washingtonmonthly--2020-09-17--The Spy Was a Grifter

The Spy Was a Grifter

On October 23rd , Garrison Courtney will be sentenced in court after pleading guilty to an elaborate fraud scheme that raked in at least $ 4.4 million from federal contractors .
The tale reads like a Hollywood script .
Courtney had a relatively undistinguished career as a spokesperson for the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of Homeland Security .
But apparently he studied up on spycraft and , as his high school drama teacher suggested , “ Sometimes I think I trained him too well as an actor.
” Courtney presented himself to unwitting private companies as a CIA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they gave him a salary and an office .
To back up his story , Courtney produced memos on the letterhead of various federal agencies spelling out authorization for what he was doing and containing the forged signatures of high-level government officials .
He also recruited current and former military leaders to a task force he named “ Alpha214 ” and used them as unwitting props to validate his claims .
Incredibly , the now 44-year-old built enough of a reputation to actually place himself inside the National Institutes of Health as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contracts .
What you have at that point is the proverbial fox inside the henhouse .
But by that time , the scheme had started to unravel .
Some of the heroes of this story were lawyers at the companies Courtney swindled who began asking why they weren ’ t being paid under the contracts they had signed .
Navid Keshavarz-Nia was another hero .
He had done cybersecurity and technical counterintelligence work for the C.I.A.
, N.S.A.
, and F.B.I .
After several months of working with Courtney , he fired off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to its members , and addressed Courtney directly : “ It is clear that I have been deliberately deceived , lied to and criminally victimized by you based on your numerous false statements.
” At about the same time , the Justice Department began an investigation .
It ’ s not hard to figure out how this fraud could work .
You take a skilled con artist and add it to the feeding frenzy for government contracts .
Combine that toxic mix with something my colleague Gilad Edelman wrote for the Washington Monthly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of federal employees has basically flatlined for a half-century , the government has ballooned if you include another group in your tally : private contractors .
As the size and scope of federal programs grew , but the number of civil servants stayed fixed , that labor had to get done by someone .
Congress ’ s answer has increasingly been to contract with the private sector… Very few Americans realize that this exact trend—using contractors to hide the true size and cost of a government mission—is not even close to being limited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ubiquitous .
There has been a de facto political cap on federal workers since the 1970s , and every administration since at least Jimmy Carter ’ s has used contractors to get around it .
Bill Clinton , who announced that “ the era of big government is over , ” harvested the end of the Cold War to cut 400,000 federal jobs , mostly in defense .
But big government was only over if you ignored the contracting workforce , which kept rising by the hundreds of thousands .
The Bush administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contracting morphed from a way to sneakily expand government to an ideological goal in itself .
There are lessons from this tale that go beyond the importance of holding an individual like Courtney accountable for his crimes .
Here ’ s how Edelman summarized the situation : Whenever our government operates in the shadows , exploitation by con artists like Courtney is possible .

On October 23rd, Garrison Courtney will be sentenced in court after pleading guilty to an elaborate fraud scheme that raked in at least $4.4 million from federal contractors. The tale reads like a Hollywood script. Courtney had a relatively undistinguished career as a spokesperson for the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. But apparently he studied up on spycraft and, as his high school drama teacher suggested, “Sometimes I think I trained him too well as an actor.”
Courtney presented himself to unwitting private companies as a CIA agent who could steer contracts their way if they gave him a salary and an office. To back up his story, Courtney produced memos on the letterhead of various federal agencies spelling out authorization for what he was doing and containing the forged signatures of high-level government officials. He also recruited current and former military leaders to a task force he named “Alpha214” and used them as unwitting props to validate his claims.
Incredibly, the now 44-year-old built enough of a reputation to actually place himself inside the National Institutes of Health as a watchdog over the allocation of no-bid contracts. What you have at that point is the proverbial fox inside the henhouse. But by that time, the scheme had started to unravel.
Some of the heroes of this story were lawyers at the companies Courtney swindled who began asking why they weren’t being paid under the contracts they had signed.
Navid Keshavarz-Nia was another hero. He had done cybersecurity and technical counterintelligence work for the C.I.A., N.S.A., and F.B.I. After several months of working with Courtney, he fired off a resignation letter from Alpha214, distributed to its members, and addressed Courtney directly: “It is clear that I have been deliberately deceived, lied to and criminally victimized by you based on your numerous false statements.” At about the same time, the Justice Department began an investigation.
It’s not hard to figure out how this fraud could work. You take a skilled con artist and add it to the feeding frenzy for government contracts. Combine that toxic mix with something my colleague Gilad Edelman wrote for the Washington Monthly three years ago.
While the number of federal employees has basically flatlined for a half-century, the government has ballooned if you include another group in your tally: private contractors. As the size and scope of federal programs grew, but the number of civil servants stayed fixed, that labor had to get done by someone. Congress’s answer has increasingly been to contract with the private sector… Very few Americans realize that this exact trend—using contractors to hide the true size and cost of a government mission—is not even close to being limited to the military. It’s ubiquitous. There has been a de facto political cap on federal workers since the 1970s, and every administration since at least Jimmy Carter’s has used contractors to get around it. Bill Clinton, who announced that “the era of big government is over,” harvested the end of the Cold War to cut 400,000 federal jobs, mostly in defense. But big government was only over if you ignored the contracting workforce, which kept rising by the hundreds of thousands. The Bush administration took things to another level, as contracting morphed from a way to sneakily expand government to an ideological goal in itself.
There are lessons from this tale that go beyond the importance of holding an individual like Courtney accountable for his crimes. Here’s how Edelman summarized the situation:
The key is to transcend the false choice of big government versus small government. The real choice is between a transparent and relatively competent big government of civil servants and a dysfunctional shadow big government of private contractors.
Whenever our government operates in the shadows, exploitation by con artists like Courtney is possible.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-16--Trump Tries the Town Hall Format and It Doesn’t Go Well

I can ’ t think of a worse format for President Trump than a town hall meeting .
In such a scenario , he ’ ll be confronted by ordinary citizens , where his complete lack of honesty and integrity will show in plain sight .
Still , he decided to do one Tuesday night .
He didn ’ t go on a partisan outlet either , but chose ABC News ’ George Stephanopoulos , a former high-ranking staffer for President Clinton , as the moderator .
It had predictably bad results .
When asked why he had misled the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Winston Churchill .
When questioned about his desire to have Obamacare ruled unconstitutional by the courts , Trump lied and said he has a brand new health care plan “ ready ” that will protect people with preexisting conditions .
It was so bad that Laura Ingraham of Fox News basically mocked Trump ’ s judgment in participating and said the whole thing might as well have been organized by the Democratic National Committee .
The audience questions were frequently hostile , and Trump was often reduced to gobbledygook in his responses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Gibsonia , Pennsylvania , asked why he doesn ’ t promote mask wearing , he blamed Joe Biden and then the following exchange occurred : TRUMP : Now there is by the way , a lot of people don ’ t want to wear masks .
There are a lot of people [ who ] think that masks are not good .
And there are a lot of people that as an example you have… STEPHANOPOULOS : Who are those people ?
TRUMP : I ’ ll tell you who those people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serve you , and they have a mask .
And I saw it the other day where they were serving me , and they ’ re playing with the mask … I ’ m not blaming them … I ’ m just saying what happens .
They ’ re playing with the mask , so the mask is over , and they ’ re touching it , and then they ’ re touching the plate .
That can ’ t be good .
There are a lot of people .
If you look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … You look at a lot of people , CDC , you look at a lot of people ’ s original statement , they said very strongly , George , don ’ t wear masks .
Then all of a sudden they went to wear masks .
The concept of a mask is good , but it also does … You ’ re constantly touching it , you ’ re touching your face , you ’ re touching plates .
There are people that don ’ t think masks are good .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like that reassures anyone , including his supporters .
Perhaps his fans were more receptive to his explanation for lying , but they probably wonder why he talked about a “ herd-mentality ” being a solution to the pandemic .
STEPHANOPOULOS : So do you think it ’ s OK to be dishonest ?
TRUMP : I ’ m not looking to be dishonest .
I don ’ t want people to panic .
And we are going to be OK. We ’ re going to be OK , and it is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to go away now a lot faster because of the vaccines .
It would go away without the vaccine , George , but it ’ s going to go away a lot faster with it .
STEPHANOPOULOS : It would go away without the vaccine ?
TRUMP : Sure , over a period of time .
Sure , with time it goes away .
TRUMP : And you ’ ll develop—you ’ ll develop herd-like a herd mentality .
It ’ s going to be—it ’ s going to be herd-developed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That will all happen .
But with a vaccine , I think it will go away very quickly .
According to an analysis by the Washington Post , approximately 65 percent of the world ’ s population has to be infected with COVID-19 to achieve herd immunity , which would translate to about 2.13 million American deaths .
Near the end of the town hall meeting , Flora Cruceta of Harrisburg , Pennsylvania , told the president that he had a question about immigration from her mother who recently died of breast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skills in his response : TRUMP : The love that you have for your mother , I can see that , it ’ s hard .
And so many people and they die alone .
They die alone because this is such a vicious thing .
You can ’ t go there and hold their hand .
You can ’ t give them a kiss good night .
It ’ s a terrible , terrible thing .
And hopefully the vaccines are going to be very soon , hopefully .
Did you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it right ?
TRUMP : You didn ’ t have it , your mother .
We ’ ll have it taken care of .
It ’ s going to get taken care of .
The vaccines are going to make a big difference .
What has made a big difference is Remdesivir .
Again , Ms. Cruceta had just explained at length that he mother ’ s cancer had metastasized to her brain , bone , and lungs .
I doubt very much that Trump ’ s political advisers thought this format was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he doesn ’ t listen to experts .
Sometimes that hurts him politically , and other times it results in more than a hundred thousand unnecessary deaths .

