washingtonmonthly--2020-12-13--Should Tom Vilsack Get a Second Run as Agriculture Secretary?

Former Secretary of Agriculture , Tom Vilsack , is the only member of Barack Obama ’ s cabinet who served the entirety of the former president ’ s two terms .
Now , after a four-year hiatus as CEO and president of the U.S .
Dairy Export Council , where he earned an annual salary of $ 1 million , Vilsack has been chosen to head the U.S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) again .
But Joe Biden ’ s decision is troubling on both substantive and political grounds .
Progressive criticism of Vilsack ’ s tenure as Ag @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the former Iowa governor is remembered for the hasty firing of Shirley Sherrod .
A Black rural development director for the Agriculture Department in Georgia , Sherrod was falsely made to appear racist when the late Andrew Breitbart ’ s reporters selectively edited footage of a speech she delivered to the Atlanta NAACP that seemed to show antipathy towards a white farmer which was not the case .
The Obama administration apologized for Vilsack ’ s decision–as did the Agriculture Secretary himself–and offered Sherrod a different USDA job , which she declined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Bryce Stucki of The Counter unearthed a series of other concerns related to Black farmers , including alleged manipulation of census data to cover-up historic discrimination and to falsely claim there was a renaissance in Black farming under Vilsack ’ s leadership .
Vilsack was dismissive of the U.S. agriculture industry ’ s role in climate change , arguing in 2014 that “ Clearly , there are challenges globally in terms of agriculture and its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions .
That ’ s not necessarily the case in the United States.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the former secretary ’ s own admission , is responsible for 9 percent of American greenhouse emissions .
Mother Jones reported that Vilsack aroused the ire of worker safety advocates when he weakened “ oversight of the nation ’ s largest chicken and turkey slaughterhouses—while also allowing companies to speed up their kill lines.
” But it ’ s the former Iowa governor ’ s coziness with BigAg , revolving-door work for the dairy industry , and failure to deliver on antitrust promises that are most problematic .
Given his experience , Vilsack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues not only for the media , but also with Congressional Democrats .
That ’ s why his hostility to anti-monopoly rhetoric is so troubling .
In September 2019 , when the Washington Post reported that “ everyone [ of the Democratic presidential candidates ] from former vice president Joe Biden to Sen. Elizabeth Warren has pledged to unleash their trustbusting powers ” on the agriculture industry , Vilsack said the candidates ’ focus on monopolies was being pushed “ by folks in think tanks in urban centers who have had very little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ places.
” He went on to defend consolidation in the seed industry .
It ’ s clear that Vilsack sees the antitrust movement in an adversarial light , and this helps explain why , as Isaac Arnsdorf of ProPublica reported , “ by late 2016 , many of the nation ’ s 25,000 chicken farmers said they had grown bitterly frustrated by the administration of President Barack Obama ” and were looking for better results from Donald Trump .
According to ProPublica , ( and as detailed in Lina Khan ’ s 2012 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Monthly ) , the farmers ’ were disillusioned when an Obama campaign promise to revise the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 failed to materialize despite Congress ’ s finding that major meatpackers were using their monopoly power to “ control the purchases of livestock , the preparation of meat and meat products and their distribution in this country and abroad.
” The statute gives the Federal Trade Commission and the USDA antitrust oversight to regulate agricultural industries , and the chicken farmers expected Vilsack to use this authority to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2010 , when the Democrats controlled the White House , House , and Senate , Vilsack had the power to unilaterally change the meat industry rules .
Instead , he engaged in a nationwide fact-gathering enterprise .
Arnsdorf notes : To understand how the system is unfair , consider that the USDA calculates that “ from 1986 to 2016 , the top four companies ’ market share rose from 55 % to 84 % in beef processing , 33 % to 66 % in pork , and 34 % to 50 % in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arnsdorf explains , that concentrated market power means “ the five biggest chicken companies — Tyson Foods , Pilgrim ’ s Pride , Sanderson Farms , Perdue Farms and Koch Foods — exert ‘ such comprehensive control ’ over the contractors who raise chickens for them that the Small Business Administration ’ s inspector general said these farmers should no longer qualify as independent small businesses.
” As Claire Kelloway of the Open Markets Institute told me , Vilsack “ made decisions to delay the rule-making process , allow more opportunities for industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and I think that delay really stalled the process entirely at a critical juncture.
” In the end , Vilsack drafted the Farmer Fair Practices Rules in 2010 but only introduced them in December 2016 , during Obama ’ s lame duck session .
It wasn ’ t hard to anticipate what would come next .
In October 2017 , Trump ’ s USDA nixed the FFPR , in what Dan Nosowitz of Modern Farmer called “ a huge victory for corporations , bad for farmers ( and anyone who cares about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ welfare , and disastrous in the precedent it sets for labor laws in the agriculture industry.
” When I asked Kelloway how Biden could be so blind to the perception that Vilsack had betrayed the trust of farmers who believed in Obama and helped him carry Iowa , she responded by saying that Vilsack , “ had squandered a lot of good will , ” and “ he ’ s interested in working with the corporate agriculture world , they ’ re one of the main rural business constituencies .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s where he works now.
” There are an estimated 25,000 chicken farmers in America , some of whom participated in Vilsack ’ s 2009-2010 listening tour and risked retaliation from BigAg for speaking about their mistreatment .
Many were hopeful for relief and wound up feeling betrayed .
The Democratic Party is culturally aligned with an urban/suburban coalition which makes earning critical rural support a challenge , so it ’ s important that they connect with rural constituencies who are potentially supportive .
Breaking promises to rural voters is something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on paper , Biden seems to understand this .
He ’ s made bold promises to rural voters and seems intent on keeping them .
The Biden Plan for Rural America posted on his campaign website promises to strengthen antitrust enforcement : Whether Biden realizes or not , Vilsack ’ s reappointment to head the USDA , makes it hard to take these promises seriously .

Former Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, is the only member of Barack Obama’s cabinet who served the entirety of the former president’s two terms. Now, after a four-year hiatus as CEO and president of the U.S. Dairy Export Council, where he earned an annual salary of $1 million, Vilsack has been chosen to head the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) again. But Joe Biden’s decision is troubling on both substantive and political grounds.
