washingtonmonthly--2020-08-19--The Twisted Reasoning Required to Defend Trump

Prior to the Trump presidency , there were some conservative pundits and publications that mainstream media considered to be “ serious ” commentators on the right .
Given that they were in the position of having to defend a Republican Party that evolved from being post-truth to post-policy , we can have a debate about how serious they actually were .
But their job was to provide some intellectual gravitas to GOP positions .
Once Trump was elected , that group split , with some becoming Never Trumpers ( Bill Kristol , Jennifer Rubin , etc . )
and some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defending the narcissist-in-chief .
Among the latter group are people like Byron York at the Washington Examiner and Stephen Miller at the Spectator .
I name those two in particular because they have recently written that concerns on the left about what this administration is doing to the Post Office basically amounts to a conspiracy theory .
The title of York ’ s piece says it all : “ A reality-based look at Trump and the post office.
” But Miller ups the ante with , “ Going postal : the USPS conspiracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the week that the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bi-partisan report documenting the pattern of relationships between Trump campaign officials and Russian operatives , it might not be a good time for them to compare what ’ s going on at the Post Office with so-called “ Russiagate.
” But Miller isn ’ t the only one that went there .
Here ’ s how York opens his piece .
The commonality between what these two authors have to say doesn ’ t end there .
They both suggest that the Post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the actions taken recently by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy are merely steps taken to “ reform ” the institution , given its financial problems .
They claim that concerns expressed by Democrats about how those will affect the upcoming election are merely conspiracy theories cooked up by the same folks that they think manufactured the ties between Russia and the Trump campaign .
But to make that claim with a straight face , these authors have to contend with the president ’ s own words .
As a reminder , while talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear that he was blocking funding for the Post Office , which would stop them from being able to handle mail-in voting .
He made similar claims on Fox and Friends .
So if this is all just a conspiracy theory , it was cooked up by the president himself .
Miller ’ s attempt to address that boils down to his suggestion that Trump ’ s comments were simply a case of him “ electioneering ” to his Fox News base , adding that “ concerns with a universal mail-in election are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s admitting that—to the extent that all of this is a conspiracy theory—Trump started it , and he was justified in doing so .
York takes the position that the president merely confused things .
It ’ s hard to wrap one ’ s head around that one .
The president is refusing to agree to additional funding for the Post office and being clear that he is doing so in order to stop universal mail-in voting .
But York claims that ’ s not the real reason .
So should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about his own motives ?
For those of us who actually reside in the reality-based world , it is important to keep in mind that what Republicans are doing to the Post office is a twofer : sabotage the USPS to go private , and slow ballots down as a bonus .
As Eric Cortellessa documented for this magazine , the former has been going on for decades .
All of that explains why those conservative journalists , who chose to hang in there in an attempt to defend Trump , face the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the years to promote post-truth politics with a president who lives in a delusional world designed to promote his own self-interests—which means that he occasionally says the quiet parts out loud .
When someone like Byron York goes on Fox News to furrow his brow and pretend to make an intellectual argument in support of all of that , the descriptor that comes to mind is “ pretzel logic .
”

Prior to the Trump presidency, there were some conservative pundits and publications that mainstream media considered to be “serious” commentators on the right. Given that they were in the position of having to defend a Republican Party that evolved from being post-truth to post-policy, we can have a debate about how serious they actually were. But their job was to provide some intellectual gravitas to GOP positions.
Once Trump was elected, that group split, with some becoming Never Trumpers (Bill Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, etc.) and some deciding to take up the mantle of defending the narcissist-in-chief. Among the latter group are people like Byron York at the Washington Examiner and Stephen Miller at the Spectator. I name those two in particular because they have recently written that concerns on the left about what this administration is doing to the Post Office basically amounts to a conspiracy theory.
The title of York’s piece says it all: “A reality-based look at Trump and the post office.” But Miller ups the ante with, “Going postal: the USPS conspiracy theory is the new Russiagate.” Especially during the week that the Senate Intelligence Committee released a bi-partisan report documenting the pattern of relationships between Trump campaign officials and Russian operatives, it might not be a good time for them to compare what’s going on at the Post Office with so-called “Russiagate.” But Miller isn’t the only one that went there. Here’s how York opens his piece.
Some of the accusations have grown so frantic that they resemble the frenzy of a couple of years ago over the allegation, from many of the same people, that Trump had conspired with Russia to fix the 2016 election.
The commonality between what these two authors have to say doesn’t end there. They both suggest that the Post Office was “going broke” and that the actions taken recently by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy are merely steps taken to “reform” the institution, given its financial problems. They claim that concerns expressed by Democrats about how those will affect the upcoming election are merely conspiracy theories cooked up by the same folks that they think manufactured the ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.
But to make that claim with a straight face, these authors have to contend with the president’s own words. As a reminder, while talking to Maria Bartiromo, Trump made it clear that he was blocking funding for the Post Office, which would stop them from being able to handle mail-in voting. He made similar claims on Fox and Friends. So if this is all just a conspiracy theory, it was cooked up by the president himself.
Miller’s attempt to address that boils down to his suggestion that Trump’s comments were simply a case of him “electioneering” to his Fox News base, adding that “concerns with a universal mail-in election are not unfounded.” In other words, he’s admitting that—to the extent that all of this is a conspiracy theory—Trump started it, and he was justified in doing so.
York takes the position that the president merely confused things.
[Trump] suggested that not agreeing to the $25 billion was a way to stop universal mail-in voting, which it is not. He hasn’t addressed the serious problems at the Postal Service which need attention and do not have anything to do with voting. In all, he left the issue more confused than it had been beforehand — and that was saying something.
It’s hard to wrap one’s head around that one. The president is refusing to agree to additional funding for the Post office and being clear that he is doing so in order to stop universal mail-in voting. But York claims that’s not the real reason. So should we simply dismiss what the president said about his own motives?
For those of us who actually reside in the reality-based world, it is important to keep in mind that what Republicans are doing to the Post office is a twofer: sabotage the USPS to go private, and slow ballots down as a bonus. As Eric Cortellessa documented for this magazine, the former has been going on for decades.
All of that explains why those conservative journalists, who chose to hang in there in an attempt to defend Trump, face the challenge of combining the skills they developed over the years to promote post-truth politics with a president who lives in a delusional world designed to promote his own self-interests—which means that he occasionally says the quiet parts out loud. When someone like Byron York goes on Fox News to furrow his brow and pretend to make an intellectual argument in support of all of that, the descriptor that comes to mind is “pretzel logic.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-20--Republicans Have Politicized Almost Every Aspect of American Life

There was a time when the fault lines between the two major political parties in the United States centered around differences over the role of government ( ie , how large the safety net should be ) and the role of this country in foreign affairs .
Then in the 60s and 70s , commitment to civil rights for women and people of color became part of the divide .
Finally , the so-called “ culture wars ” were added to the list when the Republican Party set out to make the GOP a home for Christian nationalists .
Today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have been politicized seems to be expanding exponentially .
We ’ ve seen that recently , when the wearing of a mask to prevent the spread of a pandemic became part of the divide between the right and the left .
That particular issue is rooted in the politicization of science , including the demonization of expertise by conservatives .
I am reminded of the fact that the Republican who is running for senate in my home state of Minnesota , Jason Lewis , spent most of his previous career as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he expounded on the wisdom of “ garage logic.
” The politicization of science and expertise has meant that almost any issue is now cast as a disagreement between liberals and conservatives .
At the top of that list is the biggest existential threat we face today : climate change .
But “ garage logic ” can be used to dismiss almost any issue to which science , research , and data can be applied .
The most absurd example was when Representative Michele Bachman used junk science to politicize lightbulbs—an issue Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a first-term Republican , is challenging the nation ’ s embrace of energy-efficient compact fluorescent lights , saying the government has no business telling consumers what kind of light bulbs they can buy… “ By 2012 , incandescent light bulbs will be no more , ” Bachmann said .
“ Fluorescent bulbs are more polluting because of their mercury content .
We are working on a light bulb bill .
If the Democrats can hose up a light bulb , don ’ t trust them with the country.
” This politicization has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the federal government—who have traditionally been apolitical and served under both Democratic and Republican administrations .
Whenever Trump or one of his enablers wants to attack one of them for saying something they don ’ t like , the search begins to find some link , no matter how obscure , to a Democrat .
That is all conservatives need to hear in order to smear them and dismiss their claims .
A perfect example was the “ six degrees of separation ” Paul Sperry of RealClearPolitics found between the whistleblower on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But every civil servant who testified during the impeachment hearings was smeared as a Democrat at one point or another .
Taking the long view , I credit this politicization of everything to the launch of Fox News .
In order to make a name for themselves , they convinced their audience that all of the other major media outlets had a liberal bias .
Their claim to fame was to provide “ balance ” by presenting the conservative side .
Eventually that led to what Julian Sanchez described as “ epistemic closure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , major media outlets contributed to the politicization of everything in their obsession with bothsiderisms .
Most notably was the creation of shows like Crossfire on CNN where the point was not to find common ground , but to inflame the differences .
Parody demonstrates what happened , as we saw with “ Point/Counter-Point ” skits on Saturday Night Live featuring Jane Curtin and Dan Aykroyd .
That perfectly captured how people view political discussions , which is why so many of us avoid conservations across the divide .
A lot of ink @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this country is so polarized .
It all started when Republicans and Fox News decided to politicize almost every aspect of American life .

