washingtonmonthly--2020-12-17--How Fragile is Our Democracy?

How Fragile is Our Democracy?

Four days before Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016 , the syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker reassured readers of the Washington Post ’ s “ Opinion ” section under the headline , “ Calm down .
We ’ ll be fine no matter who wins ” : After the election , others for a time continued to express—in slightly less risible form—the same confidence : America ’ s independent courts , its separation of powers , its checks and balances , its democratic culture , would keep Trump within shouting distance of its historical norms .
Our blessed republic will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ better angels of our nature , ” after all , always prevail .
In 2020 , as Trump sinks slowly in the west , any sober observer would call these estimates too optimistic .
American institutions have not tamed Trump ; the reverse almost occurred , in fact .
Far from checking and balancing , Republican members of both Houses treated Trump with all the skepticism of the North Korean Supreme People ’ s Assembly greeting Kim Jong Un ’ s newest five-year plan .
After the voters repudiated him in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cooperation with the Democratic House , stonewalled the special counsel , and laughed at impeachment .
Until late November , he seemed to think he could do the same thing with the election itself .
Meanwhile , the judicial branch has been subject to the most systematic partisan packing since John Adams installed the “ midnight judges.
” The U.S. Department of Justice has functioned as Trump ’ s private law firm .
The inspector general system has been crippled , and the President has openly defied the federal Vacancy Reform Act to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power of even his own Senate majority .
The Department of Homeland Security auditioned on the streets of Portland , Oregon , for a potential second-term role as the president ’ s secret police .
Preatorian Guard ?
More public than Stasi or Cheka .
Tom Ginsburg and Aziz Huq , professors at the University of Chicago law school , want to convince readers that the last four years are not the result of Trump ’ s personality , or even of peculiarly American political woes .
How to Save a Constitutional Democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The University of Chicago Press .
295 pp .
“ American exceptionalism ” is now a dogma of the right ( recall their ceaseless attack on Obama for his supposed apostasy ) , but , as Ginsburg and Huq explain , the phrase was actually coined by the American Communist Party to explain Marxism ’ s failure here .
Whatever “ exceptionalism ” means today ; no one can argue that the United States is immune to worldwide political and social trends ; and , since 2000 , those trends have been flowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The spillover of authoritarian ideas and techniques is a malign effect of globalization : “ Innovations in fashion , music , and business spread across borders , and law is no exception , ” the authors note .
Ginsburg and Huq ’ s seek to break down the “ exceptional ” idea and show us that it not only can happen but is happening here .
They warn that “ [ t ] his is a book provoked by the election of Donald Trump , but it is not a book about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his administration , in this account , represent less a near-death experience for American democracy than an acute episode of what is likely to be a recurrent worldwide pandemic .
They relate Trumpism to the recent rise of autocracy in Hungary , Poland , Venezuela , Turkey , Thailand , and other once-democratic nations .
Those case studies provide an eerie description of the road our politics set out on well before January 2017 and offer a solemn warning of what may lie ahead in the post-Trump era .
No book about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreement on the meaning of that elusive term .
Ginsburg and Huq ’ s definition is minimalist ; they offer three “ ‘ floor ’ requirements for a working democracy ” : The authors then provide a taxonomy of the ways democratic systems fall apart .
Violent revolution they dismiss as unlikely in 21st century republics ; “ democratic collapse ” —a Reichstag-fire event or lightning military coup—seems to them almost equally improbable , at least in the U.S .
The danger to established , wealthy democratic nations , they argue , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widespread , and it leads to what political scientists call “ competitive authoritarianism , ” which Ginsburg and Huq describe as a system “ in which elections of a sort occur , where liberal rights to speech and association are not wholly stifled , and where there is some semblance of the rule of law.
” Erosion , they write , flows through five specific mechanisms .
These are 1 ) changes in the national constitution to reduce constitutional guarantees ; 2 ) elimination of the interbranch checks among the three branches of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politicized , uncheckable executive power ; 4 ) gradual contraction of the “ shared public sphere ” open for democratic protest ; and 5 ) elimination of genuine competition among parties and opportunities for peaceful change in government .
How well equipped to resist these pressures is the American system ?
On the evidence of the last four years , the answer is : nowhere near as much as we have been taught .
“ The problem in the United States , in short , is not the risk that interbranch checks will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were never as effective as was hoped in the first place.
” Congress is “ strong on paper but weak in practice , whereas presidents are weak on paper but powerful in practice.
” Because the presidents appoint ( and promote ) judges , “ US federal courts today have more in common with the inert Weimar courts than the activist constitutional court of South Africa.
” The Supreme Court has abetted erosion by shaping extra-constitutional doctrines , such as “ standing to sue ” or “ political questions , ” that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to serial constitutional violations if doing so would be divisive or damaging to the Court ’ s reputation or workload.
” Despite claims that our federal system enhances “ liberty , ” our gradual division into red and blue states risks the creation of “ authoritarian enclaves ” ( think Alabama , Mississippi , or Scott Walker ’ s gerrymandered Wisconsin ) that serve as “ laboratories for despotism.
” Executive power had already metastasized by the time Trump came into office ; he has carried the malaise further .
And his partisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has taken the country a step closer to autocracy .
The authors offer an interesting set of recommendations on how our system could be made hardier .
One of the most intriguing , paradoxically , is the end of pure majoritarianism in Congress : “ the creation of constitutional platforms for opposition parties within the legislature to challenge executive action.
” If legislative majorities share control of oversight—for example , by providing the minority party with key committee chairmanships , they reason , the executive could not use its control of Congress to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or worse But minority rights is but one of a rich selection of suggestions for strengthening our institutions against the next would-be dictator .
These are made within the existing constitutional framework , and each one should set off lively discussions as the nation gropes its way back toward government by law .
Among others , Ginsburg and Huq suggest statutes requiring executive transparency and strengthened protections for career officials in crucial federal bureaucracies .
They would like to revive the Independent Counsel , with some protections against Ken Starr-type hijacking , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Department ’ s investigative and prosecutorial functions .
They propose one intriguing constitutional change–to reform the President ’ s cabinet by making it more , not less , partisan .
They would lift the bar ( Article I § 6 cl .
2 ) against serving members of Congress also being appointed to “ any office under the United States … during [ their ] continuance in office.
” This would be coupled with an explicit requirement that each appointment of a Cabinet officer from the president ’ s party “ had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other party.
” This , they argue , would facilitate communication and information-sharing between contending sides and perhaps make legislating easier .
I can imagine objections to that suggestion—as well as to the idea that “ [ t ] he filibuster should be restored for all federal judges , but with the understanding from both parties that each can make appointments when it is in power.
” But both are worth discussing .
The minimal definition of democracy , however , raises questions about whether these remedies can tackle the real sources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay too little attention to racial division—the gaping wound in our national life that sometimes bleeds and sometimes hemorrhages but has never come close to healing .
Ethnic strife—for example , between Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka , Turks and Kurds in Turkey , and indigenous peoples and those of European or African descent in Brazil—is one of the most , if not the most , powerful tool of would-be autocrats .
American politics reveals a long roster of politicians who rose by attacking people of color ; the power of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s racist rhetoric did not doom his campaign and arguably boosted his vote .
In the larger sense , the role of internal conflict—a ginned-up struggle against real or invented enemies within—is a key element in the rise and maintenance of authoritarian states .
It is often thought that war provides the richest opportunity to destroy democracy ; but in fact , I think , domestic battles are more poisonous .
Certainly , Trump and his enablers have been assiduous in stoking conflict between “ red ” and “ blue ” Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Muslims—again , with at least some political benefit .
Legislative reform offers little hope if it simply papers over this sort of division .
For that reason , I would quarrel as well with the authors ’ minimal definition of democracy .
Free elections , free speech , and the rule of law are indeed essentials of any free democratic polity ; but without a fairly stern commitment to equality—between classes , races , and sexes—they may not be sufficient to preserve that freedom .
Ginsburg and Huq are aware that our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that transcends institutional arrangements : Democracy can not survive , they acknowledge , “ without a decent measure of popular commitment to democracy.
” Structural reforms take a polity only so far ; they must take place within a context of democratic values “ transmitted within families , schools , churches , mosques , synagogues , work-places , and social media networks.
” If ordinary people lose interest in democracy , “ the best institutional and constitutional design in the world will likely be for naught.
” How severe is the deficit ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the authors—the uneven but ultimately effective functioning of American democracy in the fraught fall of 2020 .
As it approached , Election Day seemed like an apocalypse foretold , with fears of violence at the polls , sabotage of the mail system , vote suppression or computer hacking at the counting stage , street violence as results were announced , and lawless intervention by partisan judges to reverse Republican setbacks .
What actually happened offers a complex and ambiguous comment on the nation ’ s democratic values .
In one sense , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a textbook case of “ democratic erosion , ” as Trump launched a project to overturn an election that was not particularly close .
National leaders of the Republican party—who understand perfectly well that Trump lost—nonetheless maintained their North Korean-style conformity to the party line .
As a result , millions of Americans are now convinced the election was “ rigged.
” On the other hand , this slow-motion coup failed laughably .
Though America ’ s conservative elite betrayed it , the system survived precisely because of the fidelity of relatively low-level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , were ignoring their own partisan preferences to administer an election according to law .
Federal judges , even those appointed by Trump himself , uniformly rejected the idea of the courts as an extension of Republican rule .
Conservative lawyers , too , defected , leaving Trump in the hands of a team that seemed more like a spinoff of “ The Walking Dead ” than an “ elite strike force.
” That clerks , election board members , legislators , and executive officials in Georgia , Michigan , Arizona , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provides some grounds for optimism as we strive , with the help of authors like Ginsburg and Huq , to repair and save our constitutional democracy .