Progressive criticism of Vilsack’s tenure as Ag Secretary is comprehensive. On racial issues, the former Iowa governor is remembered for the hasty firing of Shirley Sherrod. A Black rural development director for the Agriculture Department in Georgia, Sherrod was falsely made to appear racist when the late Andrew Breitbart’s reporters selectively edited footage of a speech she delivered to the Atlanta NAACP that seemed to show antipathy towards a white farmer which was not the case. The Obama administration apologized for Vilsack’s decision–as did the Agriculture Secretary himself–and offered Sherrod a different USDA job, which she declined.
A two-year investigation by Nathan Rosenberg and Bryce Stucki of The Counter unearthed a series of other concerns related to Black farmers, including alleged manipulation of census data to cover-up historic discrimination and to falsely claim there was a renaissance in Black farming under Vilsack’s leadership.
Vilsack was dismissive of the U.S. agriculture industry’s role in climate change, arguing in 2014 that “Clearly, there are challenges globally in terms of agriculture and its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. That’s not necessarily the case in the United States.” Yet, the industry, by the former secretary’s own admission, is responsible for 9 percent of American greenhouse emissions.
Mother Jones reported that Vilsack aroused the ire of worker safety advocates when he weakened “oversight of the nation’s largest chicken and turkey slaughterhouses—while also allowing companies to speed up their kill lines.”
But it’s the former Iowa governor’s coziness with BigAg, revolving-door work for the dairy industry, and failure to deliver on antitrust promises that are most problematic.
Given his experience, Vilsack is often a go-to source on agricultural issues not only for the media, but also with Congressional Democrats. That’s why his hostility to anti-monopoly rhetoric is so troubling.
In September 2019, when the Washington Post reported that “everyone [of the Democratic presidential candidates] from former vice president Joe Biden to Sen. Elizabeth Warren has pledged to unleash their trustbusting powers” on the agriculture industry, Vilsack said the candidates’ focus on monopolies was being pushed “by folks in think tanks in urban centers who have had very little experience, if any, with rural places.” He went on to defend consolidation in the seed industry.
“The problem is that a lot of this technology that these companies have is patented. If you take that seed company and divide it into a thousand small seed companies one or more of those seed companies is going to control the patent.”
It’s clear that Vilsack sees the antitrust movement in an adversarial light, and this helps explain why, as Isaac Arnsdorf of ProPublica reported, “by late 2016, many of the nation’s 25,000 chicken farmers said they had grown bitterly frustrated by the administration of President Barack Obama” and were looking for better results from Donald Trump.
According to ProPublica, (and as detailed in Lina Khan’s 2012 piece Obama’s Game of Chicken for the Monthly), the farmers’ were disillusioned when an Obama campaign promise to revise the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 failed to materialize despite Congress’s finding that major meatpackers were using their monopoly power to “control the purchases of livestock, the preparation of meat and meat products and their distribution in this country and abroad.” The statute gives the Federal Trade Commission and the USDA antitrust oversight to regulate agricultural industries, and the chicken farmers expected Vilsack to use this authority to protect them from BigAg.
In 2009 and 2010, when the Democrats controlled the White House, House, and Senate, Vilsack had the power to unilaterally change the meat industry rules. Instead, he engaged in a nationwide fact-gathering enterprise. Arnsdorf notes:
In the early years of the Obama administration, top officials visited farmers in Iowa, Alabama and Wisconsin — places where the Tea Party backlash was giving Democrats trouble with white working-class voters — and promised help to those who said the system was rigged against them.
To understand how the system is unfair, consider that the USDA calculates that “from 1986 to 2016, the top four companies’ market share rose from 55% to 84% in beef processing, 33% to 66% in pork, and 34% to 50% in chicken.”
In the poultry industry, Arnsdorf explains, that concentrated market power means “the five biggest chicken companies — Tyson Foods, Pilgrim’s Pride, Sanderson Farms, Perdue Farms and Koch Foods — exert ‘such comprehensive control’ over the contractors who raise chickens for them that the Small Business Administration’s inspector general said these farmers should no longer qualify as independent small businesses.”
As Claire Kelloway of the Open Markets Institute told me, Vilsack “made decisions to delay the rule-making process, allow more opportunities for industry, also known as corporate lobby input, and I think that delay really stalled the process entirely at a critical juncture.”
In the end, Vilsack drafted the Farmer Fair Practices Rules in 2010 but only introduced them in December 2016, during Obama’s lame duck session. It wasn’t hard to anticipate what would come next. In October 2017, Trump’s USDA nixed the FFPR, in what Dan Nosowitz of Modern Farmer called “a huge victory for corporations, bad for farmers (and anyone who cares about farmers), extremely bad for animal welfare, and disastrous in the precedent it sets for labor laws in the agriculture industry.”
When I asked Kelloway how Biden could be so blind to the perception that Vilsack had betrayed the trust of farmers who believed in Obama and helped him carry Iowa, she responded by saying that Vilsack, “had squandered a lot of good will,” and “he’s interested in working with the corporate agriculture world, they’re one of the main rural business constituencies. It’s who he wants to appease, and it’s where he works now.”
There are an estimated 25,000 chicken farmers in America, some of whom participated in Vilsack’s 2009-2010 listening tour and risked retaliation from BigAg for speaking about their mistreatment. Many were hopeful for relief and wound up feeling betrayed.
The Democratic Party is culturally aligned with an urban/suburban coalition which makes earning critical rural support a challenge, so it’s important that they connect with rural constituencies who are potentially supportive. Breaking promises to rural voters is something Democrats cannot afford.
At least, on paper, Biden seems to understand this. He’s made bold promises to rural voters and seems intent on keeping them.
The Biden Plan for Rural America posted on his campaign website promises to strengthen antitrust enforcement:
From the inputs they depend on – such as seeds – to the markets where they sell their products, American farmers and ranchers are being hurt by increasing market concentration. Biden will make sure farmers and producers have access to fair markets where they can compete and get fair prices for their products – and require large corporations to play by the rules instead of writing them – by strengthening enforcement of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts and the Packers and Stockyards Act.
Whether Biden realizes or not, Vilsack’s reappointment to head the USDA, makes it hard to take these promises seriously.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-15--Moderate Senate Democrats Sound the Alarm on Republican Extremism

According to Progressive Punch , a nonpartisan searchable database of congressional voting records , there are 31 Senate Democrats who are more progressive than Chris Murphy of Connecticut .
He ’ s moderate by temperament , too .
