washingtonmonthly--2020-10-18--The Eight Things Trump Reveals About America

Michelle Obama has observed that being president does not change who you are .
It reveals who you are .
The same could be said of the nation : that its president does not change who we are but reveals who we are .
And what Donald Trump has revealed about America has taught us sobering lessons about ourselves .
The United States is a highly segregated society , not only by race and class but also by politics .
So little respectful conversation occurs across political lines , so few circles of friendship contain citizens of differing views , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last four years on how little they understood their own country .
What has been uncovered is shocking and worrisome , but it can also be constructive if the revelations inspire a curriculum for self-improvement .
The test of any society , its capacity for self-correction , has been passed by the United States repeatedly , if erratically , over two and a half centuries .
Win or lose next month , Trump will have presented the country with its next challenges .
Here are some of the major lessons : The Fragility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses the election , he should be instantly disqualified in the mind of every American citizen who understands that nonviolent transition is the linchpin of democracy , setting free societies apart from dictatorships .
No president of the United States has ever before raised such a question about this hallowed principle .
He was finally dragged into a begrudging “ yes , I will ” under tough questioning at last week ’ s televised town hall , then seemed to add a condition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be an honest election.
” He attacked its honesty in advance with fabricated stories of discarded and altered ballots .
No president of the United States has ever before campaigned against the legitimacy of the electoral process .
And while impediments to voting have plagued this democracy since its founding , the Republican Party ’ s national strategy to silence the people ’ s voices through myriad means ought to be cause enough for alarm and rejection .
That Trump ’ s dismissal of democratic norms has not decimated his support suggests that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ register their approval have blind spots to the essentials of a pluralistic political system .
They seem either not to recognize the threats it can face or not to value it in the first place .
The lapses extend into the Republican establishment .
“ Democracy isn ’ t the objective ; liberty , peace , and prosperity are , ” Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah tweeted on October 8 .
“ We want the human condition to flourish .
Rank democracy can thwart that.
” Does it need to be said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democracy ?
Evidently so .
The warning sounded by Judge Learned Hand in 1944 is relevant : “ Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women ; when it dies there , no constitution , no law , no court can save it ; no constitution , no law , no court can even do much to help it.
” The Resilience of Racial Bigotry .
The election of Barack Obama confused some Americans into imagining that the country had entered a post-racial era .
Instead , Obama ’ s very presence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in certain quarters , which Trump then exploited .
During his campaign and once in office , he fractured the veneer of propriety .
After a long period in which submerged prejudices were largely encrypted and expressed obliquely , Trump ’ s words and attitudes have given permission and legitimacy for explicit bigotry .
Latent racism has been reanimated , hate crimes have risen , people of color have encountered increased hostility in casual encounters with whites , and white supremacist movements have been emboldened .
Trump has tapped a deeper well of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existed .
A hopeful counter-current of anti-racism has been produced among whites , demonstrated by the tens of thousands who have turned out to protest against police brutality in support of Black Lives Matter .
Not since the civil rights movement has the conscience of white America been so mobilized .
Still , Trump ’ s 40 percent support suggests a broad indifference or even hostility to the ideal of racial justice .
And his ban on “ sensitivity training ” by federal agencies and government contractors that want to create safer workplaces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Susceptibility to Propaganda .
With the help of a vast propaganda network that includes Fox News and conservative talk radio , Trump has used smears , lies , and exaggerations to create false narratives , manipulate perceptions , and thereby expose a widespread lack of critical thinking among Americans .
This disconnection from facts comes in an internet era when it is both easier and harder to get accurate information : easier because of the multiplicity of sources to rapidly check what you hear , harder because of the multiplicity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the numbers of citizens who believe the falsehoods suggests little schooling in how to sort fact from fiction , do basic research , and resist believing only what confirms your opinions .
The Power of a Personality Cult .
It is unusual for so many Americans to practice a kind of idol worship of a president , but Trump has managed to excite just such a phenomenon among millions .
His narcissism at the expense of larger public interests subtracts surprisingly little from his support .
In addition , the Republican Party has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Like the shell of a political party in an autocratic system , the Republicans of 2020 did not even write a policy platform at their convention , instead simply endorsing whatever Trump wishes as he goes along .
This deference to a person rather than to policy or principle is a warning sign for any democracy , especially if another Trump arrives who is smoother and more sophisticated in broadening support by avoiding the coarse , insulting behavior that characterizes this president .
The Indifference to Personal and Governmental Ethics .
Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women , his self-dealing in his businesses at taxpayers ’ expense , his tax avoidance , his sale of governmental favors to friends and associates , his insults of military men and women , his narcissism , his practice of nepotism , and the like have provoked little outrage except on the left .
Conflicts of interest abound in his administration , and his cavalier discarding of ethics rules has ruffled no feathers among his party or the citizens who support him .
His is the most corrupt administration in modern America .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been raised so high that it now defines an expansive field of wrongdoing that will probably be tolerated by much of the public going forward .
“ Defining Deviancy Down , ” Pat Moynihan used to say .
The Politicization of the Law , Science , and Governing Institutions .
Trump is not the first president to ignore the rule of law , install loyalists in regulatory positions , or use the Justice Department for political purposes .
But his ability to find and recruit people who are as intellectually corrupt as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scope of brazen , self-serving citizens with no moral brakes and no regard for traditional limits of behavior .
That part of the political class prides winning above preserving the credibility and professionalism of government institutions .
The interference with expertise in medicine , the environment , and foreign policy has provoked a hemorrhage of skilled professionals from government , damaged public health , and undermined public confidence in science .
The damage , which has made hardly a dent among his core supporters , will long outlast him .
The Nonchalance About @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hyper-vigilant about national security , now shrug off attempts by Russia , China , Iran , and possibly other countries to exacerbate Americans ’ domestic divisions and distort elections .
They have been called Vichy Republicans , an overdrawn allusion to the French government that collaborated with the Nazis under German occupation .
Their posture raises the troubling question of how soft a target the United States could be for undue interference in the future .
Other countries have learned what Americans have learned about the society ’ s fissures and vulnerabilities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ political spectrum vilifies the other , the common ground is eaten away .
Trump ’ s vulgar rhetoric , predated and now amplified by that of Rush Limbaugh , Sean Hannity , and other inciters , has driven in wedges that will not be easy to dislodge .
Just as radio was used in Rwanda to incite the 1994 genocide , mass media are being used in the United States to mobilize hatred .
Rightwing demonization of liberals , cleverly begun by Limbaugh many years ago , has now ignited an opposing denigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a national crisis no longer unites , as it did after September 11 , 2001 .
It splinters America .
All this will leave the United States with an ongoing burden of problems even if Trump loses the election .
Some could be addressed by improved secondary schooling .
Many students are obviously not taught enough about democratic principles and institutions , the history of racial stereotyping and discrimination , or given the skills to research carefully and think critically .
Such other tasks as mitigating poverty , facilitating voting , improving governmental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential to repair our civil society will require intense thinking and creative work .
That ’ s the silver lining to this gloomy specter : defects are out in the open , and seeing problems is the first step in solving them .

