washingtonmonthly--2020-12-03--The PhD Glut and What to Do About It

The PhD Glut and What to Do About It

My doctoral students used to get jobs teaching at colleges and universities .
That was their goal , coming into graduate school .
And most of them got there .
Over the past few years , however , their luck has turned .
That ’ s not because there ’ s anything wrong with my students , who are as brilliant as ever ( if I may say so myself ) .
It ’ s because there simply aren ’ t enough teaching jobs in higher education , at least not the kind that give you health insurance and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half of Ph.D. students drop out before getting their doctorate .
Those who finish take adjunct-instructor gigs and other part-time work , waiting for the tenure-track position that will probably never come .
The situation is especially dismal in the humanities , as might be expected , but students in the social and natural sciences also struggle to find the academic jobs they had envisioned .
The jobs themselves have disappeared , snuffed out by the larger economic challenges and contractions of higher education .
It ’ s a grim picture , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so say Leonard Cassuto and Robert Weisbuch , in their forthcoming and surprisingly optimistic book The New PhD : How to Build a Better Graduate Education .
( Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press , 2020 .
408 pp .
Cloth , $ 32.95 . )
Cassuto and Weisbuch acknowledge that the current system is unsustainable .
Yet they also celebrate an embryonic movement towards “ career diversity , ” which aims to alter the doctorate , so it prepares students for jobs that actually exist .
Seeded by some big grants from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be noted , also funded this book ) , the reform campaign is revising coursework , advising , and research requirements to ready graduates for positions in museums , journalism , government agencies , and industry .
When the transformation is complete , Cassuto and Weisbuch predict , my future students will once again obtain good jobs .
It ’ s just that most of these jobs won ’ t be in academia .
I hope they ’ re right .
But I wonder how many employers in the so-called real world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s in English or history , even those who have learned how to teach ( a longstanding deficiency in doctoral training ) and to write for public audiences ( ditto ) .
And , most of all , I wonder whether—and why—the faculty will get with the new program .
As Cassuto and Weisbuch admit , the old system served us rather well .
We wrote long dissertations that turned into equally turgid books ; we worked our way up the tenure ladder ; and our own students got academic jobs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Cassuto and Weisbuch are convinced that you can teach an old dog new tricks , provided that you also pay for lunch .
Their book is replete with descriptions of catered seminars and conferences where administrators , faculty , and students dine together and reframe doctoral training for the world as it is , not as it was .
Everyone walks away happy , or at least not hungry .
Count me a skeptic , at least for now .
Of course , our doctoral programs need to take teaching much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urge .
But critics of universities have been saying that for over a century , decrying recycled lectures by lazy professors and aimless discussion groups led by overworked graduate students .
Part of the problem is the poor reputation of schools of education , which aren ’ t mentioned by Cassuto and Weisbuch .
They ’ re professors of English , focused firmly upon their colleagues in the arts and sciences .
But surely , the low status of ed-schools in the university world has inhibited real reform of teaching because nobody wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Why should we expect this moment to yield a different outcome ?
Likewise , exposés of impenetrable academic prose date to the founding of the modern academy itself .
Yes , we should train our students to write in actual English .
But who , exactly , will provide that training ?
The same faculty members who moved up the totem pole by publishing jargon-laded tracts read only by fellow specialists ?
Don ’ t bet on it .
Cassuto and Weisbuch have their hearts in exactly the right place .
And if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll be the first to applaud .
But they have much more faith in the professoriate than I do .
After reading their book , I called a few friends around the country to ask them how “ career diversity ” was taking shape in their own departments .
All of them had heard the phrase , which is a sign of some small progress in its own right .
And they were supportive—in theory—of the idea of preparing doctoral students for jobs outside the academy .
But they also said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traditional goal of tenure-track-or-bust , reality notwithstanding .
We know the system is broken .
But we can ’ t help ourselves .
That ’ s why I suspect that change will come from outside the academy , not from within it .
We ’ re living in a delicate political moment for higher education : Republicans don ’ t like us because we ’ re too liberal , and Democrats don ’ t like us because we ’ re too expensive .
What if both sides threatened to reduce or cut off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t alter our doctoral programs to meet the real needs of students ?
I agree with the diagnosis that Cassuto and Weisbuch put forth in their earnest and spirited book .
But I fear that the treatment might require more heroic medicine than any of us have imagined .

My doctoral students used to get jobs teaching at colleges and universities. That was their goal, coming into graduate school. And most of them got there.
Over the past few years, however, their luck has turned. That’s not because there’s anything wrong with my students, who are as brilliant as ever (if I may say so myself). It’s because there simply aren’t enough teaching jobs in higher education, at least not the kind that give you health insurance and a living wage. Recognizing this, about half of Ph.D. students drop out before getting their doctorate. Those who finish take adjunct-instructor gigs and other part-time work, waiting for the tenure-track position that will probably never come. The situation is especially dismal in the humanities, as might be expected, but students in the social and natural sciences also struggle to find the academic jobs they had envisioned. The jobs themselves have disappeared, snuffed out by the larger economic challenges and contractions of higher education.
It’s a grim picture, but it’s also changing. Or so say Leonard Cassuto and Robert Weisbuch, in their forthcoming and surprisingly optimistic book The New PhD: How to Build a Better Graduate Education . (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2020. 408 pp. Cloth, $32.95.)
Cassuto and Weisbuch acknowledge that the current system is unsustainable. Yet they also celebrate an embryonic movement towards “career diversity,” which aims to alter the doctorate, so it prepares students for jobs that actually exist. Seeded by some big grants from foundations like Mellon (which, it should be noted, also funded this book), the reform campaign is revising coursework, advising, and research requirements to ready graduates for positions in museums, journalism, government agencies, and industry. When the transformation is complete, Cassuto and Weisbuch predict, my future students will once again obtain good jobs. It’s just that most of these jobs won’t be in academia.
I hope they’re right. But I wonder how many employers in the so-called real world are just itching to hire young PhD’s in English or history, even those who have learned how to teach (a longstanding deficiency in doctoral training) and to write for public audiences (ditto). And, most of all, I wonder whether—and why—the faculty will get with the new program. As Cassuto and Weisbuch admit, the old system served us rather well. We wrote long dissertations that turned into equally turgid books; we worked our way up the tenure ladder; and our own students got academic jobs, too, until schools stopped hiring. But Cassuto and Weisbuch are convinced that you can teach an old dog new tricks, provided that you also pay for lunch. Their book is replete with descriptions of catered seminars and conferences where administrators, faculty, and students dine together and reframe doctoral training for the world as it is, not as it was. Everyone walks away happy, or at least not hungry.
Count me a skeptic, at least for now. Of course, our doctoral programs need to take teaching much more seriously, as Cassuto and Weisbuch repeatedly urge. But critics of universities have been saying that for over a century, decrying recycled lectures by lazy professors and aimless discussion groups led by overworked graduate students. Part of the problem is the poor reputation of schools of education, which aren’t mentioned by Cassuto and Weisbuch. They’re professors of English, focused firmly upon their colleagues in the arts and sciences. But surely, the low status of ed-schools in the university world has inhibited real reform of teaching because nobody wants their name associated with the subject. Why should we expect this moment to yield a different outcome? Likewise, exposés of impenetrable academic prose date to the founding of the modern academy itself. Yes, we should train our students to write in actual English. But who, exactly, will provide that training? The same faculty members who moved up the totem pole by publishing jargon-laded tracts read only by fellow specialists? Don’t bet on it.
Cassuto and Weisbuch have their hearts in exactly the right place. And if their book revitalizes doctoral training, I’ll be the first to applaud. But they have much more faith in the professoriate than I do. After reading their book, I called a few friends around the country to ask them how “career diversity” was taking shape in their own departments. All of them had heard the phrase, which is a sign of some small progress in its own right. And they were supportive—in theory—of the idea of preparing doctoral students for jobs outside the academy. But they also said that most professors—and most students—remained committed to the traditional goal of tenure-track-or-bust, reality notwithstanding. We know the system is broken. But we can’t help ourselves. That’s why I suspect that change will come from outside the academy, not from within it. We’re living in a delicate political moment for higher education: Republicans don’t like us because we’re too liberal, and Democrats don’t like us because we’re too expensive. What if both sides threatened to reduce or cut off our state and federal funding if we don’t alter our doctoral programs to meet the real needs of students? I agree with the diagnosis that Cassuto and Weisbuch put forth in their earnest and spirited book. But I fear that the treatment might require more heroic medicine than any of us have imagined.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-03--Listen, Democrats. There is a Way to Win Rural Voters

