washingtonmonthly--2020-09-13--As The West Burns, Trump Appoints a Climate Science Denier to NOAA

The catastrophic consequences of climate change are already making themselves felt all over the world .
But nowhere is it more obvious today than in the American west , where unprecedented wildfires are raging , billowing plumes of smoke , turning the skies orange and forcing those without air conditioning or suffering from power blackouts to choose between breathing unsafe air or enduring stifling heat indoors .
The scenes are almost apocalyptic : And yes , Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding , the intensity and severity of the fires is directly attributable to the climate crisis : “ This shouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Michael Gerrard , director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University .
“ Maybe we underestimated the magnitude and speed ” at which these events would occur , he said , but “ we ’ ve seen this long freight train barreling down on us for decades , and now the locomotive is on top of us , with no caboose in sight.
” In a matter of weeks , California has experienced six of the 20 largest wildfires in modern history and toppled all-time temperature records @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Millions are suffering from some of the worst air quality in years due to heat-triggered smog and fire smoke .
A sooty plume has blanketed most of the West Coast , blotting out the sun and threatening people ’ s lungs during a deadly pandemic… “ What we ’ ve been seeing in California are some of the clearest events where we can say this is climate change — that climate change has clearly made this worse , ” said Zeke Hausfather , a climate scientist at the Breakthrough Institute , an Oakland-based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lived in California for 30 , 40 years are saying this is unprecedented , it has never been this hot , it has never been this smoky in all the years I ’ ve lived here.
” The impacts of the climate crisis are also being felt on the east coast in many forms , including record heat waves , snowfalls , and especially hurricanes , doubling the number of storms in a given year : As a result of climate change , which has raised global average temperatures around 1° Celsius , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forecasts .
A warmer-than-normal Atlantic combined with decreased wind shear across the basin has created consensus that there will be more storms… How would those tallies for 2020 stack up against an average season ?
It would be like undergoing two complete seasons in a single year .
The 30-year average is for 12 storms to be named in a single six-month Atlantic season .
And then , of course , there ’ s the global impact in terms of refugees , resource shortages , species devastation , fishery destruction , sea level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the immediate crises on healthcare , policing , the pandemic and the economy , climate change remains the most pressing issue facing humanity as a whole .
Whatever the cost and disruption of a Green New Deal may be , it would almost certainly be orders of magnitude less costly and disruptive than the consequences of failure to act .
The consequences of climate change are consistently coming at us faster and harder than even the extreme edge models predict .
On the current track , we are headed to a future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but likely catasrophe for human civilization itself .
Which makes it entirely unsurprising that Donald Trump continues not only to do nothing about the issue , but to actively misinform the public and make matters worse .
Most recently he named one of the world ’ s most prominent climate science deniers to a key position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration , commonly known at the NOAA : David Legates , a University of Delaware professor of climatology who has spent much of his career questioning basic tenets of climate science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration .
Legates confirmed to NPR that he was recently hired as NOAA ’ s deputy assistant secretary of commerce for observation and prediction .
The position suggests that he reports directly to Neil Jacobs , the acting head of the agency that is in charge of the federal government ’ s sprawling weather and climate prediction work .
Legates is an academic best known for promulgated discredited theories that the sun is to blame for climate change , and for stating that loss of polar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human causes .
He is also known for his work with Koch-funded studies to minimize climate change predictions and for his affiliation with the far-right Heartland Institute : Legates has a long history of using his position as an academic scientist to publicly cast doubt on climate science .
His appointment to NOAA comes as Americans face profound threats stoked by climate change , from the vast , deadly wildfires in the West to an unusually active hurricane season in the South and East… Legates is a professor in the Department of Geography @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Delaware .
He is also affiliated with the Heartland Institute , a think tank that has poured money into convincing Americans that climate change is not happening and that the scientific evidence — including evidence published by the agency that now employs Legates — is uncertain or untrustworthy .
The purpose of appointing him to NOAA is almost certainly to meddle and interfere with NOAA ’ s climate science predictions , at a time when accurate predictions will be more crucial than ever in driving the sort of transformative policies that will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s just one more way in which Trump and the conservative movement are sowing chaos , hurting people and the environment , and making it harder to pull the country back from the brink .

The catastrophic consequences of climate change are already making themselves felt all over the world. But nowhere is it more obvious today than in the American west, where unprecedented wildfires are raging, billowing plumes of smoke, turning the skies orange and forcing those without air conditioning or suffering from power blackouts to choose between breathing unsafe air or enduring stifling heat indoors. The scenes are almost apocalyptic:
More than 3.1 million acres have burned in California this year, part of a record fire season that still has four months to go. A suffocating cloud of smoke has veiled the West Coast for days, extending more than a thousand miles above the Pacific. And the extreme fire behavior that’s been witnessed this year hasn’t just been wild — it’s virtually unprecedented in scope and scale. Fire tornadoes have spun up by the handful in at least three big wildfires in the past three weeks, based on radar data. Giant clouds of ash and smoke have generated lightning. Multiple fires have gone from a few acres to more than 100,000 acres in size in a day, while advancing as many as 25 miles in a single night. And wildfire plumes have soared up to 10 miles high, above the cruising altitude of commercial jets.
And yes, Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding, the intensity and severity of the fires is directly attributable to the climate crisis:
“This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. “Maybe we underestimated the magnitude and speed” at which these events would occur, he said, but “we’ve seen this long freight train barreling down on us for decades, and now the locomotive is on top of us, with no caboose in sight.” In a matter of weeks, California has experienced six of the 20 largest wildfires in modern history and toppled all-time temperature records from the desert to the coast. Millions are suffering from some of the worst air quality in years due to heat-triggered smog and fire smoke. A sooty plume has blanketed most of the West Coast, blotting out the sun and threatening people’s lungs during a deadly pandemic… “What we’ve been seeing in California are some of the clearest events where we can say this is climate change — that climate change has clearly made this worse,” said Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at the Breakthrough Institute, an Oakland-based think tank. “People who have lived in California for 30, 40 years are saying this is unprecedented, it has never been this hot, it has never been this smoky in all the years I’ve lived here.”
The impacts of the climate crisis are also being felt on the east coast in many forms, including record heat waves, snowfalls, and especially hurricanes, doubling the number of storms in a given year:
As a result of climate change, which has raised global average temperatures around 1° Celsius, meteorologists have been warily updating their seasonal forecasts. A warmer-than-normal Atlantic combined with decreased wind shear across the basin has created consensus that there will be more storms… How would those tallies for 2020 stack up against an average season? It would be like undergoing two complete seasons in a single year. The 30-year average is for 12 storms to be named in a single six-month Atlantic season.
And then, of course, there’s the global impact in terms of refugees, resource shortages, species devastation, fishery destruction, sea level rise and so much else. For all the immediate crises on healthcare, policing, the pandemic and the economy, climate change remains the most pressing issue facing humanity as a whole. Whatever the cost and disruption of a Green New Deal may be, it would almost certainly be orders of magnitude less costly and disruptive than the consequences of failure to act. The consequences of climate change are consistently coming at us faster and harder than even the extreme edge models predict. On the current track, we are headed to a future not just of discomfort and disruption, but likely catasrophe for human civilization itself.
Which makes it entirely unsurprising that Donald Trump continues not only to do nothing about the issue, but to actively misinform the public and make matters worse. Most recently he named one of the world’s most prominent climate science deniers to a key position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, commonly known at the NOAA:
David Legates, a University of Delaware professor of climatology who has spent much of his career questioning basic tenets of climate science, has been hired for a top position at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Legates confirmed to NPR that he was recently hired as NOAA’s deputy assistant secretary of commerce for observation and prediction. The position suggests that he reports directly to Neil Jacobs, the acting head of the agency that is in charge of the federal government’s sprawling weather and climate prediction work.
Legates is an academic best known for promulgated discredited theories that the sun is to blame for climate change, and for stating that loss of polar bear ice habitats were not attributable to human causes. He is also known for his work with Koch-funded studies to minimize climate change predictions and for his affiliation with the far-right Heartland Institute:
Legates has a long history of using his position as an academic scientist to publicly cast doubt on climate science. His appointment to NOAA comes as Americans face profound threats stoked by climate change, from the vast, deadly wildfires in the West to an unusually active hurricane season in the South and East… Legates is a professor in the Department of Geography and Spatial Sciences at the University of Delaware. He is also affiliated with the Heartland Institute, a think tank that has poured money into convincing Americans that climate change is not happening and that the scientific evidence — including evidence published by the agency that now employs Legates — is uncertain or untrustworthy.
The purpose of appointing him to NOAA is almost certainly to meddle and interfere with NOAA’s climate science predictions, at a time when accurate predictions will be more crucial than ever in driving the sort of transformative policies that will be needed to stave off total devastation.
It’s just one more way in which Trump and the conservative movement are sowing chaos, hurting people and the environment, and making it harder to pull the country back from the brink.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-14--Milking Profits: The Dairy Monopolies That Are Hurting Farmers

