The Strongman Cometh

People seem confused and confounded and disappointed by President Donald Trump tonight .
You know how he is .
He tweets .
He talks .
It ’ s so unhelpful .
So irresponsible .
Allow me to present a play , in three acts .
Donald Trump sits for an interview with Playboy in which he hints at his future political ambitions .
He is asked about both the Soviet Union—which is in the process of reform and making the first tentative steps toward liberalism—and the Tiananmen Square massacre—in which the Chinese military in 1989 attacked peaceful protesters attempting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and transfer power .
Here is the exchange : Playboy : What were your other impressions of the Soviet Union ?
Trump : I was very unimpressed .
Their system is a disaster .
What you will see there soon is a revolution ; the signs are all there with the demonstrations and picketing .
Russia is out of control and the leadership knows it .
That ’ s my problem with Gorbachev .
Not a firm enough hand .
Playboy : You mean firm hand as in China ?
Trump : When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Chinese government almost blew it .
Then they were vicious , they were horrible , but they put it down with strength .
That shows you the power of strength .
.
.
.
Playboy : Why is Gorbachev not firm enough ?
Trump : I predict he will be overthrown , because he has shown extraordinary weakness .
Suddenly , for the first time ever , there are coal-miner strikes and brush fires everywhere—which will all ultimately lead to a violent revolution .
Yet Gorbachev is getting credit for being a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credit , because he ’ s destroying the Soviet Union .
But his giving an inch is going to end up costing him and all his friends what they most cherish—their jobs .
Donald Trump becomes the first American president to meet with North Korea ’ s dictator , who is the most brutal authoritarian on the planet .
Afterward , Trump discusses how much Kim loves the North Korean people , and vice versa .
And he explains that he wishes Americans would treat him the same way North Koreans treat Kim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2018 : Van Susteren : What surprised you about Kim Jong Un ?
Trump : Really , he ’ s got a great personality .
He ’ s a funny guy , he ’ s very smart , he ’ s a great negotiator .
He loves his people , not that I ’ m surprised by that , but he loves his people .
.
.
.
Van Susteren : What do you think he thought of you after he left ?
Trump : I think he liked me and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past and , you know , nobody has to tell me , he ’ s a rough guy .
He has to be a rough guy or he has been a rough person .
But we got along very well .
He ’ s smart , loves his people , he loves his country .
He wants a lot of good things and that ’ s why he ’ s doing this .
.
.
.
Van Susteren : Because this is Voice of America it will be heard in North Korea by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What do you want to say directly to the citizens of North Korea ?
Trump : Well , I think you have somebody that has a great feeling for them .
He wants to do right by them and we got along really well .
And here is Trump speaking about Kim three days later , on June 15 , 2018 : The Atlantic publishes a piece quoting a legal adviser to the Trump campaign explaining how the president plans to contest the results of the election : The Trump-campaign legal adviser @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to appoint electors would be framed in terms of protecting the people ’ s will .
Once committed to the position that the overtime count has been rigged , the adviser said , state lawmakers will want to judge for themselves what the voters intended .
“ The state legislatures will say , ‘ All right , we ’ ve been given this constitutional power .
We don ’ t think the results of our own state are accurate , so here ’ s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the adviser said .
Later in the day , President Trump holds a press conference and is asked about the peaceful transfer of power .
Question : Will you commit to making sure that there is a peaceful transferral of power after the election ?
Trump : Well we ’ re going to have to see what happens .
You know that I ’ ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots .
And the ballots are a disaster— Question : I understand that , but people are rioting .
Do you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a peaceful transferral of power ?
Trump : We want to have—get rid of the ballots and you ’ ll have a very peaceful—there won ’ t be a transfer , frankly .
There ’ ll be a continuation .
These comments are not unhelpful .
They are not worrisome .
They are not irresponsible .
They are the expression of a coherent worldview .
• Power exists to be used .
• Leaders who do not use strength to deal with challenges to their power will lose what they most cherish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an expression of a leader ’ s love for his people .
• The people reward the strong leader with requited love .
• Any expression of dissent is an inauthentic view of a disgruntled minority seeking to thwart the true will of the people .
The internet runneth over with people who see this and are desperate to discount it .
And so this is what you hear : • He can ’ t mean it .
• He probably doesn ’ t mean it .
• Even if he means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent him from doing it .
• And even if there ’ s a chance—a 20 percent chance , a 2 percent chance—that Trump does mean it and that the guardrails might not hold .
.
.
• Well , what if Joe Biden is a cyborg being controlled by Communist space-lizards ?
• What if the Democrats got power and raised the capital gains tax rate ?
• What if some future Supreme Court , in some future decade , renders a bad decision on a case that does not yet exist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eyes and hide behind euphemisms and hope to avoid the precipice without having to sacrifice their positioning .
But the precipice is here .
Donald Trump just told you .
In fact , he ’ s been telling anyone who would listen for 30 years .
Maybe he won ’ t be able to pull it off .
Maybe Roberts and Gorsuch will stand in the breach .
Maybe he ’ ll wimp out in the end because he ’ s more of a man-baby than a strongman .
But just how much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Because if the answer isn ’ t “ everything , ” then it ’ s time to take this man at his word .

People seem confused and confounded and disappointed by President Donald Trump tonight. You know how he is. He tweets. He talks. It’s so unhelpful. So irresponsible.
Allow me to present a play, in three acts.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Act I: Gorbachev, China, and Strength, March 1990
Donald Trump sits for an interview with Playboy in which he hints at his future political ambitions. He is asked about both the Soviet Union—which is in the process of reform and making the first tentative steps toward liberalism—and the Tiananmen Square massacre—in which the Chinese military in 1989 attacked peaceful protesters attempting to convince the Communist regime to hold elections and transfer power.
Here is the exchange:
Playboy: What were your other impressions of the Soviet Union? Trump: I was very unimpressed. Their system is a disaster. What you will see there soon is a revolution; the signs are all there with the demonstrations and picketing. Russia is out of control and the leadership knows it. That’s my problem with Gorbachev. Not a firm enough hand. Playboy: You mean firm hand as in China? Trump: When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. . . . Playboy: Why is Gorbachev not firm enough? Trump: I predict he will be overthrown, because he has shown extraordinary weakness. Suddenly, for the first time ever, there are coal-miner strikes and brush fires everywhere—which will all ultimately lead to a violent revolution. Yet Gorbachev is getting credit for being a wonderful leader—and we should continue giving him credit, because he’s destroying the Soviet Union. But his giving an inch is going to end up costing him and all his friends what they most cherish—their jobs.
Act II: Kim Jong-Un and the Korean People, June 2018
Donald Trump becomes the first American president to meet with North Korea’s dictator, who is the most brutal authoritarian on the planet.
Afterward, Trump discusses how much Kim loves the North Korean people, and vice versa. And he explains that he wishes Americans would treat him the same way North Koreans treat Kim.
Here is Trump on June 12, 2018:
Van Susteren: What surprised you about Kim Jong Un? Trump: Really, he’s got a great personality. He’s a funny guy, he’s very smart, he’s a great negotiator. He loves his people, not that I’m surprised by that, but he loves his people. . . . Van Susteren: What do you think he thought of you after he left? Trump: I think he liked me and I like him. And I understand the past and, you know, nobody has to tell me, he’s a rough guy. He has to be a rough guy or he has been a rough person. But we got along very well. He’s smart, loves his people, he loves his country. He wants a lot of good things and that’s why he’s doing this. . . . Van Susteren: Because this is Voice of America it will be heard in North Korea by the citizens of DPRK of North Korea. What do you want to say directly to the citizens of North Korea? Trump: Well, I think you have somebody that has a great feeling for them. He wants to do right by them and we got along really well.
And here is Trump speaking about Kim three days later, on June 15, 2018:
He’s the head of a country, and I mean, he’s the strong head, don’t let anyone think anything different. He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same.
Act III: Donald Trump, September 23, 2020
The Atlantic publishes a piece quoting a legal adviser to the Trump campaign explaining how the president plans to contest the results of the election:
The Trump-campaign legal adviser I spoke with told me the push to appoint electors would be framed in terms of protecting the people’s will. Once committed to the position that the overtime count has been rigged, the adviser said, state lawmakers will want to judge for themselves what the voters intended. “The state legislatures will say, ‘All right, we’ve been given this constitutional power. We don’t think the results of our own state are accurate, so here’s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state,’ ” the adviser said.
Later in the day, President Trump holds a press conference and is asked about the peaceful transfer of power.
The context makes it worse. pic.twitter.com/8QXda35jwN — Daniel W. Drezner (@dandrezner) September 23, 2020
Question: Will you commit to making sure that there is a peaceful transferral of power after the election? Trump: Well we’re going to have to see what happens. You know that I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots. And the ballots are a disaster— Question: I understand that, but people are rioting. Do you commit to making sure that there’s a peaceful transferral of power? Trump: We want to have—get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful—there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There’ll be a continuation.
Exeunt all.
These comments are not unhelpful. They are not worrisome. They are not irresponsible.
They are the expression of a coherent worldview.
Power exists to be used.
Leaders who do not use strength to deal with challenges to their power will lose what they most cherish.
The firm hand of power is an expression of a leader’s love for his people.
The people reward the strong leader with requited love.
Any expression of dissent is an inauthentic view of a disgruntled minority seeking to thwart the true will of the people.
The internet runneth over with people who see this and are desperate to discount it. And so this is what you hear:
He’s a master troll.
He can’t mean it.
He probably doesn’t mean it.
Even if he means it, some deus ex machina will prevent him from doing it.
And even if there’s a chance—a 20 percent chance, a 2 percent chance—that Trump does mean it and that the guardrails might not hold . . .
Well, what if Joe Biden is a cyborg being controlled by Communist space-lizards?
What if the Democrats got power and raised the capital gains tax rate?
What if some future Supreme Court, in some future decade, renders a bad decision on a case that does not yet exist?
And so these people avert their eyes and hide behind euphemisms and hope to avoid the precipice without having to sacrifice their positioning.
But the precipice is here. Donald Trump just told you.
In fact, he’s been telling anyone who would listen for 30 years.
Maybe he won’t be able to pull it off. Maybe Roberts and Gorsuch will stand in the breach. Maybe he’ll wimp out in the end because he’s more of a man-baby than a strongman.
But just how much are you willing to bet on that?
Because if the answer isn’t “everything,” then it’s time to take this man at his word.