There was a time when the fault lines between the two major political parties in the United States centered around differences over the role of government (ie, how large the safety net should be) and the role of this country in foreign affairs. Then in the 60s and 70s, commitment to civil rights for women and people of color became part of the divide. Finally, the so-called “culture wars” were added to the list when the Republican Party set out to make the GOP a home for Christian nationalists.
Today, however, the list of items that have been politicized seems to be expanding exponentially. We’ve seen that recently, when the wearing of a mask to prevent the spread of a pandemic became part of the divide between the right and the left. That particular issue is rooted in the politicization of science, including the demonization of expertise by conservatives. I am reminded of the fact that the Republican who is running for senate in my home state of Minnesota, Jason Lewis, spent most of his previous career as a right wing radio shock jock, where he expounded on the wisdom of “garage logic.”
The politicization of science and expertise has meant that almost any issue is now cast as a disagreement between liberals and conservatives. At the top of that list is the biggest existential threat we face today: climate change. But “garage logic” can be used to dismiss almost any issue to which science, research, and data can be applied. The most absurd example was when Representative Michele Bachmann used junk science to politicize lightbulbs—an issue Trump has more recently taken up.
Bachmann, a first-term Republican, is challenging the nation’s embrace of energy-efficient compact fluorescent lights, saying the government has no business telling consumers what kind of light bulbs they can buy… “By 2012, incandescent light bulbs will be no more,” Bachmann said. “Fluorescent bulbs are more polluting because of their mercury content. We are working on a light bulb bill. If the Democrats can hose up a light bulb, don’t trust them with the country.”
This politicization has become personal when applied to civil servants in the federal government—who have traditionally been apolitical and served under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Whenever Trump or one of his enablers wants to attack one of them for saying something they don’t like, the search begins to find some link, no matter how obscure, to a Democrat. That is all conservatives need to hear in order to smear them and dismiss their claims. A perfect example was the “six degrees of separation” Paul Sperry of RealClearPolitics found between the whistleblower on the Ukraine matter and Joe Biden. But every civil servant who testified during the impeachment hearings was smeared as a Democrat at one point or another.
Taking the long view, I credit this politicization of everything to the launch of Fox News. In order to make a name for themselves, they convinced their audience that all of the other major media outlets had a liberal bias. Their claim to fame was to provide “balance” by presenting the conservative side. Eventually that led to what Julian Sanchez described as “epistemic closure” on the right.
Reality is defined by a multimedia array of interconnected and cross promoting conservative blogs, radio programs, magazines, and of course, Fox News. Whatever conflicts with that reality can be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the liberal media, and is therefore ipso facto not to be trusted. (How do you know they’re liberal? Well, they disagree with the conservative media!)
Of course, major media outlets contributed to the politicization of everything in their obsession with bothsiderisms. Most notably was the creation of shows like Crossfire on CNN where the point was not to find common ground, but to inflame the differences. Parody demonstrates what happened, as we saw with “Point/Counter-Point” skits on Saturday Night Live featuring Jane Curtin and Dan Aykroyd.
That perfectly captured how people view political discussions, which is why so many of us avoid conservations across the divide.
A lot of ink has been spilled trying to explain why this country is so polarized. It all started when Republicans and Fox News decided to politicize almost every aspect of American life.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-20--How the U.S. Can Fight Corruption after Trump

Earlier this year , former Vice-President Joseph Biden spelled out his plan for America ’ s foreign policy in an essay in Foreign Affairs .
Biden offered a vision of global leadership rooted in principles and objectives that would be familiar to veterans of past Democratic administrations , such as the importance of alliances and partnerships in confronting shared challenges ; the moral imperative to defend democracy and human rights ; the pursuit of an international economic system that works for the American middle class ; and a preference for diplomacy and negotiation over military force .
But alongside these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exhibited a more novel preoccupation : corruption .
In describing how he would advance American values and interests abroad , the vice president repeatedly linked the defense of democracy with the fight against graft .
Corruption , Biden wrote , is an “ insidious pandemic ” that is “ fueling oppression ” and “ equipping authoritarian leaders with a powerful tool.
” The presumptive Democratic nominee promised to issue a presidential directive during his first year in office “ that establishes combating corruption as a core national security interest and democratic responsibility.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate to draw attention to corruption in his foreign policy platform .
Elizabeth Warren , widely hailed as the policy heavyweight of the election season , released two separate foreign policy-related corruption plans during her campaign .
Bernie Sanders made fighting corruption a central element of his two major speeches on U.S. foreign policy , asserting that “ inequality , corruption , and oligarchy ” are “ part of the same system ” and must be “ fought in the same way.
” By contrast , Hilary Clinton ’ s most extensive speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign didn ’ t reference corruption at all .
The newfound emphasis on international graft in left-of-center thinking is long overdue .
As transparency advocates have long pointed out , it ’ s hard to think of a U.S. foreign policy interest or progressive value that isn ’ t undermined or threatened by corruption .
Left to fester , corruption drains governments of their ability to carry out their most elemental duties and respond to the needs of their citizens .
At a minimum , this breakdown of state functions impairs effective action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change .
In more severe cases , it leads public officials to become complicit in activities such as transnational crime , human rights abuses , and terrorism .
Black market dealings even helped Pakistan acquire nuclear weapons .
Even for hard-nosed advocates of a “ realist ” foreign policy , corruption should be a leading concern .
The increasingly pro-Moscow tilt of governments in Hungary and Serbia has coincided with a growing Russian economic footprint in the energy sector , made possible through public contracts awarded through opaque , non-competitive tenders .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be unreliable security partners .
In Afghanistan , the efforts of the United States and its allies to build an effective Afghan military and government foundered on a political system plagued by systemic graft .
The U.S. ’ s decades-long effort to reduce narco-trafficking in Latin America has failed in large part because cartels and other criminal organizations have been successful in bribing the region ’ s bureaucrats and politicians .
But it won ’ t be possible to tackle corruption by treating it as a foreign policy problem alone .
Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much in his Foreign Affairs essay , arguing that “ we need to close the loopholes that corrupt our democracy ” in order to “ reinforce the democratic foundation of the United States and inspire action in others.
” Such a call to action is laudable , but it won ’ t be easy—and it will involve more than just closing loopholes .
As Donald Trump ’ s blatant self-enrichment , sordid business past , and suspected dealings with foreign powers illustrate , corruption is not just a problem for low-income countries .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ often live under poor and dysfunctional governments , its enablers can be found in some of the wealthiest and best-governed countries in the world .
Kleptocrats abroad funnel their money through Americanand European financial institutions .
Businessmen store their bribes in our banks .
Until the United States and other advanced economies get serious about breaking the chain of corruption at home , it will continue to thrive abroad .
Although corruption is by its nature clandestine , thanks to the Panama Papers and other leaks from offshore financial centers and exposés by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provided a glimpse into its reach and breadth .
These streams of information all point towards the same conclusion : much of the grand corruption that exists in the world today runs through and depends on global financial centers and access to high-value assets in advanced economies .
What may be the biggest money laundering scandal in history , for example , occurred not in an infamously secret jurisdiction like the Cayman Islands , but in Estonia , a country at the heart of the European Union and perhaps the most tightly-regulated and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The primary culprit was not a shadowy , fly-by-night entity but rather Danske Bank , the largest bank in Denmark .
Between 2007 and 2015 , an estimated 200 billion euros in suspicious transactions—a significant portion of which is believed to be connected to Russian wealth , including the family of Vladimir Putin and the Russian intelligence services—passed through the institution ’ s Estonia branch .
In many cases , it used opaque corporate vehicles registered in the United Kingdom .
As the cash flowed , Danske Bank ’ s management repeatedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite both an internal whistleblower complaint and concerns from Danish and Estonian regulatory authorities .
There are other , arguably even more outrageous examples .
In 2013 , the U.S. branch of HSBC , Europe ’ s largest bank , admitted to laundering nearly $ 900 million for drug cartels in Mexico and Colombia .
The federal investigation that led to that admission also determined the bank had facilitated transfers to terrorist groups in the Middle East .
Rather than pursue criminal charges against the bank , however , senior officials at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower-level prosecutors and pursued a non-criminal settlement with HSBC over fears serious charges would lead to global financial turmoil .
The bank ’ s executives , whom investigators believed were complicit in the breach , received no sanction other than partially deferred bonuses Danske Bank and HSBC were not one-off glitches in an otherwise well-functioning system , but rather symptoms of a broader rot .
The Miami housing market has become a favorite destination for Venezuelan officials to park money stolen from state coffers .
One of the most prominent trading firms in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its role in pilfering mineral resources in Africa .
Global consulting powerhouse McKinsey entered into an illegal contract in South Africa with the company at the center of biggest graft scandal the country ’ s history .
A Malaysian embezzlement scheme that eventually toppled a prime minister was enabled by Goldman Sachs .
Indeed , recent years have demonstrated how malicious actors can use wealthy countries ’ institutions to literally export corruption to vulnerable states .
The Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht , for example , managed to corrupt half the governments of Latin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systems were unusually feeble , but because the firm established a highly effective “ bribery division ” that used the same tools and techniques as kleptocrats and crime networks to dole out kickbacks on an industrial scale .
A recent investigation into the scheme found that Oderbrecht “ funneled hundreds of millions of dollars in secret payments through companies and banks in countries around the world , ” including the United States , China , Switzerland , and the Netherlands .
In one illustrative transaction , Oderbrecht sent funds to a company incorporated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a different firm registered in the Dominican Republican , which in turn bought a $ 2 million apartment in Manhattan .
Regardless of the outcome of the election in November , Trump will eventually have to leave office .
If the person who succeeds him is serious about moving corruption to the center of the U.S. foreign policy agenda , they will need to reckon with the uncomfortable truths about global graft that the past four years have brought into stark relief .
An anticorruption agenda that meets the lessons of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an existential threat to global democracy that wealthy nations have played a disproportionate role in enabling—and by extension bear a disproportionate burden in combating .
Such an agenda means moving beyond the prevailing approach to corruption in many western capitals , which assigns a benevolent role to high-income democracies as anticorruption champions with the technical expertise , financial resources , and in some cases the law enforcement power to set graft-stricken countries on a path towards good governance .
This mindset still animates much of anticorruption policy in Washington .
A current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeks to counter overseas kleptocracy by establishing an “ Anti-Corruption Action Fund ” that would “ provide extra funding during historic windows of opportunity for reform in foreign countries.
” This is not to say that anticorruption-related foreign assistance should be curtailed , of course .
But policymakers should recognize the hypocrisy and counterproductivity of scolding and cajoling poorer nations to clean up their institutions when their own firms and citizens have all contributed directly to corruption in the developing world .
The United States will need to think bigger to address the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real costs on companies and people that aid in corruption , such as criminally prosecuting and blacklisting large financial institutions and other private sector actors that enable money laundering and illicit financial flows .
We will need to close the many glaring weaknesses in our anti-money laundering regulations .
And last but not least , we will need to overhaul our domestic bribery and lobbying frameworks , which have effectively legalized corruption in our own political system .
The Supreme Court , for example , recently interpreted the main federal bribery statue so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would intuitively recognize as corrupt , such as a governor facilitating meetings with regulators on behalf of businessmen who had gifted him a Rolex and other pricey baubles The U.S. will also need to rethink how it deals with foreign states .
It must be willing , for example , to raise the international stakes for abetting in corruption .
At a minimum , it must sanction secrecy jurisdictions and those who profit from them even where such measures could raise tensions with geopolitical partners .
In certain cases—for example when a government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state capture by external actors—the U.S. could even strategically leak damning scandals to opposition figures , civil society and the press .
It must placesustained pressure on other G-7 members and the European Union to give teeth to their anti-money laundering rules and other anticorruption norms .
These initiatives should all be backstopped by a coordinated and well-resourced effort within the federal government to identify and disrupt kleptocratic networks overseas .
In the global fight against graft , the most promising and the most important ally for the United States will be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States and the EU have oversight of the lion ’ s shareof international financial transactions .
A joint commitment to strengthen and harmonize anti-corruption efforts , if carried out in good faith , would result in a dramatic improvement in the transparency of the global financial system .
One key innovation the two actors could pursue under such an anticorruption banner would be a multilateral information-exchange system for suspicious financial activity , similar to a mechanism that many countries use to share information about foreign-owned bank accounts for tax purposes .
These efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too long , the United States has kept the lights off in its own home and sought out corruption where it is most obvious .
But what ’ s most visible may not be what ’ s most dangerous or most repugnant .
The Trump presidency has put a harsh glare on some of the more squalid corners of our own system , but there are many dark rooms left to explore .

