washingtonmonthly--2020-07-30--John Lewis’s Unconditional Love of Country

I ’ ve never been one who believed that human beings are capable of demonstrating unconditional love .
As Arthur Miller wrote about so eloquently in his play After the Fall , “ to go to someone with the lie of limitless love is to cast a shadow in the face of God.
” John Lewis , however , demonstrated the closest thing we ’ ve seen to unconditional love of country .
On the day before he was hospitalized for the last time , he visited Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington , D.C .
In an open letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he died , which would be published on the day of his funeral , he explained why .
While my time here has now come to an end , I want you to know that in the last days and hours of my life you inspired me .
You filled me with hope about the next chapter of the great American story when you used your power to make a difference in our society .
Millions of people motivated simply by human compassion laid down the burdens of division .
Around the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , class , age , language and nationality to demand respect for human dignity .
That is why I had to visit Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington , though I was admitted to the hospital the following day .
I just had to see and feel it for myself that , after many years of silent witness , the truth is still marching on .
We all know the stories about how Lewis put his body on the line to fight for the right to vote and an end to Jim Crow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he was the son of a share cropper , picking cotton as a child .
But take a moment to think about what it must have been like to grow up in the shadow of this .
Emmett Till was my George Floyd .
He was my Rayshard Brooks , Sandra Bland and Breonna Taylor .
He was 14 when he was killed , and I was only 15 years old at the time .
I will never ever forget the moment when it became so clear that he could easily have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear constrained us like an imaginary prison , and troubling thoughts of potential brutality committed for no understandable reason were the bars .
Though I was surrounded by two loving parents , plenty of brothers , sisters and cousins , their love could not protect me from the unholy oppression waiting just outside that family circle .
It was the beating and lynching of Emmett Till that sparked the Civil Rights Movement in this country .
John Lewis wasn ’ t the only young Black child who grew up in the midst of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what they did with that terror that is truly astounding .
Here is what Lewis wrote about that .
Like so many young people today , I was searching for a way out , or some might say a way in , and then I heard the voice of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on an old radio .
He was talking about the philosophy and discipline of nonviolence .
He said we are all complicit when we tolerate injustice .
He said it is not enough to say it will get better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of us has a moral obligation to stand up , speak up and speak out .
When you see something that is not right , you must say something .
You must do something .
Democracy is not a state .
It is an act , and each generation must do its part to help build what we called the Beloved Community , a nation and world society at peace with itself .
Instead of hate and retribution in response to a country that had initially enslaved his people and then unleashed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Lewis set out to change things for the better .
He understood something that too many of us have forgotten , “ Democracy is not a state .
It is an act.
” In other words , after all this country had done to African Americans , John Lewis still believed in the democratic process of perfecting our union .
He continued to do so up until the day he died .
Ordinary people with extraordinary vision can redeem the soul of America by getting in what I call good trouble , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the democratic process are key .
The vote is the most powerful nonviolent change agent you have in a democratic society .
You must use it because it is not guaranteed .
You can lose it… When historians pick up their pens to write the story of the 21st century , let them say that it was your generation who laid down the heavy burdens of hate at last and that peace finally triumphed over violence , aggression and war .
So I say to you , walk with the wind , brothers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of peace and the power of everlasting love be your guide .
No human being is perfect , and John Lewis was no exception .
But I can ’ t imagine a more powerful demonstration of unconditional love of country than what he exhibited .
Even after all of the blows he experienced personally over 80 years , he still believed in the ability of this country to lay down “ the heavy burdens of hate.
” Is there a more powerful demonstration of patriotism ?

I’ve never been one who believed that human beings are capable of demonstrating unconditional love. As Arthur Miller wrote about so eloquently in his play After the Fall, “to go to someone with the lie of limitless love is to cast a shadow in the face of God.”
John Lewis, however, demonstrated the closest thing we’ve seen to unconditional love of country. On the day before he was hospitalized for the last time, he visited Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, D.C.
In an open letter to America that Lewis wrote just before he died, which would be published on the day of his funeral, he explained why.
While my time here has now come to an end, I want you to know that in the last days and hours of my life you inspired me. You filled me with hope about the next chapter of the great American story when you used your power to make a difference in our society. Millions of people motivated simply by human compassion laid down the burdens of division. Around the country and the world you set aside race, class, age, language and nationality to demand respect for human dignity. That is why I had to visit Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, though I was admitted to the hospital the following day. I just had to see and feel it for myself that, after many years of silent witness, the truth is still marching on.
We all know the stories about how Lewis put his body on the line to fight for the right to vote and an end to Jim Crow laws. We’ve also heard that he was the son of a share cropper, picking cotton as a child. But take a moment to think about what it must have been like to grow up in the shadow of this.
Emmett Till was my George Floyd. He was my Rayshard Brooks, Sandra Bland and Breonna Taylor. He was 14 when he was killed, and I was only 15 years old at the time. I will never ever forget the moment when it became so clear that he could easily have been me. In those days, fear constrained us like an imaginary prison, and troubling thoughts of potential brutality committed for no understandable reason were the bars. Though I was surrounded by two loving parents, plenty of brothers, sisters and cousins, their love could not protect me from the unholy oppression waiting just outside that family circle.
It was the beating and lynching of Emmett Till that sparked the Civil Rights Movement in this country. John Lewis wasn’t the only young Black child who grew up in the midst of that kind of terror. It is what they did with that terror that is truly astounding. Here is what Lewis wrote about that.
Like so many young people today, I was searching for a way out, or some might say a way in, and then I heard the voice of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on an old radio. He was talking about the philosophy and discipline of nonviolence. He said we are all complicit when we tolerate injustice. He said it is not enough to say it will get better by and by. He said each of us has a moral obligation to stand up, speak up and speak out. When you see something that is not right, you must say something. You must do something. Democracy is not a state. It is an act, and each generation must do its part to help build what we called the Beloved Community, a nation and world society at peace with itself.
Instead of hate and retribution in response to a country that had initially enslaved his people and then unleashed a reign of terror, young people like John Lewis set out to change things for the better. He understood something that too many of us have forgotten, “Democracy is not a state. It is an act.” In other words, after all this country had done to African Americans, John Lewis still believed in the democratic process of perfecting our union. He continued to do so up until the day he died.
Ordinary people with extraordinary vision can redeem the soul of America by getting in what I call good trouble, necessary trouble. Voting and participating in the democratic process are key. The vote is the most powerful nonviolent change agent you have in a democratic society. You must use it because it is not guaranteed. You can lose it… When historians pick up their pens to write the story of the 21st century, let them say that it was your generation who laid down the heavy burdens of hate at last and that peace finally triumphed over violence, aggression and war. So I say to you, walk with the wind, brothers and sisters, and let the spirit of peace and the power of everlasting love be your guide.
No human being is perfect, and John Lewis was no exception. But I can’t imagine a more powerful demonstration of unconditional love of country than what he exhibited. Even after all of the blows he experienced personally over 80 years, he still believed in the ability of this country to lay down “the heavy burdens of hate.” Is there a more powerful demonstration of patriotism?


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-30--The Country Is Desperate for Stress Relief

For those who have so far escaped the worst of the coronavirus pandemic , the main difficulty has been managing an unholy level of stress .
It ’ s hard to think of any activity that doesn ’ t induce some level of worry .
The disruption of routines is by itself quite stressful .
Everywhere we look , there is something to be concerned about .
It ’ s so prevalent that we ’ re even freaking out that some people aren ’ t freaking out , because they ’ re not acting appropriately and therefore putting others at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy solutions , so no politician can magically return things to normal .
What we need is someone who will tell us the important things to keep in mind .
We need to know what we can do to help get things back to normal and to prevent things from getting worse .
But we also need a leader who will do what they can to reduce the society-wide level of crippling stress we ’ re experiencing .
Some of this can be done through policy .
Helping people avoid losing their homes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a good start .
Providing resources to schools so that they can do the best possible job of reopening , if possible , or teaching remotely , if necessary , is extremely important .
Giving the people consistently good information so that they are clear on the facts will reduce their stress levels .
Confusion is the enemy , and providing a sense that the government has a grip on the situation is reassuring .
Following a blueprint that has worked in many other countries to get the viral spread under control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the economy , which will save businesses and recreate and reactivate jobs .
That would be a great stress reducer .
What we most definitely don ’ t need is a leader who adds unnecessary things to worry about .
We shouldn ’ t be thinking about the “ threat ” of antifa .
Federal officers shouldn ’ t be snatching peaceful protestors off the streets and throwing them in unmarked vans .
We shouldn ’ t have to question our president ’ s motives for brashly pulling our troops out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warnings that our idyllic suburban lifestyles are under threat .
President Trump began his campaign for the presidency by asking us to look at every Mexican immigrant as a potential rapist .
His inaugural address talked about impending “ carnage.
” His political success depends on people obsessing over exaggerated or non-existent threats .
What people should have been focused on was the threat that Trump presented to our nation and the world .
That ’ s pretty clear now , but he ’ s still the president and he ’ s still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel uncomfortable .
Now he ’ s hyping a new exaggerated threat by attacking vote-by-mail .
More than that , he ’ s even suggesting that he might try to delay the election .
The country can ’ t handle more stress , but Trump is unrelenting .
Under his leadership , literally nothing works anymore .
The Department of Justice is hopelessly corrupted .
The Department of Homeland Security is acting like the Gestapo .
Cabinet officials are no longer confirmed by the Senate , but work in an acting or interim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Science takes a backseat to partisanship and ideology .
The promise of Joe Biden is not so much what he will do , but what he won ’ t do .
He won ’ t stress us out unnecessarily .
He won ’ t deliberately corrupt and break our institutions .
He won ’ t thoughtlessly alienate our friends and do the bidding of our enemies .
The people are so thirsty for this because they are exhausted by Trump .
This is also why Trump has no easy way back into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him put people under stress , which is exactly what they do not want .
We ’ d toss George Washington out of office if we thought we could wake up tomorrow and put our kids on a school bus without worrying about COVID-19 .
Joe Biden isn ’ t that kind of magician , but he can ease our anxiety simply by being himself and not being Trump , and that ’ s his biggest advantage in this election .