Donald the TruCon

During the GOP primary battles of my heyday ( circa 2007-2015 ) there were two main theories of the electorate unto which the battle lines were drawn .
The more pluralistic “ opportunity conservatives ” who were the heirs to the Bush coalition , and the “ true conservatives , ” or TruCons , who claimed to reflect Tea Party voters ’ desire to overthrow the RINO squishes in favor of a pure conservatism—the self-described true heirs to Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan .
TruCons were determined , as Ross Douthat put it , “ to avoid both anything that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smacked of compromise.
” They took hard-line stances on social and cultural issues in addition to wanting to slash the entitlement state .
In 2016 Donald Trump upended this paradigm .
He refused to carry either mantle and ran against both George W. Bush ’ s compassionate ( WEAK ! )
conservatism and the “ crazy ” and doctrinaire Ted Cruz wing of the party .
In doing so , Trump revealed something important about the electorate both in the primary and the general .
First , he proved that Republican voters didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a litmus test on the movement conservative issue du jour .
They just wanted someone whom they thought would fight for them against the evil elites and the media .
And he also proved something else : There was a whole batch of swing voters out there who were gettable for Republicans .
These were voters who reflected the party ’ s culturally conservative values , even if they didn ’ t necessarily buy into Ryanomics and evangelicalism .
These voters , to generalize , are secular and working-class former Democrats who hate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When they looked at Donald Trump they saw a womanizing New Yorker who was gon na cut some deals to bring jobs back to their communities , shake up the stiff and spineless D.C. set , and keep his hands off their Medicare .
It ’ s the classic Obama/Trump voter .
You can read 182 profiles of them in the New York Times , all set in Mechanicsburg diners .
Do these seem like the kind of people who , today , are going to be super-excited about Donald Trump making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tip the scales of the Supreme Court against Obamacare and Roe v. Wade his “ running mate ” ?
These voters like Obamacare and support legal abortion .
According to an analysis by Dave Wasserman of the 2016 CCES survey , 22 percent of Trump ’ s voters leaned pro-choice and 13 percent had mixed views .
In some swing states the numbers were even higher .
Now they are being asked to support a president who has met with their approval by dunking on the cosmopolitan elite but who has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the coronavirus .
And on top of that , he wants to force-feed them a big plate of TruConservatism .
They didn ’ t sign up for Ted Cruz .
They think he is weird AF .
They thought that they were signing up for the Art of the Deal Guy .
Who had probably paid for a few abortions of his own .
Certainly didn ’ t really give a shit about it unless he was trying to pull one over on those marks in Iowa .
This is a different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scranton Joe Biden on the other side of the ledger , it ’ s a good bet that at least some percentage of these folks are going to look at TruCon Don and say no deal .

During the GOP primary battles of my heyday (circa 2007-2015) there were two main theories of the electorate unto which the battle lines were drawn. The more pluralistic “opportunity conservatives” who were the heirs to the Bush coalition, and the “true conservatives,” or TruCons, who claimed to reflect Tea Party voters’ desire to overthrow the RINO squishes in favor of a pure conservatism—the self-described true heirs to Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
TruCons were determined, as Ross Douthat put it, “to avoid both anything that savored of big government and anything that smacked of compromise.” They took hard-line stances on social and cultural issues in addition to wanting to slash the entitlement state.
In 2016 Donald Trump upended this paradigm. He refused to carry either mantle and ran against both George W. Bush’s compassionate (WEAK!) conservatism and the “crazy” and doctrinaire Ted Cruz wing of the party. In doing so, Trump revealed something important about the electorate both in the primary and the general.
First, he proved that Republican voters didn’t need their candidates to pass a litmus test on the movement conservative issue du jour. They just wanted someone whom they thought would fight for them against the evil elites and the media.
And he also proved something else: There was a whole batch of swing voters out there who were gettable for Republicans. These were voters who reflected the party’s culturally conservative values, even if they didn’t necessarily buy into Ryanomics and evangelicalism.
These voters, to generalize, are secular and working-class former Democrats who hate globalization, immigration, and Hillary Clinton. When they looked at Donald Trump they saw a womanizing New Yorker who was gonna cut some deals to bring jobs back to their communities, shake up the stiff and spineless D.C. set, and keep his hands off their Medicare.
It’s the classic Obama/Trump voter. You can read 182 profiles of them in the New York Times, all set in Mechanicsburg diners.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Do these seem like the kind of people who, today, are going to be super-excited about Donald Trump making a social conservative true-believer who is poised to tip the scales of the Supreme Court against Obamacare and Roe v. Wade his “running mate”?
These voters like Obamacare and support legal abortion.
According to an analysis by Dave Wasserman of the 2016 CCES survey, 22 percent of Trump’s voters leaned pro-choice and 13 percent had mixed views. In some swing states the numbers were even higher.
Now they are being asked to support a president who has met with their approval by dunking on the cosmopolitan elite but who has been dropping the ball on the economic response to the coronavirus. And on top of that, he wants to force-feed them a big plate of TruConservatism. They didn’t sign up for Ted Cruz. They think he is weird AF.
They thought that they were signing up for the Art of the Deal Guy. Who had probably paid for a few abortions of his own. Certainly didn’t really give a shit about it unless he was trying to pull one over on those marks in Iowa.
This is a different animal altogether. And with ol’ Scranton Joe Biden on the other side of the ledger, it’s a good bet that at least some percentage of these folks are going to look at TruCon Don and say no deal.


thebulwark--2020-09-24--Trump’s Desperate and Probably Illegal Ploy to Lower Drug Prices

