washingtonmonthly--2020-02-07--Donald Trump’s Assault on the Social Safety Set

Adrian McGonigal worked full-time at a chicken plant in Arkansas .
Chemicals used in the plant aggravated his Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ( COPD ) , but medication kept it in check .
Because his job did not offer health insurance and he earned less than $ 16,642 , he was eligible for Medicaid and qualified forprescription coverage .
When he went to pick up his medication , however , he was told his Medicaid was cancelled .
Arkansas ’ s new Medicaid rules meant that Adrian had to report at least eighty hours of work online every month .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone , in person , or by mail , even though the website shuts down between 9 PM and 7 AM .
Like thousands of Arkansans , he doesn ’ t have internet access or a computer , so he used his sister-in-law ’ s smartphone .
But Adrian , 40 , didn ’ t realize that he had to confirm his employment on a monthly basis .
Subsequently , he was dropped from the rolls .
Unable to afford his medication , his COPD flared up and he missed too much work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provides us a first glance at the human cost of the Trump Administration ’ s war on the safety net .
InJanuary 2018 , President Trump issued an executive order , taking the unprecedented step of allowing states to impose work requirements on individuals like Adrian .
Arkansas is now one of seven states given a waiver to impose work requirements in Medicaid and alter established protocols for the program ’ s eligibility or reporting procedures .
An estimated 18,164 Arkansans lost coverage as a consequence , although one study found that most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for an exemption .
Meanwhile , in Texas , 50,000 children per year are losing coverage because of paperwork issues and administrative mistakes .
Indiana could see up to 88,000 participants lose coverage .
And as many as 23,000 beneficiaries in New Hampshire may be terminated within one year .
Before the Trump administration , these states never would have been allowed to implement these draconian policies .
The Obama administration rejected Medicaid work requirements because they undermined access to health insurance and fell outside the law ’ s statutory objectives .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history of GOP opposition to the welfare state , he has reinvigorated this assault by deploying executive actions and byzantine administrative rules outside of the legislative process .
Calling Medicaid work requirements “ unconscionable and illegal , ” Eliot Fishman , senior health policy director at Families USA—a leading national , non-partisan voice for health care consumers—said that the administration ’ s decision to allow work requirements for Medicaid isn ’ t about work : “ It is about taking away health insurance from low-income people.
” Ronald Reagan ’ s 1980 election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of antagonism toward safety-net programs .
Undergirding his hostility was the belief that anti-poverty programs should be reserved for only the neediest .
If families could work , they shouldn ’ t qualify for public assistance .
Lyndon Johnson ’ s Great Society , he said , was “ the central political error of our time.
” For decades thereafter , conservatives from Reagan to Newt Gingrich to George W. Bush sought to rein in federal spending on social welfare programs .
Reagan ’ s 1981 budget cut funding for programs like food @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maternal care and mental health programs into block grants , which drastically reduced funding .
While conservatives failed to retrench programs like Medicaid or privatize Social Security , Gingrich did work with Bill Clinton in 1996 to convert Aid to Families With Dependent Children ( AFDC ) into the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ( TANF ) block grant severely weakening the nation ’ s welfare program .
They also sought to delegate authority to the states to decide which programs to fund and which to kill .
Conservative states with high proportions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ welfare policies , exacerbating racial inequalities .
Reformers argued that states were better equipped to tailor programs to the true needs of the poor , but history has proved them wrong .
Trump ’ s proposals , however , are ideologically incoherent and significantly crueler than Reagan ’ s or Gingrich ’ s .
In some instances , he gives states more control , allowing them to implement work requirements for Medicaid recipients .
In other areas , he has prevented state experimentation thereby reducing flexibility .
His administration ’ s claims that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will reduce dependency belies all social scientific evidence .
They don ’ t .
In fact , reporting modifications have kicked eligible people off programs .
In Texas , nine-month old Elijah ’ s mother rushed him to the hospital after his lips turned blue from a lack of oxygen to his blood .
After he was diagnosed with a respiratory virus while in intensive care , doctors told his mother that his Medicaid coverage had been dropped—an error that happened because she had allegedly not responded quickly enough to a letter asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s more , Trump ’ s promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act ( ACA ) was profoundly unpopular .
Republicans nonetheless tried to ram through several bills , generating widespread protest and outrage .
Eventually , they failed .
The swift process they employed to sink the ACA was a public and politically disastrous battle .
In response , they have moved to crush the law and reshape the safety net behind the scenes through executive actions and administrative rulemaking .
It ’ s a strategy of death by a thousand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive actions and rule proposals to limit access to health care ; scale back food stamps ( SNAP ) ; restrict immigrants ’ access to safety net programs ; and dramatically reduce enrollments across dozens of safety-net programsby altering the Official Poverty Measure ( OPM ) .
The administration ’ s unifying vision is to cut back on social spending by tapping into citizen attachments to mythical , unsubstantiated notions of deservedness , hard work , race , and personal responsibility .
No president has demonstrated the type of hostility toward poor people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initiated these types of cuts at such breakneck speed .
On her first day in office , Seema Verma , administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services , sent a letter to states encouraging them to apply for Section 1115 waivers to implement work and community engagement requirements , compelling people to work or prepare for jobs in order to receive benefits , in line with Trump ’ s executive order .
This was a first in Medicaid ’ s more than fifty-year history .
While ten state waiver requests are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in three states , concluding that work requirements violate Medicaid ’ s statutory objectives .
One ruling said that states can not “ refashion the program Congress designed in any way they choose.
” This past week , the administration sent a guidance to states offering them an up-front lump sum of Medicaid dollars in exchange for further restrictions of benefits or eligibility for the program , thereby enrolling fewer people , reducing services , including the prescription coverage that Adrian relies on , and reducing provider rates .
Millions of beneficiaries will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to block-grant Medicaid but have repeatedly failed to do so legislatively .
Trump hopes to achieve this unilaterally .
In May , the administration proposed the “ refusal of care ” rule , allowing health care providers to refuse care or procedures on religious or moral grounds .
The potential implications are wide-ranging : discrimination against women and members of the LGBTQ community ; employer refusal to cover procedures , pharmacy refusals to dispense medication , and reduced access to care in rural communities .
In November , a District Court Judge wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with glaring legal defects ” and declared it unconstitutional .
It ’ s not enough to take away low-income Americans ’ health care , though .
The administration also wants to take away their food .
Even though SNAP kept 3.4 million out of poverty in 2017 and helps feed tens of millions of Americans annually , the administration has proposed several rules to limit its effectiveness by unilaterally enacting a series of draconian measures .
The first proposal limits benefits to three months every three years for “ able-bodied adults ” under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seek job training at least 80 hours per month .
That could result in more than 800,000 people getting kicked off of SNAP over the next decade .
The administration finalized the rule in December .
A second , unfinalized , SNAP proposal eliminates a decades-old policy : broad-based categorical eligibility ( BBCE ) , which allows states to set less restrictive income and asset tests to access the program .
The USDA claims the rule would reduce fraud and save money , proclaiming that “ automatic eligibility has expanded to even allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reveals that just 0.2 percent of SNAP benefits went to beneficiaries with net incomes above the poverty line .
This change would kick more 2 million people off of SNAP and nearly one million children would lose access to free and reduced-price lunches .
A third proposed rule will prevent states from using utility allowances when determining benefits and instead impose a nationwide standard .
If finalized , SNAP benefits would decrease by $ 4.5 billion over the next five years ; 20 % of recipients would see a decrease in their benefits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At the same time , the administration has taken action to restrict immigrants ’ access to the safety net .
It instituted a rule that allows the federal government to deny green cards to hundreds of thousands of immigrants who use Medicaid , food stamps , housing vouchers , or other forms of public assistance .
Even before the rule was finalized , it had the chilling effect anticipated by the administration , with legal clinics reporting that parents were opting their children out of needed benefits .
While the rule was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court , in a 5-4 decision , recently allowed the administration to move forward with implementation on February 24th .
In May , the Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD ) proposed a rule barring family members who qualify for public housing from living with any ineligible ( another word for undocumented ) family members , including children .
The choice forced upon these families is to either stay together as a family , lose housing assistance and face homelessness , or be separated .
Nearly 108,000 people are at risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are U.S. citizens and green card holders .
HUD even acknowledges that the “ fear of the family being separated would lead to a prompt evacuation by most mixed households ” Yet , what could be the most consequential reform is perhaps the most convoluted .
The administration has also proposed to change the inflation rate used to update OPM .
This could have disastrous consequences and significantly shrink the number of people considered poor .
The reverberation throughout the welfare state of cutting eligibility or benefits in more than 80 federal programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could result in millions with no access to life-saving programs .
Taken together , the modifications to safety net programs will make millions of already marginalized Americans hungrier , sicker , and more vulnerable ; eradicating any shot at the “ American Dream ” or even just plain survival .
The “ reforms ” already attempted by the administration may be a harbinger of even more cuts to come .
The president ’ s 2020 budget slashes spending in Medicare and Social Security , not to mention Medicaid , food stamps , housing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposed rule targeting Social Security disability payment changes for hundreds of thousands of Americans , including elders and children , has just closed to public comment .
If the GOP sets its eyes on further entitlement reform , it may seek to again do so outside public view to prevent the inevitable public outcry .
That ’ s partly because the GOP solution to deal with poverty conveniently leaves out some important facts .
Studies confirm that anti-poverty programs work .
During the first year of Trump ’ s presidency , safety net @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social security , disability insurance , housing subsidies , and the earned income tax credit , directly kept 47.7 million people out of poverty , according to the U.S. Census Bureau .
These programs might be the only reason that millions of workers , families , children , seniors , and those unable to work have food on the table .
Low-wages , under-employment , and discriminatory hiring practices keep millions on the edge .
Ironically , red state residents know this : they are far more dependent on these programs than are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s bombastic proclamations about a “ great economy ” ignore the reality that nearly 40 percent of Americans are unable to cover a $ 400 emergency expense .
The gap between the richest and the poorest households is now the largest it ’ s been in the past 50 years and the racial wealth gap has widened .
A third of Americans struggle to afford either food , shelter , or medical care .
Moreover , social mobility has declined significantly over the past several decades .
Trump ’ s social welfare agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduce their tax burden by gutting federal spending while average Americans suffer the consequences .
Many of the rules proposed by the Trump administration will likely end up in federal courts as judges block states from implementations and suits continue .
But even the courts will present a challenge given that Trump has now appointed nearly a quarter of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals .
This judicial legacy will pose problems for progressives for decades .
All this is to serve as a warning .
Those who know the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people whose lives it preserves and protects—will have to work doubly hard to rebuild it moving forward .
Despite the dysfunction that so many journalists and pundits have described in the White House , the administration has nonetheless deployed a unified and intentional assault on the safety net , with unfathomable consequences for the millions of Americans who rely on these programs .
It will take a historically vigorous effort to effectively fight back .

