washingtonmonthly--2020-06-10--What’s the Biden Doctrine?

What’s the Biden Doctrine?

Joe Biden ’ s fans like to emphasize his decades of foreign policy experience ; he ’ s served as both the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as vice president .
His critics like to point out that , despite that experience , he ’ s been dead wrong on almost every key national security decisions of the past thirty years , from opposing the first Gulf War and supporting the Iraq war , to advising against President Barack Obama ’ s raid to take out Osama bin Laden .
To be fair , Biden has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need for America to advocate for human rights , strengthen international alliances , and advance arms control , especially with Russia .
Still , the essential question now is whether a 78-year old President Biden would be up to transforming the nature of American foreign policy , or would he serve more as a mere placeholder to restore normalcy and pave the way , as he likes to say , for the next generation of leadership .
In short , what would be the Biden Doctrine ?
While it ’ s easy to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the current president , it ’ s hard to imagine him taking a radically different approach from past Democratic presidents Obama and Clinton .
And though there are plenty of calls for “ new ideas , ” especially from the more progressive wing of party , it ’ s very hard to find any .
Fifty liberal and progressive organizations , for example , have sent a letter to Biden calling for reducing military spending , opposing foreign intervention , and curtailing support for Saudi Arabia , Israel , Egypt , and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren has called for an end to the “ forever wars ” and for strengthening the State Department .
But in terms of a new foreign policy framework , these are discrete proposals which , while worthy , display little in the way of vision and originality .
It ’ s unclear whether the scarcity of visionary thinking is due to what University of Washington professor of foreign policy Daniel Bessner described to me as an “ institutional and intellectual inertia ” or to Trump sucking the oxygen out of foreign policy thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The left needs a foreign-policy vision of its own , and comprehensive plans for making that vision a reality , ” Bessner said .
Clearly , it will take at least four years to even begin to repair the damage Donald Trump has wrought on America ’ s national security and global standing .
On the pandemic alone , he has abandoned U.S. leadership roles in the G-7 and G-20 groups of leading industrialized nations ; kept the country out of a global vaccine summit ; and has ordered an end to U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even as we ’ ve surpassed the 100,000 threshold of Americans who have fallen to COVID-19 .
What ’ s more , his needless dissing of friends and allies , waging a dangerous trade war with China , pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal , and making the United States vulnerable to Russian meddling are just a few of the actions he has taken to endanger our security .
Reversing the damage will need to be done before any new grand strategies can be launched .
At the same time , new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to navigate a rapidly changing world .
Twenty years into this century , we ’ re still running on the intellectual fumes from the previous one and lack a real vision for a multipolar , post-pandemic future .
Biden ’ s articulated foreign policy platform checks all the right boxes : a vaguely defined internationalist agenda that would entail strengthening alliances , restoring the Unites States ’ s moral leadership , and rebuilding the State Department .
What ’ s missing is a comprehensive plan for redefining America ’ s place in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach to managing American foreign policy will be necessary , just as it was for Harry Truman , who drew on diplomat George Kennan ’ s containment concept to build a new post-WWII foreign policy strategy and architecture with the National Security Act of 1947 .
Truman relied on Secretaries of State Dean Acheson and George Marshall for big ideas ; Richard Nixon had Secretary of State Henry Kissinger ; Jimmy Carter had National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski ; Ronald Reagan had Heritage Foundation scholars .
Who has Biden ’ s ear ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama and Clinton officials , some congressional staffers and prominent academics .
The average age of his top advisers is 62 , according to POLITICO ’ s Ryan Lizza .
How much fresh , innovative thinking can one expect from a commander in chief who is pushing 80 and who relies on advice from a cohort that qualifies for social security benefits ?
A budding group of millennial thinkers chafe at what they see as a glass ceiling keeping them and their ideas from entering the corridors of power .
“ There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are hindering young leaders , ” Bessner told me .
He expects that , once the Boomer generation passes from the scene , there will be quick shifts in the political discourse , focusing on putting interventionism in the past , and stepping up multilateralism and power-sharing as key elements in America ’ s national security doctrine .
“ The coronavirus crisis is an opportunity to finally move past the post-WWII era , ” said Bessner , himself a millennial .
Biden , on the other hand , strikes him as “ very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a world of great power conflict , ” an anachronism .
A Boomer academic agrees .
Stuart Brown , a specialist in American foreign policy at Syracuse University , told me he sees Biden as “ a transitory figure who has never had a good instinct on foreign policy and has never been a visionary.
” The problem , Brown stressed , is that “ we can not resurrect Obama on foreign policy.
” In other words , Biden will need to develop a new model of American national security .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would only serve one term .
Assuming , then , that he would be a single-term president , who would essentially right the ship , he could prepare a younger generation of leaders for how to meet the challenges of a new era while also coming to grips with the constraints of American leadership—as Obama painfully learned himself .
That may not shake the left ’ s foreign policy thinking up right away , but it could ultimately lead to a new dawn .
The Brookings Institution ’ s Thomas Wright believes Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be revolutionary , but if the 2021 Democrats have their way , it may bring about a quiet reformation.
” Perhaps .
There will be growing pressure from younger , progressive leaders in Congress , like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others , who will want more than a return to a pre-Trump status quo .
They will want serious , substantial change .
It ’ s time for Biden to articulate what that would really mean .
If he ’ s up to it .