When Murphy first ran for the Senate in 2012 , the Hartford Courant endorsed him over his primary opponent , Susan Bysiewicz .
Experience and temperament are Mr. Murphy ’ s trump cards .
His three terms in the U.S. House representing the central-northwestern Connecticut 5th District give him a leg up on mastering the Senate learning curve .
Temperamentally , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is elected , would be more likely than the sharp-edged Ms. Bysiewicz to work effectively within the Democratic caucus as well as across the aisle to deliver for Connecticut and the country .
Perhaps that is why , when commenting on the two-term Senator ’ s floor speech last Friday , Greg Sargent of the Washington Post called it “ surprising.
” The junior Senator from Connecticut boldly called out his Republican colleagues for engaging in “ treachery against their nation.
” During a follow-up interview with Sargent , Murphy said that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a party that ’ s trying to stay on the good side of an enemy of democracy [ Trump ] .
This is a party that has a whole bunch of enemies of democracy inside its top ranks .
That ’ s bone-chilling.
” Those statements come from a Democrat whose greatest accomplishment during his eight years in the Senate has been to collaborate with Republicans on passage of the Mental Health Reform Act of 2015 .
But the signature issue Murphy has embraced was spurred by the horrific shooting at Sandy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occurred in the district he represented in the House .
It was personal , so passing common sense gun reform became Murphy ’ s passion .
When the murder of 20 children and six adult staff members didn ’ t move Republicans to act , Murphy didn ’ t stop pushing .
By the time 49 people were killed at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando , Florida , the senator from Connecticut reached his breaking point .
He led a 15-hour filibuster on the Senate floor , which was joined by almost every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here is a particularly poignant moment when Murphy addressed his son , who had just showed up in the gallery .
True to his moderate roots , Murphy used the opportunity to advocate for rather modest reforms : block anyone on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns or explosives and expand background checks to include guns purchased online or at gun shows .
Both measures failed due to obstruction by Republicans .
It was , however , Republican efforts to deny the election results that led Murphy to insist that we “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hair-on-fire moment.
” That ’ s because , “ if this becomes at all normalized more broadly than it already is , they will steal an election two years from now or four years from now.
” But Murphy isn ’ t the only moderate Democrat sounding the alarm about extremist Republicans .
When Senator Ted Cruz decried how a government shutdown would affect first-responders , Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado gave an uncharacteristically passionate speech about his colleague ’ s “ crocodile tears , ” pointing out that the senator from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2013 during a time when Coloradans were suffering from floods .
Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota referred to the confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett as “ a sham.
” Finally , retiring Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico made it clear in his farewell address that “ the Senate is broken.
” In order to keep the chamber from becoming a “ graveyard for progress ” ( perhaps an allusion to Majority Leader McConnell ’ s embrace of being the “ grim reaper ” ) , Udall called on Democrats to end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would garner much attention if it were coming from members of the House , where norms are more relaxed than they are in the Senate .
It also wouldn ’ t raise eyebrows if it came from Senators like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren .
Progressive politicians are known for their fiery rhetoric .
The reason these speeches are important is that they come from Senators who believe that the staid institution in which they serve is committed to governing via respectful dialogue and compromise .
As moderate Senate Democrats have learned , @ @ @ @ @ @ @

According to Progressive Punch, a nonpartisan searchable database of congressional voting records, there are 31 Senate Democrats who are more progressive than Chris Murphy of Connecticut. He’s moderate by temperament, too. When Murphy first ran for the Senate in 2012, the Hartford Courant endorsed him over his primary opponent, Susan Bysiewicz.
Experience and temperament are Mr. Murphy’s trump cards. His three terms in the U.S. House representing the central-northwestern Connecticut 5th District give him a leg up on mastering the Senate learning curve. Temperamentally, the mostly agreeable Mr. Murphy, if he is elected, would be more likely than the sharp-edged Ms. Bysiewicz to work effectively within the Democratic caucus as well as across the aisle to deliver for Connecticut and the country.
Perhaps that is why, when commenting on the two-term Senator’s floor speech last Friday, Greg Sargent of the Washington Post called it “surprising.” The junior Senator from Connecticut boldly called out his Republican colleagues for engaging in “treachery against their nation.”
During a follow-up interview with Sargent, Murphy said that “[The GOP] isn’t just a party that’s trying to stay on the good side of an enemy of democracy [Trump]. This is a party that has a whole bunch of enemies of democracy inside its top ranks. That’s bone-chilling.”
Those statements come from a Democrat whose greatest accomplishment during his eight years in the Senate has been to collaborate with Republicans on passage of the Mental Health Reform Act of 2015. But the signature issue Murphy has embraced was spurred by the horrific shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, which occurred in the district he represented in the House. It was personal, so passing common sense gun reform became Murphy’s passion.
When the murder of 20 children and six adult staff members didn’t move Republicans to act, Murphy didn’t stop pushing. By the time 49 people were killed at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, the senator from Connecticut reached his breaking point. He led a 15-hour filibuster on the Senate floor, which was joined by almost every Democrat that served in the chamber. Here is a particularly poignant moment when Murphy addressed his son, who had just showed up in the gallery.
True to his moderate roots, Murphy used the opportunity to advocate for rather modest reforms: block anyone on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns or explosives and expand background checks to include guns purchased online or at gun shows. Both measures failed due to obstruction by Republicans.
It was, however, Republican efforts to deny the election results that led Murphy to insist that we “need more people looking at this as a hair-on-fire moment.” That’s because, “if this becomes at all normalized more broadly than it already is, they will steal an election two years from now or four years from now.”
But Murphy isn’t the only moderate Democrat sounding the alarm about extremist Republicans. When Senator Ted Cruz decried how a government shutdown would affect first-responders, Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado gave an uncharacteristically passionate speech about his colleague’s “crocodile tears,” pointing out that the senator from Texas had shut the government down in 2013 during a time when Coloradans were suffering from floods. Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota referred to the confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett as “a sham.” Finally, retiring Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico made it clear in his farewell address that “the Senate is broken.” In order to keep the chamber from becoming a “graveyard for progress” (perhaps an allusion to Majority Leader McConnell’s embrace of being the “grim reaper”), Udall called on Democrats to end the filibuster.
None of that rhetoric would garner much attention if it were coming from members of the House, where norms are more relaxed than they are in the Senate. It also wouldn’t raise eyebrows if it came from Senators like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Progressive politicians are known for their fiery rhetoric.
