thebulwark--2020-06-19--The ‘Wednesday Night Massacre’ in U.S. International Media

Late Wednesday , Michael Pack—the new CEO of U.S. international media—cleaned house .
Pack oversees taxpayer-funded media outlets Voice of America ( VOA ) , Radio Free Asia , Cuban broadcasting , the Middle East Broadcasting Networks ( MBN ) , and my former company , Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty—RFE/RL .
( I was CEO of the Prague-based group , with its bureaus in two dozen countries , from 2007 to 2011 . )
In short order , Pack saw to it that all top executives were gone .
Voice of America ’ s Amanda Bennett came first , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was an Obama holdover , a presidential appointee from the last administration , and Bennett actually resigned at the beginning of the week .
How bizarre it has been , to hear the White House whine about VOA .
“ Disgusting , ” moaned President Trump at one point .
Most of us wondered why he left a Democrat there in the first place .
He could have replaced Bennett any time in the last three and a half years .
Most of us were also relieved , of course , that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cuban broadcasting and RFA were chopped off , too .
But the truly bewildering part of this week ’ s purge , though , was Pack ’ s dismissal of Alberto Fernandez at the helm of MBN and Jamie Fly , the CEO of RFE/RL .
Both are loyal Republicans ( Fernandez having been a clear supporter of President Trump ) .
Both men are exceptionally qualified and competent .
I know Fernandez , and by all accounts he has done a superb job since becoming president of MBN in June 2017 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , previously having held posts with the foreign service in Iraq , Kuwait , and the United Arab Emirates .
He has been a desk officer for Yemen , Egypt , and Sudan , and served as the coordinator for the State Department ’ s Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications .
Jamie Fly ( a good friend , I disclose ) is top-notch , too .
Fly has run a think tank , worked on Capitol Hill ( for Senator Marco Rubio ) , served on the staff of the National Security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and effective initiatives at the German Marshall Fund .
Fly was but ten months on the job—already making a mark—when Pack relieved him of his duties , “ effective immediately ; ” with notice given by email ( nice touch ) .
RFE/RL rank and file remain stunned .
U.S. international media , which trace their origins to World War II and the early Cold War , have been a chiefly bipartisan affair .
Not now .
Michael Pack was confirmed by the Senate along party lines—53 to 38 on June 4—getting across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some decidedly unenthused Republicans .
There were concerns on both sides of the aisle about the agency Pack now leads becoming a Trump mouthpiece .
There were also legal questions surrounding Pack ’ s nonprofit work yet to be clarified .
In the saddle , Pack has been busy consolidating power .
He has disbanded grantee boards and installed himself as chairman in each case , and has started stuffing Trump loyalists of dubious qualification into vacancies .
He has also alienated the State Department , leaving Secretary Pompeo ’ s office in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even provoked Trump supporters .
“ Ambassador Fernandez was the greatest asset America had in foreign broadcasting , ” wrote former White House staffer Sebastian Gorka on Twitter .
Michael Doran of the Hudson Institute , a former National Security Council and State Department official , tweeted that Fernandez ’ s firing was “ asinine.
” I know Michael Pack .
He ’ s never been what my liberal friends think , even if he worked on this or that documentary with Steve Bannon .
He ’ s a conservative documentary filmmaker—thoughtful , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can say is on this one Michael is completely missing the boat .
Or maybe pirates have taken over his ship .
I have a half-dozen theories for what ’ s going on : 1 ) Theory one is incompetence—that Pack is being steered by goofball sherpas in the White House who know nothing of good management practice , judgment , or decent behavior .
Pack ought to know better and assert himself .
If this sort of malpractice were to continue , Pack might find himself following the footsteps of Anthony Scaramucci @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Communications Director after just 10 excruciating days in July 2017 .
2 ) Theory two holds that either Pack or White House personnel have promised jobs to people and vacancies had to be created .
Five CEO jobs are now waiting to be filled .
3 ) Theory three is that Steve Bannon is somewhere in the background .
Bannon once told Ron Radosh “ I ’ m a Leninist.
” Some pretty fast , shrewd , and single-minded power consolidation is going on here .
“ There are decades where nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades happen , ” as Vladimir Ilyich is supposed to have said .
4 ) Theory four follows from three .
Perhaps it ’ s the vision for a second Trump term that existing U.S. international media are gutted , with assets rolled into a single , unified communications agency under White House control .
To set this up , you ’ d want top-down command and control leadership and the vigorous suppression of dissent .
5 ) Theory five is that a good deal of what we see happening is part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deep state.
” East European friends , recalling Communist culture , are asking me if experts and expertise are the enemy here ( in which case , poor Fernandez and Fly for knowing stuff ) .
Communists in the day always placed party hacks in key posts .
Ideological reliability and unwavering loyalty were everything .
“ Die Partei , Die Partei , die hat immer Recht ” — “ the Party , the Party , the Party is always right ” comes to mind from the East German Communist Party ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pack has been drinking far more of the Trump Kool-Aid than I imagined .
If so , though , he has nonetheless managed to alienate Trump supporters .
In addition to Gorka and Doran , here ’ s David Reaboi : So we ’ re back to theory one—simple incompetence .
Consider the press release put out by Pack ’ s own people this week .
Talk about self-inflicted wounds .
It sounds like Romania ’ s Nicolae Ceaușescu or Chinese President Xi Jinping : CEO Michael Pack implemented critical changes on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the staff through an introductory email .
.
.
.
Pack ’ s message was met with an overwhelmingly positive response by staff and grantees , who personally reached out and candidly congratulated him .
One noted , “ you emphasized that we all have a mission that unfortunately some have forgotten in recent and past years , to the disgrace of all.
” Another said , “ I am sure that with your arrival we will be able to rejuvenate our agency .
.
.
.
” Hours later , Pack effected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep assurances to restructure the agency , fully in accordance with the law .
As in every transition , Pack brings a leadership team that is committed to eradicating .
.
.
.
We will press ahead now as that is the charge with which we have been bestowed by all stakeholders.
” I thought to quote for this article from the many messages I ’ ve been receiving from Michael Pack ’ s employees .
But I ’ ve noted Pack and comrades have banned for staff all outside communication .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ being sifted through and wanded for listening devices .
No stringing up counterrevolutionaries , though ; not yet .

