washingtonmonthly--2020-08-02--Forcing People Back to Work in a Pandemic is Both Stupid and Immoral

America ’ s economy is teetering on a precipice .
The COVID pandemic , abetted by the Trump administration ’ s incompetent and immoral failure in responding to it , has pushed to the brink a nation already staggering from record generational and racial inequalities in housing , income and debt .
The economy has contracted by almost a third .
The unemployment rate has hit a Great Depression-level 15 % , with little prospect of improvement .
32 % of Americans missed their rent or mortgage payments in July , even as eviction protections just expired last week .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Great Depression has only been staved off temporarily by unprecedented federal stimulus–help that is coming to an end while Senate Republicans and the Trump White House dither .
The continued exuberance of the stock market in these crisis conditions is no salve , either : it only makes the problem worse .
Much populist anger on both sides of the aisle is driven by the realization that the federal government exists primarily in order to prop up the fortunes of the wealthy living off passive income .
The Dow Jones is clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of economic health , but rather a Rich People ’ s Feelings Index disconnected from the lived experience of the vast majority of working Americans .
Americans not lucky enough to depend on passive wealth are in desperate need of money to pay for food , rent and necessities .
Even those who have maintained salaries working from home are often at wit ’ s end trying to take care of children or older loved ones in social isolation while working full-time from home without the support of school , babysitting or elder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the same Trump White House that functionally committed genocide by letting poor people of color and likely Democratic voters die in blue states and counties for political reasons , is also trying to cut unemployment benefits for the desperate and force them into outside work .
First , if people getting $ 600 a week from government assistance are being “ overpaid ” compared to their jobs , that says much more about their wage than about the assistance .
$ 600 per week is not a living wage in any American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unable to pay rent anywhere .
That itself is a crisis .
If a job needs doing , then basic justice and social stability require the person doing it to be able afford at a minimum food , shelter and basic dignity .
If an economic system makes that impossible , then it ’ s time to rethink the grounding principles of that system .
Economic systems exist to serve people , not the other way around .
The outrage of it is even more acute given that billionaires saw their fortunes explode @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion more , even as so many of the workers we have deemed “ essential ” to the nation ’ s survival slip further into the abyss .
But second and perhaps more importantly , trying to incentivize people to work in a raging pandemic is both morally perverse and economically stupid .
The problem isn ’ t a lack of jobs : it ’ s a lack of customers .
No one in their right mind wants to go to malls or dining indoors in bars and restaurants right now .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have bought into conservative infotainment propaganda declaring the virus a hoax or who believe that the pandemic is only a problem for those Other people who live where they don ’ t and don ’ t look like them .
But even that crowd is beginning to understand the scope of the problem as the pandemic has shifted to Trump country .
The leopards are eating everyone ’ s faces now .
Not even most diehard conservatives want to die , do permanent damage to their heart and lungs , or get their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force a hairdresser back into the salon , but you can ’ t make people come in for haircuts .
The problem , in other words , isn ’ t supply or incentives : it ’ s a basic lack of demand .
Acolytes of Milton Friedman economics don ’ t seem even capable of understanding this point .
As Paul Krugman said yesterday in a series of tweets : To make sense of the benefits disaster , you have to realize that Republicans don ’ t understand that lack of sufficient demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t mean that they ’ ve rejected that view ; they don ’ t even know where it comes from…In [ conservative economist Larry Kudlow ’ s ] view , higher output means lower inflation , because money is chasing more goods .
Not a hint that he understood that output might be depressed because of insufficient spending , or even that he understood the concept .
“ I don ’ t get it , ” he declared ; that at least was true… So the whole GOP lives in a mental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be unemployed is because they don ’ t want to work , or maybe because employers pay too much taxes .
The idea that cutting off income for millions will lead to more unemployment isn ’ t in their mind .
And what they don ’ t know can very much hurt you , and almost everyone else .
As long as the virus is raging , you can ’ t open schools without exposing teachers , administrators , parents and functionally the entire community to infection , debilitating health risks and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , parents can not effectively work .
People won ’ t patronize restaurants or bars that are COVID death traps .
Not even professional sports teams in non-contact sports with essentially unlimited resources can protect their teams from mass infection , even without stadium crowds .
There is no path to reopening the economy that does not begin with controlling the virus .
As long as there is no consistent federal effort to lock down , test and contact trace , the virus will not be contained .
Without containment , the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay people to stay home .
If the inflation hawks insist there is no money to do so , perhaps they should acquire some for the federal coffers by conscripting some of the nearly $ 500 billion that billionaires have looted just in the last few months .
You can not force an entire country ’ s citizens to sacrifice their lives on the altar of Steve Mnuchin ’ s investment returns .
Any attempt to do so would inevitably trigger riots , even veering into violent revolt and low-scale civil conflict in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ literally tear the country apart .
And it wouldn ’ t work , anyway .
If Republican politicians want a sharp economic recovery to boost their election prospects , there is no alternative to doing what they should have done back in February and March : control the virus , develop a federal test and trace program , and pay people to stay home and take care of themselves , their kids and loved ones .
We need to be reducing the pressure on and danger to all the essential workers in healthcare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elsewhere , on whom our basic functioning as a society depends .
Forcing people back to work in a pandemic is economically stupid , civically destructive and morally outrageous .

America’s economy is teetering on a precipice. The COVID pandemic, abetted by the Trump administration’s incompetent and immoral failure in responding to it, has pushed to the brink a nation already staggering from record generational and racial inequalities in housing, income and debt. The economy has contracted by almost a third. The unemployment rate has hit a Great Depression-level 15%, with little prospect of improvement. 32% of Americans missed their rent or mortgage payments in July, even as eviction protections just expired last week. A looming social crisis more severe than the Great Depression has only been staved off temporarily by unprecedented federal stimulus–help that is coming to an end while Senate Republicans and the Trump White House dither.
The continued exuberance of the stock market in these crisis conditions is no salve, either: it only makes the problem worse. Much populist anger on both sides of the aisle is driven by the realization that the federal government exists primarily in order to prop up the fortunes of the wealthy living off passive income. The Dow Jones is clearly not an indicator of any objective sense of economic health, but rather a Rich People’s Feelings Index disconnected from the lived experience of the vast majority of working Americans.
Americans not lucky enough to depend on passive wealth are in desperate need of money to pay for food, rent and necessities. Even those who have maintained salaries working from home are often at wit’s end trying to take care of children or older loved ones in social isolation while working full-time from home without the support of school, babysitting or elder care. People need help. Unfortunately, the same Trump White House that functionally committed genocide by letting poor people of color and likely Democratic voters die in blue states and counties for political reasons, is also trying to cut unemployment benefits for the desperate and force them into outside work.
First, if people getting $600 a week from government assistance are being “overpaid” compared to their jobs, that says much more about their wage than about the assistance. $600 per week is not a living wage in any American city. Minimum wage workers are literally unable to pay rent anywhere. That itself is a crisis. If a job needs doing, then basic justice and social stability require the person doing it to be able afford at a minimum food, shelter and basic dignity. If an economic system makes that impossible, then it’s time to rethink the grounding principles of that system. Economic systems exist to serve people, not the other way around. The outrage of it is even more acute given that billionaires saw their fortunes explode upwards to the tune of $434 billion more, even as so many of the workers we have deemed “essential” to the nation’s survival slip further into the abyss.
But second and perhaps more importantly, trying to incentivize people to work in a raging pandemic is both morally perverse and economically stupid. The problem isn’t a lack of jobs: it’s a lack of customers. No one in their right mind wants to go to malls or dining indoors in bars and restaurants right now. The few that are, are those who have bought into conservative infotainment propaganda declaring the virus a hoax or who believe that the pandemic is only a problem for those Other people who live where they don’t and don’t look like them. But even that crowd is beginning to understand the scope of the problem as the pandemic has shifted to Trump country. The leopards are eating everyone’s faces now. Not even most diehard conservatives want to die, do permanent damage to their heart and lungs, or get their parents killed for Trump. You can force a hairdresser back into the salon, but you can’t make people come in for haircuts.
The problem, in other words, isn’t supply or incentives: it’s a basic lack of demand. Acolytes of Milton Friedman economics don’t seem even capable of understanding this point. As Paul Krugman said yesterday in a series of tweets:
To make sense of the benefits disaster, you have to realize that Republicans don’t understand that lack of sufficient demand can cause mass unemployment. I don’t mean that they’ve rejected that view; they don’t even know where it comes from…In [conservative economist Larry Kudlow’s] view, higher output means lower inflation, because money is chasing more goods. Not a hint that he understood that output might be depressed because of insufficient spending, or even that he understood the concept. “I don’t get it,” he declared; that at least was true… So the whole GOP lives in a mental universe in which the only reason people might be unemployed is because they don’t want to work, or maybe because employers pay too much taxes. The idea that cutting off income for millions will lead to more unemployment isn’t in their mind. And what they don’t know can very much hurt you, and almost everyone else.
As long as the virus is raging, you can’t open schools without exposing teachers, administrators, parents and functionally the entire community to infection, debilitating health risks and death. If schools cannot open, parents cannot effectively work. People won’t patronize restaurants or bars that are COVID death traps. Not even professional sports teams in non-contact sports with essentially unlimited resources can protect their teams from mass infection, even without stadium crowds.
There is no path to reopening the economy that does not begin with controlling the virus. As long as there is no consistent federal effort to lock down, test and contact trace, the virus will not be contained. Without containment, the government must use its money printing ability to pay people to stay home. If the inflation hawks insist there is no money to do so, perhaps they should acquire some for the federal coffers by conscripting some of the nearly $500 billion that billionaires have looted just in the last few months.
You cannot force an entire country’s citizens to sacrifice their lives on the altar of Steve Mnuchin’s investment returns. Any attempt to do so would inevitably trigger riots, even veering into violent revolt and low-scale civil conflict in a hyperpartisan powder keg. It would literally tear the country apart. And it wouldn’t work, anyway.
If Republican politicians want a sharp economic recovery to boost their election prospects, there is no alternative to doing what they should have done back in February and March: control the virus, develop a federal test and trace program, and pay people to stay home and take care of themselves, their kids and loved ones. We need to be reducing the pressure on and danger to all the essential workers in healthcare, food preparation, civil infrastructure and elsewhere, on whom our basic functioning as a society depends.
Forcing people back to work in a pandemic is economically stupid, civically destructive and morally outrageous.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-03--The One Thing We Know About Biden’s VP Choice