The reason these speeches are important is that they come from Senators who believe that the staid institution in which they serve is committed to governing via respectful dialogue and compromise. As moderate Senate Democrats have learned, Republican extremism has made that impossible.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-15--How to Really Say Thank You: A Proposal

How to Really Say Thank You: A Proposal

Across the country , the names of wealthy donors are prominently displayed on plaques and walls in museums , universities , and hospitals .
Often , entire buildings are named after big contributors .
In some cities , small donors to public projects like Pioneer Courthouse Square in Seattle have their names embedded in bricks .
My family has our name in the sidewalk supporting a tree in front of our community bookstore .
We also honor our dead with war memorials like the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington , D.C .
In Santa Monica , families can purchase a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and name it after a departed loved one .
At Occidental College , where I work , the names of those who died in two World Wars are carved on a bronze plaque outside the entrance to my office .
Politicians , of course , like to thank themselves with large signs in front of public projects .
President Trump famously added his name to stimulus checks during the pandemic .
Schools , towns , airports , and war ships are named after former Presidents , politicians , and generals .
My grammar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hero and first US Navy Admiral David Farragut .
I ’ ve sailed on an aircraft carrier , the USS Theodore Roosevelt , and on the USS Mendel Rivers , a submarine named after a southern Congressman who headed the House Armed Services Committee ; like so many , I ’ ve flown in and out of Reagan , Kennedy , and Dulles airports .
We celebrate sports figures with profiles on Wheaties boxes and bobblehead nights at stadiums , as well as with player trading cards .
There is even a Bobblehead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rarely do we thank and signify workers for their toil and service .
People like to be thanked for their efforts .
When I served as a U.S. ambassador , I would always call the chef and kitchen staff into the room at the end of a diplomatic dinner and thank them in front of the guests .
Every weekend , we sit with our thirteen-year-old grandson and have him do handwritten thank you notes for the gifts and checks he ’ s received for his bar-mitzvah .
President George H.W .
Bush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thank you messages .
At the end of movies , a long list of credits with the names of those who worked on the film , not just the stars , scrolls down the screen .
For a time , cars produced at Ford plants included a window sticker with the logos of the UAW and Ford reading : ” Built with Pride—Proudly by UAW Men and Women ” .
It should be an American custom to say thank you to workers by including the names of the men and women who build @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the buildings , highways , and other public facilities that they construct and at their places of work like hospitals and fire stations .
In future public spending as part of President-elect Biden ’ s Build Back Better program and in any Federal infrastructure bills—public expressions of thanks to workers should be required .
The coronavirus pandemic has reminded us of the importance of public action for the common good and of the role of essential workers in providing basic services .
We should not neglect saying thank you to these men and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nation to say thank you .
During the Ebola crisis , my academic colleague art professor Mary Beth Heffernan designed a system for creating personalized photo name tags for medical personnel to wear while treating patients so the sick could see who were helping them .
A similar system could be adopted by hospitals around the country .
Where public funds are used for the built environment , the names of workers who build a facility can be physically listed—but where that is impractical , a digital display in the lobby of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
Digital credit walls could be required in government offices serving the public like the DMV , unemployment offices and courthouses .
Schools and universities could issue employee trading cards designed like baseball cards with a photo and facts on the person –not just of the faculty but also displaying the janitors , cooks , cleaners and grounds keepers .
This could also work for fire stations and national parks ( families could save the cards of the rangers they met on vacations ) .
Creating such worker trading cards is easy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They would become family mementos How we say thank you is less important than doing it and making it routine and expected behavior in the public realm and in the private sphere—and while we wait for these gratitude programs to be established and for passage of equitable economic programs , those with the means should remember to tip well during the holidays .

Across the country, the names of wealthy donors are prominently displayed on plaques and walls in museums, universities, and hospitals. Often, entire buildings are named after big contributors. In some cities, small donors to public projects like Pioneer Courthouse Square in Seattle have their names embedded in bricks. My family has our name in the sidewalk supporting a tree in front of our community bookstore.
We also honor our dead with war memorials like the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C. In Santa Monica, families can purchase a bench in a park overlooking the ocean and name it after a departed loved one. At Occidental College, where I work, the names of those who died in two World Wars are carved on a bronze plaque outside the entrance to my office.
Politicians, of course, like to thank themselves with large signs in front of public projects. President Trump famously added his name to stimulus checks during the pandemic. Schools, towns, airports, and war ships are named after former Presidents, politicians, and generals. My grammar school was called Farragut after Civil War hero and first US Navy Admiral David Farragut. I’ve sailed on an aircraft carrier, the USS Theodore Roosevelt, and on the USS Mendel Rivers, a submarine named after a southern Congressman who headed the House Armed Services Committee; like so many, I’ve flown in and out of Reagan, Kennedy, and Dulles airports.
We celebrate sports figures with profiles on Wheaties boxes and bobblehead nights at stadiums, as well as with player trading cards. There is even a Bobblehead Hall of Fame in Milwaukee.
But rarely do we thank and signify workers for their toil and service.
People like to be thanked for their efforts. When I served as a U.S. ambassador, I would always call the chef and kitchen staff into the room at the end of a diplomatic dinner and thank them in front of the guests. Every weekend, we sit with our thirteen-year-old grandson and have him do handwritten thank you notes for the gifts and checks he’s received for his bar-mitzvah. President George H.W. Bush had a lifelong habit of sending handwritten thank you messages.
At the end of movies, a long list of credits with the names of those who worked on the film, not just the stars, scrolls down the screen. For a time, cars produced at Ford plants included a window sticker with the logos of the UAW and Ford reading: ”Built with Pride—Proudly by UAW Men and Women”.
It should be an American custom to say thank you to workers by including the names of the men and women who build projects and who provide essential services on the buildings, highways, and other public facilities that they construct and at their places of work like hospitals and fire stations. In future public spending as part of President-elect Biden’s Build Back Better program and in any Federal infrastructure bills—public expressions of thanks to workers should be required.
The coronavirus pandemic has reminded us of the importance of public action for the common good and of the role of essential workers in providing basic services. We should not neglect saying thank you to these men and women.