Earlier this year, former Vice-President Joseph Biden spelled out his plan for America’s foreign policy in an essay in Foreign Affairs. Biden offered a vision of global leadership rooted in principles and objectives that would be familiar to veterans of past Democratic administrations, such as the importance of alliances and partnerships in confronting shared challenges; the moral imperative to defend democracy and human rights; the pursuit of an international economic system that works for the American middle class; and a preference for diplomacy and negotiation over military force.
But alongside these familiar themes, Biden’s essay exhibited a more novel preoccupation: corruption. In describing how he would advance American values and interests abroad, the vice president repeatedly linked the defense of democracy with the fight against graft. Corruption, Biden wrote, is an “insidious pandemic” that is “fueling oppression” and “equipping authoritarian leaders with a powerful tool.” The presumptive Democratic nominee promised to issue a presidential directive during his first year in office “that establishes combating corruption as a core national security interest and democratic responsibility.”
Biden was not the only Democratic primary candidate to draw attention to corruption in his foreign policy platform. Elizabeth Warren, widely hailed as the policy heavyweight of the election season, released two separate foreign policy-related corruption plans during her campaign. Bernie Sanders made fighting corruption a central element of his two major speeches on U.S. foreign policy, asserting that “inequality, corruption, and oligarchy” are “part of the same system” and must be “fought in the same way.” By contrast, Hilary Clinton’s most extensive speech on foreign policy during the 2016 presidential campaign didn’t reference corruption at all.
The newfound emphasis on international graft in left-of-center thinking is long overdue. As transparency advocates have long pointed out, it’s hard to think of a U.S. foreign policy interest or progressive value that isn’t undermined or threatened by corruption. Left to fester, corruption drains governments of their ability to carry out their most elemental duties and respond to the needs of their citizens. At a minimum, this breakdown of state functions impairs effective action on major global challenges, such as climate change. In more severe cases, it leads public officials to become complicit in activities such as transnational crime, human rights abuses, and terrorism. Black market dealings even helped Pakistan acquire nuclear weapons.
Even for hard-nosed advocates of a “realist” foreign policy, corruption should be a leading concern. The increasingly pro-Moscow tilt of governments in Hungary and Serbia has coincided with a growing Russian economic footprint in the energy sector, made possible through public contracts awarded through opaque,non-competitive tenders. And highly corrupt governments everywhere tend to be unreliable security partners. In Afghanistan, the efforts of the United States and its allies to build an effective Afghan military and government foundered on a political system plagued by systemic graft. The U.S.’s decades-long effort to reduce narco-trafficking in Latin America has failed in large part because cartels and other criminal organizations have been successful in bribing the region’s bureaucrats and politicians.
But it won’t be possible to tackle corruption by treating it as a foreign policy problem alone. Joe Biden, to his credit, wrote as much in his Foreign Affairs essay, arguing that “we need to close the loopholes that corrupt our democracy” in order to “reinforce the democratic foundation of the United States and inspire action in others.”
Such a call to action is laudable, but it won’t be easy—and it will involve more than just closing loopholes. As Donald Trump’s blatant self-enrichment, sordid business past, and suspected dealings with foreign powers illustrate, corruption is not just a problem for low-income countries. And while the victims of corruption do often live under poor and dysfunctional governments, its enablers can be found in some of the wealthiest and best-governed countries in the world. Kleptocrats abroad funnel their money through Americanand European financial institutions. Businessmen store their bribes in our banks. Until the United States and other advanced economies get serious about breaking the chain of corruption at home, it will continue to thrive abroad.
Although corruption is by its nature clandestine, thanks to the Panama Papers and other leaks from offshore financial centers and exposés by investigative journalists, the last decade has provided a glimpse into its reach and breadth. These streams of information all point towards the same conclusion: much of the grand corruption that exists in the world today runs through and depends on global financial centers and access to high-value assets in advanced economies.
What may be the biggest money laundering scandal in history, for example, occurred not in an infamously secret jurisdiction like the Cayman Islands, but in Estonia, a country at the heart of the European Union and perhaps the most tightly-regulated and professionally managed market economy in the world. The primary culprit was not a shadowy, fly-by-night entity but rather Danske Bank, the largest bank in Denmark. Between 2007 and 2015, an estimated 200 billion euros in suspicious transactions—a significant portion of which is believed to be connected to Russian wealth, including the family of Vladimir Putin and the Russian intelligence services—passed through the institution’s Estonia branch. In many cases, it used opaque corporate vehicles registered in the United Kingdom. As the cash flowed, Danske Bank’s management repeatedly declined to rein in its branch, despite both an internal whistleblower complaint and concerns from Danish and Estonian regulatory authorities.
There are other, arguably even more outrageous examples. In 2013, the U.S. branch of HSBC, Europe’s largest bank, admitted to laundering nearly $900 million for drug cartels in Mexico and Colombia. The federal investigation that led to that admission also determined the bank had facilitated transfers to terrorist groups in the Middle East. Rather than pursue criminal charges against the bank, however, senior officials at the Department of Justice overruled the recommendation of lower-level prosecutors and pursued a non-criminal settlement with HSBC over fears serious charges would lead to global financial turmoil. The bank’s executives, whom investigators believed were complicit in the breach, received no sanction other than partially deferred bonuses
Danske Bank and HSBC were not one-off glitches in an otherwise well-functioning system, but rather symptoms of a broader rot. The Miami housing market has become a favorite destination for Venezuelan officials to park money stolen from state coffers. One of the most prominent trading firms in Switzerland is under investigation by threedifferentgovernments for its role in pilfering mineral resources in Africa. Global consulting powerhouse McKinsey entered into an illegal contract in South Africa with the company at the center of biggest graft scandal the country’s history. A Malaysian embezzlement scheme that eventually toppled a prime minister was enabled by Goldman Sachs.
Indeed, recent years have demonstrated how malicious actors can use wealthy countries’ institutions to literally export corruption to vulnerable states. The Brazilian construction giant Odebrecht, for example, managed to corrupt half the governments of Latin America not because those countries’ justice systems were unusually feeble, but because the firm established a highly effective “bribery division” that used the same tools and techniques as kleptocrats and crime networks to dole out kickbacks on an industrial scale. A recent investigation into the scheme found that Oderbrecht “funneled hundreds of millions of dollars in secret payments through companies and banks in countries around the world,” including the United States, China, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. In one illustrative transaction, Oderbrecht sent funds to a company incorporated in the Bahamas, which passed it to a different firm registered in the Dominican Republican, which in turn bought a $2 million apartment in Manhattan.
Regardless of the outcome of the election in November, Trump will eventually have to leave office. If the person who succeeds him is serious about moving corruption to the center of the U.S. foreign policy agenda, they will need to reckon with the uncomfortable truths about global graft that the past four years have brought into stark relief. An anticorruption agenda that meets the lessons of the Trump era is one that recognizes corruption as an existential threat to global democracy that wealthy nations have played a disproportionate role in enabling—and by extension bear a disproportionate burden in combating.
Such an agenda means moving beyond the prevailing approach to corruption in many western capitals, which assigns a benevolent role to high-income democracies as anticorruption champions with the technical expertise, financial resources, and in some cases the law enforcement power to set graft-stricken countries on a path towards good governance. This mindset still animates much of anticorruption policy in Washington. A current bill before Congress, for example, seeks to counter overseas kleptocracy by establishing an “Anti-Corruption Action Fund” that would “provide extra funding during historic windows of opportunity for reform in foreign countries.” This is not to say that anticorruption-related foreign assistance should be curtailed, of course. But policymakers should recognize the hypocrisy and counterproductivity of scolding and cajoling poorer nations to clean up their institutions when their own firms and citizens have all contributed directly to corruption in the developing world.
The United States will need to think bigger to address the problem. We will need to impose real costs on companies and people that aid in corruption, such as criminally prosecuting and blacklisting large financial institutions and other private sector actors that enable money laundering and illicit financial flows. We will need to close the many glaring weaknesses in our anti-money laundering regulations. And last but not least, we will need to overhaul our domestic bribery and lobbying frameworks, which have effectively legalized corruption in our own political system. The Supreme Court, for example, recently interpreted the main federal bribery statue so narrowly that it excludes acts most observers would intuitively recognize as corrupt, such as a governor facilitating meetings with regulators on behalf of businessmen who had gifted him a Rolex and other pricey baubles
The U.S. will also need to rethink how it deals with foreign states. It must be willing, for example, to raise the international stakes for abetting in corruption. At a minimum, it must sanction secrecy jurisdictions and those who profit from them even where such measures could raise tensions with geopolitical partners. In certain cases—for example when a government is subject to a high degree of state capture by external actors—the U.S. could even strategically leak damning scandals to opposition figures, civil society and the press. It must placesustained pressure on other G-7 members and the European Union to give teeth to their anti-money laundering rules and other anticorruption norms. These initiatives should all be backstopped by a coordinated and well-resourced effort within the federal government to identify and disrupt kleptocratic networks overseas.
In the global fight against graft, the most promising and the most important ally for the United States will be the European Union. Combined, the United States and the EU have oversight of the lion’s shareof international financial transactions. A joint commitment to strengthen and harmonize anti-corruption efforts, if carried out in good faith, would result in a dramatic improvement in the transparency of the global financial system. One key innovation the two actors could pursue under such an anticorruption banner would be a multilateral information-exchange system for suspicious financial activity, similar to a mechanism that many countries use to share information about foreign-owned bank accounts for tax purposes.
These efforts cannot start too soon. For too long, the United States has kept the lights off in its own home and sought out corruption where it is most obvious. But what’s most visible may not be what’s most dangerous or most repugnant. The Trump presidency has put a harsh glare on some of the more squalid corners of our own system, but there are many dark rooms left to explore.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-20--Barack Obama, the Counter-Puncher