Adrian McGonigal worked full-time at a chicken plant in Arkansas. Chemicals used in the plant aggravated his Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), but medication kept it in check. Because his job did not offer health insurance and he earned less than $16,642, he was eligible for Medicaid and qualified forprescription coverage. When he went to pick up his medication, however, he was told his Medicaid was cancelled.
Arkansas’s new Medicaid rules meant that Adrian had to report at least eighty hours of work online every month. There is no option to report by phone, in person, or by mail, even though the website shuts down between 9 PM and 7 AM. Like thousands of Arkansans, he doesn’t have internet access or a computer, so he used his sister-in-law’s smartphone. But Adrian, 40, didn’t realize that he had to confirm his employment on a monthly basis. Subsequently, he was dropped from the rolls. Unable to afford his medication, his COPD flared up and he missed too much work. He was eventually fired.
Arkansas provides us a first glance at the human cost of the Trump Administration’s war on the safety net. InJanuary 2018, President Trump issued an executive order, taking the unprecedented step of allowing states to impose work requirements on individuals like Adrian. Arkansas is now one of seven states given a waiver to impose work requirements in Medicaid and alter established protocols for the program’s eligibility or reporting procedures. An estimated 18,164 Arkansans lost coverage as a consequence, although one study found that most had met the work requirement or qualified for an exemption. Meanwhile, in Texas, 50,000 children per year are losing coverage because of paperwork issues and administrative mistakes. Indiana could see up to 88,000 participants lose coverage. And as many as 23,000 beneficiaries in New Hampshire may be terminated within one year.
Before the Trump administration, these states never would have been allowed to implement these draconian policies. The Obama administration rejected Medicaid work requirements because they undermined access to health insurance and fell outside the law’s statutory objectives.
While Trump’s efforts follow a long history of GOP opposition to the welfare state, he has reinvigorated this assault by deploying executive actions and byzantine administrative rules outside of the legislative process. Calling Medicaid work requirements “unconscionable and illegal,” Eliot Fishman, senior health policy director at Families USA—a leading national, non-partisan voice for health care consumers—said that the administration’s decision to allow work requirements for Medicaid isn’t about work: “It is about taking away health insurance from low-income people.”
Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election first opened the doors to a period of antagonism toward safety-net programs. Undergirding his hostility was the belief that anti-poverty programs should be reserved for only the neediest. If families could work, they shouldn’t qualify for public assistance. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, he said, was “the central political error of our time.”
For decades thereafter, conservatives from Reagan to Newt Gingrich to George W. Bush sought to rein in federal spending on social welfare programs. Reagan’s 1981 budget cut funding for programs like food stamps and consolidated existing health services, maternal care and mental health programs into block grants, which drastically reduced funding. While conservatives failed to retrench programs like Medicaid or privatize Social Security, Gingrich did work with Bill Clinton in 1996 to convert Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) into the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant severely weakening the nation’s welfare program.
They also sought to delegate authority to the states to decide which programs to fund and which to kill. Conservative states with high proportions of black welfare recipients quickly imposed tough welfare policies, exacerbating racial inequalities. Reformers argued that states were better equipped to tailor programs to the true needs of the poor, but history has proved them wrong.
Trump’s proposals, however, are ideologically incoherent and significantly crueler than Reagan’s or Gingrich’s. In some instances, he gives states more control, allowing them to implement work requirements for Medicaid recipients. In other areas, he has prevented state experimentation thereby reducing flexibility.
His administration’s claims that work requirements for Medicaid and SNAP recipients will reduce dependency belies all social scientific evidence. They don’t. In fact, reporting modifications have kicked eligible people off programs. In Texas, nine-month old Elijah’s mother rushed him to the hospital after his lips turned blue from a lack of oxygen to his blood. After he was diagnosed with a respiratory virus while in intensive care, doctors told his mother that his Medicaid coverage had been dropped—an error that happened because she had allegedly not responded quickly enough to a letter asking for new proof of income.
What’s more, Trump’s promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was profoundly unpopular. Republicans nonetheless tried to ram through several bills, generating widespread protest and outrage. Eventually, they failed. The swift process they employed to sink the ACA was a public and politically disastrous battle. In response, they have moved to crush the law and reshape the safety net behind the scenes through executive actions and administrative rulemaking. It’s a strategy of death by a thousand cuts.
Before us now are numerous executive actions and rule proposals to limit access to health care; scale back food stamps (SNAP); restrict immigrants’ access to safety net programs; and dramatically reduce enrollments across dozens of safety-net programsby altering the Official Poverty Measure (OPM).
The administration’s unifying vision is to cut back on social spending by tapping into citizen attachments to mythical, unsubstantiated notions of deservedness, hard work, race, and personal responsibility. No president has demonstrated the type of hostility toward poor people that Trump has. No president has initiated these types of cuts at such breakneck speed.
On her first day in office, Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, sent a letter to states encouraging them to apply for Section 1115 waivers to implement work and community engagement requirements, compelling people to work or prepare for jobs in order to receive benefits, in line with Trump’s executive order. This was a first in Medicaid’s more than fifty-year history.
While ten state waiver requests are pending, judicial rulings have blocked implementation in three states, concluding that work requirements violate Medicaid’s statutory objectives. One ruling said that states cannot “refashion the program Congress designed in any way they choose.”
This past week, the administration sent a guidance to states offering them an up-front lump sum of Medicaid dollars in exchange for further restrictions of benefits or eligibility for the program, thereby enrolling fewer people, reducing services, including the prescription coverage that Adrian relies on, and reducing provider rates. Millions of beneficiaries will be affected. Conservatives have long sought to block-grant Medicaid but have repeatedly failed to do so legislatively. Trump hopes to achieve this unilaterally.
In May, the administration proposed the “refusal of care” rule, allowing health care providers to refuse care or procedures on religious or moral grounds. The potential implications are wide-ranging: discrimination against women and members of the LGBTQ community; employer refusal to cover procedures, pharmacy refusals to dispense medication, and reduced access to care in rural communities. In November, a District Court Judge wrote that the rule is “shot through with glaring legal defects” and declared it unconstitutional.
It’s not enough to take away low-income Americans’ health care, though. The administration also wants to take away their food. Even though SNAP kept 3.4 million out of poverty in 2017 and helps feed tens of millions of Americans annually, the administration has proposed several rules to limit its effectiveness by unilaterally enacting a series of draconian measures.
The first proposal limits benefits to three months every three years for “able-bodied adults” under age 49, unless they work or seek job training at least 80 hours per month. That could result in more than 800,000 people getting kicked off of SNAP over the next decade. The administration finalized the rule in December.
A second, unfinalized, SNAP proposal eliminates a decades-old policy: broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE), which allows states to set less restrictive income and asset tests to access the program. The USDA claims the rule would reduce fraud and save money, proclaiming that “automatic eligibility has expanded to even allow millionaires to become eligible.” But research reveals that just 0.2 percent of SNAP benefits went to beneficiaries with net incomes above the poverty line. This change would kick more 2 million people off of SNAP and nearly one million children would lose access to free and reduced-price lunches.
A third proposed rule will prevent states from using utility allowances when determining benefits and instead impose a nationwide standard. If finalized, SNAP benefits would decrease by $4.5 billion over the next five years; 20% of recipients would see a decrease in their benefits; and 8,000 families would lose benefits.
At the same time, the administration has taken action to restrict immigrants’ access to the safety net. It instituted a rule that allows the federal government to deny green cards to hundreds of thousands of immigrants who use Medicaid, food stamps, housing vouchers, or other forms of public assistance. Even before the rule was finalized, it had the chilling effect anticipated by the administration, with legal clinics reporting that parents were opting their children out of needed benefits. While the rule was temporarily in legal limbo, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, recently allowed the administration to move forward with implementation on February 24th.
In May, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed a rule barring family members who qualify for public housing from living with any ineligible (another word for undocumented) family members, including children. The choice forced upon these families is to either stay together as a family, lose housing assistance and face homelessness, or be separated. Nearly 108,000 people are at risk: 25,000 families including 55,000 children who are U.S. citizens and green card holders. HUD even acknowledges that the “fear of the family being separated would lead to a prompt evacuation by most mixed households . ”
Yet, what could be the most consequential reform is perhaps the most convoluted. The administration has also proposed to change the inflation rate used to update OPM. This could have disastrous consequences and significantly shrink the number of people considered poor. The reverberation throughout the welfare state of cutting eligibility or benefits in more than 80 federal programs that use the OPM to determine eligibility could result in millions with no access to life-saving programs.
Taken together, the modifications to safety net programs will make millions of already marginalized Americans hungrier, sicker, and more vulnerable; eradicating any shot at the “American Dream” or even just plain survival.
The “reforms” already attempted by the administration may be a harbinger of even more cuts to come. The president’s 2020 budget slashes spending in Medicare and Social Security, not to mention Medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance, and other programs. A proposed rule targeting Social Security disability payment changes for hundreds of thousands of Americans, including elders and children, has just closed to public comment. If the GOP sets its eyes on further entitlement reform, it may seek to again do so outside public view to prevent the inevitable public outcry.
That’s partly because the GOP solution to deal with poverty conveniently leaves out some important facts. Studies confirm that anti-poverty programs work. During the first year of Trump’s presidency, safety net programs, such as food stamps, social security, disability insurance, housing subsidies, and the earned income tax credit, directly kept 47.7 million people out of poverty, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. These programs might be the only reason that millions of workers, families, children, seniors, and those unable to work have food on the table. Low-wages, under-employment, and discriminatory hiring practices keep millions on the edge. Ironically, red state residents know this: they are far more dependent on these programs than are those in blue states.
Trump’s bombastic proclamations about a “great economy” ignore the reality that nearly 40 percent of Americans are unable to cover a $400 emergency expense. The gap between the richest and the poorest households is now the largest it’s been in the past 50 years and the racial wealth gap has widened. A third of Americans struggle to afford either food, shelter, or medical care. Moreover, social mobility has declined significantly over the past several decades. Trump’s social welfare agenda only benefits plutocrats who seek to continually reduce their tax burden by gutting federal spending while average Americans suffer the consequences.
Many of the rules proposed by the Trump administration will likely end up in federal courts as judges block states from implementations and suits continue. But even the courts will present a challenge given that Trump has now appointed nearly a quarter of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals. This judicial legacy will pose problems for progressives for decades.
All this is to serve as a warning. Those who know the benefits of the social welfare state—and the people whose lives it preserves and protects—will have to work doubly hard to rebuild it moving forward. Despite the dysfunction that so many journalists and pundits have described in the White House, the administration has nonetheless deployed a unified and intentional assault on the safety net, with unfathomable consequences for the millions of Americans who rely on these programs. It will take a historically vigorous effort to effectively fight back.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-07--Trump Is in the Process of Putting Heads on Pikes

