washingtonmonthly--2020-05-04--What Joe Biden Can Learn from the NFL Draft

The two best NFL quarterbacks I ’ ve ever seen are Joe Montana and Tom Brady .
Montana was the 82nd player picked in the 1979 draft , and Brady was the 199th pick in the 2000 draft .
Aaron Rodgers of the Green Bay Packers is a future Hall of Famer , but he wasn ’ t selected until the 25th pick of the 2005 draft .
What ’ s more , he had to sit behind another Hall of Famer , Brett Favre , for three years before he got a chance to play .
There are many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drafted late and behind dozens of players who had ordinary careers or were even complete busts .
There are also examples of players who everyone seemed to think were drafted too high ( I ’ m looking at you , Bruce Irvin ) , but then they went on to fully justify their position .
I think of these things when I read articles that presume to tell Joe Biden who he should select as his running mate .
A new CBS News/YouGov poll reveals that Democrats favor Elizabeth Warren , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognition .
Other names on the survey ’ s list included Senators Tammy Duckworth of Illinois , Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Catherine Cortez-Masto of Nevada , Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico , former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and former interim U.S. Attorney General Sally Yates .
No men were included because Joe Biden has already made a commitment to choose a woman .
Scouts and general managers evaluate college football talent with an eye to winning games , but the people vetting Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond simply winning the election to see if these people can help them govern .
Can they step in and be president on short notice ?
Are they the right kind of person to be the presumptive leader of the party in eight years ?
What ’ s consistent is that both the political vetters and the NFL teams have access to a lot more information than the general public .
They do the interviews .
They ’ re more likely to kind the skeletons in the closet .
They can find potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the statistics to date .
And , of course , some scouting teams are really lousy at their jobs and that ’ s why the San Diego Chargers wound up with Ryan Leaf and John McCain wound up with Sarah Palin .
I can come up with reasons why Elizabeth Warren would be the best running mate for Joe Biden , just as I could make an argument that the Cincinnati Bengals should have used the first pick in the 2020 draft on Chase Young rather than Heisman Trophy winner Joe Burrow .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ informed opinion for the evaluations of the people who ’ ve actually put in the work .
Here ’ s what I ’ m confident in saying .
A NFL team shouldn ’ t draft someone because they ’ ll get good press for it the next day .
They shouldn ’ t shy away from drafting someone they believe in because they know they ’ ll be questioned and criticized .
Tom Brady is still going 20 years after he was drafted .
Aaron Rodgers is about to play his 16th season @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good vice-presidential pick might be finishing up her second term as president .
They could be with us for a very long time .
People have reasons for preferring one running mate to another , and I ’ d be pretty excited if it ’ s Elizabeth Warren .
Yet , sixteen years from now , she ’ ll be 86 years old .
All kinds of arguments can be made–one candidate will help excite the base , another will win over undecided voters .
This one will motivate Latinos or blacks or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raise money better than the others .
Ultimately , this is like picking a wide receiver because they jump the highest or run the fastest 40-yard dash .
Metrics are important but so are character , psychological makeup , and leadership abilities .
Just like some athletes receive their first million dollar check and lose their drive for excellence , a politician suddenly thrust into immense power and fame might not know how to handle it .
I can ’ t tell Joe Biden who to pick , but I can tell him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t chase some niche of voters or look for some big bump in the polls after the announcement .
If he just finds someone he has confidence in , he should do just fine .

The two best NFL quarterbacks I’ve ever seen are Joe Montana and Tom Brady. Montana was the 82nd player picked in the 1979 draft, and Brady was the 199th pick in the 2000 draft. Aaron Rodgers of the Green Bay Packers is a future Hall of Famer, but he wasn’t selected until the 25th pick of the 2005 draft. What’s more, he had to sit behind another Hall of Famer, Brett Favre, for three years before he got a chance to play.
There are many other examples of legendary players who were drafted late and behind dozens of players who had ordinary careers or were even complete busts. There are also examples of players who everyone seemed to think were drafted too high (I’m looking at you, Bruce Irvin), but then they went on to fully justify their position.
I think of these things when I read articles that presume to tell Joe Biden who he should select as his running mate. A new CBS News/YouGov poll reveals that Democrats favor Elizabeth Warren, but the ranking looks like a proxy for name recognition.
Elizabeth Warren is well atop Democratic voters’ list of those who should be considered for vice president — with 71% saying she should be — and Warren also outpaces other possible picks by a wide margin as their first choice for the job: Warren at 36% first choice, to Kamala Harris’ 19%, Stacey Abrams at 14%, and Amy Klobuchar at 13%. No one else gets over 4%.
Other names on the survey’s list included Senators Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Catherine Cortez-Masto of Nevada, Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and former interim U.S. Attorney General Sally Yates. No men were included because Joe Biden has already made a commitment to choose a woman.
Scouts and general managers evaluate college football talent with an eye to winning games, but the people vetting Biden’s potential running mates have to look beyond simply winning the election to see if these people can help them govern. Can they step in and be president on short notice? Are they the right kind of person to be the presumptive leader of the party in eight years?
What’s consistent is that both the political vetters and the NFL teams have access to a lot more information than the general public. They do the interviews. They’re more likely to kind the skeletons in the closet. They can find potential that doesn’t show up in the statistics to date. And, of course, some scouting teams are really lousy at their jobs and that’s why the San Diego Chargers wound up with Ryan Leaf and John McCain wound up with Sarah Palin.
I can come up with reasons why Elizabeth Warren would be the best running mate for Joe Biden, just as I could make an argument that the Cincinnati Bengals should have used the first pick in the 2020 draft on Chase Young rather than Heisman Trophy winner Joe Burrow. But I generally avoid substituting my poorly informed opinion for the evaluations of the people who’ve actually put in the work.
Here’s what I’m confident in saying. A NFL team shouldn’t draft someone because they’ll get good press for it the next day. They shouldn’t shy away from drafting someone they believe in because they know they’ll be questioned and criticized. Tom Brady is still going 20 years after he was drafted. Aaron Rodgers is about to play his 16th season. Sixteen years from now, a good vice-presidential pick might be finishing up her second term as president. They could be with us for a very long time.
People have reasons for preferring one running mate to another, and I’d be pretty excited if it’s Elizabeth Warren. Yet, sixteen years from now, she’ll be 86 years old. All kinds of arguments can be made–one candidate will help excite the base, another will win over undecided voters. This one will motivate Latinos or blacks or the youth vote and that one can raise money better than the others.
Ultimately, this is like picking a wide receiver because they jump the highest or run the fastest 40-yard dash. Metrics are important but so are character, psychological makeup, and leadership abilities. Just like some athletes receive their first million dollar check and lose their drive for excellence, a politician suddenly thrust into immense power and fame might not know how to handle it.
I can’t tell Joe Biden who to pick, but I can tell him how not to pick. He shouldn’t chase some niche of voters or look for some big bump in the polls after the announcement. If he just finds someone he has confidence in, he should do just fine.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-05--During a Pandemic, There Is No Such Thing as ‘Us’ vs ‘Them’

With the first outbreaks in Seattle and New York City , the initial story about coronavirus was that it was a pandemic that threatened highly populated urban areas .
As I noted almost a month ago , however , hotspots started developing in rural parts of the country as well .
Now , as Professor Gina Neff points out , there is a new story emerging .
The 10 biggest clusters of infection in the US are not high-flying international gatherings .
The 10 biggest clusters are not rich people going to Europe .
The 10 biggest clusters are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties .
They are NOT from outsiders .
Top 10 Coronavirus clusters in the US ?
Prisons , meat packing plants , a Navy battleship .
Next 10 ?
Prisons , meat packing plants , nursing homes .
Next 10 ?
And the 10 after that ?
Prisons , meat packing plants and nursing homes .
Here is the initial top ten that Neff is referring to : Number three on that list , the Smithfield meatpacking plant , apparently offered a $ 500 “ responsibility bonus ” to workers who didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of April .
In other words , they were willing to pay a bonus to workers who came in sick .
That is the exact opposite of what public health professionals recommend during a pandemic .
These are the plants Trump has ordered to stay open , promising immunity to the owners in the process .
The Democratic presidential nominee has a different idea about what needs to happen in these plants : extra premium pay for workers , rapid testing , and enforcement of worker protections .
Workers in those plants don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their co-workers , but put everyone in their communities at risk .
The same thing happens in the areas surrounding nursing homes and prisons .
The coronavirus can ’ t be kept locked up behind the walls of prisons any more than it can be kept within geographic borders .
What this all comes down to is that nursing homes , prisons , and meat packing plants all have one thing in common : they house and/or employ some of the most marginalized people in this country .
So Neff provides this warning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we must protect everyone .
That ’ s the story to fight this virus .
You might not like it .
For everyone to be safe , we must protect everyone .
Not just rich .
Or citizens .
Or white people .
Or voters .
Or the able bodied .
Or the young .
Or people who can [ work from home ] … We absolutely have to improve conditions in prisons , nursing homes and meat packing plants before we can return to “ normal.
” Otherwise , we are going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus cases… You can ’ t beat this virus without taking care of the most vulnerable PEOPLE in society…Public health has always known the truth .
The care of the most margnialized members of society is important for fighting infectious diseases .
I don ’ t hold out much hope that Neff ’ s advice will be heeded , which means that communities around nursing homes , meat packing plants , and prisons will continue to be hotspots .
That will put us all at risk unless and until we figure out that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we must protect everyone.
” When it comes to pandemics , there ’ s no such thing as “ us ” vs “ them .
”

