washingtonmonthly--2020-06-30--Watching Rachel Maddow Is Not Enough

Watching Rachel Maddow Is Not Enough

Raise your hand if the following describes you : You follow politics closely .
If you missed President Trump ’ s most recent COVID-19 press conference , your Twitter feed gave you the play-by-play .
You have the presidential primary calendar just about memorized and can even distinguish candidates ’ subtle policy differences in a crowded field .
You often take to Twitter or Facebook to commiserate on the government ’ s latest coronavirus response with your co-partisans , defend your stances , or at least silently judge the few you follow who disagree .
You struggle to understand why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you do about the other political party or its leaders .
You can ’ t help but check out the latest polls , especially if they are from battleground states .
You vote in every election , even on local candidates or propositions you never thought about before hopping into the booth .
But yet , you belong to no political or community organizations .
Congrats—you ’ re a political hobbyist , and you ’ re doing politics all wrong .
At least so says Eitan Hersh , a political scientist and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hersh ’ s book offers an approachable reality check for voters .
He forces readers to grapple with the uncomfortable reality that much of how they engage with politics isn ’ t necessarily helpful .
In fact , he argues , the hobbyist forms of engagement are often precisely the reason why many popular causes struggle to be advanced .
For political hobbyists , the time we put into following the news is more akin to a spectator sport than a goal-driven purpose .
Any influence we might enjoy comes from behind screens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sure , we may vote , but that ’ s about it in terms of tangible effort .
Hobbyists ’ activities are cloaked “ in the language of civics , ” Hersh notes , but are , at their core , virtue signaling , meant to show that we are in the fight because we post about it .
It ’ s the “ I VOTED ” sticker of engagement—it lets people know we are involved but doesn ’ t demand any follow-up .
We follow to be entertained .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground our political involvement ?
Simple : the pursuit of power .
The goal isn ’ t as contemptible as it sounds .
In Hersh ’ s words , “ Getting power means convincing people to take actions they wouldn ’ t otherwise take.
” For example , individual citizens can organize to influence the voting decisions of others—including the decision to vote at all—or groups can interact with lawmakers and lobby for their cause .
Even if you live in one of the many places that are dominated by a single political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sought to support your preferred candidate , advance an ignored issue , or persuade non-active citizens to invest their time on worthy causes within your community , like staffing food banks or revitalizing playgrounds .
Voting is far from the only activity that can produce real change .
We ’ ve periodically seen such widespread commitment to activism .
After Donald Trump ’ s election in 2016 , citizens—particularly women , many of them not previously political—marched , worked phone banks , canvassed , and ran for office in pursuit of Democratic Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others to do the same .
The actions weren ’ t revolutionary , but in the end , each contributed to large shifts of power at all levels of government—including the election of the most diverse freshman class in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives .
Hersh goes further .
He warns that political hobbyists aren ’ t just doing politics wrong , they may actually be making it more dysfunctional .
He writes , “ Political hobbyism isn ’ t just a distinct activity from the pursuit of political power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power.
” Why ?
Hobbyists spend their time not seeking power , but talking about it passionately from the comfort of the sidelines .
It creates a doom loop : The more engaged in hobbyist politics we become , the less likely we are to spend our time effecting change .
That ’ s not all .
Hobbyists are trapped in their own curated echo chamber of political media that prevents those most plugged in from hearing alternative perspectives .
Elected officials respond to this reality because they know full well that those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most likely to turn out on Election Day .
Thus , hobbyism contributes to immovable litmus tests for candidates wherein they become most beholden to the loudest , most active , and often most extreme voices within their base .
An overlooked danger with Hersh ’ s desire for more activism is that hobbyists turned activists can actually lead to even more dysfunction .
After Barack Obama ’ s election in 2008 , Tea Party conservatives , aided by the Koch brothers ’ money but operating overwhelmingly at the grass roots , moved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by convincing fellow conservatives to “ primary ” insufficiently ideological GOP lawmakers .
Unsurprisingly , the freshman Tea Party members held the GOP House caucus hostage to its nihilist views of government , leading to repeated government shutdowns and paving the way for the election of Trump .
The Democrats have also experienced an ideological insurgency with the rise of an activist Bernie/AOC left .
But while that movement has helped shift the party ’ s agenda to the left , it has had minimal impact on electoral outcomes to date .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ races in 2018 were mainstream liberals and moderates , as is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee , Joe Biden .
Unlike the GOP , the Democratic Party still has a sizable moderate wing of voters who , when they move from political hobbyists to participants , can have a powerful impact .
In an era of what political scientists call “ asymmetrical polarization , ” Hersh ’ s thesis about the moderating influence of citizen activism may be ( like so much else in today ’ s politics ) far more true of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limitation is Hersh ’ s suggestions of what citizens should do instead of engaging in hobbyism .
Only the last 20 pages are devoted to action items , and even then , it ’ s broad strokes : focus on the local ; build community ; listen ; don ’ t think short term ; build power one conversation at a time .
The final chapter reads more as a pep talk for interested citizens rather than as a specific playbook of concrete steps for hobbyists to change their ways .
Perhaps Hersh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea is a fundamental rethinking of how political parties might leverage their own power .
In essence , Hersh argues that parties would have a much higher return on their campaign capital if they literally invested in direct community services .
It ’ s no secret that campaigns are flooded with cash .
The vast majority— $ 3 billion in 2016 alone—are , as Hersh puts it , “ shallow , one-off ” campaign ads that aim to show voters that the party or candidate truly cares about them .
They are one-time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After Election Day , the parties—particularly local parties—all but disappear until the campaign cycle refreshes and the next ask soon follows .
Instead of this system , Hersh suggests that parties should use a portion of campaign money to provide continual direct services that actually help citizens .
He writes , “ Imagine if some of those millions of dollars were instead allocated to tie a party ’ s brand name to actual service such as backup childcare or eldercare.
” There is no shortage of community needs that would fit the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; job training ; financial and tax services ; auto repair shops ; civic training .
Communities would benefit from the services while citizens would see the parties and candidates literally putting their money where their mouths are before asking for anything .
They would earn support in service first .
Wouldn ’ t this engender voter good will far more effectively than even the most viral campaign spot ?
Of course , providing these services is not simple , nor does it come without risks .
Many countries , including the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clientelism—the trading of services for political support—sometimes with disastrous results .
In American politics , the strategy is filled with legal land mines and potential campaign finance violations , and in reporting the book Hersh made only a few calls to lawyers to find the legal line .
Even if a service framework can be legally established , charges of vote buying and patronage are inevitable , though such fears can be somewhat alleviated with equal and free service access regardless of political affiliation or voting history .
Moreover , the service model @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party machines and bosses who hold outsize political power because of their control over the service apparatus .
The point is that there is room to experiment .
If direct services are a bridge too far , parties would be wise to rethink their voter activation models , like the Democratic Party in Texas , which recently unveiled a new platform that streamlines the voter registration process and provides a pre-addressed envelope to the newly registered voter so they can send in their ballot , with the postage bill paid for by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lasting political organizations could all benefit from new lines of service that focus on training activists rather than turning out voters .
The latter would come as a result of the former .
But first , we can start by recognizing our likely contribution to political hobbyism .
Then it ’ s up to us to decide to do something different , something lasting , something more connective in pursuit of our preferred political outcomes .

