washingtonmonthly--2020-03-12--Trump Is Scared of Being Humiliated By Pelosi Again

Last week , Congress passed a bill to spend $ 8.3 billion on fighting the spread of the coronavirus , more than triple what the Trump administration had requested .
Nevertheless , the president signed the bill .
Now , as the country is teetering on the brink of a recession , there is talk of passing another spending bill to shore up the economy .
During his speech from the Oval Office on Wednesday night , this is what Trump proposed .
President Trump spoke from the Oval Office late Wednesday , announcing the administration would take action on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by coronavirus — though details on how were sparse — and calling on Congress to extend that work .
He said the Small Business Administraiton would exercise available authority to provide capital to firms affected by the coronavirus outbreak , and called on Congress to devote an additional $ 50 billion to the effort… Trump also said the Internal Revenue Service would defer some tax payments , and he renewed his call for a broad payroll tax cut , something that ’ s widely opposed on Capitol Hill and not expected to advance…The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has proposed could cost as much as $ 400 billion over one year .
Trump has also proposed a bailout for certain industries affected by the coronavirus , such as airlines , hotels , and cruise lines .
On Thursday , the House is set to vote on a package that is focused primarily on putting families first .
The legislation includes free coronavirus testing , up to three months of emergency paid leave benefits to all workers affected by the coronavirus , and could also include an 8 percentage point increase in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states , lawmakers and aides said… The paid sick leave component of House Democrats ’ plan would replace two-thirds of wages for most workers , up to a $ 4,000 a month plan .
The proposal would extend eligibility for unemployment insurance .
It is also expected to include about $ 1 billion in emergency appropriations to expand access to food security programs including food stamps , Meals on Wheels and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women , Infants and Children .
Heather Caygle and John Bresnahan report that Speaker Nancy Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when it comes to coordinating with the White House , she ’ s been working with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin .
Just hours before [ a meeting between Mnuchin and Pelosi ] , Trump had taken his latest shot at Pelosi in a morning tweet .
But that didn ’ t deter the speaker , who huddled with Mnuchin for a 30-minute meeting in her office .
The two also chatted on the phone twice on Wednesday , and Pelosi is now on the verge of pushing through a massive stimulus bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as Trump ’ s signature… For any other leader , the rapid turnaround on the recovery plan would be a herculean feat at best .
But for Pelosi , successfully negotiating a multi-billion-dollar economic package with a hostile and often antagonistic Trump administration was just another day in the speaker ’ s suite .
It ’ s also a reminder that for all Trump ’ s omnipresence on Twitter and cable TV , Pelosi remains the dominant figure on Capitol Hill when it comes time to actually getting something accomplished .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump is that our commander-in-chief is having a bit of a hissy fit about how the Speaker of the House has been treating him .
According to NBC reporter Eamon Javers , Trump feels too personally wounded by impeachment and other interactions with Pelosi to get in a room with her .
Apparently , the president is worried about being humiliated once again .
All of official Washington has come to an agreement that swift , bold action is needed to counteract the dramatic economic impact of the coronavirus ’ spread .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ been complicated by the fact that President Donald Trump can ’ t stand the idea of negotiating one-on-one with his chief counterpart , Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi .
Indeed , he suspects that she would use the moment to try to humiliate him .
Two senior Trump administration officials described a president who , out of an intense bitterness toward the House Speaker , has shuddered at the prospect of being in the same room with her during the ongoing public-health crisis and economic reverberations .
If memory serves , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the president at the White House , it was to discuss his decision to remove U.S. troops from Syria .
She pointed out that , when it came to his actions , “ all roads lead to Putin.
” That is the moment that was captured by the White House photographer with this image that went viral .
You can understand why the petulant child doesn ’ t want to repeat that scene .
So even in the midst of a national crisis , he is refusing to be in the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he needs to address the situation .
I doubt that any of this bothers Nancy Pelosi .
She ’ s too busy trying to actually get something done .
But this is the president—who sold himself as a master dealmaker—demonstrating that he ’ s too scared of being humiliated by a woman to even meet with her .
For anyone interested in learning how to deal with a narcissistic bully , Pelosi has been giving us a master class on the subject for months now .

Last week, Congress passed a bill to spend $8.3 billion on fighting the spread of the coronavirus, more than triple what the Trump administration had requested. Nevertheless, the president signed the bill.
Now, as the country is teetering on the brink of a recession, there is talk of passing another spending bill to shore up the economy. During his speech from the Oval Office on Wednesday night, this is what Trump proposed.
President Trump spoke from the Oval Office late Wednesday, announcing the administration would take action on its extending paid leave to people affected by coronavirus — though details on how were sparse — and calling on Congress to extend that work. He said the Small Business Administraiton would exercise available authority to provide capital to firms affected by the coronavirus outbreak, and called on Congress to devote an additional $50 billion to the effort… Trump also said the Internal Revenue Service would defer some tax payments, and he renewed his call for a broad payroll tax cut, something that’s widely opposed on Capitol Hill and not expected to advance…The tax cuts alone that the White House has proposed could cost as much as $400 billion over one year.
Trump has also proposed a bailout for certain industries affected by the coronavirus, such as airlines, hotels, and cruise lines.
On Thursday, the House is set to vote on a package that is focused primarily on putting families first.
The legislation includes free coronavirus testing, up to three months of emergency paid leave benefits to all workers affected by the coronavirus, and could also include an 8 percentage point increase in the federal share of Medicaid payments to states, lawmakers and aides said… The paid sick leave component of House Democrats’ plan would replace two-thirds of wages for most workers, up to a $4,000 a month plan. The proposal would extend eligibility for unemployment insurance. It is also expected to include about $1 billion in emergency appropriations to expand access to food security programs including food stamps, Meals on Wheels and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children.
Heather Caygle and John Bresnahan report that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been putting that package together and, when it comes to coordinating with the White House, she’s been working with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.
Just hours before [a meeting between Mnuchin and Pelosi], Trump had taken his latest shot at Pelosi in a morning tweet. But that didn’t deter the speaker, who huddled with Mnuchin for a 30-minute meeting in her office. The two also chatted on the phone twice on Wednesday, and Pelosi is now on the verge of pushing through a massive stimulus bill that could earn GOP support, as well as Trump’s signature… For any other leader, the rapid turnaround on the recovery plan would be a herculean feat at best. But for Pelosi, successfully negotiating a multi-billion-dollar economic package with a hostile and often antagonistic Trump administration was just another day in the speaker’s suite. It’s also a reminder that for all Trump’s omnipresence on Twitter and cable TV, Pelosi remains the dominant figure on Capitol Hill when it comes time to actually getting something accomplished.
The reason Pelosi is working with Mnuchin instead of Trump is that our commander-in-chief is having a bit of a hissy fit about how the Speaker of the House has been treating him. According to NBC reporter Eamon Javers, Trump feels too personally wounded by impeachment and other interactions with Pelosi to get in a room with her. Apparently, the president is worried about being humiliated once again.
All of official Washington has come to an agreement that swift, bold action is needed to counteract the dramatic economic impact of the coronavirus’ spread. But negotiations around such a package have been complicated by the fact that President Donald Trump can’t stand the idea of negotiating one-on-one with his chief counterpart, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Indeed, he suspects that she would use the moment to try to humiliate him. Two senior Trump administration officials described a president who, out of an intense bitterness toward the House Speaker, has shuddered at the prospect of being in the same room with her during the ongoing public-health crisis and economic reverberations.
If memory serves, the last time Speaker Pelosi attended a meeting with the president at the White House, it was to discuss his decision to remove U.S. troops from Syria. She pointed out that, when it came to his actions, “all roads lead to Putin.” That is the moment that was captured by the White House photographer with this image that went viral.
Credit: The White House/flick
You can understand why the petulant child doesn’t want to repeat that scene. So even in the midst of a national crisis, he is refusing to be in the same room with the one person whose cooperation he needs to address the situation.
I doubt that any of this bothers Nancy Pelosi. She’s too busy trying to actually get something done. But this is the president—who sold himself as a master dealmaker—demonstrating that he’s too scared of being humiliated by a woman to even meet with her. For anyone interested in learning how to deal with a narcissistic bully, Pelosi has been giving us a master class on the subject for months now.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-12--Trump Obviously Doesn’t Understand the Math of Pandemics

On Tuesday , Trump told reporters that his message on the coronavirus was , “ It will go away , just stay calm.
” He added , “ Be calm .
It ’ s really working out .
And a lot of good things are going to happen.
” That is pretty consistent with what we ’ ve been hearing from the president and his administration all along .
The folks at Daily Kos put together a chart demonstrating how their words have been at odds with reality .
As Mark Sumner noted , that chart was already outdated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evening .
Experts have suggested that the United States is on the same trajectory that we ’ ve witnessed in Italy .
We ’ ve known for a while now that Trump isn ’ t interested in things like science and math .
So he ’ s probably ignorant of something called a geometric sequence and how that relates to a pandemic .
Perhaps that is something you ’ re not familiar with either .
But what if I were to ask you whether you ’ d prefer to be given $ 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first day , double that penny the next day , and then double the previous day ’ s pennies and so on for a month ?
If you chose the $ 1 million up front , you ’ d have shorted yourself well over $ 4 million .
You start with a penny the first day and keep doubling each day .
Doubling means that we keep multiplying by 2 each day for one month ( 30 days ) .
On the first day , you get 1 penny On the second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the third day , you get 4 pennies… Do you see the pattern yet ?
On the fourth day , you get 8 pennies… So on the thirtieth day , you get…536,870,912 pennies , or $ 5,368,709.12 .
That ’ s a lot more than a million dollars , even just counting the amount you get on that one day !
One of the more common ways of talking about this kind of exponential growth is to use an old legend about the rice and the chessboard , which is believed to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old ruler wanted to reward his servant for an act of extraordinary bravery .
The servant said : ‘ Master I ask you for just one thing .
Take your chessboard and place on the first square one grain of rice .
On the first day I will take this grain home to feed my family .
On the second day place on the second square 2 grains for me to take home .
On the third day cover the third square with four grains for me to take .
Each day double @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until you have placed rice on every square of the chessboard .
Then my reward will be complete.
’ ‘ This sounds like a small price to pay for your act of incredible bravery , I will ask my servants to do as you ask immediately.
’ Given that there are 64 squares on a chessboard , it is unlikely that the wise old ruler made it that far .
Of course , someone tried to visualize that one on Youtube .
With that , we ’ re all a lot smarter about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but perhaps even more terrified .
But this is why it is so important to flatten the curve when it comes to the spread of the coronavirus .
As I mentioned previously , that might not result if fewer cases , but what it will do is spread them out over a longer period of time , ensuring that our health care system is not completely overwhelmed .

