washingtonmonthly--2020-02-21--Putin’s Plain Sight Takeover of Our Government

It ’ s been said that a picture is worth a thousand words , and I think that is the case here .
The combination of these three headlines tells a story about how Vladimir Putin is taking over our government that is more compelling than any argument I could make within the scope of a blog post : Of course , you can read these articles for yourself here , here , and here .
The short version is that the acting director of National Intelligence ( DNI ) , Joseph Maguire , was denied a permanent position and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ czar ” in charge of combatting foreign election interference , to give a briefing to the House Intelligence Committee in which she testified that Russia had developed a preference for Donald Trump and was taking acting measures to assist his reelection .
Trump then put a “ Russian hoax ” supporter ( Richard Grenell , the U.S. ambassador to Germany ) , temporarily in charge of the Office of National Intelligence and gave him another Russian hoaxer ( Kash Patel ) as a senior adviser .
To cap things off , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third Russian hoaxer ( Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia ) for the permanent position as DNI .
This is all taking place in plain sight , but its brazenness should not detract from the transparency of the intent here .
Trump is making sure the intelligence community can not stop Russia from helping him in his reelection bid , and he ’ s making sure that the intelligence community will not keep Congress apprised of their efforts to do so .
He wants the intelligence community to abandon its consensus that Russia interfered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wants absolute loyalty .
This obviously will benefit Trump , but it also lets Russia off the hook for what they ’ ve already done while rendering our country helpless to stop what they do in the future .
This is active encouragement and even complicity in foreign interference in our current election cycle .

It’s been said that a picture is worth a thousand words, and I think that is the case here. The combination of these three headlines tells a story about how Vladimir Putin is taking over our government that is more compelling than any argument I could make within the scope of a blog post:
Of course, you can read these articles for yourself here, here, and here. The short version is that the acting director of National Intelligence (DNI), Joseph Maguire, was denied a permanent position and fired after he allowed Shelby Pierson, the “czar” in charge of combatting foreign election interference, to give a briefing to the House Intelligence Committee in which she testified that Russia had developed a preference for Donald Trump and was taking acting measures to assist his reelection.
Trump then put a “Russian hoax” supporter (Richard Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to Germany), temporarily in charge of the Office of National Intelligence and gave him another Russian hoaxer (Kash Patel) as a senior adviser. To cap things off, he announced his intention to nominate a third Russian hoaxer (Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia) for the permanent position as DNI.
This is all taking place in plain sight, but its brazenness should not detract from the transparency of the intent here. Trump is making sure the intelligence community cannot stop Russia from helping him in his reelection bid, and he’s making sure that the intelligence community will not keep Congress apprised of their efforts to do so. He wants the intelligence community to abandon its consensus that Russia interfered in his first election, and he wants absolute loyalty.
This obviously will benefit Trump, but it also lets Russia off the hook for what they’ve already done while rendering our country helpless to stop what they do in the future. This is active encouragement and even complicity in foreign interference in our current election cycle.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory but a conspiracy fact.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-23--What Corporate Leadership on Fighting Climate Change Really Looks Like

In the last few weeks , a number of major companies have made commitments to address the fact that human activity is causing the planet ’ s rapid overheating .
Blackrock announced a new focus on climate change in its investment strategy , Starbucks has said it will aim to become resource positive , BP pledged to be net-zero by 2050 , and Delta Airlines announced that the airline will go carbon-neutral beginning next month .
And earlier this week , Jeff Bezos pledged $ 10 billion of his personal wealth to fight climate change .
I ’ m thrilled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but I can ’ t help but wonder : What gives ?
Is there an epidemic of “ climate woke-ness ” sweeping the world ?
If so , what triggered it ?
And why now ?
Was it the bushfires in Australia and the estimated one billion animals that died ?
Or perhaps the dawning recognition that we are entering what will be the most consequential decade of our existence on this planet ?
The urgency of climate action grows with each passing day .
According to climateclock.net , based on current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budget of about 12 years .
With a rapidly shrinking window to decarbonize , we have to take aggressive action now to buy us a little more time—a 45 percent reduction in emissions by 2030 and net-zero by 2050 according to the United Nations Development Programme .
I usually dig into these announcements with a healthy dose of skepticism—to gauge if they are serious about battling climate change or if this is just another wave of “ greenwashing.
” But as the new corporate plans keep coming , I find myself most impressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it will be carbon negative by 2030 , and two characteristics in particular : its courage and its humility .
The courage in Microsoft ’ s announcement stems in part from the boldness of its goals .
For example , while most companies tend to report Scope 1 & 2 emissions , and some Scope 3 emissions , Microsoft has chosen to address all their Scope 3 emissions , which can be anywhere from 50 to 85 percent of total emissions .
Microsoft estimates Scope 3 is about three quarter of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ term of art ” and roughly break down as follows : Scope 1 emissions are from owned or operated assets ; Scope 2 are from purchased energy ; and Scope 3 is everything else .
In deciding to include all their Scope 3 emissions , Microsoft is reaching out to engage partners beyond their sphere of control , to their sphere of influence , including suppliers , employees , and customers .
Also , their goal is to be carbon negative .
In other words , they will remove more carbon from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not by buying offsets—like funding cleaner cookstoves in Rwanda—to avoid future emissions , but making actual reductions .
Additionally , Microsoft has pledged to invest $ 1B in carbon reduction and removal technology over the next four years .
Beyond the carbon-negative goal , their eventual plan is to repay the carbon debt incurred through their entire existence.The goal is to be carbon negative by 2030 , far ahead of global guidelines , and repay their historical carbon debt by 2050 .
The boldness of these goals is undergirded by a fundamental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In an interview with CNBC ’ s Mad Money host Jim Cramer , Microsoft ’ s CEO , Satya Nadella , said : “ The economy that we all enjoy , or the capitalist system we all enjoy , I think will fundamentally be in jeopardy , if the planet which is THE resource , the factor of production that has fueled all of our capitalist society will be in danger .
So to me , that is the existential priority.
” The courage of Microsoft ’ s convictions will be a welcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all good goals , there were plenty of meaty details in Microsoft ’ s announcement e.g .
electrification of their campus fleet , shifting to 100 percent renewable energy .
What stood out for me was a distinct disposition of humility : I find this humility incredibly seductive , and it only adds to the integrity of the announcement .
Yet the only area I see where Microsoft could do better is in its providing cloud services to customers in the oil & gas industry .
Many have cited this as a reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s commitment to its carbon footprint .
This criticism is not unreasonable given that the emissions for Shell and Chevron , just two of Microsoft ’ s customers , are over 1,100 million metric tons , over 70 times Microsoft ’ s estimated emissions of 16 million metric tons .
Here lies an opportunity for more leadership for Microsoft—collaborative leadership as opposed to competitive leadership .
Can it collaborate with its competitors , like Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud , to work with their oil and gas customers to begin the withdrawal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After all , it is not as if this issue will simply go away , nor is it an issue only for Microsoft .
Lastly , I would urge grace , especially , from those of us who have grown understandably impatient with the progress to date .
Some organizations now seem to be stepping forward with bold commitments .
A difficult journey lies ahead .
Despite our best intentions and sincere efforts , we will encounter setbacks .
Microsoft will be no different .
Are we better off waving our pitchforks at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or do we respond to their courage and humility with grace ?
For me , the answer is clear .