Raise your hand if the following describes you: You follow politics closely. If you missed President Trump’s most recent COVID-19 press conference, your Twitter feed gave you the play-by-play. You have the presidential primary calendar just about memorized and can even distinguish candidates’ subtle policy differences in a crowded field. You often take to Twitter or Facebook to commiserate on the government’s latest coronavirus response with your co-partisans, defend your stances, or at least silently judge the few you follow who disagree. You struggle to understand why others don’t think the way you do about the other political party or its leaders. You can’t help but check out the latest polls, especially if they are from battleground states. You vote in every election, even on local candidates or propositions you never thought about before hopping into the booth. But yet, you belong to no political or community organizations.
Politics Is for Power: How to Move Beyond Political Hobbyism, Take Action, and Make Real Change
by Eitan Hersh
Scribner, 288 pp
Congrats—you’re a political hobbyist, and you’re doing politics all wrong. At least so says Eitan Hersh, a political scientist and the author of Politics Is for Power.
Hersh’s book offers an approachable reality check for voters. He forces readers to grapple with the uncomfortable reality that much of how they engage with politics isn’t necessarily helpful. In fact, he argues, the hobbyist forms of engagement are often precisely the reason why many popular causes struggle to be advanced.
For political hobbyists, the time we put into following the news is more akin to a spectator sport than a goal-driven purpose. Any influence we might enjoy comes from behind screens, not from any meaningful human connection. Sure, we may vote, but that’s about it in terms of tangible effort. Hobbyists’ activities are cloaked “in the language of civics,” Hersh notes, but are, at their core, virtue signaling, meant to show that we are in the fight because we post about it. It’s the “I VOTED” sticker of engagement—it lets people know we are involved but doesn’t demand any follow-up. We follow to be entertained.
So, then, what does Hersh say should ground our political involvement? Simple: the pursuit of power. The goal isn’t as contemptible as it sounds. In Hersh’s words, “Getting power means convincing people to take actions they wouldn’t otherwise take.” For example, individual citizens can organize to influence the voting decisions of others—including the decision to vote at all—or groups can interact with lawmakers and lobby for their cause. Even if you live in one of the many places that are dominated by a single political party, power can and should be sought to support your preferred candidate, advance an ignored issue, or persuade non-active citizens to invest their time on worthy causes within your community, like staffing food banks or revitalizing playgrounds. Voting is far from the only activity that can produce real change.
We’ve periodically seen such widespread commitment to activism. After Donald Trump’s election in 2016, citizens—particularly women, many of them not previously political—marched, worked phone banks, canvassed, and ran for office in pursuit of Democratic Party victory with an explicit purpose to get others to do the same. The actions weren’t revolutionary, but in the end, each contributed to large shifts of power at all levels of
government—including the election of the most diverse freshman class in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Hersh goes further. He warns that political hobbyists aren’t just doing politics wrong, they may actually be making it more dysfunctional. He writes, “Political hobbyism isn’t just a distinct activity from the pursuit of political power; it hinders the pursuit of political power.” Why? Hobbyists spend their time not seeking power, but talking about it passionately from the comfort of the sidelines. It creates a doom loop: The more engaged in hobbyist politics we become, the less likely we are to spend our time effecting change.
That’s not all. Hobbyists are trapped in their own curated echo chamber of political media that prevents those most plugged in from hearing alternative perspectives. Elected officials respond to this reality because they know full well that those who consume the most political news are most likely to turn out on Election Day. Thus, hobbyism contributes to immovable litmus tests for candidates wherein they become most beholden to the loudest, most active, and often most extreme voices within their base.
An overlooked danger with Hersh’s desire for more activism is that hobbyists turned activists can actually lead to even more dysfunction. After Barack Obama’s election in 2008, Tea Party conservatives, aided by the Koch brothers’ money but operating overwhelmingly at the grass roots, moved the entire Republican Party to the right by convincing fellow conservatives to “primary” insufficiently ideological GOP lawmakers. Unsurprisingly, the freshman Tea Party members held the GOP House caucus hostage to its nihilist views of government, leading to repeated government shutdowns and paving the way for the election of Trump.
The Democrats have also experienced an ideological insurgency with the rise of an activist Bernie/AOC left. But while that movement has helped shift the party’s agenda to the left, it has had minimal impact on electoral outcomes to date. The vast majority of Democrats who flipped congressional races in 2018 were mainstream liberals and moderates, as is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden. Unlike the GOP, the Democratic Party still has a sizable moderate wing of voters who, when they move from political hobbyists to participants, can have a powerful impact. In an era of what political scientists call “asymmetrical polarization,” Hersh’s thesis about the moderating influence of citizen activism may be (like so much else in today’s politics) far more true of one party than the other.
Another limitation is Hersh’s suggestions of what citizens should do instead of engaging in hobbyism. Only the last 20 pages are devoted to action items, and even then, it’s broad strokes: focus on the local; build community; listen; don’t think short term; build power one conversation at a time. The final chapter reads more as a pep talk for interested citizens rather than as a specific playbook of concrete steps for hobbyists to change their ways.
Perhaps Hersh’s biggest, if under-researched, idea is a fundamental rethinking of how political parties might leverage their own power. In essence, Hersh argues that parties would have a much higher return on their campaign capital if they literally invested in direct community services.
It’s no secret that campaigns are flooded with cash. The vast majority—$3 billion in 2016 alone—are, as Hersh puts it, “shallow, one-off” campaign ads that aim to show voters that the party or candidate truly cares about them. They are one-time support requests under the guise of compassion. After Election Day, the parties—particularly local parties—all but disappear until the campaign cycle refreshes and the next ask soon follows.
Instead of this system, Hersh suggests that parties should use a portion of campaign money to provide continual direct services that actually help citizens. He writes, “Imagine if some of those millions of dollars were instead allocated to tie a party’s brand name to actual service such as backup childcare or eldercare.” There is no shortage of community needs that would fit the model: addiction and mental health clinics; job training; financial and tax services; auto repair shops; civic training. Communities would benefit from the services while citizens would see the parties and candidates literally putting their money where their mouths are before asking for anything. They would earn support in service first. Wouldn’t this engender voter good will far more effectively than even the most viral campaign spot?
Of course, providing these services is not simple, nor does it come without risks. Many countries, including the United States, have a long history with clientelism—the trading of services for political support—sometimes with disastrous results. In American politics, the strategy is filled with legal land mines and potential campaign finance violations, and in reporting the book Hersh made only a few calls to lawyers to find the legal line. Even if a service framework can be legally established, charges of vote buying and patronage are inevitable, though such fears can be somewhat alleviated with equal and free service access regardless of political affiliation or voting history. Moreover, the service model could result in a new generation of party machines and bosses who hold outsize political power because of their control over the service apparatus.
The point is that there is room to experiment. If direct services are a bridge too far, parties would be wise to rethink their voter activation models, like the Democratic Party in Texas, which recently unveiled a new platform that streamlines the voter registration process and provides a pre-addressed envelope to the newly registered voter so they can send in their ballot, with the postage bill paid for by the party. Communities, voters, and lasting political organizations could all benefit from new lines of service that focus on training activists rather than turning out voters. The latter would come as a result of the former. But first, we can start by recognizing our likely contribution to political hobbyism. Then it’s up to us to decide to do something different, something lasting, something more connective in pursuit of our preferred political outcomes.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-29--John Roberts Just Dealt the Anti-Abortion Movement a Crushing Defeat

On Monday , the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the June Medical Services v. Gee case .
While not a direct threat to Roe v. Wade , it involved a Louisiana law that sought to drive a stake through the heart of women ’ s reproductive choice .
Chief Justice John Roberts concurred with the four liberal judges to strike down the law .
As a reminder , Louisiana passed a law that required any doctor performing an abortion to have admitting privileges at a state-approved hospital within 30 miles of the clinic .
Proponents of the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protecting women ’ s health , but the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association opposed it , saying that legal abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States .
The truth is that it was simply an attempt to restrict women ’ s access to abortion services .
The Louisiana law took direct aim at the Supreme Court ’ s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey , a 1992 ruling that upheld Roe v. Wade , but gave states the ability to regulate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parenthood v. Casey was that a regulation would be ruled unconstitutional if it placed an “ undue burden ” on a woman ’ s right to obtain an abortion .
If that requirement was successfully challenged , as the Louisiana law attempted to do , states would be able to implement restrictions that make the procedure basically unavailable to women .
That is what was at stake in June Medical Services v. Gee .
Frankly , I was convinced that the ruling in this case would go in the opposite direction .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court heard a case from Texas with exactly the same kind of restriction on abortion clinics , Whole Woman ’ s Health v. Hellersted .
At the time , there were eight justices on the court following the death of Antonin Scalia .
While Justice Kennedy—who has since retired—voted with the liberal justices , Roberts voted with the other two conservatives to uphold the Texas law .
The outcome in that case was a 5-3 decision to strike down the restriction as unconstitutional based on Planned Parenthood v. Casey .
Anti-abortion activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law , assuming that , with the addition of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to the bench , it would be upheld this time .
As expected , Trump ’ s two Supreme Court appointments voted with Thomas and Alito to uphold the restrictions on abortion clinics .
The surprise came from Chief Justice John Roberts .
Ironically , it was the decision in Whole Women ’ s Health v. Hellersted on which Roberts based his decision to flip from his previous position and strike down the Louisiana law .
He based his argument on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ binds judges to precedents .
Here is what he wrote : I have to admit that the line about factual findings not being clearly erroneous made my head spin a bit , being reminiscent of Kellyanne Conway ’ s reference to “ alternative facts.
” But depending on your point of view , the overall argument might sound either principled or convoluted .
Perhaps the more significant conclusion is that the Chief Justice doesn ’ t want the Roberts Court to go down in history as the radical body that took health insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Dreamers .
Now he ’ s done the same thing when it comes to avoiding a death blow to women ’ s reproductive rights .
It is worth noting , however , that Roberts was willing to allow his legacy to be tied to the death of the provision that was the backbone of the Voting Rights Act .
I have been suggesting for a while now that these decisions by the Supreme Court will be prominent in the lead-up to the November election .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with regards to cases involving protections for LGBTQ Americans , DACA protection for Dreamers , and women ’ s reproductive health rights .
All three of those decisions take direct aim at the so-called “ culture warriors ” on the right .
Whether or not all of that results in renewed enthusiasm at the ballot box or complacency at the inability to secure wins by stacking the courts remains to be seen .
For those on the left , however , Ethan Somers makes the salient point .
There is one more huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a decision to be handed down shortly : whether to uphold subpoenas for the release of the president ’ s financial statements and tax returns .
At this point , that should have Donald Trump shaking in his slippery leather-soled shoes .

