washingtonmonthly--2020-05-11--The Real Unemployment Rate Is Worse Than Trump Will Tell Us

April ’ s 14.7 percent unemployment rate , announced by the Labor Department last Friday , is awful by any standard .
The official tally shows that unemployment increased by 15,938,000 people last month—to 23,078,000 overall—resulting in the highest jobless rate since the Great Depression .
As depressing as that may be , it ’ s not the full story .
The Labor Department also reported Friday that the number of employed Americans fell by 22,369,000 people in April .
If you reconcile the gap between 22,369,000 and 15,938,000 , you ’ ll find that the real unemployment rate is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for April was at least 18.6 percent .
The erroneous reporting is not part of a conspiracy .
The Census Bureau collects the data as part of its monthly Current Population Survey ; the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS ) then analyzes the findings .
But when layoffs skyrocket suddenly—as they have since the COVID-19 Pandemic took off—the survey ’ s categories and the terms the BLS uses to interpret the results produce a huge underestimate of real unemployment .
One major issue involves how the Census survey and BLS analysts count @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in April .
Normally , the BLS rules say that anyone laid off temporarily does not count as unemployed .
In March , BLS modified that rule by holding that individuals working for a business that was closed by the pandemic could be counted as either on temporary furlough or unemployed .
Workers are therefore categorized based on how they described their work situation to the Census surveyors .
Publicly , BLS would like to have it both ways : It reported that 18,063,000 Americans were “ unemployed on temporary layoff ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it counted as unemployed .
We can make a reasonable estimate .
A recent Washington Post poll found that 77 percent of people laid off recently expect to return to their jobs , so they probably were not counted as unemployed under the current BLS rule .
Based on this finding , the BLS counted the other 23 percent—4,154,490 of those now furloughed—as unemployed .
Yet many of the other 13,085,510 furloughed workers who expect to get their old jobs back will be disappointed .
A new study from the University of Chicago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be permanent .
Those findings suggest that 42 percent of the 18,063,000 workers furloughed in April—7,586,460 rather than 4,154,490—actually were laid off permanently .
If that ’ s correct , BLS should add another 3,431,970 Americans to those officially counted as unemployed last month .
Another big problem with the April unemployment report involves how BLS decides who has left the labor force .
Anyone not working who tells the Census surveyor that they were not “ available ” to take a new job or did not actively try to find one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered to be part of the labor force , and therefore does not count as unemployed .
Most months , the size of the labor force changes little , because new people entering it largely offset new retirees , people with new disabilities , and those who simply stop working .
In February , the labor force shrank by 60,000 people .
The pandemic has changed that : BLS calculates that the labor force contracted by an astounding 6,432,000 people in April , including 4,252,000 Americans who wanted to work .
As with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abrupt labor market changes driven by the pandemic overwhelm BLS ’ s normal categories ; and many of those seen as dropping out of the labor force should be counted as unemployed .
In fact , millions of Americans were not “ available ” for work in April because they were caring for children whose schools were closed—and millions of people didn ’ t look for new jobs because the avalanche of layoffs made a job search pointless .
They fit a textbook definition of individuals whom the BLS excludes from the ranks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not count as unemployed .
BLS further notes that 23 percent of those excluded from the labor force are “ marginally attached , ” meaning they want a job but didn ’ t look for one , most likely because they have family or health issues or don ’ t believe any jobs are available .
At a minimum , 23 percent of the 6,432,000 people newly excluded from the labor force in April also should be added to the list of the unemployed .
Finally , the Census survey asked people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one week—from April 12 to April 19 .
This technicality usually doesn ’ t matter much , because unemployment normally changes little in any month , much less in its last week .
Again , the pandemic changed that .
We know that during the week following April 1 , nearly 3.5 million more Americans filed for unemployment benefits .
Add up these three changes , and unemployment in April increased by at least 6,075,399 more than the 15,938,000 officially reported by BLS , jumping by 22,013,399 to a total of 29,153,399 Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least 18.6 percent .
Throughout this pandemic , President Trump has tried to gaslight the American people by denying , wishing away , and minimalizing the COVID-19 threat and its mounting spread .
Failing at this , his administration now insists that an economic recovery is right around the corner .
Like the virus , however , Trump ’ s PR campaign is already colliding with a reality plainly and painfully evident to anyone willing to look at it .

April’s 14.7 percent unemployment rate, announced by the Labor Department last Friday, is awful by any standard. The official tally shows that unemployment increased by 15,938,000 people last month—to 23,078,000 overall—resulting in the highest jobless rate since the Great Depression.
As depressing as that may be, it’s not the full story. The Labor Department also reported Friday that the number of employed Americans fell by 22,369,000 people in April. If you reconcile the gap between 22,369,000 and 15,938,000, you’ll find that the real unemployment rate is much worse. The actual unemployment rate for April was at least 18.6 percent.
The erroneous reporting is not part of a conspiracy. The Census Bureau collects the data as part of its monthly Current Population Survey; the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) then analyzes the findings. But when layoffs skyrocket suddenly—as they have since the COVID-19 Pandemic took off—the survey’s categories and the terms the BLS uses to interpret the results produce a huge underestimate of real unemployment.
One major issue involves how the Census survey and BLS analysts count people who were furloughed from their jobs in April. Normally, the BLS rules say that anyone laid off temporarily does not count as unemployed. In March, BLS modified that rule by holding that individuals working for a business that was closed by the pandemic could be counted as either on temporary furlough or unemployed. Workers are therefore categorized based on how they described their work situation to the Census surveyors. Publicly, BLS would like to have it both ways: It reported that 18,063,000 Americans were “unemployed on temporary layoff” in April without saying how many of them it counted as unemployed.
We can make a reasonable estimate. A recent Washington Post poll found that 77 percent of people laid off recently expect to return to their jobs, so they probably were not counted as unemployed under the current BLS rule. Based on this finding, the BLS counted the other 23 percent—4,154,490 of those now furloughed—as unemployed.
Yet many of the other 13,085,510 furloughed workers who expect to get their old jobs back will be disappointed. A new study from the University of Chicago projects that 42 percent of recent layoffs will be permanent. Those findings suggest that 42 percent of the 18,063,000 workers furloughed in April—7,586,460 rather than 4,154,490—actually were laid off permanently. If that’s correct, BLS should add another 3,431,970 Americans to those officially counted as unemployed last month.
Another big problem with the April unemployment report involves how BLS decides who has left the labor force. Anyone not working who tells the Census surveyor that they were not “available” to take a new job or did not actively try to find one during the preceding four weeks is not considered to be part of the labor force, and therefore does not count as unemployed. Most months, the size of the labor force changes little, because new people entering it largely offset new retirees, people with new disabilities, and those who simply stop working. In February, the labor force shrank by 60,000 people.
The pandemic has changed that: BLS calculates that the labor force contracted by an astounding 6,432,000 people in April, including 4,252,000 Americans who wanted to work. As with those on furlough, the huge and abrupt labor market changes driven by the pandemic overwhelm BLS’s normal categories; and many of those seen as dropping out of the labor force should be counted as unemployed.
In fact, millions of Americans were not “available” for work in April because they were caring for children whose schools were closed—and millions of people didn’t look for new jobs because the avalanche of layoffs made a job search pointless. They fit a textbook definition of individuals whom the BLS excludes from the ranks of the labor force, and so do not count as unemployed. BLS further notes that 23 percent of those excluded from the labor force are “marginally attached,” meaning they want a job but didn’t look for one, most likely because they have family or health issues or don’t believe any jobs are available. At a minimum, 23 percent of the 6,432,000 people newly excluded from the labor force in April also should be added to the list of the unemployed.
Finally, the Census survey asked people about their job status–during the course of one week—from April 12 to April 19. This technicality usually doesn’t matter much, because unemployment normally changes little in any month, much less in its last week. Again, the pandemic changed that. We know that during the week following April 1, nearly 3.5 million more Americans filed for unemployment benefits.
Add up these three changes, and unemployment in April increased by at least 6,075,399 more than the 15,938,000 officially reported by BLS, jumping by 22,013,399 to a total of 29,153,399 Americans, for a real unemployment rate of at least 18.6 percent.
Throughout this pandemic, President Trump has tried to gaslight the American people by denying, wishing away, and minimalizing the COVID-19 threat and its mounting spread. Failing at this, his administration now insists that an economic recovery is right around the corner. Like the virus, however, Trump’s PR campaign is already colliding with a reality plainly and painfully evident to anyone willing to look at it.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-11--Are Journalists Reaching the Point of Exhaustion With Trump’s Lies?

