washingtonmonthly--2020-05-15--Mitch McConnell Wants to Get Rid of the Governing Process

If Joe Biden wins the election in November , he will face the same thing every Democratic president has faced since Bill Clinton : a country broken by Republican policies ( or the lack thereof ) .
While it ’ s true that Biden isn ’ t likely to have to deal with two endless wars in the Middle East , we don ’ t yet know the lengths to which Trump will go to rescue his narcissistic ego from the prospect of being a “ loser.
” But we do know that he has decimated the entire federal bureaucracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worst economic shape since the Great Depression .
In light of that , our friend Ed Kilgore writes that Biden will need to avoid the mistakes of the Obama presidency .
That last question is what caught my eye .
The “ rhetorical chops ” Kilgore refers to are often captured by the term “ bully pulpit.
” The assumption is that if a president can use superior rhetoric to convince enough voters to support his agenda , Republican opposition will give way .
The comparison is often made to FDR .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have changed since those days .
First of all , Mitch McConnell has demonstrated that he doesn ’ t care what the majority of American voters think .
He has not only promised to return to his mode of total obstruction if a Democrat is elected president , but Republicans have also developed a strategy to maintain their power—even as they slide into a minority .
The perfect example of how Republicans dismiss what voters want came in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting when it became clear that over 90 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety measures—including a majority of Republicans .
But McConnell and his cohorts simply obstructed that legislation as well .
They have no reason to care what voters think because they are never held accountable .
The other dynamic that has changed since Roosevelt was president is that Republicans are more than happy to lie with abandon , knowing that right-wing media—led by Fox News—will buttress those lies .
That nullifies the use of the bully pulpit to unite Americans behind a president ’ s agenda .
We saw how that worked when , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would have allowed Medicare to bill for end-of-life planning was turned into “ death panels.
” Given that their base has been convinced that they can only believe what right-wing media tells them and everything else is “ fake news , ” they buy into the lies .
That is not only the challenge Obama faced , it is also the one that will confront Democrats if Biden is elected .
It is true that , as Kilgore suggests , it could be mitigated with the abolition of the filibuster in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that body .
At this point , the biggest obstacle to that happening isn ’ t that Biden opposes it .
A majority of Senate Democrats do as well .
It is also possible that the effectiveness of total obstruction could be minimized if McConnell loses his bid for re-election in Kentucky .
On the one hand , his successor is likely to maintain a strategy that has worked so well for their party in the past .
But McConnell has been extremely successful at keeping his troops in line—primarily through the use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is possible that the next Republican leader could experience some defectors .
All of this is why it is so important for Democrats and mainstream media to focus on challenging the way that Mitch McConnell and right-wing media have been so successful in subverting the entire governing process .
The first step in correcting the problem is to accurately name it .

If Joe Biden wins the election in November, he will face the same thing every Democratic president has faced since Bill Clinton: a country broken by Republican policies (or the lack thereof). While it’s true that Biden isn’t likely to have to deal with two endless wars in the Middle East, we don’t yet know the lengths to which Trump will go to rescue his narcissistic ego from the prospect of being a “loser.” But we do know that he has decimated the entire federal bureaucracy and will leave the country in the worst economic shape since the Great Depression.
In light of that, our friend Ed Kilgore writes that Biden will need to avoid the mistakes of the Obama presidency.
But there’s a major problem with Biden winning the presidency and partying like it’s 2009: Obama’s record in dealing with that crisis was mixed at best, even though he had political assets that Biden will not enjoy (e.g., big majorities in both congressional chambers) and faced conditions that were bad but nothing like today’s…Does Joe Biden have the rhetorical chops to overwhelm Republican opposition in a way that Obama could not?
That last question is what caught my eye. The “rhetorical chops” Kilgore refers to are often captured by the term “bully pulpit.” The assumption is that if a president can use superior rhetoric to convince enough voters to support his agenda, Republican opposition will give way. The comparison is often made to FDR.
The New Republic’s Osita Nwanevu cites Biden’s expressed determination to reshape America like FDR did and sensibly notes that he “would have to unite an extraordinary proportion of the American public — not only in support of his agenda but in support of him, personally, as a political leader, just as Roosevelt did.”
But there are a couple of political dynamics that have changed since those days. First of all, Mitch McConnell has demonstrated that he doesn’t care what the majority of American voters think. He has not only promised to return to his mode of total obstruction if a Democrat is elected president, but Republicans have also developed a strategy to maintain their power—even as they slide into a minority.
The perfect example of how Republicans dismiss what voters want came in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting when it became clear that over 90 percent of the public supported common-sense gun safety measures—including a majority of Republicans. But McConnell and his cohorts simply obstructed that legislation as well. They have no reason to care what voters think because they are never held accountable.
The other dynamic that has changed since Roosevelt was president is that Republicans are more than happy to lie with abandon, knowing that right-wing media—led by Fox News—will buttress those lies. That nullifies the use of the bully pulpit to unite Americans behind a president’s agenda.
We saw how that worked when, during negotiations over Obamacare, a provision that would have allowed Medicare to bill for end-of-life planning was turned into “death panels.” Given that their base has been convinced that they can only believe what right-wing media tells them and everything else is “fake news,” they buy into the lies.
That is not only the challenge Obama faced, it is also the one that will confront Democrats if Biden is elected. It is true that, as Kilgore suggests, it could be mitigated with the abolition of the filibuster in the Senate if Democrats win a majority in that body. At this point, the biggest obstacle to that happening isn’t that Biden opposes it. A majority of Senate Democrats do as well.
It is also possible that the effectiveness of total obstruction could be minimized if McConnell loses his bid for re-election in Kentucky. On the one hand, his successor is likely to maintain a strategy that has worked so well for their party in the past. But McConnell has been extremely successful at keeping his troops in line—primarily through the use of his coffers of campaign cash. It is possible that the next Republican leader could experience some defectors.
All of this is why it is so important for Democrats and mainstream media to focus on challenging the way that Mitch McConnell and right-wing media have been so successful in subverting the entire governing process. The first step in correcting the problem is to accurately name it.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-18--How the Massachusetts Legislature Can Help Elizabeth Warren Become VP

On June 22 , 2007 , Wyoming Democratic Governor Dave Freudenthal chose Republican John Barrasso as an interim replacement for Republican Senator Craig Thomas , who had recently died .
Freudenthal probably would have preferred to select a Democrat but his hands were tied .
According to the state law , he had to choose someone from Craig ’ s party , and he , therefore , had to select one of three names supplied to him by the central committee of the state GOP .
There are several other states that have restrictions like this .
On the blue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the requirement that an interim replacement be of the same party as the departed senator .
On the red side , there are Arizona , Utah , and North Carolina .
There are 14 states that don ’ t ban or restrict their governor ’ s ability to appoint temporary replacements and instead force a quick special election to fill a vacancy .
Some people have suggested that Elizabeth Warren would be a poor choice as Joe Biden ’ s running mate because Massachusetts has a Republican governor who would choose a Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it can be a little misleading .
Under Massachusetts law , when a vacancy occurs in one of its two U.S. Senate seats , the governor is required to call for a Special Election .
Were Elizabeth Warren elected vice-president , she would need to resign her seat no later than January 20 , 2021 , which is an odd-numbered year .
Under those circumstances , Republican Governor Charlie Baker would have to arrange for a special election to fill the seat in a window of 145 to 160 days , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( a ) Upon failure to choose a senator or representative in congress or upon creation of a vacancy in that office , the governor shall immediately cause precepts to be issued to the aldermen in every city and the selectmen in every town in the district , directing them to call an election on the day appointed in the precepts for the election of such senator or representative .
The day so appointed shall not be more than 160 nor less than 145 days after the date that a vacancy is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Filing a letter of resignation creates a vacancy under this section , even if the resignation is not effective until some later time , but the date of the election to fill a vacancy under this section shall be after the resignation is effective .
Under subsection ( f ) of Section 140 , Baker could choose an interim replacement for Warren who would serve from January into June at the latest .
Many commentators have warned that important momentum could be lost if a Republican is serving in Warren ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Theoretically , it could cost the Democrats control of the Senate during that period , complicating Biden ’ s ability to confirm his cabinet or fill other key positions and blocking his legislative agenda .
The Democrats also feel burned from the experience of Scott Brown , who unexpectedly won election after being appointed as the interim replacement for Teddy Kennedy .
There ’ s a simple solution for this , however .
The Massachusetts legislature is overwhelmingly Democratic .
The state Senate has 34 Democrats , five Republicans , and two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats , 31 Republicans , one independent , and two vacancies .
These majorities are more than sufficient to override any gubernatorial veto .
All the legislature has to do is look at the example of what the Republicans have done in North Carolina .
In 2018 , Republican supermajorities in the state legislature changed the law so that Democratic Governor Roy Cooper , much like Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal before him , would have to choose from a list of three individuals submitted by the executive committee of the state Republican Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Carolina that the governor choose someone from the same party as the departed senator .
If the Democrats of Massachusetts want Warren to get the best shot at joining Biden ’ s ticket , they should immediately pass a similar law .
Even the lesser requirement that Baker pick a Democratic replacement would be sufficient to prevent a temporary or permanent loss of Senate control .
Yet , if the Republicans of North Carolina have no compunction about insisting on forcing a list on their governor , I see no reason for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shame or squeamishness about doing the same .
Also , John Barrasso is still in the Senate , representing Wyoming , 13 years after he was foisted on Governor Freudenthal .
That shows the power of incumbency , even if begins on an interim basis .
This is another reason to avoid another Scott Brown scenario .
He ultimately lost to Warren , but not before winning the right to serve out Kennedy ’ s full term .
Too often , the Republicans play hardball while the Democrats play tiddlywinks .
You don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see the merit in changing the Massachusetts law .
Sure , it would be a demonstration of raw partisan power , but it ’ s not illegal or unconstitutional .
And there ’ s no rationale for the Republicans to use these tactics while the Democrats sit on their hands and worry about things will look .