Four days before Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016, the syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker reassured readers of the Washington Post’s “Opinion” section under the headline, “Calm down. We’ll be fine no matter who wins”:
Thanks to the brilliance of our tripartite government, nobody gets to be dictator. And despite what nearly everyone seems to believe, our “broken government” works pretty well most of the time. If Trump wins, he’ll be held more or less in check by the House and Senate because that’s the way our system of government is set up. Not even Republicans are eager to follow Trump’s lead. There won’t be a wall. He won’t impose any religion-based immigration restrictions, because even Trump isn’t that lame-brained.
After the election, others for a time continued to express—in slightly less risible form—the same confidence: America’s independent courts, its separation of powers, its checks and balances, its democratic culture, would keep Trump within shouting distance of its historical norms. Our blessed republic will muddle through, TV historians promised; the “better angels of our nature,” after all, always prevail.
In 2020, as Trump sinks slowly in the west, any sober observer would call these estimates too optimistic. American institutions have not tamed Trump; the reverse almost occurred, in fact. Far from checking and balancing, Republican members of both Houses treated Trump with all the skepticism of the North Korean Supreme People’s Assembly greeting Kim Jong Un’s newest five-year plan. After the voters repudiated him in 2018, Trump refused even the slightest cooperation with the Democratic House, stonewalled the special counsel, and laughed at impeachment. Until late November, he seemed to think he could do the same thing with the election itself.
Meanwhile, the judicial branch has been subject to the most systematic partisan packing since John Adams installed the “midnight judges.” The U.S. Department of Justice has functioned as Trump’s private law firm. The inspector general system has been crippled, and the President has openly defied the federal Vacancy Reform Act to neuter the “advise and consent” power of even his own Senate majority. The Department of Homeland Security auditioned on the streets of Portland, Oregon, for a potential second-term role as the president’s secret police. Preatorian Guard? More public than Stasi or Cheka.
Tom Ginsburg and Aziz Huq, professors at the University of Chicago law school, want to convince readers that the last four years are not the result of Trump’s personality, or even of peculiarly American political woes. How to Save a Constitutional Democracy by Tom Ginsburg and Aziz Huq. The University of Chicago Press. 295 pp.
“American exceptionalism” is now a dogma of the right (recall their ceaseless attack on Obama for his supposed apostasy), but, as Ginsburg and Huq explain, the phrase was actually coined by the American Communist Party to explain Marxism’s failure here. Whatever “exceptionalism” means today; no one can argue that the United States is immune to worldwide political and social trends; and, since 2000, those trends have been flowing against democracy and in favor of authoritarianism. The spillover of authoritarian ideas and techniques is a malign effect of globalization: “Innovations in fashion, music, and business spread across borders, and law is no exception,” the authors note.
Ginsburg and Huq’s seek to break down the “exceptional” idea and show us that it not only can happen but is happening here. They warn that “[t]his is a book provoked by the election of Donald Trump, but it is not a book about Trump in any direct way.” Trump and his administration, in this account, represent less a near-death experience for American democracy than an acute episode of what is likely to be a recurrent worldwide pandemic. They relate Trumpism to the recent rise of autocracy in Hungary, Poland, Venezuela, Turkey, Thailand, and other once-democratic nations. Those case studies provide an eerie description of the road our politics set out on well before January 2017 and offer a solemn warning of what may lie ahead in the post-Trump era.
No book about the dangers to democracy can proceed without agreement on the meaning of that elusive term. Ginsburg and Huq’s definition is minimalist; they offer three “‘floor’ requirements for a working democracy”:
These start with free and fair elections to be sure but extend to the liberal rights of speech and association that are necessary for the democratic process; and the stability, predictability, and publicity of a legal regime usually captured in the term rule of law—a quality of special importance when it comes to the machinery of elections.
The authors then provide a taxonomy of the ways democratic systems fall apart. Violent revolution they dismiss as unlikely in 21st century republics; “democratic collapse”—a Reichstag-fire event or lightning military coup—seems to them almost equally improbable, at least in the U.S. The danger to established, wealthy democratic nations, they argue, is “democratic erosion.” That phenomenon is widespread, and it leads to what political scientists call “competitive authoritarianism,” which Ginsburg and Huq describe as a system “in which elections of a sort occur, where liberal rights to speech and association are not wholly stifled, and where there is some semblance of the rule of law.” Erosion, they write, flows through five specific mechanisms. These are 1) changes in the national constitution to reduce constitutional guarantees; 2) elimination of the interbranch checks among the three branches of government; 3) an embrace of politicized, uncheckable executive power; 4) gradual contraction of the “shared public sphere” open for democratic protest; and 5) elimination of genuine competition among parties and opportunities for peaceful change in government.
How well equipped to resist these pressures is the American system? On the evidence of the last four years, the answer is: nowhere near as much as we have been taught. “The problem in the United States, in short, is not the risk that interbranch checks will be dismantled. The problem is that they were never as effective as was hoped in the first place.” Congress is “strong on paper but weak in practice, whereas presidents are weak on paper but powerful in practice.” Because the presidents appoint (and promote) judges, “US federal courts today have more in common with the inert Weimar courts than the activist constitutional court of South Africa.” The Supreme Court has abetted erosion by shaping extra-constitutional doctrines, such as “standing to sue” or “political questions,” that allow it to “shirk any response to serial constitutional violations if doing so would be divisive or damaging to the Court’s reputation or workload.”
Despite claims that our federal system enhances “liberty,” our gradual division into red and blue states risks the creation of “authoritarian enclaves” (think Alabama, Mississippi, or Scott Walker’s gerrymandered Wisconsin) that serve as “laboratories for despotism.” Executive power had already metastasized by the time Trump came into office; he has carried the malaise further. And his partisan annexation of the U.S. Department of Justice has taken the country a step closer to autocracy.
The authors offer an interesting set of recommendations on how our system could be made hardier. One of the most intriguing, paradoxically, is the end of pure majoritarianism in Congress: “the creation of constitutional platforms for opposition parties within the legislature to challenge executive action.” If legislative majorities share control of oversight—for example, by providing the minority party with key committee chairmanships, they reason, the executive could not use its control of Congress to shut down investigations that might prove embarrassing or worse
But minority rights is but one of a rich selection of suggestions for strengthening our institutions against the next would-be dictator. These are made within the existing constitutional framework, and each one should set off lively discussions as the nation gropes its way back toward government by law. Among others, Ginsburg and Huq suggest statutes requiring executive transparency and strengthened protections for career officials in crucial federal bureaucracies. They would like to revive the Independent Counsel, with some protections against Ken Starr-type hijacking, and bar by statute political interference with the Justice Department’s investigative and prosecutorial functions.
They propose one intriguing constitutional change–to reform the President’s cabinet by making it more, not less, partisan. They would lift the bar (Article I § 6 cl. 2) against serving members of Congress also being appointed to “any office under the United States … during [their] continuance in office.” This would be coupled with an explicit requirement that each appointment of a Cabinet officer from the president’s party “had to be matched with an appointment from the other party.” This, they argue, would facilitate communication and information-sharing between contending sides and perhaps make legislating easier. I can imagine objections to that suggestion—as well as to the idea that “[t]he filibuster should be restored for all federal judges, but with the understanding from both parties that each can make appointments when it is in power.” But both are worth discussing.
The minimal definition of democracy, however, raises questions about whether these remedies can tackle the real sources of democratic erosion. Ginsburg and Huq pay too little attention to racial division—the gaping wound in our national life that sometimes bleeds and sometimes hemorrhages but has never come close to healing. Ethnic strife—for example, between Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka, Turks and Kurds in Turkey, and indigenous peoples and those of European or African descent in Brazil—is one of the most, if not the most, powerful tool of would-be autocrats. American politics reveals a long roster of politicians who rose by attacking people of color; the power of this stratagem was confirmed this year when Trump’s racist rhetoric did not doom his campaign and arguably boosted his vote.
In the larger sense, the role of internal conflict—a ginned-up struggle against real or invented enemies within—is a key element in the rise and maintenance of authoritarian states. It is often thought that war provides the richest opportunity to destroy democracy; but in fact, I think, domestic battles are more poisonous. Certainly, Trump and his enablers have been assiduous in stoking conflict between “red” and “blue” Americans, as well as suspicions of immigrants and Muslims—again, with at least some political benefit.
Legislative reform offers little hope if it simply papers over this sort of division. For that reason, I would quarrel as well with the authors’ minimal definition of democracy. Free elections, free speech, and the rule of law are indeed essentials of any free democratic polity; but without a fairly stern commitment to equality—between classes, races, and sexes—they may not be sufficient to preserve that freedom.
Ginsburg and Huq are aware that our society is suffering from a democratic deficit that transcends institutional arrangements: Democracy cannot survive, they acknowledge, “without a decent measure of popular commitment to democracy.” Structural reforms take a polity only so far; they must take place within a context of democratic values “ transmitted within families, schools, churches, mosques, synagogues, work-places, and social media networks.” If ordinary people lose interest in democracy, “the best institutional and constitutional design in the world will likely be for naught.”
How severe is the deficit? We now have some information unavailable to the authors—the uneven but ultimately effective functioning of American democracy in the fraught fall of 2020. As it approached, Election Day seemed like an apocalypse foretold, with fears of violence at the polls, sabotage of the mail system, vote suppression or computer hacking at the counting stage, street violence as results were announced, and lawless intervention by partisan judges to reverse Republican setbacks.
What actually happened offers a complex and ambiguous comment on the nation’s democratic values. In one sense, the aftermath of the election is in fact a textbook case of “democratic erosion,” as Trump launched a project to overturn an election that was not particularly close. National leaders of the Republican party—who understand perfectly well that Trump lost—nonetheless maintained their North Korean-style conformity to the party line. As a result, millions of Americans are now convinced the election was “rigged.”
On the other hand, this slow-motion coup failed laughably. Though America’s conservative elite betrayed it, the system survived precisely because of the fidelity of relatively low-level government figures who, in many cases, were ignoring their own partisan preferences to administer an election according to law. Federal judges, even those appointed by Trump himself, uniformly rejected the idea of the courts as an extension of Republican rule. Conservative lawyers, too, defected, leaving Trump in the hands of a team that seemed more like a spinoff of “The Walking Dead” than an “elite strike force.”
That clerks, election board members, legislators, and executive officials in Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, and Pennsylvania ignored blandishments and threats from Trump provides some grounds for optimism as we strive, with the help of authors like Ginsburg and Huq, to repair and save our constitutional democracy.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-17--The GOP’s Assault on Truth Is About Power, Not Persuasion