According to the New York Times , in July and August , President Trump pursued one last ( and probably illegal ) gambit with the pharmaceutical industry to deliver lower prices to consumers .
He and his aides used the threat of pricing tied to an international benchmark to coerce the industry to agree to provide direct assistance to Medicare beneficiaries .
The Times reports that major pharmaceutical companies were prepared to pay for $ 150 billion worth of cost-sharing relief for senior citizens if the administration halted its price-benchmarking plan .
It is not clear from the story how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under current law .
That wasn ’ t enough for Trump .
He and his aides wanted drug discount cards—worth $ 100 apiece—delivered in October to every Medicare beneficiary .
Medicare has 62.6 million enrollees in 2020 , so this scheme would have required a one-time , $ 6.3 billion payment from the companies .
The industry ’ s negotiators balked at this request , and the deal fell through .
Two points are worth emphasizing about this remarkable episode .
First , this extraconstitutional behavior would have shocked the political world had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The executive branch was trying to force a private industry to pay for direct assistance to public program enrollees , one month before a national election .
It seems not to have occurred to anyone at the White House that perhaps this was a matter that required legislation and a legitimate federal appropriation .
If Congress wanted to create such a program , and make the industry pay for it , it could do so by imposing a tax and using the proceeds for this purpose .
Second , Trump and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that they want on drug costs .
If the reporting is accurate , the industry was prepared to pay for substantial pricing relief for seniors , and thus deliver a victory for the president at a crucial moment in his term .
And yet the administration couldn ’ t take yes for an answer .
Top White House officials insisted on a request that was so outlandish that the industry had little choice but to reject it .
The collapse has left the president with nothing to tout on drug pricing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fits a pattern .
The president came into office saying he would deliver where his predecessors fell short , by lowering prices paid directly by consumers .
But he has yet to put in place any meaningful reforms , in large part because he and his aides have never settled on a coherent plan and pursued it consistently .
This is a recurring theme of his presidency , and reveals the limits of governance by instinct , erratic improvisation , and the roar of the crowd .
The administration responded to the refusal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s wishes by—what else—issuing an executive order .
It calls for benchmarking U.S. prices to what is paid in other advanced economies for the same therapies .
While the administration says the directive is proof of the president ’ s willingness to take on a powerful industry , it actually reveals his ineffectiveness .
The new order is an attempt to suggest that a workable plan is just around the corner—but that ’ s far from true .
In time , this ploy will underwhelm too .
Back in mid-2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” that seemed to offer a plan for reducing drug prices , but it rested on the dubious assumption that middlemen—namely pharmacy benefit managers , or PBMs—are the real villains in this story .
PBMs are hired by employers and Medicare drug plans to negotiate pricing with the manufacturers .
They are often paid based on the size of the rebates they are able to secure .
Rebates are payments that manufacturers make tied to the volume of sales of their products ; they usually occur after consumers have secured their prescriptions at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue that the rebate system produces higher overall costs because PBMs ask for rebates that increase with higher prices .
The chief actuary of Medicare disagrees ; in 2018 , he estimated that elimination of rebates would increase overall drug costs .
That was enough to convince the president to walk away from this idea after the Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS ) had spent months preparing to implement it .
With the rebate rule shelved ( it turns out temporarily ) , the administration then proposed to tie drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid in other advanced economies .
In late 2018 , HHS rolled out a preliminary plan for testing the scheme , and in 2019 administration officials tried to get Republicans in Congress to support a legislative version in a bill that both parties were assembling in the Senate Finance Committee .
That proved to be a non-starter , as Republican senators viewed it as an endorsement of the regulated pricing schemes of nationalized health systems .
The realization that the president was nearing the end of his term with nothing significant to point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scramble to coerce cost-sharing assistance out of the industry .
The president issued a series of executive orders in July , including one revisiting the previously shelved rebate rule .
It calls on HHS to require the savings from rebates to be applied to beneficiary cost-sharing payments in the Medicare drug benefit .
The president also threatened to move forward with tying drug payments in Medicare to an index of international prices , but only after giving the industry a month to come up with an acceptable alternative plan .
With the ill-fated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the administration says it will move forward with its agenda through regulations .
That means it will need to promulgate new rules , take comments from the public , defend their plans in court , and react to what the industry does to avoid their effects ( such as manipulating their prices practices internationally to avoid lowering their revenue from U.S. sales ) .
This is a process that will take many years to run its course .
The only thing certain in all of this is that , contrary to what Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay less for prescription drugs this year , or even over the coming year or two .
And the prospect for better results if Trump is re-elected are not great either .

According to the New York Times, in July and August, President Trump pursued one last (and probably illegal) gambit with the pharmaceutical industry to deliver lower prices to consumers.
He and his aides used the threat of pricing tied to an international benchmark to coerce the industry to agree to provide direct assistance to Medicare beneficiaries. The Times reports that major pharmaceutical companies were prepared to pay for $150 billion worth of cost-sharing relief for senior citizens if the administration halted its price-benchmarking plan. It is not clear from the story how the drug companies could provide such assistance under current law.
That wasn’t enough for Trump. He and his aides wanted drug discount cards—worth $100 apiece—delivered in October to every Medicare beneficiary. Medicare has 62.6 million enrollees in 2020, so this scheme would have required a one-time, $6.3 billion payment from the companies.
The industry’s negotiators balked at this request, and the deal fell through.
Two points are worth emphasizing about this remarkable episode.
First, this extraconstitutional behavior would have shocked the political world had it been attempted in a previous era. The executive branch was trying to force a private industry to pay for direct assistance to public program enrollees, one month before a national election. It seems not to have occurred to anyone at the White House that perhaps this was a matter that required legislation and a legitimate federal appropriation. If Congress wanted to create such a program, and make the industry pay for it, it could do so by imposing a tax and using the proceeds for this purpose.
Second, Trump and his aides seem incapable of deciding what it is that they want on drug costs. If the reporting is accurate, the industry was prepared to pay for substantial pricing relief for seniors, and thus deliver a victory for the president at a crucial moment in his term. And yet the administration couldn’t take yes for an answer. Top White House officials insisted on a request that was so outlandish that the industry had little choice but to reject it. The collapse has left the president with nothing to tout on drug pricing.
This latest failed negotiation with pharmaceutical companies fits a pattern. The president came into office saying he would deliver where his predecessors fell short, by lowering prices paid directly by consumers. But he has yet to put in place any meaningful reforms, in large part because he and his aides have never settled on a coherent plan and pursued it consistently. This is a recurring theme of his presidency, and reveals the limits of governance by instinct, erratic improvisation, and the roar of the crowd.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The administration responded to the refusal of the drug companies to succumb to the president’s wishes by—what else—issuing an executive order. It calls for benchmarking U.S. prices to what is paid in other advanced economies for the same therapies. While the administration says the directive is proof of the president’s willingness to take on a powerful industry, it actually reveals his ineffectiveness. The new order is an attempt to suggest that a workable plan is just around the corner—but that’s far from true. In time, this ploy will underwhelm too.
Back in mid-2018, the administration released a “blueprint” that seemed to offer a plan for reducing drug prices, but it rested on the dubious assumption that middlemen—namely pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs—are the real villains in this story.
PBMs are hired by employers and Medicare drug plans to negotiate pricing with the manufacturers. They are often paid based on the size of the rebates they are able to secure. Rebates are payments that manufacturers make tied to the volume of sales of their products; they usually occur after consumers have secured their prescriptions at higher pre-rebate prices.
Some administration officials argue that the rebate system produces higher overall costs because PBMs ask for rebates that increase with higher prices. The chief actuary of Medicare disagrees; in 2018, he estimated that elimination of rebates would increase overall drug costs. That was enough to convince the president to walk away from this idea after the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had spent months preparing to implement it.
With the rebate rule shelved (it turns out temporarily), the administration then proposed to tie drug prices in the United States to those paid in other advanced economies. In late 2018, HHS rolled out a preliminary plan for testing the scheme, and in 2019 administration officials tried to get Republicans in Congress to support a legislative version in a bill that both parties were assembling in the Senate Finance Committee. That proved to be a non-starter, as Republican senators viewed it as an endorsement of the regulated pricing schemes of nationalized health systems.
The realization that the president was nearing the end of his term with nothing significant to point to on drug pricing motivated the last-minute scramble to coerce cost-sharing assistance out of the industry. The president issued a series of executive orders in July, including one revisiting the previously shelved rebate rule. It calls on HHS to require the savings from rebates to be applied to beneficiary cost-sharing payments in the Medicare drug benefit. The president also threatened to move forward with tying drug payments in Medicare to an index of international prices, but only after giving the industry a month to come up with an acceptable alternative plan.
With the ill-fated talks with the industry now over, the administration says it will move forward with its agenda through regulations. That means it will need to promulgate new rules, take comments from the public, defend their plans in court, and react to what the industry does to avoid their effects (such as manipulating their prices practices internationally to avoid lowering their revenue from U.S. sales). This is a process that will take many years to run its course.
The only thing certain in all of this is that, contrary to what Trump promised in 2016, consumers will not pay less for prescription drugs this year, or even over the coming year or two. And the prospects for better results if Trump is re-elected are not great either.


