself. She dissuaded me from interrupting. Why? “Because it is Saturday and he is going shopping—he is not working right now. Everyone has to respect that.”
Everyone did respect that. Swedes in the 1980s had a real and deep understanding of boundaries between public and private lives.
My non-Swedish presumptuousness and American journalistic sensibility meant that I did not view public officials as being entitled to private lives. I felt they lived in the public eye and thrived on attention. Politics was full-time and all-encompassing. It sometimes felt like total war—especially with journalists. That’s how I felt when I got to Sweden. Things changed.
After a year at Stockholm University’s International Graduate School, I learned a thing or two about the country and its people. One of the most important lessons? Politicians are human. Somehow, during my entire upbringing and throughout my undergraduate years, I failed to understand that politicians are people — not villains, not superhumans. Fallible, emotional, desirous, greedy, complex, loving, silly, funny, egotistical, relatable, stand-offish, simple people. It sounds trite to write something as simplistic as politicians are people, too, but in this moment in history, the divide between governed and government feels vast and unbridgeable. In a small country of 10 million people, where local democracy felt more direct than representational, the relationship between people and politicians was intimately close. That’s how it felt with Olof Palme. While Palme the politician was a bit aloof and a smarty-pants politico who comfortably traveled the world, criticized powerful nations and walked the United Nations’ hallways with authority, he was still a man who could go to the grocery store to pick up provisions like a regular Joe—or Sven. He was normal. Unfortunately, Swedish normalcy is also what got Palme killed. Date night with his wife, Lisbet, at the cinema was his undoing. No security. No attempt at anonymity. Just another night out during his off-time to go see a movie. This time, however, someone did pay attention to his movements and possibly understood his patterns. Sweden’s relaxed social environment was a weakness, and its authorities were unprepared for and inexperienced with this type of political violence. It happened at night. The movie just let out. A tall man shot Palme twice, point blank in the back with an illegal .357 Magnum handgun. He fell dead, bleeding on a downtown Stockholm sidewalk. There were witnesses, but it was an era without cell phones and incidental video footage. It was also an innocent era. Palme died, and Sweden lost its innocence. The real world suddenly encroached on that distant, quiet and safe nation. Sweden awoke to a violent modern world that shoved its ugly face into the nation’s consciousness. Anyone recalling Palme’s murder remembers how everything changed that night. Palme was a powerful leader cut down in his midlife and early political career. I regularly saw him during my two years as a Radio Sweden journalist. Generous with his thoughts and cutting in his criticism, he also appreciated an American who understood his country and its global standing. Again, I still miss him. On Wednesday, Swedish officials gave an unsatisfying answer to who killed Palme. Speculation ranged from Kurdish PKK sympathizers to agents for apartheid South Africa out to silence a harsh and vocal critic. It turns out the blame is put on a lone, dead gunman who took an opportune potshot. The case is now closed, but too many questions remain open.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-16--How Republicans Convinced Themselves That Trump Will Win in a Landslide

One of the reasons Trump lies so often is that he lives in a delusional world of his own making .
This is the guy who thinks he is a “ stable genius ” who marched into the White House on the heels of a historic election victory and has done more to make American great again than any president in our history .
But for Republicans , being delusional didn ’ t start with Donald Trump .
I would remind you that Mitt Romney apparently didn ’ t prepare a concession speech in 2012 because conservatives convinced themselves that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skewed .
Columnist Peggy Noonan preferred to count the number of Romney lawn signs in Ohio and Florida , while Karl Rove became unglued on Fox News as the election results were being reported .
More recently , Trump sent a “ cease and desist ” letter to CNN claiming that their poll showing Biden with a 14 point lead nationally was “ fake news.
” In the letter to Zucker , the Trump campaign argued that the CNN poll is “ designed to mislead American voters through a biased questionnaire and skewed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stunt and a phony poll to cause voter suppression , stifle momentum and enthusiasm for the President , and present a false view generally of the actual support across America for the President , ” read the letter , signed by the Trump campaign ’ s senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis and chief operating officer Michael Glassner .