In the last few weeks, a number of major companies have made commitments to address the fact that human activity is causing the planet’s rapid overheating. Blackrock announced a new focus on climate change in its investment strategy, Starbucks has said it will aim to become resource positive, BP pledged to be net-zero by 2050, and Delta Airlines announced that the airline will go carbon-neutral beginning next month. And earlier this week, Jeff Bezos pledged $10 billion of his personal wealth to fight climate change.
I’m thrilled by this growing focus on carbon goal-setting, but I can’t help but wonder: What gives? Is there an epidemic of “climate woke-ness” sweeping the world? If so, what triggered it? And why now? Was it the bushfires in Australia and the estimated one billion animals that died? Or perhaps the dawning recognition that we are entering what will be the most consequential decade of our existence on this planet?
The urgency of climate action grows with each passing day. According to climateclock.net, based on current emissions, we have a remaining carbon budget of about 12 years. With a rapidly shrinking window to decarbonize, we have to take aggressive action now to buy us a little more time—a 45 percent reduction in emissions by 2030 and net-zero by 2050 according to the United Nations Development Programme.
I usually dig into these announcements with a healthy dose of skepticism—to gauge if they are serious about battling climate change or if this is just another wave of “greenwashing.” But as the new corporate plans keep coming, I find myself most impressed with Microsoft’s announcement in January that it will be carbon negative by 2030, and two characteristics in particular: its courage and its humility.
The courage in Microsoft’s announcement stems in part from the boldness of its goals. For example, while most companies tend to report Scope 1 & 2 emissions, and some Scope 3 emissions, Microsoft has chosen to address all their Scope 3 emissions, which can be anywhere from 50 to 85 percent of total emissions. Microsoft estimates Scope 3 is about three quarter of their total emissions. These scopes are a “term of art” and roughly break down as follows: Scope 1 emissions are from owned or operated assets; Scope 2 are from purchased energy; and Scope 3 is everything else. In deciding to include all their Scope 3 emissions, Microsoft is reaching out to engage partners beyond their sphere of control, to their sphere of influence, including suppliers, employees, and customers.
Also, their goal is to be carbon negative. In other words, they will remove more carbon from the atmosphere than they emit. This is not by buying offsets—like funding cleaner cookstoves in Rwanda—to avoid future emissions, but making actual reductions. Additionally, Microsoft has pledged to invest $1B in carbon reduction and removal technology over the next four years. Beyond the carbon-negative goal, their eventual plan is to repay the carbon debt incurred through their entire existence.The goal is to be carbon negative by 2030, far ahead of global guidelines, and repay their historical carbon debt by 2050.
The boldness of these goals is undergirded by a fundamental clarity about what is at stake. In an interview with CNBC’s Mad Money host Jim Cramer, Microsoft’s CEO, Satya Nadella, said: “The economy that we all enjoy, or the capitalist system we all enjoy, I think will fundamentally be in jeopardy, if the planet which is THE resource, the factor of production that has fueled all of our capitalist society will be in danger. So to me, that is the existential priority.”
The courage of Microsoft’s convictions will be a welcome tailwind on a difficult journey.
Like all good goals, there were plenty of meaty details in Microsoft’s announcement e.g. electrification of their campus fleet, shifting to 100 percent renewable energy. What stood out for me was a distinct disposition of humility:
While we at Microsoft have worked hard to be “carbon neutral” since 2012, our recent work has led us to conclude that this is an area where we’re far better served by humility than pride. And we believe this is true not only for ourselves, but for every business and organization on the planet… It won’t be easy for Microsoft to become carbon negative by 2030. But we believe it’s the right goal.
I find this humility incredibly seductive, and it only adds to the integrity of the announcement.
Yet the only area I see where Microsoft could do better is in its providing cloud services to customers in the oil & gas industry. Many have cited this as a reason to question the authenticity of Microsoft’s commitment to its carbon footprint. This criticism is not unreasonable given that the emissions for Shell and Chevron, just two of Microsoft’s customers, are over 1,100 million metric tons, over 70 times Microsoft’s estimated emissions of 16 million metric tons.
Here lies an opportunity for more leadership for Microsoft—collaborative leadership as opposed to competitive leadership. Can it collaborate with its competitors, like Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud, to work with their oil and gas customers to begin the withdrawal from supporting further fossil fuel extraction? After all, it is not as if this issue will simply go away, nor is it an issue only for Microsoft.
Lastly, I would urge grace, especially, from those of us who have grown understandably impatient with the progress to date. Some organizations now seem to be stepping forward with bold commitments. A difficult journey lies ahead. Despite our best intentions and sincere efforts, we will encounter setbacks. Microsoft will be no different.
Are we better off waving our pitchforks at the Microsoft’s of the world, or do we respond to their courage and humility with grace? For me, the answer is clear.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-24--Catch Them If You Can

Catch Them If You Can

Argo was a Ben Affleck film based on the true story of how a little CIA ingenuity and stealth freed a group of hiding humans .
A CIA team planned a low-tech , high-risk fake Hollywood movie production to sneak Americans out of Tehran .
If caught , the Americans would have faced assured injustice and quickly turned from fugitives to hostages of the new Iranian regime .
From Iran to China , Afghanistan to Bolivia , the story is a familiar one : Desperate individuals sometimes need to escape a foreign country ’ s authorities and get beyond a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revolutionary regimes or democratic governments—pursue sovereign justice .
National judicial systems reign supreme in the international system .
Nations get to decide what to do inside their borders and who is guilty or innocent within their countries .
President Trump ’ s foreign-policy doctrine defending the primacy of national sovereignty further cements this custom into practice .
In 1980s Iran , the newly formed interim government sought flimsy justice for what Iranian student revolutionaries believed were historic U.S. human-rights transgressions .
The new and freshly violent Iran wanted retribution , remuneration and just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persecute foreigners , the individuals targeted are often subjected to unjust accusations , detention , judging , sentencing , and incarceration—or worse .
Iran is an extreme example of foreign sovereign justice run amok .
To this day , policy victims in foreign countries abound , while ways to avoid foreign injustice are limited .
Here are some options : – Escape : The Argo solution was rare and extreme .
Diplomacy is a much more common approach to freeing those in foreign detention .
But what happens when the CIA is unavailable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign national ’ s release ?
There is always escape .
Ask Carlos Ghosn .
The Brazilian-born Lebanese auto executive showed that even Japan ’ s modern technology and surveillance tactics can be outwitted .
Facing charges of financial wrongdoing in Japan , his recent Houdini-like , perfectly planned and executed disappearing act used former military special forces teams and human-sized anvil cases to leave Japanese authorities slack-jawed .
Lebanon , which has no extradition treaty with Japan , is now heralding and housing the ex-con .
– Exchange : A Taliban trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led to a ceasefire and a potential peace agreement with America .
The deal that Trump officials cut will allow U.S. troops to come home and the administration to save face .
Yes , it ’ s partly a hostage negotiation—something the United States says it does not do—but three Afghan insurgents were returned to the Taliban .
Hostage trades are highly controversial , as when President Obama swapped five Guantanamo prisoners for Taliban-held Army Sgt .
Bowe Bergdahl , an accused deserter .
Despite the Bergdahl controversy , hostage exchanges take place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Club Jihad are now free .
As wars end , the practice of trading prisoners is a regular , more-acceptable practice .
The remaims of POWs often are part of a package for trade-deal concessions or improved relations .
North Korea returned the remains of American GIs from the Korean Conflict , which were used as a trading chit by Kim Jong Un to entice Trump to the Singapore summit .
China is hoping to work a similar deal with Canada for the Huawei executive arrested for breaking international sanctions on Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs a few pawns and a little more leverage before they can force a trade .
For that reason , China has been applying economic pressure on Canada while also finding thin excuses to arrest Canadian citizens .
Imprisoned hostages and trade could force Ottawa ’ s hand in this high-stakes game of prisoner poker .
– Exile : Bolivia is trying to get back at both Mexico and Spain for harboring and transporting criminals and political prisoners out of the country and into exile .
One man ’ s criminal , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former president .
Evo Morales found his way to a safe haven in Mexico , and the new Bolivian government wants him back .
In the meantime , La Paz is using its few diplomatic levers to force a return , starting with the expulsion of Mexican and Spanish diplomats from Bolivia .
– Rendition : The practice of rendition is where one country decides another country has an asset or a wanted criminal within its borders , but disregards that country ’ s sovereign rights .
Powerful countries just go and get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giving harbor .
Kidnapping , basically .
Though illegal , international courts lack the authority or enforcement tools to stop it .
In the case of the Nissan auto executive , high-flying CEOs are known for their chutzpah and survival skills .
Japan should have been aware that creative corporate cowboys are hard to wrangle , with or without another nation ’ s intervention .
Convicted criminals abroad certainly can not count on U.S. presidential pardons or commutations to have an effect .
Internationally , might is what often makes right .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , a little stealth can be pretty effective .