The Washington Post deserves some credit for producing a video that should ( but probably won ’ t ) put an end to the ubiquitous claim that “ both sides do it.
” It features remarks from Bill Clinton and Donald Trump after their impeachment acquittal in the Senate .
Clinton humbly admitted his mistakes and called for unity , while Trump congratulated himself for beating the rap , even though many of the Republicans who gave him a pass have publicly acknowledged his guilt .
One of the people who was most undermined by Trump ’ s remarks was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump had learned his lesson from the impeachment process .
She had to walk that one back almost immediately .
Meanwhile , the ink was barely dry on Senator Mitt Romney ’ s vote when the president started the process of seeking revenge and asserting his dominance .
Based on Trump ’ s remarks at his celebration and at Thursday ’ s prayer breakfast , it is clear that attacking Romney will be front and center for the foreseeable future .
Trump began needling Romney Thursday morning at the traditionally nonpartisan National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senator ’ s declaration that his faith had helped guide him to convict the president .
Faith , Trump said , was merely a “ crutch ” for Romney .
Hours later , speaking from the East Room at the White House , Trump cut down Romney as bitter about his failed 2012 run for president .
“ The only one that voted against us was a guy that can ’ t stand the fact that he ran one of the worst campaigns in the history of the presidency , ” Trump said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House blasted out talking points to its surrogates , titled “ Romney ( Once Again ) Ditches Principles to Seek Far-Left ’ s Adulation.
” “ Sadly , Romney ’ s decision was unsurprising as this display of self-serving political expedience has come to define his political career , ” it read .
The Republican close to the White House predicted that this was the opening salvo in a campaign to ostracize Romney .
But Romney isn ’ t the only one .
Trump is also planning to go after the staff who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman — a National Security Council aide who testified during House Democrats ’ impeachment hearings — will be informed in the coming days , likely on Friday , by administration officials that he is being reassigned to a position at the Defense Department , taking a key figure from the investigation out of the White House… Trump and his allies are considering doing more than just launching verbal fusillades at his perceived enemies over impeachment as the decision regarding Vindman shows .
Some of the president ’ s aides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several administration officials who testified during the impeachment inquiry , according to aides and advisers who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the plans .
Finally , it looks like acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney , who botched a press conference by admitting to a quid pro quo with Ukraine , is on his way out as well .
During the Senate trial ( and yes , I use that word loosely ) , CBS reported that “ senators have been warned — vote against the president and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Given Trump ’ s obsession with revenge , that didn ’ t come as a surprise to most of us .
But as a Politico headline stated , Republicans were “ livid ” when Representative Adam Schiff mentioned the CBS report during his remarks in the Senate .
As Senator Sherrod Brown suggested though , Schiff clearly struck a cord…and the truth hurts .
Of course , the Republican senators who have covered for Mr. Trump love what he delivers for them .
But Vice President Mike Pence would give them the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the same attacks on workers ’ rights and the environment .
So that ’ s not really the reason for their united chorus of “ not guilty.
” For the stay-in-office-at-all-cost representatives and senators , fear is the motivator .
They are afraid that Mr. Trump might give them a nickname like “ Low Energy Jeb ” and “ Lyin ’ Ted , ” or that he might tweet about their disloyalty .
Or — worst of all — that he might come to their state to campaign against them in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Will the mouthpieces on talk radio go after me ?
” “ Will the Twitter trolls turn their followers against me ?
” My colleagues know they all just might .
Just as CBS reported , the president is in the midst of putting heads on pikes to demonstrate what happens to those who cross him .
The fact that so many Republican Senators caved to that kind of threat is shameful , but perhaps instructive of what the GOP has become .

The Washington Post deserves some credit for producing a video that should (but probably won’t) put an end to the ubiquitous claim that “both sides do it.” It features remarks from Bill Clinton and Donald Trump after their impeachment acquittal in the Senate.
Clinton humbly admitted his mistakes and called for unity, while Trump congratulated himself for beating the rap, even though many of the Republicans who gave him a pass have publicly acknowledged his guilt.
One of the people who was most undermined by Trump’s remarks was Senator Susan Collins, who said previously that Trump had learned his lesson from the impeachment process. She had to walk that one back almost immediately.
Meanwhile, the ink was barely dry on Senator Mitt Romney’s vote when the president started the process of seeking revenge and asserting his dominance.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1225203837226700800
Based on Trump’s remarks at his celebration and at Thursday’s prayer breakfast, it is clear that attacking Romney will be front and center for the foreseeable future.
Trump began needling Romney Thursday morning at the traditionally nonpartisan National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday, chiding the senator’s declaration that his faith had helped guide him to convict the president. Faith, Trump said, was merely a “crutch” for Romney. Hours later, speaking from the East Room at the White House, Trump cut down Romney as bitter about his failed 2012 run for president. “The only one that voted against us was a guy that can’t stand the fact that he ran one of the worst campaigns in the history of the presidency,” Trump said. Hours after that, the White House blasted out talking points to its surrogates, titled “Romney (Once Again) Ditches Principles to Seek Far-Left’s Adulation.” “Sadly, Romney’s decision was unsurprising as this display of self-serving political expedience has come to define his political career,” it read. The Republican close to the White House predicted that this was the opening salvo in a campaign to ostracize Romney.
But Romney isn’t the only one. Trump is also planning to go after the staff who had the courage to testify against him.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman — a National Security Council aide who testified during House Democrats’ impeachment hearings — will be informed in the coming days, likely on Friday, by administration officials that he is being reassigned to a position at the Defense Department, taking a key figure from the investigation out of the White House… Trump and his allies are considering doing more than just launching verbal fusillades at his perceived enemies over impeachment as the decision regarding Vindman shows. Some of the president’s aides are discussing whether to remove or reassign several administration officials who testified during the impeachment inquiry, according to aides and advisers who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the plans.
Finally, it looks like acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, who botched a press conference by admitting to a quid pro quo with Ukraine, is on his way out as well.
During the Senate trial (and yes, I use that word loosely), CBS reported that “senators have been warned — vote against the president and your head will be on a pike.” Given Trump’s obsession with revenge, that didn’t come as a surprise to most of us.
But as a Politico headline stated, Republicans were “livid” when Representative Adam Schiff mentioned the CBS report during his remarks in the Senate. As Senator Sherrod Brown suggested though, Schiff clearly struck a cord…and the truth hurts.
Of course, the Republican senators who have covered for Mr. Trump love what he delivers for them. But Vice President Mike Pence would give them the same judges, the same tax cuts, the same attacks on workers’ rights and the environment. So that’s not really the reason for their united chorus of “not guilty.” For the stay-in-office-at-all-cost representatives and senators, fear is the motivator. They are afraid that Mr. Trump might give them a nickname like “Low Energy Jeb” and “Lyin’ Ted,” or that he might tweet about their disloyalty. Or — worst of all — that he might come to their state to campaign against them in the Republican primary. They worry: “Will the hosts on Fox attack me?” “Will the mouthpieces on talk radio go after me?” “Will the Twitter trolls turn their followers against me?” My colleagues know they all just might.
Just as CBS reported, the president is in the midst of putting heads on pikes to demonstrate what happens to those who cross him. The fact that so many Republican Senators caved to that kind of threat is shameful, but perhaps instructive of what the GOP has become.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-07--Bernie’s Coalition Doesn’t Overlap With Dem’s House Majority