For those who have so far escaped the worst of the coronavirus pandemic, the main difficulty has been managing an unholy level of stress. It’s hard to think of any activity that doesn’t induce some level of worry. The disruption of routines is by itself quite stressful. Everywhere we look, there is something to be concerned about. It’s so prevalent that we’re even freaking out that some people aren’t freaking out, because they’re not acting appropriately and therefore putting others at risk.
There are no quick and easy solutions, so no politician can magically return things to normal. What we need is someone who will tell us the important things to keep in mind. We need to know what we can do to help get things back to normal and to prevent things from getting worse. But we also need a leader who will do what they can to reduce the society-wide level of crippling stress we’re experiencing.
Some of this can be done through policy. Helping people avoid losing their homes and their access to health care would be a good start. Providing resources to schools so that they can do the best possible job of reopening, if possible, or teaching remotely, if necessary, is extremely important.
Giving the people consistently good information so that they are clear on the facts will reduce their stress levels. Confusion is the enemy, and providing a sense that the government has a grip on the situation is reassuring. Following a blueprint that has worked in many other countries to get the viral spread under control will make it possible to reopen more of the economy, which will save businesses and recreate and reactivate jobs. That would be a great stress reducer.
What we most definitely don’t need is a leader who adds unnecessary things to worry about. We shouldn’t be thinking about the “threat” of antifa. Federal officers shouldn’t be snatching peaceful protestors off the streets and throwing them in unmarked vans. We shouldn’t have to question our president’s motives for brashly pulling our troops out of Germany. We don’t need warnings that our idyllic suburban lifestyles are under threat.
President Trump began his campaign for the presidency by asking us to look at every Mexican immigrant as a potential rapist. His inaugural address talked about impending “carnage.” His political success depends on people obsessing over exaggerated or non-existent threats. What people should have been focused on was the threat that Trump presented to our nation and the world.
That’s pretty clear now, but he’s still the president and he’s still doing everything he can to make people feel uncomfortable. Now he’s hyping a new exaggerated threat by attacking vote-by-mail. More than that, he’s even suggesting that he might try to delay the election.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1288818160389558273
The country can’t handle more stress, but Trump is unrelenting. Under his leadership, literally nothing works anymore. The Department of Justice is hopelessly corrupted. The Department of Homeland Security is acting like the Gestapo. Cabinet officials are no longer confirmed by the Senate, but work in an acting or interim capacity. Our alliances are in tatters. Science takes a backseat to partisanship and ideology.
The promise of Joe Biden is not so much what he will do, but what he won’t do. He won’t stress us out unnecessarily. He won’t deliberately corrupt and break our institutions. He won’t thoughtlessly alienate our friends and do the bidding of our enemies.
The people are so thirsty for this because they are exhausted by Trump. This is also why Trump has no easy way back into contention. The things that work for him put people under stress, which is exactly what they do not want. We’d toss George Washington out of office if we thought we could wake up tomorrow and put our kids on a school bus without worrying about COVID-19.
Joe Biden isn’t that kind of magician, but he can ease our anxiety simply by being himself and not being Trump, and that’s his biggest advantage in this election.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-30--Another Trump Legacy: Spreading Price Discrimination on the Internet

If you are one of the 169 million Americans who use AT & T wireless services to access the internet with your tablet or cell phone , you may have noticed something weird going on your July data bill .
For subscribers who decided to stream Hamilton on Disney+ with their cellular device instead of re-watching episodes of The Sopranos on HBO Max , your bill might be significantly higher this month .
That ’ s because , as the telecommunications giant revealed in June , it is now engaging in a new form of discrimination .
If you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can watch unlimited amounts of content on AT & T ’ s subsidiary , HBO Max , without it counting toward your data cap .
But if you want to watch content produced by independent companies , like Netflix and Disney+ , that will count toward your data cap , making it more expensive to stream those channels for more than a short time each month .
Other telecoms , such as Verizon , have enacted similar pricing policies .
If Hillary Clinton had been elected President , this kind of data discrimination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the policy enacted during the Obama administration , but repealed in 2017 under the Trump administration , would have still been enforced .
Net neutrality prohibited internet service providers ( ISPs ) and other telecommunications companies such as AT & T or Comcast from engaging in discrimination against different kinds of users .
It guaranteed that all consumers would be able to access the entire internet at the same speed—and at the same price .
It ensured that all content providers trying to reach those consumers over the internet would be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after Trump ’ s appointees at the Federal Commutations Commission ( FCC ) repealed the policy , it has become nearly impossible to avoid that kind of discrimination .
Consumers now have few choices for internet access .
In a recent study using FCC data , the Institute for Local Self-Reliance found that 40 percent of Americans only have one monopoly provider to obtain broadband in their area .
Additionally , due to aggressive bundling and a lack of alternative providers , Americans also typically access the internet , watch television , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provider .
Because extreme market concentration makes it so hard or impossible for most consumers to switch internet providers , big telecom platforms know they get away with using price discrimination to favor content they own and to steer customers away from content owned by others .
For example , if an AT & T customer doesn ’ t much care to watch shows on HBO Max and resents paying extra to watch shows on Netflix or Disney+ , there ’ s not really much he or she can do about it because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power .
And that leads telecoms and other ISPs functioning not as neutral platforms , but as private censors .
They wind up deciding for us what programs we can watch at what price and speed .
Since the repeal of net neutrality , this and other kinds of discrimination keep spreading across the internet .
Cox Communications has even started discriminating against whole neighborhoods by throttling down data speeds in places it thinks are making “ excessive usage ” of the internet .
When the FCC adopted net neutrality during the Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the internet the same principles of non-discrimination that previous generations of Americans had applied to other large communications networks like telegraphs and telephone .
But after Trump appointees gained control of the FCC , they argued that net neutrality was unworkable it was discouraging investment in telecommunications infrastructure .
A subsequent analysis conducted by George Washington University , however , showed that their concerns were misrepresentative at best and outright lies at worst .
The report analyzed financial data from more than 8,500 companies , including major telecoms , and concluded that net @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry investment levels.
” In fact , since the repeal of net neutrality , major ISPs such as AT & T , Comcast , and Charter have lowered their cable capital investment by more than 10 percent .
Moreover , the U.S. has continued to have more expensive internet than comparable countries , as well as slower internet speeds , having recently fallen out of the top 10 .
Numerous polls show overwhelming bipartisan support for net neutrality to prevent dominant telecommunications companies from manipulating consumer ’ s internet access .
Acknowledging these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently announced his intent to restore net neutrality should he win the general election this November .
As affirmed by the Supreme Court , all a Biden administration would need to do is appoint favorable FCC commissioners .
Let ’ s hope he gets the chance .

If you are one of the 169 million Americans who use AT&T wireless services to access the internet with your tablet or cell phone, you may have noticed something weird going on your July data bill. For subscribers who decided to stream Hamilton on Disney+ with their cellular device instead of re-watching episodes of The Sopranos on HBO Max, your bill might be significantly higher this month.
That’s because, as the telecommunications giant revealed in June, it is now engaging in a new form of discrimination. If you’re an AT&T customer you can watch unlimited amounts of content on AT&T’s subsidiary, HBO Max, without it counting toward your data cap. But if you want to watch content produced by independent companies, like Netflix and Disney+, that will count toward your data cap, making it more expensive to stream those channels for more than a short time each month. Other telecoms, such as Verizon, have enacted similar pricing policies.
If Hillary Clinton had been elected President, this kind of data discrimination could not occur. Net neutrality, the policy enacted during the Obama administration, but repealed in 2017 under the Trump administration, would have still been enforced.
Net neutrality prohibited internet service providers (ISPs) and other telecommunications companies such as AT&T or Comcast from engaging in discrimination against different kinds of users. It guaranteed that all consumers would be able to access the entire internet at the same speed—and at the same price. It ensured that all content providers trying to reach those consumers over the internet would be able to do so on equal terms.
But after Trump’s appointees at the Federal Commutations Commission (FCC) repealed the policy, it has become nearly impossible to avoid that kind of discrimination. Consumers now have few choices for internet access. In a recent study using FCC data, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance found that 40 percent of Americans only have one monopoly provider to obtain broadband in their area. Additionally, due to aggressive bundling and a lack of alternative providers, Americans also typically access the internet, watch television, and use their smartphones all from the same provider.
Because extreme market concentration makes it so hard or impossible for most consumers to switch internet providers, big telecom platforms know they get away with using price discrimination to favor content they own and to steer customers away from content owned by others. For example, if an AT&T customer doesn’t much care to watch shows on HBO Max and resents paying extra to watch shows on Netflix or Disney+, there’s not really much he or she can do about it because of AT&T’s monopoly power. And that leads telecoms and other ISPs functioning not as neutral platforms, but as private censors. They wind up deciding for us what programs we can watch at what price and speed.
Since the repeal of net neutrality, this and other kinds of discrimination keep spreading across the internet. Cox Communications has even started discriminating against whole neighborhoods by throttling down data speeds in places it thinks are making “excessive usage” of the internet.
When the FCC adopted net neutrality during the Obama Administration, it was merely applying to the internet the same principles of non-discrimination that previous generations of Americans had applied to other large communications networks like telegraphs and telephone. But after Trump appointees gained control of the FCC, they argued that net neutrality was unworkable it was discouraging investment in telecommunications infrastructure. A subsequent analysis conducted by George Washington University, however, showed that their concerns were misrepresentative at best and outright lies at worst.
The report analyzed financial data from more than 8,500 companies, including major telecoms, and concluded that net neutrality had “no impact on telecommunication industry investment levels.” In fact, since the repeal of net neutrality, major ISPs such as AT&T, Comcast, and Charter have lowered their cable capital investment by more than 10 percent. Moreover, the U.S. has continued to have more expensive internet than comparable countries, as well as slower internet speeds, having recently fallen out of the top 10.
Numerous polls show overwhelming bipartisan support for net neutrality to prevent dominant telecommunications companies from manipulating consumer’s internet access. Acknowledging these benefits, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden recently announced his intent to restore net neutrality should he win the general election this November. As affirmed by the Supreme Court, all a Biden administration would need to do is appoint favorable FCC commissioners. Let’s hope he gets the chance.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-31--Has Trump Finally Crossed the Line With Congressional Republicans?