Joe Biden’s fans like to emphasize his decades of foreign policy experience; he’s served as both the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as vice president. His critics like to point out that, despite that experience, he’s been dead wrong on almost every key national security decision of the past thirty years, from opposing the first Gulf War and supporting the Iraq war, to advising against President Barack Obama’s raid to take out Osama bin Laden.
To be fair, Biden has been right on some issues, notably the need for America to advocate for human rights, strengthen international alliances, and advance arms control, especially with Russia. Still, the essential question now is whether a 78-year old President Biden would be up to transforming the nature of American foreign policy, or would he serve more as a mere placeholder to restore normalcy and pave the way, as he likes to say, for the next generation of leadership. In short, what would be the Biden Doctrine?
While it’s easy to see Biden marking a dramatic departure from the current president, it’s hard to imagine him taking a radically different approach from past Democratic presidents Obama and Clinton. And though there are plenty of calls for “new ideas,” especially from the more progressive wing of party, it’s very hard to find any.
Fifty liberal and progressive organizations, for example, have sent a letter to Biden calling for reducing military spending, opposing foreign intervention, and curtailing support for Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, and other governments that violate human rights. Elizabeth Warren has called for an end to the “forever wars” and for strengthening the State Department. But in terms of a new foreign policy framework, these are discrete proposals which, while worthy, display little in the way of vision and originality.
It’s unclear whether the scarcity of visionary thinking is due to what University of Washington professor of foreign policy Daniel Bessner described to me as an “institutional and intellectual inertia” or to Trump sucking the oxygen out of foreign policy thinking with his hysterics and histrionics. “The left needs a foreign-policy vision of its own, and comprehensive plans for making that vision a reality,” Bessner said.
Clearly, it will take at least four years to even begin to repair the damage Donald Trump has wrought on America’s national security and global standing. On the pandemic alone, he has abandoned U.S. leadership roles in the G-7 and G-20 groups of leading industrialized nations; kept the country out of a global vaccine summit; and has ordered an end to U.S. funding for the World Health Organization, even as we’ve surpassed the 100,000 threshold of Americans who have fallen to COVID-19.
What’s more, his needless dissing of friends and allies, waging a dangerous trade war with China, pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal, and making the United States vulnerable to Russian meddling are just a few of the actions he has taken to endanger our security. Reversing the damage will need to be done before any new grand strategies can be launched.
At the same time, new leadership will require a new vision for how to navigate a rapidly changing world. Twenty years into this century, we’re still running on the intellectual fumes from the previous one and lack a real vision for a multipolar, post-pandemic future.
Biden’s articulated foreign policy platform checks all the right boxes: a vaguely defined internationalist agenda that would entail strengthening alliances, restoring the Unites States’s moral leadership, and rebuilding the State Department. What’s missing is a comprehensive plan for redefining America’s place in the world.
A smart and effective approach to managing American foreign policy will be necessary, just as it was for Harry Truman, who drew on diplomat George Kennan’s containment concept to build a new post-WWII foreign policy strategy and architecture with the National Security Act of 1947.
Truman relied on Secretaries of State Dean Acheson and George Marshall for big ideas; Richard Nixon had Secretary of State Henry Kissinger; Jimmy Carter had National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski; Ronald Reagan had Heritage Foundation scholars.
Who has Biden’s ear? Mostly, a loose group of former Obama and Clinton officials, some congressional staffers and prominent academics. The average age of his top advisers is 62, according to POLITICO’s Ryan Lizza. How much fresh, innovative thinking can one expect from a commander in chief who is pushing 80 and who relies on advice from a cohort that qualifies for social security benefits?
A budding group of millennial thinkers chafe at what they see as a glass ceiling keeping them and their ideas from entering the corridors of power. “There are structural impediments in the Democratic Party that are hindering young leaders,” Bessner told me. He expects that, once the Boomer generation passes from the scene, there will be quick shifts in the political discourse, focusing on putting interventionism in the past, and stepping up multilateralism and power-sharing as key elements in America’s national security doctrine.
“The coronavirus crisis is an opportunity to finally move past the post-WWII era,” said Bessner, himself a millennial. Biden, on the other hand, strikes him as “very much a creature of the Cold War, a world of great power conflict,” an anachronism.
A Boomer academic agrees. Stuart Brown, a specialist in American foreign policy at Syracuse University, told me he sees Biden as “a transitory figure who has never had a good instinct on foreign policy and has never been a visionary.” The problem, Brown stressed, is that “we cannot resurrect Obama on foreign policy.” In other words, Biden will need to develop a new model of American national security.
The former Delaware senator has already signaled he would only serve one term. Assuming, then, that he would be a single-term president, who would essentially right the ship, he could prepare a younger generation of leaders for how to meet the challenges of a new era while also coming to grips with the constraints of American leadership—as Obama painfully learned himself.
That may not shake the left’s foreign policy thinking up right away, but it could ultimately lead to a new dawn. The Brookings Institution’s Thomas Wright believes Biden’s foreign policy “certainly will not be revolutionary, but if the 2021 Democrats have their way, it may bring about a quiet reformation.”
Perhaps. There will be growing pressure from younger, progressive leaders in Congress, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others, who will want more than a return to a pre-Trump status quo. They will want serious, substantial change. It’s time for Biden to articulate what that would really mean. If he’s up to it.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-10--What Republicans Really Mean When They Talk About “Law and Order”

It is worth remembering what Donald Trump said about law enforcement during his speech at the 2016 Republican convention .
An attack on law enforcement is an attack on all Americans .
I have a message to every last person threatening the peace on our streets and the safety of our police : when I take the oath of office next year , I will restore law and order our country .
I will work with , and appoint , the best prosecutors and law enforcement officials in the country to get the job done .
In this race for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Law And Order candidate .
For a party that vacillated between being post-truth and post-policy , the mantra of “ law and order ” has always served as a dog whistle to the racists in their ranks , which effectively rallied the troops when Trump promised to crack down on “ those people.
” The president is now deluding himself about garnering support from people of color by planning to give a speech on race relations in America .
But reports suggest that his favorite white supremacist—Stephen Miller—will write the speech .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Meanwhile , Trump demonstrated that he bought into one of the most despicable conspiracy theories developed by right wingers when he tweeted that the 75-year-old protester who was shoved by law enforcement and left bleeding on the pavement was actually a set-up by an antifa provocateur .
When asked to comment on that tweet , Republican senators once again took a walk of shame—with most claiming that they never saw it .
At the Bulwark , Tim Miller let loose on his conservative colleagues .
These senators have ensconced themselves in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrating basic decency is not only required to survive politically but is an actual moral requirement .
In their minds anyone who tries to burst this bubble is unsophisticated at best and a big old meany at worst .
Okay , that last part ’ s not true .
At worst , anyone asking Republican senators what they think about the Republican president ’ s tweets is in league with Antifa and is asking for a beating from some Albany cops .
To be honest , you might even be Antifa just for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , some of us got whiplash when Senator Tom Cotton—who just published an article calling for the military to use force to put down protesters—said this .
What the hell is happening ?
Could it be because polls now show that huge majorities of the country , including whites , believe that policing must change ?
That has sent the party that has always relied on the “ law and order ” dog whistle scrambling .
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has turned the problem over to the one token black man among Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are still wrestling with America ’ s original sin , ” Mr. McConnell told reporters on Capitol Hill .
“ We try to get better , but every now and then , it is perfectly clear we are a long way from the finish line .
And I think the best way for Senate Republicans to go forward on this is to listen to one of our own who has had these experiences.
” He said that he had tasked the Republicans ’ lone black member , Tim Scott of South Carolina , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ draft a conservative response that they could get behind .
Here is what Scott is proposing .
Like the Democrats ’ bill , Mr. Scott ’ s would make lynching a federal hate crime , allocate new funds to promote the use of police body cameras and potentially penalize those who do not use them , set up a national police commission study to determine the national best practices for policing and push law enforcement agencies to report more data on the use of force by officers .
But there were key differences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative philosophy that states and cities should have control over their forces .
Mr. Scott said the Democrats ’ legislation bordered on “ a nationalization of some of the underlying issues or techniques ” that he would reject .
And he said that while he shared the goal of outlawing techniques like chokeholds and “ no knock ” warrants in drug cases , he preferred collecting data to better understand their use to Democrats ’ proposed ban .
The first problem McConnell and Scott will face is that any bill will require a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeatedly tweeting the words “ law and order.
” Heading in to the November election , Trump is also the guy who wanted to continue to use fear-mongering attacks like this against his opponent .
The proposal put forward by Senator Scott gives us a clue about the strategy congressional Republicans will use to defuse the moment and do nothing .
He is calling for a national police commission to study the issue .
Here is what a group of police chiefs recently wrote about that .
The problem is not that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We have one .
The problem is that we have not successfully followed the one we have .
Amid public outcry and violent unrest in 2014 and 2015 , President Barack Obama convened what would come to be called the President ’ s Task Force on 21st Century Policing .
The 11-member task force included civil rights attorneys , community activists , academics and police professionals who came together to develop specific recommendations and concrete steps for improving law enforcement and the relationship between the police and the community .
The task @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2015 outlined specific improvements that can make policing more just , safe , effective and constitutional — and work better for everyone .
In other words , “ been there…done that.
” Calling for yet another commission on police reform is nothing more than a stalling tactic that pushes any actual change out into the future , when Republicans hope that everyone has forgotten the events of the last two weeks .
When it comes to federal remedies , that is the bad news .
On this issue , Republicans have returned to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care about what is important to the American people , but does nothing to address their concerns .
However , these are the images that will last .
What we all witnessed was that the response of law enforcement to protests against police brutality was to engage in police brutality .
They then attempted to claim that they were the ones being victimized .
That was a demonstration of what Republicans mean when they talk about law and order , as Ezra Klein noted .
Over and over again , this idea of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behalf of the state .
The people advocating for that approach hide behind the fact that , for many people , it doesn ’ t look like lawlessness as long as the state is doing it .
It doesn ’ t appear the same way as an anarchist in a black face mask throwing a brick .
But when you look at those videos of cops just casually turning rubber bullets on people who are filming them , who are posing no threat to them — that ’ s just a crime .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk about “ law and order , ” they mean that the cops become lawless , leading to more disorder .
The days when that slogan can be used as a winning political message are over .

