washingtonmonthly--2020-12-30--Inside the Many Conspiracy Theories About the Great Reset

Klaus Schwab , founder and executive chair of the World Economic Forum , raised an important question last December : “ What kind of capitalism do we want ?
” He posited that there were three potential forms : • None Shareholder capitalism—which currently dominates Western corporations and is focused on maximizing short-term profits ; • None State capitalism—otherwise known as “ democratic socialism ” —which trusts the government with setting the direction of the economy ; or • None a system in which corporations serve the interests of all their stakeholders , including customers , suppliers , employees , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ founded the World Economic Forum in part to promote the benefits of stakeholder capitalism .
During a speech in July , President-elect Joe Biden said that “ It ’ s way past time to put the end to the era of shareholder capitalism .
The idea [ that ] the only responsibility a corporation has is its shareholders—that is simply not true …They have a responsibility to their workers , their community , to their country.
” Recognizing that the coronavirus pandemic had exposed “ inconsistencies , inadequacies and contradictions of multiple systems—from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the World Economic Forum launched an initiative called “ The Great Reset ” in June 2020 to extol the principles of stakeholder capitalism .
Klaus wrote that the initiative ’ s goals would have three main components .
• None Governments should improve coordination ( for example , in tax , regulatory , and fiscal policy ) , upgrade trade arrangements , and create the conditions for a “ stakeholder economy.
” • None Investments should advance shared goals , such as equality and sustainability .
• None should be harnessed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by addressing health and social challenges .
Of course , those on the far left who are committed to viewing corporations as the enemy have responded to this initiative with derision .
But they have a point .
For the most part , the Great Reset relies on voluntary efforts from corporations to reform themselves , asking the government to merely “ create the conditions ” for change .
While such efforts may be laudable , they have never been sufficient .
Some form of regulatory oversight is necessary .
On the far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has become grist for massive QAnon-like conspiracy theories used by various groups to promote their own self-interests .
For example , Justin Haskins is often referred to as “ a leading authority on the Great Reset ” in right-wing media .
He not only writes for publications like Breitbart , he is the editorial director and a research fellow at the Heartland Institute , a libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 to deny the science of climate change .
That is the backdrop on which Haskins distorts the message of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ socialist plot to implement the Green New Deal , when in fact it is anything but socialist .
Another major proponent of a conspiracy theory about the Great Reset is Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò , a former Vatican ambassador to the United States and an outspoken adversary of Pope Francis .
In October , he penned a letter to Donald Trump warning that “ the whole world is being threatened by a global conspiracy against God and humanity.
” A global plan called the Great Reset is underway .
Its architect is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of humanity , imposing coercive measures with which to drastically limit individual freedoms and those of entire populations… The purpose of the Great Reset is the imposition of a health dictatorship aiming at the imposition of liberticidal measures , hidden behind tempting promises of ensuring a universal income and cancelling individual debt .
The price of these concessions from the International Monetary Fund will be the renunciation of private property and adherence to a program of vaccination against Covid-19 and Covid-21 promoted by Bill Gates with the collaboration of the main pharmaceutical groups… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who occupies the Chair of Peter has betrayed his role from the very beginning in order to defend and promote the globalist ideology , supporting the agenda of the deep church , who chose him from its ranks .
According to Viganò , the “ deep state ” has now been joined by the “ deep church , ” headed by the Pope he attempted to unseat .
Tucked away in Viganò ’ s letter is a reference to another conspiracy theory recently promoted by televangelist Pat Robertson about Biden merely being a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ archbishop wrote that , “ It is obvious that those who manipulate [ Biden ] already have someone worse than him ready , with whom they will replace him as soon as the opportunity arises.
” It should come as no surprise , then , that Christian nationalists have once again joined far right Catholics in spreading lies .
If all of this talk about a globalist conspiracy crafted by the elites sounds familiar , that ’ s because it has always been the foundational message coming from Steve Bannon , who joined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Francis .
Bannon is now using his Youtube channel to promote a slightly different , but even more sinister take on the Great Reset .
As you can see , whether your agenda is to deny climate change , challenge the Pope , or warn of an impending apocalypse , the Great Reset can be twisted into a conspiracy theory to meet your needs , regardless of how many lies that requires .

Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chair of the World Economic Forum, raised an important question last December: “What kind of capitalism do we want?” He posited that there were three potential forms:
Shareholder capitalism—which currently dominates Western corporations and is focused on maximizing short-term profits; State capitalism—otherwise known as “democratic socialism”—which trusts the government with setting the direction of the economy; or Stakeholder capitalism— a system in which corporations serve the interests of all their stakeholders, including customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders, and local communities.
Schwab founded the World Economic Forum in part to promote the benefits of stakeholder capitalism. During a speech in July, President-elect Joe Biden said that “It’s way past time to put the end to the era of shareholder capitalism. The idea [that] the only responsibility a corporation has is its shareholders—that is simply not true …They have a responsibility to their workers, their community, to their country.”
Recognizing that the coronavirus pandemic had exposed “inconsistencies, inadequacies and contradictions of multiple systems—from health and financial to energy and education,” the World Economic Forum launched an initiative called “The Great Reset” in June 2020 to extol the principles of stakeholder capitalism. Klaus wrote that the initiative’s goals would have three main components.
Governments should improve coordination (for example, in tax, regulatory, and fiscal policy), upgrade trade arrangements, and create the conditions for a “stakeholder economy.” Investments should advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability. Innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution should be harnessed to support the public good, especially by addressing health and social challenges.
Of course, those on the far left who are committed to viewing corporations as the enemy have responded to this initiative with derision. But they have a point. For the most part, the Great Reset relies on voluntary efforts from corporations to reform themselves, asking the government to merely “create the conditions” for change. While such efforts may be laudable, they have never been sufficient. Some form of regulatory oversight is necessary.
On the far right, however, the Great Reset has become grist for massive QAnon-like conspiracy theories used by various groups to promote their own self-interests. For example, Justin Haskins is often referred to as “a leading authority on the Great Reset” in right-wing media. He not only writes for publications like Breitbart, he is the editorial director and a research fellow at the Heartland Institute, a libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 to deny the science of climate change. That is the backdrop on which Haskins distorts the message of the Great Reset, transforming it into a socialist plot to implement the Green New Deal, when in fact it is anything but socialist.
In short, the Great Reset is a proposal to completely alter the entire global economy, moving it more toward collectivism and away from capitalism. According to its most ardent supporters, the purpose for the “Great Reset” is three-fold: (1) repairing the global economic damage caused by the coronavirus; (2) stopping a coming climate change catastrophe; and (3) using the two previously mentioned “crises” as an opportunity to advance socialist ideals, including the destruction of capitalism and individual rights.
Another major proponent of a conspiracy theory about the Great Reset is Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, a former Vatican ambassador to the United States and an outspoken adversary of Pope Francis. In October, he penned a letter to Donald Trump warning that “the whole world is being threatened by a global conspiracy against God and humanity.”
A global plan called the Great Reset is underway. Its architect is a global élite that wants to subdue all of humanity, imposing coercive measures with which to drastically limit individual freedoms and those of entire populations… The purpose of the Great Reset is the imposition of a health dictatorship aiming at the imposition of liberticidal measures, hidden behind tempting promises of ensuring a universal income and cancelling individual debt. The price of these concessions from the International Monetary Fund will be the renunciation of private property and adherence to a program of vaccination against Covid-19 and Covid-21 promoted by Bill Gates with the collaboration of the main pharmaceutical groups… As is now clear, the one who occupies the Chair of Peter has betrayed his role from the very beginning in order to defend and promote the globalist ideology, supporting the agenda of the deep church, who chose him from its ranks.
According to Viganò, the “deep state” has now been joined by the “deep church,” headed by the Pope he attempted to unseat.
Tucked away in Viganò’s letter is a reference to another conspiracy theory recently promoted by televangelist Pat Robertson about Biden merely being a placeholder for a Harris presidency. The archbishop wrote that, “It is obvious that those who manipulate [Biden] already have someone worse than him ready, with whom they will replace him as soon as the opportunity arises.” It should come as no surprise, then, that Christian nationalists have once again joined far right Catholics in spreading lies.
If all of this talk about a globalist conspiracy crafted by the elites sounds familiar, that’s because it has always been the foundational message coming from Steve Bannon, who joined Archbishop Viganò in attempting to undermine Pope Francis. Bannon is now using his Youtube channel to promote a slightly different, but even more sinister take on the Great Reset.
In Bannon-land, the great reset is an opportunity for the elite cabal to “depopulate” the earth to 500 million, then genetically engineer humankind using “the convergence of artificial intelligence, advances in chip design and bioengineering.” He explains that the Democrats are attempting to “steal this election” because “if they can thwart the will of the people in this country,” they’ll be able to achieve the great reset by taking down populist movements in other countries as well.
As you can see, whether your agenda is to deny climate change, challenge the Pope, or warn of an impending apocalypse, the Great Reset can be twisted into a conspiracy theory to meet your needs, regardless of how many lies that requires.