thebulwark--2020-09-24--Resurrecting the Refugee Resettlement Program

With a Supreme Court nomination on the line , fires consuming the West Coast , and a pandemic still producing nearly 1,000 deaths a day across the country , the plight of 80 million displaced people worldwide may seem distant and unsolvable to most voters .
Over the last three and half years , however , the United States has done the unthinkable for a nation once regarded as the world ’ s ultimate beacon of liberty : We have all but shut our doors to vulnerable refugees , including those whose plight has worsened because of decisions made by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their homes during the long , murderous assault by Bashar al Assad , Venezuelans who are literally starving because of the policies of Nikolas Maduro , Sudanese fleeing civil war and inter-ethnic violence , or Rohingya forced out of their homes by genocidal assaults from the ruling government in Myanmar , these refugees have found the doors to resettlement in the U.S. largely shut since Trump took office .
Although the administration set a ceiling of 20,000 refugees for 2020 , a low in the 40-year history of the program , the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June , down from nearly 85,000 during President Obama ’ s last year in office .
And with the pandemic giving Trump an excuse to bar pretty much anyone or any group he chooses , maybe it is no surprise that he has yet to inform Congress how many refugees the U.S. will continue to accept .
The Niskanen Center , where I serve as a senior fellow , has just released a report on Restoring the United States ’ Refugee Resettlement Program that argues that refugee resettlement is not only a humanitarian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Refugee resettlement has traditionally been a bipartisan issue since its inception in 1980 .
In response to the tragedy of the Vietnamese Boat People driven from their homeland in the aftermath of the Vietnam War , Congress authorized a programto admit and give financial and other support to some 207,000 people that year .
While the numbers have fluctuated with the need and the political atmosphere ( they declined sharply after 9/11 ) , they have nonetheless been the most generous in the world until this administration .
President Trump set his sights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his tenure : his first executive order purporting to institute a Muslim ban also attempted to stop all refugees from being admitted .
While the courts overturned and the administration withdrew the outright ban on Muslims ( though its aims have largely been accomplished through other means ) , refugee resettlement continued , though at a much-reduced pace .
The composition of the refugee flow was telling .
In the last year of Obama ’ s presidency , Muslims and Christian refugees were settled in roughly equal numbers ( 46 percent from each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump had reduced the numbers of Muslims admitted to 16 percent and increased the percentage of Christians to 79 percent .
And for the first time , the administration prioritized those fleeing persecution on the basis of religion in 2020 , thereby downgrading race , ethnic group , nationality , or membership in a particular social or political group as factors .
The president ’ s executive order also let state and local governments decide whether or not they would accept refugees for the first time in the program ’ s history .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ both ugly and gratuitous as the federal government itself provides direct assistance to refugees through non-governmental organizations like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops , Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service , Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society , and International Rescue Committee .
Nonetheless , as the Niskanen report suggests , the program itself could do with some changes to make it more effective , including enhanced community involvement in the resettlement process .
The programs should also become more strategic , serving not only U.S. interests but those of our international partners .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be an improvement for the program as it currently exists .
One of the most disgraceful aspects of the Trump administration ’ s policy has been the near abandonment of those who have assisted us in Iraq , Afghanistan , and Syria where we abandoned our Kurdish allies in 2018 .
In 2019 , the U.S. admitted only 330 Afghan , 234 Iraqi , and 286 Syrian refugees .
There are other ways for those who have specifically aided us to be admitted , but these too fall far short of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enacted by Congress to help local translators and others who assisted in Iraq and Afghanistan resettle in the U.S. after our large troop withdrawals in both countries has also been marred by inefficiency as well as lack of enthusiasm from the Trump administration .
There is presently a huge backlog of Afghans who have applied for the visas but can not enter .
Given Trump ’ s suspicion of Muslims who want to live in the U.S. and his shift toward admitting mostly Christian refugees , however , it is doubtful that those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us will see that loyalty repaid anytime soon .
The pandemic gives the administration an excuse not to welcome refugees , but even during the pandemic it is possible to limit the risk of spreading disease .
But the greater risk to American security is the administration ’ s hostility to refugees generally ( and some refugees more than others ) .
Testing those who would be admitted , enforcing a quarantine on their arrival , and ensuring they follow proper pandemic protocols—even if Trump and his followers routinely ignore them—could allow the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to those fleeing persecution .
At the very least , the administration should come clean and report to Congress its intentions for admitting refugees next year , and Congress should insist the administration do so before the end of the fiscal year September 30 .
It ’ s the law , after all .

With a Supreme Court nomination on the line, fires consuming the West Coast, and a pandemic still producing nearly 1,000 deaths a day across the country, the plight of 80 million displaced people worldwide may seem distant and unsolvable to most voters. Over the last three and half years, however, the United States has done the unthinkable for a nation once regarded as the world’s ultimate beacon of liberty: We have all but shut our doors to vulnerable refugees, including those whose plight has worsened because of decisions made by Donald Trump.
Whether Syrians who fled their homes during the long, murderous assault by Bashar al Assad, Venezuelans who are literally starving because of the policies of Nikolas Maduro, Sudanese fleeing civil war and inter-ethnic violence, or Rohingya forced out of their homes by genocidal assaults from the ruling government in Myanmar, these refugees have found the doors to resettlement in the U.S. largely shut since Trump took office. Although the administration set a ceiling of 20,000 refugees for 2020, a low in the 40-year history of the program, the U.S. has actually accepted fewer than 8,000 through June, down from nearly 85,000 during President Obama’s last year in office. And with the pandemic giving Trump an excuse to bar pretty much anyone or any group he chooses, maybe it is no surprise that he has yet to inform Congress how many refugees the U.S. will continue to accept.
The Niskanen Center, where I serve as a senior fellow, has just released a report on Restoring the United States’ Refugee Resettlement Program that argues that refugee resettlement is not only a humanitarian issue but is good for America. Refugee resettlement has traditionally been a bipartisan issue since its inception in 1980. In response to the tragedy of the Vietnamese Boat People driven from their homeland in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, Congress authorized a programto admit and give financial and other support to some 207,000 people that year. While the numbers have fluctuated with the need and the political atmosphere (they declined sharply after 9/11), they have nonetheless been the most generous in the world until this administration.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
President Trump set his sights on eliminating the refugee program early in his tenure: his first executive order purporting to institute a Muslim ban also attempted to stop all refugees from being admitted. While the courts overturned and the administration withdrew the outright ban on Muslims (though its aims have largely been accomplished through other means), refugee resettlement continued, though at a much-reduced pace.
The composition of the refugee flow was telling. In the last year of Obama’s presidency, Muslims and Christian refugees were settled in roughly equal numbers (46 percent from each group), but by 2019, Trump had reduced the numbers of Muslims admitted to 16 percent and increased the percentage of Christians to 79 percent. And for the first time, the administration prioritized those fleeing persecution on the basis of religion in 2020, thereby downgrading race, ethnic group, nationality, or membership in a particular social or political group as factors.
The president’s executive order also let state and local governments decide whether or not they would accept refugees for the first time in the program’s history. Only Texas opted out—but the precedent was both ugly and gratuitous as the federal government itself provides direct assistance to refugees through non-governmental organizations like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and International Rescue Committee.
Nonetheless, as the Niskanen report suggests, the program itself could do with some changes to make it more effective, including enhanced community involvement in the resettlement process. The programs should also become more strategic, serving not only U.S. interests but those of our international partners.
But even serving the interests of the government would be an improvement for the program as it currently exists. One of the most disgraceful aspects of the Trump administration’s policy has been the near abandonment of those who have assisted us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria where we abandoned our Kurdish allies in 2018. In 2019, the U.S. admitted only 330 Afghan, 234 Iraqi, and 286 Syrian refugees. There are other ways for those who have specifically aided us to be admitted, but these too fall far short of the need. The Special Immigrant Visa program enacted by Congress to help local translators and others who assisted in Iraq and Afghanistan resettle in the U.S. after our large troop withdrawals in both countries has also been marred by inefficiency as well as lack of enthusiasm from the Trump administration. There is presently a huge backlog of Afghans who have applied for the visas but cannot enter. Given Trump’s suspicion of Muslims who want to live in the U.S. and his shift toward admitting mostly Christian refugees, however, it is doubtful that those who have risked their lives to help us will see that loyalty repaid anytime soon.
The pandemic gives the administration an excuse not to welcome refugees, but even during the pandemic it is possible to limit the risk of spreading disease. But the greater risk to American security is the administration’s hostility to refugees generally (and some refugees more than others). Testing those who would be admitted, enforcing a quarantine on their arrival, and ensuring they follow proper pandemic protocols—even if Trump and his followers routinely ignore them—could allow the United States to continue to offer refuge to those fleeing persecution.
At the very least, the administration should come clean and report to Congress its intentions for admitting refugees next year, and Congress should insist the administration do so before the end of the fiscal year September 30. It’s the law, after all.


thebulwark--2020-09-24--What Is To Be Done?