It is worth remembering what Donald Trump said about law enforcement during his speech at the 2016 Republican convention.
An attack on law enforcement is an attack on all Americans. I have a message to every last person threatening the peace on our streets and the safety of our police: when I take the oath of office next year, I will restore law and order our country. I will work with, and appoint, the best prosecutors and law enforcement officials in the country to get the job done. In this race for the White House, I am the Law And Order candidate.
For a party that vacillated between being post-truth and post-policy, the mantra of “law and order” has always served as a dog whistle to the racists in their ranks, which effectively rallied the troops when Trump promised to crack down on “those people.”
The president is now deluding himself about garnering support from people of color by planning to give a speech on race relations in America. But reports suggest that his favorite white supremacist—Stephen Miller—will write the speech. That is most likely a recipe for disaster.
Meanwhile, Trump demonstrated that he bought into one of the most despicable conspiracy theories developed by right wingers when he tweeted that the 75-year-old protester who was shoved by law enforcement and left bleeding on the pavement was actually a set-up by an antifa provocateur. When asked to comment on that tweet, Republican senators once again took a walk of shame—with most claiming that they never saw it. At the Bulwark, Tim Miller let loose on his conservative colleagues.
These senators have ensconced themselves in a bubble where telling absurd lies rather than demonstrating basic decency is not only required to survive politically but is an actual moral requirement. In their minds anyone who tries to burst this bubble is unsophisticated at best and a big old meany at worst. Okay, that last part’s not true. At worst, anyone asking Republican senators what they think about the Republican president’s tweets is in league with Antifa and is asking for a beating from some Albany cops. To be honest, you might even be Antifa just for reading this.
On the other hand, some of us got whiplash when Senator Tom Cotton—who just published an article calling for the military to use force to put down protesters—said this.
What the hell is happening? Could it be because polls now show that huge majorities of the country, including whites, believe that policing must change?
“In every survey, you see intensity, determination and unity among African-Americans that the time for statements is done and the time for meaningful, measurable action is now,” said Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster and messaging consultant. “The turning point is among white respondents, who not only acknowledge that injustice has happened, but now also agree that action, not words, are necessary.”
That has sent the party that has always relied on the “law and order” dog whistle scrambling. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has turned the problem over to the one token black man among Republican senators, Tim Scott.
“We are still wrestling with America’s original sin,” Mr. McConnell told reporters on Capitol Hill. “We try to get better, but every now and then, it is perfectly clear we are a long way from the finish line. And I think the best way for Senate Republicans to go forward on this is to listen to one of our own who has had these experiences.” He said that he had tasked the Republicans’ lone black member, Tim Scott of South Carolina, to lead a group of senators to draft a conservative response that they could get behind.
Here is what Scott is proposing.
Like the Democrats’ bill, Mr. Scott’s would make lynching a federal hate crime, allocate new funds to promote the use of police body cameras and potentially penalize those who do not use them, set up a national police commission study to determine the national best practices for policing and push law enforcement agencies to report more data on the use of force by officers. But there were key differences as well, in line with a conservative philosophy that states and cities should have control over their forces. Mr. Scott said the Democrats’ legislation bordered on “a nationalization of some of the underlying issues or techniques” that he would reject. And he said that while he shared the goal of outlawing techniques like chokeholds and “no knock” warrants in drug cases, he preferred collecting data to better understand their use to Democrats’ proposed ban.
The first problem McConnell and Scott will face is that any bill will require a signature from the president who has been repeatedly tweeting the words “law and order.” Heading in to the November election, Trump is also the guy who wanted to continue to use fear-mongering attacks like this against his opponent.
The proposal put forward by Senator Scott gives us a clue about the strategy congressional Republicans will use to defuse the moment and do nothing. He is calling for a national police commission to study the issue. Here is what a group of police chiefs recently wrote about that.
The problem is not that we lack a playbook for fixing the police. We have one. The problem is that we have not successfully followed the one we have. Amid public outcry and violent unrest in 2014 and 2015, President Barack Obama convened what would come to be called the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. The 11-member task force included civil rights attorneys, community activists, academics and police professionals who came together to develop specific recommendations and concrete steps for improving law enforcement and the relationship between the police and the community. The task force’s final report in May 2015 outlined specific improvements that can make policing more just, safe, effective and constitutional — and work better for everyone.
In other words, “been there…done that.” Calling for yet another commission on police reform is nothing more than a stalling tactic that pushes any actual change out into the future, when Republicans hope that everyone has forgotten the events of the last two weeks.
When it comes to federal remedies, that is the bad news. On this issue, Republicans have returned to being the post-truth party that pretends to care about what is important to the American people, but does nothing to address their concerns. However, these are the images that will last.
What we all witnessed was that the response of law enforcement to protests against police brutality was to engage in police brutality. They then attempted to claim that they were the ones being victimized. That was a demonstration of what Republicans mean when they talk about law and order, as Ezra Klein noted.
Over and over again, this idea of order is used to justify lawlessness on behalf of the state. The people advocating for that approach hide behind the fact that, for many people, it doesn’t look like lawlessness as long as the state is doing it. It doesn’t appear the same way as an anarchist in a black face mask throwing a brick. But when you look at those videos of cops just casually turning rubber bullets on people who are filming them, who are posing no threat to them — that’s just a crime.
The American people saw that when Republicans talk about “law and order,” they mean that the cops become lawless, leading to more disorder. The days when that slogan can be used as a winning political message are over.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-10--Why a GOP Convention in Jacksonville Could Be a Disaster