I can’t think of a worse format for President Trump than a town hall meeting. In such a scenario, he’ll be confronted by ordinary citizens, where his complete lack of honesty and integrity will show in plain sight. Still, he decided to do one Tuesday night. He didn’t go on a partisan outlet either, but chose ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, a former high-ranking staffer for President Clinton, as the moderator. It had predictably bad results.
When asked why he had misled the country about COVID-19, he compared himself to Winston Churchill. When questioned about his desire to have Obamacare ruled unconstitutional by the courts, Trump lied and said he has a brand new health care plan “ready” that will protect people with preexisting conditions.
It was so bad that Laura Ingraham of Fox News basically mocked Trump’s judgment in participating and said the whole thing might as well have been organized by the Democratic National Committee.
The audience questions were frequently hostile, and Trump was often reduced to gobbledygook in his responses. For example, after Julie Bard of Gibsonia, Pennsylvania, asked why he doesn’t promote mask wearing, he blamed Joe Biden and then the following exchange occurred:
TRUMP: Now there is by the way, a lot of people don’t want to wear masks. There are a lot of people [who] think that masks are not good. And there are a lot of people that as an example you have… STEPHANOPOULOS: Who are those people? TRUMP: I’ll tell you who those people are—waiters. They come over and they serve you, and they have a mask. And I saw it the other day where they were serving me, and they’re playing with the mask … I’m not blaming them … I’m just saying what happens. They’re playing with the mask, so the mask is over, and they’re touching it, and then they’re touching the plate. That can’t be good. There are a lot of people. If you look at Dr. Fauci’s original statement … You look at a lot of people, CDC, you look at a lot of people’s original statement, they said very strongly, George, don’t wear masks. Then all of a sudden they went to wear masks. The concept of a mask is good, but it also does … You’re constantly touching it, you’re touching your face, you’re touching plates. There are people that don’t think masks are good.
I don’t see how a response like that reassures anyone, including his supporters. Perhaps his fans were more receptive to his explanation for lying, but they probably wonder why he talked about a “herd-mentality” being a solution to the pandemic.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So do you think it’s OK to be dishonest? TRUMP: I’m not looking to be dishonest. I don’t want people to panic. And we are going to be OK. We’re going to be OK, and it is going away. And it’s probably going to go away now a lot faster because of the vaccines. It would go away without the vaccine, George, but it’s going to go away a lot faster with it. STEPHANOPOULOS: It would go away without the vaccine? TRUMP: Sure, over a period of time. Sure, with time it goes away. STEPHANOPOULOS: And many deaths. TRUMP: And you’ll develop—you’ll develop herd-like a herd mentality. It’s going to be—it’s going to be herd-developed, and that’s going to happen. That will all happen. But with a vaccine, I think it will go away very quickly.
According to an analysis by the Washington Post, approximately 65 percent of the world’s population has to be infected with COVID-19 to achieve herd immunity, which would translate to about 2.13 million American deaths.
Near the end of the town hall meeting, Flora Cruceta of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, told the president that he had a question about immigration from her mother who recently died of breast cancer. Trump demonstrated his ace listening skills in his response:
TRUMP: The love that you have for your mother, I can see that, it’s hard. And so many people and they die alone. They die alone because this is such a vicious thing. You can’t go there and hold their hand. You can’t give them a kiss good night. It’s a terrible, terrible thing. And hopefully the vaccines are going to be very soon, hopefully. Did you have COVID? You didn’t have it right? CRUCETA: No. TRUMP: You didn’t have it, your mother. We’ll have it taken care of. It’s going to get taken care of. The vaccines are going to make a big difference. What has made a big difference is Remdesivir.
Again, Ms. Cruceta had just explained at length that he mother’s cancer had metastasized to her brain, bone, and lungs.
I doubt very much that Trump’s political advisers thought this format was a good idea for him, but he doesn’t listen to experts. Sometimes that hurts him politically, and other times it results in more than a hundred thousand unnecessary deaths.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-16--How to Save Ballot Drop Boxes

How to Save Ballot Drop Boxes

In June , the Justice Department sued Pennsylvania ’ s secretary of state and the state ’ s 67 county election boards to limit the way absentee ballots can be submitted in November .
It argued that ballot drop boxes—secure receptacles where ballots are collected by election officials—are not only dangerously susceptible to voter fraud , but unconstitutional .
The complaint , filed in both federal and state court , sought to block counties from accepting absentee ballots unless they are mailed by voters , either through the U.S .
Postal Service or another courier , like FedEx or UPS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an election office .
Drop boxes , common in so many states , were dubbed by the suit to be part of a problem of “ unmonitored by-mail voting ” and “ the single greatest threat to free and fair elections.
” So much for Moscow .
You don ’ t have to be a Never Trumper to see this as a blatant attempt to sabotage a mostly vote-by-mail election .
Since the coronavirus outbreak , states have been rapidly making it easier to vote from home .
California , Nevada , New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Columbia , for instance , will be mailing ballots directly to every registered voter , for the first time in their respective histories .
In 34 other states , any voter who wants an absentee ballot can request one .
No excuse needed .
For years , though , drop boxes have been a key feature in universal vote-by-mail states such as Oregon , Colorado , and Washington , where nearly half of all voters use them—and where there have been zero instances of substantial voter fraud .
“ They ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may want to vote late and are undecided about one race or another , ” former Oregon Secretary of State John Lindback told me .
“ They don ’ t want to risk their ballot not arriving on time .
It ’ s equivalent to handing it off to election officials because the only people who can get in there and retrieve the ballots are election officials.
” Yet because of Republican efforts to curtail the use of drop boxes , government officials in some states have turned to loopholes and other clever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open and available—and now , to expand their usage .
Consider the Trump administration lawsuit in Pennsylvania .
In August , a federal judge dropped it , allowing a ruling to come from state courts .
But the suit itself deterred some counties from ordering and distributing more drop boxes , according to one local election official there , for fear that the litigation costs would eat up funds at a time when revenues have collapsed because of COVID-19 and the economic downturn .
At least one Pennsylvania county , however , avoided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County , which includes Pittsburgh , wasn ’ t named in the section on drop boxes in the Trump campaign lawsuit .
Why ?
Because it simply staffed the site of the receptacle , effectively preempting the suit ’ s argument that there was no one there to monitor the delivery of ballots .
It also located the receptacle in the lobby of the county ’ s Board of Elections building , where there was already a security camera in place , avoiding any additional costs .
Voters could drop off their ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roughly two weeks leading up to the election .
While it only had one drop box for the June primary , Allegheny County is considering setting up several others for the general election .
Its Board of Elections will decide on September 16 .
If it does , it plans on applying the same principle elsewhere : staff the site by putting it in a governmental building , such as a library , Post Office , or fire station , where there are already government employees and security present .
Not only does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it avoids burdening the county with more administrative expenses .
This straightforward yet ingenious idea could be the loophole that elections administrators can use in a number of swing states , including Ohio and North Carolina , where Republican officials have mounted arbitrary and draconian efforts to limit drop boxes .
This is crucial because drop boxes—already beloved by voters , especially in high-turnout states—will be even more important after Trump-led USPS changes that have dramatically slowed down the mail nationwide .
Without drop boxes , the unambiguous Republican project to disenfranchise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could ultimately be successful .
In Ohio , Republicans are putting up a formidable battle against drop boxes .
GOP Secretary of State Frank LaRose issued a guidance in August allowing only one drop box per county .
That meant that the county with the smallest population in the state would have the same number of drop boxes as the county with the largest population in the state .
Like Trump ’ s Pennsylvania lawsuit , LaRose ’ s order said that absentee ballots either had to be mailed back or returned directly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where each county ’ s drop box would be located .
On September 15 , an Ohio judge blocked the order , ruling that it had no legal basis .
LaRose has already stated that he will appeal .
“ The workaround would be placing these additional drop boxes at already staffed municipal buildings or public institutions like a library or a city administrative building in a smaller city in the county , ” Collin Marozzi , the ACLU of Ohio ’ s policy strategist , told me .
“ And if a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as being monitored.
” North Carolina has even harsher restrictions on drop boxes , based on a 2019 statute : It doesn ’ t allow them , period .
“ The law requires that only a person or a near relative or legal guardian can possess or drop off a ballot for an individual , ” the State Board of Elections ’ spokesman Patrick Gannon , told me .
“ Drop boxes would not allow that law to be followed.
” But North Carolina could easily implement the same measures Allegheny County did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has to do place them in preexisting government buildings , where it can either assign staff or deputize staff already present , like the front desk worker at a library .
“ It ’ s just getting creative and most of these states don ’ t see beyond the ways they ’ ve always done it and they think everything is impossible—and it ’ s really not , ” said Amber McReynolds , the CEO of the National Vote at Home Institute who used to run Denver ’ s elections .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Placing drop boxes inside of government buildings isn ’ t actually a novel idea .
The method already has a record of success : It ’ s been used in vote-by-mail states for decades , such as Oregon , which typically grants voters a 12-hour period each day to hand off their ballots .
A bipartisan team of election officers then collects them once or twice a day .
Never in the last 30-plus years has the state had an episode of drop boxes being compromised by fraud or interference .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same scrutiny as ballots that are sent in the mail ; they are subject to verifying technology that matches the signature on the ballot to the one on the voter ’ s registration .
It ’ s a process that has proven effective elsewhere , too .
Rozan Mitchell , elections director of Utah County , just outside of Salt Lake City , told me that the only foul play they have discovered are parents who fill out their children ’ s ballots while they are away on Mormon missions .
In other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off fraud .
Most importantly , though , drop boxes are one of the most effective tools that can boost turnout , especially during a global pandemic when more Americans than ever before will be voting from home .
Given the headlines about Postmaster General Louis DeJoy ’ s hampering of the mail system , Americans have grown more anxious about sending their ballot back through the USPS .
Drop boxes , then , can be a reassuring harbor for voters skeptical about the Postal Service and unwilling to get in line at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of course , will do its best to scare election officials away from deploying drop boxes , but Allegheny County shows that so long as they follow a reliable formula , they need not be afraid .