Michelle Obama has observed that being president does not change who you are. It reveals who you are. The same could be said of the nation: that its president does not change who we are but reveals who we are. And what Donald Trump has revealed about America has taught us sobering lessons about ourselves.
The United States is a highly segregated society, not only by race and class but also by politics. So little respectful conversation occurs across political lines, so few circles of friendship contain citizens of differing views, that many Americans have remarked in these last four years on how little they understood their own country.
What has been uncovered is shocking and worrisome, but it can also be constructive if the revelations inspire a curriculum for self-improvement. The test of any society, its capacity for self-correction, has been passed by the United States repeatedly, if erratically, over two and a half centuries. Win or lose next month, Trump will have presented the country with its next challenges. Here are some of the major lessons:
The Fragility of Democratic Values. When Trump refuses to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses the election, he should be instantly disqualified in the mind of every American citizen who understands that nonviolent transition is the linchpin of democracy, setting free societies apart from dictatorships. No president of the United States has ever before raised such a question about this hallowed principle. He was finally dragged into a begrudging “yes, I will” under tough questioning at last week’s televised town hall, then seemed to add a condition: “But I want it to be an honest election.” He attacked its honesty in advance with fabricated stories of discarded and altered ballots. No president of the United States has ever before campaigned against the legitimacy of the electoral process. And while impediments to voting have plagued this democracy since its founding, the Republican Party’s national strategy to silence the people’s voices through myriad means ought to be cause enough for alarm and rejection.
That Trump’s dismissal of democratic norms has not decimated his support suggests that some 40 percent of Americans who still register their approval have blind spots to the essentials of a pluralistic political system. They seem either not to recognize the threats it can face or not to value it in the first place. The lapses extend into the Republican establishment. “Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prosperity are,” Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah tweeted on October 8. “We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that.” Does it need to be said that liberty cannot be preserved without democracy? Evidently so.
The warning sounded by Judge Learned Hand in 1944 is relevant: “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.”
The Resilience of Racial Bigotry. The election of Barack Obama confused some Americans into imagining that the country had entered a post-racial era. Instead, Obama’s very presence in the White House stimulated a backlash in certain quarters, which Trump then exploited. During his campaign and once in office, he fractured the veneer of propriety. After a long period in which submerged prejudices were largely encrypted and expressed obliquely, Trump’s words and attitudes have given permission and legitimacy for explicit bigotry. Latent racism has been reanimated, hate crimes have risen, people of color have encountered increased hostility in casual encounters with whites, and white supremacist movements have been emboldened. Trump has tapped a deeper well of racial animosity than many Americans realized still existed.
A hopeful counter-current of anti-racism has been produced among whites, demonstrated by the tens of thousands who have turned out to protest against police brutality in support of Black Lives Matter. Not since the civil rights movement has the conscience of white America been so mobilized. Still, Trump’s 40 percent support suggests a broad indifference or even hostility to the ideal of racial justice. And his ban on “sensitivity training” by federal agencies and government contractors that want to create safer workplaces for minority employees could retard racial progress.
The Susceptibility to Propaganda. With the help of a vast propaganda network that includes Fox News and conservative talk radio, Trump has used smears, lies, and exaggerations to create false narratives, manipulate perceptions, and thereby expose a widespread lack of critical thinking among Americans. This disconnection from facts comes in an internet era when it is both easier and harder to get accurate information: easier because of the multiplicity of sources to rapidly check what you hear, harder because of the multiplicity of sources whose reliability is unknown. Yet the numbers of citizens who believe the falsehoods suggests little schooling in how to sort fact from fiction, do basic research, and resist believing only what confirms your opinions.
The Power of a Personality Cult. It is unusual for so many Americans to practice a kind of idol worship of a president, but Trump has managed to excite just such a phenomenon among millions. His narcissism at the expense of larger public interests subtracts surprisingly little from his support. In addition, the Republican Party has been readily co-opted into the adoration. Like the shell of a political party in an autocratic system, the Republicans of 2020 did not even write a policy platform at their convention, instead simply endorsing whatever Trump wishes as he goes along. This deference to a person rather than to policy or principle is a warning sign for any democracy, especially if another Trump arrives who is smoother and more sophisticated in broadening support by avoiding the coarse, insulting behavior that characterizes this president.
The Indifference to Personal and Governmental Ethics. Trump’s personal immorality in his manner toward women, his self-dealing in his businesses at taxpayers’ expense, his tax avoidance, his sale of governmental favors to friends and associates, his insults of military men and women, his narcissism, his practice of nepotism, and the like have provoked little outrage except on the left. Conflicts of interest abound in his administration, and his cavalier discarding of ethics rules has ruffled no feathers among his party or the citizens who support him. His is the most corrupt administration in modern America. The country’s threshold for indignation has been raised so high that it now defines an expansive field of wrongdoing that will probably be tolerated by much of the public going forward. “Defining Deviancy Down,” Pat Moynihan used to say.
The Politicization of the Law, Science, and Governing Institutions. Trump is not the first president to ignore the rule of law, install loyalists in regulatory positions, or use the Justice Department for political purposes. But his ability to find and recruit people who are as intellectually corrupt as he indicates the existence of a wide scope of brazen, self-serving citizens with no moral brakes and no regard for traditional limits of behavior. That part of the political class prides winning above preserving the credibility and professionalism of government institutions. The interference with expertise in medicine, the environment, and foreign policy has provoked a hemorrhage of skilled professionals from government, damaged public health, and undermined public confidence in science. The damage, which has made hardly a dent among his core supporters, will long outlast him.
The Nonchalance About Hostile Foreign Influence. Republicans, once hyper-vigilant about national security, now shrug off attempts by Russia, China, Iran, and possibly other countries to exacerbate Americans’ domestic divisions and distort elections. They have been called Vichy Republicans, an overdrawn allusion to the French government that collaborated with the Nazis under German occupation. Their posture raises the troubling question of how soft a target the United States could be for undue interference in the future. Other countries have learned what Americans have learned about the society’s fissures and vulnerabilities.
Hatred. As each side of the political spectrum vilifies the other, the common ground is eaten away. Trump’s vulgar rhetoric, predated and now amplified by that of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other inciters, has driven in wedges that will not be easy to dislodge. Just as radio was used in Rwanda to incite the 1994 genocide, mass media are being used in the United States to mobilize hatred. Rightwing demonization of liberals, cleverly begun by Limbaugh many years ago, has now ignited an opposing denigration by liberals of conservatives. Consequently, a national crisis no longer unites, as it did after September 11, 2001. It splinters America.
All this will leave the United States with an ongoing burden of problems even if Trump loses the election. Some could be addressed by improved secondary schooling. Many students are obviously not taught enough about democratic principles and institutions, the history of racial stereotyping and discrimination, or given the skills to research carefully and think critically. Such other tasks as mitigating poverty, facilitating voting, improving governmental ethics, and reconstructing the common ground essential to repair our civil society will require intense thinking and creative work. That’s the silver lining to this gloomy specter: defects are out in the open, and seeing problems is the first step in solving them.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-18--Third Party Candidates Could Determine Control of the Senate

Did Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein cost Hillary Clinton the 2016 election ?
We can ’ t know for sure because so many factors could have led to her defeat .
But it ’ s certainly plausible that this third-party bid delivered us four years of Donald Trump .
The wound is still raw : Trump won the Electoral College buoyed by three traditionally Democratic states—Wisconsin , Michigan , and Pennsylvania—which he won by a mere 78,000 votes .
If every Stein voter in Pennsylvania , Michigan , Wisconsin had cast a vote for Clinton , Trump would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagine a third-party candidacy derailing Joe Biden , although it ’ s remotely possible if the race tightens .
Unlike 2016 , Democrats have aggressively exploited legal technicalities to keep Green Party candidates—many of whom have been helped by the GOP–off the ballot in pivotal states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania .
While the Libertarian Party announced in September that its presidential ticket would appear on the ballot in all 50 states and Washington , D.C. , the Green Party ’ s candidates will do so in only 30 .
The Green Party will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battleground states , such as Minnesota and Ohio , drawing at least some Biden votes .
But this year ’ s Green Party ticket of Howie Hawkins and Angela Walker—have you heard of them ?
—seems less likely to tip the scales than Stein ’ s did .
Third-Party candidates ’ real effect could be in the U.S. Senate , where Republicans control the chamber 53-47 .
Democrats wresting it from them could come down to two states , South Carolina and Georgia , where third-party voting could prove pivotal .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Jaime Harrison , the Democratic nominee in South Carolina challenging three-term incumbent Sen. Lindsey Graham .
This month , Harrison began running ads that touted a far-right Third-Party conservative candidate to peel votes away from Graham .
It ’ s a jarring and , some might say , brilliant gambit .
The ad touts the Constitution Party ’ s Bill Bledsoe in a manner designed to pet the erogenous zones of conservatives .
It notes that Bledsoe has “ always supported Donald Trump ” ( unlike Graham ) and is a fervent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states that Bledsoe is “ on the ballot , ” which is technically correct .
Even though Bledsoe dropped out of the race on October 1 , he did so after the deadline had passed to have his name removed from the ballot , and he didn ’ t bother to submit the paperwork to get that done .
There ’ s even a picture in the ad showing a ballot where a Palmetto State Republican could check his name .
If the image of Harrison ( an African-American Yale grad with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an ad that all but spouts a Confederate Flag , that ’ s because it is .
( A candidate ’ s image is required by law at the end of a broadcast ad . )
Democrats ’ efforts to cause such rifts on the other side of the ideological divide are relatively rare , and so are Republican ones , but they can work .
In 2012 , then Sen. Claire McCaskill , the Missouri Democrat , ran ads touting Todd Akin , a contender for the GOP nomination to challenge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a weaker general election candidate .
That proved to be a smart bet .
Akin won his primary and then imploded in the general election following his infamous quip about abortion and “ legitimate rape.
” If enough votes go to Bledsoe , it could make a decisive difference in the Harrison-Graham race , which is tight .
The latest survey , taken by GBAO Strategies from September 23 to September 28 , has Harrison beating Graham 48 percent to 47 , with Bledsoe pulling a potentially game-changing three percent .
Bledsoe is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can exploit .
A veterinarian from Spartanburg , Bledsoe ran for the South Carolina ’ s other U.S. Senate seat in 2018 on both the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party lines .
He got just 2 percent but demonstrated a flair for attracting cameras–even brandishing a Revolutionary War-era musket to show he was the staunchest opponent of gun restrictions .
But incumbent Tim Scott won that race by 23 points , so Bledsoe ’ s single-digit showing meant nothing to the outcome of the race .
By contrast , Harrison can win buoyed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , astronomical fundraising , and , perhaps , leveraging Bledsoe ’ s name .
Not surprisingly , Graham welcomed Bledsoe ’ s endorsement with the same kind of obsequiousness he ’ s shown President Trump since the days when the former Air Force lawyer called Candidate Trump “ crazy ” and “ a religious bigot ” among other epithets .
Georgia is another state where a Third-Party candidate could make a real difference .
Georgia has two Senate elections this year .
In one , which features numerous Democrats and Republicans vying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnny Isakson , don ’ t look for Third-Party candidates to play much of a role .
It ’ s the contest between incumbent Republican Sen. David Purdue and Democrat Jon Ossoff , where the GOP and Democrats are concerned about Third-Party voters ’ potential impact .
The latest public survey , conducted by Public Policy Polling on October 8-9 , has Ossoff , who lost a much-publicized bid for Congress in 2018 , leading 44-43 percent .
The Libertarian Party candidate , Marine Corp veteran Shane Hazel , clocks in at four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exclusively on October 7 shows Perdue ahead 47-46 , with Hazel at two .
Carrying a legacy from the Jim Crow era , Georgia , like a few other states , including Louisiana , requires a runoff election if no candidate reaches a certain threshold .
Georgia ’ s is the only one that requires a majority to avoid a runoff .
In 1966 , the law ’ s authors intended it to safeguard against a unified black vote overcoming a divided white vote .
In the Purdue-Ossoff race , this law could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the runoff .
Since the Libertarian Party typically pulls more support from the right , Hazel ’ s candidacy could prevent Purdue from winning a majority and avoiding the runoff on January 5 , two days after the Senate is seated .
Avoiding flat-out defeat would give Ossoff a chance to contend in a runoff .
But Democrats still smart from 1992 when a Libertarian ’ s strong showing forced a runoff between the incumbent U.S .
Senator , Democrat Wyche Fowler , and his Republican challenger Paul Coverdell .
Fowler lost in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very tough 1993 and 1994 for the new president-elect Bill Clinton .
Ossoff has a shot , though a distant one , at winning a majority outright .
The state is trending blue .
FiveThirtyEight gives Biden a 46 percent chance of winning there , and it ’ s telling that Trump visited Macon , Ga. last week , a once impossible-to-imagine sign of desperation for a GOP nominee late trying to hold on to a red state .
With control of the Senate on the line , the November 3 contest between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attention and atypically high voter participation but maybe not enough to put Ossoff over the 50 percent threshold .
Democrats haven ’ t historically fared well in Georgia ’ s runoff elections , primarily because they ’ re typically low-turnout affairs .
And Democrats need large turnouts .
They get their base excited leading up to Election Day for candidates up and down the ballot .
Getting them to come back some 11 weeks later for just one race is a heavy lift .
The best chance for that to happen would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party is in firm control of the Senate and the Ossoff-Perdue runoff becomes the deciding factor .
Third parties may win less support his time around .
There are no high-profile figures atop the Green Party ticket such as Ralph Nader in 2000 or Stein in 2016 .
There are no high-profile Libertarian nominees for president and vice-president like former Republican Governor of New Mexico , Gary Johnson , and his 2016 running mate Bill Weld , the former governor of Massachusetts .
But Third Parties still have the potential to change everything @ @ @ @