On Tuesday, Trump told reporters that his message on the coronavirus was, “It will go away, just stay calm.” He added, “Be calm. It’s really working out. And a lot of good things are going to happen.”
That is pretty consistent with what we’ve been hearing from the president and his administration all along. The folks at Daily Kos put together a chart demonstrating how their words have been at odds with reality.
As Mark Sumner noted, that chart was already outdated by the time it was created on Tuesday evening.
On Wednesday morning, it’s already at 1,015 … and that will only stand up for a matter of minutes. It’s not possible to make an accurate chart of something that’s moving as fast as the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 within the United States.
Experts have suggested that the United States is on the same trajectory that we’ve witnessed in Italy.
We’ve known for a while now that Trump isn’t interested in things like science and math. So he’s probably ignorant of something called a geometric sequence and how that relates to a pandemic.
Perhaps that is something you’re not familiar with either. But what if I were to ask you whether you’d prefer to be given $1 million right away, or one penny the first day, double that penny the next day, and then double the previous day’s pennies and so on for a month? If you chose the $1 million up front, you’d have shorted yourself well over $4 million.
You start with a penny the first day and keep doubling each day. Doubling means that we keep multiplying by 2 each day for one month (30 days). On the first day, you get 1 penny On the second day, you get 2 pennies On the third day, you get 4 pennies… Do you see the pattern yet? On the fourth day, you get 8 pennies… So on the thirtieth day, you get…536,870,912 pennies, or $5,368,709.12. That’s a lot more than a million dollars, even just counting the amount you get on that one day!
One of the more common ways of talking about this kind of exponential growth is to use an old legend about the rice and the chessboard, which is believed to have originated in India.
“A wise old ruler wanted to reward his servant for an act of extraordinary bravery. The servant said: ‘Master I ask you for just one thing. Take your chessboard and place on the first square one grain of rice. On the first day I will take this grain home to feed my family. On the second day place on the second square 2 grains for me to take home. On the third day cover the third square with four grains for me to take. Each day double the number of grains you give me until you have placed rice on every square of the chessboard. Then my reward will be complete.’ The wise old ruler replied: ‘This sounds like a small price to pay for your act of incredible bravery, I will ask my servants to do as you ask immediately.’
Given that there are 64 squares on a chessboard, it is unlikely that the wise old ruler made it that far.
On day 54, the servant is due to have collected a total of 5.22 x 1011 kg of rice, exceeding modern day annual worldwide rice production. In ancient times rice production was much less, meaning that the wise ruler had been outwitted by the servant long before this point.
Of course, someone tried to visualize that one on Youtube.
With that, we’re all a lot smarter about the math involved in a pandemic, but perhaps even more terrified. But this is why it is so important to flatten the curve when it comes to the spread of the coronavirus. As I mentioned previously, that might not result if fewer cases, but what it will do is spread them out over a longer period of time, ensuring that our health care system is not completely overwhelmed.


Biden’s Secret Antidote

If you ’ re a mom , you are used to living with uncertainty .
A child wakes up with a fever , throwing your workday into chaos .
You hit unexpected traffic on the way home from work , and quickly call whoever you can think of to pick up your kid before day care closes .
You recognize that some things are beyond your control , and you garner your resources—your partners , friends , and neighbors—to power through the moment .
You know what it means to pivot , pirouette , and rise to the occasion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ tolerance for stress .
Trump ’ s tweets shock you .
His policies horrify you : putting children in cages , nominating Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court , pulling out of the Paris climate accord , threatening war with Iran .
The list goes on .
The president has already challenged your threshold for trauma .
Then came the novel coronavirus , entering stage right and adding a whole new category of worry to your list of concerns .
This level of mom anxiety and uncertainty is not sustainable .
Right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just about anything for calm , stable , and trustworthy leadership .
And that ’ s where Joe Biden comes in .
After surviving three years of Donald Trump , the moms have spoken .
A few weeks into the 2020 primary season , Democratic women—especially those 45 and older—have made clear that they prefer the former vice president , who outperformed Sanders by 12 percent among female voters and 43 percent among middle-aged voters .
The mothers of this country want sturdy governance , unwavering institutions , and law and order .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a revolution .
I should know .
I ’ m one of them .
When we look back at how the Democratic Party coalesced around Joe Biden in the days before and after Super Tuesday , we will recognize that coronavirus had a significant role .
Sure , Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar each realized after poor showings in South Carolina that they had no viable path toward the nomination .
Plus , they knew that more moderate Democrats staying in the race would factionalize most of the party while clearing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plurality of delegates .
All true .
But the emergence of a genuine crisis has clarified what is really at stake in this election .
We have two men in their late 70s making their cases to go head-to-head against Trump .
One septuagenarian wants a revolution , yells red-faced at his opponents , and wants to scrap the gains from the Affordable Care Act for something bigger and bolder .
He also just survived a heart attack .
The other septuagenarian tears up when he recounts stories of losing his son , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , wants to build from Obamacare ’ s successes , and has overcome a lifelong stutter .
In short , Biden has earned the empathy and affection of mothers in ways that Sanders simply hasn ’ t .
More importantly , Biden has earned our trust : He served as vice president in a functioning , scandal-less administration ; he led the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ; he introduced and shepherded the Violence Against Women Act ; he fought the National Rifle Association to pass the Brady Bill and ban assault weapons ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of campus sexual assault reform .
It ’ s no wonder , then , that moms view Biden as the safest bet .
Coronavirus has given him a timely and much-needed boost .
And because women ’ s desire to oust Trump—62 percent of women disapprove of how he is handling his job as president , according to a Quinnipiac poll—has become so closely tied to our health and the health of our families , Bernie ’ s Bros can not compete with Joe ’ s Mamas .
Indeed , Super Tuesday exit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from men than women ( Biden was fairly evenly supported between the genders ) .
But women turn out more to vote than men—approximately 60 percent of 2020 primary voters have been women .
AP VoteCast says the Democratic presidential primaries are “ all about what women want.
” Think about their current plight : On fearing the collapse of democracy , moms now have to worry about a global pandemic hitting their communities .
They are constantly asking themselves : Did I buy enough hand sanitizer , toilet paper , and boxed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cancelled and I can ’ t get to work ?
Should we keep our 10-year-old ’ s birthday party this weekend or do we need to cancel ?
What happens if my company is losing so much business that they can ’ t afford me anymore ?
To add insult to injury , we simply can ’ t trust—nor do we have time to hyper-analyze—the Pollyanna coronavirus information coming out of the Trump administration .
The results have already been staggering .
And each day the financial markets tumble even further .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our government to give us the facts .
We long for the days when someone in charged managed a crisis with science , a pandemic czar , a credible CDC Director , and a whole of government approach .
Early in his presidency , Trump closed an entire office dedicated to global pandemics for no good reason other than to save money .
Look how well that has worked out .
All of this has worked to Biden ’ s advantage over Sanders .
Most voters , especially older female ones , want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normalcy to the country while advancing needed progressive causes .
They don ’ t want another destabilizer in chief .
This week ’ s election results in Michigan and elsewhere confirm that in a contest between a revolution and the restoration of security and safety , the latter will win out .
In other words , it ’ s Biden for the moms .
Our mama-bear instincts have been activated to protect our families .
Now , we are unstoppable in the face of a health crisis .
( Just ask the D.C. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two weeks skiing across Norway to raise awareness—and $ 1 million—for her daughter ’ s rare genetic disease . )
Sanders may have had an online army of Bernie Bros touting his ideas and knocking down the opposition .
Offline , however , the bros are no match for the moms .
The Trump administration ’ s incompetence and dishonesty have unleashed fury in the stay-at-home mom , the activist mom , the double-shift mom , and the high-powered mom .
Women all across this nation are on a singular mission to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kamala Harris frequently said that “ Justice is on the ballot ” in 2020 .
She repeated that mantra again this week in Detroit as she campaigned for Biden .
If he ’ s smart , Biden will borrow that slogan , and adjust it for our new normal : “ Our nation ’ s health is on the ballot.
” So much has crystallized over the last couple of weeks : our mental health , physical health , and economic health are all on the ballot .
The moms want Trump out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than ready to rise to the occasion .

