washingtonmonthly--2020-06-17--A Simple Way to Demilitarize the Police

A Simple Way to Demilitarize the Police

As tens of thousands of Americans took to U.S. streets over the past two weeks to protest the brutal killing of George Floyd in police custody , one image has become an icon of this cultural moment : a wall of heavily-armed police in riot gear confronting unarmed protesters .
These overwhelming shows of force prove what many police reform advocates have long argued : the increasing militarization of the American police .
In fact , scenes like we ’ ve seen in recent weeks are nothing new .
In 2014 , after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rode armored vehicles , and used pepper spray , rubber bullets , and tear gasto suppress protests .
That was the same kind of response that met demonstrators in Baltimore after the 2015 killing of Freddie Gray .
Similar episodes have erupted elsewhere throughout the nation .
Aiding and abetting this aggression is the military-grade weaponry and armor now employed by many police forces—enabled in part by the free flow of arms from the federal government to local police .
That ’ s because of the so-called 1033 Program , which was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the National Defense Authorization Act .
Since its inception , the U.S. Defense Department has doled out more than $ 7.2 billion in weapons and gear , including armored personnel carriers , assault rifles , and other items that have no place on our streets .
The initial intent of the program was to provide local law enforcement with the needed resources to combat the “ war on terror ” and the “ war on drugs.
” Instead , the war that ’ s being waged is against communities of color @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet another killing of an unarmed black man by a white officer .
As it stands , the Section 1033 program is a deadly pipeline that is turning American cities into battlefields .
That ’ s why House Democrats have rightly proposed to curtail it in their new police reform legislation , called the Justice in Policing Act .
In addition to banning chokeholds and no-knock warrants , the bill would ban the transfer of certain kinds of military equipment to local police , including bayonets , grenade launchers , grenades , armored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Weapons like these have no place in policing .
Their only function is to turn cops into soldiers who treat members of their communities like enemy combatants , not citizens they are supposed to protect and serve .
Now that the time has arrived for genuine reform , it ’ s time to rid U.S. streets of the weapons of war .
Ending the 1033 program would be a good start .
Under Section 1033 , local police departments can apply for surplus military equipment that the Defense Department would otherwise destroy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only for shipping , and the program can be a boon for cash-strapped community forces .
According to a spreadsheet maintained by the Defense Logistics Agency ( DLA ) , which administers the effort , more than 8,000 police and sheriff ’ s departments across the country have taken advantage of the program to acquire everything from office furniture to parkas to toolboxes and pickup trucks .
But they have also used the program to acquire immense stockpiles of weapons , often in enormous disproportion to what they need .
The Chambers County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for instance , has acquired at least $ 1.7 million in surplus military equipment under the program since 2002 , including more than two dozen 5.56 millimeter rifles , two “ observation helicopters , ” six bulletproof “ ballistic blankets ” and a mine-resistant vehicle .
Chambers County has a population of just 33,254 and reported zero violent crimes in 2018 , according to the FBI .
( Unsurprisingly , it experienced no incidents involving mines . )
Meanwhile , in Bartow County , Georgia , population 107,000 , the sheriff ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ 12 gauge , riot-type , ” and 155 rifles ( both 5.56 and 7.62 millimeter ) , according to the DLA ’ s inventory .
That ’ s one high-powered military weapon for every 516 residents .
To be sure , scholars caution that easy access to this kind of weaponry is not necessarily the root cause of police militarization .
Seth Stoughton , a former police officer turned law professor at the University of South Carolina , blames police culture and training for inculcating what he calls a “ warrior ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear .
As he wrote in a 2015 article for the Harvard Law Review , “ Officers learn to treat every individual they interact with as an armed threat and every situation as a deadly force encounter in the making .
… Everyone is a threat until conclusively proven otherwise.
” Researcher Edward Lawson , who authored a dissertation on police militarization , says police departments ’ military gear likely reflects their militarization , rather than causes it .
“ Police become militarized psychologically and start seeing themselves as soldiers fighting this war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enemy territory , ” he said .
“ They want to equip themselves as soldiers as a result.
” There ’ s little question , however , that Section 1033 has helped police departments fulfill that soldierly self-image .
The U.S. drawdown from Iraq freed up scads of military equipment later distributed under Section 1033 , including hundreds of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected ( MRAP ) vehicles like the one obtained by Chambers County .
A 2014 report from the ACLU found that at least 500 local law enforcement agencies had used the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which the government values at more than $ 700,000 .
Originally designed to withstand armor-piercing roadside bombs in Iraq , it ’ s hard to imagine their usefulness on the streets of LaFayette , Alabama , Chambers County ’ s seat Having all this weaponry moreover makes it easier for officers to act on a warrior mindset to deadlier effect .
That ’ s perhaps most reflected in the proliferation and over-use of SWAT teams .
While their presence is now ubiquitous , there are genuinely few scenarios—such as an active shooter or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s firepower and expertise .
As a result , many of the roughly 9,000 SWAT teams now active around the country have been pressed into service for tasks that don ’ t justify their use .
As Stoughton said by email : “ The problem is not that agencies and officers have [ military ] equipment and tactics , it is that the equipment and tactics are being used far more often than they should be.
” In a 2014 report , the ACLU found that as many as 79 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved searching people ’ s homes , primarily to look for drugs .
These raids brought an unnecessary level of risk to people ’ s lives and property , the ACLU charged .
“ SWAT raids are undoubtedly violent events : numerous ( often 20 or more ) officers armed with assault rifles and grenades approach a home , break down doors and windows ( often causing property damage ) , and scream for the people inside to get on the floor ( often pointing their guns at them ) , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excessive deployments are often discriminatory.Princeton University researcher Jonathan Mummolo studied SWAT deployments in Maryland from 2010 to 2014 and found that the percentage of black residents in any given zip code “ strongly predicts the volume of SWAT activity.
” While limiting police access to military hardware will not by itself demilitarize police units , it could still save lives .
In his study analyzing the correlation between usage of the Section 1033 program and police-related fatalities , Lawson found that the most heavily militarized police departments were also the most deadly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that militarization “ shifts behavior toward lethal force as a more acceptable and earlier response.
” There is another urgent reason to reverse Section 1033 and demilitarize the police : It ’ s a necessary step to shift public perceptions of cops as “ warriors ” to that of “ guardians , ” as reformers often advocate .
“ When the police patrol the streets with armored personnel carriers , some of which are mine-resistant ; when the police use military weapons , helicopters , bayonets , or disperse riots with various grenades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks to conceal their identity , they create a shock and awe effect that is designed to create a menacing presence , ” wrote Eliav Lieblich and Adam Shinar in the Michigan Journal of Race and Law .
In other words , how police equip themselves is central to their relationship with their communities .
In the aftermath of Ferguson , President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13688 , which established a working group charged with paring back the excesses of the 1033 program .
Among other things , the group recommended barring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equipment altogether , such as grenade launchers and bayonets ; requiring justification for acquiring other types of gear , such as explosives and armored vehicles ; and increasing Defense Department oversight of where these weapons end up .
It seemed to be effective : In the year following the order , the DOD recalled 138 grenade launchers , 126 grenade launchers and more than 1,600 bayonets .
Then , in 2017 , at the urging of law enforcement groups , President Donald Trump issued his own executive order rescinding these reforms .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public safety , ” said then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions , announcing the order at a gathering of the Fraternal Order of Police , which endorsed Trump in 2016 .
The new reforms proposed by House Democrats would restore the kinds of limits imposed by the Obama administration but codify them into federal law .
The House bill would also tighten the program ’ s oversight and recordkeeping , which government audits have found to be exceedingly lax .
For instance , the DLA ’ s inventory only tracks the equipment that police and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but not equipment that was lost or destroyed—or that has for whatever reason disappeared .
For years , government auditors have charged the program with failing to ensure that agencies use the equipment they get appropriately .
The result has been a fair share of scandal .
In 2012 , the Arizona Republic discovered that the Pinal County Sheriff ’ s Department had stockpiled $ 7 million in equipment from the 1033 Program with the intention of auctioning it later .
In 2017 , the Government Accountability Office created fake police officers who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equipment , including night vision goggles and simulated pipe bombs .
Scholars like Edward Lawson maintain that ending the Section 1033 program is “ necessary but not sufficient ” to bring about true police reform .
“ Ending the practice of giving this equipment for free is a good idea and we should do it , but it ’ s not going to change the cultural problems , the socialization problems and the training problems , ” he said .
That may be true , but it will still be a critical first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police in their communities and reducing the violence and brutality that has cost so many black lives .

