washingtonmonthly--2020-04-25--Trump Leaves His Defenders Hanging Out To Dry Again

By now almost everything that can be said about Trump ’ s bizarre bleach-and-sunlight episode has been said .
I don ’ t even need to link , reference or give background on it .
Everyone paying even the slightest attention to the news knows .
They know how bizarre it was , how plain unfathomably stupid it was on every level–political , scientific , commonsense , any of it .
I don ’ t think that there is anything that could break through to Trump ’ s base how unfit he is for the job , but if anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be telling his scientists to research injecting people with Lysol or opening them up for UV rays under the skin .
What ’ s wrong with Trump can not be fixed .
He can not be changed , moved or educated .
He is exactly what he is and never will be anything but : a depraved cretin unfit for almost any job in the world .
What can change , though , is the attitude of those around him .
As long as they remain loyal to him and cover for him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least until January of next year–and quite possibly for four years after that .
But what Trump ’ s enablers need to understand is that while he expects loyalty from them , he famously gives none in return .
That was true even here , as Trump left all his defenders high and dry once again .
In the immediate aftermath of his remarks , the president ’ s press team dutifully went out and said the media was just mischaracterizing him .
Dr. Birx , whose stunned facial expressions in response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viral , tried to defend by saying that the president just talks through new information on his feet : “ He gets new information , he likes to talk that through out loud and really have that dialogue.
” But then Trump threw them all under the bus by ludicrously suggesting he was just being sarcastic with the press ( he very clearly wasn ’ t joking or being sarcastic , but shamelessness in lying is one of Trump ’ s core character traits ) : But roughly three hours later , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By Friday afternoon , Trump was telling reporters at the White House that he was just playing a big ol ’ joke on the press .
“ I was asking the question sarcastically to reporters like you just to see what would happen , ” he said of a statement he made in which he clearly was earnestly questioning his own health experts as to whether they should study if disinfectant could work to kill COVID-19 inside the body .
Those in Trump ’ s orbit need to remember that he will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or take their welfare or credibility into account as he acts .
There will be no one there to defend their reputations once he is gone , either .
If there was ever a time to for those closest to him to help pull back the curtain in hopes of forcing his resignation , now would be the time .
Before any more people get hurt , and before he says something even more dangerous .

By now, almost everything that can be said about Trump’s bizarre bleach-and-sunlight episode has been said. I don’t even need to link, reference, or give background on it. Everyone paying even the slightest attention to the news knows. They know how bizarre it was, how unfathomably stupid it was on every level—political, scientific, common sense, any of it. I don’t think there is anything that could make clear to Trump’s base just how unfit he is for the job. But if anything could do it at all, it would be telling his scientists to research injecting people with Lysol or opening them up for UV rays under the skin.
What’s wrong with Trump cannot be fixed. He cannot be changed, moved, or educated. He is exactly what he is and never will be anything but a depraved cretin unfit for almost any job in the world.
What can change, though, is the attitude of those around him. As long as they remain loyal to him and cover for him, we could be stuck with this nightmare for another four years.
But what Trump’s enablers need to understand is that, while he expects loyalty from them, he famously gives none in return. That was true even in this most recent episode, as Trump left all his defenders high and dry once again. In the immediate aftermath of his remarks, the president’s press team dutifully went out and said the media was just mischaracterizing him.
By early Friday, that’s exactly what Trump’s aides were doing, with newly installed White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany blasting out a statement reading, “President Trump has repeatedly said that Americans should consult with medical doctors regarding coronavirus treatment, a point that he emphasized again during yesterday’s briefing. Leave it to the media to irresponsibly take President Trump out of context and run with negative headlines.”
Dr. Deborah Birx, whose stunned facial expressions in response to Trump’s disinfectant-and-sunlight musings went viral, tried to defend him by saying that the president just talks through new information on his feet: “He gets new information, he likes to talk that through out loud and really have that dialogue.”
But then Trump threw them all under the bus by ludicrously suggesting he was just being sarcastic with the press (he very clearly wasn’t joking or being sarcastic—but shamelessness lying is one of Trump’s core character traits):
But roughly three hours later, the president upended that strategy in its entirety. By Friday afternoon, Trump was telling reporters at the White House that he was just playing a big ol’ joke on the press. “I was asking the question sarcastically to reporters like you just to see what would happen,” he said of a statement he made in which he clearly was earnestly questioning his own health experts as to whether they should study if disinfectant could work to kill COVID-19 inside the body.
Those in Trump’s orbit need to remember that he will never show any loyalty to them, or take their welfare or credibility into account as he acts. There will be no one there to defend their reputations once he is gone, either.
If there was ever a time to for those closest to him to help pull back the curtain in hopes of forcing his resignation, now would be the time. Before any more people get hurt, and before he says something even more dangerous.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-26--Working From Home Should Promote Work-Life Balance, Not Destroy It

One of the many unknowns in this unprecedented COVID-19 era is just how dramatically the nature of work will change , particularly for those whose jobs allow for telecommuting and working from home .
Potential pressure on jobs from automation is ranges from mild to potentially catastrophic depending on whom you talk to , but in the immediate future we may begin to see a significant amount of work done remotely that used to take place in person , now that companies are beginning to both realize it can be done and explore new ways to do it .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development on many fronts : parents can spend more time with their children , carbon emissions from travel and commuting can be reduced , and other related inefficiencies for the employer and inconveniences for the employee can be eliminated .
Hours could in theory be reduced as happier workers could focus on their work only when they intended to work , rather than be stuck in an office for 8-10 hours , a majority of which tend to be spent neither pleasantly nor productively .
But as with so much of modern life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a more utopian lifestyle actually lead to a dystopian crunch of overwork , the COVID-19 era is turning out to be a nightmare for telecommuters .
People working from home find themselves not only having to juggle the pressures of home life without the release valves of school , babysitters , gyms , coffee shops , bars and movie theaters , they are also working longer hours than ever before : Six weeks into a nationwide work-from-home experiment with no end in sight , whatever boundaries remained between work and life have almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few steps from their offices , America ’ s always-on work culture has reached new heights .
The 9-to-5 workday , or any semblance of it , seems like a relic of a bygone era .
Long gone are the regretful formalities for calling or emailing at inappropriate times .
Burnt-out employees feel like they have even less free time than when they wasted hours commuting .
Some predicted the great work-from-home migration of the pandemic would usher-in a new age of flexible work arrangements .
As of 2017 only 3 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ primarily ” worked out of a home office in a Census Bureau survey .
Then millions sheltered at home for what was originally thought to be a temporary hiatus .
Many mapped out plans to fill time they would ’ ve spent commuting to take up new hobbies , like learning a foreign language , baking or getting into the best shape of their lives .
It looked like the beginnings of a telecommuting revolution .
A month and a half later , people are overworked , stressed , and eager to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. , homebound employees are logging three hours more per day on the job than before city and state-wide lockdowns , according to data from NordVPN , which tracks when users connect and disconnect from its service .
Out of all countries that NordVPN tracks , U.S. workers had tacked on the most hours .
In France , Spain , and the U.K. the day has stretched an additional two hours , NordVPN ’ s data found .
Italy saw no change at all .
Moral considerations aside , from a purely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ productive reason for this .
Economic activity has slowed overall in the economy .
In most industries except those under particular stress due to the epidemic , there should literally be much less to do than there was before–and even before , there was such an abundance of unnecessary make-work in corporate life that entire books have been written and movements spawned around decreasing it .
The causes of the increase in misery seem to come down to two issues : first , there is no excuse or escape from work when colleagues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than a quick walk to your workstation .
Sure , that diaper might need changing , the pet might be about to relieve themselves on the floor and you and your partner might be enduring a traumatic long-term experiment in the psychological torture of social isolation , but who cares ?
Your boss knows you got that email about that memo , and he knows you ’ re pretty close to your computer .
Chop chop !
Second , bosses concerned about a lack of productivity and control over a team of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their workloads and maximizing digital surveillance of their working time to ensure that no one slacks off and that quotas are met .
This is borderline sociopathic to impose on employees whose household duties have obviously increased due to being shut in without the benefit of extraneous assistance or escape for mental health , but it ’ s a widespread phenomenon nonetheless .
This isn ’ t just a temporary problem under COVID-19 , either .
A major transformation of our way of life is coming in the near-to-medium-term future with level-4 autonomous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office workers ’ days are spent trapped behind the wheel of a car , in which they are functionally unable to do work but are nonetheless stressed by the dangerous act of driving .
In theory , an autonomous vehicle should improve their quality of life , letting them sleep or catch a TV show on the way to the office .
In reality , work creep is likely to set in , as workers whose days used to start at 9am after they arrived at the office will simply start at 8am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bubble of their autonomous mini-office .
A workday that was supposed to end at 5pm will continue until 6pm as they use their commute at home to catch up on more email .
It is unlikely that corporations with step in to solve this problem on their own .
A combination of labor union pressure and government regulation will be needed to step in and ensure that changes to our lives that should improve human dignity and mental health do not become yet another opportunity for employers to dominate our time and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home deserve guaranteed lunch and mental health breaks .
An eight-hour workday should mean an eight-hour workday , no matter how close to your work computer you happen to be .
This health and economic crisis is already difficult and deadly enough for everyone , including and especially essential and health workers who don ’ t have the luxury to stay home , without the corporate world further immiserating everyone doing their part to work from home as much as possible , for no good reason at all .

