washingtonmonthly--2020-02-26--The Coronavirus Is Bad. Trump Could Make It Worse.

To manage the growing coronavirus outbreak , the Trump administration will need something it ’ s been devoid of over the past three years : a commitment to truth-telling and competent leadership .
Absent a dramatic change in approach , an already bad situation will likely be made much worse .
We ’ re dealing with a president more interested in his reelection prospects than safeguarding the public health , who disregards science and experts , and who has a disturbing pattern of shading the truth .
That ’ s a dangerous way to govern , period .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a crisis—like a hurricane , wildfire , or potential pandemic—in which lives are on the line .
According to the Washington Post , Trump has told more than 16,000 false or misleading statements in his first three years in office .
The emergence of the coronavirus doesn ’ t seem to have changed his behavior .
In his first public statement after the Dow dropped 1,000 points on Monday , President Trump propagated questionable—indeed , patently wrong—information .
At a press conference in India , he said the number of cases was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that coronavirus is “ a problem that ’ s going to go away.
” Top economic adviser Larry Kudlow told CNBC that the virus is “ pretty close to airtight ” contained .
In fact , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) has put the number of U.S. cases at 60 , and a top CDC official said , “ It ’ s not a question of if this will happen , but when this will happen , and how many people in this country will have severe illnesses.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are very close to a vaccine ” for coronavirus .
The White House issued a rare clarification afterward , saying the president was referring to a vaccine for Ebola , not coronavirus .
In fact , experts believe a coronavirus vaccine could be a year away .
Even worse , Trump has continued to say that the virus will ease with warmer weather , despite no evidence to support this assertion .
Trump ’ s unwillingness to acknowledge facts and evidence undermines one of the most important tools available during a crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , Trump is making the possibility of chaos and confusion all the more likely .
Every White House is confronted with unexpected crises .
When I worked for President Barack Obama , we dealt with the Gulf Coast oil spill in 2010 , severe tornados in 2011 , Hurricane Sandy in 2012 , and the Ebola outbreak in 2014 .
In anticipating and responding to these incidents , there was no substitute for experienced professionals who understood the intricacies of government programs and legal authorities , who were able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could quickly make adjustments to address new challenges .
Above all , an effective government response requires leaders who are willing to provide factual information to the American people , even if it ’ s less than positive .
Two months after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded , Obama admitted in an Oval Office address : “ Sadly , no matter how effective our response becomes , there will be more oil and more damage before this siege is done.
” That might not have been what the public wanted to hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unfortunately , we have no reason to expect the same from the Trump administration .
Even Republicans are getting frustrated .
At a congressional hearing on Tuesday , Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf was unable to provide basic information about the virus , leading Senator John Kennedy to say : “ You ’ re supposed to keep us safe .
And the American people deserve some straight answers on the coronavirus—and I ’ m not getting them from you.
” None of this inspires great confidence in this White House ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In addition to creating more confusion through its public statements , the White House this week submitted a request to Congress for $ 1.25 billion to fight coronavirus .
By comparison , the Obama administration requested $ 6 billion to fight the Ebola outbreak in 2014 , eventually receiving $ 5.4 billion .
Both Republican and Democratic members of Congress promptly expressed concern about the inadequacy of Trump ’ s funding request .
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby said : “ It seems to me the administration ’ s request is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low-ball something like this , you ’ ll pay for it later.
” Ironically , Trump ’ s emergency request comes on the heels of budget cuts to the programs that he now seeks to fund .
In his 2020 budget , he proposed cutting $ 3 billion from global health programs , $ 3 billion from the National Institutes of Health , and another 16 percent from the CDC budget .
While these funding cuts have been resisted by Democrats in the past , the constant threat of cuts makes it difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next crisis .
A lack of funding isn ’ t the only problem .
It ’ s also a lack of experienced leadership .
Following the Ebola outbreak , the Obama Administration established an office within the National Security Council to coordinate the government ’ s response to global pandemics .
That office was eliminated in 2018 because the Trump White House “ did not see global health issues as a national security priority , ” as the Guardian put it .
Other agencies on the front lines have been decimated by high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the top three positions at the Department of Homeland Security are now occupied by acting officials .
The State Department , which provides a critical link to foreign countries battling coronavirus , has been gutted ; nearly half of the most senior diplomats retired or were pushed out during the first two years of the Trump administration .
Ultimately , however , it doesn ’ t matter how capable the staff are in the White House and federal agencies .
Managing a crisis of this magnitude requires stable leadership at the top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasoned decisions based on facts and science , not the impact on the stock market .
It requires a president who values competence and expertise in selecting leaders to manage the response efforts , while also seeking input from elected officials on both sides of the aisle .
Most importantly , it requires a president who is willing to hear bad news , make tough decisions that aren ’ t politically popular , and is willing to tell the truth to the American people .
In other words , it requires a president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Donald Trump .

To manage the growing coronavirus outbreak, the Trump administration will need something it’s been devoid of over the past three years: a commitment to truth-telling and competent leadership. Absent a dramatic change in approach, an already bad situation will likely be made much worse.
We’re dealing with a president more interested in his reelection prospects than safeguarding the public health, who disregards science and experts, and who has a disturbing pattern of shading the truth. That’s a dangerous way to govern, period. It’s even more disconcerting when dealing with a crisis—like a hurricane, wildfire, or potential pandemic—in which lives are on the line.
According to the Washington Post, Trump has told more than 16,000 false or misleading statements in his first three years in office. The emergence of the coronavirus doesn’t seem to have changed his behavior.
In his first public statement after the Dow dropped 1,000 points on Monday, President Trump propagated questionable—indeed, patently wrong—information. At a press conference in India, he said the number of cases was “probably down to 10,” adding that coronavirus is “a problem that’s going to go away.” Top economic adviser Larry Kudlow told CNBC that the virus is “pretty close to airtight” contained.
In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has put the number of U.S. cases at 60, and a top CDC official said, “It’s not a question of if this will happen, but when this will happen, and how many people in this country will have severe illnesses.”
Trump has also claimed that “we are very close to a vaccine” for coronavirus. The White House issued a rare clarification afterward, saying the president was referring to a vaccine for Ebola, not coronavirus. In fact, experts believe a coronavirus vaccine could be a year away. Even worse, Trump has continued to say that the virus will ease with warmer weather, despite no evidence to support this assertion.
Trump’s unwillingness to acknowledge facts and evidence undermines one of the most important tools available during a crisis: public trust in the U.S. government. In fact, Trump is making the possibility of chaos and confusion all the more likely.
Every White House is confronted with unexpected crises. When I worked for President Barack Obama, we dealt with the Gulf Coast oil spill in 2010, severe tornados in 2011, Hurricane Sandy in 2012, and the Ebola outbreak in 2014. In anticipating and responding to these incidents, there was no substitute for experienced professionals who understood the intricacies of government programs and legal authorities, who were able to coordinate well with each other, and could quickly make adjustments to address new challenges.
Above all, an effective government response requires leaders who are willing to provide factual information to the American people, even if it’s less than positive. Two months after the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, Obama admitted in an Oval Office address: “Sadly, no matter how effective our response becomes, there will be more oil and more damage before this siege is done.”
That might not have been what the public wanted to hear, but it was the truth. Unfortunately, we have no reason to expect the same from the Trump administration.
Even Republicans are getting frustrated. At a congressional hearing on Tuesday, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf was unable to provide basic information about the virus, leading Senator John Kennedy to say: “You’re supposed to keep us safe. And the American people deserve some straight answers on the coronavirus—and I’m not getting them from you.”
None of this inspires great confidence in this White House’s ability to manage a potential pandemic.
In addition to creating more confusion through its public statements, the White House this week submitted a request to Congress for $1.25 billion to fight coronavirus. By comparison, the Obama administration requested $6 billion to fight the Ebola outbreak in 2014, eventually receiving $5.4 billion.
Both Republican and Democratic members of Congress promptly expressed concern about the inadequacy of Trump’s funding request. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby said: “It seems to me the administration’s request is low-balling it, possibly. If you low-ball something like this, you’ll pay for it later.”
Ironically, Trump’s emergency request comes on the heels of budget cuts to the programs that he now seeks to fund. In his 2020 budget, he proposed cutting $3 billion from global health programs, $3 billion from the National Institutes of Health, and another 16 percent from the CDC budget. While these funding cuts have been resisted by Democrats in the past, the constant threat of cuts makes it difficult for agencies to plan ahead for the next crisis.
A lack of funding isn’t the only problem. It’s also a lack of experienced leadership.
Following the Ebola outbreak, the Obama Administration established an office within the National Security Council to coordinate the government’s response to global pandemics. That office was eliminated in 2018 because the Trump White House “did not see global health issues as a national security priority,” as the Guardian put it.
Other agencies on the front lines have been decimated by high turnover and major vacancies. For instance, the top three positions at the Department of Homeland Security are now occupied by acting officials. The State Department, which provides a critical link to foreign countries battling coronavirus, has been gutted; nearly half of the most senior diplomats retired or were pushed out during the first two years of the Trump administration.
Ultimately, however, it doesn’t matter how capable the staff are in the White House and federal agencies. Managing a crisis of this magnitude requires stable leadership at the top.
It requires a president who makes reasoned decisions based on facts and science, not the impact on the stock market. It requires a president who values competence and expertise in selecting leaders to manage the response efforts, while also seeking input from elected officials on both sides of the aisle. Most importantly, it requires a president who is willing to hear bad news, make tough decisions that aren’t politically popular, and is willing to tell the truth to the American people.
In other words, it requires a president who doesn’t think or act like Donald Trump.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-26--The Political Ramifications of Dramatic Changes in Suburban America

While politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the other members of the so-called “ squad ” have garnered most of the media attention since the 2018 midterm elections , I have been more interested in newly-elected Democrats like Representative Colin Allred .
In terms of background , Allred was a star football player at Baylor University before dabbling a bit in the NFL .
He went on to get a law degree from UC Berkley and worked at HUD during the Obama administration .
Prior to running for Congress , Allred worked as a civil rights attorney at a private law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Republican Pete Sessions in Texas ’ s 32nd congressional district , which is rated R+5 by the Cook Political Report , and won by over six points .
Sessions was not only a member of the Republican leadership in the House , he was also part of Giuliani ’ s gang that worked to oust former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch .
So the election was a major victory for Democrats .
Allred ’ s win also puts some cracks in much of the conventional wisdom that has developed lately about the electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the surface , it looks like Allred is simply another one of those Democrats who won in suburban districts due to the fact that upper class college-educated white voters have been repelled by the Republican embrace of Donald Trump .
That might have been true of some of the people who voted for Allred .
But the demographics of his district are a bit more complicated than that .
First of all , the racial demographics of the 32nd district are changing rapidly .
At this point , whites are actually a minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of the district is Hispanic , with 15 percent African American .
According to William Frey , that is indicative of what is happening in other suburban areas .
Secondly , the idea that the suburbs are home to only upper-class Americans is changing even more dramatically .
Between 2000 and 2015 , the poor population in smaller metropolitan areas grew at double the pace of the urban and rural poor populations , outstripped only by poverty ’ s growth in the nation ’ s suburbs .
Suburbs in the country ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of residents living below the poverty line grow by 57 percent between 2000 and 2015 .
All together , suburbs accounted for nearly half ( 48 percent ) of the total national increase in the poor population over that time period .
While Allred ’ s district in Texas is home to wealthy people like former President George W. Bush , it also experienced a 56 percent increase in poverty from 2000-2014 .
Suburban America was originally created as a result of white flight from urban areas .
But this kind of data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in the midst of dramatic change .
Candidates like Allred have taken that into consideration and realize the necessity of building a coalition across both race and class lines in order to be politically viable .
At this point , Texas Democrats are getting worried about what the nomination of someone like Bernie Sanders will do to their efforts to turn the state blue .
So I wanted to see what someone like Colin Allred was doing in preparation for the upcoming primary in that state on Super Tuesday .
Here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Allred on the far right in the light blue sweater rallying for Biden .

While politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the other members of the so-called “squad” have garnered most of the media attention since the 2018 midterm elections, I have been more interested in newly-elected Democrats like Representative Colin Allred.
In terms of background, Allred was a star football player at Baylor University before dabbling a bit in the NFL. He went on to get a law degree from UC Berkley and worked at HUD during the Obama administration. Prior to running for Congress, Allred worked as a civil rights attorney at a private law firm.
In 2018, Allred ran against Republican Pete Sessions in Texas’s 32nd congressional district, which is rated R+5 by the Cook Political Report, and won by over six points. Sessions was not only a member of the Republican leadership in the House, he was also part of Giuliani’s gang that worked to oust former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. So the election was a major victory for Democrats.
Allred’s win also puts some cracks in much of the conventional wisdom that has developed lately about the electoral strengths and weaknesses of Democrats. On the surface, it looks like Allred is simply another one of those Democrats who won in suburban districts due to the fact that upper class college-educated white voters have been repelled by the Republican embrace of Donald Trump. That might have been true of some of the people who voted for Allred. But the demographics of his district are a bit more complicated than that.
First of all, the racial demographics of the 32nd district are changing rapidly. At this point, whites are actually a minority at just over 42 percent. Twenty-five percent of the district is Hispanic, with 15 percent African American. According to William Frey, that is indicative of what is happening in other suburban areas.
Growing numbers of suburban areas are achieving what might be termed “melting pot” status. In 36 of the 100 largest metropolitan areas, minorities represent at least 35 percent of the suburban population, approximately the same share as the nation. Within these, 16 have majority-minority populations, up from just eight in 2000.
Secondly, the idea that the suburbs are home to only upper-class Americans is changing even more dramatically.
Between 2000 and 2015, the poor population in smaller metropolitan areas grew at double the pace of the urban and rural poor populations, outstripped only by poverty’s growth in the nation’s suburbs. Suburbs in the country’s largest metro areas saw the number of residents living below the poverty line grow by 57 percent between 2000 and 2015. All together, suburbs accounted for nearly half (48 percent) of the total national increase in the poor population over that time period.
While Allred’s district in Texas is home to wealthy people like former President George W. Bush, it also experienced a 56 percent increase in poverty from 2000-2014.
Suburban America was originally created as a result of white flight from urban areas. But this kind of data demonstrates that many of these congressional districts are in the midst of dramatic change. Candidates like Allred have taken that into consideration and realize the necessity of building a coalition across both race and class lines in order to be politically viable.
At this point, Texas Democrats are getting worried about what the nomination of someone like Bernie Sanders will do to their efforts to turn the state blue. So I wanted to see what someone like Colin Allred was doing in preparation for the upcoming primary in that state on Super Tuesday. Here’s what I found:
That is Allred on the far right in the light blue sweater rallying for Biden.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-26--Trump Would Probably Benefit from a Coronavirus Pandemic

Anyone who thinks the global outbreak of the coronavirus has the potential to sink Donald Trump ’ s reelection chances should also consider how it can help him .
The risks to the president are already evident .
Efforts to contain the spread of COVID-19 are disrupting travel and the global supply chain , which has already led to a sharp downturn of the stock market .
At the same time , the administration ’ s reaction has been disjointed , dishonest , and contradictory .
If the public loses confidence that Trump has a handle on the problem and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they could punish him at the polls .
He ’ s concerned enough about this that he ’ s scheduled a press conference for 6 p.m. on Wednesday .
Yet , I know from consulting my own visceral fears of the virus , that there ’ s a strong impulse in the public to limit international travel and close the borders so that containment efforts have some limited chance at success .
As Steve Erlanger writes in the New York Times , this feeds right into Trump ’ s worldview .
Globalization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was already under assault from populists , terrorists , trade warriors and climate activists , having become an easy target for much that ails us .
Now comes the coronavirus .
Its spread , analysts and experts say , may be a decisive moment in the fervid debates over how much the world integrates or separates .
Even before the virus arrived in Europe , climate change , security concerns and complaints about unfair trade had intensified anxieties about global air travel and globalized industrial supply chains , as well as reinforcing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a partner .
The virus already has dealt another blow to slowing economies , and emboldened populists to revive calls , tinged with racism and xenophobia , for tougher controls over migrants , tourists and even multinational corporations .
The Republicans have used a public health scare to their advantage before , most notably when a few isolated cases of the Ebola virus showed up in the United States during the 2014 midterm cycle .
Republicans fared spectacularly well in the 2014 mid-term elections , re-capturing the Senate while also making gains in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this success to the older , more conservative make-up of the electorate , it turns out the GOP had a secret weapon going for it : the Ebola virus .
Newly published research finds fear of the infectious disease , which was widely in the news in the month before the election , increased voters ’ intention to vote Republican .
This effect was primarily found in red states , which means the outbreak effectively turned them a deeper shade of red .
Fear of a coronavirus pandemic are many times more rational @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2014 , primarily because COVID-19 is less lethal and it is therefore much harder to identify and isolate people who are contagious .
It ’ s quite possible to be infected with this virus and never know it , but you can still spread it to someone who will die as a result .
This kind of helplessness feeds panic , and panic will lead people to support illiberal policies they would never ordinarily consider .
As Erlanger notes , there is a preexisting upswing in resistance to globalization in the West that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the left , and a pandemic that arises out of China has a lot of potency to feed that resistance .
…the spread of the virus to Europe will also have a significant impact on politics , likely boosting the anti-immigrant , anti-globalization far right , Mr. [ Simon ] Tilford [ director of the Forum New Economy , a research institution in Berlin ] said .
“ We already see a lot of populist concern about the merits of globalization as benefiting multinationals , the elite and foreigners , not local people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Politicians who insist on control over borders and immigration will be helped , even as the virus transcends borders easily .
It shouldn ’ t take a lot of imagination to picture how even the left in America could start to embrace more border enforcement or even exploit the crisis to advance their anti-trade and anti-corporate ideologies .
A true pandemic that is facilitated by air travel and corporate interconnectedness is a good reason to reexamine assumptions about how we ’ ve organized the world , but thoughtfulness doesn ’ t flourish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
It ’ s more likely to make people look for protection from a strong leader and to prefer drastic efforts instead of timid ones .
So , if the Democrats think it ’ s to their advantage to exploit the government ’ s less-than-adequate efforts to contain the virus , they ought to think again .
Calming the public , if possible , is a better political play than arousing their fear that the government isn ’ t doing enough .
Reassurance is the way to go , and this can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can take to improve the government ’ s ability to protect the public , starting with putting the science over the politics .
In the meantime , the House Democrats should invite scientists to testify and create a supplemental spending bill that is aimed at containing the crisis based on their advice .
This is good policy and their obligation as our representatives , but it ’ s also good politics .
If they help Trump limit the death toll , they ’ ll actually be helping themselves more than they ’ @ @ @ @ @