As tens of thousands of Americans took to U.S. streets over the past two weeks to protest the brutal killing of George Floyd in police custody, one image has become an icon of this cultural moment: a wall of heavily-armed police in riot gear confronting unarmed protesters. These overwhelming shows of force prove what many police reform advocates have long argued: the increasing militarization of the American police.
In fact, scenes like we’ve seen in recent weeks are nothing new. In 2014, after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, police donned camouflage vests, rode armored vehicles, and used pepper spray, rubber bullets, and tear gasto suppress protests. That was the same kind of response that met demonstrators in Baltimore after the 2015 killing of Freddie Gray. Similar episodes have erupted elsewhere throughout the nation.
Aiding and abetting this aggression is the military-grade weaponry and armor now employed by many police forces—enabled in part by the free flow of arms from the federal government to local police. That’s because of the so-called 1033 Program, which was created by Congress in the 1990s as part of the National Defense Authorization Act.
Since its inception, the U.S. Defense Department has doled out more than $7.2 billion in weapons and gear, including armored personnel carriers, assault rifles, and other items that have no place on our streets. The initial intent of the program was to provide local law enforcement with the needed resources to combat the “war on terror” and the “war on drugs.” Instead, the war that’s being waged is against communities of color, especially when they dare to protest yet another killing of an unarmed black man by a white officer.
As it stands, the Section 1033 program is a deadly pipeline that is turning American cities into battlefields. That’s why House Democrats have rightly proposed to curtail it in their new police reform legislation, called the Justice in Policing Act. In addition to banning chokeholds and no-knock warrants, the bill would ban the transfer of certain kinds of military equipment to local police, including bayonets, grenade launchers, grenades, armored drones, armored vehicles, and silencers.
Weapons like these have no place in policing. Their only function is to turn cops into soldiers who treat members of their communities like enemy combatants, not citizens they are supposed to protect and serve. Now that the time has arrived for genuine reform, it’s time to rid U.S. streets of the weapons of war. Ending the 1033 program would be a good start.
Under Section 1033, local police departments can apply for surplus military equipment that the Defense Department would otherwise destroy or leave unused. Police departments pay only for shipping, and the program can be a boon for cash-strapped community forces. According to a spreadsheet maintained by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), which administers the effort, more than 8,000 police and sheriff’s departments across the country have taken advantage of the program to acquire everything from office furniture to parkas to toolboxes and pickup trucks. But they have also used the program to acquire immense stockpiles of weapons, often in enormous disproportion to what they need.
The Chambers County Sheriff’s Department in rural Alabama, for instance, has acquired at least $1.7 million in surplus military equipment under the program since 2002, including more than two dozen 5.56 millimeter rifles, two “observation helicopters,” six bulletproof “ballistic blankets” and a mine-resistant vehicle. Chambers County has a population of just 33,254 and reported zero violent crimes in 2018, according to the FBI. (Unsurprisingly, it experienced no incidents involving mines.) Meanwhile, in Bartow County, Georgia, population 107,000, the sheriff’s department currently holds 52 shotguns, “12 gauge, riot-type,” and 155 rifles (both 5.56 and 7.62 millimeter), according to the DLA’s inventory. That’s one high-powered military weapon for every 516 residents.
To be sure, scholars caution that easy access to this kind of weaponry is not necessarily the root cause of police militarization. Seth Stoughton, a former police officer turned law professor at the University of South Carolina, blames police culture and training for inculcating what he calls a “warrior” mindset that teaches officers to live in fear. As he wrote in a 2015 article for the Harvard Law Review, “Officers learn to treat every individual they interact with as an armed threat and every situation as a deadly force encounter in the making. … Everyone is a threat until conclusively proven otherwise.”
Researcher Edward Lawson, who authored a dissertation on police militarization, says police departments’ military gear likely reflects their militarization, rather than causes it. “Police become militarized psychologically and start seeing themselves as soldiers fighting this war on the front lines and occupying unfriendly enemy territory,” he said. “They want to equip themselves as soldiers as a result.”
There’s little question, however, that Section 1033 has helped police departments fulfill that soldierly self-image. The U.S. drawdown from Iraq freed up scads of military equipment later distributed under Section 1033, including hundreds of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles like the one obtained by Chambers County. A 2014 report from the ACLU found that at least 500 local law enforcement agencies had used the program to acquire MRAPs, each of which the government values at more than $700,000. Originally designed to withstand armor-piercing roadside bombs in Iraq, it’s hard to imagine their usefulness on the streets of LaFayette, Alabama, Chambers County’s seat
Having all this weaponry moreover makes it easier for officers to act on a warrior mindset to deadlier effect.
That’s perhaps most reflected in the proliferation and over-use of SWAT teams. While their presence is now ubiquitous, there are genuinely few scenarios—such as an active shooter or a hostage situation—that need a SWAT team’s firepower and expertise. As a result, many of the roughly 9,000 SWAT teams now active around the country have been pressed into service for tasks that don’t justify their use. As Stoughton said by email: “The problem is not that agencies and officers have [military] equipment and tactics, it is that the equipment and tactics are being used far more often than they should be.”
In a 2014 report, the ACLU found that as many as 79 percent of 800 SWAT deployments from 2011 and 2012 involved searching people’s homes, primarily to look for drugs. These raids brought an unnecessary level of risk to people’s lives and property, the ACLU charged. “SWAT raids are undoubtedly violent events: numerous (often 20 or more) officers armed with assault rifles and grenades approach a home, break down doors and windows (often causing property damage), and scream for the people inside to get on the floor (often pointing their guns at them),” the report found.
Worse yet, these excessive deployments are often discriminatory. Princeton University researcher Jonathan Mummolo studied SWAT deployments in Maryland from 2010 to 2014 and found that the percentage of black residents in any given zip code “strongly predicts the volume of SWAT activity.”
While limiting police access to military hardware will not by itself demilitarize police units, it could still save lives. In his study analyzing the correlation between usage of the Section 1033 program and police-related fatalities, Lawson found that the most heavily militarized police departments were also the most deadly. The reason, Lawson writes, is that militarization “shifts behavior toward lethal force as a more acceptable and earlier response.”
There is another urgent reason to reverse Section 1033 and demilitarize the police: It’s a necessary step to shift public perceptions of cops as “warriors” to that of “guardians,” as reformers often advocate.
“When the police patrol the streets with armored personnel carriers, some of which are mine-resistant; when the police use military weapons, helicopters, bayonets, or disperse riots with various grenades; when SWAT teams cover themselves with masks to conceal their identity, they create a shock and awe effect that is designed to create a menacing presence,” wrote Eliav Lieblich and Adam Shinar in the Michigan Journal of Race and Law. In other words, how police equip themselves is central to their relationship with their communities.
In the aftermath of Ferguson, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13688, which established a working group charged with paring back the excesses of the 1033 program. Among other things, the group recommended barring local law enforcement agencies from acquiring some equipment altogether, such as grenade launchers and bayonets; requiring justification for acquiring other types of gear, such as explosives and armored vehicles; and increasing Defense Department oversight of where these weapons end up. It seemed to be effective: In the year following the order, the DOD recalled 138 grenade launchers, 126 grenade launchers and more than 1,600 bayonets.
Then, in 2017, at the urging of law enforcement groups, President Donald Trump issued his own executive order rescinding these reforms. “We will not put superficial concerns above public safety,” said then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, announcing the order at a gathering of the Fraternal Order of Police, which endorsed Trump in 2016.
The new reforms proposed by House Democrats would restore the kinds of limits imposed by the Obama administration but codify them into federal law.
The House bill would also tighten the program’s oversight and recordkeeping, which government audits have found to be exceedingly lax. For instance, the DLA’s inventory only tracks the equipment that police and sheriff’s departments currently have, but not equipment that was lost or destroyed—or that has for whatever reason disappeared.
For years, government auditors have charged the program with failing to ensure that agencies use the equipment they get appropriately. The result has been a fair share of scandal. In 2012, the Arizona Republic discovered that the Pinal County Sheriff’s Department had stockpiled $7 million in equipment from the 1033 Program with the intention of auctioning it later. In 2017, the Government Accountability Office created fake police officers who succeeded in getting $1.2 million of equipment, including night vision goggles and simulated pipe bombs.
Scholars like Edward Lawson maintain that ending the Section 1033 program is “necessary but not sufficient” to bring about true police reform. “Ending the practice of giving this equipment for free is a good idea and we should do it, but it’s not going to change the cultural problems, the socialization problems and the training problems,” he said.
That may be true, but it will still be a critical first step toward restoring the proper role of police in their communities and reducing the violence and brutality that has cost so many black lives.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-17--The Photo Ops That Define Trump’s Biggest Failures

With all that ’ s going on in the world , it is understandable that most of us missed the second anniversary of Trump ’ s photo-op with North Korea ’ s Kim Jong Un on the demilitarized border between North and South Korea .
But nothing demonstrates Trump ’ s utter failure as a president more than his posturing on that issue .
It all started with a lot of chest-thumping about six months after the inauguration .
Trump told reporters that “ North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States .
They will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world has never seen.
” That was followed by a lot of name-calling and insults , ending in a verbal competition over who had the biggest nuclear button .
Kim Jong Un then invited Trump to a meeting in Singapore , which took place in mid-June 2018 .
All of a sudden the blustering stopped , with Trump saying that the North Korean dictator was “ very smart ” with a “ great personality.
” He went on to tell Greta van Susteren that Kim “ loves his people.
” The meeting ended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which was nothing more substantial than a promise to negotiate .
The whole event was described as a propaganda victory for Kim Jong Un .
When Trump returned from that meeting , he indicated that he envied the way the autocrat ruled .
In a most bizarre turn of events , by September Trump and Kim were supposedly exchanging “ beautiful letters , ” and “ fell in love.
” So they scheduled another meeting , which took place in Vietnam in February 2019 .
That one ended badly .
But then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was in Japan , he tweeted out an invitation .
That turned into a reality television-style photo-op of epic proportions , but accomplished nothing .
Nevertheless , both Trump and his enablers started talking about how the president deserved a Nobel Peace Prize for his accomplishments with North Korea .
Two years after their first meeting , Kim Jong Un continues his ballistic missile tests .
He has publicly said that North Korea is no longer interested in diplomacy with Washington and warned that he will resume testing nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a great deal-maker emptied his bag of tricks—from bullying to love letters to photo-ops—and the only thing he accomplished was to provide a brutal dictator with a propaganda victory .
Nothing sums up Trump ’ s failure as a president better than that chain of events .

