washingtonmonthly--2020-03-06--The Disinformation Campaign Being Launched Against Biden

During a town hall on Fox News Thursday night , Trump once again alluded to the idea that Biden is unfit for office .
While the lies about the Bidens and Burisma will likely continue , the Daily Caller reports that this new line of attack will be a focus for Republicans and the Trump campaign .
This issue , however , is not simply being raised by Trump and his enablers .
Steve Friess reports that a memo about Biden ’ s “ cognitive decline ” is circulating among Sanders ’ supporters .
The Bernie Sanders presidential campaign is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points distributed to supporters and surrogates on Wednesday morning that suggest Sanders partisans attack a resurgent Joe Biden on his “ record and obvious cognitive decline.
” The material , seen by Newsweek , was posted on various social media sites and on internal WhatsApp groups for supporters of the independent Vermont senator as an official campaign communique , but Sanders communications director Mike Caspa said he ’ d never seen it before .
“ That ’ s not a real document , ” he told Newsweek .
“ It ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2-person race , and there will be heightened scrutiny on Biden ’ s record and obvious cognitive decline , ” the document reads .
The message is obviously getting out there .
All of this feels very familiar .
During the 2016 election , both Trump and the Sanders camp attempted to paint Hillary Clinton as corrupt .
Now , both sides have teamed up on an attack against Biden .
We ’ ve all watched Biden stumble with words during debates and extemporaneous speeches .
So as people committed to examining facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gather what we know about this particular attack and not simply dismiss it because of the sources from which it is emanating .
The first thing that is important to do is to define the terms .
Here is how the Mayo Clinic defines cognitive impairment .
Mild cognitive impairment ( MCI ) is the stage between the expected cognitive decline of normal aging and the more serious decline of dementia .
It can involve problems with memory , language , thinking and judgment that are greater than normal age-related changes .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be aware that your memory or mental function has “ slipped.
” Your family and close friends also may notice a change .
But these changes aren ’ t severe enough to significantly interfere with your daily life and usual activities .
Mild cognitive impairment may increase your risk of later developing dementia caused by Alzheimer ’ s disease or other neurological conditions .
But some people with mild cognitive impairment never get worse , and a few eventually get better .
The second piece of evidence to consider is that in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his medical history in which “ his doctor declared he is a ‘ healthy , vigorous ’ 77-year-old fully capable of taking on the role of president.
” Here is what Stuart Jay Olshansky , a professor of public health at the University of Illinois at Chicago who analyzes the longevity of presidents , said about cognitive abilities after reviewing the report .
In the January/February issue of The Atlantic , John Hendrickson writes that “ [ Biden ’ s ] verbal stumbles have voters worried about his mental fitness .
Maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they knew he ’ s still fighting a stutter.
” A stutter does not get worse as a person ages , but trying to keep it at bay can take immense physical and mental energy .
Biden talks all day to audiences both small and large .
In addition to periodically stuttering or blocking on certain sounds , he appears to intentionally not stutter by switching to an alternative word—a technique called “ circumlocution ” —which can yield mangled syntax .
I ’ ve been following practically everything he ’ s said for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly characterized as a memory lapse is indeed a stutter .
As Eric Jackson , the speech pathologist , pointed out to me , during a town hall in August Biden briefly blocked on Obama , before quickly subbing in my boss .
The headlines after the event ?
“ Biden Forgets Obama ’ s Name.
” Other times when Biden fudges a detail or loses his train of thought , it seems unrelated to stuttering , like he ’ s just making a mistake .
The kind of mistake other candidates make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does .
As a stutterer himself , Hendrickson critiques Biden for suggesting that he overcame his stutter .
Emma Alpern is a 32-year-old copy editor who co-leads the Brooklyn chapter of the National Stuttering Association and co-founded NYC Stutters , which puts on a day-long conference for stuttering destigmatization .
Alpern told me that she ’ s on a group text with other stutterers who regularly discuss Biden , and that it ’ s been “ frustrating ” to watch the media portray Biden ’ s speech impediment as a sign of mental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that to happen by not naming it for what it is , ” she said , though she ’ s not sure that his presidential candidacy would benefit if he were more forthcoming .
“ I think he ’ s dug himself into a hole of not saying that he still stutters for so long that it would strike people as a little weird.
” Biden has presented the same life story for decades .
He ’ s that familiar face—Uncle Joe…He ’ s the dependable guy , the tenacious guy , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t stutter ; that guy used to stutter .
That is the data we have available about Joe Biden ’ s cognitive capabilities .
What it all comes down to is that there is an alternative explanation for his verbal stumbles and his medical records did not indicate a cognitive impairment .
Brandy X. Lee , one of the mental health professionals who has been very vocal about Trump ’ s unfitness for office , explained why a declination to diagnose Biden is in keeping with professional standards .
I do not diagnose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public figures in general , unless there is evidence of such profound danger to public health and well-being because of serious signs of mental instability in a public servant , that it would be a public disservice not to share the knowledge and training that I have .
Biden has not risen to this threshold… I never spoke up about a president or a presidential candidate either before or after Donald Trump , and neither have thousands of mental health professionals who have come forth with similar concerns in ways that are unprecedented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of any party .
I only speak up when there is a medical need of such great magnitude as to risk the survival of the human species .
This is definitively Donald Trump , not Biden .
Nor is it Bernie Sanders , Hillary Clinton , or any other false equivalences people wish to create for political purposes .
Here is how another mental health professional described the comparison to David Knowles .
We are about to be subjected to a massive disinformation campaign against Joe Biden , and this one will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us who are fact-based , it is important to keep in mind that there is no data to support the allegations that are being made .