When it comes to the November election , Donald Trump is losing and he knows it .
That ’ s why he ’ s swinging for the rafters—trying to find something that will change or delay the inevitable .
As Tony Schwartz said , Trump treats “ every encounter as a contest he had to win , because the only other option from his perspective was to lose , and that was the equivalent of obliteration.
” To avoid obliteration , the president will do or say anything .
That was made evident when he tweeted this on Thursday morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how using mail-in ballots are an attempt to rig the election and refused to say that he will abide by the outcome .
But this is the first time he ’ s publicly broached the idea of delaying the election .
Trump sent that tweet on the same day that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was scheduled to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the State Department budget .
Senator Kaine used some of his time to question Pompeo about the fact that the president just floated the idea of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ graduated from Harvard Law School suggested that the Department of Justice would make a legal determination on the question of whether the president can delay the election .
Surely he knows what the Constitution says about that .
Article II of the Constitution empowers Congress to determine the timing of the election .
An 1845 federal law fixed the date as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November .
“ Only Congress can change the date of our elections , and under no circumstances will we consider doing so to accommodate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to the coronavirus pandemic , ” said Representative Zoe Lofgren , Democrat of California and the chair of the Administration Committee , which oversees elections .
Some Republicans responded to Trump ’ s tweet by saying it was a joke .
Others made it clear that a delay is not going to happen .
“ Never in the history of the federal elections have we not held an election , and we should go forward , ” said Representative Kevin McCarthy , the House minority leader… “ Never in the history of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the Civil War , have we ever not had a federally scheduled election on time , and we ’ ll find a way to do that again this Nov. 3 , ” Mr. McConnell said… “ We ’ re going to have an election , it ’ s going to be legitimate , it ’ s going to be credible , it ’ s going to be the same as it ’ s always been , ” Mr. Rubio told reporters at the Capitol in Washington .
Mr. Cruz agreed .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem , ” he said .
“ But , no , we should not delay the election.
” Whether or not the president got the message from his own party ’ s leaders remains to be seen .
He seemed to double down on the idea of delaying the election by pinning his tweet to the top of his Twitter page .
So keep an eye on this one .
Either Trump and his minions back down , or we might have finally reached the point where the president ’ s enablers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional note : the pushback is not just coming from the president ’ s congressional enablers .
Take a look at what the founder of the Federalist Society , Steven Calabrisi , wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times .
I have voted Republican in every presidential election since 1980 , including voting for Donald Trump in 2016 .
I wrote op-eds and a law review article protesting what I believe was an unconstitutional investigation by Robert Mueller .
I also wrote an op-ed opposing President Trump ’ s impeachment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ’ s recent tweet seeking to postpone the November election .
Until recently , I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats ’ assertion that President Trump is a fascist .
But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president ’ s immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate… President Trump needs to be told by every Republican in Congress that he can not postpone the federal election .
Doing so would be illegal , unconstitutional and without precedent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise should never be elected to Congress again .
Better late than never , I guess .

When it comes to the November election, Donald Trump is losing and he knows it. That’s why he’s swinging for the rafters—trying to find something that will change or delay the inevitable. As Tony Schwartz said, Trump treats “every encounter as a contest he had to win, because the only other option from his perspective was to lose, and that was the equivalent of obliteration.” To avoid obliteration, the president will do or say anything.
That was made evident when he tweeted this on Thursday morning.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1288818160389558273
The president has already spread lies about how using mail-in ballots are an attempt to rig the election and refused to say that he will abide by the outcome. But this is the first time he’s publicly broached the idea of delaying the election.
Trump sent that tweet on the same day that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was scheduled to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the State Department budget. Senator Kaine used some of his time to question Pompeo about the fact that the president just floated the idea of delaying the election.
The guy who graduated from Harvard Law School suggested that the Department of Justice would make a legal determination on the question of whether the president can delay the election. Surely he knows what the Constitution says about that.
Article II of the Constitution empowers Congress to determine the timing of the election. An 1845 federal law fixed the date as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. “Only Congress can change the date of our elections, and under no circumstances will we consider doing so to accommodate the president’s inept and haphazard response to the coronavirus pandemic,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and the chair of the Administration Committee, which oversees elections.
Some Republicans responded to Trump’s tweet by saying it was a joke.
Others made it clear that a delay is not going to happen.
“Never in the history of the federal elections have we not held an election, and we should go forward,” said Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader… “Never in the history of the country, through wars, depressions and the Civil War, have we ever not had a federally scheduled election on time, and we’ll find a way to do that again this Nov. 3,” Mr. McConnell said… “We’re going to have an election, it’s going to be legitimate, it’s going to be credible, it’s going to be the same as it’s always been,” Mr. Rubio told reporters at the Capitol in Washington. Mr. Cruz agreed. “I think election fraud is a serious problem,” he said. “But, no, we should not delay the election.”
Whether or not the president got the message from his own party’s leaders remains to be seen. He seemed to double down on the idea of delaying the election by pinning his tweet to the top of his Twitter page. So keep an eye on this one. Either Trump and his minions back down, or we might have finally reached the point where the president’s enablers are willing to draw the line.
One additional note: the pushback is not just coming from the president’s congressional enablers. Take a look at what the founder of the Federalist Society, Steven Calabrisi, wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times.
I have voted Republican in every presidential election since 1980, including voting for Donald Trump in 2016. I wrote op-eds and a law review article protesting what I believe was an unconstitutional investigation by Robert Mueller. I also wrote an op-ed opposing President Trump’s impeachment. But I am frankly appalled by the president’s recent tweet seeking to postpone the November election. Until recently, I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats’ assertion that President Trump is a fascist. But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate… President Trump needs to be told by every Republican in Congress that he cannot postpone the federal election. Doing so would be illegal, unconstitutional and without precedent in American history. Anyone who says otherwise should never be elected to Congress again.
Better late than never, I guess.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-31--The Sham of Belarus’s Coming Election