Late Wednesday, Michael Pack—the new CEO of U.S. international media—cleaned house. Pack oversees taxpayer-funded media outlets Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Asia, Cuban broadcasting, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN), and my former company, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty—RFE/RL. (I was CEO of the Prague-based group, with its bureaus in two dozen countries, from 2007 to 2011.) In short order, Pack saw to it that all top executives were gone.
Voice of America’s Amanda Bennett came first, but there was no surprise here. She was an Obama holdover, a presidential appointee from the last administration, and Bennett actually resigned at the beginning of the week. How bizarre it has been, to hear the White House whine about VOA. “Disgusting,” moaned President Trump at one point. Most of us wondered why he left a Democrat there in the first place. He could have replaced Bennett any time in the last three and a half years. Most of us were also relieved, of course, that this president never noticed.
The heads of Cuban broadcasting and RFA were chopped off, too.
But the truly bewildering part of this week’s purge, though, was Pack’s dismissal of Alberto Fernandez at the helm of MBN and Jamie Fly, the CEO of RFE/RL. Both are loyal Republicans (Fernandez having been a clear supporter of President Trump). Both men are exceptionally qualified and competent.
I know Fernandez, and by all accounts he has done a superb job since becoming president of MBN in June 2017. Fernandez speaks fluent Arabic (and Spanish), previously having held posts with the foreign service in Iraq, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. He has been a desk officer for Yemen, Egypt, and Sudan, and served as the coordinator for the State Department’s Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications.
Jamie Fly (a good friend, I disclose) is top-notch, too. Fly has run a think tank, worked on Capitol Hill (for Senator Marco Rubio), served on the staff of the National Security Council, and been associated with smart and effective initiatives at the German Marshall Fund. Fly was but ten months on the job—already making a mark—when Pack relieved him of his duties, “effective immediately;” with notice given by email (nice touch). RFE/RL rank and file remain stunned.
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…
U.S. international media, which trace their origins to World War II and the early Cold War, have been a chiefly bipartisan affair. Not now. Michael Pack was confirmed by the Senate along party lines—53 to 38 on June 4—getting across the finish line with the help of some decidedly unenthused Republicans. There were concerns on both sides of the aisle about the agency Pack now leads becoming a Trump mouthpiece. There were also legal questions surrounding Pack’s nonprofit work yet to be clarified.
In the saddle, Pack has been busy consolidating power. He has disbanded grantee boards and installed himself as chairman in each case, and has started stuffing Trump loyalists of dubious qualification into vacancies. He has also alienated the State Department, leaving Secretary Pompeo’s office in the dark about his plans, and even provoked Trump supporters. “Ambassador Fernandez was the greatest asset America had in foreign broadcasting,” wrote former White House staffer Sebastian Gorka on Twitter. Michael Doran of the Hudson Institute, a former National Security Council and State Department official, tweeted that Fernandez’s firing was “asinine.”
I know Michael Pack. He’s never been what my liberal friends think, even if he worked on this or that documentary with Steve Bannon. He’s a conservative documentary filmmaker—thoughtful, cerebral, and curious. All I can say is on this one Michael is completely missing the boat. Or maybe pirates have taken over his ship.
I have a half-dozen theories for what’s going on:
1) Theory one is incompetence—that Pack is being steered by goofball sherpas in the White House who know nothing of good management practice, judgment, or decent behavior. Pack ought to know better and assert himself. If this sort of malpractice were to continue, Pack might find himself following the footsteps of Anthony Scaramucci, who vacated his post as White House Communications Director after just 10 excruciating days in July 2017.
2) Theory two holds that either Pack or White House personnel have promised jobs to people and vacancies had to be created. Five CEO jobs are now waiting to be filled.
3) Theory three is that Steve Bannon is somewhere in the background. Bannon once told Ron Radosh “I’m a Leninist.” Some pretty fast, shrewd, and single-minded power consolidation is going on here. “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen,” as Vladimir Ilyich is supposed to have said.
4) Theory four follows from three. Perhaps it’s the vision for a second Trump term that existing U.S. international media are gutted, with assets rolled into a single, unified communications agency under White House control. To set this up, you’d want top-down command and control leadership and the vigorous suppression of dissent.
5) Theory five is that a good deal of what we see happening is part of the wider Trump war on the “deep state.” East European friends, recalling Communist culture, are asking me if experts and expertise are the enemy here (in which case, poor Fernandez and Fly for knowing stuff). Communists in the day always placed party hacks in key posts. Ideological reliability and unwavering loyalty were everything. “Die Partei, Die Partei, die hat immer Recht”—“the Party, the Party, the Party is always right” comes to mind from the East German Communist Party’s anthem.
6) Theory six. Pack has been drinking far more of the Trump Kool-Aid than I imagined. If so, though, he has nonetheless managed to alienate Trump supporters. In addition to Gorka and Doran, here’s David Reaboi:
@AlbertoMiguelF5’s tenure at @alhurranews was the only unambiguously competent success story from the Trump administration that I am aware of. No exaggeration. It was a model for recapturing territory from the far-left and righting the ship. — David Reaboi (@davereaboi) June 18, 2020
So we’re back to theory one—simple incompetence. Consider the press release put out by Pack’s own people this week. Talk about self-inflicted wounds. It sounds like Romania’s Nicolae Ceaușescu or Chinese President Xi Jinping:
CEO Michael Pack implemented critical changes on his first day. . . . Addressing the staff through an introductory email . . . . Pack’s message was met with an overwhelmingly positive response by staff and grantees, who personally reached out and candidly congratulated him. One noted, “you emphasized that we all have a mission that unfortunately some have forgotten in recent and past years, to the disgrace of all.” Another said, “I am sure that with your arrival we will be able to rejuvenate our agency . . . .” Hours later, Pack effected a series of significant and long-overdue actions to keep assurances to restructure the agency, fully in accordance with the law. As in every transition, Pack brings a leadership team that is committed to eradicating . . . . We will press ahead now as that is the charge with which we have been bestowed by all stakeholders.”
I thought to quote for this article from the many messages I’ve been receiving from Michael Pack’s employees. But I’ve noted Pack and comrades have banned for staff all outside communication. There are even reports of trash cans being sifted through and wanded for listening devices. No stringing up counterrevolutionaries, though; not yet.


thebulwark--2020-06-20--Corruption and Coverup in Mike Pompeo’s State Department

With attention understandably focused on the protests in the wake of George Floyd ’ s murder , a resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic , and the economic crisis , the unfolding scandal at the State Department involving Secretary Mike Pompeo went almost unnoticed .
That might change , thanks to the revelations in John Bolton ’ s new book of rampant self-dealing in the Trump administration ’ s foreign policy , in which Pompeo features prominently .
When he first started as secretary , Pompeo promised to bring “ swagger ” back to the department .
But more than two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department suffers from plummeting morale and misguided leadership .
Like other officials in the administration , including the president , Pompeo seems to think he is above accountability and transparency .
At Pompeo ’ s request , Trump fired the department ’ s Inspector General , Steve Linick , even though ( or because ) Linick was investigating Pompeo on two issues : misuse of State Department personnel for personal errands and misrepresentation of the case for approving military assistance to Saudi Arabia .
Pompeo claimed in an interview : “ I went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him that Inspector General Linick wasn ’ t performing a function in a way that we had tried to get him to , that was additive for the State Department , very consistent with what the statute says he ’ s supposed to be doing .
The kinds of activities he ’ s supposed to undertake to make us better , to improve us.
” Pompeo , like his boss , seems ignorant of the job and function of the Inspector General .
IGs serve as independent watchdogs of each department and agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corruption and malfeasance .
They are not there to swagger , or serve the goals of the department as defined by Pompeo .
Perhaps before Pompeo offers his opinion of other officials ’ job descriptions , he should brush up on his own .
When Trump derisively referred to the department as “ the Deep State ” at a March 20 coronavirus briefing with Pompeo standing right next to him , the secretary refused to defend State Department employees .
He provided no backing for those at Statewho became embroiled in the impeachment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from cooperating with the investigation .
He lashed out at an NPR reporter , Mary Louise Kelly , who dared to ask him about his lack of support for former U.S .
Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch , and then issued an incredibly childish statement the next day questioning Kelly ’ s integrity and knowledge of geography ( suggesting she mixed up Ukraine and Bangladesh on a map ) .
Pompeo traveled to his home state of Kansas three times last year – at taxpayer expense – amid speculation that he was contemplating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ; an Office of Special Counsel investigation concluded he did not abuse his position for that travel .
He has hosted “ Madison Dinners ” at State , again on the taxpayers ’ dime , for various luminaries , Republican members of Congress , and potential future donors .
Pompeo denied that Linick ’ s firing was in retaliation for the IG ’ s investigations , since , Pompeo claimed , he did not know he was being investigated .
Yet , having refused to be interviewed regarding the Saudi investigation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Linick ’ s office .
That doesn ’ t square with Pompeo ’ s claim that he was unaware he was being investigated .
Linick claims to have informed , among others , Brian Bulatao , the department ’ s undersecretary for management and a long-time ally and former business partner of Pompeo , of the investigation into Pompeo ’ s alleged misuse of department employees for personal and family errands .
As Politico ’ s Nahal Toosi put it , “ … [ C ] urrent and former State Department officials say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other aides would have mentioned such a probe to Pompeo.
” That means somebody is lying .
Pompeo has never denied the accusations of using staff for personal errands , saying sarcastically , “ I ’ ve seen the various stories that someone was walking my dog to sell arms to my dry cleaner .
It ’ s all just crazy .
It ’ s all crazy stuff.
” Cute .
But not a convincing defense .
In a session with reporters last week , Pompeo attacked Linick .
“ Steve Linick was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office here .
He didn ’ t take on the mission of the State Department to make us better , ” Pompeo said .
“ That ’ s what inspector generals are supposed to do ; they work for the agency head – that ’ s me – and they are supposed to deliver and help make that organization better .
It ’ s not what Mr. Linick did.
” Pompeo again demonstrates he does not understand the role of the IG ; he thinks he is above any scrutiny .
Pompeo and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation of Linick over alleged leaks involving an IG investigation last year into inappropriate personnel matters in the Office of Policy Planning .
According to CNN , Linick and his office had been cleared of any involvement in the leaks .
Meanwhile , Trump appointed Stephen Akard to be acting inspector general at the same time Akard is retaining his position as Director of the Office of Foreign Missions .
How an inspector general can be a neutral investigator while also in a leadership position subject to his own investigations is baffling , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inappropriate double duty .
In 2014 , Pompeo was one of the House leaders calling for accountability during the investigation of the attack on the U.S. Embassy compound in Benghazi .
Yet accountability apparently does not apply to him .
Surrounded by mounting controversy and scandal , Pompeo , with his arrogant and bullying behavior , sets a terrible example as the nation ’ s top diplomat .
If he wants to be “ additive ” to the State Department , he should start by resigning .

