washingtonmonthly--2020-06-08--Is Being a Mayor a Qualification to Become President?

American voters have never sent a city mayor directly to the White House .
They have never regarded being mayor as sufficient qualification .
It ’ s OK to be a corrupt businessman , a mediocre governor , or a senator who hasn ’ t managed anything more than his own staff .
But to work at gritty levels where ordinary folks meet the schools , police , and other essential services ?
To navigate the intricacies of race ?
To witness the intimate impact of government callousness or compassion ?
All that is deemed irrelevant by the political professionals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , maybe it ’ s time for some rethinking .
Certain mayors in this crisis have found the right tone of passionate eloquence to voice the country ’ s widespread revulsion at Officer Derek Chauvin ’ s murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis .
They have touched the chords of historical outrage over deprivation and oppression .
They have mixed moving pleas for peace with scathing condemnations of those whose violence , arson , and looting have sullied the noble purpose of the protests .
The fine words have not always worked .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose eloquent outrage at Floyd ’ s murder did not protect him from being booed out of a protest rally Saturday after he ( sensibly ) refused to “ defund ” and abolish the police , which would mean giving streets over to gangs and vigilantes .
Such trial by fire can be an education .
Being mayor is a tough job , and mayors across the country have been exercising tough love .
They ’ re not all good at it , and ingrained cultures of both police and citizens impede progress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ve had actual experience at the grassroots , never a bad thing in governing , especially from the highest post in the land .
That experience has not proved persuasive to voters .
Grover Cleveland was mayor of Buffalo , but his stepping stone to the presidency was as governor of New York State .
Calvin Coolidge was the small-town mayor of Northampton , Mass.
, but before and after that , he served in the state legislature , from which he was elected vice president ; he became president when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not gained much traction from their mayoral backgrounds .
Vice President Hubert Humphrey had been mayor of Minneapolis before becoming a U.S .
Senator , but the Minneapolis job didn ’ t figure prominently in his political reputation .
New York Mayor John Lindsay , a liberal Republican , got nowhere after he switched parties and tried for the 1972 Democratic presidential nomination .
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio made a fleeting effort last year .
Pete Buttigieg was still mayor of South Bend , Indiana , when he launched his bid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination , and despite his obvious ability to learn from that role—including hard lessons about policing and race—those qualifications failed to draw sufficient votes .
Julian Castro had been mayor of San Antonio , then Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Obama administration .
His years as mayor informed his positions but were rarely cited in his run for the nomination .
Senator Bernie Sanders was mayor of Burlington , Vermont , but again , he didn ’ t talk about it much .
Perhaps the credential will mean more now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local government is to addressing the pandemic and improving police-community relations .
Not that being a mayor necessarily makes you fit to be president .
In 1928 , Chicago Mayor William Hale Thompson was foiled in his run for the Republican nomination , in part because he opposed Prohibition and took financing from Al Capone .
In 1972 , Los Angeles Mayor Sam Yorty , a red-baiter who inflamed police brutality against blacks , tried for the Democratic nomination and won only six percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ York during 9/11 , whose support for abortion rights torpedoed him with Republicans , tarnished himself with his work as President Trump ’ s personal lawyer and backdoor emissary to Ukraine ; an exemplary president he would not be .
Plenty of good presidents haven ’ t been mayors .
Think of Washington , Jefferson , Adams , Lincoln , both Roosevelts , Eisenhower , Kennedy , Johnson , Carter , Clinton , and Obama .
And while mayors lack the foreign policy experience valuable in the White House , most of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study foreign policy .
You can hire good experts .
But from the pinnacle of the White House , you can ’ t absorb the people ’ s pain .
You can ’ t detect the layers of hardship and the crosscurrents of concerns .
Since the murder of Floyd , mayors have risen above the flames to walk a delicate line of hurt and warning .
Frey of Minneapolis , who is white , immediately fired the four officers involved , requested the national guard , and gave voice to the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our black community , not just because of five minutes of horror , but four hundred years.
” “ Being black in America should not be a death sentence , ” he declared , and also denounced the looting as “ unacceptable .
Our communities can not and will not tolerate it.
” For displaying his strength of character , Frey was denounced by Trump as “ weak ” and then shamed by protestors who should have recognized the mayor , elected in 2018 , as their ally in pressing for police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , go home !
” they shouted as he was forced to leave the demonstration on a long , humiliating walk through the crowd .
His neighboring mayor , Melvin Carter of St. Paul , who is black , managed to touch every important note .
He also placed Floyd ’ s killing in the long landscape of history , “ not just over the past decade as camera phones have become the norm , but over the past decades and generations and centuries in our country.
” Then he went on : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I share it with you .
So today we ’ re asking our community for peace , but I want to be very clear , we are not asking you for patience … I am not asking you to sit to the side and patiently wait while we slowly and incrementally stem the bloody tide of African-American men killed by law enforcement .
We ’ re asking you to take that energy , that energy … that can either destroy us or it could bring us together and build us up in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before as a country .
We ’ re asking you to take that energy and use it not to destroy our neighborhoods but to destroy the historic culture , to destroy the systemic racism , to destroy … the laws , the legal precedents , the police union contracts , all of the things that make it so difficult to hold someone accountable when a life like George Floyd ’ s is so wrongfully taken.
” Indeed , as Carter and other mayors know so well , police don ’ t change easily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defending officers , not to correcting them and their departments .
Where contracts require arbitration to rule on dismissals , many officers fired return to their jobs .
It ’ s a good bet that the vast majority of police officers were as revolted by the video of Chauvin ’ s knee on Floyd ’ s neck as other Americans ; many police chiefs said as much , and some cops prayed , marched , and took a knee with protesters .
Yet police departments are among the country ’ s most racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Frey have found them practically impervious to change .
One mayor worth hearing at length is Keisha Lance Bottoms of Atlanta , who is black .
She excoriated the violent among the peaceful protesters : “ I am a mother .
I am a mother to four black children in America , one of whom is eighteen years old .
And when I saw the murder of George Floyd , I hurt like a mother would hurt .
And yesterday I heard there were rumors about violent protests in Atlanta , I did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called my son and I said , ‘ Where are you ?
’ I said , ‘ I can not protect you , and black boys should not be out today.
’ So you ’ re not gon na out-concern me and out-care about where we are in America .
I wear this each and every day and I pray over my children each and every day .
So what I see happening on the streets of Atlanta is not Atlanta .
This is not a protest .
This is not in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is chaos .
A protest has purpose .
When Dr. King was assassinated , we didn ’ t do this to our city .
So if you love this city , this city that has had a legacy of black mayors and black police chiefs and people who care about this city , where more than 50 percent of the business owners in Metro Atlanta are minority business owners , if you care about this city , then go home … “ You ’ re not honoring the legacy of Martin Luther @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You ’ re not protesting anything running out with brown liquor in your hands breaking windows in this city .
.
.
If you want change in America , go and register to vote .
Show up at the polls on June ninth .
Do it in November .
That is the change we need in this city .
You are disgracing this city .
.
.
We are better than this as a city .
We are better than this as a country .
Go home .
Go home .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect my son yesterday , I can not protect you out in those streets.
” Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington , D.C. , also black , had a few choice words for Trump .
“ I call upon our city and our nation to exercise great restraint , even while our president tries to divide us , ” she declared .
“ We are grieving hundreds of years of institutional racism , systems that require black Americans to prove our humanity just for it to be disregarded … We need leaders who recognize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turmoil and despair can provide us a sense of calm and a sense of hope .
Instead , what we ’ ve got in the last two days from the White House is the glorification of violence against American citizens .
What used to be heard in dog whistles we now hear from a bull horn .
So to everyone hurting and doing our part to move this country forward , we will look to ourselves and our own communities for this leadership and this hope.
” That statement came before Trump fanned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling governors that they were “ weak , ” urging tougher police measures , and threatening to call in active duty troops .
Even though the governors and mayors rejected the president ’ s call for police violence , some rank and file officers heeded it , thereby playing their roles in the pageant of police brutality that reinforced the angry mourning that has swept across the land .