But as CNN reporters documented , it ’ s not just their poll .
That provides some context for a recent article at Politico about how Republicans continue to assume that Trump will win in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 50 state , district and county Republican Party chairs depict a version of the electoral landscape that is no worse for Trump than six months ago — and possibly even slightly better .
According to this view , the coronavirus is on its way out and the economy is coming back .
Polls are unreliable , Joe Biden is too frail to last , and the media still doesn ’ t get it… .
“ The more bad things happen in the country , it just solidifies support for Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Robeson County , N.C. , one of several rural counties in that swing state that shifted from supporting Barack Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016 .
“ We ’ re calling him ‘ Teflon Trump.
’ Nothing ’ s going to stick , because if anything , it ’ s getting more exciting than it was in 2016.
” It isn ’ t just local party officials who are buying into the delusion .
The authors at the PowerLine blog , who think of themselves as members of the intellectual right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they ’ re convinced that voters won ’ t support Democrats , who are “ against America.
” They also point to a book by David Horowitz titled , “ Blitz : Trump Will Smash the Left and Win.
” When it comes to being delusional ( and hateful ) , here ’ s the kind of thing Horowitz was saying back in 2014 .
The truth is that we don ’ t know what ’ s going to happen in November .
But according to the polls , if the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Those are the facts .
So how did Republicans become so delusional ?
The answer can be found in what Andrew Levison wrote about “ the three level conservative ideological cocoon.
” The first level is indeed the increasingly extremist messaging of the conservative national media and the official GOP communications apparatus… This national effort…was reinforced by more local sources of information : Sinclair TV stations , regional talk radio , and local hometown editorial pages… Finally , and most importantly , it is the network of personal relationships between neighbors and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the broader messages…The result makes support for the Republican Party seem not just dominant but unanimous .
What Levison calls the ideological cocoon , Julian Sanchez referred to as epistemic closure .
Living inside that cocoon means always hearing what a wonderful job Trump is doing and interacting only with those who support his re-election .
On the other hand , it means being constantly bombarded with messages about how Democrats are evil and the polls can ’ t be trusted because they are part of fake news .
That is how delusions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that a party based on that kind of delusional thinking would pay a price .
But when the media engages in its “ both sides ” obsession , they give equal weight to facts and delusion , which is why Ornstein and Mann warned us about that back in 2012 .
Come November , the delusion about Trump winning in a landslide is very likely to be tested .
In a perfect world , that would create some cognitive dissonance for Republicans .
But reality very rarely breaks through delusions that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respond at that moment will tell us a lot about where their party is headed .

One of the reasons Trump lies so often is that he lives in a delusional world of his own making. This is the guy who thinks he is a “stable genius” who marched into the White House on the heels of a historic election victory and has done more to make American great again than any president in our history.
But for Republicans, being delusional didn’t start with Donald Trump. I would remind you that Mitt Romney apparently didn’t prepare a concession speech in 2012 because conservatives convinced themselves that the polls showing an Obama victory were skewed. Columnist Peggy Noonan preferred to count the number of Romney lawn signs in Ohio and Florida, while Karl Rove became unglued on Fox News as the election results were being reported.
More recently, Trump sent a “cease and desist” letter to CNN claiming that their poll showing Biden with a 14 point lead nationally was “fake news.”
In the letter to Zucker, the Trump campaign argued that the CNN poll is “designed to mislead American voters through a biased questionnaire and skewed sampling.” “It’s a stunt and a phony poll to cause voter suppression, stifle momentum and enthusiasm for the President, and present a false view generally of the actual support across America for the President,” read the letter, signed by the Trump campaign’s senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis and chief operating officer Michael Glassner.
But as CNN reporters documented, it’s not just their poll.
That provides some context for a recent article at Politico about how Republicans continue to assume that Trump will win in November by a landslide.