If you’re a mom, you are used to living with uncertainty. A child wakes up with a fever, throwing your workday into chaos. You hit unexpected traffic on the way home from work, and quickly call whoever you can think of to pick up your kid before day care closes. You recognize that some things are beyond your control, and you garner your resources—your partners, friends, and neighbors—to power through the moment. You know what it means to pivot, pirouette, and rise to the occasion.
The last few years have tested your tolerance for stress. Trump’s tweets shock you. His policies horrify you: putting children in cages, nominating Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, pulling out of the Paris climate accord, threatening war with Iran. The list goes on. The president has already challenged your threshold for trauma. Then came the novel coronavirus, entering stage right and adding a whole new category of worry to your list of concerns.
This level of mom anxiety and uncertainty is not sustainable. Right now, moms all across America would give just about anything for calm, stable, and trustworthy leadership. And that’s where Joe Biden comes in.
After surviving three years of Donald Trump, the moms have spoken. A few weeks into the 2020 primary season, Democratic women—especially those 45 and older—have made clear that they prefer the former vice president, who outperformed Sanders by 12 percent among female voters and 43 percent among middle-aged voters. The mothers of this country want sturdy governance, unwavering institutions, and law and order. What they absolutely don’t want is a revolution. I should know. I’m one of them.
When we look back at how the Democratic Party coalesced around Joe Biden in the days before and after Super Tuesday, we will recognize that coronavirus had a significant role. Sure, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar each realized after poor showings in South Carolina that they had no viable path toward the nomination. Plus, they knew that more moderate Democrats staying in the race would factionalize most of the party while clearing the way for Bernie Sanders to win a plurality of delegates. All true. But the emergence of a genuine crisis has clarified what is really at stake in this election.
We have two men in their late 70s making their cases to go head-to-head against Trump. One septuagenarian wants a revolution, yells red-faced at his opponents, and wants to scrap the gains from the Affordable Care Act for something bigger and bolder. He also just survived a heart attack. The other septuagenarian tears up when he recounts stories of losing his son, literally smiles at and embraces his supporters, wants to build from Obamacare’s successes, and has overcome a lifelong stutter. In short, Biden has earned the empathy and affection of mothers in ways that Sanders simply hasn’t.
More importantly, Biden has earned our trust: He served as vice president in a functioning, scandal-less administration; he led the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; he introduced and shepherded the Violence Against Women Act; he fought the National Rifle Association to pass the Brady Bill and ban assault weapons; and he’s been a champion of campus sexual assault reform. It’s no wonder, then, that moms view Biden as the safest bet. Coronavirus has given him a timely and much-needed boost. And because women’s desire to oust Trump—62 percent of women disapprove of how he is handling his job as president, according to a Quinnipiac poll—has become so closely tied to our health and the health of our families, Bernie’s Bros cannot compete with Joe’s Mamas.
Indeed, Super Tuesday exit polls showed that Sanders amassed more support from men than women (Biden was fairly evenly supported between the genders). But women turn out more to vote than men—approximately 60 percent of 2020 primary voters have been women. AP VoteCast says the Democratic presidential primaries are “all about what women want.”
Think about their current plight: On fearing the collapse of democracy, moms now have to worry about a global pandemic hitting their communities. They are constantly asking themselves: Did I buy enough hand sanitizer, toilet paper, and boxed mac-and-cheese? What happens if school gets cancelled and I can’t get to work? Should we keep our 10-year-old’s birthday party this weekend or do we need to cancel? What happens if my company is losing so much business that they can’t afford me anymore?
To add insult to injury, we simply can’t trust—nor do we have time to hyper-analyze—the Pollyanna coronavirus information coming out of the Trump administration. The results have already been staggering. And each day the financial markets tumble even further.
We need to be able to count on our government to give us the facts. We long for the days when someone in charged managed a crisis with science, a pandemic czar, a credible CDC Director, and a whole of government approach. Early in his presidency, Trump closed an entire office dedicated to global pandemics for no good reason other than to save money. Look how well that has worked out.
All of this has worked to Biden’s advantage over Sanders. Most voters, especially older female ones, want someone who can restore a sense of normalcy to the country while advancing needed progressive causes. They don’t want another destabilizer in chief.
This week’s election results in Michigan and elsewhere confirm that in a contest between a revolution and the restoration of security and safety, the latter will win out. In other words, it’s Biden for the moms. Our mama-bear instincts have been activated to protect our families. Now, we are unstoppable in the face of a health crisis. (Just ask the D.C. mom who spent a year training and two weeks skiing across Norway to raise awareness—and $1 million—for her daughter’s rare genetic disease.)
Sanders may have had an online army of Bernie Bros touting his ideas and knocking down the opposition. Offline, however, the bros are no match for the moms. The Trump administration’s incompetence and dishonesty have unleashed fury in the stay-at-home mom, the activist mom, the double-shift mom, and the high-powered mom. Women all across this nation are on a singular mission to stop the madness.
During her campaign, Kamala Harris frequently said that “Justice is on the ballot” in 2020. She repeated that mantra again this week in Detroit as she campaigned for Biden. If he’s smart, Biden will borrow that slogan, and adjust it for our new normal: “Our nation’s health is on the ballot.” So much has crystallized over the last couple of weeks: our mental health, physical health, and economic health are all on the ballot. The moms want Trump out and Biden in. And they are more than ready to rise to the occasion.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-11--The 2020 Election Is Not a Repeat of 2016

The results from Tuesday ’ s primaries indicate that Joe Biden will likely be the Democratic nominee for the presidency in 2020 .
Blowouts in Mississippi and Missouri were combined with a clear win in Michigan and a virtual tie in Washington .
The candidates split wins in Utah and North Dakota .
Resting primarily on Biden ’ s wins in Michigan and Missouri , pundits are now recognizing the coalition that Joe built , which includes not only African Americans and suburbanites , but also white working-class and rural voters .
With that awareness , questions have begun to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support—especially among the latter—from 2016 to 2020 .
The most common answer is that in 2016 , he benefited from an anti-Clinton sentiment .
My colleague Martin Longman has made a similar case very eloquently—focused primarily on suburban voters .
While I suspect there is some truth to those arguments , I think that things are more complex than they indicate .
Martin made it clear that his conclusions are based on a negative reaction to a possible Clinton dynasty , which is not something that Jonathan Chait acknowledged in suggesting that voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with that is the misogyny that keeps people from supporting a female candidate .
But if that is all there was to it , we ’ d be talking about Sanders benefiting in 2016 from an “ anti-woman ” sentiment .
Most everyone making this argument is talking about something more personal than that .
I want to be clear that the problem I have with placing so much emphasis on Clinton is , in part , influenced by a gut reaction to once again hearing that it was the woman ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the idea that what led to Sanders ’ rise in 2016 is all about Hillary ’ s baggage .
That tends to elicit a defensive reaction , but it also leads me to ask some questions that might have otherwise been overlooked .
The primary problem with these arguments is that they are based on an assumption that the 2020 primary is merely a replica of 2016 , with the one difference being that Biden has replaced Clinton .
I would posit two major differences between then and now .
The big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary , no one seriously contemplated the possibility that Donald Trump would win the presidency .
That is a mistake that I made , along with almost everyone else .
Four years later , we ’ ve all lived through the chaos and nightmare that has been wrought by the narcissist who occupies the Oval Office .
The candidacy of Bernie Sanders has always been about fomenting a revolution that would basically burn the house down—including the so-called “ Democratic establishment.
” That might have sounded plausible to some voters in 2016 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially in the midst of a pandemic , is likely to have made a revolution much less attractive .
Watching how Trump destroyed the Republican establishment isn ’ t something many Democrats want to replicate with their own party right now .
The second thing that has changed since the 2016 primary is that Democratic voters have become wiser .
From the moment Clinton announced her candidacy , she was treated to a massive disinformation campaign to paint her as corrupt .
That didn ’ t just come from Donald Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian interference , major media outlets , and the Sanders campaign .
To the extent that she was “ detested , ” that was one of the main reasons .
We ’ ve already seen the same thing attempted with Biden .
It all started with Burisma and his son Hunter , but that doesn ’ t seem to have gained much traction with Democratic voters .
We ’ ve seen a similar attempt to paint Biden as an elder who is in “ cognitive decline.
” And while that one was clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to continue with Trump ’ s campaign , there was some serious push-back to the claim .
Overall , a lot of Democrats and some in the media are doing a better job of recognizing the reality of disinformation campaigns in 2020 than they did in 2016 .
It is important to recognize that going forward and remain vigilant .
In order to do that , we need to acknowledge how it impacted Clinton ’ s campaign in 2016 .
As is almost always the case , understanding why Biden is doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 means recognizing the complex set of factors that are at work in any political campaign .
There is obviously some truth to the argument that there was an anti-Clinton factor at work four years ago .
But it is important to dig a little deeper and understand how that happened and what has changed since then .

