washingtonmonthly--2020-02-04--How a Racist President Is Trying to Woo Black Voters

Donald Trump has convinced himself that he can win the support of African Americans in the 2020 election , which is something that has been circulating around right-wing media for months now .
Two recent events demonstrate how Trump ’ s campaign thinks that the most racist president of our lifetimes can siphon off support from the most loyal part of the Democratic base .
Last week the New York Times reported that a Trump ally held an event at which they were handing out cash to black attendees .
A nonprofit organization run by one of President Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an event in a black community where it promoted Trump administration policies like criminal justice reform while doling out cash prizes to participants .
The event , a “ Christmas Extravaganza ” in Cleveland last month , was hosted by a charity group run by Darrell Scott , a longtime Trump surrogate who has also been advising his campaign .
Organizers with the group , the Urban Revitalization Coalition , handed out thousands of dollars of cash stuffed in envelopes for an event it advertised as a “ $ 25,000 Cash Giveaway.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nature of political support in exchange for cash is so deeply Trumpian that it hardly requires commentary .
But then came a Trump campaign Super Bowl ad that featured the release of Alice Marie Johnson , a 64-year-old black grandmother from Mississippi , who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for her role in a drug-trafficking conspiracy .
Reality-TV star Kim Kardashian West had lobbied the president for a commutation of her sentence , which he granted in 2018 .
It will come as no surprise that the commercial was based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ touted Trump ’ s support for the criminal justice reform bill passed by Congress .
But that had nothing to do with Johnson ’ s release , which was the result of a presidential commutation .
• Trump was able to sign the criminal justice reform bill because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell obstructed a similar bill from passing during Obama ’ s presidency .
• While Trump lauds his support for criminal justice reform , his Department of Justice is working to limit the number of inmates who might benefit from it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zak Cheney-Rice digs a bit deeper to uncover the ugly underbelly of the message in the ad .
The 64-year-old is an ideal envoy for Trump ’ s efforts because she exhibits the preferred mode of black response to injustice for many Americans , the president included : grace and gratitude .
An embittered Johnson , fired up over the absurdity of her initial sentence , has no place in Trump ’ s self-mythologizing , which relies on subjects who affirm his understanding of himself as their savior .
With black prisoners , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his disposal — people whose life circumstances are so deprived and degraded that what they ’ ll do for freedom has expanded exponentially .
In touting Johnson ’ s justifiable gratitude , Trump ’ s narcissistic ego is fed by placing himself in the role of savior , which is a classic example of white supremacy .
On the other hand , the president ’ s use of this ad led Beth Reinhard and Anne Gearan to review how Trump has used his clemency powers .
The ad didn ’ t mention Kim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five of the 24 people who have received clemency from Trump had a line into the White House or currency with his political base , according to a review by The Washington Post .
As the administration takes its cues from celebrities , political allies and Fox News , thousands of other offenders who followed Justice Department rules are waiting , passed over as cases that were brought directly to Trump leaped to the front of the line… Trump has ruled on only 204 clemency requests — 24 approvals and 180 denials .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Just like everything else with Trump , the power of clemency has become a transactional process : you do something for me and I ’ ll do something for you .
That is why the president ’ s first pardon went to nativist sheriff Joe Arpaio , who had been a vocal Trump supporter .
A case that has gotten less attention is the one involving the commutation of Sholom Rubashkin ’ s sentence .
He was the owner of the meatpacking plant in Postville , Iowa that was raided by ICE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidency .
Rubashkin was later found guilty of bilking lenders out of more than $ 26 million .
Celebrity attorney Alan Dershowitz , a Trump ally who defended the president at his impeachment trial , got in a pitch for client Sholom Rubashkin during a 2017 visit to the White House to discuss Middle East policy .
Dershowitz said he used a few minutes with Trump in the Oval Office to urge clemency for the Iowa kosher meatpacking executive sentenced to 27 years for money laundering… Rubashkin ’ s backers included conservative Jews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s political coalition .
Kushner , an Orthodox Jew , was Rubashkin ’ s most vocal advocate inside the White House , according to two former officials .
When it comes to the thousands of prisoners whose petitions for clemency are backlogged right now , the former head of the Office of the Pardon Attorney , Larry Kupers , has some advice : “ Find a way to get to Kim Kardashian .
I ’ m very serious about that.
” Of course , as we ’ ve seen with pardons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News can work too .
Once you ’ ve accomplished that , the only requirement is to express gratitude and complete loyalty to the white man who saved you , Donald Trump .

Donald Trump has convinced himself that he can win the support of African Americans in the 2020 election, which is something that has been circulating around right-wing media for months now. Two recent events demonstrate how Trump’s campaign thinks that the most racist president of our lifetimes can siphon off support from the most loyal part of the Democratic base.
Last week the New York Times reported that a Trump ally held an event at which they were handing out cash to black attendees.
A nonprofit organization run by one of President Trump’s most prominent African-American allies recently held an event in a black community where it promoted Trump administration policies like criminal justice reform while doling out cash prizes to participants. The event, a “Christmas Extravaganza” in Cleveland last month, was hosted by a charity group run by Darrell Scott, a longtime Trump surrogate who has also been advising his campaign. Organizers with the group, the Urban Revitalization Coalition, handed out thousands of dollars of cash stuffed in envelopes for an event it advertised as a “$25,000 Cash Giveaway.”
The transactional (i.e., corrupt) nature of political support in exchange for cash is so deeply Trumpian that it hardly requires commentary.
But then came a Trump campaign Super Bowl ad that featured the release of Alice Marie Johnson, a 64-year-old black grandmother from Mississippi, who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for her role in a drug-trafficking conspiracy. Reality-TV star Kim Kardashian West had lobbied the president for a commutation of her sentence, which he granted in 2018. It will come as no surprise that the commercial was based on several lies.
The ad touted Trump’s support for the criminal justice reform bill passed by Congress. But that had nothing to do with Johnson’s release, which was the result of a presidential commutation. Trump was able to sign the criminal justice reform bill because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell obstructed a similar bill from passing during Obama’s presidency. While Trump lauds his support for criminal justice reform, his Department of Justice is working to limit the number of inmates who might benefit from it.
Those are the facts. But Zak Cheney-Rice digs a bit deeper to uncover the ugly underbelly of the message in the ad.
The 64-year-old is an ideal envoy for Trump’s efforts because she exhibits the preferred mode of black response to injustice for many Americans, the president included: grace and gratitude. An embittered Johnson, fired up over the absurdity of her initial sentence, has no place in Trump’s self-mythologizing, which relies on subjects who affirm his understanding of himself as their savior. With black prisoners, he has a literal captive population at his disposal — people whose life circumstances are so deprived and degraded that what they’ll do for freedom has expanded exponentially.
In touting Johnson’s justifiable gratitude, Trump’s narcissistic ego is fed by placing himself in the role of savior, which is a classic example of white supremacy.
On the other hand, the president’s use of this ad led Beth Reinhard and Anne Gearan to review how Trump has used his clemency powers.
The ad didn’t mention Kim Kardashian West — or that all but five of the 24 people who have received clemency from Trump had a line into the White House or currency with his political base, according to a review by The Washington Post. As the administration takes its cues from celebrities, political allies and Fox News, thousands of other offenders who followed Justice Department rules are waiting, passed over as cases that were brought directly to Trump leaped to the front of the line… Trump has ruled on only 204 clemency requests — 24 approvals and 180 denials. That is the slowest pace in decades.
Just like everything else with Trump, the power of clemency has become a transactional process: you do something for me and I’ll do something for you. That is why the president’s first pardon went to nativist sheriff Joe Arpaio, who had been a vocal Trump supporter.
A case that has gotten less attention is the one involving the commutation of Sholom Rubashkin’s sentence. He was the owner of the meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa that was raided by ICE agents during George W. Bush’s presidency. Rubashkin was later found guilty of bilking lenders out of more than $26 million.
Celebrity attorney Alan Dershowitz, a Trump ally who defended the president at his impeachment trial, got in a pitch for client Sholom Rubashkin during a 2017 visit to the White House to discuss Middle East policy. Dershowitz said he used a few minutes with Trump in the Oval Office to urge clemency for the Iowa kosher meatpacking executive sentenced to 27 years for money laundering… Rubashkin’s backers included conservative Jews and evangelical Christians, significant strands of Trump’s political coalition. Kushner, an Orthodox Jew, was Rubashkin’s most vocal advocate inside the White House, according to two former officials.
When it comes to the thousands of prisoners whose petitions for clemency are backlogged right now, the former head of the Office of the Pardon Attorney, Larry Kupers, has some advice: “Find a way to get to Kim Kardashian. I’m very serious about that.” Of course, as we’ve seen with pardons for war criminals, a spot of Fox News can work too. Once you’ve accomplished that, the only requirement is to express gratitude and complete loyalty to the white man who saved you, Donald Trump.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-04--Iowa Could Not Have Gone Any Better