Former George W. Bush speechwriter Peter Wehner did an excellent job of capturing what the 2020 presidential election will be about when he wrote that it will be “ a referendum on reality and epistemology.
” Trump and his apparatchiks will not only step up their propaganda ; they will increase their efforts to exhaust our critical thinking and to annihilate truth , in the words of the Russian dissident Garry Kasparov .
We will see even more “ alternative facts.
” We will see even more brazen attempts to rewrite history .
We will hear even more crazy conspiracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lashing out at reporters , more rage , and more lies .
“ The real opposition is the media , ” Steve Bannon , the president ’ s former chief strategist , once told the journalist Michael Lewis .
“ And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.
” … Donald Trump is asking us to enter even further into his house of mirrors .
He is asking us to live within a lie , to live within his lie , for four more years .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to refuse to live within that lie .
As Bannon proposed , the right-wing media ecosphere is being flooded right now with a particular brand of shit and , over the weekend , the president ’ s twitter feed was consumed by it .
Here are a couple of examples of things Trump retweeted to demonstrate the obsession .
With the attorney general ’ s decision to drop charges against Michael Flynn and the release of transcripts from interviews conducted by the House Intelligence Committee ’ s investigation of the Trump-Russia probe , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to distract Trump ’ s base from the reality of his coronavirus failures and seek revenge against those they consider their enemies .
There has been a lot written about Barr ’ s twisting of the truth in the Flynn case , but not as much about what we ’ ve learned from the transcripts that were released last week .
But Fox News hosts have been quick to suggest that they provide further exoneration of Trump .
A theme that has emerged is to suggest that members of the Obama administration admitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence that warranted an investigation .
Here is a screenshot from a segment by Jesse Watters that was tweeted by Trump .
Tucker Carlson used some of those examples as well .
This is the one that caught my eye .
Whenever a Fox News host uses a quote that is limited to a sentence or a phrase , you can almost always assume that it has been taken out of context .
So I decided to actually read the transcript of Susan Rice ’ s testimony to check out that assumption .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to learn that it was , in fact , taken out of context .
The quotes used by both Watters and Carlson were in response to a specific question from former Representative Trey Gowdy ( emphasis mine ) .
Eventually , Gowdy went on to ask Rice the same question as it relates to members of Trump ’ s campaign staff .
Almost the entirety of Rice ’ s response to that question has been redacted , but in the bits that aren ’ t , she is obviously talking about having seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conspiracy when it came to both Michael Flynn and Carter Page , two of the staff who were actually targets of the FBI ’ s counterintelligence investigation .
During subsequent questioning by Representative Adam Schiff , Rice dropped some information that hasn ’ t been clearly documented in the press but indicates why there were mounting concerns about Michael Flynn .
She reported that , during the transition , the person who was initially assigned by the Trump team to work on matters related to the National Security Council was Marshall Billingslea .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the relatively early meetings between my chief of staff and the head of the Trump NSC landing team that my chief of staff conveyed to me…that Mr. Billingslea expressed concern to them about the frequency of General Flynn ’ s contacts with Ambassador Kislyak and potentially the substance of the contacts and , as I said , asked for background on Ambassador Kislyak that he seemed to want to use to persuade General Flynn that perhaps he should scale back the contacts .
The case Attorney General Barr made for dropping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lies were not “ material ” to the investigation because the FBI had no reasonable basis even to interview him .
However , a member of Trump ’ s own transition team was so disturbed by Flynn ’ s contacts with the Russian ambassador that he shared his concerns with Rice ’ s chief of staff .
At this point , it appears as though the mainstream media is done with the Russia-Trump story , so , while Fox News and other right-wing media outlets cherry-pick quotes and turn them into lies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an attempt to correct the record .
Meanwhile , the president uses those lies to claim that the whole thing wasn ’ t just a hoax , but an attempted coup that will “ make Watergate look like a parking ticket.
” When Wehner says that Trump and his enablers will attempt to “ exhaust our critical thinking and to annihilate truth , ” this is just one example of how they do that .
If you have the stomach to listen to the entire segments from Tucker Carlson and Jesse Watters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you ’ ll see that I have only debunked one of the myriad of lies that are being told .
If I ’ d gone through the whole list , I would have had to write an entire book .
That ’ s exactly what Bannon was referring to when he suggested that Trump and his enablers should “ flood the zone with shit.
” Wehner is exactly right .
The one thing voters need to know about this election is that the current occupant of the Oval Office wants to annihilate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of enablers , including the attorney general , who are more than willing to help him do that .

Former George W. Bush speechwriter Peter Wehner did an excellent job of capturing what the 2020 presidential election will be about when he wrote that it will be “a referendum on reality and epistemology.”
Trump and his apparatchiks will not only step up their propaganda; they will increase their efforts to exhaust our critical thinking and to annihilate truth, in the words of the Russian dissident Garry Kasparov. We will see even more “alternative facts.” We will see even more brazen attempts to rewrite history. We will hear even more crazy conspiracy theories. We will witness even more lashing out at reporters, more rage, and more lies. “The real opposition is the media,” Steve Bannon, the president’s former chief strategist, once told the journalist Michael Lewis. “And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.”… Donald Trump is asking us to enter even further into his house of mirrors. He is asking us to live within a lie, to live within his lie, for four more years. The duty of citizenship in America today is to refuse to live within that lie.
As Bannon proposed, the right-wing media ecosphere is being flooded right now with a particular brand of shit and, over the weekend, the president’s twitter feed was consumed by it. Here are a couple of examples of things Trump retweeted to demonstrate the obsession.
https://twitter.com/JoanneWT09/status/1259614457015103490
With the attorney general’s decision to drop charges against Michael Flynn and the release of transcripts from interviews conducted by the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation of the Trump-Russia probe, the president and his enablers are attempting to distract Trump’s base from the reality of his coronavirus failures and seek revenge against those they consider their enemies.
There has been a lot written about Barr’s twisting of the truth in the Flynn case, but not as much about what we’ve learned from the transcripts that were released last week. But Fox News hosts have been quick to suggest that they provide further exoneration of Trump. A theme that has emerged is to suggest that members of the Obama administration admitted behind closed doors that there was no evidence that warranted an investigation. Here is a screenshot from a segment by Jesse Watters that was tweeted by Trump.
Tucker Carlson used some of those examples as well. This is the one that caught my eye.
Whenever a Fox News host uses a quote that is limited to a sentence or a phrase, you can almost always assume that it has been taken out of context. So I decided to actually read the transcript of Susan Rice’s testimony to check out that assumption. It probably won’t surprise you to learn that it was, in fact, taken out of context.
The quotes used by both Watters and Carlson were in response to a specific question from former Representative Trey Gowdy (emphasis mine).
Mr. Gowdy: Before you separated from service, did you have any evidence, or did you come across any evidence—or intelligence—that Donald Trump conspired with the Russian government to influence the 2016 election.
Eventually, Gowdy went on to ask Rice the same question as it relates to members of Trump’s campaign staff. Almost the entirety of Rice’s response to that question has been redacted, but in the bits that aren’t, she is obviously talking about having seen evidence that indicated the potential for a conspiracy when it came to both Michael Flynn and Carter Page, two of the staff who were actually targets of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation.
During subsequent questioning by Representative Adam Schiff, Rice dropped some information that hasn’t been clearly documented in the press but indicates why there were mounting concerns about Michael Flynn. She reported that, during the transition, the person who was initially assigned by the Trump team to work on matters related to the National Security Council was Marshall Billingslea.
So it was in the context of one of the relatively early meetings between my chief of staff and the head of the Trump NSC landing team that my chief of staff conveyed to me…that Mr. Billingslea expressed concern to them about the frequency of General Flynn’s contacts with Ambassador Kislyak and potentially the substance of the contacts and, as I said, asked for background on Ambassador Kislyak that he seemed to want to use to persuade General Flynn that perhaps he should scale back the contacts.
The case Attorney General Barr made for dropping the charges against Flynn was that his lies were not “material” to the investigation because the FBI had no reasonable basis even to interview him. However, a member of Trump’s own transition team was so disturbed by Flynn’s contacts with the Russian ambassador that he shared his concerns with Rice’s chief of staff.
At this point, it appears as though the mainstream media is done with the Russia-Trump story, so, while Fox News and other right-wing media outlets cherry-pick quotes and turn them into lies, there hasn’t been much of an attempt to correct the record. Meanwhile, the president uses those lies to claim that the whole thing wasn’t just a hoax, but an attempted coup that will “make Watergate look like a parking ticket.”
When Wehner says that Trump and his enablers will attempt to “exhaust our critical thinking and to annihilate truth,” this is just one example of how they do that. If you have the stomach to listen to the entire segments from Tucker Carlson and Jesse Watters, or review Trump’s Twitter feed, you’ll see that I have only debunked one of the myriad of lies that are being told. If I’d gone through the whole list, I would have had to write an entire book. That’s exactly what Bannon was referring to when he suggested that Trump and his enablers should “flood the zone with shit.”
Wehner is exactly right. The one thing voters need to know about this election is that the current occupant of the Oval Office wants to annihilate the truth. He has an army of enablers, including the attorney general, who are more than willing to help him do that.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-11--Will Infections In the West Wing Get Trump to Care About Mass Testing?