American voters have never sent a city mayor directly to the White House. They have never regarded being mayor as sufficient qualification. It’s OK to be a corrupt businessman, a mediocre governor, or a senator who hasn’t managed anything more than his own staff. But to work at gritty levels where ordinary folks meet the schools, police, and other essential services? To navigate the intricacies of race? To witness the intimate impact of government callousness or compassion? All that is deemed irrelevant by the political professionals and the electorate. As America burns, maybe it’s time for some rethinking.
Certain mayors in this crisis have found the right tone of passionate eloquence to voice the country’s widespread revulsion at Officer Derek Chauvin’s murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. They have touched the chords of historical outrage over deprivation and oppression. They have mixed moving pleas for peace with scathing condemnations of those whose violence, arson, and looting have sullied the noble purpose of the protests.
The fine words have not always worked. Witness Mayor Jacob Frey of Minneapolis, whose eloquent outrage at Floyd’s murder did not protect him from being booed out of a protest rally Saturday after he (sensibly) refused to “defund” and abolish the police, which would mean giving streets over to gangs and vigilantes. Such trial by fire can be an education.
Being mayor is a tough job, and mayors across the country have been exercising tough love. They’re not all good at it, and ingrained cultures of both police and citizens impede progress even by the most enlightened. But they’ve had actual experience at the grassroots, never a bad thing in governing, especially from the highest post in the land.
That experience has not proved persuasive to voters. Grover Cleveland was mayor of Buffalo, but his stepping stone to the presidency was as governor of New York State. Calvin Coolidge was the small-town mayor of Northampton, Mass., but before and after that, he served in the state legislature, from which he was elected vice president; he became president when Warren Harding died.
Modern candidates have not gained much traction from their mayoral backgrounds. Vice President Hubert Humphrey had been mayor of Minneapolis before becoming a U.S. Senator, but the Minneapolis job didn’t figure prominently in his political reputation.
New York Mayor John Lindsay, a liberal Republican, got nowhere after he switched parties and tried for the 1972 Democratic presidential nomination. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio made a fleeting effort last year. Pete Buttigieg was still mayor of South Bend, Indiana, when he launched his bid for this year’s Democratic presidential nomination, and despite his obvious ability to learn from that role—including hard lessons about policing and race—those qualifications failed to draw sufficient votes. Julian Castro had been mayor of San Antonio, then Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Obama administration. His years as mayor informed his positions but were rarely cited in his run for the nomination. Senator Bernie Sanders was mayor of Burlington, Vermont, but again, he didn’t talk about it much.
Perhaps the credential will mean more now that we’re seeing how vital local government is to addressing the pandemic and improving police-community relations. Not that being a mayor necessarily makes you fit to be president. In 1928, Chicago Mayor William Hale Thompson was foiled in his run for the Republican nomination, in part because he opposed Prohibition and took financing from Al Capone. In 1972, Los Angeles Mayor Sam Yorty, a red-baiter who inflamed police brutality against blacks, tried for the Democratic nomination and won only six percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary. And Rudy Giuliani, Mayor of New York during 9/11, whose support for abortion rights torpedoed him with Republicans, tarnished himself with his work as President Trump’s personal lawyer and backdoor emissary to Ukraine; an exemplary president he would not be.
Plenty of good presidents haven’t been mayors. Think of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, and Obama. And while mayors lack the foreign policy experience valuable in the White House, most of those presidents did as well.
You can study foreign policy. You can hire good experts. But from the pinnacle of the White House, you can’t absorb the people’s pain. You can’t detect the layers of hardship and the crosscurrents of concerns.
Since the murder of Floyd, mayors have risen above the flames to walk a delicate line of hurt and warning. Frey of Minneapolis, who is white, immediately fired the four officers involved, requested the national guard, and gave voice to the “anger and sadness that has been ingrained in our black community, not just because of five minutes of horror, but four hundred years.” “Being black in America should not be a death sentence,” he declared, and also denounced the looting as “unacceptable. Our communities cannot and will not tolerate it.”
For displaying his strength of character, Frey was denounced by Trump as “weak” and then shamed by protestors who should have recognized the mayor, elected in 2018, as their ally in pressing for police reform. “Go home, Jacob, go home!” they shouted as he was forced to leave the demonstration on a long, humiliating walk through the crowd.
His neighboring mayor, Melvin Carter of St. Paul, who is black, managed to touch every important note. He also placed Floyd’s killing in the long landscape of history, “not just over the past decade as camera phones have become the norm, but over the past decades and generations and centuries in our country.” Then he went on:
“That anger is real, and I share it with you. So today we’re asking our community for peace, but I want to be very clear, we are not asking you for patience … I am not asking you to sit to the side and patiently wait while we slowly and incrementally stem the bloody tide of African-American men killed by law enforcement. We’re asking you to take that energy, that energy … that can either destroy us or it could bring us together and build us up in a way that we have never been together before as a country. We’re asking you to take that energy and use it not to destroy our neighborhoods but to destroy the historic culture, to destroy the systemic racism, to destroy … the laws, the legal precedents, the police union contracts, all of the things that make it so difficult to hold someone accountable when a life like George Floyd’s is so wrongfully taken.”
Indeed, as Carter and other mayors know so well, police don’t change easily. Their unions are mostly devoted to defending officers, not to correcting them and their departments. Where contracts require arbitration to rule on dismissals, many officers fired return to their jobs. It’s a good bet that the vast majority of police officers were as revolted by the video of Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s neck as other Americans; many police chiefs said as much, and some cops prayed, marched, and took a knee with protesters. Yet police departments are among the country’s most racist institutions, and reformist mayors such as Frey have found them practically impervious to change.
One mayor worth hearing at length is Keisha Lance Bottoms of Atlanta, who is black. She excoriated the violent among the peaceful protesters:
“I am a mother. I am a mother to four black children in America, one of whom is eighteen years old. And when I saw the murder of George Floyd, I hurt like a mother would hurt. And yesterday I heard there were rumors about violent protests in Atlanta, I did what a mother would do. I called my son and I said, ‘Where are you?’ I said, ‘I cannot protect you, and black boys should not be out today.’ So you’re not gonna out-concern me and out-care about where we are in America. I wear this each and every day and I pray over my children each and every day. So what I see happening on the streets of Atlanta is not Atlanta. This is not a protest. This is not in the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr. This is chaos. A protest has purpose. When Dr. King was assassinated, we didn’t do this to our city. So if you love this city, this city that has had a legacy of black mayors and black police chiefs and people who care about this city, where more than 50 percent of the business owners in Metro Atlanta are minority business owners, if you care about this city, then go home … “You’re not honoring the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement. You’re not protesting anything running out with brown liquor in your hands breaking windows in this city . . . If you want change in America, go and register to vote. Show up at the polls on June ninth. Do it in November. That is the change we need in this city. You are disgracing this city . . . We are better than this as a city. We are better than this as a country. Go home. Go home. In the same way I couldn’t protect my son yesterday, I cannot protect you out in those streets.”
Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington, D.C., also black, had a few choice words for Trump.
“I call upon our city and our nation to exercise great restraint, even while our president tries to divide us,” she declared. “We are grieving hundreds of years of institutional racism, systems that require black Americans to prove our humanity just for it to be disregarded … We need leaders who recognize this pain and in times of great turmoil and despair can provide us a sense of calm and a sense of hope. Instead, what we’ve got in the last two days from the White House is the glorification of violence against American citizens. What used to be heard in dog whistles we now hear from a bull horn. So to everyone hurting and doing our part to move this country forward, we will look to ourselves and our own communities for this leadership and this hope.”
That statement came before Trump fanned the flames again a week ago by telling governors that they were “weak,” urging tougher police measures, and threatening to call in active duty troops. Even though the governors and mayors rejected the president’s call for police violence, some rank and file officers heeded it, thereby playing their roles in the pageant of police brutality that reinforced the angry mourning that has swept across the land.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-08--Even Ta-Nehisi Coates Is Optimistic Now