Charlie Mahtesian has a piece in Politico Magazine that looks at how Donald Trump has shuffled the traditional battleground states in the Electoral College .
The basic premise is that some states are no longer competitive , like now solidly red Ohio and solidly blue Virginia .
These have been replaced by once noncompetitive states like Minnesota , Georgia , Texas , and Arizona .
There ’ s an argument that can be made that Bernie Sanders is in a good position to benefit from this in ways people don ’ t expect .
In particular , while he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the New York Times reports that he ’ s actually doing quite well with Latinos in the west and southwest .
Most surveys of California voters over all now have him in a virtual tie or with an outright lead — and his support among Hispanic voters is foundational to that .
A survey conducted for The Los Angeles Times by the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California , Berkeley , found Mr. Sanders with 26 percent support among likely primary voters statewide , putting him ahead of Senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with 20 percent .
He had the support of 38 percent of Hispanic voters , including 41 percent of those living in households where Spanish was the dominant language .
In Texas , exit polls in 2016 found that Mr. Sanders , Vermont ’ s junior senator , had lost the Latino vote to Hillary Clinton by a two-to-one margin .
He now enjoys a commanding lead among Hispanic primary voters there , according to a Texas Lyceum survey released this week .
( In Texas ’ Democratic primary , white voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the electorate , as they did in 2016 . )
The Lyceum poll showed Mr. Sanders with 36 percent of the Hispanic vote , compared with 24 percent for former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and just 10 percent for Ms. Warren .
It ’ s hard to see how Trump could win California under any scenario , but Texas has some potential to be competitive .
It ’ s more clearly Arizona where Sanders ’ strength with Latinos could give him an advantage over other Democratic candidates .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however .
To illustrate my point , there ’ s the opinion of Texas state House speaker Dennis Bonnen who was caught on secret audio tape saying , “ with all due respect to Trump , who I love by the way — he ’ s killing us in the urban-suburban districts.
” The urban-suburban coalition is the majority-maker for the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives , and it could soon be the majority-maker in the Texas House of Representatives .
But these are the exact types of districts where Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats .
It ’ s very difficult to see Sanders matching the suburban performance of Barack Obama or , especially , Hillary Clinton .
This sets up the possibility that the Democrats will run a presidential candidate in Sanders who is mismatched to their congressional majority .
We can see how this will cause problems already by looking at the news out of New Jersey .
Freshmen lawmakers there are not lining up behind Sanders .
Rep. Mikie Sherrill just endorsed Michael Bloomberg , while Rep. Andy Kim opted for Pete Buttigieg .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden .
With Sanders at the head of the ticket , none of these representatives will feel safe , and the same can be said across the Delaware River in suburban Philadelphia , where the biggest employer in freshman congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan district is Vanguard .
She most definitely does not want to share a ticket with Sanders .
To win in Pennsylvania , the Democrats will have to do better in districts like Houlahan ’ s than Hillary Clinton did in 2016 .
There ’ s virtually no chance Sanders can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party is not going to unite behind him .
Even if he has a roadmap to victory , it will be an unconventional one .
In Texas , he might ride strong Latino support and turnout to victory , but he ’ d end any hope the party has of winning a majority in the state House , because those urban-suburban districts would be out of reach .
However , Nate Silver ’ s model seems to be predicting that Sanders will go on a major run of victories now .
It could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for him to be stopped .

Charlie Mahtesian has a piece in Politico Magazine that looks at how Donald Trump has shuffled the traditional battleground states in the Electoral College. The basic premise is that some states are no longer competitive, like now solidly red Ohio and solidly blue Virginia. These have been replaced by once noncompetitive states like Minnesota, Georgia, Texas, and Arizona.
There’s an argument that can be made that Bernie Sanders is in a good position to benefit from this in ways people don’t expect. In particular, while he has reputation for failing to attract minority support, the New York Times reports that he’s actually doing quite well with Latinos in the west and southwest.
Most surveys of California voters over all now have him in a virtual tie or with an outright lead — and his support among Hispanic voters is foundational to that. A survey conducted for The Los Angeles Times by the Institute of Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, found Mr. Sanders with 26 percent support among likely primary voters statewide, putting him ahead of Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the runner-up, with 20 percent. He had the support of 38 percent of Hispanic voters, including 41 percent of those living in households where Spanish was the dominant language. In Texas, exit polls in 2016 found that Mr. Sanders, Vermont’s junior senator, had lost the Latino vote to Hillary Clinton by a two-to-one margin. He now enjoys a commanding lead among Hispanic primary voters there, according to a Texas Lyceum survey released this week. (In Texas’ Democratic primary, white voters are expected to make up a minority of the electorate, as they did in 2016.) The Lyceum poll showed Mr. Sanders with 36 percent of the Hispanic vote, compared with 24 percent for former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and just 10 percent for Ms. Warren.
It’s hard to see how Trump could win California under any scenario, but Texas has some potential to be competitive. It’s more clearly Arizona where Sanders’ strength with Latinos could give him an advantage over other Democratic candidates.
There’s a flip side to this, however. To illustrate my point, there’s the opinion of Texas state House speaker Dennis Bonnen who was caught on secret audio tape saying, “with all due respect to Trump, who I love by the way — he’s killing us in the urban-suburban districts.”
The urban-suburban coalition is the majority-maker for the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, and it could soon be the majority-maker in the Texas House of Representatives. But these are the exact types of districts where Sanders is likely to run behind more traditional Democrats. It’s very difficult to see Sanders matching the suburban performance of Barack Obama or, especially, Hillary Clinton.
This sets up the possibility that the Democrats will run a presidential candidate in Sanders who is mismatched to their congressional majority. We can see how this will cause problems already by looking at the news out of New Jersey. Freshmen lawmakers there are not lining up behind Sanders. Rep. Mikie Sherrill just endorsed Michael Bloomberg, while Rep. Andy Kim opted for Pete Buttigieg. Freshman Rep. Tom Malinowski had previously endorsed Joe Biden. With Sanders at the head of the ticket, none of these representatives will feel safe, and the same can be said across the Delaware River in suburban Philadelphia, where the biggest employer in freshman congresswoman Chrissy Houlahan district is Vanguard. She most definitely does not want to share a ticket with Sanders.
To win in Pennsylvania, the Democrats will have to do better in districts like Houlahan’s than Hillary Clinton did in 2016. There’s virtually no chance Sanders can accomplish this.
This is why the party is not going to unite behind him. Even if he has a roadmap to victory, it will be an unconventional one. In Texas, he might ride strong Latino support and turnout to victory, but he’d end any hope the party has of winning a majority in the state House, because those urban-suburban districts would be out of reach.
However, Nate Silver’s model seems to be predicting that Sanders will go on a major run of victories now. It could be that it’s too late for him to be stopped.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-07--Donald Trump’s Assault on the Social Safety Net


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-08--How Mitt Romney’s Mormonism Guided His Impeachment Vote