What Is To Be Done?

The election is approaching .
The president is spreading disinformation about the vote ; he ’ s trying to suppress some votes ; he ’ s exploring ways to disrupt or distort the counting of the votes ; and he ’ s refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he nonetheless loses the vote .
What is to be done ?
( 1 ) Ignore the voices of worldly complacency or pseudo-sophisticated reassurance .
Yes , maybe it ’ s just talk .
Maybe he won ’ t really try anything serious .
Maybe he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he tried .
Maybe the system would hold even if he did try .
Or maybe not .
It all sure seems alarming .
So maybe we should be alarmed .
Better safe than sorry .
So everyone : Sound the alarm .
Put the country , the media , the voters , state and local election officials , elected officials at all levels of government , and the individuals who matter in the federal government on notice .
Suitably alarmed , they can act in appropriate ways to mitigate the danger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most straightforward thing to be done .
( 2 ) It would also be very useful to get others who haven ’ t so far been in the camp of the alarmed to say now , out loud , that they ’ re alarmed .
One thinks of people who ’ ve served in the Trump administration , who have said things privately , but haven ’ t yet come forward .
One thinks of people who ’ ve served in previous administrations who haven ’ t yet spoken up .
One thinks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also current—at both state and federal levels .
And one thinks especially of those who are Republicans , whose remarks can ’ t simply be written off as partisanship .
So I ’ d say to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney , to Jim Mattis and John Kelly and Dan Coats—the time has passed when speaking out against Trump was a tough question or a close call .
The danger is now near enough and real enough that duty surely compels it .
( 3 ) What of those still in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in averting a disaster ?
I appeal to them to be ready .
Be prepared .
Coordinate privately with others you trust .
If you serve in the Trump administration now , it could eventually fall upon you , whether you ’ re serving in DOJ or DOD or DNI or DHS—or even in the White House—to decide whether to cooperate with an illegal order or an anti-Constitutional scheme .
Plan now for what you would do in such a situation to publicize what is being done in the shadows , to thwart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of law and of the Constitution .
Be prepared .
Discuss this discreetly now with others who might cooperate in averting disaster .
Be ready to speak up and to act .
The odds are such actions may not be necessary .
But we can ’ t be sure .
And when the stakes are so high , then even a small chance of calamity should be taken seriously .

The election is approaching. The president is spreading disinformation about the vote; he’s trying to suppress some votes; he’s exploring ways to disrupt or distort the counting of the votes; and he’s refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he nonetheless loses the vote.
What is to be done?
(1) Ignore the voices of worldly complacency or pseudo-sophisticated reassurance. Yes, maybe it’s just talk. Maybe he won’t really try anything serious. Maybe he’s too incompetent to get away with it if he tried. Maybe the system would hold even if he did try.
Or maybe not. It all sure seems alarming. So maybe we should be alarmed. Better safe than sorry.
So everyone: Sound the alarm. Put the country, the media, the voters, state and local election officials, elected officials at all levels of government, and the individuals who matter in the federal government on notice. Suitably alarmed, they can act in appropriate ways to mitigate the danger.
That’s the first and most straightforward thing to be done.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
(2) It would also be very useful to get others who haven’t so far been in the camp of the alarmed to say now, out loud, that they’re alarmed.
One thinks of people who’ve served in the Trump administration, who have said things privately, but haven’t yet come forward.
One thinks of people who’ve served in previous administrations who haven’t yet spoken up.
One thinks of a variety of elected officials—former but also current—at both state and federal levels.
And one thinks especially of those who are Republicans, whose remarks can’t simply be written off as partisanship.
So I’d say to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, to Jim Mattis and John Kelly and Dan Coats—the time has passed when speaking out against Trump was a tough question or a close call. The danger is now near enough and real enough that duty surely compels it.
(3) What of those still in the Trump administration who could play a role in averting a disaster?
I appeal to them to be ready. Be prepared. Coordinate privately with others you trust. If you serve in the Trump administration now, it could eventually fall upon you, whether you’re serving in DOJ or DOD or DNI or DHS—or even in the White House—to decide whether to cooperate with an illegal order or an anti-Constitutional scheme.
Plan now for what you would do in such a situation to publicize what is being done in the shadows, to thwart illegal activities, to save the rule of law and of the Constitution. Be prepared. Discuss this discreetly now with others who might cooperate in averting disaster. Be ready to speak up and to act.
The odds are such actions may not be necessary. But we can’t be sure.
And when the stakes are so high, then even a small chance of calamity should be taken seriously.


thebulwark--2020-09-24--Trump’s Desperate, Extraconstitutional, and Probably Illegal Ploy to Lower Drug Prices

According to the New York Times , in July and August , President Trump pursued one last ( and probably illegal ) gambit with the pharmaceutical industry to deliver lower prices to consumers .
He and his aides used the threat of pricing tied to an international benchmark to coerce the industry to agree to provide direct assistance to Medicare beneficiaries .
The Times reports that major pharmaceutical companies were prepared to pay for $ 150 billion worth of cost-sharing relief for senior citizens if the administration halted its price-benchmarking plan .
It is not clear from the story how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under current law .
That wasn ’ t enough for Trump .
He and his aides wanted drug discount cards—worth $ 100 apiece—delivered in October to every Medicare beneficiary .
Medicare has 62.6 million enrollees in 2020 , so this scheme would have required a one-time , $ 6.3 billion payment from the companies .
The industry ’ s negotiators balked at this request , and the deal fell through .
Two points are worth emphasizing about this remarkable episode .
First , this extraconstitutional behavior would have shocked the political world had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The executive branch was trying to force a private industry to pay for direct assistance to public program enrollees , one month before a national election .
It seems not to have occurred to anyone at the White House that perhaps this was a matter that required legislation and a legitimate federal appropriation .
If Congress wanted to create such a program , and make the industry pay for it , it could do so by imposing a tax and using the proceeds for this purpose .
Second , Trump and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that they want on drug costs .
If the reporting is accurate , the industry was prepared to pay for substantial pricing relief for seniors , and thus deliver a victory for the president at a crucial moment in his term .
And yet the administration couldn ’ t take yes for an answer .
Top White House officials insisted on a request that was so outlandish that the industry had little choice but to reject it .
The collapse has left the president with nothing to tout on drug pricing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fits a pattern .
The president came into office saying he would deliver where his predecessors fell short , by lowering prices paid directly by consumers .
But he has yet to put in place any meaningful reforms , in large part because he and his aides have never settled on a coherent plan and pursued it consistently .
This is a recurring theme of his presidency , and reveals the limits of governance by instinct , erratic improvisation , and the roar of the crowd .
The administration responded to the refusal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president ’ s wishes by—what else—issuing an executive order .
It calls for benchmarking U.S. prices to what is paid in other advanced economies for the same therapies .
While the administration says the directive is proof of the president ’ s willingness to take on a powerful industry , it actually reveals his ineffectiveness .
The new order is an attempt to suggest that a workable plan is just around the corner—but that ’ s far from true .
In time , this ploy will underwhelm too .
Back in mid-2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” that seemed to offer a plan for reducing drug prices , but it rested on the dubious assumption that middlemen—namely pharmacy benefit managers , or PBMs—are the real villains in this story .
PBMs are hired by employers and Medicare drug plans to negotiate pricing with the manufacturers .
They are often paid based on the size of the rebates they are able to secure .
Rebates are payments that manufacturers make tied to the volume of sales of their products ; they usually occur after consumers have secured their prescriptions at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue that the rebate system produces higher overall costs because PBMs ask for rebates that increase with higher prices .
The chief actuary of Medicare disagrees ; in 2018 , he estimated that elimination of rebates would increase overall drug costs .
That was enough to convince the president to walk away from this idea after the Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS ) had spent months preparing to implement it .
With the rebate rule shelved ( it turns out temporarily ) , the administration then proposed to tie drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid in other advanced economies .
In late 2018 , HHS rolled out a preliminary plan for testing the scheme , and in 2019 administration officials tried to get Republicans in Congress to support a legislative version in a bill that both parties were assembling in the Senate Finance Committee .
That proved to be a non-starter , as Republican senators viewed it as an endorsement of the regulated pricing schemes of nationalized health systems .
The realization that the president was nearing the end of his term with nothing significant to point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scramble to coerce cost-sharing assistance out of the industry .
The president issued a series of executive orders in July , including one revisiting the previously shelved rebate rule .
It calls on HHS to require the savings from rebates to be applied to beneficiary cost-sharing payments in the Medicare drug benefit .
The president also threatened to move forward with tying drug payments in Medicare to an index of international prices , but only after giving the industry a month to come up with an acceptable alternative plan .
With the ill-fated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the administration says it will move forward with its agenda through regulations .
That means it will need to promulgate new rules , take comments from the public , defend their plans in court , and react to what the industry does to avoid their effects ( such as manipulating their prices practices internationally to avoid lowering their revenue from U.S. sales ) .
This is a process that will take many years to run its course .
The only thing certain in all of this is that , contrary to what Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay less for prescription drugs this year , or even over the coming year or two .
And the prospects for better results if Trump is re-elected are not great either .