Alan Alda ’ s character in Crimes and Misdemeanors is supposed to be arrogant and insufferable , but I always thought he had at least a small point when he argued that comedy is tragedy plus time .
You can make jokes about 9/11 today , but it ’ s hard to say how much time had to pass before it was permissible to treat that day with anything but solemnity .
As he said , “ If it bends , it ’ s funny ; if it breaks , it ’ s not funny.
” That ’ s how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now .
For example , on Friday , the Washington Post wrote : Trump administration officials spent the weekend scrambling as they attempted to do contact tracing for Katie Miller , Vice President Mike Pence ’ s press secretary who tested positive for coronavirus last week .
But they had not identified who Miller contracted the virus from as of Sunday , raising concerns inside the White House about how to contain the outbreak .
Some aides expressed concern at how Monday would proceed without greater clarity on how the virus had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those two pieces of reporting side by side , my first reaction is to bust out laughing .
It almost reminds me of the “ There ’ s always a tweet ” meme , where it seems that people can always find a Donald Trump tweet from the past that contradicts or undermines whatever he is trying to say in the present .
Here the White House is trying to convince itself that it ’ s contained the viral outbreak and it ’ s safe for people to return to business as usual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to implement this policy than they discover that their own workplace is unsafe .
They tell us that we don ’ t need to do widespread testing and that an army of contact tracers are not needed , but the first thing they do when the virus shows up in the White House is attempt to do contact tracing .
And the effort is unsuccessful .
This kind of karmic comeuppance would be funny , just as it ’ s funny to compare Trump ’ s past tweets to his current positions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The initial response might be a guffaw as the cosmic irony of it all bends our sense of humor .
But , after a moment of reflection , the laughs disappear .
The joke breaks up on the shoals of seriousness .
Conservatives often need to learn from direct experience .
Climate change isn ’ t serious until your vacation property is inundated by flood waters .
Gay marriage is an abomination until it ’ s your daughter who wants to get married to a woman .
School shootings are not an urgent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The same applies here to the White House and their experience with the coronavirus .
Reality has punched them right in their lying mouths and exposed their self-delusion , and this is ordinarily the moment when conservatives might actually “ get it.
” If we want to return to normal , we need to be able to quickly trace new infections so we can isolate the people who are spreading the disease .
If you don ’ t build this capability , opening the economy is not going to work and people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because Donald Trump is uniquely insane , even this painful reality-slap is unlikely to cause a course correction .
There ’ s a reason you ’ ve never seen Trump laugh .
There ’ s a reason he ’ s never told a funny joke .
Nothing with Trump ever bends .
Things only break .

Alan Alda’s character in Crimes and Misdemeanors is supposed to be arrogant and insufferable, but I always thought he had at least a small point when he argued that comedy is tragedy plus time. You can make jokes about 9/11 today, but it’s hard to say how much time had to pass before it was permissible to treat that day with anything but solemnity.
As he said, “If it bends, it’s funny; if it breaks, it’s not funny.” That’s how I feel about a lot of things right now. For example, on Friday, the Washington Post wrote:
Inside the West Wing, some officials talk about the federal government’s mitigation mission as largely accomplished because they believe the nation’s hospitals are now equipped to meet anticipated demand — even as health officials warn the number of coronavirus cases could increase considerably in May and June as more states and localities loosen restrictions…
And on Monday, CNN reported:
Trump administration officials spent the weekend scrambling as they attempted to do contact tracing for Katie Miller, Vice President Mike Pence’s press secretary who tested positive for coronavirus last week. But they had not identified who Miller contracted the virus from as of Sunday, raising concerns inside the White House about how to contain the outbreak. Some aides expressed concern at how Monday would proceed without greater clarity on how the virus had originated and spread.
When I see those two pieces of reporting side by side, my first reaction is to bust out laughing. It almost reminds me of the “There’s always a tweet” meme, where it seems that people can always find a Donald Trump tweet from the past that contradicts or undermines whatever he is trying to say in the present.
Here the White House is trying to convince itself that it’s contained the viral outbreak and it’s safe for people to return to business as usual, but no sooner than they begin to implement this policy than they discover that their own workplace is unsafe. They tell us that we don’t need to do widespread testing and that an army of contact tracers are not needed, but the first thing they do when the virus shows up in the White House is attempt to do contact tracing. And the effort is unsuccessful.
This kind of karmic comeuppance would be funny, just as it’s funny to compare Trump’s past tweets to his current positions, except that the consequences are catastrophic. The initial response might be a guffaw as the cosmic irony of it all bends our sense of humor. But, after a moment of reflection, the laughs disappear. The joke breaks up on the shoals of seriousness.
Conservatives often need to learn from direct experience. Climate change isn’t serious until your vacation property is inundated by flood waters. Gay marriage is an abomination until it’s your daughter who wants to get married to a woman. School shootings are not an urgent problem until one happens in your community. The same applies here to the White House and their experience with the coronavirus.
Reality has punched them right in their lying mouths and exposed their self-delusion, and this is ordinarily the moment when conservatives might actually “get it.” If we want to return to normal, we need to be able to quickly trace new infections so we can isolate the people who are spreading the disease. If you don’t build this capability, opening the economy is not going to work and people are going to needlessly die.
Yet, because Donald Trump is uniquely insane, even this painful reality-slap is unlikely to cause a course correction. There’s a reason you’ve never seen Trump laugh. There’s a reason he’s never told a funny joke. Nothing with Trump ever bends. Things only break.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-12--Why Is Trump So Afraid to Wear a Mask?

Why Is Trump So Afraid to Wear a Mask?

According to some people , this crowd at a restaurant in Castle Rock , Colorado , on Mother ’ s Day is a demonstration of what it means to be strong and patriotic during a pandemic .
Packed in like sardines , there is not a face mask in sight .
Do you think I ’ m kidding ?
If so , take a look at what Brian Kilmeade had to say Monday morning on Fox and Friends .
That is exactly the kind of rhetoric we ’ re beginning to hear from Trump .
[ A ] s he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus pandemic , Trump has identified a new group of “ warriors ” to enlist in battle : the American public .
Trump unveiled the moniker this week — during a trip to a face-mask manufacturing facility in Phoenix on Tuesday and again in an Oval Office photo op with nurses Wednesday — suggesting it is no longer just medical workers on the front lines who must respond against the lethal illness .
“ I ’ m actually calling now .
.
.
the nation warriors , ” Trump told reporters at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be warriors .
We can ’ t keep our country closed down for years.
” But it gets even worse .
According to David Marcus at The Federalist , if the president followed CDC guidelines and wore a mask , he would be portraying weakness .
Scolds have been on a rampage over the past few days regarding Trump ’ s unwillingness to don the face covering that has come to define our current moment of Chinese virus…What Trump is really doing is projecting American strength and health at a time when strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump wearing a protective face mask while performing his duties , behind the Resolute Desk , or in the White House briefing room would be a searing image of weakness .
It would signal that the United States is so powerless against this invisible enemy sprung from China that even its president must cower behind a mask .
That simply should not happen .
What all of this demonstrates is how easy it is in a patriarchal culture to make ridiculous arguments about what it means to be strong or patriotic .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a virus plays by the rules of a military conflict in which fearless warriors can defeat the enemy through sheer defiance of the laws of nature .
In that world , strong leaders are willing to spread the virus to others , because taking the necessary precautions is the equivalent of cowering behind a mask .
The entire notion is completely absurd .
I recently suggested that it is time to rescue the meaning of words like “ strong ” from their patriarchal associations .
In that spirit , let me give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s done .
A truly strong president can identify with a group of Girl Scouts who are obviously bright and enjoy wearing crowns .
It is only weak men who would view that as a threat to their masculinity .
When it comes to the coronavirus , the stakes are much higher , though .
In that case , the truly strong warriors are those who understand the virus and are willing to make the sacrifices that are necessary to protect themselves , their families , their co-workers , and their communities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ your image is the definition of cowardice .

According to some people, this crowd at a restaurant in Castle Rock, Colorado, on Mother’s Day is a demonstration of what it means to be strong and patriotic during a pandemic. Packed in like sardines, there is not a face mask in sight.
Do you think I’m kidding? If so, take a look at what Brian Kilmeade had to say Monday morning on Fox and Friends.
That is exactly the kind of rhetoric we’re beginning to hear from Trump.
[A]s he pushes to reopen the economy amid the coronavirus pandemic, Trump has identified a new group of “warriors” to enlist in battle: the American public. Trump unveiled the moniker this week — during a trip to a face-mask manufacturing facility in Phoenix on Tuesday and again in an Oval Office photo op with nurses Wednesday — suggesting it is no longer just medical workers on the front lines who must respond against the lethal illness. “I’m actually calling now . . . the nation warriors,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “We have to be warriors. We can’t keep our country closed down for years.”
But it gets even worse. According to David Marcus at The Federalist, if the president followed CDC guidelines and wore a mask, he would be portraying weakness.
Scolds have been on a rampage over the past few days regarding Trump’s unwillingness to don the face covering that has come to define our current moment of Chinese virus…What Trump is really doing is projecting American strength and health at a time when strong leadership is needed… An image of Donald Trump wearing a protective face mask while performing his duties, behind the Resolute Desk, or in the White House briefing room would be a searing image of weakness. It would signal that the United States is so powerless against this invisible enemy sprung from China that even its president must cower behind a mask. That simply should not happen.
What all of this demonstrates is how easy it is in a patriarchal culture to make ridiculous arguments about what it means to be strong or patriotic. It’s as if they truly believe that a virus plays by the rules of a military conflict in which fearless warriors can defeat the enemy through sheer defiance of the laws of nature. In that world, strong leaders are willing to spread the virus to others, because taking the necessary precautions is the equivalent of cowering behind a mask. The entire notion is completely absurd.
I recently suggested that it is time to rescue the meaning of words like “strong” from their patriarchal associations. In that spirit, let me give you an example of how that’s done.
A truly strong president can identify with a group of Girl Scouts who are obviously bright and enjoy wearing crowns. It is only weak men who would view that as a threat to their masculinity.
When it comes to the coronavirus, the stakes are much higher, though. In that case, the truly strong warriors are those who understand the virus and are willing to make the sacrifices that are necessary to protect themselves, their families, their co-workers, and their communities. Being afraid that wearing a mask ruins your image is the definition of cowardice.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-12--Why Joe Biden Should Reach Out to “McCain Republicans”