On Wednesday , the Senate Homeland Security Committee held a hearing on election security .
Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin , who chairs the committee , has previously held hearings on the unconscionable claim that Medicaid is responsible for fueling the opioid epidemic and the quackery that hydroxychloroquine cures the coronavirus .
Johnson is also the Republican who turned a joke from FBI agent Lisa Page about “ off-site meetings ” into a claim that there was a “ secret society ” at the FBI plotting to destroy the Trump presidency .
Reporting for the Associated Press , Christina Cassidy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pull any punches when describing the point of Wednesday ’ s hearing .
The session , held by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee over Democratic protests , elevated the groundless claims of fraud to the highest levels of government and provided two of Trump ’ s lawyers with one more public opportunity to make the false assertions after repeatedly losing in court… [ Johnson ] , the committee chairman and one of Trump ’ s fiercest defenders , said his goal was to have a bipartisan hearing to examine the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s assertions without evidence and focused heavily on the claims being made by the president ’ s team .
Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri identified the goal of the hearing when he claimed that about 30 of his constituents told him that they had been disenfranchised , their votes didn ’ t matter , and the election was rigged ( even though Trump won Missouri by 15 points ) .
Hawley suggested that the 74 million people who voted for Trump are now being told to “ sit down and shut up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ integrity .
He used that claim to justify the need for a hearing .
This is a pattern we ’ ve witnessed from Trump and his defenders many times over the last four years .
The president tells an outrageous lie .
It is repeated endlessly by right-wing media .
When his supporters believe and amplify the lie , it is put on equal footing with the truth as a matter for inquiry and debate .
If mainstream media refuses to spread the lie , they are accused of engaging in censorship .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Miriam Matthews of the Rand Corporation described this pattern as a model of propaganda they called “ firehose of falsehood.
” Their interest was in pointing out how Vladimir Putin uses this deluge of lies as part of his information warfare both at home and abroad .
They describe firehosing as having four key characteristics .
Those living in the bubble created by right-wing news hear Trump ’ s lies repeatedly from multiple sources , making them appear credible .
This is the underpinning of all propaganda .
That firehosing lacks a commitment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counterintuitive .
But as Masha Gessen of the New Yorker explains , that is because the goal of firehosing is not persuasion , but power .
The immediate reaction of the media and others to a firehose of lies is to fact-check .
That turns the lies into a political fight .
What shouldn ’ t be up for debate becomes a partisan tit for tat .
As Peter Pomerantsev , a Soviet-born British journalist and author , wrote about Putin ’ s information warfare in 2014 : “ insisting on the lie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it is in control of defining ‘ reality.
’ This is why it ’ s so important for Moscow to do away with truth .
If nothing is true , then anything is possible.
” Wednesday ’ s hearing on “ election security ” was a perfect example of this method of propaganda .
Lies about voter fraud have been broadcast continuously on the right .
They have been fact-checked as false not only by the media but by Republican officials in the contested states and judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that because some of his constituents believe the lies , we must have a hearing that places those lies on an equal footing with the facts .
That is precisely how truth is robbed of its power .

On Wednesday, the Senate Homeland Security Committee held a hearing on election security. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who chairs the committee, has previously held hearings on the unconscionable claim that Medicaid is responsible for fueling the opioid epidemic and the quackery that hydroxychloroquine cures the coronavirus. Johnson is also the Republican who turned a joke from FBI agent Lisa Page about “off-site meetings” into a claim that there was a “secret society” at the FBI plotting to destroy the Trump presidency.
Reporting for the Associated Press, Christina Cassidy and Mary Clare Jalonick didn’t pull any punches when describing the point of Wednesday’s hearing.
The session, held by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee over Democratic protests, elevated the groundless claims of fraud to the highest levels of government and provided two of Trump’s lawyers with one more public opportunity to make the false assertions after repeatedly losing in court… [Johnson], the committee chairman and one of Trump’s fiercest defenders, said his goal was to have a bipartisan hearing to examine the election. But he repeated Trump’s assertions without evidence and focused heavily on the claims being made by the president’s team.
Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri identified the goal of the hearing when he claimed that about 30 of his constituents told him that they had been disenfranchised, their votes didn’t matter, and the election was rigged (even though Trump won Missouri by 15 points). Hawley suggested that the 74 million people who voted for Trump are now being told to “sit down and shut up” if they have concerns about election integrity. He used that claim to justify the need for a hearing.
This is a pattern we’ve witnessed from Trump and his defenders many times over the last four years. The president tells an outrageous lie. It is repeated endlessly by right-wing media. When his supporters believe and amplify the lie, it is put on equal footing with the truth as a matter for inquiry and debate. If mainstream media refuses to spread the lie, they are accused of engaging in censorship.
Four years ago, Christopher Paul and Miriam Matthews of the Rand Corporation described this pattern as a model of propaganda they called “firehose of falsehood.” Their interest was in pointing out how Vladimir Putin uses this deluge of lies as part of his information warfare both at home and abroad. They describe firehosing as having four key characteristics.
High volume and multichannel Rapid, continuous, and repetitive Lacks commitment to objective reality Lacks commitment to consistency
Those living in the bubble created by right-wing news hear Trump’s lies repeatedly from multiple sources, making them appear credible. This is the underpinning of all propaganda. That firehosing lacks a commitment to consistency and objective reality can seem counterintuitive. But as Masha Gessen of the New Yorker explains, that is because the goal of firehosing is not persuasion, but power.
The immediate reaction of the media and others to a firehose of lies is to fact-check. That turns the lies into a political fight. What shouldn’t be up for debate becomes a partisan tit for tat. As Peter Pomerantsev, a Soviet-born British journalist and author, wrote about Putin’s information warfare in 2014: “insisting on the lie, the Kremlin intimidates others by showing that it is in control of defining ‘reality.’ This is why it’s so important for Moscow to do away with truth. If nothing is true, then anything is possible.”
Wednesday’s hearing on “election security” was a perfect example of this method of propaganda. Lies about voter fraud have been broadcast continuously on the right. They have been fact-checked as false not only by the media but by Republican officials in the contested states and judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans. And yet, Senator Hawley suggested that because some of his constituents believe the lies, we must have a hearing that places those lies on an equal footing with the facts. That is precisely how truth is robbed of its power.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-18--How Biden Can Have a Successful Presidency Without Congress