Did Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein cost Hillary Clinton the 2016 election? We can’t know for sure because so many factors could have led to her defeat. But it’s certainly plausible that this third-party bid delivered us four years of Donald Trump. The wound is still raw: Trump won the Electoral College buoyed by three traditionally Democratic states—Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—which he won by a mere 78,000 votes. If every Stein voter in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin had cast a vote for Clinton, Trump would have lost.
It’s hard to imagine a third-party candidacy derailing Joe Biden, although it’s remotely possible if the race tightens. Unlike 2016, Democrats have aggressively exploited legal technicalities to keep Green Party candidates—many of whom have been helped by the GOP–off the ballot in pivotal states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. While the Libertarian Party announced in September that its presidential ticket would appear on the ballot in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., the Green Party’s candidates will do so in only 30.
The Green Party will be an option in Florida and other battleground states, such as Minnesota and Ohio, drawing at least some Biden votes. But this year’s Green Party ticket of Howie Hawkins and Angela Walker—have you heard of them?—seems less likely to tip the scales than Stein’s did.
Third-Party candidates’ real effect could be in the U.S. Senate, where Republicans control the chamber 53-47. Democrats wresting it from them could come down to two states, South Carolina and Georgia, where third-party voting could prove pivotal.
If you have any doubt about that, look at Jaime Harrison, the Democratic nominee in South Carolina challenging three-term incumbent Sen. Lindsey Graham. This month, Harrison began running ads that touted a far-right Third-Party conservative candidate to peel votes away from Graham. It’s a jarring and, some might say, brilliant gambit. The ad touts the Constitution Party’s Bill Bledsoe in a manner designed to pet the erogenous zones of conservatives. It notes that Bledsoe has “always supported Donald Trump” (unlike Graham) and is a fervent supporter of gun rights. It also states that Bledsoe is “on the ballot,” which is technically correct. Even though Bledsoe dropped out of the race on October 1, he did so after the deadline had passed to have his name removed from the ballot, and he didn’t bother to submit the paperwork to get that done. There’s even a picture in the ad showing a ballot where a Palmetto State Republican could check his name. If the image of Harrison (an African-American Yale grad with a genial and gentle mien) seems incongruous in an ad that all but spouts a Confederate Flag, that’s because it is. (A candidate’s image is required by law at the end of a broadcast ad.)
Democrats’ efforts to cause such rifts on the other side of the ideological divide are relatively rare, and so are Republican ones, but they can work. In 2012, then Sen. Claire McCaskill, the Missouri Democrat, ran ads touting Todd Akin, a contender for the GOP nomination to challenge her, believing he’d be a weaker general election candidate. That proved to be a smart bet. Akin won his primary and then imploded in the general election following his infamous quip about abortion and “legitimate rape.”
If enough votes go to Bledsoe, it could make a decisive difference in the Harrison-Graham race, which is tight. The latest survey, taken by GBAO Strategies from September 23 to September 28, has Harrison beating Graham 48 percent to 47, with Bledsoe pulling a potentially game-changing three percent.
Bledsoe is a character, the kind who Harrison can exploit. A veterinarian from Spartanburg, Bledsoe ran for the South Carolina’s other U.S. Senate seat in 2018 on both the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party lines. He got just 2 percent but demonstrated a flair for attracting cameras–even brandishing a Revolutionary War-era musket to show he was the staunchest opponent of gun restrictions. But incumbent Tim Scott won that race by 23 points, so Bledsoe’s single-digit showing meant nothing to the outcome of the race. By contrast, Harrison can win buoyed by a charismatic style, Graham fatigue, astronomical fundraising, and, perhaps, leveraging Bledsoe’s name. Not surprisingly, Graham welcomed Bledsoe’s endorsement with the same kind of obsequiousness he’s shown President Trump since the days when the former Air Force lawyer called Candidate Trump “crazy” and “a religious bigot” among other epithets.
Georgia is another state where a Third-Party candidate could make a real difference. Georgia has two Senate elections this year. In one, which features numerous Democrats and Republicans vying to fill the seat of retired GOP Sen. Johnny Isakson, don’t look for Third-Party candidates to play much of a role. It’s the contest between incumbent Republican Sen. David Purdue and Democrat Jon Ossoff, where the GOP and Democrats are concerned about Third-Party voters’ potential impact.
The latest public survey, conducted by Public Policy Polling on October 8-9, has Ossoff, who lost a much-publicized bid for Congress in 2018, leading 44-43 percent. The Libertarian Party candidate, Marine Corp veteran Shane Hazel, clocks in at four percent. A Landmark Communications poll conducted exclusively on October 7 shows Perdue ahead 47-46, with Hazel at two.
Carrying a legacy from the Jim Crow era, Georgia, like a few other states, including Louisiana, requires a runoff election if no candidate reaches a certain threshold. Georgia’s is the only one that requires a majority to avoid a runoff. In 1966, the law’s authors intended it to safeguard against a unified black vote overcoming a divided white vote.
In the Purdue-Ossoff race, this law could help Ossoff initially but perhaps not in the runoff. Since the Libertarian Party typically pulls more support from the right, Hazel’s candidacy could prevent Purdue from winning a majority and avoiding the runoff on January 5, two days after the Senate is seated. Avoiding flat-out defeat would give Ossoff a chance to contend in a runoff. But Democrats still smart from 1992 when a Libertarian’s strong showing forced a runoff between the incumbent U.S. Senator, Democrat Wyche Fowler, and his Republican challenger Paul Coverdell. Fowler lost in what was perhaps a harbinger of a very tough 1993 and 1994 for the new president-elect Bill Clinton.
Ossoff has a shot, though a distant one, at winning a majority outright. The state is trending blue. FiveThirtyEight gives Biden a 46 percent chance of winning there, and it’s telling that Trump visited Macon, Ga. last week, a once impossible-to-imagine sign of desperation for a GOP nominee late trying to hold on to a red state. With control of the Senate on the line, the November 3 contest between Perdue and Ossoff will get enormous national attention and atypically high voter participation but maybe not enough to put Ossoff over the 50 percent threshold.
Democrats haven’t historically fared well in Georgia’s runoff elections, primarily because they’re typically low-turnout affairs. And Democrats need large turnouts. They get their base excited leading up to Election Day for candidates up and down the ballot. Getting them to come back some 11 weeks later for just one race is a heavy lift. The best chance for that to happen would be if, after November 3, neither party is in firm control of the Senate and the Ossoff-Perdue runoff becomes the deciding factor.
Third parties may win less support his time around. There are no high-profile figures atop the Green Party ticket such as Ralph Nader in 2000 or Stein in 2016. There are no high-profile Libertarian nominees for president and vice-president like former Republican Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson, and his 2016 running mate Bill Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts. But Third Parties still have the potential to change everything in the Senate.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-20--For Profit College Execs Should Be Personally Liable For Their Crimes

