washingtonmonthly--2020-10-23--The Curse of The Trump Moneymen

The Curse of The Trump Moneymen

What kind of people head up fundraising for the major political parties ?
They tend to be successful business types like Phil Murphy , the Democratic National Committee ’ s Finance Chair in the early 2000s .
The former Goldman Sachs banker became Ambassador to Germany and is the current governor of New Jersey .
There ’ s Lew Eisenberg , the former Republican Finance Chair , also a Goldman Sachs alumnus with a long career in private equity and management .
Finance chairs love the hustle .
They ’ re aggressive , but they try to stay clean , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dicey situations .
Richard Sullivan , the DNC Finance Chair in the mid-1990s , got pulled into the contretemps over whether Chinese national money made its way into Bill Clinton ’ s reelection campaign .
Sullivan did nothing wrong , but his having to appear before Congress to testify about the matter shows that the top fundraising job comes with risk .
That ’ s to be expected .
Then there ’ s the Republican National Committee Finance team under Donald Trump .
It shouldn ’ t be terribly surprising that this might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of money and elections—where the Trump-selected leaders of the party might have some problems .
Let ’ s start shortly after Inauguration Day in 2017 .
Las Vegas-based gaming mogul Steve Wynn was announced as the new RNC finance chairman .
Wynn ’ s appointment was treated as a bit of surprise since he ’ d been a long-time and often bitter rival of Trump .
“ The news suggests even billionaires can bury the hatchet , ” The Las Vegas Review-Journal wrote .
In April 2017 , Wynn and the new RNC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ press release ( since deleted but still available through the Wayback Machine ) announcing that Elliott Broidy , Michael Cohen , and Louis DeJoy would serve as National Deputy Finance Chairmen under Wynn .
It was an ill-fated coalition : Broidy would wind up pleading guilty to violating lobbying laws on behalf of Chinese and Malaysian clients , Cohen would do time for lying to Congress among other crimes , and DeJoy is postmaster general and accused of deliberately slowing the mail to delay mail-in ballots which , this year , are primarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots a “ fraud.
” Let ’ s go back to the winter of 2018 .
Broidy , who had served as the vice-chairman of Trump ’ s inaugural committee , was soon embroiled in a controversy over his work with George Nader—an adviser to the United Arab Emirates and a once and soon-to-be again convicted consumer of child pornography .
On January 27 , 2018 , The Wall Street Journal published a major investigation based on dozens of sources detailing a pattern of sexual misconduct by Wynn .
He resigned as RNC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ February 7 , as the stock of Wynn Resorts , Limited tumbled more than 18 percent , Wynn lost control of the business empire he ’ d spent four decades building as shareholders forced him out as CEO .
The next blow to the RNC finance team came two months later on April 9 , 2018 , when the FBI exercised search warrants at Michael Cohen ’ s office at the law firm Squire Patton Boggs , as well as his home , and a Manhattan hotel room where he ’ d been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Feds were looking for evidence that Cohen , while serving as an employee of the Trump organization and as Trump ’ s personal attorney , had made hush-money payments to Playboy model Karen McDougal and pornographic actress Stormy Daniels .
Cohen paid McDougal $ 150,000 to remain silent about a ten-month affair she conducted with Trump in 2005 and 2006 while future First Lady Melania Trump was pregnant .
Cohen paid Stormy Daniels $ 130,000 to keep quiet about a tryst she had with Trump shortly after Melania ’ s pregnancy resulted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ son , Barron .
It ’ s bad enough that Cohen was a hush-money fixer for Trump before he joined the RNC , but the New York lawyer also did it for Elliot Broidy , too .
Cohen had set up a corporation in Delaware to try to conceal the source of hush-money payments to Trump ’ s paramours .
Cohen also used this corporation to help his future colleague on the RNC finance team , Broidy , conceal his own affair .
Former Playboy Bunny Shera Bechard was paid $ 1.6 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay mum about her extramarital affair with Broidy , which she later claimed in court had resulted in physical abuse , pregnancy , and–most inconveniently for the anti-choice Republican Party–pressure from Broidy for her to get an abortion .
Broidy resigned from the finance team on April 13 , 2018 .
Cohen lasted until June 20 , mere days after Trump announced that Cohen no longer served as his personal attorney .
But the story wasn ’ t over .
In August 2018 , Cohen was indicted on eight felonies involving fraud , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payments deemed illegal campaign contributions .
He later pleaded guilty to perjuring himself before Congress and , as the sentencing judge put it , “ a veritable smorgasbord of fraudulent conduct.
” After Cohen and Broidy ’ s mid-2018 resignations from the RNC finance team , only Louis DeJoy , a former logistics company executive , remained from the original group .
He departed in May 2019 to serve as the national finance chairman for CLT Host 2020 , a supposedly non-profit , non-partisan organization responsible for raising money for the 2020 Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Charlotte , North Carolina .
The New York Times would later report that DeJoy ’ s businesses “ have been the subject of complaints of sexual harassment and unsafe working conditions , ” been cited by the National Labor Relations Board for acting with “ anti-union animus , ” and found guilty in federal court of violating labor laws .
Nonetheless , in May 2020 , he was chosen by the Trump-appointed U.S .
Postal Service Board of Governors to serve as the United States Postmaster General .
In that role , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it became clear that he was using his position to assist Trump ’ s reelection campaign .
As the Monthly ’ s Eric Cortellessa put it in August , by “ removing sorting machines from postal facilities and eliminating mailboxes , ” DeJoy was attempting to interfere with the proper delivery and counting of absentee and vote-by-mail ballots in the middle of a global pandemic .
In August 2020 , he was hauled before Congress , subjected to withering criticism , and compelled to promise the timely delivery of mail ballots .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record and knew full-well that Cohen had committed felonies at his direction .
Wynn had expanded his casino operations into Macau , a Special Administrative Region of the People ’ s Republic of China in the South China Sea , and unsuccessfully fought a 2017 slander case against accusations he ’ d violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act .
Broidy , as ProPublica reported at the time , had been convicted in 2009 for “ paying nearly $ 1 million in bribes to officials at New York State ’ s pension system , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ placement in his investment fund.
” And , of course , DeJoy had a sketchy business history involving sexual harassment and labor law violations .
There are many other examples of Trump ’ s failed effort to hire “ the best and most serious people ” and “ drain the swamp , ” including convicted felons Roger Stone , Michael Flynn , Paul Manafort , Rick Gates recently indicted Steve Bannon .
But the guilty plea of Elliott Broidy this week will close the chapter on the “ top of the line professionals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s fundraising arm .