There are creative ways for a nation to say thank you. During the Ebola crisis, my academic colleague art professor Mary Beth Heffernan designed a system for creating personalized photo name tags for medical personnel to wear while treating patients so the sick could see who were helping them. A similar system could be adopted by hospitals around the country.
Where public funds are used for the built environment, the names of workers who build a facility can be physically listed—but where that is impractical, a digital display in the lobby of a building could “roll the credits”. Digital credit walls could be required in government offices serving the public like the DMV, unemployment offices and courthouses. Schools and universities could issue employee trading cards designed like baseball cards with a photo and facts on the person –not just of the faculty but also displaying the janitors, cooks, cleaners and grounds keepers. This could also work for fire stations and national parks (families could save the cards of the rangers they met on vacations). Creating such worker trading cards is easy with today’s digital technology. They would become family mementos
How we say thank you is less important than doing it and making it routine and expected behavior in the public realm and in the private sphere—and while we wait for these gratitude programs to be established and for passage of equitable economic programs, those with the means should remember to tip well during the holidays.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-15--Jon Ossoff’s Last Chance

Jon Ossoff’s Last Chance

Donald Trump had been president for three months .
Democrats were at once despondent and determined .
Enter a young political neophyte , one of 18 candidates to vie for the congressional seat that Newt Gingrich long held .
And just like that , 30-year-old Jon Ossoff became the face of the resistance .
Wealthy and not-so-wealthy donors from across the country poured millions into his campaign coffers .
Hollywood celebrities lined up to back him and some , like Samuel L. Jackson and Alyssa Milano , worked on his behalf .
Rep. John Lewis , the civil-rights legend , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boost to an unknown candidate .
Other big-name Democrats , including Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , bestowed their endorsements .
Journalists from around the world covered his every move , essentially giving him his own press corps .
Democrats were counting on Ossoff , running in a special election in suburban Atlanta , to demonstrate that the party could win in the age of Trump .
This skinny son of Georgia came to embody his party ’ s hopes .
As his fan base swelled , he became something of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking to The New York Times or playfully brandishing a lightsaber to mock an attack ad that tried to turn a college musical performance against him .
His supporters were dejected , but Ossoff ’ s 2017 campaign did distinguish itself .
What started as a quixotic effort to replace Republican Rep. Tom Price , who resigned to become Trump ’ s secretary of Health and Human Services , attracted more than 12,000 volunteers , many of them first timers activated by their aversion to Trump .
It became the most expensive congressional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tantalizingly close : Ossoff lost what had been a ruby-red district by less than 4 percentage points the year after Price captured 62 percent of the vote , foreshadowing Democrats ’ 2018 gains among white , well-heeled , college-educated suburbanites .
And it turned “ Jon Ossoff ” into a household name in much of his home state .
A scant three years later , Ossoff is , quite improbably , again at the center of the political world .
“ Jon ’ s 2017 campaign sparked a flame that is burning brighter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country , ” Lewis , who died in July , said when Ossoff declared his candidacy for the Senate last year .
“ Like the many thousands Jon has already organized and inspired , I am ready to work tirelessly to elect him.
” Ossoff is one of two Democrats competing in two runoff elections against two Republican sitting senators in the same state .
If , on January 5 , Ossoff and the Rev .
Raphael Warnock succeed in unseating Perdue and Kelly Loeffler , respectively , the Senate will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s president – soon to be Vice President Kamala Harris – would break deadlocks , effectively granting Democrats majority control .
If one or both of the Democrats lose , Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will maintain his stranglehold on the chamber .
In other words , the stakes couldn ’ t be higher .
Few candidates in history have run for federal office in such consequential elections .
Fewer still have done so without ever having held public office .
There is no shortage of candidates who lost repeatedly only to run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ served in elected or appointed positions .
Some eventually won .
Ronald Reagan , for instance , was a California governor who ran for president twice before winning in 1980 .
William Jennings Bryan lost three presidential general elections , twice as a Democrat and once as the nominee of the Populist Party , noted political scientist Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute .
He also lost a Senate race .
Bryan , however , had been elected twice to Congress and , after his final campaign , served as U.S. secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Ornstein said the closest comparison to Ossoff might be former Sen. Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio , who narrowly lost his first general-election race in 1970 , was appointed to the seat in 1974 , lost in the next primary , then finally won outright in the 1976 general election .
But Metzenbaum , too , had previous experience in elected office , having served in the Ohio legislature .
And the stakes in his races , Ornstein noted , were not nearly as high as they are for Ossoff .
Because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to gain control of the Senate , Ossoff and Warnock are running as a team .
In some ways , their strengths are complementary .
Like Ossoff , Warnock has never held political office .
He is well known in Georgia as the senior pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta , the pulpit of the Rev .
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Warnock , 51 , has used his famous perch to work statewide on behalf of civil rights and social justice .
In a state in which about 30 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and about 47 percent are people of color , that could be pivotal .
“ One of the reasons Ossoff fell short when he ran for Congress in 2017 is , he didn ’ t get the type of Black turnout that he needed , ” said J .
Miles Coleman , associate editor of Sabato ’ s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics .
“ Now , with Warnock as something like a running mate , it may help with Black turnout.
” He added that could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state , where Warnock grew up and where turnout among Black residents has dropped in the post-Obama era .
Ossoff has other strengths .
For one thing , he appeals to young voters .
At 33 , he would be the Senate ’ s youngest member and its only millennial .
He has a strong organization and proven strength in the Atlanta suburbs .
He also seems to have an innate ability for politics .
Even as a newbie in 2017 , the former college a-capella singer put together an impressive campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ossoff did was organize .
They had people making phone calls , they had people knocking on the doors .
It looked like he found almost every possible Democratic voter that he could find , ” said Andra Gillespie , a political scientist at Emory University .
“ The turnout in that special election rivaled what you would expect to see in a general election in a midterm year .
That was what garnered all of the attention….It was the narrative of ‘ this is a competitive guy running for Newt Gingrich ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competitive.
” Ossoff landed on national TV and made the cover of New York , which dubbed the race “ The Trump-Hate Weather Vane ” and described him as “ a cross between Gumby and Justin Trudeau…who speaks slowly and deliberately in a way that can remind you of Barack Obama.
” ( The article also said that cadence made him boring . )
He was a savvy fundraiser , raking in an astonishing $ 23 million .
His catchy signs and T-shirts exhorted people to “ Vote your Ossoff.
” Ossoff developed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intern for Lewis .