One of the many unknowns in this unprecedented COVID-19 era is just how dramatically the nature of work will change, particularly for those whose jobs allow for telecommuting and working from home. Potential pressure on jobs from automation is ranges from mild to potentially catastrophic depending on whom you talk to, but in the immediate future we may begin to see a significant amount of work done remotely that used to take place in person, now that companies are beginning to both realize it can be done and explore new ways to do it.
Many observers had viewed this as a positive development on many fronts: parents can spend more time with their children, carbon emissions from travel and commuting can be reduced, and other related inefficiencies for the employer and inconveniences for the employee can be eliminated. Hours could in theory be reduced as happier workers could focus on their work only when they intended to work, rather than be stuck in an office for 8-10 hours, a majority of which tend to be spent neither pleasantly nor productively.
But as with so much of modern life in which efficiencies that should lead to a more utopian lifestyle actually lead to a dystopian crunch of overwork, the COVID-19 era is turning out to be a nightmare for telecommuters. People working from home find themselves not only having to juggle the pressures of home life without the release valves of school, babysitters, gyms, coffee shops, bars and movie theaters, they are also working longer hours than ever before:
Six weeks into a nationwide work-from-home experiment with no end in sight, whatever boundaries remained between work and life have almost entirely disappeared. With many living a few steps from their offices, America’s always-on work culture has reached new heights. The 9-to-5 workday, or any semblance of it, seems like a relic of a bygone era. Long gone are the regretful formalities for calling or emailing at inappropriate times. Burnt-out employees feel like they have even less free time than when they wasted hours commuting. Some predicted the great work-from-home migration of the pandemic would usher-in a new age of flexible work arrangements. As of 2017 only 3% of full-time workers in the U.S. said they “primarily” worked out of a home office in a Census Bureau survey. Then millions sheltered at home for what was originally thought to be a temporary hiatus. Many mapped out plans to fill time they would’ve spent commuting to take up new hobbies, like learning a foreign language, baking or getting into the best shape of their lives. It looked like the beginnings of a telecommuting revolution. A month and a half later, people are overworked, stressed, and eager to get back to the office. In the U.S., homebound employees are logging three hours more per day on the job than before city and state-wide lockdowns, according to data from NordVPN, which tracks when users connect and disconnect from its service. Out of all countries that NordVPN tracks, U.S. workers had tacked on the most hours. In France, Spain, and the U.K. the day has stretched an additional two hours, NordVPN’s data found. Italy saw no change at all.
Moral considerations aside, from a purely capitalist utilitarian perspective there is no discernable productive reason for this. Economic activity has slowed overall in the economy. In most industries except those under particular stress due to the epidemic, there should literally be much less to do than there was before–and even before, there was such an abundance of unnecessary make-work in corporate life that entire books have been written and movements spawned around decreasing it.
The causes of the increase in misery seem to come down to two issues: first, there is no excuse or escape from work when colleagues and bosses know you’re never more than a quick walk to your workstation. Sure, that diaper might need changing, the pet might be about to relieve themselves on the floor and you and your partner might be enduring a traumatic long-term experiment in the psychological torture of social isolation, but who cares? Your boss knows you got that email about that memo, and he knows you’re pretty close to your computer. Chop chop!
Second, bosses concerned about a lack of productivity and control over a team of employees working from home are often increasing their workloads and maximizing digital surveillance of their working time to ensure that no one slacks off and that quotas are met. This is borderline sociopathic to impose on employees whose household duties have obviously increased due to being shut in without the benefit of extraneous assistance or escape for mental health, but it’s a widespread phenomenon nonetheless.
This isn’t just a temporary problem under COVID-19, either. A major transformation of our way of life is coming in the near-to-medium-term future with level-4 autonomous vehicles. A big portion of most office workers’ days are spent trapped behind the wheel of a car, in which they are functionally unable to do work but are nonetheless stressed by the dangerous act of driving. In theory, an autonomous vehicle should improve their quality of life, letting them sleep or catch a TV show on the way to the office. In reality, work creep is likely to set in, as workers whose days used to start at 9am after they arrived at the office will simply start at 8am instead as soon as they get into the bubble of their autonomous mini-office. A workday that was supposed to end at 5pm will continue until 6pm as they use their commute at home to catch up on more email.
It is unlikely that corporations with step in to solve this problem on their own. A combination of labor union pressure and government regulation will be needed to step in and ensure that changes to our lives that should improve human dignity and mental health do not become yet another opportunity for employers to dominate our time and limited mental energy. Even workers from home deserve guaranteed lunch and mental health breaks. An eight-hour workday should mean an eight-hour workday, no matter how close to your work computer you happen to be.
This health and economic crisis is already difficult and deadly enough for everyone, including and especially essential and health workers who don’t have the luxury to stay home, without the corporate world further immiserating everyone doing their part to work from home as much as possible, for no good reason at all.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-25--America Is Fueling the Chinese Dream

America Is Fueling the Chinese Dream

At the start of the 2020 academic year , approximately 360,000 students from the People ’ s Republic of China attended American colleges , most of them paying full freight for tuition , books , housing and food .
The overall estimate of what the United States earns from all the foreign students coming to America for education comes to around $ 39 billion a year .
Not all of that is from China , but a lot of it is .
So let ’ s hear what their sugar daddy has to say .
In lieu of a CCP-vetted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other attendees , here ’ s my best shot .
I include both the text and subtext of a potential Zoomed speech to the graduating classes all across America next month : “ Graduates of the Class of 2020 , congratulations !
This is your time .
I am told that speeches in America should begin with a joke , but this is not a common practice in Beijing .
In fact , we never joke .
Not about how powerful we are or our plans for world domination .
We do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grace , ” or Will Ferrell .
What we have is iron will .
China ’ s cultural strength and fortitude are born from your parents ’ generation and sacrifice .
They suffered through a century of humiliation , living through extreme poverty and eating what little they had to eat out of an iron rice bowl .
Your generation , however , is a privileged one .
For those of you watching who are Chinese nationals , you come from single-child homes .
My generation ’ s one-child policy made you all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , always experienced economic growth and who had the extraordinary luck to go overseas to study .
You got to learn , see and live in America .
Please bring back to China your technical training , especially your insights into artificial intelligence and quantum computing .
Bring back our Middle Kingdom ’ s power and help re-establish the privilege of a nation destined for greatness and global leadership .
You have a great number of gifts and learning that you must bring back to Beijing , Shanghai , Guangzhou , Shenzen and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your valuable knowledge , there are some things you must leave behind : Do not bring back your dangerous ideas of liberal democracy .
Leave behind whatever decadent thoughts you have appropriated .
Muzzle any new instincts you have developed for free speech , religion or assembly .
Purge from your hearts any passion or interest of the need for self-expression over the collective common good .
Remember the primacy of the Communist Party .
Yes , we have reports from our student committees , consular corps and others unknown to you that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cannabinoids and studied anti-authoritarian theories .
Some of you have toyed with direct democratic governance , participated on campus and in the classroom in discussions surrounding the Tiananmen Square events of 1989 , Falun Gong , Winnie the Pooh , Taiwan independence , Uighur detention or the Dalai Lama .
Take these learnings and your newfound understanding of our adversary and apply them for the greater good .
Take them with you to help achieve China ’ s greatness .
This is our time .
We will use the Trump era as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will confound the conversation surrounding China ’ s culpability in the coronavirus crisis .
We will cry racism whenever our national interests are threatened and wherever our newfound confidence and regional hegemony is questioned .
You have all profited from an undeniably strong American higher-education program .
In this , the United States continues to excel .
The price of that education has been high and unattainable for many American students .
China has invested in you and in our nation ’ s future .
The return on that investment is the unarticulated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your foreign education journey .
It is now your obligation and duty to help your nation become globally more productive , competitive and successful .
Your collective strength , wisdom and vision will assure that our party , state and future will remain inseparable .
Together we will achieve the Chinese Dream .
This is , after all , my time .
”