Barack Obama, the Counter-Puncher

With the election of Donald Trump in 2016 , a lot of us experienced the whiplash of having someone in the Oval Office who was the direct opposite of his predecessor .
We got a reminder of that on Wednesday when it was reported that Trump has staged an event right before Biden speaks at the Democratic Convention to detail “ a half century of Joe Biden failing America.
” In contrast , ABC News reported that “ Obama was originally slated to close night three of the DNC , but asked to swap the order and precede Sen. Kamala @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her.
” In watching Obama ’ s speech , it became clear that his request to swap the order was about more than symbolism .
He wanted to take on the role of making sure we all understood the stakes in the upcoming election .
To do so , he prosecuted the case against Donald Trump in a way that departed from what we ’ ve come to expect from the 44th president .
I have sat in the Oval Office with both of the men who are running for president .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my vision or continue my policies .
I did hope , for the sake of our country , that Donald Trump might show some interest in taking the job seriously ; that he might come to feel the weight of the office and discover some reverence for the democracy that had been placed in his care .
But he never did .
For close to four years now , he ’ s shown no interest in putting in the work ; no interest in finding common ground ; no interest in using the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone but himself and his friends ; no interest in treating the presidency as anything but one more reality show that he can use to get the attention he craves .
Donald Trump hasn ’ t grown into the job because he can ’ t .
And the consequences of that failure are severe .
170,000 Americans dead .
Millions of jobs gone while those at the top take in more than ever .
Our worst impulses unleashed , our proud reputation around the world badly diminished , and our democratic institutions threatened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talked about Biden and Harris , Obama drew the obvious contrast with Trump .
But more than anything , what I know about Joe and Kamala is that they actually care about every American .
And they care deeply about this democracy .
They believe that in a democracy , the right to vote is sacred , and we should be making it easier for people to cast their ballot , not harder .
They believe that no one – including the president – is above the law , and that no public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use their office to enrich themselves or their supporters .
They understand that in this democracy , the Commander-in-Chief doesn ’ t use the men and women of our military , who are willing to risk everything to protect our nation , as political props to deploy against peaceful protesters on our own soil .
They understand that political opponents aren ’ t “ un-American ” just because they disagree with you ; that a free press isn ’ t the “ enemy ” but the way we hold officials accountable ; that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big problems like a pandemic depends on a fidelity to facts and science and logic and not just making stuff up .
Some people were surprised by those remarks , which seemed out of character .
But I was reminded of a video clip from the 2008 Democratic primary , when Guy MacMillin of the Sentinel Source asked the candidate about his temper .
After describing himself as even-tempered , Obama referred to himself as a counter-puncher , saying that he initially gives people the benefit of the doubt , but if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He laughed about that last part and called it a joke… sort of .
David Remnick , who interviewed Obama not long after the 2016 election , reminded us of how the former president initially gave Trump the benefit of the doubt .
But more than policy differences—which are to be expected—Obama recognizes that the current president poses a threat to our democracy .
That has always been a line in the sand for him .
So it was time to counter-punch .
In a democracy , however , the “ crushing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Speaking directly to young people , Obama closed with this : You can give our democracy new meaning .
You can take it to a better place .
You ’ re the missing ingredient — the ones who will decide whether or not America becomes the country that fully lives up to its creed .
That work will continue long after this election .
But any chance of success depends entirely on the outcome of this election .
This administration has shown it will tear our democracy down if that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have to get busy building it up – by pouring all our effort into these 76 days , and by voting like never before .
We should all know by now that Barack Obama doesn ’ t engage in hyperbole .
He was both lauded and criticized for being “ no drama Obama.
” So when he says that democracy “ depends entirely on the outcome of this election , ” we had best take heed , because he is simply telling the truth .