Iowa Could Not Have Gone Any Better

Before I went to bed on Monday night , I wrote that we got the perfect result out of Iowa .
My take may not surprise you given what I wrote about the Iowa caucuses on Monday morning .
In short , I believe that no one deserves to be rewarded or punished for winning in Iowa because the delegates are non-binding , there are very few at stake , and the unique rules almost assure that they will be split almost evenly between the top three or four or even five candidates .
It ’ s simply not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet the media stands ready every four years to throw thunderbolts at anyone who “ underperforms ” and suggests that they drop out of the race .
Meanwhile , the winner , who may have the support of as little as one-fourth of the caucus-goers , is treated as a conquering Roman general .
None of this happened on Monday night because the Democrats couldn ’ t figure out how to collect and tabulate the results .
It was delicious to watch the cable news pundits get all twitchy as they realized that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spend hours trashing someone and describing all the missteps they made along the way that assured their doom .
They couldn ’ t even freak out about the winner and wring their hands about whether they are too far left or too unexciting or incapable of standing toe-to-toe on the stage with Trump .
While I feel bad for the candidates and their organizers who played by the stupid rules and got shortchanged by the Iowa Democratic Party ’ s incompetence , it ’ s absolutely fantastic that Iowa had their vote and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or ill-deserved influence of who becomes the eventual nominee .
It looks like Nate Silver feels the exact same way .
Another bonus of last night ’ s results is that they virtually assure that Iowa will lose its first-in-the-nation privilege .
There are elements of the tradition that are charming , but there is no justification for giving one state this role in every cycle for perpetuity .
Maybe fifty cycles ( or 200 years ) from now , when all the other states have had a chance to go first , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ve been enjoying since 1976 .
Now we move to New Hampshire , where people actually cast secret ballots .
Maybe we can have a new debate about why New Hampshire and many other states allow non-Democrats to vote in the Democratic primary ?
Why should the public at large get to tell a political party who its leaders should be ?
In Pennsylvania , independents can not vote in the primaries .
Maybe that ’ s a good thing ?
Maybe it makes it harder to pick an appealing candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , New Hampshire will be able to count the ballots on election night , but I ’ m perfectly content that Iowa could not .

Before I went to bed on Monday night, I wrote that we got the perfect result out of Iowa. My take may not surprise you given what I wrote about the Iowa caucuses on Monday morning. In short, I believe that no one deserves to be rewarded or punished for winning in Iowa because the delegates are non-binding, there are very few at stake, and the unique rules almost assure that they will be split almost evenly between the top three or four or even five candidates. It’s simply not a significant contest on the merits, and yet the media stands ready every four years to throw thunderbolts at anyone who “underperforms” and suggests that they drop out of the race. Meanwhile, the winner, who may have the support of as little as one-fourth of the caucus-goers, is treated as a conquering Roman general.
None of this happened on Monday night because the Democrats couldn’t figure out how to collect and tabulate the results. It was delicious to watch the cable news pundits get all twitchy as they realized that they were not going to get to spend hours trashing someone and describing all the missteps they made along the way that assured their doom. They couldn’t even freak out about the winner and wring their hands about whether they are too far left or too unexciting or incapable of standing toe-to-toe on the stage with Trump.
While I feel bad for the candidates and their organizers who played by the stupid rules and got shortchanged by the Iowa Democratic Party’s incompetence, it’s absolutely fantastic that Iowa had their vote and it won’t have some outsized or ill-deserved influence of who becomes the eventual nominee. It looks like Nate Silver feels the exact same way.
Another bonus of last night’s results is that they virtually assure that Iowa will lose its first-in-the-nation privilege. There are elements of the tradition that are charming, but there is no justification for giving one state this role in every cycle for perpetuity. Maybe fifty cycles (or 200 years) from now, when all the other states have had a chance to go first, then Iowa can get the same boon they’ve been enjoying since 1976.
Now we move to New Hampshire, where people actually cast secret ballots. Maybe we can have a new debate about why New Hampshire and many other states allow non-Democrats to vote in the Democratic primary? Why should the public at large get to tell a political party who its leaders should be? In Pennsylvania, independents cannot vote in the primaries. Maybe that’s a good thing? Maybe it makes it harder to pick an appealing candidate for the general election?
With luck, New Hampshire will be able to count the ballots on election night, but I’m perfectly content that Iowa could not.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-30--For Trump, a Successful Response to COVID-19 Left the Building a While Ago

Rick Wilson isn ’ t always careful to be meticulously fair to the president .
For example , this goes too far : President Trump could have done everything right , and there would still have been a lot of people in this country who died from COVID-19 .
It ’ s wrong to suggest that every death is an excess death .
Yet , when the final tally is determined , we know that the body count will be much higher than it should have been .
The only question is how many zeroes we ’ ll have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measure it in the tens of thousands , hundreds of thousands , or millions ?
During a February 26 press conference in the White House , President Trump told us that “ we have a total of 15 [ cases of COVID-19 in this country ] …and they ’ re getting better , too… we have a total of 15 people , and they ’ re in a process of recovering , with some already having fully recovered.
” His point was that there was nothing to be concerned about .
The problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House line at the time .
A day earlier , Trump ’ s chief economic adviser Lawrence Kudlow went on television and said , “ We have contained this .
I won ’ t say airtight , but pretty close to airtight.
” He added , “ I don ’ t think it ’ s going to be an economic tragedy at all.
” If they didn ’ t know that they were wrong , it could only be because they refused to listen to their own experts when they explained the nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required to limit its lethality .
I ’ m sure that ’ s a part of the explanation , but they also seem to have more focused on the day-to-day swings on Wall Street than on the public ’ s health .
They hoped that their reassurances would prevent a sell-off of stocks as if their words alone could stop the tsunami that was coming .
The new White House line is that we ’ re almost definitely going to see between 100,000 and 200,000 deaths , assuming we do everything right from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this new line take shape on the Today show when Dr. Deborah Birx , the response coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force , said on Monday that “ if we do things together well , almost perfectly , we could get in the range of 100,000 to 200,000 fatalities.
” That was consistent with the expectations President Trump set during his Sunday night press conference .
No less than 16 times during that appearance , the president cited an Imperial College London study that estimated 2.2 million Americans could die if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreak of COVID-19 .
The Washington Post reported on the study on March 17 , but Trump claimed to have seen its findings for the first time on Sunday .
He ’ s using that number now for only one reason , to make whatever the actual number is look like some kind of great success .
We don ’ t have to compare Trump to Rick Wilson ’ s fictional husband to understand that “ success ” already left the building .
Trump was forced to recommend social distancing measures be extended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite his recent call to relax things in time for Easter services .
He ’ s been acting like he could spin this pandemic from the beginning , and it is going to cost a lot of people their lives .
He tries to beat one tactical retreat after another as reality catches up with his bullshit , but he ’ s still hasn ’ t changed his basic strategy .
It ’ s far too late now for him to declare any outcome a “ win .
”

Rick Wilson isn’t always careful to be meticulously fair to the president. For example, this goes too far:
Sunday, the president said that 100,000 deaths would be a great win. Only in the world of Trumpian dumbfuckery could anyone brighter than a toaster oven think 100,000 avoidable deaths is a win. That’s like saying, “Hey, honey, I went to the strip club, caught an STD, knocked up a stripper named Destynee, and got a second mortgage to bail her meth tweaker boyfriend out of jail… but at least I didn’t touch the kids’ college fund.”
President Trump could have done everything right, and there would still have been a lot of people in this country who died from COVID-19. It’s wrong to suggest that every death is an excess death. Yet, when the final tally is determined, we know that the body count will be much higher than it should have been. The only question is how many zeroes we’ll have to put on that number. Will we measure it in the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions?
During a February 26 press conference in the White House, President Trump told us that “we have a total of 15 [cases of COVID-19 in this country]…and they’re getting better, too… we have a total of 15 people, and they’re in a process of recovering, with some already having fully recovered.”
His point was that there was nothing to be concerned about. The problem was contained. This was the White House line at the time. A day earlier, Trump’s chief economic adviser Lawrence Kudlow went on television and said, “We have contained this. I won’t say airtight, but pretty close to airtight.” He added, “I don’t think it’s going to be an economic tragedy at all.”
If they didn’t know that they were wrong, it could only be because they refused to listen to their own experts when they explained the nature of the disease and what would be required to limit its lethality. I’m sure that’s a part of the explanation, but they also seem to have more focused on the day-to-day swings on Wall Street than on the public’s health. They hoped that their reassurances would prevent a sell-off of stocks as if their words alone could stop the tsunami that was coming.
The new White House line is that we’re almost definitely going to see between 100,000 and 200,000 deaths, assuming we do everything right from here on out. We could see this new line take shape on the Today show when Dr. Deborah Birx, the response coordinator for the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on Monday that “if we do things together well, almost perfectly, we could get in the range of 100,000 to 200,000 fatalities.”
That was consistent with the expectations President Trump set during his Sunday night press conference. No less than 16 times during that appearance, the president cited an Imperial College London study that estimated 2.2 million Americans could die if no measures were taken to limit the outbreak of COVID-19. The Washington Post reported on the study on March 17, but Trump claimed to have seen its findings for the first time on Sunday.
He’s using that number now for only one reason, to make whatever the actual number is look like some kind of great success.
We don’t have to compare Trump to Rick Wilson’s fictional husband to understand that “success” already left the building. Trump was forced to recommend social distancing measures be extended through to the end of April, despite his recent call to relax things in time for Easter services.
He’s been acting like he could spin this pandemic from the beginning, and it is going to cost a lot of people their lives. He tries to beat one tactical retreat after another as reality catches up with his bullshit, but he’s still hasn’t changed his basic strategy.
It’s far too late now for him to declare any outcome a “win.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-30--Amidst All of Trump’s Failures, There Is One That Stands Out