The Next Trump

Whether Donald Trump runs again in 2024 or fades from politics , his enigmatic hold on tens of millions of Americans will be a lesson to the next demagogue .
Much will be learned from Trump ’ s successes in manipulating huge swaths of the public , and also from his failures to translate his autocratic desires into practical power .
Just the fact that 72 percent of Republicans tell pollsters that they believe Trump ’ s discredited claim that he won the 2020 election is a mark of his perverse success in selling the Big Lie .
His outsized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coarse and insulting talent for channeling resentments felt by masses of alienated citizens placed him so far above reproach in so many minds that his obvious corruption and damage to the country ’ s reputation and national security made no impact on the committed .
After four years of falsehoods , incompetence , and immorality , he won eleven million more votes than in 2016 ( up from 63 to 74 million ) .
He has deftly played the dual role of tough guy and victim , of swaggering bully and persecuted prey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wishes and fears of the millions , mostly white working class , who feel marginalized and dishonored while yearning for the wealth and strength that Trump appears to possess .
He has given them the dignity that many feel they have been denied by the liberal , urban , multiethnic society that their country is becoming .
Despite his serial fabrications , his lack of moral boundaries made him seem authentic and unscripted .
He was a paradox : an outsider but a pampered part of the corporate elite , a non-politician @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own benefit , a drainer of the “ swamp ” who wallowed in corrupt self-dealing .
He was right when he said that he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not lose voters .
But because Trump did not understand government and antagonized authoritative agencies , he was often stymied as he tried to rule dictatorially , above the law .
He crudely attacked the intelligence agencies , the military , the FBI , and other power centers , precisely those that an autocrat would need to muster under his control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his efforts to shortcut the due process built into the regulatory system .
He managed to execute conservatives ’ goals of dismantling many protections of workers ’ rights and safety , consumers ’ health against harmful chemicals and pollution , and natural environmental assets .
And the hostile atmosphere he and his minions created drove many skilled experts out of scientific , legal , and diplomatic posts .
But courts blocked his attempts to impose or reverse regulations by rolling over the legal requirements for waiting periods , public comment , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ massaging Congress into significant legislative change meant that the landscape of the law was not extensively revised in the short run—although long-term effects will be felt through his numerous appointments of conservative federal judges .
Seeing this record , a sophisticated would-be autocrat could adjust accordingly .
Large sections of the American public have proved remarkably gullible , as if batteries in their Nonsense Alarms have died .
They are ready to believe the most absurd conspiracy , fall for the most transparent con artist , and sign on to the unhealthiest cult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recorded Trump as 2020 ’ s most admired man .
This , amid a pandemic soaring largely because of Trump ’ s bungled responses .
A grim question arises from the fact that the adulation of Trump persisted after Russia created false identities online to inflame America ’ s divisive politics : How much collaboration would an invading enemy enjoy ?
It seems a crazy thought , but some European countries learned hard lessons in World War II .
An aspiring American autocrat might be smart enough to take notice .
A next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to be a slick purveyor of empty dreams and encrypted hatreds .
He or she would be a suave authoritarian populist who whipped up fear about internal enemies .
Rough , Trump-like edges would be smoothed .
The platitudes would flow like honey off the tongue .
The outright misogyny that repelled many female voters would be veiled , and thinly encoded racism would mask explicit bigotry and invite quiet applause .
To gain autocratic power , this future Trump would not display every whim of outrage online but would conceal malevolence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be accomplished in secret , as American history has shown .
So our hypothetical president would have to be an even better actor and entertainer than Trump , surreptitious while conveying a deceptive impression of candor to followers who value iconoclastic rulers .
Furthermore—and this is perhaps most important—he or she would be clever enough to coopt , not alienate , the centers of governmental power .
Trump attacked and derided them .
The would-be dictator would cultivate them , harnessing the intelligence and undercover operations of the CIA and the FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Security Agency , the investigative apparatus of the IRS , the prosecutorial clout of the Justice Department , and perhaps the ultimate threat of the military .
Impossible , you say ?
We need look no farther back than the 1970s , when decades of domestic spying , harassment , and political prosecutions against dissenting citizens came to an end after being investigated and exposed by the committee chaired by Senator Frank Church .
It is worth reading the report .
Beginning in the Cold War and stretching through the Vietnam War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Martin Luther King , Jr. , labor unions , antiwar activists , and others who challenged the status quo .
Against constitutionally protected free-speech the government mounted surveillance , disinformation , dirty tricks , and politically-motivated prosecutions .
One effort is depicted in the new film , “ The Trial of the Chicago 7 , ” on protest leaders arrested unjustly in 1968 .
The FBI routinely requested tax files on activists , the IRS audited citizens and groups “ of predominantly dissident or extremist nature , ” an internal memo declared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the American Civil Liberties Union , and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People .
The NSA intercepted millions of private telegrams , and the CIA secretly opened and photographed nearly 250,000 first-class letters .
Phones were wiretapped without warrants , homes were broken into clandestinely , and the FBI even sent anonymous letters to wives of Black Panthers alleging infidelity , which destroyed at least one marriage .
The FBI compiled a list of some 26,000 “ suspicious ” Americans who were to be rounded up in case of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Congress passed laws to impede such abuses , but some restrictions were evaded or diluted after the 9/11 attacks .
Given what the United States has learned about itself in the last four years , some form of recurrence seems possible one day , given the right circumstances : a “ national emergency , ” a compliant and fearful public , and a charismatic demagogue who ignores the rule of law just as President Trump but with a deft hand on the levers of power .
As former President Obama said to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I ’ m not surprised that somebody like Trump could get traction in our political life .
He ’ s a symptom as much as an accelerant .
But if we were going to have a right-wing populist in this country , I would have expected somebody a little more appealing.
” The next Trump could be more appealing , and therefore more dangerous .

Whether Donald Trump runs again in 2024 or fades from politics, his enigmatic hold on tens of millions of Americans will be a lesson to the next demagogue. Much will be learned from Trump’s successes in manipulating huge swaths of the public, and also from his failures to translate his autocratic desires into practical power.
Just the fact that 72 percent of Republicans tell pollsters that they believe Trump’s discredited claim that he won the 2020 election is a mark of his perverse success in selling the Big Lie. His outsized personality, his ridiculous assertions, his coarse and insulting talent for channeling resentments felt by masses of alienated citizens placed him so far above reproach in so many minds that his obvious corruption and damage to the country’s reputation and national security made no impact on the committed. After four years of falsehoods, incompetence, and immorality, he won eleven million more votes than in 2016 (up from 63 to 74 million).
He has deftly played the dual role of tough guy and victim, of swaggering bully and persecuted prey. This is a skillful embodiment of the wishes and fears of the millions, mostly white working class, who feel marginalized and dishonored while yearning for the wealth and strength that Trump appears to possess. He has given them the dignity that many feel they have been denied by the liberal, urban, multiethnic society that their country is becoming.
Despite his serial fabrications, his lack of moral boundaries made him seem authentic and unscripted. He was a paradox: an outsider but a pampered part of the corporate elite, a non-politician whose every move was politically calculated for his own benefit, a drainer of the “swamp” who wallowed in corrupt self-dealing. He was right when he said that he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and not lose voters.
But because Trump did not understand government and antagonized authoritative agencies, he was often stymied as he tried to rule dictatorially, above the law. He crudely attacked the intelligence agencies, the military, the FBI, and other power centers, precisely those that an autocrat would need to muster under his control. His impatience and incompetence stymied many of his efforts to shortcut the due process built into the regulatory system.
He managed to execute conservatives’ goals of dismantling many protections of workers’ rights and safety, consumers’ health against harmful chemicals and pollution, and natural environmental assets. And the hostile atmosphere he and his minions created drove many skilled experts out of scientific, legal, and diplomatic posts. But courts blocked his attempts to impose or reverse regulations by rolling over the legal requirements for waiting periods, public comment, and impact assessments. And his ineptitude at massaging Congress into significant legislative change meant that the landscape of the law was not extensively revised in the short run—although long-term effects will be felt through his numerous appointments of conservative federal judges.
Seeing this record, a sophisticated would-be autocrat could adjust accordingly. Large sections of the American public have proved remarkably gullible, as if batteries in their Nonsense Alarms have died. They are ready to believe the most absurd conspiracy, fall for the most transparent con artist, and sign on to the unhealthiest cult of personality. A Gallup poll just recorded Trump as 2020’s most admired man. This, amid a pandemic soaring largely because of Trump’s bungled responses.
A grim question arises from the fact that the adulation of Trump persisted after Russia created false identities online to inflame America’s divisive politics: How much collaboration would an invading enemy enjoy? It seems a crazy thought, but some European countries learned hard lessons in World War II. An aspiring American autocrat might be smart enough to take notice.
A next Trump, a successful Trump, is likely to be a slick purveyor of empty dreams and encrypted hatreds. He or she would be a suave authoritarian populist who whipped up fear about internal enemies. Rough, Trump-like edges would be smoothed. The platitudes would flow like honey off the tongue. The outright misogyny that repelled many female voters would be veiled, and thinly encoded racism would mask explicit bigotry and invite quiet applause.
To gain autocratic power, this future Trump would not display every whim of outrage online but would conceal malevolence behind a screen of propriety. Much can be accomplished in secret, as American history has shown. So our hypothetical president would have to be an even better actor and entertainer than Trump, surreptitious while conveying a deceptive impression of candor to followers who value iconoclastic rulers.
Furthermore—and this is perhaps most important—he or she would be clever enough to coopt, not alienate, the centers of governmental power. Trump attacked and derided them. The would-be dictator would cultivate them, harnessing the intelligence and undercover operations of the CIA and the FBI, the formidable surveillance tools of the National Security Agency, the investigative apparatus of the IRS, the prosecutorial clout of the Justice Department, and perhaps the ultimate threat of the military.
Impossible, you say? We need look no farther back than the 1970s, when decades of domestic spying, harassment, and political prosecutions against dissenting citizens came to an end after being investigated and exposed by the committee chaired by Senator Frank Church. It is worth reading the report.
Beginning in the Cold War and stretching through the Vietnam War, agencies targeted such civil rights leaders as Martin Luther King, Jr., labor unions, antiwar activists, and others who challenged the status quo. Against constitutionally protected free-speech the government mounted surveillance, disinformation, dirty tricks, and politically-motivated prosecutions. One effort is depicted in the new film, “The Trial of the Chicago 7,” on protest leaders arrested unjustly in 1968.
The FBI routinely requested tax files on activists, the IRS audited citizens and groups “of predominantly dissident or extremist nature,” an internal memo declared, including the American Library Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The NSA intercepted millions of private telegrams, and the CIA secretly opened and photographed nearly 250,000 first-class letters. Phones were wiretapped without warrants, homes were broken into clandestinely, and the FBI even sent anonymous letters to wives of Black Panthers alleging infidelity, which destroyed at least one marriage. The FBI compiled a list of some 26,000 “suspicious” Americans who were to be rounded up in case of a “national emergency.”
After the investigation, Congress passed laws to impede such abuses, but some restrictions were evaded or diluted after the 9/11 attacks. Given what the United States has learned about itself in the last four years, some form of recurrence seems possible one day, given the right circumstances: a “national emergency,” a compliant and fearful public, and a charismatic demagogue who ignores the rule of law just as President Trump but with a deft hand on the levers of power.
As former President Obama said to the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, “I’m not surprised that somebody like Trump could get traction in our political life. He’s a symptom as much as an accelerant. But if we were going to have a right-wing populist in this country, I would have expected somebody a little more appealing.”
The next Trump could be more appealing, and therefore more dangerous.