Earlier this summer , the Justice Department filed a legal brief to support Northeastern dairy farmers .
More than 115 farmers are suing mammoth milk processor Dairy Farmers of America ( DFA ) for conspiring to hold down milk prices .
The farmers argue that DFA violated antitrust laws by colluding with other milk buyers and striking exclusive deals with processors .
The sad irony is that many of these farmers are owners of DFA , which isn ’ t a publicly traded agribusiness giant but rather a cooperative .
And there ’ s the problem .
Cooperatives are meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to corporations .
Farmers have long used cooperatives to join forces and bargain with dominant agribusiness .
Instead of selling their milk solo to Big Butter , Inc. farmers can form a cooperative that helps market their products to larger buyers or even build a farmer-owned butter factory .
The problem is some cooperatives have started to resemble the giant agricultural businesses they were meant to reign in .
Under pressure to get big or get out , co-ops such as DFA have developed perverse incentives to squeeze their own members .
Growing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to farmer-owners .
The dairy showdown has lessons for us all no matter where we work .
The struggles of family farmers to build power together against giant agribusinesses parallel the struggles of Uber drivers and third-party vendors on Amazon to organize and bargain collectively .
Ensuring healthy cooperative governance is critical for all independent contractors , workers , and small business owners who need rights to cooperate with one another in increasingly monopolized markets .
Together , greater antitrust enforcement and healthy cooperative enterprise have massive potential to lessen structural inequalities and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just short-term profits for investors .
A recent report by the Open Markets Institute , an anti-monopoly think tank where I work , argues that proper antitrust enforcement is critical to both level the playing field for cooperatives and to rein in cooperatives that no longer serve their members .
By arguing that DFA ’ s exclusionary conduct and buyer power over dairy farmers could violate antitrust laws , the DOJ ’ s recent brief marks a step in the right direction .
But bolder action is needed .
To truly rebalance power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serve their members ’ interests lawmakers and antitrust enforcers need to break up dominant agribusinesses and institute stronger guidelines ensuring healthy , democratic cooperative governance .
Cooperatives were a cornerstone of early anti-monopoly movements in the late 19th century .
At the same time that farmers in the Populist and Progressive eras pushed hard for anti-monopoly laws to break up the power of railroad , granary , and meatpacker cartels , they also promoted cooperatives to build power among farmers .
Unions and farmers organizations such as the Knights of Labor and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a democratic alternative to replace exploitative financier-run firms .
Much to their dismay , the very antitrust legislation that reformers helped pass initially hindered this burgeoning co-op movement .
Rather than take on big business , early enforcers used the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 to break up labor unions and farmer co-ops .
In 1895 , for example , Chicago-area milk distributors successfully sued a local dairy co-op by arguing that the co-op ’ s insistence on an exclusive contract was an illegal restraint of trade under state antitrust law .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1922 Capper-Volstead Act to protect economic coordination within agricultural cooperatives .
The law largely protects cooperatives from antitrust scrutiny .
Unfortunately , farmers and lawmakers did not foresee cooperatives growing to mimic monopolists .
The number of agriculture cooperatives grew through the 1960s until policy changes began to consolidate the agricultural economy around them .
Free-market ideology overtook antitrust enforcement in the 1970s and ‘ 80s , and a flurry of agricultural mergers prompted consolidation among cooperatives as well .
As DFA states in its official business history , “ as milk processors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in scope , it was clear that the regional structure of the traditional cooperative couldn ’ t keep up.
” The number of cooperatives dropped from 6,445 in 1979 to only 2,186 in 2014 , largely due to mergers and buyouts .
DFA , for instance , merged with regional co-ops to become a dominant raw milk buyer – and sometimes the only buyer – in many local markets .
The co-op also moved beyond just negotiating better milk trucking terms or selling milk to major dairy processors , such as Kraft or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ milk trucks and processing plants to ship and bottle their own milk or make their own cheese .
As dairy processing became a larger part of their business , DFA managers developed a perverse incentive to pay less for members ’ milk in order to maximize processing profits .
DFA does not share these profits with farmers and instead pads its managers ’ and executives ’ pockets while dairy farms go out of business at a historic clip .
As the nominal owners of DFA , farmers should be able to have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by electing board members or voting on major business decisions .
But DFA members complain that the co-op is not sufficiently transparent in its decision-making and that board members , each elected by different regions , hold too much decision-making power compared to farmer members .
As a result , some DFA members felt they had no other recourse but to sue their own cooperative for conspiracies to fix prices , resulting in two multi-million-dollar settlements .
The most recent case , a spinoff from farmers who opted out of one of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ district court jury trial in September .
The plaintiff farmers allege that DFA and other cooperatives agreed to not poach each other ’ s members and shared how much they were paying farmers for their milk , limiting competition and holding down prices .
They also allege that DFA entered into exclusive supply agreements with major processors such as Dean Foods and Chobani that guaranteed low milk prices for processors and forced farmers to work with DFA in order to access these major markets .
The DOJ weighed in on the side of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exemptions of Capper-Volstead do not function as a “ shield insulating monopsonies from the antitrust laws.
” In order to maintain its Capper-Volstead protections , the DOJ says that DFA must prove that its collusion and exclusionary conduct benefited farmers .
While this brief is a step in the right direction , it may not make up for the fact that this same DOJ recently approved DFA ’ s acquisition of dominant dairy processor Dean Foods , which sells 12 % of all fluid milk in the U.S. Unsurprisingly , DFA also struck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supplier for Dean Foods in exchange for locking in low milk prices for Dean , harming farmer members .
Rolling Dean ’ s plants into DFA makes these illegal arrangements perfectly legal as internal business coordination .
Truly reforming cooperatives requires a broader anti-monopoly approach , as the Open Markets Institute ’ s report argues .
First , we need renewed antitrust enforcement to break up big processors and retailers that pressure cooperatives to expand into similar monopolies .
Second , we need greater scrutiny of cooperative mergers , to avoid dangerous concentrations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes skepticism of deals that allow dominant co-ops to vertically integrate into processing .
And any cooperative that does not demonstrably benefit its members should not receive Capper-Volstead protection from antitrust action .
Most critically , we need to restore the democratic promise of cooperatives so that farmers once again have a say in co-op decision-making .
This includes promoting federated cooperative structures where some national scale is necessary ; mandating one-member , one-vote systems ; regular board elections ; and limiting cooperative membership to bonafide farmers directly involved in food production ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or board members to raise capital ) .
Management must also share more information with farmer members , and the largest co-ops should be held to the same information reporting standards as publicly held corporations are , including executive compensation disclosure .
Finally , Congress and the USDA need to rebuild federal cooperative research , education , and technical assistance programs .
At its peak in the 1960s , the USDA had more than 100 employees supporting the cooperative movement through training and technical assistance that helped farmers form and manage cooperatives .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ground and empower coop members to develop healthy governance structures that prevent a managerial takeover .
But as of this writing , the USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service directory lists only four staff members dedicated to cooperative services , and a 2018 letter from the agriculture secretary proposes transfers that would further shrink federal cooperatives services .
Congress should also appropriate more public financing opportunities , modeled after the National Rural Electric Cooperative Finance Corporation , to provide capital for the creation of new co-ops and to help established co-ops stay afloat in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Limited access to financing pushes cooperatives to take on investor members and resemble true corporations .
In the 19th Century , the Knights of Labor ’ s vision to replace short-term profit-oriented corporations with farmer- or worker-owned cooperatives was transformative .
In the 21st Century , we need bold federal policy that ensures cooperatives live up to their democratic ideals .