With the first outbreaks in Seattle and New York City, the initial story about coronavirus was that it was a pandemic that threatened highly populated urban areas. As I noted almost a month ago, however, hotspots started developing in rural parts of the country as well. Now, as Professor Gina Neff points out, there is a new story emerging.
The 10 biggest clusters of infection in the US are not high-flying international gatherings. The 10 biggest clusters are not rich people going to Europe. The 10 biggest clusters are not from airplanes or conferences or fancy birthday parties. They are NOT from outsiders. Top 10 Coronavirus clusters in the US? Prisons, meat packing plants, a Navy battleship. Next 10? Prisons, meat packing plants, nursing homes. Next 10? And the 10 after that? Prisons, meat packing plants and nursing homes.
Here is the initial top ten that Neff is referring to:
Number three on that list, the Smithfield meatpacking plant, apparently offered a $500 “responsibility bonus” to workers who didn’t miss a shift in the month of April. In other words, they were willing to pay a bonus to workers who came in sick. That is the exact opposite of what public health professionals recommend during a pandemic. These are the plants Trump has ordered to stay open, promising immunity to the owners in the process.
The Democratic presidential nominee has a different idea about what needs to happen in these plants: extra premium pay for workers, rapid testing, and enforcement of worker protections.
Workers in those plants don’t simply spread the virus to their co-workers, but put everyone in their communities at risk. The same thing happens in the areas surrounding nursing homes and prisons. The coronavirus can’t be kept locked up behind the walls of prisons any more than it can be kept within geographic borders.
What this all comes down to is that nursing homes, prisons, and meat packing plants all have one thing in common: they house and/or employ some of the most marginalized people in this country. So Neff provides this warning.
For everyone to be safe, we must protect everyone. That’s the story to fight this virus. You might not like it. For everyone to be safe, we must protect everyone. Not just rich. Or citizens. Or white people. Or voters. Or the able bodied. Or the young. Or people who can [work from home]… We absolutely have to improve conditions in prisons, nursing homes and meat packing plants before we can return to “normal.” Otherwise, we are going to have tragic recurrences of clusters of coronavirus cases… You can’t beat this virus without taking care of the most vulnerable PEOPLE in society…Public health has always known the truth. The care of the most margnialized members of society is important for fighting infectious diseases.
I don’t hold out much hope that Neff’s advice will be heeded, which means that communities around nursing homes, meat packing plants, and prisons will continue to be hotspots. That will put us all at risk unless and until we figure out that, “for everyone to be safe, we must protect everyone.” When it comes to pandemics, there’s no such thing as “us” vs “them.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-05--Thousands of New Yorkers Are Dying. What Happens to Their Bodies?

On a Brooklyn neighborhood forum , funeral director Amy Cunningham put out the call .
Could anyone contribute items , like flowers , to an upcoming funeral ?
An elderly woman had died of coronavirus in a nursing home and had no family in the area .
Florists in New York are closed , so one resident contributed lilacs from her backyard , the Associated Press reported .
Another embroidered “ Mom ” on some fabric that would be placed on the casket , with the deceased woman ’ s family watching via livestream .
More than 16,000 people have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the epicenter of the outbreak in the U.S. Just as hospitals have struggled to keep up with the influx of sick people , the city has also struggled to accommodate all of the dead .
The state has relaxed environmental regulations to allow crematoriums to operate around the clock , and the city has dispatched a fleet of mobile morgues .
Burials on Hart Island , New York ’ s mass grave for bodies that aren ’ t claimed , or whose family can not afford a funeral , have increased five-fold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced to adapt ceremonies and services around the contagious disease .
Cunningham , the founder of Fitting Tribute Funeral Services , specializes in environmentally friendly burials .
She and I talked about how funerals have changed in New York .
This conversation has been shortened and edited for clarity .
How has your work different since the coronavirus outbreak started in New York ?
Well , my firm specialized in earth friendly burials , home funerals , and witnessed cremation services , and none of those services are currently possible in exactly the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because of the novel coronavirus , families are saying goodbye—on a good day—with nursing assistants holding the cell phone to the ear of the dying person in a hospital that the family hasn ’ t even been able to enter .
The funerals I ’ m managing now involve the transporting of the deceased person in a white plastic body pouch to protect the funeral home personnel from any risk of the virus passing to them in the hours after death .
That bag isn ’ t coming off at the funeral home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus expires within the body at the time of a death , there is said to be some risk to individuals in the hours immediately afterwards , perhaps because the lungs of the dead person still hold a bit of air , and as we move them they actually can exhale a little bit after death .
Plastic body bags are a fact of life for now , but they are upsetting to me .
They ’ re hardly eco-friendly , not remotely green .
I ’ ve got folks looking into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sturdy and kinder to the planet .
Another thing that ’ s different is that previously , if a death occurred on a Tuesday I could arrange for a burial or cremation two days , three days later , sometimes even the next day if the paperwork went smoothly .
Because of the sheer number of dead that we ’ re managing , cremations are now being scheduled at the end of May .
Are there any basic things you need in order to provide your services that are either hard to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running out of ?
It seems likely that there will be a casket shortage eventually .
I ’ ve personally solved that issue by bringing caskets into my living room at home .
I live in a two-story limestone row house and I ’ ve got four caskets in my living room right now .
I went ahead and had the casket company deliver them , and had my son and husband carry them in so that at least I ’ d have some caskets that were clean and ready to move when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a little unusual .
Have there been an influx of families that are in need of death care services but can ’ t afford them ?
If so , what are their options ?
Yes , I ’ m hearing from people who need a funeral , and are disappointed that the wait time for an affordable cremation is so long .
Some have lost their jobs , have no money , and need to plan a funeral with a burial now that might cost $ 1500 to $ 6000 .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time when the deaths were occurring so quickly that some funeral homes weren ’ t able to manage the sheer volume of the work and were referring people out to other firms .
Those firms were helping us New York City funeral directors cremate the dead by taking them to other states .
There ’ s so many deceased people , our crematories are overwhelmed .
So , there are people driving deceased folk up to Pennsylvania , New Jersey , other areas where the crematories are a little less overwhelmed .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to ease up .
Today in New York as you ’ re interviewing me , I ’ m not hearing the same sirens out in the streets that I was two weeks ago .
So it could be correct that , as Governor Cuomo says , we ’ re leveling this off .
But people out of work are still struggling and starting GoFundMe pages to help them with the cost of the funeral .
I will say this , however : I ’ m really impressed with the local funeral directors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in that situation .
How can you charge them the full rate ?
It just can ’ t happen .
So , we ’ re offering people our services at a reduction .
What does your typical day look like right now ?
The heavy lifting and placing in the casket is done by amazing folks I employ to help me at the funeral home .
My day is mostly on the telephone with grieving families , trying to schedule and arrange these burials and cremations in a timely way .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time explaining to families why only 10 family members can come to the cemetery .
We ’ re trying to educate folks about the possibilities and Zoom memorials and new ways to grieve remotely so that we can have some sort of commemoration of the life as we manage the very very basic down-to-earth manner of a simple disposition right now .
What has been your advice to people who have lost family or friends to coronavirus ?
Either practical advice , or different advice you ’ re giving on how to grieve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we place too much emphasis on the hour-long funeral service .
Saying farewell to someone is really the task of a lifetime , and something that you do most intensely over the period of the first full year .
So I ’ ve been coaching families to see that , yes , we ’ ve lost the gathering we ’ re most familiar with , but you will be able to find a way to mourn , and find community , and relate to your other family members in a way that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When I do have a casket in my car headed for a burial , we ’ ve been replacing traditional chapel gatherings with doing these outdoor block parades .
I drive the car with the casket in it onto the actual block where the deceased person lived , and people can acknowledge the death as a neighborhood .
I had one death caused by a heart attack .
We have to remember that other sorts of deaths still occur in the age of the novel coronavirus .
I drove to the man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and allowed people to approach the car while maintaining a safe distance from each other .
They placed flowers in the car , and then the immediate family drove to the cemetery and stood at the lovely graveside service 6 to 10 feet apart .
Good funeral , lots of love expressed .
I know you specialize in sustainable , or greener burials .
Are you still able to do those kind services ?
Yes .
My real contribution as a funeral director in this moment is personally driving people upstate to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caskets in the earth .
The only problem is that there is this plastic body bag inside there that I never used to have to use .
Most of the eco-friendly cemeteries are saying , “ well , God , what can we do , we know it ’ s a crisis in our country , and a time of considerable suffering.
” So , they may take that plastic bag for the short term as we work it out .
In other words , the green burials I ’ m managing are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to be but we ’ re doing the best we can .
Do you think the pandemic will lead to any lasting changes in the funeral industry ?
I hesitate before mentioning this because it doesn ’ t feel like a great time to criticize the conventional funeral industry .
The men who have been in the business 40 years and were nearing retirement have flung themselves into this crisis and been so courageous .
However , maybe when we catch our breath , we ’ ll evaluate where we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might provide better services to more people , and take the drive to profit from the funeral out altogether by looking at cooperative funeral home structure , which is operating very successfully in the state of Washington In the old days prior to the Civil War , before the American funeral industry was formed , communities took care of their own .
And it feels to me like we could attend to that kind of care again and find ways to make deaths less of a medical event , and more of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work hard and admire the conventional guys I know and work around , I ’ m at the same time thinking , “ Gee , there must be a better way to give funeral services to people at an affordable rate , and in a loving way .
”