washingtonmonthly--2020-12-31--Thank You and Happy New Year!

Thank You and Happy New Year!

Personally , I ’ m not interested in retrospectives about 2020 .
The best that can be said is that @ @ @ @ @ , offering the opportunity to look forward to the possibility of something better in 2021 @ @ @ @ @ about the past 12 months , I am reminded that four years ago Hillary Clinton @ @ @ @ @ re “ stronger together.
” Never has that been more true than today , even @ @ @ @ @ pandemic means that we ’ ve come together virtually .
That is why I am @ @ @ @ @ that has developed here at the Washington Monthly .
We ’ ve gotten through 2020 @ @ @ @ @ “ build back better ” in 2021 .
So as is my custom , this @ @ @ @ @ of you who have supported us over this difficult year .
Thank you and Happy @ @ @ @ @ haven ’ t already , please consider making a donation to the Washington Monthly .
@ @ @ @ @ it without you !

Personally, I’m not interested in retrospectives about 2020. The best that can be said is that it’s finally over, offering the opportunity to look forward to the possibility of something better in 2021.
But when I think about the past 12 months, I am reminded that four years ago Hillary Clinton told us that we’re “stronger together.” Never has that been more true than today, even if social distancing during a pandemic means that we’ve come together virtually.
That is why I am so grateful for the community that has developed here at the Washington Monthly. We’ve gotten through 2020 together and are ready to “build back better” in 2021. So as is my custom, this song goes out to all of you who have supported us over this difficult year. Thank you and Happy New Year!
If you haven’t already, please consider making a donation to the Washington Monthly. We can’t do it without you!


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-31--Republicans Aren’t Just Lying. They Are Doing So Shamelessly

The problem we face with the current iteration of the Republican Party isn ’ t just a matter of their extremist policies .
As a matter of fact , other than their embrace of racism , sexism , and homophobia , they ’ ve become a post-policy party , existing almost solely by fueling grievance and resentment .
But it ’ s even worse than that .
As a party that increasingly finds itself in the minority , they have launched efforts to disrupt our democratic processes via gerrymandering congressional districts and suppressing votes in order to maintain power .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
As I noted recently , in their efforts to defend the most corrupt president in this country ’ s history , they have attempted to destroy the whole concept of facts , evidence , and reason .
Nowhere is that more evident than the blatant , shameless lies they insist on telling about Joe Biden .
After the president ’ s defense team dedicated two segments of their presentation at the Senate trial to repeating those lies , I pointed out that Senator Joni Ernst said the quiet parts out loud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would damage Biden in the Iowa caucuses .
It now appears that there is a concerted effort on the part of Senate Republicans to broadcast those lies as widely as possible .
The senator from Texas seems to be leading the charge .
Senator Rick Scott of Florida joined in the smear .
As Mark Sumner tweeted , the whole thing is ridiculous .
On Thursday , Greg Sargent proved that Republicans aren ’ t making these accusations out of ignorance .
These senators are knowingly and blatantly lying .
At a Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP senators who are still in office today sat in attendance during discussions of the Obama administration ’ s approach to Ukraine .
At those hearings , officials and outside experts repeatedly discussed the need to remove the prosecutor in question—Viktor Shokin , the prosecutor general—describing this imperative as central to official U.S. policy .
What ’ s more , Joe Biden ’ s own role in prompting this ouster came up repeatedly , and it was openly and explicitly discussed that the loan guarantees were being used as leverage to bring it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was treated as remotely controversial at the time… In recent months , news organizations have convincingly established—in retrospect—that ousting Shokin was U.S. policy at the time , backed by international institutions , because his office was actually facilitating corruption .
They ’ ve also established that Hunter was irrelevant to the investigation into Burisma and that this probe was dormant at the time of the pressure to oust Shokin .
This isn ’ t about Joe Biden .
What we have are Republicans who know the truth , but consciously decide to lie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth , it has no impact : they simply double down on the lies .
At this point , not one Republican has spoken up to tell the truth about Joe Biden .
The fact-checkers at the Washington Post came up with a special category for the lies Trump tells repeatedly , even after the truth is clear .
They call them “ bottomless Pinocchios.
” As the entire Republican Party engages in spreading bottomless Pinocchios to protect the president , the whole notion of fact-checking has become pointless .
It was originally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth .
But obviously , the Republicans are now shameless .
It is worth remembering that , when the Supreme Court forced the Nixon administration to release the Oval Office tapes , hard evidence of the president ’ s crimes was enough for some Republicans to decide that it was time to hold him accountable .
But with the current crop of Republicans , when hard evidence surfaces about Trump ’ s culpability , they simply shout their lies louder , knowing that the right-wing propaganda machine will provide cover for them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican Party to this point .
But my interest is in figuring out a way forward .
At this point , I can ’ t envision how our democratic republic can survive unless the xenophobic , post-policy , post-truth party dies .
As Adam Schiff said so eloquently , “ If right doesn ’ t matter , we ’ re lost .
If truth doesn ’ t matter , we ’ re lost .
The framers couldn ’ t protect us from ourselves if right and truth don ’ t matter.
” It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process of watching that death happen at an excruciatingly slow pace , which is why the best explanation I can come up with for what we are witnessing is that the Republican Party is like a cornered beast lashing out in every way possible to prevent its inevitable demise .
Unfortunately , that ’ s what hope looks like these days .