Earlier this summer, the Justice Department filed a legal brief to support Northeastern dairy farmers. More than 115 farmers are suing mammoth milk processor Dairy Farmers of America (DFA) for conspiring to hold down milk prices. The farmers argue that DFA violated antitrust laws by colluding with other milk buyers and striking exclusive deals with processors. The sad irony is that many of these farmers are owners of DFA, which isn’t a publicly traded agribusiness giant but rather a cooperative.
And there’s the problem. Cooperatives are meant to be a democratic and producer-owned alternative to corporations. Farmers have long used cooperatives to join forces and bargain with dominant agribusiness. Instead of selling their milk solo to Big Butter, Inc. farmers can form a cooperative that helps market their products to larger buyers or even build a farmer-owned butter factory.
The problem is some cooperatives have started to resemble the giant agricultural businesses they were meant to reign in. Under pressure to get big or get out, co-ops such as DFA have developed perverse incentives to squeeze their own members. Growing business hierarchies make cooperative managers less accountable to farmer-owners.
The dairy showdown has lessons for us all no matter where we work. The struggles of family farmers to build power together against giant agribusinesses parallel the struggles of Uber drivers and third-party vendors on Amazon to organize and bargain collectively. Ensuring healthy cooperative governance is critical for all independent contractors, workers, and small business owners who need rights to cooperate with one another in increasingly monopolized markets. Together, greater antitrust enforcement and healthy cooperative enterprise have massive potential to lessen structural inequalities and build an economy based on more than just short-term profits for investors.
A recent report by the Open Markets Institute, an anti-monopoly think tank where I work, argues that proper antitrust enforcement is critical to both level the playing field for cooperatives and to rein in cooperatives that no longer serve their members. By arguing that DFA’s exclusionary conduct and buyer power over dairy farmers could violate antitrust laws, the DOJ’s recent brief marks a step in the right direction.
But bolder action is needed. To truly rebalance power in agricultural markets and ensure that co-ops serve their members’ interests lawmakers and antitrust enforcers need to break up dominant agribusinesses and institute stronger guidelines ensuring healthy, democratic cooperative governance.
Cooperatives were a cornerstone of early anti-monopoly movements in the late 19th century. At the same time that farmers in the Populist and Progressive eras pushed hard for anti-monopoly laws to break up the power of railroad, granary, and meatpacker cartels, they also promoted cooperatives to build power among farmers. Unions and farmers organizations such as the Knights of Labor and the Farmers Alliance promoted farmer-and worker-owned cooperatives as a democratic alternative to replace exploitative financier-run firms.
Much to their dismay, the very antitrust legislation that reformers helped pass initially hindered this burgeoning co-op movement. Rather than take on big business, early enforcers used the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 to break up labor unions and farmer co-ops. In 1895, for example, Chicago-area milk distributors successfully sued a local dairy co-op by arguing that the co-op’s insistence on an exclusive contract was an illegal restraint of trade under state antitrust law.
In response, farmers helped push through the 1922 Capper-Volstead Act to protect economic coordination within agricultural cooperatives. The law largely protects cooperatives from antitrust scrutiny. Unfortunately, farmers and lawmakers did not foresee cooperatives growing to mimic monopolists.
The number of agriculture cooperatives grew through the 1960s until policy changes began to consolidate the agricultural economy around them. Free-market ideology overtook antitrust enforcement in the 1970s and ‘80s, and a flurry of agricultural mergers prompted consolidation among cooperatives as well. As DFA states in its official business history, “as milk processors and grocers grew larger and more national in scope, it was clear that the regional structure of the traditional cooperative couldn’t keep up.” The number of cooperatives dropped from 6,445 in 1979 to only 2,186 in 2014, largely due to mergers and buyouts.
DFA, for instance, merged with regional co-ops to become a dominant raw milk buyer – and sometimes the only buyer – in many local markets. The co-op also moved beyond just negotiating better milk trucking terms or selling milk to major dairy processors, such as Kraft or Chobani, by investing in their own milk trucks and processing plants to ship and bottle their own milk or make their own cheese. As dairy processing became a larger part of their business, DFA managers developed a perverse incentive to pay less for members’ milk in order to maximize processing profits. DFA does not share these profits with farmers and instead pads its managers’ and executives’ pockets while dairy farms go out of business at a historic clip.
As the nominal owners of DFA, farmers should be able to have a voice in the direction of their cooperative by electing board members or voting on major business decisions. But DFA members complain that the co-op is not sufficiently transparent in its decision-making and that board members, each elected by different regions, hold too much decision-making power compared to farmer members.
As a result, some DFA members felt they had no other recourse but to sue their own cooperative for conspiracies to fix prices, resulting in two multi-million-dollar settlements. The most recent case, a spinoff from farmers who opted out of one of these settlements, is set for a federal district court jury trial in September. The plaintiff farmers allege that DFA and other cooperatives agreed to not poach each other’s members and shared how much they were paying farmers for their milk, limiting competition and holding down prices. They also allege that DFA entered into exclusive supply agreements with major processors such as Dean Foods and Chobani that guaranteed low milk prices for processors and forced farmers to work with DFA in order to access these major markets.
The DOJ weighed in on the side of farmers and critically argued that the antitrust exemptions of Capper-Volstead do not function as a “shield insulating monopsonies from the antitrust laws.” In order to maintain its Capper-Volstead protections, the DOJ says that DFA must prove that its collusion and exclusionary conduct benefited farmers.
While this brief is a step in the right direction, it may not make up for the fact that this same DOJ recently approved DFA’s acquisition of dominant dairy processor Dean Foods, which sells 12% of all fluid milk in the U.S. Unsurprisingly, DFA also struck exclusive deals to become the only milk supplier for Dean Foods in exchange for locking in low milk prices for Dean, harming farmer members. Rolling Dean’s plants into DFA makes these illegal arrangements perfectly legal as internal business coordination.
Truly reforming cooperatives requires a broader anti-monopoly approach, as the Open Markets Institute’s report argues. First, we need renewed antitrust enforcement to break up big processors and retailers that pressure cooperatives to expand into similar monopolies. Second, we need greater scrutiny of cooperative mergers, to avoid dangerous concentrations of buying power in cooperatives. This includes skepticism of deals that allow dominant co-ops to vertically integrate into processing. And any cooperative that does not demonstrably benefit its members should not receive Capper-Volstead protection from antitrust action.
Most critically, we need to restore the democratic promise of cooperatives so that farmers once again have a say in co-op decision-making. This includes promoting federated cooperative structures where some national scale is necessary; mandating one-member, one-vote systems; regular board elections; and limiting cooperative membership to bonafide farmers directly involved in food production (some cooperatives take on non-patron investor members or board members to raise capital). Management must also share more information with farmer members, and the largest co-ops should be held to the same information reporting standards as publicly held corporations are, including executive compensation disclosure.
Finally, Congress and the USDA need to rebuild federal cooperative research, education, and technical assistance programs. At its peak in the 1960s, the USDA had more than 100 employees supporting the cooperative movement through training and technical assistance that helped farmers form and manage cooperatives. This assistance can help co-ops get off the ground and empower coop members to develop healthy governance structures that prevent a managerial takeover. But as of this writing, the USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service directory lists only four staff members dedicated to cooperative services, and a 2018 letter from the agriculture secretary proposes transfers that would further shrink federal cooperatives services.
Congress should also appropriate more public financing opportunities, modeled after the National Rural Electric Cooperative Finance Corporation, to provide capital for the creation of new co-ops and to help established co-ops stay afloat in economic crises such as the ongoing pandemic. Limited access to financing pushes cooperatives to take on investor members and resemble true corporations.
In the 19th Century, the Knights of Labor’s vision to replace short-term profit-oriented corporations with farmer- or worker-owned cooperatives was transformative. In the 21st Century, we need bold federal policy that ensures cooperatives live up to their democratic ideals.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-14--After Trump, How Do We Save Democracy?

After Trump, How Do We Save Democracy?

Over the weekend , David Atkins wrote a piece titled , “ To Save Democracy , Democrats Must Hold Trump Officials Accountable.
” He ended by noting that “ people have to go to jail for what has happened , or there probably won ’ t be a democracy worth saving for long.
” Reaching a similar conclusion , Jonathan Chait has a piece in the latest edition of New York Magazine titled , “ Lock Him Up ?
For the Republic to survive Trump ’ s presidency , he must be tried for his crimes .
Even if that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Trump ’ s reversals of Obama-era police reforms and his open contempt for the law send a signal about whom the law constrains and whom it protects .
The fashioning of a more equal society means sending a different message : The rule of law must bind everyone , just as it protects everyone .
A world where the power of the state can be brought to bear against a person who was once its most famous symbol of wealth is one where every American will more easily imagine a future in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law .
Even with that conclusion , Chait raises important considerations .
One of them is that , along with everything else , Trump has politicized crime .
As Chait suggests , “ crimes has ceased to denote violations of written law and become instead a catchall description for any anti-Trump activity.
” That provides the kind of closure mechanism the president ’ s supporters use to not only wall themselves off from facts , but reinforces the narrative of Trump being the victim of lawbreakers out to get him .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fact that approximately 40 percent of the population will view prosecution of Trump and members of his administration as political payback from the opposition , regardless of its grounding in evidence .
That leads to the major dilemma Chait outlined .
The prospect of an electorally defeated Trump , though glorious , would immediately set off a conflict between two fundamental democratic values : the rule of law and mutual toleration .
The rule of law is a banal yet utterly foundational concept that the law is a set of rights and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apply equally to everybody… Mutual toleration means that political opponents must accept the legitimacy and legality of their opponents .
If elected leaders can send their opponents to prison and otherwise discredit them , then leaders are afraid to relinquish power lest they be imprisoned themselves… If the government is run by lawbreakers , though , the state faces a dilemma : Either the principle of equal treatment under the law or the tradition of a peaceful transition of power will be sacrificed .
It ’ s hard to imagine any outcome under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unscathed .
This president ’ s criminality means that we will be forced to choose between two foundational principles of democracy : the rule of law or mutual toleration .
Chait makes the case that protecting the rule of law is more important , recognizing the threat that poses to a peaceful transition of power .
What I appreciate about Chait ’ s analysis is that he takes what would otherwise be the unintended consequences of his position into consideration .
Those are the kinds of difficult choices that , more often than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with clear options of right vs wrong or good vs evil .
But given that both Atkins and Chait frame their arguments in terms of what will be required to save democracy , it is important to also recognize that , should Biden win in November , prosecuting Trump and members of his administration will be necessary , but not sufficient to complete the task .
Many of the ways that Trump has corrupted our democracy don ’ t constitute crimes that can be prosecuted in court .
Some of those could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws , such as requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns and a more complete requirement for divestment from business interests .
Others , however , involved the breaking of norms that have developed over decades and don ’ t lend themselves to legal remedies .
As an example , one of the major contributors to the erosion of the rule of law is the breakdown of independence between the president and the attorney general .
Even cases that could be prosecuted have been covered up by Bill Barr , such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Mueller investigation .
It becomes difficult to imagine how that wall can be constructed via legislation , and yet the way that expectation has been destroyed over the last few years threatens the rule of law even more profoundly than it would be if Trump isn ’ t prosecuted after leaving office .
When the attorney general turns a blind eye to a president who violates the Constitution , this country is in serious jeopardy .
Of course , we might not even be having this discussion if Republican senators hadn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was produced during the impeachment trial .
Having a major political party that is willing to embrace lawlessness in order to stay in power is perhaps the biggest threat to democracy that we face today .
There is no easy remedy to that one .
The rather pessimistic conclusion therefore , is that , even if Biden wins and the Trump administration is held legally accountable , our democracy will remain imperiled .
It always has been .
It ’ s just that we can now see how .