On a Brooklyn neighborhood forum, funeral director Amy Cunningham put out the call. Could anyone contribute items, like flowers, to an upcoming funeral? An elderly woman had died of coronavirus in a nursing home and had no family in the area. Florists in New York are closed, so one resident contributed lilacs from her backyard, the Associated Press reported. Another embroidered “Mom” on some fabric that would be placed on the casket, with the deceased woman’s family watching via livestream.
More than 16,000 people have died of Covid-19 in New York City, the epicenter of the outbreak in the U.S. Just as hospitals have struggled to keep up with the influx of sick people, the city has also struggled to accommodate all of the dead. The state has relaxed environmental regulations to allow crematoriums to operate around the clock, and the city has dispatched a fleet of mobile morgues. Burials on Hart Island, New York’s mass grave for bodies that aren’t claimed, or whose family cannot afford a funeral, have increased five-fold.
Funeral directors like Cunningham have been forced to adapt ceremonies and services around the contagious disease. Cunningham, the founder of Fitting Tribute Funeral Services, specializes in environmentally friendly burials. She and I talked about how funerals have changed in New York.
This conversation has been shortened and edited for clarity.
How is your work different since the coronavirus outbreak started in New York?
Well, my firm specialized in earth friendly burials, home funerals, and witnessed cremation services, and none of those services are currently possible in exactly the same way I was delivering them. Because of the novel coronavirus, families are saying goodbye—on a good day—with nursing assistants holding the cell phone to the ear of the dying person in a hospital that the family hasn’t even been able to enter.
I’ve got four caskets in my living room right now. That’s a little unusual.
The funerals I’m managing now involve the transporting of the deceased person in a white plastic body pouch to protect the funeral home personnel from any risk of the virus passing to them in the hours after death. That bag isn’t coming off at the funeral home. While it’s believed that the coronavirus expires within the body at the time of a death, there is said to be some risk to individuals in the hours immediately afterwards, perhaps because the lungs of the dead person still hold a bit of air, and as we move them they actually can exhale a little bit after death. Plastic body bags are a fact of life for now, but they are upsetting to me. They’re hardly eco-friendly, not remotely green. I’ve got folks looking into how we could develop something just as sturdy and kinder to the planet.
Another thing that’s different is that previously, if a death occurred on a Tuesday I could arrange for a burial or cremation two days, three days later, sometimes even the next day if the paperwork went smoothly. Because of the sheer number of dead that we’re managing, cremations are now being scheduled at the end of May.
Are there any basic things you need in order to provide your services that are either hard to get ahold of or that you’re running out of?
It seems likely that there will be a casket shortage eventually. I’ve personally solved that issue by bringing caskets into my living room at home. I live in a two-story limestone row house and I’ve got four caskets in my living room right now. I went ahead and had the casket company deliver them, and had my son and husband carry them in so that at least I’d have some caskets that were clean and ready to move when I needed them. That’s a little unusual.
Have there been an influx of families that are in need of death care services but can’t afford them? If so, what are their options?
Yes, I’m hearing from people who need a funeral, and are disappointed that the wait time for an affordable cremation is so long. Some have lost their jobs, have no money, and need to plan a funeral with a burial now that might cost $1500 to $6000. It’s pretty devastating. There was a time when the deaths were occurring so quickly that some funeral homes weren’t able to manage the sheer volume of the work and were referring people out to other firms. Those firms were helping us New York City funeral directors cremate the dead by taking them to other states. There’s so many deceased people, our crematories are overwhelmed. So, there are people driving deceased folk up to Pennsylvania, New Jersey, other areas where the crematories are a little less overwhelmed.
In the coming month, that’s going to ease up. Today in New York as you’re interviewing me, I’m not hearing the same sirens out in the streets that I was two weeks ago. So it could be correct that, as Governor Cuomo says, we’re leveling this off. But people out of work are still struggling and starting GoFundMe pages to help them with the cost of the funeral.
I will say this, however: I’m really impressed with the local funeral directors that are reducing their prices for families in that situation. How can you charge them the full rate? It just can’t happen. So, we’re offering people our services at a reduction.
What does your typical day look like right now?
The heavy lifting and placing in the casket is done by amazing folks I employ to help me at the funeral home. My day is mostly on the telephone with grieving families, trying to schedule and arrange these burials and cremations in a timely way. I’m spending a fair amount of my time explaining to families why only 10 family members can come to the cemetery. We’re trying to educate folks about the possibilities and Zoom memorials and new ways to grieve remotely so that we can have some sort of commemoration of the life as we manage the very very basic down-to-earth matter of a simple disposition right now.
What has been your advice to people who have lost family or friends to coronavirus? Either practical advice, or different advice you’re giving on how to grieve?
I had already been thinking that we place too much emphasis on the hour-long funeral service. Saying farewell to someone is really the task of a lifetime, and something that you do most intensely over the period of the first full year. So I’ve been coaching families to see that, yes, we’ve lost the gathering we’re most familiar with, but you will be able to find a way to mourn, and find community, and relate to your other family members in a way that will be new but restorative in surprising ways.
When I do have a casket in my car headed for a burial, we’ve been replacing traditional chapel gatherings with doing these outdoor block parades. I drive the car with the casket in it onto the actual block where the deceased person lived, and people can acknowledge the death as a neighborhood. I had one death caused by a heart attack. We have to remember that other sorts of deaths still occur in the age of the novel coronavirus. I drove to the man’s block, opened the car, and allowed people to approach the car while maintaining a safe distance from each other. They placed flowers in the car, and then the immediate family drove to the cemetery and stood at the lovely graveside service 6 to 10 feet apart. Good funeral, lots of love expressed.
I know you specialize in sustainable, or greener burials. Are you still able to do those kind services?
Yes. My real contribution as a funeral director in this moment is personally driving people upstate to eco-friendly cemeteries that will just bury simple caskets in the earth. The only problem is that there is this plastic body bag inside there that I never used to have to use. Most of the eco-friendly cemeteries are saying, “well, God, what can we do, we know it’s a crisis in our country, and a time of considerable suffering.” So, they may take that plastic bag for the short term as we work it out. In other words, the green burials I’m managing are just a bit less green than they used to be but we’re doing the best we can.
Do you think the pandemic will lead to any lasting changes in the funeral industry?
I hesitate before mentioning this because it doesn’t feel like a great time to criticize the conventional funeral industry. The men who have been in the business 40 years and were nearing retirement have flung themselves into this crisis and been so courageous.
However, maybe when we catch our breath, we’ll evaluate where we’re headed as an industry and how we might provide better services to more people, and take the drive to profit from the funeral out altogether by looking at cooperative funeral home structure, which is operating very successfully in the state of Washington.
In the old days prior to the Civil War, before the American funeral industry was formed, communities took care of their own. And it feels to me like we could attend to that kind of care again and find ways to make deaths less of a medical event, and more of a community-based experience. So, as I work hard and admire the conventional guys I know and work around, I’m at the same time thinking, “Gee, there must be a better way to give funeral services to people at an affordable rate, and in a loving way.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-05--A Chest Master’s Own Narcissism Gives Him Insight Into Trump