With all that’s going on in the world, it is understandable that most of us missed the second anniversary of Trump’s photo-op with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un on the demilitarized border between North and South Korea. But nothing demonstrates Trump’s utter failure as a president more than his posturing on that issue.
It all started with a lot of chest-thumping about six months after the inauguration. Trump told reporters that “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.” That was followed by a lot of name-calling and insults, ending in a verbal competition over who had the biggest nuclear button.
Kim Jong Un then invited Trump to a meeting in Singapore, which took place in mid-June 2018. All of a sudden the blustering stopped, with Trump saying that the North Korean dictator was “very smart” with a “great personality.” He went on to tell Greta van Susteren that Kim “loves his people.” The meeting ended with the two leaders signing an agreement, which was nothing more substantial than a promise to negotiate. The whole event was described as a propaganda victory for Kim Jong Un.
When Trump returned from that meeting, he indicated that he envied the way the autocrat ruled.
In a most bizarre turn of events, by September Trump and Kim were supposedly exchanging “beautiful letters,” and “fell in love.” So they scheduled another meeting, which took place in Vietnam in February 2019. That one ended badly.
A working lunch was canceled, a joint declaration scrapped and Trump’s press conference moved up several hours. He then told the assembled journalists that no deal had been agreed to, and that “sometimes you have to walk.”
But then a few months later, while Trump was in Japan, he tweeted out an invitation.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1144740178948493314?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1144740178948493314&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2019%2F06%2F29%2Fpolitics%2Fdonald-trump-kim-jong-un-analysis-intl%2Findex.html
That turned into a reality television-style photo-op of epic proportions, but accomplished nothing. Nevertheless, both Trump and his enablers started talking about how the president deserved a Nobel Peace Prize for his accomplishments with North Korea.
Two years after their first meeting, Kim Jong Un continues his ballistic missile tests. He has publicly said that North Korea is no longer interested in diplomacy with Washington and warned that he will resume testing nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles.
The guy who calls himself a great deal-maker emptied his bag of tricks—from bullying to love letters to photo-ops—and the only thing he accomplished was to provide a brutal dictator with a propaganda victory. Nothing sums up Trump’s failure as a president better than that chain of events.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-17--The Polls Are Probably Exaggerating Biden’s Lead

It ’ s a frustrating reality that Donald Trump is probably doing better in his reelection campaign than the polls are indicating .
Steven Shepard of Politico reports that a lot of pollsters acknowledge that state polling in particular is a problem .
There ’ s a fairly simple explanation , although it ’ s composed of several parts .
The most important is that a huge gap has opened up in the political opinions of white people based on their level of educational attainment .
Less-educated whites are far more inclined to support Donald Trump and far less likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This could lead to an undersampling in the best of worlds , but it ’ s compounded by the fact that Trump consistently rails against the media and the polls , accusing them of dishonest and unfair practices .
Therefore , people who follow Trump ’ s messaging closely are being prompted not to cooperate with reporters and pollsters .
Finally , there ’ s an element of shame or judgment involved .
Trump and his supporters are frequently and with justification accused of harboring racist beliefs .
This adds a potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intend to vote for the president .
This can be offset in some communities where there ’ s a high social cost for supporting a liberal or pro-choice candidate , but many people are reluctant to admit to friends and family that they prefer Trump to Biden , let alone admit this to a stranger on the telephone .
This problem was recognized as the reason that state polling was off in 2016 even though the larger sample-size national polls were accurate .
The best pollsters have been working to adjust their models @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether or not they ’ ve solved it and whether the average of polls is skewed by polling outfits who haven ’ t made the proper adjustments .
GOP pollster Glen Bolger said he believes a combination of pollsters ’ inability to get the right educational mix and to persuade potential Trump voters to respond and answer truthfully to phone polls is pointing their surveys in a slightly Democratic direction .
“ I don ’ t know how big the effect is .
I also don ’ t know what the ratio is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters and interviewing too many college graduates and not enough non-college grads , ” Bolger said .
“ But I do think those are factors in some of the polls that show a particularly wide lead for Biden at this point in time .
And I do think that things will be closer in the states than the polls indicate right now.
” The truth is that Trump has created a uniquely poll-resistant political coalition .
If pollsters don ’ t have a good plan for this , they ’ ll underestimate his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s possible to overcompensate and skew your poll in the opposite direction , but it ’ s significant that the pollsters themselves seem to lack total confidence in their results .
Trump ’ s measured level of support has been cratering over the last several months and he ’ s now clearly losing outside the margin of any error .
However , there ’ s still a good possibility that he ’ s in better shape than the numbers suggest .
Fortunately , the experience of 2016 pretty much assures that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It would be hard to feel confident in any case when the polls can vary so much .
For example , there are two recent polls out of Michigan , and one has Biden up by two points while the other has him up by sixteen .
The prudent thing to do is to assume the closer result is more accurate .

It’s a frustrating reality that Donald Trump is probably doing better in his reelection campaign than the polls are indicating. Steven Shepard of Politico reports that a lot of pollsters acknowledge that state polling in particular is a problem.
There’s a fairly simple explanation, although it’s composed of several parts. The most important is that a huge gap has opened up in the political opinions of white people based on their level of educational attainment. Less-educated whites are far more inclined to support Donald Trump and far less likely to respond to a political survey request.
This could lead to an undersampling in the best of worlds, but it’s compounded by the fact that Trump consistently rails against the media and the polls, accusing them of dishonest and unfair practices. Therefore, people who follow Trump’s messaging closely are being prompted not to cooperate with reporters and pollsters.
Finally, there’s an element of shame or judgment involved. Trump and his supporters are frequently and with justification accused of harboring racist beliefs. This adds a potential social cost to openly admitting that you intend to vote for the president. This can be offset in some communities where there’s a high social cost for supporting a liberal or pro-choice candidate, but many people are reluctant to admit to friends and family that they prefer Trump to Biden, let alone admit this to a stranger on the telephone.
This problem was recognized as the reason that state polling was off in 2016 even though the larger sample-size national polls were accurate. The best pollsters have been working to adjust their models ever since. The question is really whether or not they’ve solved it and whether the average of polls is skewed by polling outfits who haven’t made the proper adjustments.
GOP pollster Glen Bolger said he believes a combination of pollsters’ inability to get the right educational mix and to persuade potential Trump voters to respond and answer truthfully to phone polls is pointing their surveys in a slightly Democratic direction. “I don’t know how big the effect is. I also don’t know what the ratio is between it being ‘shy Trump’ voters and interviewing too many college graduates and not enough non-college grads,” Bolger said. “But I do think those are factors in some of the polls that show a particularly wide lead for Biden at this point in time. And I do think that things will be closer in the states than the polls indicate right now.”
The truth is that Trump has created a uniquely poll-resistant political coalition. If pollsters don’t have a good plan for this, they’ll underestimate his level of support. Of course, it’s possible to overcompensate and skew your poll in the opposite direction, but it’s significant that the pollsters themselves seem to lack total confidence in their results.
Trump’s measured level of support has been cratering over the last several months and he’s now clearly losing outside the margin of any error. However, there’s still a good possibility that he’s in better shape than the numbers suggest.
Fortunately, the experience of 2016 pretty much assures that the Democrats won’t get complacent. It would be hard to feel confident in any case when the polls can vary so much. For example, there are two recent polls out of Michigan, and one has Biden up by two points while the other has him up by sixteen. The prudent thing to do is to assume the closer result is more accurate.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-18--John Bolton Didn’t Tell the Truth When It Mattered Most

During the House impeachment hearings , John Bolton refused to testify , saying that he would wait for a judge to decide if former aides should do so over the objections of the White House .
By the time the Senate trial began , he was ready to testify , but Republicans refused to call any witnesses .
With Bolton ’ s book about to be published next week , Peter Baker got an advanced copy and summarized what the former national security advisor would have said .
So Bolton , Pompeo , and Esper all knew that Trump was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for political purposes .
And yet none of them spoke up .
There are other reasons why the White House is trying to stop the publication of Bolton ’ s book .
According to Bolton , Trump is even more ignorant than we have assumed .
For example , he once asked if Finland was part of Russia .
But his attempt to extort Ukraine was just the tip of the iceberg .
That simply confirms what Representative Adam Schiff said during his “ midnight in Washington ” speech at the Senate trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this president to do the right thing .
Not for one minute .
Not for one election .
Not for the sake of our country .
You just can ’ t. ” Demonstrating that his own sense of duty is questionable , John Bolton decided to keep his mouth shut about all of this until he cashed in on a book deal .
But that isn ’ t the end of it .
He has the gall to blame House Democrats for failing to conduct investigations into matters Bolton refused to talk about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is any scorn for Senate Republicans who shut the trial down by refusing to call witnesses and then , other than Senator Romney , failed to hold Trump accountable .
I suspect that Bolton ’ s partisanship is on display in his attempt to call out those who prosecuted the president , but not those who refused to find him guilty .
Perhaps if Bolton had been willing to testify about Trump intervening in criminal investigations in order to curry favor with dictators , House Democrats would have been willing to expand their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House official who participated in stonewalling the investigation , Bolton kept his mouth shut .
The rap against Trump is that everything he does is in service to his own self interests .
Ironically , for all that Bolton is criticizing the president , he is doing the same thing .
When it might have benefited the country for him to speak up , he stayed silent and has only come forward in order to cash in on a book deal .
Based on what we know about Donald Trump , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truthful—which is how he separates himself from the Liar-in-Chief .
But just as Schiff said about Trump , when it really mattered , we found out that you can ’ t trust John Bolton to do the right thing .

