washingtonmonthly--2020-08-13--No, Trump Hasn’t Done More for Blacks Than Any President Since Lincoln

Donald Trump and his operatives haven ’ t figured out how to go after Kamala Harris .
Now that Joe Biden has named her to be his running mate , they are discovering she ’ s hard to tear down .
It would come as no surprise then , if Trump starts to double down on his famous boast : “ I ’ ve done more for Black Americans , in fact , than any President in U.S. history , with the possible exception of another Republican President , the late , great Abraham Lincoln.
” There ’ s one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presiding over historic economic progress by African Americans is demonstrably false .
Even before the collapse in employment triggered by the pandemic and his terrible mismanagement of it , data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS ) show that African Americans had seen smaller job gains and smaller reductions in unemployment under Trump than under his nemesis Barack Obama or under Bill Clinton .
The president ’ s distortion field is not limited to Black Americans when it comes to jobs , especially during this pandemic .
When the BLS released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July last week , the White House crowed that “ [ j ] ob growth has shattered expectations … over the past three months.
” The data clearly show that job losses have soared across every group since the pandemic took hold here in March .
They also show that the increases in African American unemployment over the last four months wiped out all of their job gains since Trump took office .
Trump ’ s extravagant declarations about helping African Americans rest on one fact : For two years of his presidency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – more than 19 million—were employed .
That fact is not the whole story .
To properly gauge Trump ’ s record on jobs and African Americans , we can track the job gains and losses by African Americans from the month Trump took office to February of this year , before the pandemic hit home , and compare the results to what happened during comparable periods under other presidents .
Let ’ s consider what happened under Obama from January 2013 to February 2016 and under Clinton from January 1996 to February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what happened under Trump from January 2017 to February 2020 .
The data show that Trump runs a clear third , especially compared to Obama .
To start , job gains by African Americans were 34 percent larger under Obama than Trump—1,748,000 compared to 1,304,000 .
Further , the number of unemployed African Americans fell three times as much under Obama as under Trump—by 895,000 compared to less than 278,000—and the unemployment rate for African Americans fell 5.2 percentage-points under Obama , compared to 1.7 points under Trump .
Clinton also beats Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or 10.9 percent , under Clinton from January 1997 to February 2000 , compared to the gains of 1,304,000 , or 7.1 percent , during the comparable period for Trump .
The decline in unemployed African Americans was fairly close during the two periods : 321,000 under Clinton versus , the 278,000 under Trump .
But the African American jobless rate fell 2.7 percentage points under Clinton versus 1.7 points under Trump .
Only in an alternate universe could these results demonstrate that Trump has “ done more for Black Americans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. history.
” Trump ’ s jobs record since the pandemic is actually a historic failure for everyone , and certainly African Americans .
From March to July , the number of employed African Americans fell 2,047,000 , and Black unemployment jumped 1,546,000 , or more than 111 percent .
These job losses outweighed all of the preceding job gains under President Trump ; by July , 1,265,000 fewer African Americans had jobs than when he took office .
Over the four months from March to July , total employment fell 12,350,000 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since March 2013 , apart from April , May , and June of this year .
Similarly , total joblessness soared by 9,198,000 , an astounding 129 percent increase from March .
By denying that anything serious was happening , Trump ’ s political instincts failed him : His own core supporters are concentrated in groups hit particularly hard by the pandemic ’ s unemployment tsunami .
From March to July , the jobless numbers jumped 129 percent for whites and 128 percent for high school graduates and those without a diploma .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ followers exceed even the 111 percent surge among African Americans .
It is virtually certain that very few Black Americans want to thank Donald Trump for their job prospects and overall economic plight under his stewardship .
His wishing away reality and lying about it won ’ t change that .

Donald Trump and his operatives haven’t figured out how to go after Kamala Harris. Now that Joe Biden has named her to be his running mate, they are discovering she’s hard to tear down. It would come as no surprise then, if Trump starts to double down on his famous boast: “I’ve done more for Black Americans, in fact, than any President in U.S. history, with the possible exception of another Republican President, the late, great Abraham Lincoln.”
There’s one problem. Trump’s claim of presiding over historic economic progress by African Americans is demonstrably false. Even before the collapse in employment triggered by the pandemic and his terrible mismanagement of it, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that African Americans had seen smaller job gains and smaller reductions in unemployment under Trump than under his nemesis Barack Obama or under Bill Clinton.
The president’s distortion field is not limited to Black Americans when it comes to jobs, especially during this pandemic. When the BLS released the nation’s employment report for July last week, the White House crowed that “[j]ob growth has shattered expectations … over the past three months.” The data clearly show that job losses have soared across every group since the pandemic took hold here in March. They also show that the increases in African American unemployment over the last four months wiped out all of their job gains since Trump took office.
Trump’s extravagant declarations about helping African Americans rest on one fact: For two years of his presidency, a record number of African Americans – more than 19 million—were employed. That fact is not the whole story. To properly gauge Trump’s record on jobs and African Americans, we can track the job gains and losses by African Americans from the month Trump took office to February of this year, before the pandemic hit home, and compare the results to what happened during comparable periods under other presidents.
Let’s consider what happened under Obama from January 2013 to February 2016 and under Clinton from January 1996 to February 2000. Then, we can compare what happened under Trump from January 2017 to February 2020. The data show that Trump runs a clear third, especially compared to Obama. To start, job gains by African Americans were 34 percent larger under Obama than Trump—1,748,000 compared to 1,304,000. Further, the number of unemployed African Americans fell three times as much under Obama as under Trump—by 895,000 compared to less than 278,000—and the unemployment rate for African Americans fell 5.2 percentage-points under Obama, compared to 1.7 points under Trump.
Clinton also beats Trump. African American employment jumped by 1,497,000, or 10.9 percent, under Clinton from January 1997 to February 2000, compared to the gains of 1,304,000, or 7.1 percent, during the comparable period for Trump. The decline in unemployed African Americans was fairly close during the two periods: 321,000 under Clinton versus, the 278,000 under Trump. But the African American jobless rate fell 2.7 percentage points under Clinton versus 1.7 points under Trump.
Only in an alternate universe could these results demonstrate that Trump has “done more for Black Americans, in fact, than any President in U.S. history.”
Trump’s jobs record since the pandemic is actually a historic failure for everyone, and certainly African Americans. From March to July, the number of employed African Americans fell 2,047,000, and Black unemployment jumped 1,546,000, or more than 111 percent. These job losses outweighed all of the preceding job gains under President Trump; by July, 1,265,000 fewer African Americans had jobs than when he took office.
Over the four months from March to July, total employment fell 12,350,000, reaching the lowest monthly level in July since March 2013, apart from April, May, and June of this year. Similarly, total joblessness soared by 9,198,000, an astounding 129 percent increase from March.
By denying that anything serious was happening, Trump’s political instincts failed him: His own core supporters are concentrated in groups hit particularly hard by the pandemic’s unemployment tsunami. From March to July, the jobless numbers jumped 129 percent for whites and 128 percent for high school graduates and those without a diploma. Those unemployment increases among Trump’s followers exceed even the 111 percent surge among African Americans.
It is virtually certain that very few Black Americans want to thank Donald Trump for their job prospects and overall economic plight under his stewardship. His wishing away reality and lying about it won’t change that.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-13--How Racists Will Try To Smear Kamala Harris

Even before Biden announced that Kamala Harris would be his running mate , the racist attacks began .
It all started with a form of birtherism 2.0 .
Of course , that ’ s nonsense .
But just to be clear , Harris was born in Oakland , California , which makes her a U.S. citizen , regardless of the fact that her parents were immigrants .
Given Trump ’ s history , it wouldn ’ t surprise me to hear him refer to the vice presidential nominee as an “ anchor baby ” in order to revert to his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutional provision granting citizenship to anyone born in this country .
Over the years he has consistently suggested that he has the power to simply overturn that provision .
There is , however , another racist claim circulating about Kamala Harris .
This one is an attempt to paint Harris as somehow different from the rest of the African American community in this country .
Dinesh D ’ Souza has been obsessed with it on his Twitter account .
D ’ Souza makes that claim based on something Harris ’ s father wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He said that his “ roots go back , within my lifetime , to my paternal grandmother Miss Chrishy ( Christiana Brown , descendent of Hamilton Brown who is on record as a plantation and slave owner and founder of Brown ’ s Town ) .
” I was reminded of the fact that Alice Walker got some criticism from the African American community when she portrayed Celie ’ s husband , Albert , as abusive in her book The Color Purple .
Walker responded by pointing out that she went to great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as light skinned in both the book and the movie .
Walker explained that she did that in order to make it clear that Albert ’ s father was the son of both a slave and a slave owner , suggesting the confluence of the oppressor and the oppressed .
She wrote this poem about her own ancestry .
for two who slipped away almost entirely : my “ part ” Cherokee great-grandmother Tallulah ( Grandmama Lula ) on my mother ’ s side about whom only one agreed-upon thing is known : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sit on it : And my white ( Anglo-Irish ) great-great-grandfather on my father ’ s side nameless ( Walker , perhaps ? )
whose only remembered act is that he raped a child ; my great-great-grandmother , who bore his son , my great-grandfather , when she was eleven .
Rest in peace .
The meaning of your lives is still unfolding .
If true , this part of Harris ’ s background actually does the opposite of what D ’ Souza was hoping to accomplish .
It solidifies her connection to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were enslaved in this country .
Meanwhile , D ’ Souza , who pretends to know a lot about history , has once again demonstrated his ignorance and provided a “ teachable moment ” for the rest of us to learn something .