What kind of people head up fundraising for the major political parties? They tend to be successful business types like Phil Murphy, the Democratic National Committee’s Finance Chair in the early 2000s. The former Goldman Sachs banker became Ambassador to Germany and is the current governor of New Jersey. There’s Lew Eisenberg, the former Republican Finance Chair, also a Goldman Sachs alumnus with a long career in private equity and management. Finance chairs love the hustle. They’re aggressive, but they try to stay clean, although their work can put them in dicey situations. Richard Sullivan, the DNC Finance Chair in the mid-1990s, got pulled into the contretemps over whether Chinese national money made its way into Bill Clinton’s reelection campaign. Sullivan did nothing wrong, but his having to appear before Congress to testify about the matter shows that the top fundraising job comes with risk. That’s to be expected.
Then there’s the Republican National Committee Finance team under Donald Trump. It shouldn’t be terribly surprising that this might be a corner of the universe—the crossroads of money and elections—where the Trump-selected leaders of the party might have some problems.
Let’s start shortly after Inauguration Day in 2017. Las Vegas-based gaming mogul Steve Wynn was announced as the new RNC finance chairman. Wynn’s appointment was treated as a bit of surprise since he’d been a long-time and often bitter rival of Trump. “The news suggests even billionaires can bury the hatchet,” The Las Vegas Review-Journal wrote.
In April 2017, Wynn and the new RNC chair, Ronna McDaniel, issued a press release (since deleted but still available through the Wayback Machine) announcing that Elliott Broidy, Michael Cohen, and Louis DeJoy would serve as National Deputy Finance Chairmen under Wynn. It was an ill-fated coalition: Broidy would wind up pleading guilty to violating lobbying laws on behalf of Chinese and Malaysian clients, Cohen would do time for lying to Congress among other crimes, and DeJoy is postmaster general and accused of deliberately slowing the mail to delay mail-in ballots which, this year, are primarily Democratic owing to the president calling such ballots a “fraud.”
Let’s go back to the winter of 2018. Broidy, who had served as the vice-chairman of Trump’s inaugural committee, was soon embroiled in a controversy over his work with George Nader—an adviser to the United Arab Emirates and a once and soon-to-be again convicted consumer of child pornography.
On January 27, 2018, The Wall Street Journal published a major investigation based on dozens of sources detailing a pattern of sexual misconduct by Wynn. He resigned as RNC finance chair the same day. On February 7, as the stock of Wynn Resorts, Limited tumbled more than 18 percent, Wynn lost control of the business empire he’d spent four decades building as shareholders forced him out as CEO.
The next blow to the RNC finance team came two months later on April 9, 2018, when the FBI exercised search warrants at Michael Cohen’s office at the law firm Squire Patton Boggs, as well as his home, and a Manhattan hotel room where he’d been staying.
Among other things, the Feds were looking for evidence that Cohen, while serving as an employee of the Trump organization and as Trump’s personal attorney, had made hush-money payments to Playboy model Karen McDougal and pornographic actress Stormy Daniels. Cohen paid McDougal $150,000 to remain silent about a ten-month affair she conducted with Trump in 2005 and 2006 while future First Lady Melania Trump was pregnant. Cohen paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet about a tryst she had with Trump shortly after Melania’s pregnancy resulted in the birth of Trump’s third son, Barron.
It’s bad enough that Cohen was a hush-money fixer for Trump before he joined the RNC, but the New York lawyer also did it for Elliot Broidy, too. Cohen had set up a corporation in Delaware to try to conceal the source of hush-money payments to Trump’s paramours. Cohen also used this corporation to help his future colleague on the RNC finance team, Broidy, conceal his own affair.
Former Playboy Bunny Shera Bechard was paid $1.6 million by Cohen in 2017 and 2018 to stay mum about her extramarital affair with Broidy, which she later claimed in court had resulted in physical abuse, pregnancy, and–most inconveniently for the anti-choice Republican Party–pressure from Broidy for her to get an abortion.
Broidy resigned from the finance team on April 13, 2018. Cohen lasted until June 20, mere days after Trump announced that Cohen no longer served as his personal attorney.
But the story wasn’t over. In August 2018, Cohen was indicted on eight felonies involving fraud, tax evasion, and the hush money payments deemed illegal campaign contributions. He later pleaded guilty to perjuring himself before Congress and, as the sentencing judge put it, “a veritable smorgasbord of fraudulent conduct.”
After Cohen and Broidy’s mid-2018 resignations from the RNC finance team, only Louis DeJoy, a former logistics company executive, remained from the original group. He departed in May 2019 to serve as the national finance chairman for CLT Host 2020, a supposedly non-profit, non-partisan organization responsible for raising money for the 2020 Republican National Convention, which was then planned for Charlotte, North Carolina.
The New York Times would later report that DeJoy’s businesses “have been the subject of complaints of sexual harassment and unsafe working conditions,” been cited by the National Labor Relations Board for acting with “anti-union animus,” and found guilty in federal court of violating labor laws.
Nonetheless, in May 2020, he was chosen by the Trump-appointed U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors to serve as the United States Postmaster General. In that role, he soon caused national controversy, as it became clear that he was using his position to assist Trump’s reelection campaign. As the Monthly’s Eric Cortellessa put it in August, by “removing sorting machines from postal facilities and eliminating mailboxes,” DeJoy was attempting to interfere with the proper delivery and counting of absentee and vote-by-mail ballots in the middle of a global pandemic.
In August 2020, he was hauled before Congress, subjected to withering criticism, and compelled to promise the timely delivery of mail ballots.
Trump was intimately familiar with Cohen’s record and knew full-well that Cohen had committed felonies at his direction. Wynn had expanded his casino operations into Macau, a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China in the South China Sea, and unsuccessfully fought a 2017 slander case against accusations he’d violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Broidy, as ProPublica reported at the time, had been convicted in 2009 for “paying nearly $1 million in bribes to officials at New York State’s pension system, in exchange for a $250 million placement in his investment fund.” And, of course, DeJoy had a sketchy business history involving sexual harassment and labor law violations.
There are many other examples of Trump’s failed effort to hire “the best and most serious people” and “drain the swamp,” including convicted felons Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates recently indicted Steve Bannon. But the guilty plea of Elliott Broidy this week will close the chapter on the “top of the line professionals” Trump chose to head the RNC’s fundraising arm.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-23--We Always Knew Mitch McConnell Was Odd, But Now This?

What ’ s the deal with Mitch McConnell ’ s seemingly bruised hands and lips ?
The fact-checking website , Snopes , confirms the authenticity of this Associated Press-distributed photograph of the 78-year-old Senate Majority Leader ’ s hands , which was taken on Tuesday after a Senate Republican Conference lunch .
In the photograph , both of the Kentucky senator ’ s hands are bandaged , mottled , purplish , and seemingly swollen .
McConnell refuses to provide an explanation , having declined to discuss it in front of reporters .
His office has not issued a statement about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just McConnell ’ s hands that seem worrisome .
Close examination of his face reveals discoloration around his mouth .
Questioned by reporters on Thursday , the Louisville Courier-Journal reports that McConnell was evasive .
Politico reporter John Bresnahan asked if he had some kind of health issue .
McConnell countered by saying he has been worried about Bresnahan ’ s health and asking how he was feeling .
Bresnahan said he was feeling OK. “ Good for you , ” McConnell replied .
“ But I ’ m serious , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about ?
” Bresnahan followed up .
Another journalist asked about the bruising , too , and McConnell said there were no concerns .
He did not respond when asked if he was being treated by a doctor .
Aside from being the most powerful member of the U.S. Senate , McConnell is up for reelection in 11 days .
As he seeks a sixth six-year term against challenger Amy McGrath , Democrats see an opening .
Marisa McNee , a Kentucky Democratic Party spokesperson , told Buzzfeed News , “ It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to discuss questions about his health so close to an election .
But as Senate Majority Leader , he is a public figure which requires more disclosure and transparency than just the average private person.
” In the absence of an explanation , online speculation has been rampant .
Print articles have explored the possibilities , too .
Bruce Y. Lee of Forbes collated some of the theories , which include bruising from an injury or intravenous line , lack of blood oxygenation , poor blood circulation , blood thinning and anti-clotting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those are consistent with a COVID-19 infection .
But it could be none of those .
We don ’ t know .
October polling of the McConnell-McGrath race shows the Majority Leader comfortably ahead of the former Marine pilot by nine or ten points .
FiveThirtyEight gives McConnell a 96 percent chance of being reelected .
But he can ’ t be complacent .
Newsweek reports that McGrath has raised $ 82.3 million to his $ 52 million and outspent him $ 62.4 million to $ 38.2 million .
Perhaps McConnell ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solid lead .
Yet , in failing to be transparent , he ’ s giving Kentuckians a reason to vote against him .
Evasiveness and visible bruising are a bad combination for a politician .
Even worse , McConnell has been cagey about COVID-19 testing , saying he had been tested but refusing to say when .
Giving a 78-year-old Senator a six-year term is a modest gamble , as an actuarial table will show you .
Kentucky voters deserve the facts before they vote .

What’s the deal with Mitch McConnell’s seemingly bruised hands and lips? The fact-checking website, Snopes, confirms the authenticity of this Associated Press-distributed photograph of the 78-year-old Senate Majority Leader’s hands, which was taken on Tuesday after a Senate Republican Conference lunch. In the photograph, both of the Kentucky senator’s hands are bandaged, mottled, purplish, and seemingly swollen. McConnell refuses to provide an explanation, having declined to discuss it in front of reporters. His office has not issued a statement about the disconcerting pictures.
It’s not just McConnell’s hands that seem worrisome. Close examination of his face reveals discoloration around his mouth.
https://twitter.com/riotwomennn/status/1319029347336978434?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1319029793296363520%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3%2Ccontainerclick_1&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.embedly.com%2Fwidgets%2Fmedia.html%3Ftype%3Dtext2Fhtmlkey%3D3ce26dc7e3454db5820ba084d28b4935schema%3Dtwitterurl%3Dhttps3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Friotwomennn%2Fstatus%2F1319029793296363520image%3D
Questioned by reporters on Thursday, the Louisville Courier-Journal reports that McConnell was evasive.
Politico reporter John Bresnahan asked if he had some kind of health issue. McConnell countered by saying he has been worried about Bresnahan’s health and asking how he was feeling. Bresnahan said he was feeling OK. “Good for you,” McConnell replied. “But I’m serious, is there anything going on we should know about?” Bresnahan followed up. “Of course not,” McConnell said. Another journalist asked about the bruising, too, and McConnell said there were no concerns. He did not respond when asked if he was being treated by a doctor.
Aside from being the most powerful member of the U.S. Senate, McConnell is up for reelection in 11 days. As he seeks a sixth six-year term against challenger Amy McGrath, Democrats see an opening. Marisa McNee, a Kentucky Democratic Party spokesperson, told Buzzfeed News, “It’s understandable that Sen. McConnell might not want to discuss questions about his health so close to an election. But as Senate Majority Leader, he is a public figure which requires more disclosure and transparency than just the average private person.”
In the absence of an explanation, online speculation has been rampant. Print articles have explored the possibilities, too. Bruce Y. Lee of Forbes collated some of the theories, which include bruising from an injury or intravenous line, lack of blood oxygenation, poor blood circulation, blood thinning and anti-clotting medications, and lymphatic disorders. Many of those are consistent with a COVID-19 infection. But it could be none of those. We don’t know.
October polling of the McConnell-McGrath race shows the Majority Leader comfortably ahead of the former Marine pilot by nine or ten points. FiveThirtyEight gives McConnell a 96 percent chance of being reelected. But he can’t be complacent. Newsweek reports that McGrath has raised $82.3 million to his $52 million and outspent him $62.4 million to $38.2 million.
Perhaps McConnell’s reticence will help him protect his solid lead. Yet, in failing to be transparent, he’s giving Kentuckians a reason to vote against him. Evasiveness and visible bruising are a bad combination for a politician. Even worse, McConnell has been cagey about COVID-19 testing, saying he had been tested but refusing to say when. Giving a 78-year-old Senator a six-year term is a modest gamble, as an actuarial table will show you. Kentucky voters deserve the facts before they vote.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-24--Kamala Harris: Woman of the World