With attention understandably focused on the protests in the wake of George Floyd’s murder, a resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the economic crisis, the unfolding scandal at the State Department involving Secretary Mike Pompeo went almost unnoticed. That might change, thanks to the revelations in John Bolton’s new book of rampant self-dealing in the Trump administration’s foreign policy, in which Pompeo features prominently. When he first started as secretary, Pompeo promised to bring “swagger” back to the department. But more than two years into his tenure, the State Department suffers from plummeting morale and misguided leadership.
Like other officials in the administration, including the president, Pompeo seems to think he is above accountability and transparency. At Pompeo’s request, Trump fired the department’s Inspector General, Steve Linick, even though (or because) Linick was investigating Pompeo on two issues: misuse of State Department personnel for personal errands and misrepresentation of the case for approving military assistance to Saudi Arabia.
Pompeo claimed in an interview: “I went to the president and made clear to him that Inspector General Linick wasn’t performing a function in a way that we had tried to get him to, that was additive for the State Department, very consistent with what the statute says he’s supposed to be doing. The kinds of activities he’s supposed to undertake to make us better, to improve us.”
Pompeo, like his boss, seems ignorant of the job and function of the Inspector General. IGs serve as independent watchdogs of each department and agency, investigating and reporting on any alleged corruption and malfeasance. They are not there to swagger, or serve the goals of the department as defined by Pompeo.
Perhaps before Pompeo offers his opinion of other officials’ job descriptions, he should brush up on his own. When Trump derisively referred to the department as “the Deep State” at a March 20 coronavirus briefing with Pompeo standing right next to him, the secretary refused to defend State Department employees. He provided no backing for those at State who became embroiled in the impeachment process and even tried to keep them from cooperating with the investigation.
He lashed out at an NPR reporter, Mary Louise Kelly, who dared to ask him about his lack of support for former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, and then issued an incredibly childish statement the next day questioning Kelly’s integrity and knowledge of geography (suggesting she mixed up Ukraine and Bangladesh on a map).
Pompeo traveled to his home state of Kansas three times last year – at taxpayer expense – amid speculation that he was contemplating a run for the open Senate seat there; an Office of Special Counsel investigation concluded he did not abuse his position for that travel. He has hosted “Madison Dinners” at State, again on the taxpayers’ dime, for various luminaries, Republican members of Congress, and potential future donors.
Pompeo denied that Linick’s firing was in retaliation for the IG’s investigations, since, Pompeo claimed, he did not know he was being investigated. Yet, having refused to be interviewed regarding the Saudi investigation, Pompeo responded in writing to questions from Linick’s office. That doesn’t square with Pompeo’s claim that he was unaware he was being investigated.
Linick claims to have informed, among others, Brian Bulatao, the department’s undersecretary for management and a long-time ally and former business partner of Pompeo, of the investigation into Pompeo’s alleged misuse of department employees for personal and family errands. As Politico’s Nahal Toosi put it, “…[C]urrent and former State Department officials say it beggars belief that neither Bulatao nor other aides would have mentioned such a probe to Pompeo.” That means somebody is lying.
Pompeo has never denied the accusations of using staff for personal errands, saying sarcastically, “I’ve seen the various stories that someone was walking my dog to sell arms to my dry cleaner. It’s all just crazy. It’s all crazy stuff.” Cute. But not a convincing defense.
In a session with reporters last week, Pompeo attacked Linick. “Steve Linick was a bad actor in the inspector general office here. He didn’t take on the mission of the State Department to make us better,” Pompeo said. “That’s what inspector generals are supposed to do; they work for the agency head – that’s me – and they are supposed to deliver and help make that organization better. It’s not what Mr. Linick did.” Pompeo again demonstrates he does not understand the role of the IG; he thinks he is above any scrutiny.
Pompeo and his team are now asking for an investigation of Linick over alleged leaks involving an IG investigation last year into inappropriate personnel matters in the Office of Policy Planning. According to CNN, Linick and his office had been cleared of any involvement in the leaks.
Meanwhile, Trump appointed Stephen Akard to be acting inspector general at the same time Akard is retaining his position as Director of the Office of Foreign Missions. How an inspector general can be a neutral investigator while also in a leadership position subject to his own investigations is baffling, but Pompeo seems unbothered by this clearly inappropriate double duty.
In 2014, Pompeo was one of the House leaders calling for accountability during the investigation of the attack on the U.S. Embassy compound in Benghazi. Yet accountability apparently does not apply to him.
Surrounded by mounting controversy and scandal, Pompeo, with his arrogant and bullying behavior, sets a terrible example as the nation’s top diplomat. If he wants to be “additive” to the State Department, he should start by resigning.


thebulwark--2020-06-20--We Need More Trials By Jury

We Need More Trials By Jury

Activists spurred by the recorded murder of George Floyd are seeking to reform the two ends of the criminal justice system : the entrance ( street level policing ) and the exit ( sentences rendered by judges ) .
What ’ s missing from our national conversation is a demand for the revival of the most democratic element of the entire criminal justice system : the jury trial .
Because despite what you see on TV courtroom dramas , the criminal jury trial has been nearly extinguished from American courtrooms .
Juries are the original “ citizens oversight panel ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Framers of the Constitution clearly understood the importance of the jury trial and ensconced jury trials into the Bill of Rights as the Sixth Amendment .
The inclusion of the right to jury was not a new concern .
It was listed among the criticisms of King George ’ s despotism in the Declaration of Independence , right alongside grievances about taxation without representation .
( “ For depriving us in many cases , of the benefits of Trial by Jury.
” ) But jury trials have been nearly extinguished from American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Criminal Defense Lawyers only 3 percent of state and federal cases go to trial .
Which has made the American criminal courts a “ system of pleas ” rather than a “ system of trials.
” How did this shift take place ?
The dominance of the plea agreement is less the result of superior policing than shifts in penalties , overlapping criminal statutes , and the tacit agreement between prosecutors and judges to penalize defendants who take their case to trial and lose .
In other words , jury trials have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bureaucratic pressure applied by the state against citizens charged with crimes .
And because the blunt pressure of increased sentences disproportionately affects black and brown defendants across the country , this “ system of pleas ” is indeed indicative of an entire criminal justice process rife with inherent racism .
Starting in the mid-1980s , America ’ s “ War on Crime ” was put on steroids .
Criminal penalties increased nearly across the board in most states and federally .
For instance , in Wisconsin there were 300 percent to 700 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Consider the following scenario : Stacy owns a failing hair salon with a substantial mortgage and modest insurance policy .
In a moment of mental distress , she starts a fire in the salon ’ s attic at midnight .
Minor damage ensues and no one is hurt .
She later confesses and is indicted by the federal government .
If Stacy and her attorney believe a trial is warranted to decide whether she is relieved of criminal liability because she was suffering from a mental disease and could not conduct herself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ not guilty by reason of insanity ” ) she has a huge wager to make.The lifting of the ceilings of potential punishments created huge , coercive leverage for prosecutors .
With the potential risks to defendants so high , prosecutors could offer deals by either striking a particular charge with a larger potential penalty , or agreeing to argue to the sentencing court for a particular penalty far under the maximum .
And defendants came to understand that if they failed to take these deals and lost at trial , then the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largest potential penalties .
However , nearly all federal prosecutors will also issue an additional charge of “ arson in furtherance of a felony ” if the case goes to trial .
And arsons almost always have a “ furtherance of ” purpose that is felonious .
After all , why else would you start a fire unless it was in pursuit of debt-relief , an insurance payout , or to maliciously destroy someone else ’ s property ?
However , this second arson charge carries its own 10-year mandatory minimum sentence on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the simple arson charge .
Which raises the stakes from a potential 5-year prison stint to 15-years .
Creating these sorts of overlapping charges is the equivalent of the government stacking the deck against defendants in an attempt to get them to give up their right to a jury trial .
Which may be good for conviction rates , but may not be helpful for the cause of justice .
Another example is overdose death cases .
( Or “ Len Bias ” homicide ; this is a particular hobby horse of mine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NBA draft pick Len Bias in 1986 , the federal government and most states created a new class of homicide liability for those who deliver a controlled substance where the use of the controlled substance results in death .
These Len Bias laws were mostly dormant and unused until the current opioid epidemic surfaced , at which point prosecutors began charging homicides in cases that clearly did not warrant them .
Consider the following common fact set : Jack and Diane are heroin addicts .
One afternoon , Jack calls Diane and asks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heroin .
Diane has the phone number of an active drug dealer .
Jack has a car to drive to the area where the dealer wants to meet .
He also has enough money to buy heroin for both himself and Diane ( giving a gratuity in turn for finding the source of heroin is common in drug-user culture ) .
The transaction happens in a parking lot and soon after both Jack and Diane use the heroin .
Due to physiological differences inherent to every human , Diane gets high , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite Diane ’ s attempts to revive him and calling 911 for medical aid .
Relying on the letter of the law , prosecutors will regularly charge the surviving heroin user with homicide under the Len Bias law .
Meaning that Diane is on the hook for murder because heroin was delivered ( aiding and abetting the delivery through connecting with the actual , commercial drug dealer ) and the heroin use resulted in death .
These charges are facially absurd to most outside observers given the “ victim ” and “ murderer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same behavior prior to one ’ s death .
But even so , this is how the law is often applied—with the common result being that Diane will plead to a lesser charge rather than take a chance with a jury where she is on the hook for murder .
Despite the blatant injustice Len Bias prosecutions present , they are still pursued .
Prosecutors are under pressure both by the public ( often vocal family members of the survivors ) and law enforcement community ( often those engaged in multi-agency “ task @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to seek convictions .
Another common example of unjust prosecutions are those for “ resisting or obstructing ” an officer .
Here is another common fact set : John , an African-American male , is driving home from visiting his mother .
John drives a newish car .
A police officer , ostensibly monitoring traffic , clocks John driving over the speed limit and pulls him over .
John correctly points out that several cars passed him in close proximity to the officer and asks whether the officer pulled him over because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John exit his car .
John , who has committed no arrestable offense , balks .
Other officers arrive as “ backup ” and together decide that John ’ s unwillingness to leave his own car is further justification to force him to do so .
The officers then physically snatch John from his car and “ decentralize ” him .
( There is an entire lexicon of terminology used by law enforcement in the vein of “ decentralize ” —which is simply the bureaucratic way of saying “ throw the person to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would , John pushes away from the police officers in an attempt to protect his person .
In the process , one of the officers sprains his thumb .
John is then arrested and charged with a felony resisting an officer for causing soft tissue damage .
Prosecutors , who have to deal with the same police officers every day and rely on them to make their cases , will have a professional incentive not to “ budge ” on the prosecution .
After all : John is just a one-time actor in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The police who are charging him are repeat players .
In other contexts this , this sort of asymmetrical relationship between supposedly independent entities might be called “ industry capture.
” It ’ s a lot like the situation we see in regulation when the regulators are led around by the same interests they are charged with overseeing .
What all of these examples have in common is that reforming the entrance to and exit from the criminal justice system can only take us so far .
Only the middle phase—the jury trial—has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to account , because they allow ordinary citizens to put their thumbs on the scales of justice and acquit those being pursued by overzealous prosecutors .
Only after being socked in the nose several times with the words “ not guilty ” will prosecutors be persuaded to curtail particularly noxious avenues of unjust prosecutions .
But the pressure valve and correcting ability of the original citizens oversight panels can not be revived unless prosecutors and courts buy-in to their constitutional duty to allow jury trials without making the potential penalties from a conviction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crime .
After all , you could get a 100 percent conviction rate if the potential penalty for every crime was death , because no reasonable defendant would dare take a case to trial .
But that wouldn ’ t be justice any more than the current system of overcharging is .
And the state ’ s goal isn ’ t getting as many convictions as possible .
It ’ s furthering the cause of justice .
So while we attempt to reform law enforcement , we should also try to reform the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of prosecutors to stack redundant charges .
• Stop prosecutors from seeking penalties grossly beyond those sought during the pretrial plea bargain process .
• Train prosecutors to accept trials as normal and expected .
• Allow defense attorneys to expressly question the justice of tried charges ( engaging in so-call “ jury nullification ” ) .
• And ratchet down sentencing penalties and eliminate overlapping criminal offenses to create a criminal justice system in line with the Framers ’ intent .
The importance of jury trials to American liberty is not new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trials by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man , by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution .
”