The problem we face with the current iteration of the Republican Party isn’t just a matter of their extremist policies. As a matter of fact, other than their embrace of racism, sexism, and homophobia, they’ve become a post-policy party, existing almost solely by fueling grievance and resentment.
But it’s even worse than that. As a party that increasingly finds itself in the minority, they have launched efforts to disrupt our democratic processes via gerrymandering congressional districts and suppressing votes in order to maintain power.
Yet, it is still worse than that. As I noted recently, in their efforts to defend the most corrupt president in this country’s history, they have attempted to destroy the whole concept of facts, evidence, and reason. Nowhere is that more evident than the blatant, shameless lies they insist on telling about Joe Biden.
After the president’s defense team dedicated two segments of their presentation at the Senate trial to repeating those lies, I pointed out that Senator Joni Ernst said the quiet parts out loud when she gleefully suggested that perhaps they would damage Biden in the Iowa caucuses.
It now appears that there is a concerted effort on the part of Senate Republicans to broadcast those lies as widely as possible. The senator from Texas seems to be leading the charge.
Senator Rick Scott of Florida joined in the smear.
As Mark Sumner tweeted, the whole thing is ridiculous.
On Thursday, Greg Sargent proved that Republicans aren’t making these accusations out of ignorance. These senators are knowingly and blatantly lying.
At a Senate hearing in 2016, a number of GOP senators who are still in office today sat in attendance during discussions of the Obama administration’s approach to Ukraine. At those hearings, officials and outside experts repeatedly discussed the need to remove the prosecutor in question—Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor general—describing this imperative as central to official U.S. policy. What’s more, Joe Biden’s own role in prompting this ouster came up repeatedly, and it was openly and explicitly discussed that the loan guarantees were being used as leverage to bring it about—as U.S. policy. None of this was treated as remotely controversial at the time… In recent months, news organizations have convincingly established—in retrospect—that ousting Shokin was U.S. policy at the time, backed by international institutions, because his office was actually facilitating corruption. They’ve also established that Hunter was irrelevant to the investigation into Burisma and that this probe was dormant at the time of the pressure to oust Shokin.
This isn’t about Joe Biden. What we have are Republicans who know the truth, but consciously decide to lie. When they are reminded of the truth, it has no impact: they simply double down on the lies. At this point, not one Republican has spoken up to tell the truth about Joe Biden.
The fact-checkers at the Washington Post came up with a special category for the lies Trump tells repeatedly, even after the truth is clear. They call them “bottomless Pinocchios.” As the entire Republican Party engages in spreading bottomless Pinocchios to protect the president, the whole notion of fact-checking has become pointless. It was originally meant to shame politicians into telling the truth. But obviously, the Republicans are now shameless.
It is worth remembering that, when the Supreme Court forced the Nixon administration to release the Oval Office tapes, hard evidence of the president’s crimes was enough for some Republicans to decide that it was time to hold him accountable. But with the current crop of Republicans, when hard evidence surfaces about Trump’s culpability, they simply shout their lies louder, knowing that the right-wing propaganda machine will provide cover for them.
We can speculate about what drove the Republican Party to this point. But my interest is in figuring out a way forward. At this point, I can’t envision how our democratic republic can survive unless the xenophobic, post-policy, post-truth party dies. As Adam Schiff said so eloquently, “If right doesn’t matter, we’re lost. If truth doesn’t matter, we’re lost. The framers couldn’t protect us from ourselves if right and truth don’t matter.”
It might be that we are in the process of watching that death happen at an excruciatingly slow pace, which is why the best explanation I can come up with for what we are witnessing is that the Republican Party is like a cornered beast lashing out in every way possible to prevent its inevitable demise. Unfortunately, that’s what hope looks like these days.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-31--How Bernie Sanders Broke the Democratic Primary

In fifth grade , I ran for mayor of my elementary school on what I thought was a bold , but feasible platform : getting candy sold in the student store and expanding the size of the school carnival .
I wasn ’ t necessarily the coolest kid in school , but I was optimistic about my chances .
But the moment my opponent unveiled his platform—getting basketball star Michael Jordan to visit our school—my campaign was effectively over .
My peers were so excited by the prospect of Jordan dunking on the blacktop—no matter how unlikely it was—that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Call the idea unrealistic and I ’ m a downer .
Offer to bring a less famous but more attainable athlete to our school and I ’ m not ambitious enough .
We didn ’ t have a debate in that election , but even if we had , I would have come off like a boring naysayer while my opponent looked like a visionary leader .
I doubt my classmate knew it at the time , but by refusing to be grounded in reality , he had effectively broken my high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m afraid Bernie Sanders has done the same thing to the 2020 Democratic primary .
By promising transformative policy changes that have virtually no chance of passing , Sanders makes his opponents ’ still ambitious but much more realistic proposals appear weak by comparison .
By refusing to be specific about how much his plans will cost , he avoids criticism that burdens more forthright candidates .
And by sayingthat he will get his plans enacted through a political revolution that would be “ unprecedented , certainly in the modern history of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficultto challenge his unproven theory of change .
It ’ s not that Sanders doesn ’ t have noble motivations or the right general idea on many issues .
He does .
We need to significantly reduce the costs of health care and higher education .
We need to raise the minimum wage and raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy .
We need to lessen our adventures overseas that don ’ t advance American interests .
ASanders deserves immense credit for shifting the Overton window on many of these issues during the 2016 campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same impact in 2020 .
Four years ago , Sanders raised issues that may not have been discussed without him .
This time , however , many of his core ideas—like raising the minimum wage to $ 15 per hour—have already been adopted by most of the other candidates .
What ’ s more , every leading contender has offered substantial plans on climate change , health care , and making college more affordable .
Sanders made an enormous impact on the 2020 race before it even started by pushing the national conversation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again and proposing many of the “ boldest ” but least viable plans in the Democratic field , such as arbitrarily cancelling all student loan debt , or implementing national rent control—both of which have tepid support even among Democratic members of Congress–he has shifted the debate of serious issues in an unserious direction .
Much like Donald Trump in 2016 , Sanders is standing out in a crowded field by making promises he can ’ t keep .
He ’ s not giving voters an honest assessment of how he will improve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model who makes real people look bad by setting an impossible standard of beauty , Sanders is harmfully distorting our view of other candidates by refusing to stick to reality .
There is nothing inherently wrong with a political candidate offering big ideas that are unlikely to come to fruition within the next few years , as long as they are honest with voters about it .
What ’ s unrealistic today could be possible in a decade , and the sooner an idea enters the discourse , the sooner it can actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying he supported or wanted to work toward big goals like Medicare For All or free tuition at all public colleges , that would not be so dangerous .
But that isn ’ t what Sanders is doing .
Sanders is not offering aspirational goals and saying he will try his best ; he is making promises .
He has directly told voters : “ We will pass Medicare for All .
We will eliminate co-pays , premiums and deductibles.
” His website doesn ’ t say he will work to reduce medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We will eliminate all past due medical debt in this country.
” He also promises to “ Avert Climate Catastrophe and Create 20 Million Jobs , ” provide guaranteed , universal , affordable child care , and more .
Sanders is often praised for his honesty and authenticity .
But in this respect he is actively misleading voters .
Most of his promises depend on Congress to keep them .
There is virtually no evidence that , even if he becomes President , he will have the votes necessary to enact any , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Critically , that isn ’ t just because Republicans are standing in the way—it ’ s because there is not enough support among Democrats either .
Less than one third of Senate Democrats have cosponsored Sanders ’ Medicare For All bill .
By contrast , 47 Senate Democrats have signed onto a constitutional amendment proposal to get big money out of politics .
In other words , there is vastly more support among Democrats for amending the constitution than Sanders ’ signature proposal .
Similarly , Sanders ’ s bill for free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ introduced by Pramila Jayapal in the House , has just eighteen cosponsors , less than ten percent of House Democrats .
By exaggerating what he can accomplish , Sanders is also skewing the electorate ’ s perspective of other candidate ’ s policy proposals .
Hispresence in the race has created a false dichotomy—perpetuated by pundits and debate moderators—that unfairly frames every other candidate who proposes less as an advocate for meager “ incremental change ” compared to Sanders , who has purportedly offered the more “ progressive ” solutions .
In any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s plan to cancel student loan debt up to $ 50,000 would be the most extreme plan of its kind .
But compared to Sanders ’ s plan of erasing all student loan debt , it sounds like a half measure , leading some pundits to claimWarren ’ s plan “ didn ’ t got that far.
” At the same time , Amy Klobuchar and Joe Biden ’ s plan to make community college free for all is also a transformative idea .
It would save millions of students thousands of dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Sanders ’ s far less practical plan to make all public college free regardless of tuition cost or student income .
Many of his proposals can ’ t withstand serious scrutiny , but they have a kind of lizard-brain appeal .
By reaching voters who are hungry for change and want to support the biggest idea , whatever it is , Sanders is beating his opponents who are handicapped because they are trying to be more honest about what they can achieve.He is polling in first place in the key early states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is ahead of Warren by nine points nationally .
Sanders ’ refusal to explain how to pay for his plans has a similar effect .
Candidates who are transparent and detail oriented face harsh criticism while Sanders floats above it by being vague .
Perhaps the best example of this is Warren ’ s steady descent in the polls after releasing her plan to pay for Medicare For All .
After offering detailed estimates and truthfully acknowledging that we may need to transition to the ultimate goal more slowly , Warren was pilloried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such criticism because he hasn ’ t given the public details to criticize .
Needless to say , it is not fair or accurate to compare Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump .
They are on completely different ends of the spectrum as human beings .
Their priorities and ideologies could not be more different .
But their campaigns share a striking similarity : Both are propelling their political rises by making promises they can ’ t keep .
In 2016 , Trump said he would build a border wall and get Mexico to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would eliminate the federal debt and quickly balance the budget .
He sounded delusional , but it was still strangely difficult for his opponents or debate moderators to puncture Trump ’ s unreality .
When Trump was pressed on how he would do things no other politician could , he responded by touting his own brilliance , saying he was so much smarter and such a shrewd negotiator , that he would succeed where others failed .
It ’ s not unlike Sanders ’ s standard answer that he will be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unprecedented revolution .
Of course , there was nothing in Trump ’ s track record to suggest that he was smarter or savvier than his opponents .
Similarly , there is nothing in Sanders ’ s thirty-year record in Congress to suggest he can enact legislation that resembles the scale of his current proposals .
Even though their track records don ’ t match their bluster , Trump won the 2016 election .
Sanders now has a good chance of winning the 2020 Democratic nomination .
In a contest between the two men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At least Sanders would appoint judges who respect civil liberties and recognize the danger of too much money in politics .
He could also undo many of Trump ’ s executive orders that were designed to attack immigrants or roll back environmental protections—as would any elected Democrat .
But the more we elect candidates who are better at selling grandiose fantasies than at passing bills or getting these done , the less chance we have of solving our very real problems , or of restoring Americans ’ faith in government .
Literally anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk about how they are going to change the world .
As voters , we must demand more than that , and support candidates who pair an ambitious but realistic agenda with the ability to achieve it .
Otherwise , we will continue to be let down by representatives who offer a vision of change they can ’ t actually fulfill .