Kamala Harris: Woman of the World

California is waiting to be welcomed back into the national conversation after four years of disrespect and neglect from the White House .
In a Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration , not only will California ’ s favorite daughter bridge the widened — and widening — federal-state divide , she will team with a President Biden to rebuild America ’ s powerful role in the world .
In fact , Harris could be key to building new strategic global relationships and alliances .
( Disclosure : My wife and I are Harris ’ longtime friends . )
While Biden shores up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls his close foreign-leader friends , Harris will also bring unique foreign-policy advantage to the table .
As a globally aware Indo-American with African-American roots , her heritage opens up possibilities to grow America ’ s relationships in new corners .
Likely receptive nations to future Harris overtures include the ever-important “ Quad ” partners — in particular , India .
The tightening Quad partnership is made up of four key Indo-Pacific democracies : the United States , Australia , Japan , and India .
They are working together regionally to defend democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persistent and growing threat .
Presidential campaigns simplify candidate narratives , and the one around Harris focuses on her Black heritage and electoral appeal .
Her Oakland-Berkeley upbringing is emphasized , as is her attending Howard University , where she joined the African-American Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority .
There is less public attention and understanding of her potential to expand a dialogue and deepen relations with the world ’ s largest democracy .
India is where Harris spent summers as a child .
Her mother , Shyamala Gopalan , came from an intellectually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she came to the United States to work and study .
Harris ’ personal story means that she viscerally understands and appreciates India .
Further , as a Californian , her formative experiences and orientation are westward toward the Pacific Ocean .
The Indo-Pacific is home to Harris .
India will always be a reluctant international partner , however .
A staunchly independent country , India has rabidly avoided alliances .
Since the early days of the post-colonial nation ’ s history , it has asserted its voice and power to lead other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rival superpowers .
In 1983 , I met with India ’ s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in Athens , Greece .
We spoke about her nation ’ s tight Soviet relationship and her unwillingness to criticize Moscow ’ s 1979 Afghan invasion or the tragic shooting down of Korean Airliner , KAL 007 .
She was unapologetic in her defense of the USSR and responded to my pointed questions by attacking American foreign policy .
Gandhi was adept at actively using the Cold War ’ s superpower rivalry to balance Soviet ambitions with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Moscow no longer is as influential on the Asian subcontinent .
Instead , the looming regional threat comes from China .
India is actively looking for good , reliable friends to balance strategically against Beijing , especially following a recent border clash that killed Indian soldiers .
Further , Beijing supports India ’ s main adversary , Pakistan .
As China pushes India closer to the Quad , Harris can help pull Delhi closer to America .
American foreign policy is not dictated by our ancestral affiliations , but they do make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be seen and heard .
In the same way that Clinton and Kennedy and Reagan could be heard in Ireland because of their roots there , Harris has access to the cultural and ethnic links that associate her with her ancestral lands .
Bill Clinton — who claimed Irish heritage — partnered with legislative lion George Mitchell , a Lebanese Irish-American , to cajole and wrangle warring parties to come to an unprecedented peace accord : the solidly lasting Good Friday Agreement .
Harris , the mixed-race vice-presidential candidate , can leverage her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s regional presence and leadership .
Her time in French-speaking Canada as a high schooler will be a real advantage toward rebuilding the traditionally strong but recently strained Washington-Ottawa relationship .
Her grandfather P.V .
Gopalan was a high-ranking Indian civil servant in Zambia , where he managed a refugee influx from the south into what was once Northern Rhodesia .
Africa , Canada , the Caribbean basin , and the Asian subcontinent are integral parts of Harris ’ person and personality .
A Biden-Harris administration would differentiate itself from the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prefers one-on-one agreements with nations — bilateral agreements .
However , he has had more luck breaking agreements than getting new ones signed and delivered .
Biden and Harris promise to restore respect for multilateral institutions and accords signed by previous presidents .
They value global partnerships .
The Biden-Harris team shows a strong preference toward building alliances , knowing that America can get more done and is more powerful when it works together with other nations .
What will certainly help America is that Kamala Harris has good friends and admirers not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world .

California is waiting to be welcomed back into the national conversation after four years of disrespect and neglect from the White House. In a Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, not only will California’s favorite daughter bridge the widened — and widening — federal-state divide, she will team with a President Biden to rebuild America’s powerful role in the world.
In fact, Harris could be key to building new strategic global relationships and alliances. (Disclosure: My wife and I are Harris’ longtime friends.) While Biden shores up NATO, reaffirms multilateral agreements and Zoom calls his close foreign-leader friends, Harris will also bring unique foreign-policy advantage to the table.
As a globally aware Indo-American with African-American roots, her heritage opens up possibilities to grow America’s relationships in new corners. Likely receptive nations to future Harris overtures include the ever-important “Quad” partners — in particular, India.
The tightening Quad partnership is made up of four key Indo-Pacific democracies: the United States, Australia, Japan, and India. They are working together regionally to defend democracy and free markets where China is a persistent and growing threat.
Presidential campaigns simplify candidate narratives, and the one around Harris focuses on her Black heritage and electoral appeal. Her Oakland-Berkeley upbringing is emphasized, as is her attending Howard University, where she joined the African-American Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority.
There is less public attention and understanding of her potential to expand a dialogue and deepen relations with the world’s largest democracy. India is where Harris spent summers as a child. Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, came from an intellectually achieving and privileged class in Chennai and she came to the United States to work and study.
Harris’ personal story means that she viscerally understands and appreciates India. Further, as a Californian, her formative experiences and orientation are westward toward the Pacific Ocean. The Indo-Pacific is home to Harris.
India will always be a reluctant international partner, however. A staunchly independent country, India has rabidly avoided alliances. Since the early days of the post-colonial nation’s history, it has asserted its voice and power to lead other non-aligned nations and to navigate deftly between rival superpowers.
In 1983, I met with India’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in Athens, Greece. We spoke about her nation’s tight Soviet relationship and her unwillingness to criticize Moscow’s 1979 Afghan invasion or the tragic shooting down of Korean Airliner, KAL 007. She was unapologetic in her defense of the USSR and responded to my pointed questions by attacking American foreign policy. Gandhi was adept at actively using the Cold War’s superpower rivalry to balance Soviet ambitions with American interests.
In the 21st century, Moscow no longer is as influential on the Asian subcontinent. Instead, the looming regional threat comes from China. India is actively looking for good, reliable friends to balance strategically against Beijing, especially following a recent border clash that killed Indian soldiers. Further, Beijing supports India’s main adversary, Pakistan. As China pushes India closer to the Quad, Harris can help pull Delhi closer to America.
American foreign policy is not dictated by our ancestral affiliations, but they do make a difference for the parties seeking to be seen and heard. In the same way that Clinton and Kennedy and Reagan could be heard in Ireland because of their roots there, Harris has access to the cultural and ethnic links that associate her with her ancestral lands. Bill Clinton — who claimed Irish heritage — partnered with legislative lion George Mitchell, a Lebanese Irish-American, to cajole and wrangle warring parties to come to an unprecedented peace accord: the solidly lasting Good Friday Agreement.
Harris, the mixed-race vice-presidential candidate, can leverage her Caribbean roots and understanding to improve America’s regional presence and leadership. Her time in French-speaking Canada as a high schooler will be a real advantage toward rebuilding the traditionally strong but recently strained Washington-Ottawa relationship.
Her grandfather P.V. Gopalan was a high-ranking Indian civil servant in Zambia, where he managed a refugee influx from the south into what was once Northern Rhodesia. Africa, Canada, the Caribbean basin, and the Asian subcontinent are integral parts of Harris’ person and personality.
A Biden-Harris administration would differentiate itself from the Trump administration in several ways. President Trump prefers one-on-one agreements with nations — bilateral agreements. However, he has had more luck breaking agreements than getting new ones signed and delivered.
Biden and Harris promise to restore respect for multilateral institutions and accords signed by previous presidents. They value global partnerships. The Biden-Harris team shows a strong preference toward building alliances, knowing that America can get more done and is more powerful when it works together with other nations.
What will certainly help America is that Kamala Harris has good friends and admirers not just here at home, but around the world.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-24--A Trump Win Would Condemn Hundreds of Thousands to Die Needlessly from COVID