Many Democrats believe that courting Trump voters in 2020 is a fool ’ s errand .
Trump ’ s approval rating has hovered around 40 percent for the duration of his presidency—through every scandal and embarrassing press briefing—so it ’ s understandable why some might deem those voters unreachable .
But after digging deeply into Trump ’ s coalition for The Democratic Strategist , Andrew Levinson found that the president ’ s support among Republicans is shakier than we think , and that Joe Biden can exploit Trump ’ s vulnerability without turning off progressive Democrats , thereby striking an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are three distinct coalitions of Trump voters—passionate backers , cynical allies , and “ ambivalent or troubled Trump supporters.
” The first group agrees with Trump on the issues and approves of him personally— “ the kind of people who attend Trump ’ s rallies and raucously shout their approval.
” The second group may find Trump personally obnoxious , but are willing to align with him to advance a conservative agenda .
Polling indicates that about two-thirds of the 46 percent of Americans who voted for Trump fall into these two categories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , that ’ s intriguing .
According to Levinson , close to one third of Trump voters support him tepidly : “ These are people who have significant objections not only to Trump ’ s behavior but to some aspects of his agenda as well.
” These voters may consider themselves solidly Republican , but their doubts about Trump create an opportunity for Democrats .
Trump ’ s 2020 strategy is not to move to the center , but rather to rely on a hyper-partisan group of voters .
Therefore , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this group should be precisely the opposite—to sharply increase and intensify the doubts of the Trump-skeptical GOP Republicans and weaken their willingness to support Trump and the GOP despite their misgivings.
” What ’ s the best way for Democrats to do that ?
For starters , it would be a mistake to assume that all reluctant Trump supporters are necessarily “ moderate Republicans ” who are fiscally conservative but socially “ middle of the road.
” As Levinson notes , many are staunch conservatives but object to is his corruption and lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t like the president profiting financially from his office , promoting family members to high positions of power , and demonstrating a stunning lack of patriotism and respect for American government .
His admiration for Vladimir Putin and ties with Russian plutocrats have disturbed many conservatives at a time when only 18 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Russia .
More than anything , though , Trump ’ s Achilles heel among reluctant supporters is his lack of decency , which was best illustrated by his sneering disrespect of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s military service , saying that McCain was not a war hero because he got captured .
Even after McCain died , Trump still attacked him , calling his vote against repealing the Affordable Care Act “ disgraceful ” and saying he was “ never a fan of John McCain ” and “ never will be.
” Polling at the time of McCain ’ s funeral showed that almost half—45 percent of Trump ’ s own supporters—who were aware of the controversy considered the president ’ s behavior deeply offensive .
From these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sizable group of voters he calls “ McCain Republicans ” —i.e .
conservatives who are turned off by Trump ’ s corruption , unpatriotic actions , and disrespect for men like McCain .
Levinson asserts that Biden can drive a wedge into Trump ’ s support by speaking directly to this group of voters , highlighting what they dislike most about the president .
The goal isn ’ t necessarily for Biden to win over McCain Republicans , although he would likely gain some of their votes .
It ’ s to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken the GOP away from the core values that McCain stood for .
While McCain was a conservative , he was also principled , racially tolerant , and willing to work with Democrats where he found common ground .
He famously served as a pilot during the Vietnam War and survived being taken prisoner for five and a half years after his aircraft was shot down over Hanoi in 1967—and he refused early release because his father was a four-star admiral , unless his fellow captors would be let go , too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ daughter from India after visiting a Bangladeshi orphanage in 1991 .
And McCain had consistently spoken out against oppressive foreign leaders and undemocratic regimes , taking strong stances against Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un .
In other words , McCain was everything Trump is not .
By speaking to those voters ’ affection for McCain ’ s character and brand of public service , Biden may convince some reluctant Trump voters to stay home in 2020 , or , better yet , help Democrats hold onto the Trump voters who switched sides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to the data analysis firm Catalist , Trump voters who supported Democrats were the driving force behind Democrats ’ across-the-board victories two years ago , with changing voter choice accounting for close to 90 percent of the shift in the party ’ s favor .
If Democrats can hang onto most of the Republicans who voted blue in 2018 , they will control the White House and both houses of Congress in 2021 .
Fatefully , the strategy of reaching out to McCain Republicans is perfectly suited to Joe Biden .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called them “ brothers who were somehow raised by different fathers.
” The men shared a bond that transcended their political differences .
After McCain was diagnosed with glioblastoma—the same type of cancer that killed Biden ’ s son Beau in 2015—the Biden and McCain families became even closer .
Biden comforted McCain ’ s daughter Meghan on The View in late 2017 and later gave a eulogy at McCain ’ s funeral .
Biden and McCain were also known for reaching across the aisle to advance good legislation when possible .
McCain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act , and joined other Democrats to push for increased transparency in political advertising .
He also worked with Democrats on immigration reform , and famously voted against the Republicans ’ attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act .
Biden was largely responsible for convincing Republican Senator Susan Collins and former Senators Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter to support the 2009 stimulus package after Obama took office .
Winning elections is about playing up favorable contrasts .
If Biden accentuates how his personal relationship with McCain differed from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brand of conservatism differs from Trump ’ s—it may cause reluctant Trump supporters to acknowledge that Biden is simply the better human and public servant .
If Biden can get voters to realize that they are choosing between one man who loved and respected McCain , in spite of their differences , and another who ridiculed McCain at every opportunity , he may be able to hang onto or even expand on the Democrats ’ 2018 gains .
Some progressives will balk at the idea of Biden mentioning McCain and courting Republican voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bernie wing of the Democratic Party instead .
As Levinson notes , Biden was criticized in June of 2019 after wistfully describing how he used to work civilly with conservatives , including arch-segregationist senators James O. Eastland of Mississippi and Herman Talmadge of Georgia .
That criticism was valid .
Of course , Biden can not realistically expect to work with Republicans like Mitch McConnell the same way he could with McCain and other less deceitful and duplicitous conservatives .
What makes the pursuit of McCain conservatives so savvy , though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the expense of a progressive platform .
As Barack Obama has suggested , Democrats should not embrace a false choice between appealing to liberals versus moderate Republicans , or black voters versus white working-class voters .
Biden can do all of the above .
The former vice president can still offer the most progressive platform of any major party candidate in history while running a campaign that emphasizes public service , compassion , and a willingness to work with political adversaries where possible , limited as those opportunities may be .
Those values @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expose the fault lines between die-hard Trump supporters and more principled McCain Republicans , he can lay the foundation for widespread Democratic victories in 2020—including at the very top of the ticket .