Even before Biden announced that Kamala Harris would be his running mate, the racist attacks began. It all started with a form of birtherism 2.0.
If crazy Joe cannot serve his full term, Kamala cannot by constitutional law become President. She is an anchor baby, mother is from India, father is Jamaican, and neither were american citizens at time of her birth.
Of course, that’s nonsense. But just to be clear, Harris was born in Oakland, California, which makes her a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that her parents were immigrants.
Given Trump’s history, it wouldn’t surprise me to hear him refer to the vice presidential nominee as an “anchor baby” in order to revert to his claim that brown people are abusing the constitutional provision granting citizenship to anyone born in this country. Over the years he has consistently suggested that he has the power to simply overturn that provision.
There is, however, another racist claim circulating about Kamala Harris. This one is an attempt to paint Harris as somehow different from the rest of the African American community in this country. Dinesh D’Souza has been obsessed with it on his Twitter account.
D’Souza makes that claim based on something Harris’s father wrote about his own ancestry in Jamaica. He said that his “roots go back, within my lifetime, to my paternal grandmother Miss Chrishy (Christiana Brown, descendent of Hamilton Brown who is on record as a plantation and slave owner and founder of Brown’s Town).”
As the information spread, Black Twitter responded.
I was reminded of the fact that Alice Walker got some criticism from the African American community when she portrayed Celie’s husband, Albert, as abusive in her book The Color Purple. Walker responded by pointing out that she went to great lengths to depict Albert’s father as light skinned in both the book and the movie.
Walker explained that she did that in order to make it clear that Albert’s father was the son of both a slave and a slave owner, suggesting the confluence of the oppressor and the oppressed. She wrote this poem about her own ancestry.
for two who
slipped away
almost
entirely:
my “part” Cherokee
great-grandmother
Tallulah
(Grandmama Lula)
on my mother’s side
about whom
only one
agreed-upon
thing
is known:
her hair was so long
she could sit on it: And my white (Anglo-Irish)
great-great-grandfather
on my father’s side
nameless
(Walker, perhaps?)
whose only remembered act
is that he raped
a child;
my great-great-grandmother,
who bore his son,
my great-grandfather,
when she was eleven. Rest in peace.
The meaning of your lives
is still
unfolding.
If true, this part of Harris’s background actually does the opposite of what D’Souza was hoping to accomplish. It solidifies her connection to the experience of African Americans whose ancestors were enslaved in this country. Meanwhile, D’Souza, who pretends to know a lot about history, has once again demonstrated his ignorance and provided a “teachable moment” for the rest of us to learn something.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-13--How Trump Is Once Again Colluding With Russia

Almost two weeks ago , a story circulated that Portland protesters were burning Bibles and American flags .
It spread via social media and was picked up by conservative outlets , such as the Washington Examiner .
Of course , several Republican leaders joined the bandwagon .
Two reporters at the New York Times , Matthew Rosenberg and Julian Barnes , decided to look into the story and found Vladimir Putin ’ s fingerprints all over it .
As is often the case with effective propaganda , this story contains a kernel of truth .
Apparently , some group was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and one of them was used to start a fire .
An American flag was also burned .
But a local paper covering the protests that night devoted just one sentence to that story in a lengthy piece about what happened .
The video news agency connected to Russia Today ( RT ) was regularly streaming a live feed of the Portland protests .
They edited the clip of the fire and made it the focal point of their protest coverage that night .
Then , RT did an entire story about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the next thing you know , outlets like the Washington Examiner were picking it up .
Here is how Rosenberg and Barnes summarized the process : The Russian technique is a kind of information laundering , akin to money laundering .
Stories originate with Russian-backed news sites , some of them directly connected to Moscow ’ s spy agencies , officials and experts said .
They are then picked up by Americans on social media or in domestic news outlets , and their origins quickly become obscured .
Often , by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American audience , there is little to indicate that it was created to fuel grievances and deepen political divisions .
Following Trump ’ s press briefing on Wednesday , Hunter Walker tracked down another example of Russia ’ s attempt to get their propaganda in the news .
He wrote about the question OAN reporter Chanel Rion asked the president .
Rion : In the last hour or so , if you googled antifa.com .
it would take you straight to Joe Biden ’ s website , his official campaign website .
Odd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ’ s behind that .
But it raises an interesting leadership question .
Should Joe Biden , the Democrat party , Kamala Harris– should they publicly denounce the Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization ?
Trump : They should .
I think they ’ re afraid to .
It ’ s– in my book it ’ s virtually a part of their campaign , Antifa .
The Democrats act like , gee , I don ’ t know exactly what that is .
Take a look at Portland .
Take a look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a look at , and they ’ re all over the place .
They were here .
Basically Rion gave Trump the opportunity to claim that Antifa is part of the Biden campaign—which is , of course , a blatant lie .
Walker looked into what actually happened with the antifa.com website .
Once again , as Pelosi said , “ all roads lead to Putin.
” Russia set up the antifa.com website and eventually redirected it to Biden ’ s campaign page , allowing the president to claim that the group was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this raises the old question of whether this was all coordinated with the president or if Trump is simply taking advantage of Putin ’ s efforts .
The same questions are raised about the role of OAN in these kinds of Russian propaganda efforts .
So there you have two examples of how Russia is currently interfering in the 2020 election to support the reelection of Donald Trump .
One thing worth noting is that if these examples are reflective of their efforts , Vladimir Putin has calculated that his best bet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wars , ” something that has been the bedrock of the Republican strategy for decades .
The Bible burning story was especially useful for the Christian nationalists who want to scare their followers into thinking that , as Trump has suggested , Joe Biden is against God and the Bible .
It is important to keep in mind that the only reason we know about these Russian efforts is because some reporters put in the time to track down the story .
Senator Richard Blumenthal , who has seen what our intelligence services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2020 efforts “ make Moscow ’ s past interference and nefarious actions look like child ’ s play.
” But the Trump administration is keeping that information from the public , while the attorney general hypes the antifa story and puts all of his energy into accusing the Obama administration of “ spying ” into the Trump campaign .
That strikes me as the definition of collusion .

Almost two weeks ago, a story circulated that Portland protesters were burning Bibles and American flags. It spread via social media and was picked up by conservative outlets, such as the Washington Examiner. Of course, several Republican leaders joined the bandwagon.
Two reporters at the New York Times, Matthew Rosenberg and Julian Barnes, decided to look into the story and found Vladimir Putin’s fingerprints all over it. As is often the case with effective propaganda, this story contains a kernel of truth. Apparently, some group was handing out Bibles to protesters that night and one of them was used to start a fire. An American flag was also burned. But a local paper covering the protests that night devoted just one sentence to that story in a lengthy piece about what happened.
The video news agency connected to Russia Today (RT) was regularly streaming a live feed of the Portland protests. They edited the clip of the fire and made it the focal point of their protest coverage that night. Then, RT did an entire story about it. Social media took it from there and the next thing you know, outlets like the Washington Examiner were picking it up. Here is how Rosenberg and Barnes summarized the process:
The Russian technique is a kind of information laundering, akin to money laundering. Stories originate with Russian-backed news sites, some of them directly connected to Moscow’s spy agencies, officials and experts said. They are then picked up by Americans on social media or in domestic news outlets, and their origins quickly become obscured. Often, by the time a story reaches most of its American audience, there is little to indicate that it was created to fuel grievances and deepen political divisions.
Following Trump’s press briefing on Wednesday, Hunter Walker tracked down another example of Russia’s attempt to get their propaganda in the news. He wrote about the question OAN reporter Chanel Rion asked the president.
Rion: In the last hour or so, if you googled antifa.com. it would take you straight to Joe Biden’s website, his official campaign website. Odd situation. We don’t know who’s behind that. But it raises an interesting leadership question. Should Joe Biden, the Democrat party, Kamala Harris– should they publicly denounce the Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization? Trump: They should. I think they’re afraid to. It’s– in my book it’s virtually a part of their campaign, Antifa. The Democrats act like, gee, I don’t know exactly what that is. Take a look at Portland. Take a look at any place you want to take a look at, and they’re all over the place. They were here.
Basically Rion gave Trump the opportunity to claim that Antifa is part of the Biden campaign—which is, of course, a blatant lie.
Walker looked into what actually happened with the antifa.com website. Once again, as Pelosi said, “all roads lead to Putin.”
Records for “antifa.com” in the domain name database Whoisology.com show the site was registered in the Russian Federation from 2013 through last July. Starting last November, the site’s registration was moved to Panama, The website has always been anonymously registered and its owners could not be reached for comment.
Russia set up the antifa.com website and eventually redirected it to Biden’s campaign page, allowing the president to claim that the group was involved politically with Democrats. Of course, this raises the old question of whether this was all coordinated with the president or if Trump is simply taking advantage of Putin’s efforts. The same questions are raised about the role of OAN in these kinds of Russian propaganda efforts.
So there you have two examples of how Russia is currently interfering in the 2020 election to support the reelection of Donald Trump. One thing worth noting is that if these examples are reflective of their efforts, Vladimir Putin has calculated that his best bet is to inflame the so-called “culture wars,” something that has been the bedrock of the Republican strategy for decades. The Bible burning story was especially useful for the Christian nationalists who want to scare their followers into thinking that, as Trump has suggested, Joe Biden is against God and the Bible.
It is important to keep in mind that the only reason we know about these Russian efforts is because some reporters put in the time to track down the story. Senator Richard Blumenthal, who has seen what our intelligence services know about Russian interference, said that the 2020 efforts “make Moscow’s past interference and nefarious actions look like child’s play.” But the Trump administration is keeping that information from the public, while the attorney general hypes the antifa story and puts all of his energy into accusing the Obama administration of “spying” into the Trump campaign. That strikes me as the definition of collusion.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-13--How the Political Class Underestimated Joe Biden