Barry Lynn , the executive director of the Open Markets Institute , has provided a major service to the incoming Biden administration .
The fierce anti-monopoly advocate offers a roadmap for the new president to pursue a progressive and transformative presidency without cooperation from Congress .
In his new piece How Biden Can Transform America , which appears online and.in the next print issue of the Washington Monthly ( please subscribe ) , Lynn explains how existing antitrust laws can help Biden control health care costs , stimulate the economy , create jobs , reinvigorate America , tackle climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more capable of combatting disinformation .
As Lynn explains , this isn ’ t just a matter of combining good policy with good politics .
It ’ s really Biden ’ s only chance at success .
It ’ s a view he fleshes out at greater length in his new book Liberty from All Masters : The New American Autocracy vs. the Will of the People The Democrats , of course , have a very narrow majority in the House of Representatives , and Senate control hinges on the outcome of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the Democrats win those races and get a 50-50 Senate majority ( the vice-president casts tie-breaking votes in the Senate ) , they can ’ t end the legislative filibuster because of the opposition of some of their own members , like Joe Manchin of West Virginia .
This means legislation will require the assent of at least 10 Republican senators who operate under the leadership of Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky .
Through no fault of his own , Biden ’ s legislative agenda is blocked for at least the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most likely for the entirety of his first term .
He can resign himself to being ineffectual , or he can use the antitrust tools he has at his disposal , and those tools are more powerful than is commonly understood .
These powers have lay largely dormant since the Reagan administration when traditional antitrust regulation was gutted in favor of what was supposed to be the advancement of consumer interests .
Rather than breaking up monopolies to protect small business owners , farmers , and entrepreneurs , they encouraged corporate concentration believing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prices .
They didn ’ t repeal the antitrust laws or authorities , but rather chose to enforce them differently , or not at all .
This change was largely continued by the following five administrations , leading to the massive corporate consolidation we see today .
But Biden would not need permission from Congress to revert back to the previous practice of antitrust enforcement that prevailed under Democratic and Republican presidents between the Woodrow Wilson and Reagan .
A hidden advantage to this strategy is explained , in part , by understanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls “ the single most dramatic ideological reversal in American history.
” By the time Reagan took office “ anti-monopoly enforcement had become so successfully routinized by the early 1980s that few Americans thought much about it.
” Since the important changes took place not in Congress but in office spaces throughout the vast federal bureaucracy , the transformation was almost invisible to the public .
It didn ’ t hurt that Reagan has some ideological support on the left : Biden can capitalize on a similar dynamic .
While the public is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Capitol Hill , he can work behind the scenes to bust up monopolies .
He ’ ll find sympathetic ears on the right where concern about market concentration is on the rise .
Just this week , Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed an antitrust lawsuit against Alphabet Inc. ’ s Google , accusing them of colluding with Facebook to manipulate online advertising exchanges in their favor .
Bloomberg Businessreports that Clinton-era Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and his firm will be hired to prosecute the case .
Paxton is generally a laughable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bribery from his own top staff and led a frivolous and menacing lawsuit to overturn the presidential election in four states that went for Biden .
The Supreme Court unanimously chose not to overturn those contests .
But Paxton has had an interesting footprint when it comes to antitrust .
He helped , convince Bill Barr ’ s Justice Department to bring a major antitrust suit against Google in October .
The DOJ case focuses on Google ’ s use of exclusive contracts to assure its search dominance in browsers and mobile devices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monopolistic search practices were challenged by over 30 states in an antitrust case led by the Democratic attorney general of Colorado and the Republican attorney general of Nebraska .
Axios reports that it accuses Google of hurting “ rival specialized search companies like Yelp or TripAdvisor by favoring its own results ” and “ using those same tactics to extend its search-related monopolies into emerging technology like smart speakers.
” In addition to the scrutiny Facebook is facing for its role in Google ’ s ad exchanges , the social networking site ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the crosshairs of both the Federal Trade Commission and a coalition of attorneys general led by New York ’ s Letitia James .
The suits were jointly announced on December 7 and may be combined .
The FTC filing seeks nothing less than the breakup of Facebook .
This extensive and bipartisan push to limit the power of social media giants gives Biden some momentum to push a broader antitrust strategy .
While congressional Republicans would surely oppose strengthening antitrust laws –mainly because of the high costs GOP lawmakers pay when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the enemy–he may get tacit blessing for tougher enforcement from populist conservative quarters outside the Beltway .
Importantly , however , he won ’ t require their support .
Well-established laws give him the power he needs.. For Lynn , however , it ’ s important that Biden consider the alterative to getting tough on monopolies : By contrast , if Biden fails to seize the initiative , he might be remembered as little more than a woebegone regent for Trump in his exile , in Elba by the Sea Florida .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a defensive , cautious , backward-looking , tortoise-like Biden administration will deliver , which might be something like the end of democracy in America and around the world .
Failure to use anti-monopolism to seize the initiative would leave Trump ’ s Republican Party free to use the same populist rhetoric to divide and scatter the Democratic Party in 2022 and 2024 , while once again bringing the Koch-funded neoliberal wing of the GOP back into gawky alignment with Trump ’ s national populist wing .
Trumpism , in part , grew out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of lax antitrust enforcement and the loss of economic liberty , opportunity , and growth it wrought .
The best way to weaken Trump ’ s movement is to take on market concentration and revive entrepreneurship and the sense of freedom that has been choked out of so much of America .
If Biden doesn ’ t take Lynn up on his advice and follow his roadmap , he ’ s inviting a Trump comeback in four years , and our Republic can not survive that .

Barry Lynn, the executive director of the Open Markets Institute, has provided a major service to the incoming Biden administration. The fierce anti-monopoly advocate offers a roadmap for the new president to pursue a progressive and transformative presidency without cooperation from Congress.
In his new piece How Biden Can Transform America, which appears online and.in the next print issue of the Washington Monthly (please subscribe), Lynn explains how existing antitrust laws can help Biden control health care costs, stimulate the economy, create jobs, reinvigorate America, tackle climate change, and build a stronger independent media more capable of combatting disinformation.
As Lynn explains, this isn’t just a matter of combining good policy with good politics. It’s really Biden’s only chance at success. It’s a view he fleshes out at greater length in his new book Liberty from All Masters: The New American Autocracy vs. the Will of the People
The Democrats, of course, have a very narrow majority in the House of Representatives, and Senate control hinges on the outcome of those January runoff elections in Georgia. Even if the Democrats win those races and get a 50-50 Senate majority (the vice-president casts tie-breaking votes in the Senate), they can’t end the legislative filibuster because of the opposition of some of their own members, like Joe Manchin of West Virginia. This means legislation will require the assent of at least 10 Republican senators who operate under the leadership of Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Through no fault of his own, Biden’s legislative agenda is blocked for at least the first two years of his presidency, and most likely for the entirety of his first term. He can resign himself to being ineffectual, or he can use the antitrust tools he has at his disposal, and those tools are more powerful than is commonly understood.
On day one, President Biden will be able to strap himself into the cockpit of a governing machine purpose-built during the Wilson and Roosevelt administrations—and fortified by Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, and even Richard Nixon—to break power, distribute opportunity, build community, protect security, and engage citizens in constructive activities. This system includes agencies with great untapped powers, like the FTC and the Department of Agriculture, which have far-reaching and long-neglected rule-making authority. And it includes strong anti-monopoly powers in just about every office of government, including the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Defense Department, the Transportation Department, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, among many others.
These powers have lay largely dormant since the Reagan administration when traditional antitrust regulation was gutted in favor of what was supposed to be the advancement of consumer interests. Rather than breaking up monopolies to protect small business owners, farmers, and entrepreneurs, they encouraged corporate concentration believing it would yield greater efficiencies and lower prices. They didn’t repeal the antitrust laws or authorities, but rather chose to enforce them differently, or not at all.
This change was largely continued by the following five administrations, leading to the massive corporate consolidation we see today. But Biden would not need permission from Congress to revert back to the previous practice of antitrust enforcement that prevailed under Democratic and Republican presidents between the Woodrow Wilson and Reagan.
A hidden advantage to this strategy is explained, in part, by understanding how Reagan got away with what Lynn calls “the single most dramatic ideological reversal in American history.” By the time Reagan took office “anti-monopoly enforcement had become so successfully routinized by the early 1980s that few Americans thought much about it.” Since the important changes took place not in Congress but in office spaces throughout the vast federal bureaucracy, the transformation was almost invisible to the public.
It didn’t hurt that Reagan has some ideological support on the left:
It was also because highly influential “progressive” thinkers such as John Kenneth Galbraith and Lester Thurow largely agreed with the underlying goal of Robert Bork and the other libertarian scholars who were advising Reagan. They too favored extreme concentration of corporate power, but, in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, they intended it to be under the day-to-day direction of the executive branch.
Biden can capitalize on a similar dynamic. While the public is focused on quarrelsome and unproductive debates on Capitol Hill, he can work behind the scenes to bust up monopolies. He’ll find sympathetic ears on the right where concern about market concentration is on the rise.
Just this week, Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed an antitrust lawsuit against Alphabet Inc.’s Google, accusing them of colluding with Facebook to manipulate online advertising exchanges in their favor. Bloomberg Businessreports that Clinton-era Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and his firm will be hired to prosecute the case. Paxton is generally a laughable figure. He is facing allegations of bribery from his own top staff and led a frivolous and menacing lawsuit to overturn the presidential election in four states that went for Biden. The Supreme Court unanimously chose not to overturn those contests. But Paxton has had an interesting footprint when it comes to antitrust. He helped, convince Bill Barr’s Justice Department to bring a major antitrust suit against Google in October. The DOJ case focuses on Google’s use of exclusive contracts to assure its search dominance in browsers and mobile devices.
On Thursday, Google’s monopolistic search practices were challenged by over 30 states in an antitrust case led by the Democratic attorney general of Colorado and the Republican attorney general of Nebraska. Axios reports that it accuses Google of hurting “rival specialized search companies like Yelp or TripAdvisor by favoring its own results” and “using those same tactics to extend its search-related monopolies into emerging technology like smart speakers.”
In addition to the scrutiny Facebook is facing for its role in Google’s ad exchanges, the social networking site’s acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram are in the crosshairs of both the Federal Trade Commission and a coalition of attorneys general led by New York’s Letitia James. The suits were jointly announced on December 7 and may be combined. The FTC filing seeks nothing less than the breakup of Facebook.
This extensive and bipartisan push to limit the power of social media giants gives Biden some momentum to push a broader antitrust strategy. While congressional Republicans would surely oppose strengthening antitrust laws –mainly because of the high costs GOP lawmakers pay when they’re seen to be cooperating with the enemy–he may get tacit blessing for tougher enforcement from populist conservative quarters outside the Beltway.
Importantly, however, he won’t require their support. Well-established laws give him the power he needs..
For Lynn, however, it’s important that Biden consider the alterative to getting tough on monopolies:
By contrast, if Biden fails to seize the initiative, he might be remembered as little more than a woebegone regent for Trump in his exile, in Elba by the Sea Florida. And Democrats should be absolutely honest about what a defensive, cautious, backward-looking, tortoise-like Biden administration will deliver, which might be something like the end of democracy in America and around the world. Failure to use anti-monopolism to seize the initiative would leave Trump’s Republican Party free to use the same populist rhetoric to divide and scatter the Democratic Party in 2022 and 2024, while once again bringing the Koch-funded neoliberal wing of the GOP back into gawky alignment with Trump’s national populist wing.
Trumpism, in part, grew out of the devastation wrought by four decades of lax antitrust enforcement and the loss of economic liberty, opportunity, and growth it wrought. The best way to weaken Trump’s movement is to take on market concentration and revive entrepreneurship and the sense of freedom that has been choked out of so much of America.
If Biden doesn’t take Lynn up on his advice and follow his roadmap, he’s inviting a Trump comeback in four years, and our Republic cannot survive that.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-18--Trump Invited the Fox to Guard the Henhouse