Apart from the daily outrages of Trump and his enablers , the hot political story these days is the countdown to Biden ’ s announcement of his running mate .
As a reminder , here are the guidelines the candidate laid out for his selection process .
His choice for vice president will be : • able to step into the job of being president from day one , • someone who agrees with him in principle and philosophically , • someone who can make up for his weaknesses , • someone he can trust , and • someone who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will always have his back .
What is clear from that list is that , other than the gender of the candidate , the most important thing for Biden is to replicate—as close as possible—his relationship with Barack Obama .
As we view all of the commentary leading up to this announcement , it is important to keep in mind that most of the arguments being made in favor of one candidate or against another are meaningless .
For example , as Christopher Devine and Kyle Kopko documented , “ running mates usually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or demographic groups.
” Other than being made in the midst of a pandemic , there is one factor in this process that sets it apart from historical precedents .
The number one item on the list up above has limited the discussion to various women candidates .
As such , we ’ re hearing some arguments that have never surfaced in the past when it was assumed that the nominee would be a man .
For example , I don ’ t remember vice presidential candidates being criticized for being too ambitious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In most instances , those things were assumed , indicating that this is the kind of critique that is only leveled against women .
The truth is that , among the women who are rumored to be under consideration , any one of them would be an impressive choice .
It seems that in politics these days , we actually have to point out that none of them is perfect , even though that has never been true of any human being on the planet .
But it is hard to imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of colossal failure we all witnessed when John McCain chose Sarah Palin .
As the old saying goes , Biden actually has an “ embarrassment of riches ” when it comes to choosing just one of these women to be his running mate—which is something Democrats should keep in mind when/if their preferred woman isn ’ t chosen .
That ’ s because the biggest challenge a new administration will face is to clean up the horrendous mess left by the Trump administration .
Biden ’ s cabinet will be at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So there will be a critical job for everyone on the list .
As we await Biden ’ s announcement , there is one thing we know about his choice .
The initial reaction from Trump and his enablers will be to attack her with everything they ’ ve got .
The idea that any one of them will be an easier target or a safe bet is , at best , incredibly naive .
Over at Fox News , Liz Peek gave us a preview of how all of that will play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do know : almost certainly Biden will pick a woman of color ; he has no choice .
He owes his nomination to black voters , and they have demanded a seat at the table .
The short list of potential running mates now includes Sen. Kamala Harris , former National Security Adviser Susan Rice , California Rep. Karen Bass , who leads the Congressional Black Caucus , Florida Rep. Val Demings and Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms .
While all five of these women have impressive bios , all have serious shortcomings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lifting that this role will require .
Peek goes through each one of these women ’ s “ shortcomings ” only to conclude that when Biden delayed his announcement until next week , it must be because he is dithering .
Trump and his enablers have thrown everything they can think of at Joe Biden , but nothing is sticking .
So they ’ ll do the exact same thing to his vice presidential nominee—with the ultimate aim of suggesting that Biden is weak and an “ empty vessel ” controlled by those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is coming , regardless of his choice .
But all along , voters have made one thing perfectly clear : this election will not be primarily about Joe Biden or his running mate .
Instead , it will be a referendum on the narcissistic , mendacious , incompetent bully who currently occupies the Oval Office .
If you think that a choice of running mate by the opposition changes things , Morning Consult has a poll for that .
While some of the potential candidates with less name recognition don ’ t fare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ margin of error of +/- 2 points indicates that Biden ’ s choice won ’ t have much effect .
Presidential elections after one four-year term are often a referendum on the incumbent .
That has never been more true than it will be in November .
The dynamics of this race have already been set , leaving Biden free to pick the woman who can best help him govern .

Apart from the daily outrages of Trump and his enablers, the hot political story these days is the countdown to Biden’s announcement of his running mate. As a reminder, here are the guidelines the candidate laid out for his selection process. His choice for vice president will be:
a woman, able to step into the job of being president from day one, someone who agrees with him in principle and philosophically, someone who can make up for his weaknesses, someone he can trust, and someone who will tell him the truth, but will always have his back.
What is clear from that list is that, other than the gender of the candidate, the most important thing for Biden is to replicate—as close as possible—his relationship with Barack Obama.
As we view all of the commentary leading up to this announcement, it is important to keep in mind that most of the arguments being made in favor of one candidate or against another are meaningless. For example, as Christopher Devine and Kyle Kopko documented, “running mates usually fail to deliver votes among targeted geographic or demographic groups.”
Other than being made in the midst of a pandemic, there is one factor in this process that sets it apart from historical precedents. The number one item on the list up above has limited the discussion to various women candidates. As such, we’re hearing some arguments that have never surfaced in the past when it was assumed that the nominee would be a man. For example, I don’t remember vice presidential candidates being criticized for being too ambitious or wanting to run for president someday. In most instances, those things were assumed, indicating that this is the kind of critique that is only leveled against women.
The truth is that, among the women who are rumored to be under consideration, any one of them would be an impressive choice. It seems that in politics these days, we actually have to point out that none of them is perfect, even though that has never been true of any human being on the planet. But it is hard to imagine any one of these women being the kind of colossal failure we all witnessed when John McCain chose Sarah Palin.
As the old saying goes, Biden actually has an “embarrassment of riches” when it comes to choosing just one of these women to be his running mate—which is something Democrats should keep in mind when/if their preferred woman isn’t chosen. That’s because the biggest challenge a new administration will face is to clean up the horrendous mess left by the Trump administration. Biden’s cabinet will be at least as important as his vice president. So there will be a critical job for everyone on the list.
As we await Biden’s announcement, there is one thing we know about his choice. The initial reaction from Trump and his enablers will be to attack her with everything they’ve got. The idea that any one of them will be an easier target or a safe bet is, at best, incredibly naive. Over at Fox News, Liz Peek gave us a preview of how all of that will play out.
Here’s what we do know: almost certainly Biden will pick a woman of color; he has no choice. He owes his nomination to black voters, and they have demanded a seat at the table. The short list of potential running mates now includes Sen. Kamala Harris, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, California Rep. Karen Bass, who leads the Congressional Black Caucus, Florida Rep. Val Demings and Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms. While all five of these women have impressive bios, all have serious shortcomings and none can possibly perform the heavy lifting that this role will require.
Peek goes through each one of these women’s “shortcomings” only to conclude that when Biden delayed his announcement until next week, it must be because he is dithering.
No wonder Biden is dithering. He is looking for a loyal and like-minded vice president and partner, the VP he was to Barack Obama and Mike Pence has been to President Trump. But he also needs someone to light up the ticket. Another week will not solve this puzzle.
Trump and his enablers have thrown everything they can think of at Joe Biden, but nothing is sticking. So they’ll do the exact same thing to his vice presidential nominee—with the ultimate aim of suggesting that Biden is weak and an “empty vessel” controlled by those around him. That’s what is coming, regardless of his choice.
But all along, voters have made one thing perfectly clear: this election will not be primarily about Joe Biden or his running mate. Instead, it will be a referendum on the narcissistic, mendacious, incompetent bully who currently occupies the Oval Office. If you think that a choice of running mate by the opposition changes things, Morning Consult has a poll for that.
While some of the potential candidates with less name recognition don’t fare as well in national polling, a margin of error of +/- 2 points indicates that Biden’s choice won’t have much effect.
Presidential elections after one four-year term are often a referendum on the incumbent. That has never been more true than it will be in November. The dynamics of this race have already been set, leaving Biden free to pick the woman who can best help him govern.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-03--Why a Big Biden Win Will Make America Less Polarized and More Governable