In fifth grade, I ran for mayor of my elementary school on what I thought was a bold, but feasible platform: getting candy sold in the student store and expanding the size of the school carnival. I wasn’t necessarily the coolest kid in school, but I was optimistic about my chances. But the moment my opponent unveiled his platform—getting basketball star Michael Jordan to visit our school—my campaign was effectively over.
My peers were so excited by the prospect of Jordan dunking on the blacktop—no matter how unlikely it was—that there was nothing I could say or do. Call the idea unrealistic and I’m a downer. Offer to bring a less famous but more attainable athlete to our school and I’m not ambitious enough. We didn’t have a debate in that election, but even if we had, I would have come off like a boring naysayer while my opponent looked like a visionary leader.
I doubt my classmate knew it at the time, but by refusing to be grounded in reality, he had effectively broken my school’s political process. I’m afraid Bernie Sanders has done the same thing to the 2020 Democratic primary.
By promising transformative policy changes that have virtually no chance of passing, Sanders makes his opponents’ still ambitious but much more realistic proposals appear weak by comparison. By refusing to be specific about how much his plans will cost, he avoids criticism that burdens more forthright candidates. And by sayingthat he will get his plans enacted through a political revolution that would be “unprecedented, certainly in the modern history of this country,” Sanders makes it difficultto challenge his unproven theory of change.
It’s not that Sanders doesn’t have noble motivations or the right general idea on many issues. He does. We need to significantly reduce the costs of health care and higher education. We need to raise the minimum wage and raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy. We need to lessen our adventures overseas that don’t advance American interests. ASanders deserves immense credit for shifting the Overton window on many of these issues during the 2016 campaign. But he is not having the same impact in 2020.
Four years ago, Sanders raised issues that may not have been discussed without him. This time, however, many of his core ideas—like raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour—have already been adopted by most of the other candidates. What’s more, every leading contender has offered substantial plans on climate change, health care, and making college more affordable. Sanders made an enormous impact on the 2020 race before it even started by pushing the national conversation of key issues leftward
But by running again and proposing many of the “boldest” but least viable plans in the Democratic field, such as arbitrarily cancelling all student loan debt, or implementing national rent control—both of which have tepid support even among Democratic members of Congress–he has shifted the debate of serious issues in an unserious direction.
Much like Donald Trump in 2016, Sanders is standing out in a crowded field by making promises he can’t keep. He’s not giving voters an honest assessment of how he will improve their lives. Like an airbrushed magazine model who makes real people look bad by setting an impossible standard of beauty, Sanders is harmfully distorting our view of other candidates by refusing to stick to reality.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a political candidate offering big ideas that are unlikely to come to fruition within the next few years, as long as they are honest with voters about it. What’s unrealistic today could be possible in a decade, and the sooner an idea enters the discourse, the sooner it can actually happen. If Sanders restrained himself to saying he supported or wanted to work toward big goals like Medicare For All or free tuition at all public colleges, that would not be so dangerous. But that isn’t what Sanders is doing.
Sanders is not offering aspirational goals and saying he will try his best; he is making promises. He has directly told voters: “We will pass Medicare for All. We will eliminate co-pays, premiums and deductibles.” His website doesn’t say he will work to reduce medical debt. It says flatly: “We will eliminate all past due medical debt in this country.” He also promises to “Avert Climate Catastrophe and Create 20 Million Jobs,” provide guaranteed, universal, affordable child care, and more.
Sanders is often praised for his honesty and authenticity. But in this respect he is actively misleading voters. Most of his promises depend on Congress to keep them. There is virtually no evidence that, even if he becomes President, he will have the votes necessary to enact any, let alone all, of these ideas. Critically, that isn’t just because Republicans are standing in the way—it’s because there is not enough support among Democrats either.
Less than one third of Senate Democrats have cosponsored Sanders’ Medicare For All bill. By contrast, 47 Senate Democrats have signed onto a constitutional amendment proposal to get big money out of politics. In other words, there is vastly more support among Democrats for amending the constitution than Sanders’ signature proposal. Similarly, Sanders’s bill for free college and debt relief, which was introduced by Pramila Jayapal in the House, has just eighteen cosponsors, less than ten percent of House Democrats.
By exaggerating what he can accomplish, Sanders is also skewing the electorate’s perspective of other candidate’s policy proposals. Hispresence in the race has created a false dichotomy—perpetuated by pundits and debate moderators—that unfairly frames every other candidate who proposes less as an advocate for meager “incremental change” compared to Sanders, who has purportedly offered the more “progressive” solutions.
In any other election year, Elizabeth Warren’s plan to cancel student loan debt up to $50,000 would be the most extreme plan of its kind. But compared to Sanders’s plan of erasing all student loan debt, it sounds like a half measure, leading some pundits to claimWarren’s plan “didn’t got that far.” At the same time, Amy Klobuchar and Joe Biden’s plan to make community college free for all is also a transformative idea. It would save millions of students thousands of dollars annually. It only appears unambitious compared to Sanders’s far less practical plan to make all public college free regardless of tuition cost or student income.
Many of his proposals can’t withstand serious scrutiny, but they have a kind of lizard-brain appeal. By reaching voters who are hungry for change and want to support the biggest idea, whatever it is, Sanders is beating his opponents who are handicapped because they are trying to be more honest about what they can achieve.He is polling in first place in the key early states of Iowa and New Hampshire, and is ahead of Warren by nine points nationally.
Sanders’ refusal to explain how to pay for his plans has a similar effect. Candidates who are transparent and detail oriented face harsh criticism while Sanders floats above it by being vague. Perhaps the best example of this is Warren’s steady descent in the polls after releasing her plan to pay for Medicare For All. After offering detailed estimates and truthfully acknowledging that we may need to transition to the ultimate goal more slowly, Warren was pilloried from all sides. Sanders has avoided such criticism because he hasn’t given the public details to criticize.
Needless to say, it is not fair or accurate to compare Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump. They are on completely different ends of the spectrum as human beings. Their priorities and ideologies could not be more different. But their campaigns share a striking similarity: Both are propelling their political rises by making promises they can’t keep.
In 2016, Trump said he would build a border wall and get Mexico to pay for it. He bragged that he would eliminate the federal debt and quickly balance the budget. He sounded delusional, but it was still strangely difficult for his opponents or debate moderators to puncture Trump’s unreality.
When Trump was pressed on how he would do things no other politician could, he responded by touting his own brilliance, saying he was so much smarter and such a shrewd negotiator, that he would succeed where others failed. It’s not unlike Sanders’s standard answer that he will be able to enact his agenda through sparking an unprecedented revolution.
Of course, there was nothing in Trump’s track record to suggest that he was smarter or savvier than his opponents. Similarly, there is nothing in Sanders’s thirty-year record in Congress to suggest he can enact legislation that resembles the scale of his current proposals.
Even though their track records don’t match their bluster, Trump won the 2016 election. Sanders now has a good chance of winning the 2020 Democratic nomination.
In a contest between the two men, I would wholeheartedly support Sanders. At least Sanders would appoint judges who respect civil liberties and recognize the danger of too much money in politics. He could also undo many of Trump’s executive orders that were designed to attack immigrants or roll back environmental protections—as would any elected Democrat.
But the more we elect candidates who are better at selling grandiose fantasies than at passing bills or getting things done, the less chance we have of solving our very real problems, or of restoring Americans’ faith in government. Literally anyone can get up on a stage and talk about how they are going to change the world. As voters, we must demand more than that and support candidates who pair an ambitious but realistic agenda with the ability to achieve it. Otherwise, we will continue to be let down by representatives who offer a vision of change they can’t actually fulfill.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-02--Your Theory of Electability is Probably Wrong