Many Democrats believe that courting Trump voters in 2020 is a fool’s errand. Trump’s approval rating has hovered around 40 percent for the duration of his presidency—through every scandal and embarrassing press briefing—so it’s understandable why some might deem those voters unreachable. But after digging deeply into Trump’s coalition for The Democratic Strategist, Andrew Levison found that the president’s support among Republicans is shakier than we think, and that Joe Biden can exploit Trump’s vulnerability without turning off progressive Democrats, thereby striking an ideal balance.
Levison argues that there are three distinct coalitions of Trump voters—passionate backers, cynical allies, and “ambivalent or troubled Trump supporters.” The first group agrees with Trump on the issues and approves of him personally—“the kind of people who attend Trump’s rallies and raucously shout their approval.” The second group may find Trump personally obnoxious, but are willing to align with him to advance a conservative agenda. Polling indicates that about two-thirds of the 46 percent of Americans who voted for Trump fall into these two categories. It’s the third group, however, that’s intriguing.
According to Levison, close to one third of Trump voters support him tepidly: “These are people who have significant objections not only to Trump’s behavior but to some aspects of his agenda as well.” These voters may consider themselves solidly Republican, but their doubts about Trump create an opportunity for Democrats.
Trump’s 2020 strategy is not to move to the center, but rather to rely on a hyper-partisan group of voters. Therefore, Levison writes: “Democratic strategy regarding this group should be precisely the opposite—to sharply increase and intensify the doubts of the Trump-skeptical GOP Republicans and weaken their willingness to support Trump and the GOP despite their misgivings.”
What’s the best way for Democrats to do that? For starters, it would be a mistake to assume that all reluctant Trump supporters are necessarily “moderate Republicans” who are fiscally conservative but socially “middle of the road.” As Levison notes, many are staunch conservatives but object to is his corruption and lack of traditional patriotism.
These voters simply don’t like the president profiting financially from his office, promoting family members to high positions of power, and demonstrating a stunning lack of patriotism and respect for American government. His admiration for Vladimir Putin and ties with Russian plutocrats have disturbed many conservatives at a time when only 18 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Russia.
More than anything, though, Trump’s Achilles heel among reluctant supporters is his lack of decency, which was best illustrated by his sneering disrespect of John McCain. Trump disparaged McCain’s military service, saying that McCain was not a war hero because he got captured. Even after McCain died, Trump still attacked him, calling his vote against repealing the Affordable Care Act “disgraceful” and saying he was “never a fan of John McCain” and “never will be.” Polling at the time of McCain’s funeral showed that almost half—45 percent of Trump’s own supporters—who were aware of the controversy considered the president’s behavior deeply offensive.
From these observations, Levison surmises the existence of a sizable group of voters he calls “McCain Republicans”—i.e. conservatives who are turned off by Trump’s corruption, unpatriotic actions, and disrespect for men like McCain. Levison asserts that Biden can drive a wedge into Trump’s support by speaking directly to this group of voters, highlighting what they dislike most about the president. The goal isn’t necessarily for Biden to win over McCain Republicans, although he would likely gain some of their votes. It’s to remind them just how far Trump has taken the GOP away from the core values that McCain stood for.
While McCain was a conservative, he was also principled, racially tolerant, and willing to work with Democrats where he found common ground. He famously served as a pilot during the Vietnam War and survived being taken prisoner for five and a half years after his aircraft was shot down over Hanoi in 1967—and he refused early release because his father was a four-star admiral, unless his fellow prisoners would be let go, too. McCain and his wife Cindy adopted a daughter from India after visiting a Bangladeshi orphanage in 1991. And McCain had consistently spoken out against oppressive foreign leaders and undemocratic regimes, taking strong stances against Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un. In other words, McCain was everything Trump is not.
By speaking to those voters’ affection for McCain’s character and brand of public service, Biden may convince some reluctant Trump voters to stay home in 2020, or, better yet, help Democrats hold onto the Trump voters who switched sides and powered the 2018 blue wave.
According to the data analysis firm Catalist, Trump voters who supported Democrats were the driving force behind Democrats’ across-the-board victories two years ago, with changing voter choice accounting for close to 90 percent of the shift in the party’s favor. If Democrats can hang onto most of the Republicans who voted blue in 2018, they will control the White House and both houses of Congress in 2021.
Fatefully, the strategy of reaching out to McCain Republicans is perfectly suited to Joe Biden. The two were personally close. Biden once called them “brothers who were somehow raised by different fathers.” The men shared a bond that transcended their political differences. After McCain was diagnosed with glioblastoma—the same type of cancer that killed Biden’s son Beau in 2015—the Biden and McCain families became even closer. Biden comforted McCain’s daughter Meghan on The View in late 2017 and later gave a eulogy at McCain’s funeral.
Biden and McCain were also known for reaching across the aisle to advance good legislation when possible. McCain partnered with Democrat Russ Feingold to pass the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, and joined other Democrats to push for increased transparency in political advertising. He also worked with Democrats on immigration reform, and famously voted against the Republicans’ attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Biden was largely responsible for convincing Republican Senator Susan Collins and former Senators Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter to support the 2009 stimulus package after Obama took office.
Winning elections is about playing up favorable contrasts. If Biden accentuates how his personal relationship with McCain differed from Trump’s—and how McCain’s brand of conservatism differs from Trump’s—it may cause reluctant Trump supporters to acknowledge that Biden is simply the better human and public servant. If Biden can get voters to realize that they are choosing between one man who loved and respected McCain, in spite of their differences, and another who ridiculed McCain at every opportunity, he may be able to hang onto or even expand on the Democrats’ 2018 gains.
Some progressives will balk at the idea of Biden mentioning McCain and courting Republican voters, arguing that he needs to appease the Bernie wing of the Democratic Party instead. As Levison notes, Biden was criticized in June of 2019 after wistfully describing how he used to work civilly with conservatives, including arch-segregationist senators James O. Eastland of Mississippi and Herman Talmadge of Georgia. That criticism was valid.
Of course, Biden cannot realistically expect to work with Republicans like Mitch McConnell the same way he could with McCain and other less deceitful and duplicitous conservatives. What makes the pursuit of McCain conservatives so savvy, though, is that it need not come at the expense of a progressive platform. As Barack Obama has suggested, Democrats should not embrace a false choice between appealing to liberals versus moderate Republicans, or black voters versus white working-class voters. Biden can do all of the above.
The former vice president can still offer the most progressive platform of any major party candidate in history while running a campaign that emphasizes public service, compassion, and a willingness to work with political adversaries where possible, limited as those opportunities may be. Those values transcend party division. If Biden can expose the fault lines between die-hard Trump supporters and more principled McCain Republicans, he can lay the foundation for widespread Democratic victories in 2020—including at the very top of the ticket.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-12--Why Does the Trump Administration Keep Releasing Classified Information?

After the Trump administration stonewalled Congress on the release of any records or witnesses during the impeachment hearings , it is important to keep in mind that there is some material they are determined to make public .
Shortly after the attorney general assigned John Durham the task of investigating the Trump-Russia probe , the president announced that he had given Barr the authority to declassify any material pertaining to the investigation .
That directive came the day before Trump accused FBI officials of treason and referred to Mueller ’ s investigators as “ killers.
” Normally , it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would determine whether to release classified information .
So before Barr could proceed , the administration needed to get rid of Dan Coates , who hadn ’ t demonstrated sufficient loyalty to Trump .
With the president ’ s lackey , Richard Grenell , installed as acting DNI , the declassification process is now underway .
Last Thursday , Grenell released the transcripts of classified testimony before the House Intelligence Committee during their investigation of Russia ’ s interference in the 2016 election .
That was the same day that the Department of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges against Michael Flynn .
Thursday was a busy day .
It is also when Grenell delivered a “ satchel ” of documents to Barr at the Department of Justice .
ABC News is now reporting that they contain the names of “ former Obama administration officials who were allegedly involved in the so-called ‘ unmasking ’ of former national security adviser Michael Flynn in his conversations with the former Russian ambassador during the presidential transition.
” According to Fox News , Barr plans to release the names as early as Tuesday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a renewal of the attacks on Obama ’ s national security advisor Susan Rice .
If you remember , back in March of 2017 , shortly after Trump tweeted that the Obama administration had his “ wires tapped at Trump Tower , ” Devin Nunes went to the White House for a clandestine meeting after which , he held a press conference saying that he had seen intelligence reports that indicated Trump and his associates were included in electronic surveillance .
As it turned out , what he had seen were reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which the names of Trump campaign staff had been “ unmasked.
” Soon all of the attention about that unmasking turned into attacks on Rice .
But when the materials Nunes had seen at the White House were shared with members of the House Intelligence Committee , this is what CNN reported .
After a review of the same intelligence reports brought to light by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes , both Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides have so far found no evidence that Obama administration officials did anything unusual or illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN .
Their private assessment contradicts President Donald Trump ’ s allegations that former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice broke the law by requesting the “ unmasking ” of US individuals ’ identities .
Trump had claimed the matter was a “ massive story.
” … One congressional intelligence source described the requests made by Rice as “ normal and appropriate ” for officials who serve in that role to the president .
What is about to happen is the same thing I reported on Monday about what right-wing news outlets did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Intelligence Committee .
Grenell and Barr are selectively leaking information ( often with contradictory evidence redacted ) that allows Trump ’ s enablers to cherry-pick statements to lie about the events surrounding the Russia probe and create what they ’ re calling the “ Obamagate ” narrative .
These particular releases are a coordinated attempt to exonerate Michael Flynn and attack anyone who played a role in his prosecution .
If any of this sounds similar to what Barr did in the days before he released the Mueller report , it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is doing .
He is twisting evidence to lay the groundwork for his coming actions with regard to the Durham investigation .
Back in May 2016 , Benjamin Wittes warned us about all of this when he wrote about the fact that the least tyrant-proof part of the government is the Department of Justice .
To demonstrate , he quoted Justice Robert Jackson .
If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his case , it follows that he can choose his defendants .
Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinks he should get , rather than cases that need to be prosecuted .
With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes , a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone .
In such a case , it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it , it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some offense on him .
It is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass , or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense , that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies .
It is here that law enforcement becomes personal , and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group , being attached to the wrong political views , or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grenell , that is exactly the sword that Barr is wielding in an attempt to exonerate Trump and smear the previous administration .
The attorney general is using the Department of Justice to create a hall of mirrors and , as Peter Wehner suggested , asking us to live within Trump ’ s lies .
Those who have worked for the Department of Justice under both Republican and Democratic presidents are sounding the alarm .
For example , Mary McCord , who served as acting assistant attorney general for national security at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times titled , “ Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case .
Here ’ s the Truth.
” Former federal prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg shot down one of Barr ’ s lies by documenting “ The long list of people who thought Flynn ’ s lies were material.
” Jonathan Kravis , the federal prosecutor who resigned over Barr ’ s intervention in the sentencing of Roger Stone , wrote : In both cases [ Stone and Flynn ] , the department undercut the work of career employees to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an abdication of the commitment to equal justice under the law .
Prosecutors must make decisions based on facts and law , not on the defendant ’ s political connections .
When the department takes steps that it would never take in any other case to protect an ally of the president , it betrays this principle .
Indeed , the department chose to assign these matters to a special counsel precisely to avoid the appearance of political influence .
For the attorney general now to directly intervene to benefit the president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule of law even more egregious .
That betrayal of the rule of law is why over 2,000 Justice Department alumni ( including our own Julie Zebrak ) have signed a statement calling on Congress to hold Barr accountable .
My two cents on the matter would be that we are still in the early stages of how Barr and Grenell are planning to betray the rule of law .
They ’ ll be dropping a bucket-load of twisted lies in the coming months .