Activists spurred by the recorded murder of George Floyd are seeking to reform the two ends of the criminal justice system: the entrance (street level policing) and the exit (sentences rendered by judges). What’s missing from our national conversation is a demand for the revival of the most democratic element of the entire criminal justice system: the jury trial.
Because despite what you see on TV courtroom dramas, the criminal jury trial has been nearly extinguished from American courtrooms.
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…
Juries are the original “citizens oversight panel” of the exercise of governmental power.
The Framers of the Constitution clearly understood the importance of the jury trial and ensconced jury trials into the Bill of Rights as the Sixth Amendment. The inclusion of the right to jury was not a new concern. It was listed among the criticisms of King George’s despotism in the Declaration of Independence, right alongside grievances about taxation without representation. (“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.”)
But jury trials have been nearly extinguished from American courthouses. According to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers only 3 percent of state and federal cases go to trial. Which has made the American criminal courts a “system of pleas” rather than a “system of trials.”
How did this shift take place?
The dominance of the plea agreement is less the result of superior policing than shifts in penalties, overlapping criminal statutes, and the tacit agreement between prosecutors and judges to penalize defendants who take their case to trial and lose.
In other words, jury trials have been killed off by both legislative and bureaucratic pressure applied by the state against citizens charged with crimes. And because the blunt pressure of increased sentences disproportionately affects black and brown defendants across the country, this “system of pleas” is indeed indicative of an entire criminal justice process rife with inherent racism.
Starting in the mid-1980s, America’s “War on Crime” was put on steroids. Criminal penalties increased nearly across the board in most states and federally. For instance, in Wisconsin there were 300 percent to 700 percent increases in some penalties by felony classification.
Consider the following scenario: Stacy owns a failing hair salon with a substantial mortgage and modest insurance policy. In a moment of mental distress, she starts a fire in the salon’s attic at midnight. Minor damage ensues and no one is hurt. She later confesses and is indicted by the federal government. If Stacy and her attorney believe a trial is warranted to decide whether she is relieved of criminal liability because she was suffering from a mental disease and could not conduct herself according to the law (i.e. “not guilty by reason of insanity”) she has a huge wager to make.The lifting of the ceilings of potential punishments created huge, coercive leverage for prosecutors. With the potential risks to defendants so high, prosecutors could offer deals by either striking a particular charge with a larger potential penalty, or agreeing to argue to the sentencing court for a particular penalty far under the maximum. And defendants came to understand that if they failed to take these deals and lost at trial, then the sentencing court was likely to impose the largest potential penalties.
Under federal law, simple arson carries a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence.
However, nearly all federal prosecutors will also issue an additional charge of “arson in furtherance of a felony” if the case goes to trial. And arsons almost always have a “furtherance of” purpose that is felonious. After all, why else would you start a fire unless it was in pursuit of debt-relief, an insurance payout, or to maliciously destroy someone else’s property?
However, this second arson charge carries its own 10-year mandatory minimum sentence on top of the original 5-year penalty of the simple arson charge. Which raises the stakes from a potential 5-year prison stint to 15-years.
Creating these sorts of overlapping charges is the equivalent of the government stacking the deck against defendants in an attempt to get them to give up their right to a jury trial.
Which may be good for conviction rates, but may not be helpful for the cause of justice.
Another example is overdose death cases. (Or “Len Bias” homicide; this is a particular hobby horse of mine.)
Following the cocaine overdose of NBA draft pick Len Bias in 1986, the federal government and most states created a new class of homicide liability for those who deliver a controlled substance where the use of the controlled substance results in death.
These Len Bias laws were mostly dormant and unused until the current opioid epidemic surfaced, at which point prosecutors began charging homicides in cases that clearly did not warrant them.
Consider the following common fact set: Jack and Diane are heroin addicts. One afternoon, Jack calls Diane and asks if she knows where they could obtain heroin. Diane has the phone number of an active drug dealer. Jack has a car to drive to the area where the dealer wants to meet. He also has enough money to buy heroin for both himself and Diane (giving a gratuity in turn for finding the source of heroin is common in drug-user culture). The transaction happens in a parking lot and soon after both Jack and Diane use the heroin. Due to physiological differences inherent to every human, Diane gets high, but Jack suffers an overdose and dies, despite Diane’s attempts to revive him and calling 911 for medical aid.
Relying on the letter of the law, prosecutors will regularly charge the surviving heroin user with homicide under the Len Bias law.
Meaning that Diane is on the hook for murder because heroin was delivered (aiding and abetting the delivery through connecting with the actual, commercial drug dealer) and the heroin use resulted in death. These charges are facially absurd to most outside observers given the “victim” and “murderer” were partners engaged in the exact same behavior prior to one’s death. But even so, this is how the law is often applied—with the common result being that Diane will plead to a lesser charge rather than take a chance with a jury where she is on the hook for murder.
Despite the blatant injustice Len Bias prosecutions present, they are still pursued. Prosecutors are under pressure both by the public (often vocal family members of the survivors) and law enforcement community (often those engaged in multi-agency “task forces” with grant justification motivations) to seek convictions.
Another common example of unjust prosecutions are those for “resisting or obstructing” an officer.
Here is another common fact set: John, an African-American male, is driving home from visiting his mother. John drives a newish car. A police officer, ostensibly monitoring traffic, clocks John driving over the speed limit and pulls him over. John correctly points out that several cars passed him in close proximity to the officer and asks whether the officer pulled him over because of his race. The officer asks that John exit his car. John, who has committed no arrestable offense, balks.
Other officers arrive as “backup” and together decide that John’s unwillingness to leave his own car is further justification to force him to do so. The officers then physically snatch John from his car and “decentralize” him. (There is an entire lexicon of terminology used by law enforcement in the vein of “decentralize”—which is simply the bureaucratic way of saying “throw the person to the ground.”)
As any human would, John pushes away from the police officers in an attempt to protect his person. In the process, one of the officers sprains his thumb.
John is then arrested and charged with a felony resisting an officer for causing soft tissue damage.
Prosecutors, who have to deal with the same police officers every day and rely on them to make their cases, will have a professional incentive not to “budge” on the prosecution. After all: John is just a one-time actor in the prosecutor’s professional life. The police who are charging him are repeat players.
In other contexts this, this sort of asymmetrical relationship between supposedly independent entities might be called “industry capture.” It’s a lot like the situation we see in regulation when the regulators are led around by the same interests they are charged with overseeing.
What all of these examples have in common is that reforming the entrance to and exit from the criminal justice system can only take us so far.
Only the middle phase—the jury trial—has been reliably effective in holding the state to account, because they allow ordinary citizens to put their thumbs on the scales of justice and acquit those being pursued by overzealous prosecutors. Only after being socked in the nose several times with the words “not guilty” will prosecutors be persuaded to curtail particularly noxious avenues of unjust prosecutions.
But the pressure valve and correcting ability of the original citizens oversight panels cannot be revived unless prosecutors and courts buy-in to their constitutional duty to allow jury trials without making the potential penalties from a conviction wildly out of sync with the alleged crime.
After all, you could get a 100 percent conviction rate if the potential penalty for every crime was death, because no reasonable defendant would dare take a case to trial. But that wouldn’t be justice any more than the current system of overcharging is.
And the state’s goal isn’t getting as many convictions as possible. It’s furthering the cause of justice.
So while we attempt to reform law enforcement, we should also try to reform the trial system:
Eliminate the ability of prosecutors to stack redundant charges.
Stop prosecutors from seeking penalties grossly beyond those sought during the pretrial plea bargain process.
Train prosecutors to accept trials as normal and expected.
Allow defense attorneys to expressly question the justice of tried charges (engaging in so-call “jury nullification”).
And ratchet down sentencing penalties and eliminate overlapping criminal offenses to create a criminal justice system in line with the Framers’ intent.
The importance of jury trials to American liberty is not new. To quote Jefferson “I consider trials by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution.”