In June, the Justice Department sued Pennsylvania’s secretary of state and the state’s 67 county election boards to limit the way absentee ballots can be submitted in November. It argued that ballot drop boxes—secure receptacles where ballots are collected by election officials—are not only dangerously susceptible to voter fraud, but unconstitutional.
The complaint, filed in both federal and state court, sought to block counties from accepting absentee ballots unless they are mailed by voters, either through the U.S. Postal Service or another courier, like FedEx or UPS, or handed off in person at an election office. Drop boxes, common in so many states, were dubbed by the suit to be part of a problem of “unmonitored by-mail voting” and “the single greatest threat to free and fair elections.” So much for Moscow.
You don’t have to be a Never Trumper to see this as a blatant attempt to sabotage a mostly vote-by-mail election. Since the coronavirus outbreak, states have been rapidly making it easier to vote from home. California, Nevada, New Jersey, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, for instance, will be mailing ballots directly to every registered voter, for the first time in their respective histories. In 34 other states, any voter who wants an absentee ballot can request one. No excuse needed.
For years, though, drop boxes have been a key feature in universal vote-by-mail states such as Oregon, Colorado, and Washington, where nearly half of all voters use them—and where there have been zero instances of substantial voter fraud. “They’re very popular, particularly with people who may want to vote late and are undecided about one race or another,” former Oregon Secretary of State John Lindback told me. “They don’t want to risk their ballot not arriving on time. It’s equivalent to handing it off to election officials because the only people who can get in there and retrieve the ballots are election officials.”
Yet because of Republican efforts to curtail the use of drop boxes, government officials in some states have turned to loopholes and other clever legal maneuvers to keep these ballot receptacles open and available—and now, to expand their usage.
Consider the Trump administration lawsuit in Pennsylvania. In August, a federal judge dropped it, allowing a ruling to come from state courts. But the suit itself deterred some counties from ordering and distributing more drop boxes, according to one local election official there, for fear that the litigation costs would eat up funds at a time when revenues have collapsed because of COVID-19 and the economic downturn.
At least one Pennsylvania county, however, avoided the drop box controversy entirely. Allegheny County, which includes Pittsburgh, wasn’t named in the section on drop boxes in the Trump campaign lawsuit. Why? Because it simply staffed the site of the receptacle, effectively preempting the suit’s argument that there was no one there to monitor the delivery of ballots. It also located the receptacle in the lobby of the county’s Board of Elections building, where there was already a security camera in place, avoiding any additional costs. Voters could drop off their ballots at specific times of the day for roughly two weeks leading up to the election.
While it only had one drop box for the June primary, Allegheny County is considering setting up several others for the general election. Its Board of Elections will decide on September 16. If it does, it plans on applying the same principle elsewhere: staff the site by putting it in a governmental building, such as a library, Post Office, or fire station, where there are already government employees and security present. Not only does that answer the Republicans’ stated complaints, it avoids burdening the county with more administrative expenses.
This straightforward yet ingenious idea could be the loophole that elections administrators can use in a number of swing states, including Ohio and North Carolina, where Republican officials have mounted arbitrary and draconian efforts to limit drop boxes. This is crucial because drop boxes—already beloved by voters, especially in high-turnout states—will be even more important after Trump-led USPS changes that have dramatically slowed down the mail nationwide. Without drop boxes, the unambiguous Republican project to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters this fall could ultimately be successful.
In Ohio, Republicans are putting up a formidable battle against drop boxes. GOP Secretary of State Frank LaRose issued a guidance in August allowing only one drop box per county. That meant that the county with the smallest population in the state would have the same number of drop boxes as the county with the largest population in the state.
Like Trump’s Pennsylvania lawsuit, LaRose’s order said that absentee ballots either had to be mailed back or returned directly to an elections office, which is where each county’s drop box would be located. On September 15, an Ohio judge blocked the order, ruling that it had no legal basis. LaRose has already stated that he will appeal.
“The workaround would be placing these additional drop boxes at already staffed municipal buildings or public institutions like a library or a city administrative building in a smaller city in the county,” Collin Marozzi, the ACLU of Ohio’s policy strategist, told me. “And if a drop box is videotaped, that counts as being monitored.”
North Carolina has even harsher restrictions on drop boxes, based on a 2019 statute: It doesn’t allow them, period. “The law requires that only a person or a near relative or legal guardian can possess or drop off a ballot for an individual,” the State Board of Elections’ spokesman Patrick Gannon, told me. “Drop boxes would not allow that law to be followed.”
But North Carolina could easily implement the same measures Allegheny County did to provide drop boxes statewide. All it has to do place them in preexisting government buildings, where it can either assign staff or deputize staff already present, like the front desk worker at a library. “It’s just getting creative and most of these states don’t see beyond the ways they’ve always done it and they think everything is impossible—and it’s really not,” said Amber McReynolds, the CEO of the National Vote at Home Institute who used to run Denver’s elections. “It’s an all-of-government solution.”
Placing drop boxes inside of government buildings isn’t actually a novel idea. The method already has a record of success: It’s been used in vote-by-mail states for decades, such as Oregon, which typically grants voters a 12-hour period each day to hand off their ballots. A bipartisan team of election officers then collects them once or twice a day. Never in the last 30-plus years has the state had an episode of drop boxes being compromised by fraud or interference.
That’s because those ballots go through the same scrutiny as ballots that are sent in the mail; they are subject to verifying technology that matches the signature on the ballot to the one on the voter’s registration. It’s a process that has proven effective elsewhere, too. Rozan Mitchell, elections director of Utah County, just outside of Salt Lake City, told me that the only foul play they have discovered are parents who fill out their children’s ballots while they are away on Mormon missions. In other words, the system works at fending off fraud.
Most importantly, though, drop boxes are one of the most effective tools that can boost turnout, especially during a global pandemic when more Americans than ever before will be voting from home. Given the headlines about Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s hampering of the mail system, Americans have grown more anxious about sending their ballot back through the USPS.
Drop boxes, then, can be a reassuring harbor for voters skeptical about the Postal Service and unwilling to get in line at a polling place. The Trump administration, of course, will do its best to scare election officials away from deploying drop boxes, but Allegheny County shows that so long as they follow a reliable formula, they need not be afraid.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-15--What Biden and Democrats Are Doing to Ensure a Fair Election

According to the polling aggregate at RealClearPolitics , Joe Biden leads Donald rump by about seven points in the national polls .
That lead is larger than any candidate in the previous four presidential races has held at this point in the cycle .
For Trump supporters , that ’ s bad news , which is why it is becoming apparent that the only way he can win is to cheat .
True to himself , Trump has been broadcasting some of the ways he is likely to cheat by referring to the 2020 election—and specifically the use of mail-in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this country ’ s history .
His message is meant to undermine voter ’ s trust in the outcome , which is a form of voter suppression .
According to the New York Times , the Biden campaign ’ s response has been to build “ the largest election protection program in presidential campaign history.
” The goal is to both litigate legal battles related to vote casting and counting rules , as well as a communication effort to ensure that voters make a plan to cast a ballot as soon as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be Biden ’ s legal counsel Dana Remus and former White House Counsel Bob Bauer .
A special litigation unit will be headed by Donald B. Verrilli Jr. and Walter Dellinger , two former solicitors general , with former Attorney General Eric Holder coordinating the campaign ’ s efforts with outside groups .
They will be joined by hundreds of lawyers , including a team from the law firm led by Marc Elias , who recently launched the platform Democracy Docket .
Meanwhile , the Democratic National Committee has launched a sophisticated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters with information specific to the state in which they live .
It allows voters to both register and request a mail-in ballot directly from the website .
Online organizers can then follow up with those who have requested a ballot to make sure it is sent , received , and counted .
Paying attention to the risks involved with the spread of coronavirus , the DNC has replaced their door-knocking efforts with a digital outreach that , via texting and phone calls to potential voters , represents a kind of tech support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting this year .
These efforts are not only about increasing turnout .
They ’ re designed to counter Trump ’ s lies about fraud by ensuring voters that , just as we ’ ve held fair elections during the Civil War and the Great Depression , we can do so again amidst the challenges we face right now .