thebulwark--2020-09-25--Will We Heed Tocqueville’s Warnings?

Will We Heed Tocqueville’s Warnings?

As we enter the last stretch before the 2020 elections , the future of American democracy appears to be in question .
The country seems divided into irreconcilable political camps and is struggling to come to terms with growing economic inequality and the long legacy of discrimination .
Violence and unrest have added to the fear and uncertainty unleashed by the pandemic .
Nobody can predict what will happen after the elections .
Yet , history offers some clues about how America should address its daunting challenges .
Alexis de Tocqueville , whose Democracy in America is arguably both the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book on America , might be unsurprised by the current crisis .
He might , in fact , have useful advice for resolving it .
When Tocqueville visited America in 1831-32 , he was impressed to find a functioning democracy based on a vibrant civil society and strong tradition of self-government .
America , he hoped , could serve as a model for other countries around the world .
Yet , only two decades later , arguments over slavery and states ’ rights were dividing the country , and by the time James @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stood on the brink of civil war .
Tocqueville died in 1859 and did not witness the Civil War .
What would he say about us if he visited America today ?
A rereading of Tocqueville ’ s Democracy in America and his correspondence with his American friends in the 1850s might provide some clues .
His letters from that period suggest that many of the dangers he warned about in Democracy in America had come to pass .
For example , he had cautioned that the concentration of wealth in a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unchecked , could threaten the future of democracy .
He also warned that the quest for wealth could encourage an excessive commercialism that would fuel boundless desires and unbridled materialism .
Today , Tocqueville ’ s premonitions have become a reality .
The top one percent possess nearly a third of the nation ’ s total wealth and use their money and power to influence government economic policy in their favor .
The exponential growth in economic inequality is marginalizing America ’ s middle and working classes .
Our billionaire “ aristocrats ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but through their control of finance , high tech , real estate , and communications companies in global markets .
Many of them have seen their stocks shoot upward during the current pandemic .
The gap between Wall Street and Main Street has increased despite the economic havoc and rising unemployment caused by COVID-19 .
Tocqueville admired America ’ s embrace of “ self-interest properly understood ” and self-government based on combining individual freedom with civic solidarity and community service .
He believed that they helped curb extreme forms of individualism and allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the local level .
Americans pooled their resources and skills to provide schools , roads , security , and other public services .
Today , self-interest “ properly understood ” is on the wane , the art of association in decline , and the polarization and unraveling of communities on the rise .
Tocqueville hoped that religion would restrain the excessive quest for wealth and comfort and remind individuals of their obligations to others .
America ’ s commitment to religious freedom and separation of church and state avoided public clashes over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow their own paths .
Today , however , organized religion has become highly polarized and politicized , as reflected in the sharp divisions between orthodox and heterdox forces within different denominations .
These forces , which tend respectively to align politically with conservatives and liberals , push the federal government to pass laws reflecting their views on divisive issues such as abortion , gay rights , social justice , and the role of government .
Religious intolerance , Islamophobia , and anti-Semitism are also on the rise , making religion a highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1830s , Tocqueville saw race and slavery as having corrupting effects on American democracy .
By the late 1850s , he came to believe that the corruption of democratic institutions and mores caused by these factors was a great threat to the future of the republic .
Although slavery is gone today , racism remains a powerful and divisive force in American politics and a major cause of polarization .
The murder of George Floyd was viewed by millions of Americans .
While it caused especial pain to African Americans , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throughout the country calling for fairer treatment for minorities .
Although the upsurge in racism and anti-foreigner sentiment would not have surprised Tocqueville , he would be concerned by trends similar to those that undermined democracy in America in the 1850s .
Then , America witnessed a ruthless competition for power and attacks on political opponents and their supporters , couched in hyperbolic and uncivil rhetoric .
These factors fostered an intolerant and lawless spirit that manifested in violence in some parts of the country .
Returning to America today , Tocqueville would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and lack of dialogue that prevent serious political debate .
Social media has fueled hyperpartisanship and ideological intransigence .
Anyone watching cable news or following President Trump ’ s immoderate tweets notices the rise of a debased political discourse that verges on extremism and conveys little information .
The line between real facts and alternative facts has become blurry .
The decline of local newspapers and the growth of concentrated media power , concerned with ratings and profits over accurate reporting , are an unfortunate reality .
Tocqueville would also deplore the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule of law and eliminate checks and balances .
Both are sacred principles at the core of the U.S. Constitution designed to protect individual rights and freedoms and prevent excessive concentration of power in any single branch of government .
Moreover , Tocqueville also would be concerned by the deep divisions in the country today .
Red states , yearning for a bygone past , seem to have little in common with Blue states , rapidly reshaping themselves to the perceived realities of the twenty-first century .
The international scene doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like in the 1850s , America ’ s image as a model of equality and freedom for other countries aspiring to democracy has lately been tarnished .
This should concern all the friends of liberty in America and around the world .
Democracy is under attack by increasingly despotic regimes in Russia , China , India , Turkey , Brazil , Venezuela , and Iran .
The enemies of democracy take comfort in America ’ s troubles and Trump ’ s irresponsible encouragement of radical extremists at home and dictatorships abroad .
America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether to continue being a beacon of freedom and democracy or align with despots around the world .
While the country has in recent years given little satisfaction to the friends of freedom , common sense may yet prevail .
America has demonstrated its resilience in overcoming political and economic decline in the past .
Can the country do it again ?
It would not be the first time .
In 1852 , Tocqueville believed that American democracy had “ nothing more to fear than from itself , from the abuse of democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , from the sense and exaggerated pride in its strength , and from the impetuosity of youth.
” He recommended that America tried to overcome its divisions through moderation and a return to its founding principles .
His advice was not followed then .
and the price paid was high .
If today ’ s Americans are wise enough to heed Tocqueville ’ s suggestions , their country might once again become a model of democracy for all the world .