During a town hall on Fox News Thursday night, Trump once again alluded to the idea that Biden is unfit for office. While the lies about the Bidens and Burisma will likely continue, the Daily Caller reports that this new line of attack will be a focus for Republicans and the Trump campaign.
This issue, however, is not simply being raised by Trump and his enablers. Steve Friess reports that a memo about Biden’s “cognitive decline” is circulating among Sanders’ supporters.
The Bernie Sanders presidential campaign is disavowing a list of post-Super Tuesday talking points distributed to supporters and surrogates on Wednesday morning that suggest Sanders partisans attack a resurgent Joe Biden on his “record and obvious cognitive decline.” The material, seen by Newsweek, was posted on various social media sites and on internal WhatsApp groups for supporters of the independent Vermont senator as an official campaign communique, but Sanders communications director Mike Caspa said he’d never seen it before. “That’s not a real document,” he told Newsweek. “It’s not ours.” “This is now a 2-person race, and there will be heightened scrutiny on Biden’s record and obvious cognitive decline,” the document reads.
The message is obviously getting out there.
https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/status/1235384757942435840
All of this feels very familiar. During the 2016 election, both Trump and the Sanders camp attempted to paint Hillary Clinton as corrupt. Now, both sides have teamed up on an attack against Biden.
We’ve all watched Biden stumble with words during debates and extemporaneous speeches. So as people committed to examining facts and evidence, it is important to gather what we know about this particular attack and not simply dismiss it because of the sources from which it is emanating.
The first thing that is important to do is to define the terms. Here is how the Mayo Clinic defines cognitive impairment.
Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is the stage between the expected cognitive decline of normal aging and the more serious decline of dementia. It can involve problems with memory, language, thinking and judgment that are greater than normal age-related changes. If you have mild cognitive impairment, you may be aware that your memory or mental function has “slipped.” Your family and close friends also may notice a change. But these changes aren’t severe enough to significantly interfere with your daily life and usual activities. Mild cognitive impairment may increase your risk of later developing dementia caused by Alzheimer’s disease or other neurological conditions. But some people with mild cognitive impairment never get worse, and a few eventually get better.
The second piece of evidence to consider is that in December, Biden released a three-page summary of his medical history in which “his doctor declared he is a ‘healthy, vigorous’ 77-year-old fully capable of taking on the role of president.” Here is what Stuart Jay Olshansky, a professor of public health at the University of Illinois at Chicago who analyzes the longevity of presidents, said about cognitive abilities after reviewing the report.
“The only test that hasn’t been done is the cognitive functioning test,” Olshansky added. “But the fact that he’s on the campaign trail and meeting a rigorous travel and meeting schedule probably would suffice as a replacement for the formal test for cognitive functioning.” He said that cognitive tests are typically not required unless problems are detected.
In the January/February issue of The Atlantic, John Hendrickson writes that “[Biden’s] verbal stumbles have voters worried about his mental fitness. Maybe they’d be more understanding if they knew he’s still fighting a stutter.”
A stutter does not get worse as a person ages, but trying to keep it at bay can take immense physical and mental energy. Biden talks all day to audiences both small and large. In addition to periodically stuttering or blocking on certain sounds, he appears to intentionally not stutter by switching to an alternative word—a technique called “circumlocution”—which can yield mangled syntax. I’ve been following practically everything he’s said for months now, and sometimes what is quickly characterized as a memory lapse is indeed a stutter. As Eric Jackson, the speech pathologist, pointed out to me, during a town hall in August Biden briefly blocked on Obama, before quickly subbing in my boss. The headlines after the event? “Biden Forgets Obama’s Name.” Other times when Biden fudges a detail or loses his train of thought, it seems unrelated to stuttering, like he’s just making a mistake. The kind of mistake other candidates make too, though less frequently than he does.
As a stutterer himself, Hendrickson critiques Biden for suggesting that he overcame his stutter.
Emma Alpern is a 32-year-old copy editor who co-leads the Brooklyn chapter of the National Stuttering Association and co-founded NYC Stutters, which puts on a day-long conference for stuttering destigmatization. Alpern told me that she’s on a group text with other stutterers who regularly discuss Biden, and that it’s been “frustrating” to watch the media portray Biden’s speech impediment as a sign of mental decline or dishonesty. “Biden allows that to happen by not naming it for what it is,” she said, though she’s not sure that his presidential candidacy would benefit if he were more forthcoming. “I think he’s dug himself into a hole of not saying that he still stutters for so long that it would strike people as a little weird.” Biden has presented the same life story for decades. He’s that familiar face—Uncle Joe…He’s the dependable guy, the tenacious guy, the aviators-and-crossed-arms guy. That guy doesn’t stutter; that guy used to stutter.
That is the data we have available about Joe Biden’s cognitive capabilities. What it all comes down to is that there is an alternative explanation for his verbal stumbles and his medical records did not indicate a cognitive impairment.
Brandy X. Lee, one of the mental health professionals who has been very vocal about Trump’s unfitness for office, explained why a declination to diagnose Biden is in keeping with professional standards.
I do not diagnose without examination and do not speak about public figures in general, unless there is evidence of such profound danger to public health and well-being because of serious signs of mental instability in a public servant, that it would be a public disservice not to share the knowledge and training that I have. Biden has not risen to this threshold… I never spoke up about a president or a presidential candidate either before or after Donald Trump, and neither have thousands of mental health professionals who have come forth with similar concerns in ways that are unprecedented in U.S. history, for any president of any party. I only speak up when there is a medical need of such great magnitude as to risk the survival of the human species. This is definitively Donald Trump, not Biden. Nor is it Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, or any other false equivalences people wish to create for political purposes.
Here is how another mental health professional described the comparison to David Knowles.
Biden “digresses and gets tangential, that’s not cognitive decline,” Lynne Meyer, a California psychologist told Yahoo News. “Trump’s cognitive decline or problems are that he doesn’t even seem to have comprehension of reality. That’s what it looks like.”
We are about to be subjected to a massive disinformation campaign against Joe Biden, and this one will be particularly pernicious. But for those of us who are fact-based, it is important to keep in mind that there is no data to support the allegations that are being made.
UPDATE 3/8/20: As this disinformation campaign grows, more people are weighing in. Here is an informative thread from Twitter:
I have extensive research training in both the domains of developmental psychology and speech/language disorders. Let me be clear: Joe Biden has a stutter. When you mock him for this or turn it into something else, you are causing harm to other people who stutter. Stuttering is extremely heterogeneous in its manifestations. Researchers are still working hard at uncovering the psycho-social, cognitive, and linguistic factors that underlie stuttering, as well as factors that predict who responds to certain therapy, which tactics work, etc. But many people who stutter do stutter persistently through life, even if they have responded well to speech-language therapy. And stuttering *can* correlate w/ word-replacements, circumlocutions, etc. And *stop* equating normal speech patterns that correlate w/ stuttering to dementia. You are hurting people who stutter AND people who have dementia. Not to mention their loved ones. Dehumanizing many people at once AND spreading harmful, ableist misinformation… I do not want to speak for people who stutter, but I will speak from a research perspective, as well as from a perspective of someone who knows many people who stutter. Sometimes to avoid perseverating on a specific sound, someone will back up & choose a different linguistic route–begin a different sentence, for example. Or substitute a word. Do *not* mock this process. Also, the stereotype of stuttering is *not* entirely accurate. The stereotype is typically repetition of sounds. This is 1manifestation of stuttering, but there are many other features, such as long pauses, perseverating (but not repeating) a sound, etc Stop spreading misinfo! And, yes, fatigue and stress can exacerbate stuttering, even for people who have developed very successful tactics. This does NOT disqualify someone from being president. To claim otherwise is ableist.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-07--Trump’s End Game Toward the Intel Community

Flush with his impeachment acquittal victory , President Donald Trump has resurrected his nomination of Texas Congressman John Ratcliffe to become Director of National Intelligence .
Ratcliffe ’ s initial nomination sank in July after it was revealed he had embellished his record as a U.S. Attorney by lying that he fought terrorism and rounded up hundreds of undocumented immigrants .
So , what motivates Trump to trot out the same damaged goods to head U.S. intelligence ?
This is , after all , a man whom former acting CIA director Mike Morell described as having “ the least national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience of any previous director of national intelligence , ” Even worse , Ratcliffe has peddled the conspiracy theory that “ there may have been a secret society of folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI ” in 2016 who were working to prevent Trump from becoming president .
It ’ s not complicated .
Trump prizes slavishness and intellectual dishonesty , or flat out derangement .
All the qualities Ratcliffe seems to possess in abundance .
Post-impeachment , Trump feels empowered to push the envelope even further than he already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparatus to his own ends , with a key focus on the intelligence community .
Ratcliffe would succeed Vice Admiral Joseph Maguire , who was recently ousted as acting DNI by Trump after Maguire ’ s staff briefed the House Intelligence Committee on ongoing Russian election interference .
To fill the gap , Trump has named one of his biggest loyalists , U.S .
Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell , as acting DNI .
Grenell ’ s Trumpist antics as U.S. envoy have already made him a pariah in Berlin .
But now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in doing his master ’ s bidding and cleaning house : In just two weeks on the job , he has fired DNI principal executive and veteran CIA officer Andrew Hallman and hired Kash Patel as “ senior advisor.
” Patel is an NSC staffer and former Devon Nunes aide with little grounding in the intelligence community .
Worse yet , Patel has already played a disgraced role in American history .
He presented himself , falsely , as a Ukraine expert to the president and fed him disinformation that led to Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president Zelensky .
Grennell also dismissed chief of staff Viraj Mirani , continuing Trump ’ s purge of qualified and experienced IC officials .
Topping off Trump ’ s appointments of credentials-lite “ yes-men , ” is that of Michael Ellis , another Nunes acolyte , as the NSC ’ s director for intelligence .
Ellis was behind the decision to bury the transcript of Trump ’ s infamous July 25 , 2019 call to President Zelensky in a super-secret code word server .
At the same time , Trump has imposed McCarthy-like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grand inquisitor , 29-year-old John McEntee , the president ’ s former body man who was fired last year for a gambling addiction .
Along with his deputy , a college student , McEntee is reportedly concentrating the hunt on allegedly anti-Trump political appointees .
My contacts inside the government report the working level has not yet been targeted .
“ But our antennae are up , ” said one national security official , who spoke on the condition of anonymity .
In other words , the president is turning paranoia into personnel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of intelligence , American University professor Joshua Rovner calls Trump ’ s moves “ manipulation by appointment.
” He told me in an interview that he worries that Ratcliffe “ would perpetrate real damage to the intelligence community.
” Stephen Slick , a 27-year CIA senior operations officer who now heads the University of Texas at Austin ’ s intelligence studies program , told me Trump ’ s bid to coerce political loyalty from government agencies and civil servants that are charged with pursuing the truth puts the country in danger .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to diminish the fundamental non-partisan character of American intelligence and law enforcement , we will become increasingly vulnerable to miscalculation or catastrophic surprise , ” he said .
Of course , we know the consequences of manipulated intelligence .
George W. Bush ’ s decision to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein in 2003 , based on faulty intelligence , led the country into a chaotic war that destabilized the Middle East .
Thus far , that overseas adventure has cost more than $ 2 trillion and almost 4,500 American service members ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wounded .
The Trump White House ’ s intimidation is already having a deleterious impact .
Last month , agency chiefs declined to participate in briefing the House Intelligence Committee in the public segment of the annual Worldwide Threat Assessment hearing , fearing that doing so would attract the president ’ s ire .
Trump ’ s constant attacks against the intelligence community fit into his wider war on truth itself .
His mission is twofold : to shield the public from intelligence that potentially could damage him politically , and to control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agencies .
That Trump ’ s goals fit neatly with those of Vladimir Putin could be a mere coincidence , or perhaps something more insidious .
Eventually , that truth will come out .
Meanwhile , the Vichy GOP acts as Trump ’ s enabler .
Based on the past behavior of Republicans in Congress , it seems obvious that they won ’ t stand up to the president now , even with the nation ’ s national security on the line .
Having served for many years as a State Department diplomat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I am of the conviction that Trump knows full well what he is doing .
He may , typically , not have a detailed plan , but his ultimate objective is clear .
And the country will be the worse for it .