According to the polling aggregate at RealClearPolitics, Joe Biden leads Donald rump by about seven points in the national polls. That lead is larger than any candidate in the previous four presidential races has held at this point in the cycle. For Trump supporters, that’s bad news, which is why it is becoming apparent that the only way he can win is to cheat.
True to himself, Trump has been broadcasting some of the ways he is likely to cheat by referring to the 2020 election—and specifically the use of mail-in ballots during a pandemic—as the most corrupt in this country’s history. His message is meant to undermine voter’s trust in the outcome, which is a form of voter suppression.
According to the New York Times, the Biden campaign’s response has been to build “the largest election protection program in presidential campaign history.” The goal is to both litigate legal battles related to vote casting and counting rules, as well as a communication effort to ensure that voters make a plan to cast a ballot as soon as possible.
Heading up the entire effort will be Biden’s legal counsel Dana Remus and former White House Counsel Bob Bauer. A special litigation unit will be headed by Donald B. Verrilli Jr. and Walter Dellinger, two former solicitors general, with former Attorney General Eric Holder coordinating the campaign’s efforts with outside groups. They will be joined by hundreds of lawyers, including a team from the law firm led by Marc Elias, who recently launched the platform Democracy Docket.
https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1305649342544523264
Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee has launched a sophisticated website called I Will Vote to provide voters with information specific to the state in which they live. It allows voters to both register and request a mail-in ballot directly from the website. Online organizers can then follow up with those who have requested a ballot to make sure it is sent, received, and counted.
Paying attention to the risks involved with the spread of coronavirus, the DNC has replaced their door-knocking efforts with a digital outreach that, via texting and phone calls to potential voters, represents a kind of tech support to help people navigate the complexities of voting this year.
These efforts are not only about increasing turnout. They’re designed to counter Trump’s lies about fraud by ensuring voters that, just as we’ve held fair elections during the Civil War and the Great Depression, we can do so again amidst the challenges we face right now.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-15--North Carolina Still Has a Literacy Test On the Books

The Voting Rights Act , passed in 1965 , is one of the most venerated statutes in American law .
Its provisions guaranteed the right to vote and ended the subterfuges used by Jim Crow-era politicians to deny the franchise given to Black Americans by the Fifteenth Amendment .
It required , for instance , multiple states famous for voter suppression to seek approval from the federal government before changing election rules .
( This provision of the monumental civil rights law was effectively struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013 . )
The Act outlawed literacy tests , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens .
Several years after the VRA passed , the North Carolina governor , legislature , and state bar worked to revise the state ’ s constitution .
In the late 1960s , the legislature approved seven major amendments on topics from taxes to voting rights that , collectively , rewrote most of the document .
It then sent the changes to voters for approval .
In the 1970 election , North Carolina residents signed off on each revision , save for one : eliminating the state ’ s literacy test .
Every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed .
To this day , Article VI , Section 4 of the North Carolina Constitution requires that voters “ be able to read and write any section of the Constitution in English.
” This provision is unenforceable , and so it ’ s tempting to dismiss it as little more than a pointless artifact .
But its very existence is an open wound .
“ It ’ s just an insult to the African-American citizens of North Carolina , and to any right-thinking citizens , ” said Kelly Alexander Jr. , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s NAACP .
He described the text as “ along the same vein ” as memorials to Confederates .
“ If a statue is offensive , a provision in the constitution is even more offensive , ” he said .
It isn ’ t just the continued stain of the literacy-test provision that makes it harmful .
The durability of Section 4 is echoed by North Carolina ’ s recent hostility toward voting rights .
In 2013 , led by a coalition that included Alexander , the state ’ s House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start the process of eliminating the literacy test from the constitution , only to have it die in the Senate .
When I asked why the Senate never took it up , Alexander told me that while both chambers are controlled by Republicans , the Senate “ is a much more conservative body.
” Its leadership , he argued , is not enthusiastic about passing ballot measures that could “ energize folks who might vote against their candidates.
” But the Senate ’ s GOP leadership is enthusiastic about passing measures that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2013 literacy test amendment stalled , both the House and the Senate passed legislation that slashed the number of early voting days , eliminated same-day registration , and made photo IDs mandatory to vote .
This curtailment of voting rights fell hardest on Black residents .
At the time , Black people were 23 percent of N.C. ’ s population .
In 2012 , they were 28 percent of its early voters , 33 percent of voters who registered on Election Day , and 34 percent of the population without IDs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ down , finding that it “ target [ ed ] African Americans with almost surgical precision.
” ( The Supreme Court declined to review the case . )
In 2017 , the N.C. House of Representatives again passed a bill that would begin the process of cutting the literacy test from the constitution .
It again died in the Senate .
But the state constitution changed in other ways .
In 2018 , North Carolina residents approved an amendment to Article VI requiring a voter ID law .
The legislature quickly passed one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it then cut the number of early polling locations .
North Carolina isn ’ t the only state with a literacy test festering in its constitution .
South Carolina , Wyoming , Delaware , and Massachusetts also have constitutions that require , or at least call for , a literacy test .
South Carolina ’ s provision , which says that the General Assembly “ may require each person to demonstrate a reasonable ability , except for physical disability , to read and write the English language as a condition to becoming entitled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the constitution in 1971—well after the Voting Rights Act took effect .
These provisions are legally hollow , but just because they ’ re present in both red and blue states , the North and the South , Joe Biden ’ s home as well as Dick Cheney ’ s , it doesn ’ t make them any less ugly .
They are also reminders that the right to vote is under attack in various forms .
Trump , Attorney General William Barr , and many GOP politicians and activists charge that mail-in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are suing state officials to stop new efforts to expand voting from home .
Jim Crow-era voting restrictions were also justified with claims of voter fraud .
I asked Alexander if he was worried the North Carolina literacy test might one day come back into force , given America ’ s contemporary fights over the franchise .
“ It ’ s possible that could happen , ” Alexander told me .
He laid out a set of conditions that , while collectively unlikely , are each individually imaginable— “ if the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completely off the rails , and we re-elect somebody that does not have a sense of the kind of historical progress that the nation has made.
” But Alexander was optimistic we ’ d avoid this scenario : “ Folks of goodwill are fighting awfully hard to try and prevent that from happening .
”

The Voting Rights Act, passed in 1965, is one of the most venerated statutes in American law. Its provisions guaranteed the right to vote and ended the subterfuges used by Jim Crow-era politicians to deny the franchise given to Black Americans by the Fifteenth Amendment. It required, for instance, multiple states famous for voter suppression to seek approval from the federal government before changing election rules. (This provision of the monumental civil rights law was effectively struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013.) The Act outlawed literacy tests, a requirement regularly used to disenfranchise Black citizens.
Several years after the VRA passed, the North Carolina governor, legislature, and state bar worked to revise the state’s constitution. In the late 1960s, the legislature approved seven major amendments on topics from taxes to voting rights that, collectively, rewrote most of the document. It then sent the changes to voters for approval. In the 1970 election, North Carolina residents signed off on each revision, save for one: eliminating the state’s literacy test. Every future attempt to take it out has failed. To this day, Article VI, Section 4 of the North Carolina Constitution requires that voters “be able to read and write any section of the Constitution in English.”
This provision is unenforceable, and so it’s tempting to dismiss it as little more than a pointless artifact. But its very existence is an open wound. “It’s just an insult to the African-American citizens of North Carolina, and to any right-thinking citizens,” said Kelly Alexander Jr., a state representative and former president of the North Carolina NAACP. He described the text as “along the same vein” as memorials to Confederates. “If a statue is offensive, a provision in the constitution is even more offensive,” he said.
It isn’t just the continued stain of the literacy-test provision that makes it harmful. The durability of Section 4 is echoed by North Carolina’s recent hostility toward voting rights. In 2013, led by a coalition that included Alexander, the state’s House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill to start the process of eliminating the literacy test from the constitution, only to have it die in the Senate. When I asked why the Senate never took it up, Alexander told me that while both chambers are controlled by Republicans, the Senate “is a much more conservative body.” Its leadership, he argued, is not enthusiastic about passing ballot measures that could “energize folks who might vote against their candidates.”
But the Senate’s GOP leadership is enthusiastic about passing measures that would demobilize those folks. Two months after the 2013 literacy test amendment stalled, both the House and the Senate passed legislation that slashed the number of early voting days, eliminated same-day registration, and made photo IDs mandatory to vote. This curtailment of voting rights fell hardest on Black residents. At the time, Black people were 23 percent of N.C.’s population. In 2012, they were 28 percent of its early voters, 33 percent of voters who registered on Election Day, and 34 percent of the population without IDs. A federal appeals court struck the law down, finding that it “target[ed] African Americans with almost surgical precision.” (The Supreme Court declined to review the case.)
In 2017, the N.C. House of Representatives again passed a bill that would begin the process of cutting the literacy test from the constitution. It again died in the Senate. But the state constitution changed in other ways. In 2018, North Carolina residents approved an amendment to Article VI requiring a voter ID law. The legislature quickly passed one. To make voting even harder, it then cut the number of early polling locations.
North Carolina isn’t the only state with a literacy test festering in its constitution. South Carolina, Wyoming, Delaware, and Massachusetts also have constitutions that require, or at least call for, a literacy test. South Carolina’s provision, which says that the General Assembly “may require each person to demonstrate a reasonable ability, except for physical disability, to read and write the English language as a condition to becoming entitled to vote,” was added to the constitution in 1971—well after the Voting Rights Act took effect.
These provisions are legally hollow, but just because they’re present in both red and blue states, the North and the South, Joe Biden’s home as well as Dick Cheney’s, it doesn’t make them any less ugly. They are also reminders that the right to vote is under attack in various forms. Trump, Attorney General William Barr, and many GOP politicians and activists charge that mail-in ballots are rife with fraud. They are suing state officials to stop new efforts to expand voting from home. Jim Crow-era voting restrictions were also justified with claims of voter fraud.
I asked Alexander if he was worried the North Carolina literacy test might one day come back into force, given America’s contemporary fights over the franchise. “It’s possible that could happen,” Alexander told me. He laid out a set of conditions that, while collectively unlikely, are each individually imaginable—“if the Supreme Court goes off the rails, if Congress goes completely off the rails, and we re-elect somebody that does not have a sense of the kind of historical progress that the nation has made.”
But Alexander was optimistic we’d avoid this scenario: “Folks of goodwill are fighting awfully hard to try and prevent that from happening.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-18--Is America Strong Enough to Confront Our Racist Past?