The Sham of Belarus’s Coming Election

All-star authoritarians are a ruble a dozen in Russia these days .
Vladimir Putin leads the pack , of course , but there are plenty of local and regional tough guys running their neighborhoods and governments like mob bosses .
Many of them are direct offshoots of Putin ’ s United Russia party , some are even worse .
Ultra-nationalists in the far east of the country are protesting their inability to run their own government and local syndicates , complaining that Moscow insists on central control over the means of corruption .
Russia is not the only former Soviet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Next door and related , Belarus—the country also known as White Russia—is a paragon of parasitic politics .
Run by the same guy since 1994 , Belarus is heading toward “ elections ” next month where the main opposition candidates have been disqualified or arrested .
A vlogger , a banker and a diplomat were all running against incumbent President Alexander Lukashenko and have dubiously found their way into the political penalty box , or jail .
In their stead , their spouses have stepped in to strut their candidacies and keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Surprisingly , there is an early anti-establishment groundswell coalescing around the candidacy of Svetlana Tikhanovskaya , the wife of popular Belarus online journalist vlogger Sergei Tikhanovsky .
She been dismissed by Lukashenko , who said the demanding presidential pressures of governing would cause Svetlana to “ collapse , poor thing.
” Spoiler alert : My prediction is that Lukashenko , a former Soviet collective chicken-farm boss , will triumph with a landslide victory with only a smattering of opposition ballots .
If my cynical prediction is right , and the electoral fix is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into his sixth consecutive term as president .
Should he win , Lukashenko ’ s longevity in office will be typical of many ex-Soviet states .
Kazakhstan ’ s President Nursultan Nazarbayev , who recently tested positive for COVID-19 , kept power from 1990 until last year .
Tajikistan ’ s kleptocratic ruler , President Emomali Rahmon , has been in office since 1994 , with his latest term running out in 2021 , when his son is set up to take over the reins .
Russia and Belarus , too , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holding their executive titles for multiple terms and a head-spinning number of years .
Putin may ultimately break all ruling records .
He recently managed to get a Russian national referendum passed that will allow him to remain president until 2036 .
Lukashenko has been in office uninterruptedly over the past 26 years .
His successrides on his nationalist rhetoric and his oversized persona .
He ’ s a burly farmer and hockey fan with rough , masculine charisma .
Corrupt elections and laws making it illegal to insult him keep him in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ messages and manufactured pride , Lukashenko has had financial good fortune thanks to Russia .
Moscow essentially subsidizes his regime with cheap oil , which keeps inefficient heavy industry chugging and has dramatically lowered the country ’ s poverty rate .
Russia ’ s oil exports buy off Belarus to guarantee Minsk and Lukashenko stay in Moscow ’ s orbit .
Those subsidies and the outdated state manufacturing plants they support come to an end in 2025 .
Successfully feeding his citizenry and delivering a fervent nationalist message to sate proud masses who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So is building a constellation of Lukashenko-sponsored hockey rinks around the countryside—the proven “ bread and circuses ” Roman formula for maintaining public support .
Sometimes Lukashenko needs to confront brother Russia to turn-up the nationalist heat , arguing that Russia wants to absorb Belarus the way it occupies Crimea .
When necessary , he tweaks Putin and raises the specter of Russian imperial designs , arguing that Belarus remains a fiercely independent country stuck between East and West .
Lukashenko rejects European overtures for stronger ties while also showing he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lukashenko tamps down domestic dissent with broad accusations against rivals .
His anti-corruption campaign ensnares nearly every opponent .
Further , his contrived world is full of enemies and threats—both foreign and domestic , real and imagined .
Lukashenko runs a full-court-press propaganda machine and police state that continue to reflexively scare a nation into submission .
Despite financial stability , a monopoly on violence and control of the ballot box , the upcoming election still could have been a real contest .
COVID-19 has fed rising discontent with “ Europe ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the world , he dismissed the pandemic .
According to Lukashenko , Belarusians ’ physical constitution required only that citizens drink vodka , visit saunas and go for tractor rides to fortify their already super-tough immune systems .
Vodka does not have the life-saving medical outcomes of remdesivir , but it does have a powerful fogging effect on rational decision-making .
Whether this helps Lukashenko at the ballot box will be revealed on Aug. 9 .
Regardless , Belarusians will certainly wake-up the next day with a political hangover .

All-star authoritarians are a ruble a dozen in Russia these days. Vladimir Putin leads the pack, of course, but there are plenty of local and regional tough guys running their neighborhoods and governments like mob bosses. Many of them are direct offshoots of Putin’s United Russia party, some are even worse. Ultra-nationalists in the far east of the country are protesting their inability to run their own government and local syndicates, complaining that Moscow insists on central control over the means of corruption.
Russia is not the only former Soviet state that is stuck with megalomaniacal overlords. Next door and related, Belarus—the country also known as White Russia—is a paragon of parasitic politics. Run by the same guy since 1994, Belarus is heading toward “elections” next month where the main opposition candidates have been disqualified or arrested.
A vlogger, a banker and a diplomat were all running against incumbent President Alexander Lukashenko and have dubiously found their way into the political penalty box, or jail. In their stead, their spouses have stepped in to strut their candidacies and keep the erstwhile candidates’ messages alive. Surprisingly, there is an early anti-establishment groundswell coalescing around the candidacy of Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, the wife of popular Belarus online journalist vlogger Sergei Tikhanovsky. She been dismissed by Lukashenko, who said the demanding presidential pressures of governing would cause Svetlana to “collapse, poor thing.”
Spoiler alert: My prediction is that Lukashenko, a former Soviet collective chicken-farm boss, will triumph with a landslide victory with only a smattering of opposition ballots. If my cynical prediction is right, and the electoral fix is in, then Lukashenko will be heading into his sixth consecutive term as president. Should he win, Lukashenko’s longevity in office will be typical of many ex-Soviet states. Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev, who recently tested positive for COVID-19, kept power from 1990 until last year. Tajikistan’s kleptocratic ruler, President Emomali Rahmon, has been in office since 1994, with his latest term running out in 2021, when his son is set up to take over the reins. Russia and Belarus, too, have had deeply predictable electoral outcomes with incumbents holding their executive titles for multiple terms and a head-spinning number of years. Putin may ultimately break all ruling records. He recently managed to get a Russian national referendum passed that will allow him to remain president until 2036. Lukashenko has been in office uninterruptedly over the past 26 years. His success rides on his nationalist rhetoric and his oversized persona. He’s a burly farmer and hockey fan with rough, masculine charisma. Corrupt elections and laws making it illegal to insult him keep him in office, too. Other than nationalist messages and manufactured pride, Lukashenko has had financial good fortune thanks to Russia. Moscow essentially subsidizes his regime with cheap oil, which keeps inefficient heavy industry chugging and has dramatically lowered the country’s poverty rate. Russia’s oil exports buy off Belarus to guarantee Minsk and Lukashenko stay in Moscow’s orbit. Those subsidies and the outdated state manufacturing plants they support come to an end in 2025. Successfully feeding his citizenry and delivering a fervent nationalist message to sate proud masses who feed off flag-waving is a winning formula. So is building a constellation of Lukashenko-sponsored hockey rinks around the countryside—the proven “bread and circuses” Roman formula for maintaining public support. Sometimes Lukashenko needs to confront brother Russia to turn-up the nationalist heat, arguing that Russia wants to absorb Belarus the way it occupies Crimea. When necessary, he tweaks Putin and raises the specter of Russian imperial designs, arguing that Belarus remains a fiercely independent country stuck between East and West. Lukashenko rejects European overtures for stronger ties while also showing he’s not Putin’s poodle. Lukashenko tamps down domestic dissent with broad accusations against rivals. His anti-corruption campaign ensnares nearly every opponent. Further, his contrived world is full of enemies and threats—both foreign and domestic, real and imagined. Lukashenko runs a full-court-press propaganda machine and police state that continue to reflexively scare a nation into submission. Despite financial stability, a monopoly on violence and control of the ballot box, the upcoming election still could have been a real contest. COVID-19 has fed rising discontent with “Europe’s last dictator.” Like other populist leaders around the world, he dismissed the pandemic. According to Lukashenko, Belarusians’ physical constitution required only that citizens drink vodka, visit saunas and go for tractor rides to fortify their already super-tough immune systems. Vodka does not have the life-saving medical outcomes of remdesivir, but it does have a powerful fogging effect on rational decision-making. Whether this helps Lukashenko at the ballot box will be revealed on Aug. 9. Regardless, Belarusians will certainly wake-up the next day with a political hangover.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-31--Obama Got In Some Good Trouble for His John Lewis Eulogy

One of the funniest comedy routines from the Obama presidency was the one created by Key and Peele about Obama ’ s anger translator .
But at one point in the former president ’ s eulogy for John Lewis , he demonstrated that he didn ’ t need an anger translator , because he brought it himself .
Obama went on to say that it wasn ’ t enough to acknowledge that John Lewis was a hero .
You want to honor John ?
Let ’ s honor him by revitalizing the law that he was willing to die for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it the John Lewis Voting Rights Act , that is a fine tribute .
But John wouldn ’ t want us to stop there , trying to get back to where we already were .
Once we pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act , we should keep marching to make it even better .
By making sure every American is automatically registered to vote , including former inmates who ’ ve earned their second chance .
By adding polling places , and expanding early voting , and making Election Day a national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who is working in a factory , or you are a single mom who has got to go to her job and doesn ’ t get time off , you can still cast your ballot .
By guaranteeing that every American citizen has equal representation in our government , including the American citizens who live in Washington , D.C. and in Puerto Rico .
They are Americans .
By ending some of the partisan gerrymandering — so that all voters have the power to choose their politicians , not the other way around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the filibuster — another Jim Crow relic — in order to secure the God-given rights of every American , then that ’ s what we should do .
On a day that the current president was spreading lies about mail-in voting and tossing out the idea of delaying the election , the former president was outlining an agenda to ensure that every American has access to the franchise and the elimination of anti-democratic barriers .
But in a perfect example of the media ’ s obsession with “ both sides do it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : ” Presidents offer dueling views on country ’ s voting systems.
” In other words , they equated a powerful defense of voting rights with voter suppression .
In the video clip above , Obama indicated that he knew what was coming when he said this : Now , I know this is a celebration of John ’ s life .
There are some who might say we shouldn ’ t dwell on such things .
But that ’ s why I ’ m talking about it .
John Lewis devoted his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacks on democracy and what ’ s best in America that we are seeing circulate right now .
The fact that Obama went there anyway was not only an affirmation of Lewis ’ s commitment to voting rights , it was an example of what it means to get in “ good trouble.
” That is because Republicans have made voting rights—the very foundation of our democratic republic—a partisan issue .
So right on cue , Tucker Carlson called Obama a “ greasy politician ” who “ desecrated ” Lewis ’ s funeral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The reason why the Key and Peele routine was so funny is that Barack Obama has always been slow to anger .
But he once described himself as a counter-puncher , saying that if people abuse that , he “ will crush them ” —acknowledging that last part was a joke … sort of .
So when Republicans adopt a partisan agenda that strikes at the very heart of our democratic processes , Obama got in some good trouble .
I suspect that John Lewis would approve .