An ad from the organization Unite the Country correctly stated that “ crisis comes to every president .
This one failed.
” It will probably takes something like a 9/11 commission to document all of the Trump administration ’ s failures during this coronavirus crisis , but there is one that stands out above all the others .
Ed Pilkington and Tom McCarthy have suggested that , “ When the definitive history of the coronavirus pandemic is written , the date 20 January 2020 is certain to feature prominently.
” That is the day that the first case of coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it is also the day the first case was reported in South Korea .
Here is how that country responded .
Within a week of its first confirmed case , South Korea ’ s disease control agency had summoned 20 private companies to the medical equivalent of a war-planning summit and told them to develop a test for the virus at lightning speed .
A week after that , the first diagnostic test was approved and went into battle , identifying infected individuals who could then be quarantined to halt the advance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later , the country has more or less won the coronavirus war .
This is what it looks like to “ more or less ” win the coronavirus war .
The article by Pilkington and McCarthy is titled , “ The missing six weeks : how Trump failed the biggest test of his life.
” This video tracks what Trump was saying during those crucial six weeks after January 20th .
But more than what the president was saying , it was what his administration wasn ’ t doing that led to such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here is how reporters at the New York Times described what happened .
[ A ] s the deadly virus from China spread with ferocity across the United States between late January and early March , large-scale testing of people who might have been infected did not happen — because of technical flaws , regulatory hurdles , business-as-usual bureaucracies and lack of leadership at multiple levels , according to interviews with more than 50 current and former public health officials , administration officials , senior scientists and company executives .
The result was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s richest country — armed with some of the most highly trained scientists and infectious disease specialists — squandered its best chance of containing the virus ’ s spread .
Instead , Americans were left largely blind to the scale of a looming public health catastrophe .
Rather than mobilize the private sector or utilize tests distributed by the World Health Organization , the Centers for Disease Control insisted on developing their own , a process that was bungled and failed to produce tests until early March .
The reason that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time when it might have been possible to contain the virus .
As we have seen so often with the Trump administration , this disaster was the result of both incompetence and malevolence .
On the former , here is how Pilkington and McCarthy describe what was happening at the CDC .
Disbanding the [ pandemic unit in the national security council ] exacerbated a trend that was already prevalent after two years of Trump – an exodus of skilled and experienced officials who knew what they were doing .
“ There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of competent leadership , at important levels of government , ” a former senior government official told the Guardian .
“ Over time there was a lot of paranoia and people left and they had a hard time attracting good replacements , ” the official said .
“ Nobody wanted to work there.
” It was hardly a morale-boosting gesture when Trump proposed a 16 % cut in CDC funding on 10 February – 11 days after the World Health Organization had declared a public health emergency over Covid-19 .
When it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was happening with Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar , who oversees the CDC .
Based on Trump ’ s public remarks during that crucial six-week period , he was probably describing his own mindset when he said this during the press briefing on Sunday .
As the video above documents , the president was saying things like “ the 15 , in a couple of days , it ’ s going to be down to zero , ” and “ it ’ s going to disappear .
One day — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will disappear.
” During a time when adequate testing could have contained the spread of the virus , Trump was “ riding it like a cowboy , ” pretending that it would all just disappear .
Now the president thinks he deserves accolades if 100,000-200,000 Americans die , along with untold suffering and an economy at a standstill .
The president is preparing the stage to give himself accolades if the number of deaths related to this pandemic is less than the 2 million who would have died if we had all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Rick Wilson wrote , “ Only in the world of Trumpian dumbfuckery could anyone brighter than a toaster oven think 100,000 avoidable deaths is a win.
” There was a crucial moment when action by a competent administration could have contained the coronavirus via testing and protocols that are normally used to halt the spread of a potential pandemic .
But Trump squandered that moment and we ’ re all paying the price .
Of all his failures , that one is the most consequential .

An ad from the organization Unite the Country correctly stated that “crisis comes to every president. This one failed.” It will probably takes something like a 9/11 commission to document all of the Trump administration’s failures during this coronavirus crisis, but there is one that stands out above all the others.
Ed Pilkington and Tom McCarthy have suggested that, “When the definitive history of the coronavirus pandemic is written, the date 20 January 2020 is certain to feature prominently.” That is the day that the first case of coronavirus was reported in the United States. But it is also the day the first case was reported in South Korea. Here is how that country responded.
Within a week of its first confirmed case, South Korea’s disease control agency had summoned 20 private companies to the medical equivalent of a war-planning summit and told them to develop a test for the virus at lightning speed. A week after that, the first diagnostic test was approved and went into battle, identifying infected individuals who could then be quarantined to halt the advance of the disease. Some 357,896 tests later, the country has more or less won the coronavirus war.
This is what it looks like to “more or less” win the coronavirus war.
The article by Pilkington and McCarthy is titled, “The missing six weeks: how Trump failed the biggest test of his life.” This video tracks what Trump was saying during those crucial six weeks after January 20th.
But more than what the president was saying, it was what his administration wasn’t doing that led to such a catastrophe. Unlike South Korea, here is how reporters at the New York Times described what happened.
[A]s the deadly virus from China spread with ferocity across the United States between late January and early March, large-scale testing of people who might have been infected did not happen — because of technical flaws, regulatory hurdles, business-as-usual bureaucracies and lack of leadership at multiple levels, according to interviews with more than 50 current and former public health officials, administration officials, senior scientists and company executives. The result was a lost month, when the world’s richest country — armed with some of the most highly trained scientists and infectious disease specialists — squandered its best chance of containing the virus’s spread. Instead, Americans were left largely blind to the scale of a looming public health catastrophe.
Rather than mobilize the private sector or utilize tests distributed by the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control insisted on developing their own, a process that was bungled and failed to produce tests until early March. The reason that was so crucial is that it squandered the time when it might have been possible to contain the virus.
Had the United States been able to track its earliest movements and identify hidden hot spots, local quarantines might have confined the disease… By early March, after federal officials finally announced changes to expand testing, it was too late. With the early lapses, containment was no longer an option. The tool kit of epidemiology would shift — lockdowns, social disruption, intensive medical treatment — in hopes of mitigating the harm.
As we have seen so often with the Trump administration, this disaster was the result of both incompetence and malevolence. On the former, here is how Pilkington and McCarthy describe what was happening at the CDC.
Disbanding the [pandemic unit in the national security council] exacerbated a trend that was already prevalent after two years of Trump – an exodus of skilled and experienced officials who knew what they were doing. “There’s been an erosion of expertise, of competent leadership, at important levels of government,” a former senior government official told the Guardian. “Over time there was a lot of paranoia and people left and they had a hard time attracting good replacements,” the official said. “Nobody wanted to work there.” It was hardly a morale-boosting gesture when Trump proposed a 16% cut in CDC funding on 10 February – 11 days after the World Health Organization had declared a public health emergency over Covid-19.
When it comes to malevolence, Dan Diamond described what was happening with Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar, who oversees the CDC.
Secretary Azar has not always given the president the worst-case scenario of what could happen. My understanding is he did not push to do aggressive additional testing in recent weeks, and that’s partly because more testing might have led to more cases being discovered of coronavirus outbreak, and the president had made clear — the lower the numbers on coronavirus, the better for the president, the better for his potential reelection this fall.
Based on Trump’s public remarks during that crucial six-week period, he was probably describing his own mindset when he said this during the press briefing on Sunday.
“We had a lot of people who were saying, ‘maybe we shouldn’t do anything, just ride it.’ They say, ‘ride it like a cowboy, just ride it, ride that sucker right through,’” he said. “I thought about it; I said, ‘maybe we should ride it through.’
As the video above documents, the president was saying things like “the 15, in a couple of days, it’s going to be down to zero,” and “it’s going to disappear. One day — it’s like a miracle — it will disappear.” During a time when adequate testing could have contained the spread of the virus, Trump was “riding it like a cowboy,” pretending that it would all just disappear.
Now the president thinks he deserves accolades if 100,000-200,000 Americans die, along with untold suffering and an economy at a standstill.
The president is preparing the stage to give himself accolades if the number of deaths related to this pandemic is less than the 2 million who would have died if we had all done nothing to mitigate the harm. As Rick Wilson wrote, “Only in the world of Trumpian dumbfuckery could anyone brighter than a toaster oven think 100,000 avoidable deaths is a win.”
There was a crucial moment when action by a competent administration could have contained the coronavirus via testing and protocols that are normally used to halt the spread of a potential pandemic. But Trump squandered that moment and we’re all paying the price. Of all his failures, that one is the most consequential.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-30--What’s Killing the White Working Class?

What’s Killing the White Working Class?