On June 22, 2007, Wyoming Democratic Governor Dave Freudenthal chose Republican John Barrasso as an interim replacement for Republican Senator Craig Thomas, who had recently died. Freudenthal probably would have preferred to select a Democrat but his hands were tied. According to the state law, he had to choose someone from Craig’s party, and he, therefore, had to select one of three names supplied to him by the central committee of the state GOP. There are several other states that have restrictions like this. On the blue side, both Maryland and Hawaii have the requirement that an interim replacement be of the same party as the departed senator. On the red side, there are Arizona, Utah, and North Carolina. There are 14 states that don’t ban or restrict their governor’s ability to appoint temporary replacements and instead force a quick special election to fill a vacancy.
Some people have suggested that Elizabeth Warren would be a poor choice as Joe Biden’s running mate because Massachusetts has a Republican governor who would choose a Republican to replace her. This is true but it can be a little misleading. Under Massachusetts law, when a vacancy occurs in one of its two U.S. Senate seats, the governor is required to call for a Special Election. Were Elizabeth Warren elected vice-president, she would need to resign her seat no later than January 20, 2021, which is an odd-numbered year. Under those circumstances, Republican Governor Charlie Baker would have to arrange for a special election to fill the seat in a window of 145 to 160 days, or within about five months.
Section 140. (a) Upon failure to choose a senator or representative in congress or upon creation of a vacancy in that office, the governor shall immediately cause precepts to be issued to the aldermen in every city and the selectmen in every town in the district, directing them to call an election on the day appointed in the precepts for the election of such senator or representative. The day so appointed shall not be more than 160 nor less than 145 days after the date that a vacancy is created or a failure to choose occurs. Filing a letter of resignation creates a vacancy under this section, even if the resignation is not effective until some later time, but the date of the election to fill a vacancy under this section shall be after the resignation is effective.
Under subsection (f) of Section 140, Baker could choose an interim replacement for Warren who would serve from January into June at the latest.
(f) Upon failure to choose a senator in congress or upon a vacancy in that office, the governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill the vacancy; provided, however, that the person so appointed shall serve until the election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy pursuant to subsection (a) or (c).
Many commentators have warned that important momentum could be lost if a Republican is serving in Warren’s seat even if only for five months. Theoretically, it could cost the Democrats control of the Senate during that period, complicating Biden’s ability to confirm his cabinet or fill other key positions and blocking his legislative agenda. The Democrats also feel burned from the experience of Scott Brown, who unexpectedly won election after being appointed as the interim replacement for Teddy Kennedy.
There’s a simple solution for this, however. The Massachusetts legislature is overwhelmingly Democratic. The state Senate has 34 Democrats, five Republicans, and two vacancies. The state House has 126 Democrats, 31 Republicans, one independent, and two vacancies. These majorities are more than sufficient to override any gubernatorial veto. All the legislature has to do is look at the example of what the Republicans have done in North Carolina.
In 2018, Republican supermajorities in the state legislature changed the law so that Democratic Governor Roy Cooper, much like Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal before him, would have to choose from a list of three individuals submitted by the executive committee of the state Republican Party. This strengthened the preexisting requirement in North Carolina that the governor choose someone from the same party as the departed senator.
If the Democrats of Massachusetts want Warren to get the best shot at joining Biden’s ticket, they should immediately pass a similar law. Even the lesser requirement that Baker pick a Democratic replacement would be sufficient to prevent a temporary or permanent loss of Senate control. Yet, if the Republicans of North Carolina have no compunction about insisting on forcing a list on their governor, I see no reason for the Democrats of Massachusetts to feel any shame or squeamishness about doing the same.
Also, John Barrasso is still in the Senate, representing Wyoming, 13 years after he was foisted on Governor Freudenthal. That shows the power of incumbency, even if begins on an interim basis. This is another reason to avoid another Scott Brown scenario. He ultimately lost to Warren, but not before winning the right to serve out Kennedy’s full term.
Too often, the Republicans play hardball while the Democrats play tiddlywinks. You don’t have to prefer Elizabeth Warren to see the merit in changing the Massachusetts law. Sure, it would be a demonstration of raw partisan power, but it’s not illegal or unconstitutional. And there’s no rationale for the Republicans to use these tactics while the Democrats sit on their hands and worry about things will look.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-18--Why Is Trump So Obsessed With Obama?

Why Is Trump So Obsessed With Obama?

Just as Trump and his enablers are consumed with the lies they ’ re calling “ Obamagate , ” the former president gave two commencement addresses on Saturday .
During the one he gave to high school graduates , Obama told the class of 2020 that “ this is your generation ’ s world to shape.
” He went on to give them three simple pieces of advice .
• Do what you think is right by grounding yourself in values that last .
While Obama once again refused to utter Trump ’ s name , everyone knows exactly who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It will come as no surprise that television ratings for Obama ’ s speech were extremely high .
Especially during this pandemic , people are hungry for one good word .
In the midst of that , Trump is demonstrating that he continues to be obsessed with Obama .
David Smith chronicled how that has come to define this president .
Obama remains something of an obsession for Trump ; the subject of a political and personal inferiority complex .
Observers point to a mix of anti-intellectualism , racism , vengeance and primitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nobel peace prize to the scale of his inauguration crowd and social media following… Beyond political expediency , there is a more profound antipathy at work .
From the Iran nuclear deal to the Trans Pacific Partnership , from environmental regulations to the Affordable Care Act , Trump has always seemed to be on a mission to erase his predecessor ’ s legacy .
With few deep convictions of his own , Trump found a negative reference point in Obama .
Between 22 November 2010 and 14 May 2020 , he tweeted about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump Twitter Archive .
Here is what former DOJ spokesperson Matthew Miller identified as the source of that obsession .
I was reminded of something Garrison Keillor wrote in an open letter to Donald Trump prior to his election .
The New York Times treats you like the village idiot .
This is painful for a Queens boy trying to win respect in Manhattan…In Queens , blacks were a threat to property values — they belonged in the Bronx , not down the street .
To the Times , Queens is Cleveland .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ The casinos were totally Queens , the gold faucets in your triplex , the bragging , the insults , but you wanted to be liked by Those People .
Obama gets the kind of respect Trump has always pined for , but never received .
As Miller said , “ that just eats Trump alive inside.
” On Sunday , Trump was asked to comment on Obama ’ s commencement speech and simply replied that his predecessor was “ grossly incompetent.
” Of course , Trump also had to say that in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that and simply call it a matter of “ projection.
” But Garry Kasparov , the Russian exile that Martin wrote about recently , sees something deeper at work .
That is precisely why Obama poses such a threat to Trump .
As Ta-Nehisi Coates once wrote , “ For eight years Barack Obama walked on ice and never fell.
” The black man who demonstrates “ calm , dignified competence ” enrages Trump , not simply because of his racism , but by making it clear that goodness and truth do , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the moral bar and exposes just how low into the gutter this president has gone .
What I found most interesting is that , on the day Obama gave those commencement speeches , Trump tweeted this .
Because the president is incapable of giving an inspirational speech , he and his supporters had to settle for a photoshopped video of a fictional president warning about annihilation .
As Tony Schwartz suggested , that imaginary threat is a perfect distillation of Trump ’ s world view .
To survive , I concluded from our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to war with the world .
It was a binary , zero-sum choice for him : You either dominated or you submitted .
You either created and exploited fear , or you succumbed to it… Trump grew up fighting for his life and taking no prisoners .
In countless conversations , he made clear to me that he treated every encounter as a contest he had to win , because the only other option from his perspective was to lose , and that was the equivalent of obliteration .
Obama represents the enemy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against because he embodies everything that Trump is not .