The results from Tuesday’s primaries indicate that Joe Biden will likely be the Democratic nominee for the presidency in 2020. Blowouts in Mississippi and Missouri were combined with a clear win in Michigan and a virtual tie in Washington. The candidates split wins in Utah and North Dakota.
Resting primarily on Biden’s wins in Michigan and Missouri, pundits are now recognizing the coalition that Joe built, which includes not only African Americans and suburbanites, but also white working-class and rural voters. With that awareness, questions have begun to arise about what happened to Sanders’ support—especially among the latter—from 2016 to 2020. The most common answer is that in 2016, he benefited from an anti-Clinton sentiment.
My colleague Martin Longman has made a similar case very eloquently—focused primarily on suburban voters. While I suspect there is some truth to those arguments, I think that things are more complex than they indicate.
Martin made it clear that his conclusions are based on a negative reaction to a possible Clinton dynasty, which is not something that Jonathan Chait acknowledged in suggesting that voters “simply detested her.” Mixed in with that is the misogyny that keeps people from supporting a female candidate. But if that is all there was to it, we’d be talking about Sanders benefiting in 2016 from an “anti-woman” sentiment. Most everyone making this argument is talking about something more personal than that.
I want to be clear that the problem I have with placing so much emphasis on Clinton is, in part, influenced by a gut reaction to once again hearing that it was the woman’s fault. I have an immediate reaction to the idea that what led to Sanders’ rise in 2016 is all about Hillary’s baggage. That tends to elicit a defensive reaction, but it also leads me to ask some questions that might have otherwise been overlooked.
The primary problem with these arguments is that they are based on an assumption that the 2020 primary is merely a replica of 2016, with the one difference being that Biden has replaced Clinton. I would posit two major differences between then and now.
The big change is that, during the 2016 primary, no one seriously contemplated the possibility that Donald Trump would win the presidency. That is a mistake that I made, along with almost everyone else. Four years later, we’ve all lived through the chaos and nightmare that has been wrought by the narcissist who occupies the Oval Office.
The candidacy of Bernie Sanders has always been about fomenting a revolution that would basically burn the house down—including the so-called “Democratic establishment.” That might have sounded plausible to some voters in 2016. But the chaos of a Trump presidency, especially in the midst of a pandemic, is likely to have made a revolution much less attractive. Watching how Trump destroyed the Republican establishment isn’t something many Democrats want to replicate with their own party right now.
The second thing that has changed since the 2016 primary is that Democratic voters have become wiser. From the moment Clinton announced her candidacy, she was treated to a massive disinformation campaign to paint her as corrupt. That didn’t just come from Donald Trump and the Republicans, it was amplified by Russian interference, major media outlets, and the Sanders campaign. To the extent that she was “detested,” that was one of the main reasons.
We’ve already seen the same thing attempted with Biden. It all started with Burisma and his son Hunter, but that doesn’t seem to have gained much traction with Democratic voters. We’ve seen a similar attempt to paint Biden as an elder who is in “cognitive decline.” And while that one was clearly picked up by Sanders supporters and is likely to continue with Trump’s campaign, there was some serious push-back to the claim.
Overall, a lot of Democrats and some in the media are doing a better job of recognizing the reality of disinformation campaigns in 2020 than they did in 2016. It is important to recognize that going forward and remain vigilant. In order to do that, we need to acknowledge how it impacted Clinton’s campaign in 2016.
As is almost always the case, understanding why Biden is doing better against Sanders that Clinton did in 2016 means recognizing the complex set of factors that are at work in any political campaign. There is obviously some truth to the argument that there was an anti-Clinton factor at work four years ago. But it is important to dig a little deeper and understand how that happened and what has changed since then.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-11--Biden is Exposing the Hidden Anti-Clinton Vote of 2016

When I did my post-mortem of the 2016 election , I focused most heavily on Pennsylvania , both because it was the most shocking result of the night and because it ’ s where I live and the state I understand the best .
My first discovery was that Hillary Clinton had netted about the same vote advantage out of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh as Barack Obama had four years earlier .
Any loss of enthusiasm from the urban black vote had been offset by Hillary pulling in more white votes in the cities .
She had also significantly outperformed Barack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turning hundreds of historically red districts blue .
Those two metrics were supposed to guarantee victory to a Democrat in a statewide race .
But Clinton had not just done worse than Obama , she had managed to lose by about 40,000 votes .
The full explanation for that wasn ’ t as easy to discover as you might think .
It was easy to see that Clinton had been slaughtered in the “ T , ” the largely rural and mountainous counties in the center and northeast and west corners of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the southwest .
In many counties that Romney had won with 55 or 60 percent of the vote , Trump carried 70 or 80 percent .
While these counties often had almost laughably few votes , these margins added up to wipe out Clinton ’ s gain in the suburbs and erase her urban advantage .
The other key factor in her loss was harder to detect .
Yes , she had outperformed any Democrat before her in the suburbs , but she really should have done even better .
Without her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 , the Philadelphia suburbs fell into Democratic control for the first time since before the Civil War .
It ’ s impossible to know exactly why Clinton didn ’ t do better in the suburbs , but it was certainly a combination of two factors .
One is the sexism that she faced in every state and every district .
Unfortunately , simply being a woman put a cap on how well she could possibly do .
This was probably less of a factor in the suburbs than elsewhere , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the residual resistance to her as a member of a political dynasty .
Bill Clinton had begun the process of turning the Philly suburbs blue , but there were still countless Tom Ridge/Arlen Specter Republicans there who had spent the 1990s implacably opposed to his presidency .
Old habits die hard , and Hillary was probably about the least ideal politician in the country for winning over their votes .
Simply put , an equally capable and credentialed male candidate not named Clinton would have run up bigger margins in the suburbs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidacy and carried the Keystone State .
The generic anti-Clinton vote was the hidden factor that didn ’ t show clearly in the numbers .
It ’ s now becoming clear that this wasn ’ t just a factor in the general election , but a large part of the explanation for why Bernie Sanders had done so well in the primaries .
Johnathan Chait is realizing this now , although he ’ s still putting all the onus on Hillary without placing enough of the fault with Bill : It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her husband , but anti-Clintonism in both the general electorate and within the Democratic Party was something she inherited from him .
It ’ s becoming easier to measure its impact now that we ’ re seeing Bernie Sanders run against someone who isn ’ t named Clinton .
Let ’ s look at the results from the Michigan primary .
Here ’ s Tim Alberta of Politico , looking at the suburban Detroit results : The story isn ’ t just the voting spike , but Biden ’ s concurrent performance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ points in Oakland County , where Clinton beat Sanders by just 4 points in 2016 .
And whereas Clinton won roughly 92,000 votes there , Biden is on pace to win more than 150,000 .
It was a similar story in neighboring Macomb County , a more downscale suburb of Detroit , where turnout soared and Biden vastly outperformed Clinton .
Nearly 130,000 people participated in the Democratic primary , up 33 percent from 2016 .
And whereas four years ago Clinton and Sanders fought Macomb to a virtual draw , with Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders by 17 points , collecting more than 66,000 votes in the process .
Biden ’ s performance among the wealthier suburbanites in these counties should be highly worrisome to Trump .
These voters—particularly whites with college degrees—are accepting of the former vice president in a way they never were of Clinton .
Four years ago , exit polling of Michigan ’ s primary showed Sanders winning college-educated whites by 11 points ; Biden beat Sanders among that demographic by 14 points on Tuesday , a 25-point swing .
The explanation isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these folks over the last four years , but that he was never all that popular in the first place .
A large percentage of his vote was cast not for him , but against Bill and Hillary Clinton .
Joe Biden doesn ’ t carry the same kind of baggage and he doesn ’ t have to worry that sexists won ’ t support him because he ’ s a woman .
Of course , this helps Biden everywhere , not just in the suburbs .
It will limit his rural and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combine this with Trump ’ s slippage in the suburbs over his first term , a re-run of the 2016 election that simply substitutes Biden for Clinton could be a complete blowout in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan .
The only caveat here , and it ’ s a big one , is that Biden has done so incredibly poorly with young voters that he might not inspire them to turn out in big numbers or prevent them from voting third-party if they do .
Yet , it seems highly unlikely that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over and give their support to him , and that will limit any potential damage .

When I did my post-mortem of the 2016 election, I focused most heavily on Pennsylvania, both because it was the most shocking result of the night and because it’s where I live and the state I understand the best. My first discovery was that Hillary Clinton had netted about the same vote advantage out of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh as Barack Obama had four years earlier. Any loss of enthusiasm from the urban black vote had been offset by Hillary pulling in more white votes in the cities. She had also significantly outperformed Barack Obama in the vote-rich Philadelphia suburbs, turning hundreds of historically red districts blue. Those two metrics were supposed to guarantee victory to a Democrat in a statewide race. But Clinton had not just done worse than Obama, she had managed to lose by about 40,000 votes. The full explanation for that wasn’t as easy to discover as you might think.
It was easy to see that Clinton had been slaughtered in the “T,” the largely rural and mountainous counties in the center and northeast and west corners of the state. She had also done disastrously in the southwest. In many counties that Romney had won with 55 or 60 percent of the vote, Trump carried 70 or 80 percent. While these counties often had almost laughably few votes, these margins added up to wipe out Clinton’s gain in the suburbs and erase her urban advantage. The other key factor in her loss was harder to detect. Yes, she had outperformed any Democrat before her in the suburbs, but she really should have done even better. Without her serving as a drag on the ticket in 2018, the Philadelphia suburbs fell into Democratic control for the first time since before the Civil War.
It’s impossible to know exactly why Clinton didn’t do better in the suburbs, but it was certainly a combination of two factors. One is the sexism that she faced in every state and every district. Unfortunately, simply being a woman put a cap on how well she could possibly do. This was probably less of a factor in the suburbs than elsewhere, but it played a role. The other was the residual resistance to her as a member of a political dynasty. Bill Clinton had begun the process of turning the Philly suburbs blue, but there were still countless Tom Ridge/Arlen Specter Republicans there who had spent the 1990s implacably opposed to his presidency. Old habits die hard, and Hillary was probably about the least ideal politician in the country for winning over their votes.
Simply put, an equally capable and credentialed male candidate not named Clinton would have run up bigger margins in the suburbs due to Trump’s uniquely alienating candidacy and carried the Keystone State. The generic anti-Clinton vote was the hidden factor that didn’t show clearly in the numbers.
It’s now becoming clear that this wasn’t just a factor in the general election, but a large part of the explanation for why Bernie Sanders had done so well in the primaries. Johnathan Chait is realizing this now, although he’s still putting all the onus on Hillary without placing enough of the fault with Bill:
The factor that actually explains 2016, as some of us chagrined liberals insisted at the time, was Hillary Clinton’s idiosyncratic personal unpopularity. It turned out large portions of the public, even of the Democratic electorate, simply detested her. Sexism is obviously a very large reason, along with Clinton’s own mistakes and the media’s frequently unfair coverage of her. But the important thing is that Clinton’s toxic standing among wide swaths of the electorate was the gravitational force causing the phenomenon Bernie fans misread. Clinton hatred allowed Sanders to draw more than 40 percent of the primary vote, and Clinton hatred allowed Donald Trump to narrowly win.
It’s true that Hillary was less popular than her husband, but anti-Clintonism in both the general electorate and within the Democratic Party was something she inherited from him. It’s becoming easier to measure its impact now that we’re seeing Bernie Sanders run against someone who isn’t named Clinton.
Let’s look at the results from the Michigan primary. Here’s Tim Alberta of Politico, looking at the suburban Detroit results:
The story isn’t just the voting spike, but Biden’s concurrent performance. Unofficially, he beat Sanders by 22 points in Oakland County, where Clinton beat Sanders by just 4 points in 2016. And whereas Clinton won roughly 92,000 votes there, Biden is on pace to win more than 150,000. It was a similar story in neighboring Macomb County, a more downscale suburb of Detroit, where turnout soared and Biden vastly outperformed Clinton. Nearly 130,000 people participated in the Democratic primary, up 33 percent from 2016. And whereas four years ago Clinton and Sanders fought Macomb to a virtual draw, with Clinton winning some 47,500 votes, Biden topped Sanders by 17 points, collecting more than 66,000 votes in the process. Biden’s performance among the wealthier suburbanites in these counties should be highly worrisome to Trump. These voters—particularly whites with college degrees—are accepting of the former vice president in a way they never were of Clinton. Four years ago, exit polling of Michigan’s primary showed Sanders winning college-educated whites by 11 points; Biden beat Sanders among that demographic by 14 points on Tuesday, a 25-point swing.
The explanation isn’t that Sanders became less popular with these folks over the last four years, but that he was never all that popular in the first place. A large percentage of his vote was cast not for him, but against Bill and Hillary Clinton. Joe Biden doesn’t carry the same kind of baggage and he doesn’t have to worry that sexists won’t support him because he’s a woman.
Of course, this helps Biden everywhere, not just in the suburbs. It will limit his rural and small-town losses, too. When you combine this with Trump’s slippage in the suburbs over his first term, a re-run of the 2016 election that simply substitutes Biden for Clinton could be a complete blowout in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan.
The only caveat here, and it’s a big one, is that Biden has done so incredibly poorly with young voters that he might not inspire them to turn out in big numbers or prevent them from voting third-party if they do. Yet, it seems highly unlikely that Trump will convince many of them to cross over and give their support to him, and that will limit any potential damage.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-11--With Coronavirus, the Importance of Flattening the Curve