Wisconsin ’ s Dunn County is in the central part of the state , over 96 percent white , and represented by Democrat Ron Kind in Congress .
Not far from Eau Claire , the rural area voted for Barack Obama twice , but in 2016 Donald Trump won it with 52 percent to 41 percent , a 2,000-vote advantage over Hillary Clinton .
In 2020 , running against Joe Biden , Trump carried Dunn County 56-42 , giving him a 3,300-vote edge .
It was a disappointing result for Bill Hogseth , the chair of the county ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get into politics in response to Trump ’ s 2016 upset .
In a piece for Politico Magazine , Hogseth explains why he was unsuccessful in improving the Democrats ’ numbers despite leading an energetic organizing effort by local party members .
It boils down to rural voters ’ perception , Hogseth argues , that the national Democratic Party doesn ’ t take their struggles seriously enough to warrant their support .
It didn ’ t have to be this way .
When the Democrats picked up 40 seats and regained control of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the main story was how suburban districts changed hands .
Still , there were signs of encouragement in that 174 of 199 districts retained by the Republican Party moved to the left .
An examination by the Brookings Institute found that counties with Republican attributes–as measured by race , age , and education–showed the most significant midterm percentage shift to the Democrats , even though few of those counties ’ seats flipped .
In Wisconsin ’ s 3rd congressional district , Ron Kind was reelected by a comfortable 61,000-vote in 2018 .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot , Kind ’ s margin narrowed to 10,000 , showing the fragility of those midterm gains .
In other words , back in 2018 , the GOP saw the most slippage in rural areas .
While this rural surge helped the Democrats gain control of six state legislative chambers , it had almost no immediate effect in Congress and little staying power for 2020 .
In 2020 .
Biden made more progress with white men on a national level than any other group .
That ’ s what Brookings found in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ college-educated white men moving 11 points in Biden ’ s direction and non-college-educated white men shifting by a smaller but still substantial margin of six points .
In Dunn County , however , Hogseth saw “ more flags in support of the president flying from more flagpoles and pickup trucks.
” His explanation and his proposed solutions closely track what I wrote in my 2017 magazine piece : How to Win Rural Voters Without Losing Liberal Values .
Rural voters are keenly aware of how monopolies are squeezing the life out of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats ’ response .
To win more rural support , the left has to take antitrust enforcement much more seriously .
Here is how Hogseth describes the problem .
Rural voters appreciated Obama ’ s repeated campaign promises to challenge the rise of agribusiness monopolies .
But as president , he allowed for the continued consolidation of corporate power in the food system .
His Department of Agriculture balked when it came time to enforce anti-monopoly rules such as those in the Packers and Stockyard Act , and failed to enforce Country of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independent farmers and ranchers to better compete within the consolidated meat industry .
The Obama Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission presided over a series of corporate mergers in the food and agriculture sectors , including the Kraft-Heinz and JBS-Cargill mergers .
Taken together , these moves signaled that his administration did not have the backs of family farmers .
It ’ s not just agricultural consolidation that concerns rural voters .
As Hogseth notes , “ the small-town economy increasingly is dominated by large corporations ” that provide low-wage retail jobs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this–and communicate it , so voters know that the Democrats , not the Republicans , are fighting the big interests .
Whenever I write about these issues , I ’ m told by some liberals that these voters are unreachable or even “ deplorable.
” I ’ m lectured that they don ’ t care about something as dull as antitrust policy .
Yet , my experience is just the opposite .
In 2017 , when I interviewed Tom Perriello during his unsuccessful primary campaign for Virginia governor , he emphasized that anti-monopoly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he put it , “ I actually think in many ways the challenge is people inside the Beltway having too low of an opinion about the sophistication and knowledge of people outside the Beltway.
” Yet , Hogseth insists , “ for rural voters , antitrust enforcement is a top priority.
” Leaders in the national Democratic Party should accept this local testimony as more reliable than their remote impressions .
In both the 2018 midterms and the 2020 elections , we ’ ve seen evidence that non-college educated whites are not wedded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of votes to be had in rural areas .
The Democrats have practical and moral reasons to fight for them .
Rural voters turn to right-wing populism , which is dangerous , when they don ’ t see the left fighting for them .
From Dunn County , Hogseth says Democratic neglect leaves “ an opening for other stories to be told to fill the vacuum—stories that villainize and divide us along racial , geographic and partisan lines.
” The left should always fight for people who are struggling , no matter their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will make life easier for Dunn County Democrats like Hogseth and Rep. Kind , and it will help the party win back more legislatures , and statewide races .

Wisconsin’s Dunn County is in the central part of the state, over 96 percent white, and represented by Democrat Ron Kind in Congress. Not far from Eau Claire, the rural area voted for Barack Obama twice, but in 2016 Donald Trump won it with 52 percent to 41 percent, a 2,000-vote advantage over Hillary Clinton. In 2020, running against Joe Biden, Trump carried Dunn County 56-42, giving him a 3,300-vote edge.
It was a disappointing result for Bill Hogseth, the chair of the county’s Democratic Party, who was motivated to get into politics in response to Trump’s 2016 upset. In a piece for Politico Magazine, Hogseth explains why he was unsuccessful in improving the Democrats’ numbers despite leading an energetic organizing effort by local party members. It boils down to rural voters’ perception, Hogseth argues, that the national Democratic Party doesn’t take their struggles seriously enough to warrant their support.
It didn’t have to be this way. When the Democrats picked up 40 seats and regained control of the House in the 2018 midterms, the main story was how suburban districts changed hands. Still, there were signs of encouragement in that 174 of 199 districts retained by the Republican Party moved to the left. An examination by the Brookings Institute found that counties with Republican attributes–as measured by race, age, and education–showed the most significant midterm percentage shift to the Democrats, even though few of those counties’ seats flipped. In Wisconsin’s 3rd congressional district, Ron Kind was reelected by a comfortable 61,000-vote in 2018. In 2020, with Trump back on the ballot, Kind’s margin narrowed to 10,000, showing the fragility of those midterm gains.
In other words, back in 2018, the GOP saw the most slippage in rural areas. While this rural surge helped the Democrats gain control of six state legislative chambers, it had almost no immediate effect in Congress and little staying power for 2020.
In 2020. Biden made more progress with white men on a national level than any other group. That’s what Brookings found in the Edison Research exit polls anyway, with college-educated white men moving 11 points in Biden’s direction and non-college-educated white men shifting by a smaller but still substantial margin of six points.
In Dunn County, however, Hogseth saw “more flags in support of the president flying from more flagpoles and pickup trucks.” His explanation and his proposed solutions closely track what I wrote in my 2017 magazine piece: How to Win Rural Voters Without Losing Liberal Values. Rural voters are keenly aware of how monopolies are squeezing the life out of their local economies, and disappointed in the Democrats’ response. To win more rural support, the left has to take antitrust enforcement much more seriously.
Here is how Hogseth describes the problem.
Rural voters appreciated Obama’s repeated campaign promises to challenge the rise of agribusiness monopolies. But as president, he allowed for the continued consolidation of corporate power in the food system. His Department of Agriculture balked when it came time to enforce anti-monopoly rules such as those in the Packers and Stockyard Act, and failed to enforce Country of Origin Labeling, which would have allowed independent farmers and ranchers to better compete within the consolidated meat industry. The Obama Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission presided over a series of corporate mergers in the food and agriculture sectors, including the Kraft-Heinz and JBS-Cargill mergers. Taken together, these moves signaled that his administration did not have the backs of family farmers.
It’s not just agricultural consolidation that concerns rural voters. As Hogseth notes, “the small-town economy increasingly is dominated by large corporations” that provide low-wage retail jobs. The solution is to do something about this–and communicate it, so voters know that the Democrats, not the Republicans, are fighting the big interests.
For Democrats to start telling a story that resonates, they need to show a willingness to fight for rural people, and not just by proposing a “rural plan” or showing up on a farm for a photo op…A big step forward for Democrats would be to champion antitrust enforcement and challenge the anticompetitive practices of the gigantic agribusiness firms that squeeze our communities. In his rural plan, Biden pledged to “strengthen antitrust enforcement,” but the term doesn’t appear until the 35th bullet point. For rural voters, antitrust enforcement is a top priority
Whenever I write about these issues, I’m told by some liberals that these voters are unreachable or even “deplorable.” I’m lectured that they don’t care about something as dull as antitrust policy. Yet, my experience is just the opposite. In 2017, when I interviewed Tom Perriello during his unsuccessful primary campaign for Virginia governor, he emphasized that anti-monopoly policy resonates in rural areas:
What will often happen to me on a given day is that I will start the day out in a red county, where people are talking to me about consolidation and automation, and then end the day inside the Beltway talking to people who say, “Tom, you sound like a think tank, that kind of thing will never go down with those people out there.”
As he put it, “I actually think in many ways the challenge is people inside the Beltway having too low of an opinion about the sophistication and knowledge of people outside the Beltway.”
Yet, Hogseth insists, “for rural voters, antitrust enforcement is a top priority.” Leaders in the national Democratic Party should accept this local testimony as more reliable than their remote impressions.
In both the 2018 midterms and the 2020 elections, we’ve seen evidence that non-college educated whites are not wedded to the Republicans and there are plenty of votes to be had in rural areas. The Democrats have practical and moral reasons to fight for them.
Rural voters turn to right-wing populism, which is dangerous, when they don’t see the left fighting for them. From Dunn County, Hogseth says Democratic neglect leaves “an opening for other stories to be told to fill the vacuum—stories that villainize and divide us along racial, geographic and partisan lines.”
The left should always fight for people who are struggling, no matter their race, religion or location. This will make life easier for Dunn County Democrats like Hogseth and Rep. Kind, and it will help the party win back more legislatures, and statewide races.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-03--Joe Biden’s Idea of Manliness