Just as Trump and his enablers are consumed with the lies they’re calling “Obamagate,” the former president gave two commencement addresses on Saturday. During the one he gave to high school graduates, Obama told the class of 2020 that “this is your generation’s world to shape.” He went on to give them three simple pieces of advice.
Don’t be afraid. Do what you think is right by grounding yourself in values that last. Build a community.
While Obama once again refused to utter Trump’s name, everyone knows exactly who he was referring to with this:
It will come as no surprise that television ratings for Obama’s speech were extremely high. Especially during this pandemic, people are hungry for one good word.
In the midst of that, Trump is demonstrating that he continues to be obsessed with Obama. David Smith chronicled how that has come to define this president.
Obama remains something of an obsession for Trump; the subject of a political and personal inferiority complex. Observers point to a mix of anti-intellectualism, racism, vengeance and primitive envy over everything from Obama’s Nobel peace prize to the scale of his inauguration crowd and social media following… Beyond political expediency, there is a more profound antipathy at work. From the Iran nuclear deal to the Trans Pacific Partnership, from environmental regulations to the Affordable Care Act, Trump has always seemed to be on a mission to erase his predecessor’s legacy. With few deep convictions of his own, Trump found a negative reference point in Obama. Between 22 November 2010 and 14 May 2020, he tweeted about Obama 2,933 times, according to the Trump Twitter Archive.
Here is what former DOJ spokesperson Matthew Miller identified as the source of that obsession.
Miller added: “There’s some racism there but, most of all, it’s driven by the fact that Obama has the thing that Trump has always craved but never achieved, and that’s respect. I’ve always thought that the respect that Barack Obama gets from people in this country and around the world is something that just eats Trump alive inside.”
I was reminded of something Garrison Keillor wrote in an open letter to Donald Trump prior to his election.
The New York Times treats you like the village idiot. This is painful for a Queens boy trying to win respect in Manhattan…In Queens, blacks were a threat to property values — they belonged in the Bronx, not down the street. To the Times, Queens is Cleveland. Bush league. You are Queens. The casinos were totally Queens, the gold faucets in your triplex, the bragging, the insults, but you wanted to be liked by Those People.
Obama gets the kind of respect Trump has always pined for, but never received. As Miller said, “that just eats Trump alive inside.”
On Sunday, Trump was asked to comment on Obama’s commencement speech and simply replied that his predecessor was “grossly incompetent.” Of course, Trump also had to say that in a tweet.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1262102825607352320
Most of us would see that and simply call it a matter of “projection.” But Garry Kasparov, the Russian exile that Martin wrote about recently, sees something deeper at work.
That is precisely why Obama poses such a threat to Trump. As Ta-Nehisi Coates once wrote, “For eight years Barack Obama walked on ice and never fell.” The black man who demonstrates “calm, dignified competence” enrages Trump, not simply because of his racism, but by making it clear that goodness and truth do, in fact, exist. That raises the moral bar and exposes just how low into the gutter this president has gone.
What I found most interesting is that, on the day Obama gave those commencement speeches, Trump tweeted this.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1261747580666552320
Because the president is incapable of giving an inspirational speech, he and his supporters had to settle for a photoshopped video of a fictional president warning about annihilation. As Tony Schwartz suggested, that imaginary threat is a perfect distillation of Trump’s world view.
To survive, I concluded from our conversations, Trump felt compelled to go to war with the world. It was a binary, zero-sum choice for him: You either dominated or you submitted. You either created and exploited fear, or you succumbed to it… Trump grew up fighting for his life and taking no prisoners. In countless conversations, he made clear to me that he treated every encounter as a contest he had to win, because the only other option from his perspective was to lose, and that was the equivalent of obliteration.
Obama represents the enemy Trump feels compelled to go to war against because he embodies everything that Trump is not.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-18--What the Left Can Learn from the Tea Party About How to Gain Power

Since the Domestic Policy Council was established in 1985 by Ronald Reagan , there have probably only been two heads of the organization that you ’ re familiar with : Bruce Reed under President Clinton and Melody Barnes under President Obama .
If you ’ re a real political animal , you might remember Margaret Spellings who served in George W. Bush ’ s first term or know the present occupant , Joe Rogan , who is leaving the position on May 24 .
Along with the Economic Policy Council , the DPC is part of the Office of White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Office of Legislative Affairs , which is responsible for advancing a president ’ s agenda in Congress .
The DPC is more of a big-picture organization and it often operates much like a standard cabinet meeting .
The leader of the group has a lot of sway over the White House , although how much depends on the president .
Bruce Reed , for example , was a founding member of the Democratic Leadership Council and one of the primary authors of Clinton ’ s controversial welfare reform as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administrative crackdowns on the gun industry .
Melody Barnes was a civil rights attorney and counsel to Senator Ted Kennedy on the Judiciary Committee .
She helped push through the Affordable Care Act .
As POLITICO reports , there has just been a major fight among Republican activists and White House staff over who will replace the outgoing Joe Rogan .
Initially , it was decided that White House staff secretary Derek Lyons would get the position .
Members of the administration began talking about the choice on background with reporters .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who objected to Mr. Lyons because of his connections to Jeb Bush .
In particular , the MAGA crowd is hostile to Jeb ’ s pro-immigrant rhetoric during the 2016 campaign .
His affiliation with [ Jared ] Kushner also raised some eyebrows , given that Trump ’ s son-in-law has for some more moderate policies , including business-friendly immigration changes that hardliners say are too lenient .
“ This is not what # AmericaFirst voters signed up for , ” conservative commentator Michelle Malkin May 6 using the hashtag # JaredKushnerIsNotMyPresident .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Jeb Bush ’ s “ Illegal Immigration Is An Act of Love ” wing of the GOP .
“ Trump has picked Derek Lyons as the head of the Domestic Policy Council…- he ’ s a former Jeb !
Person , ” Ryan Girdusky , a conservative writer and political consultant .
This gave Trump hardliners in the White House the juice they needed to overturn the decision .
Instead of Derek Lyons , it will be Brooke Rollins filling the position .
She ’ s the former president of the Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tank based in Austin partly funded by the Koch Brothers.
” There are a couple of ironies here .
First , she ’ s also affiliated with Jared Kushner , as she presently heads his Office of American Innovation .
Second , the Koch Brothers are not exactly well-aligned with Trump , and nowhere are they in less agreement than on immigration policy .
But , whether this switch constitutes a true win for the racist right or not , it ’ s clear that MAGA conservatives are highly attuned to how decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which positions they want to control .
Contrast this with the progressive left .
When it was recently announced that Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would be co-chairing a climate panel for Joe Biden ’ s policy shop with John Kerry , there was an uproar on social media .
How could she sell-out her principles and work with establishment Democrats ?
Ocasio-Cortez , Kerry and Biden might not seem like a natural fit , but the group came together because they all recognize that they need each other .
When AOC , perhaps Bernie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moved to embrace Biden as the inevitable nominee , she earned some good will .
John Kerry praised and defended her during his April climate testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee for offering “ more leadership in one day or one week than President Trump has in his lifetime.
” You might think that supporters of Bernie Sanders would be gratified to see Ocasio-Cortez placed in a position to help craft Biden ’ s climate policies , but the loudest voices were all extremely cynical about the move and critical of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back in March , Ocasio-Cortez was on television defending the Green New Deal and said , “ This is not a Tea Party of the left , this is a return to representative democracy.
” But many of her erstwhile supporters abandoned her when she gained a seat at the table .
She might not act like the Tea Party , but many wish she would .
The progressive left too often does not want power .
Power is pretty much all the racist right wants .
Both groups are known for making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategists actually understand the leverage points and will fight to get their people into positions of influence .
At least in that limited respect , the Tea Party is a more effective anti-establishment organization .

Since the Domestic Policy Council was established in 1985 by Ronald Reagan, there have probably only been two heads of the organization that you’re familiar with: Bruce Reed under President Clinton and Melody Barnes under President Obama. If you’re a real political animal, you might remember Margaret Spellings who served in George W. Bush’s first term or know the present occupant, Joe Rogan, who is leaving the position on May 24.
Along with the Economic Policy Council, the DPC is part of the Office of White House Policy. It’s distinct from the Office of Legislative Affairs, which is responsible for advancing a president’s agenda in Congress. The DPC is more of a big-picture organization and it often operates much like a standard cabinet meeting. The leader of the group has a lot of sway over the White House, although how much depends on the president. Bruce Reed, for example, was a founding member of the Democratic Leadership Council and one of the primary authors of Clinton’s controversial welfare reform as well as the administration’s numerous statutory and administrative crackdowns on the gun industry. Melody Barnes was a civil rights attorney and counsel to Senator Ted Kennedy on the Judiciary Committee. She helped push through the Affordable Care Act.
As POLITICO reports, there has just been a major fight among Republican activists and White House staff over who will replace the outgoing Joe Rogan. Initially, it was decided that White House staff secretary Derek Lyons would get the position. Members of the administration began talking about the choice on background with reporters. But then there was a revolt from conservatives who objected to Mr. Lyons because of his connections to Jeb Bush. In particular, the MAGA crowd is hostile to Jeb’s pro-immigrant rhetoric during the 2016 campaign.
His affiliation with [Jared] Kushner also raised some eyebrows, given that Trump’s son-in-law has pushed for some more moderate policies, including business-friendly immigration changes that hardliners say are too lenient. “This is not what #AmericaFirst voters signed up for,” tweeted conservative commentator Michelle Malkin May 6 using the hashtag #JaredKushnerIsNotMyPresident. Malkin described Lyons as someone who comes from Jeb Bush’s “Illegal Immigration Is An Act of Love” wing of the GOP. “Trump has picked Derek Lyons as the head of the Domestic Policy Council…- he’s a former Jeb! Person,” tweeted Ryan Girdusky, a conservative writer and political consultant.
This gave Trump hardliners in the White House the juice they needed to overturn the decision. Instead of Derek Lyons, it will be Brooke Rollins filling the position. She’s the former president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, “a think tank based in Austin partly funded by the Koch Brothers.” There are a couple of ironies here. First, she’s also affiliated with Jared Kushner, as she presently heads his Office of American Innovation. Second, the Koch Brothers are not exactly well-aligned with Trump, and nowhere are they in less agreement than on immigration policy.
But, whether this switch constitutes a true win for the racist right or not, it’s clear that MAGA conservatives are highly attuned to how decisions are made in the White House and which positions they want to control.
Contrast this with the progressive left. When it was recently announced that Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would be co-chairing a climate panel for Joe Biden’s policy shop with John Kerry, there was an uproar on social media. How could she sell-out her principles and work with establishment Democrats?
Ocasio-Cortez, Kerry and Biden might not seem like a natural fit, but the group came together because they all recognize that they need each other. When AOC, perhaps Bernie Sanders’ most high-profile congressional endorser, moved to embrace Biden as the inevitable nominee, she earned some good will. John Kerry praised and defended her during his April climate testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee for offering “more leadership in one day or one week than President Trump has in his lifetime.”
You might think that supporters of Bernie Sanders would be gratified to see Ocasio-Cortez placed in a position to help craft Biden’s climate policies, but the loudest voices were all extremely cynical about the move and critical of AOC for accepting it.
Ironically, back in March, Ocasio-Cortez was on television defending the Green New Deal and said, “This is not a Tea Party of the left, this is a return to representative democracy.” But many of her erstwhile supporters abandoned her when she gained a seat at the table. She might not act like the Tea Party, but many wish she would.
The progressive left too often does not want power. Power is pretty much all the racist right wants. Both groups are known for making unrealistic demands, but the Tea Party strategists actually understand the leverage points and will fight to get their people into positions of influence. At least in that limited respect, the Tea Party is a more effective anti-establishment organization.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-18--COVID-19 Will Change the Way We Eat