As we enter the last stretch before the 2020 elections, the future of American democracy appears to be in question. The country seems divided into irreconcilable political camps and is struggling to come to terms with growing economic inequality and the long legacy of discrimination. Violence and unrest have added to the fear and uncertainty unleashed by the pandemic. Nobody can predict what will happen after the elections. Yet, history offers some clues about how America should address its daunting challenges. Alexis de Tocqueville, whose Democracy in America is arguably both the best book on democracy and the best book on America, might be unsurprised by the current crisis. He might, in fact, have useful advice for resolving it.
When Tocqueville visited America in 1831-32, he was impressed to find a functioning democracy based on a vibrant civil society and strong tradition of self-government. America, he hoped, could serve as a model for other countries around the world. Yet, only two decades later, arguments over slavery and states’ rights were dividing the country, and by the time James Buchanan became president in 1857, America stood on the brink of civil war. Tocqueville died in 1859 and did not witness the Civil War. What would he say about us if he visited America today?
A rereading of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America and his correspondence with his American friends in the 1850s might provide some clues. His letters from that period suggest that many of the dangers he warned about in Democracy in America had come to pass. For example, he had cautioned that the concentration of wealth in a new “industrial aristocracy,” if left unchecked, could threaten the future of democracy. He also warned that the quest for wealth could encourage an excessive commercialism that would fuel boundless desires and unbridled materialism.
Today, Tocqueville’s premonitions have become a reality. The top one percent possess nearly a third of the nation’s total wealth and use their money and power to influence government economic policy in their favor. The exponential growth in economic inequality is marginalizing America’s middle and working classes. Our billionaire “aristocrats” amass their great wealth not in manufacturing but through their control of finance, high tech, real estate, and communications companies in global markets. Many of them have seen their stocks shoot upward during the current pandemic. The gap between Wall Street and Main Street has increased despite the economic havoc and rising unemployment caused by COVID-19.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Tocqueville admired America’s embrace of “self-interest properly understood” and self-government based on combining individual freedom with civic solidarity and community service. He believed that they helped curb extreme forms of individualism and allowed Americans to form effective associations and institutions at the local level. Americans pooled their resources and skills to provide schools, roads, security, and other public services. Today, self-interest “properly understood” is on the wane, the art of association in decline, and the polarization and unraveling of communities on the rise.
Tocqueville hoped that religion would restrain the excessive quest for wealth and comfort and remind individuals of their obligations to others. America’s commitment to religious freedom and separation of church and state avoided public clashes over religious issues and enabled religious minorities to follow their own paths. Today, however, organized religion has become highly polarized and politicized, as reflected in the sharp divisions between orthodox and heterdox forces within different denominations. These forces, which tend respectively to align politically with conservatives and liberals, push the federal government to pass laws reflecting their views on divisive issues such as abortion, gay rights, social justice, and the role of government. Religious intolerance, Islamophobia, and anti-Semitism are also on the rise, making religion a highly polarizing issue in American politics.
In the 1830s, Tocqueville saw race and slavery as having corrupting effects on American democracy. By the late 1850s, he came to believe that the corruption of democratic institutions and mores caused by these factors was a great threat to the future of the republic. Although slavery is gone today, racism remains a powerful and divisive force in American politics and a major cause of polarization. The murder of George Floyd was viewed by millions of Americans. While it caused especial pain to African Americans, it also motivated large-scale, multiracial protest demonstrations throughout the country calling for fairer treatment for minorities.
Although the upsurge in racism and anti-foreigner sentiment would not have surprised Tocqueville, he would be concerned by trends similar to those that undermined democracy in America in the 1850s. Then, America witnessed a ruthless competition for power and attacks on political opponents and their supporters, couched in hyperbolic and uncivil rhetoric. These factors fostered an intolerant and lawless spirit that manifested in violence in some parts of the country.
Returning to America today, Tocqueville would be dismayed at the ignorance, lies, and lack of dialogue that prevent serious political debate. Social media has fueled hyperpartisanship and ideological intransigence. Anyone watching cable news or following President Trump’s immoderate tweets notices the rise of a debased political discourse that verges on extremism and conveys little information. The line between real facts and alternative facts has become blurry. The decline of local newspapers and the growth of concentrated media power, concerned with ratings and profits over accurate reporting, are an unfortunate reality. Tocqueville would also deplore the abuse of executive power to subvert the rule of law and eliminate checks and balances. Both are sacred principles at the core of the U.S. Constitution designed to protect individual rights and freedoms and prevent excessive concentration of power in any single branch of government.
Moreover, Tocqueville also would be concerned by the deep divisions in the country today. Red states, yearning for a bygone past, seem to have little in common with Blue states, rapidly reshaping themselves to the perceived realities of the twenty-first century.
The international scene doesn’t offer reason for optimism either. Much like in the 1850s, America’s image as a model of equality and freedom for other countries aspiring to democracy has lately been tarnished. This should concern all the friends of liberty in America and around the world. Democracy is under attack by increasingly despotic regimes in Russia, China, India, Turkey, Brazil, Venezuela, and Iran. The enemies of democracy take comfort in America’s troubles and Trump’s irresponsible encouragement of radical extremists at home and dictatorships abroad.
America is facing a big choice today: whether to continue being a beacon of freedom and democracy or align with despots around the world. While the country has in recent years given little satisfaction to the friends of freedom, common sense may yet prevail. America has demonstrated its resilience in overcoming political and economic decline in the past. Can the country do it again?
It would not be the first time. In 1852, Tocqueville believed that American democracy had “nothing more to fear than from itself, from the abuse of democracy, the spirit of adventure and conquest, from the sense and exaggerated pride in its strength, and from the impetuosity of youth.” He recommended that America tried to overcome its divisions through moderation and a return to its founding principles. His advice was not followed then. and the price paid was high. If today’s Americans are wise enough to heed Tocqueville’s suggestions, their country might once again become a model of democracy for all the world.


Vaccine Victimhood

In case you hadn ’ t noticed , Donald Trump ’ s is a no-fault presidency .
No matter the problem , he is always the victim of not just circumstances but shadowy conspiracies designed to thwart his ambition and greatness .
It ’ s the Democrats , or the media , or China , or the “ deep state ” who are behind his problems .
This holds doubly true in the episode of the Trump soap opera dealing with the development and distribution of a ( hopefully ) forthcoming vaccine for the COVID-19 virus .
In his telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the fault is not in the stars , nor in Trump , but in a cabal of naysaying researchers and physicians bent on denying him a second term .
Before dealing with the paranoid and inflammatory ramblings of the president and his team , we should briefly lay out what the real challenges are in creating a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine .
Under normal circumstances , the hurdles imposed by both the government and the pharmaceutical companies are more than adequate to ensure that only vaccines that have proven both effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its own , the scientific challenge here is enormous .
Universities , businesses , and governments around the world are plowing vast financial and human resources into understanding the foundational mechanics of the virus .
( For a window into just how challenging this is , check out the This Week in Virology podcast . )
We are already familiar with many of the questions scientists have been investigating and debating about the spread of the disease : Droplet or aerosol transmission ?
Masks or goggles or both for protection ?
The kinds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less familiar : Given the virus ’ s structure and behavior in the human body , what is the best way to defeat it ?
What vaccine platform will be most effective—a whole virus , an live-attenuated virus , a protein subunit , DNA , or RNA ?
How long will protection last after vaccination ?
The kind of investigatory process needed to answer these questions requires uniting a massive , expensive , follow-all-leads ethos with grueling , unrelenting bench science and healthy doses of serendipitous discovery and skepticism .
This complicated , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ensures that conclusions and recommendations are correct and well-founded .
Which is to say , the process necessary for developing a vaccine is very ill suited to the improvisational presidency of Donald Trump , who has only ever had one schedule : now .
Trump is famously impatient with processes of all kinds .
He ’ s always sought short-cuts and end-runs in his business and political life , preferring the quick , flashy win over the slow , stodgy , “ three-yards and a cloud of dust ” progress that characterizes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of science .
The risk under such a president is not whether the Food and Drug Administration ’ s investigatory and regulatory regimes are stringent enough but whether Donald Trump will allow those processes to function in a way that respects the slow and often unsatisfactory scientific processes that we hope will ultimately lead to workable solutions .
On this point , the available evidence is not encouraging .
First , we have Bob Woodward ’ s recordings of the president acknowledging that , early in the crisis , he deliberately downplayed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it seems clear that the panic he had in mind was in the stock market rather than the public .
Then there has been his extraordinary reluctance to follow medical and scientific advice relating to masks and social distancing—a reluctance that has rippled out into a Republican governing class and public looking to him for leadership .
He ’ s also gotten cross-wise with scientific recommendations relating to drugs and other therapies .
The president talked up hydroxychloroquine and then convalescent plasma as huge breakthroughs , and successfully pushed the FDA to approve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both .
The hydroxychloroquine EUA was later withdrawn .
Blood plasma isn ’ t turning out to be a game-changer either .
What they share in common is an overreliance on salesmanship , a rush for answers , and shaky scientific foundations .
Beyond these two rear-view-mirror examples , we are being inflicted with innumerable media cycles that demonstrate how President Trump ’ s impatience with sound science has led to meddling in the development of federal recommendations and regulatory processes .
In July , news broke that the administration stripped the Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) of control over coronavirus data , instead directing it to political appointees in the Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services .
Interference in the CDC ’ s operations didn ’ t end there : Presidential appointees with little or no scientific background have unilaterally amended CDC recommendations on COVID-19 testing .
Just last week , following the sudden leave of absence of a troubled assistant secretary involved in the CDC testing recommendations , Alex Azar , the Secretary of Health and Human Services , announced that HHS was taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The department spokesperson downplayed this move , calling it mere “ housekeeping , ” but media reports suggest that this has been a fiercely contested issue between the FDA and HHS .
The reasons for the new restriction , while unclear , appear of a piece with an effort to subordinate scientific to political considerations .
At the very least , the decision is alarming coming from a president and administration that have not shown themselves overly concerned with the integrity of scientific investigation , advice-giving , or regulation .
Last but certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the criticism of those raising the alarm about these tendencies , actions , and behaviors—a bizarro I ’ m-rubber-you ’ re-glue suggestion that the critics , are , in fact , the ones who are anti-science and quite possibly anti-vaccination .
Bear in mind that Donald Trump ( and members of his administration and his supporters in the Senate ) have repeatedly expressed sympathy for actual anti-vaxxers who appear to make up a nontrivial portion of the GOP coalition .
Rather than doing the responsible thing and giving the vaccines-cause-autism wingers the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he does the Proud Boys and QAnoners : He winks , nods , expresses sympathy , and mutters about “ good people ” all to show that he ’ s on their side—not because they are right but because they are on his side , right or wrong .
In the end , this inverts the assertion that it is Trump ’ s opponents who will do and say anything to win .
The truth , as with so many of Trump ’ s attacks on his political adversaries , is the opposite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost or suffering to others .
Trump ’ s real problem regarding the vaccine—as it is for so many other matters—is not a “ deep state ” of scientists who are committed to his defeat .
It ’ s with the public , which , having watched his erratic management of the pandemic , registers massive doubt as to whether he can be trusted to act in their interest in the most important issue facing the country .
Trump ’ s self-generated credibility gap on vaccines is just another in a series of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kept .
As always , he wants to make himself the victim but he isn ’ t .
We are .