On Monday, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the June Medical Services v. Gee case. While not a direct threat to Roe v. Wade, it involved a Louisiana law that sought to drive a stake through the heart of women’s reproductive choice. Chief Justice John Roberts concurred with the four liberal judges to strike down the law.
As a reminder, Louisiana passed a law that required any doctor performing an abortion to have admitting privileges at a state-approved hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. Proponents of the law claimed that the restriction was aimed at protecting women’s health, but the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association opposed it, saying that legal abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States. The truth is that it was simply an attempt to restrict women’s access to abortion services.
The Louisiana law took direct aim at the Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 ruling that upheld Roe v. Wade, but gave states the ability to regulate the procedure. The stipulation in Planned Parenthood v. Casey was that a regulation would be ruled unconstitutional if it placed an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. If that requirement was successfully challenged, as the Louisiana law attempted to do, states would be able to implement restrictions that make the procedure basically unavailable to women. That is what was at stake in June Medical Services v. Gee.
Frankly, I was convinced that the ruling in this case would go in the opposite direction. That is because, in 2016, the Supreme Court heard a case from Texas with exactly the same kind of restriction on abortion clinics, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellersted. At the time, there were eight justices on the court following the death of Antonin Scalia. While Justice Kennedy—who has since retired—voted with the liberal justices, Roberts voted with the other two conservatives to uphold the Texas law. The outcome in that case was a 5-3 decision to strike down the restriction as unconstitutional based on Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Anti-abortion activists decided to try again with the Louisiana law, assuming that, with the addition of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to the bench, it would be upheld this time. As expected, Trump’s two Supreme Court appointments voted with Thomas and Alito to uphold the restrictions on abortion clinics. The surprise came from Chief Justice John Roberts.
Ironically, it was the decision in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellersted on which Roberts based his decision to flip from his previous position and strike down the Louisiana law. He based his argument on stare decisis, a legal principle that binds judges to precedents. Here is what he wrote:
Stare decisis instructs us to treat like cases alike. The result in this case is controlled by our decision four years ago invalidating a nearly identical Texas law. The Louisiana law burdens women seeking previability abortions to the same extent as the Texas law, according to factual findings that are not clearly erroneous. For that reason I concur in the judgement of the Court that the Louisiana law is unconstitutional.
I have to admit that the line about factual findings not being clearly erroneous made my head spin a bit, being reminiscent of Kellyanne Conway’s reference to “alternative facts.” But depending on your point of view, the overall argument might sound either principled or convoluted.
Perhaps the more significant conclusion is that the Chief Justice doesn’t want the Roberts Court to go down in history as the radical body that took health insurance away from millions of people or contributed to the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Dreamers. Now he’s done the same thing when it comes to avoiding a death blow to women’s reproductive rights. It is worth noting, however, that Roberts was willing to allow his legacy to be tied to the death of the provision that was the backbone of the Voting Rights Act.
I have been suggesting for a while now that these decisions by the Supreme Court will be prominent in the lead-up to the November election. So far, the pattern is clear with regards to cases involving protections for LGBTQ Americans, DACA protection for Dreamers, and women’s reproductive health rights. All three of those decisions take direct aim at the so-called “culture warriors” on the right. Whether or not all of that results in renewed enthusiasm at the ballot box or complacency at the inability to secure wins by stacking the courts remains to be seen. For those on the left, however, Ethan Somers makes the salient point.
https://twitter.com/ethanjsomers/status/1277610516651917313
There is one more huge Supreme Court case waiting in the wings for a decision to be handed down shortly: whether to uphold subpoenas for the release of the president’s financial statements and tax returns. At this point, that should have Donald Trump shaking in his boots slippery leather-soled shoes.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-29--What If Trump Decides Not to Seek a Second Term?

Speculation that President Trump may pull a Lyndon Johnson and decline to seek a second term is beginning to percolate .
To understand why , let ’ s turn to a guy best known for making drunk cable news appearances : “ Under the current trajectory , President Trump is on the precipice of one of the worst electoral defeats in modern presidential elections and the worst historically for an incumbent president , ” said former Trump political adviser Sam Nunberg , who remains a supporter .
Nunberg pointed to national polls released by CNBC and New York Times/Siena over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 40 percent against Biden .
If Trump ’ s numbers erode to 35 percentage points over the next two weeks , Nunberg added , “ He ’ s going to be facing realistically a 400-plus electoral vote loss and the president would need to strongly reconsider whether he wants to continue to run as the Republican presidential nominee.
” Recent surveys have Joe Biden leading by one point in Texas and pulling ahead in Georgia , so Nunberg isn ’ t just raving in his usual way .
He spoke of the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t bend the current curve , his polls are going to look devastatingly bad in a couple of weeks , and certainly before he is supposed to accept the Republican Party ’ s presidential nomination in Jacksonville .
Actually , the Republican convention is looking increasingly like a fate worse than death for the president .
As Dave Brooks writes for Billboard , the venue management company ASG Global that handled Trump ’ s Tulsa rally is also responsible for running events at the VyStar Veterans Memorial Arena in Jacksonville .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The company asked the White House for a detailed security and social distancing plan for Tulsa and received nothing .
When they put stickers on alternating chairs telling people not to sit there , campaign staffers went around and peeled those stickers off .
Several of those staffers actually had COVID-19 and they were not following basic protocols about maintaining six feet of distance or wearing masks .
After the event the Tulsa mayor had , they had the temerity to say that he would have been okay with it , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the host .
There ’ s a real chance that they will refuse to put their employees at risk again in Jacksonville .
At a minimum , they ’ re going to make demands that will undermine the whole point of moving the convention from Charlotte , North Carolina .
Trump isn ’ t getting a normal looking crowd .
In any case , the coronavirus has now erupted throughout the South , and particularly in Florida , making it unlikely that a bunch of septuagenarian and octogenarian delegates will want to travel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t want them to come anyway , and it ’ s unclear if the hotels will be welcoming .
Why would Trump want to be humiliated in this fashion ?
Why would anyone want to show up and sing his praises after he ’ s begun supporting “ white power ” and shooting peaceful protesters on Twitter ?
Wouldn ’ t it be best to just call the whole thing off ?
It ’ s not as crazy of an idea as it sounds , but there ’ s plenty of preparation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with William Barr working overtime to use the Justice Department as an organ of Trump ’ s reelection effort .
We ’ ve seen dry runs on limiting urban polling stations in Georgia and Kentucky , and Trump ’ s clearly still banking on covert Russian assistance .
If he stays in , he ’ s going to fight dirty on every front .
What ’ s clear is that under Trump ’ s leadership , nothing is going to get better between now and November .
Schools won ’ t reopen or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so , the economy is going to get worse , and America will continue to stick out like a sore thumb as having the absolute worst response in the world to the viral pandemic .
Certainly , Trump isn ’ t going to become some kind of stable genius .
He will continue to outrage and offend in ways that don ’ t fit the current moment .
He might just call it quits .
He certainly should .

