thebulwark--2020-12-01--Mentally Seceding from the Union

Mentally Seceding from the Union

Having won the presidency of a deeply fractured nation , Joe Biden ’ s Thanksgiving Eve address was a call for reconciliation .
“ I believe this grim season of division and demonization is going to give way to a year of light and unity , ” he said .
The season truly is grim .
But to end it will require deep and sustained acts of statesmanship , to change how Americans see ourselves and our government .
When polls found seven in ten Republicans refusing to accept that Biden genuinely won the election , they were seen mainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pre- and post-election efforts to delegitimize the election itself .
But they also suggest a larger trend of delegitimizing election results .
One in three Democrats disbelieved Trump ’ s own victory in 2016 .
Still earlier , George Bush ’ s and Barack Obama ’ s legitimacy was long challenged by small but vocal groups of partisans .
Republicans ’ dramatic levels of mistrust of the 2020 election results surely reflects Trump ’ s unprecedented months-long attack on the elections themselves , including his post-election statements and lawsuits ; still , Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s election outcome builds on the skepticism of earlier years .
Elections take on a feel of civil war .
Beforehand , strategists prepare with “ war games , ” conjuring up nightmare scenarios of their opponent ’ s misdeeds , and then preparing as if they were a certainty .
Afterward , the losing side ’ s supporters seem increasingly comfortable with farfetched lawsuits—or worse—to delay or deny the results .
Finally , when the reality of defeat becomes undeniable , the losing side styles itself as a “ resistance ” movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its love of the American flag .
In October , Michael Gerson recognized that Trump was trying to talk Republicans into “ mental secession.
” If anything , he was too optimistic : The mental secessions had already occurred , among Republicans and Democrats alike .
We live and govern ourselves less as a single nation than as two rival nations on contested lands .
At any given moment , one nation is in power , while the other spends four years enduring it , resisting it , and looking forward to regime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way we live .
We increasingly segregate ourselves geographically into communities of shared values , as Bill Bishop documented a decade ago in The Big Sort .
And we segregate ourselves intellectually , relying heavily on politically or culturally inbred sources of information .
No wonder a presidential election ’ s losing side sees the winners like foreign occupiers—the two sides live in different worlds .
Mental secession is worsened by the way we govern ourselves .
Our Constitution originally entrusted lawmaking to Congress , so that our laws would be enacted through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sometimes over the course of years or decades .
Today , however , our government ’ s center of gravity is the administrative state , which makes law much more swiftly and unilaterally , and thus less moderately ; groups not part of the president ’ s political coalition have no substantial voice in governance , except when they sue to block the agencies ’ work .
Institutions that might dampen these problems are reinforcing them .
Detachment from our federal government would be less significant if we channeled our energies into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , charities , churches , or others .
But today even our civic and private institutions serve often as components of the red and blue confederacies into which we ’ ve seceded—either proxies for , or tools to be wielded in , the national power struggle .
As Gerson noted , Abraham Lincoln came to office urging that “ we must not be enemies.
” But a quarter century earlier , he saw secession ’ s subtle source : “ the alienation of [ Americans ’ ] affections ” with each other and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even if today we face no real risk of outright violence , it is good for President-elect Biden to decry “ this grim season of division , ” and to commit his presidency to healing those divides , before things get even worse .
But how ?
Many who decry “ division ” believe that the solution lies in “ fixing ” their opponents—changing what they can read , say , or think .
That approach will only intensify mental secession .
Instead , reunifying the nation will require extraordinary acts of statesmanship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first step , striving often to address Republicans as fellow countrymen , not domestic enemies .
But the next steps are harder .
Once in office , he will need to pursue major policies primarily through legislative deliberation and compromise , not just administrative decrees , to show that governance is more than just the assertion of power .
Such an approach will not win over Biden ’ s most reflexive Republican opponents .
And it will frustrate the most uncompromising members of his own party—especially after President Trump spent the last four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Presidential candidates often say they want to be president of “ all the people , ” but the tools of the presidency and the demands of the party always pull in the other direction .
The next year will almost surely not be one of “ light and unity.
” But if Biden commits himself to it , he can bring us one year closer to rebuilding our government , and our union .

Having won the presidency of a deeply fractured nation, Joe Biden’s Thanksgiving Eve address was a call for reconciliation. “I believe this grim season of division and demonization is going to give way to a year of light and unity,” he said.
The season truly is grim. But to end it will require deep and sustained acts of statesmanship, to change how Americans see ourselves and our government.
When polls found seven in ten Republicans refusing to accept that Biden genuinely won the election, they were seen mainly as evidence of President Trump’s pre- and post-election efforts to delegitimize the election itself. But they also suggest a larger trend of delegitimizing election results. One in three Democrats disbelieved Trump’s own victory in 2016. Still earlier, George Bush’s and Barack Obama’s legitimacy was long challenged by small but vocal groups of partisans. Republicans’ dramatic levels of mistrust of the 2020 election results surely reflects Trump’s unprecedented months-long attack on the elections themselves, including his post-election statements and lawsuits; still, Republicans’ willingness to delegitimize this year’s election outcome builds on the skepticism of earlier years.
Elections take on a feel of civil war. Beforehand, strategists prepare with “war games,” conjuring up nightmare scenarios of their opponent’s misdeeds, and then preparing as if they were a certainty. Afterward, the losing side’s supporters seem increasingly comfortable with farfetched lawsuits—or worse—to delay or deny the results. Finally, when the reality of defeat becomes undeniable, the losing side styles itself as a “resistance” movement, while the winning side suddenly rediscovers its love of the American flag.
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…
In October, Michael Gerson recognized that Trump was trying to talk Republicans into “mental secession.” If anything, he was too optimistic: The mental secessions had already occurred, among Republicans and Democrats alike. We live and govern ourselves less as a single nation than as two rival nations on contested lands. At any given moment, one nation is in power, while the other spends four years enduring it, resisting it, and looking forward to regime change.
Mental secession results from the way we live. We increasingly segregate ourselves geographically into communities of shared values, as Bill Bishop documented a decade ago in The Big Sort. And we segregate ourselves intellectually, relying heavily on politically or culturally inbred sources of information. No wonder a presidential election’s losing side sees the winners like foreign occupiers—the two sides live in different worlds.
Mental secession is worsened by the way we govern ourselves. Our Constitution originally entrusted lawmaking to Congress, so that our laws would be enacted through a checked-and-balanced process of deliberation and compromise, sometimes over the course of years or decades. Today, however, our government’s center of gravity is the administrative state, which makes law much more swiftly and unilaterally, and thus less moderately; groups not part of the president’s political coalition have no substantial voice in governance, except when they sue to block the agencies’ work.
Institutions that might dampen these problems are reinforcing them. Detachment from our federal government would be less significant if we channeled our energies into other attachments: state and local governments, charities, churches, or others. But today even our civic and private institutions serve often as components of the red and blue confederacies into which we’ve seceded—either proxies for, or tools to be wielded in, the national power struggle.
As Gerson noted, Abraham Lincoln came to office urging that “we must not be enemies.” But a quarter century earlier, he saw secession’s subtle source: “the alienation of [Americans’] affections” with each other and their government—that is, mental secession. Even if today we face no real risk of outright violence, it is good for President-elect Biden to decry “this grim season of division,” and to commit his presidency to healing those divides, before things get even worse.
But how? Many who decry “division” believe that the solution lies in “fixing” their opponents—changing what they can read, say, or think. That approach will only intensify mental secession. Instead, reunifying the nation will require extraordinary acts of statesmanship.
The president-elect already has taken the first step, striving often to address Republicans as fellow countrymen, not domestic enemies. But the next steps are harder. Once in office, he will need to pursue major policies primarily through legislative deliberation and compromise, not just administrative decrees, to show that governance is more than just the assertion of power.
Such an approach will not win over Biden’s most reflexive Republican opponents. And it will frustrate the most uncompromising members of his own party—especially after President Trump spent the last four years exemplifying the very opposite of statesmanship. Presidential candidates often say they want to be president of “all the people,” but the tools of the presidency and the demands of the party always pull in the other direction.
The next year will almost surely not be one of “light and unity.” But if Biden commits himself to it, he can bring us one year closer to rebuilding our government, and our union.