After the Trump administration stonewalled Congress on the release of any records or witnesses during the impeachment hearings, it is important to keep in mind that there is some material they are determined to make public.
Shortly after the attorney general assigned John Durham the task of investigating the Trump-Russia probe, the president announced that he had given Barr the authority to declassify any material pertaining to the investigation. That directive came the day before Trump accused FBI officials of treason and referred to Mueller’s investigators as “killers.”
Normally, it would be the director of national intelligence who would determine whether to release classified information. So before Barr could proceed, the administration needed to get rid of Dan Coates, who hadn’t demonstrated sufficient loyalty to Trump. With the president’s lackey, Richard Grenell, installed as acting DNI, the declassification process is now underway.
Last Thursday, Grenell released the transcripts of classified testimony before the House Intelligence Committee during their investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. That was the same day that the Department of Justice announced that they were dropping the charges against Michael Flynn. Thursday was a busy day. It is also when Grenell delivered a “satchel” of documents to Barr at the Department of Justice. ABC News is now reporting that they contain the names of “former Obama administration officials who were allegedly involved in the so-called ‘unmasking’ of former national security adviser Michael Flynn in his conversations with the former Russian ambassador during the presidential transition.” According to Fox News, Barr plans to release the names as early as Tuesday.
What we can expect from this news is a renewal of the attacks on Obama’s national security advisor Susan Rice. If you remember, back in March of 2017, shortly after Trump tweeted that the Obama administration had his “wires tapped at Trump Tower,” Devin Nunes went to the White House for a clandestine meeting after which, he held a press conference saying that he had seen intelligence reports that indicated Trump and his associates were included in electronic surveillance.
As it turned out, what he had seen were reports on electronic surveillance of foreign adversaries in which the names of Trump campaign staff had been “unmasked.” Soon all of the attention about that unmasking turned into attacks on Rice. But when the materials Nunes had seen at the White House were shared with members of the House Intelligence Committee, this is what CNN reported.
After a review of the same intelligence reports brought to light by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides have so far found no evidence that Obama administration officials did anything unusual or illegal, multiple sources in both parties tell CNN. Their private assessment contradicts President Donald Trump’s allegations that former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice broke the law by requesting the “unmasking” of US individuals’ identities. Trump had claimed the matter was a “massive story.”… One congressional intelligence source described the requests made by Rice as “normal and appropriate” for officials who serve in that role to the president.
What is about to happen is the same thing I reported on Monday about what right-wing news outlets did with Rice’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Grenell and Barr are selectively leaking information (often with contradictory evidence redacted) that allows Trump’s enablers to cherry-pick statements to lie about the events surrounding the Russia probe and create what they’re calling the “Obamagate” narrative. These particular releases are a coordinated attempt to exonerate Michael Flynn and attack anyone who played a role in his prosecution.
If any of this sounds similar to what Barr did in the days before he released the Mueller report, it is probably because that is exactly what he is doing. He is twisting evidence to lay the groundwork for his coming actions with regard to the Durham investigation.
Back in May 2016, Benjamin Wittes warned us about all of this when he wrote about the fact that the least tyrant-proof part of the government is the Department of Justice. To demonstrate, he quoted Justice Robert Jackson.
If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his case, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.
With an assist from Grenell, that is exactly the sword that Barr is wielding in an attempt to exonerate Trump and smear the previous administration. The attorney general is using the Department of Justice to create a hall of mirrors and, as Peter Wehner suggested, asking us to live within Trump’s lies.
Those who have worked for the Department of Justice under both Republican and Democratic presidents are sounding the alarm. For example, Mary McCord, who served as acting assistant attorney general for national security at the Justice Department wrote a piece for the New York Times titled, “Bill Barr Twisted My Words in Dropping the Flynn Case. Here’s the Truth.” Former federal prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg shot down one of Barr’s lies by documenting “The long list of people who thought Flynn’s lies were material.” Jonathan Kravis, the federal prosecutor who resigned over Barr’s intervention in the sentencing of Roger Stone, wrote:
In both cases [Stone and Flynn], the department undercut the work of career employees to protect an ally of the president, an abdication of the commitment to equal justice under the law. Prosecutors must make decisions based on facts and law, not on the defendant’s political connections. When the department takes steps that it would never take in any other case to protect an ally of the president, it betrays this principle. Indeed, the department chose to assign these matters to a special counsel precisely to avoid the appearance of political influence. For the attorney general now to directly intervene to benefit the president’s associates makes this betrayal of the rule of law even more egregious.
That betrayal of the rule of law is why over 2,000 Justice Department alumni (including our own Julie Zebrak) have signed a statement calling on Congress to hold Barr accountable.
My two cents on the matter would be that we are still in the early stages of how Barr and Grenell are planning to betray the rule of law. They’ll be dropping a bucket-load of twisted lies in the coming months.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-12--Two Special Elections That (Almost) Don’t Matter

There is a special election today in California ’ s 25th congressional district .
The vacancy occurred when freshman Democratic Congresswoman Katie Hill resigned amid revelations that she had an extramarital affair with a 22-year old staffer before being elected .
Hill ’ s seat was one of seven that the Democrats won from the Republicans in California in the 2018 midterm elections .
The 25th District was traditionally red , but Hillary Clinton won it in 2016 by seven points , and Hill defeated incumbent Steve Knight by nine points in 2018 .
There are indications that the Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
The two candidates are Democratic assemblywoman Christy Smith and Republican veteran and businessman Mike Garcia .
Most polling has been internal and private , but reports are that Garcia has had a narrow lead .
The early return of ballots also looks promising for Garcia , although FiveThirtyEight warns against making too much of that : About 118,000 ballots had been returned as of May 11 , according to Political Data , Inc , and at first blush , they bode well for Garcia — registered Republicans have cast 44.5 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , plus 20.0 percent by independents or other parties .
But these figures aren ’ t all that different from the ballots that had been returned the day before the March 3 contest , when registered Republicans had cast 45.0 percent of ballots compared to 36.6 percent by Democrats , plus 18.4 percent by others .
Yet in the first round of voting , the Democratic candidates combined to win 51 percent of the vote , while Republicans won 49 percent .
Nathan L. Gonzales of Roll Call , suggests that the stakes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a retired Navy pilot who flew combat missions in Iraq , is widely regarded as the better candidate .
Even though Smith represents more than half of the district in the Legislature , she ’ s made mistakes ( including downplaying Garcia ’ s military service in a video town hall meeting ) , while Garcia has been able to keep up in fundraising… …A Smith victory would be demoralizing for Republicans .
Even though it ’ s not the type of district Republicans have to win for a new majority , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong contrast , and the consistent lead in the polls .
To fall short now would be close to a disaster at this point .
Gonzales also points out that , should Garcia win , he will instantly become the most vulnerable Republican in the House of Representatives .
The dynamics that might help him win in May are unlikely to be present in November when he will face Smith again .
It won ’ t be as much of a challenge for the Democrats to turn out low-propensity voters with Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a sense , it may not really matter how the special election turns out .
It won ’ t change how the House operates in the short-term and a Republican victory may be temporary .
Presumably , Garcia ’ s chances of winning in November will be enhanced if he has the advantage of a few months of incumbency , but otherwise the main importance of the outcome will be in how it is perceived and how that impacts the behaviors of various political actors .
The perception will also be informed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Wisconsin ’ s 7th congressional district .
This is a traditionally blue seat that was represented by the legendary legislator David Obey for decades before his retirement in 2011 .
Trump won it by 20 points in 2016 .
If the Democrats carry it in the special election , that will create a five-alarm fire with Republican lawmakers all across the country and many will seek to distance themselves from the president .
Even a narrow win for the GOP candidate could have much the same effect .
Sometimes special elections are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next general election , but that is not always the case , as Gonzales notes : The results won ’ t necessarily help us figure out who will win in November , but they should have one of two consequences .
Either they will spook the Republicans and create a wedge between them and their president or they will give the Republicans new confidence and cause them to cling to the president more tightly than ever .