In early January last year , the Fox News host Tucker Carlson took to the airwaves with a 15-minute rant about the way that American capitalism was crushing families and decimating white working-class communities .
He blamed small government conservatives and liberal elites alike for ignoring the economic cause of the collapse of the working class .
Conservatives , he complained , blame the problem solely on the breakdown of the traditional family .
“ Like the libertarians they claim to oppose , many social conservatives also consider markets sacrosanct , ” Carlson said .
“ The idea that families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never to occur to them .
They refuse to consider it.
” His indictment of American capitalism went viral and set off a familiar , if heated , debate , mostly on the right , where conservatives weren ’ t used to hearing such an assault on free market economics from one of their own .
Yet Carlson ’ s assessment was rooted in solid academic research .
In fact , his monologue could have served as the prologue for Deaths of Despair , a new book written by the married Princeton economics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Angus Deaton .
They ’ re the academics who first shocked the country in 2015 with a new study finding that the mortality rates of white people , particularly those without college degrees , had spiked , after nearly a century of sustained decline .
At the time , they were hard pressed to explain exactly why white people were suddenly dying in such large numbers when everyone else—African Americans , Hispanics , and white working-class people in other countries—seemed to be doing better .
Five years later , with Deaths of Despair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book-length investigation of the trends they first identified in 2015 .
Their updated data points are stark : Deaths from suicide , drug overdoses , and alcohol-related disease among middle-aged white men and women skyrocketed from 30 per 100,000 in 1990 to 92 per 100,000 in 2017 .
The spike in these deaths is almost exclusively confined to white Americans , both men and women , without a college degree .
Mortality rates among college-educated Americans have continued to fall .
Mortality rates for white-working class people in other wealthy countries are similarly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that these premature deaths are the reason that American life expectancy at birth has fallen for three straight years .
Such a drop is unparalleled in modern U.S. history .
The only comparable disaster came during the First World War and the flu epidemic that followed .
The authors compare what ’ s happening with the American white working class to what happened after the collapse of the former Soviet Union , where the resulting countries saw radical change and dire economic straits .
“ It is no exaggeration to compare the long-standing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wave of despair that is driving suicides , alcohol , and drug abuse among less educated white Americans , ” they write .
Deaths of Despair is an academic book , laden with charts and facts and figures , and the authors devote a significant amount of ink to shooting down things they think are not causing the crisis—problems like obesity , for instance .
But after dismissing a variety of possible causes for increasing mortality rates , they essentially come to the same conclusion Carlson did : that rapacious capitalism and predatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , have destroyed the white working class .
American capitalism , they write , is uniquely toxic and often looks “ more like a racket for redistributing upward than an engine of general prosperity.
” They believe that the way capitalism has run amok in the U.S. , without much regulation or a safety net for those caught up in its creative destruction , is literally killing people .
Deaths of Despair features a battery of distressing statistics about the state of the white working class .
For white men without a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ median wages between 1979 and 2017 was a negative number ( −0.2 percent a year ) , even as median hourly earnings for all white workers grew by 11 percent in the same period .
This wage deflation has had well-documented cultural ripple effects , depressing marriage rates as men ’ s appeal as partners fell along with their earnings .
Without a stable family life , these men are more isolated , with fewer of the sorts of social buffers that might inoculate them against suicide or drug abuse .
As a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gone up .
Women without college degrees are also suffering .
Both men and women are now experiencing record levels of disability and stalled progress against heart disease .
Women have always had lower rates of suicide , alcoholic liver disease , and drug overdoses , whether or not they have a four-year degree .
But that has changed since the late 1990s .
Working-class women without college degrees are dying from despair in about equal numbers as men .
Case and Deaton don ’ t tease this out , but recent data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drinking themselves to death at a shocking rate .
Between 1999 and 2015 , alcohol-related deaths in this group soared by 130 percent .
But Case and Deaton argue that the deaths are far more than a product of stagnant wages or economic distress .
If that were the case , African Americans would surely be leading the uptick , but they aren ’ t .
White working-class people are much less likely to be poor than black Americans are , and while African Americans still have higher overall mortality rates , those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 years even as they ’ ve risen for white people without college degrees .
Instead , Case and Deaton point to something much broader at work in these numbers : the collapse of communities and the end of a way of life .
Black communities experienced the ravages of deindustrialization decades before white communities did , along with an increase in mortality .
These groups have since stabilized .
But now , as rapid technological change and globalization have more thoroughly destroyed U.S. manufacturing , the community networks that kept the white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means that , just as 1980s Detroit or Baltimore was a ripe environment for the crack epidemic , white working-class areas of Kentucky or Ohio were uniquely primed for the opioid epidemic .
Of the drug overdose deaths since the introduction of OxyContin , 90 percent have been among those without college degrees .
“ The people who used the opioids , the many millions who became opioid abusers or became addicted , who became zombies walking the streets of once-prosperous towns , were those whose lives had already come apart , whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporting them , ” the authors write .
But Case and Deaton also offer a harsh indictment of the pharmaceutical industry , which made obscene profits from getting vulnerable people hooked on deadly drugs .
Indeed , they offer a harsh indictment of the health care system in general .
American health care is stripping away fully 18 percent of the gross domestic product—nearly $ 11,000 per person in 2017 .
They describe the system as “ a cancer at the heart of the economy , one that has widely metastasized , bringing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and making it harder and harder for state and federal governments to afford what their constituents need.
” Out-of-control health care costs have helped turn good jobs into bad ones as companies outsource work to shift the cost of care elsewhere , keep wages down to compensate for rising health care costs , or eliminate many jobs entirely .
Once , it was possible for janitors to work their way up into C-suite positions at major companies .
That ’ s no longer true , because janitors now rarely work for the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they clean .
Corporate managers have shunted these workers off to contractors that offer low wages , few benefits , and little opportunities for advancement .
Meanwhile , all that health care spending is draining public investment on other important things , like education and infrastructure .
It shows .
U.S. roads are so dilapidated that FedEx trucks need new tires twice as often as they did 20 years ago , Case and Deaton write .
One key policy question that the authors don ’ t address is whether or not the Affordable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which seems like a glaring oversight for a book like this .
It would stand to reason that a law that extended decent health insurance to millions of people , many of them white working class , might have staunched the bleeding .
But from the national numbers they present , Obamacare doesn ’ t seem to have been much of a salve .
In fact , the death rate has accelerated since Obamacare passed in 2010 .
The problem with American health care , Case and Deaton say , is less insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system that ’ s dragging the economy down with it .
“ The industry is not very good at promoting health , but it excels at promoting wealth among healthcare providers , ” they write .
But while Obamacare may not have helped prevent deaths of despair , Case and Deaton ’ s research suggests that attacks on social safety programs have made the problem worse .
The authors steer clear of partisan politics , but the death trends they ’ ve identified dovetail almost perfectly with conservatives ’ decades-long assault on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the 1994 Republican revolution in Congress , both the federal government and many GOP-dominated states have made it much harder for people suffering a job loss or other calamity to access everything from Medicaid to food stamps , a trend that has likely exacerbated the current misery of white working-class people today .
Thirty percent of people living on an income that ’ s half the poverty line—about $ 12,000 a year for a family of four with two kids—get no help from the government of any sort .
The lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Case and Deaton suggest that the working class in the U.S. is suffering in a way that those in other wealthy countries are not , even though the same forces of globalization and inequality are buffeting their citizens as well .
Without a cushion for their fall in the midst of massive change , America ’ s white working-class communities are coming apart .
While Deaths of Despair does an admirable job of describing the scope of this epidemic and some of its causes , apparently not even a Nobel Prize–winning economist can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Case and Deaton throw up one or the other idea kicking around in politics in recent years—a universal basic income or higher marginal tax rates on the rich—only to dismiss the proposed solutions as ineffective , too expensive , or politically unpalatable .
Take the safety net—the same thing they identified as being helpful in protecting European people during the Great Recession and through 40 years of globalization .
They argue that a bigger welfare state might have helped Americans when globalization first exploded , but that it would now be too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s especially true so long as the well-being of Americans is dependent on whether or not they have a college degree .
“ The safety net is something of a Band-Aid , ” they write , “ useful but incapable of addressing the fundamental problem ” —the loss of good jobs for people without college degrees .
So if a college degree protects against much that ails the working class , maybe the government should embrace Bernie Sanders ’ s idea of free college for everyone ?
Eh , sorry , they declare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and most of the benefits would go to people who don ’ t need them .
Besides , unless the American form of capitalism is reformed in a meaningful way , Case and Deaton warn , a bachelor ’ s degree is “ not a suit of armor that protects you against change.
” Just as African Americans suffered mass casualties 50 years ago with the decline in manufacturing jobs , and the white working class is suffering now , the authors conclude that it is entirely possible that “ many of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in line.
” They see universal health care as critical , but only if it ’ s accompanied by significant cost controls , something likely to be stiffly opposed by big monied interests in the health care system , like doctors and pharmaceutical companies .
To get around that problem , they advise giving some of the richest people in America the sort of soft landing that has never been available to the subjects of their book .
“ The healthcare lobby is the most powerful in Washington , and it is almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them off at the time of the reform , ” they note .
“ The alternative is to keep paying them off forever , and a well-designed reform , with cost control , will slowly reduce the tribute we have to pay them.
” Case and Deaton do suggest some simpler , more palatable solutions , such as increasing the minimum wage and expanding apprenticeship programs like those in Germany to help train workers who don ’ t go to college .
And they champion better antitrust enforcement to increase competition and level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lament that such efforts would require a functioning democracy , which the U.S. currently does not have , strangled as it is by “ lobbying and by legislators ’ need for deep-pocketed backers.
” In a rare moment of optimism , the authors argue that these political problems are solvable .
“ Democracy can rise to the challenge , ” they write .
“ Democracy in America is not working well , but it is far from dead and it can work again if people push hard enough , just as it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Era a century ago and in the New Deal of the 1930s.
” But there ’ s not much evidence that the ship of American democracy can be turned in time to save working-class people , in large part because they themselves don ’ t think it ’ s possible .
In 2016 , the enterprising Washington Post reporter Jeff Guo discovered that in counties where white people were dying the fastest , Trump performed best in the GOP primary .
Since assuming office , President Trump and the GOP-controlled Senate have single-mindedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters , through cuts in social welfare programs like food stamps and Medicaid and by allowing huge corporate mergers .
Yet these same sick and dying white working-class voters want nothing to do with the Democratic Party , whose platform at least offers some meaningful assistance .
“ It is easy to be pessimistic , ” Case and Deaton concede .
“ The election of Donald Trump is understandable in the circumstances , but it is a gesture of frustration and rage that will make things worse , not better .
Working-class whites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them ; in 2016 , more than two-thirds of white working-class Americans believed that elections are controlled by the rich and by big corporations , so that it does not matter if they vote.
” They ’ re probably right .
Even Tucker Carlson sees that the problem goes far beyond Trump .
In his viral monologue last year , he said , “ At some point , Donald Trump will be gone .
The rest of us will be gone , too .
The country will remain .
What kind of country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we want our grandchildren to live ?
These are the only questions that matter .
”