Flush with his impeachment acquittal victory, President Donald Trump has resurrected his nomination of Texas Congressman John Ratcliffe to become Director of National Intelligence. Ratcliffe’s initial nomination sank in July after it was revealed he had embellished his record as a U.S. Attorney by lying that he fought terrorism and rounded up hundreds of undocumented immigrants.
So, what motivates Trump to trot out the same damaged goods to head U.S. intelligence? This is, after all, a man whom former acting CIA director Mike Morell described as having “the least national security experience and the most partisan political experience of any previous director of national intelligence,” Even worse, Ratcliffe has peddled the conspiracy theory that “there may have been a secret society of folks within the Department of Justice and the FBI” in 2016 who were working to prevent Trump from becoming president.
It’s not complicated. Trump prizes slavishness and intellectual dishonesty, or flat out derangement. All the qualities Ratcliffe seems to possess in abundance. Post-impeachment, Trump feels empowered to push the envelope even further than he already has to corrupt and subjugate the government apparatus to his own ends, with a key focus on the intelligence community.
Ratcliffe would succeed Vice Admiral Joseph Maguire, who was recently ousted as acting DNI by Trump after Maguire’s staff briefed the House Intelligence Committee on ongoing Russian election interference. To fill the gap, Trump has named one of his biggest loyalists, U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, as acting DNI.
Grenell’s Trumpist antics as U.S. envoy have already made him a pariah in Berlin. But now, he has gotten the ball rolling in doing his master’s bidding and cleaning house: In just two weeks on the job, he has fired DNI principal executive and veteran CIA officer Andrew Hallman and hired Kash Patel as “senior advisor.” Patel is an NSC staffer and former Devon Nunes aide with little grounding in the intelligence community. Worse yet, Patel has already played a disgraced role in American history. He presented himself, falsely, as a Ukraine expert to the president and fed him disinformation that led to Trump’s impeachment-prompting attempt to extort Ukrainian president Zelensky. Grennell also dismissed chief of staff Viraj Mirani, continuing Trump’s purge of qualified and experienced IC officials.
Topping off Trump’s appointments of credentials-lite “yes-men,” is that of Michael Ellis, another Nunes acolyte, as the NSC’s director for intelligence. Ellis was behind the decision to bury the transcript of Trump’s infamous July 25, 2019 call to President Zelensky in a super-secret code word server. At the same time, Trump has imposed McCarthy-like loyalty-testing of federal employees through his hand-chosen grand inquisitor, 29-year-old John McEntee, the president’s former body man who was fired last year for a gambling addiction. Along with his deputy, a college student, McEntee is reportedly concentrating the hunt on allegedly anti-Trump political appointees. My contacts inside the government report the working level has not yet been targeted. “But our antennae are up,” said one national security official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
In other words, the president is turning paranoia into personnel policy. An expert in the politicization of intelligence, American University professor Joshua Rovner calls Trump’s moves “manipulation by appointment.” He told me in an interview that he worries that Ratcliffe “would perpetrate real damage to the intelligence community.”
Stephen Slick, a 27-year CIA senior operations officer who now heads the University of Texas at Austin’s intelligence studies program, told me Trump’s bid to coerce political loyalty from government agencies and civil servants that are charged with pursuing the truth puts the country in danger. “If the president succeeds in his project to diminish the fundamental non-partisan character of American intelligence and law enforcement, we will become increasingly vulnerable to miscalculation or catastrophic surprise,” he said.
Of course, we know the consequences of manipulated intelligence. George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein in 2003, based on faulty intelligence, led the country into a chaotic war that destabilized the Middle East. Thus far, that overseas adventure has cost more than $2 trillion and almost 4,500 American service members’ lives. Roughly 32,000 soldiers have been wounded.
The Trump White House’s intimidation is already having a deleterious impact. Last month, agency chiefs declined to participate in briefing the House Intelligence Committee in the public segment of the annual Worldwide Threat Assessment hearing, fearing that doing so would attract the president’s ire.
Trump’s constant attacks against the intelligence community fit into his wider war on truth itself. His mission is twofold: to shield the public from intelligence that potentially could damage him politically, and to control the flow of information emanating from the agencies. That Trump’s goals fit neatly with those of Vladimir Putin could be a mere coincidence, or perhaps something more insidious. Eventually, that truth will come out.
Meanwhile, the Vichy GOP acts as Trump’s enabler. Based on the past behavior of Republicans in Congress, it seems obvious that they won’t stand up to the president now, even with the nation’s national security on the line.
Having served for many years as a State Department diplomat, and as a Pentagon intelligence analyst, I am of the conviction that Trump knows full well what he is doing. He may, typically, not have a detailed plan, but his ultimate objective is clear. And the country will be the worse for it.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-09--Introducing the Kukula Award

Introducing the Kukula Award

I ’ m proud to share news of the Washington Monthly ’ s Kukula Award for Excellence in Nonfiction Book Reviewing .
The award , new in 2020 , honors the memory of the late Kukula Kapoor Glastris , the magazine ’ s longtime and beloved books editor ( and my wife of 31 years ) .
It celebrates the kind of serious , public-affairs-focused book reviews that Kukula prized—and the talented individuals who practice this undervalued craft .
This spring , we ’ ll honor two reviewers and their publications for exceptional book reviewing in 2019 , giving priority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , history and biography .
We ’ re keeping it simple , with an easy application process and no entry fee .
And we ’ re pleased to offer a $ 1,000 honorarium to each winner .
The deadline is April 10 , 2020 .
The brilliant and treasured books editor of the Washington Monthly , Kukula ( “ Kuku ” to her legions of friends and fans ) made the book review section the home of some of the magazine ’ s best thinking and writing .
A keen editor and diplomatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ den mother and provisioner of delicious late-night home-cooked meals to a generation of young Washington Monthly journalists .
“ I ’ ve never met anyone whose combination of personal goodness , plus intellectual and professional abilities , exceeded Kukula ’ s , ” journalist James Fallows wrote in The Atlantic .
You ’ ll find more details about the prize and Kukula , along with the entry form , here .
Questions ?
Please email us at KukulaAward @ WashingtonMonthly.com .

I’m proud to share news of the Washington Monthly’s Kukula Award for Excellence in Nonfiction Book Reviewing. The award, new in 2020, honors the memory of the late Kukula Kapoor Glastris, the magazine’s longtime and beloved books editor (and my wife of 31 years). It celebrates the kind of serious, public-affairs-focused book reviews that Kukula prized—and the talented individuals who practice this undervalued craft.
This spring, we’ll honor two reviewers and their publications for exceptional book reviewing in 2019, giving priority to pieces about politics, public affairs, history and biography. We’re keeping it simple, with an easy application process and no entry fee. And we’re pleased to offer a $1,000 honorarium to each winner. The deadline is April 10, 2020.
The brilliant and treasured books editor of the Washington Monthly, Kukula (“Kuku” to her legions of friends and fans) made the book review section the home of some of the magazine’s best thinking and writing.
A keen editor and diplomatic manager of writers, she served as den mother and provisioner of delicious late-night home-cooked meals to a generation of young Washington Monthly journalists. “I’ve never met anyone whose combination of personal goodness, plus intellectual and professional abilities, exceeded Kukula’s,” journalist James Fallows wrote in The Atlantic. You’ll find more details about the prize and Kukula, along with the entry form, here.
Questions? Please email us at KukulaAward@WashingtonMonthly.com.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-09--Once Again, Democrats Will Have to Clean Up the Mess Left By Republicans