thebulwark--2020-06-20--The GOP After Trump

The GOP After Trump

Few people today remember the story behind the sobriquet “ Grand Old Party ” —the handy “ GOP ” nickname for the Republican party , which at first blush seems miscast for a political faction that is considerably younger than its rival in a two-party system .
The title was adopted after the Civil War on the heels of a speech delivered in 1875 by John Logan , who had served in the Army as one of Grant ’ s favorite generals and was then a U.S. senator from Illinois .
Speaking in the dark days of political radicalism and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Logan inveighed against the restoration of white supremacy in the former Confederacy that was reducing the Republican party to a rump .
( The Republicans had flared into existence in the middle of the 19th century pledged to fight “ the twin relics of barbarism ” : slavery and polygamy . )
He opened by citing a report from Louisiana of thirty-five hundred people killed in the state since the end of the war for attempting to exercise their political rights .
These victims , most of whom were black , were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this gallant old party , that this gallant old ship that has sailed through troubled seas before , is going to be stranded now .
.
.
?
” Logan ’ s phrase was soon revised from “ gallant old party ” to “ grand old party ” —perhaps in homage to the Grand Army of the Republic in which so many Republican hearts of the age were touched with fire .
And the name stuck .
This largely forgotten story is told in Trumpocalypse , David Frum ’ s a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ belated ) end of the Trump era and sketches the contours of a decent Republican future on the ruins of the indecent present .
Frum was a widely published opinion journalist before working for a year as a speechwriter for George W. Bush early in his presidency .
Now a senior editor at the Atlantic , Frum detects very little of the old grandeur—and , given its diminishing electoral strength among women , less gallantry—in the party of Trump .
In contrast to so many Republican operatives in government and media who yielded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tribune , Frum has remained moored to the ideals that once made the Republican party the bulwark of American self-government .
His reputation as a Republican apostate predated the party ’ s embrace of Trump—which is to say , while he possesses considerable conservative credentials , he has long been something of an outsider , a reformer .
Trumpocalypse , along with Frum ’ s previous companion volume Trumpocracy , is part of a chorus of conservative dissent against Trump ’ s willful corruptions of party and principle .
Although Frum exposes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidency , what makes his contribution of special interest is that it upholds a vision of “ one-nation conservatism ” that used to prevail in Republican politics but is now dormant .
The palpable hope of this work is that it is not yet extinct .
Trumpocalypse gives readers a guide to understanding the modern GOP in its various forms—the good , the bad , and the ugly .
Let ’ s take these in reverse order .
It ’ s unsurprising that a campaign that sought and received clandestine assistance from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and profaned American statecraft in novel ways , grave and petty .
President Trump has refused to disclose his tax records , and has collected millions of dollars of payments since entering office , not only from party donors and professional grifters but from foreign governments and entities .
A legislative branch that passingly attended to its constitutional duties would never have permitted the chief executive to use his office for his own and his family ’ s private gain in such disregard of the public interest .
Trump has exploited the awesome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an off-the-books foreign policy , subverting the national interest to his own private political interest .
It was Trump ’ s brazen betrayal of pledged allies in Ukraine for no higher purpose than to generate dirt on his political opponent that earned him what Frum dubs “ the most emphatically justified impeachment in U.S. history.
” America today is more adrift in the world than at any time in living memory , diminished in the eyes of friend and foe alike .
This is a depressing development , and a dangerous one .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has traditionally been met with as much weary resignation as heartfelt enthusiasm , but the broad international acceptance of American power has been a conspicuous feature of the postwar era .
This invaluable jewel is now in jeopardy .
Admittedly , America ’ s stature has been fading since the collapse of the Soviet Union , as countries that share our values no longer share our fears or even our interests .
But with the advent of the “ America First ” program of illiberal nationalism and xenophobia , American credibility has faded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason is not far to seek .
American power , historically a force for the world ’ s freedom and prosperity , has been increasingly removed from the vocation of maintaining liberal order .
American power has seldom been wielded out of altruism , but foreign nations that once accepted ( and often admired ) America ’ s sense of enlightened self-interest have begun to doubt if Trump ’ s unenlightened hegemon is still superior to the alternatives .
Postwar presidents have understood that a substantial share of responsibility for world order came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accepted this purpose of American power .
Instead , he has openly shunned it , betraying erstwhile U.S. allies ( who remembers the Syrian Kurds , the Ukrainians , or , soon , the Afghans ? )
who were engaged in ferocious power struggles against U.S. adversaries .
Trump launched protectionist trade conflicts that undercut American consumers and the global economy on the risible notion that the European trading bloc represents a danger to U.S. national security .
He shortchanged the country ’ s soft power by cutting foreign aid and depleting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t recognize it before , many at home and abroad now recognize the peril of ( or opportunities for plunder in ) a world without American economic , diplomatic , and military leadership .
The dereliction of America ’ s global role has been attended by an alarming conservative turn against democratic practices and institutions at home .
Although Republicans used to console themselves that they represented America ’ s great “ silent majority , ” that ceased to be true decades ago .
As Frum argues , well before Trump declared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ dwindled into an extremist faction that had ceased even to try to represent an American majority.
” Beholden to the bitter resentments of a culture war and in thrall of libertarian doctrines on economics and immigration , the party had lost touch with the priorities and interests of the American nation .
As president , Trump has doubled down on the cultural chauvinism of the dwindling conservative base , expediting the flight away from the GOP by affluent and educated voters who not so long ago formed the backbone of the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and immigration agenda that Trump once gestured at—and that won over many downscale voters , primarily non-college-educated independents and disgruntled Democrats , who seldom if ever cast a Republican vote—never materialized .
On this rickety foundation of a narrow electoral coalition and a nonexistent policy agenda , Trump managed to bend the Republican party to his will .
With the GOP in his pocket , and protecting his pocket , Trump has traduced the norms and subverted the ethos of republican government .
He has castigated the press , even inciting violence against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to them as “ the enemies of the people.
” He has heaped contempt on the rule of law , repeatedly expressing his desire to tighten up libel laws .
He has issued a rhetorical carte blanche to police departments to rough up suspects in their custody .
He has inflamed racial divisions amid social crisis .
He has indulged pernicious conspiracy theories that bring ill repute on the cause of liberal democracy .
But the wider Republican habit has itself been profligacy and egregious neglect of the nation ’ s financial health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( pre-pandemic ) of vigorous economic growth have been an enormous breach of what Edmund Burke called the “ partnership .
.
.
between those who are living , those who are dead , and those who are to be born.
” Modern Republicans have lined up to cater relentlessly to the economic interests and cultural preferences of the baby boomers , even if it means depriving the emerging nation of the economic capital and bourgeois virtues that undergird aspiration and earned achievement .
The long-running populist division between “ people ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats and Americans , ” as the old saw had it—has grown more prominent under Trump ’ s poisonous tribalism .
The stark divergence between the popular vote and the Electoral College in 2016 confirmed the non-majoritarian nature of the Republican coalition , and has fueled ethnic chauvinism on the right .
As Trumpists increasingly repel a larger portion of a diverse electorate , the party has maneuvered to retain its share of power by increasingly undemocratic means .
Look no further than the pernicious practices of voter suppression and party-drawn districting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the political weight of the ballot ) among would-be voters disinclined to pull the lever for Republican candidates .
Since it emerged on the American political scene as the party of equal political liberty and of the Union , the Republican Party has stood for high and noble purposes even while promoting various causes .
The consistent thread has been an unapologetic defense of American democratic nationhood , rooted in the universal ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the political principles enshrined in the Constitution .
This adamant philosophical commitment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , will continue to be a powerful ballast for America ’ s constitutional order while encouraging industry and enhancing opportunity for all .
But if the old categories of left and right continue to dissolve , a civic nationalism , under whatever partisan guise , will be necessary to securing , preserving , and extending liberty ’ s blessings .
This constitutional conservatism is the theme stressed throughout Trumpocalypse , and for good reason : It has been jettisoned by almost every Republican in federal office in the process of acquiescing to Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purpose of American conservatism , rightly understood , is to demonstrate that the philosophy of natural right that laid the groundwork for the American republic is only compatible with limited government .
It is such a conception of the state serving society , and not the other way around , that would have forestalled official complicity with a crooked leader like Trump .
It also allows for the characteristics that once defined the American system : “ enterprise and individuality , markets and freedom , confidence in American moral purpose and American world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
If today ’ s Republicans ever wish to be known , to others and to themselves , by their fidelity to those values , they will have their work cut out for them .
Just as they will not be able to avoid awkward questions about how they abided Trump ’ s foul antics and cruelties , they will not be able to revert to business as usual .
The flaccid consensus that reigned before Trump in favor of libertarian initiatives—recall the GOP ’ s call to end the Medicare guarantee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , its support for upper-income tax cuts , and opposition to universal health coverage—was not responsive to contemporary challenges .
It needs to be left behind .
In its place , a decent conservatism ’ s mandate in the years ahead will be to champion the cohesion and broad prosperity of the nation .
A reformed GOP must vindicate the national interest by furnishing a healthy dose of relief to workers buffeted by the pincer forces of globalization and technological progress while helping to halt the advance of isolation and alienation in American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy .
Thanks to a profusion of what social scientists call “ deaths of despair , ” the overall life expectancy of Americans has declined in recent years—the first sustained drop since the period from 1915 to 1918 , when the First World War and a global flu pandemic killed untold millions .
Frum also emphasizes the growing separation ( and concomitant mistrust ) between the sexes .
About 60 percent of Americans under age 35 live without a spouse or partner , and an individual in this cohort is more likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( an outcome not seen since the 19th century ) .
Even one-third of middle-aged Americans , aged 35 to 54 , live without a partner .
The dwindling vitality of marriage and family life poses grave challenges to the stability of society .
The growing American detachment from the forms of human flourishing and civic health—beginning with the family , but sprawling outward to include civic associations , fraternal bodies , religious communities , commercial enterprises , activist groups and , yes , political parties—must be rejuvenated .
There will also need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right with the America of tomorrow .
Much has been written about the dangers of a Republican electoral strategy based on maximizing the turnout of older voters who happen to be predominantly nonurban and white .
Frum handles this subject deftly , reminding readers that on current trends , by 2040 , 70 percent of the American population will live in fifteen states while 30 percent of the population will live in thirty-five states .
The political ramifications of this growing divide are enormous and ominous .
The dispersed ( and disproportionately white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will control a commanding 70 seats in the U.S. Senate , which will almost certainly be employed to harden economic trends that feature a lack of mobility from the bottom , stagnating working-class wages , and a growing plutocratic class .
To check and reverse this breakdown of democracy , Frum proposes a number of structural reforms , from abolishing the filibuster to granting statehood to the District of Columbia , that will restore some clout to majorities and ensure fairer competition in elections to decide those majorities .
A more equitable system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the kind of party Frum aspires to see : “ an ethnically diverse , culturally modern post-Boomer generation party of markets and enterprise for the twenty-first century.
” In these times of diminishing opportunity and hardening isolation , such a party can not form too quickly .
For Republicans Trumpocalypse sounds a reveille : to man the ramparts facing inwards against an imposter who never had any business as a county chairman , much less the presidential nominee , of this gallant old party .
For those who still need to hear it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avail .
But Frum dedicates the book to those Republicans who have already heard it , who for four miserable years have held fast to principle over power .
He borrows a verse from an old Methodist hymn : “ When all were false , I found thee true.
” It ’ s a fitting compliment paid to those happy few conservatives who grasped the responsibility and obligation of a party whose “ grandeur derived not from its antiquity , but from its association with equal rights and human freedom.
” That association @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been “ sullied and betrayed by the Trump presidency.
” The damage done—both to the Republican party and to the republic at large—by a single presidential term will undoubtedly take a long time to repair .
But does the sheer scale and scope of damage render the Republican party beyond repair ?
If the president is nominated and elected to a second term , perhaps so .
But with his prospects of re-election waning , what if he is repudiated by a decisive margin ?
After so long and hazardous a journey , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be stranded now ?
Surely a party with such a noble mission has earned the benefit of some doubt .