Back in 2004 , Kevin Modany was ITT Technical Institute ’ s chief financial officer when the FBI raided the offices of the for-profit chain of schools as part of a fraud investigation .
By the time the Indiana-based company collapsed under the weight of its misdeeds in 2016 , Modany had risen to CEO .
Along the way , he made millions , including nearly $ 8 million between 2013 and 2015 , as the company foundered .
ITT ’ s closure left 35,000 students stranded in the middle of their education and taxpayers on the hook for an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away with a fine of $ 200,000 , a tiny fraction of what the school owed the federal government or what he had pocketed over ITT ’ s years of defrauding students .
Modany ’ s story is hardly unique .
Less than two weeks after regulators began the process of shutting it down , Corinthian Colleges Inc. ’ s leaders reportedly took nearly $ 1 million in bonuses .
By January 2017 , the U.S. Department of Education had approved more than $ 558 million in discharges for borrowers who attended the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The lesson is clear : until for-profit college executives fear more than a mild rebuke for fleecing students and taxpayers , their actions will not change .
Fortunately , the Department of Education already has the legal authority to hold college executives personally liable for their behavior .
It ’ s past time to start using it .
As Senator Elizabeth Warren recently said , the Department must “ end this boondoggle and use every tool available to hold these executives personally accountable.
” Providing more than $ 120 billion in federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is by far the largest source of financial support for college students and , by extension , colleges .
That funding is an investment in the futures of both our students and our economy , but it doesn ’ t come without strings .
In exchange for federal funding , federal law has long required that colleges meet basic standards of “ financial responsibility.
” In 1992 , a bipartisan Congress ensured that taxpayers are protected when colleges fail to uphold this bargain .
Because taxpayers can be on the hook for millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students , Congress added provisions that allow—and sometimes require—the Department to recover these financial losses not only from the institutions but also from individuals who “ exercise substantial control ” over institutions , including board members , the chief executive officer , other executive officers or major owners .
These changes were made with companies like ITT and Corinthian in mind .
As Congress considered revised legislation , the Department ’ s Inspector General presciently testified in 1992 that the law should require school owners to be held personally liable , lest they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the taxpayer and student are left to pay the bill.
” Despite this authority , one would be hard-pressed to find a single example of when the Department successfully used its administrative authority to hold executives personally liable .
Instead , when schools fail , the government tries to recover its money by asking a closed institution to repay a liability or through the bankruptcy process like any other creditor .
But when a college has closed , and access to further federal funding is no longer at stake , the school has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if any assets remain ) .
And in bankruptcy , taxpayers are often treated as unsecured creditors and forced to get in line behind those with secured interests .
Bottom line : absent a means of forced collections , the Department will rarely — if ever — collect from a shuttered school .
Even when the government does try to hold for-profit leaders personally accountable — as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission did with Modany — it is often for shirking duties to shareholders , not for bilking the Treasury or deceiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mere fraction of the millions of dollars they reaped .
Former Corinthian CEO Jack Massimino was docked just $ 80,000 .
He wasn ’ t even barred from future executive or board roles at publicly traded companies .
Modany is now an “ executive management and strategy consultant , ” who , while ITT was in bankruptcy , claimed that the company still owed him $ 5 million in severance and deferred compensation .
With the risks so low and the rewards so high , is it any surprise executives will take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an area where we could have done more during my time at the Department .
By and large , the Obama Administration focused on systemic change , instituting new regulations to crack down on predatory programs , enhance state-level oversight , expand debt relief for defrauded borrowers , and more .
Toward the end of the second term , the Department created a new enforcement unit to root out lawbreaking institutions .
But we did not aggressively hold individual offenders personally accountable for cheating students and taxpayers .
Since then , things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Betsy DeVos has empowered former for-profit executives as her top higher education aides .
The Trump Administration ’ s own failures have prevented it from unraveling some of the most crucial Obama-era student protections , and its lax enforcement is an invitation for predatory behavior .
Meanwhile , the pandemic has driven a surge in for-profit college enrollment .
If Joe Biden wins in November and Democrats retake power , they will need to move swiftly to prevent the next wave of Corinthian- and ITT-style disasters .
According to a poll my organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both parties , including 80 % of Republicans , support holding for-profit executives personally liable when their schools take advantage of students .
Enforcing the rules on the books and implementing new preventative ones will be a part of that equation .
But to truly deter the next generation of exploitative executives , we must send a clear signal — as the Inspector General and Congress warned in 1992 — that the personal risk of fleecing students and taxpayers outweighs any potential financial reward .

Back in 2004, Kevin Modany was ITT Technical Institute’s chief financial officer when the FBI raided the offices of the for-profit chain of schools as part of a fraud investigation.
By the time the Indiana-based company collapsed under the weight of its misdeeds in 2016, Modany had risen to CEO. Along the way, he made millions, including nearly $8 million between 2013 and 2015, as the company foundered. ITT’s closure left 35,000 students stranded in the middle of their education and taxpayers on the hook for an estimated $375 million. Modany walked away with a fine of $200,000, a tiny fraction of what the school owed the federal government or what he had pocketed over ITT’s years of defrauding students.
Modany’s story is hardly unique. Less than two weeks after regulators began the process of shutting it down, Corinthian Colleges Inc.’s leaders reportedly took nearly $1 million in bonuses. By January 2017, the U.S. Department of Education had approved more than $558 million in discharges for borrowers who attended the for-profit chain, with more discharges looming. The lesson is clear: until for-profit college executives fear more than a mild rebuke for fleecing students and taxpayers, their actions will not change.
Fortunately, the Department of Education already has the legal authority to hold college executives personally liable for their behavior. It’s past time to start using it. As Senator Elizabeth Warren recently said, the Department must “end this boondoggle and use every tool available to hold these executives personally accountable.”
Providing more than $120 billion in federal student aid each year, the Department is by far the largest source of financial support for college students and, by extension, colleges. That funding is an investment in the futures of both our students and our economy, but it doesn’t come without strings. In exchange for federal funding, federal law has long required that colleges meet basic standards of “financial responsibility.”
In 1992, a bipartisan Congress ensured that taxpayers are protected when colleges fail to uphold this bargain. Because taxpayers can be on the hook for millions when an institution closes or defrauds its students, Congress added provisions that allow—and sometimes require—the Department to recover these financial losses not only from the institutions but also from individuals who “exercise substantial control” over institutions, including board members, the chief executive officer, other executive officers or major owners.
These changes were made with companies like ITT and Corinthian in mind. As Congress considered revised legislation, the Department’s Inspector General presciently testified in 1992 that the law should require school owners to be held personally liable, lest they “escape with large personal profits while the taxpayer and student are left to pay the bill.”
Despite this authority, one would be hard-pressed to find a single example of when the Department successfully used its administrative authority to hold executives personally liable. Instead, when schools fail, the government tries to recover its money by asking a closed institution to repay a liability or through the bankruptcy process like any other creditor. But when a college has closed, and access to further federal funding is no longer at stake, the school has no incentive to repay the debt (if any assets remain). And in bankruptcy, taxpayers are often treated as unsecured creditors and forced to get in line behind those with secured interests. Bottom line: absent a means of forced collections, the Department will rarely — if ever — collect from a shuttered school.
Even when the government does try to hold for-profit leaders personally accountable — as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission did with Modany — it is often for shirking duties to shareholders, not for bilking the Treasury or deceiving students. And the fines imposed are a mere fraction of the millions of dollars they reaped.
Former Corinthian CEO Jack Massimino was docked just $80,000. He wasn’t even barred from future executive or board roles at publicly traded companies. Modany is now an “executive management and strategy consultant,” who, while ITT was in bankruptcy, claimed that the company still owed him $5 million in severance and deferred compensation. With the risks so low and the rewards so high, is it any surprise executives will take advantage of students?
Admittedly, this is an area where we could have done more during my time at the Department. By and large, the Obama Administration focused on systemic change, instituting new regulations to crack down on predatory programs, enhance state-level oversight, expand debt relief for defrauded borrowers, and more. Toward the end of the second term, the Department created a new enforcement unit to root out lawbreaking institutions. But we did not aggressively hold individual offenders personally accountable for cheating students and taxpayers.
Since then, things have gotten worse. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has empowered former for-profit executives as her top higher education aides. The Trump Administration’s own failures have prevented it from unraveling some of the most crucial Obama-era student protections, and its lax enforcement is an invitation for predatory behavior. Meanwhile, the pandemic has driven a surge in for-profit college enrollment.
If Joe Biden wins in November and Democrats retake power, they will need to move swiftly to prevent the next wave of Corinthian- and ITT-style disasters. According to a poll my organization conducted this month, strong majorities of both parties, including 80% of Republicans, support holding for-profit executives personally liable when their schools take advantage of students. Enforcing the rules on the books and implementing new preventative ones will be a part of that equation. But to truly deter the next generation of exploitative executives, we must send a clear signal — as the Inspector General and Congress warned in 1992 — that the personal risk of fleecing students and taxpayers outweighs any potential financial reward.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-19--The Chaos Is The Point