When Barack Obama assumed office in January 2009 , the U.S. economy was shedding about 800,000 jobs per month as a result of the Great Recession and we were mired in two seemingly endless wars in the Middle East .
What many people forget is that Obama soon faced the H1N1 pandemic , which affected over 60 million Americans , claiming more than 12,000 lives .
If Democrats win in November , they will probably face something similar in January 2021 .
It is increasingly looking like the coronavirus pandemic will send this country ’ s economy into recession .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have happened with a thoughtful response to this pandemic , we know that the Trump administration has failed on almost every level .
David Remnick points out that the president “ is incapable of truth , heedless of science , and hostage to the demands of his insatiable ego.
” He then goes on to chronicle some of the lies Trump has told since the outbreak began .
“ We have it under control .
It ’ s going to be just fine.
” “ By April , you know , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warmer , it miraculously goes away.
” … “ We ’ re going very substantially down , not up .
.
.
.
We have it so well under control .
I mean , we really have done a very good job.
” “ As of right now and yesterday , anybody that needs a test [ can have one ] , that ’ s the thing , and the tests are all perfect , like the letter was perfect—the transcription was perfect.
” The resulting impact on both American lives and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight and his supporters wouldn ’ t abandon him .
Over the next few months , we ’ ll learn whether or not they stick with him through the devastation that is about to arrive .
But it isn ’ t just Trump ’ s lies about this pandemic that will be his legacy .
This is the administration that has crippled the federal government ’ s ability to respond to a crisis .
Perhaps you remember that back in February 2017 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Trump administration would “ battle for the deconstruction of the administrative state.
” Through a combination of incompetence , malevolence , and loyalty tests , that prediction has come true .
To get some idea of the impact of that , take a look at what the Obama administration did very early in their response to the H1N1 outbreak .
President Obama convened his cabinet on Friday and instructed every agency to play a role in preparing the United States for a pandemic .
Mr. Obama said the Department of Education @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
The State Department was coordinating efforts with 11 other nations affected by the virus .
In coordination with the federal government , he said , the United States Chamber of Commerce was urging employers to let parents stay home with sick children .
And the Commerce Department was urging China and Russia to lift bans on American pork imports .
Meanwhile , the Trump administration didn ’ t have a plan on Sunday for how to handle a ship carrying coronavirus victims that is scheduled to dock on Monday .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in response to this pandemic , Republicans and the Trump administration have crippled the federal government ’ s options in developing a response .
Even as the economy soared , they managed to increase the federal deficit via tax cuts aimed primarily at the wealthy—a move that was fiscally reckless and irresponsible .
This leaves the government with precious few options to stimulate the economy in response to a recession .
Finally , a response to this kind of pandemic calls for global cooperation .
Trump has squandered our relationships with allies while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ourselves off from the spread of a virus via isolationism .
That is the mess that Democrats will face if they prevail in November .
But frankly , that ’ s nothing new .
Bill Clinton had to clean up the mess made by Reagan ’ s “ trickle-down economics , ” while Obama had his hands full with the crash left by Bush/Cheney .
Simon Rosenberg tallied the results so far .
It has always been clear that Democrats would face a major challenge in cleaning up the mess that Trump made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that will likely turn into a massive task .
One has to wonder when voters will give us all a break and realize the risks of electing Republicans .

When Barack Obama assumed office in January 2009, the U.S. economy was shedding about 800,000 jobs per month as a result of the Great Recession and we were mired in two seemingly endless wars in the Middle East. What many people forget is that Obama soon faced the H1N1 pandemic, which affected over 60 million Americans, claiming more than 12,000 lives.
If Democrats win in November, they will probably face something similar in January 2021. It is increasingly looking like the coronavirus pandemic will send this country’s economy into recession.
While it is impossible to say what might have happened with a thoughtful response to this pandemic, we know that the Trump administration has failed on almost every level. David Remnick points out that the president “is incapable of truth, heedless of science, and hostage to the demands of his insatiable ego.” He then goes on to chronicle some of the lies Trump has told since the outbreak began.
“We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.” “By April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away.”… “We’re going very substantially down, not up. . . . We have it so well under control. I mean, we really have done a very good job.” “As of right now and yesterday, anybody that needs a test [can have one], that’s the thing, and the tests are all perfect, like the letter was perfect—the transcription was perfect.”
The resulting impact on both American lives and the economy will overshadow Trump’s claim that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight and his supporters wouldn’t abandon him. Over the next few months, we’ll learn whether or not they stick with him through the devastation that is about to arrive.
But it isn’t just Trump’s lies about this pandemic that will be his legacy. This is the administration that has crippled the federal government’s ability to respond to a crisis. Perhaps you remember that back in February 2017, Steve Bannon spoke at CPAC and vowed that the Trump administration would “battle for the deconstruction of the administrative state.” Through a combination of incompetence, malevolence, and loyalty tests, that prediction has come true. To get some idea of the impact of that, take a look at what the Obama administration did very early in their response to the H1N1 outbreak.
President Obama convened his cabinet on Friday and instructed every agency to play a role in preparing the United States for a pandemic. Mr. Obama said the Department of Education was consulting with school districts across the country. The State Department was coordinating efforts with 11 other nations affected by the virus. In coordination with the federal government, he said, the United States Chamber of Commerce was urging employers to let parents stay home with sick children. And the Commerce Department was urging China and Russia to lift bans on American pork imports.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration didn’t have a plan on Sunday for how to handle a ship carrying coronavirus victims that is scheduled to dock on Monday.
As the possibility of a major recession looms in response to this pandemic, Republicans and the Trump administration have crippled the federal government’s options in developing a response. Even as the economy soared, they managed to increase the federal deficit via tax cuts aimed primarily at the wealthy—a move that was fiscally reckless and irresponsible. This leaves the government with precious few options to stimulate the economy in response to a recession.
Finally, a response to this kind of pandemic calls for global cooperation. Trump has squandered our relationships with allies while pretending that the United States can wall ourselves off from the spread of a virus via isolationism.
That is the mess that Democrats will face if they prevail in November. But frankly, that’s nothing new. Bill Clinton had to clean up the mess made by Reagan’s “trickle-down economics,” while Obama had his hands full with the crash left by Bush/Cheney. Simon Rosenberg tallied the results so far.
It has always been clear that Democrats would face a major challenge in cleaning up the mess that Trump made. Over the next few months, that will likely turn into a massive task. One has to wonder when voters will give us all a break and realize the risks of electing Republicans.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-09--Democrats Have No Patience For a Long Campaign

The handwriting is on the wall now , as Joe Biden racks up endorsements and surges in the polls .
Democrats are coalescing and will be eager to put the primary battle behind them so they can focus on beating President Trump .
Four years ago , a surprise victory in Michigan prolonged Bernie Sanders ’ campaign without really improving his long odds of winning the nomination .
A repeat upset for Sanders in Michigan looks increasingly unlikely to happen on Tuesday .
In 2016 , Sanders almost won Missouri and crushed Clinton in the Washington State caucuses .
Neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around .
By Wednesday , Biden will have blocked any plausible path for Sanders to win the nomination outright .
He already has the endorsement of all of the major competitors except Warren , who has remained neutral .
Even in a normal year , patience would wear thin on any Democrat who continued to bash the presumptive nominee after the point at which there was no real hope of defeating them .
But this is not a normal year in any sense .
With the coronavirus ravaging the economy and disrupting all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a real urgency to show that the Democrats have their act together and can step in and return things to normal .
If they look chaotic and obsessed with matters that have little to do with the immediate emergency , it will be political malpractice of the highest order .
It ’ s clear that things have lined up for Biden in a fortuitous way , even if the circumstances are incredibly unfortunate .
If there was previously a big debate about whether people want big change or some peace and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that to bed .
Folks want stability and security , and the appetite for risk has already been more than sated .
The Republicans will attack Biden mercilessly , and a Democrat or Democratic movement that continues to amplify and lend credence to those attacks will discover a wall of implacable hostility .
This is hard for the Sanders partisans to digest .
Just ten days ago they looked like they were on a glide path to taking over the Democratic Party .
There ’ s no preexisting indication of any kind that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drop out or stop fighting until the last ballot in the primaries was cast .
And I very much do not expect them to change their minds about that now .
Certainly , the attacks on Biden will not stop unless Sanders first stops making those attacks himself .
He ’ s not known for his adaptability , but perhaps the magnitude of the current situation will be sufficient to cause some evolution of his views .
In the end , his campaign will either serve as a stepping stone to further progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a potent challenge that had to be crushed and a mistake that should never be repeated .
He has a lot of control over that even if events have so far conspired against him .
He can continue on as he always intended , making his case against Biden and trying to accumulate as many delegates as possible .
But he can also make a different decision , and explain that the important thing now is to stop infighting and unite to address one of the biggest crises any of us has seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t say fate has been fair here , but fair no longer has anything to do with the situation we ’ re facing .

The handwriting is on the wall now, as Joe Biden racks up endorsements and surges in the polls. Democrats are coalescing and will be eager to put the primary battle behind them so they can focus on beating President Trump.
Four years ago, a surprise victory in Michigan prolonged Bernie Sanders’ campaign without really improving his long odds of winning the nomination. A repeat upset for Sanders in Michigan looks increasingly unlikely to happen on Tuesday. In 2016, Sanders almost won Missouri and crushed Clinton in the Washington State caucuses. Neither of those outcomes is predicted this time around. By Wednesday, Biden will have blocked any plausible path for Sanders to win the nomination outright. He already has the endorsement of all of the major competitors except Warren, who has remained neutral.
Even in a normal year, patience would wear thin on any Democrat who continued to bash the presumptive nominee after the point at which there was no real hope of defeating them. But this is not a normal year in any sense. With the coronavirus ravaging the economy and disrupting all the normal rhythms of life, there’s a real urgency to show that the Democrats have their act together and can step in and return things to normal. If they look chaotic and obsessed with matters that have little to do with the immediate emergency, it will be political malpractice of the highest order.
It’s clear that things have lined up for Biden in a fortuitous way, even if the circumstances are incredibly unfortunate. If there was previously a big debate about whether people want big change or some peace and quiet, the coronavirus pandemic has put that to bed. Folks want stability and security, and the appetite for risk has already been more than sated.
The Republicans will attack Biden mercilessly, and a Democrat or Democratic movement that continues to amplify and lend credence to those attacks will discover a wall of implacable hostility.
This is hard for the Sanders partisans to digest. Just ten days ago they looked like they were on a glide path to taking over the Democratic Party. There’s no preexisting indication of any kind that Sanders or his supporters ever intended to drop out or stop fighting until the last ballot in the primaries was cast. And I very much do not expect them to change their minds about that now.
Certainly, the attacks on Biden will not stop unless Sanders first stops making those attacks himself. He’s not known for his adaptability, but perhaps the magnitude of the current situation will be sufficient to cause some evolution of his views. In the end, his campaign will either serve as a stepping stone to further progressive change or it will be remembered as a potent challenge that had to be crushed and a mistake that should never be repeated. He has a lot of control over that even if events have so far conspired against him.
He can continue on as he always intended, making his case against Biden and trying to accumulate as many delegates as possible. But he can also make a different decision, and explain that the important thing now is to stop infighting and unite to address one of the biggest crises any of us has seen in our lifetimes.
I can’t say fate has been fair here, but fair no longer has anything to do with the situation we’re facing.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-10--How the White Lens Distorts Our View of Young Voters