Annie Linskey and Josh Dawsey of the Washington Post report that “ Republicans have tentatively settled on Jacksonville , Florida , as the new destination for the premier festivities of the Republican National Convention in August.
” I wrote about this controversy last week , calling it a debacle in the making .
The Republican Party is contractually obligated to hold its national convention in Charlotte , North Carolina , but Democratic Governor Roy Cooper would not guarantee that state health restrictions could be lifted for the Aug. 24-27 event .
The solution , then , was to keep the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense by holding all the regular business meetings there , but to find an alternative location for the speeches and pageantry .
Linskey and Dawsey do a concise job of explaining : The highly unusual decision to seek an alternative location for the convention ’ s marquee events — including speeches by President Trump and others — stems from Trump ’ s desire to accept his party ’ s nomination before an enormous crowd… …The president was dissatisfied with North Carolina ’ s position , given his desire to address a large , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want to be sitting in a place that ’ s 50 percent empty , ” Trump told Gov .
Roy Cooper ( D ) late last month in a phone conversation about the convention… “ We can ’ t do social distancing , ” Trump said on the call .
Cooper pushed back , asking Trump whether that wasn ’ t a risk to the health of the convention ’ s attendees , who could number close to 20,000 .
The president responded that he was not worried about an outbreak at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the coronavirus is on those who are older or have underlying conditions .
It ’ s appalling that Trump does not care about the health of his delegates , many of whom are elderly and many of whom must have at least some underlying condition like asthma , high blood pressure or Type A blood that puts them at higher risk .
It could be that a lot of the delegates simply won ’ t come to a convention , especially one where social distancing isn ’ t practiced .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side .
In May , the New York Times interviewed 59 members of the Democratic National Committee and superdelegates and found “ the vast majority of them don ’ t want to risk their own health or the health of others by traveling to Milwaukee and congregating inside the convention facilities.
” Even if the Republicans are more heedless of the risks as a group , I ’ m sure they ’ d appreciate it if at least some precautions are taken for their safety .
So , the first thing is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help Trump get the packed house visuals he demands for his convention .
As I predicted , hotel rooms could also be a problem , Jacksonville had the capacity to hold a Super Bowl back in 2005 , so they should be able to pull off the Republican National Convention .
Yet , it ’ s awfully late in the game to be trying to lock down most of the hotel rooms in Jacksonville for four straight days at the end of summer , and this seems to be one of the snags @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announcement .
If they iron out the accommodations issue , there ’ s still a scheduling problem .
People can ’ t simultaneously be in Charlotte holding a meeting on the Republican platform and in Jacksonville listening to Mike Pence or Melania Trump give a speech .
Trump might have to hire “ extras ” to fill the gaps .
I don ’ t think Trump has thought this through .
He could wind up creating a public relations nightmare and a huge schism in his own party rather than getting a normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not unlikely that voters in both North Carolina and Florida will be angry , either for being jilted or for having their health put at risk .
As for the delegates , the Congressional Research Service says that the average age of a House member in the 116th Congress is 57.6 and the average age of a senator is 62.9 .
How many of the these folks are going to stay home for their own protection ?
And what do they think of Trump telling Gov .
Cooper that he doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll be affected ?
Finally , Jacksonville will have to relax it ’ s own health regulations .
Obviously , a prerequisite of the deal is that the city gives assurances that social distancing won ’ t be required , but objectively there isn ’ t much rationale for this .
Florida is currently getting more than 1,000 new cases of COVID-19 a day , and their R value is 1.07 , meaning that the infection is spreading rather than contracting .
We ’ re talking about bringing people from every state and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of them on airplanes , having them mingle closely in a closed arena , and then sending them back to the communities from which they came .
This could create a nationwide spike in COVID-19 which would become evident by mid-September .
Quite apart from the health component , I don ’ t think that ’ s good politics .
So , yes , I think Trump and the Republicans are setting themselves up for disaster and a well-deserved rebuke by the voters .

Annie Linskey and Josh Dawsey of the Washington Post report that “Republicans have tentatively settled on Jacksonville, Florida, as the new destination for the premier festivities of the Republican National Convention in August.” I wrote about this controversy last week, calling it a debacle in the making.
The Republican Party is contractually obligated to hold its national convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, but Democratic Governor Roy Cooper would not guarantee that state health restrictions could be lifted for the Aug. 24-27 event. The solution, then, was to keep the convention in Charlotte in a strictly legal sense by holding all the regular business meetings there, but to find an alternative location for the speeches and pageantry.
Linskey and Dawsey do a concise job of explaining:
The highly unusual decision to seek an alternative location for the convention’s marquee events — including speeches by President Trump and others — stems from Trump’s desire to accept his party’s nomination before an enormous crowd… …The president was dissatisfied with North Carolina’s position, given his desire to address a large, enthusiastic crowd. “I don’t want to be sitting in a place that’s 50 percent empty,” Trump told Gov. Roy Cooper (D) late last month in a phone conversation about the convention…“We can’t do social distancing,” Trump said on the call. Cooper pushed back, asking Trump whether that wasn’t a risk to the health of the convention’s attendees, who could number close to 20,000. The president responded that he was not worried about an outbreak at the convention, because the biggest impact of the coronavirus is on those who are older or have underlying conditions.
It’s appalling that Trump does not care about the health of his delegates, many of whom are elderly and many of whom must have at least some underlying condition like asthma, high blood pressure or Type A blood that puts them at higher risk. It could be that a lot of the delegates simply won’t come to a convention, especially one where social distancing isn’t practiced. That’s certainly the case on the Democratic side. In May, the New York Times interviewed 59 members of the Democratic National Committee and superdelegates and found “the vast majority of them don’t want to risk their own health or the health of others by traveling to Milwaukee and congregating inside the convention facilities.” Even if the Republicans are more heedless of the risks as a group, I’m sure they’d appreciate it if at least some precautions are taken for their safety.
So, the first thing is that changing the location won’t necessarily help Trump get the packed house visuals he demands for his convention. As I predicted, hotel rooms could also be a problem, Jacksonville had the capacity to hold a Super Bowl back in 2005, so they should be able to pull off the Republican National Convention. Yet, it’s awfully late in the game to be trying to lock down most of the hotel rooms in Jacksonville for four straight days at the end of summer, and this seems to be one of the snags that has so far prevented an official announcement.
If they iron out the accommodations issue, there’s still a scheduling problem. People can’t simultaneously be in Charlotte holding a meeting on the Republican platform and in Jacksonville listening to Mike Pence or Melania Trump give a speech. Trump might have to hire “extras” to fill the gaps.
I don’t think Trump has thought this through. He could wind up creating a public relations nightmare and a huge schism in his own party rather than getting a normal looking crowd for his speech. It’s not unlikely that voters in both North Carolina and Florida will be angry, either for being jilted or for having their health put at risk. As for the delegates, the Congressional Research Service says that the average age of a House member in the 116th Congress is 57.6 and the average age of a senator is 62.9. How many of the these folks are going to stay home for their own protection? And what do they think of Trump telling Gov. Cooper that he doesn’t care about how they’ll be affected?
Finally, Jacksonville will have to relax it’s own health regulations.
Jacksonville remains under an emergency order that restricts some businesses from opening. Bars, restaurants and movie theaters can operate at 50 percent capacity, according to the city’s website. Retail stores, gyms and fitness centers can reopen completely as long as social distancing protocols are followed, according to the website.
Obviously, a prerequisite of the deal is that the city gives assurances that social distancing won’t be required, but objectively there isn’t much rationale for this. Florida is currently getting more than 1,000 new cases of COVID-19 a day, and their R value is 1.07, meaning that the infection is spreading rather than contracting.
We’re talking about bringing people from every state and territory in the country to Jacksonville, most of them on airplanes, having them mingle closely in a closed arena, and then sending them back to the communities from which they came. This could create a nationwide spike in COVID-19 which would become evident by mid-September. Quite apart from the health component, I don’t think that’s good politics.
So, yes, I think Trump and the Republicans are setting themselves up for disaster and a well-deserved rebuke by the voters.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-11--If Trump Loses in November, He Will Thrust the U.S. Into a Legitimacy Crisis