When I wrote How to Win Rural Voters Without Losing Liberal Values for the June/July/August issue of the Washington Monthly , I was seeking a way for the Democrats to win back the White House , the House of Representatives , and control of state legislatures .
The title of the piece carried more meaning than you might think , because it wasn ’ t solely about the moral quandary of courting the votes of so-called “ deplorables.
” It was part of my thesis that a party dependent primarily on affluent , well-educated suburbanites would do a poor job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men and women , irrespective of their race .
For a host of reasons , I wanted the Democrats to pursue a broad front strategy , and I absolutely believed that Trump ’ s complete dominance of white working class voters was reversible .
I might have argued that Trump was certain to be such a colossal screw up that he ’ d lose a significant chunk of his support , but that would have hardly created a blueprint for action .
I wasn ’ t content to act on faith , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats taking antitrust enforcement seriously , in an effort to revitalize small business ownership and opportunity throughout small town America .
As it turns out , the Democrats didn ’ t have to do much of anything but sit back and let Trump alienate first the suburbs and now the remainder of the country .
That ’ s not entirely accurate , actually , because while suburban seats formed the basis for the new Democratic House majority after the 2018 midterms , the Republicans actually lost a higher percentage of their support in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” defection was significant two years ago , it just didn ’ t have much of an effect .
It ’ s a process that has sped up and now threatens to have a huge effect .
Harry Enten explains for CNN that white working class voters have turned on Trump to a significant degree .
Biden has clear leads in an average of the last three CNN approved polls in the states of Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin .
On average , Biden is up by 9 points in Michigan , 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin .
Biden ’ s upward trajectory is because of vast improvements among White voters in a comparison of Biden ’ s standing in each poll to how Clinton did with them… …Still , the size of Biden ’ s rise over Clinton in these states is clear enough that it ’ s well outside the range of any statistical anomaly .
• None Michigan : Trump leads by an average of 3 points among White voters .
Four years ago , Trump won amongst these voters by 15 points .
• None @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points with White voters .
In 2016 , Trump won them by 15 points .
• None Wisconsin : Biden ’ s up by 6 points with White voters .
Last election , Trump took them by 7 points .
These are three important states , but the collapse of Trump ’ s advantage with white voters is having an impact on races in every state , including Republican strongholds like Texas , Georgia , Arizona , and Kansas .
It was never true that white working class voters were inseparably wed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strongest group of support , but they were a bedrock part of the New Deal Democratic coalition for a reason .
They knew the Republicans were the party for their factory bosses and distant plutocrats .
They belonged to a working man ’ s party until the economy stopped delivering them a decent lifestyle , and then they became susceptible to highly targeted media-driven efforts to appeal to their basest instincts and cultural alienation .
They ’ re still susceptible to those messages , but they ’ re turning on Trump because he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It won ’ t take too much of a defection for “ safe ” red districts and states to begin to fall in the Democrats ’ column .
And that will have one big consequence .
For the first time in a long time , the country will get less polarized .
It will be less polarized geographically , and also less polarized by race and culture .
As a result , the country will become more governable .
There will be Democrats who don ’ t want these voters in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who don ’ t welcome the # NeverTrumpers who brought us Dick and George ’ s Excellent Adventure in Iraq .
They won ’ t be reliable allies or stalwart members of the base .
But , on many economic issues , they can be crucial supporters .
If you want a higher minimum wage , a more comprehensive health care system , and the breakup of super-monopolies that are stifling economic opportunity , these folks are going to be very helpful .
Large , durable political majorities have always included some “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took in the Know-Nothings .
FDR ’ s majority was anchored in the segregated South .
Big majorities make it possible to do big things , and that ’ s what the country needs right now .

When I wrote How to Win Rural Voters Without Losing Liberal Values for the June/July/August issue of the Washington Monthly, I was seeking a way for the Democrats to win back the White House, the House of Representatives, and control of state legislatures. The title of the piece carried more meaning than you might think, because it wasn’t solely about the moral quandary of courting the votes of so-called “deplorables.” It was part of my thesis that a party dependent primarily on affluent, well-educated suburbanites would do a poor job of being an advocate for working class men and women, irrespective of their race. For a host of reasons, I wanted the Democrats to pursue a broad front strategy, and I absolutely believed that Trump’s complete dominance of white working class voters was reversible.
I might have argued that Trump was certain to be such a colossal screw up that he’d lose a significant chunk of his support, but that would have hardly created a blueprint for action. I wasn’t content to act on faith, which is why I emphasized the importance of Democrats taking antitrust enforcement seriously, in an effort to revitalize small business ownership and opportunity throughout small town America. As it turns out, the Democrats didn’t have to do much of anything but sit back and let Trump alienate first the suburbs and now the remainder of the country.
That’s not entirely accurate, actually, because while suburban seats formed the basis for the new Democratic House majority after the 2018 midterms, the Republicans actually lost a higher percentage of their support in safely red districts. The “deplorable” defection was significant two years ago, it just didn’t have much of an effect. It’s a process that has sped up and now threatens to have a huge effect.
Harry Enten explains for CNN that white working class voters have turned on Trump to a significant degree.
Biden has clear leads in an average of the last three CNN approved polls in the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. On average, Biden is up by 9 points in Michigan, 11 points in Pennsylvania and 10 points in Wisconsin. Biden’s upward trajectory is because of vast improvements among White voters in a comparison of Biden’s standing in each poll to how Clinton did with them… …Still, the size of Biden’s rise over Clinton in these states is clear enough that it’s well outside the range of any statistical anomaly. Michigan: Trump leads by an average of 3 points among White voters. Four years ago, Trump won amongst these voters by 15 points.
Pennsylvania: Biden is ahead by 3 points with White voters. In 2016, Trump won them by 15 points.
Wisconsin: Biden’s up by 6 points with White voters. Last election, Trump took them by 7 points.
These are three important states, but the collapse of Trump’s advantage with white voters is having an impact on races in every state, including Republican strongholds like Texas, Georgia, Arizona, and Kansas. It was never true that white working class voters were inseparably wed to Donald Trump. They still form his strongest group of support, but they were a bedrock part of the New Deal Democratic coalition for a reason. They knew the Republicans were the party for their factory bosses and distant plutocrats. They belonged to a working man’s party until the economy stopped delivering them a decent lifestyle, and then they became susceptible to highly targeted media-driven efforts to appeal to their basest instincts and cultural alienation.
They’re still susceptible to those messages, but they’re turning on Trump because he’s manifestly terrible at his job. It won’t take too much of a defection for “safe” red districts and states to begin to fall in the Democrats’ column. And that will have one big consequence. For the first time in a long time, the country will get less polarized. It will be less polarized geographically, and also less polarized by race and culture. As a result, the country will become more governable.
There will be Democrats who don’t want these voters in their coalition, just as there are Democrats who don’t welcome the #NeverTrumpers who brought us Dick and George’s Excellent Adventure in Iraq. They won’t be reliable allies or stalwart members of the base. But, on many economic issues, they can be crucial supporters. If you want a higher minimum wage, a more comprehensive health care system, and the breakup of super-monopolies that are stifling economic opportunity, these folks are going to be very helpful.
Large, durable political majorities have always included some “deplorables.” Lincoln’s Republican Party took in the Know-Nothings. FDR’s majority was anchored in the segregated South. Big majorities make it possible to do big things, and that’s what the country needs right now.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-04--Finally, a Never Trumper Admits It’s Time to Blow Up the GOP