Over the weekend, David Atkins wrote a piece titled, “To Save Democracy, Democrats Must Hold Trump Officials Accountable.” He ended by noting that “people have to go to jail for what has happened, or there probably won’t be a democracy worth saving for long.”
Reaching a similar conclusion, Jonathan Chait has a piece in the latest edition of New York Magazine titled, “Lock Him Up? For the Republic to survive Trump’s presidency, he must be tried for his crimes. Even if that sparks a constitutional crisis of its own.”
Trump’s reversals of Obama-era police reforms and his open contempt for the law send a signal about whom the law constrains and whom it protects. The fashioning of a more equal society means sending a different message: The rule of law must bind everyone, just as it protects everyone. A world where the power of the state can be brought to bear against a person who was once its most famous symbol of wealth is one where every American will more easily imagine a future in which we are all truly equal before the law.
Even with that conclusion, Chait raises important considerations. One of them is that, along with everything else, Trump has politicized crime. As Chait suggests, “crimes has ceased to denote violations of written law and become instead a catchall description for any anti-Trump activity.” That provides the kind of closure mechanism the president’s supporters use to not only wall themselves off from facts, but reinforces the narrative of Trump being the victim of lawbreakers out to get him. It must, therefore, be taken as a fact that approximately 40 percent of the population will view prosecution of Trump and members of his administration as political payback from the opposition, regardless of its grounding in evidence.
That leads to the major dilemma Chait outlined.
The prospect of an electorally defeated Trump, though glorious, would immediately set off a conflict between two fundamental democratic values: the rule of law and mutual toleration. The rule of law is a banal yet utterly foundational concept that the law is a set of rights and obligations, established in advance, that apply equally to everybody… Mutual toleration means that political opponents must accept the legitimacy and legality of their opponents. If elected leaders can send their opponents to prison and otherwise discredit them, then leaders are afraid to relinquish power lest they be imprisoned themselves… If the government is run by lawbreakers, though, the state faces a dilemma: Either the principle of equal treatment under the law or the tradition of a peaceful transition of power will be sacrificed. It’s hard to imagine any outcome under which the rule of law survives Trump unscathed.
This president’s criminality means that we will be forced to choose between two foundational principles of democracy: the rule of law or mutual toleration. Chait makes the case that protecting the rule of law is more important, recognizing the threat that poses to a peaceful transition of power.
What I appreciate about Chait’s analysis is that he takes what would otherwise be the unintended consequences of his position into consideration. Those are the kinds of difficult choices that, more often than not, don’t present us with clear options of right vs wrong or good vs evil.
But given that both Atkins and Chait frame their arguments in terms of what will be required to save democracy, it is important to also recognize that, should Biden win in November, prosecuting Trump and members of his administration will be necessary, but not sufficient to complete the task.
Many of the ways that Trump has corrupted our democracy don’t constitute crimes that can be prosecuted in court. Some of those could be addressed for the future by passing new laws, such as requiring presidential candidates to release their tax returns and a more complete requirement for divestment from business interests.
Others, however, involved the breaking of norms that have developed over decades and don’t lend themselves to legal remedies. As an example, one of the major contributors to the erosion of the rule of law is the breakdown of independence between the president and the attorney general. Even cases that could be prosecuted have been covered up by Bill Barr, such as Trump’s obstruction of justice in the Mueller investigation.
It becomes difficult to imagine how that wall can be constructed via legislation, and yet the way that expectation has been destroyed over the last few years threatens the rule of law even more profoundly than it would be if Trump isn’t prosecuted after leaving office. When the attorney general turns a blind eye to a president who violates the Constitution, this country is in serious jeopardy.
Of course, we might not even be having this discussion if Republican senators hadn’t dismissed the evidence against Trump that was produced during the impeachment trial. Having a major political party that is willing to embrace lawlessness in order to stay in power is perhaps the biggest threat to democracy that we face today. There is no easy remedy to that one.
The rather pessimistic conclusion therefore, is that, even if Biden wins and the Trump administration is held legally accountable, our democracy will remain imperiled. It always has been. It’s just that we can now see how.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-14--Trump Gets More Extreme Because His Audience Is Addicted to Outrage

I remember when the FOX broadcast network was new and only had two hours of primetime television .
They made a name for themselves by winning the right to broadcast NFL football games , which forced millions to find their number on the dial .
People fell in love with The Simpsons , but they also discovered a new kind of lowest common denominator programming .
The success of Married…With Children was heavily bolstered by the publicity it received from a boycott against its crude and tasteless content .
Soon , all previous standards of what was appropriate for broadcast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arms race to provide the most outrageous material .
Cheap laughs were no longer the goal of sitcom television , but rather titillation and outrage were subject to the same rules as drugs and alcohol .
You need more and more to get the same effect .
Before long , though , viewers could get a better high off cable programming where there were no restrictions on foul language .
That ’ s when reality television entered the picture and quickly replaced the sitcom as the most popular genre of primetime network programming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only Trump ’ s presidency but also his behavior .
His supporters are addicted to the thrill they get when he breaks the rules of decorum .
But Trump can ’ t stick with the same old material and deliver the same effect .
He constantly has to up the ante .
That ’ s how “ Mexico will pay for the wall ” becomes “ lock her up ” becomes “ the concept of chokehold sounds so innocent , so perfect.
” Trump ’ s latest material involves running for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite the constitutional restriction that limits modern presidents to two four-year terms in office .
President Trump said Saturday that he plans to “ negotiate ” to run again in 2024 if he wins reelection in November , his latest in a series of comments that have alarmed critics who say he has little regard for constitutional boundaries… …During a rally in Minden , Nevada , Trump predicted he would win reelection and carry Nevada , a state he lost narrowly in 2016 .
“ After that , ” Trump said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he ’ s “ probably entitled to another four after that ” based on “ the way we were treated.
” The comments echo ones Trump made during a rally in Wisconsin in August , in which he stated he would win four more years and “ go for another four years ” because “ they spied on my campaign , ” likely referencing his unproven “ Obamagate ” theory .
Trump is probably expressing a genuine belief that he ’ s entitled hold office without limit , like his pal Vladimir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he knows it works in the same way that Al Bundy dressing in drag and reading pornographic magazines worked for the ratings of Married…With Children .
People love it because it upsets the prigs .
Yet , no one ever mistook situational comedies for real life , and ultimately the true merit of breaking Victorian restrictions on television was discovered to be the increased realism it could bring to hour-long dramas and crime shows .
Reality television was a nod to this development .
The audience was no longer satisfied with transparently artificial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s apartment .
They wanted the lines blurred so that the outrage and titillation seemed as if it could be happening in real life .
Trump understood the genre and he excelled at providing that kind of content with his Apprentice shows .
He uses the same approach in politics .
It doesn ’ t matter that there ’ s no chance that Mexico will pay for a border wall or that he ’ ll put Hillary Clinton in jail or that he ’ ll succeed in changing the constitution so he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The debate over these things is happening in real life , and that gives them just enough reality to satisfy the fans .
But Trump ’ s presidency isn ’ t a diversionary piece of entertainment .
It has actual consequences , including 200,000 victims of COVID-19 , many of whom didn ’ t believe the threat was real because the president told them it wasn ’ t real .
Looking back , this shouldn ’ t surprise us .
The Apprentice convinced millions that Trump was a savvy and successful businessman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a giant inheritance and ran one venture after another into legal problems and bankruptcy .
Why wouldn ’ t the people who were duped by the reality television show be duped by the phony presidency ?
And why wouldn ’ t fans of the first show remain fans of the second ?

I remember when the FOX broadcast network was new and only had two hours of primetime television. They made a name for themselves by winning the right to broadcast NFL football games, which forced millions to find their number on the dial. People fell in love with The Simpsons, but they also discovered a new kind of lowest common denominator programming. The success of Married…With Children was heavily bolstered by the publicity it received from a boycott against its crude and tasteless content. Soon, all previous standards of what was appropriate for broadcast television devolved as program directors fought an arms race to provide the most outrageous material.
Cheap laughs were no longer the goal of sitcom television, but rather titillation and outrage were subject to the same rules as drugs and alcohol. You need more and more to get the same effect. Before long, though, viewers could get a better high off cable programming where there were no restrictions on foul language. That’s when reality television entered the picture and quickly replaced the sitcom as the most popular genre of primetime network programming.
This is basically how I view not only Trump’s presidency but also his behavior. His supporters are addicted to the thrill they get when he breaks the rules of decorum. But Trump can’t stick with the same old material and deliver the same effect. He constantly has to up the ante. That’s how “Mexico will pay for the wall” becomes “lock her up” becomes “the concept of chokehold sounds so innocent, so perfect.”
Trump’s latest material involves running for a third or even a fourth term, despite the constitutional restriction that limits modern presidents to two four-year terms in office.
President Trump said Saturday that he plans to “negotiate” to run again in 2024 if he wins reelection in November, his latest in a series of comments that have alarmed critics who say he has little regard for constitutional boundaries… …During a rally in Minden, Nevada, Trump predicted he would win reelection and carry Nevada, a state he lost narrowly in 2016. “After that,” Trump said, “we’ll negotiate,” asserting that he’s “probably entitled to another four after that” based on “the way we were treated.” The comments echo ones Trump made during a rally in Wisconsin in August, in which he stated he would win four more years and “go for another four years” because “they spied on my campaign,” likely referencing his unproven “Obamagate” theory.
Trump is probably expressing a genuine belief that he’s entitled hold office without limit, like his pal Vladimir Putin. But as performative art, he knows it works in the same way that Al Bundy dressing in drag and reading pornographic magazines worked for the ratings of Married…With Children. People love it because it upsets the prigs. Yet, no one ever mistook situational comedies for real life, and ultimately the true merit of breaking Victorian restrictions on television was discovered to be the increased realism it could bring to hour-long dramas and crime shows. Reality television was a nod to this development. The audience was no longer satisfied with transparently artificial worlds like the Cheers barroom or Frasier’s apartment. They wanted the lines blurred so that the outrage and titillation seemed as if it could be happening in real life. Trump understood the genre and he excelled at providing that kind of content with his Apprentice shows. He uses the same approach in politics. It doesn’t matter that there’s no chance that Mexico will pay for a border wall or that he’ll put Hillary Clinton in jail or that he’ll succeed in changing the constitution so he can remain in office beyond eight years. The debate over these things is happening in real life, and that gives them just enough reality to satisfy the fans. But Trump’s presidency isn’t a diversionary piece of entertainment. It has actual consequences, including 200,000 victims of COVID-19, many of whom didn’t believe the threat was real because the president told them it wasn’t real. Looking back, this shouldn’t surprise us. The Apprentice convinced millions that Trump was a savvy and successful businessman, rather than a guy who took a giant inheritance and ran one venture after another into legal problems and bankruptcy. Why wouldn’t the people who were duped by the reality television show be duped by the phony presidency? And why wouldn’t fans of the first show remain fans of the second?