Speculation that President Trump may pull a Lyndon Johnson and decline to seek a second term is beginning to percolate. To understand why, let’s turn to a guy best known for making drunk cable news appearances:
“Under the current trajectory, President Trump is on the precipice of one of the worst electoral defeats in modern presidential elections and the worst historically for an incumbent president,” said former Trump political adviser Sam Nunberg, who remains a supporter. Nunberg pointed to national polls released by CNBC and New York Times/Siena over the past week showing Trump receiving below 40 percent against Biden. If Trump’s numbers erode to 35 percentage points over the next two weeks, Nunberg added, “He’s going to be facing realistically a 400-plus electoral vote loss and the president would need to strongly reconsider whether he wants to continue to run as the Republican presidential nominee.”
Recent surveys have Joe Biden leading by one point in Texas and pulling ahead in Georgia, so Nunberg isn’t just raving in his usual way. He spoke of the “trajectory,” and if Trump can’t bend the current curve, his polls are going to look devastatingly bad in a couple of weeks, and certainly before he is supposed to accept the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in Jacksonville.
Actually, the Republican convention is looking increasingly like a fate worse than death for the president. As Dave Brooks writes for Billboard, the venue management company ASG Global that handled Trump’s Tulsa rally is also responsible for running events at the VyStar Veterans Memorial Arena in Jacksonville. They are furious with Trump’s campaign.
The company asked the White House for a detailed security and social distancing plan for Tulsa and received nothing. When they put stickers on alternating chairs telling people not to sit there, campaign staffers went around and peeled those stickers off. Several of those staffers actually had COVID-19 and they were not following basic protocols about maintaining six feet of distance or wearing masks. After the event the Tulsa mayor had, they had the temerity to say that he would have been okay with it, if ASG Global simply refused to serve as the host. There’s a real chance that they will refuse to put their employees at risk again in Jacksonville. At a minimum, they’re going to make demands that will undermine the whole point of moving the convention from Charlotte, North Carolina. Trump isn’t getting a normal looking crowd.
In any case, the coronavirus has now erupted throughout the South, and particularly in Florida, making it unlikely that a bunch of septuagenarian and octogenarian delegates will want to travel there by plane. Most residents don’t want them to come anyway, and it’s unclear if the hotels will be welcoming.
Why would Trump want to be humiliated in this fashion? Why would anyone want to show up and sing his praises after he’s begun supporting “white power” and shooting peaceful protesters on Twitter?
Wouldn’t it be best to just call the whole thing off?
It’s not as crazy of an idea as it sounds, but there’s plenty of preparation going on in the other direction, with William Barr working overtime to use the Justice Department as an organ of Trump’s reelection effort. We’ve seen dry runs on limiting urban polling stations in Georgia and Kentucky, and Trump’s clearly still banking on covert Russian assistance. If he stays in, he’s going to fight dirty on every front.
What’s clear is that under Trump’s leadership, nothing is going to get better between now and November. Schools won’t reopen or will quickly regret their decision to do so, the economy is going to get worse, and America will continue to stick out like a sore thumb as having the absolute worst response in the world to the viral pandemic. Certainly, Trump isn’t going to become some kind of stable genius. He will continue to outrage and offend in ways that don’t fit the current moment.
He might just call it quits. He certainly should.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-01--What Are Trump’s Plans for Reviving His Failing Campaign?

Things continue to go downhill for Donald Trump and the GOP heading into November .
At the top of the list for most voters is the recent spike in the spread of the coronavirus across the country .
But the president ’ s prevarications on the intelligence about Russia putting out a bounty on U.S. troops is taking a toll as well .
For example , take look at this devastating video from the Lincoln Project .
While polls continue to show Biden maintaining a double-digit lead in the presidential race , Democrats also have a nine-point advantage in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Democratic congress by a margin larger than the one that led to a blue wave in 2018 .
The Republican groundswell against Trump continues to grow with a group named “ 43 Alumni for Biden ” set to launch on Wednesday .
Hundreds of officials who worked for former Republican President George W. Bush are set to endorse Democratic White House hopeful Joe Biden , people involved in the effort said , the latest Republican-led group coming out to oppose the re-election of Donald Trump .
The officials , who include Cabinet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bush administration , have formed a political action committee – 43 Alumni for Biden – to support the former vice president in his Nov. 3 race , three organizers of the group told Reuters .
With four months to go before the votes are counted , it has become clear that the president will need a herculean effort to counter those headwinds .
His situation is unprecedented because no incumbent has ever trailed by this much at this point in an election cycle .
So what are Trump ’ s plans for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington Post , here are a few things that are being considered .
• Remain in denial about the polls • Deploy a campaign message about Trump as a builder ( ie , “ he ’ s building a wall ” ) • Push a “ renew , restore , rebuild ” theme about the economy ( as the pandemic continues to rage ) But there is one idea that is quintessentially Trumpian .
In the midst of all that is going on in the country right now , this president thinks that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his opponent is critical .
I guess it goes without saying that developing a platform for how Trump would govern during a second term is completely off the table .
With the recent Supreme Court decisions on LGBT rights , DACA , and abortion , Trump seems to have come up with another idea about how to stir up the race .
Since we can count on Breyer , Ginsberg , Sotomayor , and Kagan to remain as long as possible , the speculation has turned to the possibility of either Thomas or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus is on the latter .
We already know that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was pressuring federal judges who were close to retirement to do so early , so it is not inconceivable that similar pressure could be used with Thomas and Alito .
But such a move could backfire .
We would all be reminded of the fact that Antonin Scalia died in February 2016 , almost nine months before the presidential election .
McConnell wouldn ’ t even allow hearings on Obama ’ s nominee , saying that a replacement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If a sitting justice was to retire just a couple of months before the election , McConnell has already made it clear that he ’ ll have no shame in flipping that entire script for partisan purposes .
But he will expose his hypocrisy in a way that will be obvious for all to see .
One thing that Trump and McConnell have in common is that they both embrace the idea of playing dirty politics in the gutter .
So I wouldn ’ t put it past them to assume that an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is just the ticket for improving their odds in November .
But with voters already exhausted by the chaos that has engulfed the country during Trump ’ s presidency , I ’ m not so sure that would be a good move .

Things continue to go downhill for Donald Trump and the GOP heading into November. At the top of the list for most voters is the recent spike in the spread of the coronavirus across the country. But the president’s prevarications on the intelligence about Russia putting out a bounty on U.S. troops is taking a toll as well. For example, take look at this devastating video from the Lincoln Project.
While polls continue to show Biden maintaining a double-digit lead in the presidential race, Democrats also have a nine-point advantage in the generic ballot, indicating that voters prefer a Democratic congress by a margin larger than the one that led to a blue wave in 2018.
The Republican groundswell against Trump continues to grow with a group named “43 Alumni for Biden” set to launch on Wednesday.
Hundreds of officials who worked for former Republican President George W. Bush are set to endorse Democratic White House hopeful Joe Biden, people involved in the effort said, the latest Republican-led group coming out to oppose the re-election of Donald Trump. The officials, who include Cabinet secretaries and other senior people in the Bush administration, have formed a political action committee – 43 Alumni for Biden – to support the former vice president in his Nov. 3 race, three organizers of the group told Reuters.
With four months to go before the votes are counted, it has become clear that the president will need a herculean effort to counter those headwinds. His situation is unprecedented because no incumbent has ever trailed by this much at this point in an election cycle. So what are Trump’s plans for a comeback? According to reporters at the Washington Post, here are a few things that are being considered.
Remain in denial about the polls Launch a shake-up of campaign staff Deploy a campaign message about Trump as a builder (ie, “he’s building a wall”) Push a “renew, restore, rebuild” theme about the economy (as the pandemic continues to rage)
But there is one idea that is quintessentially Trumpian.
Trump has recently been asking advisers whether he should stick with his current nickname for Biden — “Sleepy Joe” — or try to coin another moniker, such as “Swampy Joe” or “Creepy Joe.” The president is not convinced that “Sleepy Joe” is particularly damaging, and some of his advisers agree and have urged him to stop using the nickname. In a tweet on Sunday, Trump tried out yet another variant: “Corrupt Joe.”
In the midst of all that is going on in the country right now, this president thinks that coming up with the meanest nickname for his opponent is critical. I guess it goes without saying that developing a platform for how Trump would govern during a second term is completely off the table.
With the recent Supreme Court decisions on LGBT rights, DACA, and abortion, Trump seems to have come up with another idea about how to stir up the race.
President Donald Trump has begun to raise both publicly and privately the potential boon another nomination to the panel this year might provide. It’s an alluring prospect Trump believes could galvanize both his loyal base but also provide an opportunity to improve his standing among those voters whose support he is now hemorrhaging, people familiar with Trump’s thinking said.
Since we can count on Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan to remain as long as possible, the speculation has turned to the possibility of either Thomas or Alito retiring. Right now, the focus is on the latter.
We already know that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was pressuring federal judges who were close to retirement to do so early, so it is not inconceivable that similar pressure could be used with Thomas and Alito. But such a move could backfire. We would all be reminded of the fact that Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, almost nine months before the presidential election. McConnell wouldn’t even allow hearings on Obama’s nominee, saying that a replacement should wait until after the election. If a sitting justice was to retire just a couple of months before the election, McConnell has already made it clear that he’ll have no shame in flipping that entire script for partisan purposes. But he will expose his hypocrisy in a way that will be obvious for all to see.
One thing that Trump and McConnell have in common is that they both embrace the idea of playing dirty politics in the gutter. So I wouldn’t put it past them to assume that an ugly partisan fight over the Supreme Court is just the ticket for improving their odds in November. But with voters already exhausted by the chaos that has engulfed the country during Trump’s presidency, I’m not so sure that would be a good move.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-01--Trump Has Taken Republicans Down a Dead End of Anti-Expertise