COVID-19 Will Change the Way We Eat

COVID-19 has changed everything , highlighting one of the meatier issues during this crisis : the politics of beef production and export .
From ranches to feedlots , slaughterhouses to global markets , beef is now one of the most important products under threat in a high-stakes international food-supply game .
Meat supplies are so important , in fact , that President Trump intervened to order keep meatpacking plants in operation .
Meat consumption makes up a big part of Americans ’ protein intake—with milk and dairy being the most important .
Anything that threatens its availability on the market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national concern .
Recent shortages and store limits on meat purchases have further raised the alarm .
Supply and demand are strained .
Cattle ranchers are certainly feeling the squeeze : Demand for beef has dramatically dropped as restaurants close .
However , those fast-food chains and markets with customers seeking burgers and steaks are finding a stark supply reality — cattle can ’ t get from feedlots to fork because of supply constraints .
Coronavirus outbreaks in factory slaughterhouses are hampering the ability to process , package and deliver the product .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 reported deaths , fewer animals are being butchered and processed .
Less processing capacity means fewer heads of fattened cattle get churned through the system .
Less processing capacity means lower demand for animals at the plants , dropping the price per head and significantly raising costs as stay-at-home cattle are expensive for ranchers and feedlots to keep .
Fewer cattle entering processing plants also means fewer packaged meat products coming out .
In the marketplace , that translates into shortages and higher prices in supermarkets .
Not enough meat explains why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suddenly short on patties .
The problem is not just at home .
The human preference for beef is stressing a system that also depends on global markets .
Australia ’ s producers , for example , rely heavily on beef and barley exports to China .
This week , China cut off Australian exports because the island continent wants to investigate the Chinese origins of the coronavirus .
Beijing is punishing Aussies for their alleged COVID-crisis finger-pointing , attacking food exporters through economic coercion .
China is blatantly doing what other powerful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to political goals .
This linkage happens all the time .
The Trump administration , for example , has vigorously reintroduced this into its own policy toolkit , making import tariffs a staple of creating economic leverage to achieve policy outcomes .
From Europe to China , steel to cars , tariffs are this administration ’ s preferred means to extract trade concessions and political favor .
China ’ s move is intended to change Australia ’ s political posture and help put the Canberra government out to pasture .
Beijing visibly winks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban , arguing instead that Australia violated food inspection standards .
Both could , of course , be true .
Food inspection can be spotty in the best of nations .
America ’ s meat industry has a long and sordid history , highlighted early in the 20th century in Upton Sinclair ’ s “ The Jungle , ” an eye-opening novel exposing the meatpacking industry ’ s unsanitary processes and unsavory labor practices .
The novel generated a public uproar , and new safety and sanitation laws were passed , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by globalization .
Mad Cow disease , the controversial use of hormones , targeted trade barriers and adversarial nations ’ policies that undermine foreign agricultural sectors are just some of the attacks and inherent weaknesses of today ’ s fragile and globally interlinked food-supply chain .
Vulnerabilities ranging from pandemic to political whim should motivate both consumers and policymakers to rethink the system of food production and delivery—independent of the many ethical considerations surrounding meat consumption .
Unreliable and bottle-necked supply chains alone have led to today ’ s beef shortages .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China has a heightened sensitivity to food shortages , for example , as the nation suffers from a decimated pork supply , down 40 percent because of African swine fever .
From a consumer perspective , we must reconsider eating habits that require enormous energy and resources to bring beef from hoof to hamburger .
Thankfully , there are more and , increasingly , better options , including plant-and-lab based substitutes .
Governments , too , need to reconsider how to help deliver enough food to people with fewer dollars to spend and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transported foodstuffs .
Just as all industries are reviewing their options to repatriate work and onshore manufacturing for profitable and strategic purposes , so , too , will the political leadership in several countries need to work harder to increase and diversify their food industries ’ homegrown production and quality .
After all , COVID-19 has changed everything , including the way we eat .

COVID-19 has changed everything, highlighting one of the meatier issues during this crisis: the politics of beef production and export. From ranches to feedlots, slaughterhouses to global markets, beef is now one of the most important products under threat in a high-stakes international food-supply game.
Meat supplies are so important, in fact, that President Trump intervened to order keep meatpacking plants in operation.
Meat consumption makes up a big part of Americans’ protein intake—with milk and dairy being the most important. Anything that threatens its availability on the market or dramatically raises its price is of national concern. Recent shortages and store limits on meat purchases have further raised the alarm. Supply and demand are strained.
Cattle ranchers are certainly feeling the squeeze: Demand for beef has dramatically dropped as restaurants close. However, those fast-food chains and markets with customers seeking burgers and steaks are finding a stark supply reality — cattle can’t get from feedlots to fork because of supply constraints. Coronavirus outbreaks in factory slaughterhouses are hampering the ability to process, package and deliver the product.
With more than 4,900 meatpackers infected and 20 reported deaths, fewer animals are being butchered and processed. Less processing capacity means fewer heads of fattened cattle get churned through the system. Less processing capacity means lower demand for animals at the plants, dropping the price per head and significantly raising costs as stay-at-home cattle are expensive for ranchers and feedlots to keep.
Fewer cattle entering processing plants also means fewer packaged meat products coming out. In the marketplace, that translates into shortages and higher prices in supermarkets. Not enough meat explains why 1,000 Wendy’s burger joints were suddenly short on patties.
The problem is not just at home. The human preference for beef is stressing a system that also depends on global markets. Australia’s producers, for example, rely heavily on beef and barley exports to China. This week, China cut off Australian exports because the island continent wants to investigate the Chinese origins of the coronavirus. Beijing is punishing Aussies for their alleged COVID-crisis finger-pointing, attacking food exporters through economic coercion.
China is blatantly doing what other powerful countries often get away with—marrying trade policies to political goals. This linkage happens all the time. The Trump administration, for example, has vigorously reintroduced this into its own policy toolkit, making import tariffs a staple of creating economic leverage to achieve policy outcomes. From Europe to China, steel to cars, tariffs are this administration’s preferred means to extract trade concessions and political favor.
China’s move is intended to change Australia’s political posture and help put the Canberra government out to pasture. Beijing visibly winks, denying the politics of the beef ban, arguing instead that Australia violated food inspection standards. Both could, of course, be true. Food inspection can be spotty in the best of nations.
America’s meat industry has a long and sordid history, highlighted early in the 20th century in Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle,” an eye-opening novel exposing the meatpacking industry’s unsanitary processes and unsavory labor practices. The novel generated a public uproar, and new safety and sanitation laws were passed, but the meat industry continues to have problems exacerbated by globalization.
Mad Cow disease, the controversial use of hormones, targeted trade barriers and adversarial nations’ policies that undermine foreign agricultural sectors are just some of the attacks and inherent weaknesses of today’s fragile and globally interlinked food-supply chain.
Vulnerabilities ranging from pandemic to political whim should motivate both consumers and policymakers to rethink the system of food production and delivery—independent of the many ethical considerations surrounding meat consumption.
Unreliable and bottle-necked supply chains alone have led to today’s beef shortages. Some countries have awakened to this challenge. China has a heightened sensitivity to food shortages, for example, as the nation suffers from a decimated pork supply, down 40 percent because of African swine fever.
From a consumer perspective, we must reconsider eating habits that require enormous energy and resources to bring beef from hoof to hamburger. Thankfully, there are more and, increasingly, better options, including plant-and-lab based substitutes.
Governments, too, need to reconsider how to help deliver enough food to people with fewer dollars to spend and to markets with potentially fewer imported and transported foodstuffs. Just as all industries are reviewing their options to repatriate work and onshore manufacturing for profitable and strategic purposes, so, too, will the political leadership in several countries need to work harder to increase and diversify their food industries’ homegrown production and quality.
After all, COVID-19 has changed everything, including the way we eat.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-19--A (Non-Exhaustive) List of the People Who Paved the Way for Trump