thebulwark--2020-12-01--The Real Reason to Nix Section 230

The Real Reason to Nix Section 230

On Thanksgiving , President Trump sent out an angry late-night tweet addressing a subject he previously weighed in on in late May , back when he was still at least ostensibly going about the work of being president .
The “ Section 230 ” the president referred to has long been a bugbear of conservatives .
The relevant part of Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 reads as follows : No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service shall be held liable on account of— ( A ) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene , lewd , lascivious , filthy , excessively violent , harassing , or otherwise objectionable , whether or not such material is constitutionally protected ; or ( B ) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph ( 1 ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ nascent medium from getting sued before it could blossom into its full potential .
In the quarter century since that legislation was enacted , the Internet has clearly blossomed—in some cases more like a cancer than a flower—and it is now clear that 230 , as it stands , has caused and continues to cause much more harm than good .
Trump ’ s intervention in May came in the form of an executive order—but it was too vague on policy to usher in the kind of unencumbered and uncensored “ free speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being denied on the platforms that enjoy 230 protections .
Still , focusing on the harm that 230 has caused was actually the right thing to do and reforming it is a somewhat urgent matter .
And while Trump ’ s Thanksgiving tweet doesn ’ t suggest that he ’ ll take any serious action—more likely he ’ ll be spending the remainder of his presidency doodling with his Sharpie all over the walls of the Oval Office—the problems caused by 230 deserve attention .
Defenders of Section 230 argue that without its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to provide their users the ability to share information freely .
That argument is specious .
Existing constitutional and legal protections—including the First Amendment—suffice to shield publishers from egregious litigation , and without 230 providers like Facebook who seem to function at once as publishers and platforms can still have some of their cake and eat some too ( more on that in a moment ) .
But Section 230 ’ s blanket protections that allow the tech firms to decide as it suits them when they are merely “ platforms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are “ publishers ” who get to moderate content is a level of absolution from responsibility that is not afforded any other medium or industry .
Without 230 , these companies would not be operating with their present wanton disregard for the public good .
This should not be a partisan issue .
Section 230 does not help the left .
Nor does it help the right .
It serves the interests of no one other than a very small handful of tech companies—and they can pivot to continue to operate successfully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s authors may have had the best of intentions , today the need to correct course is easy to see .
Perhaps back in 1996 the authors of the law couldn ’ t imagine how many bad-faith actors there would eventually be or how many Americans would prove gullible and susceptible to mis- and disinformation .
Now we know better .
There is immense harm done by granting everyone a bullhorn loud enough to reach the opposite ends of the Earth .
Consider what 230 means just for Facebook .
Facebook is known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conspiracy theories .
It is known for helping all flavors of crazies find one another and reinforce each other ’ s delusions .
It is known for having experimented on its users without obtaining their consent .
And thanks to Section 230 , Facebook doesn ’ t just wash its hands of the misinformation distributed via its network , disclaiming responsibility for it .
The company has spent billions of dollars fine-tuning technology that is specially designed to take unaccountable , intentionally misleading , and even potentially legally actionable information and deliver it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bamboozled by it .
And when the horrible results of this practice blow up we get pearl-clutching apologies : And what routinely follows the apologies ?
A ducking of responsibility , because Facebook is just a platform and therefore has no responsibility for what its users post .
Of course company execs regret playing part in a genocide—repeat that in your head a few times ; let it sink in—but they shouldn ’ t be held responsible for it in any way .
Recall that Section 230 shields the “ provider .
.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from civil liability if the provider bans “ objectionable ” content—so Facebook can choose to ban microtargeted misinformation as objectionable and not be sued for its actions .
It is precisely because the company chooses not to ban such content—and indeed builds its business model on delivering that content to the people who are most susceptible to the messaging while hiding it from everyone else—that Section 230 needs to be at least reviewed if not discarded .
The most common argument for why 230 is so vital to the lifeblood of these businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uploaded by users would be too complicated or costly for them to do so they shouldn ’ t be asked to try .
The Electronic Frontier Foundation , which dubs 230 “ the most important law protecting internet speech , ” puts it this way : Please allow me a second to serenade Facebook ( and Google and Twitter and the rest ) with my tiny violin .
As it turns out , lots of things are complicated and costly .
Ask Delta Airlines about being legally responsible every time one of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the deceased sue them .
You don ’ t think flying over 190 million people a year safely to their destinations is complicated and costly ?
Ask Perdue about distributing billions and billions of chickens to neighborhood stores around the country and only ever so rarely killing people with salmonella .
I ’ m going to go out on a limb and say that ’ s more complicated and costly than moderating tweets .
And yet , when the airlines or the poultry processors get it wrong they are ( quite rightly ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of anything comparable to 230 protections , you still have the ability to fly across the world at a moment ’ s notice and you still have chicken in your fridge .
Oh , and let ’ s not forget that when it comes to the kinds of things that 230 doesn ’ t protect them from , such as copyright infringement , YouTube ( owned by Google ) and Facebook do an absolutely bang-up job of finding and taking down content .
Yes , those takedowns are often instigated by third parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even so , the takedowns are complicated .
Of course , many websites , in spite of being protected by 230 , choose to moderate their community comment sections .
Some , like the New York Times , receive thousands and thousands of comments and each one is considered by someone and then either posted or not .
Lots of moderately unhinged posts appear in the Times ’ s comment section , so I don ’ t think they ’ re doing a whole lot of rejecting—as is their prerogative .
In mentioning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean to imply that the scale is the same ; Facebook has orders of magnitude more engagements than the Times .
The point is that the Times is acting like the publisher that it is .
Here ’ s the thing .
If Facebook wanted , it could act as a responsible publisher and a platform—just not at the same time !
And the company doesn ’ t need Section 230 for this .
When its service acts as a platform , Facebook is letting users share their unmoderated thoughts with their friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their cats , and their opinions about how flat the Earth is with whomever they ’ re directly connected to via some limiting factor .
It can be as simple as a share counter—your post can be visible to no more than , say , fifty people .
That ’ s already much more exposure than Jack Average could have even dreamed of back in the mid- ’ 90s when he was just the weirdo at the watercooler whom everyone tried to not catch the eye of .
Anything that is shared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vetted by some combination of humans and AI .
And in different circumstances , Facebook would act as a publisher—say , when content it provides comes from a source that has been pre-vetted as responsible , and with which Facebook is prepared to share liability in the event that the published materials are somehow not protected by the First Amendment .
Because such content would be treated as a “ published ” work , Facebook would have to suffer the same potential repercussions that all other media distributors are subjected to when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is worth noting that the First Amendment , which already protects publishers , is very broad and reduces the kinds of messaging that a publisher can get sued over to very near zero .
But the gap between zero and almost zero might , for Facebook and Twitter and Google , make the difference in a decision about whether to rebroadcast the most absurd nonsense to the four corners of the ( round ) Earth .
And if Facebook or Twitter or Parler or TheNextSocialThing start taking too much flack for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas ( be they too left or too right or too flat-earthy ) then some competitor can come online to fill the void .
Let the marketplace do its thing .
They ’ ll all just have to take some responsibility when their readers , at their published works ’ behest , start murdering one another .
Facebook and Google have both the wealth and technological sophistication to continue to thrive in an environment where Section 230 is reformed to allow some degree of liability for willfully targeted mis- and disinformation that results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now stand , 230 is a magic wand : with just a wave , these companies can skirt the legal responsibility and the hard work .
Remember , though—magic wands are notoriously dangerous .
It ’ s time to take Zuckerberg ’ s away .