In early January last year, the Fox News host Tucker Carlson took to the airwaves with a 15-minute rant about the way that American capitalism was crushing families and decimating white working-class communities. He blamed small government conservatives and liberal elites alike for ignoring the economic cause of the collapse of the working class. Conservatives, he complained, blame the problem solely on the breakdown of the traditional family. “Like the libertarians they claim to oppose, many social conservatives also consider markets sacrosanct,” Carlson said. “The idea that families are being crushed by market forces seems never to occur to them. They refuse to consider it.”
Deaths of Despair and
the Future of Capitalism
by Anne Case and Angus Deaton
Princeton University Press, 312 pp.
His indictment of American capitalism went viral and set off a familiar, if heated, debate, mostly on the right, where conservatives weren’t used to hearing such an assault on free market economics from one of their own. Yet Carlson’s assessment was rooted in solid academic research. In fact, his monologue could have served as the prologue for Deaths of Despair, a new book written by the married Princeton economics duo Anne Case and Nobel Prize winner Angus Deaton. They’re the academics who first shocked the country in 2015 with a new study finding that the mortality rates of white people, particularly those without college degrees, had spiked, after nearly a century of sustained decline.
At the time, they were hard pressed to explain exactly why white people were suddenly dying in such large numbers when everyone else—African Americans, Hispanics, and white working-class people in other countries—seemed to be doing better. Five years later, with Deaths of Despair, they’ve returned with a book-length investigation of the trends they first identified in 2015. Their updated data points are stark: Deaths from suicide, drug overdoses, and alcohol-related disease among middle-aged white men and women skyrocketed from 30 per 100,000 in 1990 to 92 per 100,000 in 2017. The spike in these deaths is almost exclusively confined to white Americans, both men and women, without a college degree. Mortality rates among college-educated Americans have continued to fall. Mortality rates for white-working class people in other wealthy countries are similarly in decline.
Case and Deaton note that these premature deaths are the reason that American life expectancy at birth has fallen for three straight years. Such a drop is unparalleled in modern U.S. history. The only comparable disaster came during the First World War and the flu epidemic that followed. The authors compare what’s happening with the American white working class to what happened after the collapse of the former Soviet Union, where the resulting countries saw radical change and dire economic straits. “It is no exaggeration to compare the long-standing misery of these Eastern Europeans with the wave of despair that is driving suicides, alcohol, and drug abuse among less educated white Americans,” they write.
Deaths of Despair is an academic book, laden with charts and facts and figures, and the authors devote a significant amount of ink to shooting down things they think are not causing the crisis—problems like obesity, for instance. But after dismissing a variety of possible causes for increasing mortality rates, they essentially come to the same conclusion Carlson did: that rapacious capitalism and predatory corporations, protected by politicians indebted to them, have destroyed the white working class. American capitalism, they write, is uniquely toxic and often looks “more like a racket for redistributing upward than an engine of general prosperity.” They believe that the way capitalism has run amok in the U.S., without much regulation or a safety net for those caught up in its creative destruction, is literally killing people.
Deaths of Despair features a battery of distressing statistics about the state of the white working class. For white men without a college degree, the average growth in median wages between 1979 and 2017 was a negative number (−0.2 percent a year), even as median hourly earnings for all white workers grew by 11 percent in the same period. This wage deflation has had well-documented cultural ripple effects, depressing marriage rates as men’s appeal as partners fell along with their earnings. Without a stable family life, these men are more isolated, with fewer of the sorts of social buffers that might inoculate them against suicide or drug abuse. As a result, the rates for both have gone up.
Women without college degrees are also suffering. Both men and women are now experiencing record levels of disability and stalled progress against heart disease. Women have always had lower rates of suicide, alcoholic liver disease, and drug overdoses, whether or not they have a four-year degree. But that has changed since the late 1990s. Working-class women without college degrees are dying from despair in about equal numbers as men. Case and Deaton don’t tease this out, but recent data suggests that white middle-aged women are now drinking themselves to death at a shocking rate. Between 1999 and 2015, alcohol-related deaths in this group soared by 130 percent.
But Case and Deaton argue that the deaths are far more than a product of stagnant wages or economic distress. If that were the case, African Americans would surely be leading the uptick, but they aren’t. White working-class people are much less likely to be poor than black Americans are, and while African Americans still have higher overall mortality rates, those rates have been falling for the past 20 years even as they’ve risen for white people without college degrees.
Instead, Case and Deaton point to something much broader at work in these numbers: the collapse of communities and the end of a way of life. Black communities experienced the ravages of deindustrialization decades before white communities did, along with an increase in mortality. These groups have since stabilized. But now, as rapid technological change and globalization have more thoroughly destroyed U.S. manufacturing, the community networks that kept the white working class together are collapsing.
That means that, just as 1980s Detroit or Baltimore was a ripe environment for the crack epidemic, white working-class areas of Kentucky or Ohio were uniquely primed for the opioid epidemic. Of the drug overdose deaths since the introduction of OxyContin, 90 percent have been among those without college degrees. “The people who used the opioids, the many millions who became opioid abusers or became addicted, who became zombies walking the streets of once-prosperous towns, were those whose lives had already come apart, whose economic and social lives were no longer supporting them,” the authors write.
But Case and Deaton also offer a harsh indictment of the pharmaceutical industry, which made obscene profits from getting vulnerable people hooked on deadly drugs. Indeed, they offer a harsh indictment of the health care system in general. American health care is stripping away fully 18 percent of the gross domestic product—nearly $11,000 per person in 2017. They describe the system as “a cancer at the heart of the economy, one that has widely metastasized, bringing down wages, destroying good jobs, and making it harder and harder for state and federal governments to afford what their constituents need.”
Out-of-control health care costs have helped turn good jobs into bad ones as companies outsource work to shift the cost of care elsewhere, keep wages down to compensate for rising health care costs, or eliminate many jobs entirely. Once, it was possible for janitors to work their way up into C-suite positions at major companies. That’s no longer true, because janitors now rarely work for the same company as the people in the offices they clean. Corporate managers have shunted these workers off to contractors that offer low wages, few benefits, and little opportunities for advancement. Meanwhile, all that health care spending is draining public investment on other important things, like education and infrastructure. It shows. U.S. roads are so dilapidated that FedEx trucks need new tires twice as often as they did 20 years ago, Case and Deaton write.
One key policy question that the authors don’t address is whether or not the Affordable Care Act has impacted mortality rates, which seems like a glaring oversight for a book like this. It would stand to reason that a law that extended decent health insurance to millions of people, many of them white working class, might have staunched the bleeding. But from the national numbers they present, Obamacare doesn’t seem to have been much of a salve. In fact, the death rate has accelerated since Obamacare passed in 2010. The problem with American health care, Case and Deaton say, is less insurance coverage than the enormous cost of the system that’s dragging the economy down with it. “The industry is not very good at promoting health, but it excels at promoting wealth among healthcare providers,” they write.
But while Obamacare may not have helped prevent deaths of despair, Case and Deaton’s research suggests that attacks on social safety programs have made the problem worse. The authors steer clear of partisan politics, but the death trends they’ve identified dovetail almost perfectly with conservatives’ decades-long assault on the nation’s social programs. Starting with the 1994 Republican revolution in Congress, both the federal government and many GOP-dominated states have made it much harder for people suffering a job loss or other calamity to access everything from Medicaid to food stamps, a trend that has likely exacerbated the current misery of white working-class people today. Thirty percent of people living on an income that’s half the poverty line—about $12,000 a year for a family of four with two kids—get no help from the government of any sort.
The lack of a safety net is one reason why Case and Deaton suggest that the working class in the U.S. is suffering in a way that those in other wealthy countries are not, even though the same forces of globalization and inequality are buffeting their citizens as well. Without a cushion for their fall in the midst of massive change, America’s white working-class communities are coming apart.
While Deaths of Despair does an admirable job of describing the scope of this epidemic and some of its causes, apparently not even a Nobel Prize–winning economist can figure out what to do about it. Case and Deaton throw up one or the other idea kicking around in politics in recent years—a universal basic income or higher marginal tax rates on the rich—only to dismiss the proposed solutions as ineffective, too expensive, or politically unpalatable.
Take the safety net—the same thing they identified as being helpful in protecting European people during the Great Recession and through 40 years of globalization. They argue that a bigger welfare state might have helped Americans when globalization first exploded, but that it would now be too little, too late. That’s especially true so long as the well-being of Americans is dependent on whether or not they have a college degree. “The safety net is something of a Band-Aid,” they write, “useful but incapable of addressing the fundamental problem”—the loss of good jobs for people without college degrees.
So if a college degree protects against much that ails the working class, maybe the government should embrace Bernie Sanders’s idea of free college for everyone? Eh, sorry, they declare. That would be too expensive, and most of the benefits would go to people who don’t need them. Besides, unless the American form of capitalism is reformed in a meaningful way, Case and Deaton warn, a bachelor’s degree is “not a suit of armor that protects you against change.” Just as African Americans suffered mass casualties 50 years ago with the decline in manufacturing jobs, and the white working class is suffering now, the authors conclude that it is entirely possible that “many of those with a college degree will be next in line.”
They see universal health care as critical, but only if it’s accompanied by significant cost controls, something likely to be stiffly opposed by big monied interests in the health care system, like doctors and pharmaceutical companies. To get around that problem, they advise giving some of the richest people in America the sort of soft landing that has never been available to the subjects of their book. “The healthcare lobby is the most powerful in Washington, and it is almost certainly impossible to have reform without paying them off at the time of the reform,” they note. “The alternative is to keep paying them off forever, and a well-designed reform, with cost control, will slowly reduce the tribute we have to pay them.”
Case and Deaton do suggest some simpler, more palatable solutions, such as increasing the minimum wage and expanding apprenticeship programs like those in Germany to help train workers who don’t go to college. And they champion better antitrust enforcement to increase competition and level the business playing field. But they lament that such efforts would require a functioning democracy, which the U.S. currently does not have, strangled as it is by “lobbying and by legislators’ need for deep-pocketed backers.”
In a rare moment of optimism, the authors argue that these political problems are solvable. “Democracy can rise to the challenge,” they write. “Democracy in America is not working well, but it is far from dead and it can work again if people push hard enough, just as it was made to work better in the Progressive Era a century ago and in the New Deal of the 1930s.”
But there’s not much evidence that the ship of American democracy can be turned in time to save working-class people, in large part because they themselves don’t think it’s possible. In 2016, the enterprising Washington Post reporter Jeff Guo discovered that in counties where white people were dying the fastest, Trump performed best in the GOP primary. Since assuming office, President Trump and the GOP-controlled Senate have single-mindedly pursued policies that will harm white working-class voters, through cuts in social welfare programs like food stamps and Medicaid and by allowing huge corporate mergers. Yet these same sick and dying white working-class voters want nothing to do with the Democratic Party, whose platform at least offers some meaningful assistance.
“It is easy to be pessimistic,” Case and Deaton concede. “The election of Donald Trump is understandable in the circumstances, but it is a gesture of frustration and rage that will make things worse, not better. Working-class whites do not believe that democracy can help them; in 2016, more than two-thirds of white working-class Americans believed that elections are controlled by the rich and by big corporations, so that it does not matter if they vote.”
They’re probably right. Even Tucker Carlson sees that the problem goes far beyond Trump. In his viral monologue last year, he said, “At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest of us will be gone, too. The country will remain. What kind of country will it be then? How do we want our grandchildren to live? These are the only questions that matter.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-29--What If Trump Decides to Save Republicans But Not Democrats?