Interviews with more than 50 state, district and county Republican Party chairs depict a version of the electoral landscape that is no worse for Trump than six months ago — and possibly even slightly better. According to this view, the coronavirus is on its way out and the economy is coming back. Polls are unreliable, Joe Biden is too frail to last, and the media still doesn’t get it…. “The more bad things happen in the country, it just solidifies support for Trump,” said Phillip Stephens, GOP chairman in Robeson County, N.C., one of several rural counties in that swing state that shifted from supporting Barack Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016. “We’re calling him ‘Teflon Trump.’ Nothing’s going to stick, because if anything, it’s getting more exciting than it was in 2016.” This year, Stephens said, “We’re thinking landslide.”
It isn’t just local party officials who are buying into the delusion. The authors at the PowerLine blog, who think of themselves as members of the intellectual right, have bought into the landslide fever because they’re convinced that voters won’t support Democrats, who are “against America.” They also point to a book by David Horowitz titled, “Blitz: Trump Will Smash the Left and Win.” When it comes to being delusional (and hateful), here’s the kind of thing Horowitz was saying back in 2014.
Obama is an anti-American radical and I’m actually sure he’s a Muslim, he certainly isn’t a Christian. He’s a pretend Christian in the same way he’s a pretend American. It really is disgraceful. He’s inviting the terrorists to behead more Americans when he should be attacking them with our military. His whole agenda in office has been to defeat America, he lost the war in Iraq deliberately, he created a vacuum which ISIS has filled.
The truth is that we don’t know what’s going to happen in November. But according to the polls, if the election were held today, Biden would win. Those are the facts. So how did Republicans become so delusional? The answer can be found in what Andrew Levison wrote about “the three level conservative ideological cocoon.”
The first level is indeed the increasingly extremist messaging of the conservative national media and the official GOP communications apparatus… This national effort…was reinforced by more local sources of information: Sinclair TV stations, regional talk radio, and local hometown editorial pages… Finally, and most importantly, it is the network of personal relationships between neighbors and friends that works to validate and confirm the broader messages…The result makes support for the Republican Party seem not just dominant but unanimous.
What Levison calls the ideological cocoon, Julian Sanchez referred to as epistemic closure.
One of the more striking features of the contemporary conservative movement is the extent to which it has been moving toward epistemic closure. Reality is defined by a multimedia array of interconnected and cross promoting conservative blogs, radio programs, magazines, and of course, Fox News. Whatever conflicts with that reality can be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the liberal media, and is therefore ipso facto not to be trusted.
Living inside that cocoon means always hearing what a wonderful job Trump is doing and interacting only with those who support his re-election. On the other hand, it means being constantly bombarded with messages about how Democrats are evil and the polls can’t be trusted because they are part of fake news. That is how delusions are created and sustained.
You would think that a party based on that kind of delusional thinking would pay a price. But when the media engages in its “both sides” obsession, they give equal weight to facts and delusion, which is why Ornstein and Mann warned us about that back in 2012.
We understand the values of mainstream journalists, including the effort to report both sides of a story. But a balanced treatment of an unbalanced phenomenon distorts reality. If the political dynamics of Washington are unlikely to change anytime soon, at least we should change the way that reality is portrayed to the public.
Come November, the delusion about Trump winning in a landslide is very likely to be tested. In a perfect world, that would create some cognitive dissonance for Republicans. But reality very rarely breaks through delusions that have been so firmly established. How Republicans respond at that moment will tell us a lot about where their party is headed.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-16--Two Stories That Show Why Trump’s Unfit for Office

The are two lightly reported stories in the news that really highlight the norm-breaking and criminality of the Trump administration .
One involves the nation ’ s inspectors general and the other the administration ’ s treatment of science .
Anyone who might care about these subjects is most likely already in Biden ’ s camp , but they should get wider circulation because they ought to inform how people will vote .
Hopefully , you remember the September 2019 incident with Trump and the sharpie , when the president falsely claimed that Hurricane Dorian was on a trajectory to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) in Birmingham , Alabama corrected the Trump on Twitter and assured the public there that they need not worry , there was outrage from White House .
Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross was told to fix the situation and he threatened to fire the political leadership at NOAA if they didn ’ t issue a retraction .
This led Neil Jacobs , the NOAA ’ s acting administrator , to release a false statement rebuking the Birmingham staff for writing a tweet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forecast products available at the time.