Joe Biden’s Idea of Manliness

“ Virtue-signaling ” is the idea that people say they believe something but don ’ t really believe it .
They ’ re saying it to seem impressive to people they desire to impress .
Everyone does this to some degree , and everyone deserves some degree of takedown .
But if anyone has a corner on the market of “ virtue-signaling , ” it ’ s the Republicans .
Behind religion , the most common theme of “ virtue-signaling ” is masculinity .
This can be expressed in humiliating ways—as when candidate Donald Trump called Heidi Cruz ugly only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , lick his shoes for a single term .
This can be expressed in more oblique ways , too—as when David Perdue mocked his Senate challenger , Jon Ossoff , for enjoying a vegan burger .
Meat is macho .
Plants are not .
The goal should be familiar .
It ’ s one-upping the other guy , making him seem less than he is .
The problem , of course , is this can be done all day , every day .
There ’ s no end to it , no bottom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For this reason , liberals , feminists , and the otherwise woke tend to think reacting to the politics of masculinity is a time-suck .
Pick it apart as just another articulation of the prevailing patriarchy or don ’ t bother .
The problem is it doesn ’ t work .
Where you see a sober assessment and deconstruction of social phenomena that are millennia old , the machos see weakness .
It ’ s not weakness , but that ’ s what they see , and on seeing it , they just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are aroused like wolves are aroused by the sight of weakness in the caribou herd .
( I believe in the power of persuasion , but I also concede there are limits to its power . )
In reality , you ’ re offering an opinion .
In fantasy , you are asking them to pounce .
It should be clear the point isn ’ t manliness .
It ’ s politics .
It ’ s dominance .
We should talk about it .
We should talk about the difference between manliness and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk about the difference between religion and political power .
They can be the same thing for Republicans and their ilk .
They almost always are .
But they don ’ t have to be .
Recognizing that manliness and dominance don ’ t have to be the same makes room for ways of beating them with something other than the appearance of anti-manliness .
Feminism isn ’ t going anywhere .
But let ’ s explore a complement : the utility of creating , or reviving , a good kind of manliness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What would good manliness look like ?
First , a caveat .
I ’ m just a normal person , same as you .
It seems to me smart , though , to start with the word .
“ Manliness ” finds its root in Latin .
“ Vir ” meant “ man.
” From “ vir ” comes the permutations of “ virtue.
” Among patricians of ancient Rome , “ virtue ” connoted generosity , fidelity , duty , and , especially willingness to subordinate one ’ s self-interest to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not believe in equality any more than the American founders did .
But republican virtue , and the politics arising from that age-old moral principle , greatly influenced both .
Few in ancient Rome had the means of seriously questioning patrician dominance .
Perhaps that ’ s why their idea of manliness had nothing to do with it .
We don ’ t have to accept that , though .
Indeed , Joe Biden didn ’ t .
The president-elect , in a speech last summer , defined the presidency so that republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s “ a duty of care , ” he said , “ all of us , not just our voters , not just our donors , but all of us.
” Then he placed this old-fashioned republican manliness in a religious and patriotic context : “ The President held up a Bible at St. John ’ s Church yesterday .
If he opened it instead of brandishing it , he could have learned something : That we are all called to love one another as we love ourselves .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the work of America.
” Biden never got credit for being manly , because manliness is always defined by the right flank of U.S. politics .
But manliness is exactly what he was talking about .
The difference is he wasn ’ t “ virtue-signaling.
” He was , instead , putting virtue into practice .
To be sure , I ’ m opening the door to paternalism .
I haven ’ t addressed the harmful tendency of some men to infantilize women like they can ’ t take care of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see old-fashioned republican manliness being necessarily at odds with gender equity .
They can be complementary—if men chose to walk humbly .
The Golden Rule doesn ’ t mean just giving care .
It means receiving it , too .
Lots of men are just terrible at that because lots of us think we ’ re too strong to need it .
We do .
We do .

“Virtue-signaling” is the idea that people say they believe something but don’t really believe it. They’re saying it to seem impressive to people they desire to impress. Everyone does this to some degree, and everyone deserves some degree of takedown. But if anyone has a corner on the market of “virtue-signaling,” it’s the Republicans.
Behind religion, the most common theme of “virtue-signaling” is masculinity. This can be expressed in humiliating ways—as when candidate Donald Trump called Heidi Cruz ugly only to see her husband, Ted Cruz, lick his shoes for a single term. This can be expressed in more oblique ways, too—as when David Perdue mocked his Senate challenger, Jon Ossoff, for enjoying a vegan burger. Meat is macho. Plants are not.
The goal should be familiar. It’s one-upping the other guy, making him seem less than he is. The problem, of course, is this can be done all day, every day. There’s no end to it, no bottom, no boundaries, no limits. For this reason, liberals, feminists, and the otherwise woke tend to think reacting to the politics of masculinity is a time-suck. Pick it apart as just another articulation of the prevailing patriarchy or don’t bother.
The problem is it doesn’t work. Where you see a sober assessment and deconstruction of social phenomena that are millennia old, the machos see weakness. It’s not weakness, but that’s what they see, and on seeing it, they just can’t help themselves. They are aroused like wolves are aroused by the sight of weakness in the caribou herd. (I believe in the power of persuasion, but I also concede there are limits to its power.) In reality, you’re offering an opinion. In fantasy, you are asking them to pounce. It should be clear the point isn’t manliness. It’s politics. It’s dominance. We should talk about it.
We should talk about the difference between manliness and political dominance, just as we should talk about the difference between religion and political power. They can be the same thing for Republicans and their ilk. They almost always are. But they don’t have to be. Recognizing that manliness and dominance don’t have to be the same makes room for ways of beating them with something other than the appearance of anti-manliness. Feminism isn’t going anywhere. But let’s explore a complement: the utility of creating, or reviving, a good kind of manliness to compete with the bad kind.
What would good manliness look like? First, a caveat. I’m just a normal person, same as you. It seems to me smart, though, to start with the word. “Manliness” finds its root in Latin. “Vir” meant “man.” From “vir” comes the permutations of “virtue.” Among patricians of ancient Rome, “virtue” connoted generosity, fidelity, duty, and, especially willingness to subordinate one’s self-interest to the interest of the Republic. They did not believe in equality any more than the American founders did. But republican virtue, and the politics arising from that age-old moral principle, greatly influenced both.
Few in ancient Rome had the means of seriously questioning patrician dominance. Perhaps that’s why their idea of manliness had nothing to do with it. We don’t have to accept that, though. Indeed, Joe Biden didn’t. The president-elect, in a speech last summer, defined the presidency so that republican virtue was at the heart of it. It’s “a duty of care,” he said, “all of us, not just our voters, not just our donors, but all of us.”
Then he placed this old-fashioned republican manliness in a religious and patriotic context: “The President held up a Bible at St. John’s Church yesterday. If he opened it instead of brandishing it, he could have learned something: That we are all called to love one another as we love ourselves. That’s hard work. But it’s the work of America.” Biden never got credit for being manly, because manliness is always defined by the right flank of U.S. politics. But manliness is exactly what he was talking about. The difference is he wasn’t “virtue-signaling.” He was, instead, putting virtue into practice.
To be sure, I’m opening the door to paternalism. I haven’t addressed the harmful tendency of some men to infantilize women like they can’t take care of themselves. But I don’t see old-fashioned republican manliness being necessarily at odds with gender equity. They can be complementary—if men chose to walk humbly. The Golden Rule doesn’t mean just giving care. It means receiving it, too. Lots of men are just terrible at that because lots of us think we’re too strong to need it. We do. We do.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-03--The Politics of Pardons