When he is interviewed on TV from his home , Ossoff likes to stand next to a framed editorial cartoon of Lewis , who was brutally beaten during a 1965 voting-rights march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge , lying face down above an abyss as Black people walk across his back on their way to a voting booth .
The cartoon , by Mike Lukovich of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution , is titled “ The Bridge.
” Following his internship , Ossoff worked as an aide to Rep. Hank Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after attending Georgetown University ’ s School of Foreign Service .
But after five years on Capitol Hill , he grew weary of the influence of lobbyists and special interests , said one campaign adviser , who spoke on the condition of anonymity .
So , he decamped to the London School of Economics to earn a masters ’ degree .
There , Ossoff reconnected with the founder of a documentary film company named Insight TWI , for “ The World Investigates , ” for whom he had worked one summer .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s CEO , a position he still holds .
He considers himself an investigative journalist .
When Trump tapped Price to be HHS secretary , Ossoff saw an opening .
Much has been made about how Georgia has changed electorally in recent years because of in-migration from the North and a massive voter-registration drive , which expanded representation among people of color and young adults , led by former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams .
Nowhere was the transformation more apparent than in the election last month , when Biden ’ s slim victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate in 28 years .
Although Ossoff fared well with about 48 percent of the vote , he received about 100,000 fewer votes than Biden .
While it ’ s difficult to ascertain why , Coleman suspects many Republicans in suburban Atlanta split their tickets , voting for Biden , but also Perdue .
“ I don ’ t like Trump , but give me a Republican I can vote for , ” he said .
Without Trump on the ticket next month , those Republicans might choose to return fully to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s disproved proclamations that Georgia ’ s vote count ( and , apparently , its two recounts ) was fraudulent and by some of his acolytes ’ suggestions that Republicans protest by sitting out the Senate runoffs .
At a December 7 rally in Valdosta , GA , Trump continued his tirade about how he had been cheated out of a win in November and assailed Georgia ’ s Republican governor , Brian Kemp , for refusing to overturn the results .
Perdue and Loeffler stood by , something of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Stop the Steal.
” It ’ s always tough to knock off an incumbent , but Ossoff and Warnock are trying to do so in a state where Republicans historically win runoffs .
That isn ’ t surprising since Georgia ’ s unique runoff system was established by segregationists to prevent Black voters from solidifying behind one candidate while white voters split their allegiance in a multi-candidate race .
Warnock ’ s race illustrates exactly what the segregationists had in mind .
Last month , he won 33 percent of the votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Doug Collins , garnered 26 percent and 20 percent , respectively .
Warnock was the top vote-getter among 20 candidates competing to fill the remaining time in a seat Loeffler was appointed to one year ago when Sen. Johnny Isakson resigned for health reasons .
But because no candidate received a clear majority , Warnock and Loeffler will compete in a runoff .
In the regularly scheduled election for Perdue ’ s seat , the incumbent won 49.7 percent of the vote and Ossoff captured 47.9 percent .
A Libertarian candidate won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Because of their import , the simultaneous races are “ on unprecedented territory , ” said Jessica Taylor , Senate editor for the Cook Political Report .
“ There is nothing comparable to these two runoffs.
” That ’ s especially true for Ossoff , who is trying to mount a comeback following his first defeat three years ago .
It takes “ grit and determination , ” observed AEI ’ s Ornstein , for any candidate who has lost a race to rebound and run again , with the eyes of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Three years ago , Democrats placed their faith in an ambitious , young Georgian running for an open House seat .
They hoped an Ossoff victory would be a harbinger of electoral success , a sign the party could overcome Trump ’ s upset win the year before .
Such a victory would have been symbolic , changing nothing on a national scale .
In the end , it didn ’ t matter very much , as Democrats went on to wrest control of the House of Representatives in 2018 .
This time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Warnock both will win , or both will lose .
Voters are unlikely to split their tickets .
Turnout will be determinative .
And with the Senate and Biden ’ s presidency on the line , the results surely will matter .

Donald Trump had been president for three months. Democrats were at once despondent and determined. Enter a young political neophyte, one of 18 candidates to vie for the congressional seat that Newt Gingrich long held.
And just like that, 30-year-old Jon Ossoff became the face of the resistance.
Wealthy and not-so-wealthy donors from across the country poured millions into his campaign coffers. Hollywood celebrities lined up to back him and some, like Samuel L. Jackson and Alyssa Milano, worked on his behalf. Rep. John Lewis, the civil-rights legend, stumped for him, providing a significant boost to an unknown candidate. Other big-name Democrats, including Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, bestowed their endorsements. Journalists from around the world covered his every move, essentially giving him his own press corps. Democrats were counting on Ossoff, running in a special election in suburban Atlanta, to demonstrate that the party could win in the age of Trump.
This skinny son of Georgia came to embody his party’s hopes. As his fan base swelled, he became something of a folk hero, whether he was talking to The New York Times or playfully brandishing a lightsaber to mock an attack ad that tried to turn a college musical performance against him.
Then…he lost.
His supporters were dejected, but Ossoff’s 2017 campaign did distinguish itself. What started as a quixotic effort to replace Republican Rep. Tom Price, who resigned to become Trump’s secretary of Health and Human Services, attracted more than 12,000 volunteers, many of them first timers activated by their aversion to Trump. It became the most expensive congressional contest in history, and it was tantalizingly close: Ossoff lost what had been a ruby-red district by less than 4 percentage points the year after Price captured 62 percent of the vote, foreshadowing Democrats’ 2018 gains among white, well-heeled, college-educated suburbanites.
And it turned “Jon Ossoff” into a household name in much of his home state.
A scant three years later, Ossoff is, quite improbably, again at the center of the political world.
“Jon’s 2017 campaign sparked a flame that is burning brighter than ever, in Georgia and across the country,” Lewis, who died in July, said when Ossoff declared his candidacy for the Senate last year. “Like the many thousands Jon has already organized and inspired, I am ready to work tirelessly to elect him.”
Ossoff is one of two Democrats competing in two runoff elections against two Republican sitting senators in the same state. If, on January 5, Ossoff and the Rev. Raphael Warnock succeed in unseating Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, respectively, the Senate will be tied at 50. The body’s president – soon to be Vice President Kamala Harris – would break deadlocks, effectively granting Democrats majority control. If one or both of the Democrats lose, Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will maintain his stranglehold on the chamber.