Argo was a Ben Affleck film based on the true story of how a little CIA ingenuity and stealth freed a group of hiding humans.
A CIA team planned a low-tech, high-risk fake Hollywood movie production to sneak Americans out of Tehran. If caught, the Americans would have faced assured injustice and quickly turned from fugitives to hostages of the new Iranian regime. From Iran to China, Afghanistan to Bolivia, the story is a familiar one: Desperate individuals sometimes need to escape a foreign country’s authorities and get beyond a nation’s jurisdiction.
All countries—whether revolutionary regimes or democratic governments—pursue sovereign justice. National judicial systems reign supreme in the international system. Nations get to decide what to do inside their borders and who is guilty or innocent within their countries. President Trump’s foreign-policy doctrine defending the primacy of national sovereignty further cements this custom into practice.
In 1980s Iran, the newly formed interim government sought flimsy justice for what Iranian student revolutionaries believed were historic U.S. human-rights transgressions. The new and freshly violent Iran wanted retribution, remuneration and just plain revenge against America.
When governments persecute foreigners, the individuals targeted are often subjected to unjust accusations, detention, judging, sentencing, and incarceration—or worse. Iran is an extreme example of foreign sovereign justice run amok.
To this day, policy victims in foreign countries abound, while ways to avoid foreign injustice are limited. Here are some options:
– Escape: The Argo solution was rare and extreme. Diplomacy is a much more common approach to freeing those in foreign detention. But what happens when the CIA is unavailable or diplomacy is unsuccessful at getting a foreign national’s release?
There is always escape. Ask Carlos Ghosn.
The Brazilian-born Lebanese auto executive showed that even Japan’s modern technology and surveillance tactics can be outwitted. Facing charges of financial wrongdoing in Japan, his recent Houdini-like, perfectly planned and executed disappearing act used former military special forces teams and human-sized anvil cases to leave Japanese authorities slack-jawed. Lebanon, which has no extradition treaty with Japan, is now heralding and housing the ex-con.
– Exchange: A Taliban trade for two Westerners held for three years led to a ceasefire and a potential peace agreement with America. The deal that Trump officials cut will allow U.S. troops to come home and the administration to save face. Yes, it’s partly a hostage negotiation—something the United States says it does not do—but three Afghan insurgents were returned to the Taliban.
Hostage trades are highly controversial, as when President Obama swapped five Guantanamo prisoners for Taliban-held Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, an accused deserter. Despite the Bergdahl controversy, hostage exchanges take place regularly. Two Americans who spent years at Club Jihad are now free.
As wars end, the practice of trading prisoners is a regular, more-acceptable practice. The remaims of POWs often are part of a package for trade-deal concessions or improved relations. North Korea returned the remains of American GIs from the Korean Conflict, which were used as a trading chit by Kim Jong Un to entice Trump to the Singapore summit.
China is hoping to work a similar deal with Canada for the Huawei executive arrested for breaking international sanctions on Iran. But first, the Chinese government needs a few pawns and a little more leverage before they can force a trade. For that reason, China has been applying economic pressure on Canada while also finding thin excuses to arrest Canadian citizens. Imprisoned hostages and trade could force Ottawa’s hand in this high-stakes game of prisoner poker.
– Exile: Bolivia is trying to get back at both Mexico and Spain for harboring and transporting criminals and political prisoners out of the country and into exile. One man’s criminal, however, can be another country’s former president. Evo Morales found his way to a safe haven in Mexico, and the new Bolivian government wants him back. In the meantime, La Paz is using its few diplomatic levers to force a return, starting with the expulsion of Mexican and Spanish diplomats from Bolivia.
– Rendition: The practice of rendition is where one country decides another country has an asset or a wanted criminal within its borders, but disregards that country’s sovereign rights. Powerful countries just go and get their perp out of a foreign nation giving harbor. Kidnapping, basically. Though illegal, international courts lack the authority or enforcement tools to stop it.
In the case of the Nissan auto executive, high-flying CEOs are known for their chutzpah and survival skills. Japan should have been aware that creative corporate cowboys are hard to wrangle, with or without another nation’s intervention.
Convicted criminals abroad certainly cannot count on U.S. presidential pardons or commutations to have an effect. Internationally, might is what often makes right. When diplomatic, intelligence and military tools fail, however, a little stealth can be pretty effective.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-24--The Danger of Ideologues

The Danger of Ideologues

My father died a few years ago and one of his friends said something at the funeral that made everyone chuckle and nod in agreement .
He described my father as someone who had a very large circle of certainty .
Even those who shared much of that certainty knew this to be true .
The fact of the matter is that my father was an ideologue , which the Oxford Dictionary defines as “ an adherent of an ideology , especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.
” I was reminded of that recently when a friend was talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which archaeologists had discovered some remains that challenged their original assumptions about the origins of humankind .
My friend said , “ that ’ s what I love about scientists , they change their mind when they find new data.
” The scientists he was referring to are the opposite of ideologues .
That doesn ’ t mean that they purport to know nothing .
It ’ s just that their circle of certainty is relatively small , while much of what they know is held with less certainty and a willingness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes that are happening on a global and domestic scale these days are having ripple effects everywhere .
In response , a lot of people are scared and find themselves attracted to ideologues .
Certainty brings great comfort during times of dramatic change .
But ideologues are the opposite of what we need right now .
Not only do they espouse certainty , they cling to the past with absolutist ideas that grant no room for curiosity or questions .
They also tend to require a hero to conquer the identified villain , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diverse thinking .
Those who refuse to fall in line are attacked for a lack of character and their motivations are questioned .
What does an ideologue do when presented with data that doesn ’ t fit their beliefs ?
They challenge the data or call it an anomaly .
In other words , the circle of certainty isn ’ t just large , it is impenetrable .
Certainty also leads to what some people call a “ missionary complex.
” Armed with what they believe are all of the answers , ideologues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself .
But as H.L .
Mencken said , “ the urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.
” In other words , it is a recipe for authoritarianism .
It is obvious that conservatives have succumbed to ideologues , especially the Christian nationalists who have become the defining base of the Republican Party .
But liberals are not immune to ideologues , which is why I once asked whether uncertainty is a liberal value .
That was spurred by some of the rancor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary .
As I observed , no one seemed to be listening .
As thoughts about all of this were rolling around in my head a few days ago , this song came up on my playlist .
The challenges we face in everything from the climate crisis to healthcare , immigration , and income inequality are complex .
They don ’ t lend themselves to black and white answers that draw primarily on the solutions of the past .
They also won ’ t be dealt with by simply relying on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What they will require is curiosity , creativity , and listening to one another .
That ’ s not a recipe for instant gratification , but it ’ s how we ’ ll get closer to fine .

My father died a few years ago and one of his friends said something at the funeral that made everyone chuckle and nod in agreement. He described my father as someone who had a very large circle of certainty. Even those who shared much of that certainty knew this to be true. The fact of the matter is that my father was an ideologue, which the Oxford Dictionary defines as “an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.”
I was reminded of that recently when a friend was talking about a documentary he’d seen in which archaeologists had discovered some remains that challenged their original assumptions about the origins of humankind. My friend said, “that’s what I love about scientists, they change their mind when they find new data.” The scientists he was referring to are the opposite of ideologues. That doesn’t mean that they purport to know nothing. It’s just that their circle of certainty is relatively small, while much of what they know is held with less certainty and a willingness to adjust to new information.
The changes that are happening on a global and domestic scale these days are having ripple effects everywhere. In response, a lot of people are scared and find themselves attracted to ideologues. Certainty brings great comfort during times of dramatic change.
But ideologues are the opposite of what we need right now. Not only do they espouse certainty, they cling to the past with absolutist ideas that grant no room for curiosity or questions. They also tend to require a hero to conquer the identified villain, rather than a pluralistic coalition that values diverse thinking. Those who refuse to fall in line are attacked for a lack of character and their motivations are questioned.
What does an ideologue do when presented with data that doesn’t fit their beliefs? They challenge the data or call it an anomaly. In other words, the circle of certainty isn’t just large, it is impenetrable.
Certainty also leads to what some people call a “missionary complex.” Armed with what they believe are all of the answers, ideologues become committed to saving the world from itself. But as H.L. Mencken said, “the urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.” In other words, it is a recipe for authoritarianism.
It is obvious that conservatives have succumbed to ideologues, especially the Christian nationalists who have become the defining base of the Republican Party. But liberals are not immune to ideologues, which is why I once asked whether uncertainty is a liberal value. That was spurred by some of the rancor that was building in the 2016 Democratic primary. As I observed, no one seemed to be listening.
I’ve come to believe that listening requires a suspension of certainty – at least long enough to hear what the other person is saying and attempt to empathize with where they are coming from. It also requires some curiosity about perspectives different from our own.
As thoughts about all of this were rolling around in my head a few days ago, this song came up on my playlist.
I went to the doctor, I went to the mountains
I looked to the children, I drank from the fountains
There’s more than one answer to these questions
Pointing me in a crooked line
And the less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine
The challenges we face in everything from the climate crisis to healthcare, immigration, and income inequality are complex. They don’t lend themselves to black and white answers that draw primarily on the solutions of the past. They also won’t be dealt with by simply relying on a mindset that looks for heroes and villains.
What they will require is curiosity, creativity, and listening to one another. That’s not a recipe for instant gratification, but it’s how we’ll get closer to fine.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-24--The Real Hidden Weakness of Sanders’s Campaign