During the House impeachment hearings, John Bolton refused to testify, saying that he would wait for a judge to decide if former aides should do so over the objections of the White House. By the time the Senate trial began, he was ready to testify, but Republicans refused to call any witnesses.
With Bolton’s book about to be published next week, Peter Baker got an advanced copy and summarized what the former national security advisor would have said.
The book confirms House testimony that Mr. Bolton was wary all along of the president’s actions with regard to Ukraine and that Mr. Trump explicitly linked the security aid to investigations involving Mr. Biden and Hillary Clinton. On Aug. 20, Mr. Bolton writes, Mr. Trump “said he wasn’t in favor of sending them anything until all the Russia-investigation materials related to Clinton and Biden had been turned over.” Mr. Bolton writes that he, Mr. Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper tried eight to 10 times to get Mr. Trump to release the aid.
So Bolton, Pompeo, and Esper all knew that Trump was attempting to extort the president of Ukraine for political purposes. And yet none of them spoke up.
There are other reasons why the White House is trying to stop the publication of Bolton’s book.
It is a withering portrait of a president ignorant of even basic facts about the world, susceptible to transparent flattery by authoritarian leaders manipulating him and prone to false statements, foul-mouthed eruptions and snap decisions that aides try to manage or reverse.
According to Bolton, Trump is even more ignorant than we have assumed. For example, he once asked if Finland was part of Russia. But his attempt to extort Ukraine was just the tip of the iceberg.
Mr. Bolton also recounts a discussion at the Group of 20 summit meeting in Osaka, Japan, last summer at which the president overtly linked policy to his own political fortunes as he asked Mr. Xi to buy a lot of American agricultural products to help him win farm states in this year’s election. Mr. Trump, he writes, was “pleading with Xi to ensure he’d win. He stressed the importance of farmers, and increased Chinese purchases of soybeans and wheat in the electoral outcome.”
That simply confirms what Representative Adam Schiff said during his “midnight in Washington” speech at the Senate trial: “You can’t trust this president to do the right thing. Not for one minute. Not for one election. Not for the sake of our country. You just can’t.”
Demonstrating that his own sense of duty is questionable, John Bolton decided to keep his mouth shut about all of this until he cashed in on a book deal. But that isn’t the end of it. He has the gall to blame House Democrats for failing to conduct investigations into matters Bolton refused to talk about.
Mr. Bolton, however, had nothing but scorn for the House Democrats who impeached Mr. Trump, saying they committed “impeachment malpractice” by limiting their inquiry to the Ukraine matter…Instead, he said they should have also looked at how Mr. Trump was willing to intervene in investigations into companies like Turkey’s Halkbank to curry favor with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey or China’s ZTE to favor President Xi Jinping.
What I’m not hearing is any scorn for Senate Republicans who shut the trial down by refusing to call witnesses and then, other than Senator Romney, failed to hold Trump accountable. I suspect that Bolton’s partisanship is on display in his attempt to call out those who prosecuted the president, but not those who refused to find him guilty.
Perhaps if Bolton had been willing to testify about Trump intervening in criminal investigations in order to curry favor with dictators, House Democrats would have been willing to expand their inquiry. But just like every other White House official who participated in stonewalling the investigation, Bolton kept his mouth shut.
The rap against Trump is that everything he does is in service to his own self interests. Ironically, for all that Bolton is criticizing the president, he is doing the same thing. When it might have benefited the country for him to speak up, he stayed silent and has only come forward in order to cash in on a book deal.
Based on what we know about Donald Trump, I suspect that what Bolton has written is truthful—which is how he separates himself from the Liar-in-Chief. But just as Schiff said about Trump, when it really mattered, we found out that you can’t trust John Bolton to do the right thing.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-18--The Surprising Roots of the Supreme Court’s LGBTQ Rights Ruling

On Monday , the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on LGBTQ rights .
In Bostock v. Clayton County , the court determined by a 6-3 vote that civil rights protections on the basis of sex extend to one ’ s sexual orientation or gender identity .
In other words : Yes , it ’ s illegal to fire someone for being gay or transgender .
Surprisingly , Justice Neil Gorsuch , a conservative jurist nominated to the high court by Donald Trump , wrote the Court ’ s majority opinion , while Chief Justice John Roberts , a George @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion .
That sent an unexpected signal to the nation .
Two conservative justices , deliberately nominated because of their conservative jurisprudence , are now at the forefront of progressive interpretation of the Civil Rights Act ’ s Title VII , which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race , religion , sex , and national origin .
Simply put , the decision dealt a shock to the Republican legal project .
For decades , GOP administrations have sought to load the courts with conservatives who can subvert every liberal accomplishment by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always worked out .
Most famously , Roberts joined the four Democratic-appointed justices ( twice ) to save the Affordable Care Act .
But , it turns out , Bush and Trump are not the only two Republican politicians whose efforts have backfired .
Monday ’ s ruling would never have happened if not for some inadvertent help from another conservative : Congressman Howard W. Smith , a Virginia Democrat who left office more than half a century ago .
( He lost his campaign for re-election in 1966 and then died in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first elected to the House in 1930 , originally supported Franklin Roosevelt ’ s New Deal programs , but he soon became a leader of the conservative coalition .
For instance , he led the failed opposition to the National Labor Relations Board , an independent federal agency that enforces labor laws and regulations .
He then became the chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee in 1955 , giving him significant influence over which bills came to a vote on the House floor .
Smith used this elevated status to try keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chamber .
He was , after all , was a fierce segregationist .
In fact , he was a signatory of the Southern Manifesto , condemning the desegregation of Southern schools , and an apologist for slavery .
Naturally , he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 , and when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came to the House , he vehemently tried to block it .
While he was successful in delaying its passage , he ultimately could not thwart it altogether .
But when it became clear that his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried a last-ditch effort to sway more members of Congress .
He suggested adding another protected class to the law : sex .
Meaning , people should be shielded from discrimination on the basis of their gender .
Essentially , Smith believed that sexism was more predominant on Capitol Hill than racism .
Outlawing employment discrimination against women , therefore , would either act as a poison pill or get the bill laughed off the floor .
Instead , most of the members just thought it made sense .
The provision was quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later , Smith ’ s attempt to uphold bigotry actually paved the way for codifying protections for gay and transgender workers into American law .
That ’ s certainly not the outcome he would have wanted , but it is one the rest of us can now relish .

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on LGBTQ rights. In Bostock v. Clayton County, the court determined by a 6-3 vote that civil rights protections on the basis of sex extend to one’s sexual orientation or gender identity. In other words: Yes, it’s illegal to fire someone for being gay or transgender. Surprisingly, Justice Neil Gorsuch, a conservative jurist nominated to the high court by Donald Trump, wrote the Court’s majority opinion, while Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote a concurring opinion.
That sent an unexpected signal to the nation. Two conservative justices, deliberately nominated because of their conservative jurisprudence, are now at the forefront of progressive interpretation of the Civil Rights Act’s Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, and national origin.
Simply put, the decision dealt a shock to the Republican legal project. For decades, GOP administrations have sought to load the courts with conservatives who can subvert every liberal accomplishment by judicial decree. It hasn’t always worked out. Most famously, Roberts joined the four Democratic-appointed justices (twice) to save the Affordable Care Act.
But, it turns out, Bush and Trump are not the only two Republican politicians whose efforts have backfired.
Monday’s ruling would never have happened if not for some inadvertent help from another conservative: Congressman Howard W. Smith, a Virginia Democrat who left office more than half a century ago. (He lost his campaign for re-election in 1966 and then died in 1976.)
Smith, who was first elected to the House in 1930, originally supported Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, but he soon became a leader of the conservative coalition. For instance, he led the failed opposition to the National Labor Relations Board, an independent federal agency that enforces labor laws and regulations. He then became the chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee in 1955, giving him significant influence over which bills came to a vote on the House floor.
Smith used this elevated status to try keep civil rights legislation out of the House chamber. He was, after all, was a fierce segregationist. In fact, he was a signatory of the Southern Manifesto, condemning the desegregation of Southern schools, and an apologist for slavery. Naturally, he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came to the House, he vehemently tried to block it. While he was successful in delaying its passage, he ultimately could not thwart it altogether.
But when it became clear that his racial arguments were not working, Smith tried a last-ditch effort to sway more members of Congress. He suggested adding another protected class to the law: sex. Meaning, people should be shielded from discrimination on the basis of their gender. Essentially, Smith believed that sexism was more predominant on Capitol Hill than racism. Outlawing employment discrimination against women, therefore, would either act as a poison pill or get the bill laughed off the floor. Instead, most of the members just thought it made sense. The provision was quickly adopted—and the bill passed.
Fifty-six years later, Smith’s attempt to uphold bigotry actually paved the way for codifying protections for gay and transgender workers into American law. That’s certainly not the outcome he would have wanted, but it is one the rest of us can now relish.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-18--The Ongoing Struggle Between Two American Ideals: Liberty and Equality