On Thanksgiving, President Trump sent out an angry late-night tweet addressing a subject he previously weighed in on in late May, back when he was still at least ostensibly going about the work of being president.
For purposes of National Security, Section 230 must be immediately terminated!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2020
The “Section 230” the president referred to has long been a bugbear of conservatives. The relevant part of Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 reads as follows:
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
This provision was intended to protect a nascent medium from getting sued before it could blossom into its full potential. In the quarter century since that legislation was enacted, the Internet has clearly blossomed—in some cases more like a cancer than a flower—and it is now clear that 230, as it stands, has caused and continues to cause much more harm than good.
Trump’s intervention in May came in the form of an executive order—but it was too vague on policy to usher in the kind of unencumbered and uncensored “free speech” that he feels conservative voices are being denied on the platforms that enjoy 230 protections. Still, focusing on the harm that 230 has caused was actually the right thing to do and reforming it is a somewhat urgent matter. And while Trump’s Thanksgiving tweet doesn’t suggest that he’ll take any serious action—more likely he’ll be spending the remainder of his presidency doodling with his Sharpie all over the walls of the Oval Office—the problems caused by 230 deserve attention.
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…
Defenders of Section 230 argue that without its protections, social media platforms would not be able to provide their users the ability to share information freely. That argument is specious. Existing constitutional and legal protections—including the First Amendment—suffice to shield publishers from egregious litigation, and without 230 providers like Facebook who seem to function at once as publishers and platforms can still have some of their cake and eat some too (more on that in a moment). But Section 230’s blanket protections that allow the tech firms to decide as it suits them when they are merely “platforms” absolved of all guilt and when they are “publishers” who get to moderate content is a level of absolution from responsibility that is not afforded any other medium or industry. Without 230, these companies would not be operating with their present wanton disregard for the public good.
This should not be a partisan issue. Section 230 does not help the left. Nor does it help the right. It serves the interests of no one other than a very small handful of tech companies—and they can pivot to continue to operate successfully without it.
While Section 230’s authors may have had the best of intentions, today the need to correct course is easy to see. Perhaps back in 1996 the authors of the law couldn’t imagine how many bad-faith actors there would eventually be or how many Americans would prove gullible and susceptible to mis- and disinformation. Now we know better. There is immense harm done by granting everyone a bullhorn loud enough to reach the opposite ends of the Earth.
Consider what 230 means just for Facebook. Facebook is known for the rampant distribution and elevation of conspiracy theories. It is known for helping all flavors of crazies find one another and reinforce each other’s delusions. It is known for having experimented on its users without obtaining their consent. And thanks to Section 230, Facebook doesn’t just wash its hands of the misinformation distributed via its network, disclaiming responsibility for it. The company has spent billions of dollars fine-tuning technology that is specially designed to take unaccountable, intentionally misleading, and even potentially legally actionable information and deliver it only to the individuals likely to be bamboozled by it. And when the horrible results of this practice blow up we get pearl-clutching apologies:
“We deplore this misuse of our platform,” the company said in a response to the Sri Lanka report. “We recognize, and apologize for, the very real human rights impacts that resulted.”
And what routinely follows the apologies? A ducking of responsibility, because Facebook is just a platform and therefore has no responsibility for what its users post. Of course company execs regret playing part in a genocide—repeat that in your head a few times; let it sink in—but they shouldn’t be held responsible for it in any way.
Thanks, 230!
Recall that Section 230 shields the “provider . . . of an interactive computer service” from civil liability if the provider bans “objectionable” content—so Facebook can choose to ban microtargeted misinformation as objectionable and not be sued for its actions. It is precisely because the company chooses not to ban such content—and indeed builds its business model on delivering that content to the people who are most susceptible to the messaging while hiding it from everyone else—that Section 230 needs to be at least reviewed if not discarded.
The most common argument for why 230 is so vital to the lifeblood of these businesses is that paying attention to what is uploaded by users would be too complicated or costly for them to do so they shouldn’t be asked to try. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which dubs 230 “the most important law protecting internet speech,” puts it this way:
Given the sheer size of user-generated websites (for example, Facebook alone has more than 1 billion users, and YouTube users upload 100 hours of video every minute), it would be infeasible for online intermediaries to prevent objectionable content from cropping up on their site.
Please allow me a second to serenade Facebook (and Google and Twitter and the rest) with my tiny violin. As it turns out, lots of things are complicated and costly.
Ask Delta Airlines about being legally responsible every time one of their planes crash and the families of all the deceased sue them. You don’t think flying over 190 million people a year safely to their destinations is complicated and costly?
Ask Perdue about distributing billions and billions of chickens to neighborhood stores around the country and only ever so rarely killing people with salmonella. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that’s more complicated and costly than moderating tweets.
And yet, when the airlines or the poultry processors get it wrong they are (quite rightly) held to account. Despite a lack of anything comparable to 230 protections, you still have the ability to fly across the world at a moment’s notice and you still have chicken in your fridge.
Oh, and let’s not forget that when it comes to the kinds of things that 230 doesn’t protect them from, such as copyright infringement, YouTube (owned by Google) and Facebook do an absolutely bang-up job of finding and taking down content. Yes, those takedowns are often instigated by third parties who complain to the firms, but even so, the takedowns are complicated.
Of course, many websites, in spite of being protected by 230, choose to moderate their community comment sections. Some, like the New York Times, receive thousands and thousands of comments and each one is considered by someone and then either posted or not. Lots of moderately unhinged posts appear in the Times’s comment section, so I don’t think they’re doing a whole lot of rejecting—as is their prerogative. In mentioning the Times, I don’t mean to imply that the scale is the same; Facebook has orders of magnitude more engagements than the Times. The point is that the Times is acting like the publisher that it is.
Here’s the thing. If Facebook wanted, it could act as a responsible publisher and a platform—just not at the same time! And the company doesn’t need Section 230 for this. When its service acts as a platform, Facebook is letting users share their unmoderated thoughts with their friends; billions of users, sharing photos of their cats, and their opinions about how flat the Earth is with whomever they’re directly connected to via some limiting factor. It can be as simple as a share counter—your post can be visible to no more than, say, fifty people. That’s already much more exposure than Jack Average could have even dreamed of back in the mid-’90s when he was just the weirdo at the watercooler whom everyone tried to not catch the eye of. Anything that is shared beyond that threshold would have to be vetted by some combination of humans and AI.
And in different circumstances, Facebook would act as a publisher—say, when content it provides comes from a source that has been pre-vetted as responsible, and with which Facebook is prepared to share liability in the event that the published materials are somehow not protected by the First Amendment. Because such content would be treated as a “published” work, Facebook would have to suffer the same potential repercussions that all other media distributors are subjected to when they publish materials that result in legal action.
It is worth noting that the First Amendment, which already protects publishers, is very broad and reduces the kinds of messaging that a publisher can get sued over to very near zero. But the gap between zero and almost zero might, for Facebook and Twitter and Google, make the difference in a decision about whether to rebroadcast the most absurd nonsense to the four corners of the (round) Earth.
And if Facebook or Twitter or Parler or TheNextSocialThing start taking too much flack for being too censorious of certain kinds of ideas (be they too left or too right or too flat-earthy) then some competitor can come online to fill the void. Let the marketplace do its thing. They’ll all just have to take some responsibility when their readers, at their published works’ behest, start murdering one another.
Facebook and Google have both the wealth and technological sophistication to continue to thrive in an environment where Section 230 is reformed to allow some degree of liability for willfully targeted mis- and disinformation that results in quantifiable damage.
But as things now stand, 230 is a magic wand: with just a wave, these companies can skirt the legal responsibility and the hard work. Remember, though—magic wands are notoriously dangerous. It’s time to take Zuckerberg’s away.