Teimour Radjabov was 15 years old when he defeated the then-reigning world champion of chess Garry Kasparov .
It happened in Linares , Spain in 2003 at one of the most prestigious tournaments in the world .
Kasparov had not lost a match at Linares in the prior six years .
It had been seven years since he ’ d lost in any format while using the white pieces .
It was one of the greatest upsets of all time .
When Kasparov realized that his position was hopeless , he simply walked out of the building and technically lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trouble really began at the awards ceremony where the match was awarded the “ la más Bella ” prize .
This was too much for Kasparov ’ s pride and he lashed out .
He went up on the stage and seized the microphone : The prize is awarded by a vote of journalists , only some of whom were themselves grandmasters , and Kasparov did not spare them his wrath .
Kasparov then approached a group of journalists , including GM Ian Rogers of Australia and Spanish writer Leontxo Garcia , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and shouted : “ This is the greatest insult that you have done to me in my life !
It is an insult to me and to chess .
You consider yourself chess journalists ?
If you think that this was the most beautiful game in Linares , you are damaging chess with your reports and articles .
Radjabov was completely lost in that game.
” Kasparov then stormed out with his mother and trainer .
On the merits , Kasparov had a point .
He had blundered away a winning position and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
But the lack of graciousness towards a 15 year old kid was shocking and the whole incident remains a blot on his otherwise astoundingly successful career .
Kasparov is now retired from competitive chess and he ’ s known not only as perhaps the top champion of all time , but also as one of the most prominent critics of Vladimir Putin .
He lives in exile in the United States , and often warns that Donald Trump uses many of Putin ’ s strategies for exercising power .
Chief among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of objective truth .
Kasparov and Trump may share traits of vanity and narcissism , but that ’ s where the similarities end .
You can ’ t become the greatest chess player in the world without having a spectacularly logical and analytical mind , and Trump is more prone to weak conspiracy theories and junk science .
Much is being written about Trump ’ s lack of empathy , and it ’ s on display again today as he complains about giving federal assistance to blue states .
President Donald Trump says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress passes coronavirus “ bailouts ” for states because he said the states that would benefit from that funding are run by Democrats .
“ I think Congress is inclined to do a lot of things but I don ’ t think they ’ re inclined to do bailouts .
A bailout is different than , you know , reimbursing for the plague , ” Trump told the New York Post in a sit-down interview in the Oval Office on Monday .
The president continued , “ It ’ s not fair to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need help — they ’ re run by Democrats in every case .
Florida is doing phenomenal , Texas is doing phenomenal , the Midwest is , you know , fantastic — very little debt.
” There ’ s no doubt that Trump ’ s callousness is a selling point to many of his fans , but it ’ s not much of a reelection strategy .
If he wants a second term , he ’ s going to have to do a very effective job of precisely what Kasparov has been warning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ described quite well by NYU professor Jay Rosen : The plan is to have no plan , to let daily deaths between one and three thousand become a normal thing , and then to create massive confusion about who is responsible— by telling the governors they ’ re in charge without doing what only the federal government can do , by fighting with the press when it shows up to be briefed , by fixing blame for the virus on China or some other foreign element , and by “ flooding the zone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s phrase for overwhelming the system with disinformation , distraction , and denial , which boosts what economists call “ search costs ” for reliable intelligence .
Stated another way , the plan is to default on public problem solving , and then prevent the public from understanding the consequences of that default .
To succeed this will require one of the biggest propaganda and freedom of information fights in U.S. history , the execution of which will , I think , consume the president ’ s re-election campaign .
Last December , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ described things in similar terms : We enjoyed less than a decade of tenuous freedom in Russia before Vladimir Putin launched its post-democratic phase .
My ongoing attempts to fight that tragedy led to my exile in the United States .
Now my new home finds itself locked in its own perilous battle — a battle to avoid becoming the latest member of the post-truth world .
President Donald Trump and his Republican defenders in Congress have followed his lead in declaring war on observed reality .
Critical reports are “ fake news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ enemies of the people , ” a phrase of Vladimir Lenin ’ s , debunked conspiracy theories are repeated , and public servants testifying under oath about documented events are dismissed as Never Trumpers .
Unable to change the facts , Trump and his supporters instead try to shift the debate into an alternate universe where the truth is whatever they say it is today .
Trump repeats the same lies over and over , and it ’ s hard to say which is more troubling — that his followers don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they don ’ t care .
I admire Kasparov as a chess player as well as for his heroic efforts to stand up for representative government and objective truth .
He may not be a gracious loser or the most empathetic man in the world , but he knows gaslighting when he sees it .
He also knows danger : What do you think of comparisons between Trump and Putin ?
Their backgrounds are different .
Putin is not a public person ; he is a K.G.B .
agent .
He is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acts openly and brazenly .
Sure , he has to disguise things , but he does that by piling on lies and fake information .
I think Trump envies Putin his ability to do things that Trump can ’ t do by definition .
Putin doesn ’ t have to be concerned with the media or with parliament .
Trump resents wasting his precious time on speaking to the press .
And then he has to push things through , lobby for them—all that takes time .
I think the way Trump acts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sort of inferiority : he ’ d like to be like them , but he can ’ t .
If he is reëlected , it will be a tragedy—nothing will rein him in .

Teimour Radjabov was 15 years old when he defeated the then-reigning world champion of chess Garry Kasparov. It happened in Linares, Spain in 2003 at one of the most prestigious tournaments in the world. Kasparov had not lost a match at Linares in the prior six years. It had been seven years since he’d lost in any format while using the white pieces. It was one of the greatest upsets of all time.
When Kasparov realized that his position was hopeless, he simply walked out of the building and technically lost the match on time. But the trouble really began at the awards ceremony where the match was awarded the “la más Bella” prize. This was too much for Kasparov’s pride and he lashed out. He went up on the stage and seized the microphone:
“How could you give the beauty prize to a game in which I lost a piece because of a stupid mistake? It has been selected only because it was the only game that I lost and I consider this to be a public insult and humiliation.”
The prize is awarded by a vote of journalists, only some of whom were themselves grandmasters, and Kasparov did not spare them his wrath.
Kasparov then approached a group of journalists, including GM Ian Rogers of Australia and Spanish writer Leontxo Garcia, and asked them who they had voted for and shouted: “This is the greatest insult that you have done to me in my life! It is an insult to me and to chess. You consider yourself chess journalists? If you think that this was the most beautiful game in Linares, you are damaging chess with your reports and articles. Radjabov was completely lost in that game.” Kasparov then stormed out with his mother and trainer.
On the merits, Kasparov had a point. He had blundered away a winning position and there’s nothing particularly beautiful in that. But the lack of graciousness towards a 15 year old kid was shocking and the whole incident remains a blot on his otherwise astoundingly successful career.
Kasparov is now retired from competitive chess and he’s known not only as perhaps the top champion of all time, but also as one of the most prominent critics of Vladimir Putin. He lives in exile in the United States, and often warns that Donald Trump uses many of Putin’s strategies for exercising power. Chief among these is the destruction of any sense of objective truth.
Kasparov and Trump may share traits of vanity and narcissism, but that’s where the similarities end. You can’t become the greatest chess player in the world without having a spectacularly logical and analytical mind, and Trump is more prone to weak conspiracy theories and junk science.
Much is being written about Trump’s lack of empathy, and it’s on display again today as he complains about giving federal assistance to blue states.
President Donald Trump says it would be unfair to Republicans if Congress passes coronavirus “bailouts” for states because he said the states that would benefit from that funding are run by Democrats. “I think Congress is inclined to do a lot of things but I don’t think they’re inclined to do bailouts. A bailout is different than, you know, reimbursing for the plague,” Trump told the New York Post in a sit-down interview in the Oval Office on Monday. The president continued, “It’s not fair to the Republicans because all the states that need help — they’re run by Democrats in every case. Florida is doing phenomenal, Texas is doing phenomenal, the Midwest is, you know, fantastic — very little debt.”
There’s no doubt that Trump’s callousness is a selling point to many of his fans, but it’s not much of a reelection strategy. If he wants a second term, he’s going to have to do a very effective job of precisely what Kasparov has been warning us about. The basic idea is described quite well by NYU professor Jay Rosen:
The plan is to have no plan, to let daily deaths between one and three thousand become a normal thing, and then to create massive confusion about who is responsible— by telling the governors they’re in charge without doing what only the federal government can do, by fighting with the press when it shows up to be briefed, by fixing blame for the virus on China or some other foreign element, and by “flooding the zone with shit,” Steve Bannon’s phrase for overwhelming the system with disinformation, distraction, and denial, which boosts what economists call “search costs” for reliable intelligence. Stated another way, the plan is to default on public problem solving, and then prevent the public from understanding the consequences of that default. To succeed this will require one of the biggest propaganda and freedom of information fights in U.S. history, the execution of which will, I think, consume the president’s re-election campaign.
Last December, Kasparov wrote a piece for CNN that described things in similar terms:
We enjoyed less than a decade of tenuous freedom in Russia before Vladimir Putin launched its post-democratic phase. My ongoing attempts to fight that tragedy led to my exile in the United States. Now my new home finds itself locked in its own perilous battle — a battle to avoid becoming the latest member of the post-truth world. President Donald Trump and his Republican defenders in Congress have followed his lead in declaring war on observed reality. Critical reports are “fake news,” journalists reporting the facts are “enemies of the people,” a phrase of Vladimir Lenin’s, debunked conspiracy theories are repeated, and public servants testifying under oath about documented events are dismissed as Never Trumpers. Unable to change the facts, Trump and his supporters instead try to shift the debate into an alternate universe where the truth is whatever they say it is today. Trump repeats the same lies over and over, and it’s hard to say which is more troubling — that his followers don’t realize that they are lies or that they don’t care.
I admire Kasparov as a chess player as well as for his heroic efforts to stand up for representative government and objective truth. He may not be a gracious loser or the most empathetic man in the world, but he knows gaslighting when he sees it. He also knows danger:
What do you think of comparisons between Trump and Putin? Their backgrounds are different. Putin is not a public person; he is a K.G.B. agent. He is underhanded in everything he does. Trump acts openly and brazenly. Sure, he has to disguise things, but he does that by piling on lies and fake information. I think Trump envies Putin his ability to do things that Trump can’t do by definition. Putin doesn’t have to be concerned with the media or with parliament. Trump resents wasting his precious time on speaking to the press. And then he has to push things through, lobby for them—all that takes time. I think the way Trump acts around dictators comes from his feelings of a sort of inferiority: he’d like to be like them, but he can’t. If he is reëlected, it will be a tragedy—nothing will rein him in.
I’m inclined to heed the grandmaster’s warning.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-05--We Need ‘Stubborn, Nasty, and Defiant Optimism’ Now More Than Ever

I will never forget Bruce Springsteen ’ s tribute to the legendary Pete Seeger at the celebration of the activist folk-singer ’ s 90th birthday .
Despite Pete ’ s somewhat benign grandfatherly appearance , he is a creature of stubborn , nasty , and defiant optimism .
Inside him he carries a steely toughness that belies that grandfatherly facade and it won ’ t let him take a step back from the things he believes in .
At 90 , he remains a stealth dagger to the heart of our country ’ s illusions about itself … He reminds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as shinning a light toward our better angels on the horizon , where the country we ’ ve imagined and hold dear we hope awaits us .
That is not only a fitting tribute to Seeger , it is an aspirational statement that reminds the rest of us of what we strive to become , hoping that someday a poet like Springsteen will say something similar about us in our twilight years .
We are certainly living in times when our country ’ s illusions about itself have been shattered .
More than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is critical that we display a steely toughness to shine a light on both our immense failures , as well as point toward our better angels on the horizon .
That is exactly what we here at Washington Monthly attempt to do every day .
But as you know , times are tough for fearless independent journalism .
The Institute for Nonprofit Journalism has launched a News for Good campaign and declared this # GivingTuesdayNow .
So today , we ask you to consider making a donation , if you are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we can continue striving towards that goal .
My stubborn , nasty , and defiant optimism says that , if we all hang together , we ’ ll someday meet in the land of hope and dreams .