At the start of the 2020 academic year, approximately 360,000 students from the People’s Republic of China attended American colleges, most of them paying full freight for tuition, books, housing and food. The overall estimate of what the United States earns from all the foreign students coming to America for education comes to around $39 billion a year. Not all of that is from China, but a lot of it is. So let’s hear what their sugar daddy has to say.
In lieu of a CCP-vetted speech to the many Chinese students and other attendees, here’s my best shot. I include both the text and subtext of a potential Zoomed speech to the graduating classes all across America next month:
“Graduates of the Class of 2020, congratulations! This is your time.
I am told that speeches in America should begin with a joke, but this is not a common practice in Beijing. In fact, we never joke. Not about how powerful we are or our plans for world domination.
We do not have William Shakespeare, “Will & Grace,” or Will Ferrell. What we have is iron will.
China’s cultural strength and fortitude are born from your parents’ generation and sacrifice. They suffered through a century of humiliation, living through extreme poverty and eating what little they had to eat out of an iron rice bowl.
Your generation, however, is a privileged one. For those of you watching who are Chinese nationals, you come from single-child homes. My generation’s one-child policy made you all privileged princelings who have never known want, always experienced economic growth and who had the extraordinary luck to go overseas to study. You got to learn, see and live in America.
Please bring back to China your technical training, especially your insights into artificial intelligence and quantum computing. Bring back our Middle Kingdom’s power and help re-establish the privilege of a nation destined for greatness and global leadership.
You have a great number of gifts and learning that you must bring back to Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzen and Wuhan.
But as you bring back your valuable knowledge, there are some things you must leave behind: Do not bring back your dangerous ideas of liberal democracy.
Leave behind whatever decadent thoughts you have appropriated. Muzzle any new instincts you have developed for free speech, religion or assembly. Purge from your hearts any passion or interest of the need for self-expression over the collective common good. Remember the primacy of the Communist Party.
Yes, we have reports from our student committees, consular corps and others unknown to you that some of your student comrades experimented with cannabinoids and studied anti-authoritarian theories. Some of you have toyed with direct democratic governance, participated on campus and in the classroom in discussions surrounding the Tiananmen Square events of 1989, Falun Gong, Winnie the Pooh, Taiwan independence, Uighur detention or the Dalai Lama. Take these learnings and your newfound understanding of our adversary and apply them for the greater good. Take them with you to help achieve China’s greatness.
This is our time.
We will use the Trump era as an opportunity to woo Western allies. We will confound the conversation surrounding China’s culpability in the coronavirus crisis. We will cry racism whenever our national interests are threatened and wherever our newfound confidence and regional hegemony is questioned.
You have all profited from an undeniably strong American higher-education program. In this, the United States continues to excel. The price of that education has been high and unattainable for many American students.
China has invested in you and in our nation’s future. The return on that investment is the unarticulated understanding we established at the start of your foreign education journey. It is now your obligation and duty to help your nation become globally more productive, competitive and successful.
Your collective strength, wisdom and vision will assure that our party, state and future will remain inseparable. Together we will achieve the Chinese Dream.
This is, after all, my time.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-26--Yes, Bernie’s Campaign Strategy Was the Problem