The Chaos Is The Point

Like many liberals , I ’ ve been struggling to understand why millions of Americans continue to back President Trump .
Just as rain and snow couldn ’ t stall the Pony Express , it seems , neither coronavirus nor recession have cut into Trump ’ s base of support .
Why not ?
We ’ ve all heard the stock answers : economic dislocation , fear of immigration , and especially the racism of white voters who see “ their ” America slipping away .
But the best short explanation I ’ ve seen appeared in a letter to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Santa Clarita , California .
I don ’ t know Mr. Saginian , but his letter taught me more than a thousand news articles and op-ed columns about Donald Trump ’ s popularity : it ’ s about how Trump behaves , not what he believes .
And that has huge implications for our country , even if Biden wins bigly .
Our thickest dividing line isn ’ t about taxes or the Supreme Court .
It ’ s about something more elemental : our norms of civic life .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Mr. Saginian wrote .
“ I like Trump because he is uncouth , unpredictable , uncontrollable , and maybe just a bit crazy .
I happen to like that in a leader.
” And that ’ s how Trump is different from the Democrats , who lack “ the desire or even the ability to confront the big , bad world on its own terms , ” Mr. Saginian added .
Put simply , we live in a dark place .
So , we need someone who is dark—and even a little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Saginian provided an especially stark summary of this philosophy , but he ’ s hardly the only American who shares it .
In their recent book , Trump ’ s Democrats , Stephanie Muravchik and Jon A. Shields demonstrate that Trump ’ s aggressive persona—a tough guy in a dangerous world—was the real reason so many people crossed party lines to vote for him in 2016 .
“ He ’ s a loose cannon , rough around the edges , ” one Trump convert told Muravchik and Shields .
“ I like that.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected uncouth and unlovable types in the past : Richard Nixon , especially , was nobody ’ s idea of warm and cuddly .
But Nixon kept his darkest impulses under wraps , saving them for private conversations that came to light only when the Watergate tapes were released .
Nixon also showed that he knew how to govern , which seems much less important to supporters of Donald Trump .
His darkness is out there , for everyone to see , and that ’ s precisely what attracts so many people to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with “ strength.
” A strong leader needs to be confrontational , at all times .
When he is attacked , he must strike back with greater force .
He must never apologize , which is a sign of weakness .
Most of all , he must be willing to say anything—literally , anything—to defend his territory .
And it doesn ’ t matter if it ’ s true or not .
“ As for lying ?
” Mr. Saginian asked .
“ I expect to lie .
So that ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when selecting a leader.
” For the first time , reading Mr. Saginian ’ s letter , I understood the “ Trump : No Bullshit ” signs I ’ ve seen in the Republican strongholds of rural Pennsylvania .
I live in Philadelphia , which is solid Biden country , but the state as a whole remains up for grabs .
And the Trump campaign knows it can ’ t win without a big turnout in the exburbs and rural counties .
So as soon as you get outside of Philly , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stickers , and advertisements like the “ No Bullshit ” signs .
It ’ s not that Trump ’ s supporters think he ’ s honest ; they know he isn ’ t .
Unlike other politicians , however , Trump has the honesty to admit it .
Cynical ?
You bet .
But it also suggests that journalists and scholars are wasting their time when they fact-check Donald J. Trump .
Indeed , that probably makes him even more attractive in the eyes of his disciples .
You can ’ t argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should stop trying .
A better strategy would be to confront Trump ’ s rough style head-on , borrowing just enough from it that we don ’ t sink to his level .
Joe Biden probably erred in calling Trump a “ clown ” in their first debate , but I imagine that he also earned some grudging respect from the likes of Mr. Saginian .
Second , we should focus on what makes America strong and good–especially its traditions of freedom and equality–rather than on its racism , sexism , homophobia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Of course , it does .
But the best way to challenge it is by proposing specific remedies , like criminal justice reform , rather than via blanket self-lacerating statements that serve mainly to burnish our woke bona fides .
Wisely , Biden has avoided labeling America as racist .
But other Democrats continue to do so , which makes the party seem weak to many voters .
And if you think otherwise , listen to Mr. Saginian .
“ I actually see Democrats as having slightly masochistic tendencies , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pain and suffering seem to resonate with them .
.
.
just a bit too much for my liking.
” Finally , we also need to find a venue where we can challenge Mr. Saginian ’ s cynicism without condescending .
I know just the place : our public schools .
That ’ s where we cultivate our next generation of citizens .
And my guess is that even the most loyal Trump supporters wouldn ’ t want schools to promote or condone the president ’ s bellicose and inappropriate behavior .
Would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3rd-grade teacher to tell her class that it was OK to lie because everyone does it ?
Would he want the principal to get on the public address system and rant like a madman ?
Would he want a visiting speaker to inform the school assembly that the world is a violent and scary place , so you should do whatever it takes to survive in it ?
Let ’ s face it : our schools–and our society , writ large–have failed to teach democratic civility .
Somebody tried to instruct Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and it obviously didn ’ t work .
Ditto for his legions of supporters .
You can ’ t account for Trump ’ s rise and still formidable political strength—or for Mr. Saginian ’ s defense of him—in any other way .
But that doesn ’ t mean we should simply throw up our hands because you can ’ t change human nature .
Who cares if our kids are kind , decent , and honest ?
Everybody does .
Even Arthur Saginian .

Like many liberals, I’ve been struggling to understand why millions of Americans continue to back President Trump. Just as rain and snow couldn’t stall the Pony Express, it seems, neither coronavirus nor recession have cut into Trump’s base of support. Why not?
We’ve all heard the stock answers: economic dislocation, fear of immigration, and especially the racism of white voters who see “their” America slipping away. But the best short explanation I’ve seen appeared in a letter to the New York Times over the weekend by Arthur Saginian of Santa Clarita, California. I don’t know Mr. Saginian, but his letter taught me more than a thousand news articles and op-ed columns about Donald Trump’s popularity: it’s about how Trump behaves, not what he believes.
And that has huge implications for our country, even if Biden wins bigly. Our thickest dividing line isn’t about taxes or the Supreme Court. It’s about something more elemental: our norms of civic life.
“It really comes down to personal style,” Mr. Saginian wrote. “I like Trump because he is uncouth, unpredictable, uncontrollable, and maybe just a bit crazy. I happen to like that in a leader.”
And that’s how Trump is different from the Democrats, who lack “the desire or even the ability to confront the big, bad world on its own terms,” Mr. Saginian added. Put simply, we live in a dark place. So, we need someone who is dark—and even a little scary—to shepherd us through it.
Mr. Saginian provided an especially stark summary of this philosophy, but he’s hardly the only American who shares it. In their recent book, Trump’s Democrats, Stephanie Muravchik and Jon A. Shields demonstrate that Trump’s aggressive persona—a tough guy in a dangerous world—was the real reason so many people crossed party lines to vote for him in 2016. “He’s a loose cannon, rough around the edges,” one Trump convert told Muravchik and Shields. “I like that.”
To be sure, Americans have elected uncouth and unlovable types in the past: Richard Nixon, especially, was nobody’s idea of warm and cuddly. But Nixon kept his darkest impulses under wraps, saving them for private conversations that came to light only when the Watergate tapes were released. Nixon also showed that he knew how to govern, which seems much less important to supporters of Donald Trump. His darkness is out there, for everyone to see, and that’s precisely what attracts so many people to him.
Indeed, they equate it with “strength.” A strong leader needs to be confrontational, at all times. When he is attacked, he must strike back with greater force. He must never apologize, which is a sign of weakness. Most of all, he must be willing to say anything—literally, anything—to defend his territory.
And it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. “As for lying?” Mr. Saginian asked. “I expect everyone to lie. So that’s not something to which I give any consideration when selecting a leader.”
For the first time, reading Mr. Saginian’s letter, I understood the “Trump: No Bullshit” signs I’ve seen in the Republican strongholds of rural Pennsylvania. I live in Philadelphia, which is solid Biden country, but the state as a whole remains up for grabs. And the Trump campaign knows it can’t win without a big turnout in the exburbs and rural counties. So as soon as you get outside of Philly, you start to see Trump hats, bumper stickers, and advertisements like the “No Bullshit” signs. It’s not that Trump’s supporters think he’s honest; they know he isn’t. Unlike other politicians, however, Trump has the honesty to admit it.
Cynical? You bet. But it also suggests that journalists and scholars are wasting their time when they fact-check Donald J. Trump. Indeed, that probably makes him even more attractive in the eyes of his disciples. You can’t argue with an honest liar, and we should stop trying.
A better strategy would be to confront Trump’s rough style head-on, borrowing just enough from it that we don’t sink to his level. Joe Biden probably erred in calling Trump a “clown” in their first debate, but I imagine that he also earned some grudging respect from the likes of Mr. Saginian.
Second, we should focus on what makes America strong and good–especially its traditions of freedom and equality–rather than on its racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on. Does racism exist? Of course, it does. But the best way to challenge it is by proposing specific remedies, like criminal justice reform, rather than via blanket self-lacerating statements that serve mainly to burnish our woke bona fides. Wisely, Biden has avoided labeling America as racist. But other Democrats continue to do so, which makes the party seem weak to many voters.
And if you think otherwise, listen to Mr. Saginian. “I actually see Democrats as having slightly masochistic tendencies,” he wrote, concluding his letter. “Pain and suffering seem to resonate with them . . . just a bit too much for my liking.”
Finally, we also need to find a venue where we can challenge Mr. Saginian’s cynicism without condescending. I know just the place: our public schools.
That’s where we cultivate our next generation of citizens. And my guess is that even the most loyal Trump supporters wouldn’t want schools to promote or condone the president’s bellicose and inappropriate behavior.
Would Mr. Saginian want a child’s 3rd-grade teacher to tell her class that it was OK to lie because everyone does it? Would he want the principal to get on the public address system and rant like a madman? Would he want a visiting speaker to inform the school assembly that the world is a violent and scary place, so you should do whatever it takes to survive in it?
Let’s face it: our schools–and our society, writ large–have failed to teach democratic civility. Somebody tried to instruct Donald Trump in civics, during his own childhood, and it obviously didn’t work. Ditto for his legions of supporters. You can’t account for Trump’s rise and still formidable political strength—or for Mr. Saginian’s defense of him—in any other way. But that doesn’t mean we should simply throw up our hands because you can’t change human nature. Who cares if our kids are kind, decent, and honest? Everybody does. Even Arthur Saginian.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-21--How Jimmy Carter Kept Me Sane