” Meanwhile , the president infamously posed with a map of the hurricane ’ s path that he had doctored with a black felt marker to make it look like it actually had been headed for Alabama .
A lot of jokes were made at the time , but the story never went away at the NOAA .
Due to complaints from agency employees , a panel was formed to investigate the actions of Mr. Jacobs , and their report has found that he “ engaged in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in reckless disregard ” for the agency ’ s scientific integrity policy .
In Monday ’ s report , Stephen M. Volz , an assistant administrator at NOAA who was chosen to review the complaints and make recommendations , called for the agency to better ensure “ the right of NOAA scientists to review , comment , and amend any official communication that relies on their scientific analysis.
” Mr. Volz also recommended that the agency create a formal agreement guiding interactions between NOAA and Department of Commerce officials , “ acknowledging the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content and allowing for Commerce to weigh in on policy content.
” And he called for NOAA ’ s senior leadership and political officials “ to take scientific integrity training ” and then sign a statement saying they would follow those principles .
The second story , involving inspectors general , is part of an overall effort by the administration to avoid oversight and accountability .
Trump has been dismissing inspectors general who have the temerity to do their jobs and investigate possible executive branch wrongdoing .
But now they ’ re getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed by Congress .
In a two-page letter to several House and Senate committees last week , but disclosed for the first time on Monday , the inspectors general responsible for coronavirus relief oversight said an “ ambiguity ” in the main coronavirus response law — the CARES Act — allowed administration officials to sharply limit how much of the law ’ s spending requirements they must collect and report .
This narrow interpretation of the law , the inspectors general warn , would dramatically impede their ability to gather information about some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law , from the $ 670 billion Paycheck Protection Program to the $ 454 billion Treasury fund to protect businesses and industries damaged by the outbreak .
Here is the specific problem : At issue is the structure of the CARES Act , which split its major programs between two “ divisions ” of the law .
Division A included most of the major new relief programs like PPP , the economic stabilization program , as well as $ 150 billion in relief to states and local governments and $ 32 billion in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the law authorized government-wide appropriations for federal agencies involved in coronavirus response .
Administration lawyers , in a legal analysis provided to the Treasury inspector general , indicated that the reporting requirements in the law could be applied only to the appropriations contained in Division B .
This kind of graft would make President Harding blush .
Taken together , these two stories make plain why the public can not afford a second term for President Trump .
They don ’ t keep us safe because they don ’ t listen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they ’ re stealing on an unheard of level at a time of economic crisis .
They ’ re also breaking the federal government in an effort to cover up their mistakes and facilitate their crimes .
It ’ d be nice if more people understood this .

The are two lightly reported stories in the news that really highlight the norm-breaking and criminality of the Trump administration. One involves the nation’s inspectors general and the other the administration’s treatment of science. Anyone who might care about these subjects is most likely already in Biden’s camp, but they should get wider circulation because they ought to inform how people will vote.
Hopefully, you remember the September 2019 incident with Trump and the sharpie, when the president falsely claimed that Hurricane Dorian was on a trajectory to hit the state of Alabama. When employees of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Birmingham, Alabama corrected the Trump on Twitter and assured the public there that they need not worry, there was outrage from White House. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross was told to fix the situation and he threatened to fire the political leadership at NOAA if they didn’t issue a retraction.
This led Neil Jacobs, the NOAA’s acting administrator, to release a false statement rebuking the Birmingham staff for writing a tweet “inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time.” Meanwhile, the president infamously posed with a map of the hurricane’s path that he had doctored with a black felt marker to make it look like it actually had been headed for Alabama.
A lot of jokes were made at the time, but the story never went away at the NOAA. Due to complaints from agency employees, a panel was formed to investigate the actions of Mr. Jacobs, and their report has found that he “engaged in the misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or in reckless disregard” for the agency’s scientific integrity policy.