One month ago , the polling aggregator at RealClearPolitics showed Joe Biden with a four-point lead over Donald Trump .
As of Wednesday , that lead had jumped to eight points .
Additionally , Gallup reports that Trump ’ s approval rating has dropped ten points in the last month .
In other words , things aren ’ t looking very good for the president ’ s re-election .
In the month before the 2016 election , this is what Trump was tweeting .
It is probably fair to say that , at the time , Trump was preparing an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was expecting .
But the stakes are much higher in 2020 .
Failing to win a second term would brand Trump as a loser , something his narcissistic ego can not tolerate .
Even more importantly , it is very possible that the president could face criminal charges once he is out of office .
So he ’ s picked up the mantra of a rigged election once again .
This time , Trump is signaling that if he loses in November , he will create a crisis of legitimacy when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggested that we need to be prepared .
But how do we prepare for something like that ?
Some of us remember the crisis of legitimacy that happened after the 2000 presidential election .
But in the end , Al Gore recognized the danger such a crisis would pose to our democracy and conceded the election to Bush .
We can all debate whether or not that was the right call .
But we ’ ll never know what kind of chaos would have been unleashed if he had refused to do so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the last few years , the backstop to all of the president ’ s destruction of norms lands in the lap of the other two branches of government : Congress and the courts .
Our founding documents gave us an outline for how Congress can remove a president from office , but they don ’ t address what the legislative body can do if he refuses to leave .
Moreover , time and time again congressional Republicans have refused to stand up to Trump .
Would a crisis of legitimacy change that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagine the Supreme Court validating an attempt by Trump to deny the results of an election .
But then , I never would have expected it to stop the counting of ballots in Florida in order to hand the election to Bush .
So that ’ s a tough call .
I ’ d like to believe that American institutions could withstand a test like the one we are very likely to face in about five months .
But the Trump era has made me much more cynical than I used to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see a very dark cloud out there on the horizon and the reality is that there ’ s not much we can do to stop the storm from coming .
I honestly don ’ t think that Trump will win the election .
But based on what we know about him , it seems clear that he will not “ go gentle into that good night.
” The only thing we can do to prepare for something like that is to be honest about what we see coming .

One month ago, the polling aggregator at RealClearPolitics showed Joe Biden with a four-point lead over Donald Trump. As of Wednesday, that lead had jumped to eight points. Additionally, Gallup reports that Trump’s approval rating has dropped ten points in the last month. In other words, things aren’t looking very good for the president’s re-election.
In the month before the 2016 election, this is what Trump was tweeting.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/787995025527410688?lang=en
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/787699930718695425?lang=en
It is probably fair to say that, at the time, Trump was preparing an excuse for why he lost—something that everyone was expecting. But the stakes are much higher in 2020. Failing to win a second term would brand Trump as a loser, something his narcissistic ego cannot tolerate. Even more importantly, it is very possible that the president could face criminal charges once he is out of office. So he’s picked up the mantra of a rigged election once again.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265255845358645254
This time, Trump is signaling that if he loses in November, he will create a crisis of legitimacy when it comes to our electoral process.
“Given that the president has been making unsubstantiated voter fraud comments for years, I expect that these comments will continue,” said Richard Hasen, a professor of election law at the University of California, Irvine. “The comments are very worrisome because they increase the chances that the president’s supporters would not accept the election results as legitimate should he lose in November.”
Brian Klaas suggested that we need to be prepared.
We don’t know whether Trump will be reelected. But, as we head toward November, you have to ask yourself: If he loses, would it be more surprising if Trump graciously accepts defeat and congratulates his opponent or if he claimed to be the victim of a rigged election and a “deep state” plot? The answer seems clear.
But how do we prepare for something like that? Some of us remember the crisis of legitimacy that happened after the 2000 presidential election. But in the end, Al Gore recognized the danger such a crisis would pose to our democracy and conceded the election to Bush. We can all debate whether or not that was the right call. But we’ll never know what kind of chaos would have been unleashed if he had refused to do so.
Much as we’ve seen over the last few years, the backstop to all of the president’s destruction of norms lands in the lap of the other two branches of government: Congress and the courts. Our founding documents gave us an outline for how Congress can remove a president from office, but they don’t address what the legislative body can do if he refuses to leave. Moreover, time and time again congressional Republicans have refused to stand up to Trump. Would a crisis of legitimacy change that?
It is difficult for me to imagine the Supreme Court validating an attempt by Trump to deny the results of an election. But then, I never would have expected it to stop the counting of ballots in Florida in order to hand the election to Bush. So that’s a tough call.
I’d like to believe that American institutions could withstand a test like the one we are very likely to face in about five months. But the Trump era has made me much more cynical than I used to be about that kind of thing. I see a very dark cloud out there on the horizon and the reality is that there’s not much we can do to stop the storm from coming. I honestly don’t think that Trump will win the election. But based on what we know about him, it seems clear that he will not “go gentle into that good night.” The only thing we can do to prepare for something like that is to be honest about what we see coming.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-11--The Economic Messaging That Biden Needs