For the last couple of months , Donald Trump has been promising to restore patriotic education in our schools .
He mentioned it during his speech at the Republican Convention , during a press conference , and at his campaign rally in Nevada this week .
In the midst of his attacks on the 1619 Project—a series published by the New York Times documenting the impact of slavery on our country ’ s history—it hasn ’ t been difficult to guess what the president means by that promise , even though his references have been fairly cryptic .
But during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday , the president clarified his intentions .
He directly attacked the 1619 Project by calling it “ ideological poison ” that would “ dissolve the civic bonds ” in America .
In addition , he claimed that critical race theory is “ toxic propaganda , ” suggesting that it is an effort to impose tyranny and a “ new segregation.
” He even went so far as to claim that it was abuse to teach it to children .
That is the context in which Trump proposes to restore patriotic education .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1776 Commission ” ( a direct hit on the 1619 Project ) to promote the effort .
But as is often the case with the president , his remarks were long on attacks and short on his proposed alternatives , although he did say that , “ We want our sons and daughters to know that they are the citizens of the most exceptional nation in the history of the world.
” The crux of the matter for him is to ensure that school curriculums are stripped of the perspective of people of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as white history .
It is important to keep in mind what Trump is referring to when he talks about critical race theory .
According to the UCLA School of Public Affairs , it was developed by legal scholars in order to provide an analysis of race and racism from a legal perspective .
In other words , it is a theory that examines the role of systemic racism , which has been embedded in institutions and affects people of color in almost every aspect of their lives—including housing , employment , education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racist attitudes of individuals .
Trump presented a straw man when he suggested that teaching critical race theory to children was akin to child abuse .
No one is suggesting that we immerse six-year-olds in all of that any more than we would expect them to be able to handle a course in macroeconomics .
Instead , CRT informs how we teach children in a way that “ perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.
” That is precisely what threatens both Trump and his supporters .
To confront the role that racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process .
First of all , we must recognize that , since our founding , U.S. institutions have been grounded in white supremacy .
Secondly , in order to ensure that our principles of equality and justice apply to everyone , those institutions have to change .
That first step presents an obstacle for people like Trump , who view any admission of error as a sign of weakness .
During his speech on Thursday , the president said that the narratives being pushed by the left resemble the anti-American propaganda of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to see America weakened , derided and totally diminished.
” But Trump ’ s approach is the one that broadcasts weakness .
It takes strength to examine ourselves , identify shortcomings , and correct them to the best of our ability .
It is at moments when we ’ ve been able to do that as a country that we have demonstrated our exceptionalism .
As Barack Obama said during his speech at the 50th anniversary of the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma , that is what it means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of faith in the American experiment than this , what greater form of patriotism is there than the belief that America is not yet finished , that we are strong enough to be self-critical , that each successive generation can look upon our imperfections and decide that it is in our power to remake this nation to more closely align with our highest ideals ?
… For we were born of change .
We broke the old aristocracies , declaring ourselves entitled not by bloodline , but endowed by our Creator with certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and responsibilities through a system of self-government , of and by and for the people .
That ’ s why we argue and fight with so much passion and conviction — because we know our efforts matter .
We know America is what we make of it .
In many ways , what is on the ballot in November are these two views of what it means to be an American .
Are we a country that is too afraid to even admit our shortcomings , or are we strong enough to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process of aligning the country with our highest ideals ?

For the last couple of months, Donald Trump has been promising to restore patriotic education in our schools. He mentioned it during his speech at the Republican Convention, during a press conference, and at his campaign rally in Nevada this week. In the midst of his attacks on the 1619 Project—a series published by the New York Times documenting the impact of slavery on our country’s history—it hasn’t been difficult to guess what the president means by that promise, even though his references have been fairly cryptic.
But during a speech at the National Archives on Thursday, the president clarified his intentions. He directly attacked the 1619 Project by calling it “ideological poison” that would “dissolve the civic bonds” in America. In addition, he claimed that critical race theory is “toxic propaganda,” suggesting that it is an effort to impose tyranny and a “new segregation.” He even went so far as to claim that it was abuse to teach it to children.
That is the context in which Trump proposes to restore patriotic education. He announced the formation of a “1776 Commission” (a direct hit on the 1619 Project) to promote the effort. But as is often the case with the president, his remarks were long on attacks and short on his proposed alternatives, although he did say that, “We want our sons and daughters to know that they are the citizens of the most exceptional nation in the history of the world.” The crux of the matter for him is to ensure that school curriculums are stripped of the perspective of people of color and that American history is viewed as white history.
It is important to keep in mind what Trump is referring to when he talks about critical race theory. According to the UCLA School of Public Affairs, it was developed by legal scholars in order to provide an analysis of race and racism from a legal perspective.
CRT recognizes that racism is ingrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures.
In other words, it is a theory that examines the role of systemic racism, which has been embedded in institutions and affects people of color in almost every aspect of their lives—including housing, employment, education, health, and wealth—regardless of the racist attitudes of individuals.
Trump presented a straw man when he suggested that teaching critical race theory to children was akin to child abuse. No one is suggesting that we immerse six-year-olds in all of that any more than we would expect them to be able to handle a course in macroeconomics. Instead, CRT informs how we teach children in a way that “perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.”
That is precisely what threatens both Trump and his supporters. To confront the role that racism plays in our society is a two-step process. First of all, we must recognize that, since our founding, U.S. institutions have been grounded in white supremacy. Secondly, in order to ensure that our principles of equality and justice apply to everyone, those institutions have to change.
That first step presents an obstacle for people like Trump, who view any admission of error as a sign of weakness. During his speech on Thursday, the president said that the narratives being pushed by the left resemble the anti-American propaganda of our adversaries, concluding that “both groups want to see America weakened, derided and totally diminished.”
But Trump’s approach is the one that broadcasts weakness. It takes strength to examine ourselves, identify shortcomings, and correct them to the best of our ability. It is at moments when we’ve been able to do that as a country that we have demonstrated our exceptionalism. As Barack Obama said during his speech at the 50th anniversary of the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, that is what it means to be patriotic.
What greater expression of faith in the American experiment than this, what greater form of patriotism is there than the belief that America is not yet finished, that we are strong enough to be self-critical, that each successive generation can look upon our imperfections and decide that it is in our power to remake this nation to more closely align with our highest ideals?… For we were born of change. We broke the old aristocracies, declaring ourselves entitled not by bloodline, but endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. We secure our rights and responsibilities through a system of self-government, of and by and for the people. That’s why we argue and fight with so much passion and conviction — because we know our efforts matter. We know America is what we make of it.
In many ways, what is on the ballot in November are these two views of what it means to be an American. Are we a country that is too afraid to even admit our shortcomings, or are we strong enough to be self-critical and seize our power to continue the process of aligning the country with our highest ideals?


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-19--RIP RBG. Now End the Filibuster. Add States to the Union. Expand the Courts.