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-15--The Consequences of Having a Liar-in-Chief

For the last four years , the busiest people in journalism have been the fact-checkers who compile Trump ’ s lies , which total well over 20,000 .
Early in this administration , there were discussions about what it would mean to have a president that the people couldn ’ t trust .
At the time , it was feared that , should Trump proclaim that military intervention in a country like Iran was necessary , the majority wouldn ’ t believe him .
Thankfully , that hasn ’ t happened .
These days , however , the president is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the entire federal government .
We saw that happen last fall with the controversy that became known as “ Sharpie gate.
” The White House pressured the Commerce Department , which oversees the National Weather Service , to contradict its scientists in order uphold a presidential lie about potential damage from Hurricane Dorian in Alabama .
More recently , federal officials are lying in ways that are far more dangerous .
For example , Attorney General Bill Barr continues to spread misinformation about how left-wings groups like Antifa are responsible for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests against police brutality .
As a result , some Oregonians were susceptible to lies about how Antifa was responsible for the fires in their state and were refusing to leave , posing a great danger to themselves and first responders .
The most recent report from Brian Murphy , a whistleblower at the Department of Homeland Security , documents how leadership at the department politicized intelligence to back up Trump ’ s lies .
That included doctoring reports to ramp up the idea that terrorists were pouring across our southern border , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups , and covering up Russia ’ s attempt to influence the 2020 election .
On the latter , the Director of National Intelligence , John Ratcliffe , has been doing the same thing .
Now we know that , in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic , the lying has been happening at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
The health department ’ s politically appointed communications aides have demanded the right to review and seek changes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ’ s weekly scientific reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in what officials characterized as an attempt to intimidate the reports ’ authors and water down their communications to health professionals… CDC officials have fought back against the most sweeping changes , but have increasingly agreed to allow the political officials to review the reports and , in a few cases , compromised on the wording , according to three people familiar with the exchanges .
The communications aides ’ efforts to change the language in the CDC ’ s reports have been constant across the summer and continued as recently as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a former Trump campaign official with no medical or scientific background , was installed in April as the Health and Human Services department ’ s new spokesperson , there have been substantial efforts to align the reports with Trump ’ s statements , including the president ’ s claims that fears about the outbreak are overstated , or stop the reports altogether .
For a while now , many of us have realized that we can ’ t trust anything Trump says .
But what these examples point to is that it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told by the federal government .
Perhaps the best way to capture how dangerous this is would be to remember what Peter Pomerantsev wrote about the goal of Vladimir Putin ’ s information warfare back in 2014 ( emphasis mine ) .
The Republican Party has spent decades trying to undermine the public ’ s trust in government .
Trump managed to break the last vestiges of that faith .
He ’ s counting on the fact that , having done so , anything is possible .

For the last four years, the busiest people in journalism have been the fact-checkers who compile Trump’s lies, which total well over 20,000. Early in this administration, there were discussions about what it would mean to have a president that the people couldn’t trust. At the time, it was feared that, should Trump proclaim that military intervention in a country like Iran was necessary, the majority wouldn’t believe him. Thankfully, that hasn’t happened.
These days, however, the president is compounding his own lies with a corruption of the entire federal government. We saw that happen last fall with the controversy that became known as “Sharpie gate.” The White House pressured the Commerce Department, which oversees the National Weather Service, to contradict its scientists in order uphold a presidential lie about potential damage from Hurricane Dorian in Alabama.
More recently, federal officials are lying in ways that are far more dangerous. For example, Attorney General Bill Barr continues to spread misinformation about how left-wings groups like Antifa are responsible for the kind of violence that is erupting from protests against police brutality. As a result, some Oregonians were susceptible to lies about how Antifa was responsible for the fires in their state and were refusing to leave, posing a great danger to themselves and first responders.
The most recent report from Brian Murphy, a whistleblower at the Department of Homeland Security, documents how leadership at the department politicized intelligence to back up Trump’s lies. That included doctoring reports to ramp up the idea that terrorists were pouring across our southern border, downplaying the threat posed by white supremacists groups, and covering up Russia’s attempt to influence the 2020 election. On the latter, the Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, has been doing the same thing.
Now we know that, in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the lying has been happening at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The health department’s politically appointed communications aides have demanded the right to review and seek changes to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s weekly scientific reports charting the progress of the coronavirus pandemic, in what officials characterized as an attempt to intimidate the reports’ authors and water down their communications to health professionals… CDC officials have fought back against the most sweeping changes, but have increasingly agreed to allow the political officials to review the reports and, in a few cases, compromised on the wording, according to three people familiar with the exchanges. The communications aides’ efforts to change the language in the CDC’s reports have been constant across the summer and continued as recently as Friday afternoon… But since Michael Caputo, a former Trump campaign official with no medical or scientific background, was installed in April as the Health and Human Services department’s new spokesperson, there have been substantial efforts to align the reports with Trump’s statements, including the president’s claims that fears about the outbreak are overstated, or stop the reports altogether.
For a while now, many of us have realized that we can’t trust anything Trump says. But what these examples point to is that it would be imprudent to believe anything we are told by the federal government.
Perhaps the best way to capture how dangerous this is would be to remember what Peter Pomerantsev wrote about the goal of Vladimir Putin’s information warfare back in 2014 (emphasis mine).
[I]nsisting on the lie, the Kremlin intimidates others by showing that it is in control of defining ‘reality.’ This is why it’s so important for Moscow to do away with truth. If nothing is true, then anything is possible.
The Republican Party has spent decades trying to undermine the public’s trust in government. Trump managed to break the last vestiges of that faith. He’s counting on the fact that, having done so, anything is possible.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-15--North Carolina Has a Literacy Test On the Books?