The Economic Messaging That Biden Needs

The COVID-19 pandemic and the economic fallout have laid bare the cruel inequities in our society .
Americans recognize that we are in dire need of an equitable recovery from the current crisis .
Because of the massive scale of economic problems , the public accepts that government leadership is required , according to recent polling .
As a result , this moment is not only one of enormous tragedy .
It is a precious opportunity for systemic changes to improve society .
But there is a major obstacle that needs to be overcome : The GOP majority in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideology .
For more than 40 years , Republicans have held that the key to economic progress is to “ get the government off our back ” by cutting government spending , taxes , and regulations .
Small government should give individuals more “ freedom ” and empower entrepreneurs and consumers to create an economic boom that benefits all .
This appeal to freedom has been electorally successful : Republicans have won more national , state , and local elections .
But the Republican economic philosophy hasn ’ t actually worked .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have caused the extreme inequities the nation now experiences .
We can see this by looking separately at the long-term economic impacts of Republican and Democratic administrations ; then it becomes evident that Republic policies have been devastating to most Americans ’ incomes .
Since 1980 , Republican administrations have spectacularly failed middle-income families and the poor .
They caused real median family incomes to stagnate almost completely , and increased poverty by an average 2.6 percent per year during their time in power .
In contrast , the Democratic administrations of Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They grew median incomes 23 percent over 16 years , and reduced poverty by an average 1.6 percent per year .
Democrats also did somewhat better on overall growth of the economy—2.9 percent annual average growth of GDP , versus 2.5 percent for Republicans .
( My analysis of data from the Census Bureau , Federal Reserve , and World Bank ; presidential terms lagged one year to reflect delay of impact . )
While the Democrats have had a positive impact on the economy , they have overall failed to reverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As documented by economists Emmanuel Saez , Thomas Piketty , and Gabriel Zucman , incomes of working Americans in the bottom half have actually fallen since 1980 , while the incomes of the top one percent have skyrocketed upward .
Democrats alleviated economic inequity somewhat , largely by defending social programs and regulations , and taxing the rich more .
But their efforts have failed to be transformative .
We know that more ambitious government policies could make a decisive difference , because some European countries , such as France , managed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bottom half , over the same period .
The good news is that , if the Democrats regain power , they will have another chance to right the ship .
Since the Great Recession , a series of excellent economic history books and articles have identified the government actions that have been successful in creating and sustaining equitable economic growth .
The main prerequisite of success is the government being publicly committed to the mission of helping all , including business and labor , to thrive , and to see that all benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have this sense of mission , because sustained improvement requires them to use all the tools of government , adapting them to the needs of the time .
And they need to seriously commit to a vision of a better economy to rally the public behind them .
This approach is neither “ socialist ” in Marx ’ s sense , nor “ free market.
” Rather , such governments work in partnership with a strong private sector , with each each fulfilling its distinctive and complementary role .
Let ’ s call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a vision that Democrats can run and win on—and it ’ s exactly what the country needs .
The three basic tools of government in a Partnership Economy are public investment , legislation , and taxation .
Public investment is the engine of overall economic growth , as Founding Father Alexander Hamilton recognized long ago .
The kind of public investments that economic historians have found necessary for sustained growth are those in : Investments in people build and sustain a more productive work force ; investments in research and development lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in public goods , such as transportation and communication , create markets and facilitate commerce .
The public investments in people , infrastructure and ideas contribute to equity , as well as growth , by relieving families of education and health care expenses and creating well-paying jobs .
But they are not sufficient in themselves to create an equitable distribution of rewards .
The tools of legislation and taxation are also needed .
Legislation is what you need to change the laws , protect consumers , and even the playing field .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from exploitation , such as through stronger antitrust laws barring monopolies .
Then those laws need to be rigorously enforced .
Otherwise , the wealthy and powerful who are unscrupulous can rig the system to crush smaller business rivals , suppress wages , price-gouge consumers , and tilt the tax system unfairly in their favor .
This has already happened .
Our extreme levels of inequality have not come from people being rewarded for actual benefits to society .
They ’ ve come rather from unfairly rigging the system , freeing powerful wealthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and smaller rivals , as well has favoring the rich with tax giveaways .
Steeply progressive taxation will also be necessary , given the climate .
First , higher revenues from are needed to sustain funding for public investments .
( These tools work in symbiotic partnership . )
Second , our system has become so unequitable that higher taxes on the wealthy , including new wealth taxes , are essential for the simple purpose of restoring fairness .
This vision of a Partnership Economy allows for disagreement on the specifics of policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inequality .
Although not precise on policy , such a unifying vision is politically invaluable .
Indeed , unifying visions are historically what have won the hearts and minds of the people , and elections , not grand policy ideas .
Think of Barack Obama ’ s 2008 victory .
Republicans , for their part , have won politically with their vision of small government , even though their policies have failed for forty years .
The story is just the opposite with Democrats .
They have had no unifying vision , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of investment , progressive taxation , and legal protections .
The central problem with Democrats is that they have not had their own compelling economic vision to discredit the Republican small-government message .
In 2016 , the Clinton campaign had many excellent policy proposals , but no unifying , compelling worldview .
Similarly , Joe Biden has the same problem .
He even has no plank on “ the economy ” on his web site , when it is the only issue on which he his losing to Trump in polls .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has proven that good programs are not enough ; you need an emotionally compelling vision .
Democrats should now adopt a strong vision of the federal government taking on the mission of equitable growth , to achieve economic transformation through public investments , fair taxation , and increased legal protections .
Will Joe Biden and the Democratic Party step up to the challenge ?
If he wants to win and fix our nation ’ s greatest economic woes , they must .

The COVID-19 pandemic and the economic fallout have laid bare the cruel inequities in our society. Americans recognize that we are in dire need of an equitable recovery from the current crisis. Because of the massive scale of economic problems, the public accepts that government leadership is required, according to recent polling. As a result, this moment is not only one of enormous tragedy. It is a precious opportunity for systemic changes to improve society.
But there is a major obstacle that needs to be overcome: The GOP majority in the Senate and the party’s retrograde ideology. For more than 40 years, Republicans have held that the key to economic progress is to “get the government off our back” by cutting government spending, taxes, and regulations. Small government should give individuals more “freedom” and empower entrepreneurs and consumers to create an economic boom that benefits all. This appeal to freedom has been electorally successful: Republicans have won more national, state, and local elections.
But the Republican economic philosophy hasn’t actually worked. In fact, their actions while in power have caused the extreme inequities the nation now experiences. We can see this by looking separately at the long-term economic impacts of Republican and Democratic administrations; then it becomes evident that Republic policies have been devastating to most Americans’ incomes.
Since 1980, Republican administrations have spectacularly failed middle-income families and the poor. They caused real median family incomes to stagnate almost completely, and increased poverty by an average 2.6 percent per year during their time in power. In contrast, the Democratic administrations of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had some success. They grew median incomes 23 percent over 16 years, and reduced poverty by an average 1.6 percent per year. Democrats also did somewhat better on overall growth of the economy—2.9 percent annual average growth of GDP, versus 2.5 percent for Republicans. (My analysis of data from the Census Bureau, Federal Reserve, and World Bank; presidential terms lagged one year to reflect delay of impact.)
While the Democrats have had a positive impact on the economy, they have overall failed to reverse the inequity created by Republican policies. As documented by economists Emmanuel Saez, Thomas Piketty, and Gabriel Zucman, incomes of working Americans in the bottom half have actually fallen since 1980, while the incomes of the top one percent have skyrocketed upward. Democrats alleviated economic inequity somewhat, largely by defending social programs and regulations, and taxing the rich more. But their efforts have failed to be transformative. We know that more ambitious government policies could make a decisive difference, because some European countries, such as France, managed to grow substantially both top incomes and the bottom half, over the same period. The good news is that, if the Democrats regain power, they will have another chance to right the ship.
Since the Great Recession, a series of excellent economic history books and articles have identified the government actions that have been successful in creating and sustaining equitable economic growth.
The main prerequisite of success is the government being publicly committed to the mission of helping all, including business and labor, to thrive, and to see that all benefit equitably from economic growth. Governments must have this sense of mission, because sustained improvement requires them to use all the tools of government, adapting them to the needs of the time. And they need to seriously commit to a vision of a better economy to rally the public behind them. This approach is neither “socialist” in Marx’s sense, nor “free market.” Rather, such governments work in partnership with a strong private sector, with each fulfilling its distinctive and complementary role. Let’s call it a Partnership Economy. It’s a vision that Democrats can run and win on—and it’s exactly what the country needs.
The three basic tools of government in a Partnership Economy are public investment, legislation, and taxation.
Public investment is the engine of overall economic growth, as Founding Father Alexander Hamilton recognized long ago. The kind of public investments that economic historians have found necessary for sustained growth are those in:
People (education and healthcare); Ideas (research and development); Public goods (infrastructure).
Investments in people build and sustain a more productive work force; investments in research and development lead to new products and services; investments in public goods, such as transportation and communication, create markets and facilitate commerce.
The public investments in people, infrastructure and ideas contribute to equity, as well as growth, by relieving families of education and health care expenses and creating well-paying jobs. But they are not sufficient in themselves to create an equitable distribution of rewards. The tools of legislation and taxation are also needed.
Legislation is what you need to change the laws, protect consumers, and even the playing field. It can protect smaller actors in the economy from exploitation, such as through stronger antitrust laws barring monopolies. Then those laws need to be rigorously enforced. Otherwise, the wealthy and powerful who are unscrupulous can rig the system to crush smaller business rivals, suppress wages, price-gouge consumers, and tilt the tax system unfairly in their favor. This has already happened. Our extreme levels of inequality have not come from people being rewarded for actual benefits to society. They’ve come rather from unfairly rigging the system, freeing powerful wealthy owners to exploit labor, consumers, and smaller rivals, as well has favoring the rich with tax giveaways.
Steeply progressive taxation will also be necessary, given the climate. First, higher revenues are needed to sustain funding for public investments. (These tools work in symbiotic partnership.) Second, our system has become so unequitable that higher taxes on the wealthy, including new wealth taxes, are essential for the simple purpose of restoring fairness.
This vision of a Partnership Economy allows for disagreement on the specifics of policies to carry out the mission of addressing inequality. Although not precise on policy, such a unifying vision is politically invaluable. Indeed, unifying visions are historically what have won the hearts and minds of the people, and elections, not grand policy ideas. Think of Barack Obama’s 2008 victory.
Republicans, for their part, have won politically with their vision of small government, even though their policies have failed for forty years. The story is just the opposite with Democrats.
They have had no unifying vision, but pursued, albeit timidly, sound policies of investment, progressive taxation, and legal protections. The central problem with Democrats is that they have not had their own compelling economic vision to discredit the Republican small-government message.
In 2016, the Clinton campaign had many excellent policy proposals, but no unifying, compelling worldview. Similarly, Joe Biden has the same problem. He even has no plank on “the economy” on his web site, when it is the only issue on which he his losing to Trump in polls. This is a dangerous failing, as history has proven that good programs are not enough; you need an emotionally compelling vision.
Democrats should now adopt a strong vision of the federal government taking on the mission of equitable growth, to achieve economic transformation through public investments, fair taxation, and increased legal protections.
Will Joe Biden step up to the challenge? If he wants to win and fix our nation’s greatest economic woes, he must.
The author wants to thank the Economics Committee of Herndon-Reston Indivisible for their contributions to this article—especially economist Isabelle Tsakok and policy analyst Robert Anthony.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-11--The Dubious DOJ Investigation Barr Is Already Pre-Spinning