The passing of Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has left a deep hole in the hearts of millions across the country .
She was a giant of jurisprudence , one of the most consequential Americans to have ever lived , and an inspiration to so many for her intellect , her moral center , her trailblazing biography , her resilience and even her physical toughness .
But her passing also leaves a bleeding wound in American democracy , one that reinforces the crisis of legitimacy of conservative minority rule in America .
It is a legitimacy crisis that Democrats must heal and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Republicans are shameless enough to force through a conservative to replace Bader-Ginsburg before the inauguration of the next president , against her dying wish .
Democrats must , if they win , alter the composition of the Senate and the Court so that both reflect the will of the majority rather than the tyranny of a minority .
Consider the situation : a president who lost the popular vote by 3 million ballots has already stacked the lower courts and appointed two of the nine justices on the Supreme Court , shifting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the highest court in the land to the right , in the latter case by replacing a social moderate with a Federalist Society extremist .
He was aided in doing so by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , who ruthlessly and without precedent refused to allow President Obama to nominate a replacement to Justice Scalia for the entire final year of his term .
McConnell cynically argued at the time that the American people should be able to decide on who would sit on the Court , hedging his bets for an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he got his wish .
Notably , though , the people didn ’ t decide : the majority of the people voted for Hillary Clinton .
Just as the majority of Americans didn ’ t vote for the Republican Senators who currently constitute the Senate majority : the GOP Senate “ majority ” represents only 153 million Americans , while the Democratic “ minority ” represents 168 million .
McConnell , of course , doesn ’ t care .
Asked if he would fill a Supreme Court vacancy in the final year of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hypocrisy of such a move , McConnell smirked and said “ oh , we would fill it ” to a laughing audience .
It ’ s also worth stressing that another two of the Court ’ s justices were appointed by George W. Bush in 2005 and 2006 , who also lost the popular vote during his first election , and was confirmed by a conservative Senate majority that also represented a minority of Americans .
Nor has the reality of minority rule tempered the extremism of the rulers .
Rather than compromise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Republicans have behaved as if were elected with smashing mandates .
Worse , they have governed time and again in a way that shows they literally do not care if the Democratic constituents who make up the majority of America live or die .
The GOP base , meanwhile , has demonstrated in its fervent and continued support for Trump that they share equally in their contempt for their left-leaning fellow citizens .
They view any impingement on their right to minority rule as a form of totalitarian oppression .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rectify this imbalance .
No number of jovial cocktail dinners or backslapping lunches will convince QAnon-aligned conservatives to break bread and make compromises with Democrats on pressing crises like healthcare or climate change .
No number of left-populist promises of Medicare for All , guaranteed jobs and working-class solidarity will move those who believe that Black Lives is a violent conspiracy , that Bill Gates wants to implant them with microchips , or that climate change is a Soros-funded hoax .
Nor has data shown that either approach pushes enough non-voters to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change in the divided electorate .
Change must be structural and permanent so that the incentives toward minority rule are ended , and so that Republicans will be forced to align their politics toward winning the favor of a majority of voters–including and especially the growing legion of Millennials , Generation Z and people of color who increasingly comprise the electorate .
The most immediate steps Democrats must take are killing the filibuster , adding states to the union and expanding the courts .
The filibuster has historically helped conservatives far more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know it .
More importantly , in a country as divided along urban and rural lines as America is today and as polarized as the parties are , there is increasingly no way for either party to gain 60 Senate seats and no way for either party to govern to create real change as long as their fail to do so .
Changing the composition of the courts , combined with executive orders , is almost the only change a ruling party can make .
This leads to a dangerous sclerosis of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which executive orders increasingly become the sole functioning policy tool .
But the filibuster is also untenable morally .
By 2040 , under current trends only 30 % of the Senate will be governing a full two-thirds of the American public .
And that 30 % is likely to be the most rural , most conservative 30 % , while the two-thirds is likely to be in more urban , bluer states .
This is a recipe for apartheid rule as long as 60 Senators are required for any legislative change .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ downside risk should Republicans regain control of the White House , Senate and House of Representatives in the future .
But if voters do decide to send Republicans to power en masse in 2024 or beyond , then the people should get the government they voted for–and the legislators they support should be held accountable accordingly , rather than have their stances disguised through legislative gridlock .
The Senate should also be expanded by adding Washington , DC and Puerto Rico to the union–at a minimum .
It is appalling that the Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in it than some states and generates enormous economic activity , but has no effective representation in Congress .
Puerto Ricans , meanwhile , are American citizens with all the responsibilities of citizenship but none of the representation .
Assuming the residents of the island agree that they wish to become an American state , they should be allowed to do so .
Republicans would call this a power grab , but it isn ’ t .
Creating equal representation from a system of apartheid-style minority rule is not oppression , but justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the current make-up of states , including and especially the existence of a separate North and South Dakota , is due to an explicit 19th century Republican power grab designed to alter the composition of the Senate .
It ’ s worth noting that the Republicans of their day were mostly the good guys and the Dixiecrats the bad guys , but still : turnabout is fair play .
Finally and most controversially , Democrats must consider expanding the court–particularly if Bader-Ginsburg is replaced by a conservative .
A federal court system in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidents who then proceed to stymie all popular legislation enacted by a duly elected majority of legislators is both immoral and untenable .
The balance must be rectified .
There is nothing in the Constitution outlining the number of judges on any given court .
Indeed , the Supreme Court has been expanded before .
Would this potentially create an arms race in which each unitarian majority government proceeded to expand the courts to govern however they please ?
Perhaps .
But the danger to democracy and , frankly , to the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of power to prevent any significant action on the country ’ s pressing problems would be far greater .
Other countries ’ electoral systems can and do survive with more flexible , majoritarian electoral systems and power structures .
America can survive , too .
What it can not survive is the status quo of structurally racist minority rule .
The departure of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg is a focal point for desperately needed reforms , and it will fall on Democrats to act on them .

The passing of Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has left a deep hole in the hearts of millions across the country. She was a giant of jurisprudence, one of the most consequential Americans to have ever lived, and an inspiration to so many for her intellect, her moral center, her trailblazing biography, her resilience and even her physical toughness.
But her passing also leaves a bleeding wound in American democracy, one that reinforces the crisis of legitimacy of conservative minority rule in America. It is a legitimacy crisis that Democrats must heal and rectify should they win power in November–especially if Republicans are shameless enough to force through a conservative to replace Bader-Ginsburg before the inauguration of the next president, against her dying wish. Democrats must, if they win, alter the composition of the Senate and the Court so that both reflect the will of the majority rather than the tyranny of a minority.
Consider the situation: a president who lost the popular vote by 3 million ballots has already stacked the lower courts and appointed two of the nine justices on the Supreme Court, shifting the balance of both the lower courts and the highest court in the land to the right, in the latter case by replacing a social moderate with a Federalist Society extremist. He was aided in doing so by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who ruthlessly and without precedent refused to allow President Obama to nominate a replacement to Justice Scalia for the entire final year of his term. McConnell cynically argued at the time that the American people should be able to decide on who would sit on the Court, hedging his bets for an outcome favorable to conservatives. Improbably, he got his wish.
Notably, though, the people didn’t decide: the majority of the people voted for Hillary Clinton. Just as the majority of Americans didn’t vote for the Republican Senators who currently constitute the Senate majority: the GOP Senate “majority” represents only 153 million Americans, while the Democratic “minority” represents 168 million. McConnell, of course, doesn’t care. Asked if he would fill a Supreme Court vacancy in the final year of Trump’s term despite the rank hypocrisy of such a move, McConnell smirked and said “oh, we would fill it” to a laughing audience. It’s also worth stressing that another two of the Court’s justices were appointed by George W. Bush in 2005 and 2006, who also lost the popular vote during his first election, and was confirmed by a conservative Senate majority that also represented a minority of Americans.
Nor has the reality of minority rule tempered the extremism of the rulers. Rather than compromise under the recognition of their precarious legitimacy, Republicans have behaved as if were elected with smashing mandates. Worse, they have governed time and again in a way that shows they literally do not care if the Democratic constituents who make up the majority of America live or die. The GOP base, meanwhile, has demonstrated in its fervent and continued support for Trump that they share equally in their contempt for their left-leaning fellow citizens. They view any impingement on their right to minority rule as a form of totalitarian oppression.
There is no culture shift that Democrats can make to rectify this imbalance. No number of jovial cocktail dinners or backslapping lunches will convince QAnon-aligned conservatives to break bread and make compromises with Democrats on pressing crises like healthcare or climate change. No number of left-populist promises of Medicare for All, guaranteed jobs and working-class solidarity will move those who believe that Black Lives is a violent conspiracy, that Bill Gates wants to implant them with microchips, or that climate change is a Soros-funded hoax. Nor has data shown that either approach pushes enough non-voters to to the polls to create a sea change in the divided electorate. Change must be structural and permanent so that the incentives toward minority rule are ended, and so that Republicans will be forced to align their politics toward winning the favor of a majority of voters–including and especially the growing legion of Millennials, Generation Z and people of color who increasingly comprise the electorate.
The most immediate steps Democrats must take are killing the filibuster, adding states to the union and expanding the courts.
The filibuster has historically helped conservatives far more than it has hurt them, and they know it. More importantly, in a country as divided along urban and rural lines as America is today and as polarized as the parties are, there is increasingly no way for either party to gain 60 Senate seats and no way for either party to govern to create real change as long as they fail to do so. Changing the composition of the courts, combined with executive orders, is almost the only change a ruling party can make. This leads to a dangerous sclerosis of the government and an incentive toward unitarian despotism in which executive orders increasingly become the sole functioning policy tool.
But the filibuster is also untenable morally. By 2040, under current trends only 30 percent of the Senate will be governing a full two-thirds of the American public. And that 30% is likely to be the most rural, most conservative 30%, while the two-thirds is likely to be in more urban, bluer states. This is a recipe for apartheid rule as long as 60 Senators are required for any legislative change. And yes: ending the filibuster carries downside risk should Republicans regain control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives in the future. But if voters do decide to send Republicans to power en masse in 2024 or beyond, then the people should get the government they voted for–and the legislators they support should be held accountable accordingly, rather than have their stances disguised through legislative gridlock.
The Senate should also be expanded by adding Washington, DC and Puerto Rico to the union–at a minimum. It is appalling that the Washington, DC metro area has more people in it than some states and generates enormous economic activity, but has no effective representation in Congress. Puerto Ricans, meanwhile, are American citizens with all the responsibilities of citizenship but none of the representation. Assuming the residents of the island agree that they wish to become an American state, they should be allowed to do so. Republicans would call this a power grab, but it isn’t. Creating equal representation from a system of apartheid-style minority rule is not oppression, but justice. It’s also notable that the current make-up of states, including and especially the existence of a separate North and South Dakota, is due to an explicit 19th century Republican power grab designed to alter the composition of the Senate. It’s worth noting that the Republicans of their day were mostly the good guys and the Dixiecrats the bad guys, but still: turnabout is fair play.
Finally and most controversially, Democrats must consider expanding the court–particularly if Bader-Ginsburg is replaced by a conservative. A federal court system in which the majority are appointees of popular-vote-losing presidents who then proceed to stymie all popular legislation enacted by a duly elected majority of legislators is both immoral and untenable. The balance must be rectified. There is nothing in the Constitution outlining the number of judges on any given court. Indeed, the Supreme Court has been expanded before.
Would this potentially create an arms race in which each unitarian majority government proceeded to expand the courts to govern however they please? Perhaps. But the danger to democracy and, frankly, to the country and the planet from allowing minority-rule theft of power to prevent any significant action on the country’s pressing problems would be far greater.
Other countries’ electoral systems can and do survive with more flexible, majoritarian electoral systems and power structures. America can survive, too. What it cannot survive is the status quo of structurally racist minority rule. The departure of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg is a focal point for desperately needed reforms, and it will fall on Democrats to act on them.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-19--Remembering Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Remembering Ruth Bader Ginsburg