With the election of Donald Trump in 2016, a lot of us experienced the whiplash of having someone in the Oval Office who was the direct opposite of his predecessor. We got a reminder of that on Wednesday when it was reported that Trump has staged an event right before Biden speaks at the Democratic Convention to detail “a half century of Joe Biden failing America.” In contrast, ABC News reported that “Obama was originally slated to close night three of the DNC, but asked to swap the order and precede Sen. Kamala Harris to symbolically pass the torch to her.”
In watching Obama’s speech, it became clear that his request to swap the order was about more than symbolism. He wanted to take on the role of making sure we all understood the stakes in the upcoming election. To do so, he prosecuted the case against Donald Trump in a way that departed from what we’ve come to expect from the 44th president.
I have sat in the Oval Office with both of the men who are running for president. I never expected that my successor would embrace my vision or continue my policies. I did hope, for the sake of our country, that Donald Trump might show some interest in taking the job seriously; that he might come to feel the weight of the office and discover some reverence for the democracy that had been placed in his care. But he never did. For close to four years now, he’s shown no interest in putting in the work; no interest in finding common ground; no interest in using the awesome power of his office to help anyone but himself and his friends; no interest in treating the presidency as anything but one more reality show that he can use to get the attention he craves. Donald Trump hasn’t grown into the job because he can’t. And the consequences of that failure are severe. 170,000 Americans dead. Millions of jobs gone while those at the top take in more than ever. Our worst impulses unleashed, our proud reputation around the world badly diminished, and our democratic institutions threatened like never before.
Even when he talked about Biden and Harris, Obama drew the obvious contrast with Trump.
But more than anything, what I know about Joe and Kamala is that they actually care about every American. And they care deeply about this democracy. They believe that in a democracy, the right to vote is sacred, and we should be making it easier for people to cast their ballot, not harder. They believe that no one – including the president – is above the law, and that no public official – including the president – should use their office to enrich themselves or their supporters. They understand that in this democracy, the Commander-in-Chief doesn’t use the men and women of our military, who are willing to risk everything to protect our nation, as political props to deploy against peaceful protesters on our own soil. They understand that political opponents aren’t “un-American” just because they disagree with you; that a free press isn’t the “enemy” but the way we hold officials accountable; that our ability to work together to solve big problems like a pandemic depends on a fidelity to facts and science and logic and not just making stuff up.
Some people were surprised by those remarks, which seemed out of character. But I was reminded of a video clip from the 2008 Democratic primary, when Guy MacMillin of the Sentinel Source asked the candidate about his temper.
After describing himself as even-tempered, Obama referred to himself as a counter-puncher, saying that he initially gives people the benefit of the doubt, but if they abuse that, he will crush them. He laughed about that last part and called it a joke… sort of.
David Remnick, who interviewed Obama not long after the 2016 election, reminded us of how the former president initially gave Trump the benefit of the doubt.
After Trump’s victory, in 2016, Obama met with Trump once at the White House and found him unschooled and uninterested in the particulars of the office he was about to assume. Obama concealed his true alarm behind the mists of custom and euphemism. He consoled his staff, telling them that Trump’s victory was “not the apocalypse.”
But more than policy differences—which are to be expected—Obama recognizes that the current president poses a threat to our democracy. That has always been a line in the sand for him. So it was time to counter-punch. In a democracy, however, the “crushing” will have to come from us. Speaking directly to young people, Obama closed with this:
You can give our democracy new meaning. You can take it to a better place. You’re the missing ingredient — the ones who will decide whether or not America becomes the country that fully lives up to its creed. That work will continue long after this election. But any chance of success depends entirely on the outcome of this election. This administration has shown it will tear our democracy down if that’s what it takes to win. So we have to get busy building it up – by pouring all our effort into these 76 days, and by voting like never before.
We should all know by now that Barack Obama doesn’t engage in hyperbole. He was both lauded and criticized for being “no drama Obama.” So when he says that democracy “depends entirely on the outcome of this election,” we had best take heed, because he is simply telling the truth.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-21--Why Empathy Is a Political Strength

Why Empathy Is a Political Strength

One of the words that came up often during the Democratic Convention was empathy .
Even when it wasn ’ t spoken about directly , it was implied in almost every presentation .
It all started with this from Michelle Obama .
Empathy : that ’ s something I ’ ve been thinking a lot about lately .
The ability to walk in someone else ’ s shoes ; the recognition that someone else ’ s experience has value , too…And like so many of you , Barack and I have tried our best to instill in our girls a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ values that our parents and grandparents poured into us .
But right now , kids in this country are seeing what happens when we stop requiring empathy of one another .
They ’ re looking around wondering if we ’ ve been lying to them this whole time about who we are and what we truly value .
Dictionaries tell us that the opposite of empathy is indifference or apathy , but that stems from self-centeredness and results in disrespect , arrogance , and even hatred .
In other words , for four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a president who exhibits the opposite of empathy .
It ’ s been exhausting , which is why hearing from people like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris felt like finally getting a long , cool drink of water after an interminable sojourn in the desert .
There are those who think that empathy has no place in politics and suggest that its inclusion is like bringing a knife to a gun fight , as the saying goes .
That is probably rooted in the fact that empathy is assumed to be a feminine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a world where winning through domination is the only goal .
This is where some of the ancient Asian teachings are instructive .
The great Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu once said this ( emphasis mine ) : Similarly , the Aikido Way requires four things .
In other words , domination isn ’ t the only power tool .
You can also outsmart your opponents—but that requires empathy , or the ability to get inside their head .
So , one part of empathy elicits compassion for those who are suffering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tool to employ in conflict .
Back in 2008 , on Martin Luther King Day , Barack Obama gave a speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta .
His words were incredibly prescient and tapped into the fact that empathy also unleashes the power of unity .
“ Unity is the great need of the hour.
” That ’ s what Dr. King said .
It is the great need of this hour as well , not because it sounds pleasant , not because it makes us feel good , but because it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country .
I ’ m not talking about the budget deficit .
I ’ m not talking about the trade deficit .
I ’ m talking about the moral deficit in this country .
I ’ m talking about an empathy deficit , the inability to recognize ourselves in one another , to understand that we are our brother ’ s keeper and our sister ’ s keeper , that in the words of Dr. King , “ We are all tied together in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sisters , we can not walk alone .
In the struggle for justice and for equality , we can not walk alone .
Here is how Kamala Harris addressed the same theme on Wednesday night .
Joe and I believe that we can build that Beloved Community , one that is strong and decent , just and kind .
One in which we all can see ourselves… Make no mistake , the road ahead will not be not easy .
We will stumble .
We may fall short .
But I pledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and deal with our challenges honestly .
We will speak truths .
And we will act with the same faith in you that we ask you to place in us .
We believe that our country—all of us , will stand together for a better future…A country where we may not agree on every detail , but we are united by the fundamental belief that every human being is of infinite worth , deserving of compassion , dignity and respect .
A country where we look out for one another , where we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we face our challenges , and celebrate our triumphs—together… It ’ s not about Joe or me .
Many Democrats weren ’ t ready to hear the message from Obama on the importance of empathy twelve years ago .
But perhaps after four years of Donald Trump , we ’ re finally ready to address that empathy deficit and tap into the power of unity .
If so , come on up for the rising .