Ire and acrimony between the left and center-left is bubbling up as we approach the Iowa caucuses on Monday .
The Democratic campaigns are all making their own cases on the basis of ideology , theories of change , party unity and electability for why their standardbearer should be the nominee .
The ideological and theory of change arguments are well worn and debated every day in clear and consistent ways .
The cases for electability are much murkier , however .
Even though supporters of each candidate tout their own theory of electability as self-obviously correct , there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderates or the progressives or the socialists have a strong case .
The reality is that the average head-to-head polling of each of the leading Democratic candidates against Trump has been remarkably consistent for months now .
The RealClearPolitics average for Biden , Sanders and Warren against Trump show Biden leading by 5.4 % , Sanders by 3.7 % and Warren by 1.8 % ( those numbers for all candidates would look quite rosier if you discarded the IBD/TIPP poll , which appears to be a significant outlier in favor for Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same thing : Biden leads Sanders by a point or two against Trump , Sanders leads Warren by a point or two , Warren leads other candidates .
But all three defeat Trump .
The latest NBC/WSJ poll is pretty standard : What ’ s most interesting about this is how much it submarines both the centrist and leftist arguments for electoral viability .
The more centrist Biden camp claims that only he can make both moderates and culturally conservative white working class voters comfortable with ditching Trump for the safety of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leftist Sanders camp argues that only he can bring out the the disaffected white working class and mobilize a coalition of young and disaffected voters .
Warren argues that only she can unite the disparate factions of the Democratic Party while also mounting a populist campaign against Trump that can persuade disaffected independents .
But there ’ s really little evidence that any of these arguments are true .
The head-to-head polling differences between the three leading Democrats are marginal–particularly taking into account name recognition and candidate familiarity among low-information voters , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and which would be erased in a general election .
The theoretical cases for and against each candidate on electability grounds are also dubious .
Biden ’ s opponents claim that he will sustain damage from Hunter-Burisma situation , and from his own tendency toward both physical and verbal gaffes .
But the Burisma issue has been at the top of the headlines for weeks with no apparent damage to his electability numbers against Trump , and his gaffe-prone tendencies have been known for decades .
There is no reason to believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than they are in February .
Nor , on the positive side , is there any reason to believe that Biden will get more crossover voters from Trump in the fall than he has now .
Sanders ’ opponents like to claim that he isn ’ t vetted and hasn ’ t sustained attacks from Republicans that will drive down his numbers .
But this is utterly unproven : the sting of attacking “ socialism ” has weakened to almost non-existent as Republicans have cried wolf about it for decades , and as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are persuaded by Cold War scare rhetoric in the face of rising inequality and basic costs of living .
If the centrist wing of the party had real dirt on Sanders they would be using it by now .
And besides , the exact same argument was used in 2008 to claim that Barack Obama would be destroyed in a general election over Reverend Wright and other supposed radicalism .
It didn ’ t happen .
But the flipside argument for Sanders is equally unpersuasive .
His supporters like to claim that Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggests because he will turn out large numbers of non-voters that current polling doesn ’ t reflect .
The results of the next few primaries will tell the tale here , but most polling would in fact reflect newly engaged voters .
We also didn ’ t see Sanders blow past his polling marks in 2016 outside of Michigan , and he actually under-performed in polling in several states ( which in turn led to a bevy of wild conspiracy theories among his most ardent support base to explain it away . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to claim that the attacks over her claiming Native American ancestry , or her positions on Medicare for All , will doom her in a general election .
Yet she continues to defeat Trump in general election polling as usual .
On the flip side , there is no evidence that uniting the wings of the party , mobilizing the votes of those who desperately want to see the first woman president , and pursuing a populist politics to win independents is succeeding better than either Biden or Sanders .
The boring reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than it has ever been , and becoming more so .
The boring reality is that a realignment is taking shape in which the exurban professional class and white working class increasingly vote for their prejudices over their economics but are declining in numbers , while educated suburbanites , young people and people of color rapidly align with the Democratic Party , on behalf of both moderate and leftist candidates depending in large part on the district .
The bluer and more urban the districts , the leftist the viable candidates .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with this coalition in the Bronx than an older establishment incumbent like Joe Crowley , while Democrats of left-center-left ideological alignment perform well in the most purple districts .
But even a bisexual Medicare-for-All supporting millennial can win in frontline districts .
Neither Sanders nor Biden are likely to win a landslide against Trump .
Both are vulnerable in different ways .
Neither are they likely to suffer a dramatic defeat like Kerry , much less McGovern .
Warren can definitely defeat Trump , but it will likely be close and she could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguments are unpersuasive .
The actual evidence suggests that Democrats should vote for the candidate they would like to be president , and leave the electability arguments at the door .

Ire and acrimony between the left and center-left is bubbling up as we approach the Iowa caucuses on Monday. The Democratic campaigns are all making their own cases on the basis of ideology, theories of change, party unity and electability for why their standardbearer should be the nominee. The ideological and theory of change arguments are well worn and debated every day in clear and consistent ways.
The cases for electability are much murkier, however. Even though supporters of each candidate tout their own theory of electability as self-obviously correct, there is precious little to show that either the moderates or the progressives or the socialists have a strong case.
The reality is that the average head-to-head polling of each of the leading Democratic candidates against Trump has been remarkably consistent for months now. The RealClearPolitics average for Biden, Sanders and Warren against Trump show Biden leading by 5.4%, Sanders by 3.7% and Warren by 1.8% (those numbers for all candidates would look quite rosier if you discarded the IBD/TIPP poll, which appears to be a significant outlier in favor for Trump.) For months the numbers have shown the same thing: Biden leads Sanders by a point or two against Trump, Sanders leads Warren by a point or two, Warren leads other candidates. But all three defeat Trump. The latest NBC/WSJ poll is pretty standard:
What’s most interesting about this is how much it submarines both the centrist and leftist arguments for electoral viability.
The more centrist Biden camp claims that only he can make both moderates and culturally conservative white working class voters comfortable with ditching Trump for the safety of the tried and true. The more leftist Sanders camp argues that only he can bring out the the disaffected white working class and mobilize a coalition of young and disaffected voters. Warren argues that only she can unite the disparate factions of the Democratic Party while also mounting a populist campaign against Trump that can persuade disaffected independents.
But there’s really little evidence that any of these arguments are true. The head-to-head polling differences between the three leading Democrats are marginal–particularly taking into account name recognition and candidate familiarity among low-information voters, which favors Biden over Sanders over Warren respectively, and which would be erased in a general election.
The theoretical cases for and against each candidate on electability grounds are also dubious.
Biden’s opponents claim that he will sustain damage from Hunter-Burisma situation, and from his own tendency toward both physical and verbal gaffes. But the Burisma issue has been at the top of the headlines for weeks with no apparent damage to his electability numbers against Trump, and his gaffe-prone tendencies have been known for decades. There is no reason to believe they would become more damaging in September than they are in February. Nor, on the positive side, is there any reason to believe that Biden will get more crossover voters from Trump in the fall than he has now.
Sanders’ opponents like to claim that he isn’t vetted and hasn’t sustained attacks from Republicans that will drive down his numbers. But this is utterly unproven: the sting of attacking “socialism” has weakened to almost non-existent as Republicans have cried wolf about it for decades, and as fewer and fewer voters in the electorate are persuaded by Cold War scare rhetoric in the face of rising inequality and basic costs of living. If the centrist wing of the party had real dirt on Sanders they would be using it by now. And besides, the exact same argument was used in 2008 to claim that Barack Obama would be destroyed in a general election over Reverend Wright and other supposed radicalism. It didn’t happen.
But the flipside argument for Sanders is equally unpersuasive. His supporters like to claim that Sanders will do better against Trump than polling suggests because he will turn out large numbers of non-voters that current polling doesn’t reflect. The results of the next few primaries will tell the tale here, but most polling would in fact reflect newly engaged voters. We also didn’t see Sanders blow past his polling marks in 2016 outside of Michigan, and he actually under-performed in polling in several states (which in turn led to a bevy of wild conspiracy theories among his most ardent support base to explain it away.)
Same for Warren. Her opponents like to claim that the attacks over her claiming Native American ancestry, or her positions on Medicare for All, will doom her in a general election. Yet she continues to defeat Trump in general election polling as usual. On the flip side, there is no evidence that uniting the wings of the party, mobilizing the votes of those who desperately want to see the first woman president, and pursuing a populist politics to win independents is succeeding better than either Biden or Sanders.
The boring reality is that the country is more polarized than it has ever been, and becoming more so. The boring reality is that a realignment is taking shape in which the exurban professional class and white working class increasingly vote for their prejudices over their economics but are declining in numbers, while educated suburbanites, young people and people of color rapidly align with the Democratic Party, on behalf of both moderate and leftist candidates depending in large part on the district. The bluer and more urban the districts, the leftist the viable candidates. A hard-charging progressive like Ocasio-Cortez is more aligned with this coalition in the Bronx than an older establishment incumbent like Joe Crowley, while Democrats of left-center-left ideological alignment perform well in the most purple districts. But even a bisexual Medicare-for-All supporting millennial can win in frontline districts.
Neither Sanders nor Biden are likely to win a landslide against Trump. Both are vulnerable in different ways. Neither are they likely to suffer a dramatic defeat like Kerry, much less McGovern. Warren can definitely defeat Trump, but it will likely be close and she could lose. All of the standard electability arguments are unpersuasive.
The actual evidence suggests that Democrats should vote for the candidate they would like to be president, and leave the electability arguments at the door.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-02--No, Impeachment Did Not Backfire or Enable Trump