The Politics of Pardons

Here are three things to think about : First , Donald Trump has convinced 85 percent of his 74 million voters that Joe Biden ’ s victory is illegitimate .
Second , he wants to pardon Rudy Giuliani and his three adult children ( and possibly himself ) .
Third , he wants to run for president again in 2024 .
It ’ s hard to know how these things fit together .
Would controversial pardons sink Trump ’ s political ambitions , or are Republican voters so willing to accept his unfounded version of reality that he can get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5th Avenue , to use his famous hypothetical , but to pardon himself and his clan , too ?
Ironically , Giuliani has already played a prominent role in a presidential pardon scandal .
In 1983 , when he was U.S.Attorney for the Southern District of New York , Giuliani indicted financier Marc Rich on 65 criminal counts , including tax evasion , wire fraud , racketeering , and violating an embargo on Iran stemming from the hostage crisis .
On his last day in office , in January 2001 , Bill Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had fled to Switzerland to avoid trial and spent more than a decade on the FBI ’ s most-wanted list .
Saying the pardon was “ disgraceful , ” Jimmy Carter accused Clinton of offering the pardon in return for gifts , principally large donations from Rich ’ s ex-wife Denise to the Democratic Party , Hillary Clinton ’ s recently victorious Senate campaign , and the Clinton Library .
The New York Times editorial board said it was “ a shocking abuse of presidential power and a reminder of why George W. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Oval Office resonates with millions of Americans.
” The Justice Department and Congress conducted extensive investigations in an attempt to prove a quid pro quo , but no charges were brought .
To be fair , the pardon had a lot to do with Israeli politics , an effort to help Prime Minister Ehud Barak save face as peace talks faltered in the last days of the administration .
Clinton was unwilling to spring Jonathan Pollard , the American convicted of spying for Tel Aviv .
Because Rich was popular in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in narrower circles for possibly helping the Mossad , pardoning him helped Barak and hopefully the peace process .
Still , Clinton later expressed regret , saying the pardon hadn ’ t been worth the damage to his reputation .
As controversial as the Rich pardon was , it pales in comparison to the pardons and commutations Trump has issued to Michael Flynn and Roger Stone , both of whom lied to federal investigators to protect the president .
Using the presidential clemency power in this way is a legalized form of obstruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s more serious than alleged bribery , and yet it made no difference to Trump ’ s supporters .
What Trump is contemplating now , however , would be much more high profile .
I ’ d compare it to Gerald Ford ’ s sweeping pardon of Richard Nixon in 1974 , but it ’ s actually far worse than that .
Ford wasn ’ t pardoning himself , nor did he pardon his own children although he was falsely accused of giving the pardon in exchange for the vice presidency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pardon is often cited as one of the reasons Ford lost an excruciatingly close race to Carter in 1976 .
It was so controversial that Ford took the extraordinary step for a sitting president of testifying before Congress and explaining why he did it .
In time , the historical case for the pardon has gotten more purchase .
In 2001 , Ford won the “ Profile in Courage ” award from the John F. Kennedy Library and Sen. Ted Kennedy , the late liberal lion , saluted the 38th president for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him .
Were Trump to issue pardons to his clan and close coconspirators , he could not expect history to look so kindly on his actions .
Yet , there are several indications that Trump could get away with it with his political future intact .
For one , he doesn ’ t have to worry about condemnations from ex-presidents because all the living ex-presidents have already condemned him .
For another , if he can convince 85 percent of Republican voters that Biden wasn ’ t legitimately elected , he can probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The biggest obstacle , for Trump , in regaining the White House is winning the Republican nomination .
According to Axios , there ’ s some hope in GOP circles that a comeback will prove more difficult than is widely understood : I have no doubt that these pardons , assuming Trump follows through with them , will be weaponized against him by 2024 political rivals should he run , but I see little reason to believe this will hurt his chances of winning the nomination .
The pardons would likely hurt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s already proven once that he can buck the odds in that kind of contest .
As long as he can convince most Republicans that the sky is green and the grass is blue , he can do almost anything and still have a good shot of a second term as president .
This is why Trump ’ s crimes can ’ t be responsibly ignored in the interest of reconciliation .
Free and unpunished , Trump will remain the most viable alternative to sane governance and a threat to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those venues , such as Manhattan , where his self pardons won ’ t shield him .

Here are three things to think about:
First, Donald Trump has convinced 85 percent of his 74 million voters that Joe Biden’s victory is illegitimate.
Second, he wants to pardon Rudy Giuliani and his three adult children (and possibly himself).
Third, he wants to run for president again in 2024.
It’s hard to know how these things fit together. Would controversial pardons sink Trump’s political ambitions, or are Republican voters so willing to accept his unfounded version of reality that he can get away with not only shooting someone on 5th Avenue, to use his famous hypothetical, but to pardon himself and his clan, too?
Ironically, Giuliani has already played a prominent role in a presidential pardon scandal. In 1983, when he was U.S.Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Giuliani indicted financier Marc Rich on 65 criminal counts, including tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, and violating an embargo on Iran stemming from the hostage crisis. On his last day in office, in January 2001, Bill Clinton pardoned Rich even though the elusive billionaire had fled to Switzerland to avoid trial and spent more than a decade on the FBI’s most-wanted list.
Saying the pardon was “disgraceful,” Jimmy Carter accused Clinton of offering the pardon in return for gifts, principally large donations from Rich’s ex-wife Denise to the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton’s recently victorious Senate campaign, and the Clinton Library. The New York Times editorial board said it was “a shocking abuse of presidential power and a reminder of why George W. Bush’s vow to restore integrity to the Oval Office resonates with millions of Americans.”
The Justice Department and Congress conducted extensive investigations in an attempt to prove a quid pro quo, but no charges were brought. To be fair, the pardon had a lot to do with Israeli politics, an effort to help Prime Minister Ehud Barak save face as peace talks faltered in the last days of the administration. Clinton was unwilling to spring Jonathan Pollard, the American convicted of spying for Tel Aviv. Because Rich was popular in Israel through his charitable work, and in narrower circles for possibly helping the Mossad, pardoning him helped Barak and hopefully the peace process. Still, Clinton later expressed regret, saying the pardon hadn’t been worth the damage to his reputation.
As controversial as the Rich pardon was, it pales in comparison to the pardons and commutations Trump has issued to Michael Flynn and Roger Stone, both of whom lied to federal investigators to protect the president. Using the presidential clemency power in this way is a legalized form of obstruction of justice. On the merits, it’s more serious than alleged bribery, and yet it made no difference to Trump’s supporters.
What Trump is contemplating now, however, would be much more high profile. I’d compare it to Gerald Ford’s sweeping pardon of Richard Nixon in 1974, but it’s actually far worse than that. Ford wasn’t pardoning himself, nor did he pardon his own children although he was falsely accused of giving the pardon in exchange for the vice presidency and/or Nixon’s resignation. The pardon is often cited as one of the reasons Ford lost an excruciatingly close race to Carter in 1976. It was so controversial that Ford took the extraordinary step for a sitting president of testifying before Congress and explaining why he did it. In time, the historical case for the pardon has gotten more purchase. In 2001, Ford won the “Profile in Courage” award from the John F. Kennedy Library and Sen. Ted Kennedy, the late liberal lion, saluted the 38th president for his bravery more than a quarter-century after condemning him.
Were Trump to issue pardons to his clan and close coconspirators, he could not expect history to look so kindly on his actions. Yet, there are several indications that Trump could get away with it with his political future intact. For one, he doesn’t have to worry about condemnations from ex-presidents because all the living ex-presidents have already condemned him. For another, if he can convince 85 percent of Republican voters that Biden wasn’t legitimately elected, he can probably convince them that these pardons were justified.
The biggest obstacle, for Trump, in regaining the White House is winning the Republican nomination. According to Axios, there’s some hope in GOP circles that a comeback will prove more difficult than is widely understood:
Several allies who talk regularly to Trump told Axios they believe he’ll announce for 2024, but ultimately not make the run because of what one Republican close to Trump called “hurdles he has never before experienced.” “I think he will have more trouble than he can begin to imagine,” the Republican said. “No one is going to let him have a free pass in the primary.”
I have no doubt that these pardons, assuming Trump follows through with them, will be weaponized against him by 2024 political rivals should he run, but I see little reason to believe this will hurt his chances of winning the nomination.
The pardons would likely hurt him in a general election, but he’s already proven once that he can buck the odds in that kind of contest. As long as he can convince most Republicans that the sky is green and the grass is blue, he can do almost anything and still have a good shot of a second term as president.
This is why Trump’s crimes can’t be responsibly ignored in the interest of reconciliation. Free and unpunished, Trump will remain the most viable alternative to sane governance and a threat to the world. He should be prosecuted in those venues, such as Manhattan, where his self pardons won’t shield him.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-04--Symone Sanders, Jen Psaki, and the Women Who Speak For Biden

The announcement of Joe Biden ’ s White House communications team caused a certain frisson .
It marks the first time women will hold all of the “ comms ” jobs—press secretary , White House communications director , and others .
Jen Psaki will be White House press secretary and Kate Bedingfield will be White House communications director .
Karine Jean-Pierre , a senior adviser on the Biden campaign , who was chief of staff to Kamala Harris , will serve as principal deputy press secretary .
Symone Sanders , a senior Biden adviser on the campaign , will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vice president .
Ashley Etienne will serve as the vice president ’ s communications director .
Elizabeth Alexander will serve as communications director for First Lady Jill Biden .
They may be barrier breakers but don ’ t judge them on their gender .
Judge them by their record .
Each has an enviable amount of experience .
And they ’ re used to working with each other—just like the Biden administration national security appointments announced last week .
None is a newcomer to Democratic politics .
You ’ ve probably seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including Psaki , who was the State Department spokesperson as well as Jean-Pierre , the deputy campaign manager for Martin O ’ Malley ’ s short-lived 2016 presidential bid , and Sanders who served as Bernie Sanders ( no relation ) press secretary in 2016 .
They all know what they ’ re doing , and they have a boss who will let them do it , which is not what you would say about their Trumpian predecessors .
Recall how Sean Spicer set the tone for four years of madness when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shortly after the new president was sworn in , and claimed that Donald Trump commanded a bigger inaugural audience than Barack Obama .
Things only got nuttier under Sarah Huckabee Sanders , Stephanie Grisham , and Kayleigh McEnany as they played to an audience of one .
Psaki ’ s training as State Department spokesman is among the best .
The words you use from the podium at Foggy Bottom , like those you ’ d employ at Treasury or the White House , are hung on anxiously .
Anyone who ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requires a huge command of facts from a diverse , knowledgeable , sometimes laughably mono-focused press corps .
Some of those facts can be had from the giant notebook that each State Department spokesperson has at the dais so they don ’ t make a faux pas regarding the Law of the Sea treaty or the latest from South Sudan or Swiss chocolate tariffs .
The job requires knowledge and poise under pressure , and no briefing book can give you that : You don ’ t want to depend on notes when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beijing .
Like Mike McCurry , Clinton ’ s press secretary and arguably the best of White House spokesman of this generation , Psaki went through the gauntlet at State .
The group has made a career in Democratic politics , having worked for Obama in various capacities .
Psaki ’ s resume includes State and a stint as White House Communications Director , comms for former Rep. Joe Crowley , the New York Democrat ousted by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , and going back to John Kerry ’ s 2004 bid .
Experience is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these new comms appointees is that the Biden honeymoon will end soon .
And it will end hard .
Anyone who knows the hothouse that is the White House Briefing Room knows that Biden ’ s adoring press will evaporate once Trump has left the building .
Covering the White House has changed a lot since I became a newly-minted White House correspondent at the start of the Clinton administration .
( I covered the White House correspondent for U.S. News , The New Republic , and Time . )
The news cycle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The mainstream media no longer sets the agenda as assuredly as it once did .
Entire giants of the industry like the newsweeklies—I worked for three of them—are no longer outsized agenda setters .
But what hasn ’ t changed for administrations , left and right , is the need to “ feed the beast , ” keeping the press sated with storylines and managing them when they break news and grow ornery .
The best way to manage the end of the honeymoon ?
Feed the beast tried and true staples : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countenance spin and evasion , not deliberate falsehoods .
Opening up more briefings by senior officials entails risk .
It requires the press secretary to advocate for the press , which is not always easy internally .
A supple understanding of what each press constituency needs makes a big difference .
The radio folk need sound—and plenty of it .
The TV types need to be seen on camera asking questions .
Print needs short and long-term stories .
Here ’ s an example of how not to do it : Early in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brought in for a conversation with a senior administration official specializing in national security .
They also brought in the radio reporters .
What the two groups needed were totally different : Fly on the wall color , usually on background , was manna for us in magazineland .
The radio guys needed sound .
It was a mess because the mag guys , and they were guys , wanted things that could only be ascertained on background and the parties often would not consent to being recorded .
Obviously , the press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wait for the handful of oats , with an occasional carrot , that the White House might bring to our stable .
And the press will do that .
We ’ re going to hear about every dollar Neera Tanden raised at the Center for American Progress and every tweet she fired off .
We ’ re going to find out why there ’ s no Defense Secretary yet .
Hunter Biden should be but won ’ t be left alone .
In the weeks and months ahead , the Washington Monthly will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration and the press .
If you think White House analysis and reporting can help readers make sense of the political and policy implications of the administration ’ s decisions then make a donation during our year-end fundraising drive .
In fact , do it right now .
Give whatever you can— $ 10 , $ 50 , $ 1,000—before December 31 , and your contribution will be matched , dollar for dollar , thanks to a generous challenge grant we ’ ve received from NewsMatch , an organization dedicated to helping nonprofit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nonprofit , we can ’ t do the work we do without your support .
( It also means your donation is tax-deductible . )
As a token of our gratitude , if you give $ 50 or more , you ’ ll receive a free one-year subscription to the print edition of the Washington Monthly .