Over the last few weeks some of us got a bit of whiplash as we watched right wingers go from protesting against the restrictions put in place to slow the spread of coronavirus , claiming that they were an infringement on their constitutional freedoms , to calling for the imposition of “ law and order ” on those who were protesting against police brutality following the killing of George Floyd .
While those positions clearly indicate a kind of hypocrisy that can be categorized as “ freedom for me , but not for thee , ” they are also reminiscent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ founding between the ideals of freedom ( or liberty ) and equality .
Whenever people want to emphasize that equality was an ideal supported by our founders , they point to the sentence in our Declaration of Independence stating that “ We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal , that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights , that among these are Life , Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
” And yet , many of those who were responsible for writing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to white male property owners .
The key to understanding what our founders meant by that statement in the Declaration of Independence is to be clear about who they were talking about when they referred to “ all men.
” That certainly didn ’ t include women .
But by the time they wrote that document , the whole field of “ scientific racism ” had been launched in an attempt to find a biological foundation for white supremacy .
In its more brutal interpretation , the “ all men ” didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an opening for slavery as well as the genocide of Native Americans .
When it comes to equality , here is what John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1813 .
That understanding dominated in this country for decades .
Even as Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War against slavery and issued the Emancipation Proclamation , he didn ’ t believe that blacks were equal to whites .
Here is what he said during the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates .
I will say then , that I am not nor ever have been in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or jurors , or qualifying them to hold office , of having them to marry with white people .
I will say in addition , that there is a physical difference between the white and black races , which I suppose , will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality , and inasmuch , as they can not so live , that while they do remain together , there must be the position of superior and inferior , that I as much as any other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position being assigned to the white man .
Throughout this country ’ s history , there have been attempts to suggest that ideals like liberty ( freedom ) can not co-exist with equality .
As Danielle Allen explained , that conflict gained currency during the Cold War as communists espoused the idea of equality—particularly economic equality .
But the Cold War emerged about the same time as the Civil Rights Movement , so the notions of racial equality were also part of that discussion .
In 1960 , R. Carter Pittman published an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ titled , “ Equality Versus Liberty : The Eternal Conflict.
” He opens with this quote from Alexander Hamilton : “ Inequality will exist as long as liberty exists .
It unavoidably results from that very liberty itself.
” Pittman goes on to claim that the reason the phrase about all men being created equal was included in the Declaration of Independence was because the founders knew that we would need the assistance of France in the revolution against British rule , and notions of equality were a mainstay of the French revolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is inequality that gives enlargement to religion , to intellect , to energy , to virtue , to love and to wealth .
Equality of intellect stabilizes mediocrity .
Equality of wealth makes all men poor .
Equality of religion destroys all creeds .
Equality of energy renders all men sluggards .
Equality of virtue suspends all men without the gates of Heaven .
Equality of love stultifies every manly passion , destroys every family altar and mongrelizes the races of men .
Equality homogenizes so that cream does not rise to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hen house so that he may no longer soar .
It subverts civilization by encouraging the Hottentot to claim equal footing with the cultured and intellectual in any scheme of social administration…Equality may be imposed only in a despotism .
That is the precursor to Joy Pullmann ’ s claims following a ruling from the Supreme Court that applies prohibitions against discrimination to LGBTQ Americans .
Articulating how modern-day Republicans continue to view equality as a threat to their freedom , she wrote that the word “ equality ” has become a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil rights laws in the 60s , Democrats have increasingly become the party of equality while Republicans claim the mantle of liberty ( or freedom ) .
That has become a somewhat invisible fault line between the two parties on most of the issues under debate today .
For example , back in 1976 , Herbert Gans made an argument that is prescient for today ’ s discussions about income inequality .
The political upheavals of the 1960 ’ s and the economic crisis of the 1970 ’ s have spawned a revival @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between equality and liberty .
In response to recurring calls for tax and other economic reforms that may require a modest redistribution of income and wealth , conservative thinkers protest that egalitarian policies will decimate our most treasured economic and political freedoms .
Their protest is understandable , for more equality would reduce their freedoms —but it would also add to the freedoms of other Americans .
The conservatives are wise enough debaters to avoid mentioning that redistributive measures would cut into their fortunes .
Instead , they argue that these policies would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , impairing everyone ’ s freedom to invest and compete .
A fine freedom in theory ; in practice , however , it can be enjoyed mainly by rich corporations and individuals .
When conservatives claim that equality infringes on freedom , the question has always been : whose freedoms are they referring to ?
The same can be said for claims from Christian nationalists about religious freedoms .
They want to use their freedom to discriminate against the freedom that comes with equal rights for LGBTQ Americans .
These two American ideals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our history .
While there is some tension between the two , conservatives have always limited the idea of freedom to those who are privileged in our society .
Liberals , on the other hand , have sought to extend those freedoms by affirming the ideal of equality .

Over the last few weeks some of us got a bit of whiplash as we watched right wingers go from protesting against the restrictions put in place to slow the spread of coronavirus, claiming that they were an infringement on their constitutional freedoms, to calling for the imposition of “law and order” on those who were protesting against police brutality following the killing of George Floyd.
While those positions clearly indicate a kind of hypocrisy that can be categorized as “freedom for me, but not for thee,” they are also reminiscent of a struggle that began at our founding between the ideals of freedom (or liberty) and equality.
Whenever people want to emphasize that equality was an ideal supported by our founders, they point to the sentence in our Declaration of Independence stating that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” And yet, many of those who were responsible for writing that document owned slaves and restricted voting rights to white male property owners.
The key to understanding what our founders meant by that statement in the Declaration of Independence is to be clear about who they were talking about when they referred to “all men.” That certainly didn’t include women. But by the time they wrote that document, the whole field of “scientific racism” had been launched in an attempt to find a biological foundation for white supremacy. In its more brutal interpretation, the “all men” didn’t include people of color, providing an opening for slavery as well as the genocide of Native Americans. When it comes to equality, here is what John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1813.
Inequalities of mind and body are so established by God Almighty in his constitution of human nature, that no art or policy can ever plane them down to a level….Jus cuique, the golden rule, do as you would be done by, is all the equality that can be supported or defended by reason or common sense.
That understanding dominated in this country for decades. Even as Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War against slavery and issued the Emancipation Proclamation, he didn’t believe that blacks were equal to whites. Here is what he said during the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates.
I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, of having them to marry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality, and inasmuch, as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man.
Throughout this country’s history, there have been attempts to suggest that ideals like liberty (freedom) cannot co-exist with equality. As Danielle Allen explained, that conflict gained currency during the Cold War as communists espoused the idea of equality—particularly economic equality. But the Cold War emerged about the same time as the Civil Rights Movement, so the notions of racial equality were also part of that discussion.
In 1960, R. Carter Pittman published an article in the American Bar Association Journal titled, “Equality Versus Liberty: The Eternal Conflict.” He opens with this quote from Alexander Hamilton: “Inequality will exist as long as liberty exists. It unavoidably results from that very liberty itself.” Pittman goes on to claim that the reason the phrase about all men being created equal was included in the Declaration of Independence was because the founders knew that we would need the assistance of France in the revolution against British rule, and notions of equality were a mainstay of the French revolution. Pittman ends with this.
It is inequality that gives enlargement to religion, to intellect, to energy, to virtue, to love and to wealth. Equality of intellect stabilizes mediocrity. Equality of wealth makes all men poor. Equality of religion destroys all creeds. Equality of energy renders all men sluggards. Equality of virtue suspends all men without the gates of Heaven. Equality of love stultifies every manly passion, destroys every family altar and mongrelizes the races of men. Equality homogenizes so that cream does not rise to the top. It puts the eagle in the hen house so that he may no longer soar. It subverts civilization by encouraging the Hottentot to claim equal footing with the cultured and intellectual in any scheme of social administration…Equality may be imposed only in a despotism.
That is the precursor to Joy Pullmann’s claims following a ruling from the Supreme Court that applies prohibitions against discrimination to LGBTQ Americans. Articulating how modern-day Republicans continue to view equality as a threat to their freedom, she wrote that the word “equality” has become a totalitarian weapon.
Since passage of the civil rights laws in the 60s, Democrats have increasingly become the party of equality while Republicans claim the mantle of liberty (or freedom). That has become a somewhat invisible fault line between the two parties on most of the issues under debate today. For example, back in 1976, Herbert Gans made an argument that is prescient for today’s discussions about income inequality.
The political upheavals of the 1960’s and the economic crisis of the 1970’s have spawned a revival of the centuries‐old debate about the conflict between equality and liberty. In response to recurring calls for tax and other economic reforms that may require a modest redistribution of income and wealth, conservative thinkers protest that egalitarian policies will decimate our most treasured economic and political freedoms. Their protest is understandable, for more equality would reduce their freedoms —but it would also add to the freedoms of other Americans. The conservatives are wise enough debaters to avoid mentioning that redistributive measures would cut into their fortunes. Instead, they argue that these policies would mean further Government interference in the economy, impairing everyone’s freedom to invest and compete. A fine freedom in theory; in practice, however, it can be enjoyed mainly by rich corporations and individuals.
When conservatives claim that equality infringes on freedom, the question has always been: whose freedoms are they referring to? The same can be said for claims from Christian nationalists about religious freedoms. They want to use their freedom to discriminate against the freedom that comes with equal rights for LGBTQ Americans.
These two American ideals have been pitted against each other throughout our history. While there is some tension between the two, conservatives have always limited the idea of freedom to those who are privileged in our society. Liberals, on the other hand, have sought to extend those freedoms by affirming the ideal of equality.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-18--What Are Trump and Giuliani Getting Out of Boosting Hydroxychloroquine?