America is about to enter one of the darkest phases yet of COVID-19 pandemic .
U.S. coronavirus cases reached a record high yesterday for the second day in a row , topping 79,000 infections .
Over 225,000 Americans and counting are dead from the virus .
And things are going to get worse .
As the days grow shorter and the weather colder , more Americans are trapped indoors longer .
Eat outside becomes harder .
Students have begun to return to dangerous classrooms , and will soon be taking the virus home for the holidays as vectors .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread was mostly confined to cities and factories where much of conservative America could ignore or gloat over it , the pandemic is now truly everywhere : red states and blue , urban suburban and rural .
If nothing further is done to stop the spread of the virus in dramatic fashion , it will kill hundreds of thousands more .
That ’ s not a possibility .
It ’ s a guarantee .
President Trump has no plan to stop it .
He has never had a plan from the beginning .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ since February was to protect his own re-election prospects rather than human lives .
He hoped it would go away , doing nothing to handle the virus at a federal lest the precious stock market be disturbed or his Gadsden Flag-waving base be discomfited by restrictions .
As the virus ravaged big Democratic-leaning population centers first , Trump and Kushner intentionally sat back and did practically nothing , hoping the virus would cull the number Democratic voters in the fall and that blue state governors would take the blame for the tragedy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal response , Trump and Kushner set states to bid against one another for increasingly scarce and expensive supplies , while giving away sweetheart deals to favored corporations and sobering insider information to Wall Street friends while telling the American public that all would be well .
After the first wave of relief , Republicans in the Senate and the White House are now refusing to come to the aid of millions of desperate people and small businesses , and intentionally starving state and local governments of resources needed to keep basic systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now ?
During the last debate between Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden , one on which Trump ’ s political fate and perhaps even his personal freedom from prison depends , Trump still could not name a single concrete plan to address the spread of the disease .
In satiric disbelief , the Biden campaign even created the website TrumpCovidPlan.com , leading to a simple faux error page that says “ The Trump plan to defeat the Coronavirus and reopen safely does not exist.
” It ’ s true .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we should all “ learn to live ” with COVID and re-open everything .
That would indeed be news to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have already died from it .
It would be news to the huge swath of so-called “ COVID long haulers ” still suffering devastating health complications long after surviving their initial confrontation with the virus .
It would be news to all the parents with asthma for whom simply sending their children to class might be a death sentence .
It would be news to all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parents who would be bringing the grim reaper to their loved ones ’ doors with a single mistake .
Short of locking children in cages and deporting their parents with no hope of reuniting them as a racist deterrent , it is as close to distilled sociopathy as one can achieve in public policy .
Under the Trump “ plan , ” the only possibility that doesn ’ t end in over a million COVID deaths in America is a vaccine .
Trump has been promising a vaccine is right around the corner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality is that coronaviruses are notoriously difficult to make effective vaccines for , and that it may take years to develop a truly reliable one .
The likely best case scenario is that any COVID vaccine will not be even ready , much less fully distributed , until at least the middle of next year .
Distribution is another hurdle : Trump recently promised 200,000 vaccines a day , but even at that pace it would take years to vaccinate the entire country .
And that ’ s assuming that the vaccine is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s attempts to compromise the safety of its development–and that enough Americans would actually take it for real herd immunity to take effect .
Certainly , Americans are already growing very weary of pandemic restrictions .
Parents are desperate to send their kids to school , tens of thousands of small businesses are struggling to survive , millions of families don ’ t know where their next meal or rent/mortgage payment will come from .
Even those who are financially stable and not enduring simultaneous full-time work and childcare obligations are suffering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But that ’ s precisely because Donald Trump and his team did nothing to avert the crisis from the beginning .
He and his conservative media allies turning mask-wearing into a culture war signal , and even now his irresponsible campaign rallies spread deadly the virus in their wake .
But there is no return to normalcy that does not begin with a muscular federal response to bring down the infection rate and save lives .
It wouldn ’ t take that much : a federal mask mandate , a commitment to pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closed to potential infectious indoor activities , a promise to keep schools funded while remaining closed and to keep parents ’ jobs and incomes safe while giving them the flexibility to take care of their children , and a moratorium or forgiveness on rents and mortgage payments for those who are struggling .
These , among other measures , would allow people to mostly go about their lives while severely limiting the spread of the virus .
Much of this is in line with the Biden plan for COVID .
There is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican plan generally .
If Trump wins , hundreds of thousands of Americans will die of COVID who would otherwise survive to lead full and happy lives .
Millions more will suffer economic , emotional and physical hardship .
That ’ s not hyperbole .
Those are the real stakes .
The next 11 days will determine whether the coming darkness of this fall and winter represents the early hours before a dawn of recovery , or a profound and deadly chasm from which the country may not recover at all .

America is about to enter one of the darkest phases yet of the COVID-19 pandemic. U.S. coronavirus cases reached a record high yesterday for the second day in a row, topping 79,000 infections. Over 225,000 Americans and counting are dead from the virus. And things are going to get worse. As the days grow shorter and the weather colder, more Americans are trapped indoors longer. Eating outside becomes harder. Students return to dangerous classrooms, and will soon be taking the virus home for the holidays as vectors. And unlike earlier in the year when the spread was mostly confined to cities and factories where much of conservative America could ignore or gloat over it, the pandemic is now truly everywhere: red states and blue, urban and suburban and rural.
If nothing further is done to stop the spread of the virus in dramatic fashion, it will kill hundreds of thousands more. That’s not a possibility. It’s a guarantee.
President Trump has no plan to stop it. He has never had a plan from the beginning. Trump’s approach to the virus since February was to protect his own re-election prospects rather than human lives. He hoped it would go away, doing nothing to handle the virus lest the precious stock market be disturbed or his Gadsden Flag-waving base be discomfited by restrictions.
As the virus ravaged big Democratic-leaning population centers first, Trump and Kushner intentionally sat back and did practically nothing, hoping the virus would cull the number Democratic voters in the fall and that blue state governors would take the blame for the tragedy. Rather than mount an aggressive and cooperative federal response, Trump and Kushner set states to bid against one another for increasingly scarce and expensive supplies, while giving away sweetheart deals to favored corporations and sobering insider information to Wall Street friends while telling the American public that all would be well. After the first wave of relief, Republicans in the Senate and the White House are now refusing to come to the aid of millions of desperate people and small businesses, and intentionally starving state and local governments of resources needed to keep basic systems afloat out of political malice.
And now? During the last debate between Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, one on which Trump’s political fate and perhaps even his personal freedom from prison depends, Trump still could not name a single concrete plan to address the spread of the disease. In satiric disbelief, the Biden campaign even created the website TrumpCovidPlan.com, leading to a simple faux error page that says “The Trump plan to defeat the Coronavirus and reopen safely does not exist.” It’s true.
Trump’s “plan” is that we should all “learn to live” with COVID and re-open everything. That would indeed be news to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have already died from it. It would be news to the huge swath of so-called “COVID long haulers” still suffering devastating health complications long after surviving their initial confrontation with the virus. It would be news to all the parents with asthma for whom simply sending their children to class might be a death sentence. It would be news to all the multigenerational families and caretakers of elderly parents who would be bringing the grim reaper to their loved ones’ doors with a single mistake. Short of locking children in cages and deporting their parents with no hope of reuniting them as a racist deterrent, it is as close to distilled sociopathy as one can achieve in public policy.
Under the Trump “plan,” the only possibility that doesn’t end in over a million COVID deaths in America is a vaccine. Trump has been promising a vaccine is right around the corner since early this summer. The ugly reality is that coronaviruses are notoriously difficult to make effective vaccines for, and that it may take years to develop a truly reliable one. The likely best-case scenario is that any COVID vaccine will not be even ready, much less fully distributed, until at least the middle of next year. Distribution is another hurdle: Trump recently promised 200,000 vaccines a day, but even at that pace it would take years to vaccinate the entire country. And that’s assuming that the vaccine is actually safe–certainly an open question given Trump’s attempts to compromise the safety of its development–and that enough Americans would actually take it for real herd immunity to take effect.
Certainly, Americans are already growing weary of pandemic restrictions. Parents are desperate to send their kids to school, tens of thousands of small businesses are struggling to survive, millions of families don’t know where their next meal or rent/mortgage payment will come from. Even those who are financially stable and not enduring simultaneous full-time work and childcare obligations are suffering from social isolation and zoom fatigue. But that’s precisely because Donald Trump and his team did nothing to avert the crisis from the beginning. He and his conservative media allies turning mask-wearing into a culture war signal, and even now his irresponsible campaign rallies spread the deadly virus in their wake.
But there is no return to normalcy that does not begin with a muscular federal response to bring down the infection rate and save lives. It wouldn’t take that much: a federal mask mandate, a commitment to pay bars and restaurants and other similar businesses closed to potential infectious indoor activities, a promise to keep schools funded while remaining closed and to keep parents’ jobs and incomes safe while giving them the flexibility to take care of their children, and a moratorium or forgiveness on rents and mortgage payments for those who are struggling. These, among other measures, would allow people to mostly go about their lives while severely limiting the spread of the virus.
Much of this is in line with the Biden plan for COVID. There is no Trump plan, and by extension no Republican plan generally. If Trump wins, hundreds of thousands of Americans will die of COVID who would otherwise survive to lead full and happy lives. Millions more will suffer economic, emotional and physical hardship. That’s not hyperbole. Those are the real stakes. The next 11 days will determine whether the coming darkness of this fall and winter represents the early hours before a dawn of recovery, or a profound and deadly chasm from which the country may not recover at all.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-24--The GOP Conspiracy Mentality Will Only Become More Dangerous When They Lose Power