John Harris of Politico wants to emphasize that Joe Biden is “ epically bland , ” but he has a strange way of making his case .
He begins his argument by acknowledging that an informal 2019 survey of “ about 15 campaign journalists , ” who he assures us “ are all smart and well-connected , ” found zero predictions that Biden would win the nomination .
Instead , they went for Beto O ’ Rourke or Kamala Harris on the theory that people are always looking for someone Kennedyesque .
Politico ’ s Harris acknowledges that this highlights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class fails to perceive powerful currents in the electorate , ” as if that ’ s by itself an adequate explanation .
But being horribly wrong is the disease .
What we want to know is how they got the disease , or why they were horribly wrong .
This isn ’ t a case where they simply missed some “ powerful currents.
” On April 12 , 2019 , before Biden had even formally announced his candidacy , I projected that he and Bernie Sanders would be the likely finalists of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ names .
I didn ’ t rely on my perception of the candidates ’ ability to emulate John F. Kennedy ’ s youthful energy and sex appeal .
I also didn ’ t rely on some lazy idea that the electorate always goes for someone whose qualities ( i.e.
, steadiness ) offset the flaws of the incumbent ( i.e.
, complete shitstorm ) .
I said that Biden and Sanders were in the best positions because they had the best name recognition and “ they are popular with Democrats all along the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confound and perplex political analysts and activists alike.
” I also pointed out that columnists who were dismissing their chances were taking “ no account how delegates are actually awarded in the Democratic primaries.
” In a simple formulation , Democrats liked Biden and Sanders a lot , and it simply wasn ’ t true that their appeal split or fell along ideological lines only .
Sanders had a lot of strength in white working class circles , and Biden was extremely well-liked in many progressives circles , particularly in the black community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of support that others would struggle in a crowded field to match .
Biden and Sanders would pile up delegates everywhere , even when losing , and grind out a lead over folks like Beto O ’ Rourke and Kamala Harris .
It wasn ’ t rocket science .
It was based heavily on how delegates are won in the nominating process and who was in the best position to win them .
In early 2019 , O ’ Rourke and Kamala Harris were in a terrible position , and projecting that that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kennedyesque qualities wasn ’ t serious political analysis .
Anyone on the street could have come up with that theory , as it was based entirely on feel and faith .
So , the reason these “ smart and well-connected ” political commentators were so terribly wrong is that they didn ’ t conduct actual analysis .
Instead , they did something that looks like this : First , the question wasn ’ t who was successful as a presidential candidate , but who was successful in winning their party ’ s nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Dukakis , Bob Dole , Al Gore and Mitt Romney , along with Gerald Ford and George H.W .
Bush .
When you include all the names , it becomes obvious that “ theatrical candidates ” don ’ t have any historical edge whatsoever .
It also doesn ’ t explain Richard Nixon ’ s immense political success .
Second , Politico ’ s Harris continues to underestimate Biden ’ s appeal to Democrats .
For some , he ’ s old and boring , but for others he ’ s warm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s a lot of love for Joe Biden , and a lot of appreciation for how well he served Barack Obama .
This certainly exceeds anything that could have been said about Walter Mondale .
Progressives missed this too , and they badly miscalculated how strong Biden would run in the primaries based almost wholly on this reserve of good will .
The pundit class also blew their prediction with respect to Bernie Sanders , for a similar reason .
They simply couldn ’ t understand that Sanders had the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that this cut across the whole ideological spectrum of the party .
Perhaps the political class needs to evaluate what charisma actually looks like , and maybe it doesn ’ t require youthful good looks and virility .
But more importantly , they should reevaluate the importance they place on superficial factors and pay more attention to mathematics and rules .
Biden and Sanders were the finalists , just as I predicted , because they were almost guaranteed to come in close to the top in every contest involving a crowded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work of building that advantage long before the 2020 campaign season commenced .
John Harris calls Biden “ a generic politician , wrapped in plain packaging , ” and marvels at how that seems to be just the right contrast to Donald Trump .
This , too , is overthinking things .
Any Democratic nominee would likely be in a similar position against Trump .
This election is a referendum on his performance in office , and his performance has been disastrous .
Policy proposals have marginal importance .
Identity politics aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a Trump “ yes or no ” election , and it ’ s very likely to be a no regardless of who Biden chose as his running mate or what he does or doesn ’ t do in the campaign .
Sometimes , the boring and bland analysis is the most reliable , but what you want from an analyst is accuracy and understanding , not some hot take about how a backbench congressman reminds them of a young Jack Kennedy .

John Harris of Politico wants to emphasize that Joe Biden is “epically bland,” but he has a strange way of making his case. He begins his argument by acknowledging that an informal 2019 survey of “about 15 campaign journalists,” who he assures us “are all smart and well-connected,” found zero predictions that Biden would win the nomination. Instead, they went for Beto O’Rourke or Kamala Harris on the theory that people are always looking for someone Kennedyesque.
Politico’s Harris acknowledges that this highlights “the frequency with which the political-media class fails to perceive powerful currents in the electorate,” as if that’s by itself an adequate explanation. But being horribly wrong is the disease. What we want to know is how they got the disease, or why they were horribly wrong. This isn’t a case where they simply missed some “powerful currents.”
On April 12, 2019, before Biden had even formally announced his candidacy, I projected that he and Bernie Sanders would be the likely finalists of a nominating process that then involved nearly 30 names. I didn’t rely on my perception of the candidates’ ability to emulate John F. Kennedy’s youthful energy and sex appeal. I also didn’t rely on some lazy idea that the electorate always goes for someone whose qualities (i.e., steadiness) offset the flaws of the incumbent (i.e., complete shitstorm).
I said that Biden and Sanders were in the best positions because they had the best name recognition and “they are popular with Democrats all along the ideological spectrum, and this seems to confound and perplex political analysts and activists alike.” I also pointed out that columnists who were dismissing their chances were taking “no account how delegates are actually awarded in the Democratic primaries.”
In a simple formulation, Democrats liked Biden and Sanders a lot, and it simply wasn’t true that their appeal split or fell along ideological lines only. Sanders had a lot of strength in white working class circles, and Biden was extremely well-liked in many progressives circles, particularly in the black community. They both had big built-in bases of support that others would struggle in a crowded field to match. Biden and Sanders would pile up delegates everywhere, even when losing, and grind out a lead over folks like Beto O’Rourke and Kamala Harris.
It wasn’t rocket science. It was based heavily on how delegates are won in the nominating process and who was in the best position to win them. In early 2019, O’Rourke and Kamala Harris were in a terrible position, and projecting that that would significantly change based on their supposed Kennedyesque qualities wasn’t serious political analysis. Anyone on the street could have come up with that theory, as it was based entirely on feel and faith.
So, the reason these “smart and well-connected” political commentators were so terribly wrong is that they didn’t conduct actual analysis. Instead, they did something that looks like this:
Since JFK inaugurated the television era of politics in 1960, successful presidential candidates have been theatrical candidates. The exceptions, like Gerald Ford or George H.W. Bush, had short tenures that tended to prove the rule. Winning politicians have had narrative electricity—they were performers and story-tellers who could command the attention of people who loathed them no less than those who revered them.
First, the question wasn’t who was successful as a presidential candidate, but who was successful in winning their party’s nomination. That list includes Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bob Dole, Al Gore and Mitt Romney, along with Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. When you include all the names, it becomes obvious that “theatrical candidates” don’t have any historical edge whatsoever. It also doesn’t explain Richard Nixon’s immense political success.
Second, Politico’s Harris continues to underestimate Biden’s appeal to Democrats. For some, he’s old and boring, but for others he’s warm and genuine and loyal and dependable. There’s a lot of love for Joe Biden, and a lot of appreciation for how well he served Barack Obama. This certainly exceeds anything that could have been said about Walter Mondale. Progressives missed this too, and they badly miscalculated how strong Biden would run in the primaries based almost wholly on this reserve of good will. The pundit class also blew their prediction with respect to Bernie Sanders, for a similar reason. They simply couldn’t understand that Sanders had the best approval ratings of any of the candidates, and that this cut across the whole ideological spectrum of the party. Perhaps the political class needs to evaluate what charisma actually looks like, and maybe it doesn’t require youthful good looks and virility.
But more importantly, they should reevaluate the importance they place on superficial factors and pay more attention to mathematics and rules. Biden and Sanders were the finalists, just as I predicted, because they were almost guaranteed to come in close to the top in every contest involving a crowded field. They had done the hard work of building that advantage long before the 2020 campaign season commenced.
John Harris calls Biden “a generic politician, wrapped in plain packaging,” and marvels at how that seems to be just the right contrast to Donald Trump. This, too, is overthinking things. Any Democratic nominee would likely be in a similar position against Trump. This election is a referendum on his performance in office, and his performance has been disastrous. Policy proposals have marginal importance. Identity politics aren’t likely to be determinative. This is a Trump “yes or no” election, and it’s very likely to be a no regardless of who Biden chose as his running mate or what he does or doesn’t do in the campaign.
Sometimes, the boring and bland analysis is the most reliable, but what you want from an analyst is accuracy and understanding, not some hot take about how a backbench congressman reminds them of a young Jack Kennedy.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-14--Are We Ready to Bring Some Basic Decency Back Into Politics?