It is shocking to see just how low the Trump Administration has brought American democracy in a few short years .
Holding aid to an ally to invent dirt on a Democratic opponent was alarming enough to force the hand of Democratic leaders to impeach the president , even though it was clear they didn ’ t actually want to .
And conservative policy has always been generally hostile to the lives , health , and voting rights of people it doesn ’ t consider part of the Republican coalition .
But the prospect of an American president using vital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor , keep his supporters alive and let his opponents die in the thousands is something unprecedented in all of American history .
And the Trump administration is rapidly approaching that point , if it has not done so already : Anecdotally , there are wide differences , and they do not appear to follow discernible political or geographic lines .
Democratic-leaning Massachusetts , which has had a serious outbreak in Boston , has received 17 percent of the protective gear it requested , according to state leaders .
Maine requested a half-million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — about 5 percent of what it sought .
The shipment delivered to Colorado — 49,000 N95 masks , 115,000 surgical masks and other supplies — would be “ enough for only one full day of statewide operations , ” Rep. Scott R. Tipton ( R-Colo. ) told the White House in a letter several days ago .
The Federal Emergency Management Agency inherited control of the stockpile barely a week ago from HHS .
Lizzie Litzow , a FEMA spokeswoman , acknowledged the agency maintains a spreadsheet tracking each state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requests to release the details , saying the numbers are in flux .
Florida has been an exception in its dealings with the stockpile : The state submitted a request on March 11 for 430,000 surgical masks , 180,000 N95 respirators , 82,000 face shields and 238,000 gloves , among other supplies — and received a shipment with everything three days later , according to figures from the state ’ s Division of Emergency Management .
It received an identical shipment on March 23 , according to the division , and is awaiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the reporters who worked hard on this story , the phrase “ they do not appear to follow discernible political or geographic lines ” seems comically wrong .
Massachusetts , Maine , and Colorado are blue states getting severely shafted .
Florida is a swing state that leans red , and it is getting everything it asks for and more .
If these figures are part of a larger pattern , it looks very much like political favor currying for some , and vindictive neglect for others .
It looks especially bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not-so-subtle extortion of Democratic governors to praise Trump more and take more of the blame themselves if they want their citizens to receive direly needed medical supplies from the same federal government that is outbidding them .
The president ’ s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani even went on Fox News to tell infuriated governors that they should “ Take the blame when you have to … when you play with your boss , sometimes it ’ s better when you don ’ t win the golf game .
He ’ s the boss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources.
” Right now , Republicans are less concerned about coronavirus than Democrats because the virus is mostly impacting urban areas so far .
Many Democrats have been expecting that once red states and rural areas start feeling the heat of the pandemic , the conservative movement and the White House will start to take matters more seriously and the ground will shift .
But what do we do if they only start taking it seriously on behalf of their constituents .
What if the White House simply gives all the masks and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaving blue ones to struggle ?
What mechanisms of accountability are left ?
U.S. democracy wasn ’ t set up to deal with a president openly behaving like a James Bond villain while being protected by a political party behaving more like a mafia than a civic institution .
There weren ’ t 67 Senators to convict after an impeachment .
If the president ’ s cabinet is aligned with such a plan , what recourse remains to people who live in places that the president doesn ’ t consider to be part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing is clear : It ’ s not just the American economy and healthcare that needs to be radically revamped once we get past this medical crisis and this kakistocratic maladministration .
We also need to look at re-envisioning our system of governance .
Its design flaws can not survive a political culture in which one side stops caring if the other lives or dies—and that sees democracy itself as a threat to its own long-term survival .

It is shocking to see just how low the Trump Administration has brought American democracy in a few short years. Holding aid to an ally to invent dirt on a Democratic opponent was alarming enough to force the hand of Democratic leaders to impeach the president, even though it was clear they didn’t actually want to. And conservative policy has always been generally hostile to the lives, health, and voting rights of people it doesn’t consider part of the Republican coalition.
But the prospect of an American president using vital resources in a pandemic to curry political favor, keep his supporters alive and let his opponents die in the thousands is something unprecedented in all of American history. And the Trump administration is rapidly approaching that point, if it has not done so already:
Anecdotally, there are wide differences, and they do not appear to follow discernible political or geographic lines. Democratic-leaning Massachusetts, which has had a serious outbreak in Boston, has received 17 percent of the protective gear it requested, according to state leaders. Maine requested a half-million N95 specialized protective masks and received 25,558 — about 5 percent of what it sought. The shipment delivered to Colorado — 49,000 N95 masks, 115,000 surgical masks and other supplies — would be “enough for only one full day of statewide operations,” Rep. Scott R. Tipton (R-Colo.) told the White House in a letter several days ago. The Federal Emergency Management Agency inherited control of the stockpile barely a week ago from HHS. Lizzie Litzow, a FEMA spokeswoman, acknowledged the agency maintains a spreadsheet tracking each state’s request and shipments. Litzow declined repeated requests to release the details, saying the numbers are in flux. Florida has been an exception in its dealings with the stockpile: The state submitted a request on March 11 for 430,000 surgical masks, 180,000 N95 respirators, 82,000 face shields and 238,000 gloves, among other supplies — and received a shipment with everything three days later, according to figures from the state’s Division of Emergency Management. It received an identical shipment on March 23, according to the division, and is awaiting a third.
With all due respect to the reporters who worked hard on this story, the phrase “they do not appear to follow discernible political or geographic lines” seems comically wrong. Massachusetts, Maine, and Colorado are blue states getting severely shafted. Florida is a swing state that leans red, and it is getting everything it asks for and more. If these figures are part of a larger pattern, it looks very much like political favor currying for some, and vindictive neglect for others.
It looks especially bad in light of the days-long campaign of not-so-subtle extortion of Democratic governors to praise Trump more and take more of the blame themselves if they want their citizens to receive direly needed medical supplies from the same federal government that is outbidding them. The president’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani even went on Fox News to tell infuriated governors that they should “Take the blame when you have to … when you play with your boss, sometimes it’s better when you don’t win the golf game. He’s the boss, he’s got all the resources.”
Right now, Republicans are less concerned about coronavirus than Democrats because the virus is mostly impacting urban areas so far. Many Democrats have been expecting that once red states and rural areas start feeling the heat of the pandemic, the conservative movement and the White House will start to take matters more seriously and the ground will shift.
But what do we do if they only start taking it seriously on behalf of their constituents. What if the White House simply gives all the masks and ventilators to red states and counties, leaving blue ones to struggle? What mechanisms of accountability are left?
U.S. democracy wasn’t set up to deal with a president openly behaving like a James Bond villain while being protected by a political party behaving more like a mafia than a civic institution. There weren’t 67 Senators to convict after an impeachment. If the president’s cabinet is aligned with such a plan, what recourse remains to people who live in places that the president doesn’t consider to be part of “his” America?
One thing is clear: It’s not just the American economy and healthcare that needs to be radically revamped once we get past this medical crisis and this kakistocratic maladministration. We also need to look at re-envisioning our system of governance. Its design flaws cannot survive a political culture in which one side stops caring if the other lives or dies—and that sees democracy itself as a threat to its own long-term survival.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-28--Is Trump Using Critical Medical Supplies to Blackmail Blue State Governors?