One of the more remarkable developments of the last few years has been the conservative movement ’ s reliance on outlandish conspiracy theories even as they maintain control of most levers of governmental power .
It ’ s deeply unusual in a modern democratic society , but much more typical in totalitarian developing countries .
And it bodes very ill for what is likely to happen to the Republican Party after it inevitably loses power .
To be a modern conservative is to adopt an entire liturgy of paranoid beliefs : that scientists are manufacturing climate change research for grant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretending that masks work and overstating the number of COVID deaths for extra money and influence ; that hundreds of thousands of people are committing voter impersonation fraud in concert with county elections officials ; that the “ deep state ” is framing Trump , his associates , his family and even Vladimir Putin for their own nefarious ends ; that modern political polling is a subversive act of conservative voter suppression ; that gun control activists are part of a secret conspiracy to disarm conservative white Americans in preparation for a racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soros and various “ others ” are paying protesters to oppose police violence as a cover for destabilizing America ; and so on .
And that ’ s all before starting in on QAnon , the all-purpose hodgepodge conspiracy cult rapidly taking over the Republican Party .
What started as a deranged belief in a top-secret Trump official posting numerology on 8chan to build a digital army to prepare Americans for Trump secretly working with Robert Mueller , Jeff Sessions and even a long-deceased JFK Jr. to expose a global ring of cannibal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has now evolved to encompass nearly every pocket and strain of conspiracy belief in America .
The QAnon pantheon now encompasses NESARA enthusiasts , flat earthers , anti-vaxxers , lizard people watchers , and much more , with each subcommunity ’ s adherents grafting onto the larger conspiracy theory scheme like a rolling snowball of social media validation .
It can be difficult , as punch drunk as so many of us are by the various shocks of the COVID and Trump years , to acknowledge how strange it is that this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Historically , conspiracy theories are usually the province of those who feel the most powerless and disconnected .
People who feel the world is in chaos and that they have no friends in high places tend to want the comfort of believing that someone is in control–even if that someone is an evil cabal of space aliens .
But in this case , the conspiracy theorists are those with the most power , those who find themselves overrepresented in government compared to their actual numbers in our democracy .
Trump runs the Executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department as Trump ’ s personal law firm .
The Senate is run in aggressively partisan fashion by Senate Leader Mitch McConnell .
Republican appointees have a majority on the Supreme Court , and are about to have a radical 6-3 Federalist Society supermajority .
It is truly bizarre to postulate a conspiracy theory , as QAnon does , in which your allies control the presidency , the Justice Department , the Supreme Court and the Senate , and in which all those people have documented evidence of unspeakable crimes by the Evil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it !
It is weirder still to believe that these ultra-powerful people are waiting for anonymous online message boards to prepare the ground for releasing the information they ’ ve been sitting on for years , and that the President and Attorney General continue to allow the Cabal to practice cannibal pedophilia unstopped ( or , alternately , that the arrests already happened years ago in secret ) while waiting for the anonymous message boards to change hearts and minds without evidence .
The only thing more ludicrous than the conspiracy theory itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in government would spend years doing nothing about it if it were real .
How much worse will this conspiracy trend among conservatives become when Republicans actually lose power ?
Just yesterday an actual Republican member of the House of Representatives , one Clay Higgins ( R-LA03 ) tweeted this : This is a man whose party is in power at nearly all levels of government .
Or what of Fox News analyst Greg Jarrett , who yesterday went into the street in front of his home to tweet because he suspected that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home wifi ?
Much of center-left and center-right rhetoric is currently predicated on the notion that Republicans will come back to their senses after Trump is gone .
The Lincoln Project is an explicit attempt to remove Trump and his allies in order to re-empower a supposedly more rational old guard .
Biden himself has repeatedly demonstrated his commitment to potentially nominating Republicans to his cabinet and working across the aisle with Republican lawmakers , despite progressive outrage .
But it ’ s far likelier that Trumpism will in retrospect be the high-point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next few years or even decades .
If Democrats do succeed in winning a 2020 landslide and reversing some of the structural inequalities in American democracy ( such as the filibuster , gerrymandering , voter suppression , the electoral college , Senate malapportionment , and the imbalances on the courts ) , the current version of the GOP will cease to be viable as a national political party .
But base Republican voters who adore Trump and who are increasingly aligned with QAnon-style beliefs aren ’ t going to change their views just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want them to .
That ’ s how Trump won the 2016 nomination in the first place , despite the post-2012 autopsy urging Republicans to do more to attract young voters and voters of color .
Nor will the incentives of Fox News and AM Radio change in a Biden , Harris or Ocasio-Cortez presidency : Rupert Murdoch does not require Republican to win elections for Fox News to make a profit .
All Fox News and ClearChannel need is a dedicated , furious and fanatical audience eager to buy pillows , guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become shockingly obvious that Fox News is not the media arm of the Republican Party , but rather that the Republican Party is the legislative arm of Fox News .
Tucker Carlson is likelier to become the 2024 GOP nominee than Tom Cotton , Tom Cotton likelier than Nikki Haley , and Nikki Haley likelier than , say , Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker .
A Fox News base that is suddenly locked out of power and threatened with the loss of anti-democratic apartheid affirmative action in government will only become more dangerously conspiratorial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be foolish to assume otherwise .

One of the more remarkable developments of the last few years has been the conservative movement’s reliance on outlandish conspiracy theories even as they maintain control of most levers of governmental power. It’s deeply unusual in a modern democratic society, but much more typical in totalitarian developing countries. And it bodes very ill for what is likely to happen to the Republican Party after it inevitably loses power.
To be a modern conservative is to adopt an entire liturgy of paranoid beliefs: that scientists are manufacturing climate change research for grant dollars; that doctors and epidemiologists are pretending that masks work and overstating the number of COVID deaths for extra money and influence; that hundreds of thousands of people are committing voter impersonation fraud in concert with county elections officials; that the “deep state” is framing Trump, his associates, his family and even Vladimir Putin for their own nefarious ends; that modern political polling is a subversive act of conservative voter suppression; that gun control activists are part of a secret conspiracy to disarm conservative white Americans in preparation for race riots and/or Communist dictatorship; that George Soros and various “others” are paying protesters to oppose police violence as a cover for destabilizing America; and so on.
And that’s all before starting in on QAnon, the all-purpose hodgepodge conspiracy cult rapidly taking over the Republican Party. What started as a deranged belief in a top-secret Trump official posting numerology on 8chan to build a digital army to prepare Americans for Trump secretly working with Robert Mueller, Jeff Sessions and even a long-deceased JFK Jr. to expose a global ring of cannibal pedophiles among celebrities and top Democrats, has now evolved to encompass nearly every pocket and strain of conspiracy belief in America. The QAnon pantheon now encompasses NESARA enthusiasts, flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, lizard people watchers, and much more, with each subcommunity’s adherents grafting onto the larger conspiracy theory scheme like a rolling snowball of social media validation.
It can be difficult, as punch drunk as so many of us are by the various shocks of the COVID and Trump years, to acknowledge how strange it is that this is happening while conservatives are in power. Historically, conspiracy theories are usually the province of those who feel the most powerless and disconnected. People who feel the world is in chaos and that they have no friends in high places tend to want the comfort of believing that someone is in control–even if that someone is an evil cabal of space aliens. But in this case, the conspiracy theorists are those with the most power, those who find themselves overrepresented in government compared to their actual numbers in our democracy. Trump runs the Executive Branch. Bill Barr runs the Justice Department as Trump’s personal law firm. The Senate is run in aggressively partisan fashion by Senate Leader Mitch McConnell. Republican appointees have a majority on the Supreme Court, and are about to have a radical 6-3 Federalist Society supermajority.
It is truly bizarre to postulate a conspiracy theory, as QAnon does, in which your allies control the presidency, the Justice Department, the Supreme Court and the Senate, and in which all those people have documented evidence of unspeakable crimes by the Evil Cabal, and yet do nothing about it! It is weirder still to believe that these ultra-powerful people are waiting for anonymous online message boards to prepare the ground for releasing the information they’ve been sitting on for years, and that the President and Attorney General continue to allow the Cabal to practice cannibal pedophilia unstopped (or, alternately, that the arrests already happened years ago in secret) while waiting for the anonymous message boards to change hearts and minds without evidence. The only thing more ludicrous than the conspiracy theory itself, is the notion that conservative allies in government would spend years doing nothing about it if it were real.
How much worse will this conspiracy trend among conservatives become when Republicans actually lose power? Just yesterday an actual Republican member of the House of Representatives, one Clay Higgins (R-LA03) tweeted this:
My wife has the gift of premonition. Last night she dreamed that Federal squads were in our home seizing guns, knives, “unauthorized foods” and stored water. They said we had been “reported”. Becca awoke crying. What happened to our freedom? She asked. What indeed.
This is a man whose party is in power at nearly all levels of government. Or what of Fox News analyst Greg Jarrett, who yesterday went into the street in front of his home to tweet because he suspected that Biden allies might be interfering with his home wifi?
Much of center-left and center-right rhetoric is currently predicated on the notion that Republicans will come back to their senses after Trump is gone. The Lincoln Project is an explicit attempt to remove Trump and his allies in order to re-empower a supposedly more rational old guard. Biden himself has repeatedly demonstrated his commitment to potentially nominating Republicans to his cabinet and working across the aisle with Republican lawmakers, despite progressive outrage.
But it’s far likelier that Trumpism will in retrospect be the high-point of Republican rationality and responsibility over the next few years or even decades. If Democrats do succeed in winning a 2020 landslide and reversing some of the structural inequalities in American democracy (such as the filibuster, gerrymandering, voter suppression, the electoral college, Senate malapportionment, and the imbalances on the courts), the current version of the GOP will cease to be viable as a national political party.
But base Republican voters who adore Trump and who are increasingly aligned with QAnon-style beliefs aren’t going to change their views just because party leaders who can read polling want them to. That’s how Trump won the 2016 nomination in the first place, despite the post-2012 autopsy urging Republicans to do more to attract young voters and voters of color. Nor will the incentives of Fox News and AM Radio change in a Biden, Harris or Ocasio-Cortez presidency: Rupert Murdoch does not require Republican to win elections for Fox News to make a profit. All Fox News and ClearChannel need is a dedicated, furious and fanatical audience eager to buy pillows, guns and reverse mortgages. And it has become shockingly obvious that Fox News is not the media arm of the Republican Party, but rather that the Republican Party is the legislative arm of Fox News. Tucker Carlson is likelier to become the 2024 GOP nominee than Tom Cotton, Tom Cotton likelier than Nikki Haley, and Nikki Haley likelier than, say, Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker.
A Fox News base that is suddenly locked out of power and threatened with the loss of anti-democratic apartheid affirmative action in government will only become more dangerously conspiratorial, not less. And Democrats would be foolish to assume otherwise.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-25--The Criminal Justice of Amy Coney Barrett