When the Department of Justice announced that , after Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI , it would drop the case before sentencing , U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan asked a retired colleague , John Gleeson , to write an amicus brief in opposition to their decision .
Gleeson filed that brief on Wednesday , using words like “ preposterous ” and referring to arguments that “ frankly , make no sense.
” It was an evisceration of the rationalizations put forward by the attorney general .
But it all comes down to this .
When Gleeson refers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Government ’ s motion , ” he documents the president ’ s tweets as an example .
Gleeson devoted a section of his brief to document the President ’ s repeated tweets and other public statements about the Flynn case .
“ These tweets were issued against the background of a severe breakdown in the traditional independence of the Justice Department from the President , ” Gleeson said .
But in addition to the president , Gleeson might have also pointed out how the attorney general has consistently said and done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matters .
For example , if we go back to Barr ’ s release of a summary of the Mueller report , not only did the special prosecutor himself object to the way his findings were twisted , Judge Reggie B. Walton called the move “ distorted ” and “ misleading.
” He went on to suggest that Mr. Barr ’ s “ lack of candor ” called into question his “ credibility and , in turn , the department ’ s ” assurances to the court .
The attorney general is now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the outcome of the Durham investigation .
Just over a year ago , Barr tasked U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigate the origins of what eventually became the Mueller probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election and the allegation that the Trump campaign was involved .
Barr is being careful to avoid saying when the Durham investigation will be completed , but take a look at what he said about it during a recent interview on Fox News with Brett Baier .
In suggesting that the investigators “ spring-loaded ” an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ slender reed as a basis for it , ” Barr states that exculpatory evidence was ignored .
He goes on to suggest that the investigators continued to push an investigation when “ it was obvious there was nothing there.
” He then ups the ante on previous claims by saying that , “ for the first time in American history , police organizations and national security organizations were used to spy on a campaign and there was no basis for it , ” going on to add that it could have effected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emphasize that Barr ’ s statement is directly contradicted by the findings , not only of Inspector General Horowitz , but by the Senate Intelligence Committee .
Barr then says that when the investigation continued after the election , it was an effort to sabotage the president .
In summary , Barr states that he is very troubled by what has been brought to his attention .
Those are the words of someone who launched an investigation with a pre-determined outcome in mind and is now in search of anything that will support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is saying all of that publicly before the Durham investigation is completed tells us that once again , he is previewing what he wants Americans to conclude about the findings—just as he did with the Mueller report .
I ’ m sure that Trump ’ s enablers in right wing media will run with whatever Barr says when it comes to the outcome of the Durham investigation .
But for the rest of the media , it is critical that they don ’ t make the same mistake they did when the attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report .
Here ’ s how Eric Boehlert summarized what happened at the time .
In 2016 , the media became obsessed with an incendiary announcement from James Comey in the late stages of a presidential campaign .
They repeated that mistake with the release of Barr ’ s summary of the Mueller report .
As the 2020 election nears , they will once again be tested by the results of the Durham investigation from an attorney general who has been deemed by the courts as lacking any credibility .
Let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @

When the Department of Justice announced that, after Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, it would drop the case before sentencing, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan asked a retired colleague, John Gleeson, to write an amicus brief in opposition to their decision. Gleeson filed that brief on Wednesday, using words like “preposterous” and referring to arguments that “frankly, make no sense.” It was an evisceration of the rationalizations put forward by the attorney general. But it all comes down to this.
The reasons offered by the Government are so irregular, and so obviously pretextual, that they are deficient. Moreover, the facts surrounding the filing of the Government’s motion constitute evidence of gross prosecutorial abuse. They reveal an unconvincing effort to disguise as legitimate a decision to dismiss that is based solely on the fact that Flynn is a political ally of President Trump.
When Gleeson refers to “the facts surrounding the filing of the Government’s motion,” he documents the president’s tweets as an example.
Gleeson devoted a section of his brief to document the President’s repeated tweets and other public statements about the Flynn case. “These tweets were issued against the background of a severe breakdown in the traditional independence of the Justice Department from the President,” Gleeson said.
But in addition to the president, Gleeson might have also pointed out how the attorney general has consistently said and done things that undermine his credibility in these matters. For example, if we go back to Barr’s release of a summary of the Mueller report, not only did the special prosecutor himself object to the way his findings were twisted, Judge Reggie B. Walton called the move “distorted” and “misleading.” He went on to suggest that Mr. Barr’s “lack of candor” called into question his “credibility and, in turn, the department’s” assurances to the court.
The attorney general is now doing the exact same thing with respect to the outcome of the Durham investigation. Just over a year ago, Barr tasked U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigate the origins of what eventually became the Mueller probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election and the allegation that the Trump campaign was involved. Barr is being careful to avoid saying when the Durham investigation will be completed, but take a look at what he said about it during a recent interview on Fox News with Brett Baier.
In suggesting that the investigators “spring-loaded” an investigation into a presidential campaign with a “slender reed as a basis for it,” Barr states that exculpatory evidence was ignored. He goes on to suggest that the investigators continued to push an investigation when “it was obvious there was nothing there.” He then ups the ante on previous claims by saying that, “for the first time in American history, police organizations and national security organizations were used to spy on a campaign and there was no basis for it,” going on to add that it could have effected the election. It is important to emphasize that Barr’s statement is directly contradicted by the findings, not only of Inspector General Horowitz, but by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Barr then says that when the investigation continued after the election, it was an effort to sabotage the president. In summary, Barr states that he is very troubled by what has been brought to his attention. Those are the words of someone who launched an investigation with a pre-determined outcome in mind and is now in search of anything that will support his assumptions.
The fact that Barr is saying all of that publicly before the Durham investigation is completed tells us that once again, he is previewing what he wants Americans to conclude about the findings—just as he did with the Mueller report.
I’m sure that Trump’s enablers in right wing media will run with whatever Barr says when it comes to the outcome of the Durham investigation. But for the rest of the media, it is critical that they don’t make the same mistake they did when the attorney general released his summary of the Mueller report. Here’s how Eric Boehlert summarized what happened at the time.
Rather than going with accurate headlines, such as “Trump’s attorney general claims Mueller has cleared the president,” newsrooms just tossed all context aside and ran with GOP-friendly proclamations: “Mueller finds no conspiracy” (Washington Post), “Mueller finds no Trump-Russia conspiracy” (New York Times),” Mueller finds no Trump-Russia conspiracy” (Politico), “Mueller doesn’t find Trump campaign conspired with Russia” (Wall Street Journal), “Mueller finds no Trump collusion, leaves obstruction open” (Associated Press).
In 2016, the media became obsessed with an incendiary announcement from James Comey in the late stages of a presidential campaign. They repeated that mistake with the release of Barr’s summary of the Mueller report. As the 2020 election nears, they will once again be tested by the results of the Durham investigation from an attorney general who has been deemed by the courts as lacking any credibility. Let’s get it right this time.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-11--Trump Is Going Down Swinging