Anyone who thinks the global outbreak of the coronavirus has the potential to sink Donald Trump’s reelection chances should also consider how it can help him. The risks to the president are already evident. Efforts to contain the spread of COVID-19 are disrupting travel and the global supply chain, which has already led to a sharp downturn of the stock market. At the same time, the administration’s reaction has been disjointed, dishonest, and contradictory. If the public loses confidence that Trump has a handle on the problem and Americans start to die in large numbers, they could punish him at the polls. He’s concerned enough about this that he’s scheduled a press conference for 6 p.m. on Wednesday.
Yet, I know from consulting my own visceral fears of the virus, that there’s a strong impulse in the public to limit international travel and close the borders so that containment efforts have some limited chance at success. As Steve Erlanger writes in the New York Times, this feeds right into Trump’s worldview.
Globalization, that awkward catchall for our interconnectedness, was already under assault from populists, terrorists, trade warriors and climate activists, having become an easy target for much that ails us. Now comes the coronavirus. Its spread, analysts and experts say, may be a decisive moment in the fervid debates over how much the world integrates or separates. Even before the virus arrived in Europe, climate change, security concerns and complaints about unfair trade had intensified anxieties about global air travel and globalized industrial supply chains, as well as reinforcing doubts about the reliability of China as a partner. The virus already has dealt another blow to slowing economies, and emboldened populists to revive calls, tinged with racism and xenophobia, for tougher controls over migrants, tourists and even multinational corporations.
The Republicans have used a public health scare to their advantage before, most notably when a few isolated cases of the Ebola virus showed up in the United States during the 2014 midterm cycle.
Republicans fared spectacularly well in the 2014 mid-term elections, re-capturing the Senate while also making gains in state legislatures. While analysts generally attributed this success to the older, more conservative make-up of the electorate, it turns out the GOP had a secret weapon going for it: the Ebola virus. Newly published research finds fear of the infectious disease, which was widely in the news in the month before the election, increased voters’ intention to vote Republican. This effect was primarily found in red states, which means the outbreak effectively turned them a deeper shade of red.
Fear of a coronavirus pandemic are many times more rational than the fears of Ebola were in 2014, primarily because COVID-19 is less lethal and it is therefore much harder to identify and isolate people who are contagious. It’s quite possible to be infected with this virus and never know it, but you can still spread it to someone who will die as a result.
This kind of helplessness feeds panic, and panic will lead people to support illiberal policies they would never ordinarily consider.
As Erlanger notes, there is a preexisting upswing in resistance to globalization in the West that is evident on both the right and the left, and a pandemic that arises out of China has a lot of potency to feed that resistance.
…the spread of the virus to Europe will also have a significant impact on politics, likely boosting the anti-immigrant, anti-globalization far right, Mr. [Simon] Tilford [director of the Forum New Economy, a research institution in Berlin] said. “We already see a lot of populist concern about the merits of globalization as benefiting multinationals, the elite and foreigners, not local people and local companies,” he said. Politicians who insist on control over borders and immigration will be helped, even as the virus transcends borders easily.
It shouldn’t take a lot of imagination to picture how even the left in America could start to embrace more border enforcement or even exploit the crisis to advance their anti-trade and anti-corporate ideologies.
A true pandemic that is facilitated by air travel and corporate interconnectedness is a good reason to reexamine assumptions about how we’ve organized the world, but thoughtfulness doesn’t flourish among panicked people in a presidential election year. It’s more likely to make people look for protection from a strong leader and to prefer drastic efforts instead of timid ones.
So, if the Democrats think it’s to their advantage to exploit the government’s less-than-adequate efforts to contain the virus, they ought to think again. Calming the public, if possible, is a better political play than arousing their fear that the government isn’t doing enough.
Reassurance is the way to go, and this can done by explaining the relatively simple steps they can take to improve the government’s ability to protect the public, starting with putting the science over the politics.
In the meantime, the House Democrats should invite scientists to testify and create a supplemental spending bill that is aimed at containing the crisis based on their advice. This is good policy and their obligation as our representatives, but it’s also good politics. If they help Trump limit the death toll, they’ll actually be helping themselves more than they’ll be helping him.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-26--Digging Deeper Into Sanders’ Statements on Cuba and China

During his interview on 60 Minutes last Sunday , Bernie Sanders defended his remarks from the past about Fidel Castro ’ s literacy program .
As a result , the front-runner in the Democratic primary is coming under serious attack by a lot of Democrats , particularly those representing districts in South Florida .
Pundits are probably right to suggest that comments like that ensure that Sanders would lose Florida if he becomes the nominee .
But if we approach the subject as a matter of policy rather than politics , Sanders has a point .
As a reminder , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate with Hillary Clinton back in 2016 , I agreed with Sanders and took issue with Clinton ’ s statements .
In our culture that demands that everything be cast in either/or terms , Sanders is attempting to convey some nuance about foreign leaders .
He has consistently criticized the authoritarian actions of someone like Castro , while recognizing that on issues like literacy and health care , some positive things happened immediately after the Cuban revolution .
That kind of nuance is critical for effective foreign policy .
It is why the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and China to develop sanctions against Iran that led to the nuclear agreement .
Take a look at how Obama talked about Iran during the process of negotiating that agreement .
Clearly , he [ Obama ] added , “ part of the psychology of Iran is rooted in past experiences , the sense that their country was undermined , that the United States or the West meddled in first their democracy and then in supporting the Shah and then in supporting Iraq and Saddam during that extremely brutal war .
So part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team is we have to distinguish between the ideologically driven , offensive Iran and the defensive Iran that feels vulnerable and sometimes may be reacting because they perceive that as the only way that they can avoid repeats of the past .
When it came to Cuba and the Castros , Obama said basically the same thing that Bernie did .
But more importantly , Sanders has taken America to task for our actions in Latin America during the Cold War .
What that was about was saying that the United States was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the United States was wrong trying to support people to overthrow the Nicaraguan government , that the United States was wrong trying to overthrow in 1954 , the government—democratically elected government of Guatemala .
Throughout the history of our relationship with Latin America we ’ ve operated under the so-called Monroe Doctrine , and that said the United States had the right do anything that they wanted to do in Latin America .
So I actually went to Nicaragua and I very shortly opposed the Reagan administration ’ s efforts to overthrow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier Henry Kissinger and the—to overthrow the government of Salvador Allende in Chile .
On that issue , Sanders is right and Democrats should be wary of backing themselves into a position of defending this country ’ s actions in Latin America during the Cold War .
During a CNN town hall on Monday night , the issue of Sanders ’ remarks about Castro came up again .
Once again , it is probably not politically expedient , but Sanders is right : truth is truth , regardless of Castro ’ s authoritarianism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that too many Americans can ’ t handle that level of nuance .
But what struck me were Sanders ’ remarks about China—which are much more current than arguments about what happened during the Cold War .
Sanders is right about China ’ s record on reducing extreme poverty .
Here is a chart from the World Economic Forum demonstrating that dramatic change .
One has to wonder what Sanders would say in response to a question about how that happened .
Zheping Huang and Tripti Lahiri point to the fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leader Deng Xiaoping kicked off the ‘ reform and opening-up ’ campaign.
” It included moving to a more “ market-based ” economy and investing in a massive infrastructure campaign that would open up the possibility of foreign investment just as the era of globalization was getting underway .
By 2000 , the United States provided permanent normal trade relations to China as a precursor to them joining the World Trade Organization—both moves that contributed to the reduction of poverty in China , but were opposed by Sanders .
He recently affirmed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t been a major focus in the 2020 election the way it was in 2016 .
But Sanders might want to think twice about bringing up the huge gains that have been made in reducing global poverty over the last couple of decades because they point in the opposite direction of his platform on trade .