As Elizabeth Kolbert documented a few years ago , human beings don ’ t change their minds about much of anything very often .
That goes a long way towards explaining the durability of some of Trump ’ s support .
It is also why I have been pretty fascinated with many of the Never Trumpers .
Some of them have managed the incredibly difficult task of examining their loyalty to the Republican Party and changing their minds .
No one has done that more courageously than Stuart Stevens , who spent most of his adult life not only supporting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their major political consultants .
David Corn recently interviewed Stevens , who takes the whole idea of personal responsibility very seriously .
That is what gives Stevens ’ analysis of how the GOP went insane some credibility .
“ The Republican Party has been a cartel , ” Stevens said excitedly .
“ And no one asks a cartel , ‘ What ’ s your ideological purpose ?
’ You don ’ t ask OPEC , ‘ What ’ s your ideology ?
’ You don ’ t ask a drug gang @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
’ The Republicans exist for the pursuit of power for no purpose.
” He huffed that the Republican Party had not merely drifted away from its core positions , as sometimes occurs with political parties : “ Fair trade , balanced budgets , character , family values , standing up to foreign adversaries like Russia—we ’ re all against that now .
You have to ask , ‘ Does someone abandon deeply held beliefs in three or four years ?
’ No .
It means you didn ’ t ever hold them.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump had hijacked the GOP .
No , he explained , the triumph of know-nothing Trumpism marked the culmination of an internal conflict that had existed for decades between the party ’ s “ dark side ” and its professed ideals .
Even William F. Buckley Jr. , often hailed as a grand public intellectual and the founding father of the modern conservative movement , was “ a stone-cold racist ” in the 1950s , Stevens pointed out… “ And it ’ s all about race .
The Republican Party is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white people than non-white people.
” So that is whom the party aims at—even if this will eventually be a losing proposition as the nation ’ s demographics continue to shift .
Robert P. Jones , chief executive and founder of the Public Religion Research Institute ( PRRI ) , said something similar when he was interviewed by Jennifer Rubin .
It ’ s important to note that the Republican Party has a decades-long history of deploying , in various degrees , what has been dubbed “ the Southern Strategy , ” a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and exploits racial divisions to win elections .
In 2005 , Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the NAACP for these tactics .
But that was 2005… The one enduring , animating issue that fueled white flight from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party has been civil rights for African Americans .
This was the issue that originally pulled Jerry Falwell Sr. out from behind the pulpit and into organizing the Christian right political movement .
This white-supremacist undercurrent , tied to White Christian identity , is the key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the transformation of our two political parties over the last few decades .
It is , however , important to recall why Republicans adopted the so-called “ Southern Strategy.
” It was in order to avoid the development of a coalition of working class whites and people of color that would threaten their hold on power .
As Tim Wise eloquently explained , that tactic of divide and conquer has a long and sordid history in this country .
So it should come as no surprise that during the 60s and 70s , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Nixon was able to win by dividing .
When something works , why change course ?
It is also important to understand that the Republican Party needed a cover for their actual agenda .
David Roberts nailed that one when he dubbed them the “ post-truth ” party .
Being the party of the uber-wealthy wasn ’ t going to win any elections for the Republicans .
But Reagan was able to not only send out enough dog whistles to mobilize working Americans , he actually convinced millions of them that tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporations was going to trickle money down to them .
The more that didn ’ t work , the more blatant became the message about how government programs were the problem because they were designed to help “ welfare queens.
” By the time Barack Obama was elected in 2008 , all of that was beginning to fall apart .
Being post-truth wasn ’ t enough to cover for the Great Recession , two unending wars in the Middle East , and the disastrous response to Katrina .
That ’ s when Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simply decided to obstruct anything Democrats attempted to do .
With the first African American president , the dog whistles became fog horns and racism was pretty much all the GOP had left .
Stevens also noted the post-policy positioning of the party by sharing “ his fear that young political operatives working for the party have drawn the lesson that a candidate must emulate Trump to win—that what most matters is not policy ideas but the ability to attack and exploit fears , divisions , tribalism , and resentments.
” Right on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s enablers in right wing media don ’ t defend the president , but simply strive to “ own the libs.
” Ms. [ Molly ] Hemingway is part of a group of conservative commentators — who have large social media followings , successful podcasts and daily Fox News appearances — that has helped insulate the president and preserve his popularity with his base , even as many Americans say they are likely to vote against him in November .
What these writers and pundits don ’ t tend to do is make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Breitbart and erupt from the mouth of Sean Hannity .
Often , they don ’ t bother at all with the awkward business of trying to explain away Mr. Trump ’ s latest folly .
Instead , they offer an outlet for outrage against those the president has declared his enemies , often by reducing them to a culture war caricature of liberalism .
All of that is why , when Sean Hannity asked Trump to lay out his agenda for a second term , the president rambled about his inauguration and attacked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the folks at MeidasTouch were able to catch Trump in a major lie during his interview with Chris Wallace two weeks ago .
As an aside , it ’ s not a coincidence that they used the song “ I Wish I Was in Dixie ” as the background music for that ad .
They were sending a not-so-hidden message about Trump ’ s real agenda .
Having given up on both truth and policy , all the Republicans have left is their desire for power , with racism as their only tool @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a solution ?
“ Burn [ the GOP ] to the ground and start over .
”

As Elizabeth Kolbert documented a few years ago, human beings don’t change their minds about much of anything very often. That goes a long way towards explaining the durability of some of Trump’s support. It is also why I have been pretty fascinated with many of the Never Trumpers. Some of them have managed the incredibly difficult task of examining their loyalty to the Republican Party and changing their minds.
No one has done that more courageously than Stuart Stevens, who spent most of his adult life not only supporting the Republican Party, but being one of their major political consultants. David Corn recently interviewed Stevens, who takes the whole idea of personal responsibility very seriously.
He once believed in GOP ideals and ideas. Now he saw it all as a huge con. His new book is a confession and cri de coeur. The first line is blunt: “I have no one to blame but myself.” In these pages, Stevens self-flagellates, calling himself a “fool” for his decades of believing—and lying to himself—that the Republican Party was based on “a core set of values.” Acknowledging his role, Stevens writes, “So yes, blame me. Blame me when you look around and see a dysfunctional political system and a Republican Party that has gone insane.”
That is what gives Stevens’ analysis of how the GOP went insane some credibility.
“The Republican Party has been a cartel,” Stevens said excitedly. “And no one asks a cartel, ‘What’s your ideological purpose?’ You don’t ask OPEC, ‘What’s your ideology?’ You don’t ask a drug gang, ‘What’s your program?’ The Republicans exist for the pursuit of power for no purpose.” He huffed that the Republican Party had not merely drifted away from its core positions, as sometimes occurs with political parties: “Fair trade, balanced budgets, character, family values, standing up to foreign adversaries like Russia—we’re all against that now. You have to ask, ‘Does someone abandon deeply held beliefs in three or four years?’ No. It means you didn’t ever hold them.”… He rejected the common view that Trump had hijacked the GOP. No, he explained, the triumph of know-nothing Trumpism marked the culmination of an internal conflict that had existed for decades between the party’s “dark side” and its professed ideals. Even William F. Buckley Jr., often hailed as a grand public intellectual and the founding father of the modern conservative movement, was “a stone-cold racist” in the 1950s, Stevens pointed out… “And it’s all about race. The Republican Party is a white party and there still are more white people than non-white people.” So that is whom the party aims at—even if this will eventually be a losing proposition as the nation’s demographics continue to shift.
Robert P. Jones, chief executive and founder of the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), said something similar when he was interviewed by Jennifer Rubin.
It’s important to note that the Republican Party has a decades-long history of deploying, in various degrees, what has been dubbed “the Southern Strategy,” a racist dog-whistle politics that fuels white grievances and exploits racial divisions to win elections. In 2005, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the NAACP for these tactics. But that was 2005… The one enduring, animating issue that fueled white flight from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party has been civil rights for African Americans. This was the issue that originally pulled Jerry Falwell Sr. out from behind the pulpit and into organizing the Christian right political movement. This white-supremacist undercurrent, tied to White Christian identity, is the key to understanding our current political polarization and the transformation of our two political parties over the last few decades.
It is, however, important to recall why Republicans adopted the so-called “Southern Strategy.” It was in order to avoid the development of a coalition of working class whites and people of color that would threaten their hold on power. As Tim Wise eloquently explained, that tactic of divide and conquer has a long and sordid history in this country. So it should come as no surprise that during the 60s and 70s, when liberals were threatening the status quo, Nixon was able to win by dividing. When something works, why change course?
It is also important to understand that the Republican Party needed a cover for their actual agenda. David Roberts nailed that one when he dubbed them the “post-truth” party.
Republicans thus talk about “taxes” and “spending” and “regulation” in the abstract, since Americans oppose them in the abstract even as they support their specific manifestations. They talk about cutting the deficit even as they slash taxes on the rich and launch unfunded wars. They talk about free markets even as they subsidize fossil fuels. They talk about American exceptionalism even as they protect fossil-fuel incumbents and fight research and infrastructure investments. In short, Republicans have mastered post-truth politics. They’ve realized that their rhetoric doesn’t have to bear any connection to their policy agenda.
Being the party of the uber-wealthy wasn’t going to win any elections for the Republicans. But Reagan was able to not only send out enough dog whistles to mobilize working Americans, he actually convinced millions of them that tax cuts for the wealthy and de-regulation of corporations was going to trickle money down to them. The more that didn’t work, the more blatant became the message about how government programs were the problem because they were designed to help “welfare queens.”
By the time Barack Obama was elected in 2008, all of that was beginning to fall apart. Being post-truth wasn’t enough to cover for the Great Recession, two unending wars in the Middle East, and the disastrous response to Katrina. That’s when Republicans became the “post-policy” party and simply decided to obstruct anything Democrats attempted to do. With the first African American president, the dog whistles became fog horns and racism was pretty much all the GOP had left.
Stevens also noted the post-policy positioning of the party by sharing “his fear that young political operatives working for the party have drawn the lesson that a candidate must emulate Trump to win—that what most matters is not policy ideas but the ability to attack and exploit fears, divisions, tribalism, and resentments.” Right on queue Jeremy Peters documents how Trump’s enablers in right wing media don’t defend the president, but simply strive to “own the libs.”
Ms. [Molly] Hemingway is part of a group of conservative commentators — who have large social media followings, successful podcasts and daily Fox News appearances — that has helped insulate the president and preserve his popularity with his base, even as many Americans say they are likely to vote against him in November. What these writers and pundits don’t tend to do is make the doggedly pro-Trump defenses that appear on Breitbart and erupt from the mouth of Sean Hannity. Often, they don’t bother at all with the awkward business of trying to explain away Mr. Trump’s latest folly. Instead, they offer an outlet for outrage against those the president has declared his enemies, often by reducing them to a culture war caricature of liberalism.
All of that is why, when Sean Hannity asked Trump to lay out his agenda for a second term, the president rambled about his inauguration and attacked John Bolton. It is also why the folks at MeidasTouch were able to catch Trump in a major lie during his interview with Chris Wallace two weeks ago.
As an aside, it’s not a coincidence that they used the song “I Wish I Was in Dixie” as the background music for that ad. They were sending a not-so-hidden message about Trump’s real agenda.
Having given up on both truth and policy, all the Republicans have left is their desire for power, with racism as their only tool. So what does Stevens recommend as a solution? “Burn [the GOP] to the ground and start over.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-04--Trump Doesn’t Know How to Campaign As an Incumbent