Jacobin ’ s Paul Heideman and Hadas Thier wrote a piece this week defending the strategy of the Sanders campaign .
It is meant to serve as a refutation of Zack Beauchamp at Vox and of my own widely-read article and analysis here at Washington Monthly that the Sanders campaign ’ s failure to consolidate more than 30 % of the Democratic primary vote was a result of its flawed theory of the electorate–one that the left will have to abandon in the future if leftists want to win in the future .
Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs also wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these defenses were , they rest on a few shaky foundations .
Their upshots are essentially that Sanders wasn ’ t really running a campaign but rather a movement ; that left policy can not succeed without Sanders ’ anti-partisan movement ; that it wasn ’ t Sanders ’ failure to win more than 30 % of the Democratic primary vote that doomed the campaign but rather the establishment ’ s consolidation ; that Sanders would win the general election and transform the country with an anti-partisan class-based revolution if only Democrats would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary ; that there really is a mass group of independents and non-voters to the left of the Democratic Party who open to far-left politics , if only sabotaging center-leftists will get out of their way .
As passionately held as these opinions are , they require long essays to support them largely because the evidence underpinning them is so weak .
First , a footnote on Marx in relation to this debate : Zack Beauchamp and I called these assertions about the electorate “ Marxist , ” but in truth that gives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course , didn ’ t write much about elections : any application of Marx to electoral politics relies on one ’ s interpretation of Marxism , and there are almost as many different interpretations of Marx as there are Marxists .
They really represent a class- or economic reductionist approach to elections that has long been out of vogue in respectable Marxist circles , which long ago accepted Gramscian and intersectional critiques about the need to broaden notions of class and cultural approaches to class conflict .
The Sanders campaign ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the campaign was steeped in intersectionality .
But while this is true in its internal politics , externally the campaign still relied on old reductionist approaches to minimizing cultural issues and partisanship to create a working-class unity that pulled in cranky independents and Joe Rogan voters in the hope of a broad worker ’ s revolution .
Their approach might more properly be called a “ class reductionist ” theory , but their approach to Marxist theory in electoral spaces is now dominant–and it ’ s incumbent on Marxists with a more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public arena if that is going to change .
As to the actual arguments , a few points require repeating : 1 ) Independents and non-voters .
There remains absolutely no evidence that there exists a mass group of independents and non-voters well to the left of base Democrats–or that even if they do exist , a more explicitly socialist politics is how to mobilize them .
Sure , large numbers of Americans support policies like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal .
But then again , so did most Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lean much farther left than older voters ( a generational heist locking you out of the housing and basic economic dignity that was available to your parents and grandparents will tend to do that ) , and yes there was some difficulty in voting around some college campuses , but whatever it takes to mobilize them to actually vote , the Sanders and Corbyn approach didn ’ t do it .
Many Republican voters ostensibly support some leftist economic approaches , but it doesn ’ t stop them from voting Republican no matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the ballot .
Whatever is causing Democratic voters to support candidates like Biden even though they support Medicare for All , it ’ s not a lack of alternatives .
To continue to assert that these people would all vote their real best interests , in Thomas Frank ’ s formulation , if only they were courted in just the right way , infantilizes them and denies them agency .
Democrats have been moving farther and farther left on economics for the last 20 years , but the white working class shifts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic socialist candidates have been on both the primary and general election ballot with increasing frequency in the last five years , yet the youth vote has not significantly increased and independent voting patterns remain unmoved .
There are many theories about why this is true , but one certainty is that it ’ s not for a lack of leftist candidates on the ballot .
If there is a way to persuade them to vote and vote for Democrats/leftists , the Sanders/Corbyn/Justice Democrats haven ’ t come close to finding it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ obvious that many in the Sanders and Corbyn campaigns were more interested in building a movement than running a campaign .
But that ’ s not a defense–it ’ s a condemnation .
Campaigns do call themselves movements all the time because it sounds engaging and inspiring .
But in real terms , the needs of a campaign and the needs of a movement are very different .
Movements are designed to last for years , to grow and change with many different arms , some of which consolidate power while others marginalize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Campaigns , on the other hand , are short-lived organizations whose purpose is to win a majority of votes by a specific date .
Movements try to lift mountains and change public opinion ; campaigns don ’ t have the time to do this , and must meet voters insofar as reasonable where they are .
Sanders ’ defenders assert that leftist policy can not be implemented without a class-reductionist movement .
But as Eric Levitz points out in his own excellent refutation at New York Magazine , there are enormous and nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not exist in America , and why these trends are observable even across most other developed democracies .
The alignment of more educated , more urban and suburban liberal whites and people of color on one side , and reactionary , exurban/rural and less educated whites on the other is not likely to change anytime soon .
The fault lines , rather , are likely to grow deeper .
In terms of implementing leftist policy , it will be far easier to convince older suburban liberals to support candidates backing Medicare for All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire cultural and educational alignment of modern politics .
But crucially , it will be important for leftists not to alienate these voters by attacking them and their cherished identities–not least of which is their passionately held partisan alignment .
Heideman and Thier insist that “ There is no path to the Sanders agenda that does not run through a radicalized working class.
” But this assertion is without evidence .
The right-wing working class is radicalized toward fascism .
Suburban liberals will eventually enact social democratic policy if they believe it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and if leftists aren ’ t actively going out of their way to alienate them .
Indeed , candidates who support Medicare-for-All like Katie Porter and Katie Hill have won in tough , purple districts–but they avoided much of a cranky , aggressive anti-partisanship that has characterized much of the Sanders “ movement.
” 3 ) The torches-and-pitchforks theory of change .
This point is pretty simple : the Sanders theory of change relies on a torches-and-pitchforks mass mobilization of anger to intimidate politicians into doing its bidding .
Sanders supporters felt that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unfair media effect highlighted by thin-skinned reporters and pundits on twitter , but the online behavior and the theory of change are intrinsically connected .
The movement ’ s entire theory of change rests on utilizing the anger of the masses to push people into action .
But the two weaknesses of this approach are immediately apparent .
First , that burn-anyone-in-your-way approach to populist anger alienates a lot of people , including media influencers in a position to help or hurt your campaign .
But second , it clearly isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to vote .
If your army won ’ t even turn in a ballot , it certainly isn ’ t going to maintain the sustained , engaged activism required to change policy after the election–even if it were true that furious white-hot anger from the left flank were the best way to motivate Democratic politicians into bolder action .
4 ) The establishment .
A common complaint in Sanders-aligned circles is that the strategy would have succeeded if the establishment hadn ’ t aligned behind Biden .
This is true insofar as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also a somewhat comical argument .
The Sanders campaign strategy was explicitly predicated on a divisive approach to locking down 30 % of the Democratic primary vote , under the assumption that it would take a plurality to the convention against a divided field .
To say that this would have worked if the other 70 % hadn ’ t consolidated against it is axiomatic .
It ’ s true , but it ’ s not a defense of the strategy .
Especially after Sanders famously declared on twitter after the Nevada primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop us , ” it would have been incompetence and malpractice for the center-left of the party not to react accordingly .
In truth , what was remarkable was how late the reaction came .
Many were already resigning themselves to a Sanders nomination and making peace with it , but the aggressive triumphalism that followed Nevada clearly spurred many into action .
And much as the establishment is said to have moved heaven and earth to stop Sanders , it didn ’ t actually require a great deal of effort .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was likely to endorse Biden , anyway , locking down South Carolina .
And Buttigieg and Klobuchar were dead in the water in most Super Tuesday states , having banked on dominance in the first three states that did not pan out .
It did not take a great deal of imagination to think that they might drop out and endorse the winner of South Carolina , with or without the urging of former President Obama .
Many Sanders partisans blame Obama for this outcome as if his interference were somehow illegitimate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ The fact that the Klobuchar , Buttigieg and Biden campaigns remained friendly with one another even in competition is to their credit as coalition builders regardless of how one feels about their policies , as is the fact that they maintained a good relationship with the most popular person in Democratic politics .
It is entirely possible that a more leftist candidate who had not gone out of their way to alienate the former president and the other candidates from whom they would need to build support might have done better–or at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
5 ) 2018 and Corbyn .
While many of the defenses of the Sanders electoral approach find excuses specific to the 2020 and 2016 campaigns , the biggest refutation of the theory is the 2018 midterms .
Sanders-style Justice Democrats won their primaries and got to test their electoral theory in districts all across the country and came up short .
Democrats making a more explicitly partisan cultural appeal dominated in the suburbs .
Importantly , it would be an overstatement to say that these suburban Democrats were “ moderates.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some explicitly supported Medicare for All and other leftist policy .
But they didn ’ t run as populist anti-partisans , but as commonsense Democrats who argued for Medicare for All as part of a commonsense Democratic policy agenda .
Also , American leftists like to say that the destruction of Corbyn ’ s approach to Labour politics was specific to the British experience and the uniqueness of Brexit .
But that overstates the case .
Corbyn ’ s approach to the white working class failed in a very relevantly similar way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While American hyperpartisanship means that Sanders and Biden would likely perform similarly in a general election against Trump , it ’ s very unlikely that Sanders would have any better luck making inroads into the white working class here than Corbyn did in Britain .
Or , for that matter , than leftist parties have done across Europe or Asia in white/ethnic-majority working class communities .
In sum : the problem really was the Sanders campaign strategy .
Leftists and leftism can win in the future , but it has to 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them on policy ; 2 ) stop treating campaigns as movements and start meeting voters where they are to win ; 3 ) abandon the notion of winning the mythical leftist independent/non-voter , and focus on winning the voters who actually exist ; 4 ) work to consolidate the establishment behind the leftist agenda , rather than attempt an aggressively hostile takeover that insults the notion of partisanship itself , thereby alienating voters who respect longtime party leaders and are loyal to its cultural institutions .
Leftist policy can succeed and leftist candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a change in both theory and electoral practice .