The folks at Atlantic Studios have produced a video that demonstrates Trump ’ s lack of leadership on the coronavirus crisis by comparing him to the leaders of other Western democracies .
It ’ s brutal .
Commenting on the video , Anne Applebaum writes this : Americans , as a rule , rarely compare themselves with other countries , so convinced are we that our system is superior , that our politicians are better , that our democracy is the fairest and most robust in the world .
But watch this video and ask yourself : Is this the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ superpower ?
Does this make you feel confident in our future ?
Or is this man a warning signal , a blinking red light , a screaming siren telling all of us , and all of the world , that something about our political system has gone profoundly awry ?
She is absolutely right .
If we learn nothing else from Trump ’ s time in the Oval Office , it should be to heed the screaming siren telling us that “ something about our political system has gone profoundly awry.
” As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is wrong with our political system didn ’ t start with Trump , but has been building for decades .
While certainly not an exhaustive list , I thought it would be helpful to briefly summarize some of the people who paved the way for where we are today .
Lee Atwater : Along with others in the Nixon White House , implemented the Republican ’ s Southern Strategy ( the early 1970s ) .
Paul Weyrich : Formed a coalition between Goldwater conservatives and Christian nationalists that became the base of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ronald Reagan : Proclaimed , “ Government is not the solution to our problem , government is the problem ” ( 1981 ) .
Newt Gingrich : Turned partisan battles into a bloodsport and wrecked Congress ( the 1990s ) .
Grover Norquist : Not only invented the anti-tax pledge but became the father of obstruction when he forecast that if a Democrat won the White House , Republicans would make it so that they couldn ’ t govern as a Democrat ( 2003 ) .
Mitch McConnell : Implemented Norquist ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate ( 2009-present ) .
Supreme Court : In the Citizens United case , ruled that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited money on elections ( 2010 ) .
That is how the GOP became the party of racists and Christian nationalists funded by the one percent with the goal of undermining the government .
It is also what eventually put Donald Trump in the White House .
Democrats haven ’ t been all that successful in combating these moves .
As the party that embraces both pluralism and the role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adopting these GOP strategies is not an option .
During Barack Obama ’ s second term , he gave an entire speech in Springfield , Illinois , focused on the steps we need to take as citizens to develop “ a better politics.
” His ideas are nothing new , but worth highlighting in this context .
1 .
“ First is to take , or at least reduce , some of the corrosive influence of money in our politics.
” 2 .
“ The second step towards a better politics is rethinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ districts.
” On this one , the President made an interesting point about how this contributes to polarization .
3 .
“ … a third step towards a better politics is making voting easier , not harder ; and modernizing it for the way that we live now.
” He made an interesting point about how this one loops back to # 1 and # 2 .
Interestingly enough , all of those measures were included in the first bill passed by the House ( H.R .
1 ) once Democrats gained a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-avowed “ Grim Reaper ” not only refused to take up that bill , but he went to the floor of the Senate to call it a “ Democratic power grab.
” So it is clear that Republicans will fight any attempt to fix the ways that they have corrupted our political system .
Perhaps that ’ s why Obama took to Twitter to send out a simple one-word message .
Giving Democrats the power to fix our broken political system is just one more way that elections matter .

The folks at Atlantic Studios have produced a video that demonstrates Trump’s lack of leadership on the coronavirus crisis by comparing him to the leaders of other Western democracies. It’s brutal.
Commenting on the video, Anne Applebaum writes this:
Americans, as a rule, rarely compare themselves with other countries, so convinced are we that our system is superior, that our politicians are better, that our democracy is the fairest and most robust in the world. But watch this video and ask yourself: Is this the kind of leadership you expect from a superpower? Does this make you feel confident in our future? Or is this man a warning signal, a blinking red light, a screaming siren telling all of us, and all of the world, that something about our political system has gone profoundly awry?
She is absolutely right. If we learn nothing else from Trump’s time in the Oval Office, it should be to heed the screaming siren telling us that “something about our political system has gone profoundly awry.” As so many others have pointed out, what is wrong with our political system didn’t start with Trump, but has been building for decades.
While certainly not an exhaustive list, I thought it would be helpful to briefly summarize some of the people who paved the way for where we are today.
Lee Atwater: Along with others in the Nixon White House, implemented the Republican’s Southern Strategy (the early 1970s).
Paul Weyrich: Formed a coalition between Goldwater conservatives and Christian nationalists that became the base of the Republican Party (1980).
Ronald Reagan: Proclaimed, “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem” (1981).
Newt Gingrich: Turned partisan battles into a bloodsport and wrecked Congress (the 1990s).
Rupert Murdoch: Launched Fox News (1996).
Grover Norquist: Not only invented the anti-tax pledge but became the father of obstruction when he forecast that if a Democrat won the White House, Republicans would make it so that they couldn’t govern as a Democrat (2003).
Mitch McConnell: Implemented Norquist’s plan of total obstruction and broke the Senate (2009-present).
Supreme Court: In the Citizens United case, ruled that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited money on elections (2010).
That is how the GOP became the party of racists and Christian nationalists funded by the one percent with the goal of undermining the government. It is also what eventually put Donald Trump in the White House.
Democrats haven’t been all that successful in combating these moves. As the party that embraces both pluralism and the role of government in solving problems, simply adopting these GOP strategies is not an option.
During Barack Obama’s second term, he gave an entire speech in Springfield, Illinois, focused on the steps we need to take as citizens to develop “a better politics.” His ideas are nothing new, but worth highlighting in this context.
1. “First is to take, or at least reduce, some of the corrosive influence of money in our politics.”
2. “The second step towards a better politics is rethinking the way that we draw our congressional districts.” On this one, the President made an interesting point about how this contributes to polarization.
You wonder why Congress doesn’t work? The House of Representatives there, there may be a handful — less than 10 percent — of districts that are even competitive at this point. So if you’re a Republican, all you’re worried about is what somebody to your right is saying about you, because you know you’re not going to lose a general election. Same is true for a lot of Democrats.
3. “… a third step towards a better politics is making voting easier, not harder; and modernizing it for the way that we live now.” He made an interesting point about how this one loops back to #1 and #2.
Now, the more Americans use their voice and participate, the less captive our politics will be to narrow constituencies. No matter how much undisclosed money is spent, no matter how many negative ads are run, no matter how unrepresentative a district is drawn, if everybody voted, if a far larger number of people voted, that would overcome in many ways some of these other institutional barriers.
Interestingly enough, all of those measures were included in the first bill passed by the House (H.R. 1) once Democrats gained a majority in the 2018 election. The self-avowed “Grim Reaper” not only refused to take up that bill, but he went to the floor of the Senate to call it a “Democratic power grab.” So it is clear that Republicans will fight any attempt to fix the ways that they have corrupted our political system.
Perhaps that’s why Obama took to Twitter to send out a simple one-word message.
Giving Democrats the power to fix our broken political system is just one more way that elections matter.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-19--How Democrats Can Start to Protect America’s Food