I will never forget Bruce Springsteen’s tribute to the legendary Pete Seeger at the celebration of the activist folk-singer’s 90th birthday.
Despite Pete’s somewhat benign grandfatherly appearance, he is a creature of stubborn, nasty, and defiant optimism. Inside him he carries a steely toughness that belies that grandfatherly facade and it won’t let him take a step back from the things he believes in. At 90, he remains a stealth dagger to the heart of our country’s illusions about itself … He reminds us of our immense failures as well as shinning a light toward our better angels on the horizon, where the country we’ve imagined and hold dear we hope awaits us.
That is not only a fitting tribute to Seeger, it is an aspirational statement that reminds the rest of us of what we strive to become, hoping that someday a poet like Springsteen will say something similar about us in our twilight years.
We are certainly living in times when our country’s illusions about itself have been shattered. More than just about any era in our lifetimes, it is critical that we display a steely toughness to shine a light on both our immense failures, as well as point toward our better angels on the horizon.
That is exactly what we here at Washington Monthly attempt to do every day. But as you know, times are tough for fearless independent journalism. The Institute for Nonprofit Journalism has launched a News for Good campaign and declared this #GivingTuesdayNow. So today, we ask you to consider making a donation, if you are able, to this publication, so that we can continue striving towards that goal.
My stubborn, nasty, and defiant optimism says that, if we all hang together, we’ll someday meet in the land of hope and dreams.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-06--A Reminder: Sexual Predation Is About Power and Dominance

As a woman , this tweet by Trump enabler Paul Sperry sent me reeling .
Sperry assumes that a picture of Biden ’ s accuser demonstrating how attractive she was is evidence that her charges are credible .
The inference is that women who are “ much older and much heavier ” aren ’ t likely to be sexually assaulted .
It shows a complete misunderstanding of sexual predators .
Personally , I didn ’ t reach the conclusion that Donald Trump was a sexual predator when I heard the Access Hollywood tape or the myriad of stories from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assault .
Instead , it became clear to me before those things came to light when I read the transcript of his appearance on Howard Stern ’ s radio show from December 2004 .
As was often the case , the two were discussing their sexual attraction to famous women .
On this particular day , Trump brought up Lindsay Lohan , who was 18 at the time .
After going back and forth about whether they found freckles and red hair attractive , the conversation took an even uglier turn .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it should be .
The man who would later become the President of the United States engaged in a conversation about how deeply troubled women ( in this case , a teenager ) are “ always the best in bed.
” That is the hallmark of a sexual predator—for whom sex isn ’ t about giving and receiving pleasure , but about power and dominance .
No one nailed Donald Trump better than Franklin Foer back in 2016 when he wrote this .
[ T ] here ’ s one ideology that [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practices with unwavering fervor : misogyny…Trump wants us to know all about his sex life .
He doesn ’ t regard sex as a private activity .
It ’ s something he broadcasts to demonstrate his dominance , of both women and men .
In his view , treating women like meat is a necessary precondition for winning , and winning is all that matters in his world .
By winning , Trump means asserting superiority .
And since life is a zero-sum game , superiority can only be achieved at someone else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why Trump was a regular guest on Stern ’ s show .
He wanted to publicly talk about treating women like meat and brag about his sexual dominance .
But being a sexual predator is much like being a bully—they ’ re both cowards who prey on those they view as vulnerable .
Trump ’ s cowardice is demonstrated by how he reacts to women he can ’ t bully or dominate .
The two that stand out to me are Michelle Obama and Nancy Pelosi .
I ’ ve noted before that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump .
If you want a reminder of what a strong woman sounds like , take a listen to the speech she gave just one week after the release of the Access Hollywood tape .
As is almost always the case , Michelle never mentioned Trump ’ s name .
But she expressed both the anger and the pain we were all feeling at the time .
Just as importantly , she pointed out what a weak man Trump is .
Nancy Pelosi has tangled with Trump on several occasions .
Apparently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to meet with her since this happened—for fear of being humiliated again .
Michelle Obama and Nancy Pelosi are wonderful examples of what it means to be a strong woman .
But we need to re-think what it means to be strong in order to rescue the word from its patriarchal associations with dominance .
Marge Piercy did that in her poem , “ For Strong Women.
” Here is how it ends .
A strong woman is a woman who craves love like oxygen or she turns blue choking .
A strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and weeps strongly and is strongly terrified and has strong needs .
A strong woman is strong in words , in action , in connection , in feeling ; she is not strong as a stone but as a wolf suckling her young .
Strength is not in her , but she enacts it as the wind fills a sail .
What comforts her is others loving her equally for the strength and for the weakness from which it issues , lightning from a cloud .
Lightning stuns .
In rain , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains , flowing through us .
Strong is what we make each other .
Until we are all strong together , a strong woman is a woman strongly afraid .
While some people criticized Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 slogan , “ Stronger Together , ” there were a lot of us who knew exactly what she meant .
That election was a quintessential contest between strength and dominance .
Too many people didn ’ t recognize what was at stake and I will probably go to my grave wondering why they allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House .

As a woman, this tweet by Trump enabler Paul Sperry sent me reeling.
https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1256982791633489921
Sperry assumes that a picture of Biden’s accuser demonstrating how attractive she was is evidence that her charges are credible. The inference is that women who are “much older and much heavier” aren’t likely to be sexually assaulted. It shows a complete misunderstanding of sexual predators.
Sexual offenders are attracted to vulnerability. Perpetrators seek out potential victims who they perceive as easy to overpower and manipulate. They look for those who would be unlikely to report the assault and who would not be deemed credible if the assault were reported. Older adults are especially vulnerable to sexual violence.
Personally, I didn’t reach the conclusion that Donald Trump was a sexual predator when I heard the Access Hollywood tape or the myriad of stories from the women who have accused him of sexual assault. Instead, it became clear to me before those things came to light when I read the transcript of his appearance on Howard Stern’s radio show from December 2004.
As was often the case, the two were discussing their sexual attraction to famous women. On this particular day, Trump brought up Lindsay Lohan, who was 18 at the time. After going back and forth about whether they found freckles and red hair attractive, the conversation took an even uglier turn.
“Can you imagine the sex with this troubled teen?” said Stern. “Yeah, you’re probably right,” Trump said. “She’s probably deeply troubled and therefore great in bed. How come the deeply troubled women, you know, deeply, deeply troubled, they’re always the best in bed?”
If that is both shocking and disturbing, it should be. The man who would later become the President of the United States engaged in a conversation about how deeply troubled women (in this case, a teenager) are “always the best in bed.” That is the hallmark of a sexual predator—for whom sex isn’t about giving and receiving pleasure, but about power and dominance. No one nailed Donald Trump better than Franklin Foer back in 2016 when he wrote this.
[T]here’s one ideology that [Trump] does hold with sincerity and practices with unwavering fervor: misogyny…Trump wants us to know all about his sex life. He doesn’t regard sex as a private activity. It’s something he broadcasts to demonstrate his dominance, of both women and men. In his view, treating women like meat is a necessary precondition for winning, and winning is all that matters in his world. By winning, Trump means asserting superiority. And since life is a zero-sum game, superiority can only be achieved at someone else’s expense.
That is precisely why Trump was a regular guest on Stern’s show. He wanted to publicly talk about treating women like meat and brag about his sexual dominance. But being a sexual predator is much like being a bully—they’re both cowards who prey on those they view as vulnerable.
Trump’s cowardice is demonstrated by how he reacts to women he can’t bully or dominate. The two that stand out to me are Michelle Obama and Nancy Pelosi. I’ve noted before that the former First Lady has effectively silenced Donald Trump. If you want a reminder of what a strong woman sounds like, take a listen to the speech she gave just one week after the release of the Access Hollywood tape. As is almost always the case, Michelle never mentioned Trump’s name. But she expressed both the anger and the pain we were all feeling at the time. Just as importantly, she pointed out what a weak man Trump is.
The men that you and I know don’t treat women this way. They are loving fathers who are sickened by the thought of their daughters being exposed to this kind of vicious language about women. They are husbands and brothers and sons who don’t tolerate women being treated and demeaned and disrespected…let’s be very clear: Strong men—men who are truly role models—don’t need to put down women to make themselves feel powerful.
Nancy Pelosi has tangled with Trump on several occasions. Apparently, he hasn’t been willing to meet with her since this happened—for fear of being humiliated again.
Michelle Obama and Nancy Pelosi are wonderful examples of what it means to be a strong woman. But we need to re-think what it means to be strong in order to rescue the word from its patriarchal associations with dominance. Marge Piercy did that in her poem, “For Strong Women.” Here is how it ends.
A strong woman is a woman who craves love
like oxygen or she turns blue choking.
A strong woman is a woman who loves
strongly and weeps strongly and is strongly
terrified and has strong needs. A strong woman is strong
in words, in action, in connection, in feeling;
she is not strong as a stone but as a wolf
suckling her young. Strength is not in her, but she
enacts it as the wind fills a sail.
What comforts her is others loving
her equally for the strength and for the weakness
from which it issues, lightning from a cloud.
Lightning stuns. In rain, the clouds disperse.
Only water of connection remains,
flowing through us. Strong is what we make
each other. Until we are all strong together,
a strong woman is a woman strongly afraid.
While some people criticized Hillary Clinton’s 2016 slogan, “Stronger Together,” there were a lot of us who knew exactly what she meant. That election was a quintessential contest between strength and dominance. Too many people didn’t recognize what was at stake and I will probably go to my grave wondering why they allowed a sexual predator to inhabit the White House.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-06--When COVID-19 Ends, Mass Protests Against Dictators Will Return