Even Ta-Nehisi Coates Is Optimistic Now

One of the most common critiques leveled against Ta-Nehisi Coates is that he is too pessimistic about race relations in the United States .
That is why , at this moment of crisis , a lot of people are going to be surprised by the way he began this extraordinarily thought-provoking discussion with Ezra Klein .
When asked what he sees going on in the country right now , Coates responded by saying , “ I can ’ t believe I ’ m gon na say this , but I see hope .
I see progress right now , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relay a conversation he had with his father comparing the current situation with what happened in 1968 .
The idea that black folks in their struggle against the way the law is enforced in their neighborhoods would resonate with white folks in Des Moines , Iowa , in Salt Lake City , in Berlin , in London — that was unfathomable to him in ’ 68 , when it was mostly black folks in their own communities registering their great anger and great pain .
I don ’ t want to overstate this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people and communities that are not black , that to some extent have some perception of what that pain and that suffering is .
I think that ’ s different .
On the issue of police brutality , which has been the primary concern for African Americans for decades now , Coates is hopeful because non-black people have finally joined the struggle .
That makes this an inflection point in this country ’ s history .
It is possible to change course , which is why it is critically important to articulate a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Before anyone hardens their opinion on the latest push by some protesters to defund the police , the conversation between Coates and Klein lays bare some assumptions about law enforcement that need to be challenged to develop that vision .
Initially , they note the fallacy of those who espouse “ law and order ” at a time like this .
Klein : Police certainly betrayed the law in killing George Floyd .
That unleashes protests which break the order .
And that , then , is used by a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — to create a justification for police to break the law again in order to impose his version of order… Over and over again , this idea of order is used to justify lawlessness on behalf of the state .
The people advocating for that approach hide behind the fact that , for many people , it doesn ’ t look like lawlessness as long as the state is doing it .
It doesn ’ t appear the same way as an anarchist in a black face mask throwing a brick .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cops just casually turning rubber bullets on people who are filming them , who are posing no threat to them — that ’ s just a crime .
Coates : There ’ s a kind of logic to it where law is stated not as any sort of a reflection of the world we want to live in , but as a reflection of the allocation of power .
They then turn to the whole notion of nonviolence and note that it is an approach that is only demanded of protesters—not law enforcement—because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monopoly on the use of violence .
To understand how such an approach could be embraced by the state , you have to articulate some of the assumptions that nonviolence makes about human relations .
Here is how Klein introduces a check on some of our underlying beliefs .
Klein : The core of nonviolence is that you will transform those you are in relationship with through your own willingness to suffer and forgive … You will always hold out the hope of growth and transformation , and you will accept enormous risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … I just did a conversation with Rutger Bregman who wrote this book called Humankind , which is all about how you would build a society on this very different view of human nature .
We ’ re used to the idea that if you do something to me , I should do it back .
The state works like that : If you do something awful and violent , we will do something awful and violent back to you .
And the question his book raises is : Does that actually work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quote attributed to Gandhi : “ An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
” It is important to note that the law and order folks have a very different view of human nature that is often religiously infused .
They believe that humans are inherently evil and in need of the control that comes via authoritarianism .
For example , Texas Lt .
Governor recently said this : What Patrick is saying is that , unless you submit to his religious beliefs , you are incapable of loving your fellow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of human nature espoused by Attorney General Barr during his speech at Notre Dame .
The challenge we face is precisely what the Founding Fathers foresaw would be our supreme test as a free society .
They never thought the main danger to the republic came from external foes .
The central question was whether , over the long haul , we could handle freedom .
The question was whether the citizens in such a free society could maintain the moral discipline and virtue necessary for the survival of free institutions .
By @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s view of human nature was drawn from the classical Christian tradition… Men are subject to powerful passions and appetites , and , if unrestrained , are capable of ruthlessly riding roughshod over their neighbors and the community at large .
No society can exist without some means for restraining individual rapacity .
That is precisely why Christian nationalists have engaged in a so-called “ culture war ” to take the reins of the state as the institution that has a monopoly on violence which , other than religion , is the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual rapacity .
As we re-think the role of law enforcement in this country , those are the two views of human nature that will clash and need to be unearthed to understand why public safety is viewed so differently .
Klein and Coates are not suggesting that a completely nonviolent approach to public safety is warranted .
But it is important to expose the underlying assumptions that resulted in a state that has monopolized the use of violence .
My concern is that the “ defund police ” mantra is already becoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 ) envisioned an alternative , or ( 2 ) done the hard work of outlining steps that would bring about that change .
Already some protesters are shaming politicians who refuse to embrace a slogan , while Republicans are practically salivating about campaigning against Democrats who want to abolish the police .
To envision the possibilities , Coates points to a twitter thread from Josie Duffy Rice “ where she was arguing that many people who think police abolition is crazy actually live in a world where the police have effectively been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role of police in black , brown , and poor communities , we must ask why they have been practically eliminated in upper class ( mostly white ) communities .
To support the abolition of police without doing some hard thinking , planning , and funding in answer to that question would be unconscionable .

One of the most common critiques leveled against Ta-Nehisi Coates is that he is too pessimistic about race relations in the United States. That is why, at this moment of crisis, a lot of people are going to be surprised by the way he began this extraordinarily thought-provoking discussion with Ezra Klein. When asked what he sees going on in the country right now, Coates responded by saying, “I can’t believe I’m gonna say this, but I see hope. I see progress right now, at this moment.”
Coates goes on to relay a conversation he had with his father comparing the current situation with what happened in 1968.
The idea that black folks in their struggle against the way the law is enforced in their neighborhoods would resonate with white folks in Des Moines, Iowa, in Salt Lake City, in Berlin, in London — that was unfathomable to him in ’68, when it was mostly black folks in their own communities registering their great anger and great pain. I don’t want to overstate this, but there are significant swaths of people and communities that are not black, that to some extent have some perception of what that pain and that suffering is. I think that’s different.
On the issue of police brutality, which has been the primary concern for African Americans for decades now, Coates is hopeful because non-black people have finally joined the struggle. That makes this an inflection point in this country’s history. It is possible to change course, which is why it is critically important to articulate a vision of where we want to go.
Before anyone hardens their opinion on the latest push by some protesters to defund the police, the conversation between Coates and Klein lays bare some assumptions about law enforcement that need to be challenged to develop that vision. Initially, they note the fallacy of those who espouse “law and order” at a time like this.
Klein: Police certainly betrayed the law in killing George Floyd. That unleashes protests which break the order. And that, then, is used by a lot of conservative politicians — guys like Tom Cotton — to create a justification for police to break the law again in order to impose his version of order… Over and over again, this idea of order is used to justify lawlessness on behalf of the state. The people advocating for that approach hide behind the fact that, for many people, it doesn’t look like lawlessness as long as the state is doing it. It doesn’t appear the same way as an anarchist in a black face mask throwing a brick. But when you look at those videos of cops just casually turning rubber bullets on people who are filming them, who are posing no threat to them — that’s just a crime. Coates: There’s a kind of logic to it where law is stated not as any sort of a reflection of the world we want to live in, but as a reflection of the allocation of power.
They then turn to the whole notion of nonviolence and note that it is an approach that is only demanded of protesters—not law enforcement—because the state has reserved for itself a monopoly on the use of violence. To understand how such an approach could be embraced by the state, you have to articulate some of the assumptions that nonviolence makes about human relations. Here is how Klein introduces a check on some of our underlying beliefs.
Klein: The core of nonviolence is that you will transform those you are in relationship with through your own willingness to suffer and forgive … You will always hold out the hope of growth and transformation, and you will accept enormous risk and pain to create space for it … I just did a conversation with Rutger Bregman who wrote this book called Humankind, which is all about how you would build a society on this very different view of human nature. We’re used to the idea that if you do something to me, I should do it back. The state works like that: If you do something awful and violent, we will do something awful and violent back to you. And the question his book raises is: Does that actually work?
That question was answered in the quote attributed to Gandhi: “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.”
It is important to note that the law and order folks have a very different view of human nature that is often religiously infused. They believe that humans are inherently evil and in need of the control that comes via authoritarianism. For example, Texas Lt. Governor recently said this:
You cannot love your fellow man if you don’t love God…You cannot change the culture of a country until you change the character of mankind. And you can’t change that unless you change the heart, and for billions of us on the planet, we believe you can’t do that unless you accept Jesus Christ or unless you accept God.
What Patrick is saying is that, unless you submit to his religious beliefs, you are incapable of loving your fellow man. That is basically the view of human nature espoused by Attorney General Barr during his speech at Notre Dame.
The challenge we face is precisely what the Founding Fathers foresaw would be our supreme test as a free society. They never thought the main danger to the republic came from external foes. The central question was whether, over the long haul, we could handle freedom. The question was whether the citizens in such a free society could maintain the moral discipline and virtue necessary for the survival of free institutions. By and large, the Founding generation’s view of human nature was drawn from the classical Christian tradition… Men are subject to powerful passions and appetites, and, if unrestrained, are capable of ruthlessly riding roughshod over their neighbors and the community at large. No society can exist without some means for restraining individual rapacity.
That is precisely why Christian nationalists have engaged in a so-called “culture war” to take the reins of the state as the institution that has a monopoly on violence which, other than religion, is the only tool that can be used to restrain individual rapacity.
As we re-think the role of law enforcement in this country, those are the two views of human nature that will clash and need to be unearthed to understand why public safety is viewed so differently. Klein and Coates are not suggesting that a completely nonviolent approach to public safety is warranted. But it is important to expose the underlying assumptions that resulted in a state that has monopolized the use of violence.
My concern is that the “defund police” mantra is already becoming a political football before anyone has (1) envisioned an alternative, or (2) done the hard work of outlining steps that would bring about that change. Already some protesters are shaming politicians who refuse to embrace a slogan, while Republicans are practically salivating about campaigning against Democrats who want to abolish the police.
To envision the possibilities, Coates points to a twitter thread from Josie Duffy Rice “where she was arguing that many people who think police abolition is crazy actually live in a world where the police have effectively been abolished already. ”
Many people in america already exist in a world where police and prisons do not exist. go to any middle to upper class suburb in america. cops arent wandering the streets. people aren’t being arrested. neighbors aren’t being sent to prison. and generally everyone is….fine. many people say they cannot imagine this world. what most of them cannot imagine is someone not policing black brown and poor people. THAT is what is unimaginable to them. not the absence of law enforcement. if you are lucky, you already functionally live with that absence.
To re-think the role of police in black, brown, and poor communities, we must ask why they have been practically eliminated in upper class (mostly white) communities. To support the abolition of police without doing some hard thinking, planning, and funding in answer to that question would be unconscionable.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-08--Could Joe Biden Benefit Politically From Calls to Defund the Police?