Trumpocalypse
Restoring American Democracy
by David Frum
Harper, 272 pp., $28.99
Few people today remember the story behind the sobriquet “Grand Old Party”—the handy “GOP” nickname for the Republican party, which at first blush seems miscast for a political faction that is considerably younger than its rival in a two-party system. The title was adopted after the Civil War on the heels of a speech delivered in 1875 by John Logan, who had served in the Army as one of Grant’s favorite generals and was then a U.S. senator from Illinois.
Speaking in the dark days of political radicalism and civil strife that followed the Union victory, Logan inveighed against the restoration of white supremacy in the former Confederacy that was reducing the Republican party to a rump. (The Republicans had flared into existence in the middle of the 19th century pledged to fight “the twin relics of barbarism”: slavery and polygamy.) He opened by citing a report from Louisiana of thirty-five hundred people killed in the state since the end of the war for attempting to exercise their political rights. These victims, most of whom were black, were also Republicans. “Is it true that this gallant old party, that this gallant old ship that has sailed through troubled seas before, is going to be stranded now . . . ?” Logan’s phrase was soon revised from “gallant old party” to “grand old party”—perhaps in homage to the Grand Army of the Republic in which so many Republican hearts of the age were touched with fire. And the name stuck.
This largely forgotten story is told in Trumpocalypse, David Frum’s new book that predicts the imminent (though belated) end of the Trump era and sketches the contours of a decent Republican future on the ruins of the indecent present. Frum was a widely published opinion journalist before working for a year as a speechwriter for George W. Bush early in his presidency. Now a senior editor at the Atlantic, Frum detects very little of the old grandeur—and, given its diminishing electoral strength among women, less gallantry—in the party of Trump.
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 contrast to so many Republican operatives in government and media who yielded to an illiberal tendency and a demagogic tribune, Frum has remained moored to the ideals that once made the Republican party the bulwark of American self-government. His reputation as a Republican apostate predated the party’s embrace of Trump—which is to say, while he possesses considerable conservative credentials, he has long been something of an outsider, a reformer.
Trumpocalypse, along with Frum’s previous companion volume Trumpocracy, is part of a chorus of conservative dissent against Trump’s willful corruptions of party and principle. Although Frum exposes the malfeasance and creeping authoritarianism of the Trump presidency, what makes his contribution of special interest is that it upholds a vision of “one-nation conservatism” that used to prevail in Republican politics but is now dormant. The palpable hope of this work is that it is not yet extinct.
Trumpocalypse gives readers a guide to understanding the modern GOP in its various forms—the good, the bad, and the ugly. Let’s take these in reverse order.
The Ugly
It’s unsurprising that a campaign that sought and received clandestine assistance from the Russian intelligence services has defiled the presidency and profaned American statecraft in novel ways, grave and petty. President Trump has refused to disclose his tax records, and has collected millions of dollars of payments since entering office, not only from party donors and professional grifters but from foreign governments and entities. A legislative branch that passingly attended to its constitutional duties would never have permitted the chief executive to use his office for his own and his family’s private gain in such disregard of the public interest.
Trump has exploited the awesome powers of the American presidency to conduct an off-the-books foreign policy, subverting the national interest to his own private political interest. It was Trump’s brazen betrayal of pledged allies in Ukraine for no higher purpose than to generate dirt on his political opponent that earned him what Frum dubs “the most emphatically justified impeachment in U.S. history.”
America today is more adrift in the world than at any time in living memory, diminished in the eyes of friend and foe alike. This is a depressing development, and a dangerous one. America’s encounter with the world has traditionally been met with as much weary resignation as heartfelt enthusiasm, but the broad international acceptance of American power has been a conspicuous feature of the postwar era. This invaluable jewel is now in jeopardy.
Admittedly, America’s stature has been fading since the collapse of the Soviet Union, as countries that share our values no longer share our fears or even our interests. But with the advent of the “America First” program of illiberal nationalism and xenophobia, American credibility has faded to the point of erasure. The reason is not far to seek. American power, historically a force for the world’s freedom and prosperity, has been increasingly removed from the vocation of maintaining liberal order. American power has seldom been wielded out of altruism, but foreign nations that once accepted (and often admired) America’s sense of enlightened self-interest have begun to doubt if Trump’s unenlightened hegemon is still superior to the alternatives.
Postwar presidents have understood that a substantial share of responsibility for world order came with the job—until now. Trump never accepted this purpose of American power. Instead, he has openly shunned it, betraying erstwhile U.S. allies (who remembers the Syrian Kurds, the Ukrainians, or, soon, the Afghans?) who were engaged in ferocious power struggles against U.S. adversaries. Trump launched protectionist trade conflicts that undercut American consumers and the global economy on the risible notion that the European trading bloc represents a danger to U.S. national security. He shortchanged the country’s soft power by cutting foreign aid and depleting the senior diplomatic corps. If anyone didn’t recognize it before, many at home and abroad now recognize the peril of (or opportunities for plunder in) a world without American economic, diplomatic, and military leadership.
The Bad
The dereliction of America’s global role has been attended by an alarming conservative turn against democratic practices and institutions at home. Although Republicans used to console themselves that they represented America’s great “silent majority,” that ceased to be true decades ago. As Frum argues, well before Trump declared for president, the Republican party had “dwindled into an extremist faction that had ceased even to try to represent an American majority.” Beholden to the bitter resentments of a culture war and in thrall of libertarian doctrines on economics and immigration, the party had lost touch with the priorities and interests of the American nation.
As president, Trump has doubled down on the cultural chauvinism of the dwindling conservative base, expediting the flight away from the GOP by affluent and educated voters who not so long ago formed the backbone of the Republican party. Meanwhile, the populist economic and immigration agenda that Trump once gestured at—and that won over many downscale voters, primarily non-college-educated independents and disgruntled Democrats, who seldom if ever cast a Republican vote—never materialized. On this rickety foundation of a narrow electoral coalition and a nonexistent policy agenda, Trump managed to bend the Republican party to his will.
With the GOP in his pocket, and protecting his pocket, Trump has traduced the norms and subverted the ethos of republican government. He has castigated the press, even inciting violence against members of the fourth estate by referring to them as “the enemies of the people.” He has heaped contempt on the rule of law, repeatedly expressing his desire to tighten up libel laws. He has issued a rhetorical carte blanche to police departments to rough up suspects in their custody. He has inflamed racial divisions amid social crisis. He has indulged pernicious conspiracy theories that bring ill repute on the cause of liberal democracy.