In explaining his vote to convict President Trump on the first article of impeachment—abuse of power—Mitt Romney invoked the example of his father , George Romney , a prominent Republican leader .
But I kept thinking of a different Romney relative – his great , great grandfather , Parley Pratt .
Pratt was one of the original apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints .
He was imprisoned because of his association with Joseph Smith , the religion ’ s founder , who was quite literally martyred for his faith .
Pratt ’ s relatives fled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an important tenet of their faith , polygamy .
Much has been made of the religiosity of Romney ’ s Senate speech .
Most notably , Trump scorned him for it and suggested he “ used religion as a crutch.
” But Romney has mentioned his oath before God many times before Wednesday .
In fact , I cant help but think that Romney ’ s religiosity wasn ’ t the only factor in guiding him toward his decision , but his Mormonism specifically .
It ’ s hard to generalize , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and reliably Republican , they also have a vivid of history being isolated , attacked , and alone .
I wonder if there might also be , in their cultural DNA , a visceral understanding of being the ones who stand in isolation against the dominant culture .
Other examples come to mind .
Jeff Flake , heretofore the most prominent never-Trumper , was also Mormon .
In 2010 , the conservative movement rallied around an effort to block the construction of an Islamic center in lower Manhattan .
Only one conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Orrin Hatch , also a Mormon – defended the Ground Zero Mosque .
This is not to say Romney has a long history of such principled behavior .
He is one of the most ideologically malleable politicians on the national stage , He went from being a liberal Republican governor of Massachusetts to a conservative Republican when running for president .
I ’ ve long thought that he made a huge mistake in 2012 by trying to hide his Mormonism .
He kept talking about his “ Christian Faith ” instead of leaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of his interviews this week , he said he ’ d regretted moments in his own career when he put political expediency over his own moral code .
“ I have found , in business in particular but also in politics , that when something is in your personal best interests , the ability of the mind to rationalize that that ’ s the right thing is really quite extraordinary .
I have seen it in others , and I have seen it in myself.
” I ’ m not sure what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But he might have advised him : Don ’ t worry great , great grandson , it ’ s okay to stand against the mainstream culture .

In explaining his vote to convict President Trump on the first article of impeachment—abuse of power—Mitt Romney invoked the example of his father, George Romney, a prominent Republican leader. But I kept thinking of a different Romney relative – his great, great grandfather, Parley Pratt.
Pratt was one of the original apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He was imprisoned because of his association with Joseph Smith, the religion’s founder, who was quite literally martyred for his faith. Pratt’s relatives fled to Mexico to avoid persecution for practicing an important tenet of their faith, polygamy.
Much has been made of the religiosity of Romney’s Senate speech. Most notably, Trump scorned him for it and suggested he “used religion as a crutch.” But Romney has mentioned his oath before God many times before Wednesday. In fact, I cant help but think that Romney’s religiosity wasn’t the only factor in guiding him toward his decision, but his Mormonism specifically.
It’s hard to generalize, but while LDS members have become deeply mainstream, and reliably Republican, they also have a vivid of history being isolated, attacked, and alone. I wonder if there might also be, in their cultural DNA, a visceral understanding of being the ones who stand in isolation against the dominant culture.
Other examples come to mind. Jeff Flake, heretofore the most prominent never-Trumper, was also Mormon. In 2010, the conservative movement rallied around an effort to block the construction of an Islamic center in lower Manhattan. Only one conservative Republican that I could find – Senator Orrin Hatch, also a Mormon – defended the Ground Zero Mosque.
This is not to say Romney has a long history of such principled behavior. He is one of the most ideologically malleable politicians on the national stage, He went from being a liberal Republican governor of Massachusetts to a conservative Republican when running for president. I’ve long thought that he made a huge mistake in 2012 by trying to hide his Mormonism. He kept talking about his “Christian Faith” instead of leaning into his genuine LDS piety.
In one of his interviews this week, he said he’d regretted moments in his own career when he put political expediency over his own moral code. “I have found, in business in particular but also in politics, that when something is in your personal best interests, the ability of the mind to rationalize that that’s the right thing is really quite extraordinary. I have seen it in others, and I have seen it in myself.”
I’m not sure what Parley Pratt would have made of that. But he might have advised him: Don’t worry great, great grandson, it’s okay to stand against the mainstream culture.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-10--The Heart of the Electability Debate: Coalition

LeBron James has a show on HBO titled “ The Shop : Uninterrupted ” in which he gathers some of his friends at the barbershop for a discussion that is more about life than sports .
While James is busy playing basketball at the moment , his friend Maverick Carter is hosting the show and , in the most recent episode , gathered a group that was mostly women .
Included in this discussion were : Megan Rapinoe , Sue Bird , Stacey Abrams , and Whoopi Goldberg , along with Malcolm Jenkins and Hasan Minhaj .
When Minhaj took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let loose and called him out .
Goldberg said that Minhaj ’ s characterization of the Democratic Party as being split into the “ new woke ” and “ establishment ” wings is a media narrative that is false .
She rightly pointed to Joe Biden ’ s contributions toward ending apartheid as an example of the kinds of things that narrative dismisses .
The editorial board of the Washington Post is to be commended for challenging the conventional wisdom of that narrative as well .
It has become an unchecked assumption about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are fighting an ideological war between “ left ” and “ center.
” This narrative is false , and it is hardly benign .
It minimizes the bold policy ambitions of those in the mislabeled “ centrist ” lane and falsely characterizes those on the left flank as braver or more committed to reform… [ T ] he fact that Mr. Sanders ’ s and Ms. Warren ’ s positioning puts them decidedly to the left of others in the race does not make their competitors “ centrist.
” All , in fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platforms for reducing inequality and promoting access to health and education… In fact , every major Democratic candidate is running on an agenda to the left of Mr. Obama ’ s .
Lest anyone think that Barack Obama would have a problem with that characterization , keep in mind that he recently said this .
The reason why Whoopi was right to call out the idea that the Democratic Party is in the midst of a battle between the “ new woke ” and the “ establishment ” is that the narrative is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a coalition is more important than ever .
So rather than place individual candidates on that kind of spectrum , it is important to notice when they feed the divide .
As we speak , the two people in this race who appear to be the frontrunners in Iowa and New Hampshire are the worst offenders .
Pete Buttigieg constantly contrasts the so-called “ heartland ” with the rest of the country .
Over the weekend , he said that “ we need Washington to look more like our small towns , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismissive of the 80 percent of Americans who live in urban areas .
On the other hand , Bernie Sanders recently said this .
Contrary to conventional wisdom , that is actually Buttigieg and Sanders sounding an awful lot alike in a way that divides the country .
It is simply not true that the heartland is the only place where American values flourish or that urban communities are doing just fine .
What Democrats need is a candidate who can , as Stacey Abrams suggested , tell all of America , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obstacles to you getting the things that all of us want : healthcare , economic security , educational opportunities.
” Similarly , Democrats need a candidate who won ’ t simply focus on the narrow goal of winning back the Midwest , but one who recognizes that a coalition carries with it the possibility of making strides in southern states like Arizona , Texas , Georgia , and North Carolina .
Competing in all of those states isn ’ t just important for winning the presidency , it also helps candidates running in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arizona .
Along those lines , take a look at this video recently released by Tyheir Kindred , a Dayton , Ohio rapper who goes by the name of YelloPain .
He directly challenges the idea that “ my vote doesn ’ t count ” by schooling young people on the importance of those down-ticket races .
While beating Trump is a priority , it is equally important for Democrats to maintain a majority in the House and win one in the Senate .
The way to reach all of those goals is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by building the biggest coalition of voters .
That is what should be at the heart of the so-called “ electability ” debate .