Jacobin’s Paul Heideman and Hadas Thier wrote a piece this week defending the strategy of the Sanders campaign. It is meant to serve as a refutation of Zack Beauchamp at Vox and of my own widely-read article and analysis here at Washington Monthly that the Sanders campaign’s failure to consolidate more than 30% of the Democratic primary vote was a result of its flawed theory of the electorate–one that the left will have to abandon in the future if leftists want to win in the future. Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs also wrote a similar piece.
As lengthy as these defenses were, they rest on a few shaky foundations. Their upshots are essentially that Sanders wasn’t really running a campaign but rather a movement; that left policy cannot succeed without Sanders’ anti-partisan movement; that it wasn’t Sanders’ failure to win more than 30% of the Democratic primary vote that doomed the campaign but rather the establishment’s consolidation; that Sanders would win the general election and transform the country with an anti-partisan class-based revolution if only Democrats would let him and similar candidates win the primary; that there really is a mass group of independents and non-voters to the left of the Democratic Party who open to far-left politics, if only sabotaging center-leftists will get out of their way. As passionately held as these opinions are, they require long essays to support them largely because the evidence underpinning them is so weak.
First, a footnote on Marx in relation to this debate: Zack Beauchamp and I called these assertions about the electorate “Marxist,” but in truth that gives them too much credit. Marx, of course, didn’t write much about elections: any application of Marx to electoral politics relies on one’s interpretation of Marxism, and there are almost as many different interpretations of Marx as there are Marxists. They really represent a class- or economic reductionist approach to elections that has long been out of vogue in respectable Marxist circles, which long ago accepted Gramscian and intersectional critiques about the need to broaden notions of class and cultural approaches to class conflict. The Sanders campaign’s defenders would argue this is unfair and that the campaign was steeped in intersectionality. But while this is true in its internal politics, externally the campaign still relied on old reductionist approaches to minimizing cultural issues and partisanship to create a working-class unity that pulled in cranky independents and Joe Rogan voters in the hope of a broad worker’s revolution. Their approach might more properly be called a “class reductionist” theory, but their approach to Marxist theory in electoral spaces is now dominant–and it’s incumbent on Marxists with a more sophisticated approach to supplant them in the public arena if that is going to change.
As to the actual arguments, a few points require repeating:
1) Independents and non-voters. There remains absolutely no evidence that there exists a mass group of independents and non-voters well to the left of base Democrats–or that even if they do exist, a more explicitly socialist politics is how to mobilize them. Sure, large numbers of Americans support policies like Medicare for All and a Green New Deal. But then again, so did most Biden voters! Yes, people under 45 lean much farther left than older voters (a generational heist locking you out of the housing and basic economic dignity that was available to your parents and grandparents will tend to do that), and yes there was some difficulty in voting around some college campuses, but whatever it takes to mobilize them to actually vote, the Sanders and Corbyn approach didn’t do it. Many Republican voters ostensibly support some leftist economic approaches, but it doesn’t stop them from voting Republican no matter whether a centrist or socialist Democrat is on the ballot. Whatever is causing Democratic voters to support candidates like Biden even though they support Medicare for All, it’s not a lack of alternatives.
To continue to assert that these people would all vote their real best interests, in Thomas Frank’s formulation, if only they were courted in just the right way, infantilizes them and denies them agency. Democrats have been moving farther and farther left on economics for the last 20 years, but the white working class shifts farther and farther to the right. Democratic socialist candidates have been on both the primary and general election ballot with increasing frequency in the last five years, yet the youth vote has not significantly increased and independent voting patterns remain unmoved. There are many theories about why this is true, but one certainty is that it’s not for a lack of leftist candidates on the ballot. If there is a way to persuade them to vote and vote for Democrats/leftists, the Sanders/Corbyn/Justice Democrats haven’t come close to finding it.
2) The movement. It is obvious that many in the Sanders and Corbyn campaigns were more interested in building a movement than running a campaign. But that’s not a defense–it’s a condemnation. Campaigns do call themselves movements all the time because it sounds engaging and inspiring. But in real terms, the needs of a campaign and the needs of a movement are very different. Movements are designed to last for years, to grow and change with many different arms, some of which consolidate power while others marginalize themselves to push the Overton Window. Campaigns, on the other hand, are short-lived organizations whose purpose is to win a majority of votes by a specific date. Movements try to lift mountains and change public opinion; campaigns don’t have the time to do this, and must meet voters insofar as reasonable where they are.
Sanders’ defenders assert that leftist policy cannot be implemented without a class-reductionist movement. But as Eric Levitz points out in his own excellent refutation at New York Magazine, there are enormous and nearly insurmountable reasons why such a movement does not exist in America, and why these trends are observable even across most other developed democracies. The alignment of more educated, more urban and suburban liberal whites and people of color on one side, and reactionary, exurban/rural and less educated whites on the other is not likely to change anytime soon. The fault lines, rather, are likely to grow deeper.
In terms of implementing leftist policy, it will be far easier to convince older suburban liberals to support candidates backing Medicare for All than it will be to shatter the entire cultural and educational alignment of modern politics. But crucially, it will be important for leftists not to alienate these voters by attacking them and their cherished identities–not least of which is their passionately held partisan alignment.
Heideman and Thier insist that “There is no path to the Sanders agenda that does not run through a radicalized working class.” But this assertion is without evidence. The right-wing working class is radicalized toward fascism. Suburban liberals will eventually enact social democratic policy if they believe it’s electorally safe to do so, and if leftists aren’t actively going out of their way to alienate them. Indeed, candidates who support Medicare-for-All like Katie Porter and Katie Hill have won in tough, purple districts–but they avoided much of a cranky, aggressive anti-partisanship that has characterized much of the Sanders “movement.”
3) The torches-and-pitchforks theory of change. This point is pretty simple: the Sanders theory of change relies on a torches-and-pitchforks mass mobilization of anger to intimidate politicians into doing its bidding. Sanders supporters felt that the focus on social media bullying was an unfair media effect highlighted by thin-skinned reporters and pundits on twitter, but the online behavior and the theory of change are intrinsically connected. The movement’s entire theory of change rests on utilizing the anger of the masses to push people into action.
But the two weaknesses of this approach are immediately apparent. First, that burn-anyone-in-your-way approach to populist anger alienates a lot of people, including media influencers in a position to help or hurt your campaign. But second, it clearly isn’t terribly effective at actually bringing people out to vote. If your army won’t even turn in a ballot, it certainly isn’t going to maintain the sustained, engaged activism required to change policy after the election–even if it were true that furious white-hot anger from the left flank were the best way to motivate Democratic politicians into bolder action.
4) The establishment. A common complaint in Sanders-aligned circles is that the strategy would have succeeded if the establishment hadn’t aligned behind Biden. This is true insofar as it goes, but it’s also a somewhat comical argument. The Sanders campaign strategy was explicitly predicated on a divisive approach to locking down 30% of the Democratic primary vote, under the assumption that it would take a plurality to the convention against a divided field. To say that this would have worked if the other 70% hadn’t consolidated against it is axiomatic. It’s true, but it’s not a defense of the strategy. Especially after Sanders famously declared on twitter after the Nevada primary that “the Democratic establishment cannot stop us,” it would have been incompetence and malpractice for the center-left of the party not to react accordingly. In truth, what was remarkable was how late the reaction came. Many were already resigning themselves to a Sanders nomination and making peace with it, but the aggressive triumphalism that followed Nevada clearly spurred many into action.
And much as the establishment is said to have moved heaven and earth to stop Sanders, it didn’t actually require a great deal of effort. All it took was three endorsements. Clyburn was likely to endorse Biden, anyway, locking down South Carolina. And Buttigieg and Klobuchar were dead in the water in most Super Tuesday states, having banked on dominance in the first three states that did not pan out. It did not take a great deal of imagination to think that they might drop out and endorse the winner of South Carolina, with or without the urging of former President Obama. Many Sanders partisans blame Obama for this outcome as if his interference were somehow illegitimate. But relationships do matter in politics! The fact that the Klobuchar, Buttigieg and Biden campaigns remained friendly with one another even in competition is to their credit as coalition builders regardless of how one feels about their policies, as is the fact that they maintained a good relationship with the most popular person in Democratic politics. It is entirely possible that a more leftist candidate who had not gone out of their way to alienate the former president and the other candidates from whom they would need to build support might have done better–or at least not mobilized so much united energy against them.
5) 2018 and Corbyn. While many of the defenses of the Sanders electoral approach find excuses specific to the 2020 and 2016 campaigns, the biggest refutation of the theory is the 2018 midterms. Sanders-style Justice Democrats won their primaries and got to test their electoral theory in districts all across the country and came up short. Democrats making a more explicitly partisan cultural appeal dominated in the suburbs.
Importantly, it would be an overstatement to say that these suburban Democrats were “moderates.” Many were, but not all. Some explicitly supported Medicare for All and other leftist policy. But they didn’t run as populist anti-partisans, but as commonsense Democrats who argued for Medicare for All as part of a commonsense Democratic policy agenda.
Also, American leftists like to say that the destruction of Corbyn’s approach to Labour politics was specific to the British experience and the uniqueness of Brexit. But that overstates the case. Corbyn’s approach to the white working class failed in a very relevantly similar way to Sanders’ approach to the Democratic primary. While American hyperpartisanship means that Sanders and Biden would likely perform similarly in a general election against Trump, it’s very unlikely that Sanders would have any better luck making inroads into the white working class here than Corbyn did in Britain. Or, for that matter, than leftist parties have done across Europe or Asia in white/ethnic-majority working class communities.
In sum: the problem really was the Sanders campaign strategy. Leftists and leftism can win in the future, but it has to 1) stop alienating liberals who agree with them on policy; 2) stop treating campaigns as movements and start meeting voters where they are to win; 3) abandon the notion of winning the mythical leftist independent/non-voter, and focus on winning the voters who actually exist; 4) work to consolidate the establishment behind the leftist agenda, rather than attempt an aggressively hostile takeover that insults the notion of partisanship itself, thereby alienating voters who respect longtime party leaders and are loyal to its cultural institutions.
Leftist policy can succeed and leftist candidates can win. But it will require a change in both theory and electoral practice.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-27--You Are Not Alone