An odd narrative is beginning to emerge from disparate sources in both leftist and mainstream journalistic corners that impeachment was a mistake , because Trump ’ s imminent acquittal by the Senate in a sham trial supposedly frees him from all Constitutional restraint .
While leftist versions of this argument can be found all over social media , a puzzling version of this argument even appears today in the New York Times : Ralph Waldo Emerson seemed to foresee the lesson of the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump .
“ When you strike at a king , ” Emerson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him.
” Mr. Trump ’ s foes struck at him but did not take him down .
With the end of the impeachment trial now in sight and acquittal assured , a triumphant Mr. Trump emerges from the biggest test of his presidency emboldened , ready to claim exoneration and take his case of grievance , persecution and resentment to the campaign trail .
But this analysis fails to outline an alternative that would have constrained Trump more than a failed impeachment does .
Certainly , some democratic socialist critics would argue ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t care about Trump ’ s abuses of power when inequality , healthcare and climate change are such pressing concerns .
Ironically , the centrist wing of the party consistently opposed impeachment on very similar grounds , arguing that impeaching Trump would inflame his base in the toughest “ frontline ” districts , empowering him in its ultimate failure and distracting from a focus on bread-and-butter pocketbook issues .
The challenge , of course , is that if a president is allowed to cheat by any means to secure his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t matter how much their opponents focus on material benefits or kitchen table issues because the election isn ’ t fair to begin with .
Much to the consternation of myself and many other progressive advocates , House leadership long resisted impeaching Trump on a wide variety of issues from obstruction of justice in the Russia investigation to emoluments and much else .
The idea was to hold Trump accountable electorally rather than pursue an impeachment that was destined to fail .
Those of us on the opposing side argued that respect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessitated impeachment for obstruction , emoluments and Trump ’ s other transgressions .
Be that as it may , leadership decided that it was most prudent for both the electoral health of the Democratic Party and democracy for the voters to have the deciding word on Trump , rather than a Congressional judicial process .
But the calculation necessarily shifted when it became clear that Trump , buoyed by having skated past the Mueller report without consequence , decided to brazenly attempt to cheat in the presidential election by forcing a foreign official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more feared political opponents .
It would be difficult to hold Trump accountable electorally if the election itself isn ’ t fair .
It ’ s hard to understand how failing to even attempt to impeach him for doing so would empower and embolden him less than a failed Senate conviction .
If a guilty person gets away with a crime without even so much as an arrest and a trial , they are more likely to recommit the crime than if they at least are forced to into the discomfort of publicity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediately begin to cheat in similar and worse ways , once the craven Republican Senate acquits ?
Of course .
But he would already be doing so anyway without hesitation if the whistleblower had never stepped forward , and if the House had never made the effort to impeach .
It was worth it .
The only way to stand up to a bully is to punch back , and history would not have been kind to the Democratic majority in the House had it avoided doing all it could to hold Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or fear of emboldening him .

An odd narrative is beginning to emerge from disparate sources in both leftist and mainstream journalistic corners that impeachment was a mistake, because Trump’s imminent acquittal by the Senate in a sham trial supposedly frees him from all Constitutional restraint. While leftist versions of this argument can be found all over social media, a puzzling version of this argument even appears today in the New York Times:
Ralph Waldo Emerson seemed to foresee the lesson of the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump. “When you strike at a king,” Emerson famously said, “you must kill him.” Mr. Trump’s foes struck at him but did not take him down. With the end of the impeachment trial now in sight and acquittal assured, a triumphant Mr. Trump emerges from the biggest test of his presidency emboldened, ready to claim exoneration and take his case of grievance, persecution and resentment to the campaign trail.
But this analysis fails to outline an alternative that would have constrained Trump more than a failed impeachment does. Certainly, some democratic socialist critics would argue (I believe wrongly) that most Americans don’t care about Trump’s abuses of power when inequality, healthcare and climate change are such pressing concerns. Ironically, the centrist wing of the party consistently opposed impeachment on very similar grounds, arguing that impeaching Trump would inflame his base in the toughest “frontline” districts, empowering him in its ultimate failure and distracting from a focus on bread-and-butter pocketbook issues.
The challenge, of course, is that if a president is allowed to cheat by any means to secure his own re-election without consequences, then it doesn’t matter how much their opponents focus on material benefits or kitchen table issues because the election isn’t fair to begin with.
Much to the consternation of myself and many other progressive advocates, House leadership long resisted impeaching Trump on a wide variety of issues from obstruction of justice in the Russia investigation to emoluments and much else. The idea was to hold Trump accountable electorally rather than pursue an impeachment that was destined to fail. Those of us on the opposing side argued that respect for rule of law and democratic norms necessitated impeachment for obstruction, emoluments and Trump’s other transgressions. Be that as it may, leadership decided that it was most prudent for both the electoral health of the Democratic Party and democracy for the voters to have the deciding word on Trump, rather than a Congressional judicial process.
But the calculation necessarily shifted when it became clear that Trump, buoyed by having skated past the Mueller report without consequence, decided to brazenly attempt to cheat in the presidential election by forcing a foreign official to manufacture dirt on one of his more feared political opponents. It would be difficult to hold Trump accountable electorally if the election itself isn’t fair.
It’s hard to understand how failing to even attempt to impeach him for doing so would empower and embolden him less than a failed Senate conviction. If a guilty person gets away with a crime without even so much as an arrest and a trial, they are more likely to recommit the crime than if they at least are forced to into the discomfort of publicity and fear of consequences.
Could Trump immediately begin to cheat in similar and worse ways, once the craven Republican Senate acquits? Of course. But he would already be doing so anyway without hesitation if the whistleblower had never stepped forward, and if the House had never made the effort to impeach.
It was worth it. The only way to stand up to a bully is to punch back, and history would not have been kind to the Democratic majority in the House had it avoided doing all it could to hold Trump accountable on the basis of political expediency or fear of emboldening him.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-01--Finally, Good News for the Jews