Americans have become so jaded by the emanations coming from our president that we can lose sight of just how depraved he is .
Each step goes a little frrther than the last , testing the bounds of decency and public tolerance .
Meanwhile , the political press gingerly moves toward using words and phrases it might never have dared about previous administrations , without going so far as to admit the whole truth for fear of overstepping its own boundaries .
Trump ’ s use of crucial medical supplies in a pandemic to cajole and punish governors who aren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only the latest , most jawdropping example .
Trump has been taking advantage of the power of federal procurement to try to enforce the silence of governors critical of his incompetent response to coronavirus : He has threatened to withhold essential equipment that will mean life or death for thousands of people in those states .
On March 25th at Vox , editors gave an Aaron Rupar piece the title “ Trump commits to helping blue states fight the coronavirus — if their governors are nice to him.
” True—but even this description @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A few days later Trump made it even more explicit , with specific reference to Gretchen Whitmer , governor of Michigan : Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer on Friday made a startling claim that medical supply vendors are “ being told ” to avoid sending badly needed gear to her state in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic .
During an interview with local station WWJ News Radio , Whitmer detailed how her state has had difficulty in securing supplies to help hospitals cope with the influx of COVID-19 patients .
“ What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vendors with whom we ’ ve procured contracts — they ’ re being told not to send stuff to Michigan , ” she said .
“ It ’ s really concerning , I reached out to the White House last night and asked for a phone call with the president.
” This is not an unsourced claim by the governor .
Trump readily admitted it : “ I don ’ t know if she knows what ’ s going on , but all she does is sit there and blame the federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a very important state , I love the people of Michigan … but she is a new governor who has not been pleasant , ” he said .
“ We don ’ t like to see the complaints , ” he added .
And he didn ’ t stop there .
“ He calls all the governors , ” Trump said .
“ I tell him , I mean , I ’ m a different type of person .
I say Mike , don ’ t call the governor of Washington , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
Don ’ t call the woman in Michigan.
” “ If they don ’ t treat you right , I don ’ t call , ” Trump said .
Michigan ’ s health department is reporting 3,657 COVID-19 cases and 92 deaths .
In Washington , there have been 3,700 cases , according to the state , and 175 deaths .
“ We have done a hell of a job , ” Trump said .
“ The federal government has really stepped up.
” Trump ’ s message to governors was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appreciative.
” Everyone in mainstream journalism has had to walk a fine line here .
The always excellent Greg Sargent at the Washington Post wrote a good piece saying as much as one could say as a responsible journalist : that Trump was tying aid to personal grievances , that he had said the things he had said .
Sargent also added : It ’ s true .
We don ’ t necessarily have direct evidence so far that Trump is actively withholding supplies from blue states .
But that ’ s only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him in spite of his negligence , likely because they still need serious help from the federal government during an unprecedented crisis .
In other words , Trump has enormous leverage over them .
Aaron Blake , also at Washington Post , put it this way : It ’ s clear that editors at major newspapers are doing their best to state precisely what there is evidence for without jumping to the obvious conclusion .
Still , writers and editors shouldn ’ t be afraid to call this exactly what it so obviously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president of the United States in a pandemic crisis , with the threat of killing thousands of Americans over a fit of political and personal pique .
It ’ s not as if we weren ’ t warned .
On twitter , Esquire ‘ s Charles Pierce highlighted this piece of argument from the impeachment inquiry by Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan : He got away with blackmailing a foreign ally in the middle of a war .
Why wouldn ’ t he do it to domestic governors he considers his political enemies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He almost certainly is .
It ’ s just that careful , responsible journalists won ’ t say it yet .

Americans have become so jaded by the emanations coming from our president that we can lose sight of just how depraved he is. Each step goes a little frrther than the last, testing the bounds of decency and public tolerance. Meanwhile, the political press gingerly moves toward using words and phrases it might never have dared about previous administrations, without going so far as to admit the whole truth for fear of overstepping its own boundaries.
Trump’s use of crucial medical supplies in a pandemic to cajole and punish governors who aren’t adequately nice to him is only the latest, most jawdropping example. Trump has been taking advantage of the power of federal procurement to try to enforce the silence of governors critical of his incompetent response to coronavirus: He has threatened to withhold essential equipment that will mean life or death for thousands of people in those states.
On March 25th at Vox, editors gave an Aaron Rupar piece the title “Trump commits to helping blue states fight the coronavirus — if their governors are nice to him.” True—but even this description undersells the outrage of the situation.
A few days later Trump made it even more explicit, with specific reference to Gretchen Whitmer, governor of Michigan:
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer on Friday made a startling claim that medical supply vendors are “being told” to avoid sending badly needed gear to her state in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic. During an interview with local station WWJ News Radio, Whitmer detailed how her state has had difficulty in securing supplies to help hospitals cope with the influx of COVID-19 patients. “What I’ve gotten back is that vendors with whom we’ve procured contracts — they’re being told not to send stuff to Michigan,” she said. “It’s really concerning, I reached out to the White House last night and asked for a phone call with the president.”
This is not an unsourced claim by the governor. Trump readily admitted it:
“I don’t know if she knows what’s going on, but all she does is sit there and blame the federal government,” Trump said. “Michigan is a very important state, I love the people of Michigan … but she is a new governor who has not been pleasant,” he said. “We don’t like to see the complaints,” he added.
And he didn’t stop there.
“He calls all the governors,” Trump said. “I tell him, I mean, I’m a different type of person. I say Mike, don’t call the governor of Washington, you’re wasting your time with him. Don’t call the woman in Michigan.” “If they don’t treat you right, I don’t call,” Trump said. Michigan’s health department is reporting 3,657 COVID-19 cases and 92 deaths. In Washington, there have been 3,700 cases, according to the state, and 175 deaths. “We have done a hell of a job,” Trump said. “The federal government has really stepped up.” Trump’s message to governors was that he wants “them to be appreciative.”
Everyone in mainstream journalism has had to walk a fine line here. The always excellent Greg Sargent at the Washington Post wrote a good piece saying as much as one could say as a responsible journalist: that Trump was tying aid to personal grievances, that he had said the things he had said. Sargent also added:
As the AP notes, there is no evidence this has directly influenced Trump’s treatment of states. Still, the very idea that he’d be preoccupied with it at a moment like this is utter madness. And beyond his rage at being criticized, the possibility simply cannot be dismissed that Trump sees his explicit hand-washing of responsibility for the mounting death toll in certain parts of the country as something that will appeal to parts of the country that he perceives as his own.
It’s true. We don’t necessarily have direct evidence so far that Trump is actively withholding supplies from blue states. But that’s only because governors have been insufficiently groveling before him in spite of his negligence, likely because they still need serious help from the federal government during an unprecedented crisis. In other words, Trump has enormous leverage over them.
Aaron Blake, also at Washington Post, put it this way:
President Trump is a commander in chief dealing with a coronavirus outbreak in which many difficult decisions have to be made. And on Friday, he seemed to suggest some of those decisions could be made according to who has run afoul of him personally. Appearing at the daily White House briefing, Trump disclosed that he has told Vice President Pence, who is leading the coronavirus task force, not to call the governors of Michigan and Washington state because those governors had been critical of Trump and the federal response. “When they’re not appreciative to me, they’re not appreciative to the Army Corps, they’re not appreciative to FEMA, it’s not right,” Trump said.
It’s clear that editors at major newspapers are doing their best to state precisely what there is evidence for without jumping to the obvious conclusion.
Still, writers and editors shouldn’t be afraid to call this exactly what it so obviously seems to be: blackmail by the president of the United States in a pandemic crisis, with the threat of killing thousands of Americans over a fit of political and personal pique.
It’s not as if we weren’t warned. On twitter, Esquire‘s Charles Pierce highlighted this piece of argument from the impeachment inquiry by Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan:
“What would you think if, when your governor asked the federal government for the disaster assistance that Congress has provided, the President responded, ‘I would like you to do us a favor.’ I’ll… send the disaster relief once you brand my opponent a criminal.”
He got away with blackmailing a foreign ally in the middle of a war. Why wouldn’t he do it to domestic governors he considers his political enemies in the middle of a pandemic?
He almost certainly is. It’s just that careful, responsible journalists won’t say it yet.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-27--Dealing With an Unfit President During a Time of Crisis