Last Wednesday , a derecho ripped through Pennsylvania knocking down trees with the force and suddenness of a bowling ball .
My power went out within a seconds of the front arriving , and it remained out until Sunday evening–a total of 105 hours .
This forced me to be economical with my internet use , since my only link was the data-limited hotspot feature on my phone , and my only charger was my car .
Nonetheless , I was able to follow the stunning cascade of cultural transformation stemming from the nationwide protests against police brutality .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his muscles amidst widespread concern about looting , ended with growing calls to defund and abolish metropolitan police forces .
Along the way , the public witnessed one viral video after another of police using riot control weapons against peaceful protestors , blinding one reporter with a rubber bullet , killing an asthmatic women with tear gas , pushing on old man to the street and causing blood to gush from his head .
As the mood of the country changed , New York Times opinion page editor James Bennett was forced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tom Cotton of Arkansas that called for using the military against American citizens .
NFL players elicited an apology from the league commissioner for the way the league had dismissed and punished protests against police violence .
The Pentagon revolted against Trump and demobilized active duty and National Guard forces that had been deployed to the capital .
By Sunday , the pendulum had swung so far against the police that liberal friends of mine began texting me in a kind of panic .
What set them off was a decision by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ department : Council president Lisa Bender spoke for the group in saying , “ Our commitment is to end our city ’ s toxic relationship with the Minneapolis Police Department .
It is clear that our system of policing is not keeping our communities safe .
Our efforts at incremental reform have failed , period.
” To my concerned friends , this sounded like the kind of liberal overreach that Republicans have historically eaten for lunch : “ This is great , we ’ ll just ask the people to police our cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election.
” As Scottie Andrew of CNN explains , there is indeed an intellectual movement to do something this radical .
So far , there aren ’ t many examples of people putting these ideas into action .
Yet , it should be acknowledged that reforming the nation ’ s metro police forces is largely a problem for Democrats to solve .
Most of the horrifying viral videos we ’ ve witnessed over the last week have been filmed in Democratically-run cities–not only Minneapolis , but Seattle , Los Angeles , Atlanta @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible template is Camden , New Jersey , which actually disbanded its entire police force in 2013 .
They fired everyone and set up a countywide police force .
They went from 87 murders per 100,000 residents in 2012 to 22 total murders in 2018 .
This at least showed that it ’ s possible to cashier an entire metro force without it resulting in carnage , but it ’ s not necessarily a great example of what needs to be done now .
One of the motivations for disbanding the Camden police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While the countywide force is still unionized , they enjoy much lower pay and less generous benefits .
Busting police unions may be a prerequisite to installing systems of effective accountability , but the idea shouldn ’ t be about compensating cops less for doing the same jobs .
Another problem is that Camden did not use the opportunity to diversify their police force .
Most of the new recruits were white and had never lived a day within the city ’ s borders .
Partially for this reason , the city rehired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force and used them to mentor the newbies .
Many of the newly minted officers are young recruits with either no prior or only part-time experience , a top concern for some local residents .
To get them up to speed , the department has turned to its veteran officers .
“ The former city police officers who came over were the most important part of the puzzle with indoctrinating the new officers to the city , the neighborhoods and policing , ” Chief [ Scott ] Thomson says .
Newly certified officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another eight weeks of field training to prepare for the challenging environment Camden poses .
“ Until you ’ re actually there doing it on a day-to-day basis , it ’ s hard to wrap your head around it , ” says Sgt .
Kevin Lutz , who trains recruits at the academy .
“ We do our best to explain to them the different experiences we ’ ve had in the past , and try and really get them prepared for what they ’ re about to do.
” This seems totally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now , which is a complete cultural rethinking of how we go about policing our cities .
What Camden did was not unprecedented : “ Las Vegas merged its police department with the Clark County Sheriff ’ s Department in 1973 ; the city of Charlotte , N.C. , joined forces with surrounding Mecklenburg County in 1993.
” But this kind of arrangement is only possible in jurisdictions where the county is not synonymous with the city .
It wouldn ’ t work in Philadelphia , for example .
Yet , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perfect template for other cities to follow , its experience shows that radical change is possible and won ’ t necessarily put people at increased risk during the transitional period .
You really can fire every last member of a metro police force and get away with it .
Joe Biden isn ’ t going to embrace rhetoric about “ defunding the police , ” let alone “ abolishing ” them .
But he can embrace rethinking them .
There ’ s clearly a pervasive , countrywide cultural problem with our metro police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forces , too .
Ripping them up and starting over is probably desirable wherever it can be achieved , as it ’ s clearly not enough to just train the police to be nicer .
You have to worry about losing experience in the bargain , but a lot of that experience is in brutalizing the citizens they ’ re supposed to serve and protect .
If the baby is what polluted the bathwater in the first place , then throwing them both out is less of a concern , and maybe even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t want to rehire the baby to train the new force .
I told my worried progressive friends that they shouldn ’ t worry so much .
FDR really benefited from having the example of Huey Long calling for much more radical and threatening reforms .
It ’ s not a bad thing to have people clamoring for unrealistic or even politically untenable reforms if it makes you look like a reasonable alternative and carves out more space to enact transformative change .

Last Wednesday, a derecho ripped through Pennsylvania knocking down trees with the force and suddenness of a bowling ball. My power went out within seconds of the front arriving, and it remained out until Sunday evening–a total of 105 hours. This forced me to be economical with my internet use, since my only link was the data-limited hotspot feature on my phone, and my only charger was my car.
Nonetheless, I was able to follow the stunning cascade of cultural transformation stemming from the nationwide protests against police brutality. A week that started with the president flexing his muscles amidst widespread concern about looting, ended with growing calls to defund and abolish metropolitan police forces. Along the way, the public witnessed one viral video after another of police using riot control weapons against peaceful protestors, blinding one reporter with a rubber bullet, killing an asthmatic women with tear gas, pushing on old man to the street and causing blood to gush from his head. As the mood of the country changed, New York Times opinion page editor James Bennett was forced to resign after publishing a piece by Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas that called for using the military against American citizens. NFL players elicited an apology from the league commissioner for the way the league had dismissed and punished protests against police violence. The Pentagon revolted against Trump and demobilized active duty and National Guard forces that had been deployed to the capital.
By Sunday, the pendulum had swung so far against the police that liberal friends of mine began texting me in a kind of panic. What set them off was a decision by the Minneapolis city council to disband their police department:
Less than two weeks since the killing of George Floyd, 9 of the 12 members of the Minneapolis City Council — a veto-poof majority — have pledged to disband the Minneapolis Police Department. “Decades of police reform efforts have proved that the Minneapolis Police Department cannot be reformed and will never be accountable for its actions,” the group announced at a rally on Sunday. “We are here today to begin the process of ending the Minneapolis Police Department and creating a new, transformative model for cultivating safety in Minneapolis.”
Council president Lisa Bender spoke for the group in saying, “Our commitment is to end our city’s toxic relationship with the Minneapolis Police Department. It is clear that our system of policing is not keeping our communities safe. Our efforts at incremental reform have failed, period.”
To my concerned friends, this sounded like the kind of liberal overreach that Republicans have historically eaten for lunch: “This is great, we’ll just ask the people to police our cities and Joe Biden will be destroyed in the election.”
As Scottie Andrew of CNN explains, there is indeed an intellectual movement to do something this radical.
The solution to police brutality and racial inequalities in policing is simple, supporters say: Just defund police. It’s as straightforward as it sounds: Instead of funding a police department, a sizable chunk of a city’s budget is invested in communities, especially marginalized ones where much of the policing occurs. The concept’s been a murmur for years, particularly following the protests against police brutality in Ferguson, Missouri, though it seemed improbable in 2014. But it’s becoming a shout.
So far, there aren’t many examples of people putting these ideas into action. Yet, it should be acknowledged that reforming the nation’s metro police forces is largely a problem for Democrats to solve. Most of the horrifying viral videos we’ve witnessed over the last week have been filmed in Democratically-run cities–not only Minneapolis, but Seattle, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Philadelphia and New York.
One possible template is Camden, New Jersey, which actually disbanded its entire police force in 2013. They fired everyone and set up a countywide police force. They went from 87 murders per 100,000 residents in 2012 to 22 total murders in 2018. This at least showed that it’s possible to cashier an entire metro force without it resulting in carnage, but it’s not necessarily a great example of what needs to be done now.
One of the motivations for disbanding the Camden police force was to bust their union. While the countywide force is still unionized, they enjoy much lower pay and less generous benefits. Busting police unions may be a prerequisite to installing systems of effective accountability, but the idea shouldn’t be about compensating cops less for doing the same jobs. Another problem is that Camden did not use the opportunity to diversify their police force. Most of the new recruits were white and had never lived a day within the city’s borders. Partially for this reason, the city rehired many of the veterans of the city force and used them to mentor the newbies.
Many of the newly minted officers are young recruits with either no prior or only part-time experience, a top concern for some local residents. To get them up to speed, the department has turned to its veteran officers. “The former city police officers who came over were the most important part of the puzzle with indoctrinating the new officers to the city, the neighborhoods and policing,” Chief [Scott] Thomson says. Newly certified officers attend a regional police academy and complete another eight weeks of field training to prepare for the challenging environment Camden poses. “Until you’re actually there doing it on a day-to-day basis, it’s hard to wrap your head around it,” says Sgt. Kevin Lutz, who trains recruits at the academy. “We do our best to explain to them the different experiences we’ve had in the past, and try and really get them prepared for what they’re about to do.”
This seems totally contrary to what people want to achieve right now, which is a complete cultural rethinking of how we go about policing our cities.
What Camden did was not unprecedented: “Las Vegas merged its police department with the Clark County Sheriff’s Department in 1973; the city of Charlotte, N.C., joined forces with surrounding Mecklenburg County in 1993.” But this kind of arrangement is only possible in jurisdictions where the county is not synonymous with the city. It wouldn’t work in Philadelphia, for example.
Yet, even if Camden cannot serve as a perfect template for other cities to follow, its experience shows that radical change is possible and won’t necessarily put people at increased risk during the transitional period. You really can fire every last member of a metro police force and get away with it.
Joe Biden isn’t going to embrace rhetoric about “defunding the police,” let alone “abolishing” them. But he can embrace rethinking them. There’s clearly a pervasive, countrywide cultural problem with our metro police forces and it percolates down to smaller forces, too. Ripping them up and starting over is probably desirable wherever it can be achieved, as it’s clearly not enough to just train the police to be nicer. You have to worry about losing experience in the bargain, but a lot of that experience is in brutalizing the citizens they’re supposed to serve and protect. If the baby is what polluted the bathwater in the first place, then throwing them both out is less of a concern, and maybe even the main point. You definitely don’t want to rehire the baby to train the new force.
I told my worried progressive friends that they shouldn’t worry so much. FDR really benefited from having the example of Huey Long calling for much more radical and threatening reforms. It’s not a bad thing to have people clamoring for unrealistic or even politically untenable reforms if it makes you look like a reasonable alternative and carves out more space to enact transformative change.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-09--William Barr’s Potemkin Efforts to Deal with Police Violence