One of the funniest comedy routines from the Obama presidency was the one created by Key and Peele about Obama’s anger translator. But at one point in the former president’s eulogy for John Lewis, he demonstrated that he didn’t need an anger translator, because he brought it himself.
Obama went on to say that it wasn’t enough to acknowledge that John Lewis was a hero.
You want to honor John? Let’s honor him by revitalizing the law that he was willing to die for. And by the way, naming it the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, that is a fine tribute. But John wouldn’t want us to stop there, trying to get back to where we already were. Once we pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, we should keep marching to make it even better. By making sure every American is automatically registered to vote, including former inmates who’ve earned their second chance. By adding polling places, and expanding early voting, and making Election Day a national holiday, so if you are someone who is working in a factory, or you are a single mom who has got to go to her job and doesn’t get time off, you can still cast your ballot. By guaranteeing that every American citizen has equal representation in our government, including the American citizens who live in Washington, D.C. and in Puerto Rico. They are Americans. By ending some of the partisan gerrymandering — so that all voters have the power to choose their politicians, not the other way around. And if all this takes eliminating the filibuster — another Jim Crow relic — in order to secure the God-given rights of every American, then that’s what we should do.
On a day that the current president was spreading lies about mail-in voting and tossing out the idea of delaying the election, the former president was outlining an agenda to ensure that every American has access to the franchise and the elimination of anti-democratic barriers. But in a perfect example of the media’s obsession with “both sides do it,” the headline at ABC news read:”Presidents offer dueling views on country’s voting systems.” In other words, they equated a powerful defense of voting rights with voter suppression.
In the video clip above, Obama indicated that he knew what was coming when he said this:
Now, I know this is a celebration of John’s life. There are some who might say we shouldn’t dwell on such things. But that’s why I’m talking about it. John Lewis devoted his time on this Earth fighting the very attacks on democracy and what’s best in America that we are seeing circulate right now.
The fact that Obama went there anyway was not only an affirmation of Lewis’s commitment to voting rights, it was an example of what it means to get in “good trouble.” That is because Republicans have made voting rights—the very foundation of our democratic republic—a partisan issue. So right on cue, Tucker Carlson called Obama a “greasy politician” who “desecrated” Lewis’s funeral by engaging in “partisan talking points.”
The reason why the Key and Peele routine was so funny is that Barack Obama has always been slow to anger. But he once described himself as a counter-puncher, saying that if people abuse that, he “will crush them”—acknowledging that last part was a joke … sort of. So when Republicans adopt a partisan agenda that strikes at the very heart of our democratic processes, Obama got in some good trouble. I suspect that John Lewis would approve.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-31--The Key to a Real Democratic Landslide: Better Rural Performance

Within a week of the 2016 election , I began warning the Democrats against writing off small towns and rural areas in favor of a purely urban and suburban strategy .
The Democrats didn ’ t listen and wound up being rewarded in the 2018 midterms when Trump ’ s style and policies caused his suburban support to crater more than his rural support could ever hope to rise .
If we were to rerun the 2016 election , Trump would still dominate in his areas of strength , but he ’ d lose badly .
Of course , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This time , Trump is the incumbent and he ’ s very well-funded .
His new opponent attracts and excites a different profile of the electorate than his old one .
And we now have four years of Trump ’ s performance to weigh , which will have more impact than any other factor .
Yet , it remains the case that Trump ’ s rural strength gives him a chance to win in some states where he ought to lose .
Ron Brownstein explains that the Democrats are in a decent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislative races , which is particularly important in this cycle , just as it was in 2010 , because all the federal congressional districts will be redrawn with new census data before the 2022 midterms .
But the Democrats hope to achieve this by pursuing their suburban advantage : It ’ s not true Trump ’ s rural performance will have no impact in legislative races .
There are still some Democrats serving in rural districts , and many contested seats are a mix of suburban and exurban .
But the easiest pickings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the most likely path to winning mixed seats is to run up their margins in the suburban portion of the districts .
Therefore , the strategy makes sense if the goal is to win control of state legislative chambers .
Yet , it would be a shame for Joe Biden to lose states like Georgia , Texas , and Arizona because he came out on the wrong end of a rural/suburban polarization .
Admittedly , this would represent a shift from 2016 , when this polarization cost Clinton Pennsylvania , Michigan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably doesn ’ t need Texas and Georgia to win , and he probably doesn ’ t need Arizona either .
However , if the election were to shift back in Trump ’ s direction , the same states that won the president the election in 2016 could come back into play .
So , there would be a lot of benefit if Biden could make some rural inroads .
Not only would he secure the states he must win , but he ’ d start hauling in key states that Republicans must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would increase the number of state legislative seats the Democrats carry , possibly allowing them to have more say in how new congressional seats are set up for the next decade .
It would help them win U.S. Senate races not only in Texas , Georgia , and Arizona , but also in Alaska , Montana , Kansas , and Iowa .
I ’ m of the opinion that a narrow Biden win will be a tremendous relief to everyone , but that only a sweeping national condemnation of Trumpism and the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course .
We need the Republicans and their financiers to get the message that their brand of politics is no longer viable or worth pursuing .
We have to get past an equally divided and hopelessly polarized nation , and the Democrats need enough power to tackle the major challenges we face .
Therefore , the Democrats should be wary about pursuing a strategy based solely on the ripest fruit .
A geographically split country is going to remain a politically divided country .
A Democratic Texas would put a swift end to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in places like Georgia and Kansas would also get us a long way toward that goal .
Everything Trump is doing is in the service of maximizing this division because he knows he needs overwhelming rural support , but the Democrats have many good arguments to take to these areas of the country , from the impact of Trump ’ s trade wars to his handling of the coronavirus and rural healthcare .
Biden should be ambitious and resist running a campaign premised on winning the rural/suburban split that Clinton lost .

Within a week of the 2016 election, I began warning the Democrats against writing off small towns and rural areas in favor of a purely urban and suburban strategy. The Democrats didn’t listen and wound up being rewarded in the 2018 midterms when Trump’s style and policies caused his suburban support to crater more than his rural support could ever hope to rise.
If we were to rerun the 2016 election, Trump would still dominate in his areas of strength, but he’d lose badly. Of course, we can’t rerun the last election. This time, Trump is the incumbent and he’s very well-funded. His new opponent attracts and excites a different profile of the electorate than his old one. And we now have four years of Trump’s performance to weigh, which will have more impact than any other factor.
Yet, it remains the case that Trump’s rural strength gives him a chance to win in some states where he ought to lose. Ron Brownstein explains that the Democrats are in a decent position to make major gains in state legislative races, which is particularly important in this cycle, just as it was in 2010, because all the federal congressional districts will be redrawn with new census data before the 2022 midterms. But the Democrats hope to achieve this by pursuing their suburban advantage:
Even if Trump holds states such as Georgia, Texas, and Arizona by maximizing his rural performance, Democrats could still get a huge boost in down-ballot races if Biden routs the president in the growing urban and suburban areas. Biden’s performance in big metros is “the whole ball game,” Vicky Hausman, the founder and co-CEO of Forward Majority, a Democratic group that tries to flip state chambers, told me. “Trump can run up the score in the rural areas, and it doesn’t impact our path to the majority through the suburbs.”
It’s not true Trump’s rural performance will have no impact in legislative races. There are still some Democrats serving in rural districts, and many contested seats are a mix of suburban and exurban. But the easiest pickings for Democrats are purely suburban seats, and the most likely path to winning mixed seats is to run up their margins in the suburban portion of the districts. Therefore, the strategy makes sense if the goal is to win control of state legislative chambers.
Yet, it would be a shame for Joe Biden to lose states like Georgia, Texas, and Arizona because he came out on the wrong end of a rural/suburban polarization. Admittedly, this would represent a shift from 2016, when this polarization cost Clinton Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and the presidency. Biden probably doesn’t need Texas and Georgia to win, and he probably doesn’t need Arizona either. However, if the election were to shift back in Trump’s direction, the same states that won the president the election in 2016 could come back into play.
So, there would be a lot of benefit if Biden could make some rural inroads. Not only would he secure the states he must win, but he’d start hauling in key states that Republicans must win. And, yes, this would increase the number of state legislative seats the Democrats carry, possibly allowing them to have more say in how new congressional seats are set up for the next decade. It would help them win U.S. Senate races not only in Texas, Georgia, and Arizona, but also in Alaska, Montana, Kansas, and Iowa.
I’m of the opinion that a narrow Biden win will be a tremendous relief to everyone, but that only a sweeping national condemnation of Trumpism and the Republican Party can put us on the right course. We need the Republicans and their financiers to get the message that their brand of politics is no longer viable or worth pursuing. We have to get past an equally divided and hopelessly polarized nation, and the Democrats need enough power to tackle the major challenges we face.
Therefore, the Democrats should be wary about pursuing a strategy based solely on the ripest fruit. A geographically split country is going to remain a politically divided country. A Democratic Texas would put a swift end to that state of affairs, but winning in places like Georgia and Kansas would also get us a long way toward that goal.
Everything Trump is doing is in the service of maximizing this division because he knows he needs overwhelming rural support, but the Democrats have many good arguments to take to these areas of the country, from the impact of Trump’s trade wars to his handling of the coronavirus and rural healthcare.
Biden should be ambitious and resist running a campaign premised on winning the rural/suburban split that Clinton lost.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-01--Can a New Fund Save Utah’s Affordable Housing?