At this point in the Democratic primary , there is growing concern that young people are not showing up to vote .
Whether or not that will remain true in November isn ’ t completely clear , but the signs don ’ t look good right now .
Because the Sanders campaign has attracted more young people , it is often assumed that for Democrats to do better with this age group , they need to adopt his policies .
But that seems counter-intuitive .
If his policies were attractive to young people , why aren ’ t more of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the primaries ?
One way to answer that question is to look at polling that has been done among young people .
Late last year , the organization Cause and Social Influence released a report titled , “ Influencing Young Americans to Act 2019.
” When it comes to the top issues of concern to 18-30 year-olds , here ’ s what they found : The researchers note that in a similar study conducted in 2018 , climate change didn ’ t make the top five , while gun safety came in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They posed this explanation .
We have all witnessed young people be the drivers on both gun safety and climate change , so it is safe to say that both of them are significant issues .
But from there , it is worth noting that civil rights and immigration are even more important than health care reform .
College affordability didn ’ t even make the cut .
In trying to determine what issues are important to young people , it might be that too many of us are looking through a traditional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 40 percent of millennials are people of color , and for Gen Zers , that number jumps close to 50 percent .
That helps explain why the research from Cause and Social Influence is similar to what was found by Pew .
When it comes to views on race , the two younger generations are more likely than older generations to say that blacks are treated less fairly than whites in the United States today…The younger generations are also more accepting of some of the ways in which American society is changing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ generation say increasing racial and ethnic diversity in the U.S. is a good thing for society , while older generations are less convinced of this .
In addition to climate change and health care , it is clear that addressing things like civil rights , police shootings , immigration reform , and gun safety are all things that significantly affect the lives of young people .
On immigration , the fate of Dreamers is likely to come front and center in the next few months .
As I ’ ve mentioned previously , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the constitutionality of President Obama ’ s DACA program .
Trump ’ s ICE director has already announced that they are preparing to deport Dreamers if the court rules in the president ’ s favor .
Senator Kamala Harris wisely made that the focus of her questioning during a hearing recently .
It is also clear that Trump and Republican hardliners are gearing up to once again use Dreamers as hostages if the Supreme Court rules in their favor .
They are preparing to offer protections from deportation in exchange for agreement to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extent that young people can be motivated to go to the polls in November , Democrats will need to make it clear that they are committed to the issues that affect the lives of this diverse group of voters .
That includes not only addressing climate change , gun safety , and health care , but the xenophobia that has infected the actions of the current administration .

At this point in the Democratic primary, there is growing concern that young people are not showing up to vote. Whether or not that will remain true in November isn’t completely clear, but the signs don’t look good right now.
Because the Sanders campaign has attracted more young people, it is often assumed that for Democrats to do better with this age group, they need to adopt his policies. But that seems counter-intuitive. If his policies were attractive to young people, why aren’t more of them showing up to vote for him in the primaries?
One way to answer that question is to look at polling that has been done among young people. Late last year, the organization Cause and Social Influence released a report titled, “Influencing Young Americans to Act 2019.” When it comes to the top issues of concern to 18-30 year-olds, here’s what they found:
Climate change (30 percent) Civil rights/racial discrimination (25 percent) Immigration (21 percent) Health care reform (20 percent) Mental health/social services (16 percent)
The researchers note that in a similar study conducted in 2018, climate change didn’t make the top five, while gun safety came in at number two on the list. They posed this explanation.
Is interest in a topic influenced by media coverage and online activity surrounding moments? This year’s research began in the wake of Greta Thunberg’s sail to the Climate Change Summit and heavy media coverage of her trip and the issue; climate change subsequently was the top social issue for 2019. Similarly, 2018 was the worst year on record for gun violence in schools, and gun violence was among the top issues of concern in that year.
We have all witnessed young people be the drivers on both gun safety and climate change, so it is safe to say that both of them are significant issues. But from there, it is worth noting that civil rights and immigration are even more important than health care reform. College affordability didn’t even make the cut.
In trying to determine what issues are important to young people, it might be that too many of us are looking through a traditional white lens. In reality, nearly 40 percent of millennials are people of color, and for Gen Zers, that number jumps close to 50 percent. That helps explain why the research from Cause and Social Influence is similar to what was found by Pew.
When it comes to views on race, the two younger generations are more likely than older generations to say that blacks are treated less fairly than whites in the United States today…The younger generations are also more accepting of some of the ways in which American society is changing. Majorities among Gen Z and the Millennial generation say increasing racial and ethnic diversity in the U.S. is a good thing for society, while older generations are less convinced of this.
In addition to climate change and health care, it is clear that issues like civil rights, police shootings, immigration reform, and gun safety all significantly affect the lives of young people.
On immigration, the fate of Dreamers is likely to come front and center in the next few months. As I’ve mentioned previously, the Supreme Court will soon decide on the constitutionality of President Obama’s DACA program. Trump’s ICE director has already announced that they are preparing to deport Dreamers if the court rules in the president’s favor. Senator Kamala Harris wisely made that the focus of her questioning during a hearing recently.
It is also clear that Trump and Republican hardliners are gearing up to once again use Dreamers as hostages if the Supreme Court rules in their favor. They are preparing to offer protections from deportation in exchange for agreement to their racist immigration proposals.
To the extent that young people can be motivated to go to the polls in November, Democrats will need to make it clear that they are committed to the issues that affect the lives of this diverse group of voters. That includes not only addressing climate change, gun safety, and health care, but the xenophobia that has infected the actions of the current administration.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-10--The Cost of Trump’s Obama Hatred

The Cost of Trump’s Obama Hatred

Presidential elections are on everyone ’ s minds and TV sets these days because presidents matter .
In America ’ s democracy , presidents are its singular most important leaders .
Heightened attention to their selection and performance reflects how critical they are to the nation ’ s strength and survival .
In February , five living presidents were celebrated—Jimmy Carter , Bill Clinton , George W. Bush , Barack Obama and Donald Trump .
It is a remarkable democratic achievement and a testament to America ’ s confidence that the country transitions power peacefully from administration to administration regardless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats who yield to Republicans .
Unlike other countries , America ’ s previous presidents are neither hounded nor capriciously thrown in jail .
Instead , our former commanders-in-chief live and travel freely .
Unfortunately , they are also currently being ignored and denigrated .
That not only deprives America of potential power , it comes at a cost .
Presidents in the late 20th and early 21st centuries relied on their predecessors for counsel and collaboration .
Ex-presidents have been previously used to free hostages in hostile foreign lands , participate in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policies .
It had become commonplace to deploy former presidents—regardless of party or personality clashes—to help administrations in power do hard things .
This was true for nearly every modern president .
There are , however , two very notable exceptions : Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Donald John Trump .
Once in office , Roosevelt dissed Herbert Hoover at every opportunity .
Trump remains allergic to all things Obama , making the African-American 44th president the 21st century ’ s Herbert Hoover .
Ignoring a young Hoover in the past and vibrant Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both for greater domestic harmony and difficult foreign intermediation .
America ’ s once clear , sometimes singular , voice abroad is now processed and overamplified as a noisy global cacophony .
Disrupting the presidential continuum , comity , and collaboration can be blamed for some of today ’ s international ills .
Could Obama , for example , be quietly deployed to make diplomatic overtures today to a sanctioned , struggling and coronavirus-infected Iran ?
Where could Clinton , Carter or Bush be leveraged ?
Trump may admire Andrew Jackson , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stack the courts , open up state coffers and punish his perceived adversaries and enemies .
It ’ s hard to accept , but what FDR successfully did was erase Hoover .
He never allowed Hoover ’ s works be recognized .
Hoover was roundly defeated in the 1932 election , persona non grata at the White House and exiled to the farthest end of the continental United States at Stanford University .
Where Hoover had the foresight to build the Hoover Dam , Roosevelt had the pettiness to rename it Boulder Dam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person , if the scent of Hoover lingered on a bill , banker , business , politician or pet project , it was regarded as the pervasive stink of someone who had defecated in the Oval Office .
When Roosevelt died , he left an unprepared Harry Truman to take over as his constitutionally mandated successor .
Truman inherited an ongoing war , the overblown legacy of a four-term president and a decision to make about blowing up Japan with the world ’ s newest weapon—the atomic bomb .
FDR never deeply briefed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vice presidency , Truman was thrust into the role of 33rd president .
He sought a lifeline from the only other person alive who knew the pressures he was facing and understood the presidency .
He needed an ex-president , and the only one available was a vilified California Republican : Herbert Hoover .
Truman and Hoover joked that this was the beginning of a “ former presidents ’ club.
” Hoover , desperately seeking rehabilitation and respect , hungrily accepted the role of hidden adviser , careful consultant , proven European post-war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only taken a page from FDR ’ s playbook , he ’ s writing a whole new chapter on political purges , with updated sections on baiting , backbiting and bullying former presidents .
Barack Obama meet Herbert Hoover In the recent past and on solemn national occasions , group photos of living presidents showed the world America ’ s power and unity .
It is remarkable to see pictures of Nixon , Ford , Carter , Bush and Clinton together .
It is powerful to know that they relied on each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult hostage negotiations , secret two-track discussions with adversaries , joint humanitarian missions and general counsel on thorny issues .
Today , those photos seem like relics of a bygone era .
Instead of former U.S. presidents posing for Associated Press photos in the Oval Office , spying foreign journalists are now welcomed into the White House to shoot Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak who yuk it up near Andrew Jackson ’ s portrait .
American presidents past and present are a national asset and should be welcomed into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ door or snuck in the back .
Unfortunately , the only president with an open invitation today is Vladimir Putin .