The announcement of Joe Biden’s White House communications team caused a certain frisson. It marks the first time women will hold all of the “comms” jobs—press secretary, White House communications director, and others. Jen Psaki will be White House press secretary and Kate Bedingfield will be White House communications director. Karine Jean-Pierre, a senior adviser on the Biden campaign, who was chief of staff to Kamala Harris, will serve as principal deputy press secretary. Symone Sanders, a senior Biden adviser on the campaign, will be a senior adviser and chief spokesperson for the vice president. Ashley Etienne will serve as the vice president’s communications director. Elizabeth Alexander will serve as communications director for First Lady Jill Biden.
They may be barrier breakers but don’t judge them on their gender. Judge them by their record. Each has an enviable amount of experience. And they’re used to working with each other—just like the Biden administration national security appointments announced last week. None is a newcomer to Democratic politics. You’ve probably seen one or many of them on television, including Psaki, who was the State Department spokesperson as well as Jean-Pierre, the deputy campaign manager for Martin O’Malley’s short-lived 2016 presidential bid, and Sanders who served as Bernie Sanders (no relation) press secretary in 2016. They all know what they’re doing, and they have a boss who will let them do it, which is not what you would say about their Trumpian predecessors. Recall how Sean Spicer set the tone for four years of madness when he took the podium in 2017, shortly after the new president was sworn in, and claimed that Donald Trump commanded a bigger inaugural audience than Barack Obama. Things only got nuttier under Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Stephanie Grisham, and Kayleigh McEnany as they played to an audience of one.
Psaki’s training as State Department spokesman is among the best. The words you use from the podium at Foggy Bottom, like those you’d employ at Treasury or the White House, are hung on anxiously. Anyone who’s watched a State briefing knows that it requires a huge command of facts from a diverse, knowledgeable, sometimes laughably mono-focused press corps. Some of those facts can be had from the giant notebook that each State Department spokesperson has at the dais so they don’t make a faux pas regarding the Law of the Sea treaty or the latest from South Sudan or Swiss chocolate tariffs. The job requires knowledge and poise under pressure, and no briefing book can give you that: You don’t want to depend on notes when it comes to Iran or NATO or Beijing. Like Mike McCurry, Clinton’s press secretary and arguably the best of White House spokesman of this generation, Psaki went through the gauntlet at State.
The group has made a career in Democratic politics, having worked for Obama in various capacities. Psaki’s resume includes State and a stint as White House Communications Director, comms for former Rep. Joe Crowley, the New York Democrat ousted by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and going back to John Kerry’s 2004 bid.
Experience is good news. The bad news for these new comms appointees is that the Biden honeymoon will end soon. And it will end hard. Anyone who knows the hothouse that is the White House Briefing Room knows that Biden’s adoring press will evaporate once Trump has left the building.
Covering the White House has changed a lot since I became a newly-minted White House correspondent at the start of the Clinton administration. (I covered the White House correspondent for U.S. News, The New Republic, and Time.) The news cycle is, of course, faster. The mainstream media no longer sets the agenda as assuredly as it once did. Entire giants of the industry like the newsweeklies—I worked for three of them—are no longer outsized agenda setters. But what hasn’t changed for administrations, left and right, is the need to “feed the beast,” keeping the press sated with storylines and managing them when they break news and grow ornery.
The best way to manage the end of the honeymoon? Feed the beast tried and true staples: access and truth. The press can countenance spin and evasion, not deliberate falsehoods. Opening up more briefings by senior officials entails risk. It requires the press secretary to advocate for the press, which is not always easy internally. A supple understanding of what each press constituency needs makes a big difference. The radio folk need sound—and plenty of it. The TV types need to be seen on camera asking questions. Print needs short and long-term stories.
Here’s an example of how not to do it: Early in the Clinton Administration, the newsweeklies were brought in for a conversation with a senior administration official specializing in national security. They also brought in the radio reporters. What the two groups needed were totally different: Fly on the wall color, usually on background, was manna for us in magazineland. The radio guys needed sound. It was a mess because the mag guys, and they were guys, wanted things that could only be ascertained on background and the parties often would not consent to being recorded.
Obviously, the press needs to do its job and not wait for the handful of oats, with an occasional carrot, that the White House might bring to our stable. And the press will do that. We’re going to hear about every dollar Neera Tanden raised at the Center for American Progress and every tweet she fired off. We’re going to find out why there’s no Defense Secretary yet. Hunter Biden should be but won’t be left alone.
In the weeks and months ahead, the Washington Monthly will have more to say about the Biden administration and the press. If you think White House analysis and reporting can help readers make sense of the political and policy implications of the administration’s decisions then make a donation during our year-end fundraising drive.
In fact, do it right now. Give whatever you can—$10, $50, $1,000—before December 31, and your contribution will be matched, dollar for dollar, thanks to a generous challenge grant we’ve received from NewsMatch, an organization dedicated to helping nonprofit news organizations like the Monthly. As a nonprofit, we can’t do the work we do without your support. (It also means your donation is tax-deductible.) As a token of our gratitude, if you give $50 or more, you’ll receive a free one-year subscription to the print edition of the Washington Monthly.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-04--The Case for Neera Tanden