In Monday’s report, Stephen M. Volz, an assistant administrator at NOAA who was chosen to review the complaints and make recommendations, called for the agency to better ensure “the right of NOAA scientists to review, comment, and amend any official communication that relies on their scientific analysis.” Mr. Volz also recommended that the agency create a formal agreement guiding interactions between NOAA and Department of Commerce officials, “acknowledging the responsibility for NOAA to own the scientific content and allowing for Commerce to weigh in on policy content.” And he called for NOAA’s senior leadership and political officials “to take scientific integrity training” and then sign a statement saying they would follow those principles.
The second story, involving inspectors general, is part of an overall effort by the administration to avoid oversight and accountability. Trump has been dismissing inspectors general who have the temerity to do their jobs and investigate possible executive branch wrongdoing. But now they’re getting pushback on the giant Covid-19 relief packages passed by Congress.
In a two-page letter to several House and Senate committees last week, but disclosed for the first time on Monday, the inspectors general responsible for coronavirus relief oversight said an “ambiguity” in the main coronavirus response law — the CARES Act — allowed administration officials to sharply limit how much of the law’s spending requirements they must collect and report. This narrow interpretation of the law, the inspectors general warn, would dramatically impede their ability to gather information about some of the most expansive programs in the law, from the $670 billion Paycheck Protection Program to the $454 billion Treasury fund to protect businesses and industries damaged by the outbreak.
Here is the specific problem:
At issue is the structure of the CARES Act, which split its major programs between two “divisions” of the law. Division A included most of the major new relief programs like PPP, the economic stabilization program, as well as $150 billion in relief to states and local governments and $32 billion in support for aviation workers. Division B of the law authorized government-wide appropriations for federal agencies involved in coronavirus response. Administration lawyers, in a legal analysis provided to the Treasury inspector general, indicated that the reporting requirements in the law could be applied only to the appropriations contained in Division B.
This kind of graft would make President Harding blush.
Taken together, these two stories make plain why the public cannot afford a second term for President Trump. They don’t keep us safe because they don’t listen to scientists or respect the scientific method, and they’re stealing on an unheard of level at a time of economic crisis. They’re also breaking the federal government in an effort to cover up their mistakes and facilitate their crimes. It’d be nice if more people understood this.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-17--Why Are Conservatives So Threatened by Equality?

As we saw with the restrictions put in place to slow the spread of the coronavirus , conservatives love to talk about freedom .
Without being clear about their intentions , however , they limit the number of Americans who can experience the freedoms they demand by being contemptuous of our founding ideals about equality .
In other words , they want a freedom for me , but not for thee .
In a recent ad put out by the Biden campaign , the candidate says that “ the battle for the soul of this nation has been a constant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ; a tug of war between the American ideal that we ’ re all created equal and the harsh reality that racism has long torn us apart.
” That same tug of war has been waged on behalf of equality for other groups—such as women , those who are differently abled , and LGBTQ Americans .
Whenever gains are made on behalf of equality , cries have gone out that they infringe on the freedom of others .
That is precisely what is happening among some conservatives following the ruling by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to LGBTQ Americans .
Writing at The Federalist , Joy Pullmann comes right out and says that the word “ equality ” has become a totalitarian weapon .
That is a stunning statement when you consider the fact that this country ’ s Declaration of Independence states that the concept that “ all men are created equal ” is a self-evident truth .
And yet for Pullman , to apply that truth to those she disapproves of is to wield a totalitarian weapon .
Pullmann goes on to engage in a bit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of equality for LGBTQ Americans could mean the end of civilization as we know it .
[ T ] he U.S. Supreme Court called a man a woman , possibly leading to eventually forcing everyone else to do so also .
The ruling will lead to a tsunami of polarizing court cases and further degradation of Americans ’ natural rights to free speech , to free association , and to worshipping God as their consciences require… That two-thirds of our nation ’ s highest court clearly despise the Constitution and the way of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is their sole job to defend , may be yet another indication that the United States we know and love is heading into a dark night of oblivion , like all empires before it .
Daniel Horowitz joins Pullman in engaging the same kind of fear-mongering we saw back when the Equal Rights Amendment was under discussion .
We were told that to merely codify the equality of women would wreck havoc on our society , with lots of talk about what that meant for bathrooms .