Last week , Jim Geraghty of National Review Online identified four overlooked weaknesses of Bernie Sanders ’ presidential campaign .
These can be condensed down to : 1 .
He ’ d never be able to weather a second major health scare 2 .
He has no emotional range and struggles with empathy 3 .
His consistent worldview is a liability when he has to address things that don ’ t neatly fit within it 4 .
His support for the working man is selective ( see , e.g .
fracking industry ) In a subsequent NRO post , Ramesh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Bernie is soft on crime because he wants to vastly reduce the number of people who are incarcerated .
I ’ m not very impressed with this list .
Even if I grant that Sanders ’ health is a potential land mine , that isn ’ t something too many people are overlooking .
Having a heart attack on the campaign trail tends to drive the point home for the American people .
As for items two through four , consider how President Trump stacks up .
If these are weaknesses for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to him .
Finally , if he ’ s soft on crime , at least he hasn ’ t been pardoning a slew of famous crooks and scoundrels .
These are not the weaknesses that cause many Democratic officeholders to panic at the prospect of Sanders leading their ticket .
Whether they believe Sanders will certainly lose to Trump or not , they think he will do poorly in many of the districts the Democrats used in 2018 to win back control of the House of Representatives .
Likewise , they think he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states holding critical Senate races , like Maine , North Carolina , Georgia , and Arizona .
They don ’ t think this risk is related to some personality quirk or lack of empathy for energy sector workers .
It has to do with how they believe his economic and social policies will play in the suburbs .
I ’ ve been talking about this subject since a couple of days after the 2016 election and I feel like a broken record .
But there is a weakness that is still overlooked that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren might create some of the same vulnerabilities , Sanders is fairly unique among the Democratic candidates in the approach he ’ s taking to winning an Electoral College majority .
Hillary Clinton pursued a suburban strategy and won a sizable popular vote victory .
She succeeded in driving up her suburban performance , just not by enough to offset her rural losses .
The 2018 midterm strategy for the Dems did not reverse Clinton ’ s strategy but instead doubled down on it .
And it worked largely because President Trump was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy .
What this means is that a lot of newly elected Democrats are dependent on the party keeping to a similar strategy in 2020 .
A candidate who is happy to trade suburban votes for rural votes could conceivably do better than one who seeks to consolidate and grow the suburban advantage , but that won ’ t necessarily be good enough to get vulnerable officeholders reelected or for committee chairmen to keep their gavels .
So , the somewhat hidden vulnerability for Sanders is that the party doesn ’ t feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When people talk about this , they usually refer to the word “ socialism , ” but that ’ s really shorthand for something else .
What ’ s important is that many Democrats will spend the 2020 campaign trying to distance themselves from Sanders in a way they would find unnecessary with the other candidates .
The question isn ’ t so much whether or not their fears are justified .
Since they have these fears , the question is whether or not this lack of unity and message discipline up and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an insurmountable weakness for Sanders ’ general election campaign .
This is where the difference between Democrats and Republicans really shows up .
The GOP establishment was hardly unified behind Trump but they bit their lips and eventually got in line after he was elected .
They don ’ t like to get on the wrong side of their leaders or their base , and will sometimes march into electoral oblivion ( see 2006 midterms ) rather than seek to distance or distinguish themselves from an unpopular president .
Democrats show comparatively little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their president .
And , unlike Senator Susan Collins of Maine , they tend to follow through .
This is why President Bill Clinton couldn ’ t even get a committee vote on his health care plan when his own party was in control of Congress .
For Sanders , a misshapen coalition that doesn ’ t jibe with the shape of the Dem ’ s House Majority will be an obstacle to winning the general election , but it ’ s not necessarily insurmountable .
It will make it harder to win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than a united one , but there is more than one path to Electoral College victory .
If Sanders were to actually win and become president , he ’ d discover that this weakness did not go away .
While some doubters would get in line , many would not .
It ’ d be different if he brought in dozens of new congressmembers from small town/rural America , but that is almost definitely not going to happen .
The Democrats don ’ t have a lot strong and well-funded people running for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performs well enough there to carry the states he needs , he ’ ll probably still be a drag on the ticket in those areas , just as any other Democrat would be .
Of course , Sanders is strong enough that there will be a schism in the party if he is not the nominee , Someone like Elizabeth Warren might be able to minimize this schism but , regardless , the schism would be less likely to persist into an actual administration for the other candidates .
Few people believed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states , but he silenced the doubters .
Bernie Sanders might silence his doubters , too .
I think his platform would do better than people predict in many areas where the Democrats are currently weak .
But I also think he ’ d underperform in the suburbs , and it ’ s a tradeoff that is never going to win the consent of the party as it is currently constituted .
So , the overlooked weakness for Sanders is that he has no realistic prospect of uniting the party either during or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t mean he can ’ t win , and for people who want to remake the party , it ’ s not a problem that he ’ d disrupt it and cause it to change shape .

Last week, Jim Geraghty of National Review Online identified four overlooked weaknesses of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign. These can be condensed down to:
1. He’d never be able to weather a second major health scare
2. He has no emotional range and struggles with empathy
3. His consistent worldview is a liability when he has to address things that don’t neatly fit within it
4. His support for the working man is selective (see, e.g. fracking industry)
In a subsequent NRO post, Ramesh Ponnuru added a fifth overlooked weakness, that Bernie is soft on crime because he wants to vastly reduce the number of people who are incarcerated.
I’m not very impressed with this list. Even if I grant that Sanders’ health is a potential land mine, that isn’t something too many people are overlooking. Having a heart attack on the campaign trail tends to drive the point home for the American people. As for items two through four, consider how President Trump stacks up. If these are weaknesses for Sanders, the problem is not unique to him. Finally, if he’s soft on crime, at least he hasn’t been pardoning a slew of famous crooks and scoundrels.
These are not the weaknesses that cause many Democratic officeholders to panic at the prospect of Sanders leading their ticket. Whether they believe Sanders will certainly lose to Trump or not, they think he will do poorly in many of the districts the Democrats used in 2018 to win back control of the House of Representatives. Likewise, they think he will be a liability in many of states holding critical Senate races, like Maine, North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona. They don’t think this risk is related to some personality quirk or lack of empathy for energy sector workers. It has to do with how they believe his economic and social policies will play in the suburbs.
I’ve been talking about this subject since a couple of days after the 2016 election and I feel like a broken record. But there is a weakness that is still overlooked that I need to emphasize.
Although Elizabeth Warren might create some of the same vulnerabilities, Sanders is fairly unique among the Democratic candidates in the approach he’s taking to winning an Electoral College majority. Hillary Clinton pursued a suburban strategy and won a sizable popular vote victory. She succeeded in driving up her suburban performance, just not by enough to offset her rural losses. The 2018 midterm strategy for the Dems did not reverse Clinton’s strategy but instead doubled down on it. And it worked largely because President Trump was diligently alienating suburbanites and making the task easy.
What this means is that a lot of newly elected Democrats are dependent on the party keeping to a similar strategy in 2020. A candidate who is happy to trade suburban votes for rural votes could conceivably do better than one who seeks to consolidate and grow the suburban advantage, but that won’t necessarily be good enough to get vulnerable officeholders reelected or for committee chairmen to keep their gavels.
So, the somewhat hidden vulnerability for Sanders is that the party doesn’t feel safe or comfortable with his strategy. When people talk about this, they usually refer to the word “socialism,” but that’s really shorthand for something else. What’s important is that many Democrats will spend the 2020 campaign trying to distance themselves from Sanders in a way they would find unnecessary with the other candidates.
The question isn’t so much whether or not their fears are justified. Since they have these fears, the question is whether or not this lack of unity and message discipline up and down the ticket is going to create an insurmountable weakness for Sanders’ general election campaign.
This is where the difference between Democrats and Republicans really shows up. The GOP establishment was hardly unified behind Trump but they bit their lips and eventually got in line after he was elected. They don’t like to get on the wrong side of their leaders or their base, and will sometimes march into electoral oblivion (see 2006 midterms) rather than seek to distance or distinguish themselves from an unpopular president. Democrats show comparatively little reluctance to fashion themselves as critics of their president. And, unlike Senator Susan Collins of Maine, they tend to follow through. This is why President Bill Clinton couldn’t even get a committee vote on his health care plan when his own party was in control of Congress.
For Sanders, a misshapen coalition that doesn’t jibe with the shape of the Dem’s House Majority will be an obstacle to winning the general election, but it’s not necessarily insurmountable. It will make it harder to win because a divided Democratic Party is weaker than a united one, but there is more than one path to Electoral College victory.
If Sanders were to actually win and become president, he’d discover that this weakness did not go away. While some doubters would get in line, many would not. It’d be different if he brought in dozens of new congressmembers from small town/rural America, but that is almost definitely not going to happen. The Democrats don’t have a lot strong and well-funded people running for those districts, and even if Sanders performs well enough there to carry the states he needs, he’ll probably still be a drag on the ticket in those areas, just as any other Democrat would be.
Of course, Sanders is strong enough that there will be a schism in the party if he is not the nominee, Someone like Elizabeth Warren might be able to minimize this schism but, regardless, the schism would be less likely to persist into an actual administration for the other candidates.
Few people believed that Trump could win traditionally blue Rust Belt states, but he silenced the doubters. Bernie Sanders might silence his doubters, too. I think his platform would do better than people predict in many areas where the Democrats are currently weak. But I also think he’d underperform in the suburbs, and it’s a tradeoff that is never going to win the consent of the party as it is currently constituted.
So, the overlooked weakness for Sanders is that he has no realistic prospect of uniting the party either during or after the election. That doesn’t mean he can’t win, and for people who want to remake the party, it’s not a problem that he’d disrupt it and cause it to change shape.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-28--Department of Justice Steps Up Efforts to Target Naturalized Citizens