LeBron James has a show on HBO titled “The Shop: Uninterrupted” in which he gathers some of his friends at the barbershop for a discussion that is more about life than sports. While James is busy playing basketball at the moment, his friend Maverick Carter is hosting the show and, in the most recent episode, gathered a group that was mostly women. Included in this discussion were: Megan Rapinoe, Sue Bird, Stacey Abrams, and Whoopi Goldberg, along with Malcolm Jenkins and Hasan Minhaj.
When Minhaj took up the topic of politics, Whoopi let loose and called him out.
Goldberg said that Minhaj’s characterization of the Democratic Party as being split into the “new woke” and “establishment” wings is a media narrative that is false. She rightly pointed to Joe Biden’s contributions toward ending apartheid as an example of the kinds of things that narrative dismisses.
The editorial board of the Washington Post is to be commended for challenging the conventional wisdom of that narrative as well.
It has become an unchecked assumption about the Democratic presidential race: The candidates are fighting an ideological war between “left” and “center.” This narrative is false, and it is hardly benign. It minimizes the bold policy ambitions of those in the mislabeled “centrist” lane and falsely characterizes those on the left flank as braver or more committed to reform… [T]he fact that Mr. Sanders’s and Ms. Warren’s positioning puts them decidedly to the left of others in the race does not make their competitors “centrist.” All, in fact, have put forward ambitious, progressive platforms for reducing inequality and promoting access to health and education… In fact, every major Democratic candidate is running on an agenda to the left of Mr. Obama’s.
Lest anyone think that Barack Obama would have a problem with that characterization, keep in mind that he recently said this.
“There is always kind of a battle in politics between hope and fear. You hope things get a little better, you are afraid that with too much change things might get worse, and there’s always that contest that’s taking place… if I were running today, I wouldn’t run the same campaign that I did in 2008.” Conversations around issues like climate change and criminal justice reform have completely shifted, he explained. And as a result, so should the policy pitches. The Affordable Care Act is a “starter home.”
The reason why Whoopi was right to call out the idea that the Democratic Party is in the midst of a battle between the “new woke” and the “establishment” is that the narrative is divisive at a time when bringing together a coalition is more important than ever. So rather than place individual candidates on that kind of spectrum, it is important to notice when they feed the divide.
As we speak, the two people in this race who appear to be the frontrunners in Iowa and New Hampshire are the worst offenders. Pete Buttigieg constantly contrasts the so-called “heartland” with the rest of the country. Over the weekend, he said that “we need Washington to look more like our small towns, not the other way around.” That is dismissive of the 80 percent of Americans who live in urban areas.
On the other hand, Bernie Sanders recently said this.
https://twitter.com/josecanyousee/status/1225829078617296896
Contrary to conventional wisdom, that is actually Buttigieg and Sanders sounding an awful lot alike in a way that divides the country. It is simply not true that the heartland is the only place where American values flourish or that urban communities are doing just fine.
What Democrats need is a candidate who can, as Stacey Abrams suggested, tell all of America, “I see you and I see the obstacles to you getting the things that all of us want: healthcare, economic security, educational opportunities.”
Similarly, Democrats need a candidate who won’t simply focus on the narrow goal of winning back the Midwest, but one who recognizes that a coalition carries with it the possibility of making strides in southern states like Arizona, Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina. Competing in all of those states isn’t just important for winning the presidency, it also helps candidates running in down-ticket races—be it anywhere from Michigan to Arizona.
Along those lines, take a look at this video recently released by Tyheir Kindred, a Dayton, Ohio rapper who goes by the name of YelloPain. He directly challenges the idea that “my vote doesn’t count” by schooling young people on the importance of those down-ticket races.
While beating Trump is a priority, it is equally important for Democrats to maintain a majority in the House and win one in the Senate. The way to reach all of those goals is not by dividing the country, but by building the biggest coalition of voters. That is what should be at the heart of the so-called “electability” debate.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-10--Trumpism and the Corruption of Christian Morals

David French has an interesting formulation to describe the strange phenomenon of conservative Christians rallying around a man like Donald Trump .
These folks are essentially asking the president to hate their enemies for them so that they can remain true to Jesus ’ s commandment to love their enemies .
Whatever misgivings they may have about Trump ’ s personal morals , at least he fights .
And , if he loses , then there will be a pro-choice president who appoints pro-choice judges , and no one will protect them from infringements on their right to live by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens next , according to French , is that people are drawn in by their initial acceptance of Trump as their proxy and representative .
Before long , they begin to rationalize that any criticism of Trump will weaken him and empower his opponents , so they refrain from criticizing him .
Then they begin to attack his critics even when they agree with them : “ They ’ ll echo Trump ’ s lies .
They ’ ll defend Trump ’ s lies .
They ’ ll adopt many of his same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and insulting behavior as a matter of course.
” French describes this phenomenon using the hypothetical older woman who is “ so nice in person that you ’ d hardly think it ’ s real.
” …she loves Trump because she ’ s sick and tired .
She ’ s sick and tired of the elite media deriding her faith as bigoted .
She ’ s sick and tired of a political party that rejects the humanity of unborn children .
She ’ s appalled at the way she believes the media have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good men… …She doesn ’ t necessarily like Trump ’ s lying , but the Democrats lie too , and if you read what she writes on social media , and you hear what she says to her friends , it ’ s full of condemnation against Adam Schiff , the Steele dossier , and the other laundry list of Resistance sins .
She doesn ’ t like Trump ’ s personal insults , but her political conversations are full of shock and anger at the opposition ’ s disrespect for a president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she invests her emotion .
That ’ s where she focuses her activism .
Have you seen what The Squad says about Trump ?
The misdeeds freshman members of Congress loom far larger in her mind that the misconduct of the world ’ s most powerful man .
Here ’ s the end result—millions of Christians have not just decided to hire a hater to defend them from haters and to hire a liar to defend them from liars , they actively ignore , rationalize , minimize , or deny Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the idea of loving your enemies gets lost .
Along with it , the standard against lying is abandoned .
And , since Trump can not be criticized and must be defended , every foul act in Trump ’ s history is either denied or ignored .
Traditional norms of American government , like the separation of powers and Congress ’ s right to subpoena witnesses and documents , are thrown to the wayside because the president doesn ’ t abide by them .
Some of this is not unique to Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ them and reshape the organizations they head , and to a certain degree , this is what we expect from them .
But , a moral leader can appeal to people ’ s better angels and mold them into better fathers , mothers , friends , and citizens .
A moral leader can provide people with the courage to risk their health and wealth on a bigger cause .
The problem arises when an immoral leader reshapes people and organizations in a negative way .
Trump takes kind old ladies who worry about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He turns upright and model citizens into apologists for sexual assault , white nationalism , business fraud , self-dealing and foreign interference in our elections .
For French , his primary concern is what this does to faithful conservative Christians .
For the rest of us , the concern is what it does to the nation as a whole .
As the core of Trumpism is the corruption of the national character .
When Martin Luther King Jr. sought to change the national character , it was in obvious need of changing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about attitudes towards abortion or immigration .
But they haven ’ t rallied behind a leader who wins people over with personal courage and Christian teaching .
They ’ re not transforming people ’ s attitudes about the things they care about but are instead being transformed into immoral beings .
The causes they champion are sullied by association with Trump and his extreme un-Christian behaviors and beliefs .
French doesn ’ t mention it , but the movement around Trump is increasingly described as cultish , and we see him compared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too , is heretical , and a threat to monotheism .
When I think about this cult , I keep going back to the song Ship of Fools by Robert Hunter and Jerry Garcia .
I picture a time right after Trump leaves power and his intoxicating effect has worn off .
My main hope is that a leader will arise after Trump who leads these folks back in the right direction and who can restore their standards and morals .
They ’ re ultimately victims of Trumpism just like everyone else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them on it .

David French has an interesting formulation to describe the strange phenomenon of conservative Christians rallying around a man like Donald Trump. These folks are essentially asking the president to hate their enemies for them so that they can remain true to Jesus’s commandment to love their enemies.
Whatever misgivings they may have about Trump’s personal morals, at least he fights. And, if he loses, then there will be a pro-choice president who appoints pro-choice judges, and no one will protect them from infringements on their right to live by the principles of their faith.
What happens next, according to French, is that people are drawn in by their initial acceptance of Trump as their proxy and representative. Before long, they begin to rationalize that any criticism of Trump will weaken him and empower his opponents, so they refrain from criticizing him. Then they begin to attack his critics even when they agree with them: “They’ll echo Trump’s lies. They’ll defend Trump’s lies. They’ll adopt many of his same rhetorical tactics, including engaging in mocking and insulting behavior as a matter of course.”
French describes this phenomenon using the hypothetical older woman who is “so nice in person that you’d hardly think it’s real.”
…she loves Trump because she’s sick and tired. She’s sick and tired of the elite media deriding her faith as bigoted. She’s sick and tired of a political party that rejects the humanity of unborn children. She’s appalled at the way she believes the media have gone out of their way to destroy good men… …She doesn’t necessarily like Trump’s lying, but the Democrats lie too, and if you read what she writes on social media, and you hear what she says to her friends, it’s full of condemnation against Adam Schiff, the Steele dossier, and the other laundry list of Resistance sins. She doesn’t like Trump’s personal insults, but her political conversations are full of shock and anger at the opposition’s disrespect for a president she appreciates. That’s where she invests her emotion. That’s where she focuses her activism. Have you seen what The Squad says about Trump? The misdeeds freshman members of Congress loom far larger in her mind that the misconduct of the world’s most powerful man. Here’s the end result—millions of Christians have not just decided to hire a hater to defend them from haters and to hire a liar to defend them from liars, they actively ignore, rationalize, minimize, or deny Trump’s sins.
Somewhere along the way, the idea of loving your enemies gets lost. Along with it, the standard against lying is abandoned. And, since Trump cannot be criticized and must be defended, every foul act in Trump’s history is either denied or ignored. Traditional norms of American government, like the separation of powers and Congress’s right to subpoena witnesses and documents, are thrown to the wayside because the president doesn’t abide by them.
Some of this is not unique to Trump. Leaders will transform the people who follow them and reshape the organizations they head, and to a certain degree, this is what we expect from them. But, a moral leader can appeal to people’s better angels and mold them into better fathers, mothers, friends, and citizens. A moral leader can provide people with the courage to risk their health and wealth on a bigger cause. The problem arises when an immoral leader reshapes people and organizations in a negative way.
Trump takes kind old ladies who worry about the unborn and transforms them into hate-tweeters. He turns upright and model citizens into apologists for sexual assault, white nationalism, business fraud, self-dealing and foreign interference in our elections.
For French, his primary concern is what this does to faithful conservative Christians. For the rest of us, the concern is what it does to the nation as a whole. As the core of Trumpism is the corruption of the national character.
When Martin Luther King Jr. sought to change the national character, it was in obvious need of changing. Trump supporters may feel the same about attitudes towards abortion or immigration. But they haven’t rallied behind a leader who wins people over with personal courage and Christian teaching. They’re not transforming people’s attitudes about the things they care about but are instead being transformed into immoral beings. The causes they champion are sullied by association with Trump and his extreme un-Christian behaviors and beliefs.
French doesn’t mention it, but the movement around Trump is increasingly described as cultish, and we see him compared to Christ more and more often. This, too, is heretical, and a threat to monotheism.
When I think about this cult, I keep going back to the song Ship of Fools by Robert Hunter and Jerry Garcia. I picture a time right after Trump leaves power and his intoxicating effect has worn off.
The bottles stand as empty
as they were filled before
Time there was and plenty
but from that cup no more
Though I could not caution all I yet may warn a few:
“Don’t lend your hand to raise no flag
atop no ship of fools.”
My main hope is that a leader will arise after Trump who leads these folks back in the right direction and who can restore their standards and morals. They’re ultimately victims of Trumpism just like everyone else, and French is correct to call them on it.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-11--Trump’s Mob-Like Vengeance Campaign