Teenagers around the country have a very specific plan for what they will do when they are released from COVID confinement : party !
Around the world , however , the decriminalization and return of mass gatherings likely will lead to something else : demonstrations !
Governments and regimes everywhere are going to face a greater test of their resilience and staying power once masses of people are freed from public-health fears and able to express their dissent .
Demonstrators who were a prominent feature in the streets of Hong Kong or on France ’ s highways have all been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead of gathering in person , they are cowering from pestilence .
In country after country , concerns over public health are trumping the urge to amass in their outrage over social inequity , curtailed human rights , government corruption , resource scarcity , healthcare inadequacy , supply-chain failures , leader ineptitude , worker exploitation and citizen disempowerment .
Some of this pent-up frustration is finding online expression via virtual demonstrations .
Internet-based organizing may provide some outlet for public expression , but is no substitute for real world assembled venting .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ who failed to serve citizens before this pandemic are building in a pressure cooker of protest that will surely blow its lid .
This is as true in authoritarian regimes as it is in democratic states .
Democracies , however , are more vulnerable and responsive to the mood and will of indignant people .
Democratic systems around the world have implemented stay-at-home orders or guidelines that keep people apart , whether in parks or in front of parliaments .
The actions are deemed necessary and have unquestionably made a difference in containing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These measures have certainly succeeded in keeping the disgruntled far away from the accountable .
Strained governments currently struggling to manage reasonable pandemic responses should expect to face the music once it is safe for the disgruntled to organize and protest .
Leaders everywhere will confront an angry , frustrated , aggrieved , unemployed electorate demanding justice and seeking political retribution for any mistakes or miscalculations currently being made .
In places where government legitimacy was already being challenged by public demonstrations against unpopular policies—places like Turkey or Algeria—the lockdown orders have provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for authoritarians and illegitimate rulers , their enforceable orders demanding citizens to stay off the streets and inside their homes has been a godsend .
Many of them are eyeing this current status as a preferred state and a permanent feature .
Surveillance states such as China are continually experimenting with new tech tools to control their people .
Authoritarians are deploying both smartphone apps that read QR codes to manage movement and assembly .
They are also relying on snooping police and neighborhood snitches to remind citizens that they are always being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and , along with it , the anonymity of private thought and public movement .
In some parts of the world , people ’ s deepest fears are realized .
Lifesaving , convenient , politically empowering smartphones have turned into devices used 24/7 not only to monitor citizens ’ every move , conversation , financial transaction and medical interaction , but also to report it to a centralized and powerful government entity .
In the United States , people across the country have regularly opposed any government-run identification system , shunning past attempts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , perform the same function .
They possess within them a treasure trove of data that reveal the most intimate details of our lives .
Citizens have voluntarily filled them with personal and private data in exchange for convenience or free services delivered by profit-seeking companies—whether Facebook or WeChat .
This pandemic makes every citizen more vulnerable to governments demanding this smartphone data , even if the reason is to protect communities .
In authoritarian states , companies must hand over this private data to the government—often for good , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temporarily off the streets , they are still on their phones .
It may take a while before “ Yellow Vest ” flash mobs reassemble to block France ’ s highways or for the early return to protest in Hong Kong ’ s malls to gather steam .
Malls that are barely able to service shoppers , however , seem unlikely gathering places for multitudes opposed to Beijing ’ s covetous designs over the former British colony .
Right now , Americans willing to protest in the streets feel strongly that the current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , assembly , and religion .
Some paranoid citizens believe that the federal government is using COVID-19 as an excuse to impose armed authority over society and assert dictatorial powers .
A few of the assembling folks are just cranks .
The ultimate protest in a democracy is expressed at the ballot box .
For those currently in power and either flailing or failing , the verdict on their crisis management skills and actions will arrive in November .

Teenagers around the country have a very specific plan for what they will do when they are released from COVID confinement: party!
Around the world, however, the decriminalization and return of mass gatherings likely will lead to something else: demonstrations!
Governments and regimes everywhere are going to face a greater test of their resilience and staying power once masses of people are freed from public-health fears and able to express their dissent. Demonstrators who were a prominent feature in the streets of Hong Kong or on France’s highways have all been forced to curtail their collective protest activities. Instead of gathering in person, they are cowering from pestilence.
In country after country, concerns over public health are trumping the urge to amass in their outrage over social inequity, curtailed human rights, government corruption, resource scarcity, healthcare inadequacy, supply-chain failures, leader ineptitude, worker exploitation and citizen disempowerment. Some of this pent-up frustration is finding online expression via virtual demonstrations. Internet-based organizing may provide some outlet for public expression, but is no substitute for real world assembled venting.
Public suffering and popular disenchantment with leaders who failed to serve citizens before this pandemic are building in a pressure cooker of protest that will surely blow its lid. This is as true in authoritarian regimes as it is in democratic states. Democracies, however, are more vulnerable and responsive to the mood and will of indignant people.
Democratic systems around the world have implemented stay-at-home orders or guidelines that keep people apart, whether in parks or in front of parliaments. The actions are deemed necessary and have unquestionably made a difference in containing viral spread and flattening the curve. These measures have certainly succeeded in keeping the disgruntled far away from the accountable.
Strained governments currently struggling to manage reasonable pandemic responses should expect to face the music once it is safe for the disgruntled to organize and protest. Leaders everywhere will confront an angry, frustrated, aggrieved, unemployed electorate demanding justice and seeking political retribution for any mistakes or miscalculations currently being made.
In places where government legitimacy was already being challenged by public demonstrations against unpopular policies—places like Turkey or Algeria—the lockdown orders have provided regimes a reprieve. In fact, for authoritarians and illegitimate rulers, their enforceable orders demanding citizens to stay off the streets and inside their homes has been a godsend. Many of them are eyeing this current status as a preferred state and a permanent feature.
Surveillance states such as China are continually experimenting with new tech tools to control their people. Authoritarians are deploying both smartphone apps that read QR codes to manage movement and assembly. They are also relying on snooping police and neighborhood snitches to remind citizens that they are always being watched. Privacy falls by the wayside and, along with it, the anonymity of private thought and public movement.
In some parts of the world, people’s deepest fears are realized. Lifesaving, convenient, politically empowering smartphones have turned into devices used 24/7 not only to monitor citizens’ every move, conversation, financial transaction and medical interaction, but also to report it to a centralized and powerful government entity.
In the United States, people across the country have regularly opposed any government-run identification system, shunning past attempts to create national ID cards. Smartphones, however, perform the same function. They possess within them a treasure trove of data that reveal the most intimate details of our lives. Citizens have voluntarily filled them with personal and private data in exchange for convenience or free services delivered by profit-seeking companies—whether Facebook or WeChat.
This pandemic makes every citizen more vulnerable to governments demanding this smartphone data, even if the reason is to protect communities. In authoritarian states, companies must hand over this private data to the government—often for good, but also for ill. While protesters are temporarily off the streets, they are still on their phones.
It may take a while before “Yellow Vest” flash mobs reassemble to block France’s highways or for the early return to protest in Hong Kong’s malls to gather steam. Malls that are barely able to service shoppers, however, seem unlikely gathering places for multitudes opposed to Beijing’s covetous designs over the former British colony.
Right now, Americans willing to protest in the streets feel strongly that the current lockdowns infringe on their rights of speech, assembly, and religion. Some paranoid citizens believe that the federal government is using COVID-19 as an excuse to impose armed authority over society and assert dictatorial powers. A few of the assembling folks are just cranks.
The ultimate protest in a democracy is expressed at the ballot box. For those currently in power and either flailing or failing, the verdict on their crisis management skills and actions will arrive in November.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-06--Do Republicans Have a God-Given Right to Infect You?