There are a few things you should know about Alex Castellanos .
His family emigrated to the United States from Cuba in the early 1960s .
He was a National Merit Scholar and earned a degree in philosophy from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill .
He ’ s worked in a senior capacity for several presidential candidates , including Bob Dole ( 1988 and 1996 ) , George H.W .
Bush ( 1992 ) , George W. Bush ( 2000 and 2004 ) , and Mitt Romney ( 2008 ) .
He ’ s a very well-credentialed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standing .
He belongs to the Washington Speakers Bureau and regularly appears on CNN .
Since 2008 , he ’ s run a bipartisan political shop with Democrat Steve McMahon .
This is not the profile of a religious nut .
But it ’ s also important to know that Castellanos got his start in politics in 1984 , working on the campaigns of Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms .
He ’ s probably most famous for his production of two ads .
The first was the “ Hands ” commercial that ran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bid : During the campaign , Castellanos drew media attention for an ad he created that showed the hands of a white man holding a rejection letter because he had lost a job to a minority worker .
The ad , known as “ Hands ” , was criticized by supporters of Helms ’ opponent , Harvey Gantt for appealing to racial biases of white voters .
Castellanos later explained that the intended message behind the ad was that “ nobody should get a job , or be denied a job because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second was the “ Rats ” commercial he ran in 2000 against Al Gore : So , Castellanos is a sophisticated and cynical operator ; he ’ s hardly a genuine man of the people .
That ’ s why it ’ s notable that the former philosophy student made the following remarks about listening to the advice of scientists : Alex Castellanos , a veteran Republican strategist , said the divide over whether to cover one ’ s face is , like many things in the Trump era , political .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secular religious symbol , ” Castellanos said .
“ Christians wear crosses , Muslims wear a hijab , and members of the Church of Secular Science bow to the Gods of Data by wearing a mask as their symbol , demonstrating that they are the elite ; smarter , more rational , and morally superior to everyone else.
” I do not for a second believe that Castellanos feels this way about scientists or the people who look to scientists for guidance in the middle of an emergency .
But he obviously sees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fueling resentment against anyone who might be considered smarter and somehow “ better ” than the Average Joe .
Ramping up anger at elites is a dangerous game for an elite like Castellanos .
A lot of former Republican strategists have come to regret playing that game and are endorsing Joe Biden .
Evidently , Castellanos still sees dollar bills in keeping to the old script .
The old script is getting people killed and destroying the economy , however , and it ’ s doing no favors to Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days , it seems like every Republican who has any influence over the president has asked him to stop opposing mask-wearing .
The latest is his former chief of staff Mick Mulvaney .
Castellanos sees more advantage to taking Trump ’ s side .
It ’ s calculations like this compounded over time that took us from the party of Poppy Bush to the party of Donald Trump .
The former could handle the complicated end of the Cold War , while the latter can ’ t handle even routine business , let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see a huge partisan chasm between people who do and don ’ t have a college education .
There are good reasons while ordinary folks should be unsatisfied with the performance of our elites , but the fact that they ’ re educated isn ’ t one of them .
If nothing else , the COVID-19 outbreak has been a useful experiment in what happens when you follow scientific advice and what happens if you don ’ t .
At this point , Castellanos and Trump are Dead Enders , the last of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that current events have already rendered a verdict—and that verdict is “ guilty .
”

There are a few things you should know about Alex Castellanos. His family emigrated to the United States from Cuba in the early 1960s. He was a National Merit Scholar and earned a degree in philosophy from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He’s worked in a senior capacity for several presidential candidates, including Bob Dole (1988 and 1996), George H.W. Bush (1992), George W. Bush (2000 and 2004), and Mitt Romney (2008).
He’s a very well-credentialed member of the Beltway Establishment in good standing. He belongs to the Washington Speakers Bureau and regularly appears on CNN. Since 2008, he’s run a bipartisan political shop with Democrat Steve McMahon. This is not the profile of a religious nut.
But it’s also important to know that Castellanos got his start in politics in 1984, working on the campaigns of Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms. He’s probably most famous for his production of two ads. The first was the “Hands” commercial that ran in Helms’s successful 1990 reelection bid:
During the campaign, Castellanos drew media attention for an ad he created that showed the hands of a white man holding a rejection letter because he had lost a job to a minority worker. The ad, known as “Hands”, was criticized by supporters of Helms’ opponent, Harvey Gantt for appealing to racial biases of white voters. Castellanos later explained that the intended message behind the ad was that “nobody should get a job, or be denied a job because of the color of their skin.”
The second was the “Rats” commercial he ran in 2000 against Al Gore:
While working on the 2000 campaign, Castellanos created an ad about the Medicare prescription plan Al Gore proposed in which the word “RATS” flashed briefly on the screen as the word “bureaucrats” appeared. This was discussed in the media as potential “subliminal messaging.”
So, Castellanos is a sophisticated and cynical operator; he’s hardly a genuine man of the people. That’s why it’s notable that the former philosophy student made the following remarks about listening to the advice of scientists:
Alex Castellanos, a veteran Republican strategist, said the divide over whether to cover one’s face is, like many things in the Trump era, political. “Mask-wearing has become a totem, a secular religious symbol,” Castellanos said. “Christians wear crosses, Muslims wear a hijab, and members of the Church of Secular Science bow to the Gods of Data by wearing a mask as their symbol, demonstrating that they are the elite; smarter, more rational, and morally superior to everyone else.”
I do not for a second believe that Castellanos feels this way about scientists or the people who look to scientists for guidance in the middle of an emergency. But he obviously sees a political advantage for the Republican Party in fueling resentment against anyone who might be considered smarter and somehow “better” than the Average Joe. Ramping up anger at elites is a dangerous game for an elite like Castellanos. A lot of former Republican strategists have come to regret playing that game and are endorsing Joe Biden. Evidently, Castellanos still sees dollar bills in keeping to the old script.
The old script is getting people killed and destroying the economy, however, and it’s doing no favors to Trump’s standing in the polls. In recent days, it seems like every Republican who has any influence over the president has asked him to stop opposing mask-wearing. The latest is his former chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
Castellanos sees more advantage to taking Trump’s side. It’s calculations like this compounded over time that took us from the party of Poppy Bush to the party of Donald Trump. The former could handle the complicated end of the Cold War, while the latter can’t handle even routine business, let alone a global pandemic.
We now see a huge partisan chasm between people who do and don’t have a college education. There are good reasons while ordinary folks should be unsatisfied with the performance of our elites, but the fact that they’re educated isn’t one of them. If nothing else, the COVID-19 outbreak has been a useful experiment in what happens when you follow scientific advice and what happens if you don’t. At this point, Castellanos and Trump are Dead Enders, the last of a breed that doesn’t realize that current events have already rendered a verdict—and that verdict is “guilty.”


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-02--Oklahomans Voted to Expand Medicaid. That’s Bad News for Republicans.