The Voting Rights Act , passed in 1965 , is one of the most venerated statutes in American law .
Its provisions guaranteed the right to vote and ended the subterfuges used by Jim Crow-era politicians to deny the franchise given to Black Americans by the Fifteenth Amendment .
It required , for instance , multiple states famous for voter suppression to seek approval from the federal government before changing election rules .
( This provision of the monumental civil rights law was effectively struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013 . )
The Act outlawed literacy tests , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens .
Several years after the VRA passed , the North Carolina governor , legislature , and state bar worked to revise the state ’ s constitution .
In the late 1960s , the legislature approved seven major amendments on topics from taxes to voting rights that , collectively , rewrote most of the document .
It then sent the changes to voters for approval .
In the 1970 election , North Carolina residents signed off on each revision , save for one : eliminating the state ’ s literacy test .
Every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed .
To this day , Article VI , Section 4 of the North Carolina Constitution requires that voters “ be able to read and write any section of the Constitution in English.
” This provision is unenforceable , and so it ’ s tempting to dismiss it as little more than a pointless artifact .
But its very existence is an open wound .
“ It ’ s just an insult to the African-American citizens of North Carolina , and to any right-thinking citizens , ” said Kelly Alexander Jr. , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s NAACP .
He described the text as “ along the same vein ” as memorials to Confederates .
“ If a statue is offensive , a provision in the constitution is even more offensive , ” he said .
It isn ’ t just the continued stain of the literacy-test provision that makes it harmful .
The durability of Section 4 is echoed by North Carolina ’ s recent hostility toward voting rights .
In 2013 , led by a coalition that included Alexander , the state ’ s House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start the process of eliminating the literacy test from the constitution , only to have it die in the Senate .
When I asked why the Senate never took it up , Alexander told me that while both chambers are controlled by Republicans , the Senate “ is a much more conservative body.
” Its leadership , he argued , is not enthusiastic about passing ballot measures that could “ energize folks who might vote against their candidates.
” But the Senate ’ s GOP leadership is enthusiastic about passing measures that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2013 literacy test amendment stalled , both the House and the Senate passed legislation that slashed the number of early voting days , eliminated same-day registration , and made photo IDs mandatory to vote .
This curtailment of voting rights fell hardest on Black residents .
At the time , Black people were 23 percent of N.C. ’ s population .
In 2012 , they were 28 percent of its early voters , 33 percent of voters who registered on Election Day , and 34 percent of the population without IDs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ down , finding that it “ target [ ed ] African Americans with almost surgical precision.
” ( The Supreme Court declined to review the case . )
In 2017 , the N.C. House of Representatives again passed a bill that would begin the process of cutting the literacy test from the constitution .
It again died in the Senate .
But the state constitution changed in other ways .
In 2018 , North Carolina residents approved an amendment to Article VI requiring a voter ID law .
The legislature quickly passed one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it then cut the number of early polling locations .
North Carolina isn ’ t the only state with a literacy test festering in its constitution .
South Carolina , Wyoming , Delaware , and Massachusetts also have constitutions that require , or at least call for , a literacy test .
South Carolina ’ s provision , which says that the General Assembly “ may require each person to demonstrate a reasonable ability , except for physical disability , to read and write the English language as a condition to becoming entitled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the constitution in 1971—well after the Voting Rights Act took effect .
These provisions are legally hollow , but just because they ’ re present in both red and blue states , the North and the South , Joe Biden ’ s home as well as Dick Cheney ’ s , it doesn ’ t make them any less ugly .
They are also reminders that the right to vote is under attack in various forms .
Trump , Attorney General William Barr , and many GOP politicians and activists charge that mail-in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are suing state officials to stop new efforts to expand voting from home .
Jim Crow-era voting restrictions were also justified with claims of voter fraud .
I asked Alexander if he was worried the North Carolina literacy test might one day come back into force , given America ’ s contemporary fights over the franchise .
“ It ’ s possible that could happen , ” Alexander told me .
He laid out a set of conditions that , while collectively unlikely , are each individually imaginable— “ if the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completely off the rails , and we re-elect somebody that does not have a sense of the kind of historical progress that the nation has made.
” But Alexander was optimistic we ’ d avoid this scenario : “ Folks of goodwill are fighting awfully hard to try and prevent that from happening .
”

The Voting Rights Act, passed in 1965, is one of the most venerated statutes in American law. Its provisions guaranteed the right to vote and ended the subterfuges used by Jim Crow-era politicians to deny the franchise given to Black Americans by the Fifteenth Amendment. It required, for instance, multiple states famous for voter suppression to seek approval from the federal government before changing election rules. (This provision of the monumental civil rights law was effectively struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013.) The Act outlawed literacy tests, a requirement regularly used to disenfranchise Black citizens.
Several years after the VRA passed, the North Carolina governor, legislature, and state bar worked to revise the state’s constitution. In the late 1960s, the legislature approved seven major amendments on topics from taxes to voting rights that, collectively, rewrote most of the document. It then sent the changes to voters for approval. In the 1970 election, North Carolina residents signed off on each revision, save for one: eliminating the state’s literacy test. Every future attempt to take it out has failed. To this day, Article VI, Section 4 of the North Carolina Constitution requires that voters “be able to read and write any section of the Constitution in English.”
This provision is unenforceable, and so it’s tempting to dismiss it as little more than a pointless artifact. But its very existence is an open wound. “It’s just an insult to the African-American citizens of North Carolina, and to any right-thinking citizens,” said Kelly Alexander Jr., a state representative and former president of the North Carolina NAACP. He described the text as “along the same vein” as memorials to Confederates. “If a statue is offensive, a provision in the constitution is even more offensive,” he said.
It isn’t just the continued stain of the literacy-test provision that makes it harmful. The durability of Section 4 is echoed by North Carolina’s recent hostility toward voting rights. In 2013, led by a coalition that included Alexander, the state’s House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill to start the process of eliminating the literacy test from the constitution, only to have it die in the Senate. When I asked why the Senate never took it up, Alexander told me that while both chambers are controlled by Republicans, the Senate “is a much more conservative body.” Its leadership, he argued, is not enthusiastic about passing ballot measures that could “energize folks who might vote against their candidates.”
But the Senate’s GOP leadership is enthusiastic about passing measures that would demobilize those folks. Two months after the 2013 literacy test amendment stalled, both the House and the Senate passed legislation that slashed the number of early voting days, eliminated same-day registration, and made photo IDs mandatory to vote. This curtailment of voting rights fell hardest on Black residents. At the time, Black people were 23 percent of N.C.’s population. In 2012, they were 28 percent of its early voters, 33 percent of voters who registered on Election Day, and 34 percent of the population without IDs. A federal appeals court struck the law down, finding that it “target[ed] African Americans with almost surgical precision.” (The Supreme Court declined to review the case.)
In 2017, the N.C. House of Representatives again passed a bill that would begin the process of cutting the literacy test from the constitution. It again died in the Senate. But the state constitution changed in other ways. In 2018, North Carolina residents approved an amendment to Article VI requiring a voter ID law. The legislature quickly passed one. To make voting even harder, it then cut the number of early polling locations.
North Carolina isn’t the only state with a literacy test festering in its constitution. South Carolina, Wyoming, Delaware, and Massachusetts also have constitutions that require, or at least call for, a literacy test. South Carolina’s provision, which says that the General Assembly “may require each person to demonstrate a reasonable ability, except for physical disability, to read and write the English language as a condition to becoming entitled to vote,” was added to the constitution in 1971—well after the Voting Rights Act took effect.
These provisions are legally hollow, but just because they’re present in both red and blue states, the North and the South, Joe Biden’s home as well as Dick Cheney’s, it doesn’t make them any less ugly. They are also reminders that the right to vote is under attack in various forms. Trump, Attorney General William Barr, and many GOP politicians and activists charge that mail-in ballots are rife with fraud. They are suing state officials to stop new efforts to expand voting from home. Jim Crow-era voting restrictions were also justified with claims of voter fraud.
I asked Alexander if he was worried the North Carolina literacy test might one day come back into force, given America’s contemporary fights over the franchise. “It’s possible that could happen,” Alexander told me. He laid out a set of conditions that, while collectively unlikely, are each individually imaginable—“if the Supreme Court goes off the rails, if Congress goes completely off the rails, and we re-elect somebody that does not have a sense of the kind of historical progress that the nation has made.”
But Alexander was optimistic we’d avoid this scenario: “Folks of goodwill are fighting awfully hard to try and prevent that from happening.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-17--Dan Coats Wants a Special Commission to Oversee November’s Elections

In a normal world , it would be the top story : Former Director of National Intelligence , Dan Coats , believes that Vladimir Putin has kompromat on the president of the United States .
As famed Watergate journalist Bob Woodward writes in his new book Rage , “ How else to explain the president ’ s behavior ?
Coats could see no other explanation.
” Now Coats is warning us that our elections are in jeopardy .
In an opinion piece for the New York Times , he warns : We hear often that the November election is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the importance of the election is not just which candidate or which party wins .
Voters also face the question of whether the American democratic experiment , one of the boldest political innovations in human history , will survive .
Our democracy ’ s enemies , foreign and domestic , want us to concede in advance that our voting systems are faulty or fraudulent ; that sinister conspiracies have distorted the political will of the people ; that our public discourse has been perverted by the news media and social networks riddled with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that judicial institutions , law enforcement and even national security have been twisted , misused and misdirected to create anxiety and conflict , not justice and social peace .
If those are the results of this tumultuous election year , we are lost , no matter which candidate wins .
His proposal is that Congress immediately convene and “ create a supremely high-level bipartisan and nonpartisan commission to oversee the election.
” The commission would be bipartisan and include “ congressional leaders , current and former governors , ‘ elder statespersons , ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Supreme Court justices David Souter and Anthony Kennedy , and business leaders from social media companies.
” Their goal would be to reassure the public that the election ’ s results are legitimate .
Coats expresses confidence that Congress would be willing to create this entity because “ No member of Congress could have any valid reason to reject any step that could contribute to the fundamental health of our Republic .
” I wish he were correct , but there is an entire party that is no longer committed to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Donald Trump , is just as responsible for sowing doubt about the legitimacy of the upcoming elections as any Russian intelligence officer .
What ’ s especially troubling is that Coats knows this better than citizens who haven ’ t had access to our most sensitive intelligence or the experience of working closely with Donald Trump .
Yet , we don ’ t need high-level access to classified information to notice Attorney General William Barr is doing everything he can to sow doubt about the results of the election .
For months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting is susceptible to foreign manipulation , and he ’ s been saying the same about Americans .
As Dahlia Lithwick reports for Slate , Trump and Barr are doing a tag-team to convince us that “ our voting systems are faulty or fraudulent.
” Barr just can ’ t let his hatred of voting by mail go .
As he fondly told the [ Chicago ] Tribune ’ s John Kass , describing the way white people once voted—mostly gathered from Norman Rockwell paintings , apparently— “ Just think about the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precinct , your name is on a list , you go in and say who you are , you go behind a curtain , no one is allowed to go in there to influence you , and no one can tell how you voted .
All of that is gone with mail-in voting.
” And when you vote by mail , he warned , “ There ’ s no secret vote .
You have to associate the envelope in the mailing and the name of who ’ s sending it in , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that voting by mail is somehow extra susceptible to fraud and also violative of voter privacy , autonomy , and secrecy have been debunked multiple times as well .
But Barr ’ s argument to Kass again has the desired effect of pitting voter against voter , American against American , in ways designed to foment doubt and mistrust in a system already stressed by U.S .
Postal Service meddling and distortion and a steady drumbeat of presidential claims that—as Trump suggested this week—the only way he can possibly lose in Nevada is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I ’ m winning that state easily , but the one thing we can ’ t beat , if they cheat on the ballots , ” Trump said , adding , “ Now he will cheat on the ballots—I have no doubt about it.
” It may be a nice idea for Congress to establish a commission to protect our elections , but the Republican Party is committed to the opposite which is why they ’ d never go along with Coats ’ s idea .