For all the scrutiny of soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett and her writings on abortion rights , gun rights , and Obamacare , little attention has been paid to her rulings on the rights of criminal defendants and prisoners .
She has issued opinions in 34 such cases and signed on to other opinions in her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals , a relatively thin record , yet one demonstrating a willingness to rule both for and against police , prosecutors , and trial judges .
At times she conveys compassion for the convicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s restrictions on police searches .
She is occasionally willing to strip officers of their “ qualified immunity ” from lawsuits .
But she can also adopt extremely narrow interpretations language in the Constitution , statutes , and court precedents to uphold questionable convictions and heavy sentences .
In the area of criminal justice and related civil suits , she has issued only five dissents .
Four of them were to the detriment of inmates and defendants , and one argued that a non-violent felon should be allowed to own firearms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another dissent , in Sims v. Hyatte , she opposed the exoneration of a man whose attempted murder conviction relied entirely on his identification by the victim , who turned out to have been hypnotized before his trial testimony—a fact not disclosed to the defense .
Two of the three judges overturned the conviction , and the man was released after 26 years in jail .
Otherwise , she has written for unanimous three-judge panels , putting her in the mainstream of the Chicago-based 7th Circuit .
Most of her opinions in criminal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even close calls given the facts and precedents .
Some appeals that reached the 7th Circuit seemed like stretches by defense attorneys ; others exposed such egregious behavior by authorities that a contrary ruling would have shocked the conscience .
She has ruled several times against qualified immunity , which precludes civil lawsuits against police officers and other government employees unless their actions would be clearly understood by a reasonable official to violate established constitutional or legal norms .
The doctrine , which was invented by the Supreme Court , has created a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even deadly force in certain situations , has not been deemed a violation in the past , then it can not be argued that a reasonable officer would regard it as such now .
Hence , police officers as individuals can rarely be sued successfully , even as large judgements and settlements have led to payouts by local governments to victims ’ families in New York City , Chicago , and elsewhere .
Barrett has not addressed the concept itself but has applied it for and against officers depending on the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one hand , she dissented from a majority opinion in McCottrell v. White , allowing two inmates to sue guards who wounded them by firing shotguns inside a prison cafeteria .
On the other hand , in Rainsberger v. Benner , she cast aside qualified immunity , for an Indianapolis homicide detective who lied in an affidavit to get an arrest warrant ; the charges were dropped , and the defendant sued .
She also joined opinions rejecting immunity for a prison guard in Wisconsin ( Howard v. Koeller ) who retaliated against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a snitch and guards in an Illinois jail ( Broadfield v. McGrath ) who were sued for using excessive force against a suicidal prisoner .
She ordered a new trial in another prisoner ’ s unsuccessful lawsuit ( Walker v. Price ) against guards he claimed had beaten him because the court had denied his repeated requests to help him find a lawyer .
She wrote sympathetically of the inmate ’ s unsuccessful struggle to represent himself before the jury by video link , given his “ IQ of 76 and a grade-school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upheld and overturned tough sentences , usually with close readings of the law and the federal sentencing guidelines .
But she also used fussy grammatical nitpicking about “ the present-perfect tense ” to dissent from United States v. Uriarte , a 12-3 opinion of the entire 7th Circuit .
The case applied the First Step Act , a new reduced-sentencing law , to a convict awaiting a revised sentence after his first was overturned .
In light of calls by Democrats to recuse herself from any election case that might reach the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Barrett ordered a reduced sentence because Judge Colin S. Bruce , a former federal prosecutor , had failed to recuse himself after having chummy , private conversations about other cases with prosecutors from his old office .
( United States v. Atwood ) She also rejected a prison sentence that was lengthened based on an unproven assumption–that a man convicted of stealing guns had sold them to people he supposedly knew were prohibited from having firearms .
“ Nothing in the record suggests ” that he knew the buyers ’ legal status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ panel .
“ The court plainly crossed the line that separates permissible commonsense inference from impermissible speculation.
” ( United States v. Moody ) A man with both drugs and guns in his house was unduly given an enhanced sentence , she found in United States v. Briggs , for possessing a firearm “ in connection with another felony offense , ” as the federal sentencing guidelines provide .
But “ because the district court made essentially no factual findings connecting ” the guns and the drug possession , she wrote for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back down for resentencing .
Barrett ’ s several opinions and comments on the constitutional right to be secure against government searches offer the possibility that she might be willing to rescue the Fourth Amendment from near oblivion .
Largely because of the war on drugs , the proliferation of warrantless searches of vehicles and frisks of pedestrians led Federal District Judge Paul L. Friedman to tell me a decade ago : “ I don ’ t think that there ’ s much left of the Fourth Amendment in criminal law.
” Since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies has swept the country as well .
The amendment requires a warrant from a judge , backed by probable cause that evidence of a specific crime will be found in a particular place .
But the courts have devised so many exceptions in allowing warrantless searches in so many situations that “ the right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses , papers , and effects , ” in the amendment ’ s words , has been severely undermined .
At her confirmation hearing , Barrett gave this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s question about how the Fourth Amendment would deal with cell phones and other technology that didn ’ t exist when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 : “ No , the Fourth Amendment , so the Constitution , one reason why it ’ s the longest-lasting written constitution in the world is because it ’ s written at a level of generality that ’ s specific enough to protect rights , but general enough to be lasting so that when you ’ re talking about the constable banging at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or seizure , now we can apply it , as the Court did in Carpenter versus the United States , to cell phones [ requiring a warrant to get phone location records ] .
So , the Fourth Amendment is a principle .
It protects against unreasonable searches and seizures , but it doesn ’ t catalog the instances in which an unreasonable search or seizure could take place .
So , you take that principle , and then you apply it to modern technology like cell phones .
Or what if technological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to simply see in your house , so there ’ s no need to knock on the door and go in ?
Well , I think that could still be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment.
” Although Barrett calls herself an originalist akin to her mentor , the late Antonin Scalia , for whom she clerked , her answer did not sound very different from what a liberal judge supporting a “ living constitution ” would offer .
The proof always lies in how the principle is applied to the specifics of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution ’ s “ level of generality , ” “ enough to be lasting , ” suggests that she might not join the most conservative justices who dissented in Carpenter .
Writing for unanimous panels , she overturned two convictions that relied on unconstitutionally seized evidence .
In one , United States v. Terry , she ruled that a woman in a bathrobe who answered the door to federal agents did not have authority to consent to a search of a male suspect ’ s apartment .
The agents had arrested the man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and did not ask the woman who she was until well into the search .
( She was the mother of his son but did not live there . )
They found four cell phones and a drug-dealing ledger .
Barrett wrote , “ A bathrobe alone does not clothe someone with apparent authority over a residence , even at 10:00 in the morning.
” In another , United States v. Watson , she threw out a judgment based on a guilty plea because the police , acting on a 911 call from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , lacked reasonable suspicion to block a car matching his description of “ boys ” “ playing with guns.
” A passenger with a felony conviction was found to have a gun .
Barrett called the 911 call “ not sufficiently reliable ” and concluded that “ his sighting of guns did not describe a likely emergency or crime—he reported gun possession , which is lawful.
” Barrett has such a well-schooled intellect that all her opinions are intricately woven out of existing case law and statutory text , so—in the criminal justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wildly from the web of precedent that confines her .
She said more than once at her hearing that a judge is obliged to rule where the law takes her , which may violate her personal views .
But once she ’ s on the Supreme Court and freer to chart her course , then what ?