On Thursday , the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency , which is part of the Department of Homeland Security , issued a dire warning : the recently discovered major computer intrusion by Rusian hackers “ poses a grave risk ” to federal , state , and local governments as well as private companies and organizations .
Confirming previous accounts , CISA reported that the attacks began in March , but added that they are ongoing—meaning the malware that ’ s been placed on computers may still be capturing valuable information .
The scope of these attacks is still being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Commerce , Treasury , State , Homeland Security and Defense , journalist Natasha Bertrand reported at Politico that the Energy Department and its National Nuclear Security Administration , which maintains the safety of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile , were compromised .
Microsoft released a statement saying that it had identified 40 companies , government agencies , and think tanks that the suspected Russian hackers , at a minimum , had infiltrated .
Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois—not one to engage in hyperbole— is sounding the alarm loud and clear .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s affection for Moscow , Durbin said that “ we can ’ t be buddies with Vladimir Putin and have him , at the same time , making this kind of cyber attack on America .
This is virtually a declaration of war on the United States by Russia and we should take it that seriously.
” Just as the president did nothing in response to learning that Russia had placed bounties on American military personnel serving in Afghanistan , he has remained silent in response to this attack .
In light @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worth remembering that the first face-to-face meeting between Putin and Trump occurred in Hamburg during the July 2017 G-20 summit .
The focus at the time was on whether Trump would confront Putin about Russian interference in the 2016 election .
But their initial two-hour meeting was reported to have included discussions about Syria , terrorism , and cybersecurity .
Initially , Trump didn ’ t say much about what the two leaders discussed .
But two days later , he tweeted this : That is particularly alarming given what journalist Max Fisher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cyber warfare laid out by General Valery V. Gerasimov in 2013 .
The Arab Spring , according to General Gerasimov , had shown that “ nonmilitary means ” had overtaken the “ force of weapons in their effectiveness.
” Deception and disinformation , not tanks and planes , were the new tools of power .
And they would be used not in formally declared conflicts but within a vast gray between peace and war .
Those ideas would appear , the next year , in Russia ’ s formal military doctrine .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategic reorientation that has remade Russian power , in response to threats both real and imagined , into the sort of enterprise that could be plausibly accused of using cyberattacks to meddle in an American presidential election .
In other words , in that tweet , Trump openly admitted to inviting the fox to guard the henhouse .

On Thursday, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, issued a dire warning: the recently discovered major computer intrusion by Rusian hackers “poses a grave risk” to federal, state, and local governments as well as private companies and organizations. Confirming previous accounts, CISA reported that the attacks began in March, but added that they are ongoing—meaning the malware that’s been placed on computers may still be capturing valuable information.
The scope of these attacks is still being determined. In addition to the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, State, Homeland Security and Defense, journalist Natasha Bertrand reported at Politico that the Energy Department and its National Nuclear Security Administration, which maintains the safety of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, were compromised. Microsoft released a statement saying that it had identified 40 companies, government agencies, and think tanks that the suspected Russian hackers, at a minimum, had infiltrated.
Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois—not one to engage in hyperbole— is sounding the alarm loud and clear.
Alluding to the danger of Donald Trump’s affection for Moscow, Durbin said that “we can’t be buddies with Vladimir Putin and have him, at the same time, making this kind of cyber attack on America. This is virtually a declaration of war on the United States by Russia and we should take it that seriously.”
Just as the president did nothing in response to learning that Russia had placed bounties on American military personnel serving in Afghanistan, he has remained silent in response to this attack.
In light of this cybersecurity breach, it is worth remembering that the first face-to-face meeting between Putin and Trump occurred in Hamburg during the July 2017 G-20 summit. The focus at the time was on whether Trump would confront Putin about Russian interference in the 2016 election. But their initial two-hour meeting was reported to have included discussions about Syria, terrorism, and cybersecurity. Initially, Trump didn’t say much about what the two leaders discussed. But two days later, he tweeted this:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/884016887692234753
That is particularly alarming given what journalist Max Fisher wrote about Russia’s strategy for cyber warfare laid out by General Valery V. Gerasimov in 2013.
The Arab Spring, according to General Gerasimov, had shown that “nonmilitary means” had overtaken the “force of weapons in their effectiveness.” Deception and disinformation, not tanks and planes, were the new tools of power. And they would be used not in formally declared conflicts but within a vast gray between peace and war. Those ideas would appear, the next year, in Russia’s formal military doctrine. It was the culmination of a years long strategic reorientation that has remade Russian power, in response to threats both real and imagined, into the sort of enterprise that could be plausibly accused of using cyberattacks to meddle in an American presidential election.
In other words, in that tweet, Trump openly admitted to inviting the fox to guard the henhouse.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-19--Trump Hates and Refuses to Do His Job. But He Wants to Keep It, Anyway.

When we talk about Donald Trump ’ s behavior in office , all too often we lose sight of the fact that the presidency is an actual job .
When you start to think of it that way , his already deranged behavior seems even more bizarre .
Donald Trump doesn ’ t like his job .
He ’ s bad at his job .
He doesn ’ t even actually do his job .
For all these reasons and more , he was just fired from his job .
Unlike most people toiling in jobs they hate , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But for some reason , he still wants his job back and doesn ’ t want anyone else to have his job , either .
Why would anyone do this ?
Because , of course , Donald Trump doesn ’ t approach the presidency like a job .
He sees it as a pathway to corrupt wealth , a shield against prosecution , as a scourge to use against perceived enemies , and of course as a way to look like a winner .
The actual functions and duties of the presidency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more time watching garbage cable news than focusing on matters of state , more time golfing that reading memos .
So it should come as no surprise that in the waning months of his presidency , he has spent almost no time governing .
Instead , he is raising hundreds of millions dollars into a slush fund for future use ; he is continuing to bully his enemies both within and outside of the Republican Party ; he is fretting over the prospect of future prosecutions ; and above all , he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he isn ’ t really a loser , a label he fears more than the judgment of history .
So , of course , Donald Trump isn ’ t lifting a finger to deal with the pandemic now taking over 3,000 American lives every day .
He isn ’ t helping negotiate the relief bill struggling to get through Congress in spite of Republican sabotage .
He isn ’ t saying a word about the massive hack by likely Russian intelligence services against both democracies and private sector businesses all around the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has never taken COVID seriously or just because he ’ s weirdly subservient to Putin .
It ’ s also because he ’ s functionally terrible at his job and refuses to do anything , much like a lazy teenager who balks at doing their homework .
And yet , Trump still wants to keep the job if the Supreme Court or Congress will somehow gift it to him–and barring that , he is considering running for the job again in 2024 .
Any halfway decent political party that cared about governing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with this .
But Donald Trump wholly owns the Republican Party for two reasons : first , because he and his brand of politics are more popular than most longtime Republicans are ; and second , because the Republican Party itself is now little more than a grab bag of hateful grievances against the country ’ s liberal , urban and non-white citizens , with quid-pro-quo funding from a collection of corrupt corporate donors .
Republicans aren ’ t interested in a president who will actually do the job .
They want a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal Americans suffer , while giving their donors tax cuts and anti-regulation judges .
You don ’ t need a president who actually does his job for that .
You might need a dictator , though .
And that ’ s the challenge .
It is often said that America can not be governed because Democrats and Republicans refuse to abide by the same set of facts .
This is true , but underestimates the challenge .
Democrats and Republicans aren ’ t trying to accomplish the same goals , and don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government or a president .
Democrats broadly see America and the world as beset by a series of problems , and they elect leaders who they expect will do the job of solving those problems .
The turnover and accountability mechanisms of democracy are important to make sure that elected officials actually perform their duties .
Republicans , on the other hand , see the government as a tool of power to be used against their domestic opponents , a shield to protect themselves from accountability , and otherwise a hindrance to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that philosophy : a lazy , indifferent , corrupted bully interested more in the power of the position than the job itself .