In a normal world, it would be the top story: Former Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, believes that Vladimir Putin has kompromat on the president of the United States. As famed Watergate journalist Bob Woodward writes in his new book Rage, “How else to explain the president’s behavior? Coats could see no other explanation.”
Now Coats is warning us that our elections are in jeopardy. In an opinion piece for the New York Times, he warns:
We hear often that the November election is the most consequential in our lifetime. But the importance of the election is not just which candidate or which party wins. Voters also face the question of whether the American democratic experiment, one of the boldest political innovations in human history, will survive. Our democracy’s enemies, foreign and domestic, want us to concede in advance that our voting systems are faulty or fraudulent; that sinister conspiracies have distorted the political will of the people; that our public discourse has been perverted by the news media and social networks riddled with prejudice, lies and ill will; that judicial institutions, law enforcement and even national security have been twisted, misused and misdirected to create anxiety and conflict, not justice and social peace. If those are the results of this tumultuous election year, we are lost, no matter which candidate wins.
His proposal is that Congress immediately convene and “create a supremely high-level bipartisan and nonpartisan commission to oversee the election.” The commission would be bipartisan and include “congressional leaders, current and former governors, ‘elder statespersons,’ former national security leaders, perhaps the former Supreme Court justices David Souter and Anthony Kennedy, and business leaders from social media companies.”
Their goal would be to reassure the public that the election’s results are legitimate.
Also, this commission would be responsible for monitoring those forces that seek to harm our electoral system through interference, fraud, disinformation or other distortions. These would be exposed to the American people in a timely manner and referred to appropriate law enforcement agencies and national security entities.
Coats expresses confidence that Congress would be willing to create this entity because “No member of Congress could have any valid reason to reject any step that could contribute to the fundamental health of our Republic. ”
I wish he were correct, but there is an entire party that is no longer committed to the health of our Republic. Its leader, Donald Trump, is just as responsible for sowing doubt about the legitimacy of the upcoming elections as any Russian intelligence officer. What’s especially troubling is that Coats knows this better than citizens who haven’t had access to our most sensitive intelligence or the experience of working closely with Donald Trump.
Yet, we don’t need high-level access to classified information to notice Attorney General William Barr is doing everything he can to sow doubt about the results of the election. For months he’s been warning that mail voting is susceptible to foreign manipulation, and he’s been saying the same about Americans. As Dahlia Lithwick reports for Slate, Trump and Barr are doing a tag-team to convince us that “our voting systems are faulty or fraudulent.”
Barr just can’t let his hatred of voting by mail go. As he fondly told the [Chicago] Tribune’s John Kass, describing the way white people once voted—mostly gathered from Norman Rockwell paintings, apparently—“Just think about the way we vote now. You have a precinct, your name is on a list, you go in and say who you are, you go behind a curtain, no one is allowed to go in there to influence you, and no one can tell how you voted. All of that is gone with mail-in voting.” And when you vote by mail, he warned, “There’s no secret vote. You have to associate the envelope in the mailing and the name of who’s sending it in, with the ballot.” These new new claims that voting by mail is somehow extra susceptible to fraud and also violative of voter privacy, autonomy, and secrecy have been debunked multiple times as well. But Barr’s argument to Kass again has the desired effect of pitting voter against voter, American against American, in ways designed to foment doubt and mistrust in a system already stressed by U.S. Postal Service meddling and distortion and a steady drumbeat of presidential claims that—as Trump suggested this week—the only way he can possibly lose in Nevada is if its governor rigs the ballots. “I’m winning that state easily, but the one thing we can’t beat, if they cheat on the ballots,” Trump said, adding, “Now he will cheat on the ballots—I have no doubt about it.”
It may be a nice idea for Congress to establish a commission to protect our elections, but the Republican Party is committed to the opposite which is why they’d never go along with Coats’s idea.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-17--Please, Democrats: Kill the Filibuster

Please, Democrats: Kill the Filibuster

The persistence of the filibuster is one of the deeper political mysteries of the age .
As a legislative tool , it has a profoundly dishonorable history .
People remember it as the tool that Sen. Jefferson Smith used to defeat Sen. Joseph Harrison Paine and his corrupt political machine .
But Jeff Smith and Joe Paine never existed ; they were fictional characters played by Jimmy Stewart and Claude Raines in Frank Capra ’ s 1939 film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington .
Jeff Smith was based loosely on Montana Sen. Burton K. Wheeler , a Democrat who became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he exposed corruption in Warren G. Harding ’ s Justice Department ; but no filibuster figured in that tale .
The filibuster ’ s true pedigree is as an instrument of white supremacy .
It was used throughout the first half of the 20th century by Southern senators to block federal anti-lynching legislation , and , later , to delay passage of the 1957 and 1964 Civil Rights Acts .
When people think of the filibuster , they shouldn ’ t think of Mr. Smith Goes To Washington ; they should think of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Strange Fruit ” ( written by Abel Meeropol , who would later adopt the young sons of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg after they were electrocuted for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 ; but I digress ) .
The filibuster has been dying over the past decade , but it ’ s been dying way too slowly .
The Democrats in 2013 eliminated the filibuster for all presidential nominations excepting nominations to the Supreme Court .
This was decried as “ the nuclear option , ” but its effect was entirely salutary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the filibuster for nominations to the Supreme Court .
The move was decried once again as “ nuclear , ” yet life went on .
It ’ s long been assumed that if the Senate goes Democratic in November that the last remaining filibusters—those for legislation—will get “ nuked ” as well .
At John Lewis ’ s funeral , former President Barack Obama rightly called the filibuster a “ Jim Crow relic ” and called for its elimination .
But Joe Biden was until quite recently a stalwart defender of the filibuster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s willing to consider its elimination , he ’ s waffling a bit ( “ It ’ s going to depend on how obstreperous [ Republicans ] become ” ) .
Now the Wall Street Journal reports that five members of the 47-member Senate Democratic caucus oppose eliminating the filibuster .
That ’ s enough to block its elimination .
And even though the caucus will be differently configured when the 117th Congress convenes early next year ; I still find myself wondering what in hell the holdouts are scared of .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it comes in very handy when your party is in the minority .
But Senate Democrats have used it remarkably little while they ’ ve been in the minority during the Trump administration .
Let ’ s review the more contentious bills passed during this period .
Congress used the Congressional Review Act to overturn a truckload of regulations at the start of Trump ’ s presidency .
Democrats weren ’ t happy !
But filibustering wasn ’ t an option because the CRA required only a majority vote .
Congress passed a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 , 51-49 .
Again , Democrats weren ’ t happy !
But because of Senate rules the tax giveaway couldn ’ t be filibustered , either .
The Senate voted , twice , to block Trump ’ s declaration of a national emergency allowing him to divert funds that Congress had declined to appropriate to build a wall along the southern border .
Senate rules prevented these votes from being filibustered , too .
( The second vote ended up being merely symbolic because it fell short of the two-thirds majority necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Finally , the Senate passed the $ 2 trillion CARES Act in March to address the Covid crisis .
That bill passed unanimously—far in excess of the 60 votes that would have been needed to end a filibuster that never materialized .
A lot of people have wondered why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell didn ’ t move to eliminate the legislative filibuster .
The most immediate explanation would be that the need never came up .
Trump was never terribly interested in passing legislation of any kind—he preferred issuing executive orders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achieve anything—so the filibuster never became an issue .
Granted , that ’ s not how Republicans see it .
Conservatives like to gripe that under Trump the number of Senate cloture motions filed—i.e.
, votes requested to end Senate debate , widely judged a decent metric for the number of filibusters—has been off the charts .
They aren ’ t wrong .
There have been 245 during the current Congress .
Ten years ago I was deeply distressed that the number of cloture motions had risen to 139 , and before that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But appearances can be deceiving .
Take a look at what those Trump-era cloture votes have been about .
You ’ d expect them to be about legislation , because legislation is the only thing you can filibuster nowadays , right ?
But they haven ’ t been !
In the current Congress legislative cloture motions have accounted for about 20 of those 245 cloture motions , and most of those concerned bills you never heard of .
In the previous Congress it was pretty much the same story .
Trump-era cloture votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation but to end debate on nominations—even though you can ’ t filibuster a nomination .
Senate Democrats have been “ filibustering ” Trump nominees , many of whom have been ludicrously unqualified , by compelling the Republican majority routinely to call a cloture vote .
Imposing cloture on a nomination requires only 51 votes , as opposed to the 60 that nominations used to require , so if you have the votes to end debate you also have the votes to confirm .
But Democrats have been requiring the votes anyway—to buy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to oppose a bad nomination ; to protest a bad nomination , or just to be obnoxious—and so the number of cloture motions has skyrocketed .
But the tactic hasn ’ t fouled up many nominations , because it can ’ t .
Put simply , the number of cloture motions is no longer a measure of out-of-control filibustering .
It ’ s merely a measure for how much bad feeling there is right now within the U.S. Senate .
( That ’ s reflected also in use by the minority of more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course has a lot to do with Donald Trump being president .
At the risk of sounding conceited , I sort of saw this coming back in 2005 when I urged Senate Democrats to let the Republican Senate majority eliminate the filibuster .
“ As things stand now , ” I wrote , “ Democrats hold three more than the necessary 41 votes to block foolhardy legislation proposed by Republicans .
Without the filibuster , they ’ d be seven votes short .
The GOP agenda would become the law of the land.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the filibuster ?
Because , I argued : What agenda would that be ?
Privatizing Social Security ?
That ’ s opposed by a significant proportion of the president ’ s own party .
Establishing a flat tax ?
Never going to happen .
According to a recent Wall Street Journal poll , fully 41 percent of all Republican voters oppose even [ Senate Majority Leader Bill ] Frist ’ s half-elimination of the filibuster !
If that percentage were reproduced in the Senate , the GOP could successfully filibuster its own reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t have an agenda .
It has impulses : to cut taxes , to increase Pentagon spending , and to mollify the Christian right wherever possible .
Does it act on these impulses ?
Of course .
But what mostly gives the party appeal to the electorate is its ability to scream and yell while seldom being granted the opportunity to ban abortion or eliminate the Securities and Exchange Commission or declare war on France .
It stirs things up satisfyingly , while never requiring anybody to pay the price .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans would have to choose between putting their money where their mouth was or just shutting up .
Either choice would put Democrats in a better political position than they ’ re in right now .
That is , I think , a pretty accurate description of the world we inhabit today , in which the Republican National Convention doesn ’ t even bother to concoct a party platform .
McConnell can ’ t get any bill passed that might be filibustered , but you don ’ t hear him complain much about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to pass any legislation at all .
The stuff McConnell absolutely needs to get through the Senate typically can ’ t be filibustered anyway .
Very possibly he ’ s glad that some of the crazier stuff Trump might want to legislate is rendered impossible by the filibuster .
But mostly he ’ s an anti-government Republican who wants to cut taxes and bollix regulation .
And you don ’ t need a 60-vote supermajority to do that .