thebulwark--2020-12-02--Putting the Iran Assassinations in Context

Last week , Iran ’ s top nuclear scientist , Mohsen Fakhrizadeh , was assassinated in Damavand , a city near Tehran .
This is a resumption of sabotage operations against Iran from the spring and summer , and Israel is almost certainly the perpetrator .
More recently , there are also unconfirmed reports that an airstrike killed a top commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ( IRGC ) on the Iraq-Syria border .
Commentators on the left side of the political spectrum rushed to criticize these attacks , inferring that they are designed to sabotage the incoming Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Obama administration ’ s Iran deal ( the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ) to delay Iran ’ s progress toward a nuclear weapon .
Maybe .
Maybe not .
But that ’ s not the point .
The dynamics in the Middle East have changed .
Within a decade , the region has become unrecognizable .
Iran is on the march , and jihadi Salafism is not contained , forcing an Arab-Israeli alliance of last resort .
For over a decade , many progressives—and some of their allies among the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rand Paul—have wanted to withdraw from the Middle East .
They were successful in preventing the sympathetic Obama administration from intervening in the civil war in Yemen .
They have also been critical ( often deservedly ) of how the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have conducted that war in Yemen and have demanded an end to sales of U.S. military equipment to the two countries .
Some of the equipment that the United States allowed the Saudis and Emiratis to buy , including precision-guided munitions , was intended to make their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paradox here : American progressives don ’ t want the United States to defend the interests it shares with its allies , but , when America ’ s influence is absent , they don ’ t want our allies to defend our shared interests on their own , either .
Yet it is precisely the lack of American influence that has allowed for the Middle East ’ s worst human rights abuses , including by our Arab allies , and its most serious threats to American security .
Americans are correct to criticize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is certainly inhumane when compared to the way the United States and its allies conduct war .
But it is no more inhumane than Iran ’ s conduct in the region .
Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 , Iran has been a force of death and destruction , including for half a million Syrians , with millions more displaced .
President Obama , despite the advice of his top lieutenants , refused to get involved in Syria and opted for a “ red line ” against the use of chemical weapons .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor of a military response to the Assad regime ’ s use of chemical weapons in transgression of the Obama administration ’ s red line , advising that military action “ is directly related to our credibility , and whether countries still believe the United States when it says something.
” President Obama ignored this advice .
As Kerry predicted , Obama ’ s passivity was a signal to the region ( and the world ) that American deterrence was no longer credible .
It created an opening for Iran to deploy its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the first time since the end of the Iran-Iraq War .
The Trump administration , for its part , has not been much better .
Last year , the president aborted an airstrike mission against Iran in retaliation for the downing of an expensive American UAV in international airspace .
The United States also never responded to Iran ’ s attack against Saudi Arabia ’ s largest oil facility .
The problem with Trump ’ s Iran strategy is that he never had one , and this added to U.S. allies ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its military overseas has caused America ’ s allies no shortage of concern .
Iran ’ s military is now deployed is now in Syria , which shares a border with Israel .
It is in Iraq , which shares a border with Saudi Arabia .
Iran ’ s Shi ’ ite proxies are fighting on one side of the civil war in Yemen , which shares a border with southern Saudi Arabia , and which is where Saudi Arabia ’ s Iranian-sponsored Shi ’ ite separatists live .
Add to this Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Strait of Hormuz , the narrow naval channel that connects the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman .
Saudi Arabia and the UAE rely on the channel for their oil exports .
U.S. allies have legitimate concerns about Iran ’ s revanchism ; they are trying to address those concerns because the United States is not .
But Americans , too , should be concerned by Iranian revanchism because , even though the United States is oil-independent , U.S. consumers still rely on imported products from countries that import Middle Eastern oil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will negatively affect the U.S. economy and consumers .
And there are larger forces than mere economics at play .
The Syrian civil war didn ’ t mark just the Iranian military ’ s first expedition in a generation .
It also marked the return of the Russian military to the Middle East for the first time since 1972 .
That is not a cause of concern for our allies in the immediate future , but it is for the United States .
China and Iran are close to signing a deal that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base in the Persian Gulf , bringing the Chinese military to the region for the first time in history .
Both China and Russia are warming relations with our Middle Eastern allies because our allies are worried that we might abandon them .
This should worry us .
America ’ s involvement in the Middle East is costly , but the alternative is yet more expensive .
American withdrawal is proving to be much costlier in strategic terms , economic terms , and in terms of human suffering .
And , as was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise of the Islamic State required the return of previously withdrawn American forces , failing to address security challenges early only allows them to grow .
Israel ’ s sabotage operations might very well complicate things for the incoming administration , but the Obama and Trump administrations ’ withdrawal from the region has left Israel with no other option .
Saudi Arabia and the UAE are in the same position .
These American allies and partners are not acting out of mere self-interest but rather out of self-preservation , as they see Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an existential threat .
And when countries believe their very existence is at stake , international law and concerns for humane conditions in other countries come to be seen as niceties that can no longer be afforded .
America ’ s gradual withdrawal from the Middle East is turning the region into a Hobbesian state of nature .
Naturally , Middle Eastern states are turning into Hobbesian actors .
Alliance management is the most difficult task of diplomacy , and it is ever more difficult when the alliance ’ s leader signals its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two American administrations have allowed the Middle East ’ s problems to grow almost unabated and the Middle East ’ s chief aggressor to go largely unchallenged .
If American progressives don ’ t like the way America ’ s allies conduct their warfare , they should endorse the only serious alternative .

Last week, Iran’s top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, was assassinated in Damavand, a city near Tehran. This is a resumption of sabotage operations against Iran from the spring and summer, and Israel is almost certainly the perpetrator. More recently, there are also unconfirmed reports that an airstrike killed a top commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on the Iraq-Syria border.
Commentators on the left side of the political spectrum rushed to criticize these attacks, inferring that they are designed to sabotage the incoming Biden administration’s expected attempt to return to the Obama administration’s Iran deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) to delay Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon. Maybe. Maybe not. But that’s not the point.
The dynamics in the Middle East have changed. Within a decade, the region has become unrecognizable. Iran is on the march, and jihadi Salafism is not contained, forcing an Arab-Israeli alliance of last resort.
For over a decade, many progressives—and some of their allies among the libertarians and the isolationist right, like Rand Paul—have wanted to withdraw from the Middle East. They were successful in preventing the sympathetic Obama administration from intervening in the civil war in Yemen. They have also been critical (often deservedly) of how the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have conducted that war in Yemen and have demanded an end to sales of U.S. military equipment to the two countries. Some of the equipment that the United States allowed the Saudis and Emiratis to buy, including precision-guided munitions, was intended to make their warfare more humane.
There is a paradox here: American progressives don’t want the United States to defend the interests it shares with its allies, but, when America’s influence is absent, they don’t want our allies to defend our shared interests on their own, either. Yet it is precisely the lack of American influence that has allowed for the Middle East’s worst human rights abuses, including by our Arab allies, and its most serious threats to American security.
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…
Americans are correct to criticize the Saudi-UAE war in Yemen. It is certainly inhumane when compared to the way the United States and its allies conduct war. But it is no more inhumane than Iran’s conduct in the region. Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran has been a force of death and destruction, including for half a million Syrians, with millions more displaced. President Obama, despite the advice of his top lieutenants, refused to get involved in Syria and opted for a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons. Secretary of State John Kerry argued in favor of a military response to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons in transgression of the Obama administration’s red line, advising that military action “is directly related to our credibility, and whether countries still believe the United States when it says something.”
President Obama ignored this advice. As Kerry predicted, Obama’s passivity was a signal to the region (and the world) that American deterrence was no longer credible. It created an opening for Iran to deploy its military for direct combat beyond its borders for the first time since the end of the Iran-Iraq War.
The Trump administration, for its part, has not been much better. Last year, the president aborted an airstrike mission against Iran in retaliation for the downing of an expensive American UAV in international airspace. The United States also never responded to Iran’s attack against Saudi Arabia’s largest oil facility. The problem with Trump’s Iran strategy is that he never had one, and this added to U.S. allies’ worries.
Iran’s deployment of its military overseas has caused America’s allies no shortage of concern. Iran’s military is now deployed is now in Syria, which shares a border with Israel. It is in Iraq, which shares a border with Saudi Arabia. Iran’s Shi’ite proxies are fighting on one side of the civil war in Yemen, which shares a border with southern Saudi Arabia, and which is where Saudi Arabia’s Iranian-sponsored Shi’ite separatists live. Add to this Iran’s continuing threats to block the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow naval channel that connects the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman. Saudi Arabia and the UAE rely on the channel for their oil exports.
U.S. allies have legitimate concerns about Iran’s revanchism; they are trying to address those concerns because the United States is not. But Americans, too, should be concerned by Iranian revanchism because, even though the United States is oil-independent, U.S. consumers still rely on imported products from countries that import Middle Eastern oil, and a disruption in oil prices will negatively affect the U.S. economy and consumers.
And there are larger forces than mere economics at play. The Syrian civil war didn’t mark just the Iranian military’s first expedition in a generation. It also marked the return of the Russian military to the Middle East for the first time since 1972. That is not a cause of concern for our allies in the immediate future, but it is for the United States. China and Iran are close to signing a deal that will allow China to establish a military base in the Persian Gulf, bringing the Chinese military to the region for the first time in history. Both China and Russia are warming relations with our Middle Eastern allies because our allies are worried that we might abandon them. This should worry us.
America’s involvement in the Middle East is costly, but the alternative is yet more expensive. American withdrawal is proving to be much costlier in strategic terms, economic terms, and in terms of human suffering. And, as was the case of Iraq, where the rise of the Islamic State required the return of previously withdrawn American forces, failing to address security challenges early only allows them to grow.
Israel’s sabotage operations might very well complicate things for the incoming administration, but the Obama and Trump administrations’ withdrawal from the region has left Israel with no other option. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are in the same position. These American allies and partners are not acting out of mere self-interest but rather out of self-preservation, as they see Iran, especially with nuclear weapons, as an existential threat. And when countries believe their very existence is at stake, international law and concerns for humane conditions in other countries come to be seen as niceties that can no longer be afforded. America’s gradual withdrawal from the Middle East is turning the region into a Hobbesian state of nature. Naturally, Middle Eastern states are turning into Hobbesian actors.
Alliance management is the most difficult task of diplomacy, and it is ever more difficult when the alliance’s leader signals its departure from the region. The last two American administrations have allowed the Middle East’s problems to grow almost unabated and the Middle East’s chief aggressor to go largely unchallenged. If American progressives don’t like the way America’s allies conduct their warfare, they should endorse the only serious alternative.