But the wider Republican habit has itself been profligacy and egregious neglect of the nation’s financial health. The resulting deficits at a time (pre-pandemic) of vigorous economic growth have been an enormous breach of what Edmund Burke called the “partnership . . . between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” Modern Republicans have lined up to cater relentlessly to the economic interests and cultural preferences of the baby boomers, even if it means depriving the emerging nation of the economic capital and bourgeois virtues that undergird aspiration and earned achievement.
The long-running populist division between “people” and “the people”—or between “Democrats and Americans,” as the old saw had it—has grown more prominent under Trump’s poisonous tribalism. The stark divergence between the popular vote and the Electoral College in 2016 confirmed the non-majoritarian nature of the Republican coalition, and has fueled ethnic chauvinism on the right. As Trumpists increasingly repel a larger portion of a diverse electorate, the party has maneuvered to retain its share of power by increasingly undemocratic means. Look no further than the pernicious practices of voter suppression and party-drawn districting, which combine to restrict the franchise (or the political weight of the ballot) among would-be voters disinclined to pull the lever for Republican candidates.
The Good
Since it emerged on the American political scene as the party of equal political liberty and of the Union, the Republican Party has stood for high and noble purposes even while promoting various causes. The consistent thread has been an unapologetic defense of American democratic nationhood, rooted in the universal ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the political principles enshrined in the Constitution. This adamant philosophical commitment, if it reasserts itself among Republicans, will continue to be a powerful ballast for America’s constitutional order while encouraging industry and enhancing opportunity for all. But if the old categories of left and right continue to dissolve, a civic nationalism, under whatever partisan guise, will be necessary to securing, preserving, and extending liberty’s blessings.
This constitutional conservatism is the theme stressed throughout Trumpocalypse, and for good reason: It has been jettisoned by almost every Republican in federal office in the process of acquiescing to Trump’s endless mischief. But the purpose of American conservatism, rightly understood, is to demonstrate that the philosophy of natural right that laid the groundwork for the American republic is only compatible with limited government. It is such a conception of the state serving society, and not the other way around, that would have forestalled official complicity with a crooked leader like Trump. It also allows for the characteristics that once defined the American system: “enterprise and individuality, markets and freedom, confidence in American moral purpose and American world leadership,” as Frum tersely puts it.
If today’s Republicans ever wish to be known, to others and to themselves, by their fidelity to those values, they will have their work cut out for them. Just as they will not be able to avoid awkward questions about how they abided Trump’s foul antics and cruelties, they will not be able to revert to business as usual. The flaccid consensus that reigned before Trump in favor of libertarian initiatives—recall the GOP’s call to end the Medicare guarantee for people under the age of 55, its support for upper-income tax cuts, and opposition to universal health coverage—was not responsive to contemporary challenges. It needs to be left behind.
In its place, a decent conservatism’s mandate in the years ahead will be to champion the cohesion and broad prosperity of the nation. A reformed GOP must vindicate the national interest by furnishing a healthy dose of relief to workers buffeted by the pincer forces of globalization and technological progress while helping to halt the advance of isolation and alienation in American life.
This won’t be easy. Thanks to a profusion of what social scientists call “deaths of despair,” the overall life expectancy of Americans has declined in recent years—the first sustained drop since the period from 1915 to 1918, when the First World War and a global flu pandemic killed untold millions. Frum also emphasizes the growing separation (and concomitant mistrust) between the sexes. About 60 percent of Americans under age 35 live without a spouse or partner, and an individual in this cohort is more likely to live with a parent than a partner (an outcome not seen since the 19th century). Even one-third of middle-aged Americans, aged 35 to 54, live without a partner. The dwindling vitality of marriage and family life poses grave challenges to the stability of society. The growing American detachment from the forms of human flourishing and civic health—beginning with the family, but sprawling outward to include civic associations, fraternal bodies, religious communities, commercial enterprises, activist groups and, yes, political parties—must be rejuvenated.
There will also need to be a broader reckoning on the right with the America of tomorrow. Much has been written about the dangers of a Republican electoral strategy based on maximizing the turnout of older voters who happen to be predominantly nonurban and white. Frum handles this subject deftly, reminding readers that on current trends, by 2040, 70 percent of the American population will live in fifteen states while 30 percent of the population will live in thirty-five states. The political ramifications of this growing divide are enormous and ominous. The dispersed (and disproportionately white, nonurban, older) 30 percent will control a commanding 70 seats in the U.S. Senate, which will almost certainly be employed to harden economic trends that feature a lack of mobility from the bottom, stagnating working-class wages, and a growing plutocratic class.
To check and reverse this breakdown of democracy, Frum proposes a number of structural reforms, from abolishing the filibuster to granting statehood to the District of Columbia, that will restore some clout to majorities and ensure fairer competition in elections to decide those majorities. A more equitable system of representation would demand that Republicans become the kind of party Frum aspires to see: “an ethnically diverse, culturally modern post-Boomer generation party of markets and enterprise for the twenty-first century.” In these times of diminishing opportunity and hardening isolation, such a party cannot form too quickly.
For Republicans Trumpocalypse sounds a reveille: to man the ramparts facing inwards against an imposter who never had any business as a county chairman, much less the presidential nominee, of this gallant old party. For those who still need to hear it, it will probably be of no avail. But Frum dedicates the book to those Republicans who have already heard it, who for four miserable years have held fast to principle over power. He borrows a verse from an old Methodist hymn: “When all were false, I found thee true.” It’s a fitting compliment paid to those happy few conservatives who grasped the responsibility and obligation of a party whose “grandeur derived not from its antiquity, but from its association with equal rights and human freedom.” That association, as Frum observes, has unquestionably been “sullied and betrayed by the Trump presidency.”
The damage done—both to the Republican party and to the republic at large—by a single presidential term will undoubtedly take a long time to repair. But does the sheer scale and scope of damage render the Republican party beyond repair? If the president is nominated and elected to a second term, perhaps so. But with his prospects of re-election waning, what if he is repudiated by a decisive margin? After so long and hazardous a journey, is the old craft really going to be stranded now? Surely a party with such a noble mission has earned the benefit of some doubt.