Three days after the killing of George Floyd , the building that housed the Minneapolis Police Department 3rd precinct was basically burned to the ground .
On Sunday , the Minneapolis Star and Tribune published an article documenting some of the things that have happened over the years at the 3rd precinct .
One officer kicked a handcuffed suspect in the face , leaving his jaw in pieces .
Officers beat and pistol-whipped a suspect in a parking lot on suspicion of low-level drug charges .
Others harassed residents of a south Minneapolis housing project as they headed to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their genitals for several minutes before arresting them in vice stings .
These and more substantiated incidents , detailed in court records and police reports , help explain a saying often used by fellow cops to describe the style of policing practiced in the Third : There ’ s the way that the Minneapolis Police Department does things , and then there ’ s the way they do it “ in Threes.
” Between 2007 and 2017 , the city paid out $ 2.1 million to settle misconduct lawsuits involving Third Precinct officers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ outrageous ” conduct of the officers , and prosecutors have been forced to drop charges for searches found to be illegal , according to court records .
Perhaps that gives you some idea of the rage that exploded after the video was released of Floyd ’ s death at the hands of four officers who worked in the 3rd precinct .
The question the entire country is facing right now is : How do we change things to stop this cycle from repeating itself ?
During an interview on Face the Nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by pointing to the approach being taken by the Trump administration .
The first thing Barr mentioned is that the president set up a commission on policing .
Back in January , I noted some oddities regarding the people who were appointed to serve on that commission .
That is pretty much the definition of how one goes about stacking the deck to produce the outcome you want .
When asked about the fact that the Justice Department hasn ’ t engaged in investigations of civil rights violations or consent decrees with police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barr ’ s response .
…you can actually get more focused change and more real change by working in more collaboration with the police…We are working with police departments to address use of force policies , personnel policies , standards and practices .
And we- and we feel that we can make good progress that way without the collateral effects that some of these consent decrees have .
There ’ s been a recent study that ’ s been talked about from Harvard that indicates that some of these- the collateral consequences of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police pull back and actually lead to more death , more murders , more crime .
So we have to be prudent in how we approach this .
The Harvard study he is referring to was published in 2009 and is titled , “ Policing Los Angeles Under a Consent Decree : The Dynamics of Change at the LAPD.
” Researchers studied the effects of the consent decree that was put in place after the 1991 beating of Rodney King and a 1999 police corruption scandal .
Here are some of their conclusions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from eight years ago , and even more so in the last four or five years .
Public satisfaction is up , with 83 percent of residents saying the LAPD is doing a good or excellent job ; the frequency of the use of serious force has fallen each year since 2004 .
Despite the views of some officers that the consent decree inhibits them , there is no objective sign of so-called “ de-policing ” since 2002 ; indeed , we found that both the quantity and quality of enforcement activity have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greater quantity is evident in the doubling of both pedestrian stops and motor vehicle stops since 2002 , and in the rise in arrests over that same period .
The greater quality of stops is evident in the higher proportion resulting in an arrest , and the quality of arrests is evident in the higher proportion in which the District Attorney files felony charges .
Our analysis confirmed what others have previously reported : that serious crime is down substantially in Los Angeles over this same period…We asked residents specifically if they think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respecting people ’ s rights and policing within the law .
More than twice as many residents see improvement than see deterioration , and the vast majority of each racial and ethnic group is hopeful that this kind of policing will soon be routine .
In other words , Barr is lying about the Harvard study , just as Jeff Sessions did previously .
The attorney general uses that lie to promote the idea that it is preferable to avoid offending police officers who might object to consent decrees .
His alternative is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach this ” by asking them to make changes voluntarily .
That is precisely why I began this piece with a reminder of what happened in the Minneapolis Police Department ’ s 3rd precinct .
Barr suggests that we should go to those officers and ask them to change .
He worries that if we force the issue , the cops will hold us all hostage by pulling back—leading to more crime .
Take a moment to think about what he ’ s saying about police officers—that they would take a stand by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assume that the attorney general is projecting his own attitude onto them because no study on the effectiveness of consent decrees has found that officers responded the way he is suggesting they would .
Given that this is the same attorney general that was willing to use rubber bullets and chemical irritants to force peaceful protesters out of the way so that the president could stage a ridiculous photo op , it is pretty clear that he ’ s not interested in changing how police operate in this country .