thebulwark--2020-12-02--My Call With Ron Johnson: He Knows Biden Won But Won’t Admit It

November 14 , 8:37 a.m. my phone rings .
I do a double take on my caller ID and realize who is calling .
I take a deep breath and answer the phone .
The next 30 minutes and 32 seconds would be a conversation that was nothing short of surreal .
My discussion with Senator Ron Johnson was one that I have hesitated openly discussing for three weeks .
As a former chairman for the Brown County Republican Party , I have people I respect deeply who are still members of the party .
There are many elected officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not want to give reason to think twice about any conversation we have .
Additionally , I didn ’ t want my family to become a target , especially with my wife days from giving birth to our child .
However , given what was discussed , and given the war that leaders of the GOP such as Senator Johnson are waging on the very foundations of our democracy , I could no longer stay silent .
The TL ; DR of the call was this : Senator Johnson knows that Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He is refusing to admit it publicly and stoking conspiracies that undermine our democracy solely because it would be “ political suicide ” to oppose Trump .
I find this unconscionable .
Full disclosure , I initiated our exchange when I gave Senator Johnson a phone call on November 6 and left him a message .
I told him I wanted to discuss , among other things , the direction in which the GOP is headed and my hopes that we could leave some of the more bigoted and conspiratorial elements of Trumpism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I never thought Sen. Johnson would return my call given how outspoken I have been over the past four years .
As a local elected official in 2016 , I endorsed and campaigned for his opponent , Russ Feingold .
This year I was featured in an ad for Republican Voters Against Trump .
Yet there we were , on November 14 , talking like we used to , many years ago .
I opened the conversation by remarking on my concern for the party .
I reiterated that what the GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going are unsustainable .
The GOP has become the party of Donald Trump , and Trumpism has become the doctrine upon which everything else is built ; they are one and the same .
Senator Johnson spoke about the massive amounts of people Donald Trump brought into the party , many of whom have never cared about politics before .
He said that “ yes , Donald Trump is an asshole , ” but the votes that Trump received , especially in Wisconsin , can not be overlooked .
Senator Johnson talked about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson received the highest number of Republican votes in the history of the state of Wisconsin .
His goal going into his 2016 re-election was to get 1.5 million votes .
He failed to reach that in 2016 , while President Trump did in 2020 , despite losing .
( It did not seem to occur to Senator Johnson that President Trump motivated massive , greater turnout in opposition to him than he did in support . )
Senator Johnson argued that that kind of message from Republican voters was one that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversation , we have moments where we look back and wish we said something differently .
This is one of those cases .
I wish I had reminded the senator that he is not just a senator for Wisconsin Republicans , but a senator for all of Wisconsin .
And although the message from Wisconsin Republicans was a strong one , the message from Wisconsin itself was much clearer : It was a rejection of Trumpism , and of the politics of division and toxicity which has poisoned our communities .
Senator Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been to a Trump rally .
I chuckled and responded that I had not .
He said that I should have gone because if I did , I would have seen that the one constant throughout all his rallies was , “ the people there absolutely love America.
” I reminded him that in every speech I gave as a Republican county chairman , I asked those in attendance to stop calling Democrats the “ enemy.
” I would say , “ Democrats aren ’ t the enemy .
We both love our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better place .
We just have different ways to achieve that goal.
” And I told him that “ I would be willing to bet that at any rally Bernie Sanders or AOC held , you would see a crowd who loved America just as much.
” Johnson scoffed and said , “ Absolutely not .
Bernie Sanders and AOC want to fundamentally change our country .
And you can ’ t love something you want to fundamentally change.
” I disagreed and believe this is a toxic way to look at our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Next we covered the election results .
I said I was both frustrated and gravely concerned about how the GOP is continuing to advance disproved conspiracy theories regarding the integrity of the election .
Senator Johnson said that he knew and accepted the fact that Joe Biden had won .
I asked why he wouldn ’ t say so at a moment when Trump was taking a sledgehammer to the very foundation of our democracy .
Senator Johnson replied that the institutions of our democracy are strong enough to withstand what is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since it suggested that the truth was ultimately unimportant and that Sen. Johnson viewed what the president was doing as someone else ’ s problem .
Here ’ s the thing .
Ron Johnson knows that this is BS .
Because five years ago he said so .
In 2015 he introduced legislation streamlining the transition process , saying “ the peaceful transition of power is one of the hallmarks of our democracy .
It is also an enormous undertaking requiring months of planning in order to be successful.
” Here he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me saying that he knows Biden won .
But simultaneously refusing to publicly congratulate Biden and standing in the way of his transition .
And since then , Sen. Johnson ’ s performance has gone even further .
On Tuesday , Attorney General Bill Barr announced that he had found no evidence of fraud that would rise to the level of altering the outcome of the election .
Senator Johnson then said that Barr needed to “ show evidence ” —meaning : a negative—and that he still thinks “ there ’ s enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that being honest with his constituents about election integrity was important , Sen. Johnson said that although Biden had won , he was , “ the worst candidate for president in the history of the country.
” He said that Biden won strictly because of all the hatred for Trump that was advanced by the media every single day .
We spoke of organizations such as the Lincoln Project and Republican Voters Against Trump .
Johnson said that he loathed these organizations because “ they are money-grubbing pieces of shit.
” He said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to accept all the good things Trump has done , “ even though he [ Trump ] is an asshole , he was right on so many things.
” He talked about his displeasure for the “ political establishment.
” He said that he “ honestly doesn ’ t even much care for Mitch McConnell , ” because of his entrenchment within said establishment .
The senator talked about Trump being right on the First Step Act , right on China , and right on the economy .
He said that Trump had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to talk about them because everyone hates his guts .
He said that with him , “ it ’ s really about what ’ s right and what ’ s wrong , ” and in his mind Trump was right on so many things .
I asked him that if it truly is about right versus wrong , why doesn ’ t he call out what Trump does wrong ?
His answer : In essence , that it would be political suicide .
To his credit , Senator Johnson was incredibly cordial .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ though we passionately disagree .
He did not come off at all like the person you see on TV .
He was not the aloof , abrasive persona he puts on when he ’ s on Fox .
Also to his credit , he even criticized Wisconsin Republicans for not working enough with the Evers administration regarding the COVID-19 crisis that has been ripping through America ’ s Dairyland .
( Which is another thing I wish he ’ d say publicly . )
Our discussion was mostly based in reality .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s assertion to me that Joe Biden “ has Lewy body dementia.
” ) The senator understands Joe Biden ’ s victory .
The problem is he refuses to live in that reality publicly , because of political considerations .
Looking back at the disaster these last four years have been , I hope that my speaking out gives those on the right a permission structure to come back to the world of facts .
You can support the good things President Trump did without lying about how our elections were rigged by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ causing our society to crumble .
We can ’ t move forward together when we acknowledge reality in private and then peddle falsehoods in public .
It ’ s bad enough when people in the media do this .
But we need more from our elected officials .
They are servants , first and foremost .
Servants not just of one party , but of all their constituents .
They owe us more .
It ’ s not too late , Senator Johnson .
Just tell America what you told me .