In typical Trumpian fashion , the president engaged in the following attacks during his conversation with Maria Bartiromo on Thursday .
• AOC is not a smart woman , but she goes out and yaps .
• Barr should prosecute Obama/Biden before the election .
Of course , we ’ ve grown accustomed to that kind of rhetoric from Donald Trump .
But the truth is that having a president who not only lies constantly , but engages in vicious attacks against anyone he perceives to be an enemy is exhausting .
It ’ s like we ’ ve all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gutter for almost four years now , and it ’ s a pretty ugly place .
That ’ s why this tweet from Tom Watson caught my eye .
On Wednesday , I watched my Twitter feed explode during the speeches delivered by both Biden and Harris .
They were good , but the reaction sounded like people who were dying of thirst finally getting a long , cool drink of water .
That ’ s because the Democratic nominees not only spoke the truth , they displayed compassion for an America that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we can do better .
It was all a reminder of how desperate we are for leadership that comes from a place of decency and humanity .
Tears are being shed as a lot of folks are finally seeing a potential light at the end of a very dark tunnel .
Stories like this one from Stephanie Gray are going viral .
Just spent the last 2 hours phone banking here in Texas .
I called a grandmother .
She ’ s 91 .
Black .
She answered so sweet .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked if she was registered to vote for November .
She said YES MAAM !
I said , “ wonderful .
I hope we can expect your support for the Biden Harris ticket.
” She said , “ Harris ?
” I said yes .
She said , “ He picked Kamala “ and broke down in tears , and started praying for Kamala .
😭 I started to cry because I knew why this moment was heavy .
I asked her , “ what was she feeling ?
” She said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Look at God.
” I told her I ’ ve been emotional all afternoon thinking about my slave great great grandparents , and how I wish they knew it would get better .
She told me about her days picking cotton , and about her scarred hands .
She talked about her grandfather being lynched .
She told me she hoped Kamala had the best security .
She ’ s afraid someone will try to hurt her .
We prayed again .
Before we hung up she told me to dream bigger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I would .
I am reminded that , while Cambridge Analytica contributed to the corruption of our politics , they got one thing absolutely right .
The two fundamental human drivers when it comes to taking information onboard effectively are hopes and fears and many of those are unspoken and even unconscious .
You didn ’ t know that was a fear until you saw something that just evoked that reaction from you .
And our job is to get , is to drop the bucket further down the well than anybody else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deep-seated underlying fears , concerns .
It ’ s no good fighting an election campaign on the facts because actually it ’ s all about emotion .
The big mistake political parties make is that they attempt to win the argument rather than locate the emotional center of the issue , the concern , and speaking directly to that .
After almost four years of an administration that plumbs the depths of fear and cruelty , it might be that Americans are ready for that other fundamental human driver : hope .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held up a mirror to American society , and it has reflected back a grotesque image that many people had until now refused to see.
” Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are telling us that we can do better .
There will be plenty of time to talk about specific policies and evaluate which ones will best address the many challenges we face today .
But for right now , what I ’ m sensing is that people are exhausted from living in Trump ’ s gutter and are crying tears of joy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better .

In typical Trumpian fashion, the president engaged in the following attacks during his conversation with Maria Bartiromo on Thursday.
Kamala Harris is a mad woman.
AOC is not a smart woman, but she goes out and yaps.
Nancy Pelosi is stone cold crazy.
Joe Biden is dumb.
Barr should prosecute Obama/Biden before the election.
Of course, we’ve grown accustomed to that kind of rhetoric from Donald Trump. But the truth is that having a president who not only lies constantly, but engages in vicious attacks against anyone he perceives to be an enemy is exhausting. It’s like we’ve all had to live in Trump’s gutter for almost four years now, and it’s a pretty ugly place.
That’s why this tweet from Tom Watson caught my eye.
On Wednesday, I watched my Twitter feed explode during the speeches delivered by both Biden and Harris. They were good, but the reaction sounded like people who were dying of thirst finally getting a long, cool drink of water. That’s because the Democratic nominees not only spoke the truth, they displayed compassion for an America that is in pain, giving us hope that we can do better. It was all a reminder of how desperate we are for leadership that comes from a place of decency and humanity.
Tears are being shed as a lot of folks are finally seeing a potential light at the end of a very dark tunnel. Stories like this one from Stephanie Gray are going viral.
Just spent the last 2 hours phone banking here in Texas. I called a grandmother. She’s 91. Black. She answered so sweet. I told her who I was, and asked if she was registered to vote for November. She said YES MAAM! I said, “wonderful. I hope we can expect your support for the Biden Harris ticket.” She said, “Harris?” I said yes. She said, “He picked Kamala“ and broke down in tears, and started praying for Kamala. ? I started to cry because I knew why this moment was heavy. I asked her, “what was she feeling?” She said, “baby, I’m overjoyed. Look at God.” I told her I’ve been emotional all afternoon thinking about my slave great great grandparents, and how I wish they knew it would get better. She told me about her days picking cotton, and about her scarred hands. She talked about her grandfather being lynched. She told me she hoped Kamala had the best security. She’s afraid someone will try to hurt her. We prayed again. Before we hung up she told me to dream bigger than my last dream. I promised I would. Thank you Mrs Ethel. ❤
I am reminded that, while Cambridge Analytica contributed to the corruption of our politics, they got one thing absolutely right.
The two fundamental human drivers when it comes to taking information onboard effectively are hopes and fears and many of those are unspoken and even unconscious. You didn’t know that was a fear until you saw something that just evoked that reaction from you. And our job is to get, is to drop the bucket further down the well than anybody else, to understand what are those really deep-seated underlying fears, concerns. It’s no good fighting an election campaign on the facts because actually it’s all about emotion. The big mistake political parties make is that they attempt to win the argument rather than locate the emotional center of the issue, the concern, and speaking directly to that.
After almost four years of an administration that plumbs the depths of fear and cruelty, it might be that Americans are ready for that other fundamental human driver: hope. As Ibram Kendi wrote, Trump “has held up a mirror to American society, and it has reflected back a grotesque image that many people had until now refused to see.” Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are telling us that we can do better.
There will be plenty of time to talk about specific policies and evaluate which ones will best address the many challenges we face today. But for right now, what I’m sensing is that people are exhausted from living in Trump’s gutter and are crying tears of joy at the prospect that we can do better.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-14--How Internet Service Providers Fuel Inequality