Trump Is Going Down Swinging

Donald Trump is a uniquely polarizing figure , but it goes beyond people either loving or hating him .
It ’ s also extremely hard for people to agree on what makes him effective or to predict what will cause him political harm .
And this isn ’ t a problem that has a strict right/left split to it .
Consider how the people around him responded to his tweet last week about Martin Gugino , the 75-year-old protester from Buffalo whose assault by the police was captured in a viral video .
Even though Gugino was still in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and despite two Buffalo police officers being arrested , the president suggested that he was a provocateur who may have faked his injuries .
Asked about this , multiple aides told ABC News that they have turned off notifications for Trump ’ s Twitter account because “ What ’ s the point ?
” Yet , another group dismissed everyone ’ s concern , and went one step further .
The first group is clearly demoralized .
It ’ s hard to avoid the conclusion that they ’ ve given up on Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t even want to know that the president is “ citing a bizarre report by fringe right-wing television network One American News ” to libel a political protester .
It ’ s pretty hard to help a campaign if you won ’ t even look at what it ’ s doing .
Beyond that , they clearly think Trump ’ s behavior is a problem that is hurting his chances .
But the second group sees this kind of unhinged and morally indefensible act as central to his political success .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gugino tweet was materially different from countless others he made in 2016 that people thought would sink his campaign .
I ’ m tempted to say that both things can be true at the same time , but I don ’ t really believe that .
Either Trump ’ s crazy and dickish behavior is helping or hurting him , and I think it ’ s now hurting him .
But maybe this isn ’ t the most productive way of thinking about this question .
A better way , I think , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left in his political arsenal if he simply stopped saying half-baked and cruel things every day ?
On this score , he can point to a ruined economy that was robust prior to the COVID-19 outbreak , and stock prices that are at historic highs .
He can point to a big tax cut for the wealthy and a transformed federal court system that now has a heavy conservative tilt .
But he has no forward-looking legislative agenda .
He has no foreign policy successes .
His appeal is almost entirely wrapped up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make a spectacle of himself .
If he didn ’ t tweet on a regular basis , there ’ d be no reason to pay attention to him .
If he didn ’ t do outrageous things , there ’ d be no reason for anyone to enjoy the show .
So , Trump ’ s act may be old and curdled , but it ’ s the only thing that makes him attractive at all , and if he abandons it in an effort to pick up more support , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enthusiasm of his true fans .
In this sense , the advisers who see the Gugino tweet as unproblematic have a point .
Yet , the advisers who no longer want to look at Trump ’ s tweets at all because “ What ’ s the point ?
” –they have a point too .
Trump is incapable of change and has only one trick .
If the trick isn ’ t good enough to win in 2020 , so be it , but he ’ s going to go down swinging .

Donald Trump is a uniquely polarizing figure, but it goes beyond people either loving or hating him. It’s also extremely hard for people to agree on what makes him effective or to predict what will cause him political harm. And this isn’t a problem that has a strict right/left split to it. Consider how the people around him responded to his tweet last week about Martin Gugino, the 75-year-old protester from Buffalo whose assault by the police was captured in a viral video.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1270333484528214018?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1270333484528214018&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2020%2F06%2F09%2Fnyregion%2Fwho-is-martin-gugino-buffalo-police.html
Even though Gugino was still in the hospital receiving treatment for head trauma, and despite two Buffalo police officers being arrested, the president suggested that he was a provocateur who may have faked his injuries.
Asked about this, multiple aides told ABC News that they have turned off notifications for Trump’s Twitter account because “What’s the point?”
Yet, another group dismissed everyone’s concern, and went one step further.
However, two other outside advisers to the president instead said it wasn’t the president’s rhetoric that was problematic — adding that’s in part how he won in 2016…
The first group is clearly demoralized. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that they’ve given up on Trump winning a second term. They don’t even want to know that the president is “citing a bizarre report by fringe right-wing television network One American News” to libel a political protester. It’s pretty hard to help a campaign if you won’t even look at what it’s doing. Beyond that, they clearly think Trump’s behavior is a problem that is hurting his chances.
But the second group sees this kind of unhinged and morally indefensible act as central to his political success. It’s hard to argue that the Gugino tweet was materially different from countless others he made in 2016 that people thought would sink his campaign.
I’m tempted to say that both things can be true at the same time, but I don’t really believe that. Either Trump’s crazy and dickish behavior is helping or hurting him, and I think it’s now hurting him.
But maybe this isn’t the most productive way of thinking about this question. A better way, I think, is to ask what Trump would have left in his political arsenal if he simply stopped saying half-baked and cruel things every day?
On this score, he can point to a ruined economy that was robust prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, and stock prices that are at historic highs. He can point to a big tax cut for the wealthy and a transformed federal court system that now has a heavy conservative tilt. But he has no forward-looking legislative agenda. He has no foreign policy successes. His appeal is almost entirely wrapped up in his act, or his ability to make a spectacle of himself. If he didn’t tweet on a regular basis, there’d be no reason to pay attention to him. If he didn’t do outrageous things, there’d be no reason for anyone to enjoy the show.
So, Trump’s act may be old and curdled, but it’s the only thing that makes him attractive at all, and if he abandons it in an effort to pick up more support, he’ll only wind up depressing the enthusiasm of his true fans.
In this sense, the advisers who see the Gugino tweet as unproblematic have a point. Yet, the advisers who no longer want to look at Trump’s tweets at all because “What’s the point?”–they have a point too.
Trump is incapable of change and has only one trick. If the trick isn’t good enough to win in 2020, so be it, but he’s going to go down swinging.