In case you hadn’t noticed, Donald Trump’s is a no-fault presidency. No matter the problem, he is always the victim of not just circumstances but shadowy conspiracies designed to thwart his ambition and greatness. It’s the Democrats, or the media, or China, or the “deep state” who are behind his problems. This holds doubly true in the episode of the Trump soap opera dealing with the development and distribution of a (hopefully) forthcoming vaccine for the COVID-19 virus. In his telling, and that of his right-wing echo-chamber, the fault is not in the stars, nor in Trump, but in a cabal of naysaying researchers and physicians bent on denying him a second term.
Before dealing with the paranoid and inflammatory ramblings of the president and his team, we should briefly lay out what the real challenges are in creating a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine. Under normal circumstances, the hurdles imposed by both the government and the pharmaceutical companies are more than adequate to ensure that only vaccines that have proven both effective and safe make it market.
On its own, the scientific challenge here is enormous. Universities, businesses, and governments around the world are plowing vast financial and human resources into understanding the foundational mechanics of the virus. (For a window into just how challenging this is, check out the This Week in Virology podcast.) We are already familiar with many of the questions scientists have been investigating and debating about the spread of the disease: Droplet or aerosol transmission? Masks or goggles or both for protection? The kinds of questions involved in preparing vaccines are less familiar: Given the virus’s structure and behavior in the human body, what is the best way to defeat it? What vaccine platform will be most effective—a whole virus, an live-attenuated virus, a protein subunit, DNA, or RNA? How long will protection last after vaccination? The kind of investigatory process needed to answer these questions requires uniting a massive, expensive, follow-all-leads ethos with grueling, unrelenting bench science and healthy doses of serendipitous discovery and skepticism. This complicated, messy process disciplines human insight and intuition and ensures that conclusions and recommendations are correct and well-founded.
Which is to say, the process necessary for developing a vaccine is very ill suited to the improvisational presidency of Donald Trump, who has only ever had one schedule: now. Trump is famously impatient with processes of all kinds. He’s always sought short-cuts and end-runs in his business and political life, preferring the quick, flashy win over the slow, stodgy, “three-yards and a cloud of dust” progress that characterizes most of ordinary life, including much of science. The risk under such a president is not whether the Food and Drug Administration’s investigatory and regulatory regimes are stringent enough but whether Donald Trump will allow those processes to function in a way that respects the slow and often unsatisfactory scientific processes that we hope will ultimately lead to workable solutions.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
On this point, the available evidence is not encouraging. First, we have Bob Woodward’s recordings of the president acknowledging that, early in the crisis, he deliberately downplayed the threat to prevent a panic, although it seems clear that the panic he had in mind was in the stock market rather than the public. Then there has been his extraordinary reluctance to follow medical and scientific advice relating to masks and social distancing—a reluctance that has rippled out into a Republican governing class and public looking to him for leadership. He’s also gotten cross-wise with scientific recommendations relating to drugs and other therapies. The president talked up hydroxychloroquine and then convalescent plasma as huge breakthroughs, and successfully pushed the FDA to approve Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for both. The hydroxychloroquine EUA was later withdrawn. Blood plasma isn’t turning out to be a game-changer either. What they share in common is an overreliance on salesmanship, a rush for answers, and shaky scientific foundations.
Beyond these two rear-view-mirror examples, we are being inflicted with innumerable media cycles that demonstrate how President Trump’s impatience with sound science has led to meddling in the development of federal recommendations and regulatory processes. In July, news broke that the administration stripped the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of control over coronavirus data, instead directing it to political appointees in the Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Interference in the CDC’s operations didn’t end there: Presidential appointees with little or no scientific background have unilaterally amended CDC recommendations on COVID-19 testing. Just last week, following the sudden leave of absence of a troubled assistant secretary involved in the CDC testing recommendations, Alex Azar, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, announced that HHS was taking rule-making power away from the FDA. The department spokesperson downplayed this move, calling it mere “housekeeping,” but media reports suggest that this has been a fiercely contested issue between the FDA and HHS. The reasons for the new restriction, while unclear, appear of a piece with an effort to subordinate scientific to political considerations. At the very least, the decision is alarming coming from a president and administration that have not shown themselves overly concerned with the integrity of scientific investigation, advice-giving, or regulation.
Last but certainly not least, there is an undertone in the criticism of those raising the alarm about these tendencies, actions, and behaviors—a bizarro I’m-rubber-you’re-glue suggestion that the critics, are, in fact, the ones who are anti-science and quite possibly anti-vaccination. Bear in mind that Donald Trump (and members of his administration and his supporters in the Senate) have repeatedly expressed sympathy for actual anti-vaxxers who appear to make up a nontrivial portion of the GOP coalition. Rather than doing the responsible thing and giving the vaccines-cause-autism wingers the boot, Trump has treated them like he does the Proud Boys and QAnoners: He winks, nods, expresses sympathy, and mutters about “good people” all to show that he’s on their side—not because they are right but because they are on his side, right or wrong. In the end, this inverts the assertion that it is Trump’s opponents who will do and say anything to win. The truth, as with so many of Trump’s attacks on his political adversaries, is the opposite: He must win no matter the cost or suffering to others.
Trump’s real problem regarding the vaccine—as it is for so many other matters—is not a “deep state” of scientists who are committed to his defeat. It’s with the public, which, having watched his erratic management of the pandemic, registers massive doubt as to whether he can be trusted to act in their interest in the most important issue facing the country. Trump’s self-generated credibility gap on vaccines is just another in a series of too many promises made and too few kept. As always, he wants to make himself the victim but he isn’t. We are.