I never knew Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
My memories come from sitting same room with her for hours every month , listening to every word she said , reading everything she wrote , and wondering what was in her mind .
What I most remember is the Court ’ s last session of the 2009-2010 term , when the emboldened conservative majority announced , in an opinion by Samuel Alito , that the Court ’ s newly expanded “ right to keep and bear arms ” extended to the states as well .
Ruth Ginsburg did not speak from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dissent by her friend Justice Stephen Breyer , and sat at the bench to bear witness .
Her husband Martin Ginsburg had died the day before .
Ruth and Marty Ginsburg had met at Cornell when she was 17 .
They married after graduation , and Ruth followed Marty Ginsburg to Fort Sill , Oklahoma , for his Army service , then gave birth to a daughter and entered Harvard Law School in the class behind his .
When he was stricken with testicular cancer , she took notes in her own classes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Harvard Law and took a job in New York , she transferred to Columbia and finished her law degree there .
When she began teaching , it was Marty who brought her an obscure case in which the income-tax law discriminated against a widower because he was male , and convinced her to take it court—a decision he later modestly claimed “ got my wife her cool job.
” Marty cooked for the family , told jokes at social occasions , nurtured her career , and worked the phones when Bill Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fill .
Anyone who knew anything about either of them knew that they formed one of the most powerful and touching love stories of their time .
But she was on the job the next day .
That moment to me summarized her life .
The meme she spawned—the NOTORIOUS RBG—was on its face silly .
But it expressed something all around her sensed .
What underlay her questions from the bench , and the words she wrote , and the entire life she lived was a determination that seemed all but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she was unsubtly urged by Dean Erwin Griswold to consider giving up her place to a man .
In the last years of her service , she was loudly urged by many outside the Court to resign and allow Barack Obama to nominate a replacement .
I have no idea what was in her mind , but her decision to stay on the bench was a grim gamble with fate .
But it shouldn ’ t have surprised anyone .
When she chose to stay on the Court , I wrote that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sparrow and the heart of a lion.
” A nation already reeling—from a terrifying pandemic , from violence , from brutal repression in the streets , from apocalyptic wildfire , and most important , from a government that simply refuses to care—has lost an irreplaceable spirit .
She exited the world as we all will—as a human being , leaving behind the deeds she performed and the words she wrote as an ambiguous gift to an uncertain future .
Tomorrow the politics .
Tomorrow the list of names .
Tomorrow McConnell , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roe v. Wade , and the dark-money ads , and the ghoulish glee from the right .
Legitimacy , court-packing , stolen seat—all the Supreme Court nightmares of the past four years will be replayed in a searing summary in the weeks between now and November 3 .

I never knew Ruth Bader Ginsburg. My memories come from sitting in the same room with her for hours every month, listening to every word she said, reading everything she wrote, and wondering what was in her mind. What I most remember is the Court’s last session of the 2009-2010 term, when the emboldened conservative majority announced, in an opinion by Samuel Alito, that the Court’s newly expanded “right to keep and bear arms” extended to the states as well.
Ruth Ginsburg did not speak from the bench that day. She joined a dissent by her friend Justice Stephen Breyer and sat at the bench to bear witness.
Her husband Martin Ginsburg had died the day before.
Ruth and Marty Ginsburg had met at Cornell when she was 17. They married after graduation, and Ruth followed Marty Ginsburg to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, for his Army service, then gave birth to a daughter and entered Harvard Law School in the class behind his.
When he was stricken with testicular cancer, she took notes in her own classes and his. And when he graduated from Harvard Law and took a job in New York, she transferred to Columbia and finished her law degree there. When she began teaching, it was Marty who brought her an obscure case in which the income-tax law discriminated against a widower because he was male, and convinced her to take it court—a decision he later modestly claimed “got my wife her cool job.” Marty cooked for the family, told jokes at social occasions, nurtured her career, and worked the phones when Bill Clinton had a vacancy on the Supreme Court to fill.
Anyone who knew anything about either of them knew that they formed one of the most powerful and touching love stories of their time. But she was on the job the next day.
That moment to me summarized her life. The meme she spawned—the NOTORIOUS RBG—was on its face silly. But it expressed something all around her sensed. What underlay her questions from the bench, and the words she wrote, and the entire life she lived was a determination that seemed all but superhuman. When she entered Harvard Law, she was unsubtly urged by Dean Erwin Griswold to consider giving up her place to a man. In the last years of her service, she was loudly urged by many outside the Court to resign and allow Barack Obama to nominate a replacement. I have no idea what was in her mind, but her decision to stay on the bench was a grim gamble with fate. But it shouldn’t have surprised anyone. When she chose to stay on the Court, I wrote that Ginsburg had the “body of a sparrow and the heart of a lion.”
A nation already reeling—from a terrifying pandemic, from violence, from brutal repression in the streets, from apocalyptic wildfire, and most important, from a government that simply refuses to care—has lost an irreplaceable spirit. She exited the world as we all will—as a human being, leaving behind the deeds she performed and the words she wrote as an ambiguous gift to an uncertain future.
Tomorrow the politics. Tomorrow the list of names. Tomorrow McConnell, and Susan Collins, and the future of Roe v. Wade, and the dark-money ads, and the ghoulish glee from the right. Legitimacy, court-packing, stolen seat—all the Supreme Court nightmares of the past four years will be replayed in a searing summary in the weeks between now and November 3.
But tonight we mourn.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-18--Why Are Both Trump and Biden Visiting Northern Minnesota?

Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump in Minnesota by only 1.5 points in the 2016 election .
That is why , as Trump struggles in the Rust Belt , his campaign has consistently targeted the “ land of 10,000 lakes ” as a possible flip in 2020 .
On Friday , both presidential candidates will visit the state and the location of their stops is instructive in understanding their strategies in Minnesota .
Neither Trump nor Biden are targeting the Twin Cities Metro area , which encompasses over 50 percent of the state ’ s population , because the outcome there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead , Trump will go to Bemidji and Biden to Duluth .
Both cities are in northern Minnesota , with the former situated in the 7th congressional district and the latter in the 8th .
In the 2018 midterms , the 8th district was one of only three in the entire county where a congressional district flipped from blue to red .
I doubt that most Americans have ever heard of Bemidji , a town of about 14,000 that is nestled next to the headwaters of the Mississippi River and is perhaps best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Of course , the name of the town comes from Native Americans , who populated the area long before white settlers arrived .
Bemidji is now surrounded by three reservations : Red Lake , White Earth , and Leech Lake .
As you can see from the map , however , the 7th congressional district covers almost all of the western third of the state , a heavily rural area that Trump won in 2016 by over 30 points .
So true to form , Trump is going to the part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the strongest .
On the other hand , Biden will visit Duluth , a solidly blue city , which is located in a district that Trump won by 15 points and includes what is often referred to as the “ Iron Range , ” due to its long history as a mining area .
For decades now , that industry has been in distress , which is where Trump ’ s so-called “ populist ” message resonates .
When Republicans tout their success in the 7th district , that is the message they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also home to the area known as the North Shore of Lake Superior and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness .
While the North Shore happens to be my favorite get-away destination in the state , it might surprise you to know that the Boundary Waters is the most visited wilderness area in America , encompassing more than a thousand lakes and 1,200 miles of canoe routes .
The Trump administration has opened up the area to mining interests that could threaten its pristine nature .
That puts the 7th congressional district in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the extraction industry and the recreation industry—something that has also been gripping the Mountain West region , as Ryan Cooper wrote about in the Washington Monthly back in 2014 .
It is true that there are many jobs to be had in the extractive industry…And it should be noted that these jobs are of a kind that is vanishingly rare these days : they require a high school education or less , and though they are often dangerous , they pay well enough to support a family .
But the economic benefits of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the extractive industries and their allies would have you believe .
There is a lot of money in the recreation economy as well—and it ’ s much more sustainable over a long period of time .
While the extractive industries tend to follow a boom-and-bust cycle , the recreation industry is more consistently reliable .
Its booms aren ’ t as dramatic , but neither are its busts .
Outsiders are able to grasp the importance of the loss of the jobs in the extractive industry that have plagued the Iron Range @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep in mind that almost everyone in the state—including many of those miners—consider the Boundary Waters area to be almost sacred .
The fact is that , if you live in Minnesota and don ’ t hunt , fish or boat , you risk being an outcast .
Even the Mesabi Iron Range , the most active mining area , sells itself primarily as a recreational destination .
Those are some of the issues at play in northern Minnesota .
Trump is going to Bemidji because his campaign strategy has always been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Biden , who currently leads in the state by almost nine points , is shoring up the fact that he has traditionally had strong support from the Iron Range , even as it began to evaporate for other Democrats .
He ’ ll lend that support to Senate candidate Tina Smith and Quinn Nystrom , the Democrat who has a shot at flipping the 8th district back to blue .

Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump in Minnesota by only 1.5 points in the 2016 election. That is why, as Trump struggles in the Rust Belt, his campaign has consistently targeted the “land of 10,000 lakes” as a possible flip in 2020.
On Friday, both presidential candidates will visit the state and the location of their stops is instructive in understanding their strategies in Minnesota. Neither Trump nor Biden are targeting the Twin Cities Metro area, which encompasses over 50 percent of the state’s population, because the outcome there is pretty much a foregone conclusion.
Instead, Trump will go to Bemidji and Biden to Duluth. Both cities are in northern Minnesota, with the former situated in the 7th congressional district and the latter in the 8th. In the 2018 midterms, the 8th district was one of only three in the entire county where a congressional district flipped from blue to red.
I doubt that most Americans have ever heard of Bemidji, a town of about 14,000 that is nestled next to the headwaters of the Mississippi River and is perhaps best known as the birthplace of Paul Bunyan. Of course, the name of the town comes from Native Americans, who populated the area long before white settlers arrived. Bemidji is now surrounded by three reservations: Red Lake, White Earth, and Leech Lake.
As you can see from the map, however, the 7th congressional district covers almost all of the western third of the state, a heavily rural area that Trump won in 2016 by over 30 points. So true to form, Trump is going to the part of the state where his support is already the strongest.
On the other hand, Biden will visit Duluth, a solidly blue city, which is located in a district that Trump won by 15 points and includes what is often referred to as the “Iron Range,” due to its long history as a mining area. For decades now, that industry has been in distress, which is where Trump’s so-called “populist” message resonates. When Republicans tout their success in the 7th district, that is the message they highlight.
But the 7th district is also home to the area known as the North Shore of Lake Superior and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. While the North Shore happens to be my favorite get-away destination in the state, it might surprise you to know that the Boundary Waters is the most visited wilderness area in America, encompassing more than a thousand lakes and 1,200 miles of canoe routes. The Trump administration has opened up the area to mining interests that could threaten its pristine nature.
That puts the 7th congressional district in the midst of a major tug-of-war between the extraction industry and the recreation industry—something that has also been gripping the Mountain West region, as Ryan Cooper wrote about in the Washington Monthly back in 2014.
It is true that there are many jobs to be had in the extractive industry…And it should be noted that these jobs are of a kind that is vanishingly rare these days: they require a high school education or less, and though they are often dangerous, they pay well enough to support a family. But the economic benefits of an extraction economy are not as one-sided as the extractive industries and their allies would have you believe. There is a lot of money in the recreation economy as well—and it’s much more sustainable over a long period of time. While the extractive industries tend to follow a boom-and-bust cycle, the recreation industry is more consistently reliable. Its booms aren’t as dramatic, but neither are its busts.
Outsiders are able to grasp the importance of the loss of the jobs in the extractive industry that have plagued the Iron Range in Minnesota. But it is important to keep in mind that almost everyone in the state—including many of those miners—consider the Boundary Waters area to be almost sacred. The fact is that, if you live in Minnesota and don’t hunt, fish or boat, you risk being an outcast. Even the Mesabi Iron Range, the most active mining area, sells itself primarily as a recreational destination.
Those are some of the issues at play in northern Minnesota. Trump is going to Bemidji because his campaign strategy has always been to make an appeal to his base. Biden, who currently leads in the state by almost nine points, is shoring up the fact that he has traditionally had strong support from the Iron Range, even as it began to evaporate for other Democrats. He’ll lend that support to Senate candidate Tina Smith and Quinn Nystrom, the Democrat who has a shot at flipping the 8th district back to blue.


washingtonmonthly--2020-09-18--A Tale of Two Town Halls

A Tale of Two Town Halls

On Thursday , Joe Biden participated in a CNN town hall near his hometown of Scranton , Pennsylvania .
It was similar to the one President Trump held on Tuesday in Philadelphia .
It ’ s not hard to understand why they both chose the Keystone State .
According to the analysts at FiveThirtyEight , Biden has 96 percent chance of winning the election if he carries Pennsylvania , which compares to an 84 percent chance for the president .
The reviews of Biden ’ s performance have so far been vastly less critical than the near-total condemnation that greeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the main critiques of Trump ’ s town hall was that he delivered “ a firehose of lying , ” as CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale put it .
Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler said Trump made “ four Pinocchio ” statements “ over and over again.
” But Kessler also found fault with some of Biden ’ s material .
At one point , Biden incorrectly attributed a University of Washington estimate on how many lives could be saved by wearing masks to Centers of Disease Control director Dr. Robert Redfield .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ incredulity that some people in the media make a big deal out of him not having an Ivy League degree .
No one has suggested that he ’ d be the first president who didn ’ t attend an Ivy–in fact , Ronald Reagan graduated from Eureka College in Illinois .
But one thing to note about Biden ’ s misstatements is that they weren ’ t exactly crowdpleasers .
Democrats tend to cringe when their candidate wastes a good attack line by overstating the case , and they actually care when statistics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ describing recent events .
Biden will mostly likely clean these things up rather than make them a staple of his campaign .
Trump ’ s inaccuracies were more familiar and completely different in nature .
He lied for the umpteenth time about the Obama administration not bequeathing him an adequate supply of ventilators .
He lied about when we can expect a vaccine , and he will continue to make this a key part of his pitch for reelection .
He lied about how America compares to other nations with respect to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonsensically that we ’ d have fewer cases if we did fewer tests .
Whether he was falsely accusing Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden of criticizing his ( belated and incomplete ) travel ban on China or disputing that he had downplayed the threat of the virus , Trump ’ s lies were part of a routine .
His audience enjoys it when calls COVID-19 the “ Kung-Flu ” or the “ China virus.
” They get a big kick out of attacks on Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi .
Trump tells these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he tries to evade responsibility at every turn .
That ’ s why no amount of fact-checking will deter him and he will repeat these same lies for as long as the campaign lasts .
By contrast , Joe Biden will probably continue to talk about his lack of an Ivy League degree , but he ’ ll be careful not to say he ’ d be the first president without one .
He ’ ll do these things in part because he ’ s not a fundamentally dishonest person , but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reward dishonesty .

On Thursday, Joe Biden participated in a CNN town hall near his hometown of Scranton, Pennsylvania. It was similar to the one President Trump held on Tuesday in Philadelphia. It’s not hard to understand why they both chose the Keystone State. According to the analysts at FiveThirtyEight, Biden has 96 percent chance of winning the election if he carries Pennsylvania, which compares to an 84 percent chance for the president.
The reviews of Biden’s performance have so far been vastly less critical than the near-total condemnation that greeted Trump’s erratic one. One of the main critiques of Trump’s town hall was that he delivered “a firehose of lying,” as CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale put it.
Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler said Trump made “four Pinocchio” statements “over and over again.” But Kessler also found fault with some of Biden’s material.
At one point, Biden incorrectly attributed a University of Washington estimate on how many lives could be saved by wearing masks to Centers of Disease Control director Dr. Robert Redfield. He was also sloppy when he expressed incredulity that some people in the media make a big deal out of him not having an Ivy League degree. No one has suggested that he’d be the first president who didn’t attend an Ivy–in fact, Ronald Reagan graduated from Eureka College in Illinois.
But one thing to note about Biden’s misstatements is that they weren’t exactly crowdpleasers. Democrats tend to cringe when their candidate wastes a good attack line by overstating the case, and they actually care when statistics are misattributed or mistakes are made in describing recent events. Biden will mostly likely clean these things up rather than make them a staple of his campaign.
Trump’s inaccuracies were more familiar and completely different in nature. He lied for the umpteenth time about the Obama administration not bequeathing him an adequate supply of ventilators. He lied about when we can expect a vaccine, and he will continue to make this a key part of his pitch for reelection. He lied about how America compares to other nations with respect to the pandemic, and he once again said nonsensically that we’d have fewer cases if we did fewer tests. Whether he was falsely accusing Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden of criticizing his (belated and incomplete) travel ban on China or disputing that he had downplayed the threat of the virus, Trump’s lies were part of a routine. His audience enjoys it when calls COVID-19 the “Kung-Flu” or the “China virus.” They get a big kick out of attacks on Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Trump tells these lies to entertain his base, and he tries to evade responsibility at every turn. That’s why no amount of fact-checking will deter him and he will repeat these same lies for as long as the campaign lasts.
By contrast, Joe Biden will probably continue to talk about his lack of an Ivy League degree, but he’ll be careful not to say he’d be the first president without one. He’ll do these things in part because he’s not a fundamentally dishonest person, but also because Democrats don’t enjoy or reward dishonesty.