Presidential elections are on everyone’s minds and TV sets these days because presidents matter. In America’s democracy, presidents are its singular most important leaders. Heightened attention to their selection and performance reflects how critical they are to the nation’s strength and survival.
In February, five living presidents were celebrated—Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump. It is a remarkable democratic achievement and a testament to America’s confidence that the country transitions power peacefully from administration to administration regardless of political party. Republicans yield to Democrats who yield to Republicans.
Unlike other countries, America’s previous presidents are neither hounded nor capriciously thrown in jail. Instead, our former commanders-in-chief live and travel freely.
Unfortunately, they are also currently being ignored and denigrated. That not only deprives America of potential power, it comes at a cost.
Presidents in the late 20th and early 21st centuries relied on their predecessors for counsel and collaboration. Ex-presidents have been previously used to free hostages in hostile foreign lands, participate in humanitarian endeavors or lobby for difficult bipartisan policies. It had become commonplace to deploy former presidents—regardless of party or personality clashes—to help administrations in power do hard things. This was true for nearly every modern president.
There are, however, two very notable exceptions: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Donald John Trump.
Once in office, Roosevelt dissed Herbert Hoover at every opportunity. Trump remains allergic to all things Obama, making the African-American 44th president the 21st century’s Herbert Hoover.
Ignoring a young Hoover in the past and vibrant Obama today has deprived the nation of opportunities both for greater domestic harmony and difficult foreign intermediation. America’s once clear, sometimes singular, voice abroad is now processed and overamplified as a noisy global cacophony.
Disrupting the presidential continuum, comity, and collaboration can be blamed for some of today’s international ills. Could Obama, for example, be quietly deployed to make diplomatic overtures today to a sanctioned, struggling and coronavirus-infected Iran? Where could Clinton, Carter or Bush be leveraged?
Trump may admire Andrew Jackson, but he is emulating Roosevelt by trying to stack the courts, open up state coffers and punish his perceived adversaries and enemies. It’s hard to accept, but what FDR successfully did was erase Hoover. He never allowed Hoover’s works be recognized. Hoover was roundly defeated in the 1932 election, persona non grata at the White House and exiled to the farthest end of the continental United States at Stanford University.
Where Hoover had the foresight to build the Hoover Dam, Roosevelt had the pettiness to rename it Boulder Dam. Policy after policy, person after person, if the scent of Hoover lingered on a bill, banker, business, politician or pet project, it was regarded as the pervasive stink of someone who had defecated in the Oval Office.
When Roosevelt died, he left an unprepared Harry Truman to take over as his constitutionally mandated successor. Truman inherited an ongoing war, the overblown legacy of a four-term president and a decision to make about blowing up Japan with the world’s newest weapon—the atomic bomb.
FDR never deeply briefed Truman, and 82 days into his vice presidency, Truman was thrust into the role of 33rd president. He sought a lifeline from the only other person alive who knew the pressures he was facing and understood the presidency. He needed an ex-president, and the only one available was a vilified California Republican: Herbert Hoover. Truman and Hoover joked that this was the beginning of a “former presidents’ club.”
Hoover, desperately seeking rehabilitation and respect, hungrily accepted the role of hidden adviser, careful consultant, proven European post-war logistics master and savior.
Trump has not only taken a page from FDR’s playbook, he’s writing a whole new chapter on political purges, with updated sections on baiting, backbiting and bullying former presidents. Barack Obama, meet Herbert Hoover.
In the recent past and on solemn national occasions, group photos of living presidents showed the world America’s power and unity. It is remarkable to see pictures of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush and Clinton together. It is powerful to know that they relied on each other for insights into foreign leaders, difficult hostage negotiations, secret two-track discussions with adversaries, joint humanitarian missions and general counsel on thorny issues.
Today, those photos seem like relics of a bygone era. Instead of former U.S. presidents posing for Associated Press photos in the Oval Office, spying foreign journalists are now welcomed into the White House to shoot Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak who yuk it up near Andrew Jackson’s portrait.
American presidents past and present are a national asset and should be welcomed into the White House—whether ushered in the front door or snuck in the back. Unfortunately, the only president with an open invitation today is Vladimir Putin.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-10--Michigan Is the Make-or-Break State For Sanders

Heading into the Michigan primary in 2016 , Clinton led Sanders by 21 points , according to the polling averages .
But when the votes were actually tallied , Sanders won , leading Nate Silver to call it one of “ the greatest upsets in polling history.
” Michigan is one of six states that will hold their primary on Tuesday , and according to the polling average at FiveThirtyEight , Biden leads Sanders by 23 points .
That is causing many people to wonder whether the senator from Vermont can repeat his 2016 performance .
One thing to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 polls missed the call miserably , Sanders actually won Michigan by about 1.5 points .
In the end , that only netted him four delegates over the number allotted to Clinton ( 67-63 ) .
But it was a great moral victory for the Sanders ’ campaign , one he hopes to replicate on Tuesday night .
As many people have suggested , however , 2020 is not a repeat of the 2016 election .
Nate Cohn identified how things have changed in a way that doesn ’ t look good for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed to match his 2016 strength across the white , working-class North this year , and that suggests it will be hard for him to win Michigan… Over all , Mr. Biden defeated Mr. Sanders by 10 points , 38 percent to 28 percent , in counties across Maine , Minnesota and Massachusetts where white voters made up at least 80 percent of the electorate and where college graduates represented less than 40 percent of the electorate .
According to the exit polls , Mr. Biden was tied or ahead among white voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ River on Super Tuesday .
This is a marked departure from 2016 .
Back then , Mr. Sanders tended to excel among white , working-class and rural voters across the North .
This made Michigan , where white voters represent a well-above-average share of the Democratic electorate , one of his stronger states .
He dominated in Michigan ’ s small towns and rural areas , losing only in few counties that tended to have older voters .
The fact that Biden is beating Sanders among white working-class and rural voters is getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the former vice president ’ s dominance among suburban and African-American voters .
The real test will be whether that holds true in a state like Michigan .
If it does , here is one of the likely factors : The woman who was governor of Michigan during that time , Jennifer Granholm , recently announced her endorsement of Biden—recounting his role in that state .
Nevertheless , the Sanders campaign has gone all-in on winning Michigan , cancelling events in other states that hold their primaries on Tuesday ( Mississippi and Missouri @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a repeat of his 2016 performance .
That is why all eyes will be on Michigan tonight .
While the results will come in late , another state to keep an eye on is Washington .
In 2016 , Sanders beat Clinton there by over 45 points .
But it ’ s one of the states that switched from caucuses to a primary this year .
As we ’ ve seen , that has resulted in huge increases in turnout in other states , predominantly benefiting Biden .
No matter what happens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the results could be close , which will keep Sanders from gaining a delegate lead , where he currently trails by 96 .
However , I ’ m sure that if he wins either or both states , Sanders will claim victory and soldier on to the primaries next week in Arizona , Florida , Illinois , and Ohio .
A loss in both states would make Biden ’ s delegate lead close to insurmountable .
That is why Tuesday is make-or-break time for Sanders .