By the slimmest of margins , voters in Oklahoma passed a constitutional amendment to expand Medicaid in their state .
Not only will that allow an additional 200,000 people to obtain health insurance , Keith Humphreys noted how it will impact the state more broadly .
Of the 120 rural hospitals that closed due to financial constraints between Jan. 1 , 2010 , and Dec. 31 , 2019 , eight of them were in Oklahoma .
Much of that happened because of a refusal in red states to expand Medicaid .
And contrary to what Republicans would have you believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for fighting the opioid crisis is the expansion of Medicaid .
So all of this is great news for the citizens of Oklahoma , regardless of whether they supported the referendum or not .
With this vote , Oklahoma becomes the 37th state to expand Medicaid .
As Johnathan Schleifer put it , “ More than 50 % of Republican Senators and Members will now represent expansion states.
” That ’ s the good news .
But for a party that is asking the Supreme Court to rule all of the Affordable Care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as really bad news .
First of all , the voters of Oklahoma passed the expansion as an amendment to their state ’ s constitution—which means that Republicans in that state will have a harder time overruling the will of the voters with the kind of shenanigans we ’ ve seen in other states .
But the way the vote played out is also bad news for Republicans .
The ballot initiative on Medicaid expansion received 30,000 more votes than those cast in the Senate primaries .
It was the location of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump by 30 points that is fascinating .
Since 2016 , we ’ ve heard a lot about the urban/rural divide in America .
That is pretty much how this vote broke down in Oklahoma .
Except this time , urban voters prevailed—even if by the slimmest of margins .
That might not be a harbinger of how things will play out in the November election .
But it is certainly something to keep an eye on .

By the slimmest of margins, voters in Oklahoma passed a constitutional amendment to expand Medicaid in their state. Not only will that allow an additional 200,000 people to obtain health insurance, Keith Humphreys noted how it will impact the state more broadly.
Of the 120 rural hospitals that closed due to financial constraints between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2019, eight of them were in Oklahoma. Much of that happened because of a refusal in red states to expand Medicaid. And contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, one of the most effective tools for fighting the opioid crisis is the expansion of Medicaid. So all of this is great news for the citizens of Oklahoma, regardless of whether they supported the referendum or not.
With this vote, Oklahoma becomes the 37th state to expand Medicaid. As Johnathan Schleifer put it, “More than 50% of Republican Senators and Members will now represent expansion states.”
That’s the good news. But for a party that is asking the Supreme Court to rule all of the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional—including the expansion of Medicaid—this comes as really bad news. First of all, the voters of Oklahoma passed the expansion as an amendment to their state’s constitution—which means that Republicans in that state will have a harder time overruling the will of the voters with the kind of shenanigans we’ve seen in other states.
But the way the vote played out is also bad news for Republicans. The ballot initiative on Medicaid expansion received 30,000 more votes than those cast in the Senate primaries. It was the location of those votes in a state that went for Trump by 30 points that is fascinating.
https://twitter.com/mcimaps/status/1278179246490279936
Since 2016, we’ve heard a lot about the urban/rural divide in America. That is pretty much how this vote broke down in Oklahoma. Except this time, urban voters prevailed—even if by the slimmest of margins.
That might not be a harbinger of how things will play out in the November election. But it is certainly something to keep an eye on.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-02--How to Build a Post-Pandemic America

How to Build a Post-Pandemic America

The Works Progress Administration ( WPA ) , a federal agency created in 1935 to address the nation ’ s then-worst economic catastrophe , is getting a fresh look as we think about how to help millions of Americans left jobless in the pandemic .
There ’ s a good reason for why .
During its eight-year tenure , the WPA put more than eight million Americans to work on more than a million projects of public interest .
These federal workers built roads and dams and electrified rural communities long-denied that necessity of modern life .
Others were put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ art , and swelling the ranks of crucial service-sector jobs .
But the recovery challenge today calls for more than just a 21st century WPA .
We must go further than jobs alone .
Even as we put people to work rebuilding America ’ s crumbling highways and bridges and increasing staffing in the federal public health corps , this crisis demands we address the full range of human infrastructure needs that will emerge in the coming years .
What we need now is an Office of American Advancement .
Like the WPA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide federal jobs on important and necessary projects , like expanding rural broadband and escalating clean energy solutions .
But this office will have a vision and mission far beyond that .
It would coordinate with employers and industry leaders to build the workforce we need in a hyper-competitive global economy .
This office , for example , would work on the crucial task of assessing and certifying the learning gained in new federal jobs so that each of these workers can grow their education and build lasting careers .
In short , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be to lead and support the full integration of our workforce and education systems .
It would match up real-time projects with forward-looking needs and ensure that the knowledge and experience gained from these jobs is properly counted and recognized .
Creating this new federal office would not necessarily mean combining or closing existing agencies .
Instead , much like the Office of the Director of National Intelligence coordinates the work of the intelligence agencies , the Office of American Advancement would coordinate existing federal workforce and education programs .
In doing so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in developing talent alongside new federally supported work efforts .
Organized into mission directorates , partnership centers , and oversight offices , this new federal presence could serve as the undisputed leader of an extensive workforce and education community .
It would be a powerful vehicle for tackling the unemployment crisis head-on while making talent development central to workforce , education , and recruitment policies—increasing strategic focus and efficiency .
This interconnected approach would surely increase economic opportunity among Americans who have long been denied it , including low-income residents and people of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s cultural and social well-being .
This is an audacious plan , but the scope of the challenge—our nation ’ s working future—demands deliberate and coordinated action .
Even with a resumption of economic activity that allows some workers to return to their pre-pandemic jobs , it is certain that millions more will remain out of work .
Most of these people hold lower-skill jobs in retail , hospitality , and other fields where there is plenty of reason to think the recovery will be slow and uncertain .
When the Great Recession @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we believed that many of the lower-skill jobs that were eliminated would come back .
But they never did .
Of the 11.6 million new jobs the U.S. economy added in the six years after that generational downturn , 11.5 million required education beyond high school .
We don ’ t know yet exactly what kind of structural shifts in labor markets will emerge from the current crisis and the related acceleration in the use of artificial intelligence and robotics .
But there will be many winners and losers .
The fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now is precisely why we need an Office of American Advancement .
With such an office in place to coordinate talent development , we ’ d be far better able to plan for—and respond to—these rapid changes in the labor market .
It would send an unmistakable message to workers , employers , and global partners and competitors that the U.S. is continuously preparing for the future of human work and all the challenges and opportunities that implies .
The economic crisis is worsening each day , and with it the security of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at solutions that go beyond the short-term plans for economic triage , we can use this time to actually build something better—and get the country back on its feet with a more effective , equitable , and efficient system of training and education than we had before .

The Works Progress Administration (WPA), a federal agency created in 1935 to address the nation’s then-worst economic catastrophe, is getting a fresh look as we think about how to help millions of Americans left jobless in the pandemic. There’s a good reason for why. During its eight-year tenure, the WPA put more than eight million Americans to work on more than a million projects of public interest. These federal workers built roads and dams and electrified rural communities long-denied that necessity of modern life. Others were put to work creating public spaces, public art, and swelling the ranks of crucial service-sector jobs.
But the recovery challenge today calls for more than just a 21st century WPA. We must go further than jobs alone. Even as we put people to work rebuilding America’s crumbling highways and bridges and increasing staffing in the federal public health corps, this crisis demands we address the full range of human infrastructure needs that will emerge in the coming years. What we need now is an Office of American Advancement.
Like the WPA, the Office of American Advancement would provide federal jobs on important and necessary projects, like expanding rural broadband and escalating clean energy solutions. But this office will have a vision and mission far beyond that. It would coordinate with employers and industry leaders to build the workforce we need in a hyper-competitive global economy. This office, for example, would work on the crucial task of assessing and certifying the learning gained in new federal jobs so that each of these workers can grow their education and build lasting careers.
In short, the mission of this new organization would be to lead and support the full integration of our workforce and education systems. It would match up real-time projects with forward-looking needs and ensure that the knowledge and experience gained from these jobs is properly counted and recognized.
Creating this new federal office would not necessarily mean combining or closing existing agencies. Instead, much like the Office of the Director of National Intelligence coordinates the work of the intelligence agencies, the Office of American Advancement would coordinate existing federal workforce and education programs. In doing so we could better leverage and direct investments in developing talent alongside new federally supported work efforts.
Organized into mission directorates, partnership centers, and oversight offices, this new federal presence could serve as the undisputed leader of an extensive workforce and education community. It would be a powerful vehicle for tackling the unemployment crisis head-on while making talent development central to workforce, education, and recruitment policies—increasing strategic focus and efficiency. This interconnected approach would surely increase economic opportunity among Americans who have long been denied it, including low-income residents and people of color, thus boosting the nation’s cultural and social well-being.
This is an audacious plan, but the scope of the challenge—our nation’s working future—demands deliberate and coordinated action. Even with a resumption of economic activity that allows some workers to return to their pre-pandemic jobs, it is certain that millions more will remain out of work. Most of these people hold lower-skill jobs in retail, hospitality, and other fields where there is plenty of reason to think the recovery will be slow and uncertain. When the Great Recession hit in 2008, for example, we believed that many of the lower-skill jobs that were eliminated would come back. But they never did. Of the 11.6 million new jobs the U.S. economy added in the six years after that generational downturn, 11.5 million required education beyond high school.
We don’t know yet exactly what kind of structural shifts in labor markets will emerge from the current crisis and the related acceleration in the use of artificial intelligence and robotics. But there will be many winners and losers. The fact that we can’t predict them right now is precisely why we need an Office of American Advancement. With such an office in place to coordinate talent development, we’d be far better able to plan for—and respond to—these rapid changes in the labor market. It would send an unmistakable message to workers, employers, and global partners and competitors that the U.S. is continuously preparing for the future of human work and all the challenges and opportunities that implies.
The economic crisis is worsening each day, and with it the security of millions of Americans. As we look at solutions that go beyond the short-term plans for economic triage, we can use this time to actually build something better—and get the country back on its feet with a more effective, equitable, and efficient system of training and education than we had before.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-02--Trump’s Thinks 2020 Will Be a Repeat of 1968