Trump’s Mob-Like Vengeance Campaign

Mitt Romney isn ’ t the only senator to experience what happens to a Trump ally when they fail to demonstrate sufficient loyalty .
Democrat Joe Manchin represents one of the reddest states in the country .
Trump won West Virginia by over 40 points in 2016 .
As a result , Manchin has consistently cozied up to the president .
In the summer of 2018 , Manchin went so far as to suggest that he might endorse Trump in the 2020 presidential election .
As the impeachment trial was underway , the senator from West Virginia led efforts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removal from office .
But in the end , Manchin voted “ guilty ” on both articles of impeachment .
That made him a target .
Obviously , Trump wanted to get the last word .
Monday morning , Manchin appeared on a couple of morning shows and shot back .
Sen. Joe Manchin on Monday brushed off the stream of insults hurled at him by President Donald Trump , offering the president some stern advice : Grow up .
“ I expect—every American and myself would like my president and our president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and he ’ s not , ” Manchin told CNN ’ s “ New Day.
” “ For the sake of the country , I hope he does.
” … In an interview on MSNBC later Monday , Manchin swatted back more forcefully at Trump ’ s “ Munchkin ” moniker and Trump ’ s assertion that the senator “ couldn ’ t understand the Transcripts ” of events at the center of the impeachment inquiry .
“ First of all , the munchkin , I ’ m taller than him , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is , ” he quipped .
“ Not heavier—he ’ s much heavier than me , but I ’ m a little taller than him so I guess he got that little bit off.
” Manchin added that he didn ’ t know Trump ’ s intent when the president referenced the transcripts .
“ I hope he wasn ’ t referring to because I ’ m from West Virginia , that we can ’ t understand or comprehend , ” he said .
“ I think we do a pretty good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it very well .
I read it and I understood it.
” Over the weekend , I watched the movie The Irishman and thought about Donald Trump ’ s history with the mob .
What we are witnessing in response to both impeachment testimony and votes is the traditional mob tactic of taking out anyone who threatens your dominance .
At this point , the president can ’ t go around “ offing ” his enemies , so he tries to do it verbally .
I ’ m sure that Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tough like this .
But the truth is that , in politics , doing so means an ever-decreasing circle of people you can depend on for support .
In other words , the president might have just reduced the number of votes he can count on in the Senate by two : Romney and Manchin .
More importantly , the one person who could occasionally give his initiatives the veneer of bipartisan support is being treated as an enemy .
In David Simon ’ s series The Wire , Stringer Bell gets tired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ develops a vision in which the major drug kingpins in Baltimore cooperate with one another , while he and Avon Barksdale invest their money in “ legitimate businesses.
” Barksdale is too caught up in the game .
The parting of ways on that vision eventually leads Barksdale to have Stinger killed… and the war goes on .
When Barksdale has second thoughts , Slim Charles tells him , “ Fact is , we went to war and now there ain ’ t no goin ’ back… If it ’ s a lie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But we got ta fight.
” Could there be a better description of Donald Trump and his vengeance campaign ?
The president has been playing this game for a long time .
Just like Barksdale , he ’ s going to continue doing so… no matter the cost .

Mitt Romney isn’t the only senator to experience what happens to a Trump ally when they fail to demonstrate sufficient loyalty.
Democrat Joe Manchin represents one of the reddest states in the country. Trump won West Virginia by over 40 points in 2016. As a result, Manchin has consistently cozied up to the president.
As a political creature, Manchin is a rare breed in these hyper-partisan times. A self-described centrist, he’s been a thorn in the side of fellow Democrats since he arrived in Washington…under Trump, he’s voted with the president more than any other Democrat—backing the White House on everything from Neil Gorsuch’s Supreme Court nomination to a bill that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. “I told [Trump], ‘I’m the only thing that keeps you bipartisan,’ ” Manchin says.
In the summer of 2018, Manchin went so far as to suggest that he might endorse Trump in the 2020 presidential election. As the impeachment trial was underway, the senator from West Virginia led efforts to censure the president as an alternative to removal from office.
But in the end, Manchin voted “guilty” on both articles of impeachment. That made him a target.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1226314556399591424
The senator responded.
Obviously, Trump wanted to get the last word.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1226537476476502016
Monday morning, Manchin appeared on a couple of morning shows and shot back.
Sen. Joe Manchin on Monday brushed off the stream of insults hurled at him by President Donald Trump, offering the president some stern advice: Grow up. “I expect—every American and myself would like my president and our president to act like a responsible adult, and he’s not,” Manchin told CNN’s “New Day.” “For the sake of the country, I hope he does.”… In an interview on MSNBC later Monday, Manchin swatted back more forcefully at Trump’s “Munchkin” moniker and Trump’s assertion that the senator “couldn’t understand the Transcripts” of events at the center of the impeachment inquiry. “First of all, the munchkin, I’m taller than him, I think, a little bit bigger than he is,” he quipped. “Not heavier—he’s much heavier than me, but I’m a little taller than him so I guess he got that little bit off.” Manchin added that he didn’t know Trump’s intent when the president referenced the transcripts. “I hope he wasn’t referring to because I’m from West Virginia, that we can’t understand or comprehend,” he said. “I think we do a pretty good job of that, and I understood it very well. I read it and I understood it.”
Over the weekend, I watched the movie The Irishman and thought about Donald Trump’s history with the mob. What we are witnessing in response to both impeachment testimony and votes is the traditional mob tactic of taking out anyone who threatens your dominance. At this point, the president can’t go around “offing” his enemies, so he tries to do it verbally.
I’m sure that Trump’s enablers just love it when he talks tough like this. But the truth is that, in politics, doing so means an ever-decreasing circle of people you can depend on for support. In other words, the president might have just reduced the number of votes he can count on in the Senate by two: Romney and Manchin. More importantly, the one person who could occasionally give his initiatives the veneer of bipartisan support is being treated as an enemy.
In David Simon’s series The Wire, Stringer Bell gets tired of the constant war for corners and develops a vision in which the major drug kingpins in Baltimore cooperate with one another, while he and Avon Barksdale invest their money in “legitimate businesses.” Barksdale is too caught up in the game.
The parting of ways on that vision eventually leads Barksdale to have Stinger killed… and the war goes on.
When Barksdale has second thoughts, Slim Charles tells him, “Fact is, we went to war and now there ain’t no goin’ back… If it’s a lie, then we fight on that lie. But we gotta fight.” Could there be a better description of Donald Trump and his vengeance campaign?
The president has been playing this game for a long time. Just like Barksdale, he’s going to continue doing so… no matter the cost.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-11--How the T-Mobile-Sprint Merger Legitimizes Monopoly

Judge Victor Marrero ’ s Tuesday ruling that let T-Mobile take over Sprint just deepened America ’ s already dire corporate concentration crisis .
By allowing the nation ’ s third- and fourth-largest wireless carriers to combine , Marrero has dealt a clear blow to competition in the wireless market and empowered all corporations seeking dominance through mergers and acquisitions .
The Obama administration wisely said no to consolidation that would reduce the number of national wireless carriers to just three .
Indeed , the deal will effectively create a new carrier with more than 100 million users .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that will likely cost subscribers roughly $ 4.5 billion annually , as the market will effectively be concentrated between just T-Mobile , AT & T , and Verizon .
Nevertheless , the Trump administration—and now a federal judge—have rejected the Obama-era policy and permitted a dangerous new level of concentration .
Tuesday ’ s decision underscores the need for bright-line rules that deter harmful mergers and acquisitions and instead direct business strategies toward product improvement and investment in new capacity .
Equally disconcerting , the judge ’ s decision subverts the Clayton Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Passed in 1914 and strengthened in 1950 , the law expanded the scope of business activities covered by the Sherman Antitrust Act and outlawed mergers that threaten to reduce competition or tend to create a monopoly .
Judge Marrero ’ s ruling permits otherwise illegal mergers if the merging corporations can establish productive efficiencies or show that one of the corporations involved is a “ weakened competitor.
” But the Supreme Court clearly rejected these defenses in a series of rulings in the 1960s because they are contrary to the text and purpose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a limited “ failing firm defense ” —which allows a merger that would create a less competitive market if the company is in danger imminent business failure—Sprint didn ’ t satisfy its requirements , nor did Marrero purport to apply it .
Sprint may not be doing as well as its executives and shareholders would like , but it is not on the verge of collapse or insolvency .
Marrero ’ s ruling , therefore , leaves it to state attorneys general to keep anti-merger law alive and protect the public .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take a stand and appeal this decision to the Second Circuit—the most important thing they can do .
It is critical they send a strong message to all corporations that they will uphold the law .
Powerful firms in concentrated markets shouldn ’ t be allowed to consolidate even further .