How Jimmy Carter Kept Me Sane

To write a biography , you must live with your subject for a long time .
I ’ ve been lucky enough to take up residence for the last five years with Jimmy Carter .
In a sense , we vacation together—my study of him has transported me to the land of 1970s “ malaise , ” a difficult time in America but one where the president was trying to promote democracy , not assault it .
Carter is an intense , steely man with plenty of faults but our time together ( both in person and in my mind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inspiration .
His decency kept me sane in the time of Trump .
Carter is the UnTrump .
If you went into Dr. Frankenstein ’ s laboratory and tried to create the opposite of the current president , you would come up with this former president .
It ’ s true that Trump is now in the same position as Carter when he ran for reelection in 1980 against Ronald Reagan—trailing an aging challenger .
But that ’ s where the analogy ends .
I once asked Carter by email if he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a one-word answer : The two men have met only once , in the early 1980s , when Carter took his tin cup to Trump Tower .
Trump was impressed that Carter had “ the nerve and the guts ” to ask him for $ 5 million but of course gave not a penny to the cause of peacemaking , global health , human rights and the other missions of The Carter Center .
After Trump was elected , they talked a couple of times on the phone , and Carter—in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emissary to North Korea .
When Trump went himself , Carter felt more free to blast his lying and his Mexico border policy .
Last year , Carter called Trump an “ illegitimate ” president , and this year he and Rosalynn enthusiastically endorsed Joe Biden .
My book is about Carter , not Trump , who is barely mentioned .
But the contrast comes through on every page .
Trump is a liar ; Carter promised in his 1976 campaign that he wouldn ’ t lie to the American people and—notwithstanding a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is an autocrat ; Carter ’ s human rights policy established a new global standard for freedom , helped advance democracy in scores of countries , and—as some conservatives of the time now acknowledge—hastened the end of the Cold War .
Trump takes no responsibility and gives himself A-plus grades ; Carter told the military before the failed Iran hostage rescue mission : “ Any success is due to you , but any failure is mine alone.
” Sometimes he was almost comically accountable : When Dan Rather asked him on “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1980 Democratic Convention to grade himself , Carter gave himself a B-minus , a C-plus , and a C. Trump has no empathy ; Carter , not Bill Clinton , was the first president to say , “ I feel your pain ” —and he meant it .
This usually took the form of compassion for the poor and marginalized , but it could also get him in trouble .
Carter ’ s concern for the ailing Shah of Iran led him to allow the Iranian ruler entry to the U.S. for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seizure of hostages at the American embassy in Tehran , a major factor in his defeat for reelection .
Trump still refuses to release his tax returns , even after they were leaked ; Carter was the first presidential candidate to do so , a tradition followed by all candidates and presidents until Trump .
When Carter learned that he owed no federal taxes on his income from the peanut warehouse , he told his accountant to delete several deductions so that he would pay a respectable amount .
Trump is unsavory—eight of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convicted of crimes , and he has used the presidency to enrich himself ; Carter ’ s brother Billy embarrassed him , but an investigation proved no wrongdoing and the Carter Administration was squeaky clean .
His financial holdings were in an airtight blind trust .
Trump trashes the EPA and calls climate change “ a hoax ” ; Carter was the greatest environmental president since Theodore Roosevelt .
He strengthened the EPA , pioneered clean energy , was the first president to clean up toxic waste , and planned to confront global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump is lazy in his presidential duties , incurious , and doesn ’ t read ; In the nearly 70 years since Carter admitted to Admiral Hyman Rickover , his commander and founder of the nuclear Navy , that he hadn ’ t done his best at the Naval Academy , he has been a model of ceaseless effort .
His often-ridiculed attention to detail led to the Camp David Accords , Alaska Lands bill , and eventual release of the American hostages in Tehran .
Trump cares solely about being reelected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wife Rosalynn by making more than 20 major decisions that hurt his bid for a second term , including his decisions to give back the Panama Canal , kill the B-1 bomber , spare Iran a military response for taking hostages in Iran , and appoint Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker , who jacked up interest rates astronomically just before the 1980 election .
When Volcker ’ s policy finally ended double-digit inflation , Ronald Reagan got the credit .
Trump is trying to wreck American democracy by sowing distrust of absentee ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and refusing to endorse a peaceful transfer of power ; Carter , who conceded early ( too early for some Democrats ) on Election Night 1980 , has opposed voter suppression and championed democracy since he was a Georgia state senator in the 1960s .
As a former president , he co-chaired two commissions after the 2000 election that led to statutory reform .
The Carter Center has monitored 115 elections around the world .
Trump speaks to the American people with what language experts calculate to be at a fifth-grade level ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoke during his presidency at an eleventh-grade level .
I remember exactly where I was when I began embracing the contrast—the Carter Library in Atlanta .
It was June 16 , 2015 , the day Trump came down the gilded escalator to announce his candidacy with a blast of hate .
After analyzing the demagoguery , I returned with relief to the voluminous Carter papers , which wiped away the tocsins .
That evening , the Carters invited me to a casual family dinner , full of good cheer .
Afterwards , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weren ’ t traveling or at home in Plains—on a Murphy bed .
The epic life of Jimmy Carter is nourishment we badly need right now— comfort food for the body politic .