During his interview on 60 Minutes last Sunday, Bernie Sanders defended his remarks from the past about Fidel Castro’s literacy program. As a result, the front-runner in the Democratic primary is coming under serious attack by a lot of Democrats, particularly those representing districts in South Florida. Pundits are probably right to suggest that comments like that ensure that Sanders would lose Florida if he becomes the nominee.
But if we approach the subject as a matter of policy rather than politics, Sanders has a point. As a reminder, when this issue came up during a debate with Hillary Clinton back in 2016, I agreed with Sanders and took issue with Clinton’s statements.
In our culture that demands that everything be cast in either/or terms, Sanders is attempting to convey some nuance about foreign leaders. He has consistently criticized the authoritarian actions of someone like Castro, while recognizing that on issues like literacy and health care, some positive things happened immediately after the Cuban revolution.
That kind of nuance is critical for effective foreign policy. It is why the Obama administration worked with adversaries like Russia and China to develop sanctions against Iran that led to the nuclear agreement. Take a look at how Obama talked about Iran during the process of negotiating that agreement.
Clearly, he [Obama] added, “part of the psychology of Iran is rooted in past experiences, the sense that their country was undermined, that the United States or the West meddled in first their democracy and then in supporting the Shah and then in supporting Iraq and Saddam during that extremely brutal war. So part of what I’ve told my team is we have to distinguish between the ideologically driven, offensive Iran and the defensive Iran that feels vulnerable and sometimes may be reacting because they perceive that as the only way that they can avoid repeats of the past.
When it came to Cuba and the Castros, Obama said basically the same thing that Bernie did.
https://twitter.com/NicholasIvanoff/status/1231781040211013632?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1231781040211013632&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fintelligencer%2F2020%2F02%2Fbernie-sanders-fidel-castro-60-minutes-interview-cooper.html
But more importantly, Sanders has taken America to task for our actions in Latin America during the Cold War.
What that was about was saying that the United States was wrong to try to invade Cuba, that the United States was wrong trying to support people to overthrow the Nicaraguan government, that the United States was wrong trying to overthrow in 1954, the government—democratically elected government of Guatemala. Throughout the history of our relationship with Latin America we’ve operated under the so-called Monroe Doctrine, and that said the United States had the right do anything that they wanted to do in Latin America. So I actually went to Nicaragua and I very shortly opposed the Reagan administration’s efforts to overthrow that government. And I strongly opposed earlier Henry Kissinger and the—to overthrow the government of Salvador Allende in Chile.
On that issue, Sanders is right and Democrats should be wary of backing themselves into a position of defending this country’s actions in Latin America during the Cold War.
During a CNN town hall on Monday night, the issue of Sanders’ remarks about Castro came up again.
Once again, it is probably not politically expedient, but Sanders is right: truth is truth, regardless of Castro’s authoritarianism. The problem, of course, is that too many Americans can’t handle that level of nuance.
But what struck me were Sanders’ remarks about China—which are much more current than arguments about what happened during the Cold War.
China is another example. China is an authoritarian country, becoming more and more authoritarian. But can anyone deny—I mean, the facts are clear, that they have taken more people out of extreme poverty than any country in history.
Sanders is right about China’s record on reducing extreme poverty. Here is a chart from the World Economic Forum demonstrating that dramatic change.
One has to wonder what Sanders would say in response to a question about how that happened. Zheping Huang and Tripti Lahiri point to the fact that “in 1978, China’s leader Deng Xiaoping kicked off the ‘reform and opening-up’ campaign.” It included moving to a more “market-based” economy and investing in a massive infrastructure campaign that would open up the possibility of foreign investment just as the era of globalization was getting underway.
By 2000, the United States provided permanent normal trade relations to China as a precursor to them joining the World Trade Organization—both moves that contributed to the reduction of poverty in China, but were opposed by Sanders. He recently affirmed that opposition.
At this point, trade hasn’t been a major focus in the 2020 election the way it was in 2016. But Sanders might want to think twice about bringing up the huge gains that have been made in reducing global poverty over the last couple of decades because they point in the opposite direction of his platform on trade.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-26--How Conservatives Have Rigged Our Politics

According to Gallup polling , more Americans identify as Democrats than Republicans .
On average , roughly 29 percent of Americans identify as Democrats , 27 percent as Republicans , and 41 percent as independent .
It ’ s close , but the edge is enough that one would expect our legislatures , courts , and governorships to reflect that advantage .
They don ’ t .
Despite being the less popular party , Republicans have controlled the majority of our state legislatures and governorships for the past decade .
In twenty-two states , Republicans control both branches of government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A majority of Supreme Court justices have also been appointed by Republican presidents .
And Donald Trump won the presidency despite losing to Hillary Clinton by almost three million votes .
How have Republicans pulled this off ?
In The Democracy Fix , Caroline Fredrickson , former president of the American Constitution Society ( and a regular writer for this magazine ) , gives a detailed and often demoralizing account of how Republicans seized political power that vastly exceeds the public support for their ideas .
Tracing the origin story back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then corporate attorney who would later become a Supreme Court justice outlined a plan for conservative dominance of public policymaking—Fredrickson shows how the GOP used gerrymandering , voter suppression , dubious scholarship , and dangerous media outlets to rig the system in their favor .
And although she offers a plan for Democrats to fight back , it feels like Republicans have already won a game Democrats didn ’ t realize they were playing .
Cynical gamesmanship—like Mitch McConnell denying a confirmation hearing to President Obama ’ s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland—has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ democratic institutions in unseemly ways .
Fredrickson ’ s book weaves a fascinating tapestry that shows the different pieces that fit together as part of Powell ’ s devious master plan .
In his 1971 memo , Powell created an ingenious road map for pro-business interests to gain control of legislatures , the courts , and the media .
The plan , as Fredrickson notes , was to “ fund a broad array of institutions that would exert control over the instrumentalities of power.
” And they did : Wealthy conservatives like John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Richard Scaife , and Charles and David Koch supported a web of think-tanks , media outlets , lobbying groups , and other organizations that have helped fulfill Powell ’ s vision .
At the same time , gerrymandered districts have given Republicans the means to win legislatures even when Democrats win the majority of votes .
For example , in 2012 , Democratic statehouse candidates in Pennsylvania won 51 percent of votes , but ended up with just 28 percent of legislative seats .
The practice of drawing legislative districts to favor one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least the 1700s .
But it has arguably never been done more aggressively than it was by Republicans in the late 2000s .
Before the 2010 census , Karl Rove proposed a plan called REDMAP to help Republicans gain control of state legislative seats so that the party would have control over the new maps .
Republicans spent more than $ 30 million in key states and were able to flip control of the General Assembly in states like Pennsylvania , Wisconsin , and Ohio , giving themselves a significant electoral advantage .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ districts in their favor , other pieces were in place to ensure GOP success .
President George W. Bush ’ s Supreme Court appointee , John Roberts was instrumental in weakening the Voting Rights Act through cases like Shelby County v. Holder , in which the Court removed the requirement that states get federal approval before changing their election laws .
But gerrymandering was just one piece of the puzzle .
Republicans further stacked the deck in their favor through voter suppression tactics largely formulated by the American Legislative Exchange Council ( ALEC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Koch .
ALEC is not your run-of-the-mill lobbying group .
It recruits candidates , drafts model legislation , pays for legislators to come to their conferences , where ALEC feeds them ideas and talking points for how to enact a conservative agenda .
Through this model , ALEC has pushed voter ID laws to make it more difficult for younger voters , poorer voters , and people of color to cast their ballots .
Years ago , courts could be counted on to strike down such laws as unconstitutional .
But Republican executives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thereby entrenching those law and fulfilling Powell ’ s overarching strategy .
Then there ’ s the Federalist Society , founded in 1982 and funded in large part by Scaife and Koch money .
It was a breeding groundfor conservative academics in the mold of Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia to elevate their judicial careers .
Similar groups soon began to emerge , like Judicial Crisis Network ( JCN ) , which ran targeted campaigns to support conservative judges and attack more liberal nominees .
The JCN spent more than $ 10 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court .
Right-wing think tanks and media outlets have strengthened the conservative operation even more .
“ Experts ” from the Heritage Foundation appear on Fox News to advance conservative ideas and give them a façade of credibility .
All in all , Frederickson expertly unpacks the the reason Republicans have successfully seized political power from Democrats : They understood that “ power precedes policy and not the other way around.
” In other words , while Democrats were trying to beat Republicans with superior policy proposals on a level playing-field , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ game .
Fredrickson believes Democrats need to catch up , but in a more ethical fashion .
They need to unrig the system .
Rather than going back and forth with Republicans on gerrymandering , Democrats in power , she argues , should install nonpartisan redistricting commissions that can not be manipulated by either party .
She champions other critical solutions , like pushing for clean-money campaigns to diminish the impact of PACs and Super PACs that emerged after the Supreme Court ’ s Citizens United decision , as well as instituting strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it easier to vote .
Fredrickson also emphasizes that the left needs to match the Federalist Society ’ s pipeline of judges to get more progressives on the bench , through increased support for organizations like her own : the American Constitution Society .
What ’ s more , Democrats need to put much more money and effort into winning state and local elections for legislators and judges alike Although Fredrickson proposes clear , essential solutions as an answer to Powell ’ s memo , The Democracy Fix is less clear about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it does not explain how an average person , who isn ’ t a wealthy donor or leader of a large organization , can realistically play a significant role in reversing the damage Republicans have done .
For example , Fredrickson argues that progressive donors need to better coordinate funding to provide “ a major and undivided focus on elections … on the courts , on core legislative priorities , and on an effective communications infrastructure.
” She calls for a “ robust analog ” to the JCN .
While all of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that even a die-hard political activist can do to advance them .
At times , The Democracy Fix gives the impression that , even in a country of more than 300 million people , the struggle for political power is a chess match between a handful of elites .
Perhaps that is truer than we would like to admit .
Still , it is dispiriting to learn how a relatively small group of conservative funders and thinkers constructed the apparatuses that led to right-wing dominance .
Equally disconcerting is the sense that only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funders and thinkers can balance the scales .
Nonetheless , Fredrickson ’ s central thesis holds strong .
Democrats need their own Powell memo .
More importantly , they need the will and infrastructure to follow through on it .