As the coronavirus continues to spread in the United States , there is a lot of uncertainty about how big it will get .
According to infectious disease epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch at Harvard , it ’ s “ plausible ” that 20 to 60 percent of adults will be infected with Covid-19 disease .
So far , 80 percent of cases globally have been mild , but if the case fatality rate is around 1 percent ( which several experts say it may be ) , a scenario is possible of tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 60 percent of adults getting the virus is huge .
But even more important than that is how fast it happens .
At this point , with the virus spreading in America , the top priority is making sure the health care system avoids being flooded with very sick patients who need ventilators and intensive care .
“ From a US standpoint , you want to prevent any place from becoming the next Wuhan , ” says Tom Frieden , who led the CDC under President Barack Obama .
“ What that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not able to prevent widespread transmission , we want to prevent explosive transmission and anything that overwhelms the health care system.
” Efforts to slow down the spread of the virus are referred to as “ flattening the curve.
” They may not result if fewer cases , but simply spread them out over a longer period of time .
Doing so is less likely to overwhelm hospitals and our health care system .
As we hear more announcements about canceled events , school closures , and travel restrictions , those are all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect of such measures has been captured by this graph , which is making the rounds .
Complying with these protective measures isn ’ t simply important for those who are sick or elderly .
[ E ] ven if you ’ re young and healthy , it ’ s your job to follow social distancing measures to avoid spreading it to others , and keep the epidemic in slow motion .
“ The more young and healthy people are sick at the same time , the more old people will be sick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be on the health care system , ” said Landon .
Hospitals filled with Covid-19 patients won ’ t just strain to care for those patients — doctors may also have to prioritize them over others .
“ Right now there ’ s always a doctor available when you need one , but that may not be the case if we ’ re not careful , ” says Landon .
In light of that , both Sanders and Biden cancelled rallies that had been scheduled to take place in Ohio Tuesday night .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ advice .
As events , schools , and businesses shut down in response to concerns about the coronavirus , it is important for all of us to pay heed and do our part to flatten the curve so as not to overtax our health care system .

As the coronavirus continues to spread in the United States, there is a lot of uncertainty about how big it will get.
According to infectious disease epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch at Harvard, it’s “plausible” that 20 to 60 percent of adults will be infected with Covid-19 disease. So far, 80 percent of cases globally have been mild, but if the case fatality rate is around 1 percent (which several experts say it may be), a scenario is possible of tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths in the US alone.
The difference between 20 and 60 percent of adults getting the virus is huge. But even more important than that is how fast it happens.
At this point, with the virus spreading in America, the top priority is making sure the health care system avoids being flooded with very sick patients who need ventilators and intensive care. “From a US standpoint, you want to prevent any place from becoming the next Wuhan,” says Tom Frieden, who led the CDC under President Barack Obama. “What that means is even if we’re not able to prevent widespread transmission, we want to prevent explosive transmission and anything that overwhelms the health care system.”
Efforts to slow down the spread of the virus are referred to as “flattening the curve.” They may not result if fewer cases, but simply spread them out over a longer period of time. Doing so is less likely to overwhelm hospitals and our health care system.
As we hear more announcements about canceled events, school closures, and travel restrictions, those are all attempts to flatten the curve. The effect of such measures has been captured by this graph, which is making the rounds.
Complying with these protective measures isn’t simply important for those who are sick or elderly.
[E]ven if you’re young and healthy, it’s your job to follow social distancing measures to avoid spreading it to others, and keep the epidemic in slow motion. “The more young and healthy people are sick at the same time, the more old people will be sick, and the more pressure there will be on the health care system,” said Landon. Hospitals filled with Covid-19 patients won’t just strain to care for those patients — doctors may also have to prioritize them over others. “Right now there’s always a doctor available when you need one, but that may not be the case if we’re not careful,” says Landon.
In light of that, both Sanders and Biden cancelled rallies that had been scheduled to take place in Ohio Tuesday night. Hillary Clinton weighed in with some good advice.
As events, schools, and businesses shut down in response to concerns about the coronavirus, it is important for all of us to pay heed and do our part to flatten the curve so as not to overtax our health care system.
Stay well, everyone!


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-11--The Anomaly of Taiwanese Democracy