Writing at the Washington Times , Cheryl Chumley makes the argument we ’ re hearing a lot these days from those who are protesting against the measures being used to slow the spread of the coronavirus .
She is particularly upset about any requirement for people to wear protective masks .
Major U.S. airlines have announced that as a condition of riding their friendly skies , passengers must all put on a face mask .
Let the muzzling of America commence .
After noting that some state governments are requiring people to wear masks under certain conditions—like working in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was that she could make the same argument against things like speed limits , carrying explosives on airplanes , or even smoking in public places .
After all , those laws restrict an individual ’ s right to self-govern .
What gives the government the authority to order citizens to limit how fast they drive ?
The answer , of course , is that we have always had laws that put restrictions on individuals to limit the damage their behavior could pose to others .
Honestly , the kind of “ individualism ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than anything our founders envisioned .
They actually wrote a kind of collectivism into the Preamble to the Constitution .
In our modern-day two-party system , the traditional argument has never been that “ freedom ” gives the individual the right to do anything they please .
Instead , it has been to disagree about how far the government should go in intervening for the common good .
At the Democratic Convention in 2012 , President Barack Obama laid out that tension as he focused on what citizenship means in a democratic republic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dreamers , the risk- takers , the entrepreneurs who have always been the driving force behind our free enterprise system , the greatest engine of growth and prosperity that the world ’ s ever known .
But we also believe in something called citizenship — citizenship , a word at the very heart of our founding , a word at the very essence of our democracy , the idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations… We , the people — recognize that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; that our destinies are bound together ; that a freedom which asks only , what ’ s in it for me , a freedom without a commitment to others , a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism , is unworthy of our founding ideals , and those who died in their defense .
As citizens , we understand that America is not about what can be done for us .
It ’ s about what can be done by us , together through the hard and frustrating but necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what we believe .
There is a reason why Obama focused his speech that year on the importance of citizenship .
During a campaign appearance in Roanoke , Virginia , he had talked about the fact that economic growth is driven by a dynamic of both individual and collective effort .
If you ’ ve been successful , you didn ’ t get there on your own…somebody along the line gave you some help .
There was a great teacher somewhere in your life .
Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thrive .
Somebody invested in roads and bridges .
If you ’ ve got a business—you didn ’ t build that .
Somebody else made that happen .
The Internet didn ’ t get invented on its own .
Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet .
The point is , is that when we succeed , we succeed because of our individual initiative , but also because we do things together .
There are some things , just like fighting fires , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I mean , imagine if everybody had their own fire service .
That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires .
Republicans , and their presidential nominee Mitt Romney , zeroed in on two sentences : “ If you ’ ve got a business—you didn ’ t build that .
Somebody else made that happen , ” claiming that Obama attacked the very foundation of our free enterprise system .
They even went so far as to dedicate a whole day of their convention to a rebuke of those two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battle between the individual and the collective has been the defining difference between Democrats and Republicans for years .
It is important to recognize that when conservatives talk about “ freedom ” these days , it is most often in the context of freedom from any form of government action or intervention .
The claim , as Chumley notes , is that self-government no longer refers to our collective responsibilities as citizens of a democratic republic , but “ an individual ’ s right to self-govern ” themselves .
That is one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ William Barr made during his speech at Notre Dame .
What makes that argument so dangerous is that it wasn ’ t being made to promote anarchy or even libertarianism .
Instead , it is a way to advocate for the idea of “ religious liberty , ” or the right of conservative Christians to impose their beliefs onto others via government intervention .
In other words , it is all about freedom for me , but not thee .
That is precisely why we see the irony of people protesting the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ My body , my choice.
” These people seem to believe in their freedom to threaten the lives of others during a pandemic , but the government should decide what a woman does with her body .
Even more dangerous is the kind of attitude on display with the protester who carried a sign that replicated the one on the gate of Auschwitz , translated “ work will set you free.
” What I would observe is that the Republican Party has completely lost touch with concepts like “ freedom ” and “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the collective responsibility of citizenship .

Writing at the Washington Times, Cheryl Chumley makes the argument we’re hearing a lot these days from those who are protesting against the measures being used to slow the spread of the coronavirus. She is particularly upset about any requirement for people to wear protective masks.
Major U.S. airlines have announced that as a condition of riding their friendly skies, passengers must all put on a face mask. Let the muzzling of America commence.
After noting that some state governments are requiring people to wear masks under certain conditions—like working in a restaurant—Chumley writes this.
This seems a blatant violation of an individual’s right to choose — of an individual’s right to self-govern. America, after all, isn’t a nation founded on collectivism, but rather individualism — on the right of individuals to exercise their God-given authorities, absent government tinkering and intrusion. What gives government the authority to order citizens to cover their faces?
My immediate reaction was that she could make the same argument against things like speed limits, carrying explosives on airplanes, or even smoking in public places. After all, those laws restrict an individual’s right to self-govern. What gives the government the authority to order citizens to limit how fast they drive?
The answer, of course, is that we have always had laws that put restrictions on individuals to limit the damage their behavior could pose to others. Honestly, the kind of “individualism” Chumley describes is more akin to anarchy than anything our founders envisioned. They actually wrote a kind of collectivism into the Preamble to the Constitution.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
In our modern-day two-party system, the traditional argument has never been that “freedom” gives the individual the right to do anything they please. Instead, it has been to disagree about how far the government should go in intervening for the common good.
At the Democratic Convention in 2012, President Barack Obama laid out that tension as he focused on what citizenship means in a democratic republic.
We honor the strivers, the dreamers, the risk- takers, the entrepreneurs who have always been the driving force behind our free enterprise system, the greatest engine of growth and prosperity that the world’s ever known. But we also believe in something called citizenship — citizenship, a word at the very heart of our founding, a word at the very essence of our democracy, the idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations… We, the people — recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which asks only, what’s in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals, and those who died in their defense. As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It’s about what can be done by us, together through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. That’s what we believe.
There is a reason why Obama focused his speech that year on the importance of citizenship. During a campaign appearance in Roanoke, Virginia, he had talked about the fact that economic growth is driven by a dynamic of both individual and collective effort.
If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own…somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
Republicans, and their presidential nominee Mitt Romney, zeroed in on two sentences: “If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” claiming that Obama attacked the very foundation of our free enterprise system. They even went so far as to dedicate a whole day of their convention to a rebuke of those two sentences taken out of context.
This battle between the individual and the collective has been the defining difference between Democrats and Republicans for years. It is important to recognize that when conservatives talk about “freedom” these days, it is most often in the context of freedom from any form of government action or intervention. The claim, as Chumley notes, is that self-government no longer refers to our collective responsibilities as citizens of a democratic republic, but “an individual’s right to self-govern” themselves. That is one of the more dangerous arguments that Attorney General William Barr made during his speech at Notre Dame.
In the words of Madison, “We have staked our future on the ability of each of us to govern ourselves…” This is really what was meant by “self-government.” It did not mean primarily the mechanics by which we select a representative legislative body. It referred to the capacity of each individual to restrain and govern themselves.
What makes that argument so dangerous is that it wasn’t being made to promote anarchy or even libertarianism. Instead, it is a way to advocate for the idea of “religious liberty,” or the right of conservative Christians to impose their beliefs onto others via government intervention. In other words, it is all about freedom for me, but not thee.
That is precisely why we see the irony of people protesting the coronavirus restrictions carrying signs that read: “My body, my choice.” These people seem to believe in their freedom to threaten the lives of others during a pandemic, but the government should decide what a woman does with her body.
Even more dangerous is the kind of attitude on display with the protester who carried a sign that replicated the one on the gate of Auschwitz, translated “work will set you free.”
What I would observe is that the Republican Party has completely lost touch with concepts like “freedom” and “liberty” in an attempt to deny the collective responsibility of citizenship.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-06--Now Is the Time to Support Nonprofit Journalism

Please consider making a donation to the Washington Monthly through the Institute for Nonprofit News .
The INN is dedicated to supporting nonprofit news organizations that have been vetted for their independence and ethics .
Fortunately , the Monthly is an affiliate .
From May 5 to May 7 , the INN is organizing a # GivingTuesdayNow fundraiser and you can help us out directly through this program by clicking here .
These donations , which are tax-deductible , are essential—both because of negative longterm trends in journalism and as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic .
The Brookings Institute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million Americans now live in areas covered by one or no local papers , and newspaper ad revenue dropped by 68 percent from 2008 to 2018 .
According to Harvard Nieman ’ s journalism lab predictions , daily newspapers will lose between 30-50 percent of their ad revenue in April because advertisers have closed their businesses due to COVID-19 restrictions .
If we ’ re going to be able to continue doing what we do here at the Monthly , it ’ s going to be because of the support of people like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grant money—which we rely on—will be in short supply next year , just as it was in the first few years after the Great Recession .
So please help us out and make a tax-deductible contribution today .
Our future may depend on it .