In order to afford a typical two-bedroom apartment in Utah , a worker has to earn $ 19.83 per hour , or work 109 hours a week at minimum wage—an entire additional weekly shift over the year before , according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition ’ s annual Out of Reach report .
On top of that , according to a report by NLIHC and the Public and Affordable Housing Research Corporation , Utah has almost 1,700 publicly supported rental homes with affordability requirements that will expire in the next five years , and more than 10,000 that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And , as the Salt Lake City Tribune reported last two weeks ago , the coronavirus pandemic is likely to make the state ’ s housing shortage even worse .
By now , these figures are neither surprising nor unique .
Affordable housing is out of reach for low-wage earners everywhere in America , and Utah ’ s housing shortage is hardly the worst .
But , advocates say , housing in the state is only becoming less affordable , and there ’ s not enough public assistance to manage the consequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people that have been affected by COVID-19 , ” says Tara Rollins , executive director of the Utah Housing Coalition .
“ We have housing assistance for that , but what we don ’ t have is housing assistance for the people that are working every day in grocery stores , nursing homes , and hospitals—low-wage workers .
Because they didn ’ t lose their job , they still can ’ t request funding , even though they had to hire additional daycare and things like that.
” As Next City has reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent a lot of time debating how to fund more affordable housing .
And this year , advocates are reportedly trying to save the small allocations of state funding from coronavirus-related budget cuts .
Part of that allocation would go to a new effort called the Utah Housing Preservation Fund , created by a group of private institutions , including the Clark and Christine Ivory Foundation , Intermountain Healthcare and Zions Bank .
The fund aims eventually to spend $ 100 million to keep subsidized and “ naturally occurring ” affordable housing from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Deseret News reported in March .
This year , the Preservation Fund helped secure 24 duplexes that were being sold by Housing Connect , the housing authority for Salt Lake County , says Ryan Hackett , a development coordinator at Western Region Nonprofit Housing Corporation , which is a development partner for the fund .
Those units will be rehabbed and rented out below 80 percent of Area Median Income , and targeted to Housing Choice Voucher holders who earn less than 30 percent of AMI , Hackett says .
The housing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the sale to reinvest in other properties and make more affordable units available .
( Officials with Housing Connect did not respond to interview requests . )
The Fund is also working on a deal to buy a 16-unit complex of “ naturally occurring ” affordable units , fix up the apartments , and keep the rents low .
Hackett says that in order to make the project work , they will have to raise the rents a little bit over time .
But if any other buyer were to take over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would likely raise the rents from around $ 700 a month to $ 1,200 or $ 1,300 overnight , Hackett says For its part , the state administers a housing trust fund called the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund .
But the legislature has yet to put up enough money to really tackle the affordability challenges the state is facing , says John Montgomery , the chief risk officer for Rocky Mountain Community Reinvestment Corporation , which also works on preservation deals in Utah .
The preservation fund could help keep low-cost apartments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Montgomery says .
But the way it ’ s structured , there ’ s nothing preventing the group from determining a few years down the line that it can ’ t maintain the projects , and then selling them for market rates .
A more permanent solution would be a land trust : Montgomery says that Rocky Mountain CRC is hoping that it can take over and expand a small community land trust in Salt Lake City .
With a structure like that in place and an ability to manage large multifamily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of single-family homes , the land trust could put large donations of money to more impactful and long lasting use .
The Utah Housing Preservation Fund started out with $ 20 million .
Of that , $ 4 million is provided in the form of a loan from Intermountain Healthcare , a Salt Lake City-based nonprofit healthcare system , as part of its work with the National Alliance to Impact the Social Determinants of Health , according to Nicholas Fritz , Intermountain ’ s impact investing director .
For Intermountain , the goal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ upstream ” causes of poor health , which include substandard and unaffordable housing .
“ The hypothesis of the housing thing is if we can get people into housing they can afford and that is healthy and safe , then all the time they were spending dealing with housing instability , and moving from place to place , and not having enough money to pay for food—all that energy is transitioned into other activities , hopefully more than meeting basic needs , ” Fritz says .
Long-term , the organization is hoping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through community health outcomes .
Intermountain is working on a survey of Utah residents with questions about perceived wellbeing , financial security , and feelings of hope—and it expects positive responses would increase along with a greater availability of healthy and affordable housing , Fritz says .
The Fund is hoping to secure between $ 15 million and $ 20 million from grants , as each preservation deal requires some equity to purchase market-rate projects and keep rents low , Fritz says .
The rest of the $ 100 million would come partially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mission but are still expecting to make a small return , as well as “ friendly bank ” financing , he says .
Currently the group , led by Western Region Nonprofit Housing Corporation , is tracking the housing market for naturally occurring affordable housing and monitoring expiring subsidies in order to determine its highest-priority investments .
Fritz says the group is trying to come up with “ a template ” for structuring preservation deals as it works to build the fund .
“ We think that long-term , by keeping housing affordable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to a healthy and safe standard , that we can help to build health in the communities we serve , ” Fritz says .
This story originally appeared in Next City .
It is part of the SoJo Exchange of COVID-19 stories from the Solutions Journalism Network , a nonprofit organization dedicated to rigorous reporting about responses to social problems .

In order to afford a typical two-bedroom apartment in Utah, a worker has to earn $19.83 per hour, or work 109 hours a week at minimum wage—an entire additional weekly shift over the year before, according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s annual Out of Reach report. On top of that, according to a report by NLIHC and the Public and Affordable Housing Research Corporation, Utah has almost 1,700 publicly supported rental homes with affordability requirements that will expire in the next five years, and more than 10,000 that will expire in the next three decades. And, as the Salt Lake City Tribune reported last two weeks ago, the coronavirus pandemic is likely to make the state’s housing shortage even worse.
By now, these figures are neither surprising nor unique. Affordable housing is out of reach for low-wage earners everywhere in America, and Utah’s housing shortage is hardly the worst. But, advocates say, housing in the state is only becoming less affordable, and there’s not enough public assistance to manage the consequences.
“We have money to help people that have been affected by COVID-19,” says Tara Rollins, executive director of the Utah Housing Coalition. “We have housing assistance for that, but what we don’t have is housing assistance for the people that are working every day in grocery stores, nursing homes, and hospitals—low-wage workers. Because they didn’t lose their job, they still can’t request funding, even though they had to hire additional daycare and things like that.”
As Next City has reported before, the Utah state legislature has spent a lot of time debating how to fund more affordable housing. And this year, advocates are reportedly trying to save the small allocations of state funding from coronavirus-related budget cuts. Part of that allocation would go to a new effort called the Utah Housing Preservation Fund, created by a group of private institutions, including the Clark and Christine Ivory Foundation, Intermountain Healthcare and Zions Bank. The fund aims eventually to spend $100 million to keep subsidized and “naturally occurring” affordable housing from being converted to market-rate rentals, as the Deseret News reported in March.
This year, the Preservation Fund helped secure 24 duplexes that were being sold by Housing Connect, the housing authority for Salt Lake County, says Ryan Hackett, a development coordinator at Western Region Nonprofit Housing Corporation, which is a development partner for the fund. Those units will be rehabbed and rented out below 80 percent of Area Median Income, and targeted to Housing Choice Voucher holders who earn less than 30 percent of AMI, Hackett says. The housing authority will also reportedly use the proceeds of the sale to reinvest in other properties and make more affordable units available. (Officials with Housing Connect did not respond to interview requests.)
The Fund is also working on a deal to buy a 16-unit complex of “naturally occurring” affordable units, fix up the apartments, and keep the rents low. Hackett says that in order to make the project work, they will have to raise the rents a little bit over time. But if any other buyer were to take over the building at market rate, it would likely raise the rents from around $700 a month to $1,200 or $1,300 overnight, Hackett says
For its part, the state administers a housing trust fund called the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund. But the legislature has yet to put up enough money to really tackle the affordability challenges the state is facing, says John Montgomery, the chief risk officer for Rocky Mountain Community Reinvestment Corporation, which also works on preservation deals in Utah. The preservation fund could help keep low-cost apartments from quickly being flipped to market-rate rents, Montgomery says. But the way it’s structured, there’s nothing preventing the group from determining a few years down the line that it can’t maintain the projects, and then selling them for market rates.
A more permanent solution would be a land trust: Montgomery says that Rocky Mountain CRC is hoping that it can take over and expand a small community land trust in Salt Lake City. With a structure like that in place and an ability to manage large multifamily properties in addition to its current collection of single-family homes, the land trust could put large donations of money to more impactful and long lasting use.
The Utah Housing Preservation Fund started out with $20 million. Of that, $4 million is provided in the form of a loan from Intermountain Healthcare, a Salt Lake City-based nonprofit healthcare system, as part of its work with the National Alliance to Impact the Social Determinants of Health, according to Nicholas Fritz, Intermountain’s impact investing director. For Intermountain, the goal of the fund is to improve the “upstream” causes of poor health, which include substandard and unaffordable housing.
“The hypothesis of the housing thing is if we can get people into housing they can afford and that is healthy and safe, then all the time they were spending dealing with housing instability, and moving from place to place, and not having enough money to pay for food—all that energy is transitioned into other activities, hopefully more than meeting basic needs,” Fritz says.
Long-term, the organization is hoping to measure the success of the investments through community health outcomes. Intermountain is working on a survey of Utah residents with questions about perceived wellbeing, financial security, and feelings of hope—and it expects positive responses would increase along with a greater availability of healthy and affordable housing, Fritz says. The Fund is hoping to secure between $15 million and $20 million from grants, as each preservation deal requires some equity to purchase market-rate projects and keep rents low, Fritz says. The rest of the $100 million would come partially from groups like Intermountain which have a mission but are still expecting to make a small return, as well as “friendly bank” financing, he says. Currently the group, led by Western Region Nonprofit Housing Corporation, is tracking the housing market for naturally occurring affordable housing and monitoring expiring subsidies in order to determine its highest-priority investments. Fritz says the group is trying to come up with “a template” for structuring preservation deals as it works to build the fund.
“We think that long-term, by keeping housing affordable and by renovating properties to keep them up to a healthy and safe standard, that we can help to build health in the communities we serve,” Fritz says.
This story originally appeared in Next City. It is part of the SoJo Exchange of COVID-19 stories from the Solutions Journalism Network, a nonprofit organization dedicated to rigorous reporting about responses to social problems.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-01--Trump and Kushner Should Be Prosecuted for Crimes Against Humanity