Three days after the killing of George Floyd, the building that housed the Minneapolis Police Department 3rd precinct was basically burned to the ground.
On Sunday, the Minneapolis Star and Tribune published an article documenting some of the things that have happened over the years at the 3rd precinct.
One officer kicked a handcuffed suspect in the face, leaving his jaw in pieces. Officers beat and pistol-whipped a suspect in a parking lot on suspicion of low-level drug charges. Others harassed residents of a south Minneapolis housing project as they headed to work, and allowed prostitution suspects to touch their genitals for several minutes before arresting them in vice stings. These and more substantiated incidents, detailed in court records and police reports, help explain a saying often used by fellow cops to describe the style of policing practiced in the Third: There’s the way that the Minneapolis Police Department does things, and then there’s the way they do it “in Threes.” Between 2007 and 2017, the city paid out $2.1 million to settle misconduct lawsuits involving Third Precinct officers. Judges have thrown out cases for “outrageous” conduct of the officers, and prosecutors have been forced to drop charges for searches found to be illegal, according to court records.
Perhaps that gives you some idea of the rage that exploded after the video was released of Floyd’s death at the hands of four officers who worked in the 3rd precinct.
The question the entire country is facing right now is: How do we change things to stop this cycle from repeating itself? During an interview on Face the Nation, Attorney General Barr answered that one by pointing to the approach being taken by the Trump administration.
The first thing Barr mentioned is that the president set up a commission on policing. Back in January, I noted some oddities regarding the people who were appointed to serve on that commission.
The first thing to notice is that there is no one on the commission representing civil rights, public defenders, or community groups. Seven of the members are employees of the Justice Department, including the chair, and all of them were appointed during the Trump administration … The rest of the group’s members are either law enforcement officers or prosecutors. For those who have publicly identified their party affiliation, all are Republican.
That is pretty much the definition of how one goes about stacking the deck to produce the outcome you want.
When asked about the fact that the Justice Department hasn’t engaged in investigations of civil rights violations or consent decrees with police departments to end abuses, here is Barr’s response.
…you can actually get more focused change and more real change by working in more collaboration with the police…We are working with police departments to address use of force policies, personnel policies, standards and practices. And we- and we feel that we can make good progress that way without the collateral effects that some of these consent decrees have. There’s been a recent study that’s been talked about from Harvard that indicates that some of these- the collateral consequences of these have been to- to make the police pull back and actually lead to more death, more murders, more crime. So we have to be prudent in how we approach this.
The Harvard study he is referring to was published in 2009 and is titled, “Policing Los Angeles Under a Consent Decree: The Dynamics of Change at the LAPD.” Researchers studied the effects of the consent decree that was put in place after the 1991 beating of Rodney King and a 1999 police corruption scandal. Here are some of their conclusions.
We found the LAPD much changed from eight years ago, and even more so in the last four or five years. Public satisfaction is up, with 83 percent of residents saying the LAPD is doing a good or excellent job; the frequency of the use of serious force has fallen each year since 2004. Despite the views of some officers that the consent decree inhibits them, there is no objective sign of so-called “de-policing” since 2002; indeed, we found that both the quantity and quality of enforcement activity have risen substantially over that period. The greater quantity is evident in the doubling of both pedestrian stops and motor vehicle stops since 2002, and in the rise in arrests over that same period. The greater quality of stops is evident in the higher proportion resulting in an arrest, and the quality of arrests is evident in the higher proportion in which the District Attorney files felony charges. Our analysis confirmed what others have previously reported: that serious crime is down substantially in Los Angeles over this same period…We asked residents specifically if they think the LAPD could police effectively while also respecting people’s rights and policing within the law. More than twice as many residents see improvement than see deterioration, and the vast majority of each racial and ethnic group is hopeful that this kind of policing will soon be routine.
In other words, Barr is lying about the Harvard study, just as Jeff Sessions did previously.
The attorney general uses that lie to promote the idea that it is preferable to avoid offending police officers who might object to consent decrees. His alternative is to “be prudent in how we approach this” by asking them to make changes voluntarily.
That is precisely why I began this piece with a reminder of what happened in the Minneapolis Police Department’s 3rd precinct. Barr suggests that we should go to those officers and ask them to change. He worries that if we force the issue, the cops will hold us all hostage by pulling back—leading to more crime.
Take a moment to think about what he’s saying about police officers—that they would take a stand by letting people die. One can only assume that the attorney general is projecting his own attitude onto them because no study on the effectiveness of consent decrees has found that officers responded the way he is suggesting they would.
Given that this is the same attorney general that was willing to use rubber bullets and chemical irritants to force peaceful protesters out of the way so that the president could stage a ridiculous photo op, it is pretty clear that he’s not interested in changing how police operate in this country.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-09--Trump Is Turning America Into a Pariah State

In 2001 , New York and Washington , D.C. , were attacked , and the world responded by saying , “ We are all Americans.
” The greatest ever military coalition formed to come to America ’ s defense .
Nations—including Cuba , Iran , Libya , and North Korea—condemned the terrorist attacks .
Countries rallied to express sympathy and send material support .
That was then .
In 2020 , the United States is facing an attack by the invisible COVID-19 virus and has a shaky economy in a self-induced coma .
And , now , nationwide protests are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gatherings to rightly mourn George Floyd ’ s murder in Minneapolis .
But during this time of crisis , all of a sudden , the rest of the world no longer identifies with America .
In fact , populations across the globe are looking at the United States as a pariah state .
George Floyd protests are breaking out in foreign capitals worldwide , emotionally flavored with strong anti-Trump sentiments .
Adversarial nations and leaders are gleefully enjoying the momentary comeuppance and trying to rub salt in this nation ’ s open wounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eyes of the world , America has changed .
We are no longer seen as a nation leading on human rights , press freedom , civil rights , democracy , justice .
Foreign TV screens either show an executive indifferent to the world ’ s suffering or selfishly seeking advantage for an “ America First ” policy agenda—even during a global pandemic that requires international collaboration and multilateral solutions .
They are wrong , of course .
America still promotes justice and democracy abroad ; still provides security and humanitarian aid in far-off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has suffered .
The perception abroad is that America has dangerously backslid .
The current president—with his for sharp divisive talk and harsh reactive policies—has sucked up all the oxygen in the global media .
He is America ’ s loudest and most visible representative .
He and his peccadillos now embody America in the world , and the world does not like what it sees .
The majority of America does not like it , either .
Floyd ’ s brutal asphyxiation under the knee of a cruel and callous cop is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It has also reinforced a global citizenry ’ s increasingly critical attitude toward the United States .
Poll numbers in allied nations—where we once freely traveled pre-COVID-19—have sunk lower than a diked Dutch lowland .
While those favorability numbers have dropped significantly for America as a nation , they have nearly bottomed out for the U.S. president .
The two are , of course , inextricably tied .
The Pew Research Center recently found that globally there are “ more negative ratings for President Trump than for other world leaders.
” That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Putin rank higher globally .
Take a moment to grok that reality .
America ’ s downgrade in the global public ’ s estimation has a lot to do with Trump , as Pew has shown .
The popularized international caricature of a grotesquely evil Trump—whether the Trump Baby balloon or daily editorial cartoons—is a big part of the perception problem .
Trump , of course , does his best to fit the two-dimensional villain role , wantonly demeaning both people and places while also tweeting divisive inanities .
But it is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face to the world with our relative openness toward our societal problems .
We publicly air our dirty laundry .
That ’ s both a curse and a blessing .
When reprehensible actions against innocents are caught on camera , like mass shootings or racist killings , we don ’ t hide these acts from the world .
Everybody gets to see all sides of America .
They see how we painfully work through problems and seek solutions .
The process sometimes brings our society to a breaking point .
As difficult as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at systemic racism , police brutality , economic inequality , impeachments , demonstrations , riots .
The world gets to watch as we struggle through reforms , fight for freedoms , wrangle for rights .
By contrast , we rarely see the brutality that occurs in closed societies—and what ’ s out of sight is often out of mind .
China ’ s concentration camps have imprisoned and “ re-educated ” a million Uighurs .
Emotionally charged images of Uighurs , if they exist , do not play every hour on cable news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not distilled into an eight-minute and 46 second video .
The foreign broadcast networks of Moscow ’ s RT or Beijing ’ s CGTV do not show images of those nations ’ victims of injustice .
This hidden hideousness may keep Russia and China from taking a reputational hit , but it also shields their systems from domestic and international pressure to reform .
Ours is a messy system .
It ’ s also a preferable system .
We tend to correct our mistakes and make progress over time .
That won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it may bring back America ’ s reputation and role in the world .

In 2001, New York and Washington, D.C., were attacked, and the world responded by saying, “We are all Americans.” The greatest ever military coalition formed to come to America’s defense. Nations—including Cuba, Iran, Libya, and North Korea—condemned the terrorist attacks. Countries rallied to express sympathy and send material support.
That was then.
In 2020, the United States is facing an attack by the invisible COVID-19 virus and has a shaky economy in a self-induced coma. And, now, nationwide protests are highlighting racial injustice, with mostly peaceful gatherings to rightly mourn George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis.
But during this time of crisis, all of a sudden, the rest of the world no longer identifies with America. In fact, populations across the globe are looking at the United States as a pariah state. George Floyd protests are breaking out in foreign capitals worldwide, emotionally flavored with strong anti-Trump sentiments. Adversarial nations and leaders are gleefully enjoying the momentary comeuppance and trying to rub salt in this nation’s open wounds.
This is now.
In the eyes of the world, America has changed. We are no longer seen as a nation leading on human rights, press freedom, civil rights, democracy, justice. Foreign TV screens either show an executive indifferent to the world’s suffering or selfishly seeking advantage for an “America First” policy agenda—even during a global pandemic that requires international collaboration and multilateral solutions.
They are wrong, of course. America still promotes justice and democracy abroad; still provides security and humanitarian aid in far-off lands. But America’s reputation has suffered. The perception abroad is that America has dangerously backslid. The current president—with his for sharp divisive talk and harsh reactive policies—has sucked up all the oxygen in the global media. He is America’s loudest and most visible representative. He and his peccadillos now embody America in the world, and the world does not like what it sees. The majority of America does not like it, either.
Floyd’s brutal asphyxiation under the knee of a cruel and callous cop is the catalyst for current domestic unrest. It has also reinforced a global citizenry’s increasingly critical attitude toward the United States.
Poll numbers in allied nations—where we once freely traveled pre-COVID-19—have sunk lower than a diked Dutch lowland. While those favorability numbers have dropped significantly for America as a nation, they have nearly bottomed out for the U.S. president. The two are, of course, inextricably tied. The Pew Research Center recently found that globally there are “more negative ratings for President Trump than for other world leaders.” That’s right, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin rank higher globally. Take a moment to grok that reality.
America’s downgrade in the global public’s estimation has a lot to do with Trump, as Pew has shown. The popularized international caricature of a grotesquely evil Trump—whether the Trump Baby balloon or daily editorial cartoons—is a big part of the perception problem. Trump, of course, does his best to fit the two-dimensional villain role, wantonly demeaning both people and places while also tweeting divisive inanities.
But it is not just Trump. America presents a confusing face to the world with our relative openness toward our societal problems. We publicly air our dirty laundry. That’s both a curse and a blessing.
When reprehensible actions against innocents are caught on camera, like mass shootings or racist killings, we don’t hide these acts from the world. Everybody gets to see all sides of America. They see how we painfully work through problems and seek solutions. The process sometimes brings our society to a breaking point. As difficult as it is, everyone gets a gander at systemic racism, police brutality, economic inequality, impeachments, demonstrations, riots. The world gets to watch as we struggle through reforms, fight for freedoms, wrangle for rights.
By contrast, we rarely see the brutality that occurs in closed societies—and what’s out of sight is often out of mind. China’s concentration camps have imprisoned and “re-educated” a million Uighurs. Emotionally charged images of Uighurs, if they exist, do not play every hour on cable news. Russia’s war in Ukraine is not distilled into an eight-minute and 46 second video. The foreign broadcast networks of Moscow’s RT or Beijing’s CGTV do not show images of those nations’ victims of injustice.
This hidden hideousness may keep Russia and China from taking a reputational hit, but it also shields their systems from domestic and international pressure to reform.
Ours is a messy system. It’s also a preferable system. We tend to correct our mistakes and make progress over time. That won’t bring back George Floyd, but it may bring back America’s reputation and role in the world.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-09--Ivanka Trump’s Vicious Behind-the-Scene Power Plays