In other words, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
Few candidates in history have run for federal office in such consequential elections. Fewer still have done so without ever having held public office.
There is no shortage of candidates who lost repeatedly only to run again. But usually, they first served in elected or appointed positions. Some eventually won. Ronald Reagan, for instance, was a California governor who ran for president twice before winning in 1980. William Jennings Bryan lost three presidential general elections, twice as a Democrat and once as the nominee of the Populist Party, noted political scientist Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. He also lost a Senate race. Bryan, however, had been elected twice to Congress and, after his final campaign, served as U.S. secretary of state. At the congressional level, Ornstein said the closest comparison to Ossoff might be former Sen. Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio, who narrowly lost his first general-election race in 1970, was appointed to the seat in 1974, lost in the next primary, then finally won outright in the 1976 general election. But Metzenbaum, too, had previous experience in elected office, having served in the Ohio legislature. And the stakes in his races, Ornstein noted, were not nearly as high as they are for Ossoff.
Because they both have to win for the Democrats to gain control of the Senate, Ossoff and Warnock are running as a team. In some ways, their strengths are complementary.
Like Ossoff, Warnock has never held political office. He is well known in Georgia as the senior pastor of the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, the pulpit of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Warnock, 51, has used his famous perch to work statewide on behalf of civil rights and social justice. In a state in which about 30 percent of registered voters are African American, and about 47 percent are people of color, that could be pivotal.
“One of the reasons Ossoff fell short when he ran for Congress in 2017 is, he didn’t get the type of Black turnout that he needed,” said J. Miles Coleman, associate editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. “Now, with Warnock as something like a running mate, it may help with Black turnout.” He added that could be particularly helpful in the southern part of the state, where Warnock grew up and where turnout among Black residents has dropped in the post-Obama era.
Ossoff has other strengths. For one thing, he appeals to young voters. At 33, he would be the Senate’s youngest member and its only millennial. He has a strong organization and proven strength in the Atlanta suburbs.
He also seems to have an innate ability for politics. Even as a newbie in 2017, the former college a-capella singer put together an impressive campaign.
“One of the things that Ossoff did was organize. They had people making phone calls, they had people knocking on the doors. It looked like he found almost every possible Democratic voter that he could find,” said Andra Gillespie, a political scientist at Emory University. “The turnout in that special election rivaled what you would expect to see in a general election in a midterm year. That was what garnered all of the attention….It was the narrative of ‘this is a competitive guy running for Newt Gingrich’s seat’ that made it so competitive.”
Ossoff landed on national TV and made the cover of New York, which dubbed the race “The Trump-Hate Weather Vane” and described him as “a cross between Gumby and Justin Trudeau…who speaks slowly and deliberately in a way that can remind you of Barack Obama.” (The article also said that cadence made him boring.) He was a savvy fundraiser, raking in an astonishing $23 million. His catchy signs and T-shirts exhorted people to “Vote your Ossoff.”
Ossoff developed a passion for politics as a 17-year-old intern for Lewis. When he is interviewed on TV from his home, Ossoff likes to stand next to a framed editorial cartoon of Lewis, who was brutally beaten during a 1965 voting-rights march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, lying face down above an abyss as Black people walk across his back on their way to a voting booth. The cartoon, by Mike Lukovich of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, is titled “The Bridge.”
Following his internship, Ossoff worked as an aide to Rep. Hank Johnson, another Georgia Democrat, during and after attending Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. But after five years on Capitol Hill, he grew weary of the influence of lobbyists and special interests, said one campaign adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. So, he decamped to the London School of Economics to earn a masters’ degree. There, Ossoff reconnected with the founder of a documentary film company named Insight TWI, for “The World Investigates,” for whom he had worked one summer. In 2013, Ossoff became the company’s CEO, a position he still holds. He considers himself an investigative journalist.
When Trump tapped Price to be HHS secretary, Ossoff saw an opening.
Much has been made about how Georgia has changed electorally in recent years because of in-migration from the North and a massive voter-registration drive, which expanded representation among people of color and young adults, led by former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. Nowhere was the transformation more apparent than in the election last month, when Biden’s slim victory was the first by a Democratic presidential candidate in 28 years.
Although Ossoff fared well with about 48 percent of the vote, he received about 100,000 fewer votes than Biden. While it’s difficult to ascertain why, Coleman suspects many Republicans in suburban Atlanta split their tickets, voting for Biden, but also Perdue. “I don’t like Trump, but give me a Republican I can vote for,” he said.
Without Trump on the ticket next month, those Republicans might choose to return fully to the fold. That assessment is complicated by Trump’s disproved proclamations that Georgia’s vote count (and, apparently, its two recounts) was fraudulent and by some of his acolytes’ suggestions that Republicans protest by sitting out the Senate runoffs. At a December 7 rally in Valdosta, GA, Trump continued his tirade about how he had been cheated out of a win in November and assailed Georgia’s Republican governor, Brian Kemp, for refusing to overturn the results. Perdue and Loeffler stood by, something of a sideshow, as the crowd chanted, “Stop the Steal.”
It’s always tough to knock off an incumbent, but Ossoff and Warnock are trying to do so in a state where Republicans historically win runoffs. That isn’t surprising since Georgia’s unique runoff system was established by segregationists to prevent Black voters from solidifying behind one candidate while white voters split their allegiance in a multi-candidate race.
Warnock’s race illustrates exactly what the segregationists had in mind. Last month, he won 33 percent of the votes, while Loeffler and another Republican, Rep. Doug Collins, garnered 26 percent and 20 percent, respectively. Warnock was the top vote-getter among 20 candidates competing to fill the remaining time in a seat Loeffler was appointed to one year ago when Sen. Johnny Isakson resigned for health reasons. But because no candidate received a clear majority, Warnock and Loeffler will compete in a runoff.
In the regularly scheduled election for Perdue’s seat, the incumbent won 49.7 percent of the vote and Ossoff captured 47.9 percent. A Libertarian candidate won 2.3 percent, effectively triggering that runoff.
Because of their import, the simultaneous races are “on unprecedented territory,” said Jessica Taylor, Senate editor for the Cook Political Report. “There is nothing comparable to these two runoffs.”
That’s especially true for Ossoff, who is trying to mount a comeback following his first defeat three years ago. It takes “grit and determination,” observed AEI’s Ornstein, for any candidate who has lost a race to rebound and run again, with the eyes of the nation on him each time.