November 14, 8:37 a.m. my phone rings. I do a double take on my caller ID and realize who is calling. I take a deep breath and answer the phone. The next 30 minutes and 32 seconds would be a conversation that was nothing short of surreal.
My discussion with Senator Ron Johnson was one that I have hesitated openly discussing for three weeks. As a former chairman for the Brown County Republican Party, I have people I respect deeply who are still members of the party. There are many elected officials whom I consider friends and I do not want to give reason to think twice about any conversation we have. Additionally, I didn’t want my family to become a target, especially with my wife days from giving birth to our child. However, given what was discussed, and given the war that leaders of the GOP such as Senator Johnson are waging on the very foundations of our democracy, I could no longer stay silent.
The TL;DR of the call was this: Senator Johnson knows that Joe Biden won a free and fair election. He is refusing to admit it publicly and stoking conspiracies that undermine our democracy solely because it would be “political suicide” to oppose Trump. I find this unconscionable.
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…
Full disclosure, I initiated our exchange when I gave Senator Johnson a phone call on November 6 and left him a message. I told him I wanted to discuss, among other things, the direction in which the GOP is headed and my hopes that we could leave some of the more bigoted and conspiratorial elements of Trumpism behind now that the president had lost. I never thought Sen. Johnson would return my call given how outspoken I have been over the past four years. As a local elected official in 2016, I endorsed and campaigned for his opponent, Russ Feingold. This year I was featured in an ad for Republican Voters Against Trump. Yet there we were, on November 14, talking like we used to, many years ago.
I opened the conversation by remarking on my concern for the party. I reiterated that what the GOP is doing and the direction it is going are unsustainable. The GOP has become the party of Donald Trump, and Trumpism has become the doctrine upon which everything else is built; they are one and the same. Senator Johnson spoke about the massive amounts of people Donald Trump brought into the party, many of whom have never cared about politics before. He said that “yes, Donald Trump is an asshole,” but the votes that Trump received, especially in Wisconsin, cannot be overlooked. Senator Johnson talked about how, prior to November 3, Johnson received the highest number of Republican votes in the history of the state of Wisconsin. His goal going into his 2016 re-election was to get 1.5 million votes. He failed to reach that in 2016, while President Trump did in 2020, despite losing. (It did not seem to occur to Senator Johnson that President Trump motivated massive, greater turnout in opposition to him than he did in support.)
Senator Johnson argued that that kind of message from Republican voters was one that he received loud and clear.
In every conversation, we have moments where we look back and wish we said something differently. This is one of those cases. I wish I had reminded the senator that he is not just a senator for Wisconsin Republicans, but a senator for all of Wisconsin. And although the message from Wisconsin Republicans was a strong one, the message from Wisconsin itself was much clearer: It was a rejection of Trumpism, and of the politics of division and toxicity which has poisoned our communities.
Senator Johnson then asked me if I had ever been to a Trump rally. I chuckled and responded that I had not. He said that I should have gone because if I did, I would have seen that the one constant throughout all his rallies was, “the people there absolutely love America.” I reminded him that in every speech I gave as a Republican county chairman, I asked those in attendance to stop calling Democrats the “enemy.” I would say, “Democrats aren’t the enemy. We both love our country and want to make it a better place. We just have different ways to achieve that goal.” And I told him that “I would be willing to bet that at any rally Bernie Sanders or AOC held, you would see a crowd who loved America just as much.”
Johnson scoffed and said, “Absolutely not. Bernie Sanders and AOC want to fundamentally change our country. And you can’t love something you want to fundamentally change.” I disagreed and believe this is a toxic way to look at our politics. But we moved on.
Next we covered the election results. I said I was both frustrated and gravely concerned about how the GOP is continuing to advance disproved conspiracy theories regarding the integrity of the election. Senator Johnson said that he knew and accepted the fact that Joe Biden had won. I asked why he wouldn’t say so at a moment when Trump was taking a sledgehammer to the very foundation of our democracy. Senator Johnson replied that the institutions of our democracy are strong enough to withstand what is going on. This response shocked me, since it suggested that the truth was ultimately unimportant and that Sen. Johnson viewed what the president was doing as someone else’s problem.
Here’s the thing. Ron Johnson knows that this is BS. Because five years ago he said so. In 2015 he introduced legislation streamlining the transition process, saying “the peaceful transition of power is one of the hallmarks of our democracy. It is also an enormous undertaking requiring months of planning in order to be successful.”
Here he was five years later on the phone with me saying that he knows Biden won. But simultaneously refusing to publicly congratulate Biden and standing in the way of his transition.
And since then, Sen. Johnson’s performance has gone even further. On Tuesday, Attorney General Bill Barr announced that he had found no evidence of fraud that would rise to the level of altering the outcome of the election. Senator Johnson then said that Barr needed to “show evidence”—meaning: a negative—and that he still thinks “there’s enough questions outstanding.”
Ron Johnson said the attorney general should “show everybody” his evidence about no mass fraud because “there’s enough suspicions” and “irregularities” there Asked if he's not satisfied with Barr's conclusion, Johnson added: "I think there is still enough questions outstanding” — Manu Raju (@mkraju) December 1, 2020
After dismissing the notion that being honest with his constituents about election integrity was important, Sen. Johnson said that although Biden had won, he was, “the worst candidate for president in the history of the country.” He said that Biden won strictly because of all the hatred for Trump that was advanced by the media every single day. We spoke of organizations such as the Lincoln Project and Republican Voters Against Trump. Johnson said that he loathed these organizations because “they are money-grubbing pieces of shit.” He said that these organizations and the media refused to accept all the good things Trump has done, “even though he [Trump] is an asshole, he was right on so many things.” He talked about his displeasure for the “political establishment.” He said that he “honestly doesn’t even much care for Mitch McConnell,” because of his entrenchment within said establishment.
The senator talked about Trump being right on the First Step Act, right on China, and right on the economy. He said that Trump had so many accomplishments but that nobody wants to talk about them because everyone hates his guts. He said that with him, “it’s really about what’s right and what’s wrong,” and in his mind Trump was right on so many things. I asked him that if it truly is about right versus wrong, why doesn’t he call out what Trump does wrong?
His answer: In essence, that it would be political suicide.
To his credit, Senator Johnson was incredibly cordial. We had a respectful discussion, even though we passionately disagree. He did not come off at all like the person you see on TV. He was not the aloof, abrasive persona he puts on when he’s on Fox. Also to his credit, he even criticized Wisconsin Republicans for not working enough with the Evers administration regarding the COVID-19 crisis that has been ripping through America’s Dairyland. (Which is another thing I wish he’d say publicly.)
Our discussion was mostly based in reality. (With the one exception being Johnson’s assertion to me that Joe Biden “has Lewy body dementia.”) The senator understands Joe Biden’s victory.
The problem is he refuses to live in that reality publicly, because of political considerations.
Looking back at the disaster these last four years have been, I hope that my speaking out gives those on the right a permission structure to come back to the world of facts. You can support the good things President Trump did without lying about how our elections were rigged by Venezuela. Conspiracies and alternate realities are causing our society to crumble. We can’t move forward together when we acknowledge reality in private and then peddle falsehoods in public. It’s bad enough when people in the media do this. But we need more from our elected officials.
They are servants, first and foremost. Servants not just of one party, but of all their constituents. They owe us more.
It’s not too late, Senator Johnson. Just tell America what you told me.