Last month , I wrote that president Trump had admitted to a crime against humanity .
It was true .
The president had openly bragged about deliberately slowing down COVID-19 testing for political gain , thereby causing the deaths of untold numbers of Americans to make himself look better .
It is a monstrous crime for which he has not yet been held accountable .
But a new report from Vanity Fair implicates both Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner of an unspeakable horror of magnitude greater .
Instead of implementing a comprehensive and aggressive national testing plan that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Kushner scuttled it .
The president and his son-in-law were instead content to allow tens of thousands of Americans die as long as they were mostly people of color , and hailing from Democratic states and counties .
Not only that , they saw it as a political opportunity to both cull the numbers of opposing voters and lay blame on Democratic governors at the same time : Against that background , the prospect of launching a large-scale national plan was losing favor , said one public health expert in frequent contact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus task force .
Most troubling of all , perhaps , was a sentiment the expert said a member of Kushner ’ s team expressed : that because the virus had hit blue states hardest , a national plan was unnecessary and would not make sense politically .
“ The political folks believed that because it was going to be relegated to Democratic states , that they could blame those governors , and that would be an effective political strategy , ” said the expert .
That logic may have swayed Kushner .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ was ultimately the decision maker as to what [ plan ] was going to come out , ” the expert said .
Should we believe this report ?
Maggie Haberman of the New York Times casually confirmed the gist of it , which only raises further questions about why the Times did not report with more alarm on the details : If this is true–and there is very little reason to doubt its veracity , despite the White House press secretary ’ s denials–it would constitute perhaps the greatest crime against humanity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jackson ’ s Trail of Tears was more deliberately vicious and murderous ; George W. Bush ’ s immoral war of choice in Iraq killed more people overall .
But no American president has ever betrayed his oath of office more profoundly than in deliberately allowing the deaths of more than 150,000 of his own fellow citizens and counting for partisan political gain .
We even lack the vocabulary to even describe it .
“ Gross negligence ” doesn ’ t reach the level of the crime .
“ Murder ” is lurid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word to describe the death of 140,000 .
“ Treason ” comes to mind when considering that the President of the United States knowingly allowed 140,000 Americans to die because they were mostly his political opponents–but despite his Russia entanglements , there is no direct evidence he did so on behalf of a foreign power .
But there ’ s another option : “ genocide.
” The known racial bias of the deaths overlaps with the political bias–black and brown Americans tend to be Democrats and live in Democratic areas , and are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn would make “ genocide ” the most compelling way to describe what Trump and Kushner have done .
Genocide .
Yes , it sounds preposterous .
It sounds like the hyperbole of the deeply unserious .
But what else can you call it ?
No word is perfect , but the crime must have a name that fits the monumental scope of its evil .
It must describe what actually happened .
And what happened is that the president and his son-in-law deliberately allowed 150,000 ( and counting ) Americans to die @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mostly kill off their political opponents .
Because it would kill off mostly poor people of color .
Because they thought they could gain an upper hand by blaming opposing governors .
But they thought it would advantage them politically .
It ’ s like a plot out of a bad action movie with a comic book villain , except it ’ s real life and those villains are still governing and making decisions .
When the founders named “ high crimes and misdemeanors ” as the basis for impeaching a president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deliberately vague : it would be impossible to write a law to cover every possible abuse of power by a deranged executive .
They expected the Congress to respect its own authority and the health of the country enough to know when a relevant “ high crime ” or “ misdemeanor ” had taken place .
The problem now is that this president has already been impeached , there isn ’ t time or appetite to impeach him again , and the Senate controlled by the president ’ s party refuses to act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moreover , the phrase “ high crime ” doesn ’ t really do justice to the scope of the evil of which the president is reportedly guilty .
This is a crime against humanity .
A crime so profound we may not have a law to cover it .
A crime with international implications , one so vast it may require an international court .
But somehow , some way , it must be prosecuted .
The majority of Americans , the ones not enthralled by conservative infotainment and the Trump propaganda machine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trauma and looking forward to the November election as a means of escape .
One can hardly blame them .
Nor would many be to blame for wanting to put this entire era behind us and never look back .
But assuming democracy remains intact and Trump is driven from office , this enormous crime can not be forgotten .
It can not be ignored .
There must be accountability for this genocide , the greatest crime in American history .

Last month, I wrote that president Trump had admitted to a crime against humanity. It was true. The president had openly bragged about deliberately slowing down COVID-19 testing for political gain, thereby causing the deaths of untold numbers of Americans to make himself look better. It is a monstrous crime for which he has not yet been held accountable.
But a new report from Vanity Fair implicates both Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner of an unspeakable horror orders of magnitude greater. Instead of implementing a comprehensive and aggressive national testing plan as originally recommended by the White House coronavirus task force, Kushner scuttled it. The president and his son-in-law were instead content to allow tens of thousands of Americans die as long as they were mostly people of color, and hailing from Democratic states and counties. Not only that, they saw it as a political opportunity to both cull the numbers of opposing voters and lay blame on Democratic governors at the same time:
Against that background, the prospect of launching a large-scale national plan was losing favor, said one public health expert in frequent contact with the White House’s official coronavirus task force. Most troubling of all, perhaps, was a sentiment the expert said a member of Kushner’s team expressed: that because the virus had hit blue states hardest, a national plan was unnecessary and would not make sense politically. “The political folks believed that because it was going to be relegated to Democratic states, that they could blame those governors, and that would be an effective political strategy,” said the expert. That logic may have swayed Kushner. “It was very clear that Jared was ultimately the decision maker as to what [plan] was going to come out,” the expert said.
Should we believe this report? Maggie Haberman of the New York Times casually confirmed the gist of it, which only raises further questions about why the Times did not report with more alarm on the details:
If this is true–and there is very little reason to doubt its veracity, despite the White House press secretary’s denials–it would constitute perhaps the greatest crime against humanity of any president in American history. Andrew Jackson’s Trail of Tears was more deliberately vicious and murderous; George W. Bush’s immoral war of choice in Iraq killed more people overall.
But no American president has ever betrayed his oath of office more profoundly than in deliberately allowing the deaths of more than 150,000 of his own fellow citizens and counting for partisan political gain.
We even lack the vocabulary to describe it. “Gross negligence” doesn’t reach the level of the crime. “Murder” is lurid, but frankly not comprehensive enough in scope to describe the death of 150,000. “Treason” comes to mind when considering that the President of the United States knowingly allowed 150,000 Americans to die because they were mostly his political opponents–but despite his Russia entanglements, there is no direct evidence he did so on behalf of a foreign power.
But there’s another option: “genocide.” The known racial bias of the deaths overlaps with the political bias–black and brown Americans tend to be Democrats and live in Democratic areas, and are disproportionately falling victim to the virus–which in turn would make “genocide” the most compelling way to describe what Trump and Kushner have done.
Genocide. Yes, it sounds preposterous. It sounds like the hyperbole of the deeply unserious. But what else can you call it? No word is perfect, but the crime must have a name that fits the enormous scope of its evil. It must describe what actually happened. And what happened is that the president and his son-in-law deliberately allowed 150,000 (and counting) Americans to die of a pandemic, because it would mostly kill off their political opponents. Because it would kill off mostly poor people of color. Because they thought they could gain an upper hand by blaming opposing governors. But they thought it would advantage them politically. It’s like a plot out of a bad action movie with a comic book villain, except it’s real life and those villains are still governing and making decisions.
When the founders named “high crimes and misdemeanors” as the basis for impeaching a president, they chose the phrase because it was deliberately vague: it would be impossible to write a law to cover every possible abuse of power by a deranged executive. They expected the Congress to respect its own authority and the health of the country enough to know when a relevant “high crime” or “misdemeanor” had taken place.
The problem now is that this president has already been impeached, there isn’t time or appetite to impeach him again, and the Senate controlled by the president’s party refuses to act out of political cowardice and self-interest. Moreover, the phrase “high crime” doesn’t really do justice to the scope of the evil of which the president is reportedly guilty.
This is a crime against humanity. A crime so profound we may not have a law to cover it. A crime with international implications, one so vast it may require an international court.
But somehow, some way, it must be prosecuted. The majority of Americans, the ones not enthralled by conservative infotainment and the Trump propaganda machine, are suffering from years of collective trauma and looking forward to the November election as a means of escape. One can hardly blame them. Nor would many be to blame for wanting to put this entire era behind us and never look back.
But assuming democracy remains intact and Trump is driven from office, this enormous crime cannot be forgotten. It cannot be ignored. There must be accountability for this genocide, the greatest crime in American history.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-01--Biden’s VP Pick Should Not Determine the Democratic Party’s Future