For all the scrutiny of soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett and her writings on abortion rights, gun rights, and Obamacare, little attention has been paid to her rulings on the rights of criminal defendants and prisoners. She has issued opinions in 34 such cases and signed on to other opinions in her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, a relatively thin record, yet one demonstrating a willingness to rule both for and against police, prosecutors, and trial judges.
At times she conveys compassion for the convicted and robust regard for the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions on police searches. She is occasionally willing to strip officers of their “qualified immunity” from lawsuits. But she can also adopt extremely narrow interpretations language in the Constitution, statutes, and court precedents to uphold questionable convictions and heavy sentences.
In the area of criminal justice and related civil suits, she has issued only five dissents. Four of them were to the detriment of inmates and defendants, and one argued that a non-violent felon should be allowed to own firearms, which current federal law prohibits. In another dissent, in Sims v. Hyatte, she opposed the exoneration of a man whose attempted murder conviction relied entirely on his identification by the victim, who turned out to have been hypnotized before his trial testimony—a fact not disclosed to the defense. Two of the three judges overturned the conviction, and the man was released after 26 years in jail.
Otherwise, she has written for unanimous three-judge panels, putting her in the mainstream of the Chicago-based 7th Circuit. Most of her opinions in criminal cases have been slam dunks, not even close calls given the facts and precedents. Some appeals that reached the 7th Circuit seemed like stretches by defense attorneys; others exposed such egregious behavior by authorities that a contrary ruling would have shocked the conscience.
She has ruled several times against qualified immunity, which precludes civil lawsuits against police officers and other government employees unless their actions would be clearly understood by a reasonable official to violate established constitutional or legal norms. The doctrine, which was invented by the Supreme Court, has created a Catch-22: If the use of force, even deadly force in certain situations, has not been deemed a violation in the past, then it cannot be argued that a reasonable officer would regard it as such now. Hence, police officers as individuals can rarely be sued successfully, even as large judgements and settlements have led to payouts by local governments to victims’ families in New York City, Chicago, and elsewhere.
Barrett has not addressed the concept itself but has applied it for and against officers depending on the case’s specific issues. On the one hand, she dissented from a majority opinion in McCottrell v. White, allowing two inmates to sue guards who wounded them by firing shotguns inside a prison cafeteria. On the other hand, in Rainsberger v. Benner, she cast aside qualified immunity, for an Indianapolis homicide detective who lied in an affidavit to get an arrest warrant; the charges were dropped, and the defendant sued. She also joined opinions rejecting immunity for a prison guard in Wisconsin (Howard v. Koeller)who retaliated against a jailhouse lawyer by falsely labeling him a snitch and guards in an Illinois jail (Broadfield v. McGrath) who were sued for using excessive force against a suicidal prisoner. She ordered a new trial in another prisoner’s unsuccessful lawsuit (Walker v. Price) against guards he claimed had beaten him because the court had denied his repeated requests to help him find a lawyer. She wrote sympathetically of the inmate’s unsuccessful struggle to represent himself before the jury by video link, given his “IQ of 76 and a grade-school level of comprehension.”
She has both upheld and overturned tough sentences, usually with close readings of the law and the federal sentencing guidelines. But she also used fussy grammatical nitpicking about “the present-perfect tense” to dissent from United States v. Uriarte, a 12-3 opinion of the entire 7th Circuit. The case applied the First Step Act, a new reduced-sentencing law, to a convict awaiting a revised sentence after his first was overturned.
In light of calls by Democrats to recuse herself from any election case that might reach the Supreme Court, it’s worth noting that Barrett ordered a reduced sentence because Judge Colin S. Bruce, a former federal prosecutor, had failed to recuse himself after having chummy, private conversations about other cases with prosecutors from his old office. (United States v. Atwood)
She also rejected a prison sentence that was lengthened based on an unproven assumption–that a man convicted of stealing guns had sold them to people he supposedly knew were prohibited from having firearms. “Nothing in the record suggests” that he knew the buyers’ legal status, she wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel. “The court plainly crossed the line that separates permissible commonsense inference from impermissible speculation.” (United States v. Moody)
A man with both drugs and guns in his house was unduly given an enhanced sentence, she found in United States v. Briggs, for possessing a firearm “in connection with another felony offense,” as the federal sentencing guidelines provide. But “because the district court made essentially no factual findings connecting” the guns and the drug possession, she wrote for a unanimous court, the case was sent back down for resentencing.
Barrett’s several opinions and comments on the constitutional right to be secure against government searches offer the possibility that she might be willing to rescue the Fourth Amendment from near oblivion. Largely because of the war on drugs, the proliferation of warrantless searches of vehicles and frisks of pedestrians led Federal District Judge Paul L. Friedman to tell me a decade ago: “I don’t think that there’s much left of the Fourth Amendment in criminal law.” Since 9/11, digital surveillance rationalized by anti-terrorism policies has swept the country as well.
The amendment requires a warrant from a judge, backed by probable cause that evidence of a specific crime will be found in a particular place. But the courts have devised so many exceptions in allowing warrantless searches in so many situations that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,” in the amendment’s words, has been severely undermined.
At her confirmation hearing, Barrett gave this significant response to Republican Senator Ben Sasse’s question about how the Fourth Amendment would deal with cell phones and other technology that didn’t exist when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791:
“No, the Fourth Amendment, so the Constitution, one reason why it’s the longest-lasting written constitution in the world is because it’s written at a level of generality that’s specific enough to protect rights, but general enough to be lasting so that when you’re talking about the constable banging at your door in 1791 as a search or seizure, now we can apply it, as the Court did in Carpenter versus the United States, to cell phones [requiring a warrant to get phone location records]. So, the Fourth Amendment is a principle. It protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, but it doesn’t catalog the instances in which an unreasonable search or seizure could take place. So, you take that principle, and then you apply it to modern technology like cell phones. Or what if technological advances enable someone with Superman x-ray vision to simply see in your house, so there’s no need to knock on the door and go in? Well, I think that could still be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment.”
Although Barrett calls herself an originalist akin to her mentor, the late Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked, her answer did not sound very different from what a liberal judge supporting a “living constitution” would offer. The proof always lies in how the principle is applied to the specifics of a case. But her respect for the Constitution’s “level of generality,” “enough to be lasting,” suggests that she might not join the most conservative justices who dissented in Carpenter.
Writing for unanimous panels, she overturned two convictions that relied on unconstitutionally seized evidence. In one, United States v. Terry, she ruled that a woman in a bathrobe who answered the door to federal agents did not have authority to consent to a search of a male suspect’s apartment. The agents had arrested the man, did not have a warrant, and did not ask the woman who she was until well into the search. (She was the mother of his son but did not live there.) They found four cell phones and a drug-dealing ledger. Barrett wrote, “A bathrobe alone does not clothe someone with apparent authority over a residence, even at 10:00 in the morning.”
In another, United States v. Watson, she threw out a judgment based on a guilty plea because the police, acting on a 911 call from a 14-year-old boy on a borrowed phone, lacked reasonable suspicion to block a car matching his description of “boys” “playing with guns.” A passenger with a felony conviction was found to have a gun. Barrett called the 911 call “not sufficiently reliable” and concluded that “his sighting of guns did not describe a likely emergency or crime—he reported gun possession, which is lawful.”
Barrett has such a well-schooled intellect that all her opinions are intricately woven out of existing case law and statutory text, so—in the criminal justice arena, at least—she has not departed wildly from the web of precedent that confines her. She said more than once at her hearing that a judge is obliged to rule where the law takes her, which may violate her personal views. But once she’s on the Supreme Court and freer to chart her course, then what?


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-25--Republicans Do Not Expect Trump To Lose. That’s a Problem.

Base Republican voters have been in conflict with reality for some time now .
Most major problems facing the country–be it climate change , systemic racism , opioid addiction , monopolization , healthcare costs , pandemics , gun violence , economic inequality and beyond–no longer lend themselves to conservative solutions .
Maintaining allegiance to conservative ideas in the face of their obsolescence has required an array of infotainment networks that function more as cult propaganda centers than tailored news channels or talk shows .
The result has been a political party ever more hostile to science , reliant on ephemeral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone remember the caravans or MS13 ? )
and replete with a dizzying array of dangerous and irresponsible conspiracy theories .
This in turn has created a political space in which millions of Americans no longer accept simple truths as fact .
Now , with just nine days until the votes are tallied , Republicans are also at war with the science of polling .
Simply put , all the available data suggest that Trump is very likely to lose .
But Republicans are convinced of the opposite .
Yes , Trump could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it would be foolhardy , even delusional , to count on it .
Elliot Morris and the team at The Economist currently give Biden a 91 % chance of victory .
Nate Silver and the FiveThirtyEight team are only slightly more generous to Trump , giving him a paltry 13 % chance of winning .
The RealClearPolitics polling average–which weights significantly to Republicans by giving conservative outlier pollsters like Rasmussen and Trafalgar equal weight with more reputable pollsters while discounting more Democratic-leaning trackers–currently assumes Biden will win a landslide 357 electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him to Georgia in the final days , a sign that the campaign sees internal polling numbers it likes and wants to expand the map .
Current early vote totals showing strong youth and Democratic turnout–including among those who did not vote in 2016–are suggestive of a good result for Biden .
Many GOP operatives and some politicians are already suggesting a “ bloodbath ” for Republicans and hedging their bets on a Trump loss as well .
Even if you desperately want Trump to win , a sober look at reality would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on election night but hope to be pleasantly surprised .
But Republicans are not doing that .
They are overwhelmingly convinced that Trump will win : Nine in ten Republicans expect a Trump win .
Out in QAnon land , multiple tweets garnering thousands of likes and retweets are claiming that Trump will win all 50 states .
Text and phonebankers for left-leaning causes and candidates are reporting that GOP responders are bullishly taunting volunteers that Trump will win in a landslide .
Fox News , Breitbart and AM talk radio are doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has told his supporters that the only way he will lose is if Democrats cheat–and they believe him .
For well over a year he has been saying that the “ real ” polls have him ahead .
He has falsely been insisting that mail ballots ( predominantly used by Democrats in this year of COVID ) are rife with fraud , in an attempt to dismiss Democratic votes .
This is a major problem for democracy as we approach what is likely to be a fraught and bitterly contested election and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refuses to concede the election as he has so far been indicating , the country could be thrown into tumult not just by him and his allies in the courts , but by a conservative base that was adamantly expecting Trump to win in a rout .
Republican voters have been primed to believe that every reputable poll is a lie , that official elections results are not to be trusted , and that they have a silent majority millions of voters strong .
If 36 % of the country ’ s voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Biden ends up winning easily with over 350 electoral votes , it is impossible to predict what might happen .
Democrats are still reeling over the shock of unexpected defeat in 2016 several four years later–even though Trump had a significantly stronger chance of victory .
He had led in the polls several times , won only the electoral college but not the popular vote , and there were clear and easily accepted explanations for the defeat .
Liberals are dismayed that Trump won and angry at the apartheid electoral systems that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes–but they accept his victory as real under the current unfair rules .
Republicans , on the other hand , are likelier to face a bigger and more widespread shock .
They are extremely unlikely to accept an adverse outcome as legitimate despite all the evidence signaling their president ’ s likely defeat .
The effect will likely be psychologically traumatic for millions , and the incentives among rightwing infotainment leaders to use that collective trauma and anger for malign effect will be large .
It is highly unlike that triumphalist bullies who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their president as a God Emperor and posting memes about drinking liberal tears will easily accept resounding electoral defeat .
Nor should long-suffering liberals and progressives feel pressured to serve as their grief counselors , despite admonitions from well-meaning centrists who may want to “ bring the country together.
” Not after the last four years of explicit torment and policy designed to literally harm and kill people in blue states .
And not while urgent public policy crises require that the power structures that still give Trumpists anti-democratic control of our government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House and Senate , and have the courage to eliminate the filibuster , add states to the union , rebalance the courts and such as they must , it will only fuel conservative rage and despair .
Democrats should work to improve the lives of everyone across the country in red areas and blue , Trump and Biden voters alike .
But they have no obligation to coddle their bigotries or political pathologies .
The greatest danger , of course , is the potential for organized violence .
Even now , white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provacateur actions during the recent Black Lives Matter protests and even attempted to kidnap Democratic elected officials over COVID restrictions .
If Democrats win all branches of government and increase measures to counteract the virus while Trump refuses to concede well into 2021 , and his base believes the election was fraudulent , our already fragile democracy could reach a breaking point .
There is not much Democrats can do about this .
It falls on responsible Republican leaders–if there are any left–to attempt to break through the wall of disinformation and shine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base before it ’ s too late .