On the day that Trump staged his photo-op in front of a church , Tucker Carlson ranted that the president should return to his instincts when it comes to responding to the protests against police brutality .
There is one person in particular that Carlson blamed for the fact that Trump strayed from that path .
Claiming Trump will lose in November if he doesn ’ t ratchet up his response to the protests , Carlson blamed Kushner for not understanding the gravity of the situation and advising Trump not to address the situation .
“ No one has more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than Jared Kushner and no one expresses it more frequently , ” Carlson said .
Adding that Trump ’ s “ law and order ” worldview remains “ fundamentally unchanged ” since he first ran for president , Carlson insisted that the president ’ s “ famously sharp instincts ” have been “ subverted at every level ” by Kushner .
While Trump appears to sense that Kushner is leading him in the “ wrong direction , ” Carlson said , Kushner convinced the president to pass criminal justice reform in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times over the past few days , the president signaled he was very much liking to crack down on rioters , ” he continued .
“ That is his instinct .
If you watch it—you believe it .
But every time he ’ s been talked out of it by Jared Kushner and by aides that Kushner has hired and controlled.
” That is the context for a report from Jonathan Swan that Trump regrets taking advice from Kushner .
President Trump has told people in recent days that he regrets following some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s political advice — including supporting criminal justice reform — and will stick closer to his own instincts , three people with direct knowledge of the president ’ s thinking tell Axios .
…One person who spoke with the president interpreted his thinking this way : “ No more of Jared ’ s woke s***.
” Another said Trump has indicated that following Kushner ’ s advice has harmed him politically… Trump has made clear he wants to support law enforcement unequivocally , and he won ’ t do anything that could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can all enjoy the spectacle of Trump taking Carlson ’ s advice over Kushner ’ s .
But not many of us have a dog in that fight .
The more salient point is that , even though Trump has consistently touted criminal justice reform whenever the topic of Black voters comes up , he now seems to have decided that it hurt him politically .
That is because , as one person told Swan , “ He truly believes there is a silent majority out there that ’ s going to come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that talk about “ law and order ” and a “ silent majority ” makes it clear that Trump ’ s instincts are to assume that he can do a repeat performance of Nixon ’ s victory in the 1968 election .
It also tells us that the president ’ s instincts are racist .
In a confrontation between African Americans and police brutality , Trump is clear about which side he stands on .
Numerous people have weighed in on the question of whether 2020 is a repeat of 1968 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black Panthers : Vanguard of the Revolution and many parallels were striking , not the least of which was then-California Governor Ronald Reagan objecting to the efficacy of the Panthers protesting at the state capital while armed .
One has to wonder what he would have said about white people doing to same thing to protest precautions taken during a pandemic .
But the documentary is a good reminder of the fact that the Black Panthers were founded in Oakland , California for the specific purpose of protecting African Americans in that city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed and unapologetically , which is why they were viewed as such a threat .
When it comes to comparisons to 1968 , the centrality of police brutality hasn ’ t changed .
But is there a “ silent majority ” out there ready to support a president who vows to impose “ law and order ” by supporting law enforcement unequivocally ?
Ta-Nehisi Coates doesn ’ t think so , which is why he is uncharacteristically hopeful .
In the 1968 presidential election , voters gave Nixon ’ s “ law and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s clear that Trump ’ s instincts are to attempt a repeat performance in 2020 .
In about four months we ’ ll find out whether America has changed over the last 52 years .

On the day that Trump staged his photo-op in front of a church, Tucker Carlson ranted that the president should return to his instincts when it comes to responding to the protests against police brutality. There is one person in particular that Carlson blamed for the fact that Trump strayed from that path.
Claiming Trump will lose in November if he doesn’t ratchet up his response to the protests, Carlson blamed Kushner for not understanding the gravity of the situation and advising Trump not to address the situation. “No one has more contempt for Donald Trump’s voters than Jared Kushner and no one expresses it more frequently,” Carlson said. Adding that Trump’s “law and order” worldview remains “fundamentally unchanged” since he first ran for president, Carlson insisted that the president’s “famously sharp instincts” have been “subverted at every level” by Kushner. While Trump appears to sense that Kushner is leading him in the “wrong direction,” Carlson said, Kushner convinced the president to pass criminal justice reform in order to win over black voters. “Several times over the past few days, the president signaled he was very much liking to crack down on rioters,” he continued. “That is his instinct. If you watch it—you believe it. But every time he’s been talked out of it by Jared Kushner and by aides that Kushner has hired and controlled.”
That is the context for a report from Jonathan Swan that Trump regrets taking advice from Kushner.
President Trump has told people in recent days that he regrets following some of son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner’s political advice — including supporting criminal justice reform — and will stick closer to his own instincts, three people with direct knowledge of the president’s thinking tell Axios. …One person who spoke with the president interpreted his thinking this way: “No more of Jared’s woke s***.” Another said Trump has indicated that following Kushner’s advice has harmed him politically… Trump has made clear he wants to support law enforcement unequivocally, and he won’t do anything that could be seen as undercutting police.
We can all enjoy the spectacle of Trump taking Carlson’s advice over Kushner’s. But not many of us have a dog in that fight. The more salient point is that, even though Trump has consistently touted criminal justice reform whenever the topic of Black voters comes up, he now seems to have decided that it hurt him politically. That is because, as one person told Swan, “He truly believes there is a silent majority out there that’s going to come out in droves in November.”
All of that talk about “law and order” and a “silent majority” makes it clear that Trump’s instincts are to assume that he can do a repeat performance of Nixon’s victory in the 1968 election. It also tells us that the president’s instincts are racist. In a confrontation between African Americans and police brutality, Trump is clear about which side he stands on.
Numerous people have weighed in on the question of whether 2020 is a repeat of 1968. I recently watched the PBS documentary The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution and many parallels were striking, not the least of which was then-California Governor Ronald Reagan objecting to the efficacy of the Panthers protesting at the state capital while armed. One has to wonder what he would have said about white people doing to same thing to protest precautions taken during a pandemic.
But the documentary is a good reminder of the fact that the Black Panthers were founded in Oakland, California for the specific purpose of protecting African Americans in that city from police brutality. They did so armed and unapologetically, which is why they were viewed as such a threat.
When it comes to comparisons to 1968, the centrality of police brutality hasn’t changed. But is there a “silent majority” out there ready to support a president who vows to impose “law and order” by supporting law enforcement unequivocally? Ta-Nehisi Coates doesn’t think so, which is why he is uncharacteristically hopeful.
I don’t want to overstate this, but there are significant swaths of people and communities that are not black, that to some extent have some perception of what that pain and that suffering is. I think that’s different.
In the 1968 presidential election, voters gave Nixon’s “law and order” response a resounding victory. It’s clear that Trump’s instincts are to attempt a repeat performance in 2020. In about four months we’ll find out whether America has changed over the last 52 years.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-02--Texans Are Turning on Trump. Could Their GOP Senator Be Next?