As we ’ ve seen for a while now , it isn ’ t just undocumented immigrants who have reason to fear the policies of this administration .
They have also drastically reduced the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country and targeted the elimination of Temporary Protected Status for those who have come here to escape both war and natural disasters .
On Wednesday , the Department of Justice announced the creation of a new unit designed to denaturalize those who have gained U.S. citizenship .
Almost two years ago , Francis Cissna , Director of U.S .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ task force “ to review cases of immigrants who were ordered deported and are suspected of using fake identities to later get green cards and citizenship through naturalization.
” The new unit at DOJ appears to build on that effort , suggesting that “ the growing number of referrals anticipated from law enforcement agencies motivated the creation of a standalone section dedicated to this important work.
” The press release announcing this new effort goes to great lengths to suggest that the work is all about identifying those who received citizenship fraudulently and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sex offenders .
However , the 20 million naturalized citizens in this country who are not criminals or terrorists have reason to be concerned .
First of all , that is because Donald Trump once told us that his deportation efforts would focus on “ removing the most dangerous criminal illegal immigrants in America.
” But as Philip Bump documented , “ the administration ’ s removal efforts are prioritized in a way that ’ s much closer to ‘ get everyone out ’ than ‘ removing criminals.
’ ” Similarly , Cissna @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on people who knowingly lied on their citizenship application rather than those who simply made a mistake .
But as Masha Gessen points out , “ that distinction is fuzzier than some might assume.
” As an example , Gessen points to the fact that applications for both citizenship and permanent residence have grown ever longer .
The current green card application includes this question : “ Have you EVER committed a crime of any kind ( even if you were not arrested , cited , charged with , or tried for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is included on the form , which makes no effort to distinguish misdemeanors from felonies , just as it fails to specify whether crimes committed in another country are included .
Gessen , who is a naturalized citizen , points out that in his home country of Russia , it was a crime to spend the night anywhere you were not registered to live .
Perhaps even more importantly , Gessen writes this : If , as DOJ suggested , this was merely a way to target criminals and terrorists , those cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that our criminal justice system deals with natural-born citizens .
But that ’ s not what this is all about .
This effort is , at its heart , a way to strip naturalized citizens of that sense of equality with natural-born citizens .
Just as Trump has done with undocumented immigrants , it is an attempt to suggest that naturalized citizens pose a malevolent threat to this country .
In other words , it is simply another way of implementing this administration ’ s xenophobic policies .

As we’ve seen for a while now, it isn’t just undocumented immigrants who have reason to fear the policies of this administration. They have also drastically reduced the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country and targeted the elimination of Temporary Protected Status for those who have come here to escape both war and natural disasters.
On Wednesday, the Department of Justice announced the creation of a new unit designed to denaturalize those who have gained U.S. citizenship. Almost two years ago, Francis Cissna, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, announced a task force “to review cases of immigrants who were ordered deported and are suspected of using fake identities to later get green cards and citizenship through naturalization.” The new unit at DOJ appears to build on that effort, suggesting that “the growing number of referrals anticipated from law enforcement agencies motivated the creation of a standalone section dedicated to this important work.”
The press release announcing this new effort goes to great lengths to suggest that the work is all about identifying those who received citizenship fraudulently and are terrorists, war criminals, and sex offenders. However, the 20 million naturalized citizens in this country who are not criminals or terrorists have reason to be concerned.
First of all, that is because Donald Trump once told us that his deportation efforts would focus on “removing the most dangerous criminal illegal immigrants in America.” But as Philip Bump documented, “the administration’s removal efforts are prioritized in a way that’s much closer to ‘get everyone out’ than ‘removing criminals.’”
Similarly, Cissna suggested previously that the denaturalization effort would focus on people who knowingly lied on their citizenship application rather than those who simply made a mistake. But as Masha Gessen points out, “that distinction is fuzzier than some might assume.”
As an example, Gessen points to the fact that applications for both citizenship and permanent residence have grown ever longer. The current green card application includes this question: “Have you EVER committed a crime of any kind (even if you were not arrested, cited, charged with, or tried for that crime)?” The emphasis is included on the form, which makes no effort to distinguish misdemeanors from felonies, just as it fails to specify whether crimes committed in another country are included. Gessen, who is a naturalized citizen, points out that in his home country of Russia, it was a crime to spend the night anywhere you were not registered to live.
Perhaps even more importantly, Gessen writes this:
Historically, denaturalization has been an exceedingly rare occurrence, for good reason: by the time a person is naturalized, she has lived in this country for a number of years and has passed the hurdles of obtaining entry, legal permanent residency, and, finally, citizenship. The conceit of naturalization is that it makes an immigrant not only equal to natural-born citizens but indistinguishable from them.
If, as DOJ suggested, this was merely a way to target criminals and terrorists, those cases could be handled in the same way that our criminal justice system deals with natural-born citizens. But that’s not what this is all about.
This effort is, at its heart, a way to strip naturalized citizens of that sense of equality with natural-born citizens. Just as Trump has done with undocumented immigrants, he has attempted to suggest that naturalized citizens pose a malevolent threat to this country. In other words, it is simply another way of implementing this administration’s xenophobic policies.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-28--The Uncomfortable Question of Bernie Sanders’s Life Expectancy