Looking through Ryan Lizza and Daniel Lippman ’ s piece on Donald Trump ’ s campaign in Politico , I was struck by how widespread the impression is that the president employed “ a bag of tricks ” to get elected in 2016 .
There are a lot of people who seem to believe that Trump ’ s sagging polls indicate that he ’ s like a children ’ s birthday party magician who is now being asked to work a college fraternity .
I suppose there ’ s something to this comparison .
In serious times , some jokes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performer needs fresh material if they want to avoid boring the audience .
But my favorite characterization of Trump ’ s 2016 success comes from “ a senior GOP congressional aide ” : “ It used to be that he would do five rallies a day and say whatever came off the top of his head and he thinks that won him the election , ” said a senior GOP congressional aide , echoing the sentiments of a still-intact class of Republicans appalled by Trump and how he is turning vast swaths of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s like when a 25-year old gets drunk and shows up at a family engagement .
That can be cute .
But if you ’ re a 50-year-old and you show up at the gathering drunk and embarrassing , that just hits a little differently .
It ’ s not cute anymore.
” Trump ’ s misunderstanding of what got him elected in 2016 is at the heart of the problem , Eberhart argued .
“ Trump ’ s general ability to just feed the base three times over and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really a recipe for success , ” he said .
“ The base is high 30s and that won Trump the primary but he largely won the general election because Hillary was so unpopular .
And Biden ’ s negatives are not as high as Hillary ’ s so there ’ s a big problem.
” These explanations attempt to spell out why Trump doesn ’ t pivot or try something different .
But it ’ s probably fair to say he didn ’ t really try to win the first time .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself on television everyday talking shit about people , he ’ d soar in Republican polls .
He didn ’ t change anything once he realized it was working .
He didn ’ t change his primary “ strategy ” for the general election .
His victory was a fluke , and he thought it reflected his brilliance .
Setting aside the COVID-19 pandemic , and the economy , and the fact that Trump was impeached , everything that worked for his 2016 campaign was premised on him being an outsider .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He wasn ’ t an incumbent .
He hadn ’ t cast a million votes over decades while middle America was getting hollowed out .
None of that works when you ’ re the president and the leader of your party .
Newt Gingrich sent a dispatch from Rome to gently point out to Trump that he ’ s running Nixon ’ s 1968 campaign when he should be modeling his 1972 reelection .
That ’ s absolutely true , except Nixon had a good economy , was winding down the Vietnam War @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and had a list of domestic accomplishments to tout .
Under Trump , Americans aren ’ t even allowed to travel because we ’ re too infectious .
It doesn ’ t really matter .
Everything could be going great and Trump ’ s strategy would be the same .
He ’ d “ say whatever came off the top of his head ” and expect it to win him the election .
It ’ s not a magic trick .
It ’ s not even a trick at all .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who got elected president of the United States once .

Looking through Ryan Lizza and Daniel Lippman’s piece on Donald Trump’s campaign in Politico, I was struck by how widespread the impression is that the president employed “a bag of tricks” to get elected in 2016. There are a lot of people who seem to believe that Trump’s sagging polls indicate that he’s like a children’s birthday party magician who is now being asked to work a college fraternity.
I suppose there’s something to this comparison. In serious times, some jokes seem frivolous or insensitive. And every performer needs fresh material if they want to avoid boring the audience. But my favorite characterization of Trump’s 2016 success comes from “a senior GOP congressional aide”:
“It used to be that he would do five rallies a day and say whatever came off the top of his head and he thinks that won him the election,” said a senior GOP congressional aide, echoing the sentiments of a still-intact class of Republicans appalled by Trump and how he is turning vast swaths of Republican-leaning suburbs into Democratic territory. “It’s like when a 25-year old gets drunk and shows up at a family engagement. That can be cute. But if you’re a 50-year-old and you show up at the gathering drunk and embarrassing, that just hits a little differently. It’s not cute anymore.”
A similar analysis was offered by Trump mega-donor Dan Eberhart:
Trump’s misunderstanding of what got him elected in 2016 is at the heart of the problem, Eberhart argued. “Trump’s general ability to just feed the base three times over and that will carry you to victory is not really a recipe for success,” he said. “The base is high 30s and that won Trump the primary but he largely won the general election because Hillary was so unpopular. And Biden’s negatives are not as high as Hillary’s so there’s a big problem.”
These explanations attempt to spell out why Trump doesn’t pivot or try something different. But it’s probably fair to say he didn’t really try to win the first time. He just discovered that if he got himself on television everyday talking shit about people, he’d soar in Republican polls. He didn’t change anything once he realized it was working. He didn’t change his primary “strategy” for the general election. His victory was a fluke, and he thought it reflected his brilliance.
Setting aside the COVID-19 pandemic, and the economy, and the fact that Trump was impeached, everything that worked for his 2016 campaign was premised on him being an outsider. He wasn’t a Bush Republican. He wasn’t an incumbent. He hadn’t cast a million votes over decades while middle America was getting hollowed out.
None of that works when you’re the president and the leader of your party. Newt Gingrich sent a dispatch from Rome to gently point out to Trump that he’s running Nixon’s 1968 campaign when he should be modeling his 1972 reelection. That’s absolutely true, except Nixon had a good economy, was winding down the Vietnam War, had opened the door to China, and had a list of domestic accomplishments to tout. Under Trump, Americans aren’t even allowed to travel because we’re too infectious.
It doesn’t really matter. Everything could be going great and Trump’s strategy would be the same. He’d “say whatever came off the top of his head” and expect it to win him the election. It’s not a magic trick. It’s not even a trick at all. He’s just a dude on Twitter who got elected president of the United States once.
It won’t happen a second time.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-04--Of Course, the GOP Thinks Fact-Checkers Are Biased