The Anomaly of Taiwanese Democracy

At a moment when democratic governance seems increasingly under strain in countries around the world , Taiwan is a rare bright spot .
Since emerging from decades of martial law in 1987 , the island has held seven national elections unmarred by significant irregularities and experienced multiple peaceful transfers of power between the incumbent Democratic Progressive Party ( DPP ) and its principal rival , the Kuomintang ( KMT ) .
During that time , Taiwanese politics has proven resilient in grappling with thorny issues such as same sex marriage , the rights of indigenous peoples , and reliance on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been the subject of civil public debate and incorporated into the platforms of political parties .
Last month , Taiwan ’ s democracy successfully conducted what was arguably its most high-stakes election to date , which resulted in a second term for DPP President Tsai Ing-Wen and a renewed majority for the DPP in Taiwan ’ s legislature .
Taiwan ’ s democratic resiliency is especially notable in light of the unrelenting hostility it faces from the government of mainland China , which views the island as a renegade province and has warned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declare independence will be met by force .
In recent years , Beijing has engaged in a sustained pressure campaign to persuade the Taiwanese public that reunification is the only viable future for them , including information warfare aimed at sowing division in Taiwanese society , selective limitations on trade aimed at weakening the island ’ s economy , bellicose rhetoric threatening military action , and aggressive diplomatic measures designed to isolate and humiliate Taiwan on the international stage .
In the run up to January ’ s election , Chinese authorities intensified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taiwanese voters from supporting the DPP , which is wary of closer relations with the mainland , in favor of the KMT , which favors them .
But these intimidation tactics appear to have backfired by souring public opinion towards Beijing .
China also did itself no favors with its response to protests in Hong Kong , which Tsai and her DPP colleagues used as a powerful cautionary tale .
Tsai won the largest victory of any presidential candidate in the history of the island .
In effect , Taiwan ’ s voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and responded with a vote of confidence in their democracy and way of life .
It was a powerful message , and more than a little brave .
But another crucial factor in Taiwan ’ s defiance was the United States , which has provided Taiwan ’ s government with arms and for decades sought to deter Chinese aggression against the island .
This has created a degree of reassurance for Taipei in the face of China ’ s overwhelming military dominance .
U.S. support for Taiwan has its origins in the Cold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ framework developed when China was comparatively weak and the top U.S. foreign policy priority was containing the Soviet Union .
Today , however , that rational looks increasingly outdated .
The U.S.S.R. is gone , and China has grown more assertive and militarily formidable .
It raises the question : how much should Taiwanese democracy matter to Washington ?
The answer , in short , is a lot .
While Cold-War logic may no longer apply , the United States faces a new threat in the rise of illiberalism .
Autocratic states seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own political model .
Even established democracies are electing parties and politicians who seem intent on tearing down liberal structures .
In this climate , the success of Taiwan ’ s democratic experiment could not be more vital , both to the United States and to the world .
It is well worth defending .
Taiwan is an anomaly in the international system .
It is a self-governing island with a distinct cultural identity , robust political institutions , a sophisticated military , and a mature , globalized economy .
And yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries and a dwindling number of international institutions and major corporations .
Taiwan ’ s 23 million citizens can travel the world on passports issued by Taiwanese authorities and exchange New Taiwanese Dollars for other currencies , but in most cases they will be doing so in countries that do not recognize the government whose name is printed on those documents .
This situation is a function of Taiwan ’ s complex past and the evolving , often ambivalent views of its residents towards their national identity and their relationship to mainland China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ descended from the authoritarian regime of General Chiang Kai-Shek , the leader of the KMT , and its associated nationalist military forces during the Chinese Civil War .
In 1949 , Mao Zedong ’ s Communist forces drove Chiang and the KMT from mainland China to Taiwan .
Chiang then imposed martial law and exercised autocratic rule over Taiwan ’ s inhabitants for the next 38 years .
Eventually , the government gradually democratized .
In 1996 , the island held its first direct presidential elections .
Chiang and other KMT leaders viewed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mainland China in exile , a belief reflected in the formal name of Taiwan ’ s government , the Republic of China ( ROC ) .
For three decades , most world powers including the United States treated Taiwan ’ s government on these same terms , allowing Taipei to represent China at the United Nations and other international institutions .
The notion that the Taiwan government could represent the historical nation state of China was one of the more strained artifacts of the Cold War , and it collapsed in the 1970s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joined most other world powers in derecognizing Tapei .
In recognizing Beijing , however , the U.S. did not abandon Taiwan .
Indeed , to a far greater extent than most bilateral relationships , U.S.-Taiwan ties are codified into law .
Under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 , the United States affirms that it will treat “ Taiwan ’ s governing authorities ” the same as other foreign countries under U.S. law .
The act also provides that the policy of the United States is to foster close commercial and cultural ties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any attempt to settle the question of Taiwan ’ s international status by non-peaceful means as a “ matter of grave concern.
” To realize the first of these goals , the TRA established a quasi-embassy in Taipei known as the American Institute in Taiwan .
As to the second , the act requires the United States to provide Taiwan with military supplies and services .
In addition , the TRA declares that the United States will “ maintain the capacity ” to defend Taiwan .
When Congress passed the TRA in 1979 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security purpose : Washington wanted to cement its rapprochement with Beijing in the face of Soviet expansionism , but did not want to appear to be selling out an old friend , nor encourage a Chinese takeover of a strategically important landmass .
Furthermore , American military power at the time dwarfed that of China , which had only recently emerged from the political chaos of the cultural revolution , making U.S. assurances credible .
Today , the situation looks quite different .
The Soviet Union exists only in history books , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has evolved from a geopolitical marriage of convenience to a more complex dynamic in which mutual suspicion and resentment are tempered by economic interdependence and the need to cooperate on shared challenges like climate change .
Meanwhile , the PRC ’ s military capabilities have grown in tandem with its economy , making armed conflict with Chinese forces a far more dangerous and costly prospect than it was in the late 1970s .
For these reasons , one prominent commentator has called Taiwan “ the most dangerous example of American foreign-policy insolvency in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t mean invading Taiwan would be a cakewalk , however .
Most military analysts are of the view that attacking Taiwan would be a huge gamble for Beijing .
No degree of military superiority can change the fact that Chinese forces would be attempting the largest amphibious invasion in history , seeking to subdue a hostile population in unforgiving geography , and facing down an enemy that has been preparing for such a contingency for years .
In such circumstances , the prospect of U.S. military support to Taiwan ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zhongnanhai .
At the same time , there is good reason to revisit the underlying rationale for the U.S.-Taiwan relationship .
Four decades onward , the original considerations motivating the TRA are largely obsolete .
The Cold War context of American support to the KMT regime is a distant memory for older Americans , and for younger Americans is an anachronism on par with perestroika or glasnost .
After nearly twenty years of exhausting and pointless war in the Middle East and Afghanistan , it ’ s not wrong to ask whether the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in yet another overseas conflict predicated on strategic reasoning that is largely irrelevant to the major challenges facing the United States today .
If the exigency of the Cold War has faded from view , a new threat to U.S. national interests has taken its place : the rise of authoritarian nationalism .
Today , the United States faces an intensifying global competition between democratic and authoritarian values in a way few would have predicted even a decade ago .
Dissatisfaction with democracy is at record highs , and illiberal—typically right wing—political movements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until recently were viewed as having successfully transitioned away from autocracy , such as Hungary , the Philippines , and Brazil .
Alongside this illiberal resurgence , unambiguously authoritarian states including China have become more assertive in promoting their own models .
These trends should not be mistaken for a new Cold War , but nor are they benign .
The United States will find it harder to pursue its foreign policy objectives in a world where authoritarian states wield great influence .
On a moral level , furthermore , the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a political model that treats repression and xenophobia as legitimate tools in the pursuit of economic growth and social order .
In meeting the challenge of authoritarian nationalism , the United States ’ greatest asset will not be its military strength or even its diplomatic clout .
Instead , it will be the vitality of its democratic allies and partners .
Illiberal movements have succeeded by portraying democratic governance as a messy , corrupt , and ineffective .
Defeating this narrative requires compelling counterexamples of thriving democratic states , especially ones that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressures .
For this reason , Washington should make supporting such states a strategic and moral priority .
One would be hard pressed to imagine a candidate more worthy than Taiwan .
Unlike most other East Asian countries , Taiwan has never experienced democratic backsliding in the face of economic slumps or social unrest .
Just as remarkably , Taiwan ’ s political parties have repeatedly demonstrated that they can accept electoral loss without questioning the legitimacy of the political system .
The island has a strong record on human rights , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and a well-functioning judicial system that has proven capable of defending civil liberties and the rights of minorities .
These accomplishments place Taiwan in stark contrast with mainland China , which under Xi Jinping has sharply curtailed political expression and imprisoned more than a million of its own citizens in concentration camps .
There is , therefore , a strong argument for recentering U.S.-Taiwan ties around shared democratic values to a greater degree than is already the case .
Such a recentering would not necessarily entail dramatic practical changes : U.S. officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , meet with Taiwanese counterparts in Taipei and Washington , and facilitate cultural and economic exchange between the American and Taiwanese publics .
But in justifying and explaining these activities , the United States government should characterize its support to Taiwan as show of solidarity with a fellow democracy and not just a transactional security partnership .
This solidarity could be expressed in official speeches , at diplomatic summits , and new legislation aimed at affirming Taiwan ’ s democratic character and elevating the profile of U.S.-Taiwan relations .
The recently passed Taiwan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for high-level Taiwanese officials to visit the United States and vice-versa , is a useful model .
The United States could even consider pursuing a trade deal with Taiwan on the logic that democracies with high-quality institutions and strong labor and environmental standards deserve enhanced access to U.S. markets .
Beyond the bilateral relationship , the United States should find ways to strengthen Taiwan ’ s global position , facilitate its engagement with the international community , and promote its democratic model .
This would necessarily involve pushing back on China ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the global stage .
Most obviously , the United States should use its outsized influence to arrest and if possible reverse Taiwan ’ s exclusion from international institutions .
In addition , the United States should seek to build platforms for Taiwanese engagement with democratic partners outside of formal institutions .
Finally , while there is little that U.S. authorities can do to stop private companies from erasing Taiwan ’ s sovereignty under pressure from Beijing , there is also nothing stopping them from criticizing the practice , and making such firms pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pursuit of the Chinese market .
In May , when Tsai Ing-Wen is sworn in as president for the second time , she will lead Taiwan into four years of great uncertainty .
While Beijing has responded to the DPP ’ s victory with relative restraint thus far , internal pressures within Chinese politics may drive PRC authorities to act recklessly before the 2022 party conference , in which Xi Jinping is seeking an unprecedented third term as the country ’ s president .
Should Taiwan ’ s independent government be cowed or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrible loss for global democracy , one that would send a troubling message to other states struggling with authoritarian encroachment .
In weighing its relationship with Taipei , the United States needs to ask itself if it is prepared to live in a world without Taiwan ’ s democratic counterexample .