One of the words that came up often during the Democratic Convention was empathy. Even when it wasn’t spoken about directly, it was implied in almost every presentation. It all started with this from Michelle Obama.
Empathy: that’s something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately. The ability to walk in someone else’s shoes; the recognition that someone else’s experience has value, too…And like so many of you, Barack and I have tried our best to instill in our girls a strong moral foundation to carry forward the values that our parents and grandparents poured into us. But right now, kids in this country are seeing what happens when we stop requiring empathy of one another. They’re looking around wondering if we’ve been lying to them this whole time about who we are and what we truly value.
Dictionaries tell us that the opposite of empathy is indifference or apathy, but that stems from self-centeredness and results in disrespect, arrogance, and even hatred. In other words, for four years we’ve been living with a president who exhibits the opposite of empathy. It’s been exhausting, which is why hearing from people like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris felt like finally getting a long, cool drink of water after an interminable sojourn in the desert.
There are those who think that empathy has no place in politics and suggest that its inclusion is like bringing a knife to a gun fight, as the saying goes. That is probably rooted in the fact that empathy is assumed to be a feminine quality that is all squishy and sweet in a world where winning through domination is the only goal.
This is where some of the ancient Asian teachings are instructive. The great Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu once said this (emphasis mine):
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
Similarly, the Aikido Way requires four things.
1. We must maintain our own balance while taking theirs.
2. We must react fearlessly.
3. We must enter into the very center of the conflict.
4. We must understand our opponent’s intentions in order to achieve resolution.
In other words, domination isn’t the only power tool. You can also outsmart your opponents—but that requires empathy, or the ability to get inside their head. So, one part of empathy elicits compassion for those who are suffering. But it is also a valuable tool to employ in conflict.
Back in 2008, on Martin Luther King Day, Barack Obama gave a speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. His words were incredibly prescient and tapped into the fact that empathy also unleashes the power of unity.
“Unity is the great need of the hour.” That’s what Dr. King said. It is the great need of this hour as well, not because it sounds pleasant, not because it makes us feel good, but because it’s the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country. I’m not talking about the budget deficit. I’m not talking about the trade deficit. I’m talking about the moral deficit in this country. I’m talking about an empathy deficit, the inability to recognize ourselves in one another, to understand that we are our brother’s keeper and our sister’s keeper, that in the words of Dr. King, “We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.”… Brothers and sisters, we cannot walk alone. In the struggle for justice and for equality, we cannot walk alone.
Here is how Kamala Harris addressed the same theme on Wednesday night.
Joe and I believe that we can build that Beloved Community, one that is strong and decent, just and kind. One in which we all can see ourselves… Make no mistake, the road ahead will not be not easy. We will stumble. We may fall short. But I pledge to you that we will act boldly and deal with our challenges honestly. We will speak truths. And we will act with the same faith in you that we ask you to place in us. We believe that our country—all of us, will stand together for a better future…A country where we may not agree on every detail, but we are united by the fundamental belief that every human being is of infinite worth, deserving of compassion, dignity and respect. A country where we look out for one another, where we rise and fall as one, where we face our challenges, and celebrate our triumphs—together… It’s not about Joe or me. It’s about you. It’s about us.
Many Democrats weren’t ready to hear the message from Obama on the importance of empathy twelve years ago. But perhaps after four years of Donald Trump, we’re finally ready to address that empathy deficit and tap into the power of unity. If so, come on up for the rising.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-21--Why Kanye West Makes the Case for Ranked Choice Voting

Kanye West has millions of fans around the world .
But before this month , no one knew just how beloved he was by Wisconsin Republicans .
When the hip-hop superstar—who has been gathering signatures to get on the 2020 presidential ballot as an independent in several states—submitted his nominating papers in Wisconsin , they were turned in by the former general counsel for the state Republican party .
Turns out that the attorney , Lane Ruhland , has another important client : She ’ s representing President Trump ’ s re-election campaign in a lawsuit against a TV station @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not pretty .
The Washington Post reported that Republican operatives are pursuing the same tactic in at least four other states .
Indeed , both parties—Democrats and Republicans , even Russian operatives in 2016—have a sordid , manipulative history of weaponizing third party candidates and meddling in the other side ’ s crowded primaries .
Many partisans have embraced , sometimes gleefully , an “ anything goes ” philosophy that ’ s perfectly willing to confuse voters , alter the choices before them , and even steal races they might not have otherwise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes these tactics possible , it encourages them .
As long as candidates can win elections with a plurality of votes—less than 50 percent—they ’ re incentivized to play dirty , pump money into surprising campaigns , and peel votes away from the opposition party .
As Ohio State election law professor Edward Foley argues in his acclaimed new book “ Presidential Elections and Majority Rule , ” plurality voting departs from the founders ’ vision and should be replaced .
The good news : There ’ s an easy fix .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice voting and put an end to plurality winners as well as these corrosive tactics .
In a crowded field , RCV gives voters the power to sort every candidate in order of preference .
If no one wins 50 percent during the initial vote , an instant runoff kicks in .
In a three-way field , the candidate in third place would be eliminated , and backers of that candidate would have their second choice count .
In Wisconsin , which Trump carried with 47.2 percent in 2016 , some Republicans hope @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Biden .
If voters could use RCV , it would help provide the most accurate and complete portrait of the peoples ’ will .
West voters , if they desired , could cast a second-place vote for Biden or for Trump .
If no one reached 50 percent in initial voting , those backup choices would come into play .
A Kanye West candidacy in fact might generate new voters rather than “ waste ” votes .
This is how democracy should work .
Winning candidates ought to have support from at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates should be allowed to run , and voters should be able to support third party candidates without creating a “ spoiler ” situation that allows someone to sneak into office despite a majority of voters backing someone else .
It shouldn ’ t be too much to expect political parties to fix the system rather than actively subvert it .
But in Kansas this summer , for yet another example , Democrats worked to exploit our plurality system and a crowded field in the GOP ’ s U.S. Senate primary .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bedfellows : A liberal Super PAC backing Kris Kobach for U.S. Senate .
That ’ s right .
Liberal donors filled the Kansas airwaves with negative ads that misleadingly attacked Rep. Roger Marshall , the congressman endorsed by the GOP establishment , as a “ Never Trump , ” “ Romney Republican.
” Many Democrats thought the controversial Kobach would be easier to beat in November than the more moderate Marshall , especially after a Democrat defeated him there for governor in 2018 .
The hope ?
In a race with four top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of the vote—peel as many votes away from Marshall and toward the others , making it possible for Kobach to win with support from his committed base .
It had worked before .
Former Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill openly bragged about running the same play in 2012 , helping controversial conservative candidates with ads and polling .
( Former Congressman Todd Akin won the GOP primary by surprise with just 36 percent of the vote , then fell by a landslide to McCaskill in the fall exactly as she imagined . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a similar game , this time in the general election , when a dark money group bankrolled a late radio and TV ad campaign on behalf of the Libertarian candidate , describing him as either the “ true conservative ” or the “ real conservative ” in the race .
It worked : Jon Tester won the seat with 48.7 percent .
The Republican candidate finished 19,000 votes off the pace .
The Libertarian captured more than 31,200 votes .
Tester still holds the seat .
You could make the case , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate—and that a majority of voters did not get their will due to the quirks of the system and the way it was played by Democrats .
This year , Montana Republicans tried to lift the Green Party onto the ballot—even though Greens noted that they had not actually endorsed any candidates .
State Republicans looked to qualify the party anyway , likely looking to drain liberal votes from Democrats in a year with a competitive race for governor and U.S. Senate .
Democrats sued to knock them off the ballot , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a U.S. district court agreed .
None of this happens with RCV : It removes the incentive to furtively qualify a third party , as well as the spectacle of a major party suing to limit voter choices .
The spoiler dynamic even became a part of the Mueller investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election .
New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman observed that a “ big aspect of the Russian meddling was encouraging voting for a third-party candidate , ” with one Russian ad urging progressives to “ choose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s not a wasted vote.
” ( No trial is expected for a simple reason ; all of the indicted agents live in Russia . )
This is an ugly and losing game .
Our political parties should not be adding to the polarization of our politics .
They should not be trying to rig elections so that they can “ win ” with a plurality of the vote .
And our election system should give hyper-partisans even more reasons to be hyper-partisans .
There ’ s a good reason why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so many cities and states here at home—are beginning to make this switch .
Instead of a system with Super PACs and gamesmanship run amok , ranked choice voting returns elections to where they belong .
With the people .