Three years ago, Democrats placed their faith in an ambitious, young Georgian running for an open House seat. They hoped an Ossoff victory would be a harbinger of electoral success, a sign the party could overcome Trump’s upset win the year before. Such a victory would have been symbolic, changing nothing on a national scale. In the end, it didn’t matter very much, as Democrats went on to wrest control of the House of Representatives in 2018.
This time, the expectation is that either Ossoff and Warnock both will win, or both will lose. Voters are unlikely to split their tickets. Turnout will be determinative.
And with the Senate and Biden’s presidency on the line, the results surely will matter.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-15--Why Rush Limbaugh Is Laughing All the Way to the Bank

Political commentator David Frum wrote something extremely prescient about the future of conservatism in his book , Trumpocracy .
He said that “ If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically , they will not abandon conservatism .
They will reject democracy.
” That is exactly what ’ s happening as the president , and his enablers challenge the election results .
The quote from Trumpocracy , however , isn ’ t the only time Frum was prescient about conservatives .
Ten years ago , the former George W. Bush speechwriter took on the real leaders of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and talk radio .
I ’ ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us .
Yes it mobilizes supporters — but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information , overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead .
The real leaders are on TV and radio , and they have very different imperatives from people in government .
Frum went on to point out that television and talk radio personalities have no interest in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more eyes and ears to their shows ( puts money in their pockets ) , which is much easier to do if their audience is riled up .
If you ’ re wondering why 70 percent of Republicans believe the election was stolen , it isn ’ t just because of Trump tweets like this : Right-wing radio talk show host Eric Metaxas said that to overturn the election , “ we need to fight to the death , to the last drop of blood because it ’ s worth it.
” Rush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be no peaceful coexistence between liberals and conservatives while speculating about secession .
At the Stop the Steal/Jericho March in Washington on Saturday , Alex Jones declared that “ God is on our side ” before predicting that “ Joe Biden will be removed , one way or another.
” That is what conservatives hear from the GOP ’ s real leaders .
Is it any wonder then , that Republicans like Rep. Steve Scalise still refuse to recognize Joe Biden as the president-elect ?
To explain why more than half of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton ’ s attempt to destroy democracy by overturning the election , Kevin Drum got to the heart of the matter by writing , “ they ’ re signing it because they ’ ve created both a base and an entertainment complex that will punish them if they don ’ t continue to feed it ever larger and bloodier chunks of red meat.
” When the Supreme Court dismissed Paxton ’ s lawsuit , Allen West , chair of the Texas GOP , encouraged the secession alluded to by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ perhaps law-abiding states should band together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.
” Fox News has become the leading example of what happens when a right-wing network doesn ’ t dish enough red meat .
While commentators like Sean Hannity , Tucker Carlson , and Laura Ingraham continue to spread propaganda , the news division is partially grounded in reality .
In response , the Fox News audience is fleeing to Newsmax and OANN , where they are fed a steady diet of outrage .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as liberal and , therefore , not to be trusted .
At the same time , a network of right-wing news organizations developed to spread propaganda and disinformation .
Stars like Limbaugh , Hannity , and Jones were born .
Then along came Trump , who upped the ante by telling his supporters that mainstream media was “ the enemy of the people.
” As a result , about 40 percent of the public now lives in a bubble where facts don ’ t exist .
It has been designed to keep the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they ’ ll buy more MyPillows , gold coins , and all the other items that are advertised between TV/radio segments .
That ’ s the business model .
While democracy faces its most serious threat since the Civil War , the real Republican leaders are laughing all the way to the bank .

Political commentator David Frum wrote something extremely prescient about the future of conservatism in his book, Trumpocracy. He said that “If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.” That is exactly what’s happening as the president, and his enablers challenge the election results.
The quote from Trumpocracy, however, isn’t the only time Frum was prescient about conservatives. Ten years ago, the former George W. Bush speechwriter took on the real leaders of the Republican Party: right-wing commentators on television and talk radio.
I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters — but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government.
Frum went on to point out that television and talk radio personalities have no interest in governing. Their goal is to draw more eyes and ears to their shows (puts money in their pockets), which is much easier to do if their audience is riled up.
If you’re wondering why 70 percent of Republicans believe the election was stolen, it isn’t just because of Trump tweets like this:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1337042714924380166
Right-wing radio talk show host Eric Metaxas said that to overturn the election, “we need to fight to the death, to the last drop of blood because it’s worth it.” Rush Limbaugh told his listeners that there could be no peaceful coexistence between liberals and conservatives while speculating about secession. At the Stop the Steal/Jericho March in Washington on Saturday, Alex Jones declared that “God is on our side” before predicting that “Joe Biden will be removed, one way or another.” That is what conservatives hear from the GOP’s real leaders. Is it any wonder then, that Republicans like Rep. Steve Scalise still refuse to recognize Joe Biden as the president-elect?
To explain why more than half of the Republican members of Congress signed on to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s attempt to destroy democracy by overturning the election, Kevin Drum got to the heart of the matter by writing, “they’re signing it because they’ve created both a base and an entertainment complex that will punish them if they don’t continue to feed it ever larger and bloodier chunks of red meat.” When the Supreme Court dismissed Paxton’s lawsuit, Allen West, chair of the Texas GOP, encouraged the secession alluded to by Limbaugh by issuing a statement that included: “perhaps law-abiding states should band together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”
Fox News has become the leading example of what happens when a right-wing network doesn’t dish enough red meat. While commentators like Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingraham continue to spread propaganda, the news division is partially grounded in reality. In response, the Fox News audience is fleeing to Newsmax and OANN, where they are fed a steady diet of outrage.
Conservatives have spent years decrying mainstream media as liberal and, therefore, not to be trusted. At the same time, a network of right-wing news organizations developed to spread propaganda and disinformation. Stars like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Jones were born. Then along came Trump, who upped the ante by telling his supporters that mainstream media was “the enemy of the people.”
As a result, about 40 percent of the public now lives in a bubble where facts don’t exist. It has been designed to keep the audience enraged and engaged, which means that they’ll buy more MyPillows, gold coins, and all the other items that are advertised between TV/radio segments. That’s the business model. While democracy faces its most serious threat since the Civil War, the real Republican leaders are laughing all the way to the bank.