When we talk about Donald Trump’s behavior in office, all too often we lose sight of the fact that the presidency is an actual job. When you start to think of it that way, his already deranged behavior seems even more bizarre.
Donald Trump doesn’t like his job. He’s bad at his job. He doesn’t even actually do his job. For all these reasons and more, he was just fired from his job. Unlike most people toiling in jobs they hate, he doesn’t actually need his job. But for some reason, he still wants his job back and doesn’t want anyone else to have his job, either.
Why would anyone do this? Because, of course, Donald Trump doesn’t approach the presidency like a job. He sees it as a pathway to corrupt wealth, a shield against prosecution, as a scourge to use against perceived enemies, and of course as a way to look like a winner. The actual functions and duties of the presidency are not his concern. He spends more time watching garbage cable news than focusing on matters of state, more time golfing that reading memos.
So it should come as no surprise that in the waning months of his presidency, he has spent almost no time governing. Instead, he is raising hundreds of millions dollars into a slush fund for future use; he is continuing to bully his enemies both within and outside of the Republican Party; he is fretting over the prospect of future prosecutions; and above all, he is raging for hours every day about how he isn’t really a loser, a label he fears more than the judgment of history.
So, of course, Donald Trump isn’t lifting a finger to deal with the pandemic now taking over 3,000 American lives every day. He isn’t helping negotiate the relief bill struggling to get through Congress in spite of Republican sabotage. He isn’t saying a word about the massive hack by likely Russian intelligence services against both democracies and private sector businesses all around the world. This isn’t just because Trump has never taken COVID seriously or just because he’s weirdly subservient to Putin. It’s also because he’s functionally terrible at his job and refuses to do anything, much like a lazy teenager who balks at doing their homework.
And yet, Trump still wants to keep the job if the Supreme Court or Congress will somehow gift it to him–and barring that, he is considering running for the job again in 2024.
Any halfway decent political party that cared about governing a nation would refuse to go along with this. But Donald Trump wholly owns the Republican Party for two reasons: first, because he and his brand of politics are more popular than most longtime Republicans are; and second, because the Republican Party itself is now little more than a grab bag of hateful grievances against the country’s liberal, urban and non-white citizens, with quid-pro-quo funding from a collection of corrupt corporate donors. Republicans aren’t interested in a president who will actually do the job. They want a bully with broad executive powers to make liberal Americans suffer, while giving their donors tax cuts and anti-regulation judges. You don’t need a president who actually does his job for that. You might need a dictator, though.
And that’s the challenge. It is often said that America cannot be governed because Democrats and Republicans refuse to abide by the same set of facts. This is true, but underestimates the challenge. Democrats and Republicans aren’t trying to accomplish the same goals, and don’t have the same expectations of a government or a president. Democrats broadly see America and the world as beset by a series of problems, and they elect leaders who they expect will do the job of solving those problems. The turnover and accountability mechanisms of democracy are important to make sure that elected officials actually perform their duties. Republicans, on the other hand, see the government as a tool of power to be used against their domestic opponents, a shield to protect themselves from accountability, and otherwise a hindrance to be ignored. Trump-as-president is the apotheosis of that philosophy: a lazy, indifferent, corrupted bully interested more in the power of the position than the job itself.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-17--How Fragile Is Our Democracy?

How Fragile Is Our Democracy?


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-20--Trump Is Covering for Russia Again. We Deserve to Know Why.

Once again , the President of the United States is running interference for Russia , a hostile foreign adversary .
Once again , we as a nation still don ’ t know why .
We need to know .
The Solar Winds hack revealed early this week is one of the biggest security breaches in in modern history , touching nearly every major industrialized democracy and hundreds of major international corporations .
It wasn ’ t just the normal clandestine work of nation-state espionage .
Rather , it constituted a malicious attack on some of the world ’ s most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the intrusions into the architecture of some of the most basic building blocks of international government and business networks mean that most of those networks will have to be rebuilt from scratch , a process that will take years and billions of dollars .
And we know almost beyond doubt that Russia was behind the hacks .
Even Donald Trump ’ s own Secretary of State Mike Pompeo admitted as much .
Donald Trump–who it bears repeating is the President of the United States !
–has maintained an eerie silence on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment on much less denounce the attacks .
But then came this : And it ’ s not just the tweet .
Trump blocked the federal government from issuing a statement condemning the hack and Russia ’ s alleged involvement in it : White House officials had drafted a statement assigning blame to Russia for the attack and were preparing to release it Friday afternoon but were told to stand down , according to people familiar with the plans .
Officials initially weren ’ t told why the statement was pulled back .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ placed blame on Russia for orchestrating the attack but left open the possibility that other actors were involved .
The people familiar told CNN on Saturday it wasn ’ t clear whether the statement will be released , and instead described a scramble inside the administration as officials work to reconcile the competing statements from Trump and Pompeo .
It ’ s hard to know what to even call this .
Carrying water for Vladimir Putin ?
A disinformation campaign ?
A treasonous subversion of national security ?
Regardless of what we call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know why this is happening .
Trump has spent years calling concerns over his ties to Russian interference a “ hoax , ” and his Republican enablers have reinforced his propaganda .
But it ’ s not a hoax .
In 2008 Donald Trump Jr. said that much of the Trump family ’ s assets were dependent on Russia .
The GOP House Majority Leader said in 2016 that he believes Trump is on Putin ’ s payroll .
Trump ’ s former campaign manager Paul Manafort was essentially an agent of Putin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for bank fraud related to hiding money received from oligarchs before Trump pardoned him .
His former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn was convicted of lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian spies .
His campaign met with Russian agents trying to pass along dirt about Hillary Clinton .
His campaign associates interacted with Russian agents over 100 times .
Trump himself publicly asked Russia for help finding Clinton ’ s emails , and Russian agents dutifully obliged the very next day by targeting her accounts .
Trump ’ s close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Russian agents , and served as the direct intermediary between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks , which released the confidential material stolen by Russia .
Trump went on to commute Stone ’ s sentence as well .
Yes , Special Counsel Robert Mueller failed to find a smoking-gun conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign .
But that ’ s because 1 ) the minimum standards for proving such a conspiracy in court are very high , and 2 ) The key figures in Trumpworld who had the information obstructed justice .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mob boss claiming vindication after his associates go to jail for refusing to talk to the cops .
And none of this gets into Trump ’ s bizarre press conferences with Putin , in which his demeanor and body language uncharacteristically resembles a terrified lapdog , or his shocking betrayals of government secrets to Russian foreign ministers and ambassadors , or his refusal to acknowledge Russian poisoning of dissidents abroad.. Trump has one month left in his presidency .
Assuming his seditious attempts at staging a coup do fail , there will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind us and never look back at Trump again .
But we can not do that .
For four years our country has endured a sitting President with a bizarre , as yet unknown corrupt entanglement with a hostile foreign adversary that has repeatedly interfered in our elections and the workings of our government .
It is a white supremacist , sexist , fossil-fuel-backed kleptocratic oligarchic opponent of liberal democracy that has done its best to install and reinforce a likeminded authoritarian in the White House .
We deserve to know what that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the extent of the damage done .
Was it a matter of money , a desire to build a Trump Tower in Moscow ?
Was it kompromat related to Trump ’ s insalubrious activities in Russia ?
Something even more nefarious ?
Or just a matter of cultural and personal affinity with a tyrant ?
And what else was done behind closed doors that hasn ’ t been reported yet ?
It must not be swept under the rug .
It must not be relegated to the mysteries of history .
There must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be some version of Truth and Reconciliation committees .
Immunities should be granted as needed , except for the man at the top .
But we need to know , no matter how long it takes .
The truth must come out .
And there must be consequences .