When the House Antitrust Subcommittee brought the CEOs of Amazon , Apple , Facebook and Google to Capitol Hill recently , astute questioning from Democratic members raised the hope that antitrust enforcement could make a comeback during a Biden administration .
The Democrats grilled the heads of the world ’ s richest companies on a host of anti-competitive transgressions , from using third-party data without their permission to copying products of others , simply to drive competitors out of business .
As Congress continues to dig into the digital economy , however , it ’ s important to remember that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ layer of a complex ecosystem .
It ’ s what lies beneath that also demands urgent attention : Many millions of people don ’ t have the Internet service to even connect to Facebook or Amazon .
Worse yet , the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the problem .
Far more problematic than the inability to shop online or keep up with friends , millions of Americans can ’ t reliably connect to schools or work from home .
Not surprisingly , the challenge is most acute in rural areas .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda , and on a prospective Biden administration ’ s agenda , should be a thorough review of a system in which Internet service providers have no obligation to provide service to the areas most in need .
Providing an essential service like high-speed Internet should be a requirement enshrined in law .
While Trump ’ s Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) estimates 21 million Americans don ’ t have access to high-speed Internet service ( aka broadband ) , a Microsoft studyput the number as high as 162 million .
Moreover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Internet access necessary for remote learning .
Ryan Orton , 45 , lives in tiny Stuart , Virginia , a town near the Blue Ridge Mountains in Patrick County , population 18,000 .
He has a day job at the New College Institute and takes classes to become an elementary school teacher .
On weekends , he had to drive 15 miles to the nearest library to use the Internet to download materials for his classes .
Then the pandemic eliminated his best Internet source .
“ Since COVID started , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get [ satellite Internet service ] HughesNet , ” Orton said .
That service is $ 150 per month and is spotty and limited , Orton added , noting , “ I wake up at 5 a.m. and download material for work and school , and use it sparingly during the day.
” Orton said because of the expense , he ’ s now the only one in his home who can use it .
What will his eight-year-old son , Dane , do for remote learning when school starts ?
Orton said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of satellite minutes to accommodate Dane ’ s school work .
Facing similar challenges in Rutherfordton , North Carolina , author and teacher Beth Revis has had to jam herself into the trunk of her SUV from the parking lot of a closed school so she could use the building ’ s free WiFi service to teach a writing class to local students .
As she recently told The New York Times , accessing reliable Internet in her community 70 miles west of Charlotte “ has turned from a mild inconvenience to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things down .
The good news is , there ’ s a simple way to help .
If Biden wins in November , one of the Democrats ’ first policy initiatives should be to get rid of the current system and to require universal Internet service throughout the United States .
An essential service like high-speed Internet should be a right , not a privilege .
It ’ s critical to understand why these problems exist .
Revis ’ home state of North Carolina is a case study .
“ I remember when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Doug Dawson , president of CCG Consulting , which engineers and operates broadband networks , recently wroteon his blog .
“ I live a mile from [ downtown Asheville ] and I can look out my window and see homes with no broadband.
” In a later conversation , he told me : “ There are a number of counties in North Carolina where every rural home has almost no broadband options.
” Chris Mitchell , with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance , a group that works to bring high-speed Internet to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Time Warner Cable served one side of a major street in Fayetteville , N.C. , but not the other side because the cable company didn ’ t think it was worth it crossing the street to offer service .
Put simply , the big telecom companies don ’ t see sufficient financial incentive to invest heavily in rural broadband , and no one can make them do it .
That ’ s because the federal government has made it so telecom companies have unrivalled “ freedom.
” The FCC issued a “ declaratory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 , that high-speed Internet was a luxury that did not need to be regulated .
Former FCC chair under George W. Bush , Michael Powell , once equated high-speed Internet with a luxury car .
Asked about the “ digital divide ” that was emerging between those with access to new , fast broadband and those without it , Powell replied , “ I think there ’ s a Mercedes divide .
I ’ d like to have one , but I can ’ t afford one.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ become head of the cable industry ’ s lobbying association , where he remains today .
Under President Obama , the FCC recognized in a 2010 National Broadband Plan that access to high-speed Internet has become a necessity , not a luxury .
Still , that was not the case in 2011 , when the North Carolina state legislature passed a law that largely prevented local governments from building their own Internet services .
The state is one of about 20 where the telecom industry has successfully pushed legislation to limit competition .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the major telecom companies , particularly AT & T and Time Warner Cable , had over the process .
During the debates , the Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives was Thom Tillis , who was subsequently elected to the United States Senate .
Back then , he was known to be very close to the industry , and he pushed back against new reforms .
In 2013 , the chairman of the state ’ s House Finance Committee , Representative Robert Brawley , proposed legislation to make the 2011 law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wouldn ’ t hear of it .
Brawley resigned his position in protest , excoriating Tillis for his “ business relationship ” with the cable company .
Catharine Rice , a cofounder of the advocacy group NC Broadband Matters , recounts how the cable industry ’ s influence was hard to ignore : In some cases , company lobbyists even answered the phones in legislators ’ offices .
Since efforts to create competition have stalled , one might wonder about creating direct financial incentives .
The FCC has , in fact , set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies to serve rural areas .
But that hasn ’ t worked , either .
That ’ s primarily because of the conditions under which the money was disbursed and the lack of oversight .
As Doug Dawson explained , the FCC gave over $ 10 billion to the big telecommunications companies to bring slow broadband service ( also known as DSL ) to rural areas .
“ That was a giant bust , ” Dawson suggests , “ and from what I can see , very little DSL was brought up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems to have largely gone down a black hole to the bottom line of the big telcos.
” Given all of the past failed efforts , Congress needs to step up and not rely on the FCC to solve this problem .
Lawmakers should start over , beginning with the premise that reliable , high-speed Internet service is a necessity in modern America .
It must be both accessible and affordable .
House Democrats have proposed spending $ 80 billion more to get telecom companies to do what they are supposed to do—offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposed a similar route , allocating some $ 20 billion for rural broadband .
These are necessary but insufficient reforms .
Here ’ s what a real prescription would look like .
First , get back to first principles .
More than 100 years ago , the concept of universal service was created to ensure that everyone had telephone service .
Bring that back and enshrine it in law .
It is already there in theory , but not in practice , because of the way the telecom laws are written .
Second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enforce universal service in the digital age .
Once upon a time , when state regulators set rates for telephone service , telephone companies could be “ persuaded ” to offer services in an area they didn ’ t want to serve as a concession for something else .
That lever needs to be brought back as part of a comprehensive overhaul that gives federal , state , and local authorities the tools to act in the public interest .
Lastly , legislation must ensure that service is not only more widely available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of programs subsidizing service by the telecom companies have proven successful , and they should be expanded and streamlined .
Comcast , for example , boasts of its “ Internet Essentials ” for low-income customers .
The company doesn ’ t tell you , but the FCC required it as a condition of the cable company buying NBC None of this will be easy .
Politicians would have to side with the welfare of their constituents over the pleas of big companies .
That ’ s not a given .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would work because of what ’ s called “ regulatory capture , ” in which lobbyists really control the people and the process of new rules .
But as the current pandemic has shown us , the stakes have never been higher .
Without a new federal law and an effective regulatory structure in place to enforce it , there is no hope that the country will be truly connected , that students like Ryan Orton and his son will be able to do their schoolwork online , and that teachers like Beth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class from the trunk of her car because no company cared enough about her town to offer modern Internet service .

When the House Antitrust Subcommittee brought the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google to Capitol Hill recently, astute questioning from Democratic members raised the hope that antitrust enforcement could make a comeback during a Biden administration.
The Democrats grilled the heads of the world’s richest companies on a host of anti-competitive transgressions, from using third-party data without their permission to copying products of others, simply to drive competitors out of business.
As Congress continues to dig into the digital economy, however, it’s important to remember that companies like these are only the top layer of a complex ecosystem. It’s what lies beneath that also demands urgent attention: Many millions of people don’t have the Internet service to even connect to Facebook or Amazon.
Worse yet, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the problem. Far more problematic than the inability to shop online or keep up with friends, millions of Americans can’t reliably connect to schools or work from home. Not surprisingly, the challenge is most acute in rural areas.
That’s why the next item on the Congressional agenda, and on a prospective Biden administration’s agenda, should be a thorough review of a system in which Internet service providers have no obligation to provide service to the areas most in need. Providing an essential service like high-speed Internet should be a requirement enshrined in law.
While Trump’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) estimates 21 million Americans don’t have access to high-speed Internet service (aka broadband), a Microsoft studyput the number as high as 162 million. Moreover, an estimated nine million students lack the Internet access necessary for remote learning.
Ryan Orton, 45, lives in tiny Stuart, Virginia, a town near the Blue Ridge Mountains in Patrick County, population 18,000. He has a day job at the New College Institute and takes classes to become an elementary school teacher. On weekends, he had to drive 15 miles to the nearest library to use the Internet to download materials for his classes. Then the pandemic eliminated his best Internet source. “Since COVID started, the library closed, and forced me to get [satellite Internet service] HughesNet,” Orton said. That service is $150 per month and is spotty and limited, Orton added, noting, “I wake up at 5 a.m. and download material for work and school, and use it sparingly during the day.” Orton said because of the expense, he’s now the only one in his home who can use it. What will his eight-year-old son, Dane, do for remote learning when school starts? Orton said he will have to increase his allotment of satellite minutes to accommodate Dane’s school work.
Facing similar challenges in Rutherfordton, North Carolina, author and teacher Beth Revis has had to jam herself into the trunk of her SUV from the parking lot of a closed school so she could use the building’s free WiFi service to teach a writing class to local students. As she recently told The New York Times, accessing reliable Internet in her community 70 miles west of Charlotte “has turned from a mild inconvenience to a near impossibility” since the pandemic shut things down.
The good news is, there’s a simple way to help. If Biden wins in November, one of the Democrats’ first policy initiatives should be to get rid of the current system and to require universal Internet service throughout the United States. An essential service like high-speed Internet should be a right, not a privilege.
It’s critical to understand why these problems exist. Revis’ home state of North Carolina is a case study. “I remember when I was house-hunting here in Asheville,” Doug Dawson, president of CCG Consulting, which engineers and operates broadband networks, recently wroteon his blog. “I live a mile from [downtown Asheville] and I can look out my window and see homes with no broadband.” In a later conversation, he told me: “There are a number of counties in North Carolina where every rural home has almost no broadband options.”
Chris Mitchell, with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a group that works to bring high-speed Internet to rural areas, cites an example: Time Warner Cable served one side of a major street in Fayetteville, N.C., but not the other side because the cable company didn’t think it was worth it crossing the street to offer service.
Put simply, the big telecom companies don’t see sufficient financial incentive to invest heavily in rural broadband, and no one can make them do it.
That’s because the federal government has made it so telecom companies have unrivalled “freedom.” The FCC issued a “declaratory ruling” in 2002, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005, that high-speed Internet was a luxury that did not need to be regulated. Former FCC chair under George W. Bush, Michael Powell, once equated high-speed Internet with a luxury car. Asked about the “digital divide” that was emerging between those with access to new, fast broadband and those without it, Powell replied, “I think there’s a Mercedes divide. I’d like to have one, but I can’t afford one.” Powell later left the FCC to become head of the cable industry’s lobbying association, where he remains today. Under President Obama, the FCC recognized in a 2010 National Broadband Plan that access to high-speed Internet has become a necessity, not a luxury.
Still, that was not the case in 2011, when the North Carolina state legislature passed a law that largely prevented local governments from building their own Internet services. The state is one of about 20 where the telecom industry has successfully pushed legislation to limit competition.
Activists often cite the near-complete control that the major telecom companies, particularly AT&T and Time Warner Cable, had over the process. During the debates, the Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives was Thom Tillis, who was subsequently elected to the United States Senate. Back then, he was known to be very close to the industry, and he pushed back against new reforms. In 2013, the chairman of the state’s House Finance Committee, Representative Robert Brawley, proposed legislation to make the 2011 law more consumer-friendly and encourage competition. Tillis wouldn’t hear of it. Brawley resigned his position in protest, excoriating Tillis for his “business relationship” with the cable company. Catharine Rice, a cofounder of the advocacy group NC Broadband Matters, recounts how the cable industry’s influence was hard to ignore: In some cases, company lobbyists even answered the phones in legislators’ offices.
Since efforts to create competition have stalled, one might wonder about creating direct financial incentives. The FCC has, in fact, set up programs to try to entice telecom companies to serve rural areas. But that hasn’t worked, either. That’s primarily because of the conditions under which the money was disbursed and the lack of oversight. As Doug Dawson explained, the FCC gave over $10 billion to the big telecommunications companies to bring slow broadband service (also known as DSL) to rural areas. “That was a giant bust,” Dawson suggests, “and from what I can see, very little DSL was brought up to even that inadequate speed. That money seems to have largely gone down a black hole to the bottom line of the big telcos.”
Given all of the past failed efforts, Congress needs to step up and not rely on the FCC to solve this problem. Lawmakers should start over, beginning with the premise that reliable, high-speed Internet service is a necessity in modern America. It must be both accessible and affordable.
House Democrats have proposed spending $80 billion more to get telecom companies to do what they are supposed to do—offer universal affordable broadband—while the Biden campaign has proposed a similar route, allocating some $20 billion for rural broadband. These are necessary but insufficient reforms. Here’s what a real prescription would look like.
First, get back to first principles. More than 100 years ago, the concept of universal service was created to ensure that everyone had telephone service. Bring that back and enshrine it in law. It is already there in theory, but not in practice, because of the way the telecom laws are written.
Second, enact new laws and regulations that enforce universal service in the digital age. Once upon a time, when state regulators set rates for telephone service, telephone companies could be “persuaded” to offer services in an area they didn’t want to serve as a concession for something else. That lever needs to be brought back as part of a comprehensive overhaul that gives federal, state, and local authorities the tools to act in the public interest.
Lastly, legislation must ensure that service is not only more widely available but that it is affordable. A number of programs subsidizing service by the telecom companies have proven successful, and they should be expanded and streamlined. Comcast, for example, boasts of its “Internet Essentials” for low-income customers. The company doesn’t tell you, but the FCC required it as a condition of the cable company buying NBC.
None of this will be easy. Politicians would have to side with the welfare of their constituents over the pleas of big companies. That’s not a given. It’s also not a given that regulation would work because of what’s called “regulatory capture,” in which lobbyists really control the people and the process of new rules.
But as the current pandemic has shown us, the stakes have never been higher. Without a new federal law and an effective regulatory structure in place to enforce it, there is no hope that the country will be truly connected, that students like Ryan Orton and his son will be able to do their schoolwork online, and that teachers like Beth Revis won’t have to conduct class from the trunk of her car because no company cared enough about her town to offer modern Internet service.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-14--Is Senator Johnson Acting as Putin’s Useful Idiot?