Heading into the Michigan primary in 2016, Clinton led Sanders by 21 points, according to the polling averages. But when the votes were actually tallied, Sanders won, leading Nate Silver to call it one of “the greatest upsets in polling history.”
Michigan is one of six states that will hold their primary on Tuesday, and according to the polling average at FiveThirtyEight, Biden leads Sanders by 23 points. That is causing many people to wonder whether the senator from Vermont can repeat his 2016 performance.
One thing to keep in mind is that, while the 2016 polls missed the call miserably, Sanders actually won Michigan by about 1.5 points. In the end, that only netted him four delegates over the number allotted to Clinton (67-63). But it was a great moral victory for the Sanders’ campaign, one he hopes to replicate on Tuesday night.
As many people have suggested, however, 2020 is not a repeat of the 2016 election. Nate Cohn identified how things have changed in a way that doesn’t look good for Sanders.
Mr. Sanders has so far failed to match his 2016 strength across the white, working-class North this year, and that suggests it will be hard for him to win Michigan… Over all, Mr. Biden defeated Mr. Sanders by 10 points, 38 percent to 28 percent, in counties across Maine, Minnesota and Massachusetts where white voters made up at least 80 percent of the electorate and where college graduates represented less than 40 percent of the electorate. According to the exit polls, Mr. Biden was tied or ahead among white voters in every state east of the Mississippi River on Super Tuesday. This is a marked departure from 2016. Back then, Mr. Sanders tended to excel among white, working-class and rural voters across the North. This made Michigan, where white voters represent a well-above-average share of the Democratic electorate, one of his stronger states. He dominated in Michigan’s small towns and rural areas, losing only in few counties that tended to have older voters.
The fact that Biden is beating Sanders among white working-class and rural voters is getting lost amidst all of the talk about the former vice president’s dominance among suburban and African-American voters. The real test will be whether that holds true in a state like Michigan. If it does, here is one of the likely factors:
The woman who was governor of Michigan during that time, Jennifer Granholm, recently announced her endorsement of Biden—recounting his role in that state.
Nevertheless, the Sanders campaign has gone all-in on winning Michigan, cancelling events in other states that hold their primaries on Tuesday (Mississippi and Missouri) in order to focus their efforts on a repeat of his 2016 performance. That is why all eyes will be on Michigan tonight.
While the results will come in late, another state to keep an eye on is Washington. In 2016, Sanders beat Clinton there by over 45 points. But it’s one of the states that switched from caucuses to a primary this year. As we’ve seen, that has resulted in huge increases in turnout in other states, predominantly benefiting Biden.
No matter what happens in Michigan and Washington on Tuesday, the results could be close, which will keep Sanders from gaining a delegate lead, where he currently trails by 96. However, I’m sure that if he wins either or both states, Sanders will claim victory and soldier on to the primaries next week in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio. A loss in both states would make Biden’s delegate lead close to insurmountable. That is why Tuesday is make-or-break time for Sanders.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-10--Vladimir Putin Plans to Stay in Power for the Rest of His Life

Vladimir Putin has no plans to give up power .
The New York Times reports that he ’ s orchestrating a change in the two-term limit for the Russian presidency .
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said on Tuesday that he would support legislation that would allow him to run for a fifth term as president in 2024 .
The proposal , unexpectedly floated by a lawmaker at a session of Russia ’ s lower house of Parliament on Tuesday , would allow Mr. Putin — who is 67 years old and was first elected president in 2000 — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2036 .
After lawmakers voiced support for the idea , Mr. Putin arrived in person at the State Duma to say he agreed with it , in what appeared to be a tightly choreographed course of events .
Mr. Putin said he believed he should have the right to run again for the sake of Russia ’ s stability , even though future presidents should continue to be bound by a two-term limit .
It appeared that under the proposal endorsed by Mr. Putin , the limit of two six-year terms would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run again when his current term ends in 2024 .
This is a more aggressive version of what he did the last time .
After he served as president from May 2000 to May 2008 , the Russian constitution required him to step down .
His solution was to put more power in the position of prime minister and then serve in that capacity instead .
After four years as prime minister , he ran for president again in 2012 .
By that time , he ’ d arranged it so future presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ’ s been the Russian president ever since .
Now he ’ s carving out an exemption to the two-consecutive term limit that will apply only to himself .
Naturally , he ’ s saying he needs to retain his eligibility because Russia needs “ stability.
” That pretty much tells you that he doesn ’ t intend to risk a free and fair election .
The whole point is that Russia needs him to stay exactly where he is .
Putin will turn 70 years old in 2022 , so it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power at least until he ’ s 84 .
I don ’ t think he ’ s vital to Russia ’ s future prospects .
I think he ’ s a thief who has amassed a vast personal fortune and has destroyed Russia ’ s democracy and any semblance of the rule of law .
The country is essentially a massive crime syndicate run by intelligence officers and gangsters , and they ’ re threatening and occupying their neighbors while using their nuclear stockpile to avoid any real accountability .
Trump seems to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything will be fine .

Vladimir Putin has no plans to give up power. The New York Times reports that he’s orchestrating a change in the two-term limit for the Russian presidency.
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said on Tuesday that he would support legislation that would allow him to run for a fifth term as president in 2024. The proposal, unexpectedly floated by a lawmaker at a session of Russia’s lower house of Parliament on Tuesday, would allow Mr. Putin — who is 67 years old and was first elected president in 2000 — to remain in power until at least 2036. After lawmakers voiced support for the idea, Mr. Putin arrived in person at the State Duma to say he agreed with it, in what appeared to be a tightly choreographed course of events. Mr. Putin said he believed he should have the right to run again for the sake of Russia’s stability, even though future presidents should continue to be bound by a two-term limit. It appeared that under the proposal endorsed by Mr. Putin, the limit of two six-year terms would be reset for him if he were to run again when his current term ends in 2024.
This is a more aggressive version of what he did the last time. After he served as president from May 2000 to May 2008, the Russian constitution required him to step down. His solution was to put more power in the position of prime minister and then serve in that capacity instead. After four years as prime minister, he ran for president again in 2012. By that time, he’d arranged it so future presidential terms would be six years long. He’s been the Russian president ever since.
Now he’s carving out an exemption to the two-consecutive term limit that will apply only to himself. Naturally, he’s saying he needs to retain his eligibility because Russia needs “stability.” That pretty much tells you that he doesn’t intend to risk a free and fair election. The whole point is that Russia needs him to stay exactly where he is.
Putin will turn 70 years old in 2022, so it looks like he plans to remain in power at least until he’s 84. I don’t think he’s vital to Russia’s future prospects. I think he’s a thief who has amassed a vast personal fortune and has destroyed Russia’s democracy and any semblance of the rule of law. The country is essentially a massive crime syndicate run by intelligence officers and gangsters, and they’re threatening and occupying their neighbors while using their nuclear stockpile to avoid any real accountability.
Trump seems to like him though, so I guess everything will be fine.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-12--The Source of Biden’s Success