Life under COVID-19 is awash in tragedy and frustration .
People are stuck in their homes .
Millions have lost their jobs .
Front-line healthcare providers don ’ t have the personal protective gear and other equipment they need .
What makes it all even worse is the sense that so much of this was avoidable .
Had the Trump administration arranged adequate testing in late winter , for example , prolonged nationwide lockdowns may have been unnecessary .
At the same time , a more effective federal response—with measures like regular , direct cash assistance to citizens , coupled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alleviated much of the economic devastation .
But while examples of needless suffering abound , few capture the feeling of futility as poignantly as a tweet from Jose Andres last week .
The celebrity chef juxtaposed two images : one of a sea of cars awaiting help at a food bank , the other of a mound of abandoned , soon-to-be rotting potatoes .
Of course , connecting our broken food supply chains—i.e .
the mechanisms by which our food is not only raised and harvested , but packaged , transported , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is one that many feel we should be able to overcome .
Unfortunately , although unsurprisingly , Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue can ’ t seem to be bothered to even make the attempt .
Congressional Democrats can not allow this callous abdication of responsibility to go unaddressed .
Through rigorous oversight , lawmakers can draw media attention to the issue and make clear that the pain that millions are experiencing now is deeper than it had to be because of the administration ’ s unwillingness to take on powerful interests or fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and political pressure are among the only things that may make Trump officials listen and do better .
That would be a welcome first step because there are actions they could take to improve the situation .
School and restaurant closures are changing the way millions eat each day .
A food industrial complex designed to package and ship goods in bulk to professional kitchens is struggling to adapt , leading to shocking levels of waste .
Meanwhile , crushing unemployment and insufficient federal assistance has meant that many are struggling to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of course , significant logistical challenges separating the supply and the demand .
For example , food banks are not well-equipped to accept industrial-sized bags of shredded cheese , and yet retooling packaging systems to produce more appropriately-sized 8 oz .
bags would be a sizable expense , especially if one assumes that restaurant supply chains may one day recover .
It also costs more to harvest crops than it does to destroy them , meaning that many farmers simply can not afford to donate their produce .
And it can take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially across state boundaries .
Ordinarily , this is where the federal government might step in to open its large wallet and flex its tremendous coordinating capacity .
Some simple steps , such as paying farmers to harvest and donate their crops , would go a long way .
But a motivated and energetic Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) would be seeking to do so much more , including working to connect farmers with food banks across the country ; increasing storage capacity for food items ; and paying restaurants to serve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there are ways in which the federal government can help municipalities deliver food from restaurants to poorer communities where reliance on App-based delivery won ’ t work .
Perdue ’ s USDA is only energetic , however , when it is punishing the poor and abetting agricultural consolidation .
Instead of addressing the above action items and responding to pleas from local lawmakers , USDA spent the crisis ’ early days pushing ahead with its cruelest project : an effort to kick almost a million people off of food stamps , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s injunction in mid-March .
As COVID-19 puts meatpacking workers at even greater risk than normal , USDA has been approving meat processing plants ’ requests to increase their line speeds .
Studies have shown that faster processing speeds lead to higher rates of injury and food contamination .
Under our present circumstances , this move is even more disastrous as it makes proper social distancing and other precautions all but impossible .
The solutions Perdue has offered are not really solutions at all , but plainly disgusting attempts to exploit the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s most vulnerable members .
While some lawmakers talk of providing hazard pay and other benefits for essential workers , Perdue has been looking for ways to cut wages for migrant farmworkers in the United States on H-2A visas .
Meanwhile , USDA remained silent about the unfolding crisis in food distribution .
Only after waiting more than a month after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidance discouraging people from dining in restaurants , USDA finally announced its plans to ramp up food purchases .
At the time of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would take another month before food made it to food banks .
That was too late to make a difference for many farmers who had already disposed of their crops .
And it remains to be seen whether USDA ’ s pledged support will be sufficient to stem losses moving forward .
News that the Department passed over qualified companies to award multi-million dollar contracts to firms with limited experience in large scale food distribution does not bode well .
Almost a month after USDA ’ s announcement , even Trump has come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political liability .
Last week , he commenced efforts to cover up his culpability by boosting his administration ’ s ( likely-too-limited ) steps to address the problem through the USDA ’ s new food purchasing program .
But just because he wants to paper over his mistakes , does not mean he should be allowed to get away with it .
This administration ’ s refusal to act has led to immense suffering .
It is up to House Democrats to ensure that that fact is not forgotten .
They must draw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s choices and the painful reality on the ground .
Hearings with Secretary Perdue would likely emphasize the senselessness of his agency ’ s lethargy through March and April ( and its continued missteps ) .
Loud oversight efforts might also encourage some of USDA ’ s career civil servants to blow the whistle for as of yet unknown misconduct .
By making clear that there is someone responsible for the agony , oversight is likely to generate pressure for the agency to act differently .
In fact , there ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published an unflattering expose on USDA ’ s delays , the department announced additional funding for food purchases .
If one article can help accomplish that , imagine what sustained pressure from Congress might do .

Life under COVID-19 is awash in tragedy and frustration. People are stuck in their homes. Millions have lost their jobs. Front-line healthcare providers don’t have the personal protective gear and other equipment they need. What makes it all even worse is the sense that so much of this was avoidable.
Had the Trump administration arranged adequate testing in late winter, for example, prolonged nationwide lockdowns may have been unnecessary. At the same time, a more effective federal response—with measures like regular, direct cash assistance to citizens, coupled with rent and residential mortgage cancellation—could have alleviated much of the economic devastation.
But while examples of needless suffering abound, few capture the feeling of futility as poignantly as a tweet from José Andrés last week. The celebrity chef juxtaposed two images: one of a sea of cars awaiting help at a food bank, the other of a mound of abandoned, soon-to-be rotting potatoes.
Of course, connecting our broken food supply chains—i.e. the mechanisms by which our food is not only raised and harvested, but packaged, transported, and sold—may represent a formidable challenge, but it is one that many feel we should be able to overcome. Unfortunately, although unsurprisingly, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue can’t seem to be bothered to even make the attempt.
Congressional Democrats cannot allow this callous abdication of responsibility to go unaddressed. Through rigorous oversight, lawmakers can draw media attention to the issue and make clear that the pain that millions are experiencing now is deeper than it had to be because of the administration’s unwillingness to take on powerful interests or fight for regular people. The accompanying outrage and political pressure are among the only things that may make Trump officials listen and do better. That would be a welcome first step because there are actions they could take to improve the situation.
School and restaurant closures are changing the way millions eat each day. A food industrial complex designed to package and ship goods in bulk to professional kitchens is struggling to adapt, leading to shocking levels of waste. Meanwhile, crushing unemployment and insufficient federal assistance has meant that many are struggling to get food from any source.
There are, of course, significant logistical challenges separating the supply and the demand. For example, food banks are not well-equipped to accept industrial-sized bags of shredded cheese, and yet retooling packaging systems to produce more appropriately-sized 8 oz. bags would be a sizable expense, especially if one assumes that restaurant supply chains may one day recover. It also costs more to harvest crops than it does to destroy them, meaning that many farmers simply cannot afford to donate their produce. And it can take time to match supply with demand, especially across state boundaries.
Ordinarily, this is where the federal government might step in to open its large wallet and flex its tremendous coordinating capacity. Some simple steps, such as paying farmers to harvest and donate their crops, would go a long way. But a motivated and energetic Department of Agriculture (USDA) would be seeking to do so much more, including working to connect farmers with food banks across the country; increasing storage capacity for food items; and paying restaurants to serve as distribution hubs for food. Then, there are ways in which the federal government can help municipalities deliver food from restaurants to poorer communities where reliance on App-based delivery won’t work.
Perdue’s USDA is only energetic, however, when it is punishing the poor and abetting agricultural consolidation. Instead of addressing the above action items and responding to pleas from local lawmakers, USDA spent the crisis’ early days pushing ahead with its cruelest project: an effort to kick almost a million people off of food stamps, which was only halted thanks to a judge’s injunction in mid-March.
As COVID-19 puts meatpacking workers at even greater risk than normal, USDA has been approving meat processing plants’ requests to increase their line speeds. Studies have shown that faster processing speeds lead to higher rates of injury and food contamination. Under our present circumstances, this move is even more disastrous as it makes proper social distancing and other precautions all but impossible.
The solutions Perdue has offered are not really solutions at all, but plainly disgusting attempts to exploit the crisis to hurt some of our society’s most vulnerable members. While some lawmakers talk of providing hazard pay and other benefits for essential workers, Perdue has been looking for ways to cut wages for migrant farmworkers in the United States on H-2A visas.
Meanwhile, USDA remained silent about the unfolding crisis in food distribution. Only after waiting more than a month after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidance discouraging people from dining in restaurants, USDA finally announced its plans to ramp up food purchases. At the time of the announcement, officials predicted that it would take another month before food made it to food banks. That was too late to make a difference for many farmers who had already disposed of their crops. And it remains to be seen whether USDA’s pledged support will be sufficient to stem losses moving forward. News that the Department passed over qualified companies to award multi-million dollar contracts to firms with limited experience in large scale food distribution does not bode well.
Almost a month after USDA’s announcement, even Trump has come to recognize that these delays represent a political liability. Last week, he commenced efforts to cover up his culpability by boosting his administration’s (likely-too-limited) steps to address the problem through the USDA’s new food purchasing program. But just because he wants to paper over his mistakes, does not mean he should be allowed to get away with it.
This administration’s refusal to act has led to immense suffering. It is up to House Democrats to ensure that that fact is not forgotten. They must draw the direct line between the administration’s choices and the painful reality on the ground. Hearings with Secretary Perdue would likely emphasize the senselessness of his agency’s lethargy through March and April (and its continued missteps). Loud oversight efforts might also encourage some of USDA’s career civil servants to blow the whistle for as of yet unknown misconduct.
By making clear that there is someone responsible for the agony, oversight is likely to generate pressure for the agency to act differently. In fact, there’s a precedence for this. Soon after Politico published an unflattering expose on USDA’s delays, the department announced additional funding for food purchases. If one article can help accomplish that, imagine what sustained pressure from Congress might do.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-19--The Glaring Inconsistency Behind the Russiagate Conspiracy Theory