Now we are told similar stories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says he is a female from an all-girls sports team , bathroom , or locker room now constitutes sex-based discrimination.
” But Horowitz reaches the pinnacle of fear-mongering with this one .
What happens when the next letters of the alphabet get codified into the sacrilege of the sexual behavior legal protections , such as “ N ” for nudity and “ P ” for pedophilia ?
“ My sexual orientation is to be with children.
” … You might laugh , but at the speed with which transgenderism became in vogue , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from joining the quasi “ legal ” distinction with a fancy acronym .
It is impossible to ignore the fact that for people like Horowitz , their homophobia has always been expressed by linking any non-heterosexual orientation to pedophilia .
That will obviously be extended to their transphobia .
None of these things that conservatives are throwing out there to scare people are new .
We ’ ve heard them all before during those inflection points when this country struggled with the possibility of extending equality to a group of people who had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always pushed back with cries about how the equality of others will infringe on their own freedoms .
But it ’ s a lie—always has been .

As we saw with the restrictions put in place to slow the spread of the coronavirus, conservatives love to talk about freedom. Without being clear about their intentions, however, they limit the number of Americans who can experience the freedoms they demand by being contemptuous of our founding ideals about equality. In other words, they want a freedom for me, but not for thee.
In a recent ad put out by the Biden campaign, the candidate says that “the battle for the soul of this nation has been a constant push and pull for more than 240 years; a tug of war between the American ideal that we’re all created equal and the harsh reality that racism has long torn us apart.” That same tug of war has been waged on behalf of equality for other groups—such as women, those who are differently abled, and LGBTQ Americans. Whenever gains are made on behalf of equality, cries have gone out that they infringe on the freedom of others.
That is precisely what is happening among some conservatives following the ruling by the Supreme Court that applies prohibitions against discrimination to LGBTQ Americans. Writing at The Federalist, Joy Pullmann comes right out and says that the word “equality” has become a totalitarian weapon. That is a stunning statement when you consider the fact that this country’s Declaration of Independence states that the concept that “all men are created equal” is a self-evident truth. And yet for Pullman, to apply that truth to those she disapproves of is to wield a totalitarian weapon.
Pullmann goes on to engage in a bit of a freakout, suggesting that the confirmation of equality for LGBTQ Americans could mean the end of civilization as we know it.
[T]he U.S. Supreme Court called a man a woman, possibly leading to eventually forcing everyone else to do so also. The ruling will lead to a tsunami of polarizing court cases and further degradation of Americans’ natural rights to free speech, to free association, and to worshipping God as their consciences require… That two-thirds of our nation’s highest court clearly despise the Constitution and the way of life it protects, and which it is their sole job to defend, may be yet another indication that the United States we know and love is heading into a dark night of oblivion, like all empires before it.
Daniel Horowitz joins Pullman in engaging the same kind of fear-mongering we saw back when the Equal Rights Amendment was under discussion. We were told that to merely codify the equality of women would wreck havoc on our society, with lots of talk about what that meant for bathrooms. Now we are told similar stories about how “barring a male who says he is a female from an all-girls sports team, bathroom, or locker room now constitutes sex-based discrimination.” But Horowitz reaches the pinnacle of fear-mongering with this one.
What happens when the next letters of the alphabet get codified into the sacrilege of the sexual behavior legal protections, such as “N” for nudity and “P” for pedophilia? “My sexual orientation is to be with children.”… You might laugh, but at the speed with which transgenderism became in vogue, there is nothing stopping more sexual fetishes from joining the quasi “legal” distinction with a fancy acronym.
It is impossible to ignore the fact that for people like Horowitz, their homophobia has always been expressed by linking any non-heterosexual orientation to pedophilia. That will obviously be extended to their transphobia.
None of these things that conservatives are throwing out there to scare people are new. We’ve heard them all before during those inflection points when this country struggled with the possibility of extending equality to a group of people who had previously been excluded. The privileged have always pushed back with cries about how the equality of others will infringe on their own freedoms. But it’s a lie—always has been.