You Are Not Alone

I wouldn ’ t describe myself as a hypochondriac because I don ’ t obsess about my health or eventual death , and I ’ m generally a functional person .
But I have something I can only describe as “ episodes.
” The first time it happened , I was making a long trip on the turnpike .
I was in my early 20 ’ s and in excellent shape , but I started to have weird pains in my torso and it freaked me out .
Was I having a heart attack ?
What was going on ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to maintain my concentration , but a cascade of stress hormones started a process that I guess is best described as a panic attack .
I ’ m not expert on these things , and back then I don ’ t think I ’ d ever heard of a panic attack .
I had no coping skills .
That process repeated itself off an on for a year or so , and it definitely preferred to pick on me while I was driving .
It got to the point where knowing I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drive could trigger it .
I never really had a good explanation for why any of that started or why it suddenly stopped .
It came back in my early 40 ’ s , and by then I had some theories .
I was drinking too much , smoking too much , and not getting enough sleep .
I quit drinking when I turned 45 , and the problem disappeared again .
If it ever cropped up again , catching up on my sleep seemed to solve it right away .
Then , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have a problem where I ’ d get nerve pain in weird parts of my body .
I live in the woods , and I ’ ve had Lyme disease at least three times .
One symptom of Lyme is that you get strange pains , sometimes in your joints , sometimes in your nerves , and sometimes in your muscles .
Fortunately , the antibiotic they give you for Lyme is very effective , even if it makes you incredibly sensitive to sunlight .
I went to the doctor and told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Lyme .
It came back negative , but that worried me even more .
More tests were run , and the doctor even seemed to think cancer was a possibility , which obviously freaked me out .
But eventually he sat me down and told me that he believed all the symptoms I was experiencing were entirely a product of my mind .
He didn ’ t mean I was crazy or that what I was experiencing wasn ’ t real .
He meant my mind was causing the nerve damage .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible , but he told me that ever since Donald Trump was elected , he ’ d seen a number of patients present with these kind of stress-induced problems .
I went home that day unsure of what to think , but the nerve damage was gone within a week and it didn ’ t return .
That was the first time I really understood how my mind can make me sick .
But knowing this also gave me new power to recognize the difference between real and imagined symptoms .
There was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understood , but the two things were still not the same .
I now had more control over how my subconscious affected my health .
The Covid-19 pandemic has put these skills to the test in a big way , but I can recognize what ’ s happening now .
Once I read about the symptoms , I started to experience those symptoms .
Then , a new article would come out and say that doctors had identified new problems caused by the virus , and I would begin to experience those symptoms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assuming I had been infected and starting a cascade of panic , I knew it was far likelier that my mind was producing this and that it wasn ’ t real .
One problem I ’ ve had with this is common to most men , which is that it ’ s just very hard to admit to anyone that you have panic attacks .
I remember that this was a major theme of The Sopranos , where the lead character sought psychological treatment for the problem but couldn ’ t let anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weakness a mob boss wasn ’ t allowed to show .
Even locked in my house with my wife and son , I ’ m reluctant to tell them that my body is absolutely pulsing with stress hormones and that I need to go lie down .
It ’ s harder now , too , because I actually do have to be very attuned to my body and any possible symptoms in case I need to separate myself from my family .
My wife has asthma , which is fortunately not turning out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as some feared , but it ’ s still not something we want her to test .
So , if I ’ m experiencing shortness of breath , I can ’ t just write it off as stress-induced .
One thing I can tell you is that it ’ s impossible to write if you ’ re overwhelmed with stress .
I felt fine last night while I was watching television , but as soon as my programs were over , I began to experience symptoms that worried me and made it hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up , the same symptoms returned .
It would literally have been impossible for me to write about anything other than this today because I can ’ t take my focus off myself long enough to write about some item in the news .
By acknowledging this , and writing about my experience , I was able to calm the stress I ’ m feeling and along with it a lot of the symptoms .
One thing that ’ s unusual about this is how it is almost entirely driven by the subconscious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no more predictable than dreams , and not a whole lot more rational .
I ’ m not living in waking fear , but am instead sporadically overtaken by fears that operate below the surface .
I know what to do : drink less coffee , exercise , get as much sunlight as possible , and use breathing and other relaxation techniques .
I think a different president would help , too .
I hope some other people will benefit from reading about my experiences , because I ’ m sure I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many people are going through this for the first time and don ’ t understand how much power the mind has to make you sick .
It won ’ t help to tell you not to panic , but it might help to tell you not to panic about panicking .

I wouldn’t describe myself as a hypochondriac because I don’t obsess about my health or eventual death, and I’m generally a functional person. But I have something I can only describe as “episodes.” The first time it happened, I was making a long trip on the turnpike. I was in my early 20’s and in excellent shape, but I started to have weird pains in my torso and it freaked me out. Was I having a heart attack? What was going on? Since I was driving, I had to maintain my concentration, but a cascade of stress hormones started a process that I guess is best described as a panic attack. I’m not expert on these things, and back then I don’t think I’d ever heard of a panic attack. I had no coping skills.
That process repeated itself off an on for a year or so, and it definitely preferred to pick on me while I was driving. It got to the point where knowing I was going to have to make a long drive could trigger it. I never really had a good explanation for why any of that started or why it suddenly stopped.
It came back in my early 40’s, and by then I had some theories. I was drinking too much, smoking too much, and not getting enough sleep. I quit drinking when I turned 45, and the problem disappeared again. If it ever cropped up again, catching up on my sleep seemed to solve it right away.
Then, about two years ago, I started to have a problem where I’d get nerve pain in weird parts of my body. I live in the woods, and I’ve had Lyme disease at least three times. One symptom of Lyme is that you get strange pains, sometimes in your joints, sometimes in your nerves, and sometimes in your muscles. Fortunately, the antibiotic they give you for Lyme is very effective, even if it makes you incredibly sensitive to sunlight. I went to the doctor and told him that I wanted to be tested for Lyme. It came back negative, but that worried me even more. More tests were run, and the doctor even seemed to think cancer was a possibility, which obviously freaked me out. But eventually he sat me down and told me that he believed all the symptoms I was experiencing were entirely a product of my mind.
He didn’t mean I was crazy or that what I was experiencing wasn’t real. He meant my mind was causing the nerve damage. I had trouble accepting that this was possible, but he told me that ever since Donald Trump was elected, he’d seen a number of patients present with these kind of stress-induced problems. I went home that day unsure of what to think, but the nerve damage was gone within a week and it didn’t return.
That was the first time I really understood how my mind can make me sick. But knowing this also gave me new power to recognize the difference between real and imagined symptoms. There was less of a distinction than I had understood, but the two things were still not the same. I now had more control over how my subconscious affected my health.
The Covid-19 pandemic has put these skills to the test in a big way, but I can recognize what’s happening now. Once I read about the symptoms, I started to experience those symptoms. Then, a new article would come out and say that doctors had identified new problems caused by the virus, and I would begin to experience those symptoms, too. But, instead of assuming I had been infected and starting a cascade of panic, I knew it was far likelier that my mind was producing this and that it wasn’t real.
One problem I’ve had with this is common to most men, which is that it’s just very hard to admit to anyone that you have panic attacks. I remember that this was a major theme of The Sopranos, where the lead character sought psychological treatment for the problem but couldn’t let anyone know because it was the kind of weakness a mob boss wasn’t allowed to show. Even locked in my house with my wife and son, I’m reluctant to tell them that my body is absolutely pulsing with stress hormones and that I need to go lie down.
It’s harder now, too, because I actually do have to be very attuned to my body and any possible symptoms in case I need to separate myself from my family. My wife has asthma, which is fortunately not turning out to be as correlated with Covid-19 death as some feared, but it’s still not something we want her to test. So, if I’m experiencing shortness of breath, I can’t just write it off as stress-induced.
One thing I can tell you is that it’s impossible to write if you’re overwhelmed with stress. I felt fine last night while I was watching television, but as soon as my programs were over, I began to experience symptoms that worried me and made it hard to sleep. The moment I woke up, the same symptoms returned. It would literally have been impossible for me to write about anything other than this today because I can’t take my focus off myself long enough to write about some item in the news. By acknowledging this, and writing about my experience, I was able to calm the stress I’m feeling and along with it a lot of the symptoms.
One thing that’s unusual about this is how it is almost entirely driven by the subconscious. In that respect, it’s no more predictable than dreams, and not a whole lot more rational. I’m not living in waking fear, but am instead sporadically overtaken by fears that operate below the surface.
I know what to do: drink less coffee, exercise, get as much sunlight as possible, and use breathing and other relaxation techniques. I think a different president would help, too.
I hope some other people will benefit from reading about my experiences, because I’m sure I’m not alone. I suspect many people are going through this for the first time and don’t understand how much power the mind has to make you sick. It won’t help to tell you not to panic, but it might help to tell you not to panic about panicking.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-27--A President Should Know What He’s Talking About Before He Speaks