Senator Ron Johnson is basically using his position as chair of the Homeland Security Committee to do what Trump was impeached for asking Ukraine to do—smear Joe Biden based on his efforts to end corruption in that country during his tenure as Obama ’ s vice president .
Even Republican Senators Richard Burr and Marco Rubio are warning Johnson that his efforts could aid the disinformation campaign that Moscow is spearheading against Biden .
As Ryan Goodman and Asha Rangappa document , Johnson seems to be getting his information from three sources .
There are three channels of Russian disinformation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Ukraine-related investigations .
Channel 1 .
Russian-linked Ukrainian operatives communicating directly with Sen. Johnson and his staff .
Channel 2 .
Russian-linked Ukrainian operatives spreading disinformation via media outlets , which have been picked up and expressly relied upon by Sen. Johnson .
That is bad enough .
But then this week , Johnson actually said the quiet parts out loud .
“ The more that we expose of the corruption of the transition process between Obama and Trump , the more we expose of the corruption within those agencies , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump win reelection and certainly be pretty good , I would say , evidence about not voting for Vice President Biden , ” Johnson said in a little-noticed Tuesday interview with Minneapolis-based radio hosts Jon Justice and Drew Lee .
In other words , the senator from Wisconsin is engaging in a Russian disinformation campaign , which he admits is designed to damage Biden and help Trump get reelected .
Johnson is doing so four years after he joined Biden in demanding that Ukraine “ press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All of that raises questions about whether Johnson is acting as a “ useful idiot ” on Vladimir Putin ’ s behalf .
But it is important to keep in mind that the senator isn ’ t the sharpest knife in the drawer .
After all , this is the guy who turned a joke from Lisa Page into a claim that he had an “ informant ” who said that there was a “ secret society ” of FBI agents meeting off site .
The inference was that they were plotting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also the senator who issued a report , wrote an op-ed , and held a hearing to make the unconscionable claim that Medicaid is responsible for fueling the opioid epidemic .
For Johnson , there doesn ’ t seem to be an Alex Jones-type conspiracy theory that he won ’ t peddle .
Most often , he jumps in and gets pilloried for failing to do an even basic review of facts .
That ’ s why , whether he intends to or not , he is certainly playing the role of being @ @ @ @ @ @

Senator Ron Johnson is basically using his position as chair of the Homeland Security Committee to do what Trump was impeached for asking Ukraine to do—smear Joe Biden based on his efforts to end corruption in that country during his tenure as Obama’s vice president.
Even Republican Senators Richard Burr and Marco Rubio are warning Johnson that his efforts could aid the disinformation campaign that Moscow is spearheading against Biden. As Ryan Goodman and Asha Rangappa document, Johnson seems to be getting his information from three sources.
There are three channels of Russian disinformation that have apparently affected Sen. Johnson’s Ukraine-related investigations. Channel 1. Russian-linked Ukrainian operatives communicating directly with Sen. Johnson and his staff. Channel 2. Russian-linked Ukrainian operatives spreading disinformation via media outlets, which have been picked up and expressly relied upon by Sen. Johnson. Channel 3. Russian-linked Ukrainian operatives providing information via “Team [Rudy] Giuliani.”
That is bad enough. But then this week, Johnson actually said the quiet parts out loud.
“The more that we expose of the corruption of the transition process between Obama and Trump, the more we expose of the corruption within those agencies, I would think it would certainly help Donald Trump win reelection and certainly be pretty good, I would say, evidence about not voting for Vice President Biden,” Johnson said in a little-noticed Tuesday interview with Minneapolis-based radio hosts Jon Justice and Drew Lee.
In other words, the senator from Wisconsin is engaging in a Russian disinformation campaign, which he admits is designed to damage Biden and help Trump get reelected. Johnson is doing so four years after he joined Biden in demanding that Ukraine “press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General’s office and judiciary.”
All of that raises questions about whether Johnson is acting as a “useful idiot” on Vladimir Putin’s behalf. But it is important to keep in mind that the senator isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. After all, this is the guy who turned a joke from Lisa Page into a claim that he had an “informant” who said that there was a “secret society” of FBI agents meeting off site. The inference was that they were plotting to destroy the Trump presidency. He is also the senator who issued a report, wrote an op-ed, and held a hearing to make the unconscionable claim that Medicaid is responsible for fueling the opioid epidemic.
For Johnson, there doesn’t seem to be an Alex Jones-type conspiracy theory that he won’t peddle. Most often, he jumps in and gets pilloried for failing to do an even basic review of facts. That’s why, whether he intends to or not, he is certainly playing the role of being Putin’s useful idiot.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-14--Four Years Ago, Trump’s Campaign Was Up to Its Eyeballs In Russian Collusion

On this day four years ago , Roger Stone was exchanging direct messages with Guccifer 2.0 , a fictitious composite character invented by Russian military intelligence to deflect blame for the hack of the Democrats ’ national headquarters .
It was the same day the New York Times reported that “ a corrupt network… was used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of… former President Viktor F. Yanukovych , ” and that $ 12.7 million had been illegally paid to Donald Trump ’ s campaign chairman Paul Manafort .
After the Times article was published , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truly broke with him .
The first weeks of August were highly consequential in 2016 .
Only later would it be obvious that Roger Stone ’ s sudden predictions that WikiLeaks would win the election for Trump were more than just bluster .
On August 2 , while Manafort was meeting with a Russian intelligence officer at the Grand Havana cigar club in Manhattan to discuss election data , Roger Stone was receiving information from Julian Assange through Jerome Corsi .
I don ’ t mention all of this to rehash the Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remind people to be vigilant while I ’ m on vacation next week .
Pay attention to what you hear from Trump and his surrogates , because they may just tip their hand .
The attack on the postal service is going on in plain sight and was covered extensively on MSNBC on Thursday evening .
Nancy LeTourneau recently covered the most recent revelations of Russian interference in this election cycle , including the statement from Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut , a member of the Intelligence Committee , that the current efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and nefarious actions look like child ’ s play.
” There are many ways to cheat and play dirty at politics , and no one can anticipate or uncover everything .
All I know is that four years ago at this time , the polls looked pretty good and it was hard to imagine that Donald Trump was headed to victory .
But Trump , Stone and Manafort were working overtime to change that , and they were ultimately successful .
In some ways , I feel like this is a dangerous time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like we let our guard down once before and paid dearly for it .
Both Manafort and Stone were convicted of crimes , and Trump is not interested in sharing their fate , especially because no one will be there to intervene on his behalf and spring him from jail or commute his sentence .
So , please , while I ’ m gone , keep your eyeballs peeled for foul play .
The fate of the election could be decided in mid-August , and we don ’ t want to learn about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