Joe Biden is certainly taking his time picking a running mate .
With his decision originally expected by August , the latest news suggests that he will announce the pick around the 10th of this month .
Unfortunately , the longer the decision takes , the more acrimony and infighting occurs between the party ’ s factions and loyalists of the potential choices .
I don ’ t want to rehash the various rumors , factional disputes , insults and opposition research leaks here .
Suffice it to say that one reason for Biden ’ s slowness and difficulty in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perfectly checks all the boxes .
The perfect candidate must be a woman .
She would preferably be a woman of color , especially at this moment .
She should ideally be an ideological progressive trusted by the younger , more progressive base least excited by Biden and most in need of a turnout boost .
She should be well-liked by both progressives and people of color .
She should hopefully have a national profile , known to the American public , without high unfavorables .
She should already have faced the ringer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trail and with no hidden skeletons waiting to be exposed .
She should be ready for the job at a moment ’ s notice , but not so eager for power as to potentially undermine the president .
She should have international chops , as foreign diplomacy is the majority of the vice-president ’ s actual job .
None of the potential candidates meets all those requirements .
Not Harris , not Warren , not Bass , not Susan Rice , not Duckworth , not Abrams .
It would be fairly impossible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone Biden picks will necessarily be a compromise .
Each potential candidate ’ s factional arguments rest , then , on emphasizing some of those criteria over others , which in turn leads to bitter accusations of favoritism and purity tests among backers of the other candidates .
But one thing that all the warring factions should honestly acknowledge is that this fight doesn ’ t really matter much for the 2020 election .
The vice-president matters most for 2024 , 2028 and beyond .
It ’ s not about the next 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Democratic Party and therefore , hopefully , the country In a hyperpolarized environment , available evidence suggests that the choice of vice-president will have a negligible effect on electoral outcomes .
In this election , you either hate Trump or you love him .
If you hate him , you ’ ll tolerate almost anyone to get rid of him .
If you love him , the opponent ’ s VP pick won ’ t change anything .
Insofar as the choice does matter at all , it ’ s likelier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the argument : given the enthusiasm gap between Biden supporters and Trump supporters and moderate voters ’ deep antipathy to Trump , a progressive choice would help Democratic turnout more than it would harm conservative-leaning moderate crossover .
But there is a strong argument that whoever Biden chooses as vice-president should not automatically be the party ’ s ideological lodestone for the next twelve to sixteen years .
Should Biden defeat Trump and remain in good health , Biden could conceivably be president through 2028 .
His vice president could theoretically succeed him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Twelve to sixteen years is a long time in the rapidly developing world of modern politics .
Think of the ideological changes the Democratic party has undergone since John Kerry was the party ’ s nominee , and then compound that by considering the deep ideological divides between socialist-leaning Dems under 45 and the much more moderate baby boomer and Gen X Democrats .
2032 will be a dramatically different ideological and demographic landscape for the country and the party .
Moreover , the 2020 Democratic primary itself suggests that Biden should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the party ’ s future .
The progressive wing of the party led by Sanders and Warren ( and arguably Yang and other minor candidates ) carried about 40 % of Democratic base , and has the very strong loyalty of its voters under 45 .
Nor was Biden the first choice of most of the party ’ s older , moderate wing , most of whom preferred Buttigieg or Klobuchar .
Even Black voters in the South and in South Carolina specifically were , per public polling , shifting heavily after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or toward Buttigieg/Klobuchar until Congressman Clyburn ’ s fateful endorsement tipped the scale .
Afterward , the moderate faction knew it needed to consolidate if it wanted to stop Sanders : Biden was the only viable choice , Buttigieg and Klobuchar saw the handwriting on the wall , and the rest is history .
But Biden was always the fallback candidate , even for most moderate voters .
Biden ’ s biggest strength is that he has from the beginning of the primary contest polled best in head-to-head matchups against Trump .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue for most Democratic primary voters desperate to put an end to Trump ’ s reign , and it should come as no surprise that a Democratic electorate intensely focused on pragmatic viability settled on Biden to give itself the best chance of winning .
But that doesn ’ t mean even older , more moderate Democratic voters want Biden determining the character of the party going forward–much less the younger ( and by “ younger ” that means anyone under the age of 45 ! )
progressive wing winning an increasingly larger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battles .
Biden is a calming caretaker for our democracy , not the face of the Democratic Party ’ s future .
His vice-presidential pick shouldn ’ t be determining that , either .
In short , an underrated characteristic of Biden ’ s vice-presidential pick should be that she not necessarily want the job in four to eight years .
Not as a knock against anyone he might choose , but because after the immediate danger of Trump is passed , Democratic voters should be at liberty to freely choose the direction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without being locked into the defensive , electability-driven calculations of the Biden campaign in 2020 .

Joe Biden is certainly taking his time picking a running mate. With his decision originally expected by August, the latest news suggests that he will announce the pick around the 10th of this month. Unfortunately, the longer the decision takes, the more acrimony and infighting occurs between the party’s factions and loyalists of the potential choices.
I don’t want to rehash the various rumors, factional disputes, insults and opposition research leaks here. Suffice it to say that one reason for Biden’s slowness and difficulty in selecting a candidate is that no one perfectly checks all the boxes. The perfect candidate must be a woman. She would preferably be a woman of color, especially at this moment. She should ideally be an ideological progressive trusted by the younger, more progressive base least excited by Biden and most in need of a turnout boost. She should be well-liked by both progressives and people of color. She should hopefully have a national profile, known to the American public, without high unfavorables. She should already have faced the wringer of a major campaign, tested on the trail and with no hidden skeletons waiting to be exposed. She should be ready for the job at a moment’s notice, but not so eager for power as to potentially undermine the president. She should have international chops, as foreign diplomacy is the majority of the vice-president’s actual job.
None of the potential candidates meets all those requirements. Not Harris, not Warren, not Bass, not Susan Rice, not Duckworth, not Abrams. It would be fairly impossible for anyone to do so. So anyone Biden picks will necessarily be a compromise. Each potential candidate’s factional arguments rest, then, on emphasizing some of those criteria over others, which in turn leads to bitter accusations of favoritism and purity tests among backers of the other candidates.
But one thing that all the warring factions should honestly acknowledge is that this fight doesn’t really matter much for the 2020 election. The vice-president matters most for 2024, 2028 and beyond. It’s not about the next 100 days, but about the future direction of the Democratic Party and therefore, hopefully, the country.
In a hyperpolarized environment, available evidence suggests that the choice of vice-president will have a negligible effect on electoral outcomes. In this election, you either hate Trump or you love him. If you hate him, you’ll tolerate almost anyone to get rid of him. If you love him, the opponent’s VP pick won’t change anything. Insofar as the choice does matter at all, it’s likelier that the progressives have the better of the argument: given the enthusiasm gap between Biden supporters and Trump supporters and moderate voters’ deep antipathy to Trump, a progressive choice would help Democratic turnout more than it would harm conservative-leaning moderate crossover.
But there is a strong argument that whoever Biden chooses as vice-president should not automatically be the party’s ideological lodestone for the next twelve to sixteen years. Should Biden defeat Trump and remain in good health, Biden could conceivably be president through 2028. His vice president could theoretically succeed him for four to eight more years thereafter. Twelve to sixteen years is a long time in the rapidly developing world of modern politics. Think of the ideological changes the Democratic party has undergone since John Kerry was the party’s nominee, and then compound that by considering the deep ideological divides between socialist-leaning Dems under 45 and the much more moderate baby boomer and Gen X Democrats. 2032 will be a dramatically different ideological and demographic landscape for the country and the party.
Moreover, the 2020 Democratic primary itself suggests that Biden should not be in the position of deciding the party’s future. The progressive wing of the party led by Sanders and Warren (and arguably Yang and other minor candidates) carried about 40% of Democratic base, and has the very strong loyalty of its voters under 45. Nor was Biden the first choice of most of the party’s older, moderate wing, most of whom preferred Buttigieg or Klobuchar. Even Black voters in the South and in South Carolina specifically were, per public polling, shifting heavily after the first primary contests either toward the progressives or toward Buttigieg/Klobuchar until Congressman Clyburn’s fateful endorsement tipped the scale. Afterward, the moderate faction knew it needed to consolidate if it wanted to stop Sanders: Biden was the only viable choice, Buttigieg and Klobuchar saw the handwriting on the wall, and the rest is history. But Biden was always the fallback candidate, even for most moderate voters.
Biden’s biggest strength is that he has from the beginning of the primary contest polled best in head-to-head matchups against Trump. “Electability” was always the number one issue for most Democratic primary voters desperate to put an end to Trump’s reign, and it should come as no surprise that a Democratic electorate intensely focused on pragmatic viability settled on Biden to give itself the best chance of winning. But that doesn’t mean even older, more moderate Democratic voters want Biden determining the character of the party going forward–much less the younger (and by “younger” that means anyone under the age of 45!) progressive wing winning an increasingly larger share of the party’s internal battles. Biden is a calming caretaker for our democracy, not the face of the Democratic Party’s future. His vice-presidential pick shouldn’t be determining that, either.
In short, an underrated characteristic of Biden’s vice-presidential pick should be that she not necessarily want the job in four to eight years. Not as a knock against anyone he might choose, but because after the immediate danger of Trump is passed, Democratic voters should be at liberty to freely choose the direction of the party over the next decade without being locked into the defensive, electability-driven calculations of the Biden campaign in 2020.