There is a special election today in California’s 25th congressional district. The vacancy occurred when freshman Democratic Congresswoman Katie Hill resigned amid revelations that she had an extramarital affair with a 22-year old staffer before being elected. Hill’s seat was one of seven that the Democrats won from the Republicans in California in the 2018 midterm elections. The 25th District was traditionally red, but Hillary Clinton won it in 2016 by seven points, and Hill defeated incumbent Steve Knight by nine points in 2018.
There are indications that the Republicans will retake the seat in the special election. The two candidates are Democratic assemblywoman Christy Smith and Republican veteran and businessman Mike Garcia. Most polling has been internal and private, but reports are that Garcia has had a narrow lead. The early return of ballots also looks promising for Garcia, although FiveThirtyEight warns against making too much of that:
About 118,000 ballots had been returned as of May 11, according to Political Data, Inc, and at first blush, they bode well for Garcia — registered Republicans have cast 44.5 percent of them versus 35.6 percent by Democrats, plus 20.0 percent by independents or other parties. But these figures aren’t all that different from the ballots that had been returned the day before the March 3 contest, when registered Republicans had cast 45.0 percent of ballots compared to 36.6 percent by Democrats, plus 18.4 percent by others. Yet in the first round of voting, the Democratic candidates combined to win 51 percent of the vote, while Republicans won 49 percent.
Nathan L. Gonzales of Roll Call, suggests that the stakes are higher for the Republicans:
Garcia, a retired Navy pilot who flew combat missions in Iraq, is widely regarded as the better candidate. Even though Smith represents more than half of the district in the Legislature, she’s made mistakes (including downplaying Garcia’s military service in a video town hall meeting), while Garcia has been able to keep up in fundraising… …A Smith victory would be demoralizing for Republicans. Even though it’s not the type of district Republicans have to win for a new majority, they have the better candidate, a strong contrast, and the consistent lead in the polls. To fall short now would be close to a disaster at this point.
Gonzales also points out that, should Garcia win, he will instantly become the most vulnerable Republican in the House of Representatives. The dynamics that might help him win in May are unlikely to be present in November when he will face Smith again. It won’t be as much of a challenge for the Democrats to turn out low-propensity voters with Trump and Biden on the ballot.
So, in a sense, it may not really matter how the special election turns out. It won’t change how the House operates in the short-term and a Republican victory may be temporary. Presumably, Garcia’s chances of winning in November will be enhanced if he has the advantage of a few months of incumbency, but otherwise the main importance of the outcome will be in how it is perceived and how that impacts the behaviors of various political actors.
The perception will also be informed by a special election being held today in Wisconsin’s 7th congressional district. This is a traditionally blue seat that was represented by the legendary legislator David Obey for decades before his retirement in 2011. Trump won it by 20 points in 2016. If the Democrats carry it in the special election, that will create a five-alarm fire with Republican lawmakers all across the country and many will seek to distance themselves from the president. Even a narrow win for the GOP candidate could have much the same effect.
Sometimes special elections are harbingers of what will come in the next general election, but that is not always the case, as Gonzales notes:
Remember Republicans won a high-profile special election in Georgia’s 6th District in 2017 and lost 40 seats (including Georgia’s 6th) the following year. Going further back, Democrats won a competitive special election in Pennsylvania’s 12th District in May 2010, six months before they lost 63 seats.
The results won’t necessarily help us figure out who will win in November, but they should have one of two consequences. Either they will spook the Republicans and create a wedge between them and their president or they will give the Republicans new confidence and cause them to cling to the president more tightly than ever.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-13--Why Aren’t More Newspapers Calling on Trump to Resign?

Much of the country seems to have grown complacent about the massive failures , criminal violations , and ubiquitous lies coming from Donald Trump .
It would be an overwhelming task to chronicle all of them , but Joe Lockhart made an attempt to highlight the most egregious .
After three years of political and actual carnage under Trump , including Robert Mueller ’ s description of acts that amounted to , he told Congress , obstruction of justice ; Trump ’ s “ fine people on both sides ” reaction to a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville where a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of interest and credible accusations of his violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution ; his close to 17,000 false statements ; a travel ban that primarily targets mostly Muslim-majority countries ; impeachment for alleged extortion of a foreign government ( he was acquitted in the Republican Senate ) , and the gross mishandling of a deadly pandemic , you ’ d think somebody on an editorial board might say it ’ s time for the President to leave .
That was part of a column by Lockhart in which he attempted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newspaper editorial boards haven ’ t called for Trump ’ s resignation .
For some historical precedent , he notes the following .
Given that both Woodward and Bernstein have said that Trump ’ s Ukraine scandal alone was worse than Watergate , it is an important question to ask .
When it comes to this president , only a handful of editorial boards called for his impeachment , while the L.A. Times stood out as the one publication that called for his removal from office .
The number calling for his resignation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a lot of media analysts who articulated a number of factors that have come into play .
One important response came from Jonathan Karl of ABC News , who said , “ perhaps it ’ s the fact that there is zero percent [ chance ] he ( Trump ) would do it [ resign ] or that any in his party would ask him to do it.
” The latter became clear when every Republican Senator except Mitt Romney voted against removing Trump from office for his attempt to extort Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lockhart ’ s question were similar to what he heard from Margaret Sullivan .
When I asked my question of Margaret Sullivan , the media columnist for the Washington Post and former public editor of the New York Times , she responded by speculating , or spit-balling , as she called it : “ It may have something to do with the knowledge that such a call would not be effective but would also deepen the rampant polarizations among citizens .
And for some , it would exacerbate the resentment of the traditional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible at this point.
” Some respondents put it more bluntly .
Kurt Bardella , a former Republican who served as the spokesman for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee , put it this way : “ Donald Trump and his right wing allies have invested so much time in creating the false narrative that the mainstream media is fake and the enemy of the people .
I think the media falls into their trap of not wanting to go down a certain path because they ’ re worried about being labeled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a similar take , saying the right wing ’ s “ working the refs ” strategy works .
But he goes further : “ You can not overlook the level of flak , push-back and general hatred that newspaper editors get from Trump supporters for anything like this… editors defy these attacks every day , but it can make you think twice.
” When Bardella says that the media is “ worried about being labeled biased or partisan , ” that begins to mirror their obsession with “ both sides do it.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that in the last couple of years , the fear of taking a moral position on the need for Trump to resign , as they ’ ve done in the past , is rooted in a concern about charges of bias from the president and his enablers .
Conservative talk radio and Fox News initially made a name for themselves by casting the entire mainstream media as consumed with a “ liberal bias.
” As a result , every issue was turned into a partisan battle , with truth being the ultimate victim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news like Crossfire .
Just as Stephen Colbert went to the White House Correspondents dinner and used humor to shame President Bush and the press , Jon Stewart went on Crossfire back in 2006 in an attempt to call out the problem .
The show was eventually cancelled , but the format remained : employ partisan commentators from both sides to fight it out in the studio and end the segment by pointing out that people simply disagree .
Donald Trump and the entire Republican Party now use that framework as a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To the extent that media organizations have failed to take a moral stand on Trump ’ s presidency for fear of being labelled partisan , they have abandoned their role as the guardians of truth .
So regardless of what the president or congressional Republicans will do in response , let me be very clear : Donald Trump should resign from office .

Much of the country seems to have grown complacent about the massive failures, criminal violations, and ubiquitous lies coming from Donald Trump. It would be an overwhelming task to chronicle all of them, but Joe Lockhart made an attempt to highlight the most egregious.
After three years of political and actual carnage under Trump, including Robert Mueller’s description of acts that amounted to, he told Congress, obstruction of justice; Trump’s “fine people on both sides” reaction to a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville where a counter-protester was killed; his rampant conflicts of interest and credible accusations of his violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution; his close to 17,000 false statements; a travel ban that primarily targets mostly Muslim-majority countries;impeachment for alleged extortion of a foreign government (he was acquitted in the Republican Senate), and the gross mishandling of a deadly pandemic, you’d think somebody on an editorial board might say it’s time for the President to leave.
That was part of a column by Lockhart in which he attempted to answer the question of why more newspaper editorial boards haven’t called for Trump’s resignation. For some historical precedent, he notes the following.
By the height of the Watergate scandal in 1974, virtually every major newspaper in America had called for President Richard Nixon’s resignation. During the investigation and impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998, more than 100 newspapers called for him to resign.
Given that both Woodward and Bernstein have said that Trump’s Ukraine scandal alone was worse than Watergate, it is an important question to ask. When it comes to this president, only a handful of editorial boards called for his impeachment, while the L.A. Times stood out as the one publication that called for his removal from office. The number calling for his resignation still stands at zero.
Lockhart talked to a lot of media analysts who articulated a number of factors that have come into play. One important response came from Jonathan Karl of ABC News, who said, “perhaps it’s the fact that there is zero percent [chance] he (Trump) would do it [resign] or that any in his party would ask him to do it.” The latter became clear when every Republican Senator except Mitt Romney voted against removing Trump from office for his attempt to extort Ukraine.
But most of the responses to Lockhart’s question were similar to what he heard from Margaret Sullivan.
When I asked my question of Margaret Sullivan, the media columnist for the Washington Post and former public editor of the New York Times, she responded by speculating, or spit-balling, as she called it: “It may have something to do with the knowledge that such a call would not be effective but would also deepen the rampant polarizations among citizens. And for some, it would exacerbate the resentment of the traditional press, if that’s even possible at this point.”
Some respondents put it more bluntly.
Kurt Bardella, a former Republican who served as the spokesman for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, put it this way: “Donald Trump and his right wing allies have invested so much time in creating the false narrative that the mainstream media is fake and the enemy of the people. I think the media falls into their trap of not wanting to go down a certain path because they’re worried about being labeled biased or partisan.” Jay Rosen has a similar take, saying the right wing’s “working the refs” strategy works. But he goes further: “You cannot overlook the level of flak, push-back and general hatred that newspaper editors get from Trump supporters for anything like this… editors defy these attacks every day, but it can make you think twice.”
When Bardella says that the media is “worried about being labeled biased or partisan,” that begins to mirror their obsession with “both sides do it.” While we’ve seen less of that in the last couple of years, the fear of taking a moral position on the need for Trump to resign, as they’ve done in the past, is rooted in a concern about charges of bias from the president and his enablers.
Conservative talk radio and Fox News initially made a name for themselves by casting the entire mainstream media as consumed with a “liberal bias.” As a result, every issue was turned into a partisan battle, with truth being the ultimate victim. That framework spawned shows on cable news like Crossfire. Just as Stephen Colbert went to the White House Correspondents dinner and used humor to shame President Bush and the press, Jon Stewart went on Crossfire back in 2006 in an attempt to call out the problem. The show was eventually cancelled, but the format remained: employ partisan commentators from both sides to fight it out in the studio and end the segment by pointing out that people simply disagree.
Donald Trump and the entire Republican Party now use that framework as a way to cower the media into compliance. To the extent that media organizations have failed to take a moral stand on Trump’s presidency for fear of being labelled partisan, they have abandoned their role as the guardians of truth.
So regardless of what the president or congressional Republicans will do in response, let me be very clear: Donald Trump should resign from office.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-13--Amid COVID-19, An Invasive Species Reaches America’s Shores