Kanye West has millions of fans around the world. But before this month, no one knew just how beloved he was by Wisconsin Republicans.
When the hip-hop superstar—who has been gathering signatures to get on the 2020 presidential ballot as an independent in several states—submitted his nominating papers in Wisconsin, they were turned in by the former general counsel for the state Republican party. Turns out that the attorney, Lane Ruhland, has another important client: She’s representing President Trump’s re-election campaign in a lawsuit against a TV station in northern Wisconsin.
It’s not pretty. The Washington Post reported that Republican operatives are pursuing the same tactic in at least four other states.
Indeed, both parties—Democrats and Republicans, even Russian operatives in 2016—have a sordid, manipulative history of weaponizing third party candidates and meddling in the other side’s crowded primaries. Many partisans have embraced, sometimes gleefully, an “anything goes” philosophy that’s perfectly willing to confuse voters, alter the choices before them, and even steal races they might not have otherwise won.
Our electoral system not only makes these tactics possible, it encourages them. As long as candidates can win elections with a plurality of votes—less than 50 percent—they’re incentivized to play dirty, pump money into surprising campaigns, and peel votes away from the opposition party. As Ohio State election law professor Edward Foley argues in his acclaimed new book “Presidential Elections and Majority Rule,” plurality voting departs from the founders’ vision and should be replaced.
The good news: There’s an easy fix. This is yet another reason to adopt ranked choice voting and put an end to plurality winners as well as these corrosive tactics. In a crowded field, RCV gives voters the power to sort every candidate in order of preference. If no one wins 50 percent during the initial vote, an instant runoff kicks in. In a three-way field, the candidate in third place would be eliminated, and backers of that candidate would have their second choice count.
In Wisconsin, which Trump carried with 47.2 percent in 2016, some Republicans hope West might peel young black voters away from Biden. If voters could use RCV, it would help provide the most accurate and complete portrait of the peoples’ will. West voters, if they desired, could cast a second-place vote for Biden or for Trump. If no one reached 50 percent in initial voting, those backup choices would come into play. A Kanye West candidacy in fact might generate new voters rather than “waste” votes.
This is how democracy should work. Winning candidates ought to have support from at least 50 percent of voters, many candidates should be allowed to run, and voters should be able to support third party candidates without creating a “spoiler” situation that allows someone to sneak into office despite a majority of voters backing someone else.
It shouldn’t be too much to expect political parties to fix the system rather than actively subvert it. But in Kansas this summer, for yet another example, Democrats worked to exploit our plurality system and a crowded field in the GOP’s U.S. Senate primary. It cost them millions and created bizarre political bedfellows: A liberal Super PAC backing Kris Kobach for U.S. Senate.
That’s right. Liberal donors filled the Kansas airwaves with negative ads that misleadingly attacked Rep. Roger Marshall, the congressman endorsed by the GOP establishment, as a “Never Trump,” “Romney Republican.” Many Democrats thought the controversial Kobach would be easier to beat in November than the more moderate Marshall, especially after a Democrat defeated him there for governor in 2018.
The hope? In a race with four top candidates—therefore winnable with as little as 26 percent of the vote—peel as many votes away from Marshall and toward the others, making it possible for Kobach to win with support from his committed base. It had worked before. Former Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill openly bragged about running the same play in 2012, helping controversial conservative candidates with ads and polling. (Former Congressman Todd Akin won the GOP primary by surprise with just 36 percent of the vote, then fell by a landslide to McCaskill in the fall exactly as she imagined.)
Back in 2012, Montana Democrats played a similar game, this time in the general election, when a dark money group bankrolled a late radio and TV ad campaign on behalf of the Libertarian candidate, describing him as either the “true conservative” or the “real conservative” in the race. It worked: Jon Tester won the seat with 48.7 percent. The Republican candidate finished 19,000 votes off the pace. The Libertarian captured more than 31,200 votes. Tester still holds the seat. You could make the case, however, that voters preferred a more conservative candidate—and that a majority of voters did not get their will due to the quirks of the system and the way it was played by Democrats.
This year, Montana Republicans tried to lift the Green Party onto the ballot—even though Greens noted that they had not actually endorsed any candidates. State Republicans looked to qualify the party anyway, likely looking to drain liberal votes from Democrats in a year with a competitive race for governor and U.S. Senate. Democrats sued to knock them off the ballot, and this week the state supreme court and a U.S. district court agreed. None of this happens with RCV: It removes the incentive to furtively qualify a third party, as well as the spectacle of a major party suing to limit voter choices.
The spoiler dynamic even became a part of the Mueller investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman observed that a “big aspect of the Russian meddling was encouraging voting for a third-party candidate,” with one Russian ad urging progressives to “choose peace” and “Trust me, it’s not a wasted vote.” (No trial is expected for a simple reason; all of the indicted agents live in Russia.)
This is an ugly and losing game. Our political parties should not be adding to the polarization of our politics. They should not be trying to rig elections so that they can “win” with a plurality of the vote. And our election system should give hyper-partisans even more reasons to be hyper-partisans. There’s a good reason why so many democracies around the world—and why so many cities and states here at home—are beginning to make this switch. Instead of a system with Super PACs and gamesmanship run amok, ranked choice voting returns elections to where they belong. With the people.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-21--Trump Knows That He Needs to Cheat to Win

If history is any guide , polling in the presidential race will bounce around a bit as the two parties wrap up their conventions .
That will probably settle down in the weeks after Labor Day .
So today would be a good time to check in and take a look at what the polls are telling us .
According to the national poll average at FiveThirtyEight , Joe Biden is currently in the lead by 8.6 points .
But as we all learned too painfully , it is the individual states that matter .
If we assume that any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is less than two points is a toss-up , here ’ s what the race looks like today .
Of the five toss-ups , North Carolina is the only one in which Biden currently leads with a 1.4 advantage .
Ohio is the closest state , with Trump ’ s lead at only a half a percent .
His advantage in Texas is the largest among the toss-ups at 1.8 percent .
But perhaps the biggest news from all of this is that , even if Trump were able to take the lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d still only have 219 electoral votes—well shy of the 270 needed to win .
To have any chance , Trump would have to find an additional 51 electoral votes in states where Biden currently leads by more than two points .
The best possibility for Trump comes in Arizona , where Biden ’ s lead is 3.6 points .
From there , here ’ s where he ’ d have to go : Adding those three states would get Trump to 278 electoral votes .
Taken all together , the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five toss-ups , but add Arizona and the three states in that list to win .
That ’ s more of an uphill climb that I can remember seeing in a presidential race since Mondale faced Reagan in 1984—and we all know how that one turned out .
Even a delusional Trump is aware of this at some level .
He knows that the only way he can pull this thing off is to cheat , through some kind of foreign interference and/or voter suppression .
That is why we ’ re hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he ’ ll send law enforcement to the polls to monitor the vote .
As former President Obama said , “ This administration has shown it will tear our democracy down if that ’ s what it takes to win .
”

If history is any guide, polling in the presidential race will bounce around a bit as the two parties wrap up their conventions. That will probably settle down in the weeks after Labor Day.
So today would be a good time to check in and take a look at what the polls are telling us. According to the national poll average at FiveThirtyEight, Joe Biden is currently in the lead by 8.6 points. But as we all learned too painfully, it is the individual states that matter. If we assume that any state where a candidate’s lead is less than two points is a toss-up, here’s what the race looks like today.
Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com
Of the five toss-ups, North Carolina is the only one in which Biden currently leads with a 1.4 advantage. Ohio is the closest state, with Trump’s lead at only a half a percent. His advantage in Texas is the largest among the toss-ups at 1.8 percent.
But perhaps the biggest news from all of this is that, even if Trump were able to take the lead in all of those toss-ups, he’d still only have 219 electoral votes—well shy of the 270 needed to win. To have any chance, Trump would have to find an additional 51 electoral votes in states where Biden currently leads by more than two points.
The best possibility for Trump comes in Arizona, where Biden’s lead is 3.6 points. From there, here’s where he’d have to go:
Minnesota – 5.2 Biden lead
Florida – 5.4 Biden lead
Pennsylvania – 6.1 Biden lead
Adding those three states would get Trump to 278 electoral votes. Taken all together, the president would have to not only win all five toss-ups, but add Arizona and the three states in that list to win. That’s more of an uphill climb that I can remember seeing in a presidential race since Mondale faced Reagan in 1984—and we all know how that one turned out.
Even a delusional Trump is aware of this at some level. He knows that the only way he can pull this thing off is to cheat, through some kind of foreign interference and/or voter suppression. That is why we’re hearing things like the president telling Sean Hannity that he’ll send law enforcement to the polls to monitor the vote. As former President Obama said, “This administration has shown it will tear our democracy down if that’s what it takes to win.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-21--Can Used Face Masks Help Save the Planet?