A longtime reader who was a senior official government in a previous Democratic administration sent me this : I ’ m sorry if this question strikes people as impolite .
A 78-year old man who had a heart attack less than five months ago and refuses to release his complete medical records is the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination .
If Bernie Sanders is nominated and elected president , what are the odds he can complete a full term ?
The answer is about 50-50 .
A team of nine cardiologists recently published a study in the Journal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer that question.Their study tracked the expected mortality and life expectancy of people who survive a first heart attack ( myocardial infarction ) at ages 65 and older .
The scientists ’ data are comprehensive , covering what happened to 22,295 heart attack patients admitted to U.S. hospitals from October 2004 to December 2006 .
Their analysis provides two ways to estimate a person ’ s expected mortality and life-expectancy based on age and cardiac history .
Both methods produced nearly identical results .
The likelihood that a person of Senator Sanders ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one year – that takes us through September 2020 – is 25 percent .
Further , the median period of survival for those patients is about five years , so the likelihood that someone of Senator Sanders ’ age and heart history will survive through the next presidential term is about 50-50 .
This is far from typical .
According to the CDC , the odds that a 78-year old American will die within one year are just over 4 percent , and the odds over five years are less than 23 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as President of the United States , and four of them died in office from natural causes .
The historical likelihood that a president will die in office for medical reasons , therefore , is less than 9 percent .
The analysis of Senator Sanders ’ prospects could be more precise than 50-50 , if we knew a common indicator of his current cardiac status , called the “ the left ventricular ejection fraction.
” This measures the blood volume a person ’ s heart pushes out with each heartbeat .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president of the American College of Cardiology , Dr. Richard Kovacs , the results are closely associated with a patient ’ s expected mortality rate .
By this measure , the normal blood volume level is 60 percent .
At 40 to 50 percent , the functioning of the heart ’ s left ventricle is said to be mildly impaired ; at 30 percent to 40 percent , moderately impaired ; and at 30 percent or less , severely impaired .
It is certainly reasonable that voters know those results for a 78-year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Thus far , Senator Sanders has refused .
If he persists and is nominated , voters will have to consider very carefully his choice for vice president , since the odds that a vice president would succeed a President Sanders for medical reasons during his first term will jump from an average 9 percent to 50 percent .

A longtime reader who was a senior official government in a previous Democratic administration sent me this:
I’m sorry if this question strikes people as impolite. A 78-year old man who had a heart attack less than five months ago and refuses to release his complete medical records is the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination. If Bernie Sanders is nominated and elected president, what are the odds he can complete a full term? The answer is about 50-50.
A team of nine cardiologists recently published a study in the Journal of the American Heart Association that can help answer that question.Their study tracked the expected mortality and life expectancy of people who survive a first heart attack (myocardial infarction) at ages 65 and older. The scientists’ data are comprehensive, covering what happened to 22,295 heart attack patients admitted to U.S. hospitals from October 2004 to December 2006.
Their analysis provides two ways to estimate a person’s expected mortality and life-expectancy based on age and cardiac history. Both methods produced nearly identical results. The likelihood that a person of Senator Sanders’ age and heart history will die within one year – that takes us through September 2020 – is 25 percent. Further, the median period of survival for those patients is about five years, so the likelihood that someone of Senator Sanders’ age and heart history will survive through the next presidential term is about 50-50.
This is far from typical. According to the CDC, the odds that a 78-year old American will die within one year are just over 4 percent, and the odds over five years are less than 23 percent. Moreover, 45 people have served as President of the United States, and four of them died in office from natural causes. The historical likelihood that a president will die in office for medical reasons, therefore, is less than 9 percent.
The analysis of Senator Sanders’ prospects could be more precise than 50-50, if we knew a common indicator of his current cardiac status, called the “the left ventricular ejection fraction.” This measures the blood volume a person’s heart pushes out with each heartbeat. According to an interview by NBC News with the president of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. Richard Kovacs, the results are closely associated with a patient’s expected mortality rate. By this measure, the normal blood volume level is 60 percent. At 40 to 50 percent, the functioning of the heart’s left ventricle is said to be mildly impaired; at 30 percent to 40 percent, moderately impaired; and at 30 percent or less, severely impaired.
It is certainly reasonable that voters know those results for a 78-year old potential nominee with a heart condition. Thus far, Senator Sanders has refused. If he persists and is nominated, voters will have to consider very carefully his choice for vice president, since the odds that a vice president would succeed a President Sanders for medical reasons during his first term will jump from an average 9 percent to 50 percent.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-27--‘Slavery Didn’t End in 1865. It Just Evolved.’

It will be interesting to see how Donald Trump responds to the fact that both the House and the Senate have passed legislation that makes lynching a federal hate crime .
The Senate passed the bill unanimously and in the House , the vote was 410-4 .
As Erin Logan reports , this is something that Congress has failed to do for over 100 years .
Lawmakers in the first half of the 20th Century tried nearly 200 times to address lynching on a federal level .
Although seven presidents supported such efforts , none were successful… The first efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level came in 1870 , when President Ulysses S. Grant approved legislation to subdue the actions of white-supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan… Michael J. Pfeifer , history professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice , told The Washington Post in an email that legislative failure to federally penalize assailants was largely because of Southern lawmakers ’ stonewalling .
“ Asserting a doctrine of ‘ states ’ rights , ’ Southern Democratic senators consistently thwarted federal anti-lynching legislation over the decades , ” Pfeifer said .
“ So although federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House in the 1920s and ’ 30s , through the filibuster and other means , Southern Democrats were able to block federal anti-lynching legislation.
” The topic of lynchings in America has been renewed recently by Bryan Stevenson , founder of the Equal Justice Initiative and author of the book Just Mercy , which has been made into a movie .
Stevenson began his career by defending people on death row , primarily in Alabama .
Here is how he explains the connection between that work and his efforts to document the history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says that slavery didn ’ t end in 1865 , it just evolved .
There is a line from slavery through racial terrorism , through segregation , that is evident in what we see in our criminal justice system today .
I am persuaded that we really won ’ t eliminate the problems of discrimination in the criminal justice system , in the education system , in the employment system until we change the narrative of racial difference that we have all accepted… These acts of humiliation and degradation created this desensitizing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of bias or discrimination .
We are indifferent to innocent people being wrongly condemned on death row for thirty years .
I think there is a historical root to that silence .
One of the results of Stevenson ’ s work is a report titled “ Lynchings in America , ” which documents over 4,000 instances of the racial terror between 1877 and 1950 predominantly ( but not exclusively ) in the South .
Lynching in America makes the case that lynching of African Americans was terrorism , a widely supported phenomenon used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lynchings were violent and public events that traumatized black people throughout the country and were largely tolerated by state and federal officials .
This was not “ frontier justice ” carried out by a few marginalized vigilantes or extremists .
Instead , many African Americans who were never accused of any crime were tortured and murdered in front of picnicking spectators ( including elected officials and prominent citizens ) for bumping into a white person , or wearing their military uniforms after World War I , or not using the appropriate title when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participated in lynchings were celebrated and acted with impunity .
One way we can re-sensitize ourselves to this history is to listen to the stories of people like Shirah .
Shirah ’ s great grandfather was lynched in Shreveport , Louisiana .
As part of Caddo Parish , it represents the community with the second highest number of lynchings in the country .
That begins to bring this all home to me because I grew up in the town of Longview , Texas , which is just 60 miles west of Shreveport .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the history classes I attended , I was interested in learning more about what happened in the area around my hometown .
One of the things I learned is that there was a race riot in the town of Longview back in 1919 .
It was actually part of what has become known as the “ red summer , ” which included anti-black white supremacists attacks in more than three dozen cities .
Here is how the Texas State Historical Association describes the incidents that led to the riot in Longview .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the riot because two locally prominent black leaders , Samuel L. Jones and Dr. Calvin P. Davis , had urged black farmers to avoid local white cotton brokers and sell directly to buyers in Galveston .
Then an article in the July 10 issue of the Chicago Defender…described the death of a young black man , Lemuel Walters , in Longview .
The article reported that Walters and an unnamed white woman from Kilgore , Texas , were in love and quoted her as saying they would have married if they had lived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the article , was safely locked in the Gregg County Jail until the sheriff willingly handed him over to a white mob that murdered him on June 17 .
Jones , a teacher in the Longview school system and a local correspondent for the Chicago Defender , was held responsible for the article , and on Thursday , July 10 , he was accosted and beaten , supposedly by two brothers of the Kilgore woman .
The congressman who currently represents the district that includes Longview is Republican Louie Gohmert .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who voted against the anti-lynching bill on Wednesday .
History is alive and well in northeast Texas .
I hope you ’ ll forgive me for writing so much about my hometown .
But this is exactly what Stevenson is suggesting that we all need to do .
In order to shed our indifference to the way that slavery has evolved , we need to unlock the silence about our own past by putting it into human terms .
I grew up in a community that was scarred by what happened to people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Shirah ’ s great grandfather .
Their deaths are examples of the kind of terrorism that was designed to instill fear as a way to entrench white supremacy .
That legacy lives on today , most notably in our criminal justice system .