The persistence of the filibuster is one of the deeper political mysteries of the age. As a legislative tool, it has a profoundly dishonorable history. People remember it as the tool that Sen. Jefferson Smith used to defeat Sen. Joseph Harrison Paine and his corrupt political machine. But Jeff Smith and Joe Paine never existed; they were fictional characters played by Jimmy Stewart and Claude Raines in Frank Capra’s 1939 film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Jeff Smith was based loosely on Montana Sen. Burton K. Wheeler, a Democrat who became the victim of a sham investigation after he exposed corruption in Warren G. Harding’s Justice Department; but no filibuster figured in that tale.
The filibuster’s true pedigree is as an instrument of white supremacy. It was used throughout the first half of the 20th century by Southern senators to block federal anti-lynching legislation, and, later, to delay passage of the 1957 and 1964 Civil Rights Acts. When people think of the filibuster, they shouldn’t think of Mr. Smith Goes To Washington; they should think of Billie Holliday’s haunting recording of “Strange Fruit” (written by Abel Meeropol, who would later adopt the young sons of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg after they were electrocuted for violating the Espionage Act of 1917; but I digress).
The filibuster has been dying over the past decade, but it’s been dying way too slowly. The Democrats in 2013 eliminated the filibuster for all presidential nominations excepting nominations to the Supreme Court. This was decried as “the nuclear option,” but its effect was entirely salutary. The Republicans in 2017 then eliminated the filibuster for nominations to the Supreme Court. The move was decried once again as “nuclear,” yet life went on.
It’s long been assumed that if the Senate goes Democratic in November that the last remaining filibusters—those for legislation—will get “nuked” as well. At John Lewis’s funeral, former President Barack Obama rightly called the filibuster a “Jim Crow relic” and called for its elimination.
But Joe Biden was until quite recently a stalwart defender of the filibuster, and although he now says he’s willing to consider its elimination, he’s waffling a bit (“It’s going to depend on how obstreperous [Republicans] become”). Now the Wall Street Journal reports that five members of the 47-member Senate Democratic caucus oppose eliminating the filibuster. That’s enough to block its elimination. And even though the caucus will be differently configured when the 117th Congress convenes early next year; I still find myself wondering what in hell the holdouts are scared of.
The theory of the filibuster is that it comes in very handy when your party is in the minority. But Senate Democrats have used it remarkably little while they’ve been in the minority during the Trump administration. Let’s review the more contentious bills passed during this period.
Congress used the Congressional Review Act to overturn a truckload of regulations at the start of Trump’s presidency. Democrats weren’t happy! But filibustering wasn’t an option because the CRA required only a majority vote. Congress passed a multi-trillion-dollar tax cut at the end of 2017, 51-49. Again, Democrats weren’t happy! But because of Senate rules the tax giveaway couldn’t be filibustered, either.
The Senate voted, twice, to block Trump’s declaration of a national emergency allowing him to divert funds that Congress had declined to appropriate to build a wall along the southern border. Senate rules prevented these votes from being filibustered, too. (The second vote ended up being merely symbolic because it fell short of the two-thirds majority necessary to override Trump’s veto.) Finally, the Senate passed the $2 trillion CARES Act in March to address the Covid crisis. That bill passed unanimously—far in excess of the 60 votes that would have been needed to end a filibuster that never materialized.
Am I missing something?
A lot of people have wondered why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell didn’t move to eliminate the legislative filibuster. The most immediate explanation would be that the need never came up. Trump was never terribly interested in passing legislation of any kind—he preferred issuing executive orders, even ones that didn’t achieve anything—so the filibuster never became an issue.
Granted, that’s not how Republicans see it.
Conservatives like to gripe that under Trump the number of Senate cloture motions filed—i.e., votes requested to end Senate debate, widely judged a decent metric for the number of filibusters—has been off the charts. They aren’t wrong. There have been 245 during the current Congress. Ten years ago I was deeply distressed that the number of cloture motions had risen to 139, and before that their number never even broke 100.
But appearances can be deceiving.
Take a look at what those Trump-era cloture votes have been about. You’d expect them to be about legislation, because legislation is the only thing you can filibuster nowadays, right? But they haven’t been! In the current Congress legislative cloture motions have accounted for about 20 of those 245 cloture motions, and most of those concerned bills you never heard of. In the previous Congress it was pretty much the same story.
Trump-era cloture votes have mostly been votes not to unblock legislation but to end debate on nominations—even though you can’t filibuster a nomination. Senate Democrats have been “filibustering” Trump nominees, many of whom have been ludicrously unqualified, by compelling the Republican majority routinely to call a cloture vote. Imposing cloture on a nomination requires only 51 votes, as opposed to the 60 that nominations used to require, so if you have the votes to end debate you also have the votes to confirm. But Democrats have been requiring the votes anyway—to buy time perhaps to persuade a few Republicans to oppose a bad nomination; to protest a bad nomination, or just to be obnoxious—and so the number of cloture motions has skyrocketed. But the tactic hasn’t fouled up many nominations, because it can’t.
Put simply, the number of cloture motions is no longer a measure of out-of-control filibustering. It’s merely a measure for how much bad feeling there is right now within the U.S. Senate. (That’s reflected also in use by the minority of more arcane delay tactics.) Which of course has a lot to do with Donald Trump being president.
At the risk of sounding conceited, I sort of saw this coming back in 2005 when I urged Senate Democrats to let the Republican Senate majority eliminate the filibuster. “As things stand now,” I wrote, “Democrats hold three more than the necessary 41 votes to block foolhardy legislation proposed by Republicans. Without the filibuster, they’d be seven votes short. The GOP agenda would become the law of the land.”
So why should Democrats give up the filibuster? Because, I argued:
What agenda would that be? Privatizing Social Security? That’s opposed by a significant proportion of the president’s own party. Establishing a flat tax? Never going to happen. According to a recent Wall Street Journal poll, fully 41 percent of all Republican voters oppose even [Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist’s half-elimination of the filibuster! If that percentage were reproduced in the Senate, the GOP could successfully filibuster its own reform! The fact is that the GOP doesn’t have an agenda. It has impulses: to cut taxes, to increase Pentagon spending, and to mollify the Christian right wherever possible. Does it act on these impulses? Of course. But what mostly gives the party appeal to the electorate is its ability to scream and yell while seldom being granted the opportunity to ban abortion or eliminate the Securities and Exchange Commission or declare war on France. It stirs things up satisfyingly, while never requiring anybody to pay the price. If the Senate eliminated the filibuster, Republicans would have to choose between putting their money where their mouth was or just shutting up. Either choice would put Democrats in a better political position than they’re in right now.
That is, I think, a pretty accurate description of the world we inhabit today, in which the Republican National Convention doesn’t even bother to concoct a party platform. McConnell can’t get any bill passed that might be filibustered, but you don’t hear him complain much about that because he doesn’t especially want to pass any legislation at all. The stuff McConnell absolutely needs to get through the Senate typically can’t be filibustered anyway. Very possibly he’s glad that some of the crazier stuff Trump might want to legislate is rendered impossible by the filibuster. But mostly he’s an anti-government Republican who wants to cut taxes and bollix regulation. And you don’t need a 60-vote supermajority to do that.