If only we had a way to go back in time and check out what Trump and his enablers were saying in the past about former President Obama and his administration ’ s investigation of Russiagate .
Oh wait …we do .
One year ago , this is what the president was tweeting .
On the same day , the Trump campaign put out a video titled “ Obama knew.
” In the latter half of that video , you ’ ll see several Democrats , including Representative Adam Schiff , criticizing the Obama administration for not doing enough in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
That has pretty much been the consensus among Democrats and the mainstream media .
For example , the article in which David Ignatius first reported on the telephone call between Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Kislyak was titled , “ Why Did Obama Dawdle on Russian Hacking ?
” An exhaustive report from Washington Post reporters documenting the Obama administration ’ s response sparked a lot of the same criticism , with this being the quote that was cited most often .
Those critiques were echoed in the bipartisan report from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama administration ’ s response to Russian meddling .
They found that “ the U.S. government was not well postured to counter Russian election interference activity.
” In reaching that conclusion , they note things like concern over the potential for escalation by Russia as well as the highly politicized moment of a presidential campaign in which one candidate ( Donald Trump ) was already making accusations about a “ rigged election.
” In the aftermath of Attorney General Barr ’ s decision to drop the charges against Michael Flynn , the selective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the explosion of right-wing media focus on “ Obamagate , ” that consensus has been eliminated from the discussion in favor of painting a caricature of the Obama administration gone rogue in an attempt to promulgate the “ hoax ” of Russiagate .
But in the events that Trump and his enablers bring up to promote “ Obamagate , ” what you hear is an administration struggling with the unprecedented situation in which they found themselves .
On the one hand , a foreign adversary was in the midst of interfering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the candidates .
At the same time , they were seeing evidence that some of that candidate ’ s campaign team might have been involved in those efforts .
There was no playbook for how to handle a situation like that , which meant that there were lots of discussions and some disagreements about how to proceed .
The case of Michael Flynn is a perfect example .
As you recall , he was engaged in some very troubling activities during his tenure as Trump ’ s primary advisor on foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activities was underway , Obama and his team were concerned about briefing him in a way that would normally happen with an incoming administration .
That was the topic of a brief meeting that was held on January 5 , 2017 , at the request of President Obama .
Here is how National Security Advisor Susan Rice documented that discussion .
On January 5 , following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election , President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oval Office .
Vice President Biden and I were also present .
President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “ by the book.
” The President stressed that he is not asking about , initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective .
He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book .
From a national security perspective , however , President Obama said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we engage with the incoming team , we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we can not share information fully as it relates to Russia .
The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team .
Comey said he would .
Because further testimony about that meeting from Sally Yates indicates that it was during that meeting that she learned about the phone call between Flynn and the Russian ambassador @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest that Obama was directing the investigation into Flynn—and Biden was in on it .
Whether to brief Trump on matters related to the investigation was also the source of disagreement between Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord and the FBI , which she says was twisted by Barr .
The potential for blackmail of Mr. Flynn by the Russians is what the former Justice Department leadership , including me , thought needed to be conveyed to the incoming White House .
After all , Mr. Flynn was set to become the national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Russia—which the intelligence community had just assessed had sought to interfere in the U.S. presidential election—might have leverage over him .
This is where the F.B.I .
disagreed with the Justice Department ’ s preferred approach .
The F.B.I .
wasn ’ t ready to reveal this information to the incoming administration right away , preferring to keep investigating , not only as part of its counterintelligence investigation but also possibly as a criminal investigation .
Those disagreements came to a head when , on January 24 , 2017 , the FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days later , Yates warned Trump ’ s White House counsel of the potential for Russia to blackmail him based on his lies , not only to the FBI but to Pence and others in the White House .
Over and over again , what we ’ re seeing is that Trump and his enablers are attempting to exploit moments where officials in the Obama administration struggled to determine how to proceed in an unprecedented situation .
In addition to these examples , that is true of the disagreement about whether to brief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the discussion between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page about the so-called “ insurance policy.
” While Trump ’ s suggestion that Obama “ did nothing ” about Russia is just one more lie from this president , the claims from his campaign last year at least come a bit closer to the truth than the current nonsense about Obamagate .
The previous administration was slow to react and oftentimes riddled with dilemmas about how to proceed in the middle of an investigation that implicated the incoming president .

If only we had a way to go back in time and check out what Trump and his enablers were saying in the past about former President Obama and his administration’s investigation of Russiagate. Oh wait …we do. One year ago, this is what the president was tweeting.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1123564951203930112
On the same day, the Trump campaign put out a video titled “Obama knew.”
In the latter half of that video, you’ll see several Democrats, including Representative Adam Schiff, criticizing the Obama administration for not doing enough in response to Russian interference in the 2016 election. That has pretty much been the consensus among Democrats and the mainstream media.
For example, the article in which David Ignatius first reported on the telephone call between Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Kislyak was titled, “Why Did Obama Dawdle on Russian Hacking?” An exhaustive report from Washington Post reporters documenting the Obama administration’s response sparked a lot of the same criticism, with this being the quote that was cited most often.
“It is the hardest thing about my entire time in government to defend,” said a former senior Obama administration official involved in White House deliberations on Russia. “I feel like we sort of choked.”
Those critiques were echoed in the bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee focused on the Obama administration’s response to Russian meddling. They found that “the U.S. government was not well postured to counter Russian election interference activity.” In reaching that conclusion, they note things like concern over the potential for escalation by Russia as well as the highly politicized moment of a presidential campaign in which one candidate (Donald Trump) was already making accusations about a “rigged election.”
In the aftermath of Attorney General Barr’s decision to drop the charges against Michael Flynn, the selective release of classified materials by DNI Grenell, and the explosion of right-wing media focus on “Obamagate,” that consensus has been eliminated from the discussion in favor of painting a caricature of the Obama administration gone rogue in an attempt to promulgate the “hoax” of Russiagate.
But in the events that Trump and his enablers bring up to promote “Obamagate,” what you hear is an administration struggling with the unprecedented situation in which they found themselves. On the one hand, a foreign adversary was in the midst of interfering in a presidential election on behalf of one of the candidates. At the same time, they were seeing evidence that some of that candidate’s campaign team might have been involved in those efforts. There was no playbook for how to handle a situation like that, which meant that there were lots of discussions and some disagreements about how to proceed.
The case of Michael Flynn is a perfect example. As you recall, he was engaged in some very troubling activities during his tenure as Trump’s primary advisor on foreign policy. While the investigation into those activities was underway, Obama and his team were concerned about briefing him in a way that would normally happen with an incoming administration.
That was the topic of a brief meeting that was held on January 5, 2017, at the request of President Obama. Here is how National Security Advisor Susan Rice documented that discussion.
On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present. President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book.” The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book. From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia. The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.
Because further testimony about that meeting from Sally Yates indicates that it was during that meeting that she learned about the phone call between Flynn and the Russian ambassador, it is now being spun to suggest that Obama was directing the investigation into Flynn—and Biden was in on it.
Whether to brief Trump on matters related to the investigation was also the source of disagreement between Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord and the FBI, which she says was twisted by Barr.
The potential for blackmail of Mr. Flynn by the Russians is what the former Justice Department leadership, including me, thought needed to be conveyed to the incoming White House. After all, Mr. Flynn was set to become the national security adviser, and it was untenable that Russia—which the intelligence community had just assessed had sought to interfere in the U.S. presidential election—might have leverage over him. This is where the F.B.I. disagreed with the Justice Department’s preferred approach. The F.B.I. wasn’t ready to reveal this information to the incoming administration right away, preferring to keep investigating, not only as part of its counterintelligence investigation but also possibly as a criminal investigation.
Those disagreements came to a head when, on January 24, 2017, the FBI moved forward to interview Flynn and two days later, Yates warned Trump’s White House counsel of the potential for Russia to blackmail him based on his lies, not only to the FBI but to Pence and others in the White House.
Over and over again, what we’re seeing is that Trump and his enablers are attempting to exploit moments where officials in the Obama administration struggled to determine how to proceed in an unprecedented situation. In addition to these examples, that is true of the disagreement about whether to brief Trump on the Steele dossier as well as the discussion between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page about the so-called “insurance policy.”
While Trump’s suggestion that Obama “did nothing” about Russia is just one more lie from this president, the claims from his campaign last year at least come a bit closer to the truth than the current nonsense about Obamagate. The previous administration was slow to react and oftentimes riddled with dilemmas about how to proceed in the middle of an investigation that implicated the incoming president.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-19--Did Trump Invite the Obamas to See Their Portraits Unveiled?

What a president says matters .
If a president suggests it might be a good idea to ingest disinfectants , you should expect a spike in emergency calls to poison control .
If they announce they ’ re taking a dangerous drug that causes heart arrhythmias , you can expect an increase in fatal heart attacks .
But it also matters what ex-presidents do and say .
Ever since 1980 , it has been a custom for the current occupants of the White House to host their immediate predecessors for the unveiling of their official portraits .
Jimmy Carter is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He hosted the Ford family in 1980 , but did not appear in Reagan ’ s White House for his own unveiling .
Poppy Bush hosted the Reagans , Clinton hosted the Bushes , Dubya and Laura hosted the Clintons , and Obama hosted his predecessors in May 2012 .
The process is a familiar one .
The outgoing president and First Lady select an artist and once the portraits are ready , arrangements are made with the new administration for a little ceremony .
Commonly , there are invited guests , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s unclear whether the Trumps have offered this courtesy to Michelle and Barack Obama , but it is clear that the Obamas are not showing up .
Trump is unconcerned about shunning yet another presidential custom , and he has attacked Obama to an extent no other president has done to a predecessor .
Most recently he ’ s made unfounded accusations that Obama committed an unspecified crime .
Obama , for his part , has no interest in participating in the post-presidency rite of passage so long as Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the matter said .
After Obama obliquely criticized Trump during his commencements speeches on Saturday , Trump called him “ grossly incompetent ” on Sunday , so it ’ s not a surprise that the two families don ’ t want to get together .
I suppose it ’ s nice when two competing political powerhouses can put their competition aside and break bread , but it does tend to minimize the importance of the issues that separate them .
For the Obamas , showing up in the Trump White House would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s behavior , and that sends a signal they don ’ t want to send .
The message they want to send is the opposite .
No one should try to play nice with this administration or behave as if things are okay .
That will give others the courage to do the same .
While Trump poisons his supporters with horrible medical advice , the Obamas will lead the rest of us on the moral plane .