On this day four years ago, Roger Stone was exchanging direct messages with Guccifer 2.0, a fictitious composite character invented by Russian military intelligence to deflect blame for the hack of the Democrats’ national headquarters. It was the same day the New York Times reported that “a corrupt network… was used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of… former President Viktor F. Yanukovych,” and that $12.7 million had been illegally paid to Donald Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort. After the Times article was published, Manafort was quickly fired but Trump never truly broke with him.
The first weeks of August were highly consequential in 2016. Only later would it be obvious that Roger Stone’s sudden predictions that WikiLeaks would win the election for Trump were more than just bluster. On August 2, while Manafort was meeting with a Russian intelligence officer at the Grand Havana cigar club in Manhattan to discuss election data, Roger Stone was receiving information from Julian Assange through Jerome Corsi.
I don’t mention all of this to rehash the Russia investigation all over again, but to remind people to be vigilant while I’m on vacation next week. Pay attention to what you hear from Trump and his surrogates, because they may just tip their hand. The attack on the postal service is going on in plain sight and was covered extensively on MSNBC on Thursday evening. Nancy LeTourneau recently covered the most recent revelations of Russian interference in this election cycle, including the statement from Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, a member of the Intelligence Committee, that the current efforts “make Moscow’s past interference and nefarious actions look like child’s play.”
There are many ways to cheat and play dirty at politics, and no one can anticipate or uncover everything. All I know is that four years ago at this time, the polls looked pretty good and it was hard to imagine that Donald Trump was headed to victory. But Trump, Stone and Manafort were working overtime to change that, and they were ultimately successful.
In some ways, I feel like this is a dangerous time to take a vacation because it seems like we let our guard down once before and paid dearly for it. Both Manafort and Stone were convicted of crimes, and Trump is not interested in sharing their fate, especially because no one will be there to intervene on his behalf and spring him from jail or commute his sentence.
So, please, while I’m gone, keep your eyeballs peeled for foul play. The fate of the election could be decided in mid-August, and we don’t want to learn about it a year or two from now.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-15--The Fallacy of Meritocracy on America’s College Campuses

The summer ’ s protests have made wrenchingly clear the systemic obstacles Black Americans face in almost every aspect of their lives .
Discriminatory labor practices relegate Black workers to lesser jobs or lower wages than their white counterparts .
Racist housing and lending policies segregate Blacks in substandard neighborhoods and deprive them of chances for homeownership .
Black Americans suffer from unequal access to health care , schooling , transit and justice , with tragic and devastating consequences .
And no less complicit in this creating this reality , a recent book argues , is America ’ s higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : How Our Colleges Favor the Rich and Divide America , veteran researchers Anthony P. Carnevale , Peter Schmidt , and Jeff Strohl argue that America ’ s top colleges and universities uphold a biased infrastructure that props up students from the one percent of U.S. families to the detriment of everyone else .
“ They are run by , serve , and perpetuate an elite whose members often have seen their self-interests advanced by excluding other segments of the population from political and economic power , ” the scholars write .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Without a top-to-bottom reform of these institutions , the authors contend , the nation will keep falling short of its promise to offer equal access to opportunity .
While America ’ s elite colleges and universities have carefully cultivated perceptions that they ’ re engines of social mobility , bringing together the nation ’ s brightest minds from all backgrounds and corners of the country , the students most likely to attend these schools are overwhelmingly wealthy and white .
Students from the richest one percent of families are 77 times more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school than a child from the poorest fifth , according to researcher Raj Chetty .
Black students are underrepresented at all but nine percent of the nation ’ s 101 most selective institutions , a new report from the Education Trust found .
According to the Merit Myth , that ’ s no accident .
In pursuit of institutional self-interest , prestige , and money , these schools have deliberately chosen admissions policies that prioritize affluence over true merit , all the while cloaking their decisions with what the authors call a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Merit Myth argues , higher education “ serves to compound the advantages or disadvantages that people have as children.
” Colleges and universities are segregated by race and class , and the ones that most racial minorities rely on for self-advancement are too underfunded to prepare their students for success in a global economy .
America ’ s elite universities don ’ t promote social mobility ; they stifle it , widening income gaps and social divisions .
“ College , ” the authors write , “ has become the capstone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Myth tackles three ways in which the mythology of “ merit ” has allowed biases in American higher education to flourish .
The first such myth is that of the “ American Dream ” itself—the dogma that anyone who “ works hard and plays by the rules ” can succeed in the U.S. economy .
The truth , the authors say , is that even from its founding , America has never been a meritocracy , established as it was by men who professed that “ all men are created equal ” while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Given this historical hypocrisy , it ’ s perhaps no surprise that the University of Virginia—the nation ’ s first “ public ” university , which was founded by Thomas Jefferson—is today inaccessible to most students , with a reported acceptance rate of 26 percent .
In 2017 , as Carnevale and his colleagues point out , more than two-thirds of the college ’ s student body comes from the most affluent fifth of U.S. families .
The second myth , where the authors spend the bulk of the text , is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can fairly discern the best and brightest students from the rest .
In reality , the authors charge , elite colleges ’ admissions processes are little better than a masquerade aimed at hiding their biases toward affluent applicants who can best afford to pay sky-high tuitions .
Especially egregious , the authors say , is the higher education system ’ s continued over-reliance on standardized tests such as the SAT .
( The test ’ s developer was an outspoken eugenicist noted for a 1923 treatise on the superiority of “ Nordic ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beginning , the tests functioned as a political dodge , giving a false and superficial appearance of scientific validity to bias rooted in race , class , and gender , ” the book says .
Even as more schools have become “ test-optional , ” both in response to charges of bias and the impossibility of administering standardized tests in the middle of a pandemic , Carnevale and his colleagues warn the gesture could be an empty one that ultimately benefits colleges more than students .
For one thing , test-optional policies could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apply , ” thus lowering acceptance rates and making colleges even more selective .
Secondly , “ [ b ] ecause applicants with lower SAT or ACT scores typically withhold such information , the policies skew upward the average test scores of entering classes.
” This is one of several ways that Carnevale and Strohl , leading figures at Georgetown ’ s Center for Education and the Workforce , and Schmidt , a seasoned journalist , use their collective inside experience with higher education to expose the myriad ways in which elite colleges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ processes .
These include the practices well-known to favor affluent students , such as “ early action ” and “ early decision ” acceptances for students who can commit to attendance without financial aid , as well as legacy admissions for children of alumni .
The trio also look at more obscure—and eyebrow-raising—practices like “ admit-deny , ” where an academically stellar low-income student is accepted but denied the financial aid necessary to allow them to attend .
This gives colleges the benefit of saying they ’ ve admitted low-income students without actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come to rely on “ enrollment management ” software , which allows institutions to “ mask a deliberate choice made in pursuing their institutional interests ” by tweaking whom they recruit , what mix of students they admit , and how much financial aid they offer .
Most troubling , the authors write , is the “ shadow ” admissions processes many schools run for students who have cash and connections—what admissions officers call a “ hook ” —but maybe not the academic chops .
This second track is for “ insiders–children of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people tied to powerful politicians or generous donors and other applicants.
” One result of this insider advantage is that a shockingly large share of seats at elite schools are going to decidedly mediocre students—and crowding out more worthy applicants .
According to the Merit Myth , as many as 60 percent of all seats in the most selective colleges go to students from the most affluent families .
Of these students , they report , “ 46 % would not have been admitted if required to meet a minimum test score of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone should cast doubt on how schools define “ merit ” in deciding whom to admit .
A third myth of merit addressed in the book surrounds the colleges themselves and their conflation of “ prestige ” with true worth .
Here the authors blame the US News college rankings for setting off an arms race among institutions to game the rankings to their advantage , particularly by excluding students who don ’ t contribute to the aura of exclusivity that US News rewards .
( This is the reason the Washington Monthly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reward the schools that were doing the most to serve their students and their communities . )
For example , South Carolina ’ s Clemson University boosted its US News rankings by reducing its enrollment and increasing tuitions to hire more faculty .
“ We are more elite , more white , more privileged , ” said university officialCatherine Watt , who is quoted by the authors explaining Clemson ’ s rise .
At times , the Merit Myth paints with too broad a brush .
Some readers might be tempted to conclude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motives , exploiting Americans ’ belief in meritocracy to serve selfish institutional ends .
In fact , the book does take pains to point out a few efforts by schools such as Vassar , Amherst , and Franklin and Marshall to increase the share of low-income and minority students they enroll .
Still , the authors are right that the merit myth is a pernicious one .
False measures of “ merit ” degrade the worth of groups who don ’ t fit arbitrary metrics .
They justify feelings of entitlement—even if unearned—by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s façade of meritocracy also allows colleges to paper over any number of sins .
Worst of all , the mirage provides a handy defense against reform and enables the acceptance of inequality as an inevitability .
Carnevale , Strohl , and Schmidt acknowledge that the entrenched interests of those who currently benefit from the status quo will be formidable obstacles to the systemic change they insist needs to happen .
This doesn ’ t stop them , though , from offering an ambitious and excellent blueprint for top-to-bottom higher education reform .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; require all colleges to admit at least 20 percent Pell recipients , which the authors calculate would provide 72,000 more students a chance to attend a selective colleges ; make the first two years of college free ; and encourage college admissions processes to reward “ strivers ” —students who ’ ve overcome obstacles such as poverty or other disadvantages to get to where they are .
The authors also call on colleges and universities to “ end the love affair ” with standardized testing .
How likely are these reforms to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic has exposed societal inequities in stark terms .
That will spur the urgent need for change when we come out of this crisis .
On the other hand , colleges and universities have not been spared the financial fallout of the COVID-19 recession , and their need for survival will be no less pressing .
If colleges were already vying to attract wealthy students before the coronavirus outbreak , that competition is only likely to intensify as schools hunt for revenues to stay afloat .
One unfortunate but real possibility is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current path because of the sheer need for self-preservation , while at the same time , budget cuts decimate the options available to students .
The net result under that scenario would be more stratification and inequality—in other words , even less opportunity for America ’ s young adults .
But as The Merit Myth points out , “ Educational equity is our best hope for finding a new route forward as a country.
” That means we have no choice but to refashion the system that has both facilitated the nation ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unparalleled capacity to reverse it .