The Case for Neera Tanden

The agita over Neera Tanden is a classic Washington game of faux indignation with a soupçon of sexism .
Tanden is a ubiquitous figure in Washington—appearing on television , speaking at conferences , running a mainstay think-tank/advocacy organization with a gauzy , patriotic name ( the Center for American Progress ) .
Short of being on the Kennedy Center board or living in Georgetown next door to Sally Quinn , it ’ s hard to think of someone who is more Washington .
Like “ Rahm ” or “ Hillary , ” or “ Bernie , ” she ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first name .
But Republicans are shocked that this Green Room regular has said critical things about the GOP .
After more than two decades in the policy and political wars , it would be weird if the 50-year-old hadn ’ t .
What has them on the fainting couches is that she used Twitter to do it !
Republicans are right : Anyone who sullies the polite society that is Twitter should leave Washington at once or by January 20 at noon .
For their part , some Bernie allies are dyspeptic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senator when he was running against her mentor and boss , Hillary , in 2016 and against Biden in 2020 .
Sanders wrote a letter saying some CAP staffers had maligned his supporters .
Lefties and righties are focusing on a 2008 altercation between Tanden and Faiz Shakir .
Back then , he was a journalist at ThinkProgress , now-shuttered but then an independently run news organ of the Center for American Progress .
He grilled her about the Iraq War , and she was taken aback by what she thought would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a punch .
Tanden says it was a shove .
As a reporter , I ’ d prefer it was neither .
But as a man , I have a feeling that if Tanden were a guy , this would not be seen as much of anything , let alone disqualifying .
But pearl-clutching is where we ’ re at .
Part of the pearl-clutching about Tanden is that she will be nominated to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget .
Implicit in the Republican criticism is that OMB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a wild brawler like Tanden .
Um , no .
OMB is not a retreat for monastic accountants unsullied by politics .
It ’ s been populated by pols : Democratic members of Congress like Leon Panetta and Republican Congressmen Rob Portman , David Stockman , Jim Nussle , and Mitch Daniels .
Maurice Stans , later a Watergate criminal who chaired the Committee to Reelect the President , was a budget director .
The most recent former director , Mick Mulvaney , the former Republican Congressman from South Carolina , was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Freedom Caucus , a Tea Party booster who defended speaking to the John Birch Society , a hack who once told lobbyists that he only likes to talk to people who give him money .
He cared so much about his work at OMB that he also took on being White House Chief of Staff and the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that Elizabeth Warren helped create , a juggling act that ’ s laughably absurd if you take any one of those jobs seriously .
I hope Democrats don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defense .
Tanden is the first South Asian nominated for the OMB gig , and cheers for that .
But the real way to understand her is as a striver who made it into the establishment .
The daughter of a single mom who went to UCLA and then made it to—where else ?
—Yale Law School , where they turnout leading Democrats the way Hershey ’ s turns out Kisses .
Like so many before her , she was the indispensable staffer until she became a leader .
Now , she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have spent four years enabling Donald Trump ’ s tirades are now judges of decorum who find her unfit for their politesse .
“ Her combative and insulting comments about many members of the Senate , mainly on our side of the aisle , [ create ] certainly , a problematic path , ” said Sen. John Cornyn , the Texas Republican .
Please .
Tweets like this represent her savagery ?
“ Can people on here please focus their ire on [ Senate majority leader Mitch ] McConnell and the GOP senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this cycle who enable him , ” Tanden wrote in June 2019 , in a tweet recovered by the Daily Beast .
Lindsey Graham , who deemed Trump a “ xenophobe ” and “ a religious bigot ” before becoming his courtesan , now calls Tanden “ a nut job.
” Susan Collins is , of course , concerned .
Democrats shouldn ’ t fall for it .
If Republicans want to take down Tanden , they ’ ll almost surely have the votes to do so .
It ’ ll probably help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something to work with now that Trump is fading like a comet ’ s tail .
But Biden backing down over a nominee who has done nothing wrong would depress Democrats and cheer Republicans .
Biden ’ s right to extend an olive branch to Republicans even if they ’ re likely to snub it .
But as the President-elect often said of Barack Obama , he has “ steel in his spine.
” Biden needs to have a backbone like a ramrod when dealing with Tanden .
Is she the most incredible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy and has his trust and that ’ s what matters .
But there ’ s a larger problem .
As someone who thinks cancel culture and wokeness are real and not an imaginary problem for liberals , this worries me .
Talk about cancel culture .
If an establishment striver like Tanden loses a job for which she ’ s eminently qualified because she was too mean to Mitch McConnell , the lesson to all of us is to keep our mouths shut .

The agita over Neera Tanden is a classic Washington game of faux indignation with a soupçon of sexism. Tanden is a ubiquitous figure in Washington—appearing on television, speaking at conferences, running a mainstay think-tank/advocacy organization with a gauzy, patriotic name (the Center for American Progress). Short of being on the Kennedy Center board or living in Georgetown next door to Sally Quinn, it’s hard to think of someone who is more Washington. Like “Rahm” or “Hillary,” or “Bernie,” she’s a capital creature referred to by their first name.
But Republicans are shocked that this Green Room regular has said critical things about the GOP. After more than two decades in the policy and political wars, it would be weird if the 50-year-old hadn’t. What has them on the fainting couches is that she used Twitter to do it! Republicans are right: Anyone who sullies the polite society that is Twitter should leave Washington at once or by January 20 at noon.
For their part, some Bernie allies are dyspeptic about stuff she said about the Vermont senator when he was running against her mentor and boss, Hillary, in 2016 and against Biden in 2020. Sanders wrote a letter saying some CAP staffers had maligned his supporters. Lefties and righties are focusing on a 2008 altercation between Tanden and Faiz Shakir. Back then, he was a journalist at ThinkProgress, now-shuttered but then an independently run news organ of the Center for American Progress. He grilled her about the Iraq War, and she was taken aback by what she thought would be a softball interview. Shakir says it was a punch. Tanden says it was a shove. As a reporter, I’d prefer it was neither. But as a man, I have a feeling that if Tanden were a guy, this would not be seen as much of anything, let alone disqualifying. But pearl-clutching is where we’re at.
Part of the pearl-clutching about Tanden is that she will be nominated to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Implicit in the Republican criticism is that OMB Director is an apolitical job unsuited for a wild brawler like Tanden. Um, no.
OMB is not a retreat for monastic accountants unsullied by politics. It’s been populated by pols: Democratic members of Congress like Leon Panetta and Republican Congressmen Rob Portman, David Stockman, Jim Nussle, and Mitch Daniels. Maurice Stans, later a Watergate criminal who chaired the Committee to Reelect the President, was a budget director. The most recent former director, Mick Mulvaney, the former Republican Congressman from South Carolina, was a one-man wrecking ball: A founder of the Freedom Caucus, a Tea Party booster who defended speaking to the John Birch Society, a hack who once told lobbyists that he only likes to talk to people who give him money. He cared so much about his work at OMB that he also took on being White House Chief of Staff and the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that Elizabeth Warren helped create, a juggling act that’s laughably absurd if you take any one of those jobs seriously.
I hope Democrats don’t fall back on a diversity defense. Tanden is the first South Asian nominated for the OMB gig, and cheers for that. But the real way to understand her is as a striver who made it into the establishment. The daughter of a single mom who went to UCLA and then made it to—where else?—Yale Law School, where they turnout leading Democrats the way Hershey’s turns out Kisses. Like so many before her, she was the indispensable staffer until she became a leader. Now, she’s a wise man.
Republicans who have spent four years enabling Donald Trump’s tirades are now judges of decorum who find her unfit for their politesse. “Her combative and insulting comments about many members of the Senate, mainly on our side of the aisle, [create] certainly, a problematic path,” said Sen. John Cornyn, the Texas Republican. Please. Tweets like this represent her savagery? “Can people on here please focus their ire on [Senate majority leader Mitch] McConnell and the GOP senators who are up [for re-election] this cycle who enable him,” Tanden wrote in June 2019, in a tweet recovered by the Daily Beast. Lindsey Graham, who deemed Trump a “xenophobe” and “a religious bigot” before becoming his courtesan, now calls Tanden “a nut job.” Susan Collins is, of course, concerned.
Democrats shouldn’t fall for it. If Republicans want to take down Tanden, they’ll almost surely have the votes to do so. It’ll probably help them raise money and give Fox News something to work with now that Trump is fading like a comet’s tail. But Biden backing down over a nominee who has done nothing wrong would depress Democrats and cheer Republicans. Biden’s right to extend an olive branch to Republicans even if they’re likely to snub it. But as the President-elect often said of Barack Obama, he has “steel in his spine.” Biden needs to have a backbone like a ramrod when dealing with Tanden. Is she the most incredible person for the job? She knows policy and has his trust and that’s what matters.
But there’s a larger problem. As someone who thinks cancel culture and wokeness are real and not an imaginary problem for liberals, this worries me. Talk about cancel culture. If an establishment striver like Tanden loses a job for which she’s eminently qualified because she was too mean to Mitch McConnell, the lesson to all of us is to keep our mouths shut.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-04--Biden Plans a Whole-of-Government Approach to Climate Change

Over the four years of Trump ’ s presidency , the United States lost significant ground in combating climate change .
According to the World Meteorological Association , “ time is fast running out for us to avert the worst impacts of climate disruption and protect our societies from the inevitable impacts to come.
” Reversing this disastrous course will be one of the major challenges faced by the Biden administration , but there are several obstacles they ’ ll have to overcome .
First and foremost will be that , as Steve Bannon predicted , the Trump administration has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Eric Katz , senior correspondent for the publication Government Executive , documents the damage to the federal workforce .
The major impact on climate change is that , according to the Washington Post , more than 1,600 scientists left the federal government in just the first two years of the Trump administration .
Much of the task of reconstructing the federal workforce will be handled by Biden ’ s transition teams .
According to Scientific American , those teams have , fortunately , been stocked with climate experts .
Climate experts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abound among the teams managing the transition for EPA ; the Energy , Interior and Agriculture departments ; and the White House Council on Environmental Quality .
Unlike past transitions , officials with significant climate or clean energy experience also pop up in departments like State , Defense , Treasury and Justice .
They ’ re even handling the transition at agencies that , so far , have been on the periphery of climate policy , like the Small Business Administration and the Federal Reserve .
All of this is being done to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on climate change : Republican intransigence .
We know that passing legislation to combat climate change will be opposed by congressional Republicans .
But Biden is planning a whole-of-government approach that maximizes executive authority to restructure the government to move faster on global warming .
That means going far beyond the Environmental Protection Agency in order to embed action on climate change in every aspect of the federal government .
A holistic approach has been outlined by the Climate 21 Project , a group made up of over 150 experts with high-level government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a 300-page report laying out recommendations for 11 White House offices , federal departments , and federal agencies , as well as cross-cutting recommendations on personnel and hiring .
The proposals include things like the establishment of a “ carbon bank ” at the Department of Agriculture that could pay farmers and forest owners to store carbon in their soils as well as the use of the Transportation Department to push the electrification of cars and trucks .
The final climate challenge faced by Biden has to do with the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but Trump has squandered U.S. credibility on the issue with world leaders .
That is why the president-elect ’ s choice of John Kerry to serve as climate change envoy is critical .
Kerry has played a global leadership role on the issue since he traveled with then-Senator Al Gore to the first Rio Earth Summit in 1992 .
Back in 2014 , journalist Coral Davenport reported on what can happen when a leader prioritizes climate change within a federal agency like the State Department .
That is the groundwork Kerry laid that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earth—becoming a signatory to the Paris Climate Accord .
What Biden and his team are demonstrating is a recognition that climate change can not be addressed in isolation from the rest of the federal government .
It must be embedded in every domestic , economic , and foreign policy action we take .
It will be decades before any administration can claim to have done enough to address climate change .
But after four years of terrifying neglect , this is an excellent opening salvo from the Biden administration .