I ’ m going to paint you two scenarios .
In Scenario One , the president of the United States is an incurious and poorly informed person who holds many delusional opinions and is widely described by the people who work with him as an idiot , dope , or moron .
He doesn ’ t have the interest or stamina to read a two-page report , and intelligence briefers have to come up with innovative visual aids in a desperate attempt to get him to absorb vital information .
While he has no clue what is going on half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looking for an angle to make a buck , and he ’ s proven quite adept at duping the public out of their money .
In Scenario Two , none of the above is true and Donald Trump actually is a voracious reader who likes to keep up on the latest in epidemiology by perusing European medical journals , including the one published by the French International Study of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy .
It is there that Trump learns of a ( horribly bad ) study based on only 20 patients claiming that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be taken in combination to reduce the amount of COVID-19 virus in the nose and throat .
Armed with this knowledge , he immediately comes to the independent conclusion that this treatment regimen has “ a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine.
” He then says he is taking hydroxychloroquine himself and begins promoting it to anyone who will listen , not for any hidden financial benefit but strictly as an altruistic way to improve public health and save lives .
Which of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be true ?
The result has been pretty spectacular .
The New York Times reports that the Strategic National Stockpile currently has a stash of 63 million doses of hydroxychloroquine and 2 million doses of of chloroquine that they can not distribute because on Monday , the Food & Drug Administration revoked its authorization to use these drugs as a treatment for COVID-19 .
Apparently , they don ’ t work at all for this purpose but instead increase “ the risk of side effects , including heart problems.
” In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Medical Association found that “ COVID patients who took [ hydroxychloroquine ] were more than twice as likely to suffer cardiac arrest.
” Yet it ’ s still an approved drug for malaria , rheumatoid arthritis , and lupus , but those patients are having difficulty getting their prescriptions filled .
It ’ s publicly known that the president holds a small interest in a company that manufactures hydroxychloroquine , albeit not enough to make it worth his while to pump and dump the stock .
It is extremely curious , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boosting hydroxychloroquine as a treatment .
Considering that Trump and Giuliani seem to act as a criminal syndicate , I think there should be a thorough investigation into who put them up to this and how they expected to be compensated .
One thing I feel confident about is that they didn ’ t coordinate this effort for free and that neither of them could have ever concocted the scheme on their own .
People have undoubtedly died as a result of their efforts and now the government is stuck with a huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are going without it .
It might seem like a small scandal in the context of everything else Trump has done , but it ’ s actually a very serious crime .
We need to learn the full truth about it .

I’m going to paint you two scenarios. In Scenario One, the president of the United States is an incurious and poorly informed person who holds many delusional opinions and is widely described by the people who work with him as an idiot, dope, or moron. He doesn’t have the interest or stamina to read a two-page report, and intelligence briefers have to come up with innovative visual aids in a desperate attempt to get him to absorb vital information. While he has no clue what is going on half the time, he’s always looking for an angle to make a buck, and he’s proven quite adept at duping the public out of their money.
In Scenario Two, none of the above is true and Donald Trump actually is a voracious reader who likes to keep up on the latest in epidemiology by perusing European medical journals, including the one published by the French International Study of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. It is there that Trump learns of a (horribly bad) study based on only 20 patients claiming that the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin could be taken in combination to reduce the amount of COVID-19 virus in the nose and throat. Armed with this knowledge, he immediately comes to the independent conclusion that this treatment regimen has “a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine.” He then says he is taking hydroxychloroquine himself and begins promoting it to anyone who will listen, not for any hidden financial benefit but strictly as an altruistic way to improve public health and save lives.
Which of these two scenarios seems more likely to be true?
The result has been pretty spectacular. The New York Times reports that the Strategic National Stockpile currently has a stash of 63 million doses of hydroxychloroquine and 2 million doses of of chloroquine that they cannot distribute because on Monday, the Food & Drug Administration revoked its authorization to use these drugs as a treatment for COVID-19. Apparently, they don’t work at all for this purpose but instead increase “the risk of side effects, including heart problems.” In fact, a study by the Journal of the American Medical Association found that “COVID patients who took [hydroxychloroquine] were more than twice as likely to suffer cardiac arrest.”
Yet it’s still an approved drug for malaria, rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus, but those patients are having difficulty getting their prescriptions filled.
It’s publicly known that the president holds a small interest in a company that manufactures hydroxychloroquine, albeit not enough to make it worth his while to pump and dump the stock. It is extremely curious, however, that Rudy Giuliani joined Trump in boosting hydroxychloroquine as a treatment. Considering that Trump and Giuliani seem to act as a criminal syndicate, I think there should be a thorough investigation into who put them up to this and how they expected to be compensated.
One thing I feel confident about is that they didn’t coordinate this effort for free and that neither of them could have ever concocted the scheme on their own.
People have undoubtedly died as a result of their efforts and now the government is stuck with a huge stockpile of the drug while needy patients are going without it.
It might seem like a small scandal in the context of everything else Trump has done, but it’s actually a very serious crime. We need to learn the full truth about it.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-19--Will Conservatives Stick with Trump If He Keeps Losing in the Courts?

Millions of Americans are sleeping more soundly this week after the Supreme Court removed the massive burdens they were carrying on their shoulders .
Following a ruling that allowed protections against discrimination to be extended to LGBTQ Americans , the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Trump administration could not end the DACA program , through which the Obama administration had granted relief from deportation to people illegally brought to this country as children .
It is important to keep in mind that the DACA decision was 5-4 and the majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ruling doesn ’ t say DACA is constitutional , but that the Trump administration failed to make their case to end it .
That is because , due to something called the Administrative Procedures Act , they are required to show that actions are reasonable and not “ arbitrary ” or “ capricious.
” Along those lines , Roberts wrote the following .
In other words , a majority of Supreme Court Justices said that it is not enough for Trump to simply say , “ let ’ s end it because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to destroy Obama ’ s legacy.
” The relief this decision provides to Dreamers is very real .
That is because ICE Director Matt Albence recently said that his agency had plans in place to begin deporting them if the Supreme Court ruled the other way .
But beyond that relief , these two Supreme Court decisions will have a major political impact .
One of the ways that Donald Trump has sold himself to his base—especially Christian nationalists—has been his appointment of two extremist conservatives to the Supreme Court .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ll get what they want , as these two decisions demonstrate .
Neera Tanden suggested how Trump ’ s base might respond .
Trump knows that—which is why he ’ s spinning .
The other important ramification of the DACA decision is that in the past , Trump tried to hold the Dreamers hostage in order to force Congress to pass xenophobic changes to our immigration laws .
Ultimately that failed , while everyone waited for the courts to weigh in .
But if the administration had been allowed to end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president and Stephen Miller would have tried again , offering to pass legislation that would protect Dreamers from deportation in exchange for an end to immigration as we known it .
Before we all assume that these two decisions indicate that the Supreme Court is some kind of liberal panacea to Trumpism , keep in mind that they are likely to issue rulings in two more major cases before this term is over .
One of them is June Medical Services v. Gee , which would require any doctor performing an abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospital within 30 miles of the clinic .
While not a direct assault of Roe v. Wade , it would allow states to place unnecessary burdens on both women and providers .
Given that Justices Roberts , Thomas , and Alito all voted in favor of such restrictions in a similar case prior to the confirmation of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh , it is very likely that the Supreme Court will deal a major blow to women ’ s reproductive freedom in the coming days .
We can also expect a ruling on whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subpoenas on Trump ’ s financial records which , if released publicly , could provide information on the president ’ s business practices , foreign entanglements , and hush-money payments in the run-up to the November election .
While we can all celebrate the burdens that have been lifted for LGBTQ Americans and Dreamers , we ’ ll have to wait and see whether the court will affirm women ’ s reproductive freedom and the ability for the public to hold the president accountable .