Base Republican voters have been in conflict with reality for some time now. Most major problems facing the country–be it climate change, systemic racism, opioid addiction, monopolization, healthcare costs, pandemics, gun violence, economic inequality and beyond–no longer lend themselves to conservative solutions. Maintaining allegiance to conservative ideas in the face of their obsolescence has required an array of infotainment networks that function more as cult propaganda centers than tailored news channels or talk shows. The result has been a political party ever more hostile to science, reliant on ephemeral targets for fear and hatred (does anyone remember the caravans or MS13?) and replete with a dizzying array of dangerous and irresponsible conspiracy theories. This in turn has created a political space in which millions of Americans no longer accept simple truths as fact.
Now, with just nine days until the votes are tallied, Republicans are also at war with the science of polling. Simply put, all the available data suggest that Trump is very likely to lose. But Republicans are convinced of the opposite.
Yes, Trump could still win if everything breaks his way. But it would be foolhardy, even delusional, to count on it. Elliot Morris and the team at The Economist currently give Biden a 91% chance of victory. Nate Silver and the FiveThirtyEight team are only slightly more generous to Trump, giving him a paltry 13% chance of winning. The RealClearPolitics polling average–which weights significantly to Republicans by giving conservative outlier pollsters like Rasmussen and Trafalgar equal weight with more reputable pollsters while discounting more Democratic-leaning trackers–currently assumes Biden will win a landslide 357 electoral votes. The Biden campaign is sending him to Georgia in the final days, a sign that the campaign sees internal polling numbers it likes and wants to expand the map. Current early vote totals showing strong youth and Democratic turnout–including among those who did not vote in 2016–are suggestive of a good result for Biden. Many GOP operatives and some politicians are already suggesting a “bloodbath” for Republicans and hedging their bets on a Trump loss as well.
Even if you desperately want Trump to win, a sober look at reality would suggest that you should expect the worst on election night but hope to be pleasantly surprised. But Republicans are not doing that. They are overwhelmingly convinced that Trump will win:
Regardless of whom they personally support, 56% of Americans expect Trump to prevail over Biden in the November election, while 40% think Biden will win. Although majorities of partisans think their party’s candidate will win, Republicans are more likely to believe Trump will win (90%) than Democrats are to think Biden will (73%). Fifty-six percent of independents predict that Trump will win.
Nine in ten Republicans expect a Trump win. Out in QAnon land, multiple tweets garnering thousands of likes and retweets are claiming that Trump will win all 50 states. Text and phonebankers for left-leaning causes and candidates are reporting that GOP responders are bullishly taunting volunteers that Trump will win in a landslide. Fox News, Breitbart and AM talk radio are doing nothing to dispel this belief. Donald Trump has told his supporters that the only way he will lose is if Democrats cheat–and they believe him. For well over a year he has been saying that the “real” polls have him ahead. He has falsely been insisting that mail ballots (predominantly used by Democrats in this year of COVID) are rife with fraud, in an attempt to dismiss Democratic votes.
This is a major problem for democracy as we approach what is likely to be a fraught and bitterly contested election and transition period. If Trump loses and refuses to concede the election as he has so far been indicating, the country could be thrown into tumult not just by him and his allies in the courts, but by a conservative base that was adamantly expecting Trump to win in a rout.
Republican voters have been primed to believe that every reputable poll is a lie, that official elections results are not to be trusted, and that they have a silent majority millions of voters strong. If 36% of the country’s voters walk into election night with that belief and Biden ends up winning easily with over 350 electoral votes, it is impossible to predict what might happen. Democrats are still reeling over the shock of unexpected defeat in 2016 several four years later–even though Trump had a significantly stronger chance of victory. He had led in the polls several times, won only the electoral college but not the popular vote, and there were clear and easily accepted explanations for the defeat. Liberals are dismayed that Trump won and angry at the apartheid electoral systems that put him in office despite winning fewer votes–but they accept his victory as real under the current unfair rules.
Republicans, on the other hand, are likelier to face a bigger and more widespread shock. They are extremely unlikely to accept an adverse outcome as legitimate despite all the evidence signaling their president’s likely defeat. The effect will likely be psychologically traumatic for millions, and the incentives among rightwing infotainment leaders to use that collective trauma and anger for malign effect will be large. It is improbable that triumphalist bullies who have spent the last four years hailing their president as a God Emperor and posting memes about drinking liberal tears will easily accept resounding electoral defeat.
Nor should long-suffering liberals and progressives feel pressured to serve as their grief counselors, despite admonitions from well-meaning centrists who may want to “bring the country together.” Not after the last four years of explicit torment and policy designed to literally harm and kill people in blue states. And not while urgent public policy crises require that the power structures that still give Trumpists anti-democratic control of our government be dismantled. Should Democrats win the White House and Senate, and have the courage to eliminate the filibuster, add states to the union, rebalance the courts and such as they must, it will only fuel conservative rage and despair. Democrats should work to improve the lives of everyone across the country in red areas and blue, Trump and Biden voters alike. But they have no obligation to coddle their bigotries or political pathologies.
The greatest danger, of course, is the potential for organized violence. Even now, white supremacist groups have been implicated in agent provacateur actions during the recent Black Lives Matter protests and even attempted to kidnap Democratic elected officials over COVID restrictions. If Democrats win all branches of government and increase measures to counteract the virus while Trump refuses to concede well into 2021, and his base believes the election was fraudulent, our already fragile democracy could reach a breaking point.
There is not much Democrats can do about this. It falls on responsible Republican leaders–if there are any left–to attempt to break through the wall of disinformation and shine the light of reality onto the GOP base before it’s too late.


washingtonmonthly--2020-10-26--Can Journalism Be Saved?

Can Journalism Be Saved?

The press has fallen upon hard times .
Between 2004 and the end of 2019 , about 2,100 newspapers—one in @ @ @ @ @ twelve years , newsrooms have shed tens of thousands of jobs .
But while the @ @ @ @ @ economic decline has been well documented , surprisingly little work has been done to sleuth @ @ @ @ @ this issue , the Monthly tries to rectify that imbalance .
Our staffers and contributors @ @ @ @ @ can be used to reinvigorate the economics of journalism without jeopardizing editorial independence .
—The @

The press has fallen upon hard times. Between 2004 and the end of 2019, about 2,100 newspapers—one in four—closed. Over the last twelve years, newsrooms have shed tens of thousands of jobs. But while the problem of journalism’s economic decline has been well documented, surprisingly little work has been done to sleuth out practical solutions. In this issue, the Monthly tries to rectify that imbalance. Our staffers and contributors have identified several ways government can be used to reinvigorate the economics of journalism without jeopardizing editorial independence. —The Editors
Introduction: Can Journalism Be Saved? by Paul Glastris It will take government action to rescue a struggling but vital industry.
The Coming Era of “Civic News” by Steven Waldman Empowering every American with a refundable tax credit for a subscription, membership, or donation to a local media outlet will revitalize the free press.
Starving the News by Phillip Longman To save the free press, bust the tech monopolies’ control over advertising.
How Facebook and Google Buy Off the Press by Nikki Usher The tech giants compromise media independence with their corporate donations.
Big Tech Comes for Podcasts by Grace Gedye Silicon Valley could wreck audio journalism—unless Washington acts first.
Own a Newspaper for $1 per Month by Matt Connolly The small but growing trend of co-op media outlets could be the future of local news.