The summer’s protests have made wrenchingly clear the systemic obstacles Black Americans face in almost every aspect of their lives. Discriminatory labor practices relegate Black workers to lesser jobs or lower wages than their white counterparts. Racist housing and lending policies segregate Blacks in substandard neighborhoods and deprive them of chances for homeownership. Black Americans suffer from unequal access to health care, schooling, transit and justice, with tragic and devastating consequences.
The Merit Myth:
How Our Colleges Favor the Rich and Divide America by Anthony P. Carnevale, Peter Schmidt, and Jeff Strohl, New Press, 320pp.
And no less complicit in this creating this reality, a recent book argues, is America’s higher education system.
In The Merit Myth: How Our Colleges Favor the Rich and Divide America, veteran researchers Anthony P. Carnevale, Peter Schmidt, and Jeff Strohl argue that America’s top colleges and universities uphold a biased infrastructure that props up students from the one percent of U.S. families to the detriment of everyone else. “They are run by, serve, and perpetuate an elite whose members often have seen their self-interests advanced by excluding other segments of the population from political and economic power,” the scholars write.
As a consequence, societal equity is impossible. Without a top-to-bottom reform of these institutions, the authors contend, the nation will keep falling short of its promise to offer equal access to opportunity.
While America’s elite colleges and universities have carefully cultivated perceptions that they’re engines of social mobility, bringing together the nation’s brightest minds from all backgrounds and corners of the country, the students most likely to attend these schools are overwhelmingly wealthy and white. Students from the richest one percent of families are 77 times more likely to go to an Ivy League school than a child from the poorest fifth, according to researcher Raj Chetty. Black students are underrepresented at all but nine percent of the nation’s 101 most selective institutions, a new report from the Education Trust found.
According to the Merit Myth, that’s no accident. In pursuit of institutional self-interest, prestige, and money, these schools have deliberately chosen admissions policies that prioritize affluence over true merit, all the while cloaking their decisions with what the authors call a “veneer of meritocracy.” As a result, the Merit Myth argues, higher education “serves to compound the advantages or disadvantages that people have as children.”
Colleges and universities are segregated by race and class, and the ones that most racial minorities rely on for self-advancement are too underfunded to prepare their students for success in a global economy. America’s elite universities don’t promote social mobility; they stifle it, widening income gaps and social divisions. “College,” the authors write, “has become the capstone in an inequality machine.”
The Merit Myth tackles three ways in which the mythology of “merit” has allowed biases in American higher education to flourish. The first such myth is that of the “American Dream” itself—the dogma that anyone who “works hard and plays by the rules” can succeed in the U.S. economy. The truth, the authors say, is that even from its founding, America has never been a meritocracy, established as it was by men who professed that “all men are created equal” while turning a blind eye to slavery.
Given this historical hypocrisy, it’s perhaps no surprise that the University of Virginia—the nation’s first “public” university, which was founded by Thomas Jefferson—is today inaccessible to most students, with a reported acceptance rate of 26 percent. In 2017, as Carnevale and his colleagues point out, more than two-thirds of the college’s student body comes from the most affluent fifth of U.S. families.
The second myth, where the authors spend the bulk of the text, is the notion that elite colleges’ admissions processes can fairly discern the best and brightest students from the rest. In reality, the authors charge, elite colleges’ admissions processes are little better than a masquerade aimed at hiding their biases toward affluent applicants who can best afford to pay sky-high tuitions.
Especially egregious, the authors say, is the higher education system’s continued over-reliance on standardized tests such as the SAT. (The test’s developer was an outspoken eugenicist noted for a 1923 treatise on the superiority of “Nordic” Europeans.) “From the very beginning, the tests functioned as a political dodge, giving a false and superficial appearance of scientific validity to bias rooted in race, class, and gender,” the book says.
Even as more schools have become “test-optional,” both in response to charges of bias and the impossibility of administering standardized tests in the middle of a pandemic, Carnevale and his colleagues warn the gesture could be an empty one that ultimately benefits colleges more than students. For one thing, test-optional policies could “entice larger numbers of students to apply,” thus lowering acceptance rates and making colleges even more selective. Secondly, “[b]ecause applicants with lower SAT or ACT scores typically withhold such information, the policies skew upward the average test scores of entering classes.”
This is one of several ways that Carnevale and Strohl, leading figures at Georgetown’s Center for Education and the Workforce, and Schmidt, a seasoned journalist, use their collective inside experience with higher education to expose the myriad ways in which elite colleges have institutionalized the biases in their admissions processes. These include the practices well-known to favor affluent students, such as “early action” and “early decision” acceptances for students who can commit to attendance without financial aid, as well as legacy admissions for children of alumni.
The trio also look at more obscure—and eyebrow-raising—practices like “admit-deny,” where an academically stellar low-income student is accepted but denied the financial aid necessary to allow them to attend. This gives colleges the benefit of saying they’ve admitted low-income students without actually educating them. Many schools have also come to rely on “enrollment management” software, which allows institutions to “mask a deliberate choice made in pursuing their institutional interests” by tweaking whom they recruit, what mix of students they admit, and how much financial aid they offer.
Most troubling, the authors write, is the “shadow” admissions processes many schools run for students who have cash and connections—what admissions officers call a “hook”—but maybe not the academic chops. This second track is for “insiders–children of alumni or employees–as well as athletes, people tied to powerful politicians or generous donors and other applicants.”
One result of this insider advantage is that a shockingly large share of seats at elite schools are going to decidedly mediocre students—and crowding out more worthy applicants. According to the Merit Myth, as many as 60 percent of all seats in the most selective colleges go to students from the most affluent families. Of these students, they report, “46% would not have been admitted if required to meet a minimum test score of 1250 on the SAT.” This fact alone should cast doubt on how schools define “merit” in deciding whom to admit.
A third myth of merit addressed in the book surrounds the colleges themselves and their conflation of “prestige” with true worth. Here the authors blame the US News college rankings for setting off an arms race among institutions to game the rankings to their advantage, particularly by excluding students who don’t contribute to the aura of exclusivity that US News rewards. (This is the reason the Washington Monthly created its own rankings system in 2005—to reward the schools that were doing the most to serve their students and their communities.) For example, South Carolina’s Clemson University boosted its US News rankings by reducing its enrollment and increasing tuitions to hire more faculty. “We are more elite, more white, more privileged,” said university officialCatherine Watt, who is quoted by the authors explaining Clemson’s rise.
At times, the Merit Myth paints with too broad a brush. Some readers might be tempted to conclude that all elite schools behave with sinister motives, exploiting Americans’ belief in meritocracy to serve selfish institutional ends. In fact, the book does take pains to point out a few efforts by schools such as Vassar, Amherst, and Franklin and Marshall to increase the share of low-income and minority students they enroll.
Still, the authors are right that the merit myth is a pernicious one. False measures of “merit” degrade the worth of groups who don’t fit arbitrary metrics. They justify feelings of entitlement—even if unearned—by those who do. Higher education’s façade of meritocracy also allows colleges to paper over any number of sins. Worst of all, the mirage provides a handy defense against reform and enables the acceptance of inequality as an inevitability.
Carnevale, Strohl, and Schmidt acknowledge that the entrenched interests of those who currently benefit from the status quo will be formidable obstacles to the systemic change they insist needs to happen. This doesn’t stop them, though, from offering an ambitious and excellent blueprint for top-to-bottom higher education reform.
Among their proposals: end legacy admissions; require all colleges to admit at least 20 percent Pell recipients, which the authors calculate would provide 72,000 more students a chance to attend a selective colleges; make the first two years of college free; and encourage college admissions processes to reward “strivers”—students who’ve overcome obstacles such as poverty or other disadvantages to get to where they are. The authors also call on colleges and universities to “end the love affair” with standardized testing.
How likely are these reforms to happen? On the one hand, the pandemic has exposed societal inequities in stark terms. That will spur the urgent need for change when we come out of this crisis. On the other hand, colleges and universities have not been spared the financial fallout of the COVID-19 recession, and their need for survival will be no less pressing. If colleges were already vying to attract wealthy students before the coronavirus outbreak, that competition is only likely to intensify as schools hunt for revenues to stay afloat. One unfortunate but real possibility is that elite schools double down on their current path because of the sheer need for self-preservation, while at the same time, budget cuts decimate the options available to students. The net result under that scenario would be more stratification and inequality—in other words, even less opportunity for America’s young adults.
But as The Merit Myth points out, “Educational equity is our best hope for finding a new route forward as a country.” That means we have no choice but to refashion the system that has both facilitated the nation’s inequality but that also has the unparalleled capacity to reverse it.