Finally, Good News for the Jews

This week , the Anti-Defamation League ( ADL ) released the results of a study that showed a strong persistence of anti-Semitic stereotypes and tropes in American society .
The nonprofit civil rights organization , which has been tracking anti-Semitic attitudes in the United States since 1964 , found that 11 percent of Americans—approximately 28 million—believe in six of the 11 Jewish stereotypes it tests for periodically .
For example , 25 percent of respondents believe that “ Jews always like to be at the head of things ” ; 24 percent believe that “ Jews are more loyal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent believe that “ Jews have too much power in the business world.
” These perceptions about Jews shouldn ’ t come as a surprise .
The ADL has also found that anti-Semitic incidents of violence are surging in the United States .
Last year , the group reported that 2018 marked a 40-year high in attacks against Jews , which included the Pittsburgh Tree of Life synagogue shooting , the deadliest anti-Semitic attack on American soil .
More recently , a gunman opened fire on a kosher deli ; a man wielding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hanukkah celebration ; and every week there are more reports of assaults against Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn .
All of that is certainly a cause for concern .
But at the same time , there is some surprisingly good news for Jews , at least within the Democratic primary : There are three Jewish presidential candidates whose Jewishness is hardly a factor for the voting public .
Both Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg are on the rise , and Senator Michael Bennet remains in the race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appear to be getting evaluated purely on the merits of their ideas and messaging .
But Sanders and Bloomberg are viably competing for the highest office in America .
That ’ s not nothing .
A few days away from the Iowa caucuses , American Jews have cause to celebrate this long-fought milestone of assimilation .
Sanders and Bloomberg are competing for the highest office in America .
Their Jewish roots aren ’ t helping or hurting them—they are just accepted .
To non-Jews , that might not seem particularly newsworthy .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the success thus far of Sanders and Bloomberg is nothing short of miraculous .
Thus far , Sanders is having more success than Bloomberg .
Sanders is polling a close second to former Vice President Joe Biden in Iowa according to the latest Monmouth poll .
Sanders is leading the field in New Hampshire , according to the latest CNN/University of New Hampshire poll , in a state he won in 2016 .
Bloomberg is polling significantly lower : he ’ s at nine percent compared to Sanders ’ s 23 percent in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg ’ s polling numbers are on the rise , even though he didn ’ t enter the race until last November and is skipping the four early state primaries .
Bloomberg isn ’ t even on the ballot in New Hampshire , where Sanders is at the top of the ticket , because he ’ s putting all his focus into the Super Tuesday states , where he is investing significant money in television ads .
Still , in each of their cases , their Jewishness has been a non-factor .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when placing an American Jew on a major party ticket was considered a bold move .
In the 2000 race , when Vice President Al Gore chose then-Senator Joe Lieberman as a running mate , Lieberman was a practicing Orthodox Jew and a centrist Democrat known for working with Republicans .
At the time , the New York Times jumped on Gore ’ s selection of Lieberman with a headline destined to place his Judaism at the center of the discussion : “ Gore ’ s Choice for His Running Mate : Moderate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is Seen As Bold Move ; Religion May Be Issue.
” Bloomberg and Sanders have differed in their approaches to embracing their Jewish heritage .
In 2006 , Bloomberg dismissed his ability to run successfully for President : “ What chance does a five-foot-seven billionaire Jew who ’ s divorced really have of becoming president ?
” Fourteen years later , he has embraced his Jewish background emphatically .
Before an audience at a Jewish community center outside of Miami last weekend , he invoked Torah portions and spoke of Jewish Americans ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to help protect other communities targeted by this administration .
Speaking on International Holocaust Remembrance Day , he decried anti-Semitism and vowed to protect Israel ’ s security .
Sanders ’ polling numbers have continued to increase even since he has embraced his Jewish identity .
But for Sanders , embracing his Jewish identity has been a longer path .
It certainly didn ’ t serve as a centerpiece in his Vermont Senate run .
Throughout the 2016 primaries , Sanders said he was proud to be Jewish , but largely evaded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now , he ’ s going all in .
In October , around the one year anniversary of the Tree of Life massacre , Sanders wrote a column for Jewish Currents about fighting anti-Semitism .
When addressing the liberal Zionist group J Street ’ s 2019 Conference , he recounted his experiences of living on a kibbutz in Israel and having relatives who died in the Holocaust .
“ I am very proud to be Jewish and look forward to being the first Jewish president , ” he said .
“ If there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do everything humanly possible ” to fight the Trump agenda , “ it is the Jewish people.
” This week marked 75 years since the liberation of Auschwitz , the end of the Holocaust .
The admonition to “ Never Forget ” already serves as an informal Jewish 11th Commandment .
Unfortunately , the resurgence in anti-Semitic activity has made the lessons of the Nazi genocide even more urgent .
In synagogue , at family dinner tables , and on social media , American Jews find themselves discussing a topic they long believed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We have been reminded that being Jewish places us in the minority , as an “ other , ” susceptible to hatred and discrimination , even violence .
Yet an uptick in anti-Semitism has coincided , surprisingly , with a strong signal of support from a major portion of the American public .
In essence , Democratic voters , as well as some independents and Republicans , have given a collective nod that the country ’ s highest office is well within reach for a Jew , even in a year when tensions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fraught .
Then , consider another layer of meaning : the last generation of Holocaust survivors , including those who fled Europe and emigrated to the United States , may live to elect a Jewish president .
Certainly , we can expect the anti-Semitic tropes and trolls to become louder and more forceful if a Jewish candidate becomes the nominee .
Just as Barack Obama faced racist backlash , so , too , would a Jewish nominee face an anti-Semitic backlash .
But right now , Bernie Sanders is surging in both Iowa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are home to many Jews .
That ’ s an incredible feat not just for Sanders , but for all American Jews .
When a politician ’ s ethnic heritage is a total non-issue , that ’ s what we call good news for the Jews .

This week, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) released the results of a study that showed a strong persistence of anti-Semitic stereotypes and tropes in American society.
The nonprofit civil rights organization, which has been tracking anti-Semitic attitudes in the United States since 1964, found that 11 percent of Americans—approximately 28 million—believe in six of the 11 Jewish stereotypes it tests for periodically. For example, 25 percent of respondents believe that “Jews always like to be at the head of things”; 24 percent believe that “Jews are more loyal to Israel than America”; and 15 percent believe that “Jews have too much power in the business world.”
These perceptions about Jews shouldn’t come as a surprise. The ADL has also found that anti-Semitic incidents of violence are surging in the United States. Last year, the group reported that 2018 marked a 40-year high in attacks against Jews, which included the Pittsburgh Tree of Life synagogue shooting, the deadliest anti-Semitic attack on American soil. More recently, a gunman opened fire on a kosher deli; a man wielding a machete stabbed five people outside a Hanukkah celebration; and every week there are more reports of assaults against Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn.
All of that is certainly a cause for concern. But at the same time, there is some surprisingly good news for Jews, at least within the Democratic primary: There are three Jewish presidential candidates whose Jewishness is hardly a factor for the voting public. Both Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg are on the rise, and Senator Michael Bennet remains in the race despite low polling numbers. All three appear to be getting evaluated purely on the merits of their ideas and messaging. But Sanders and Bloomberg are viably competing for the highest office in America.
That’s not nothing. A few days away from the Iowa caucuses, American Jews have cause to celebrate this long-fought milestone of assimilation. Sanders and Bloomberg are competing for the highest office in America. Their Jewish roots aren’t helping or hurting them—they are just accepted. To non-Jews, that might not seem particularly newsworthy. But to Jewish Americans, in 2020, the success thus far of Sanders and Bloomberg is nothing short of miraculous.
Thus far, Sanders is having more success than Bloomberg. Sanders is polling a close second to former Vice President Joe Biden in Iowa according to the latest Monmouth poll. Sanders is leading the field in New Hampshire, according to the latest CNN/University of New Hampshire poll, in a state he won in 2016.
Bloomberg is polling significantly lower: he’s at nine percent compared to Sanders’s 23 percent in the latest national Monmouth poll. But Bloomberg’s polling numbers are on the rise, even though he didn’t enter the race until last November and is skipping the four early state primaries. Bloomberg isn’t even on the ballot in New Hampshire, where Sanders is at the top of the ticket, because he’s putting all his focus into the Super Tuesday states, where he is investing significant money in television ads. Still, in each of their cases, their Jewishness has been a non-factor.
Some of us are old enough to remember when placing an American Jew on a major party ticket was considered a bold move. In the 2000 race, when Vice President Al Gore chose then-Senator Joe Lieberman as a running mate, Lieberman was a practicing Orthodox Jew and a centrist Democrat known for working with Republicans. At the time, the New York Times jumped on Gore’s selection of Lieberman with a headline destined to place his Judaism at the center of the discussion: “Gore’s Choice for His Running Mate: Moderate Senator Who Scorned Clinton: Selecting Lieberman Is Seen As Bold Move; Religion May Be Issue.”
Bloomberg and Sanders have differed in their approaches to embracing their Jewish heritage. In 2006, Bloomberg dismissed his ability to run successfully for President: “What chance does a five-foot-seven billionaire Jew who’s divorced really have of becoming president?” Fourteen years later, he has embraced his Jewish background emphatically. Before an audience at a Jewish community center outside of Miami last weekend, he invoked Torah portions and spoke of Jewish Americans’ responsibility to be inclusive and tolerant, and to help protect other communities targeted by this administration. Speaking on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, he decried anti-Semitism and vowed to protect Israel’s security.
Sanders’ polling numbers have continued to increase even since he has embraced his Jewish identity. But for Sanders, embracing his Jewish identity has been a longer path. It certainly didn’t serve as a centerpiece in his Vermont Senate run. Throughout the 2016 primaries, Sanders said he was proud to be Jewish, but largely evaded addressing his Jewishness at any depth. Now, he’s going all in. In October, around the one year anniversary of the Tree of Life massacre, Sanders wrote a column for Jewish Currents about fighting anti-Semitism. When addressing the liberal Zionist group J Street’s 2019 Conference, he recounted his experiences of living on a kibbutz in Israel and having relatives who died in the Holocaust. “I am very proud to be Jewish and look forward to being the first Jewish president,” he said. “If there is any people on earth who should do everything humanly possible” to fight the Trump agenda, “it is the Jewish people.”
This week marked 75 years since the liberation of Auschwitz, the end of the Holocaust. The admonition to “Never Forget” already serves as an informal Jewish 11th Commandment. Unfortunately, the resurgence in anti-Semitic activity has made the lessons of the Nazi genocide even more urgent. In synagogue, at family dinner tables, and on social media, American Jews find themselves discussing a topic they long believed belonged in the annals of history. We have been reminded that being Jewish places us in the minority, as an “other,” susceptible to hatred and discrimination, even violence.
Yet an uptick in anti-Semitism has coincided, surprisingly, with a strong signal of support from a major portion of the American public.
In essence, Democratic voters, as well as some independents and Republicans, have given a collective nod that the country’s highest office is well within reach for a Jew, even in a year when tensions about “electability” have been particularly fraught. Then, consider another layer of meaning: the last generation of Holocaust survivors, including those who fled Europe and emigrated to the United States, may live to elect a Jewish president.
Certainly, we can expect the anti-Semitic tropes and trolls to become louder and more forceful if a Jewish candidate becomes the nominee. Just as Barack Obama faced racist backlash, so, too, would a Jewish nominee face an anti-Semitic backlash. But right now, Bernie Sanders is surging in both Iowa and New Hampshire, neither of which are home to many Jews. That’s an incredible feat not just for Sanders, but for all American Jews. When a politician’s ethnic heritage is a total non-issue, that’s what we call good news for the Jews.