thebulwark--2020-12-02--The Hard Facts on Hard Time

The Hard Facts on Hard Time

Although the protests and civil unrest that followed the police killing of George Floyd have mostly waned , there remains a widely held belief that both our criminal justice policies and our attitudes about crime and punishment are fundamentally out of sync with reality .
According to the FBI , violent crime has fallen for the third consecutive year , and it has dropped by over 50 percent since the 1990s .
Incarceration for youth and adults is down as well , with a 7 percent decline in the prison population from 2009 to 2017 .
In 2015 , arrests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lowest rates in around 30 years , and since 2000 youth incarceration has fallen by a whopping 60 percent .
We don ’ t know exactly what ’ s caused this shift toward lower rates of crime , but the current cohort of young people are committing crimes at a significantly lower rate than their predecessor cohort .
In terms of actual crime , America today looks a lot like the 1950s but it has criminal justice policies and systems attuned to the crime wave of the 1980s and early 1990s .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a need for new ways of thinking about how we respond to crime as a society .
“ Get tough ” rhetoric still moves voters , but it long ago hit the point of diminishing returns in creating safer communities .
To put it bluntly , if these trends in crime and incarceration continue we will have , at least in some places and for some populations , a distended prison system built for a crime problem that no longer exists .
As a matter of efficiency , effectiveness , and humane policymaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will require new policies and strategies that shift from punishment to prevention and rehabilitation .
We may be able to glean some clues about how to do that from incarcerated people themselves .
Recently , the Marshall Project conducted a survey of nearly 2,400 incarcerated men and women asking what they thought might have helped them avoid criminal activity .
Their responses suggest that tougher penalties and sentences are losing deterrent power .
Instead they talked about wishing they had had someone who could have helped them realize their own worth and agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relying on the external restraints of arrest and incarceration .
Some respondents focused on practical questions like the need for affordable housing , vocational training , lower cost college , and a better job market .
The problem is that most research suggests such factors are not “ criminogenic ” and that spending money on them appears to have little or no effect on the propensity to commit crime .
So if a job or a home or education and training don ’ t make a difference , what does ?
Around 37 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ received a mental health diagnosis , likely a small fraction of the prison population who could benefit from mental health treatment .
Many of the Marshall Project interviewees said access to mental health and psychiatric services would have helped them cope with depression , post-traumatic stress disorder , and other mental illnesses that are associated with criminal behavior .
Drug treatment was another high priority , which is unsurprising when nearly half a million people are incarcerated for drug-related offenses .
Still others hoped for a life coach , mentor , or parental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of trouble .
Taken together , these needs suggest that our prisons are full of people who need specific medical and psychological treatment to help them develop stronger connections—to a positive vision of themselves and prosocial relationships with others—that can help them overcome a lifetime of trauma , including the trauma of incarceration .
The idea of focusing on transforming the inner lives of people to prevent crime and promote rehabilitation will strike many people as too “ soft , ” too focused on “ feelings ” at the expense of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ punishment .
This perspective overlooks how our current criminal justice policy is also driven mainly by feelings : fear , a need for security and control that hasn ’ t caught up to current conditions , and a thirst for punishment and revenge .
That these responses grow out of a human desire for justice and order does not mean they are any more correct than those who react to systemic injustice with equally unrealistic and potentially damaging calls to defund , and in some cases dismantle , the police .
When it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would be far better if we allowed the data to speak rather than listening only to our more primal instinct for punishment .
People always have choices about whether they commit crimes , and police , courts and prisons will always be necessary to isolate bad actors from society and punish wrongdoing .
But it ’ s increasingly clear that policing and punishment alone can not deliver the safer , more peaceful , and healthier society we all desire .
As Congress and the incoming Biden administration take up the challenge of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to open our minds and our hearts to the possibility that we have reached the end of the road on coercion-and-punishment-focused anti-crime policy .
Instead , we need to start asking some deeper questions about how all sectors of our society—government , business , and community and religious organizations—can help individuals , families , and neighborhoods fill the empty hearts that gives rise to crime in the first place .

Although the protests and civil unrest that followed the police killing of George Floyd have mostly waned, there remains a widely held belief that both our criminal justice policies and our attitudes about crime and punishment are fundamentally out of sync with reality.
According to the FBI, violent crime has fallen for the third consecutive year, and it has dropped by over 50 percent since the 1990s. Incarceration for youth and adults is down as well, with a 7 percent decline in the prison population from 2009 to 2017. In 2015, arrests for violent crimes by young people hit the lowest rates in around 30 years, and since 2000 youth incarceration has fallen by a whopping 60 percent. We don’t know exactly what’s caused this shift toward lower rates of crime, but the current cohort of young people are committing crimes at a significantly lower rate than their predecessor cohort. In terms of actual crime, America today looks a lot like the 1950s but it has criminal justice policies and systems attuned to the crime wave of the 1980s and early 1990s.
The decline in crime and incarceration suggests a need for new ways of thinking about how we respond to crime as a society. “Get tough” rhetoric still moves voters, but it long ago hit the point of diminishing returns in creating safer communities. To put it bluntly, if these trends in crime and incarceration continue we will have, at least in some places and for some populations, a distended prison system built for a crime problem that no longer exists. As a matter of efficiency, effectiveness, and humane policymaking, further reductions in crime and incarceration will require new policies and strategies that shift from punishment to prevention and rehabilitation.
We may be able to glean some clues about how to do that from incarcerated people themselves. Recently, the Marshall Project conducted a survey of nearly 2,400 incarcerated men and women asking what they thought might have helped them avoid criminal activity. Their responses suggest that tougher penalties and sentences are losing deterrent power. Instead they talked about wishing they had had someone who could have helped them realize their own worth and agency, promoting desistance from within rather than relying on the external restraints of arrest and incarceration.
Some respondents focused on practical questions like the need for affordable housing, vocational training, lower cost college, and a better job market. The problem is that most research suggests such factors are not “criminogenic” and that spending money on them appears to have little or no effect on the propensity to commit crime.
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…
So if a job or a home or education and training don’t make a difference, what does? Around 37 percent of federal and state inmates have received a mental health diagnosis, likely a small fraction of the prison population who could benefit from mental health treatment. Many of the Marshall Project interviewees said access to mental health and psychiatric services would have helped them cope with depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other mental illnesses that are associated with criminal behavior. Drug treatment was another high priority, which is unsurprising when nearly half a million people are incarcerated for drug-related offenses. Still others hoped for a life coach, mentor, or parental figure who could encourage them to stay out of trouble. Taken together, these needs suggest that our prisons are full of people who need specific medical and psychological treatment to help them develop stronger connections—to a positive vision of themselves and prosocial relationships with others—that can help them overcome a lifetime of trauma, including the trauma of incarceration.
The idea of focusing on transforming the inner lives of people to prevent crime and promote rehabilitation will strike many people as too “soft,” too focused on “feelings” at the expense of the cold, hard facts of crime and punishment. This perspective overlooks how our current criminal justice policy is also driven mainly by feelings: fear, a need for security and control that hasn’t caught up to current conditions, and a thirst for punishment and revenge. That these responses grow out of a human desire for justice and order does not mean they are any more correct than those who react to systemic injustice with equally unrealistic and potentially damaging calls to defund, and in some cases dismantle, the police. When it comes to refurbishing our policy approaches, it would be far better if we allowed the data to speak rather than listening only to our more primal instinct for punishment.
People always have choices about whether they commit crimes, and police, courts and prisons will always be necessary to isolate bad actors from society and punish wrongdoing. But it’s increasingly clear that policing and punishment alone cannot deliver the safer, more peaceful, and healthier society we all desire. As Congress and the incoming Biden administration take up the challenge of criminal justice reform, we all need to open our minds and our hearts to the possibility that we have reached the end of the road on coercion-and-punishment-focused anti-crime policy. Instead, we need to start asking some deeper questions about how all sectors of our society—government, business, and community and religious organizations—can help individuals, families, and neighborhoods fill the empty hearts that gives rise to crime in the first place.