According to Gallup polling, more Americans identify as Democrats than Republicans. On average, roughly 29 percent of Americans identify as Democrats, 27 percent as Republicans, and 41 percent as independent. It’s close, but the edge is enough that one would expect our legislatures, courts, and governorships to reflect that advantage.
The Democracy Fix
How to Win the Fight for Fair Rules, Fair Courts, and Fair Elections by Caroline Fredrickson, The New Press, 256 pp.
They don’t. Despite being the less popular party, Republicans have controlled the majority of our state legislatures and governorships for the past decade. In twenty-two states, Republicans control both branches of government, compared with only sixteen for Democrats. A majority of Supreme Court justices have also been appointed by Republican presidents. And Donald Trump won the presidency despite losing to Hillary Clinton by almost three million votes. How have Republicans pulled this off?
In The Democracy Fix, Caroline Fredrickson, former president of the American Constitution Society (and a regular writer for this magazine), gives a detailed and often demoralizing account of how Republicans seized political power that vastly exceeds the public support for their ideas. Tracing the origin story back to Lewis Powell’s memo—in which the then corporate attorney who would later become a Supreme Court justice outlined a plan for conservative dominance of public policymaking—Fredrickson shows how the GOP used gerrymandering, voter suppression, dubious scholarship, and dangerous media outlets to rig the system in their favor. And although she offers a plan for Democrats to fight back, it feels like Republicans have already won a game Democrats didn’t realize they were playing.
Cynical gamesmanship—like Mitch McConnell denying a confirmation hearing to President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland—has allowed Republicans to gain control of our democratic institutions in unseemly ways. Fredrickson’s book weaves a fascinating tapestry that shows the different pieces that fit together as part of Powell’s devious master plan.
In his 1971 memo, Powell created an ingenious road map for pro-business interests to gain control of legislatures, the courts, and the media. The plan, as Fredrickson notes, was to “fund a broad array of institutions that would exert control over the instrumentalities of power.” And they did: Wealthy conservatives like John M. Olin, the Coors family, Richard Scaife, and Charles and David Koch supported a web of think-tanks, media outlets, lobbying groups, and other organizations that have helped fulfill Powell’s vision.
At the same time, gerrymandered districts have given Republicans the means to win legislatures even when Democrats win the majority of votes. For example, in 2012, Democratic statehouse candidates in Pennsylvania won 51 percent of votes, but ended up with just 28 percent of legislative seats. The practice of drawing legislative districts to favor one political party over another dates to at least the 1700s. But it has arguably never been done more aggressively than it was by Republicans in the late 2000s.
Before the 2010 census, Karl Rove proposed a plan called REDMAP to help Republicans gain control of state legislative seats so that the party would have control over the new maps. Republicans spent more than $30 million in key states and were able to flip control of the General Assembly in states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio, giving themselves a significant electoral advantage. By the time Republican legislators were drawing districts in their favor, other pieces were in place to ensure GOP success. President George W. Bush’s Supreme Court appointee, John Roberts was instrumental in weakening the Voting Rights Act through cases like Shelby County v. Holder, in which the Court removed the requirement that states get federal approval before changing their election laws.
But gerrymandering was just one piece of the puzzle. Republicans further stacked the deck in their favor through voter suppression tactics largely formulated by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), with funding from Scaife and Koch.
ALEC is not your run-of-the-mill lobbying group. It recruits candidates, drafts model legislation, pays for legislators to come to their conferences, where ALEC feeds them ideas and talking points for how to enact a conservative agenda. Through this model, ALEC has pushed voter ID laws to make it more difficult for younger voters, poorer voters, and people of color to cast their ballots. Years ago, courts could be counted on to strike down such laws as unconstitutional. But Republican executives have filled courts with conservative judges, thereby entrenching those law and fulfilling Powell’s overarching strategy.
Then there’s the Federalist Society, founded in 1982 and funded in large part by Scaife and Koch money. It was a breeding groundfor conservative academics in the mold of Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia to elevate their judicial careers. Similar groups soon began to emerge, like Judicial Crisis Network (JCN), which ran targeted campaigns to support conservative judges and attack more liberal nominees. The JCN spent more than $10 million to help get Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.
Right-wing think tanks and media outlets have strengthened the conservative operation even more. “Experts” from the Heritage Foundation appear on Fox News to advance conservative ideas and give them a façade of credibility.
All in all, Frederickson expertly unpacks the the reason Republicans have successfully seized political power from Democrats: They understood that “power precedes policy and not the other way around.” In other words, while Democrats were trying to beat Republicans with superior policy proposals on a level playing-field, Republicans were changing the rules of the game.
Fredrickson believes Democrats need to catch up, but in a more ethical fashion. They need to unrig the system. Rather than going back and forth with Republicans on gerrymandering, Democrats in power, she argues, should install nonpartisan redistricting commissions that cannot be manipulated by either party.
She champions other critical solutions, like pushing for clean-money campaigns to diminish the impact of PACs and Super PACs that emerged after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, as well as instituting strong protections for voting rights, and making it easier to vote.
Fredrickson also emphasizes that the left needs to match the Federalist Society’s pipeline of judges to get more progressives on the bench, through increased support for organizations like her own: the American Constitution Society. What’s more, Democrats need to put much more money and effort into winning state and local elections for legislators and judges alike
Although Fredrickson proposes clear, essential solutions as an answer to Powell’s memo, The Democracy Fix is less clear about how to enact them. More specifically, it does not explain how an average person, who isn’t a wealthy donor or leader of a large organization, can realistically play a significant role in reversing the damage Republicans have done.
For example, Fredrickson argues that progressive donors need to better coordinate funding to provide “a major and undivided focus on elections … on the courts, on core legislative priorities, and on an effective communications infrastructure.” She calls for a “robust analog” to the JCN. While all of those are worthy goal, there is little that even a die-hard political activist can do to advance them.
At times, The Democracy Fix gives the impression that, even in a country of more than 300 million people, the struggle for political power is a chess match between a handful of elites. Perhaps that is truer than we would like to admit. Still, it is dispiriting to learn how a relatively small group of conservative funders and thinkers constructed the apparatuses that led to right-wing dominance. Equally disconcerting is the sense that only a small group of better organized liberal funders and thinkers can balance the scales.
Nonetheless, Fredrickson’s central thesis holds strong. Democrats need their own Powell memo. More importantly, they need the will and infrastructure to follow through on it.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-28--David Brooks Establishes the #NeverSanders Group