The Source of Biden’s Success

As someone who predicted that the finalists would be Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders , it ’ s hard for me to credit exotic theories for why things turned out that way .
I made my prediction in April 2019 , before Joe Biden even entered the Democratic Party ’ s presidential nomination contest .
I based it on the fact that only Biden and Sanders could count on a preexisting and steady base of support that would tend to make them viable in nearly every congressional district in the country .
In a fractured field with more than two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a strength that would carry them through , and I believe it is still the correct explanation for what has happened .
You could call it the battle between Obama-Biden loyalists and perennial insurgents .
At the time , I allowed for the possibility that someone else might have the charisma or organizing chops to join Biden and Sanders at the front of pack , but I thought it more likely that this position would be a floating one , occupied by different people at different times as each caught fire and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysis doesn ’ t make it less reliable .
The way the two sides have divvied up the electorate is roughly consistent with what I envisioned .
The perennial insurgents always include young , idealistic voters , particularly college kids .
The strongest Obama-Biden loyalists were predictably black voters in the South .
I didn ’ t even discuss campaign strategies or how candidates might position themselves on various issues .
In a way , my analysis was very Calvinistic , in the sense that it argued that the outcome of the primaries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way , although I don ’ t think this is literally true .
There were enough chance and dumb luck involved that other outcomes were possible .
Yet , when you consider that Bernie Sanders had a heart attack on the campaign trail and it didn ’ t prevent him from becoming the frontrunner and that Biden became the focus of an impeachment trial and couldn ’ t raise any money and it didn ’ t prevent him from sweeping the South and securing an insurmountable lead , I think it becomes obvious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race were from the beginning .
The fact that Michael Bloomberg ’ s injection of hundreds of millions of advertising dollars changed nothing lends further support to this .
For the challengers who flirted with serious contention , they could never find an answer for Biden and Sanders ’ s core strengths .
Elizabeth Warren couldn ’ t pry away enough of Sanders ’ s vote to be viable in most districts .
Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar could never win more than a tiny sliver of Biden ’ s black support .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m impatient with arguments like Sarah Jones ’ s contention that Joe Biden is only strong because the party is weak .
Let me first address an area of some modest agreement : If you consider the premises of my prediction , you could argue that Biden ’ s success has almost nothing to do with his merits as a candidate .
After all , I didn ’ t say he ’ d be a finalist because he ’ s a good campaigner or because he was offering popular ideas .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s precisely because the Obama-Biden administration is very well-regarded by most Democrats that he could count on having a large base of support that would give him a steady supply of delegates .
Certainly , the first explanation for this is Obama ’ s popularity rather than Biden ’ s , but they were a team and Biden ’ s record as vice-president ( rather than as a Senator ) is what makes him the first choice of many Democrats .
I don ’ t see how the enduring good feelings people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration is some indication of a party in deep turmoil .
Where Jones really loses me , however , is when she argues that Biden is only winning votes because of fear and nostalgia .
As I ’ ve said , he ’ s winning votes because he ’ s popular with more Democrats than anyone except perhaps Sanders .
You can call that nostalgia , I guess , but the appeal of any candidate is based on what people have experienced from them in the past .
I could argue that Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because his true core of support was with him four years ago and they want to replay that election to see if they can get a better result .
It ’ s not like Sanders has changed his message .
As for fear , that may be a factor that has helped propel Biden over Sanders .
If people see Biden as less of a risk than Sanders , then it can help him add people from outside his core base .
It ’ s precisely because Sanders was unable to expand his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a finalist but not strong enough to win .
But fear doesn ’ t explain why either of them were the last in contention .
Risk-aversion does help explain why older voters are resistant to Sanders .
Tolerance for risk helps explain why younger voters are so willing to roll the dice with him .
But it ’ s a lie to say that all the risk that people are considering is restricted to electability .
Sanders is proposing a number of policies that would be disruptive to the party if actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would have a major impact on a variety of large industries that employ many Democrats .
It ’ s hard to list all the ways that people might find a Sanders presidency troubling , but some obvious examples include union workers with negotiated health plans , people who work in the health insurance or pharmaceutical industries , folks who make a living managing people ’ s 401k accounts or other large-volume trading operations , anyone working in college loans , and anyone working in the energy sector .
And that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their personal livelihoods might be on the line .
There are also plenty of people who are just worried what a Sanders presidency would do to the Democratic Party ’ s ability to hold majorities in Congress .
People are not just concerned that Sanders would lose to Trump .
They ’ re concerned that he ’ d cause other Democrats to lose , too .
If there ’ s an identifiable weakness in the Democratic Party right now , it can be found in the vast chasm between what younger and older @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t the fault of Biden and Sanders .
It ’ s a feature of the times rather than a product of any candidate ’ s campaign .
Eventually , the younger voters will get their way , but so long as the party evolves to meet their needs , this won ’ t present any big problem .
If the Republican Party were poised to snap up their support , things would be different .
For now , the Democrats ’ weakness is in the suburbs .
It ’ s a weakness because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affluent and well-educated voters to get their majorities , and if they screw that up they will lose .
That ’ s where a swing could kill them far quicker than a less-than-robust turnout by young voters .
If they want to eliminate this weakness , they have to expand their regional appeal more than they have to smooth out their generational differences .
Personally , I think the party has shown strength in choosing someone who can meet the challenges of the times .
In poll after poll , people say they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Well , we have crises everywhere we look .

As someone who predicted that the finalists would be Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, it’s hard for me to credit exotic theories for why things turned out that way. I made my prediction in April 2019, before Joe Biden even entered the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination contest. I based it on the fact that only Biden and Sanders could count on a preexisting and steady base of support that would tend to make them viable in nearly every congressional district in the country. In a fractured field with more than two dozen candidates, that appeared to be a strength that would carry them through, and I believe it is still the correct explanation for what has happened. You could call it the battle between Obama-Biden loyalists and perennial insurgents.
At the time, I allowed for the possibility that someone else might have the charisma or organizing chops to join Biden and Sanders at the front of pack, but I thought it more likely that this position would be a floating one, occupied by different people at different times as each caught fire and then cooled off.
The simplicity of my analysis doesn’t make it less reliable. The way the two sides have divvied up the electorate is roughly consistent with what I envisioned. The perennial insurgents always include young, idealistic voters, particularly college kids. The strongest Obama-Biden loyalists were predictably black voters in the South.
I didn’t even discuss campaign strategies or how candidates might position themselves on various issues. In a way, my analysis was very Calvinistic, in the sense that it argued that the outcome of the primaries was pre-destined. I still feel that way, although I don’t think this is literally true. There were enough chance and dumb luck involved that other outcomes were possible. Yet, when you consider that Bernie Sanders had a heart attack on the campaign trail and it didn’t prevent him from becoming the frontrunner and that Biden became the focus of an impeachment trial and couldn’t raise any money and it didn’t prevent him from sweeping the South and securing an insurmountable lead, I think it becomes obvious how resilient the basic dynamics of the race were from the beginning. The fact that Michael Bloomberg’s injection of hundreds of millions of advertising dollars changed nothing lends further support to this.
For the challengers who flirted with serious contention, they could never find an answer for Biden and Sanders’s core strengths. Elizabeth Warren couldn’t pry away enough of Sanders’s vote to be viable in most districts. Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar could never win more than a tiny sliver of Biden’s black support.
So, these are the reasons that I’m impatient with arguments like Sarah Jones’s contention that Joe Biden is only strong because the party is weak. Let me first address an area of some modest agreement:
Zombielike, Joe Biden has revived his campaign. The former vice-president confirmed that he’s once again the primary’s front-runner on Tuesday, after vanquishing Bernie Sanders in states the senator desperately needed to win. There are many votes yet to count and debates yet to occur, but the math doesn’t favor Sanders’s odds. How did Biden surge back into prominence, and what does his showing mean for his party? Biden’s revival has almost nothing to do with his actual merits as a candidate — and that’s a sign his party is in deep turmoil.
If you consider the premises of my prediction, you could argue that Biden’s success has almost nothing to do with his merits as a candidate. After all, I didn’t say he’d be a finalist because he’s a good campaigner or because he was offering popular ideas. But, in another sense, it’s precisely because the Obama-Biden administration is very well-regarded by most Democrats that he could count on having a large base of support that would give him a steady supply of delegates. Certainly, the first explanation for this is Obama’s popularity rather than Biden’s, but they were a team and Biden’s record as vice-president (rather than as a Senator) is what makes him the first choice of many Democrats. I don’t see how the enduring good feelings people have for Obama and Biden’s administration is some indication of a party in deep turmoil.
Where Jones really loses me, however, is when she argues that Biden is only winning votes because of fear and nostalgia. As I’ve said, he’s winning votes because he’s popular with more Democrats than anyone except perhaps Sanders. You can call that nostalgia, I guess, but the appeal of any candidate is based on what people have experienced from them in the past. I could argue that Sanders is a nostalgic candidate, too, because his true core of support was with him four years ago and they want to replay that election to see if they can get a better result. It’s not like Sanders has changed his message.
As for fear, that may be a factor that has helped propel Biden over Sanders. If people see Biden as less of a risk than Sanders, then it can help him add people from outside his core base. It’s precisely because Sanders was unable to expand his base that he was strong enough to be a finalist but not strong enough to win. But fear doesn’t explain why either of them were the last in contention.
Risk-aversion does help explain why older voters are resistant to Sanders. Tolerance for risk helps explain why younger voters are so willing to roll the dice with him. But it’s a lie to say that all the risk that people are considering is restricted to electability. Sanders is proposing a number of policies that would be disruptive to the party if actually pursued by a new president, and that would have a major impact on a variety of large industries that employ many Democrats. It’s hard to list all the ways that people might find a Sanders presidency troubling, but some obvious examples include union workers with negotiated health plans, people who work in the health insurance or pharmaceutical industries, folks who make a living managing people’s 401k accounts or other large-volume trading operations, anyone working in college loans, and anyone working in the energy sector.
And that’s just a list of people who think their personal livelihoods might be on the line. There are also plenty of people who are just worried what a Sanders presidency would do to the Democratic Party’s ability to hold majorities in Congress. People are not just concerned that Sanders would lose to Trump. They’re concerned that he’d cause other Democrats to lose, too.
If there’s an identifiable weakness in the Democratic Party right now, it can be found in the vast chasm between what younger and older voters want. But this isn’t the fault of Biden and Sanders. It’s a feature of the times rather than a product of any candidate’s campaign. Eventually, the younger voters will get their way, but so long as the party evolves to meet their needs, this won’t present any big problem. If the Republican Party were poised to snap up their support, things would be different. For now, the Democrats’ weakness is in the suburbs. It’s a weakness because they’ve come to rely on affluent and well-educated voters to get their majorities, and if they screw that up they will lose. That’s where a swing could kill them far quicker than a less-than-robust turnout by young voters. If they want to eliminate this weakness, they have to expand their regional appeal more than they have to smooth out their generational differences.
Personally, I think the party has shown strength in choosing someone who can meet the challenges of the times. In poll after poll, people say they trust Biden to handle a crisis. Well, we have crises everywhere we look.