With a president that has told over 20,000 lies , and massive disinformation campaigns being waged both domestically and from foreign entities attempting to interfere in U.S. politics , the role of fact-checkers has become critical in sorting out what to believe .
But perhaps you ’ ve had the experience of providing information from fact-checkers to Trump supporters only to get a response from them that is dismissive because it comes from so-called “ biased media.
” That pretty much encapsulates why the partisan divide in America is almost impossible to bridge .
Right-wing reporter Sheryl Attkisson has written @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump supporters permission to dismiss fact checks .
It is titled , “ The Troubling Fact Is That Media Fact-Checkers Tend to Lean Left.
” She claims that checking facts is basically illusory .
Right out of the gate , Attkisson uses the example of Twitter adding a fact-checking label to a Trump tweet in which the president claimed that widespread use of mail-in ballots would lead to substantial fraud .
In response , Attkisson writes that “ the United States , in fact , has a long and ongoing history of ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you ’ ll find two articles from the conservative site RealClearPolitics and one archived article from the New York Times about how Lyndon Johnson engaged in voter fraud back in 1948 ( I kid you not ! )
.
Attkisson is certainly free to use sources like RealClearPolitics to make her case .
But the irony is that , in her own words , she is relying on “ like-minded journalists…who frequently rely on partisan news sources and political activists to control narratives on a wide variety of issues and controversies.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of investigations documenting that Trump ’ s claims about voter fraud are false .
Since Attkisson is focusing primarily on fact-checkers used by social media sites , here ’ s what she writes about Facebook .
The clearest example of conflicts in play regarding fact checks may be found by examining Facebook ’ s new oversight board , which was recently created to temper criticism over its decisions to flag certain content and accounts .
According to Facebook , members of the oversight board “ were chosen for their expertise and diversity ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perceived conflicts of interest that could compromise their independent judgment and decision-making.
” They all “ have expertise in , or experience in advocating for , human rights.
” But 18 of the 20 members of Facebook ’ s oversight board members have ties to Soros ’ Open Society Foundations , which have spent billions of dollars on global initiatives aggressively advocating for the progressive side on topics ranging from immigration policy and climate to abortion , gender , and racial policies .
As we ’ ve all come to see over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the name George Soros is sufficient to send Trump supporters into fits of rage .
So all Attkisson has to do is suggest that many of Facebook ’ s oversight board “ have ties to Soros Open Society Foundation ” and their fact-checking can be dismissed out of hand .
That one gets to the heart of the matter .
In order to claim that fact-checkers are biased , Attkisson has to deny the preponderance of scientific evidence related to vaccines and climate change—claiming that there are “ controversies ” related to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it should come as no surprise that the party that denies science and denigrates experts is the same one that has a problem with fact-checkers .
In writing about the epistemic closure on the right , Julian Sanchez captured what all of this means .
One of the more striking features of the contemporary conservative movement is the extent to which it has been moving toward epistemic closure .
Reality is defined by a multimedia array of interconnected and cross promoting conservative blogs , radio programs , magazines , and of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality can be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the liberal media , and is therefore ipso facto not to be trusted .
( How do you know they ’ re liberal ?
Well , they disagree with the conservative media ! )
When science is denied and anyone who disagrees with you is summarily dismissed as biased , there is no room for conversation .
That is dangerous because it stifles what our founders saw as the heart of the democratic process : debate .
We will never be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t even acknowledge the facts .

With a president that has told over 20,000 lies, and massive disinformation campaigns being waged both domestically and from foreign entities attempting to interfere in U.S. politics, the role of fact-checkers has become critical in sorting out what to believe. But perhaps you’ve had the experience of providing information from fact-checkers to Trump supporters only to get a response from them that is dismissive because it comes from so-called “biased media.” That pretty much encapsulates why the partisan divide in America is almost impossible to bridge.
Right-wing reporter Sheryl Attkisson has written a piece that is designed to give Trump supporters permission to dismiss fact checks. It is titled, “The Troubling Fact Is That Media Fact-Checkers Tend to Lean Left.” She claims that checking facts is basically illusory.
Many such efforts fail because they amount to a circular feedback loop of verification. The fact checkers are like-minded journalists or often liberal Silicon Valley gatekeepers, who frequently rely on partisan news sources and political activists to control narratives on a wide variety of issues and controversies.
Right out of the gate, Attkisson uses the example of Twitter adding a fact-checking label to a Trump tweet in which the president claimed that widespread use of mail-in ballots would lead to substantial fraud. In response, Attkisson writes that “the United States, in fact, has a long and ongoing history of ballot fraud.” If you check her links, you’ll find two articles from the conservative site RealClearPolitics and one archived article from the New York Times about how Lyndon Johnson engaged in voter fraud back in 1948 (I kid you not!).
Attkisson is certainly free to use sources like RealClearPolitics to make her case. But the irony is that, in her own words, she is relying on “like-minded journalists…who frequently rely on partisan news sources and political activists to control narratives on a wide variety of issues and controversies.” She also fails to acknowledge the myriad of investigations documenting that Trump’s claims about voter fraud are false.
Since Attkisson is focusing primarily on fact-checkers used by social media sites, here’s what she writes about Facebook.
The clearest example of conflicts in play regarding fact checks may be found by examining Facebook’s new oversight board, which was recently created to temper criticism over its decisions to flag certain content and accounts. According to Facebook, members of the oversight board “were chosen for their expertise and diversity” and “must not have actual or perceived conflicts of interest that could compromise their independent judgment and decision-making.” They all “have expertise in, or experience in advocating for, human rights.” But 18 of the 20 members of Facebook’s oversight board members have ties to Soros’ Open Society Foundations, which have spent billions of dollars on global initiatives aggressively advocating for the progressive side on topics ranging from immigration policy and climate to abortion, gender, and racial policies.
As we’ve all come to see over the last few years, the mere use of the name George Soros is sufficient to send Trump supporters into fits of rage. So all Attkisson has to do is suggest that many of Facebook’s oversight board “have ties to Soros Open Society Foundation” and their fact-checking can be dismissed out of hand.
In discounting Google’s fact-checking, Attkisson focuses on FirstDraft.
First Draft is also supported by an array of liberal companies and nonprofits, including the Ford Foundation and George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. First Draft tends to fact check topics in a vein that’s consistent with its major donors’ opinions and interests. This is particularly true when it comes to controversies about vaccine safety and climate change, where First Draft appears to give little consideration to opposing scientific views and information.
That one gets to the heart of the matter. In order to claim that fact-checkers are biased, Attkisson has to deny the preponderance of scientific evidence related to vaccines and climate change—claiming that there are “controversies” related to that evidence. In other words, it should come as no surprise that the party that denies science and denigrates experts is the same one that has a problem with fact-checkers.
In writing about the epistemic closure on the right, Julian Sanchez captured what all of this means.
One of the more striking features of the contemporary conservative movement is the extent to which it has been moving toward epistemic closure. Reality is defined by a multimedia array of interconnected and cross promoting conservative blogs, radio programs, magazines, and of course, Fox News. Whatever conflicts with that reality can be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the liberal media, and is therefore ipso facto not to be trusted. (How do you know they’re liberal? Well, they disagree with the conservative media!)
When science is denied and anyone who disagrees with you is summarily dismissed as biased, there is no room for conversation. That is dangerous because it stifles what our founders saw as the heart of the democratic process: debate. We will never be able to discuss policy differences if we can’t even acknowledge the facts.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-05--The Media Needs to Prepare Now for a Very Different Kind of Election Night

Donald Trump is causing massive headaches for Republican officials with his lies about fraudulent mail-in ballots .
No matter how hard they try to thread the needle and suggest that there is a difference between absentee ballots ( which they claim are fine ) and mail-in ballots , the president ’ s followers have been trained to swallow anything he utters and are buying his lies .
A Monmouth University poll of registered voters in Georgia taken late last month found that 60 percent of Democrats are at least somewhat likely to vote by mail this fall , compared with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t confuse North Carolina ’ s absentee system with other states ’ all-mail elections , ” read the message from Darryl Mitchell , chairman of the Johnson County GOP .
“ NCGOP and JoCo GOP agrees with the President that our current absentee ballot request system is safe and secure.
” The assurance was met with skepticism from many commenters .
“ Burned it !
I will go in person to vote straight Republican , ” wrote one .
“ Why is the GOP sending this out , ” wrote another , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we are arguing against this , and here it is our own damn party sending this horse dung out ?
!
!
!
Whoever is in charge of this should be fired .
I am going to the polls .
Don ’ t send me one.
” As a result , what is likely to happen on election day is that tallies of those who vote in person will be reported first and , as we have seen during the primaries , final results will be delayed for days or even weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means that it is very possible that Trump will be in the lead initially , which is why he recently tweeted this : In other words , Trump will claim victory on election night and then challenge the results once all of the ballots are counted .
It is important for Democrats to get the message out about what is likely to happen .
But ultimately it will be up to news media to make a dramatic change in how they report the results on the night of November 3rd .
For example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they only report on those who show up to vote in person .
Media outlets should scrap them altogether this time around .
Rather than all of the breathless election reporting , news outlets should spend their time informing the public about why things will be different this time and then provide daily updates on the results .
Any Trump victory laps should come with a caution that he ’ s jumping the gun .
One can only hope that in news rooms all over the country discussions will take place over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to change their election coverage dramatically in order to keep the public informed .
Given their obsession with always being first to report on major developments , I ’ m not terribly hopeful that they will do so .
That failure would play right into Trump ’ s hands and offer him a platform to sow chaos with the integrity of our elections .
In other words , it would make them complicit in undermining our democracy .