Millions of Americans are sleeping more soundly this week after the Supreme Court removed the massive burdens they were carrying on their shoulders. Following a ruling that allowed protections against discrimination to be extended to LGBTQ Americans, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Trump administration could not end the DACA program, through which the Obama administration had granted relief from deportation to people illegally brought to this country as children.
It is important to keep in mind that the DACA decision was 5-4 and the majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. He wanted to be clear that the ruling doesn’t say DACA is constitutional, but that the Trump administration failed to make their case to end it. That is because, due to something called the Administrative Procedures Act, they are required to show that actions are reasonable and not “arbitrary” or “capricious.” Along those lines, Roberts wrote the following.
We address only whether the [Department of Homeland Security] complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients. That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner.
In other words, a majority of Supreme Court Justices said that it is not enough for Trump to simply say, “let’s end it because I want to do everything in my power to destroy Obama’s legacy.”
The relief this decision provides to Dreamers is very real. That is because ICE Director Matt Albence recently said that his agency had plans in place to begin deporting them if the Supreme Court ruled the other way.
But beyond that relief, these two Supreme Court decisions will have a major political impact. One of the ways that Donald Trump has sold himself to his base—especially Christian nationalists—has been his appointment of two extremist conservatives to the Supreme Court. But even that hasn’t guaranteed that they’ll get what they want, as these two decisions demonstrate. Neera Tanden suggested how Trump’s base might respond.
Trump knows that—which is why he’s spinning.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1273665329416286219
The other important ramification of the DACA decision is that in the past, Trump tried to hold the Dreamers hostage in order to force Congress to pass xenophobic changes to our immigration laws. Ultimately that failed, while everyone waited for the courts to weigh in. But if the administration had been allowed to end DACA, you can rest assured that the president and Stephen Miller would have tried again, offering to pass legislation that would protect Dreamers from deportation in exchange for an end to immigration as we known it.
Before we all assume that these two decisions indicate that the Supreme Court is some kind of liberal panacea to Trumpism, keep in mind that they are likely to issue rulings in two more major cases before this term is over. One of them is June Medical Services v. Gee, which would require any doctor performing an abortion to have admitting privileges at a state-approved hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. While not a direct assault of Roe v. Wade, it would allow states to place unnecessary burdens on both women and providers. Given that Justices Roberts, Thomas, and Alito all voted in favor of such restrictions in a similar case prior to the confirmation of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, it is very likely that the Supreme Court will deal a major blow to women’s reproductive freedom in the coming days.
We can also expect a ruling on whether or not the Supreme Court will enforce subpoenas on Trump’s financial records which, if released publicly, could provide information on the president’s business practices, foreign entanglements, and hush-money payments in the run-up to the November election.
While we can all celebrate the burdens that have been lifted for LGBTQ Americans and Dreamers, we’ll have to wait and see whether the court will affirm women’s reproductive freedom and the ability for the public to hold the president accountable.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-19--How Biden Can Prove He’s Serious About Busting Corporate Monopolies

At the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak , Americans quickly learned just how unprepared the country was for a pandemic .
One of the most alarming revelations was that the U.S. had nowhere near the number of ventilators and other life-saving medical equipment it needed to fight the virus .
That ’ s largely because of a surprising culprit : the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) .
In April 2020 , the New York Times reported on medtech giant Covidien ’ s 2012 acquisition of Newport Medical Instruments , a small company tasked by public health officials to produce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stockpile , an integrated collection of secret , federally-controlled warehouses stocked with critical supplies in case of an emergency , such as a terrorist attack or pandemic .
Since the two companies have consolidated , however , some problems have arisen .
Most notably : Covidien canceled Newport ’ s government contract in 2014 , meaning that almost eight years after the initial push , the federal government has yet to receive any ventilators .
My colleagues and I at the Revolving Door Project recently investigated the merger and found that all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the case have since moved on to private law firm positions ; many of these law firms , such as Ropes & Gray , pushed hard for the acquisition ’ s approval at the time .
This calls into question their interests back when they oversaw the FTC and allowed a deal that would unquestionably crush competition in the ventilator manufacturing sector , leading to the problems we ’ re now facing .
We have identified at least one of the lawyers who worked behind the scenes of the merger : Ropes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who boasts in his professional biography of advising Covidien in this deal .
McFalls ’ professional history , starting with a role at the FTC after years at private law firms , exemplifies the revolving door trajectory of successful antitrust lawyers and their role in economic consolidation .
And yet , despite his role in this debacle , one could easily imagine McFalls as a prospective appointee in Biden ’ s FTC or Justice Department .
Historically , presidential appointees to the antitrust enforcement agencies have been attorneys with private sector experience .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ascend to top posts .
Former Obama administration Bureau of Competition Director Debbie Feinstein came to the FTC from a long career at Arnold & Porter , one of the largest law firms in the country , and returned to the same firm when her stint ended .
Ian R. Conner , the current Bureau of Competition head , started his career at the DOJ ’ s Antitrust Division as a trial attorney , but climbed in rank after years at two private law firms , Hunton & Williams and Kirkland & Ellis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with FTC experience , McFalls has used his history of working in government to push his pharmaceutical and med tech clients ’ merger deals through antitrust enforcement agencies .
At least one of the cases—the Covidien-Newport merger—had serious , indeed fatal , consequences for American consumers .
The world of antitrust law , both in private practice and government , habitually relies on such lawyers .
If Joe Biden really hopes to address increasing concentration in the U.S. economy , he must first address the revolving door between government , private law firms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their power through anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions .
That means people like McFalls shouldn ’ t have a seat at the new administration ’ s antitrust table .
McFalls launched his career as an attorney advising the late Democratic FTC commissioner Robert Pitofsky , the “ apolitical ” mentor to many of today ’ s influential antitrust actors across party lines , including current FTC chair Joseph Simons and the former top DOJ Antitrust enforcer Christine Varney .
After “ accomplishing pretty much all he set out to do ” at the FTC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position at Jones Day .
There , he was promoted to a partner in the firm ’ s antitrust practice and worked on merger deals , including Google ’ s acquisition of DoubleClick , a merger whose knock-on effects cemented Google ’ s place as the king of search .
Allowing Google to acquire DoubleClick—and its early tech which would lead to today ’ s targeted advertising—has grossly hurt consumer privacy and accelerated the struggles of independent journalism to this day .
McFalls ’ strategies for securing merger approvals draw on his insider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2004 tobacco industry merger , he described his predilection to encourage his client to pose a “ credible threat ” of litigation , an exploit aimed at the FTC ’ s general reluctance to go to court .
At Ropes & Gray , McFalls helped bring about the 2010 ’ s spike in medtech mergers : Currently , McFalls lists more than 18 mergers he advised on , almost all of which fall into the medtech or pharmaceutical industries .
McFalls never fails to note when a case proceeds “ without Second Request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This means the FTC or DOJ Antitrust Division sought no additional information on how the transaction might be anti-competitive .
In other words , he ’ s taking credit for the FTC ’ s failure to meaningfully investigate the competition-harming merger .
McFalls also touts his co-chairmanship of the Intellectual Property Committee of the American Bar Association ’ s Antitrust Section .
While he ran one of the most influential publications in his legal specialty , McFalls ’ work mostly fell in line with his clients ’ interests .
For instance , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he helped write an article on the “ tragedy ” of the FTC allowing for increased competition to incumbent pharmaceutical monopolists , i.e .
his main clients .
Ironically , promoting competition is ostensibly the whole point of antitrust law .
McFalls did not respond to multiple requests for comment .
If you are a prospective employer—whether public or private—who values antitrust insiders , McFalls ’ resume is phenomenal .
His experience at the FTC , his role in influential mergers , his connections to other antitrust lawyers , and his ABA committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antitrust law and precedent .
What ’ s more , his many successes and Democratic alignment ( McFalls maxed out donations to the 2012 Obama and 2016 Clinton campaigns ) mean that Biden would seem lucky to have him as an antitrust employee .
But this view reflects a misguided outlook that Democrats are finally starting to recognize as deeply flawed .
In fact , it has led to the high rates of economic concentration that have battered the U.S. economy .
If progressives really want more antitrust enforcement from Washington , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration to exclude figures with such experience .
That may be an even easier argument to make now—since a lax approach to competition policy has made it all the more difficult to fight the COVID-19 pandemic , which has already taken more than 110,000 American lives .
The same people who defend corporate clients are often entrusted with enforcing the very laws they ’ ve spent their careers trying to neuter from the other side of the bench .
These laws are supposed to safeguard the economy and the rights of workers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the goals of antitrust law become secondary to how they can use their experience at enforcement agencies to more successfully advocate on behalf of harmful consolidation when they go back into higher-paying private firms .
As the Covidien-Newport merger highlighted—and plentiful statistical data proves—the revolving door at the FTC thrives because of an institutional culture .
Future revolvers are influenced by like-minded private sector attorneys like McFalls .
As a result , an agency designed to protect the nation from monopolistic practices instead fails miserably at defending the public interest .
Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that stem from a highly concentrated economy , like the decline of small businesses and rising drug prices .
If he wins , he will have to prove it .
He will need to recognize that “ personnel is policy.
” As such , his team must reorganize the antitrust enforcement agencies around experienced , public-interest-focused regulators rather than smart lawyers biding their time until they can make a lucrative rotation through the revolving door .