Ever since the COVID-19 pandemic began , medical first responders and health care workers have relied on plastic-based , single-use personal protective equipment ( PPE ) like masks and gowns to shield themselves from the coronavirus .
The result has been a quickly growing mountain of plastic waste .
How to deal with the glut of used medical-grade PPE ?
There aren ’ t any silver bullets , and none of the options are very attractive .
Under guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) , trashed PPE is treated like any other medical waste @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by landfilling or controlled incineration—both of which have significant downsides .
Incineration spews millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere , for example , and landfills leak toxic pollutants into groundwater .
That ’ s at least better than unregulated disposal , which can emit toxic chemicals into the environment and create a disease transmission vector .
But instead of these deleterious options , a group of experts from the University of Petroleum and Energy Studies in Dehradun , India , has suggested an alternative : PPE should be liquefied into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s a process called pyrolysis—also known as “ chemical recycling ” —and it uses heat to break down plastic in a deoxygenated environment , turning it into liquid oil that can then be burned for energy .
In a paper published Tuesday in the journal Biofuels , researchers said it was the most common and most promising method for degrading polypropylene , a main ingredient in N95 respirators , surgical masks , and single-use protective gowns .
Compared to landfilling and plastic incineration , they called chemical recycling an “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an efficient and economical method of recycling polypropylene , ” the study said , arguing that chemical recycling can not only prevent plastic pollution that would cause “ severe after-effects to humankind and the environment , ” but can also create a “ clean ” liquid fuel to meet increasing global energy demand .
But is it really recycling if the plastic doesn ’ t get turned back into plastic ?
Critics from the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives ( GAIA ) said no in a report last week , pointing out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t create a closed loop for used plastic .
Once it ’ s thrown away , it gets burned as a fossil fuel and never becomes another bottle , grocery bag , piece of packaging , or surgical mask , ever again .
In fact , GAIA explained , chemical recycling contributes to climate change and releases toxic chemicals into the atmosphere — things like benzene , BPA , cadmium , and lead , which are variously linked to leukemia , reproductive malfunction , lung problems , and neurological degeneration .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is often burned offsite at facilities located in low-income , nonwhite neighborhoods , these frontline communities often bear the brunt of this toxic pollution .
“ The carbon burden is so high and the emissions are so toxic , ” said Stephanie Wein , a clean water and conservation advocate for PennEnvironment , an environmental nonprofit .
Lori Hoepner , assistant professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University , also worries that chemical recycling could incentivize or justify an even greater dependence on single-use plastic in general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an even greater glut that needs to be repurposed , ” she said .
But medical-grade , disposable PPE like polypropylene N95 masks is still the safest option for health care workers who are testing and treating patients for COVID-19 .
For these high-risk personnel , only certified medical-grade masks have a filtration system that can reliably filter out the smallest coronavirus-carrying droplets .
Until we can make an effective reusable PPE kit—and there ’ s research moving in that direction—plastic medical waste will have to be dealt with somehow .
Hoepner says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t do without , the question is how to cause the least harm .
“ We have to figure out which option has the least hazardous and non-beneficial consequences , ” she told Grist .
Ruling out chemical recycling as dangerous and “ incompatible with a climate safe future , ” that brings us back to incinerators and landfills—and picking between these two options can feel like a Morton ’ s fork .
Incinerators produce much more nitrogen oxide , particulate matter , sulfur dioxide , ozone , and carbon dioxide .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce more benzene and pose a greater threat to ecosystems , due to disposed substances like formaldehyde .
Most environmental advocates have come out strongly on the side of landfills .
Not because landfills are great , but because it may be safer to try containing toxic chemicals in a landfill than purposefully ejecting them into the atmosphere , as Elena Polisano , oceans campaigner for Greenpeace U.K. , said in an interview with BBC .
Other environmental activists have cited concerns about incinerators ’ disproportionate burden of pollution on low-income communities and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produces a toxic ash that must be disposed of in—you guessed it —its own landfill .
That ’ s why the Energy Justice Network says the choice isn ’ t between a landfill or an incinerator , but between a landfill or an incinerator with a smaller , more toxic landfill .
“ There are just better solutions to the waste crisis than creating a ton of air pollution and adding to the climate crisis , ” Wein said .
For plastic like single-use PPE that can ’ t be recycled with existing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which isn ’ t real recycling— “ the most responsible route is landfilling , ” Wein told Grist .
One consolation , however , is that we can still limit the amount of PPE getting thrown away .
For everyone who isn ’ t a health care professional or a medical first responder , health experts from around the world have stressed the safety of reusable PPE like face masks .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention already recommends a cloth face mask for most people , and the organization provides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus .
“ The general public should be using reusable face masks and performing routine laundering at home , ” said Jodi Sherman , associate professor of anesthesiology and epidemiology at Yale , in a statement to Greenpeace .
Hoepner agrees .
In the short term , we may simply have to put up with a large volume of disposed PPE waste from medical facilities .
But that shouldn ’ t prevent us from moving toward a plastic-free future .
“ As we emerge from the shockwaves of COVID-19 , ” she said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re-commit itself to the reduction of plastic use in favor of reusable materials , particularly in consumer goods , but also by actively seeking safe reusable alternatives to plastic for proper personal protection from COVID-19.
” This story originally appeared in Grist .
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 .

Ever since the COVID-19 pandemic began, medical first responders and health care workers have relied on plastic-based, single-use personal protective equipment (PPE) like masks and gowns to shield themselves from the coronavirus. The result has been a quickly growing mountain of plastic waste.
How to deal with the glut of used medical-grade PPE? There aren’t any silver bullets, and none of the options are very attractive. Under guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), trashed PPE is treated like any other medical waste, usually with a sanitation process followed by landfilling or controlled incineration—both of which have significant downsides. Incineration spews millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, for example, and landfills leak toxic pollutants into groundwater.
That’s at least better than unregulated disposal, which can emit toxic chemicals into the environment and create a disease transmission vector.
But instead of these deleterious options, a group of experts from the University of Petroleum and Energy Studies in Dehradun, India, has suggested an alternative: PPE should be liquefied into “renewable” fossil fuels and burned.
It’s a process called pyrolysis—also known as “chemical recycling”—and it uses heat to break down plastic in a deoxygenated environment, turning it into liquid oil that can then be burned for energy. In a paper published Tuesday in the journal Biofuels, researchers said it was the most common and most promising method for degrading polypropylene, a main ingredient in N95 respirators, surgical masks, and single-use protective gowns. Compared to landfilling and plastic incineration, they called chemical recycling an “environmentally friendly” alternative.
“It is an efficient and economical method of recycling polypropylene,” the study said, arguing that chemical recycling can not only prevent plastic pollution that would cause “severe after-effects to humankind and the environment,” but can also create a “clean” liquid fuel to meet increasing global energy demand.
But is it really recycling if the plastic doesn’t get turned back into plastic? Critics from the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) said no in a report last week, pointing out that so-called “chemical recycling” doesn’t create a closed loop for used plastic. Once it’s thrown away, it gets burned as a fossil fuel and never becomes another bottle, grocery bag, piece of packaging, or surgical mask, ever again.
In fact, GAIA explained, chemical recycling contributes to climate change and releases toxic chemicals into the atmosphere — things like benzene, BPA, cadmium, and lead, which are variously linked to leukemia, reproductive malfunction, lung problems, and neurological degeneration. And since the fuel produced through chemical recycling is often burned offsite at facilities located in low-income, nonwhite neighborhoods, these frontline communities often bear the brunt of this toxic pollution.
“The carbon burden is so high and the emissions are so toxic,” said Stephanie Wein, a clean water and conservation advocate for PennEnvironment, an environmental nonprofit.
Lori Hoepner, assistant professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, also worries that chemical recycling could incentivize or justify an even greater dependence on single-use plastic in general. “It could potentially lead to an even greater glut that needs to be repurposed,” she said.
But medical-grade, disposable PPE like polypropylene N95 masks is still the safest option for health care workers who are testing and treating patients for COVID-19. For these high-risk personnel, only certified medical-grade masks have a filtration system that can reliably filter out the smallest coronavirus-carrying droplets. Until we can make an effective reusable PPE kit—and there’s research moving in that direction—plastic medical waste will have to be dealt with somehow.
Hoepner says that for these plastics that we can’t do without, the question is how to cause the least harm. “We have to figure out which option has the least hazardous and non-beneficial consequences,” she told Grist.
Ruling out chemical recycling as dangerous and “incompatible with a climate safe future,” that brings us back to incinerators and landfills—and picking between these two options can feel like a Morton’s fork. Incinerators produce much more nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and carbon dioxide. On the other hand, landfills may produce more benzene and pose a greater threat to ecosystems, due to disposed substances like formaldehyde.
Most environmental advocates have come out strongly on the side of landfills. Not because landfills are great, but because it may be safer to try containing toxic chemicals in a landfill than purposefully ejecting them into the atmosphere, as Elena Polisano, oceans campaigner for Greenpeace U.K., said in an interview with BBC. Other environmental activists have cited concerns about incinerators’ disproportionate burden of pollution on low-income communities and communities of color.
Plus, incineration produces a toxic ash that must be disposed of in—you guessed it —its own landfill. That’s why the Energy Justice Network says the choice isn’t between a landfill or an incinerator, but between a landfill or an incinerator with a smaller, more toxic landfill.
“There are just better solutions to the waste crisis than creating a ton of air pollution and adding to the climate crisis,” Wein said. For plastic like single-use PPE that can’t be recycled with existing technology—and that doesn’t include pyrolysis, which isn’t real recycling—“the most responsible route is landfilling,” Wein told Grist.
One consolation, however, is that we can still limit the amount of PPE getting thrown away. For everyone who isn’t a health care professional or a medical first responder, health experts from around the world have stressed the safety of reusable PPE like face masks. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention already recommends a cloth face mask for most people, and the organization provides basic washing instructions that protect against the virus.
“The general public should be using reusable face masks and performing routine laundering at home,” said Jodi Sherman, associate professor of anesthesiology and epidemiology at Yale, in a statement to Greenpeace.
Hoepner agrees. In the short term, we may simply have to put up with a large volume of disposed PPE waste from medical facilities. But that shouldn’t prevent us from moving toward a plastic-free future. “As we emerge from the shockwaves of COVID-19,” she said in a statement, “society must re-commit itself to the reduction of plastic use in favor of reusable materials, particularly in consumer goods, but also by actively seeking safe reusable alternatives to plastic for proper personal protection from COVID-19.”
This story originally appeared in Grist. 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--2020-08-20--How the U.S. Can Fight Corruption After Trump