I think maybe David Brooks needs a little more editorial oversight .
Consider his latest column in the New York Times .
He begins by telling us that he needs to make a choice .
A few months ago , I wrote a column saying I would vote for Elizabeth Warren over Donald Trump .
I may not agree with some of her policies , but culture is more important than politics .
She does not spread moral rot the way Trump does .
Now I have to decide if I ’ d support Bernie Sanders over Trump .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he refuses to make a choice : That ’ s a pretty fundamental flaw .
Faced with a decision between Trump and Sanders , Brooks decides to punt .
The reason is that he doesn ’ t see either of them as defenders of democratic liberalism , which is really just a term of art that means the American Establishment .
To make his case against Sanders , he engages in his own form of extremism .
Right out of the box , he brings forth the specter of Soviet Russian totalitarianism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I covered the Soviet Union in its final decrepit years .
The Soviet and allied regimes had already slaughtered 20 million people through things like mass executions and intentional famines .
Those regimes were slave states .
They enslaved whole peoples and took away the right to say what they wanted , live where they wanted and harvest the fruits of their labor .
And yet every day we find more old quotes from Sanders apologizing for this sort of slave regime , whether in the Soviet Union , Cuba or Nicaragua @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they took away the civil liberties of their citizens .
He ’ s still making excuses for Castro .
To sympathize with these revolutions in the 1920s was acceptable , given their original high ideals .
To do so after the Hitler-Stalin pact , or in the 1950s , is appalling .
To do so in the 1980s is morally unfathomable .
It takes a certain amount of historical revisionism to write the history of the Cold War is such a simplistic manner .
Brooks doesn ’ t talk about the 1954 American-sponsored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removed a leftist government , set off a 36-year civil war , and cost 200,000 people their lives .
He doesn ’ t talk about the 1973 American-sponsored coup d ’ etat in Chile that removed a leftist government and replaced it with a right-wing dictatorship that killed , tortured , or imprisoned over 40,000 people for strictly political reasons .
Brooks says nothing about American complicity in Operation Condor .
He doesn ’ t even ponder whether or not the CIA ’ s relentless drive to overthrow or assassinate Fidel Castro may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach to dissent and security .
You don ’ t have to have any sympathy for communism to understand that criticism of America ’ s approach to Latin America during the Cold War was often based in a defense of liberal democracy and self-determination rather than a decision to side with the Soviets .
In any case , left-leaning governments there had no monopoly on violence and America ’ s best allies had little to no commitment to human rights .
That was certainly the case in Nicaragua , which is why President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power in 1979 , citing his human rights abuses .
Brooks may or may not actually believe in his fairy tale version of the Cold War , but it ’ s quite evident what really bugs him about Sanders .
Traditional liberalism traces its intellectual roots to John Stuart Mill , John Locke , the Social Gospel movement and the New Deal .
This liberalism believes in gaining power the traditional way : building coalitions , working within the constitutional system and crafting the sort of compromises you need in a complex , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Hubert Humphrey , Ted Kennedy , and Elizabeth Warren were and are such effective senators .
They worked within the system , negotiated and practiced the art of politics .
Populists like Sanders speak as if the whole system is irredeemably corrupt .
Sanders was a useless House member and has been a marginal senator because he doesn ’ t operate within this system or believe in this theory of change .
I think Sanders ’ record as a legislator in the House and Senate is quite a bit better than “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tend to agree that his effectiveness as a senator has been limited .
He ’ s made his contributions here and there , notably on veterans ’ issues and the Affordable Care Act , but he hasn ’ t worked well enough with others to be in the same category as Hubert Humphrey and Teddy Kennedy .
But Brooks isn ’ t bothered by Sanders ’ relative lack of effectiveness .
He is bothered by the way Sanders talks about the system as “ irredeemably corrupt.
” If Sanders thought the system was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be running for president and promising to redeem it .
The problem for Brooks is that he doesn ’ t want to see any redemption through “ revolutionary mass mobilization , ” and he fears that Sanders would “ rule by majoritarian domination.
” It ’ s unclear how he thinks that would happen given the power granted to the minority in the Senate and Sanders ’ opposition to removing the legislative filibuster .
That ’ s the kind of establishmentarianism that Brooks normally celebrates , but it ’ s Elizabeth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet , Brooks would vote for Warren over Trump and not for Sanders .
This must be in part because he sees Sanders as cruel , bitter and vindictive .
It ’ s a wonder he doesn ’ t think Bernie has horns : This is just an uncharitable caricature of Sanders and his movement which fails precisely because it refuses to examine the positive motives behind the rhetoric .
In the context of the 2020 election , it ’ s really an extreme form of both-siderism where Trump ’ s xenophobia is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brooks complains that “ Sanders masquerades as something less revolutionary than he really is , ” which is possibly true , but also less relevant than the fact that he ’ ll never be able to enact 99 percent of his agenda because Brooks ’ cherished system will never allow it .
It takes a certain amount of insanity to see Sanders as an equal threat to liberal values as the current occupant of the White House .
If Brooks can ’ t choose between them , maybe he can just take the @ @ @ @ @ @ @

I think maybe David Brooks needs a little more editorial oversight. Consider his latest column in the New York Times. He begins by telling us that he needs to make a choice.
A few months ago, I wrote a column saying I would vote for Elizabeth Warren over Donald Trump. I may not agree with some of her policies, but culture is more important than politics. She does not spread moral rot the way Trump does. Now I have to decide if I’d support Bernie Sanders over Trump.
And then he ends the piece by saying that he refuses to make a choice:
I’ll cast my lot with democratic liberalism. The system needs reform. But I just can’t pull the lever for either of the two populisms threatening to tear it down.
That’s a pretty fundamental flaw. Faced with a decision between Trump and Sanders, Brooks decides to punt. The reason is that he doesn’t see either of them as defenders of democratic liberalism, which is really just a term of art that means the American Establishment.
To make his case against Sanders, he engages in his own form of extremism. Right out of the box, he brings forth the specter of Soviet Russian totalitarianism.
We all start from personal experience. I covered the Soviet Union in its final decrepit years. The Soviet and allied regimes had already slaughtered 20 million people through things like mass executions and intentional famines. Those regimes were slave states. They enslaved whole peoples and took away the right to say what they wanted, live where they wanted and harvest the fruits of their labor. And yet every day we find more old quotes from Sanders apologizing for this sort of slave regime, whether in the Soviet Union, Cuba or Nicaragua. He excused the Nicaraguan communists when they took away the civil liberties of their citizens. He’s still making excuses for Castro. To sympathize with these revolutions in the 1920s was acceptable, given their original high ideals. To do so after the Hitler-Stalin pact, or in the 1950s, is appalling. To do so in the 1980s is morally unfathomable.
It takes a certain amount of historical revisionism to write the history of the Cold War is such a simplistic manner. Brooks doesn’t talk about the 1954 American-sponsored coup d’etat in Guatemala that removed a leftist government, set off a 36-year civil war, and cost 200,000 people their lives. He doesn’t talk about the 1973 American-sponsored coup d’etat in Chile that removed a leftist government and replaced it with a right-wing dictatorship that killed, tortured, or imprisoned over 40,000 people for strictly political reasons. Brooks says nothing about American complicity in Operation Condor.
In 1975, six South American military dictatorships conspired to concoct a secret plan to eliminate their left-wing opponents. Not only would the intelligence services of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay trade information with each other and kidnap, disappear and kill their own domestic foes, they would also cooperate in identifying and killing exiles from partner countries who had taken refuge elsewhere. By the time Operation Condor ended in the early 1980s, as many as 60,000 people may have been killed.
He doesn’t even ponder whether or not the CIA’s relentless drive to overthrow or assassinate Fidel Castro may have contributed to Cuba’s tyrannical approach to dissent and security. You don’t have to have any sympathy for communism to understand that criticism of America’s approach to Latin America during the Cold War was often based in a defense of liberal democracy and self-determination rather than a decision to side with the Soviets. In any case, left-leaning governments there had no monopoly on violence and America’s best allies had little to no commitment to human rights. That was certainly the case in Nicaragua, which is why President Carter forced Anastasio Somoza Debayle out of power in 1979, citing his human rights abuses.
Brooks may or may not actually believe in his fairy tale version of the Cold War, but it’s quite evident what really bugs him about Sanders.
Traditional liberalism traces its intellectual roots to John Stuart Mill, John Locke, the Social Gospel movement and the New Deal. This liberalism believes in gaining power the traditional way: building coalitions, working within the constitutional system and crafting the sort of compromises you need in a complex, pluralistic society. This is why liberals like Hubert Humphrey, Ted Kennedy, and Elizabeth Warren were and are such effective senators. They worked within the system, negotiated and practiced the art of politics. Populists like Sanders speak as if the whole system is irredeemably corrupt. Sanders was a useless House member and has been a marginal senator because he doesn’t operate within this system or believe in this theory of change.
I think Sanders’ record as a legislator in the House and Senate is quite a bit better than “useless,” although I’d tend to agree that his effectiveness as a senator has been limited. He’s made his contributions here and there, notably on veterans’ issues and the Affordable Care Act, but he hasn’t worked well enough with others to be in the same category as Hubert Humphrey and Teddy Kennedy. But Brooks isn’t bothered by Sanders’ relative lack of effectiveness. He is bothered by the way Sanders talks about the system as “irredeemably corrupt.”
If Sanders thought the system was truly irredeemable, however, he wouldn’t be running for president and promising to redeem it. The problem for Brooks is that he doesn’t want to see any redemption through “revolutionary mass mobilization,” and he fears that Sanders would “rule by majoritarian domination.” It’s unclear how he thinks that would happen given the power granted to the minority in the Senate and Sanders’ opposition to removing the legislative filibuster. That’s the kind of establishmentarianism that Brooks normally celebrates, but it’s Elizabeth Warren who is championing filibuster reform.
Yet, Brooks would vote for Warren over Trump and not for Sanders. This must be in part because he sees Sanders as cruel, bitter and vindictive. It’s a wonder he doesn’t think Bernie has horns:
Liberalism celebrates certain values: reasonableness, conversation, compassion, tolerance, intellectual humility and optimism. Liberalism is horrified by cruelty. Sanders’s leadership style embodies the populist values, which are different: rage, bitter and relentless polarization, a demand for ideological purity among your friends and incessant hatred for your supposed foes.
This is just an uncharitable caricature of Sanders and his movement which fails precisely because it refuses to examine the positive motives behind the rhetoric. In the context of the 2020 election, it’s really an extreme form of both-siderism where Trump’s xenophobia is equated with Sanders disdain for billionaires.
Brooks complains that “Sanders masquerades as something less revolutionary than he really is,” which is possibly true, but also less relevant than the fact that he’ll never be able to enact 99 percent of his agenda because Brooks’ cherished system will never allow it.
It takes a certain amount of insanity to see Sanders as an equal threat to liberal values as the current occupant of the White House. If Brooks can’t choose between them, maybe he can just take the rest of this election cycle off.