At a moment when democratic governance seems increasingly under strain in countries around the world, Taiwan is a rare bright spot. Since emerging from decades of martial law in 1987, the island has held seven national elections unmarred by significant irregularities and experienced multiple peaceful transfers of power between the incumbent Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and its principal rival, the Kuomintang (KMT). During that time, Taiwanese politics has proven resilient in grappling with thorny issues such as same sex marriage, the rights of indigenous peoples, and reliance on nuclear power, all of which have been the subject of civil public debate and incorporated into the platforms of political parties. Last month, Taiwan’s democracy successfully conducted what was arguably its most high-stakes election to date, which resulted in a second term for DPP President Tsai Ing-Wen and a renewed majority for the DPP in Taiwan’s legislature.
Taiwan’s democratic resiliency is especially notable in light of the unrelenting hostility it faces from the government of mainland China, which views the island as a renegade province and has warned that any attempt by Taiwanese authorities to declare independence will be met by force. In recent years, Beijing has engaged in a sustained pressure campaign to persuade the Taiwanese public that reunification is the only viable future for them, including information warfare aimed at sowing division in Taiwanese society, selective limitations on trade aimed at weakening the island’s economy, bellicose rhetoric threatening military action, and aggressive diplomatic measures designed to isolate and humiliate Taiwan on the international stage.
In the run up to January’s election, Chinese authorities intensified these efforts in an attempt to dissuade Taiwanese voters from supporting the DPP, which is wary of closer relations with the mainland, in favor of the KMT, which favors them. But these intimidation tactics appear to have backfired by souring public opinion towards Beijing. China also did itself no favors with its response to protests in Hong Kong, which Tsai and her DPP colleagues used as a powerful cautionary tale. Tsai won the largest victory of any presidential candidate in the history of the island. In effect, Taiwan’s voters took stock of Beijing’s warning and responded with a vote of confidence in their democracy and way of life. It was a powerful message, and more than a little brave.
But another crucial factor in Taiwan’s defiance was the United States, which has provided Taiwan’s government with arms and for decades sought to deter Chinese aggression against the island. This has created a degree of reassurance for Taipei in the face of China’s overwhelming military dominance.
U.S. support for Taiwan has its origins in the Cold War. It is guided by a framework developed when China was comparatively weak and the top U.S. foreign policy priority was containing the Soviet Union. Today, however, that rational looks increasingly outdated. The U.S.S.R. is gone, and China has grown more assertive and militarily formidable. It raises the question: how much should Taiwanese democracy matter to Washington?
The answer, in short, is a lot. While Cold-War logic may no longer apply, the United States faces a new threat in the rise of illiberalism. Autocratic states seem increasingly emboldened to tout the virtues of their own political model. Even established democracies are electing parties and politicians who seem intent on tearing down liberal structures. In this climate, the success of Taiwan’s democratic experiment could not be more vital, both to the United States and to the world. It is well worth defending.
Taiwan is an anomaly in the international system. It is a self-governing island with a distinct cultural identity, robust political institutions, a sophisticated military, and a mature, globalized economy. And yet its sovereignty is acknowledged by only 14 countries and a dwindling number of international institutions and major corporations. Taiwan’s 23 million citizens can travel the world on passports issued by Taiwanese authorities and exchange New Taiwanese Dollars for other currencies, but in most cases they will be doing so in countries that do not recognize the government whose name is printed on those documents.
This situation is a function of Taiwan’s complex past and the evolving, often ambivalent views of its residents towards their national identity and their relationship to mainland China. The current government of Taiwan is descended from the authoritarian regime of General Chiang Kai-Shek, the leader of the KMT, and its associated nationalist military forces during the Chinese Civil War. In 1949, Mao Zedong’s Communist forces drove Chiang and the KMT from mainland China to Taiwan. Chiang then imposed martial law and exercised autocratic rule over Taiwan’s inhabitants for the next 38 years. Eventually, the government gradually democratized. In 1996, the island held its first direct presidential elections.
Chiang and other KMT leaders viewed their regime as the legitimate government of mainland China in exile, a belief reflected in the formal name of Taiwan’s government, the Republic of China (ROC). For three decades, most world powers including the United States treated Taiwan’s government on these same terms, allowing Taipei to represent China at the United Nations and other international institutions. The notion that the Taiwan government could represent the historical nation state of China was one of the more strained artifacts of the Cold War, and it collapsed in the 1970s. In 1979, the United States joined most other world powers in derecognizing Tapei.
In recognizing Beijing, however, the U.S. did not abandon Taiwan. Indeed, to a far greater extent than most bilateral relationships, U.S.-Taiwan ties are codified into law. Under the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979, the United States affirms that it will treat “Taiwan’s governing authorities” the same as other foreign countries under U.S. law. The act also provides that the policy of the United States is to foster close commercial and cultural ties with the Taiwanese people and to treat any attempt to settle the question of Taiwan’s international status by non-peaceful means as a “matter of grave concern.” To realize the first of these goals, the TRA established a quasi-embassy in Taipei known as the American Institute in Taiwan. As to the second, the act requires the United States to provide Taiwan with military supplies and services. In addition, the TRA declares that the United States will “maintain the capacity” to defend Taiwan.
When Congress passed the TRA in 1979, the law served an obvious national security purpose: Washington wanted to cement its rapprochement with Beijing in the face of Soviet expansionism, but did not want to appear to be selling out an old friend, nor encourage a Chinese takeover of a strategically important landmass. Furthermore, American military power at the time dwarfed that of China, which had only recently emerged from the political chaos of the cultural revolution, making U.S. assurances credible.
Today, the situation looks quite different. The Soviet Union exists only in history books, and the United States’ relationship with China has evolved from a geopolitical marriage of convenience to a more complex dynamic in which mutual suspicion and resentment are tempered by economic interdependence and the need to cooperate on shared challenges like climate change. Meanwhile, the PRC’s military capabilities have grown in tandem with its economy, making armed conflict with Chinese forces a far more dangerous and costly prospect than it was in the late 1970s. For these reasons, one prominent commentator has called Taiwan “the most dangerous example of American foreign-policy insolvency in the world.”
China’s rise doesn’t mean invading Taiwan would be a cakewalk, however. Most military analysts are of the view that attacking Taiwan would be a huge gamble for Beijing. No degree of military superiority can change the fact that Chinese forces would be attempting the largest amphibious invasion in history, seeking to subdue a hostile population in unforgiving geography, and facing down an enemy that has been preparing for such a contingency for years. In such circumstances, the prospect of U.S. military support to Taiwan’s could persuade cooler heads to prevail in Zhongnanhai.
At the same time, there is good reason to revisit the underlying rationale for the U.S.-Taiwan relationship. Four decades onward, the original considerations motivating the TRA are largely obsolete. The Cold War context of American support to the KMT regime is a distant memory for older Americans, and for younger Americans is an anachronism on par with perestroika or glasnost. After nearly twenty years of exhausting and pointless war in the Middle East and Afghanistan, it’s not wrong to ask whether the American public is ready to involve itself in yet another overseas conflict predicated on strategic reasoning that is largely irrelevant to the major challenges facing the United States today.
If the exigency of the Cold War has faded from view, a new threat to U.S. national interests has taken its place: the rise of authoritarian nationalism. Today, the United States faces an intensifying global competition between democratic and authoritarian values in a way few would have predicted even a decade ago. Dissatisfaction with democracy is at record highs, and illiberal—typically right wing—political movements have risen to power in countries that until recently were viewed as having successfully transitioned away from autocracy, such as Hungary, the Philippines, and Brazil. Alongside this illiberal resurgence, unambiguously authoritarian states including China have become more assertive in promoting their own models.
These trends should not be mistaken for a new Cold War, but nor are they benign. The United States will find it harder to pursue its foreign policy objectives in a world where authoritarian states wield great influence. On a moral level, furthermore, the United States should not passively condone the flourishing of a political model that treats repression and xenophobia as legitimate tools in the pursuit of economic growth and social order.
In meeting the challenge of authoritarian nationalism, the United States’ greatest asset will not be its military strength or even its diplomatic clout. Instead, it will be the vitality of its democratic allies and partners. Illiberal movements have succeeded by portraying democratic governance as a messy, corrupt, and ineffective. Defeating this narrative requires compelling counterexamples of thriving democratic states, especially ones that have chosen democracy in the face of authoritarian pressures. For this reason, Washington should make supporting such states a strategic and moral priority.
One would be hard pressed to imagine a candidate more worthy than Taiwan. Unlike most other East Asian countries, Taiwan has never experienced democratic backsliding in the face of economic slumps or social unrest. Just as remarkably, Taiwan’s political parties have repeatedly demonstrated that they can accept electoral loss without questioning the legitimacy of the political system. The island has a strong record on human rights, a high degree of transparency in its governance, and a well-functioning judicial system that has proven capable of defending civil liberties and the rights of minorities. These accomplishments place Taiwan in stark contrast with mainland China, which under Xi Jinping has sharply curtailed political expression and imprisoned more than a million of its own citizens in concentration camps.
There is, therefore, a strong argument for recentering U.S.-Taiwan ties around shared democratic values to a greater degree than is already the case. Such a recentering would not necessarily entail dramatic practical changes: U.S. officials could continue to sell arms to Taiwan, meet with Taiwanese counterparts in Taipei and Washington, and facilitate cultural and economic exchange between the American and Taiwanese publics. But in justifying and explaining these activities, the United States government should characterize its support to Taiwan as show of solidarity with a fellow democracy and not just a transactional security partnership.
This solidarity could be expressed in official speeches, at diplomatic summits, and new legislation aimed at affirming Taiwan’s democratic character and elevating the profile of U.S.-Taiwan relations. The recently passed Taiwan Travel Act, which makes it easier for high-level Taiwanese officials to visit the United States and vice-versa, is a useful model. The United States could even consider pursuing a trade deal with Taiwan on the logic that democracies with high-quality institutions and strong labor and environmental standards deserve enhanced access to U.S. markets.
Beyond the bilateral relationship, the United States should find ways to strengthen Taiwan’s global position, facilitate its engagement with the international community, and promote its democratic model. This would necessarily involve pushing back on China’s efforts to isolate and embarrass Taiwan on the global stage. Most obviously, the United States should use its outsized influence to arrest and if possible reverse Taiwan’s exclusion from international institutions. In addition, the United States should seek to build platforms for Taiwanese engagement with democratic partners outside of formal institutions. Finally, while there is little that U.S. authorities can do to stop private companies from erasing Taiwan’s sovereignty under pressure from Beijing, there is also nothing stopping them from criticizing the practice, and making such firms pay a public relations price at home in pursuit of the Chinese market.
In May, when Tsai Ing-Wen is sworn in as president for the second time, she will lead Taiwan into four years of great uncertainty. While Beijing has responded to the DPP’s victory with relative restraint thus far, internal pressures within Chinese politics may drive PRC authorities to act recklessly before the 2022 party conference, in which Xi Jinping is seeking an unprecedented third term as the country’s president.
Should Taiwan’s independent government be cowed or snuffed out, it would be a terrible loss for global democracy, one that would send a troubling message to other states struggling with authoritarian encroachment. In weighing its relationship with Taipei, the United States needs to ask itself if it is prepared to live in a world without Taiwan’s democratic counterexample.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-13--Tom Cotton Vows to Punish China For the Coronavirus