Judge Victor Marrero’s Tuesday ruling that let T-Mobile take over Sprint just deepened America’s already dire corporate concentration crisis. By allowing the nation’s third- and fourth-largest wireless carriers to combine, Marrero has dealt a clear blow to competition in the wireless market and empowered all corporations seeking dominance through mergers and acquisitions.
The Obama administration wisely said no to consolidation that would reduce the number of national wireless carriers to just three. Indeed, the deal will effectively create a new carrier with more than 100 million users. As the states in the case argued, that will likely cost subscribers roughly $4.5 billion annually, as the market will effectively be concentrated between just T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon.
Nevertheless, the Trump administration—and now a federal judge—have rejected the Obama-era policy and permitted a dangerous new level of concentration. Tuesday’s decision underscores the need for bright-line rules that deter harmful mergers and acquisitions and instead direct business strategies toward product improvement and investment in new capacity.
Equally disconcerting, the judge’s decision subverts the Clayton Act, the principal federal anti-merger statute. Passed in 1914 and strengthened in 1950, the law expanded the scope of business activities covered by the Sherman Antitrust Act and outlawed mergers that threaten to reduce competition or tend to create a monopoly.
Judge Marrero’s ruling permits otherwise illegal mergers if the merging corporations can establish productive efficiencies or show that one of the corporations involved is a “weakened competitor.”
But the Supreme Court clearly rejected these defenses in a series of rulings in the 1960s because they are contrary to the text and purpose of the Clayton Act. While there is a limited “failing firm defense”—which allows a merger that would create a less competitive market if the company is in danger imminent business failure—Sprint didn’t satisfy its requirements, nor did Marrero purport to apply it. Sprint may not be doing as well as its executives and shareholders would like, but it is not on the verge of collapse or insolvency.
Marrero’s ruling, therefore, leaves it to state attorneys general to keep anti-merger law alive and protect the public. They’re now the best positioned to take a stand and appeal this decision to the Second Circuit—the most important thing they can do. It is critical they send a strong message to all corporations that they will uphold the law. Powerful firms in concentrated markets shouldn’t be allowed to consolidate even further.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-11--Why the FBI Included Pro-Choice Activists on the List of Domestic Terror Threats

Since Trump was elected president , incidents of violent extremism have been on the rise , fueled predominantly by right-wing domestic terrorists .
But as Spencer Ackerman and Emily Shugerman report , the FBI has broadened the terminology they use to categorize their domestic terrorism efforts to include “ abortion violent extremism.
” In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last Wednesday , FBI Director Christopher Wray made it clear that the language included violent extremism on both sides .
Wray wasn ’ t only talking about the pro-life extremism that murders abortion providers in their churches , he hastened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either side of that issue who commit violence on behalf of different views on that topic.
” His questioner , Rep. Karen Bass ( D-CA ) , was puzzled at Wray ’ s seeming equivalence : “ People on either side of that issue don ’ t commit violence.
” …But Wray persisted : “ Well , we ’ ve actually had a variety of kinds of violence under that , believe it or not.
” Citing data from the National Abortion Federation , Ackerman and Shugerman point out that “ between 1993 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people and attempted to kill another 26.
” When it comes to violence by pro-choice activists , the FBI could only point to one case from 2012 in which Theodore Schulman was convicted for posting a threatening message in the comments section of a web site .
You might wonder why the FBI would go out of their way to include “ abortion rights extremism ” on their list of domestic terror threats , and especially why they would go out of their way to include pro-choice activists , who have no history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that question might lie in the fact that the Supreme Court is scheduled to make a ruling on an abortion case in June that many have suggested would mean the end of women ’ s reproductive freedom across the country .
The case is June Medical Services v. Gee , which involves a Louisiana law that requires any doctor performing an abortion to have admitting privileges at a state-approved hospital within 30 miles of the clinic .
Just three years ago the Supreme Court ruled on an identical law in Texas , Whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ striking down the law which had “ few , if any health benefits for women ” while being “ a substantial obstacle to women ” in exercising a constitutional right .
The only thing that has changed since then is the make-up of the Supreme Court .
At the time , Justice Kennedy ( who has since retired ) voted with the four liberals on the court to strike down the Texas law .
Voting to uphold it were Roberts , Thomas , and Scalia .
While Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were specifically chosen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intentions were broadcast when they voted against this case coming to the Supreme Court , which would have allowed the lower court ’ s decision to uphold the Louisiana law to go into effect .
The reason this case is so significant is that it takes direct aim at the 1992 Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey .
That ruling gave states the ability to regulate abortion but declared that such regulations would be unconstitutional if they constitute an “ undue burden ” on a woman ’ s right to choose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requirement is removed , states will be able to implement restrictions that make the procedure basically unavailable to women .
As you can see , the odds are that this Supreme Court will put a stake through the heart of Roe v. Wade .
If that happens , we can count on a powerful national response from pro-choice activists .
The FBI just set the stage to accuse those activists of engaging in violent extremism .
I am reminded of the warning Benjamin Wittes issued back in 2016 about putting a would-be tyrant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come as no surprise that the attorney general appointed by that would-be tyrant is taking this course after he publicly suggested that progressives are the ones engaged in a holy war against conservatives .
With an explosive Supreme Court decision coming in about four months , it is clear that the Trump administration is gearing up to take direct aim at the opposition .

Since Trump was elected president, incidents of violent extremism have been on the rise, fueled predominantly by right-wing domestic terrorists. But as Spencer Ackerman and Emily Shugerman report, the FBI has broadened the terminology they use to categorize their domestic terrorism efforts to include “abortion violent extremism.” In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last Wednesday, FBI Director Christopher Wray made it clear that the language included violent extremism on both sides.
Wray wasn’t only talking about the pro-life extremism that murders abortion providers in their churches, he hastened to add, but “people on either side of that issue who commit violence on behalf of different views on that topic.” His questioner, Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA), was puzzled at Wray’s seeming equivalence: “People on either side of that issue don’t commit violence.”…But Wray persisted: “Well, we’ve actually had a variety of kinds of violence under that, believe it or not.”
Citing data from the National Abortion Federation, Ackerman and Shugerman point out that “between 1993 and today, anti-abortion activists murdered 11 people and attempted to kill another 26.” When it comes to violence by pro-choice activists, the FBI could only point to one case from 2012 in which Theodore Schulman was convicted for posting a threatening message in the comments section of a web site.
You might wonder why the FBI would go out of their way to include “abortion rights extremism” on their list of domestic terror threats, and especially why they would go out of their way to include pro-choice activists, who have no history of violent extremism.
The answer to that question might lie in the fact that the Supreme Court is scheduled to make a ruling on an abortion case in June that many have suggested would mean the end of women’s reproductive freedom across the country. The case is June Medical Services v. Gee, which involves a Louisiana law that requires any doctor performing an abortion to have admitting privileges at a state-approved hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.
Just three years ago the Supreme Court ruled on an identical law in Texas, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellersted, striking down the law which had “few, if any health benefits for women” while being “a substantial obstacle to women” in exercising a constitutional right.
The only thing that has changed since then is the make-up of the Supreme Court. At the time, Justice Kennedy (who has since retired) voted with the four liberals on the court to strike down the Texas law. Voting to uphold it were Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia. While Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were specifically chosen for a moment like this, their intentions were broadcast when they voted against this case coming to the Supreme Court, which would have allowed the lower court’s decision to uphold the Louisiana law to go into effect.
The reason this case is so significant is that it takes direct aim at the 1992 Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. That ruling gave states the ability to regulate abortion but declared that such regulations would be unconstitutional if they constitute an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to choose to obtain an abortion. If that requirement is removed, states will be able to implement restrictions that make the procedure basically unavailable to women.
As you can see, the odds are that this Supreme Court will put a stake through the heart of Roe v. Wade. If that happens, we can count on a powerful national response from pro-choice activists. The FBI just set the stage to accuse those activists of engaging in violent extremism.
I am reminded of the warning Benjamin Wittes issued back in 2016 about putting a would-be tyrant in the Oval Office.
The soft spot, the least tyrant-proof part of the government, is the U.S. Department of Justice and the larger law enforcement and regulatory apparatus of the United States government. The first reason you should fear a Donald Trump presidency is what he would do to the ordinary enforcement functions of the federal government, not the most extraordinary ones.
It should come as no surprise that the attorney general appointed by that would-be tyrant is taking this course after he publicly suggested that progressives are the ones engaged in a holy war against conservatives. With an explosive Supreme Court decision coming in about four months, it is clear that the Trump administration is gearing up to take direct aim at the opposition.