Over the four years of Trump’s presidency, the United States lost significant ground in combating climate change. According to the World Meteorological Association, “time is fast running out for us to avert the worst impacts of climate disruption and protect our societies from the inevitable impacts to come.” Reversing this disastrous course will be one of the major challenges faced by the Biden administration, but there are several obstacles they’ll have to overcome.
First and foremost will be that, as Steve Bannon predicted, the Trump administration has spent four years deconstructing the administrative state. Eric Katz, senior correspondent for the publication Government Executive, documents the damage to the federal workforce.
The major impact on climate change is that, according to the Washington Post, more than 1,600 scientists left the federal government in just the first two years of the Trump administration. Much of the task of reconstructing the federal workforce will be handled by Biden’s transition teams. According to Scientific American, those teams have, fortunately, been stocked with climate experts.
Climate experts, former Obama administration officials and green activists abound among the teams managing the transition for EPA; the Energy, Interior and Agriculture departments; and the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Unlike past transitions, officials with significant climate or clean energy experience also pop up in departments like State, Defense, Treasury and Justice. They’re even handling the transition at agencies that, so far, have been on the periphery of climate policy, like the Small Business Administration and the Federal Reserve.
All of this is being done to prepare for the second challenge Biden faces on climate change: Republican intransigence. We know that passing legislation to combat climate change will be opposed by congressional Republicans. But Biden is planning a whole-of-government approach that maximizes executive authority to restructure the government to move faster on global warming. That means going far beyond the Environmental Protection Agency in order to embed action on climate change in every aspect of the federal government.
A holistic approach has been outlined by the Climate 21 Project, a group made up of over 150 experts with high-level government experience. They provided the Biden administration with a 300-page report laying out recommendations for 11 White House offices, federal departments, and federal agencies, as well as cross-cutting recommendations on personnel and hiring. The proposals include things like the establishment of a “carbon bank” at the Department of Agriculture that could pay farmers and forest owners to store carbon in their soils as well as the use of the Transportation Department to push the electrification of cars and trucks.
The final climate challenge faced by Biden has to do with the fact that the crisis must be addressed globally, but Trump has squandered U.S. credibility on the issue with world leaders. That is why the president-elect’s choice of John Kerry to serve as climate change envoy is critical.
Kerry has played a global leadership role on the issue since he traveled with then-Senator Al Gore to the first Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Back in 2014, journalist Coral Davenport reported on what can happen when a leader prioritizes climate change within a federal agency like the State Department.
[W]hile the public’s attention has been on his diplomacy in the Middle East, behind the scenes at the State Department Mr. Kerry has initiated a systematic, top-down push to create an agency-wide focus on global warming…Shortly after Mr. Kerry was sworn in last February, he issued a directive that all meetings between senior American diplomats and top foreign officials include a discussion of climate change. He put top climate policy specialists on his State Department personal staff.
That is the groundwork Kerry laid that eventually resulted in 197 countries—every nation on earth—becoming a signatory to the Paris Climate Accord.
What Biden and his team are demonstrating is a recognition that climate change cannot be addressed in isolation from the rest of the federal government. It must be embedded in every domestic, economic, and foreign policy action we take.
It will be decades before any administration can claim to have done enough to address climate change. But after four years of terrifying neglect, this is an excellent opening salvo from the Biden administration.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-04--Trump’s Maddening War Against Section 230 Which Protects Digital Publishers

As counterintuitive as it may seem , if we want to understand why Donald Trump is threatening to veto the annual military spending bill , we have to take a detour back to May .
That ’ s when Twitter took the extraordinary step of slapping warning labels on some of the president ’ s inaccurate tweets about mail-in voting , instigating a war between him and Big Tech .
In June , Facebook took down a Trump campaign ad because it included a Nazi symbol .
In August , the Menlo Park , California company removed Trump campaign content @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 .
In October , it withdrew a Trump campaign post falsely stating that the seasonal flu is more dangerous than the novel coronavirus , which had by then already taken over 200,000 American lives .
By the end of the campaign , both social media giants were almost routinely taking actions to protect Americans from disinformation originating with the president or his campaign .
And it didn ’ t stop there .
On November 7 , CNN reported that Twitter had applied warning labels on 37 percent of Trump ’ s post-election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of the content shared in this Tweet is disputed and might be misleading about an election or other civic process.
” On Thursday , Jack Brewster of Forbes cited an anonymous Twitter spokesperson saying that Trump ’ s serial policy violations could result in a permanent ban from the platform once his presidential term is over .
At some point in this drama , someone convinced President Donald Trump that Big Tech would not be able to censor or put warnings on his social media content if not for Section 230 of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yet , Section 230 actually serves to protect free speech .
Without Section 230 , you would not be allowed to post comments at the end of this article .
The CDA is a controversial subsection of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 .
Its purpose was to protect minors from sexually explicit materials on the Internet .
Section 230 cuts in the other direction , however , protecting publishers and software providers from liability .
As the fiercely pro-free speech advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation explains , Section 230 allows publishers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may include defamatory material .
Without it , bloggers could not exist , and the risk of litigation would consume smaller media outlets like the Washington Monthly .
As we know , social media would be impossible without Section 230 because every user post would need to be pre-screened by lawyers .
If anything , this would result in more censorship of Trump ’ s content .
Nonetheless , the president is refusing to sign the National Defense Authorization Act ( NDAA ) , the budget for the military and most members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ language that effectively repeals Section 230 .
If he were doing this purely as an act of revenge against Facebook and Twitter , it might make sense since it would effectively destroy them .
But as a defense of free speech , it ’ s completely incoherent .
The collateral damage to publishers would be immense , and the ability for ordinary Americans to freely express their opinions online would be severely curtailed .
Fortunately , Republicans in Congress seem uninterested in going along with this draconian move .
Senate Armed Services Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he doesn ’ t intend to include repeal language in the NDAA .
“ First of all 230 has nothing to do with the military , ” the Oklahoma Republican said .
“ And I agree with his sentiments we ought to do away with 230 but you can ’ t do it in this bill .
That ’ s not a part of the bill.
” This sentiment was echoed by other Republicans , including Senate Majority Whip John Thune and Senator Mike Rounds , both of South Dakota .
With Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s censorship , the lawmakers are unwilling to defend Section 230 on the merits .
Still , they ’ re not going to hold up the paychecks of every soldier , airman , and sailor over it , either .
The NDAA usually passes with veto-proof margins , but Trump ’ s antics and the resulting pressure from the GOP base could complicate things .
Ordinarily , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would not put a bill on Trump ’ s desk that the president had promised to veto , but he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without the cooperation of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi .
Since that ’ s a nonstarter , especially for a member from the San Francisco Bay area , home to the social media companies in the president ’ s sights , McConnell must choose between a veto and no bill at all .
Considering the national security risks of letting defense spending lapse and the political fallout of military families going without paychecks during a pandemic , McConnell will probably allow the NDAA to move forward .
If Trump follows through on his veto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decide whether to attempt an override .
This would require a two-thirds , or 67-vote majority in the Senate , meaning that at least 19 Republicans would have to defy Trump and his supporters .
The House would need a two-thirds majority , too , placing House Republicans in the same dilemma .
All of this is surely infuriating for congressional Republicans .
There are political risks in angering Trump , but also in savaging the military .
They ’ re in this position because Trump is mad at Twitter for warning labels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of his ads .
But his solution would actually be a gigantic blow to free speech .
The irony here is that there is an emerging left-right consensus on reining in the power of these companies .
House Democrats have grilled Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over his company ’ s power and spread of disinformation .
Senate Republicans such as Missouri ’ s Josh Hawley have also lambasted the giants .
If Trump wanted to , he could make a serious move against them , but he chose , instead , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Meanwhile , instead of pursuing serious antitrust cases against these companies , the Justice Department filed a civil rights suit this month over their hiring practices , charging discrimination against Americans .
It ’ s not just Democrats for whom January 20th can not come soon enough .