thebulwark--2020-06-21--Make Arenas Empty Again

Make Arenas Empty Again

On Saturday afternoon there was a palpable sense of dread in the news , as President Trump was building up to a rally poised to be a campaign event that was unique in its depravity .
The president had called tens—hundreds ( !
! )
—of thousands of people to Tulsa to gather inside a sweaty stadium , without masks , in a mass-contagion event that was sure to feature a hate-fueled rant targeting the Black Lives Matter protests that have enveloped the nation .
The impending rally felt like a plotline from an HBO show about a dystopian alternate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forces his followers to pack themselves into a dangerous arena amidst a global pandemic .
But as Trump took the stage , the story transformed from dystopian fiction to absurdist farce .
It turned out that President Trump was not , in fact , set to appear in front of throngs of MAGA die-hards who were waiting for their dear leader while stirring a COVID-Kool-Aid .
Instead he was about to appear before a half-empty arena and complain about people who are mean to him .
The Trump on display in Tulsa was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a crackdown against protesters while standing astride a silent majority of mask-eschewing followers with a death wish .
Instead , out from behind the curtain came a weak and whiny D-list Rodney Dangerfield , obsessed with minor slights and not getting enough respect from the Fake News Media that he claims to hate but seems to be kind of super into .
This is not to say that the speech was free of evil : He claimed to have asked that COVID-19 testing to be slowed down in the hopes his mismanagement wouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ described the virus that has killed 120,000 Americans in 4 months ( and counting ) as “ the sniffles ” ; and he repeatedly attacked Black Lives Matters protesters as violent thugs .
Yet these bromides felt gross but rote .
Like a guy hitting his spots even after losing confidence in his routine , because he doesn ’ t know any other material .
What Tulsa revealed was a disrobed Emperor Orangius .
The man who once obsessed over his great poll numbers is down everywhere , by nearly double digits .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economy is staring at 13 percent unemployment .
The man who gloried in the throngs of packed auditoriums and expected a crowd so big that he would have to give a second performance at an outdoor venue stood in the middle of an arena surrounded by empty blue seats , having been thwarted by TikTok teens .
A transition to greatness this was not .
Tulsa was supposed to be the place where Trump reset his troubled reelection campaign .
Since his last rally was canceled—an aborted March show in Tampa—the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and there has been a national awakening over police misconduct .
Forced to acknowledge reality , the Trump campaign changed its slogan from “ Keep America Great ” to “ Make America Great Again , Again.
” Then to “ Transition to Greatness.
” ( I hold out hope that once Brad Parscale realizes he ’ s toast , he ’ ll float “ Continuity with Change ” on his way out the door . )
On Saturday it was unclear just what this transition is supposed to be .
Over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump produced neither a vision for the next four years , nor a unifying theme of his campaign .
But while his vision for the country may have been opaque , the issues that animate his imagination were abundantly clear .
He cares a lot—a lot—about the meanies in the Fake News media .
In the very first stanza of his speech , Trump blamed the meager crowd on the Fake News for inciting fear about public health and the supposed dangers of packing thousands of people into a closed space in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on to attack the press for not accurately describing the nature of the protests , which he believes are much more violent than the media will admit .
He claimed the media are not actually the “ elites ” and that he is because he has better hair , nicer properties , nicer houses , nicer apartments , and nicer everything than the reporters who cover him .
Among a series of other complaints , Trump went on a 16-minute ( yes , 16-minute ) diatribe about the way the media covered his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ included a harangue about how tiring it was for him to salute 600 cadets .
At this point he mimed the hand gesture several times to demonstrate how much it would tire one ’ s arm .
He went on to relay the extended back and forth he had with a nameless general plotting the best route for him to descend the stage .
After describing the limitations he faced from the soles of his shoes , he repeatedly expressed a significant rampophobia .
Here he pantomimed the hunched posture that he felt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modest slope .
At the conclusion of this—what is one to even call it ?
—he dedicated several more minutes to explaining that he used two hands to hold a very small cup of water only because of how tired all the saluting had made him .
Put aside the question about whether any of this sounds like a man in control of his faculties .
And put aside how anyone could see this sad , elderly fellow as a model of strength .
Just as a political matter : What exactly is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the obvious answer is : There isn ’ t one .
Donald Trump doesn ’ t know how to manage a global pandemic .
He doesn ’ t understand how said crisis intersects with our economic decline or what to do about it .
He is fundamentally incapable of being a uniter or a salve for a country that is raw with pain over police violence and racial tensions .
And he doesn ’ t know what to do about the fact that Joe Biden is schlonging him in the polls .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a strategic communications goal that would help him address any of these problems .
And he didn ’ t go there to demonstrate that he was a deal-maker , a businessman , who is ready to lead a fractured country into a glorious transition back to—or maybe onward to ?
—greatness .
No .
He went to Tulsa because he had gone almost four months without the mass adulation to which he had grown accustomed .
And it made him grumpy .
Donald Trump went to Tulsa to fill a hole in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for him .
To complain about those who have insulted him .
He went to a state he knows he ’ ll carry even if Joe Biden wins 400 electoral votes because he knew this was a place where he would be loved by a sea of “ his people.
” And he didn ’ t even get that .

On Saturday afternoon there was a palpable sense of dread in the news, as President Trump was building up to a rally poised to be a campaign event that was unique in its depravity. The president had called tens—hundreds (!!)—of thousands of people to Tulsa to gather inside a sweaty stadium, without masks, in a mass-contagion event that was sure to feature a hate-fueled rant targeting the Black Lives Matter protests that have enveloped the nation.
The impending rally felt like a plotline from an HBO show about a dystopian alternate timeline in which a buffoonish celebrity strongman forces his followers to pack themselves into a dangerous arena amidst a global pandemic.
But as Trump took the stage, the story transformed from dystopian fiction to absurdist farce.
It turned out that President Trump was not, in fact, set to appear in front of throngs of MAGA die-hards who were waiting for their dear leader while stirring a COVID-Kool-Aid. Instead he was about to appear before a half-empty arena and complain about people who are mean to him.
The Trump on display in Tulsa was not a strong man steeling himself for a crackdown against protesters while standing astride a silent majority of mask-eschewing followers with a death wish.
Instead, out from behind the curtain came a weak and whiny D-list Rodney Dangerfield, obsessed with minor slights and not getting enough respect from the Fake News Media that he claims to hate but seems to be kind of super into.
This is not to say that the speech was free of evil: He claimed to have asked that COVID-19 testing to be slowed down in the hopes his mismanagement wouldn’t look as bad; he described the virus that has killed 120,000 Americans in 4 months (and counting) as “the sniffles”; and he repeatedly attacked Black Lives Matters protesters as violent thugs.
Yet these bromides felt gross but rote. Like a guy hitting his spots even after losing confidence in his routine, because he doesn’t know any other material.
What Tulsa revealed was a disrobed Emperor Orangius. The man who once obsessed over his great poll numbers is down everywhere, by nearly double digits. The man who bragged every day about the economy is staring at 13 percent unemployment. The man who gloried in the throngs of packed auditoriums and expected a crowd so big that he would have to give a second performance at an outdoor venue stood in the middle of an arena surrounded by empty blue seats, having been thwarted by TikTok teens.
A transition to greatness this was not.
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…
Tulsa was supposed to be the place where Trump reset his troubled reelection campaign. Since his last rally was canceled—an aborted March show in Tampa—the economy has tanked, 120,000 Americans have died, and there has been a national awakening over police misconduct. Forced to acknowledge reality, the Trump campaign changed its slogan from “Keep America Great” to “Make America Great Again, Again.” Then to “Transition to Greatness.” (I hold out hope that once Brad Parscale realizes he’s toast, he’ll float “Continuity with Change” on his way out the door.)
On Saturday it was unclear just what this transition is supposed to be. Over the course of an eleventy-thousand minute address, Trump produced neither a vision for the next four years, nor a unifying theme of his campaign.
But while his vision for the country may have been opaque, the issues that animate his imagination were abundantly clear. He cares a lot—a lot—about the meanies in the Fake News media.
In the very first stanza of his speech, Trump blamed the meager crowd on the Fake News for inciting fear about public health and the supposed dangers of packing thousands of people into a closed space in the middle of a pandemic.
He went on to attack the press for not accurately describing the nature of the protests, which he believes are much more violent than the media will admit.
He claimed the media are not actually the “elites” and that he is because he has better hair, nicer properties, nicer houses, nicer apartments, and nicer everything than the reporters who cover him.
Among a series of other complaints, Trump went on a 16-minute (yes, 16-minute) diatribe about the way the media covered his speech at West Point. This soliloquy included a harangue about how tiring it was for him to salute 600 cadets. At this point he mimed the hand gesture several times to demonstrate how much it would tire one’s arm.
He went on to relay the extended back and forth he had with a nameless general plotting the best route for him to descend the stage. After describing the limitations he faced from the soles of his shoes, he repeatedly expressed a significant rampophobia. Here he pantomimed the hunched posture that he felt had been required to safely descend the modest slope. At the conclusion of this—what is one to even call it?—he dedicated several more minutes to explaining that he used two hands to hold a very small cup of water only because of how tired all the saluting had made him.
Put aside the question about whether any of this sounds like a man in control of his faculties. And put aside how anyone could see this sad, elderly fellow as a model of strength.
Just as a political matter: What exactly is the angle here?
To me, the obvious answer is: There isn’t one.
Donald Trump doesn’t know how to manage a global pandemic. He doesn’t understand how said crisis intersects with our economic decline or what to do about it. He is fundamentally incapable of being a uniter or a salve for a country that is raw with pain over police violence and racial tensions. And he doesn’t know what to do about the fact that Joe Biden is schlonging him in the polls.
So Trump didn’t go to Tulsa with a strategic communications goal that would help him address any of these problems. And he didn’t go there to demonstrate that he was a deal-maker, a businessman, who is ready to lead a fractured country into a glorious transition back to—or maybe onward to?—greatness.
No. He went to Tulsa because he had gone almost four months without the mass adulation to which he had grown accustomed. And it made him grumpy.
Donald Trump went to Tulsa to fill a hole in his heart. To hear people cheer for him. To complain about those who have insulted him.
He went to a state he knows he’ll carry even if Joe Biden wins 400 electoral votes because he knew this was a place where he would be loved by a sea of “his people.”
And he didn’t even get that.