Donald Trump is causing massive headaches for Republican officials with his lies about fraudulent mail-in ballots.
President Trump’s unfounded attacks on mail balloting are discouraging his own supporters from embracing the practice, according to polls and Republican leaders across the country, prompting growing alarm that one of the central strategies of his campaign is threatening GOP prospects in November.
No matter how hard they try to thread the needle and suggest that there is a difference between absentee ballots (which they claim are fine) and mail-in ballots, the president’s followers have been trained to swallow anything he utters and are buying his lies.
A Monmouth University poll of registered voters in Georgia taken late last month found that 60 percent of Democrats are at least somewhat likely to vote by mail this fall, compared with 28 percent of Republicans… “Please don’t confuse North Carolina’s absentee system with other states’ all-mail elections,” read the message from Darryl Mitchell, chairman of the Johnson County GOP. “NCGOP and JoCo GOP agrees with the President that our current absentee ballot request system is safe and secure.” The assurance was met with skepticism from many commenters. “Burned it! I will go in person to vote straight Republican,” wrote one. “Why is the GOP sending this out,” wrote another, adding: “You know damn well that we are arguing against this, and here it is our own damn party sending this horse dung out?!!! Whoever is in charge of this should be fired. I am going to the polls. Don’t send me one.”
As a result, what is likely to happen on election day is that tallies of those who vote in person will be reported first and, as we have seen during the primaries, final results will be delayed for days or even weeks as mail-in ballots are counted. That means that it is very possible that Trump will be in the lead initially, which is why he recently tweeted this:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1288933078287745024
In other words, Trump will claim victory on election night and then challenge the results once all of the ballots are counted.
It is important for Democrats to get the message out about what is likely to happen. But ultimately it will be up to news media to make a dramatic change in how they report the results on the night of November 3rd. For example, exit polls will be useless since they only report on those who show up to vote in person. Media outlets should scrap them altogether this time around.
Rather than all of the breathless election reporting, news outlets should spend their time informing the public about why things will be different this time and then provide daily updates on the results. Any Trump victory laps should come with a caution that he’s jumping the gun.
One can only hope that in news rooms all over the country discussions will take place over the next few months about how they need to change their election coverage dramatically in order to keep the public informed. Given their obsession with always being first to report on major developments, I’m not terribly hopeful that they will do so. That failure would play right into Trump’s hands and offer him a platform to sow chaos with the integrity of our elections. In other words, it would make them complicit in undermining our democracy.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-05--Trump and the Republicans Are Risking an All-Out Depression

The headline from last Thursday ’ s report by the Bureau of Economic Analysis ( BEA ) on second quarter GDP was horrific : The economy contracted 9.5 percent from April through June .
On an annual basis , GDP fell at an astounding rate of nearly 33 percent .
Still , there ’ s another ominous aspect to the agency ’ s findings that has gone largely unnoted : The pandemic-driven collapse in GDP occurred even with trillions of dollars of government aid dispensed through emergency checks to households , expanded jobless benefits , and payroll grants .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surging across much of the South , Southwest and Midwest—we may well need to face another period of largescale shutdowns , like those that stalled out the economy in April and May .
But the White House and congressional Republicans are balking at a second , comparable round of emergency assistance .
The data suggest that their quibbling and stalling risks a national depression .
The BEA ’ s latest report on personal incomes , released the day after its latest GDP report , can give us a rough measure of what might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block another round of federal supports at least as large as the first one .
Over the second quarter of 2020 , personal income from salaries and wages fell 7.1 percent even as total personal income grew 7.3 percent .
That gaping difference was bridged mainly by the emergency checks and expanded jobless benefits from the federal government .
The report also shows that personal consumption fell 10.5 percent even as the emergency checks and extended jobless benefits provided $ 1,420 billion in income support .
That ’ s because people spend a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead , they cut out most non-essential spending and save a lot more to tide themselves for even worse times : The personal saving rate , which averaged 7.5 percent in 2019 , soared to 25.7 percent in the second quarter .
Worse times may be right on the horizon if Trump and his allies continue to delay and diminish a second round of emergency assistance .
We can estimate what would happen to personal incomes , consumption spending , and GDP if this second spike of infections produces shutdowns and unemployment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first spike in April and May , although without the emergency aid from the government .
Personal income would fall 7.0 percent below the depressed levels in the second quarter , or more than $ 1,424 billion .
Personal consumption , which declined at an annual rate of $ 1,528 billion from March through May , would be further depressed by the absence of another $ 1,055 billion ( the $ 1,420 billion in emergency aid minus the 25.7 percent saved ) .
From July through September—the months leading up to the election—Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they did from January through March .
That means the GDP would not begin to recover at all .
The overall economy would be nearly as depressed in the third quarter as it was in the disastrous second quarter , and possibly worse .
This is the fire that the Trump administration and Congress are playing with , and it could burn down a good part of the U.S. economy .
In a week or two , the White House and congressional Republicans will likely try to avoid this dire scenario—or at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pared down version of the emergency package passed more than two months ago by House Democrats .
.
The version offered by GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell would provide $ 1 trillion in assistance , i.e .
one-third the support in the Democratic package .
The GOP plan would cut the $ 600 expanded jobless benefit to $ 200 , eliminate pay supplements for essential workers in hazardous jobs , and provide little aid to state and local governments .
The plan does include another round of $ 1,200 checks for most people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months and without the additional support for children in the Democrats ’ bill .
There is no economic justification for a half loaf here and the GOP ’ s cuts in emergency funding will exact appalling costs on millions of households .
Based on all of our economic and epidemiological information , the right course for anyone not seized by love or fear of Donald Trump is to press for a new round of assistance as least as large as the measures enacted last time .
Major aid disbursements to America ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The crisis has already ended , kaput , for large investors—the top 10 percent of Americans who own 91 percent of all financial assets—because the Federal Reserve ’ s aggressive operations have virtually restored the stock and bond markets .
From February 20 to March 23 , the S & P 500 tumbled almost 34 percent from its historic high of 3,372 to 2,237 .
Yet , as the economy has continued to tank from March 23 onward , $ 2.8 trillion in new Fed purchases pushed the S & P 500 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just two percent from its historic high .
The Fed ’ s operations have had the same impact on corporate bond markets , with both investment grade paper and junk bonds reversing virtually all of their recent losses even as GDP cratered .
Nevertheless , President Trump and GOP leaders have dismissed their obligation to provide large-scale support for everyone else and take the steps needed to break the pandemic.In a plummeting economy , they apparently have chosen Hebert Hoover as their role model , another Republican president with a GOP-controlled Congress who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an economic crisis .
The result , of course , was the Great Depression .

The headline from last Thursday’s report by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) on second quarter GDP was horrific: The economy contracted 9.5 percent from April through June. On an annual basis, GDP fell at an astounding rate of nearly 33 percent. Still, there’s another ominous aspect to the agency’s findings that has gone largely unnoted: The pandemic-driven collapse in GDP occurred even with trillions of dollars of government aid dispensed through emergency checks to households, expanded jobless benefits, and payroll grants.
Now, as the pandemic worsens again—infections are surging across much of the South, Southwest and Midwest—we may well need to face another period of largescale shutdowns, like those that stalled out the economy in April and May. But the White House and congressional Republicans are balking at a second, comparable round of emergency assistance. The data suggest that their quibbling and stalling risks a national depression.
The BEA’s latest report on personal incomes, released the day after its latest GDP report, can give us a rough measure of what might happen if President Trump and GOP leaders block another round of federal supports at least as large as the first one.
Over the second quarter of 2020, personal income from salaries and wages fell 7.1 percent even as total personal income grew 7.3 percent. That gaping difference was bridged mainly by the emergency checks and expanded jobless benefits from the federal government.
The report also shows that personal consumption fell 10.5 percent even as the emergency checks and extended jobless benefits provided $1,420 billion in income support. That’s because people spend a lot less when unemployment sets new records. Instead, they cut out most non-essential spending and save a lot more to tide themselves for even worse times: The personal saving rate, which averaged 7.5 percent in 2019, soared to 25.7 percent in the second quarter.
Worse times may be right on the horizon if Trump and his allies continue to delay and diminish a second round of emergency assistance. We can estimate what would happen to personal incomes, consumption spending, and GDP if this second spike of infections produces shutdowns and unemployment in August and September akin to the first spike in April and May, although without the emergency aid from the government. Personal income would fall 7.0 percent below the depressed levels in the second quarter, or more than $1,424 billion. Personal consumption, which declined at an annual rate of $1,528 billion from March through May, would be further depressed by the absence of another $1,055 billion (the $1,420 billion in emergency aid minus the 25.7 percent saved). From July through September—the months leading up to the election—Americans would spend nearly 18 percent less than they did from January through March.
That means the GDP would not begin to recover at all. The overall economy would be nearly as depressed in the third quarter as it was in the disastrous second quarter, and possibly worse. This is the fire that the Trump administration and Congress are playing with, and it could burn down a good part of the U.S. economy.
In a week or two, the White House and congressional Republicans will likely try to avoid this dire scenario—or at least the responsibility for it—by pushing a sharply pared down version of the emergency package passed more than two months ago by House Democrats. .
The version offered by GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell would provide $1 trillion in assistance, i.e. one-third the support in the Democratic package. The GOP plan would cut the $600 expanded jobless benefit to $200, eliminate pay supplements for essential workers in hazardous jobs, and provide little aid to state and local governments. The plan does include another round of $1,200 checks for most people, with the funds paid over several months and without the additional support for children in the Democrats’ bill.
There is no economic justification for a half loaf here and the GOP’s cuts in emergency funding will exact appalling costs on millions of households. Based on all of our economic and epidemiological information, the right course for anyone not seized by love or fear of Donald Trump is to press for a new round of assistance as least as large as the measures enacted last time.
Major aid disbursements to America’s families is also the only equitable course. The crisis has already ended, kaput, for large investors—the top 10 percent of Americans who own 91 percent of all financial assets—because the Federal Reserve’s aggressive operations have virtually restored the stock and bond markets.
From February 20 to March 23, the S&P 500 tumbled almost 34 percent from its historic high of 3,372 to 2,237. Yet, as the economy has continued to tank from March 23 onward, $2.8 trillion in new Fed purchases pushed the S&P 500 back to 3,296 on August 3, just two percent from its historic high. The Fed’s operations have had the same impact on corporate bond markets, with both investment grade paper and junk bonds reversing virtually all of their recent losses even as GDP cratered.
Nevertheless, President Trump and GOP leaders have dismissed their obligation to provide large-scale support for everyone else and take the steps needed to break the pandemic.In a plummeting economy, they apparently have chosen Hebert Hoover as their role model, another Republican president with a GOP-controlled Congress who rejected calls for wide-ranging government assistance for an economic crisis. The result, of course, was the Great Depression.


washingtonmonthly--2020-08-05--What Happens If Trump Loses?