It is becoming clear that Trump ’ s stunt to use security services to clear away peaceful protesters and threaten to call up the military to “ dominate ” them will go down in history as a critical turning point for the nation , especially former military leaders .
For the record , the Washington Post put together a step-by-step video explaining what happened .
Similarly , the New York Times analyzed the decision-making process .
According to their reporting , the use of various units of law enforcement to disperse the crowd was planned by Attorney General Barr .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge of the federal response and an alphabet soup of agencies had contributed officers , agents and troops to defend the White House and other federal installations , including the Secret Service , the United States Park Police , National Guard , Capitol Police , the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives , the Marshal ’ s Service , the Bureau of Prisons , Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement .
The idea for the photo-op may have come from Ivanka Trump .
Inside the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with his plan to walk to the church .
Several administration officials said it was his own idea ; two officials said that during a senior staff meeting on Tuesday , Mr. Meadows credited the president ’ s daughter .
It was crafted during an Oval Office meeting the day before that included Ms. Trump ; Mr. Meadows ; Jared Kushner , the president ’ s son-in-law and senior adviser ; and Hope Hicks , another top adviser .
We know that Ivanka accompanied the president during the photo-op , and it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who carried the Bible in her $ 1,500 Max Mara handbag .
So the president ’ s daughter has also come under fire for her role in what Martin described as the most shameful stunt of Trump ’ s presidency .
Ivanka was uninvited to give the commencement address to graduates of Wichita State University Tech .
She responded on Twitter by blaming “ cancel culture ” and releasing the video of her remarks .
I have often suggested that Ivanka speaks in the language of PowerPoint .
Her remarks are a perfect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Late Show with Stephen Colbert were more creative .
For brutal , we can go to the folks at MeidasTouch .
It probably shouldn ’ t surprise us that the Misogynist-in-Chief has raised a daughter who covers her behind-the-scenes vicious power-plays with the language of platitudes .
She ’ s not fooling anyone .

It is becoming clear that Trump’s stunt to use security services to clear away peaceful protesters and threaten to call up the military to “dominate” them will go down in history as a critical turning point for the nation, especially former military leaders. For the record, the Washington Post put together a step-by-step video explaining what happened.
Similarly, the New York Times analyzed the decision-making process. According to their reporting, the use of various units of law enforcement to disperse the crowd was planned by Attorney General Barr.
In Washington, Mr. Barr was in charge of the federal response and an alphabet soup of agencies had contributed officers, agents and troops to defend the White House and other federal installations, including the Secret Service, the United States Park Police, National Guard, Capitol Police, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Marshal’s Service, the Bureau of Prisons, Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The idea for the photo-op may have come from Ivanka Trump.
Inside the White House nearby, Mr. Trump was coming up with his plan to walk to the church. Several administration officials said it was his own idea; two officials said that during a senior staff meeting on Tuesday, Mr. Meadows credited the president’s daughter. It was crafted during an Oval Office meeting the day before that included Ms. Trump; Mr. Meadows; Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser; and Hope Hicks, another top adviser.
We know that Ivanka accompanied the president during the photo-op, and it has been reported that she is the one who carried the Bible in her $1,500 Max Mara handbag. So the president’s daughter has also come under fire for her role in what Martin described as the most shameful stunt of Trump’s presidency.
Ivanka was uninvited to give the commencement address to graduates of Wichita State University Tech. She responded on Twitter by blaming “cancel culture” and releasing the video of her remarks.
I have often suggested that Ivanka speaks in the language of PowerPoint. Her remarks are a perfect demonstration of that. But the folks at the Late Show with Stephen Colbert were more creative.
For brutal, we can go to the folks at MeidasTouch.
It probably shouldn’t surprise us that the Misogynist-in-Chief has raised a daughter who covers her behind-the-scenes vicious power-plays with the language of platitudes. She’s not fooling anyone.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-09--Why Is Trump’s Campaign Buying Ads in Markets He Has No Chance of Winning?

According to Lachlan Markay and Asawin Suebsaeng of the Daily Beast , the Trump campaign is in the process of spending $ 400,000 for a month ’ s worth of political advertising in the D.C. metro area .
This is interesting because Trump lost to Clinton in the District by more than 88 points , in Maryland by 25 points , and knowledgable prognosticators don ’ t consider Virginia a realistic state for him .
Clinton won it by five , and it has been trending hard against the Republicans throughout Trump ’ s first term in office .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that it will ease the minds of nervous Republican lawmakers and operatives .
This might actually be an honest explanation , but it isn ’ t a sane one .
The sophisticated political folks in the capital region know which states are competitive and which are not , and their main reaction to seeing Trump campaign ads on their televisions will be that it ’ s an irresponsible waste of money .
It will not boost their confidence in the condition of the president ’ s reelection effort .
As for communicating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Biden , there are much cheaper ways to distribute talking points , like email or Zoom .
In fact , Mr. Murtaugh ’ s explanation is so insane that no one seems to be taking it at face value .
Instead , people are inclined to believe there ’ s a different motive : At first , this doesn ’ t seem like it makes any more sense .
Why would the president be put at ease by a decision to spend money in a pointless and moronic way ?
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see these ads run while he is watching television .
Most of them have been placed on Fox News and I guess he doesn ’ t skip the ads when he watches things on delay .
Maybe he spends so much of his time watching cable news that they figure he ’ ll see the ads run live .
In any case , the ads are intended for Trump .
They ’ re spending nearly half a million dollars of campaign cash to reach one voter .
Why would anyone sign off on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as necessary ?
Why would no one fear the wrath of a president who is witnessing the misallocation of his campaign funds ?
In other words , his re-election team thinks the president is a fragile child who will see these ads as an indication that his campaign is working hard and punching back rather than as an inexplicable expenditure of precious resources .
This isn ’ t the only effort being made to reassure the president .
After CNN released a poll showing Biden up 55-41 nationally , the campaign announced that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conduct surveys of the race .
It ’ s not a reputable outfit .
FiveThirtyEight ranks them near the bottom of their pollster ratings .
They also own one of the most embarrassing polls in the history of the art : It ’ s probably wrong to think the president is so unsophisticated about polls that he thinks McLaughlin will provide better accuracy than CNN , but there ’ s definitely a part of him that buys into the idea that the pollsters are part of a greater conspiracy to see him defeated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how McLaughlin sold Trump on his services , as you can see below in the letter attached to the president ’ s tweet .
McLaughlin argued that pollsters are deliberately under-sampling registered Republicans as part of “ an intentional strategy to suppress ” partisan enthusiasm for Trump ’ s reelection .
The argument about sampling is baseless , but the idea that polls can be used to shape a narrative that affects base morale is precisely why McLaughlin was hired .
McLaughlin ’ s job is to juice the numbers in Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact the media narrative and deceive the public .
This is also intended to deceive Trump and buck up his morale .
Trump is aware that this whole venture is a fraud , but he ’ s fully capable of forgetting that he hired this guy to lie and turn around and gain real comfort from his results .
Any way you twist it , you can not grasp what is happening in American politics or the decisions that are being made on the campaign without understanding that Trump is insane and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