To write a biography, you must live with your subject for a long time. I’ve been lucky enough to take up residence for the last five years with Jimmy Carter. In a sense, we vacation together—my study of him has transported me to the land of 1970s “malaise,” a difficult time in America but one where the president was trying to promote democracy, not assault it. Carter is an intense, steely man with plenty of faults but our time together (both in person and in my mind) has been a pleasure and an inspiration. His decency kept me sane in the time of Trump.
Carter is the UnTrump. If you went into Dr. Frankenstein’s laboratory and tried to create the opposite of the current president, you would come up with this former president.
It’s true that Trump is now in the same position as Carter when he ran for reelection in 1980 against Ronald Reagan—trailing an aging challenger. But that’s where the analogy ends. I once asked Carter by email if he had anything in common with Trump. He had a one-word answer:
“No.”
The two men have met only once, in the early 1980s, when Carter took his tin cup to Trump Tower. Trump was impressed that Carter had “the nerve and the guts” to ask him for $5 million but of course gave not a penny to the cause of peacemaking, global health, human rights and the other missions of The Carter Center.
After Trump was elected, they talked a couple of times on the phone, and Carter—in his mid-nineties—tried to wrangle an assignment as an emissary to North Korea. When Trump went himself, Carter felt more free to blast his lying and his Mexico border policy. Last year, Carter called Trump an “illegitimate” president, and this year he and Rosalynn enthusiastically endorsed Joe Biden.
My book is about Carter, not Trump, who is barely mentioned. But the contrast comes through on every page.
Trump is a liar; Carter promised in his 1976 campaign that he wouldn’t lie to the American people and—notwithstanding a few exaggerations—he never told any whoppers.
Trump is an autocrat; Carter’s human rights policy established a new global standard for freedom, helped advance democracy in scores of countries, and—as some conservatives of the time now acknowledge—hastened the end of the Cold War.
Trump takes no responsibility and gives himself A-plus grades; Carter told the military before the failed Iran hostage rescue mission: “Any success is due to you, but any failure is mine alone.” Sometimes he was almost comically accountable: When Dan Rather asked him on “60 Minutes” on the eve of the 1980 Democratic Convention to grade himself, Carter gave himself a B-minus, a C-plus, and a C.
Trump has no empathy; Carter, not Bill Clinton, was the first president to say, “I feel your pain”—and he meant it. This usually took the form of compassion for the poor and marginalized, but it could also get him in trouble. Carter’s concern for the ailing Shah of Iran led him to allow the Iranian ruler entry to the U.S. for medical treatment, which led to the seizure of hostages at the American embassy in Tehran, a major factor in his defeat for reelection.
Trump still refuses to release his tax returns, even after they were leaked; Carter was the first presidential candidate to do so, a tradition followed by all candidates and presidents until Trump. When Carter learned that he owed no federal taxes on his income from the peanut warehouse, he told his accountant to delete several deductions so that he would pay a respectable amount.
Trump is unsavory—eight of his closest associates have been charged or convicted of crimes, and he has used the presidency to enrich himself; Carter’s brother Billy embarrassed him, but an investigation proved no wrongdoing and the Carter Administration was squeaky clean. His financial holdings were in an airtight blind trust.
Trump trashes the EPA and calls climate change “a hoax”; Carter was the greatest environmental president since Theodore Roosevelt. He strengthened the EPA, pioneered clean energy, was the first president to clean up toxic waste, and planned to confront global warming had he won a second term.
Trump is lazy in his presidential duties, incurious, and doesn’t read; In the nearly 70 years since Carter admitted to Admiral Hyman Rickover, his commander and founder of the nuclear Navy, that he hadn’t done his best at the Naval Academy, he has been a model of ceaseless effort. His often-ridiculed attention to detail led to the Camp David Accords, Alaska Lands bill, and eventual release of the American hostages in Tehran.
Trump cares solely about being reelected; Carter frustrated his aides and his wife Rosalynn by making more than 20 major decisions that hurt his bid for a second term, including his decisions to give back the Panama Canal, kill the B-1 bomber, spare Iran a military response for taking hostages in Iran, and appoint Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who jacked up interest rates astronomically just before the 1980 election. When Volcker’s policy finally ended double-digit inflation, Ronald Reagan got the credit.
Trump is trying to wreck American democracy by sowing distrust of absentee ballots, seeking postponement of the election, and refusing to endorse a peaceful transfer of power; Carter, who conceded early (too early for some Democrats) on Election Night 1980, has opposed voter suppression and championed democracy since he was a Georgia state senator in the 1960s. As a former president, he co-chaired two commissions after the 2000 election that led to statutory reform. The Carter Center has monitored 115 elections around the world.
Trump speaks to the American people with what language experts calculate to be at a fifth-grade level; Carter, sometimes to his detriment, spoke during his presidency at an eleventh-grade level.
I remember exactly where I was when I began embracing the contrast—the Carter Library in Atlanta. It was June 16, 2015, the day Trump came down the gilded escalator to announce his candidacy with a blast of hate. After analyzing the demagoguery, I returned with relief to the voluminous Carter papers, which wiped away the tocsins. That evening, the Carters invited me to a casual family dinner, full of good cheer. Afterwards, they showed me where they slept when they weren’t traveling or at home in Plains—on a Murphy bed.
The epic life of Jimmy Carter is nourishment we badly need right now— comfort food for the body politic.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-20--This Democrat Can Win the Seat Once Held By Tom DeLay and Ron Paul

One year ago , Rep. Cheri Bustos , Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee , declared that “ Texas is ground zero in 2020.
” The Illinois congresswoman was referring to the five House Republicans who had announced their retirement following narrow wins in 2018 , a phenomenon that became known as “ Texodus.
” As a result , Democrats targeted their districts to flip in 2020 .
The forecast model at FiveThirtyEight gives Democrats a 95 in 100 chance of maintaining control of the House , which is why , when it comes to Congressional elections , most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans can hold onto their Senate majority .
However , the comments from Bustos indicate that Democrats are actually working on adding members to their ranks in the House—and the one state where that is likely to happen , interestingly enough , is Texas .
One of the districts targeted by Democrats is Texas ’ s 22nd , which covers the south and southwestern suburbs of Houston .
From the late 70s to the mid-80s , the district chose Libertarian Ron Paul to represent them .
When he decided to run for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected and eventually became the Majority Leader .
In 2008 , when DeLay resigned due to his involvement in the Jack Abramoff campaign finance scandal , Republican Pete Olson was elected to represent the district and has held the seat since then .
That explains why the Cook Political Report rates this district as R+10 .
Olson announced his retirement in July 2019 with the usual bromide about wanting to spend more time with his family .
But that came after reelection in 2018 , where he won by only five points , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in previous elections .
What is happening in Texas ’ s 22nd congressional district encapsulates what is going wrong for Republicans in the Lonestar State .
Fort Bend County is at the heart of the 22nd district and ranks 10th on the list of fastest-growing counties in the country , doubling its population since 2000 .
With that growth has come diversity .
Non-Hispanic whites make up 32 percent of residents of Fort Bend County , while Hispanics make up about 25 percent , and African Americans 22 percent .
Asian Americans are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and make up about 20 percent of Fort Bend County residents .
According to an analysis from Wall St. 24/7 , a financial news and commentary site , Fort Bend is the wealthiest county in Texas , with a median household income of $ 93,645 .
Approximately 46 percent of its residents have at least a bachelor ’ s degree .
What we have then , in the 22nd district , is a suburban community in a major metropolitan area with a soaring population that is increasingly diverse , wealthy , and college-educated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monthly , that is why “ the GOP is facing a historical reckoning.
” As David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report told Draper , “ Even more than the robust growth in eligible Hispanic , Black , and Asian American voters , the bigger driver of change in Texas is the migration [ in the political views ] of professional whites in the suburbs , particularly women.
” The Republican candidate in Texas ’ s 22nd district is Fort Bend Sheriff Troy Nehls .
During a primary against 14 other Republicans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with President Trump to defeat the socialist Democrats , build the wall , drain the swamp , and deliver on pro-economy and pro-America policies.
” But two days after he became the nominee , the “ Standing with President Trump ” page on his web site was removed .
Now Nehls runs as a moderate committed to protecting energy jobs and criminal justice reform .
Sri Preston Kulkarni , the Democrat , left his career in the U.S. Foreign Service to run for Congress .
His father is an Indian American who taught @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mother , who worked at Exxon as a systems analyst , is a direct descendant of Sam Houston ’ s grandfather .
Kulkarni is running on a platform to expand the Affordable Care Act , invest in renewable energy sources , and pass common-sense gun safety measures .
But what makes his candidacy unique is that he is reaching out to voters in 27 different languages .
Kulkarni himself speaks six fluently , including Hindi , Chinese , and Spanish .
The candidate says that “ 72 percent of the [ Asian-American voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been called by either a Republican or a Democrat—and they ’ re the fastest-growing group in Texas.
” The race in Texas ’ s 22nd congressional district is listed as a toss-up by the Cook Political Report .
But with the election just days away , Kulkarni has a massive advantage over Nehls in fundraising .
According to Open Secrets , the Democrat has raised $ 4.5 million to the Republican ’ s $ 1.3 million .
Something is going on in Texas .
The state has typically had abysmal voter turnout rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million Texans have already voted .
According to Dan Solomon at Texas Monthly , “ the counties that have seen the biggest spike in turnout are suburban ones with populations of less than a million.
” Fort Bend County in the 22nd district fits that description perfectly .
This is a race to watch .
It is possible that a Democrat could win the seat once occupied by Ron Paul and Tom DeLay .
There is no better example of the dramatic change underway in Texas .