Please consider making a donation to the Washington Monthly through the Institute for Nonprofit News. The INN is dedicated to supporting nonprofit news organizations that have been vetted for their independence and ethics. Fortunately, the Monthly is an affiliate. From May 5 to May 7, the INN is organizing a #GivingTuesdayNow fundraiser and you can help us out directly through this program by clicking here.
These donations, which are tax-deductible, are essential—both because of negative longterm trends in journalism and as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Brookings Institute stated in a 2019 study that 65 million Americans now live in areas covered by one or no local papers, and newspaper ad revenue dropped by 68 percent from 2008 to 2018. According to Harvard Nieman’s journalism lab predictions, daily newspapers will lose between 30-50 percent of their ad revenue in April because advertisers have closed their businesses due to COVID-19 restrictions.
If we’re going to be able to continue doing what we do here at the Monthly, it’s going to be because of the support of people like you. It’s likely that grant money—which we rely on—will be in short supply next year, just as it was in the first few years after the Great Recession. So please help us out and make a tax-deductible contribution today. Our future may depend on it.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-06--Sorry, Your Honor, Ending “Faithless Electors” Isn’t Your Decision to Make

It may be , as Ian Millhiser says , that the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College because information about national presidential candidates was “ not readily available to the masses ” in the 18th Century .
Alexander Hamilton felt this problem could best be solved “ by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station , and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation.
” The main point was that people couldn ’ t make an informed decision about who would make a suitable leader if they weren ’ t familiar with the candidates .
Each state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make that decision for them .
They were other advantages , too .
Because the Electors would meet in their own individual states and would not form a permanent body , it would be much harder for foreign powers to influence them or for Congress to exercise control over the president .
What ’ s clear , however , is the people were supposed to vote only indirectly for president .
This is also how we voted for senators before the 17th Amendment went into effect in 1913 .
The Electoral College @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amended , so we technically still vote delegates to the Electoral College rather than for presidential candidates , and those delegates are supposed to be free to vote however they want .
For Millhiser , this is a problem because it runs contrary to what people expect : Of course , it ’ s not unusual for Electors to exercise their own judgment .
There have been twelve presidential elections in my lifetime , and there have been ’ s faithless Electors in six of them .
Most recently , three of Hillary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Powell and one each voted for Elizabeth Warren , Bernie Sanders , and Faith Spotted Eagle .
Donald Trump lost one of his Texas delegates to John Kasich and another to Ron Paul .
For Millhiser , giving the Electors this discretion is a recipe for chaos , and he ’ s hoping that the Supreme Court will rule in two cases they will hear next week ( Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca ) that faithless Electors can be prohibited .
Imagine that , when the votes are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Vice President Joe Biden squeezes out a narrow victory in the Electoral College .
Then imagine that , weeks later , the nation is shocked to learn that President Donald Trump will receive a second term because a few previously unknown members of the Electoral College refused to vote for Biden… …The legitimacy of a president flows from more than just formal constitutional rules , it flows from a sense that the president was chosen in a fair and non-arbitrary process .
Governments , as the Declaration of Independence proclaims , derive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the governed.
” There is no good answer to the question of whether faithless electors are permitted , at least as a formal legal matter .
But if the justices choose to allow them , they are potentially endorsing chaos .
Millhiser says there is “ no good answer ” to the question , but he ’ s wrong .
There ’ s really no basis for taking away discretion .
If we want robots we can rely on computers to tabulate our votes and there is absolutely no reason to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their vote on our behalf .
The solution is to amend the Constitution , but a better option than binding delegates would be either to go straight to a national popular vote , or to use 51 popular votes from the states and the District of Columbia .
As long as the Electoral College exists in its current form , the Electors are there to exercise their personal judgment .
If things remain the same , the solution is to start educating people about how presidential elections actually work .
Delegates should run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any rationale they might use to vote for someone else .
For example , they could say that they are a Biden delegate but if anything comes up that leads them to question his fitness after the election and before the inauguration , they will cast their vote for Elizabeth Warren or maybe Faith Spotted Eagle .
It may sound like I ’ m joking , but I ’ m not .
The entire point of discretion is that it is sometimes needed .
In 2016 , evidence emerged between Election and Inauguration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election to assist Donald Trump .
That was a legitimate reason that the Founding Fathers would have understood for a Trump-pledged Elector to choose someone else .
Evidence of criminal activity , divided loyalties or even mental or physical unfitness can all be reasonable grounds for an Elector to be “ faithless.
” I argued at the time that the Electors should exercise that discretion .
What people expect is that the winner of the most votes will become president , but that didn ’ t happen in 2000 or in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own category because Al Gore should have been awarded Florida and won both the popular vote and the Electoral College .
But in 2016 , Trump ran and won according to the rules in place , so the source of his illegitimacy is not constitutional but legal .
He sought and accepted foreign assistance , and he committed campaign finance violations .
There is a problem with what people expect not matching how things work or how they turn out .
That can cause them to feel an election is invalid and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways to address that that don ’ t involve making baseless Supreme Court decisions .
If we want to get rid of the Electoral College , people need to be educated about how it really works , and it may take an invalid election and a lot of chaos to get the political momentum for a constitutional change .

It may be, as Ian Millhiser says, that the Founding Fathers established the Electoral College because information about national presidential candidates was “not readily available to the masses” in the 18th Century. Alexander Hamilton felt this problem could best be solved “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation.” The main point was that people couldn’t make an informed decision about who would make a suitable leader if they weren’t familiar with the candidates. Each state would choose a delegation of informed citizens to make that decision for them.
They were other advantages, too. Because the Electors would meet in their own individual states and would not form a permanent body, it would be much harder for foreign powers to influence them or for Congress to exercise control over the president. What’s clear, however, is the people were supposed to vote only indirectly for president. This is also how we voted for senators before the 17th Amendment went into effect in 1913.
The Electoral College’s basic structure has never been amended, so we technically still vote delegates to the Electoral College rather than for presidential candidates, and those delegates are supposed to be free to vote however they want. For Millhiser, this is a problem because it runs contrary to what people expect:
In 2020, the American people expect presidential electors to behave like robots, voting uncritically for whoever their state supported in the election. Members of the Electoral College are typically unknown, and their names rarely appear on any ballot. They possess none of the social capital Hamilton attributed to them.
Of course, it’s not unusual for Electors to exercise their own judgment. There have been twelve presidential elections in my lifetime, and there have been’s faithless Electors in six of them. Most recently, three of Hillary Clinton’s delegates voted for Colin Powell and one each voted for Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Faith Spotted Eagle. Donald Trump lost one of his Texas delegates to John Kasich and another to Ron Paul.
In addition, three other electors attempted to vote against their pledge, but had their votes invalidated. In Colorado, Kasich received one vote for president, which was invalidated. Two additional electors, one in Maine and one in Minnesota, cast votes for Sanders for president but had their votes invalidated; the elector in Maine was forced to cast a vote for Clinton, while the elector in Minnesota was replaced by one who cast a vote for Clinton. The same Minnesota elector voted for Tulsi Gabbard for vice president, but had that vote invalidated and given to Tim Kaine.
For Millhiser, giving the Electors this discretion is a recipe for chaos, and he’s hoping that the Supreme Court will rule in two cases they will hear next week (Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca) that faithless Electors can be prohibited.
Imagine that, when the votes are finally counted in the 2020 election, former Vice President Joe Biden squeezes out a narrow victory in the Electoral College. Then imagine that, weeks later, the nation is shocked to learn that President Donald Trump will receive a second term because a few previously unknown members of the Electoral College refused to vote for Biden… …The legitimacy of a president flows from more than just formal constitutional rules, it flows from a sense that the president was chosen in a fair and non-arbitrary process. Governments, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims, derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” There is no good answer to the question of whether faithless electors are permitted, at least as a formal legal matter. But if the justices choose to allow them, they are potentially endorsing chaos.
Millhiser says there is “no good answer” to the question, but he’s wrong. There’s really no basis for taking away discretion. If we want robots we can rely on computers to tabulate our votes and there is absolutely no reason to have some in-between who is compelled to cast their vote on our behalf. The solution is to amend the Constitution, but a better option than binding delegates would be either to go straight to a national popular vote, or to use 51 popular votes from the states and the District of Columbia. As long as the Electoral College exists in its current form, the Electors are there to exercise their personal judgment.
If things remain the same, the solution is to start educating people about how presidential elections actually work. Delegates should run campaigns and explain their first preference and any rationale they might use to vote for someone else. For example, they could say that they are a Biden delegate but if anything comes up that leads them to question his fitness after the election and before the inauguration, they will cast their vote for Elizabeth Warren or maybe Faith Spotted Eagle.
It may sound like I’m joking, but I’m not. The entire point of discretion is that it is sometimes needed. In 2016, evidence emerged between Election and Inauguration Day that Russia had intervened extensively in the election to assist Donald Trump. That was a legitimate reason that the Founding Fathers would have understood for a Trump-pledged Elector to choose someone else. Evidence of criminal activity, divided loyalties or even mental or physical unfitness can all be reasonable grounds for an Elector to be “faithless.” I argued at the time that the Electors should exercise that discretion.
What people expect is that the winner of the most votes will become president, but that didn’t happen in 2000 or in 2016. The 2000 election is in its own category because Al Gore should have been awarded Florida and won both the popular vote and the Electoral College. But in 2016, Trump ran and won according to the rules in place, so the source of his illegitimacy is not constitutional but legal. He sought and accepted foreign assistance, and he committed campaign finance violations.
There is a problem with what people expect not matching how things work or how they turn out. That can cause them to feel an election is invalid and their will has been thwarted. There are ways to address that that don’t involve making baseless Supreme Court decisions. If we want to get rid of the Electoral College, people need to be educated about how it really works, and it may take an invalid election and a lot of chaos to get the political momentum for a constitutional change.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-05--A Chess Master’s Own Narcissism Gives Him Insight Into Trump