Just when you thought it was safe to go outdoors again—with face coverings , of course—news of a lethal , stinging insect could scare people back inside .
The Asian giant hornet has just shown up in our beehives and on our doorsteps .
Airlines are going bust , vacations getting canceled , and study-abroad programs marooning college kids in other countries , but that doesn ’ t mean all overseas travel has stopped .
Microscopic viruses and big , bad invasive species are still roaming the world , finding new homes on distant shores .
When it comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only reckoning .
Today ’ s novel coronavirus arrived at the end of 2019 , an unwelcome guest that snuck in—undetected—from China with infected transcontinental travelers .
Now , as we hunker down to stave off COVID-19 , the so-called “ Murder Hornet ” is the latest invasive species to make it to America , delivering psychic shock waves and deadly stings .
Big , visible foreign invaders like the hornet are easier to detect and a lot less worrisome than the invisible coronavirus microbes rapidly jumping from person-to-person .
The story of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new one .
Any modern history of the Americas recognizes the devastation brought from Europe to the New World .
Attacks did not arrive only in the form of weapons or troops , but were conducted primarily by new diseases ; especially smallpox , a hidden virus with a 12-day incubation period .
Jared Diamond , author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Guns , Germs and Steel , points out that Europeans introduced the new diseases of smallpox , measles , and flu that killed an estimated 90 percent of Native Americans—around 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowing the strongest to survive and for immunity to set in .
Antibodies developed , generations evolved , and we—the successors of those survivors—still stand .
Globalization has exposed more people to the varied diseases and pestilence that exist around the world and , in the process , helped strengthen our systems and fostered our own survival .
Microbes may make it through our Customs and immigration walls , but there are other critters and cuttings that sneak in to sully our native ecological balance .
In Florida alone , imported invasive creatures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lionfish , and fire ants while habitat is overtaken by aquatic hydrilla weeds and climbing lygodium ferns .
Globalization and urbanization may have accelerated the reach and velocity of both viral infection and the spread of invasive species , but , again , this is not a new story .
Anyone familiar with Western movies has seen shootout scenes in dusty town squares marked by the sound of desolate winds blowing iconic tumbleweed through the streets .
What can be more Western than tumbleweed ?
Russia and China gifted the first invasive species @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , only to be crowded out by a new tumbleweed coming from Australia and South Africa that has since hybridized .
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been fighting a losing war against this invader for over a century .
In some parts of the world , native species of flora and fauna face extinction because of hunting or environmental degradation .
Wild tigers , for instance , are sought for their supposed aphrodisiac qualities and resplendent hides .
Enter , ironically , Joe Exotic and his nemesis , Carole Baskin .
Together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alive in captivity than exist in the wild .
While we are now freaking out about the latest Asian import , the Murder Hornet , we can at least spend a few lockdown hours on Netflix watching “ Tiger King , ” that uniquely American story of hubris and hucksterism .
The show is now a major globalized export and a leading example of how viral American entertainment can infect the minds of the world .
Well before the Tiger King , 15th century globalization gave the Americas an opportunity to spread native @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Explorers brought back to Europe the most remarkable of agricultural products : tobacco and chocolate .
Smoking kills , of course .
Tobacco became an export that has since taken many lives and , despite its addictive qualities , was easier to avoid than the killer smallpox brought to America .
While new smokers and vapers are cropping up globally , smallpox no longer exists thanks to a worldwide vaccination program .
Smallpox , in fact , was the world ’ s first eradicated disease .
Let ’ s hope the imported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on that short list so we can all get outside—where the Murder Hornets thrive .

Just when you thought it was safe to go outdoors again—with face coverings, of course—news of a lethal, stinging insect could scare people back inside. The Asian giant hornet has just shown up in our beehives and on our doorsteps.
Airlines are going bust, vacations getting canceled, and study-abroad programs marooning college kids in other countries, but that doesn’t mean all overseas travel has stopped. Microscopic viruses and big, bad invasive species are still roaming the world, finding new homes on distant shores.
When it comes to nature, there is no justice, only reckoning.
Today’s novel coronavirus arrived at the end of 2019, an unwelcome guest that snuck in—undetected—from China with infected transcontinental travelers. Now, as we hunker down to stave off COVID-19, the so-called “Murder Hornet” is the latest invasive species to make it to America, delivering psychic shock waves and deadly stings. Big, visible foreign invaders like the hornet are easier to detect and a lot less worrisome than the invisible coronavirus microbes rapidly jumping from person-to-person.
The story of the traveling deadly virus is not a new one. Any modern history of the Americas recognizes the devastation brought from Europe to the New World. Attacks did not arrive only in the form of weapons or troops, but were conducted primarily by new diseases; especially smallpox, a hidden virus with a 12-day incubation period. Jared Diamond, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Guns, Germs and Steel, points out that Europeans introduced the new diseases of smallpox, measles, and flu that killed an estimated 90 percent of Native Americans—around 20 million people.
Darwinism kicked in, allowing the strongest to survive and for immunity to set in. Antibodies developed, generations evolved, and we—the successors of those survivors—still stand. Globalization has exposed more people to the varied diseases and pestilence that exist around the world and, in the process, helped strengthen our systems and fostered our own survival.
Microbes may make it through our Customs and immigration walls, but there are other critters and cuttings that sneak in to sully our native ecological balance. In Florida alone, imported invasive creatures include feral hogs, Burmese pythons, lionfish, and fire ants while habitat is overtaken by aquatic hydrilla weeds and climbing lygodium ferns.
Globalization and urbanization may have accelerated the reach and velocity of both viral infection and the spread of invasive species, but, again, this is not a new story.
Anyone familiar with Western movies has seen shootout scenes in dusty town squares marked by the sound of desolate winds blowing iconic tumbleweed through the streets. What can be more Western than tumbleweed? Russia and China gifted the first invasive species of tumbleweed to the Americas around 1877, only to be crowded out by a new tumbleweed coming from Australia and South Africa that has since hybridized. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been fighting a losing war against this invader for over a century.
In some parts of the world, native species of flora and fauna face extinction because of hunting or environmental degradation. Wild tigers, for instance, are sought for their supposed aphrodisiac qualities and resplendent hides. Enter, ironically, Joe Exotic and his nemesis, Carole Baskin. Together they and their ilk have more tigers alive in captivity than exist in the wild.
While we are now freaking out about the latest Asian import, the Murder Hornet, we can at least spend a few lockdown hours on Netflix watching “Tiger King,” that uniquely American story of hubris and hucksterism. The show is now a major globalized export and a leading example of how viral American entertainment can infect the minds of the world.
Well before the Tiger King, 15th century globalization gave the Americas an opportunity to spread native joys and stimulants to the Old World. Explorers brought back to Europe the most remarkable of agricultural products: tobacco and chocolate.
Smoking kills, of course. Tobacco became an export that has since taken many lives and, despite its addictive qualities, was easier to avoid than the killer smallpox brought to America.
While new smokers and vapers are cropping up globally, smallpox no longer exists thanks to a worldwide vaccination program. Smallpox, in fact, was the world’s first eradicated disease. Let’s hope the imported COVID-19 virus is soon No. 2 on that short list so we can all get outside—where the Murder Hornets thrive.