One of the first articles I read about Donald Trump ’ s mental health issues was written by Richard Greene .
He talked to several psychiatrists about the signs and symptoms related to Narcissistic Personality Disorder ( NPD ) .
One description stuck with me .
There are only two ways to deal with someone with NPD , and they are both dangerous .
There is no healthy way of interacting with someone with this affliction .
If you criticize them they will lash out at you and if they have a great deal of power , that can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only acts to increase the delusional and grandiose reality the sufferer has created , causing him to be even more reliant on constant and endless compliments and unwavering support .
That is a classic double-bind that we have witnessed both U.S. and foreign leaders attempt to navigate with Trump over the last three years .
But as Kathleen Ronayne and Jonathan Lamire report , it is particularly acute right now for the nation ’ s governors .
Their piece is titled , “ Flatter or fight .
Governors seeking help must navigate Trump.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , governors are trying to get what they need from Washington , and fast .
But that means navigating the disorienting politics of dealing with Trump , an unpredictable president with a love for cable news and a penchant for retribution .
Republicans and Democrats alike are testing whether to fight or flatter , whether to back channel requests or go public , all in an attempt to get Trump ’ s attention and his assurances .
At stake may be access to masks , ventilators and other personal protective gear critically needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as field hospitals and federal cash .
As Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer , D-Mich. , put it , “ I can ’ t afford to have a fight with the White House.
” That is actually putting in mildly .
Trump isn ’ t really all that unpredictable .
He made the stakes known during a Fox News town hall on Tuesday when he said , “ We are doing very well with , I think , almost all of the governors , for the most part .
But you know , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to treat us well.
” We all know that when Trump says “ us , ” he really means “ me.
” So with lives and livelihoods on the line , the nation ’ s governors are being sent the same message Trump relayed to the president of Ukraine : “ Do me a favor.
” California ’ s Governor Gavin Newsome learned about that the hard way .
Newsom complimented Trump for “ his focus on treatments ” for the virus and thanked him for sending masks and gloves to California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on top of it ” when it came to improving testing and said Trump was aware “ even before I offered my own insight ” of the state ’ s need for more testing swabs .
It ’ s an approach informed by Newsom ’ s past dealing with Trump during devastating wildfires .
While Trump always has approved California ’ s requests for disaster declaration following fires , just days into Newsom ’ s tenure last year Trump threatened the state ’ s access to disaster relief money .
Meanwhile , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Inslee and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer for not being sufficiently deferential .
That is what happens when we have a president who is “ erratic , impulsive , narcissistic , vindictive , cruel , mendacious , and devoid of empathy.
” We ’ ll never know how the coronavirus crisis might have played out under a different president because there is no parallel universe ( at least that we know about ) where we can watch that possibility unfold .
But something Peter Wehner wrote recently tapped into a new emotional response from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of moments of fear and anger , but this description finally triggered my grief .
The qualities we most need in a president during this crisis are calmness , wisdom , and reassurance ; a command of the facts and the ability to communicate them well ; and the capacity to think about the medium and long term while carefully weighing competing options and conflicting needs .
We need a leader…who can focus like a laser beam on a problem for a sustained period of time , and who will listen to—and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far more than he does .
We need a president who…excels at the intricate work of governing , and who works well with elected officials at every level .
We need a chief executive whose judgment is not just sound , but exceptional .
There are some 325 million people in America , and it ’ s hard to think of more than a handful who are more lacking in these qualities than Donald Trump .
Not long after the 2016 election , I wrote a piece titled , “ The Most Dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unknown.
” The truth is that what worries me the most about a Trump presidency is the unknown… During political campaigns , the tendency is to talk about what a candidate will do in office .
That ranges all the way from particular policy positions to the visionary elements contained in their campaign slogans… It is the moment when the unknown happens during the next four years that Trump ’ s character will be on display the most .
That is why it is the part of his presidency that worries me the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the willingness of congressional Republicans to tolerate his actions have been devastating to our country , we were less than a year from a potential end to this madness when the unknown was unleashed in all its force .
I grieve for what might have been if we had been able to face that unknown led by a president with even a modicum of competence .
No matter whether your current response to what is happening in our country is dominated by fear , anger , or grief , please keep in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Most of them are not only battling this crisis on the front lines , they ’ re having to do so while maneuvering the machinations of a president like Donald Trump .
I ’ m guessing that for the competent ones , that requires a herculean effort .

One of the first articles I read about Donald Trump’s mental health issues was written by Richard Greene. He talked to several psychiatrists about the signs and symptoms related to Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). One description stuck with me.
There are only two ways to deal with someone with NPD, and they are both dangerous. There is no healthy way of interacting with someone with this affliction. If you criticize them they will lash out at you and if they have a great deal of power, that can be consequential. If you compliment them it only acts to increase the delusional and grandiose reality the sufferer has created, causing him to be even more reliant on constant and endless compliments and unwavering support.
That is a classic double-bind that we have witnessed both U.S. and foreign leaders attempt to navigate with Trump over the last three years. But as Kathleen Ronayne and Jonathan Lamire report, it is particularly acute right now for the nation’s governors. Their piece is titled, “Flatter or fight. Governors seeking help must navigate Trump.”
Facing an unprecedented public health crisis, governors are trying to get what they need from Washington, and fast. But that means navigating the disorienting politics of dealing with Trump, an unpredictable president with a love for cable news and a penchant for retribution. Republicans and Democrats alike are testing whether to fight or flatter, whether to back channel requests or go public, all in an attempt to get Trump’s attention and his assurances. At stake may be access to masks, ventilators and other personal protective gear critically needed by health care workers, as well as field hospitals and federal cash. As Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, D-Mich., put it, “I can’t afford to have a fight with the White House.”
That is actually putting in mildly. Trump isn’t really all that unpredictable. He made the stakes known during a Fox News town hall on Tuesday when he said, “We are doing very well with, I think, almost all of the governors, for the most part. But you know, it’s a two-way street. They have to treat us well.” We all know that when Trump says “us,” he really means “me.”
So with lives and livelihoods on the line, the nation’s governors are being sent the same message Trump relayed to the president of Ukraine: “Do us me a favor.” California’s Governor Gavin Newsome learned about that the hard way.
Newsom complimented Trump for “his focus on treatments” for the virus and thanked him for sending masks and gloves to California. He said the president was “on top of it” when it came to improving testing and said Trump was aware “even before I offered my own insight” of the state’s need for more testing swabs. It’s an approach informed by Newsom’s past dealing with Trump during devastating wildfires. While Trump always has approved California’s requests for disaster declaration following fires, just days into Newsom’s tenure last year Trump threatened the state’s access to disaster relief money.
Meanwhile, the president continues to criticize Washington Governor Jay Inslee and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer for not being sufficiently deferential.
In an interview Thursday night on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity,” Trump groused, “Some of these governors take, take, take and then they complain.” Of Whitmer, he said, “All she does is sit there and blame the federal government.” And he said Inslee “should be doing more,” adding, “He’s always complaining.”
That is what happens when we have a president who is “erratic, impulsive, narcissistic, vindictive, cruel, mendacious, and devoid of empathy.”
We’ll never know how the coronavirus crisis might have played out under a different president because there is no parallel universe (at least that we know about) where we can watch that possibility unfold. But something Peter Wehner wrote recently tapped into a new emotional response from me. I’ve had lots of moments of fear and anger, but this description finally triggered my grief.
The qualities we most need in a president during this crisis are calmness, wisdom, and reassurance; a command of the facts and the ability to communicate them well; and the capacity to think about the medium and long term while carefully weighing competing options and conflicting needs. We need a leader…who can focus like a laser beam on a problem for a sustained period of time, and who will listen to—and, when necessary, defer to—experts who know far more than he does. We need a president who…excels at the intricate work of governing, and who works well with elected officials at every level. We need a chief executive whose judgment is not just sound, but exceptional. There are some 325 million people in America, and it’s hard to think of more than a handful who are more lacking in these qualities than Donald Trump.
Not long after the 2016 election, I wrote a piece titled, “The Most Dangerous Part of a Trump Presidency: The Unknown.”
The truth is that what worries me the most about a Trump presidency is the unknown… During political campaigns, the tendency is to talk about what a candidate will do in office. That ranges all the way from particular policy positions to the visionary elements contained in their campaign slogans… It is the moment when the unknown happens during the next four years that Trump’s character will be on display the most. That is why it is the part of his presidency that worries me the most.
While Trump’s presidency and the willingness of congressional Republicans to tolerate his actions have been devastating to our country, we were less than a year from a potential end to this madness when the unknown was unleashed in all its force. I grieve for what might have been if we had been able to face that unknown led by a president with even a modicum of competence.
No matter whether your current response to what is happening in our country is dominated by fear, anger, or grief, please keep in mind that our governors need our support. Most of them are not only battling this crisis on the front lines, they’re having to do so while maneuvering the machinations of a president like Donald Trump. I’m guessing that for the competent ones, that requires a herculean effort.