As counterintuitive as it may seem, if we want to understand why Donald Trump is threatening to veto the annual military spending bill, we have to take a detour back to May. That’s when Twitter took the extraordinary step of slapping warning labels on some of the president’s inaccurate tweets about mail-in voting, instigating a war between him and Big Tech.
In June, Facebook took down a Trump campaign ad because it included a Nazi symbol. In August, the Menlo Park, California company removed Trump campaign content that falsely claimed children are immune to COVID-19. In October, it withdrew a Trump campaign post falsely stating that the seasonal flu is more dangerous than the novel coronavirus, which had by then already taken over 200,000 American lives.
By the end of the campaign, both social media giants were almost routinely taking actions to protect Americans from disinformation originating with the president or his campaign. And it didn’t stop there.
On November 7, CNN reported that Twitter had applied warning labels on 37 percent of Trump’s post-election tweets, informing readers “some or all of the content shared in this Tweet is disputed and might be misleading about an election or other civic process.” On Thursday, Jack Brewster of Forbes cited an anonymous Twitter spokesperson saying that Trump’s serial policy violations could result in a permanent ban from the platform once his presidential term is over.
At some point in this drama, someone convinced President Donald Trump that Big Tech would not be able to censor or put warnings on his social media content if not for Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Yet, Section 230 actually serves to protect free speech. Without Section 230, you would not be allowed to post comments at the end of this article.
The CDA is a controversial subsection of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Its purpose was to protect minors from sexually explicit materials on the Internet. Section 230 cuts in the other direction, however, protecting publishers and software providers from liability. As the fiercely pro-free speech advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation explains, Section 230 allows publishers to permit guest posts and comments sections that may include defamatory material. Without it, bloggers could not exist, and the risk of litigation would consume smaller media outlets like the Washington Monthly.
As we know, social media would be impossible without Section 230 because every user post would need to be pre-screened by lawyers. If anything, this would result in more censorship of Trump’s content.
Nonetheless, the president is refusing to sign the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the budget for the military and most members of the Armed Forces, unless it includes language that effectively repeals Section 230.
Section 230, which is a liability shielding gift from the U.S. to “Big Tech” (the only companies in America that have it – corporate welfare!), is a serious threat to our National Security & Election Integrity. Our Country can never be safe & secure if we allow it to stand….. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 2, 2020
If he were doing this purely as an act of revenge against Facebook and Twitter, it might make sense since it would effectively destroy them. But as a defense of free speech, it’s completely incoherent. The collateral damage to publishers would be immense, and the ability for ordinary Americans to freely express their opinions online would be severely curtailed.
Fortunately, Republicans in Congress seem uninterested in going along with this draconian move. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe said on Wednesday that he doesn’t intend to include repeal language in the NDAA. “First of all 230 has nothing to do with the military,” the Oklahoma Republican said. “And I agree with his sentiments we ought to do away with 230 but you can’t do it in this bill. That’s not a part of the bill.”
This sentiment was echoed by other Republicans, including Senate Majority Whip John Thune and Senator Mike Rounds, both of South Dakota. With Trump and his supporters braying about Big Tech’s censorship, the lawmakers are unwilling to defend Section 230 on the merits. Still, they’re not going to hold up the paychecks of every soldier, airman, and sailor over it, either.
The NDAA usually passes with veto-proof margins, but Trump’s antics and the resulting pressure from the GOP base could complicate things. Ordinarily, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would not put a bill on Trump’s desk that the president had promised to veto, but he can’t include the repeal language without the cooperation of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Since that’s a nonstarter, especially for a member from the San Francisco Bay area, home to the social media companies in the president’s sights, McConnell must choose between a veto and no bill at all.
Considering the national security risks of letting defense spending lapse and the political fallout of military families going without paychecks during a pandemic, McConnell will probably allow the NDAA to move forward. If Trump follows through on his veto threat, the Majority Leader has to decide whether to attempt an override. This would require a two-thirds, or 67-vote majority in the Senate, meaning that at least 19 Republicans would have to defy Trump and his supporters. The House would need a two-thirds majority, too, placing House Republicans in the same dilemma.
All of this is surely infuriating for congressional Republicans. There are political risks in angering Trump, but also in savaging the military. They’re in this position because Trump is mad at Twitter for warning labels and Facebook for putting the kibosh on some of his ads. But his solution would actually be a gigantic blow to free speech.
The irony here is that there is an emerging left-right consensus on reining in the power of these companies. House Democrats have grilled Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over his company’s power and spread of disinformation. Senate Republicans such as Missouri’s Josh Hawley have also lambasted the giants. If Trump wanted to, he could make a serious move against them, but he chose, instead, to hold the military hostage to his ire.
Meanwhile, instead of pursuing serious antitrust cases against these companies, the Justice Department filed a civil rights suit this month over their hiring practices, charging discrimination against Americans.
It’s not just Democrats for whom January 20th cannot come soon enough.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-04--Bill Barr’s Gift to Biden’s Attorney General

On Wednesday , Donald Trump released a 46-minute video in which he made baseless allegations of voter fraud , claiming that it was “ statistically impossible ” for him to have lost to President-elect Joe Biden .
That came the day after Attorney General William Barr told the Associated Press that the “ Justice Department has uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election.
” One senior administration official said that Trump is “ livid at Barr ” and could fire him .
But the attorney general ’ s comments about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has the president stewing .
As the Washington Post reported , Trump is “ even angrier that Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham did not issue a public report of his findings before last month ’ s election.
” Durham is the prosecutor who has been investigating the origins of the Trump-Russia probe , and , according to journalist Murray Waas , threatened to resign if Barr continued to press him to release a report prior to the election .
Apparently , Trump wasn ’ t mollified that , as we only learned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ special prosecutor in October .
That extends his probe into the Biden administration .
The president doesn ’ t care about that because his only interest in the investigation was to use it as a cudgel before the election .
It is , however , worth noting what Barr is up to with this move .
According to federal regulations , a special prosecutor can only be fired by the attorney general , and it must be for reasons such as misconduct , dereliction of duty , or conflict of interest .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know who Biden will nominate to be attorney general , but it is unlikely that Durham will give them grounds for dismissal .
So the investigation will go on as long as the special prosecutor deems it necessary .
One thing we can count on is that Republicans will continue to promote conspiracy theories about the origins of the Trump-Russia probe .
On Thursday , the Senate Homeland Security Committee , chaired by Ron Johnson of Wisconsin , held yet another hearing on the investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane .
Over the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new Benghazi , with the merchants of doubt continuing to stir up their base with unsubstantiated claims .
Even though multiple inquiries have produced nothing of note , Barr wants to keep the Durham investigation going because the minute a report is released , the entire enterprise will begin to fade from view .
But as long as there is an ongoing investigation , right-wing media and Republicans will continue to spread disinformation .
As we saw with Benghazi , the focus can shift depending on who the GOP wants to disparage .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on President Barack Obama and Susan Rice .
But when Hillary Clinton launched her 2016 campaign , she became the target .
There is a flip side to that calculation .
In 2009 , President Obama came under fire from progressives for suggesting that we needed to look forward , not backward , when it came to investigating the George W. Bush administration .
As Biden has made clear , it will be up to the next attorney general to decide whether or not to investigate Trump .
By continuing to look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has given the new administration permission to do the same .
We ’ ll have to see if the next attorney general decides to take him up on that .
At the top of the list of possible crimes would be to finally complete the counterintelligence investigation into whether this country had a president who , for four years , was a Russian asset .

On Wednesday, Donald Trump released a 46-minute video in which he made baseless allegations of voter fraud, claiming that it was “statistically impossible” for him to have lost to President-elect Joe Biden. That came the day after Attorney General William Barr told the Associated Press that the “Justice Department has uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election.” One senior administration official said that Trump is “livid at Barr” and could fire him.
But the attorney general’s comments about the election aren’t the only thing that has the president stewing. As the Washington Post reported, Trump is “even angrier that Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham did not issue a public report of his findings before last month’s election.” Durham is the prosecutor who has been investigating the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, and, according to journalist Murray Waas, threatened to resign if Barr continued to press him to release a report prior to the election.
Apparently, Trump wasn’t mollified that, as we only learned this week, Barr made Durham a special prosecutor in October. That extends his probe into the Biden administration. The president doesn’t care about that because his only interest in the investigation was to use it as a cudgel before the election.
It is, however, worth noting what Barr is up to with this move. According to federal regulations, a special prosecutor can only be fired by the attorney general, and it must be for reasons such as misconduct, dereliction of duty, or conflict of interest. At this point, we don’t know who Biden will nominate to be attorney general, but it is unlikely that Durham will give them grounds for dismissal. So the investigation will go on as long as the special prosecutor deems it necessary.
One thing we can count on is that Republicans will continue to promote conspiracy theories about the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. On Thursday, the Senate Homeland Security Committee, chaired by Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, held yet another hearing on the investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane. Over the next four years, it will become the new Benghazi, with the merchants of doubt continuing to stir up their base with unsubstantiated claims.
Even though multiple inquiries have produced nothing of note, Barr wants to keep the Durham investigation going because the minute a report is released, the entire enterprise will begin to fade from view. But as long as there is an ongoing investigation, right-wing media and Republicans will continue to spread disinformation. As we saw with Benghazi, the focus can shift depending on who the GOP wants to disparage. That “scandal” began with a focus on President Barack Obama and Susan Rice. But when Hillary Clinton launched her 2016 campaign, she became the target.
There is a flip side to that calculation. In 2009, President Obama came under fire from progressives for suggesting that we needed to look forward, not backward, when it came to investigating the George W. Bush administration. As Biden has made clear, it will be up to the next attorney general to decide whether or not to investigate Trump. By continuing to look backward more than four years, Barr has given the new administration permission to do the same. We’ll have to see if the next attorney general decides to take him up on that. At the top of the list of possible crimes would be to finally complete the counterintelligence investigation into whether this country had a president who, for four years, was a Russian asset.