It will be interesting to see how Donald Trump responds to the fact that both the House and the Senate have passed legislation that makes lynching a federal hate crime. The Senate passed the bill unanimously and in the House, the vote was 410-4. As Erin Logan reports, this is something that Congress has failed to do for over 100 years.
Lawmakers in the first half of the 20th Century tried nearly 200 times to address lynching on a federal level. Although seven presidents supported such efforts, none were successful… The first efforts to address this lawlessness on the federal level came in 1870, when President Ulysses S. Grant approved legislation to subdue the actions of white-supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan… Michael J. Pfeifer, history professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, told The Washington Post in an email that legislative failure to federally penalize assailants was largely because of Southern lawmakers’ stonewalling. “Asserting a doctrine of ‘states’ rights,’ Southern Democratic senators consistently thwarted federal anti-lynching legislation over the decades,” Pfeifer said. “So although federal anti-lynching legislation enjoyed majority support in the House in the 1920s and ’30s, through the filibuster and other means, Southern Democrats were able to block federal anti-lynching legislation.”
The topic of lynchings in America has been renewed recently by Bryan Stevenson, founder of the Equal Justice Initiative and author of the book Just Mercy, which has been made into a movie. Stevenson began his career by defending people on death row, primarily in Alabama. Here is how he explains the connection between that work and his efforts to document the history of lynchings in this country.
Stevenson says that slavery didn’t end in 1865, it just evolved.
There is a line from slavery through racial terrorism, through segregation, that is evident in what we see in our criminal justice system today. I am persuaded that we really won’t eliminate the problems of discrimination in the criminal justice system, in the education system, in the employment system until we change the narrative of racial difference that we have all accepted… These acts of humiliation and degradation created this desensitizing to victimization. We are indifferent to evidence of bias or discrimination. We are indifferent to innocent people being wrongly condemned on death row for thirty years. I think there is a historical root to that silence.
One of the results of Stevenson’s work is a report titled “Lynchings in America,” which documents over 4,000 instances of the racial terror between 1877 and 1950 predominantly (but not exclusively) in the South.
Lynching in America makes the case that lynching of African Americans was terrorism, a widely supported phenomenon used to enforce racial subordination and segregation. Lynchings were violent and public events that traumatized black people throughout the country and were largely tolerated by state and federal officials. This was not “frontier justice” carried out by a few marginalized vigilantes or extremists. Instead, many African Americans who were never accused of any crime were tortured and murdered in front of picnicking spectators (including elected officials and prominent citizens) for bumping into a white person, or wearing their military uniforms after World War I, or not using the appropriate title when addressing a white person. People who participated in lynchings were celebrated and acted with impunity.
One way we can re-sensitize ourselves to this history is to listen to the stories of people like Shirah.
Shirah’s great grandfather was lynched in Shreveport, Louisiana. As part of Caddo Parish, it represents the community with the second highest number of lynchings in the country. That begins to bring this all home to me because I grew up in the town of Longview, Texas, which is just 60 miles west of Shreveport. Because none of these stories were included in the history classes I attended, I was interested in learning more about what happened in the area around my hometown.
One of the things I learned is that there was a race riot in the town of Longview back in 1919. It was actually part of what has become known as the “red summer,” which included anti-black white supremacists attacks in more than three dozen cities. Here is how the Texas State Historical Association describes the incidents that led to the riot in Longview.
Racial tension was especially high immediately before the riot because two locally prominent black leaders, Samuel L. Jones and Dr. Calvin P. Davis, had urged black farmers to avoid local white cotton brokers and sell directly to buyers in Galveston. Then an article in the July 10 issue of the Chicago Defender…described the death of a young black man, Lemuel Walters, in Longview. The article reported that Walters and an unnamed white woman from Kilgore, Texas, were in love and quoted her as saying they would have married if they had lived in the North. Walters, according to the article, was safely locked in the Gregg County Jail until the sheriff willingly handed him over to a white mob that murdered him on June 17. Jones, a teacher in the Longview school system and a local correspondent for the Chicago Defender, was held responsible for the article, and on Thursday, July 10, he was accosted and beaten, supposedly by two brothers of the Kilgore woman.
The congressman who currently represents the district that includes Longview is Republican Louie Gohmert. He is one of the four House members who voted against the anti-lynching bill on Wednesday. History is alive and well in northeast Texas.
I hope you’ll forgive me for writing so much about my hometown. But this is exactly what Stevenson is suggesting that we all need to do. In order to shed our indifference to the way that slavery has evolved, we need to unlock the silence about our own past by putting it into human terms.
I grew up in a community that was scarred by what happened to people like Lemuel Walters, Samuel Jones, and Shirah’s great grandfather. Their deaths are examples of the kind of terrorism that was designed to instill fear as a way to entrench white supremacy. That legacy lives on today, most notably in our criminal justice system.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-27--The Arrogance of Michael Bloomberg

The Arrogance of Michael Bloomberg

I want to talk about the arrogance of Michael Bloomberg for a moment , but to make my point I need to talk about the big themes that have driven the left over the last 12 years .
Before the election of Donald Trump , the left was defined by the # Occupy and # BlackLivesMatter movements .
After Trump ’ s election , the focus shifted to # TrumpRussia and # MeToo , but the prior concerns did not go away .
The left has been criticized for focusing too much on identity politics and not enough on bread-and-butter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being accused of obsessing about Trump and the integrity of the last election and not putting enough emphasis on the things that concern people in their day-to-day lives .
The truth is that there has always been a mix .
Irrespective of what Democratic leaders choose to highlight in any given week , the left is split between those who are focused most on economic and global issues like climate change , corporatism , trade and income inequality , and those who are focused most on civil rights and more fairness for women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LGBTQ community .
Bloomberg has a good record on two major issues that are of major concern to the left : gun violence and climate change .
As for the rest , he ’ s about the worst fit for the left that can be imagined .
On the economic front , he sees Social Security as a Ponzi scheme and thinks a wealth tax would be unconstitutional .
On the cultural front , the stop and frisk policy he championed as the mayor of New York was exactly the kind of thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his record with women makes him a prime target of the # MeToo movement .
It ’ s hard to exaggerate what an affront it is to ask women who are sickened by Trump to support Bloomberg , or to the ask the same of folks who have been fighting to end police brutality against minority communities .
To see how offensive Bloomberg is to the economic populists , just look at the visceral reaction to him we saw from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the Nevada and South Carolina debates .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a good fit for this party and this time .
Any objective observer would disabuse him of that notion , but he believes he can just overcome dissent with money .
I don ’ t know what offends me the most , the idea that his ambition should cancel out the values of the Democratic Party or the idea that people are so suggestible that paid advertising can cause them to abandon their principles .
Bloomberg has always treated party affiliation ( whether Republican , Democratic , or independent ) as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now he appears to believe that he ’ s the only person who can beat Trump and that he can simply spend the other candidates out of contention and Trump out of office .
Virtually everything about his campaign is offensive , including that it ’ s even legal for him to use so much of his fortune to swamp the armies of small donors who have ponied up for other candidates .
He ’ s succeeded in raising the cost of advertising and staff for his opponents who , as a result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build their organizations or get their messages out .
It might have worked for Bloomberg if he didn ’ t have such a public record of being terrible on the things that matter to the left , but it was the height of arrogance for him to think that none of that would matter .