When Trump suggested that the medical community should look into injecting ultraviolet rays and disinfectant into the body in order to combat COVID-19 at his Thursday press briefing , it frankly didn ’ t surprise me .
After all , this is the same guy who thinks exercise kills you , windmills cause cancer , and that we should try dropping a nuclear bomb into hurricanes .
In other words , he is an idiot and has been for a long time .
What makes his latest nonsense so dangerous is that he is the President of the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So what does the guy who refers to himself as a “ stable genius ” do when he makes a laughing stock of himself for all the world to see ?
First of all , he claims that he was asking reporters a sarcastic question , while lying about what he actually said .
Then , when the media zeroed in on the reaction from Dr. Deborah Birx to Trump ’ s outlandish suggestions , he claims that he was addressing his comments ( not sarcastically ) to HHS official Bill Bryan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take his toys and go home , the president then threatens to scale back the press briefings and says they are a waste of time .
But Trump doesn ’ t stop there .
On Sunday , he went on a twitter rant about how hard he works and blasted the media—including Fox News .
Diving back into claims that the whole Russia investigation was a hoax , he referred to the “ Noble prizes ” some journalists got for their coverage , claiming that the “ Noble committee ” should rescind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he probably meant to tweet about “ Nobel prizes ” and that there is no such prize for journalism , he deleted those tweets , but then , once again , claimed he was being sarcastic .
That ’ s what happens when the lunatic in the White House says whatever pops into his head during a global pandemic , and then goes on to demonstrate his malignant narcissism , ignorance , pathological lying , and obvious desperation in an attempt to save face , making matters worse .
It is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while being both unfit and incompetent , is valued because he speaks his mind , unfiltered .
In all of this , Trump once again demonstrates that he is the polar opposite of his predecessor .
I am reminded of the fact that , early on in Obama ’ s presidency , reporters like Ed Henry were concerned that he didn ’ t express outrage quickly enough .
It is worth noting that we used to have a president who liked to know what he was talking about before he spoke .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t like that either .
Chuck Todd wrote a book about “ The Stranger ” in the White House and Maureen Dowd told us that “ President Spock ’ s behavior was illogical.
” Is it too much to ask that both the American public and the media spend some time reflecting on these back-to-back presidencies that are polar opposites ?
As we head into an election , we could be contemplating whether it is important to have a president who wants to know what he ’ s talking about before he speaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , isn ’ t it ?

When Trump suggested that the medical community should look into injecting ultraviolet rays and disinfectant into the body in order to combat COVID-19 at his Thursday press briefing, it frankly didn’t surprise me. After all, this is the same guy who thinks exercise kills you, windmills cause cancer, and that we should try dropping a nuclear bomb into hurricanes. In other words, he is an idiot and has been for a long time. What makes his latest nonsense so dangerous is that he is the President of the United States and some people still take him seriously.
So what does the guy who refers to himself as a “stable genius” do when he makes a laughing stock of himself for all the world to see? First of all, he claims that he was asking reporters a sarcastic question, while lying about what he actually said.
Then, when the media zeroed in on the reaction from Dr. Deborah Birx to Trump’s outlandish suggestions, he claims that he was addressing his comments (not sarcastically) to HHS official Bill Bryan.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1254145835450933249
Much like a five year-old threatening to take his toys and go home, the president then threatens to scale back the press briefings and says they are a waste of time.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1254168730898173953?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1254168730898173953&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2Fcoronavirus-covid19%2F2020%2F4%2F26%2F21237309%2Ftrump-dismisses-his-daily-coronavirus-press-briefings-as-not-worth-the-time-effort
But Trump doesn’t stop there. On Sunday, he went on a twitter rant about how hard he works and blasted the media—including Fox News. Diving back into claims that the whole Russia investigation was a hoax, he referred to the “Noble prizes” some journalists got for their coverage, claiming that the “Noble committee” should rescind them. When someone informed the president that he probably meant to tweet about “Nobel prizes” and that there is no such prize for journalism, he deleted those tweets, but then, once again, claimed he was being sarcastic.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1254544354603143168
That’s what happens when the lunatic in the White House says whatever pops into his head during a global pandemic, and then goes on to demonstrate his malignant narcissism, ignorance, pathological lying, and obvious desperation in an attempt to save face, making matters worse. It is the direct result of electing a man who, while being both unfit and incompetent, is valued because he speaks his mind, unfiltered.
In all of this, Trump once again demonstrates that he is the polar opposite of his predecessor. I am reminded of the fact that, early on in Obama’s presidency, reporters like Ed Henry were concerned that he didn’t express outrage quickly enough.
It is worth noting that we used to have a president who liked to know what he was talking about before he spoke. But many in the media didn’t like that either. Chuck Todd wrote a book about “The Stranger” in the White House and Maureen Dowd told us that “President Spock’s behavior was illogical.”
Is it too much to ask that both the American public and the media spend some time reflecting on these back-to-back presidencies that are polar opposites? As we head into an election, we could be contemplating whether it is important to have a president who wants to know what he’s talking about before he speaks. That’s kind of basic, isn’t it?


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-28--Has the Supreme Court Bought Into Barr’s View of Executive Power?

As I ’ ve been suggesting for a while now , the Supreme Court is set to issue rulings on three cases this summer that will have a major impact on the November election .
They include : • A ruling on the constitutionality of DACA , • A ruling on a case that would completely undermine Roe vs. Wade , and • A ruling on subpoenas for Trump ’ s financial records .
Over the years , I ’ ve learned to wait until the Supreme Court actually issues their rulings .
Too many people have tried to guess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be proven wrong .
But on Monday , the Court asked for additional briefs in the case about Trump ’ s financial records .
Their request doesn ’ t bode well for the outcome .
It is helpful to note what they mean by “ the political question doctrine or related justiciability principles.
” Apparently there is some question among the Supreme Court Justices about whether they should be the “ deciders ” on this particular case because it is a “ political dispute ” between Congress ( who subpoenaed Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Perhaps that question would have been raised under any circumstances .
But this very issue was addressed by Attorney General William Barr during his speech to the Federalist Society back in November .
As a reminder , Barr made a rather robust defense of executive power , attempting to ground it in the beliefs of our founding fathers .
Even conservative legal scholars claimed his remarks were “ incongruous ” with constitutional checks and balances .
In talking about his belief that Congress has encroached on executive power , Barr went into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partisan rant , claiming that progressives “ are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end , regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications.
” Barr went on to discuss his views about how the courts have “ substantially undercut the functioning of the Presidency.
” The Framers did not envision that the Courts would play the role of arbiter of turf disputes between the political branches… That omission makes sense .
When the Judiciary purports to pronounce a conclusive resolution to constitutional disputes between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act as a co-equal… The long experience of our country is that the political branches can work out their constitutional differences without resort to the courts .
Here is what I wrote in response to that speech by Barr .
The attorney general is aware of the fact that challenges to his extremist views on executive power are working their way through the courts and will shortly reach the Supreme Court .
Those include everything from subpoenas issued during the impeachment inquiry to demands for the release of Trump ’ s tax returns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue that the judiciary is not authorized to be the arbiter of separation of powers disputes between the legislative and executive branches of government… I wouldn ’ t be surprised to see this kind of argument taken up by Supreme Court justices like Alito , Thomas , and Kavanaugh .
It is very likely that Barr gave this speech precisely to lay it out for them and Trump ’ s supporters in the Federalist Society .
With the Supreme Court asking for additional briefs to address whether this case about the release of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ political question doctrine , ” it is very possible that Barr ’ s speech reached its intended audience .
That doesn ’ t indicate how the Court will rule .
But were they to determine that this case is a “ political question ” that doesn ’ t belong in the courts , they will affirm Barr ’ s view of executive power , neutering congressional oversight and granting the president free reign to do as he pleases until removed from office via an election .