Public Policy Polling has a solid ‘ B ’ rating from FiveThirtyEight , with a slight mean-reverted bias of D+0.3 .
This means you should expect their results to be pretty accurate , if perhaps a tad optimistic for the Democrats .
They ’ re not the best in the business , but they ’ re not partisan hacks either .
Their poll out of Texas has Biden leading Trump 48 percent to 46 percent .
They have Senator John Cornyn leading Democratic challenger MJ Hegar 42 percent to 35 percent , with a healthy 23 percent “ unsure.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cornyn is that Texans don ’ t like them , which can be seen in their favorability and job approval numbers .
46 percent of respondents gave Trump good marks for the job he ’ s doing , while 51 percent disapproved .
Cornyn got the thumb ’ s up from 29 percent , and only 27 percent have a favorable personal opinion of the senator .
As a result , both candidates will have to rely on a robust anti-Democratic vote to carry them over the finish line .
The last time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they had Trump up by two , and the latest Fox News survey had Biden leading there by one and Cornyn leading by ten .
So , PPP ’ s latest isn ’ t some outlier , but rather further confirmation that Texas is preparing to go blue .
It makes sense that Trump will fall before Cornyn , as he ’ s manifestly doing a lethally horrible job and isn ’ t a traditional conservative .
But Cornyn has to be concerned that he gets pulled under the waves if things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , more Texans support Cornyn even though they express better approval of Trump .
My only explanation for that is that partisanship is more important to people in Senate races , but on the presidential level it actually matters that you don ’ t get people killed by the hundreds of thousands .
As things stand , Cornyn is going to need a good chunk of the electorate to split their ballots or he ’ s going to be looking for a new job .
That ’ s likely to be the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is why Trump ’ s allies are begging him to change his behavior .
In truth , there are countless Republicans who would be relieved if Trump loses , but they don ’ t want him bringing devastation to the rest of the party .
The ideal solution for them is a narrow defeat that keeps the Senate in their hands , and avoids historic state and local losses .
The risk in Texas is substantial , as Larry Sabato estimates that a Biden win there could flip as many as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But there is zero chance of Trump pivoting or becoming less divisive .
He ’ s more interested in defending the Confederacy than our own soldiers in the field .
For Republicans sharing a ticket with Trump this fall , my advice is to look at the governors who opened up their economies too soon and are now suffering the consequences with filled hospitals and soaring death counts .
They didn ’ t defy the president because he is more popular with their base than they are , but they most certainly are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they had stood up to him .
In post-Trump America , the only viable statewide or national politicians will be those who broke with him while it still mattered .
That could be true this November , too .

Public Policy Polling has a solid ‘B’ rating from FiveThirtyEight, with a slight mean-reverted bias of D+0.3. This means you should expect their results to be pretty accurate, if perhaps a tad optimistic for the Democrats. They’re not the best in the business, but they’re not partisan hacks either. Their poll out of Texas has Biden leading Trump 48 percent to 46 percent. They have Senator John Cornyn leading Democratic challenger MJ Hegar 42 percent to 35 percent, with a healthy 23 percent “unsure.”
The immediate problem for both Trump and Cornyn is that Texans don’t like them, which can be seen in their favorability and job approval numbers. 46 percent of respondents gave Trump good marks for the job he’s doing, while 51 percent disapproved. Cornyn got the thumb’s up from 29 percent, and only 27 percent have a favorable personal opinion of the senator. As a result, both candidates will have to rely on a robust anti-Democratic vote to carry them over the finish line.
The last time PPP polled Texas, in mid/late June, they had Trump up by two, and the latest Fox News survey had Biden leading there by one and Cornyn leading by ten. So, PPP’s latest isn’t some outlier, but rather further confirmation that Texas is preparing to go blue.
It makes sense that Trump will fall before Cornyn, as he’s manifestly doing a lethally horrible job and isn’t a traditional conservative. But Cornyn has to be concerned that he gets pulled under the waves if things continue on their current trajectory. Ironically, more Texans support Cornyn even though they express better approval of Trump. My only explanation for that is that partisanship is more important to people in Senate races, but on the presidential level it actually matters that you don’t get people killed by the hundreds of thousands.
As things stand, Cornyn is going to need a good chunk of the electorate to split their ballots or he’s going to be looking for a new job. That’s likely to be the case in several other Senate races, too. This is why Trump’s allies are begging him to change his behavior. In truth, there are countless Republicans who would be relieved if Trump loses, but they don’t want him bringing devastation to the rest of the party. The ideal solution for them is a narrow defeat that keeps the Senate in their hands, and avoids historic state and local losses. The risk in Texas is substantial, as Larry Sabato estimates that a Biden win there could flip as many as ten congressional districts to the Democrats.
But there is zero chance of Trump pivoting or becoming less divisive. He’s more interested in defending the Confederacy than our own soldiers in the field.
For Republicans sharing a ticket with Trump this fall, my advice is to look at the governors who opened up their economies too soon and are now suffering the consequences with filled hospitals and soaring death counts. They didn’t defy the president because he is more popular with their base than they are, but they most certainly are in a worse political situation now than if they had stood up to him. In post-Trump America, the only viable statewide or national politicians will be those who broke with him while it still mattered. That could be true this November, too.


washingtonmonthly--2020-07-03--Young People Really Don’t Like Donald Trump

Pew Research published a national poll this week that showed Biden with a ten point lead over Trump , much as we ’ ve seen from other polls .
But when they broke the responses down by age , the most startling result was that with 18-29 year-olds , Biden ’ s lead is 40 points ( 68-28 ) .
That might not be surprising .
But here is a comparison to previous Democratic candidates .
Pew also found that for Biden supporters , 67 percent said that their choice is more about opposition to Trump .
I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subset of voters under 30 years of age .
In other words , young people really don ’ t like Donald Trump .
We watched that play out when young people used social media to troll the Trump campaign into thinking there would be a massive crowd at his Tulsa rally .
The small attendance was related to people ’ s concerns about the coronavirus , but the groundswell requesting tickets lured the campaign into boasting about all of the enthusiasm for the president—which crashed spectacularly .
It was an excellent reminder that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of making their voices heard in the political arena .
As always , the concern about young people is whether or not they will actually show up at the polls to vote .
We ’ ve already seen that , for all of the emphasis the Sanders campaign put on that demographic group , they didn ’ t show up for the primaries in great numbers .
So that will remain a concern in 2020 .
But the Trump presidency has solidified the fact that young people are being repelled by the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters getting more conservative with age , this is what the research tells us .
On an individual level , of course , many people ’ s political views evolve over the course of their lives .
But academic research indicates not only that generations have distinct political identities , but that most people ’ s basic outlooks and orientations are set fairly early on in life .
As one famous longitudinal study of Bennington College women put it , “ through late childhood and early adolescence , attitudes are relatively malleable…with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adolescence or early adulthood .
[ B ] ut greater stability sets in at some early point , and attitudes tend to be increasingly persistent as people age.
” The distinct political identities of Millennials and Generation Z are being formed and solidified in the Trump era .
That doesn ’ t bode well for the future of the Republican Party .

Pew Research published a national poll this week that showed Biden with a ten point lead over Trump, much as we’ve seen from other polls. But when they broke the responses down by age, the most startling result was that with 18-29 year-olds, Biden’s lead is 40 points (68-28). That might not be surprising. But here is a comparison to previous Democratic candidates.
Pew also found that for Biden supporters, 67 percent said that their choice is more about opposition to Trump. I’m sure that is probably true for the subset of voters under 30 years of age. In other words, young people really don’t like Donald Trump.
We watched that play out when young people used social media to troll the Trump campaign into thinking there would be a massive crowd at his Tulsa rally. The small attendance was related to people’s concerns about the coronavirus, but the groundswell requesting tickets lured the campaign into boasting about all of the enthusiasm for the president—which crashed spectacularly. It was an excellent reminder that young people will find their own ways of making their voices heard in the political arena.
As always, the concern about young people is whether or not they will actually show up at the polls to vote. We’ve already seen that, for all of the emphasis the Sanders campaign put on that demographic group, they didn’t show up for the primaries in great numbers. So that will remain a concern in 2020.
But the Trump presidency has solidified the fact that young people are being repelled by the Republican Party. Contrary to the myth about voters getting more conservative with age, this is what the research tells us.
On an individual level, of course, many people’s political views evolve over the course of their lives. But academic research indicates not only that generations have distinct political identities, but that most people’s basic outlooks and orientations are set fairly early on in life. As one famous longitudinal study of Bennington College women put it, “through late childhood and early adolescence, attitudes are relatively malleable…with the potential for dramatic change possible in late adolescence or early adulthood. [B]ut greater stability sets in at some early point, and attitudes tend to be increasingly persistent as people age.”
The distinct political identities of Millennials and Generation Z are being formed and solidified in the Trump era. That doesn’t bode well for the future of the Republican Party.