According to Lachlan Markay and Asawin Suebsaeng of the Daily Beast, the Trump campaign is in the process of spending $400,000 for a month’s worth of political advertising in the D.C. metro area. This is interesting because Trump lost to Clinton in the District by more than 88 points, in Maryland by 25 points, and knowledgable prognosticators don’t consider Virginia a realistic state for him. Clinton won it by five, and it has been trending hard against the Republicans throughout Trump’s first term in office.
One of that stated rationales for the ad-buy is that it will ease the minds of nervous Republican lawmakers and operatives.
The Trump campaign said the ad buys were an attempt to reinvigorate and reassure the president’s supporters in the nation’s capital. “We want members of Congress and our DC-based surrogates to see the ads so they know our strong arguments for President Trump and against Joe Biden,” wrote Tim Murtaugh, the campaign’s communications director, in an email on Monday.
This might actually be an honest explanation, but it isn’t a sane one. The sophisticated political folks in the capital region know which states are competitive and which are not, and their main reaction to seeing Trump campaign ads on their televisions will be that it’s an irresponsible waste of money. It will not boost their confidence in the condition of the president’s reelection effort.
As for communicating their “strong arguments” for Trump against Biden, there are much cheaper ways to distribute talking points, like email or Zoom. In fact, Mr. Murtaugh’s explanation is so insane that no one seems to be taking it at face value. Instead, people are inclined to believe there’s a different motive:
But two knowledgeable sources—one a Trump campaign adviser, the other an individual close to the president—said the D.C.-area ads had another purpose as well: to put the president himself at ease.
At first, this doesn’t seem like it makes any more sense. Why would the president be put at ease by a decision to spend money in a pointless and moronic way? But the idea is that the president will actually see these ads run while he is watching television. Most of them have been placed on Fox News and I guess he doesn’t skip the ads when he watches things on delay. Maybe he spends so much of his time watching cable news that they figure he’ll see the ads run live. In any case, the ads are intended for Trump. They’re spending nearly half a million dollars of campaign cash to reach one voter.
Why would anyone sign off on this? Why would anyone see it as necessary? Why would no one fear the wrath of a president who is witnessing the misallocation of his campaign funds?
In recent weeks, Trump has grown visibly distraught at his prospects for re-election, with recent polling showing his standing in the race declining dramatically… …With Trump stuck in that milieu of anxiety, his re-election team is hoping that the ads may put him at ease that his formidable political machine is hard at work defending him and attacking his enemies. Trump is a voracious consumer of cable news, and—the thinking goes—is likely to see the spots pop up between segments of his favorite shows.
In other words, his re-election team thinks the president is a fragile child who will see these ads as an indication that his campaign is working hard and punching back rather than as an inexplicable expenditure of precious resources.
This isn’t the only effort being made to reassure the president. After CNN released a poll showing Biden up 55-41 nationally, the campaign announced that it was hiring McLaughlin & Associates to conduct surveys of the race. It’s not a reputable outfit. FiveThirtyEight ranks them near the bottom of their pollster ratings. They also own one of the most embarrassing polls in the history of the art:
When [John] McLaughlin served as pollster for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in 2014, he released a poll saying Cantor would beat college professor Dave Brat by 34 points. Two weeks later, Cantor lost to Brat by 12 points.
It’s probably wrong to think the president is so unsophisticated about polls that he thinks McLaughlin will provide better accuracy than CNN, but there’s definitely a part of him that buys into the idea that the pollsters are part of a greater conspiracy to see him defeated in November. That’s actually how McLaughlin sold Trump on his services, as you can see below in the letter attached to the president’s tweet.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1270071794628726784
McLaughlin argued that pollsters are deliberately under-sampling registered Republicans as part of “an intentional strategy to suppress” partisan enthusiasm for Trump’s reelection. The argument about sampling is baseless, but the idea that polls can be used to shape a narrative that affects base morale is precisely why McLaughlin was hired.
McLaughlin’s job is to juice the numbers in Trump’s favor, but only partly to impact the media narrative and deceive the public. This is also intended to deceive Trump and buck up his morale. Trump is aware that this whole venture is a fraud, but he’s fully capable of forgetting that he hired this guy to lie and turn around and gain real comfort from his results.
Any way you twist it, you cannot grasp what is happening in American politics or the decisions that are being made on the campaign without understanding that Trump is insane and that everyone around him knows he is insane.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-10--Once Again, Trump Seems to Be Doing Putin’s Bidding

For a while now , we ’ ve known that Trump spends most of his day on what his aides euphemistically call “ executive time , ” which means watching Fox News and tweeting .
But on June 1st , he actually had a pretty busy day .
Trump spent a lot of time that Monday planning the most shameful stunt of his presidency—using force against peaceful protesters to clear the way for a ridiculous photo-op in front of a church .
But what may have gotten lost in the reaction to those events is that he also talked to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was reported that the two leaders talked about Trump ’ s desire to reinstate Russia as a member of the G-7 as well as oil markets .
But a few days later we learned this .
It ’ s possible that the timing of Trump ’ s announcement was a coincidence and didn ’ t have anything to do with his phone call with Putin .
But it is also possible that the military leaders who denounced the president were reacting to more than his threat to use the military against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General Barry McCaffrey made his opinion clear when he called Trump ’ s decision to remove U.S. forces from Germany “ a gift to Russia , a finger in the eye to NATO , and a threat to national security.
” Not only did the president fail to inform Germany of the decision to pull U.S. troops out of the country , the next day Russia announced “ the deployment of more personnel to its western region , signaling a new challenge to the increasingly active U.S.-led NATO military alliance forces operating there.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer supposed to talk about the Steele dossier , but no one should ever doubt the truth of this statement .
[ The Trump operation ’ s ] aim was to sow discord and disunity within the U.S. itself , but more especially within the Transatlantic alliance which was viewed as inimical to Russia ’ s interests .
Source C , a senior Russian financial official , said the Trump operation should be seen in terms of Putin ’ s desire to return to Nineteenth Century “ Great Power ” politics anchored upon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideals-based international order established after World War II .
Nothing represents the “ ideals-based international order ” more than NATO , which is why Putin ’ s objective has always been to sow discord among its members .
More than the actual troop withdrawal , that is the effect of the latest moves by Trump and Putin .
We ’ ll probably never really know all of what Trump and Putin discussed during their phone call on June 1st .
As I suggested , it could be a coincidence that , after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. troops out of Germany at the exact same moment that Putin was strengthening his forces in a way that signaled a challenge to NATO .
But as the saying goes , “ Momma didn ’ t raise no fool.
” We continue to see signs that the President of the United States is doing Putin ’ s bidding .

For a while now, we’ve known that Trump spends most of his day on what his aides euphemistically call “executive time,” which means watching Fox News and tweeting. But on June 1st, he actually had a pretty busy day.
Trump spent a lot of time that Monday planning the most shameful stunt of his presidency—using force against peaceful protesters to clear the way for a ridiculous photo-op in front of a church. But what may have gotten lost in the reaction to those events is that he also talked to Russian President Vladimir Putin on the phone. It was reported that the two leaders talked about Trump’s desire to reinstate Russia as a member of the G-7 as well as oil markets. But a few days later we learned this.
President Trump has signed off on a plan to permanently withdraw up to one-third of about 34,500 U.S. troops currently based in Germany, bringing the total down to no more than 25,000, according to U.S. officials.
It’s possible that the timing of Trump’s announcement was a coincidence and didn’t have anything to do with his phone call with Putin. But it is also possible that the military leaders who denounced the president were reacting to more than his threat to use the military against American citizens. For example, retired General Barry McCaffrey made his opinion clear when he called Trump’s decision to remove U.S. forces from Germany “a gift to Russia, a finger in the eye to NATO, and a threat to national security.”
Not only did the president fail to inform Germany of the decision to pull U.S. troops out of the country, the next day Russia announced “the deployment of more personnel to its western region, signaling a new challenge to the increasingly active U.S.-led NATO military alliance forces operating there.”
I realize that we are no longer supposed to talk about the Steele dossier, but no one should ever doubt the truth of this statement.
[The Trump operation’s] aim was to sow discord and disunity within the U.S. itself, but more especially within the Transatlantic alliance which was viewed as inimical to Russia’s interests. Source C, a senior Russian financial official, said the Trump operation should be seen in terms of Putin’s desire to return to Nineteenth Century “Great Power” politics anchored upon country’s interests rather than the ideals-based international order established after World War II.
Nothing represents the “ideals-based international order” more than NATO, which is why Putin’s objective has always been to sow discord among its members. More than the actual troop withdrawal, that is the effect of the latest moves by Trump and Putin.
We’ll probably never really know all of what Trump and Putin discussed during their phone call on June 1st. As I suggested, it could be a coincidence that, after the phone call, Trump decided to pull U.S. troops out of Germany at the exact same moment that Putin was strengthening his forces in a way that signaled a challenge to NATO. But as the saying goes, “Momma didn’t raise no fool.” We continue to see signs that the President of the United States is doing Putin’s bidding.