Once again, the President of the United States is running interference for Russia, a hostile foreign adversary. Once again, we as a nation still don’t know why. We need to know.
The Solar Winds hack revealed early this week is one of the biggest security breaches in modern history, touching nearly every major industrialized democracy and hundreds of major international corporations. It wasn’t just the normal clandestine work of nation-state espionage. Rather, it constituted a malicious attack on some of the world’s most fundamental cyber infrastructure. The depth of of the intrusions into the architecture of some of the most basic building blocks of international government and business networks mean that most of those networks will have to be rebuilt from scratch, a process that will take years and billions of dollars. And we know almost beyond doubt that Russia was behind the hacks. Even Donald Trump’s own Secretary of State Mike Pompeo admitted as much.
Donald Trump–who it bears repeating is the President of the United States!–has maintained an eerie silence on the issue until today, refusing to even comment on much less denounce the attacks.
But then came this:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1340333619299147781?s=20
And it’s not just the tweet. Trump blocked the federal government from issuing a statement condemning the hack and Russia’s alleged involvement in it:
White House officials had drafted a statement assigning blame to Russia for the attack and were preparing to release it Friday afternoon but were told to stand down, according to people familiar with the plans. Officials initially weren’t told why the statement was pulled back. The statement, the people said, placed blame on Russia for orchestrating the attack but left open the possibility that other actors were involved. The people familiar told CNN on Saturday it wasn’t clear whether the statement will be released, and instead described a scramble inside the administration as officials work to reconcile the competing statements from Trump and Pompeo.
It’s hard to know what to even call this. Carrying water for Vladimir Putin? A disinformation campaign? A treasonous subversion of national security?
Regardless of what we call it, the American people deserve to know why this is happening. Trump has spent years calling concerns over his ties to Russian interference a “hoax,” and his Republican enablers have reinforced his propaganda. But it’s not a hoax.
In 2008 Donald Trump Jr. said that much of the Trump family’s assets were dependent on Russia. The GOP House Majority Leader said in 2016 that he believes Trump is on Putin’s payroll. Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort was essentially an agent of Putin in destabilizing Ukraine, and was convicted for bank fraud related to hiding money received from oligarchs. His former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn was convicted of lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian spies. His campaign met with Russian agents trying to pass along dirt about Hillary Clinton. His campaign associates interacted with Russian agents over 100 times. Trump himself publicly asked Russia for help finding Clinton’s emails, and Russian agents dutifully obliged the very next day by targeting her accounts. Trump’s close confidante Roger Stone was in frequent communication with Russian agents, and served as the direct intermediary between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks, which released the confidential material stolen by Russia. Trump went on to commute Stone’s sentence as well.
Yes, Special Counsel Robert Mueller failed to find a smoking-gun conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign. But that’s because 1) the minimum standards for proving such a conspiracy in court are very high, and 2) The key figures in Trumpworld who had the information obstructed justice. It’s the equivalent of a mob boss claiming vindication after his associates go to jail for refusing to talk to the cops.
And none of this gets into Trump’s bizarre press conferences with Putin, in which his demeanor and body language uncharacteristically resembles a terrified lapdog, or his shocking betrayals of government secrets to Russian foreign ministers and ambassadors, or his refusal to acknowledge Russian poisoning of dissidents abroad.
Trump has one month left in his presidency. Assuming his seditious attempts at staging a coup do fail, there will be immense pressure to just put this era behind us and never look back at Trump again.
But we cannot do that. For four years our country has endured a sitting President with a bizarre, as yet unknown corrupt entanglement with a hostile foreign adversary that has repeatedly interfered in our elections and the workings of our government. It is a white supremacist, sexist, fossil-fuel-backed kleptocratic oligarchic opponent of liberal democracy that has done its best to install and reinforce a likeminded authoritarian in the White House.
We deserve to know what that connection is. We deserve to know the extent of the damage done. Was it a matter of money, a desire to build a Trump Tower in Moscow? Was it kompromat related to Trump’s insalubrious activities in Russia? Something even more nefarious? Or just a matter of cultural and personal affinity with a tyrant? And what else was done behind closed doors that hasn’t been reported yet?
It must not be swept under the rug. It must not be relegated to the mysteries of history. There must be trials. If needed, there must be some version of Truth and Reconciliation committees. Immunities should be granted as needed, except for the man at the top.
But we need to know, no matter how long it takes. The truth must come out. And there must be consequences.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-21--Who Will Hold Republicans Accountable in a Biden Administration?

Donald Trump is a man of few talents and little skill .
But he has two singular talents that have served him well : utter shamelessness and an ability to suck up all the media oxygen in the room .
But soon Trump will be leaving office despite his seditious attempts at a coup .
He will continue to try to hog the spotlight , but nonetheless there will emerge a media attention vacuum that will demand to be filled .
Many of the major outlets will attempt in an abundance of fairness and balance , to strike the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they did toward the Trump White House .
There will be a certain appeal to this : after all , good journalism holds the powerful to account no matter who is in power , and the Executive Branch should receive the strictest scrutiny .
There will also be numerous progressive publications that will see it as their mission to push the Biden Administration as far to the left as possible .
There is a strong argument to be made for this as well .
After all , the divorce of the Republican base @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explicitly progressive nor mainstream publications have much effect on Republican politicians .
For them , Fox News is increasingly the farthest left flank of their discourse .
Moreover , bipartisanship will increasingly be a joke for all but the barest necessities of budget bills or near irrelevancies of policymaking .
Which in turn means that pushing the Biden administration to be as unilaterally aggressive as possible will have a certain value .
But the fact that the Republican Party has gone off the rails into an extremist , conspiracy-addled cult should not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The depredations of Republicans in Congress and GOP state officials will need to be exposed .
And calls for progressive action by the Biden Administration should be made not just by the leftist media flank , but with care and credibility by those with the credibility not to dismissed as boys crying wolf .
Insofar as possible , we need media organizations who can do all of this and navigate America ’ s course through these treacherous waters .
The Washington Monthly is one of the core media organizations that can still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Please , if you can , help make a donation to keep our work going .
If you can give today , NewsMatch will match it with a generous challenge grant dedicated to helping nonprofit news organizations like the Monthly–which also means your donation is tax-deductible . )
Plus , if you give $ 50 or more , you ’ ll receive a free one-year subscription to the print edition of the Washington Monthly–an always welcome arrival to alleviate quarantine boredom and broaden horizons .
We ’ ll need your help as much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have in the Trump era .
And so will the country .

Donald Trump is a man of few talents and little skill. But he has two singular talents that have served him well: utter shamelessness and an ability to suck up all the media oxygen in the room.
But soon Trump will be leaving office despite his seditious attempts at a coup. He will continue to try to hog the spotlight, but nonetheless there will emerge a media attention vacuum that will demand to be filled.
Many of the major outlets will attempt in an abundance of fairness and balance, to strike the same tone toward the Biden White House as they did toward the Trump White House. There will be a certain appeal to this: after all, good journalism holds the powerful to account no matter who is in power, and the Executive Branch should receive the strictest scrutiny.
There will also be numerous progressive publications that will see it as their mission to push the Biden Administration as far to the left as possible. There is a strong argument to be made for this as well. After all, the divorce of the Republican base from the reality-based community means that neither explicitly progressive nor mainstream publications have much effect on Republican politicians. For them, Fox News is increasingly the farthest left flank of their discourse. Moreover, bipartisanship will increasingly be a joke for all but the barest necessities of budget bills or near irrelevancies of policymaking. Which in turn means that pushing the Biden administration to be as unilaterally aggressive as possible will have a certain value.
But the fact that the Republican Party has gone off the rails into an extremist, conspiracy-addled cult should not be ignored as we approach a new era. The depredations of Republicans in Congress and GOP state officials will need to be exposed. And calls for progressive action by the Biden Administration should be made not just by the leftist media flank, but with care and credibility by those with the credibility not to dismissed as boys crying wolf.
Insofar as possible, we need media organizations who can do all of this and navigate America’s course through these treacherous waters. The Washington Monthly is one of the core media organizations that can still perform this function credibly and effectively.
Please, if you can, help make a donation to keep our work going. If you can give today, NewsMatch will match it with a generous challenge grant dedicated to helping nonprofit news organizations like the Monthly–which also means your donation is tax-deductible.) Plus, if you give $50 or more, you’ll receive a free one-year subscription to the print edition of the Washington Monthly–an always welcome arrival to alleviate quarantine boredom and broaden horizons.
We’ll need your help as much or more during the Biden Administration as we have in the Trump era. And so will the country.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-21--Three-Martini Lunches Won’t Save the Restaurant Industry

Three-martini lunches may be a relic of the 1970s , but they didn ’ t disappear immediately when Jimmy Carter complained that the working class was subsidizing them during his 1976 presidential campaign .
The midday business ritual continued unmolested until Congress made a two-step congressional reduction in the allowable corporate deduction for meals and entertainment .
Ronald Reagan ’ s Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the deduction to 80 percent , and Bill Clinton ’ s Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 took it down to fifty .
At the time , comedian George Carlin joked , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down on , it shouldn ’ t affect the working man ’ s two-joint coffee break.
” Of course , Carter ’ s quip about martinis was shorthand for a more extensive critique of the tax code ’ s fairness .
Why should the government pay for a businessman ’ s lunch when wage earners enjoy no comparable tax breaks ?
When President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 , he retained the long-term trend of limiting deductions for business expenses on meals and entertainment .
Now , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s about to reverse the trend and take us back to the 100-percent deductible of the Carter years .
The full deduction was championed during negotiations with Congressional Democrats by Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina and heavily promoted by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and the White House National Economic Council director , Larry Kudlow .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic negotiators reluctantly agreed to the change as part of a swap wherein Republicans begrudgingly allowed an expansion of tax credits for low-income families and the working poor .
Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provision is “ pro-worker , pro-restaurant , and pro-small business [ and ] will lead to increased spending in restaurants and more income for staff.
” The Washington Post notes , the Democrats believe the change will “ do little to help struggling restaurants and would largely benefit business executives who do not urgently need help at this time.
” The Post also cites Kyle Pomerleau , a tax analyst at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute , saying it ’ s “ bad policy ” and “ not good economic relief for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic , but this isn ’ t because businesses aren ’ t getting a big enough write-off on their business lunches .
First , even before corporate America moved their meetings to Zoom , the business lunch ’ s importance was in decline .
Coinciding with the 1980 ’ s war of drugs and increasing awareness of the social and liability costs of drunk driving and sexual harassment , companies long ago adopted a low tolerance approach to alcohol consumption on the job .
Contracts are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locked-down by highly-trained company attorneys .
This social change , combined with the reduced entertainment tax advantages , put an end to the three-martini meal .
By the early 1990s , restaurants were already noticing the change .
At first , bartenders were often asked to create separate bills for business lunches , one for food ( that would be billed to the company ) and the other for drinks ( which would not ) .
This undoubtedly impacted the hospitality industry ’ s revenue , but it was driven as much by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the new tax code .
In our current crisis , the reduction in revenue is driven by employees working from home and avoiding gathering in public , especially indoors where the virus spreads more readily .
Few business diners will start piling into restaurants , and even if they wanted to , most restaurants are operating under strict caps on how many patrons they can accommodate .
Unsurprisingly , the restoration of the 100 percent entertainment deduction is welcomed by some big tourism lobbies such as the American Hotel and Lodging Association and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is for it , but it has not been the main focus of the Independent Restaurant Coalition , a new advocacy group , which represents smaller dining operations .
These tax subsidies certainly won ’ t hurt restaurants , but neither are they the best or most efficient or fairest way of assisting the restaurant industry .
Forbes reports that the COVID relief package provides an additional $ 284 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses .
It would make more sense to boost this number to help struggling bars and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that subsidizing business lunches during a pandemic will save the industry .
The corporate world has moved on since the 1970s , and the tax code can ’ t force them to go back , nor should it try .