washingtonmonthly--2020-02-28--For Trump, Coronavirus Is a Public Relations Issue

It was only a matter of time before Trump finally faced a crisis that is not of his own making .
Such is the case with the threat posed by the coronavirus .
But it should come as no surprise to anyone that his reaction is completely in line with what he ’ s always done .
As Aaron Blake reported following Trump ’ s news conference on Wednesday , the president is focused on one high-risk patient : himself .
Trump ’ s only concern is how all of this affects him politically and so he has come up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat , extols his own success , and blames not only the media , but the Democrats as well .
I am reminded of what former Ambassador Gordon Sondland told David Holmes about why Trump doesn ’ t give a sh*t about Ukraine .
What we are witnessing with the coronavirus outbreak is a president who is too inept to know what to do , combined with an effort to treat the situation as a public relations issue rather than a public health crisis .
Shortly after Trump took office , I identified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for years now .
Back then , the president was trying to distract us from the way in which Russia interfered in the 2016 election to support him by throwing out the explosive allegation that Obama had wiretapped him .
Three years later , he ’ s still doing the same thing , having done nothing to protect this country from foreign interference in our elections .
The pattern of lie , distract , and blame has been Trump ’ s pattern throughout his presidency .
The difference this time , as I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this crisis is not one of his own making .
Attempting to lie , distract , and blame in order to protect himself will not make this one go away .
As a matter of fact , it simply makes the situation we face much worse .
We ’ ll have to wait and see if , as Martin Longman has suggested , this pattern helps Trump politically .
That seems to be exactly what Steve Bannon is attempting to do by calling his own show “ WarRoomPandemic.
” But as Chris Lu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth-telling and competent leadership .
Donald Trump has demonstrated over and over again that his approach to governing is to place his own interests first , while engaging in a pattern to lie , distract , and blame in order to cover up his own incompetence .
We have no reason to expect anything different at this point .
What this means is that things are likely to get a lot worse .
Given that , it is important that we all pay attention to the experts , like Zeynep Tufekci , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus at Scientific American .
You ’ ll want to read it all to dispel the lies being put out there by this administration , but she also provides important information about how to prepare if an outbreak occurs .
Here ’ s what all this means in practice : get a flu shot , if you haven ’ t already , and stock up supplies at home so that you can stay home for two or three weeks , going out as little as possible .
The flu shot helps decrease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hospital for the flu , or worse yet , get both flu and COVID-19 ; comorbidities drastically worsen outcomes… If you live in a regular household , here ’ s a handy , one-page guide on what you need , with up-to-date information on top , but it is essentially this : potable water ( that ’ s a general just-in-case item for all emergencies ) , shelf-stable food ( doesn ’ t need refrigeration , again just-in-case ) , your prescription medication and a few basic medical supplies ( first aid/your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the composition of your household , things to keep you busy ( books , board games , toys ) .
There ’ s also this from the good doctor : At this point , the most important thing we can all do is to ignore Donald Trump and take care of ourselves , as well as our families and friends .

It was only a matter of time before Trump finally faced a crisis that is not of his own making. Such is the case with the threat posed by the coronavirus. But it should come as no surprise to anyone that his reaction is completely in line with what he’s always done.
As Aaron Blake reported following Trump’s news conference on Wednesday, the president is focused on one high-risk patient: himself. Trump’s only concern is how all of this affects him politically and so he has come up with a conspiracy theory that minimizes the threat, extols his own success, and blames not only the media, but the Democrats as well.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1232652371832004608
I am reminded of what former Ambassador Gordon Sondland told David Holmes about why Trump doesn’t give a sh*t about Ukraine.
Ambassador Sondland stated that the President only cares about “big stuff.” I noted that there was “big stuff” going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia, and Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant “big stuff” that benefits the President.
What we are witnessing with the coronavirus outbreak is a president who is too inept to know what to do, combined with an effort to treat the situation as a public relations issue rather than a public health crisis.
Shortly after Trump took office, I identified the pattern that has been on display for years now.
While it’s hard to predict how all of this ends, what I’m describing here is the way in which Donald Trump exhibits behaviors associated with a severe personality disorder. He fabricates a world in which he is both dominant and successful. When challenged, he diverts with outrageous lies designed to blame a villain and distract us from his failures. He then assumes we’ll all move on to the next fabrication of his dominance and success.
Back then, the president was trying to distract us from the way in which Russia interfered in the 2016 election to support him by throwing out the explosive allegation that Obama had wiretapped him. Three years later, he’s still doing the same thing, having done nothing to protect this country from foreign interference in our elections.
The pattern of lie, distract, and blame has been Trump’s pattern throughout his presidency. The difference this time, as I’ve already suggested, is that this crisis is not one of his own making. Attempting to lie, distract, and blame in order to protect himself will not make this one go away. As a matter of fact, it simply makes the situation we face much worse.
We’ll have to wait and see if, as Martin Longman has suggested, this pattern helps Trump politically. That seems to be exactly what Steve Bannon is attempting to do by calling his own show “WarRoomPandemic.”
https://twitter.com/WarRoom2020/status/1233064469359669249
But as Chris Lu pointed out, effective crisis management requires truth-telling and competent leadership. Donald Trump has demonstrated over and over again that his approach to governing is to place his own interests first, while engaging in a pattern to lie, distract, and blame in order to cover up his own incompetence. We have no reason to expect anything different at this point.
What this means is that things are likely to get a lot worse. Given that, it is important that we all pay attention to the experts, like Zeynep Tufekci, who wrote a whole piece about preparing for the coronavirus at Scientific American. You’ll want to read it all to dispel the lies being put out there by this administration, but she also provides important information about how to prepare if an outbreak occurs.
Here’s what all this means in practice: get a flu shot, if you haven’t already, and stock up supplies at home so that you can stay home for two or three weeks, going out as little as possible. The flu shot helps decrease the odds of having to go to the hospital for the flu, or worse yet, get both flu and COVID-19; comorbidities drastically worsen outcomes… If you live in a regular household, here’s a handy, one-page guide on what you need, with up-to-date information on top, but it is essentially this: potable water (that’s a general just-in-case item for all emergencies), shelf-stable food (doesn’t need refrigeration, again just-in-case), your prescription medication and a few basic medical supplies (first aid/your usual over-the-counter meds). Depending on the composition of your household, things to keep you busy (books, board games, toys).
There’s also this from the good doctor:
At this point, the most important thing we can all do is to ignore Donald Trump and take care of ourselves, as well as our families and friends.