I want to talk about the arrogance of Michael Bloomberg for a moment, but to make my point I need to talk about the big themes that have driven the left over the last 12 years. Before the election of Donald Trump, the left was defined by the #Occupy and #BlackLivesMatter movements. After Trump’s election, the focus shifted to #TrumpRussia and #MeToo, but the prior concerns did not go away. The left has been criticized for focusing too much on identity politics and not enough on bread-and-butter issues. Likewise, they’re being accused of obsessing about Trump and the integrity of the last election and not putting enough emphasis on the things that concern people in their day-to-day lives. The truth is that there has always been a mix.
Irrespective of what Democratic leaders choose to highlight in any given week, the left is split between those who are focused most on economic and global issues like climate change, corporatism, trade and income inequality, and those who are focused most on civil rights and more fairness for women, minorities, and people in the LGBTQ community.
Bloomberg has a good record on two major issues that are of major concern to the left: gun violence and climate change. As for the rest, he’s about the worst fit for the left that can be imagined. On the economic front, he sees Social Security as a Ponzi scheme and thinks a wealth tax would be unconstitutional. On the cultural front, the stop and frisk policy he championed as the mayor of New York was exactly the kind of thing that #BlackLivesMatter rails against, and his record with women makes him a prime target of the #MeToo movement.
It’s hard to exaggerate what an affront it is to ask women who are sickened by Trump to support Bloomberg, or to the ask the same of folks who have been fighting to end police brutality against minority communities. To see how offensive Bloomberg is to the economic populists, just look at the visceral reaction to him we saw from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the Nevada and South Carolina debates.
Yet, Bloomberg somehow thinks he’s a good fit for this party and this time. Any objective observer would disabuse him of that notion, but he believes he can just overcome dissent with money. I don’t know what offends me the most, the idea that his ambition should cancel out the values of the Democratic Party or the idea that people are so suggestible that paid advertising can cause them to abandon their principles.
Bloomberg has always treated party affiliation (whether Republican, Democratic, or independent) as a matter of strategy rather than principle. Now he appears to believe that he’s the only person who can beat Trump and that he can simply spend the other candidates out of contention and Trump out of office.
Virtually everything about his campaign is offensive, including that it’s even legal for him to use so much of his fortune to swamp the armies of small donors who have ponied up for other candidates. He’s succeeded in raising the cost of advertising and staff for his opponents who, as a result, have less of an opportunity to build their organizations or get their messages out.
It might have worked for Bloomberg if he didn’t have such a public record of being terrible on the things that matter to the left, but it was the height of arrogance for him to think that none of that would matter.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-27--We’re in the Process of Hiring a President. What Should We Be Looking For?

It is understandable that for Democrats , the most important factor in choosing a candidate to support in the Democratic primary is electability .
Given our current situation , nothing is more important than beating Donald Trump .
The problem with that criteria is that it is almost impossible to quantify .
For example , Amy Klobuchar ’ s claims to that effect are no more valid than the case Bernie Sanders is making .
It is possible that some of the chaos we ’ re seeing in the Democratic primary is a result of voters chasing phantoms when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the conversation about who to support mostly revolves around differences in policies .
One of the big ones this time around has been whether a candidate supports Medicare for All or an expansion of Obamacare .
But those kinds of differences ultimately lead to questions about how much of a candidate ’ s agenda can actually be enacted .
Even if Democrats gain a majority in the Senate and eliminate the filibuster , would Sanders be able to get enough Democrats on board to pass Medicare for All ?
That seems highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a discussion about a candidate ’ s theory of change .
Warren wants to get rid of the filibuster and Buttigieg has proposed structural reforms .
But none of those things happen without a Senate majority combined with unanimity among Democrats .
Sanders says that the millions of people he inspires to join his revolution will force Republicans and reluctant Democrats to vote for his agenda .
But those claims are dubious as well .
What doesn ’ t get as much attention is the fact that , as every day goes by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government and putting his own incompetent loyalists in charge .
Any Democrat who wins in November will immediately face a colossal mess that needs to be cleaned up before anything else can get done .
Which candidate is best prepared to manage that in an expeditious manner is something Democrats should be considering .
I also think about a couple of intangibles that Michelle Obama talked about during her speech at the 2012 Democratic convention .
I have seen firsthand that being president doesn ’ t change who you are – it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I ’ ve gotten to see up close and personal what being president really looks like .
And I ’ ve seen how the issues that come across a President ’ s desk are always the hard ones – the problems where no amount of data or numbers will get you to the right answer…the judgment calls where the stakes are so high , and there is no margin for error .
And as President , you can get all kinds of advice from all kinds of people .
But at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes time to make that decision , as President , all you have to guide you are your values , and your vision , and the life experiences that make you who you are .
I ’ ve often thought that many of the really big things a president faces are the unknowns—those that were never predicted during their campaign for office .
As Michelle suggests , only the issues where the stakes are high and there ’ s no margin for error come across a president ’ s desk .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well you listen , how fast you learn , and how well your values guide your judgement .
I am reminded of what Melissa Harris-Perry wrote about Barack Obama , having known him long before he ran for president .
These early encounters with Obama remind me that he is President not solely , or even primarily , because of innate gifts , but because he moves up a learning curve more swiftly and fully than anyone else in public life .
My consistent support for President Obama , despite my real differences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues , is deeply rooted in my understanding of his openness to and capacity for learning .
I trust that when he does not have the answer he will seek it .
I trust that when he fails with one strategy , he will adjust .
I trust that when he needs a new skill , he will learn it .
I trust that when he needs advice , he will seek it .
I will admit that those kinds of qualities are even less quantifiable than the concept of electability .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees in my previous line of work , I can assure you that people do it every day in the field of human resources—some better than others .
Success usually hinges on having an open mind , while being clear about what you ’ re looking for .
When it comes to politics , we can be tricked into thinking that the only things that matter are electability and the candidate ’ s position on issues .
I would never suggest that either of those things are unimportant .
But when it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the job , Michelle and Melissa tapped into the kinds of things that make or break a presidency .

It is understandable that for Democrats, the most important factor in choosing a candidate to support in the Democratic primary is electability. Given our current situation, nothing is more important than beating Donald Trump.
The problem with that criteria is that it is almost impossible to quantify. For example, Amy Klobuchar’s claims to that effect are no more valid than the case Bernie Sanders is making. It is possible that some of the chaos we’re seeing in the Democratic primary is a result of voters chasing phantoms when it comes to electability.
For political junkies, the conversation about who to support mostly revolves around differences in policies. One of the big ones this time around has been whether a candidate supports Medicare for All or an expansion of Obamacare. But those kinds of differences ultimately lead to questions about how much of a candidate’s agenda can actually be enacted. Even if Democrats gain a majority in the Senate and eliminate the filibuster, would Sanders be able to get enough Democrats on board to pass Medicare for All? That seems highly unlikely.
Those questions usually lead to a discussion about a candidate’s theory of change. Warren wants to get rid of the filibuster and Buttigieg has proposed structural reforms. But none of those things happen without a Senate majority combined with unanimity among Democrats. Sanders says that the millions of people he inspires to join his revolution will force Republicans and reluctant Democrats to vote for his agenda. But those claims are dubious as well.
What doesn’t get as much attention is the fact that, as every day goes by, the current president is dismantling the federal government and putting his own incompetent loyalists in charge. Any Democrat who wins in November will immediately face a colossal mess that needs to be cleaned up before anything else can get done. Which candidate is best prepared to manage that in an expeditious manner is something Democrats should be considering.
I also think about a couple of intangibles that Michelle Obama talked about during her speech at the 2012 Democratic convention.
I have seen firsthand that being president doesn’t change who you are – it reveals who you are. You see, I’ve gotten to see up close and personal what being president really looks like. And I’ve seen how the issues that come across a President’s desk are always the hard ones – the problems where no amount of data or numbers will get you to the right answer…the judgment calls where the stakes are so high, and there is no margin for error. And as President, you can get all kinds of advice from all kinds of people. But at the end of the day, when it comes time to make that decision, as President, all you have to guide you are your values, and your vision, and the life experiences that make you who you are.
I’ve often thought that many of the really big things a president faces are the unknowns—those that were never predicted during their campaign for office. As Michelle suggests, only the issues where the stakes are high and there’s no margin for error come across a president’s desk. In the end, it comes down to how well you listen, how fast you learn, and how well your values guide your judgement.
I am reminded of what Melissa Harris-Perry wrote about Barack Obama, having known him long before he ran for president.
These early encounters with Obama remind me that he is President not solely, or even primarily, because of innate gifts, but because he moves up a learning curve more swiftly and fully than anyone else in public life. My consistent support for President Obama, despite my real differences with him on a number of policy issues, is deeply rooted in my understanding of his openness to and capacity for learning. I trust that when he does not have the answer he will seek it. I trust that when he fails with one strategy, he will adjust. I trust that when he needs a new skill, he will learn it. I trust that when he needs advice, he will seek it.
I will admit that those kinds of qualities are even less quantifiable than the concept of electability. But as someone who hired a lot of employees in my previous line of work, I can assure you that people do it every day in the field of human resources—some better than others. Success usually hinges on having an open mind, while being clear about what you’re looking for.
When it comes to politics, we can be tricked into thinking that the only things that matter are electability and the candidate’s position on issues. I would never suggest that either of those things are unimportant. But when it comes to how a candidate will actually perform on the job, Michelle and Melissa tapped into the kinds of things that make or break a presidency.