At the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak, Americans quickly learned just how unprepared the country was for a pandemic. One of the most alarming revelations was that the U.S. had nowhere near the number of ventilators and other life-saving medical equipment it needed to fight the virus. That’s largely because of a surprising culprit: the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
In April 2020, the New York Times reported on medtech giant Covidien’s 2012 acquisition of Newport Medical Instruments, a small company tasked by public health officials to produce portable ventilators to replenish the Strategic National Stockpile, an integrated collection of secret, federally-controlled warehouses stocked with critical supplies in case of an emergency, such as a terrorist attack or pandemic. Since the two companies have consolidated, however, some problems have arisen. Most notably: Covidien canceled Newport’s government contract in 2014, meaning that almost eight years after the initial push, the federal government has yet to receive any ventilators.
My colleagues and I at the Revolving Door Project recently investigated the merger and found that all of the FTC officials known to be involved in the case have since moved on to private law firm positions; many of these law firms, such as Ropes & Gray, pushed hard for the acquisition’s approval at the time. This calls into question their interests back when they oversaw the FTC and allowed a deal that would unquestionably crush competition in the ventilator manufacturing sector, leading to the problems we’re now facing.
We have identified at least one of the lawyers who worked behind the scenes of the merger: Ropes & Gray’s Michael McFalls, who boasts in his professional biography of advising Covidien in this deal. McFalls’ professional history, starting with a role at the FTC after years at private law firms, exemplifies the revolving door trajectory of successful antitrust lawyers and their role in economic consolidation.
And yet, despite his role in this debacle, one could easily imagine McFalls as a prospective appointee in Biden’s FTC or Justice Department. Historically, presidential appointees to the antitrust enforcement agencies have been attorneys with private sector experience. Career civil servants, meanwhile, rarely ascend to top posts. Former Obama administration Bureau of Competition Director Debbie Feinstein came to the FTC from a long career at Arnold & Porter, one of the largest law firms in the country, and returned to the same firm when her stint ended. Ian R. Conner, the current Bureau of Competition head, started his career at the DOJ’s Antitrust Division as a trial attorney, but climbed in rank after years at two private law firms, Hunton & Williams and Kirkland & Ellis.
As a private sector antitrust lawyer with FTC experience, McFalls has used his history of working in government to push his pharmaceutical and med tech clients’ merger deals through antitrust enforcement agencies. At least one of the cases—the Covidien-Newport merger—had serious, indeed fatal, consequences for American consumers.
The world of antitrust law, both in private practice and government, habitually relies on such lawyers. If Joe Biden really hopes to address increasing concentration in the U.S. economy, he must first address the revolving door between government, private law firms, and their corporate clients that consolidate their power through anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions.
That means people like McFalls shouldn’t have a seat at the new administration’s antitrust table.
McFalls launched his career as an attorney advising the late Democratic FTC commissioner Robert Pitofsky, the “apolitical” mentor to many of today’s influential antitrust actors across party lines, including current FTC chair Joseph Simons and the former top DOJ Antitrust enforcer Christine Varney. After “accomplishing pretty much all he set out to do” at the FTC, McFalls leveraged his experience into a position at Jones Day. There, he was promoted to a partner in the firm’s antitrust practice and worked on merger deals, including Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick, a merger whose knock-on effects cemented Google’s place as the king of search. Allowing Google to acquire DoubleClick—and its early tech which would lead to today’s targeted advertising—has grossly hurt consumer privacy and accelerated the struggles of independent journalism to this day.
McFalls’ strategies for securing merger approvals draw on his insider experience; in an interview on a 2004 tobacco industry merger, he described his predilection to encourage his client to pose a “credible threat” of litigation, an exploit aimed at the FTC’s general reluctance to go to court.
At Ropes & Gray, McFalls helped bring about the 2010’s spike in medtech mergers: Currently, McFalls lists more than 18 mergers he advised on, almost all of which fall into the medtech or pharmaceutical industries. McFalls never fails to note when a case proceeds “without Second Request,” including the Covidien-Newport merger. This means the FTC or DOJ Antitrust Division sought no additional information on how the transaction might be anti-competitive. In other words, he’s taking credit for the FTC’s failure to meaningfully investigate the competition-harming merger.
McFalls also touts his co-chairmanship of the Intellectual Property Committee of the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Section. While he ran one of the most influential publications in his legal specialty, McFalls’ work mostly fell in line with his clients’ interests. For instance, while he was still at Jones Day, he helped write an article on the “tragedy” of the FTC allowing for increased competition to incumbent pharmaceutical monopolists, i.e. his main clients. Ironically, promoting competition is ostensibly the whole point of antitrust law.
McFalls did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
If you are a prospective employer—whether public or private—who values antitrust insiders, McFalls’ resume is phenomenal. His experience at the FTC, his role in influential mergers, his connections to other antitrust lawyers, and his ABA committee chairmanship all indicate his deep knowledge of antitrust law and precedent.
What’s more, his many successes and Democratic alignment (McFalls maxed out donations to the 2012 Obama and 2016 Clinton campaigns) mean that Biden would seem lucky to have him as an antitrust employee. But this view reflects a misguided outlook that Democrats are finally starting to recognize as deeply flawed. In fact, it has led to the high rates of economic concentration that have battered the U.S. economy.
If progressives really want more antitrust enforcement from Washington, they will need to pressure a future Biden administration to exclude figures with such experience. That may be an even easier argument to make now—since a lax approach to competition policy has made it all the more difficult to fight the COVID-19 pandemic, which has already taken more than 110,000 American lives.
The same people who defend corporate clients are often entrusted with enforcing the very laws they’ve spent their careers trying to neuter from the other side of the bench. These laws are supposed to safeguard the economy and the rights of workers and consumers. But to actors like McFalls, the goals of antitrust law become secondary to how they can use their experience at enforcement agencies to more successfully advocate on behalf of harmful consolidation when they go back into higher-paying private firms.
As the Covidien-Newport merger highlighted—and plentiful statistical data proves—the revolving door at the FTC thrives because of an institutional culture. Future revolvers are influenced by like-minded private sector attorneys like McFalls. As a result, an agency designed to protect the nation from monopolistic practices instead fails miserably at defending the public interest.
Biden says he wants to reverse the inequities that stem from a highly concentrated economy, like the decline of small businesses and rising drug prices. If he wins, he will have to prove it. He will need to recognize that “personnel is policy.” As such, his team must reorganize the antitrust enforcement agencies around experienced, public-interest-focused regulators rather than smart lawyers biding their time until they can make a lucrative rotation through the revolving door.


washingtonmonthly--2020-06-19--What Will It Take to Burst Trump’s Delusions?

Trump will almost certainly get an emotional boost from an adoring crowd at his rally in Tulsa .
But perhaps for the first time in his privileged life , reality is beginning to challenge the delusional world he has created for himself .
As a result , he just keeps making things worse .
The president has been so eager to reopen the economy that he is ensuring an ongoing rise in the number of people contracting COVID-19 .
As experts are warning , the U.S. isn ’ t experiencing a second wave of the virus—the first wave never ended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a transaction , he seemed to have turned over his Twitter account on Thursday night to someone who could help him bribe voters in swing states .
The president ’ s account sent out 21 tweets bragging about the money he sent to various states from the Department of Transportation .
For example , Colorado got over $ 60 million , Nevada $ 50 million , North Carolina $ 25 million , and Texas $ 80 million .
The list goes on .
Nothing is more typical of how this president operates than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars to boost his chances of reelection .
Demonstrating that he learned nothing from the fiasco of clearing out peaceful protesters in order to stage a photo-op for himself in front of a church , the president is threatening a repeat performance in Tulsa .
In what might be the most obvious sign of desperation , Trump resorted to using a terrorist who was taken out by the Obama administration in an attack against his opponent .
The reality that is beginning to burst the president ’ s delusional world comes , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a former Trump supporter from rural Tennessee .
As Trump heads to Oklahoma , this is an ad that will be running on local television channels .
At this point in the 2020 presidential race , Trump is losing support .
In response , he is growing more desperate and resorting to behavior that only escalates his problems .
Unless someone he trusts is able to stop him , that will remain his trajectory in the coming months .
What we are witnessing is a perfect example of Trump being Trump .

Trump will almost certainly get an emotional boost from an adoring crowd at his rally in Tulsa. But perhaps for the first time in his privileged life, reality is beginning to challenge the delusional world he has created for himself. As a result, he just keeps making things worse.
The president has been so eager to reopen the economy that he is ensuring an ongoing rise in the number of people contracting COVID-19. As experts are warning, the U.S. isn’t experiencing a second wave of the virus—the first wave never ended.
Because Trump views every relationship as a transaction, he seemed to have turned over his Twitter account on Thursday night to someone who could help him bribe voters in swing states. The president’s account sent out 21 tweets bragging about the money he sent to various states from the Department of Transportation. For example, Colorado got over $60 million, Nevada $50 million, North Carolina $25 million, and Texas $80 million. The list goes on. Nothing is more typical of how this president operates than to think he can use federal taxpayer dollars to boost his chances of reelection.
Demonstrating that he learned nothing from the fiasco of clearing out peaceful protesters in order to stage a photo-op for himself in front of a church, the president is threatening a repeat performance in Tulsa.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1273972301156016130
In what might be the most obvious sign of desperation, Trump resorted to using a terrorist who was taken out by the Obama administration in an attack against his opponent.
The reality that is beginning to burst the president’s delusional world comes, in part, from voters like Paul, a former Trump supporter from rural Tennessee.
As Trump heads to Oklahoma, this is an ad that will be running on local television channels.
At this point in the 2020 presidential race, Trump is losing support. In response, he is growing more desperate and resorting to behavior that only escalates his problems. Unless someone he trusts is able to stop him, that will remain his trajectory in the coming months. What we are witnessing is a perfect example of Trump being Trump.