On Thursday , Joe Biden gave a speech outlining his plan to deal with the coronavirus .
This is one of the most important things he said .
Let me be crystal clear .
The coronavirus does not have a political affiliation .
It will infect Republicans , independents and Democrats alike and will not discriminate based on national origin , race , gender or zip code .
It will touch people in positions of power as well as the most vulnerable in our society .
And it will not stop , banning all travel from Europe or any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but as we ’ ve seen it will not stop it .
And travel restrictions based on favoritism and politics rather than a risk will be counterproductive .
Those remarks were at least partially aimed at people like Senator Tom Cotton , who previously raised a conspiracy theory about the origins of the virus .
Sen. Tom Cotton ( R-Ark . )
repeated a fringe theory suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan , China .
Cotton referenced a laboratory in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Laboratory , in an interview on Fox News ’ s “ Sunday Morning Futures.
” He said the lab was near a market some scientists initially thought was a starting point for the virus ’ s spread .
“ We don ’ t know where it originated , and we have to get to the bottom of that , ” Cotton said .
“ We also know that just a few miles away from that food market is China ’ s only biosafety level 4 super laboratory that researches human infectious diseases.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have evidence that this disease originated there , but because of China ’ s duplicity and dishonesty from the beginning , we need to at least ask the question to see what the evidence says , ” Cotton said .
“ And China right now is not giving any evidence on that question at all.
” Cotton followed that up with a pretty bizarre statement on Thursday .
When someone on Twitter suggested that what Cotton meant was that “ China will pay for this , ” the senator responded by saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still not clear what Cotton meant by that , but it is foreboding , especially coming from someone who has a reputation as a “ China hawk.
” Cotton recently wrote a piece for the National Review in which he basically called the former vice president a Chinese asset .
Since 2015 , Democrats have claimed hysterically that Donald Trump is a Russian agent .
On the other hand , it ’ s ridiculous to say Biden is a Chinese asset—if he were , his handler would tell him to oppose China here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China can count on Joe Biden always to take China ’ s side .
The competition between the United States and China , strategic and economic , will define the next century for our nation .
We will need to be led by presidents for whom there ’ s no question as to which side they are on .
In an article Jeffrey Toobin wrote about Cotton back in 2017 , he noted that the senator from Arkansas is a polarizing figure , but “ the only thing everyone agrees on is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The fact is that Cotton is a combination of Donald Trump and the neocon old guard of the Republican Party .
Stephen Bannon , Trump ’ s former top strategist and the chairman of the right-wing Web site Breitbart News , told me , “ Next to Trump , he ’ s the elected official who gets it the most—the economic nationalism .
Cotton was the one most supportive of us , up front and behind the scenes , from the beginning .
He understands that the Washington élite—this permanent political class of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consultants and politicians—needs to be shattered.
” At the same time , Cotton has maintained strong ties with the establishment wing of the G.O.P .
Karl Rove , President George W. Bush ’ s chief political adviser , told me , “ Cotton is not like a Steve Bannon , who wants to blow up the existing structure , uproot the ideology of the Republican Party and replace it with something new .
He ’ s a rising star .
He ’ s capable of building bridges within the Party .
He wants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remember , Cotton is the one who initiated a letter to the leaders of Iran warning them against negotiations with the Obama administration over their nuclear program—a move that some people said bordered on treason .
What Cotton preferred was war with Iran , which he basically said would be a cakewalk .
Cotton is also no slouch when it comes to xenophobia .
He led the charge against criminal justice reform efforts during the Obama administration and is one of the members of congress Stephen Miller called on to talk Trump out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that provided protection for Dreamers .
One of the things Cotton is best known for is that he blocked the confirmation of Cassandra Butts , the woman that Obama nominated to be the U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas .
While her nomination was being held up , Butts died of cancer .
But before she passed away , she told her story to Frank Bruni .
[ Cotton ] had a legitimate gripe with the Obama administration over a Secret Service leak of private information about a fellow member of Congress , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take punitive action .
But that issue was unrelated to Butts and the Bahamas .
Cotton eventually released the two other holds , but not the one on Butts .
She told me that she once went to see him about it , and he explained that he knew that she was a close friend of Obama ’ s—the two first encountered each other on a line for financial-aid forms at Harvard Law School , where they were classmates—and that blocking her was a way to inflict special pain on the president .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ tempting to comment on Cotton ’ s desire to inflict pain on the people his twisted mind has identified as enemies , be they personal or geopolitical .
But I ’ ll leave that to your imagination .
What is important to keep in mind is that the senator from Arkansas , who vows to make China pay for a disease , also happens to be one of the men who is waiting in the wings to become a leader in the Republican Party .
Trumpism won ’ t end when Trump finally @ @ @

On Thursday, Joe Biden gave a speech outlining his plan to deal with the coronavirus. This is one of the most important things he said.
Let me be crystal clear. The coronavirus does not have a political affiliation. It will infect Republicans, independents and Democrats alike and will not discriminate based on national origin, race, gender or zip code. It will touch people in positions of power as well as the most vulnerable in our society. And it will not stop, banning all travel from Europe or any other part of the world may slow it, but as we’ve seen it will not stop it. And travel restrictions based on favoritism and politics rather than a risk will be counterproductive.
Those remarks were at least partially aimed at people like Senator Tom Cotton, who previously raised a conspiracy theory about the origins of the virus.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) repeated a fringe theory suggesting that the ongoing spread of a coronavirus is connected to research in the disease-ravaged epicenter of Wuhan, China. Cotton referenced a laboratory in the city, the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory, in an interview on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures.” He said the lab was near a market some scientists initially thought was a starting point for the virus’s spread. “We don’t know where it originated, and we have to get to the bottom of that,” Cotton said. “We also know that just a few miles away from that food market is China’s only biosafety level 4 super laboratory that researches human infectious diseases.”… “Now, we don’t have evidence that this disease originated there, but because of China’s duplicity and dishonesty from the beginning, we need to at least ask the question to see what the evidence says,” Cotton said. “And China right now is not giving any evidence on that question at all.”
Cotton followed that up with a pretty bizarre statement on Thursday.
When someone on Twitter suggested that what Cotton meant was that “China will pay for this,” the senator responded by saying, “correct.”
It’s still not clear what Cotton meant by that, but it is foreboding, especially coming from someone who has a reputation as a “China hawk.”
Cotton recently wrote a piece for the National Review in which he basically called the former vice president a Chinese asset.
Since 2015, Democrats have claimed hysterically that Donald Trump is a Russian agent. On the other hand, it’s ridiculous to say Biden is a Chinese asset—if he were, his handler would tell him to oppose China here and there to build credibility. But China can count on Joe Biden always to take China’s side. The competition between the United States and China, strategic and economic, will define the next century for our nation. We will need to be led by presidents for whom there’s no question as to which side they are on.
In an article Jeffrey Toobin wrote about Cotton back in 2017, he noted that the senator from Arkansas is a polarizing figure, but “the only thing everyone agrees on is that he wants to be President someday.”
To make that next leap, Cotton expresses the militarism, bellicosity, intolerance, and xenophobia of Donald Trump, but without the childish tweets. For those who see Trump’s Presidency as an aberration, or as a singular phenomenon, Cotton offers a useful corrective. He and his supporters see Trump and Trumpism as the future of the Republican Party.
The fact is that Cotton is a combination of Donald Trump and the neocon old guard of the Republican Party.
Stephen Bannon, Trump’s former top strategist and the chairman of the right-wing Web site Breitbart News, told me, “Next to Trump, he’s the elected official who gets it the most—the economic nationalism. Cotton was the one most supportive of us, up front and behind the scenes, from the beginning. He understands that the Washington élite—this permanent political class of both parties, between the K Street consultants and politicians—needs to be shattered.” At the same time, Cotton has maintained strong ties with the establishment wing of the G.O.P. Karl Rove, President George W. Bush’s chief political adviser, told me, “Cotton is not like a Steve Bannon, who wants to blow up the existing structure, uproot the ideology of the Republican Party and replace it with something new. He’s a rising star. He’s capable of building bridges within the Party. He wants to get things done.”
If you remember, Cotton is the one who initiated a letter to the leaders of Iran warning them against negotiations with the Obama administration over their nuclear program—a move that some people said bordered on treason. What Cotton preferred was war with Iran, which he basically said would be a cakewalk.
Cotton is also no slouch when it comes to xenophobia. He led the charge against criminal justice reform efforts during the Obama administration and is one of the members of congress Stephen Miller called on to talk Trump out of signing on to a bipartisan agreement that provided protection for Dreamers.
One of the things Cotton is best known for is that he blocked the confirmation of Cassandra Butts, the woman that Obama nominated to be the U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas. While her nomination was being held up, Butts died of cancer. But before she passed away, she told her story to Frank Bruni.
[Cotton] had a legitimate gripe with the Obama administration over a Secret Service leak of private information about a fellow member of Congress, and he was trying to pressure Obama to take punitive action. But that issue was unrelated to Butts and the Bahamas. Cotton eventually released the two other holds, but not the one on Butts. She told me that she once went to see him about it, and he explained that he knew that she was a close friend of Obama’s—the two first encountered each other on a line for financial-aid forms at Harvard Law School, where they were classmates—and that blocking her was a way to inflict special pain on the president.
As a recovering therapist, it is tempting to comment on Cotton’s desire to inflict pain on the people his twisted mind has identified as enemies, be they personal or geopolitical. But I’ll leave that to your imagination.
What is important to keep in mind is that the senator from Arkansas, who vows to make China pay for a disease, also happens to be one of the men who is waiting in the wings to become a leader in the Republican Party. Trumpism won’t end when Trump finally leaves office.