What a president says matters. If a president suggests it might be a good idea to ingest disinfectants, you should expect a spike in emergency calls to poison control. If they announce they’re taking a dangerous drug that causes heart arrhythmias, you can expect an increase in fatal heart attacks.
But it also matters what ex-presidents do and say. Ever since 1980, it has been a custom for the current occupants of the White House to host their immediate predecessors for the unveiling of their official portraits. Jimmy Carter is the only exception in that time. He hosted the Ford family in 1980, but did not appear in Reagan’s White House for his own unveiling. Poppy Bush hosted the Reagans, Clinton hosted the Bushes, Dubya and Laura hosted the Clintons, and Obama hosted his predecessors in May 2012.
The process is a familiar one. The outgoing president and First Lady select an artist and once the portraits are ready, arrangements are made with the new administration for a little ceremony. Commonly, there are invited guests, including former staffers, and perhaps a lunch. It’s unclear whether the Trumps have offered this courtesy to Michelle and Barack Obama, but it is clear that the Obamas are not showing up.
Trump is unconcerned about shunning yet another presidential custom, and he has attacked Obama to an extent no other president has done to a predecessor. Most recently he’s made unfounded accusations that Obama committed an unspecified crime. Obama, for his part, has no interest in participating in the post-presidency rite of passage so long as Trump is in office, the people familiar with the matter said.
After Obama obliquely criticized Trump during his commencement speeches on Saturday, Trump called him “grossly incompetent” on Sunday, so it’s not a surprise that the two families don’t want to get together. I suppose it’s nice when two competing political powerhouses can put their competition aside and break bread, but it does tend to minimize the importance of the issues that separate them. For the Obamas, showing up in the Trump White House would be a way of normalizing the president’s behavior, and that sends a signal they don’t want to send.
The message they want to send is the opposite. No one should try to play nice with this administration or behave as if things are okay. That will give others the courage to do the same.
While Trump poisons his supporters with horrible medical advice, the Obamas will lead the rest of us on the moral plane.


washingtonmonthly--2020-05-20--What Obama Gets About National Mourning That Trump Doesn’t

Over the course of this pandemic , we have occasionally run across powerful stories , like this one about Dr. James Mahoney .
In the first weeks after the coronavirus pandemic hit New York , Dr. James A. Mahoney barely slept .
When he was not working his day shifts at an intensive care unit at University Hospital of Brooklyn , he was working nights across the street at Kings County Hospital Center .
When he was not at a hospital , he was conducting telemedicine sessions with his regular patients from home , making sure they were wearing masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years as a physician , Dr. Mahoney , 62 , could have retired .
Others his age , including his older brother , also a doctor , stopped seeing hospital patients as the pandemic loomed , worried that age or health issues put them in greater danger than younger colleagues .
Friends , family and fellow physicians begged Dr. Mahoney to do the same .
He had been on the front lines for AIDS , the crack epidemic , the Sept. 11 , 2001 , terrorist attacks , Hurricane Sandy .
Why not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Take a break , save yourself .
He would not do it .
Dr. Mahoney belonged on the floor , and that is where he would stay , until the end .
On April 27 , he succumbed to the virus he had fought so vigorously .
That story is a reminder of the terrible losses we have experienced as a result of this pandemic .
But the reality is that Dr. Mahoney is one of the more than 90,000 lives we ’ ve lost to COVID-19 .
About the time that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Vietnam War , David Colton wrote about our need as a country to mourn .
So why is the grieving so hard ?
The enormity of the pandemic death toll is wrapped in a wall of silence , not connecting with our politicians , the media nor the public .
Thankful applause echoes nightly for nurses and caregivers , but there are few candlelight vigils for the dead ; churches are shuttered ; most families can not even hold funerals .
Doesn ’ t our national loss deserve more than just checking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and shaking our heads as the death toll tops 50,000 , then 67,000 and beyond ?
As we saw with the “ Graduate Together ” event last weekend , social distancing doesn ’ t mean that it is impossible for the nation to gather in mourning .
What is missing is a national figurehead with the vision and empathy to lead the way .
For eight years , Obama was called on pretty often to address the nation at times of overwhelming loss .
He gave eulogies in cities from Tucson , Arizona @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Obama and Bush ) joined the service to honor the police officers who were killed in Dallas , Texas .
Of course , all of us remember the leader who sang “ Amazing Grace ” at the memorial for the nine souls lost to a gunman in Charleston .
But it wasn ’ t just memorial services .
Whenever there were lives and livelihoods lost to floods , hurricanes , tornadoes , or fires , President Obama would always travel to the scene to comfort those who were grieving and remind them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were there for them .
This president rarely does that .
When he has travelled to the scene of a natural disaster or shooting , he has participated in cringe-worthy moments like throwing paper towels to the survivors of a hurricane or posing for a “ thumbs up ” picture with a baby who had just been orphaned by a shooting .
What ’ s interesting is that , in some circles , Trump is heralded as the politician who connects emotionally with voters , while columnists like Maureen Dowd referred to Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , especially as a black man , Obama never had time for grievance politics and considers himself to be a counter-puncher when it comes to anger .
But he had tremendous empathy for those who were struggling or grieving major losses .
That was always a comfort in moments of national tragedy .
Trump , on the other hand , can hardly bring himself to even mention those who have lost their lives to this pandemic , much less comfort grieving family members .
He has zero capacity for empathy given that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to assuaging his narcissistic ego .
That is why no one in their right mind would ever look to this president to lead the nation in mourning our losses to this pandemic .
We ’ ll have to take care of that on our own .
Perhaps in this little corner of the world we can gather virtually to sing “ Amazing Grace ” for those we ’ ve lost , like Dr. James Mahoney .

Over the course of this pandemic, we have occasionally run across powerful stories, like this one about Dr. James Mahoney.
In the first weeks after the coronavirus pandemic hit New York, Dr. James A. Mahoney barely slept. When he was not working his day shifts at an intensive care unit at University Hospital of Brooklyn, he was working nights across the street at Kings County Hospital Center. When he was not at a hospital, he was conducting telemedicine sessions with his regular patients from home, making sure they were wearing masks and washing their hands… After nearly 40 years as a physician, Dr. Mahoney, 62, could have retired. Others his age, including his older brother, also a doctor, stopped seeing hospital patients as the pandemic loomed, worried that age or health issues put them in greater danger than younger colleagues. Friends, family and fellow physicians begged Dr. Mahoney to do the same. He had been on the front lines for AIDS, the crack epidemic, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Hurricane Sandy. Why not skip this one, they asked. Take a break, save yourself. He would not do it. Dr. Mahoney belonged on the floor, and that is where he would stay, until the end. On April 27, he succumbed to the virus he had fought so vigorously.
That story is a reminder of the terrible losses we have experienced as a result of this pandemic. But the reality is that Dr. Mahoney is one of the more than 90,000 lives we’ve lost to COVID-19. About the time that the death toll surpassed the number killed in the Vietnam War, David Colton wrote about our need as a country to mourn.
So why is the grieving so hard? The enormity of the pandemic death toll is wrapped in a wall of silence, not connecting with our politicians, the media nor the public. Thankful applause echoes nightly for nurses and caregivers, but there are few candlelight vigils for the dead; churches are shuttered; most families cannot even hold funerals. Doesn’t our national loss deserve more than just checking the number on CNN every hour, and shaking our heads as the death toll tops 50,000, then 67,000 and beyond?
As we saw with the “Graduate Together” event last weekend, social distancing doesn’t mean that it is impossible for the nation to gather in mourning. What is missing is a national figurehead with the vision and empathy to lead the way.
For eight years, Obama was called on pretty often to address the nation at times of overwhelming loss. He gave eulogies in cities from Tucson, Arizona to Newtown, Connecticut. Two presidents (Obama and Bush) joined the service to honor the police officers who were killed in Dallas, Texas. Of course, all of us remember the leader who sang “Amazing Grace” at the memorial for the nine souls lost to a gunman in Charleston.
But it wasn’t just memorial services. Whenever there were lives and livelihoods lost to floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, or fires, President Obama would always travel to the scene to comfort those who were grieving and remind them that, as a nation, we were there for them.
This president rarely does that. When he has travelled to the scene of a natural disaster or shooting, he has participated in cringe-worthy moments like throwing paper towels to the survivors of a hurricane or posing for a “thumbs up” picture with a baby who had just been orphaned by a shooting.
What’s interesting is that, in some circles, Trump is heralded as the politician who connects emotionally with voters, while columnists like Maureen Dowd referred to Obama “President Spock.” It is true that, especially as a black man, Obama never had time for grievance politics and considers himself to be a counter-puncher when it comes to anger. But he had tremendous empathy for those who were struggling or grieving major losses. That was always a comfort in moments of national tragedy.
Trump, on the other hand, can hardly bring himself to even mention those who have lost their lives to this pandemic, much less comfort grieving family members. He has zero capacity for empathy given that every ounce of emotional energy is dedicated to assuaging his narcissistic ego. That is why no one in their right mind would ever look to this president to lead the nation in mourning our losses to this pandemic. We’ll have to take care of that on our own.
Perhaps in this little corner of the world we can gather virtually to sing “Amazing Grace” for those we’ve lost, like Dr. James Mahoney.