What Happens If Trump Loses?

We are now less than 90 days until the 2020 election and it continues to look like Donald Trump will lose—perhaps badly .
Even the president seems to know that at some level , which is why he ’ s refusing to commit to abide by the results , lying about mail-in ballots , and even suggesting that the whole thing be delayed .
Last spring the editors of the Washington Monthly magazine devoted an entire issue to exploring what would happen if Trump wins .
It was an important cautionary tale .
But it is equally important to think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Most people are approaching that question from the angle of what Trump might do to undermine the results , sending the country into deeper chaos .
It is very possible that the months between November 3rd and January 20th will be the most consequential of our lifetimes .
There ’ s also the question of what happens to the Republican Party in a post-Trump era .
Does it continue its quest for power with no purpose and simply rely on racism to fuel its base of supporters ?
Or does the current @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Stuart Stevens suggests , leading to the development of a whole new set of policy ideas to compete with those put forward by Democrats , as John Weaver proposed ?
Writing in the current edition of The Atlantic , Ibram Kendi asks a different question .
He begins by noting that Trump may actually be right when he claims that no president has done more than he has for African Americans .
It was an absurd statement .
But in a twisted way , Trump was right .
As his administration ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Black Americans—indeed , all Americans—should in one respect be thankful to him .
He has held up a mirror to American society , and it has reflected back a grotesque image that many people had until now refused to see : an image not just of the racism still coursing through the country , but also of the reflex to deny that reality .
Though it was hardly his intention , no president has caused more Americans to stop denying the existence of racism than Donald Trump… Trump ’ s racism—and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blatant for Americans to ignore or deny .
And just as the 1850s paved the way for the revolution against slavery , Trump ’ s presidency has paved the way for a revolution against racism .
Trump gave hatred a giant dose of oxygen and it came roaring back from under the cover of so-called “ political correctness.
” The majority of Americans didn ’ t like what they saw .
For all of the same reasons that Ta-Nehisi Coates said that he was actually hopeful these days , Kendi notes the diverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country that have come together to stand up against the systemic racism exhibited by law enforcement .
He also points to data like this : This summer , a majority of Americans—57 percent , according to a Monmouth University poll—said that police officers were more likely to use excessive force against Black “ culprits ” than they were against white ones .
That ’ s an increase from just 33 percent in December 2014 , after a grand jury declined to indict a New York City police officer in the killing of Eric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by early June , roughly three out of four Americans were saying that “ racial and ethnic discrimination ” is a “ big problem ” in the United States—up from only about half of Americans in 2015 , when Trump launched his presidential campaign .
That raises the question of what happens if Trump loses .
Kendi goes on to tell the story of how he personally denied the physical symptoms that were ultimately tied to his own diagnosis of colon cancer .
I fear that this is how many Americans are thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump at the polls—will heal the American body .
No need to look deeper , at police departments , at schools , at housing .
Are Americans now acknowledging racism , but telling themselves the problem is contained ?
Are they telling themselves that it is a big problem , but it can ’ t have spread to almost every part of the body politic ?
Will this become the new form of American denial ?
I suspect that if Trump loses , the majority of Americans will breathe a sigh of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peace and quiet .
But the reflection we all saw in the mirror that Trump held up was no illusion .
As many of the Never Trumpers have been acknowledging , the president isn ’ t simply a bad apple that will cleanse the Republican Party once it is removed .
Getting back to “ normal ” won ’ t be enough to preserve our democratic ideals .
On the one hand , I ’ m hopeful because a consciousness raised is not likely to be hidden again .
A lot of white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it comes to their own views on racism and the effects of that will be permanent .
But I also know that the sense of urgency will be lost as those who have been made uncomfortable during Trump ’ s presidency will seek the solace of comfort once again .
If that sentiment prevails , we will have lost an important moment to make great strides in perfecting our union .

We are now less than 90 days until the 2020 election and it continues to look like Donald Trump will lose—perhaps badly. Even the president seems to know that at some level, which is why he’s refusing to commit to abide by the results, lying about mail-in ballots, and even suggesting that the whole thing be delayed.
Last spring the editors of the Washington Monthly magazine devoted an entire issue to exploring what would happen if Trump wins. It was an important cautionary tale. But it is equally important to think about what happens if the president loses. Most people are approaching that question from the angle of what Trump might do to undermine the results, sending the country into deeper chaos. It is very possible that the months between November 3rd and January 20th will be the most consequential of our lifetimes.
There’s also the question of what happens to the Republican Party in a post-Trump era. Does it continue its quest for power with no purpose and simply rely on racism to fuel its base of supporters? Or does the current edifice get burned to the ground, as Stuart Stevens suggests, leading to the development of a whole new set of policy ideas to compete with those put forward by Democrats, as John Weaver proposed?
Writing in the current edition of The Atlantic, Ibram Kendi asks a different question. He begins by noting that Trump may actually be right when he claims that no president has done more than he has for African Americans.
It was an absurd statement. But in a twisted way, Trump was right. As his administration’s first term comes to an end, Black Americans—indeed, all Americans—should in one respect be thankful to him. He has held up a mirror to American society, and it has reflected back a grotesque image that many people had until now refused to see: an image not just of the racism still coursing through the country, but also of the reflex to deny that reality. Though it was hardly his intention, no president has caused more Americans to stop denying the existence of racism than Donald Trump… Trump’s racism—and that of his allies and enablers—has been too blatant for Americans to ignore or deny. And just as the 1850s paved the way for the revolution against slavery, Trump’s presidency has paved the way for a revolution against racism.
Joe Biden captured exactly what happened.
Trump gave hatred a giant dose of oxygen and it came roaring back from under the cover of so-called “political correctness.” The majority of Americans didn’t like what they saw.
For all of the same reasons that Ta-Nehisi Coates said that he was actually hopeful these days, Kendi notes the diverse coalition of people from all over the country that have come together to stand up against the systemic racism exhibited by law enforcement. He also points to data like this:
This summer, a majority of Americans—57 percent, according to a Monmouth University poll—said that police officers were more likely to use excessive force against Black “culprits” than they were against white ones. That’s an increase from just 33 percent in December 2014, after a grand jury declined to indict a New York City police officer in the killing of Eric Garner. What’s more, by early June, roughly three out of four Americans were saying that “racial and ethnic discrimination” is a “big problem” in the United States—up from only about half of Americans in 2015, when Trump launched his presidential campaign.
That raises the question of what happens if Trump loses. Kendi goes on to tell the story of how he personally denied the physical symptoms that were ultimately tied to his own diagnosis of colon cancer.
I fear that this is how many Americans are thinking right now: Routine surgery—the defeat of Donald Trump at the polls—will heal the American body. No need to look deeper, at police departments, at schools, at housing. Are Americans now acknowledging racism, but telling themselves the problem is contained? Are they telling themselves that it is a big problem, but it can’t have spread to almost every part of the body politic? Will this become the new form of American denial?
I suspect that if Trump loses, the majority of Americans will breathe a sigh of relief and, understandably, welcome some peace and quiet. But the reflection we all saw in the mirror that Trump held up was no illusion. As many of the Never Trumpers have been acknowledging, the president isn’t simply a bad apple that will cleanse the Republican Party once it is removed. Getting back to “normal” won’t be enough to preserve our democratic ideals.
On the one hand, I’m hopeful because a consciousness raised is not likely to be hidden again. A lot of white people have been doing some soul searching when it comes to their own views on racism and the effects of that will be permanent. But I also know that the sense of urgency will be lost as those who have been made uncomfortable during Trump’s presidency will seek the solace of comfort once again. If that sentiment prevails, we will have lost an important moment to make great strides in perfecting our union.