Three-martini lunches may be a relic of the 1970s, but they didn’t disappear immediately when Jimmy Carter complained that the working class was subsidizing them during his 1976 presidential campaign. The midday business ritual continued unmolested until Congress made a two-step congressional reduction in the allowable corporate deduction for meals and entertainment. Ronald Reagan’s Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the deduction to 80 percent, and Bill Clinton’s Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 took it down to fifty.
At the time, comedian George Carlin joked, “while the three-martini lunch is being cracked down on, it shouldn’t affect the working man’s two-joint coffee break.”
Of course, Carter’s quip about martinis was shorthand for a more extensive critique of the tax code’s fairness. Why should the government pay for a businessman’s lunch when wage earners enjoy no comparable tax breaks? When President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, he retained the long-term trend of limiting deductions for business expenses on meals and entertainment. Now, as the Washington Post reports, he’s about to reverse the trend and take us back to the 100-percent deductible of the Carter years.
The draft language of the emergency coronavirus relief package includes a tax break for corporate meal expenses pushed by the White House and strongly denounced by some congressional Democrats, according to a summary of the deal circulating among congressional officials and officials who are familiar with the provision.
The full deduction was championed during negotiations with Congressional Democrats by Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina and heavily promoted by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and the White House National Economic Council director, Larry Kudlow.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic negotiators reluctantly agreed to the change as part of a swap wherein Republicans begrudgingly allowed an expansion of tax credits for low-income families and the working poor.
Sen. Scott boasted in a statement that his provision is “pro-worker, pro-restaurant, and pro-small business [and] will lead to increased spending in restaurants and more income for staff.”
It’s a suspect assertion.
The Washington Post notes, the Democrats believe the change will “do little to help struggling restaurants and would largely benefit business executives who do not urgently need help at this time.” The Post also cites Kyle Pomerleau, a tax analyst at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, saying it’s “bad policy” and “not good economic relief for the current situation.”
Restaurants and bars have certainly been hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic, but this isn’t because businesses aren’t getting a big enough write-off on their business lunches.
First, even before corporate America moved their meetings to Zoom, the business lunch’s importance was in decline. Coinciding with the 1980’s war of drugs and increasing awareness of the social and liability costs of drunk driving and sexual harassment, companies long ago adopted a low tolerance approach to alcohol consumption on the job. Contracts are no longer built on a handshake but locked-down by highly-trained company attorneys. This social change, combined with the reduced entertainment tax advantages, put an end to the three-martini meal.
By the early 1990s, restaurants were already noticing the change. At first, bartenders were often asked to create separate bills for business lunches, one for food (that would be billed to the company) and the other for drinks (which would not). This undoubtedly impacted the hospitality industry’s revenue, but it was driven as much by changing mores around drinking and contracts as the new tax code. In our current crisis, the reduction in revenue is driven by employees working from home and avoiding gathering in public, especially indoors where the virus spreads more readily. Few business diners will start piling into restaurants, and even if they wanted to, most restaurants are operating under strict caps on how many patrons they can accommodate.
Unsurprisingly, the restoration of the 100 percent entertainment deduction is welcomed by some big tourism lobbies such as the American Hotel and Lodging Association and US Travel. The National Restaurant Association is for it, but it has not been the main focus of the Independent Restaurant Coalition, a new advocacy group, which represents smaller dining operations. These tax subsidies certainly won’t hurt restaurants, but neither are they the best or most efficient or fairest way of assisting the restaurant industry.
Forbes reports that the COVID relief package provides an additional $284 billion for the Paycheck Protection Program for small businesses. It would make more sense to boost this number to help struggling bars and restaurants than waste the money, pretending that subsidizing business lunches during a pandemic will save the industry.
The corporate world has moved on since the 1970s, and the tax code can’t force them to go back, nor should it try.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-22--While Acknowledging Biden’s Win, Pat Robertson Flipped the Conspiracy Theory Script

Two weeks before the election , televangelist and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Robertson said that God had spoken to him personally to say that “ without question , Trump is going to win the election.
” A week after the election , Robertson said that “ God will stop the theft of our election ” by using the Supreme Court as his divine instrument to rule in favor of a Texas lawsuit .
On Monday , Robertson changed his tune once again , saying that it ’ s time for Trump to accept Biden ’ s victory and move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for acknowledging reality , he went on to tout a conspiracy theory taking hold among right-wingers .
The 90-year-old said that “ I also think we ’ ll be seeing a President Kamala Harris not too long after the inauguration of President Biden.
” It is always hard to say exactly where this kind of nonsense began .
But among the lies Trump told during the campaign were the ones about Biden being weak and mentally incapacitated ( which were nothing but pure projection ) .
At a rally in September , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m getting tired .
I ’ d like to rest .
I ’ d like to let Kamala take over as president.
” In October , when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi discussed legislation to clarify the implementation of the 25th Amendment following Trump ’ s hospitalization for COVID-19 , the president ’ s campaign produced a television ad titled , “ President Kamala ?
” The idea that Biden is merely a placeholder for a Harris presidency has been spread by many of the usual suspects who traffic in conspiracy theories , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is likely to gain steam as we approach Inauguration Day , especially from those who have finally accepted Trump ’ s defeat .
This isn ’ t the first time we ’ ve seen conspiracy theorists attack the first woman of color to be elected vice-president .
Initially , they revised the birther lie about Obama to suggest that Harris , whose parents were immigrants , isn ’ t eligible for the office—even though she was born in Oakland .
That was just one of several lies spread about the vice-president-elect .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ tagged Biden as corrupt and mentally deficient , referring to the president-elect as a “ radical socialist ” simply isn ’ t credible .
After all , Biden is an older white man from Scranton who , over 40 years in office , built a reputation as a moderate Democrat .
In other words , the president-elect isn ’ t a target-rich villain .
On the other hand , Harris checks all of the boxes : she ’ s a woman of color from California—the state that conservatives see as a bastion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have nursed nostalgia for a mythical past dominated by white men as a way of maintaining their base .
Even more than Barack Hussein Obama , Kamala Devi Harris represents everything they fear about a changing America .
Without that fear , Republicans have nothing .
So even as Pat Robertson finally admitted that Biden is President-elect , he flipped the conspiracy theory script away from election fraud to ramp up the one about Biden simply being a placeholder for the real president—Kamala Harris .

Two weeks before the election, televangelist and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Robertson said that God had spoken to him personally to say that “without question, Trump is going to win the election.” A week after the election, Robertson said that “God will stop the theft of our election” by using the Supreme Court as his divine instrument to rule in favor of a Texas lawsuit. On Monday, Robertson changed his tune once again, saying that it’s time for Trump to accept Biden’s victory and move on.
While some are applauding Robertson for acknowledging reality, he went on to tout a conspiracy theory taking hold among right-wingers. The 90-year-old said that “I also think we’ll be seeing a President Kamala Harris not too long after the inauguration of President Biden.”
It is always hard to say exactly where this kind of nonsense began. But among the lies Trump told during the campaign were the ones about Biden being weak and mentally incapacitated (which were nothing but pure projection). At a rally in September, the president mimicked Biden saying, “I’m getting tired. I’d like to rest. I’d like to let Kamala take over as president.”
In October, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi discussed legislation to clarify the implementation of the 25th Amendment following Trump’s hospitalization for COVID-19, the president’s campaign produced a television ad titled, “President Kamala?”
The idea that Biden is merely a placeholder for a Harris presidency has been spread by many of the usual suspects who traffic in conspiracy theories, like InfoWars and the Daily Caller. It is likely to gain steam as we approach Inauguration Day, especially from those who have finally accepted Trump’s defeat.
This isn’t the first time we’ve seen conspiracy theorists attack the first woman of color to be elected vice-president. Initially, they revised the birther lie about Obama to suggest that Harris, whose parents were immigrants, isn’t eligible for the office—even though she was born in Oakland. That was just one of several lies spread about the vice-president-elect.
While Trump and his enablers have falsely tagged Biden as corrupt and mentally deficient, referring to the president-elect as a “radical socialist” simply isn’t credible. After all, Biden is an older white man from Scranton who, over 40 years in office, built a reputation as a moderate Democrat. In other words, the president-elect isn’t a target-rich villain. On the other hand, Harris checks all of the boxes: she’s a woman of color from California—the state that conservatives see as a bastion of socialism in America.
For years Republicans have nursed nostalgia for a mythical past dominated by white men as a way of maintaining their base. Even more than Barack Hussein Obama, Kamala Devi Harris represents everything they fear about a changing America. Without that fear, Republicans have nothing.
So even as Pat Robertson finally admitted that Biden is President-elect, he flipped the conspiracy theory script away from election fraud to ramp up the one about Biden simply being a placeholder for the real president—Kamala Harris.