One year ago, Rep. Cheri Bustos, Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, declared that “Texas is ground zero in 2020.” The Illinois congresswoman was referring to the five House Republicans who had announced their retirement following narrow wins in 2018, a phenomenon that became known as “Texodus.” As a result, Democrats targeted their districts to flip in 2020.
The forecast model at FiveThirtyEight gives Democrats a 95 in 100 chance of maintaining control of the House, which is why, when it comes to Congressional elections, most of the attention has been on whether Republicans can hold onto their Senate majority. However, the comments from Bustos indicate that Democrats are actually working on adding members to their ranks in the House—and the one state where that is likely to happen, interestingly enough, is Texas.
One of the districts targeted by Democrats is Texas’s 22nd, which covers the south and southwestern suburbs of Houston. From the late 70s to the mid-80s, the district chose Libertarian Ron Paul to represent them. When he decided to run for the Senate in 1985, Tom DeLay was elected and eventually became the Majority Leader. In 2008, when DeLay resigned due to his involvement in the Jack Abramoff campaign finance scandal, Republican Pete Olson was elected to represent the district and has held the seat since then. That explains why the Cook Political Report rates this district as R+10.
Olson announced his retirement in July 2019 with the usual bromide about wanting to spend more time with his family. But that came after reelection in 2018, where he won by only five points, after cruising to victory by 20-30 points in previous elections. What is happening in Texas’s 22nd congressional district encapsulates what is going wrong for Republicans in the Lonestar State.
Fort Bend County is at the heart of the 22nd district and ranks 10th on the list of fastest-growing counties in the country, doubling its population since 2000. With that growth has come diversity. Non-Hispanic whites make up 32 percent of residents of Fort Bend County, while Hispanics make up about 25 percent, and African Americans 22 percent. Asian Americans are actually the fastest-growing demographic group in Texas and make up about 20 percent of Fort Bend County residents.
According to an analysis from Wall St. 24/7, a financial news and commentary site, Fort Bend is the wealthiest county in Texas, with a median household income of $93,645. Approximately 46 percent of its residents have at least a bachelor’s degree.
What we have then, in the 22nd district, is a suburban community in a major metropolitan area with a soaring population that is increasingly diverse, wealthy, and college-educated. As Robert Draper wrote in Texas Monthly, that is why “the GOP is facing a historical reckoning.”
What has kept Republicans in power is a dominant hold on a proportionately shrinking demographic: non-Hispanic white voters. Yet even that grip has become tenuous, for two reasons. First, the state GOP has maximized its rural turnout—there are few if any voters left to get. Second, and more important, the party is now struggling in the suburbs.
As David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report told Draper, “Even more than the robust growth in eligible Hispanic, Black, and Asian American voters, the bigger driver of change in Texas is the migration [in the political views] of professional whites in the suburbs, particularly women.”
The Republican candidate in Texas’s 22nd district is Fort Bend Sheriff Troy Nehls. During a primary against 14 other Republicans, he declared that he would “stand with President Trump to defeat the socialist Democrats, build the wall, drain the swamp, and deliver on pro-economy and pro-America policies.” But two days after he became the nominee, the “Standing with President Trump” page on his web site was removed. Now Nehls runs as a moderate committed to protecting energy jobs and criminal justice reform.
Sri Preston Kulkarni, the Democrat, left his career in the U.S. Foreign Service to run for Congress. His father is an Indian American who taught creative writing at Rice University. His mother, who worked at Exxon as a systems analyst, is a direct descendant of Sam Houston’s grandfather.
Kulkarni is running on a platform to expand the Affordable Care Act, invest in renewable energy sources, and pass common-sense gun safety measures. But what makes his candidacy unique is that he is reaching out to voters in 27 different languages. Kulkarni himself speaks six fluently, including Hindi, Chinese, and Spanish. The candidate says that “72 percent of the [Asian-American voters] we reached out to had never been called by either a Republican or a Democrat—and they’re the fastest-growing group in Texas.”
The race in Texas’s 22nd congressional district is listed as a toss-up by the Cook Political Report. But with the election just days away, Kulkarni has a massive advantage over Nehls in fundraising. According to Open Secrets, the Democrat has raised $4.5 million to the Republican’s $1.3 million.
Something is going on in Texas. The state has typically had abysmal voter turnout rates. As of Sunday, over 4 million Texans have already voted. According to Dan Solomon at Texas Monthly, “the counties that have seen the biggest spike in turnout are suburban ones with populations of less than a million.” Fort Bend County in the 22nd district fits that description perfectly.
This is a race to watch. It is possible that a Democrat could win the seat once occupied by Ron Paul and Tom DeLay. There is no better example of the dramatic change underway in Texas.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-20--COVID, OSHA Complaints, And Unsafe Labor Practices

Donald Trump ’ s Occupational Safety and Health Administration , I have pointed out many times , is not especially eager to fine employers for Covid violations .
It has imposed precisely zero mandatory safety standards to prevent or contain Covid outbreaks , making it fairly difficult for the agency to fine businesses for gross negligence in exposing employees to the deadly virus .
According to the agency ’ s latest tabulation , OSHA has written up only about six dozen employers for Covid violations since Trump declared a national emergency in mid-March .
The fines have totaled $ 1.2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ OSHA fined during the Obama administration , a single Wisconsin shipyard in August 2016 .
The brutal consequence is that it ’ s not economically rational for an employer to protect workers from Covid .
It ’ s simply too unlikely you ’ ll get cited , and if you are , the fine will be preposterously low .
A $ 15,615 OSHA fine against the JBS beef factory in Greely , Colorado , assuming it ever gets paid—the employer is appealing—will be less than what the family of one JBS worker who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
With unemployment elevated to twice its level prior to the Covid outbreak , it ’ s not as though businesses will have much trouble replacing workers who die from Covid .
Meanwhile , the same Labor Department that refuses to protect workers from the pandemic ( OSHA is part of DOL ) is urging state unemployment agencies to contact former employers of furloughed workers to find out whether they ’ ve reopened for business .
If they have , the state unemployment agency must cut off benefits for these malingerers .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Trump administration and Mitch McConnell are demanding , as the price of any further Covid stimulus , a liability shield for employers that will curb even these weak enforcement efforts to hold businesses accountable ?
Now Harvard ’ s Center for Population and Development Studies has produced a report that gives us a tool to quantify the result .
( Many thanks to the New Yorker ’ s Eyal Press , whose excellent new profile of Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia cited this paper . )
The Harvard study ’ s authors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worker complaints filed to OSHA were almost entirely worthless to workers , given the very dim likelihood of followup by the agency , their volume , broken down by region , might be a useful tool to predict levels of Covid mortality .
The worthlessness of the OSHA complaints actually helped in measuring Covid workplace mortality because a rapid agency response to complaints might conceivably have reduced mortality and thereby introduced what statisticians call “ noise.
” With OSHA asleep at the switch , epidemiologists had little to fear from that .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are reproduced below , the colored bars are the volume of OSHA complaints , and the dark lines are deaths per million .
Nationally , mortality went up on average 17 days after a spike in OSHA complaints .
The mortality spike followed quickest in the Midwest ( 11 days ) and slowest in the West ( 24 days ) .
“ These patterns , ” the report ’ s authors state , “ point to a lack of learning from experiences across states , along with the lack of enforceable federal standards.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ worker complaints , they continue , “ is a missed opportunity to intervene to mitigate disease transmission in the workplace and , in turn , the community at large.
” So how many people have OSHA killed through inaction ?
The Harvard study doesn ’ t calculate that , alas .
But it does calculate that , as of mid-August , the “ excess number of deaths ” attributable to Covid was about 240,000 .
In Australia , by contrast , the excess number of deaths was 1,686 .
Did I mention that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ size of the U.S. ’ s ?
can not be prevented—that clearly is not possible with a novel pandemic—but the evidence suggests that ineffective national policies and responses , especially as compared to those of other wealthy nations or compared to the intricate preparation and planning by previous administrations of both parties , have been driving the terrible toll of COVID-19 and its inequities in the US .
This country—and its political leaders , who bear responsibility—can and must do better .
What does President Donald Trump think about all this ?
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he told his campaign staff yesterday .
“ People are tired of hearing [ National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony ] Fauci and all these idiots , all these idiots who got it wrong.
” Trump elaborated today at a campaign rally : “ You turn on CNN , that ’ s all they cover : Covid , Covid , pandemic , Covid , Covid … that ’ s all they cover .
You know why ?
They ’ re trying to talk everyone out of voting .
People are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bastards.
” Meanwhile , Covid cases are rapidly approaching their previous peak in July .
If you ’ re reading this at home and not inside a workplace , consider yourself very lucky .

Donald Trump’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration, I have pointed out many times, is not especially eager to fine employers for Covid violations. It has imposed precisely zero mandatory safety standards to prevent or contain Covid outbreaks, making it fairly difficult for the agency to fine businesses for gross negligence in exposing employees to the deadly virus. According to the agency’s latest tabulation, OSHA has written up only about six dozen employers for Covid violations since Trump declared a national emergency in mid-March. The fines have totaled $1.2 million. That’s less than OSHA fined during the Obama administration, a single Wisconsin shipyard in August 2016. The brutal consequence is that it’s not economically rational for an employer to protect workers from Covid. It’s simply too unlikely you’ll get cited, and if you are, the fine will be preposterously low. A $15,615 OSHA fine against the JBS beef factory in Greely, Colorado, assuming it ever gets paid—the employer is appealing—will be less than what the family of one JBS worker who died of Covid paid for his funeral. With unemployment elevated to twice its level prior to the Covid outbreak, it’s not as though businesses will have much trouble replacing workers who die from Covid.
Meanwhile, the same Labor Department that refuses to protect workers from the pandemic (OSHA is part of DOL) is urging state unemployment agencies to contact former employers of furloughed workers to find out whether they’ve reopened for business. If they have, the state unemployment agency must cut off benefits for these malingerers. It’s Dickensian. Did I mention that the Trump administration and Mitch McConnell are demanding, as the price of any further Covid stimulus, a liability shield for employers that will curb even these weak enforcement efforts to hold businesses accountable? Now Harvard’s Center for Population and Development Studies has produced a report that gives us a tool to quantify the result. (Many thanks to the New Yorker’s Eyal Press, whose excellent new profile of Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia cited this paper.) The Harvard study’s authors weighed the ingenious hypothesis that even though worker complaints filed to OSHA were almost entirely worthless to workers, given the very dim likelihood of followup by the agency, their volume, broken down by region, might be a useful tool to predict levels of Covid mortality. The worthlessness of the OSHA complaints actually helped in measuring Covid workplace mortality because a rapid agency response to complaints might conceivably have reduced mortality and thereby introduced what statisticians call “noise.” With OSHA asleep at the switch, epidemiologists had little to fear from that. In the charts from the Harvard study that are reproduced below, the colored bars are the volume of OSHA complaints, and the dark lines are deaths per million. Nationally, mortality went up on average 17 days after a spike in OSHA complaints. The mortality spike followed quickest in the Midwest (11 days) and slowest in the West (24 days). “These patterns,” the report’s authors state, “point to a lack of learning from experiences across states, along with the lack of enforceable federal standards.” The failure adequately to respond to worker complaints, they continue, “is a missed opportunity to intervene to mitigate disease transmission in the workplace and, in turn, the community at large.”