As I’ve been suggesting for a while now, the Supreme Court is set to issue rulings on three cases this summer that will have a major impact on the November election. They include:
A ruling on the constitutionality of DACA, A ruling on a case that would completely undermine Roe vs. Wade, and A ruling on subpoenas for Trump’s financial records.
Over the years, I’ve learned to wait until the Supreme Court actually issues their rulings. Too many people have tried to guess their intentions during oral arguments, only to be proven wrong. But on Monday, the Court asked for additional briefs in the case about Trump’s financial records. Their request doesn’t bode well for the outcome.
The parties and the Solicitor General are directed to file supplemental letter briefs addressing whether the political question doctrine or related justiciability principles bear on the court’s adjudication of these cases.
It is helpful to note what they mean by “the political question doctrine or related justiciability principles.”
Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find that it presents a political question. This doctrine refers to the idea that an issue is so politically charged that federal courts, which are typically viewed as the apolitical branch of government, should not hear the issue. The doctrine is also referred to as the justiciability doctrine or the nonjusticiability doctrine.
Apparently there is some question among the Supreme Court Justices about whether they should be the “deciders” on this particular case because it is a “political dispute” between Congress (who subpoenaed Trump’s financial records) and the president.
Perhaps that question would have been raised under any circumstances. But this very issue was addressed by Attorney General William Barr during his speech to the Federalist Society back in November. As a reminder, Barr made a rather robust defense of executive power, attempting to ground it in the beliefs of our founding fathers. Even conservative legal scholars claimed his remarks were “incongruous” with constitutional checks and balances.
In talking about his belief that Congress has encroached on executive power, Barr went into what can only be described as a partisan rant, claiming that progressives “are willing to use any means necessary to gain momentary advantage in achieving their end, regardless of collateral consequences and the systemic implications.”
Barr went on to discuss his views about how the courts have “substantially undercut the functioning of the Presidency.”
The Framers did not envision that the Courts would play the role of arbiter of turf disputes between the political branches… That omission makes sense. When the Judiciary purports to pronounce a conclusive resolution to constitutional disputes between the other two branches, it does not act as a co-equal… The long experience of our country is that the political branches can work out their constitutional differences without resort to the courts.
Here is what I wrote in response to that speech by Barr.
The attorney general is aware of the fact that challenges to his extremist views on executive power are working their way through the courts and will shortly reach the Supreme Court. Those include everything from subpoenas issued during the impeachment inquiry to demands for the release of Trump’s tax returns. Barr goes to great lengths to argue that the judiciary is not authorized to be the arbiter of separation of powers disputes between the legislative and executive branches of government… I wouldn’t be surprised to see this kind of argument taken up by Supreme Court justices like Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh. It is very likely that Barr gave this speech precisely to lay it out for them and Trump’s supporters in the Federalist Society.
With the Supreme Court asking for additional briefs to address whether this case about the release of Trump’s financial records raises the “political question doctrine,” it is very possible that Barr’s speech reached its intended audience. That doesn’t indicate how the Court will rule. But were they to determine that this case is a “political question” that doesn’t belong in the courts, they will affirm Barr’s view of executive power, neutering congressional oversight and granting the president free reign to do as he pleases until removed from office via an election.


Republicans in Disarray

Republicans who aren ’ t completely delusional can read the polls as well as I can .
They know that if the election were held today , Biden would win and the Senate GOP majority would be threatened .
That is leading to signs of dissension among the ranks of some Republicans .
As an example , Majority Leader McConnell had previously resisted any attempt to help states cope with a serious reduction in revenue as a result of the coronavirus crisis .
He even went so far as to suggest that individual states should consider the possibility of filing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contingent among Republican senators that is parting ways with their leadership .
In an interview , [ Senator Josh ] Hawley warned of potentially severe economic costs of failing to spend now to ensure Americans keep their jobs — even as his vision runs counter to the tinker-around-the-edges perspective of his leadership… Sen. Bill Cassidy ( R-La . )
has been advocating for a $ 500 billion proposal , written with Sen. Robert Menendez ( D-N.J. ) , that would pour federal aid into state and local governments to help them maintain essential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capacities… Portman , who served as White House budget director during the George W. Bush administration , has similarly pushed for additional funding so municipalities can pay public-safety workers , firefighters and emergency personnel… “ My initial thought honestly was , I didn ’ t agree with [ McConnell ’ s ] approach , ” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( R-W.Va. ) , who has been speaking regularly with her governor .
She warned of the “ devastating impact ” if states and local governments were forced into mass layoffs .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tune just a bit since he talked to Hugh Hewitt a week ago .
Dan Pfeiffer suggested an appropriate name for McConnell ’ s plan to limit the liability of businesses from law suits related to COVID-19 : “ The Freedom to Injure Workers Act.
” The question will be whether McConnell can rally his troops to “ insist ” that a measure like that be included in the next coronavirus response bill .
Meanwhile , it has become increasingly clear that Senator Tom Cotton is making a play to be his party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His strategy has been to mount a campaign against China as the country responsible for the global pandemic—even going so far as to suggest that they deliberately allowed the virus to spread outside their borders in order to wreck global economic havoc .
As I wrote previously , the president has been a bit wobbly when it comes to joining that campaign , perhaps because of his financial interests in China .
That is the backdrop for the news from POLITICO that the National Republican Senatorial Committee distributed a memo urging candidates to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advice : “ Don ’ t defend Trump , other than the China Travel Ban — attack China.
” It is worth noting that the memo was written by a political consulting firm that has advised Senator Cotton .
Of course , the Trump campaign was furious .
On Monday — just days after POLITICO first reported the existence of the memo — Trump political adviser Justin Clark told NRSC executive director Kevin McLaughlin that any Republican candidate who followed the memo ’ s advice shouldn ’ t expect the active support of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support of Republican voters… Clark said in a statement that Republican candidates “ who want to win will be running with the president.
” “ Candidates will listen to the bad advice in this memo at their own peril , ” he added .
“ President Trump enjoys unprecedented support among Republican voters and everyone on the ballot in November will want to tap into that enthusiasm .
The NRSC would like us all to believe that there is no daylight between them and Trump on this one , saying that “ Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration to ensure a highly effective federal response to Covid-19.
” But we all know that if the shoe was on the other foot , there would be countless stories in the media about how Democrats are in disarray .
So turnabout is fair play , right ?

Republicans who aren’t completely delusional can read the polls as well as I can. They know that if the election were held today, Biden would win and the Senate GOP majority would be threatened. That is leading to signs of dissension among the ranks of some Republicans.
As an example, Majority Leader McConnell had previously resisted any attempt to help states cope with a serious reduction in revenue as a result of the coronavirus crisis. He even went so far as to suggest that individual states should consider the possibility of filing for bankruptcy.
But there is a contingent among Republican senators that is parting ways with their leadership.
In an interview, [Senator Josh] Hawley warned of potentially severe economic costs of failing to spend now to ensure Americans keep their jobs — even as his vision runs counter to the tinker-around-the-edges perspective of his leadership… Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) has been advocating for a $500 billion proposal, written with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), that would pour federal aid into state and local governments to help them maintain essential services and to bolster their public health capacities… Portman, who served as White House budget director during the George W. Bush administration, has similarly pushed for additional funding so municipalities can pay public-safety workers, firefighters and emergency personnel… “My initial thought honestly was, I didn’t agree with [McConnell’s] approach,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who has been speaking regularly with her governor. She warned of the “devastating impact” if states and local governments were forced into mass layoffs.
That probably explains why McConnell has changed his tune just a bit since he talked to Hugh Hewitt a week ago.
In an interview on Monday, the Senate majority leader said it’s “highly likely” the next coronavirus response bill will aid local governments whose budgets have been decimated by lockdowns and now face spiraling deficits. But to unlock that money, McConnell said he will “insist” Congress limit the liabilities of health care workers, business owners and employees from lawsuits as they reopen in the coming weeks and months.
Dan Pfeiffer suggested an appropriate name for McConnell’s plan to limit the liability of businesses from law suits related to COVID-19: “The Freedom to Injure Workers Act.” The question will be whether McConnell can rally his troops to “insist” that a measure like that be included in the next coronavirus response bill.
Meanwhile, it has become increasingly clear that Senator Tom Cotton is making a play to be his party’s presidential nominee in 2024. His strategy has been to mount a campaign against China as the country responsible for the global pandemic—even going so far as to suggest that they deliberately allowed the virus to spread outside their borders in order to wreck global economic havoc. As I wrote previously, the president has been a bit wobbly when it comes to joining that campaign, perhaps because of his financial interests in China.
That is the backdrop for the news from POLITICO that the National Republican Senatorial Committee distributed a memo urging candidates to aggressively attack China. Included was this advice: “Don’t defend Trump, other than the China Travel Ban — attack China.” It is worth noting that the memo was written by a political consulting firm that has advised Senator Cotton.
Of course, the Trump campaign was furious.
On Monday — just days after POLITICO first reported the existence of the memo — Trump political adviser Justin Clark told NRSC executive director Kevin McLaughlin that any Republican candidate who followed the memo’s advice shouldn’t expect the active support of the reelection campaign and risked losing the support of Republican voters… Clark said in a statement that Republican candidates “who want to win will be running with the president.” “Candidates will listen to the bad advice in this memo at their own peril,” he added. “President Trump enjoys unprecedented support among Republican voters and everyone on the ballot in November will want to tap into that enthusiasm.
The NRSC would like us all to believe that there is no daylight between them and Trump on this one, saying that “Senate Republicans have worked hand in glove with the Trump administration to ensure a highly effective federal response to Covid-19.”
But we all know that if the shoe was on the other foot, there would be countless stories in the media about how Democrats are in disarray. So turnabout is fair play, right?