washingtonmonthly--2020-03-01--This Is a Terrible Way to Pick a President

Joe Biden is running a victory lap in South Carolina tonight after a nearly 30 point win over his 2nd closest primary opponent , Bernie Sanders .
It ’ s understandable : many polls had shown tightening in the race in the weeks prior to the contest after Sanders notched popular vote wins in Iowa , New Hampshire and Nevada .
A late but crucial endorsement by the iconic Representative James Clyburn seems to have given Biden a huge boost in the final days , and he has reason to celebrate .
The “ comeback kid ” narratives for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and big donations are flowing in .
But the Biden “ comeback ” is in a certain sense a mirage that demonstrates how broken the presidential nominating process has become .
Biden was always strong with African-American voters ( particularly older ones ) , and both his weakness in the first three contests and his strength in South Carolina are outliers each in their own way .
Iowa and New Hampshire are among the whitest states in the nation , while the South Carolina Democratic primary electorate is disproportionately African-American .
Beginning the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always going to make Biden appear weaker than he actually is , while a race in South Carolina would make him look stronger he ought going into a more representative Super Tuesday onslaught .
Nevada , meanwhile , is the most demographically representative among the early contests , but because it comes third it helped to hide Sanders ’ dominant strength among Latinx voters–a fact that won ’ t likely won ’ t be felt as powerfully as it ought to have been from the beginning until Super Tuesday .
The fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further takes away from the element of representative democracy and takes away from the mandate candidates receive in winning them .
The sequential primary among oddly unrepresentative states has other warping effects as well .
Both Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar have long had campaigns almost perfectly tailored to appeal to liberal-ish center-left white voters in the Midwest and Northeast–but almost no one else in the Democratic coalition .
Yet the fact that the first two contests take place in states almost perfectly tailored to that demographic gave both the Buttigieg and Klobuchar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren , both of whom have objectively broader coalitions and a stronger national presence .
African-American voters had to wait until the fourth contest to weigh in with any serious numbers , seriously harming Biden ’ s momentum , while Warren ’ s strength with more educated , more urban and coastal progressives won ’ t make itself felt until Super Tuesday .
But by then the voters siphoned off by Sanders on the left and Buttigieg/Klobuchar on the right may make it difficult for either Biden or Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have had from the beginning .
Bernie Sanders , meanwhile , is benefiting heavily from holding onto a passionate , committed , mostly younger base of supporters who can not be swayed from any other candidate , giving him a consistent if not overwhelming plurality across most states .
As he racks up wins , that momentum carries over with money , support and good press .
Time will tell if the setback in South Carolina proves significantly damaging , but with early and mail-in votes already banked in many Super Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders will have a very good week ahead on the back of a dedicated plurality of voters set against a fractured group of opponents .
This is not how we should pick a president , and it ’ s not fair to the demographic groups that make up the Democratic coalition .
It is mindboggling to allow two ultra-white states go first in the process of choosing the candidate for the explicitly anti-racist party , leaving a heavily Latinx , disproportionately young caucus state to go third , and only giving a heavily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state the opportunity to weigh in fourth .
Then there is the issue of electability .
The reality is that while Democratic voters are obsessed this cycle with who is most capable of beating Trump , pretty much everyone ’ s theory of electability is probably wrong and no one knows what will happen .
Democratic voters are casting ballots with their heads not their hearts , second-guessing what independent guys in exurban Wisconsin diners will or won ’ t do in November .
This is having a particularly strong impact on Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to support her , but worry that a woman can ’ t beat Trump .
But it also affects other candidates .
Who knows how many voters would be inclined to support Sanders but worry that the socialist label will destroy him , or would like to support Buttigieg but think he lacks the resume to beat Trump .
Many Democratic voters are making the mistake of peering into a cloudy crystal ball , psyching themselves out about the electoral college rather than going with their gut instincts about who would make the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the issue of the delegate thresholds .
The minimum threshold for winning delegates across states and/or congressional districts is 15 % .
This would be reasonable in a two- or three-candidate contest .
But in a race with a half dozen credible candidates , we are seeing “ winners ” crowned with less than 27 % of the total vote , while candidates with 14 % get nothing at all .
This is absurd and wildly unrepresentative .
If the contest continues in this fashion it would lead to a brokered convention in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pick a nominee , with the added complication of the second-round addition of superdelegate DNC members , elected officials and party elders .
And that nominee might or might not be the plurality winner in delegates and popular vote .
This is not how we should be picking a president .
There are a number of solutions to deal with this mess , but the most obvious would seem to be : 1 ) Rotate the initial primary contests , and ensure that the states that do go first have reasonably representative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and young voters .
It ’ s probably wise not to let the biggest , most expensive states go first so that insurgent candidates and those with lesser financial means can still compete .
2 ) Eliminate caucuses once and for all , switching to a primary system in all fifty states .
3 ) Adopt a ranked choice system so that that voters can cast their ballots with both head and heart , and so that their actual policy preferences can still be reflected regardless of whether they think a candidate they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a better chance of beating a Republican .
4 ) Shift the delegate allocations to be truly representative .
If that means increasing the number of delegates from each state to the convention , so be it .
If a national convention hall literally can not hold that many delegates , find a technical workaround to let them in sequentially , or cast votes electronically ( it ’ s not as if a public , easily verifiable vote like this would be subject to effective tampering . )
5 ) Eliminate the superdelegates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
DNC members should have a vote on party policy , platform and other issues , but not in picking the presidential nominee .
These reforms would go a long way toward fixing what is clearly a broken process for choosing the leader of the most powerful country on the planet .

Joe Biden is running a victory lap in South Carolina tonight after a nearly 30 point win over his 2nd closest primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. It’s understandable: many polls had shown tightening in the race in the weeks prior to the contest after Sanders notched popular vote wins in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. A late but crucial endorsement by the iconic Representative James Clyburn seems to have given Biden a huge boost in the final days, and he has reason to celebrate.
The “comeback kid” narratives for the former Vice President have already begun, and big donations are flowing in.
But the Biden “comeback” is in a certain sense a mirage that demonstrates how broken the presidential nominating process has become.
Biden was always strong with African-American voters (particularly older ones), and both his weakness in the first three contests and his strength in South Carolina are outliers each in their own way. Iowa and New Hampshire are among the whitest states in the nation, while the South Carolina Democratic primary electorate is disproportionately African-American. Beginning the contest in Iowa and New Hampshire was always going to make Biden appear weaker than he actually is, while a race in South Carolina would make him look stronger he ought going into a more representative Super Tuesday onslaught. Nevada, meanwhile, is the most demographically representative among the early contests, but because it comes third it helped to hide Sanders’ dominant strength among Latinx voters–a fact that won’t likely won’t be felt as powerfully as it ought to have been from the beginning until Super Tuesday. The fact that both Iowa and Nevada are caucus states further takes away from the element of representative democracy and takes away from the mandate candidates receive in winning them.
The sequential primary among oddly unrepresentative states has other warping effects as well. Both Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar have long had campaigns almost perfectly tailored to appeal to liberal-ish center-left white voters in the Midwest and Northeast–but almost no one else in the Democratic coalition. Yet the fact that the first two contests take place in states almost perfectly tailored to that demographic gave both the Buttigieg and Klobuchar campaigns unearned strength that helped to sideline Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, both of whom have objectively broader coalitions and a stronger national presence. African-American voters had to wait until the fourth contest to weigh in with any serious numbers, seriously harming Biden’s momentum, while Warren’s strength with more educated, more urban and coastal progressives won’t make itself felt until Super Tuesday. But by then the voters siphoned off by Sanders on the left and Buttigieg/Klobuchar on the right may make it difficult for either Biden or Warren to regain the traction they rightly ought to have had from the beginning.
Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, is benefiting heavily from holding onto a passionate, committed, mostly younger base of supporters who cannot be swayed from any other candidate, giving him a consistent if not overwhelming plurality across most states. As he racks up wins, that momentum carries over with money, support and good press. Time will tell if the setback in South Carolina proves significantly damaging, but with early and mail-in votes already banked in many Super Tuesday states, it is quite likely that Sanders will have a very good week ahead on the back of a dedicated plurality of voters set against a fractured group of opponents.
This is not how we should pick a president, and it’s not fair to the demographic groups that make up the Democratic coalition. It is mindboggling to allow two ultra-white states go first in the process of choosing the candidate for the explicitly anti-racist party, leaving a heavily Latinx, disproportionately young caucus state to go third, and only giving a heavily black (in the Democratic primary) state the opportunity to weigh in fourth.
Then there is the issue of electability. The reality is that while Democratic voters are obsessed this cycle with who is most capable of beating Trump, pretty much everyone’s theory of electability is probably wrong and no one knows what will happen. Democratic voters are casting ballots with their heads not their hearts, second-guessing what independent guys in exurban Wisconsin diners will or won’t do in November. This is having a particularly strong impact on Warren: stories abound of voters who want to support her, but worry that a woman can’t beat Trump. But it also affects other candidates. Who knows how many voters would be inclined to support Sanders but worry that the socialist label will destroy him, or would like to support Buttigieg but think he lacks the resume to beat Trump. Many Democratic voters are making the mistake of peering into a cloudy crystal ball, psyching themselves out about the electoral college rather than going with their gut instincts about who would make the best president.
Finally there’s the issue of the delegate thresholds. The minimum threshold for winning delegates across states and/or congressional districts is 15%. This would be reasonable in a two- or three-candidate contest. But in a race with a half dozen credible candidates, we are seeing “winners” crowned with less than 27% of the total vote, while candidates with 14% get nothing at all. This is absurd and wildly unrepresentative. If the contest continues in this fashion it would lead to a brokered convention in which all the pledged delegates would scramble to pick a nominee, with the added complication of the second-round addition of superdelegate DNC members, elected officials and party elders. And that nominee might or might not be the plurality winner in delegates and popular vote.
This is not how we should be picking a president.
There are a number of solutions to deal with this mess, but the most obvious would seem to be:
1) Rotate the initial primary contests, and ensure that the states that do go first have reasonably representative demographic profiles, including black, Latinx and young voters. It’s probably wise not to let the biggest, most expensive states go first so that insurgent candidates and those with lesser financial means can still compete.
2) Eliminate caucuses once and for all, switching to a primary system in all fifty states.
3) Adopt a ranked choice system so that that voters can cast their ballots with both head and heart, and so that their actual policy preferences can still be reflected regardless of whether they think a candidate they don’t like as well has a better chance of beating a Republican.
4) Shift the delegate allocations to be truly representative. If that means increasing the number of delegates from each state to the convention, so be it. If a national convention hall literally cannot hold that many delegates, find a technical workaround to let them in sequentially, or cast votes electronically (it’s not as if a public, easily verifiable vote like this would be subject to effective tampering.)
5) Eliminate the superdelegates as part of the national nominating pool. DNC members and other superdelegates should have a vote on party policy, platform and other issues, but not in picking the presidential nominee.
These reforms would go a long way toward fixing what is clearly a broken process for choosing the leader of the most powerful country on the planet.