thebulwark--2020-12-02--How Trump Hurt America’s Reputation for Truth

“ Who you gon na believe , me or your own eyes ?
” —Chico Marx The photo looks faked .
It ’ s so heavy-handed .
A grinning Australian soldier , his insignia clear as day on his helmet and arm , stands on the Australian flag holding a small , barefoot Afghan child in front of him .
He grasps a bloody knife to the child ’ s throat .
The child , in turn , is cradling a lamb .
Get it ?
Lamb to the slaughter ?
Oh , did I mention that the Australian flag @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dominate it , as it were ?
The caption reads “ Don ’ t be afraid , we are coming to bring you peace !
” This not-particularly-well-disguised piece of propaganda ( it ’ s the work of Chinese graphic artist Fu Yu , aka Qilin ) was posted to Twitter by the government of China , part of a broad-based campaign China is waging against Australia .
Why ?
Simple : Australia has told the truth .
Marise Paine , Australia ’ s foreign minister , delivered a scathing speech to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China ’ s many human rights abuses .
She cited the maltreatment of Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang province as well as the repressive measures China has lately adopted toward Hong Kong .
Australia has also expressed solidarity with Taiwan , backed an investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 virus , and banned Huawei from its 5G network .
All of this has infuriated Beijing , which has retaliated by imposing sanctions against a lengthening list of Australian products , and now , a disinformation attack .
The ammunition was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Like other free countries , Australia has a system of accountability for public officials high and low .
One investigation concerned the conduct of Australian forces in Afghanistan .
The Brereton inquiry found that Australian forces killed 39 civilians , two as young as 14 .
Upon the report ’ s release , Angus Campbell , chief of the defense forces , apologized to the Afghan people and to the Australian people , saying that the alleged conduct was “ shameful , ” “ deeply disturbing , ” and “ appalling—a profound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forces stand for.
” The report created a furor at home , and the Australian government is looking into paying compensation to the families of those wrongly killed .
China took the nugget of truth—Australian forces had committed war crimes—and transformed it into a ghoulish image of a rapacious Aussie about to sacrifice an innocent child .
I said at the start that the photo looks faked—what war criminal poses for pictures on a flag tableau ?
And yet , in our time , truth has become more elusive than ever .
Technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in China and around the world will view that photo and believe it ’ s real ?
And we keep hearing about the “ deep fakes ” —doctored videos—that are around the corner .
How many would believe a fraudulent video image of say , Hunter Biden confessing to child abuse ?
In an era when technology can produce phony images and even doctored videos of real people doing and saying things they never did or said , the question of how to find truth becomes ever more urgent .
The techno-geniuses in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something like virtual watermarks to separate the real from the fake .
But that can take us only so far , because when trust is eroded , people will doubt the watermarks too .
How many Trump voters would trust the imprimatur of Twitter or Facebook ?
( Though Facebook has been very Trump-friendly , in effect if not in intention . )
No , in the internet age as much as in every previous era , credibility comes down to reputation—which is why we have much damage to our own standing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth , his insistence that all news critical of him is fake , is reminiscent of the world ’ s worst regimes .
The first thing to go when the jackboots come is the free press .
Trump ’ s attacks on the press were rhetorical , not literal .
But it ’ s no coincidence that his term , “ fake news , ” has become a favorite of thugs worldwide .
During the Cold War , it was understood that the West , for all its flaws , was more honest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free press .
The media in the old USSR was full of cheerful workers exceeding their quotas and ruddy farmers luxuriating in golden fields of wheat .
The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan had a succinct summation of the state of play .
“ If you want to know at the airport whether you ’ ve just landed in a free country or an unfree country , ” he quipped , “ take a look at the newsstand .
If all the headlines are bad , you ’ re in a free country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re not.
” The governments of free countries of course attempt to lie .
But at least the free press can often expose them , and fear of exposure keeps them in check to some degree .
Free countries have also found that the truth can be their ally .
During the early days of the BBC , the station often peddled government propaganda .
As Lynne Olson explains in Last Hope Island , Sir John Reith , the BBC ’ s first director , took the view that “ Assuming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the Government is for the people , it follows that the BBC must be for the Government.
” Under his leadership , the station suppressed news unpalatable to Neville Chamberlain .
But when the war started , BBC got new leadership , and a new credo—a commitment to telling the truth .
This would prove crucial in rallying the support of resistance forces in Europe as well as maintaining domestic morale .
Reputation matters .
It ’ s why China is so incensed that Australia has had the temerity to criticize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than Beijing ?
Because the Australians are free and accountable .
They ’ ve admitted their war crimes and agonized over them .
The Chinese have never acknowledged their far more massive human toll .
Even without going back to the Great Leap Forward—the most devastating catastrophe in China ’ s history , causing between 18 and 45 million starvation deaths—we have the Tienanmen Square massacre within living memory , the rape of Tibet , and the widespread infanticide accompanying the One Child policy .
Our own reputation for honesty has taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will other nations trust the word of the United States when we elected someone who supported the lies of Kim Jong-un and other corrupt and cruel dictators , and valorized our own war criminals ?
What does it tell the world when our president conducts a non-stop jihad against the press ?
Who can respect this nation when our president , in defending Putin , expressed his belief that we commit just as many sins ?
Australia is showing courage by standing up to China , and paying a price .
The White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be serving Australian wine , which would have been a better gesture if this president had not allied us with the world ’ s liars and criminals for four years .
In the post-Trump era , the most important restoration will be that of truth .

“Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” —Chico Marx
The photo looks faked. It’s so heavy-handed. A grinning Australian soldier, his insignia clear as day on his helmet and arm, stands on the Australian flag holding a small, barefoot Afghan child in front of him. He grasps a bloody knife to the child’s throat. The child, in turn, is cradling a lamb. Get it? Lamb to the slaughter? Oh, did I mention that the Australian flag is covering an Afghan flag, to dominate it, as it were? The caption reads “Don’t be afraid, we are coming to bring you peace!”
This not-particularly-well-disguised piece of propaganda (it’s the work of Chinese graphic artist Fu Yu, aka Qilin) was posted to Twitter by the government of China, part of a broad-based campaign China is waging against Australia. Why? Simple: Australia has told the truth.
Marise Paine, Australia’s foreign minister, delivered a scathing speech to the UN Human Rights Council in September outlining China’s many human rights abuses. She cited the maltreatment of Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang province as well as the repressive measures China has lately adopted toward Hong Kong. Australia has also expressed solidarity with Taiwan, backed an investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 virus, and banned Huawei from its 5G network. All of this has infuriated Beijing, which has retaliated by imposing sanctions against a lengthening list of Australian products, and now, a disinformation attack.
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 ammunition was supplied, indirectly, by Australia itself. Like other free countries, Australia has a system of accountability for public officials high and low. One investigation concerned the conduct of Australian forces in Afghanistan. The Brereton inquiry found that Australian forces killed 39 civilians, two as young as 14. Upon the report’s release, Angus Campbell, chief of the defense forces, apologized to the Afghan people and to the Australian people, saying that the alleged conduct was “shameful,” “deeply disturbing,” and “appalling—a profound betrayal of all that the Australian defense forces stand for.” The report created a furor at home, and the Australian government is looking into paying compensation to the families of those wrongly killed.
China took the nugget of truth—Australian forces had committed war crimes—and transformed it into a ghoulish image of a rapacious Aussie about to sacrifice an innocent child.
I said at the start that the photo looks faked—what war criminal poses for pictures on a flag tableau? And yet, in our time, truth has become more elusive than ever. Technology presents real challenges. How many people in China and around the world will view that photo and believe it’s real? And we keep hearing about the “deep fakes”—doctored videos—that are around the corner. How many would believe a fraudulent video image of say, Hunter Biden confessing to child abuse?
In an era when technology can produce phony images and even doctored videos of real people doing and saying things they never did or said, the question of how to find truth becomes ever more urgent.
The techno-geniuses in Silicon Valley will probably come up with something like virtual watermarks to separate the real from the fake. But that can take us only so far, because when trust is eroded, people will doubt the watermarks too. How many Trump voters would trust the imprimatur of Twitter or Facebook? (Though Facebook has been very Trump-friendly, in effect if not in intention.)
No, in the internet age as much as in every previous era, credibility comes down to reputation—which is why we have much damage to our own standing to repair.
Trump’s assault on truth, his insistence that all news critical of him is fake, is reminiscent of the world’s worst regimes. The first thing to go when the jackboots come is the free press. Trump’s attacks on the press were rhetorical, not literal. But it’s no coincidence that his term, “fake news,” has become a favorite of thugs worldwide.
During the Cold War, it was understood that the West, for all its flaws, was more honest than the Communist bloc because of the free press. The media in the old USSR was full of cheerful workers exceeding their quotas and ruddy farmers luxuriating in golden fields of wheat. The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan had a succinct summation of the state of play. “If you want to know at the airport whether you’ve just landed in a free country or an unfree country,” he quipped, “take a look at the newsstand. If all the headlines are bad, you’re in a free country. If all the headlines are good, you’re not.”
The governments of free countries of course attempt to lie. But at least the free press can often expose them, and fear of exposure keeps them in check to some degree. Free countries have also found that the truth can be their ally. During the early days of the BBC, the station often peddled government propaganda. As Lynne Olson explains in Last Hope Island, Sir John Reith, the BBC’s first director, took the view that “Assuming that the BBC is for the people, and the Government is for the people, it follows that the BBC must be for the Government.” Under his leadership, the station suppressed news unpalatable to Neville Chamberlain. But when the war started, BBC got new leadership, and a new credo—a commitment to telling the truth. This would prove crucial in rallying the support of resistance forces in Europe as well as maintaining domestic morale.
Reputation matters. It’s why China is so incensed that Australia has had the temerity to criticize it. Why do we trust Canberra more than Beijing? Because the Australians are free and accountable. They’ve admitted their war crimes and agonized over them. The Chinese have never acknowledged their far more massive human toll. Even without going back to the Great Leap Forward—the most devastating catastrophe in China’s history, causing between 18 and 45 million starvation deaths—we have the Tienanmen Square massacre within living memory, the rape of Tibet, and the widespread infanticide accompanying the One Child policy.
Our own reputation for honesty has taken a severe hit under Trump. How will other nations trust the word of the United States when we elected someone who supported the lies of Kim Jong-un and other corrupt and cruel dictators, and valorized our own war criminals? What does it tell the world when our president conducts a non-stop jihad against the press? Who can respect this nation when our president, in defending Putin, expressed his belief that we commit just as many sins?
Australia is showing courage by standing up to China, and paying a price. The White House has announced this week that it will be serving Australian wine, which would have been a better gesture if this president had not allied us with the world’s liars and criminals for four years.
In the post-Trump era, the most important restoration will be that of truth.