thebulwark--2020-08-31--Hey. You. Sit Down and Shut Up.

Hey. You. Sit Down and Shut Up.

Last week , as debate raged among film critics about whether or not they should go see movies in theaters for their job and how vocally they should signal why/why not they were/were not going to theaters , I asked my virus guy if any superspreader events had been tied to movie theaters .
I figured there had to be at least one or two in Korea , given the excellence of their contact tracing and the prominence of their theaters .
So : Yes , I have a virus guy .
You should have one too ; they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this case my virus guy said he hadn ’ t heard of any such events and was kind of surprised that places like New York City continued to have theaters closed despite the city reopening other venues , like gyms .
As Dr. Robert Lahita , chairman of medicine at St. Joseph ’ s Health in New Jersey , told Vulture last week , that doesn ’ t make a ton of sense .
“ If you ’ re going to do phase four opening of essentially nonessential locales such as restaurants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barbershops , I would think those would be of more risk than going to a movie theater , because of their inherent proximity to strangers , ” Lahita said .
Even eating in a theater was less dangerous than you might think : “ Unless you ’ re being coughed or sneezed on by the person behind you , or the children next to you , I don ’ t see any major risk.
” One reason movie theaters might not be an enormous risk—especially if most patrons are wearing masks and you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at least in theory , movie-watching is a silent activity .
You go to the movies ; you sit there and munch some popcorn ; and you watch what ’ s happening on the screen .
If you ’ re a civilized person , you ’ re neither hollering advice to the projections nor are you turning to patrons and asking their opinion of the action on the screen .
And , as an interesting new piece for the Atlantic shows , the less we talk—and the more quietly we talk—the less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , more quietly , or not at all limits the manufacture of both large droplets and aerosols .
When you breathe or whisper , your respiratory system doesn ’ t emit large droplets , ” writes Derek Thompson .
“ [ Jose L. Jimenez , a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder ] told me that , compared with yelling , quiet talking reduces aerosols by a factor of five ; being completely silent reduces them by a factor of about 50 .
That means talking quietly , rather than yelling , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a degree comparable to properly wearing a mask.
” As you see , Thompson has a virus guy too .
Well , I ’ m guessing he has several virus guys .
“ Sources , ” they ’ re called in legitimate journalism .
But Thompson ’ s virus guy , Professor Jimenez , echoed what my virus guy said .
Theaters haven ’ t been linked to any mass transmissions , as best as he can tell : All of which is to say that if you ’ re headed to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t need to feel like you ’ re taking your life in your hands .
Look , all of this is in flux .
We ’ re all trying to figure our way through this thing , feeling out what ’ s safe and what isn ’ t .
There ’ s no point in going to a theater if you ’ re going to spend the whole time wondering if you ’ re going to die because someone 20 feet away from you bought a bucket of popcorn and isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should .
If you have comorbidities or are above a certain age , you might want to stay away out of an abundance of caution .
And maybe you want to avoid some of the more notoriously rowdy theaters where people like to shout at the screen or perform their standup routines to the moronic chuckles of those in attendance .
But if you can find a theater where the patrons are expected to follow the rules of common moviegoing decency—particularly places like an Alamo Drafthouse or an Arclight or an Angelika—you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you are at a restaurant or a gym or surrounded by folks shouting out slogans .

Last week, as debate raged among film critics about whether or not they should go see movies in theaters for their job and how vocally they should signal why/why not they were/were not going to theaters, I asked my virus guy if any superspreader events had been tied to movie theaters. I figured there had to be at least one or two in Korea, given the excellence of their contact tracing and the prominence of their theaters.
So: Yes, I have a virus guy. You should have one too; they’re super helpful. For instance, in this case my virus guy said he hadn’t heard of any such events and was kind of surprised that places like New York City continued to have theaters closed despite the city reopening other venues, like gyms. As Dr. Robert Lahita, chairman of medicine at St. Joseph’s Health in New Jersey, told Vulture last week, that doesn’t make a ton of sense.
“If you’re going to do phase four opening of essentially nonessential locales such as restaurants, gyms, tattoo parlors, and barbershops, I would think those would be of more risk than going to a movie theater, because of their inherent proximity to strangers,” Lahita said. Even eating in a theater was less dangerous than you might think: “Unless you’re being coughed or sneezed on by the person behind you, or the children next to you, I don’t see any major risk.”
One reason movie theaters might not be an enormous risk—especially if most patrons are wearing masks and you get six-plus-feet of space between everyone—is that, at least in theory, movie-watching is a silent activity. You go to the movies; you sit there and munch some popcorn; and you watch what’s happening on the screen. If you’re a civilized person, you’re neither hollering advice to the projections nor are you turning to patrons and asking their opinion of the action on the screen. And, as an interesting new piece for the Atlantic shows, the less we talk—and the more quietly we talk—the less we spread COVID-19.
“Talking less, more quietly, or not at all limits the manufacture of both large droplets and aerosols. When you breathe or whisper, your respiratory system doesn’t emit large droplets,” writes Derek Thompson. “[Jose L. Jimenez, a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder] told me that, compared with yelling, quiet talking reduces aerosols by a factor of five; being completely silent reduces them by a factor of about 50. That means talking quietly, rather than yelling, reduces the risk of viral transmission by a degree comparable to properly wearing a mask.”
As you see, Thompson has a virus guy too. Well, I’m guessing he has several virus guys. “Sources,” they’re called in legitimate journalism. But Thompson’s virus guy, Professor Jimenez, echoed what my virus guy said. Theaters haven’t been linked to any mass transmissions, as best as he can tell:
“I can’t name a movie-theater outbreak in the contact-tracing literature,” Jimenez said, while also stressing that movie theaters cannot be considered risk-free, given that they are poorly ventilated indoor spaces where people spend several consecutive hours. “I can tell you that theaters don’t seem nearly as dangerous as a loud restaurant or bar, where people have to speak loudly to be heard.”
All of which is to say that if you’re headed to see Tenet this week, you don’t need to feel like you’re taking your life in your hands.
Look, all of this is in flux. We’re all trying to figure our way through this thing, feeling out what’s safe and what isn’t. There’s no point in going to a theater if you’re going to spend the whole time wondering if you’re going to die because someone 20 feet away from you bought a bucket of popcorn and isn’t replacing his mask as quickly as he should. If you have comorbidities or are above a certain age, you might want to stay away out of an abundance of caution. And maybe you want to avoid some of the more notoriously rowdy theaters where people like to shout at the screen or perform their standup routines to the moronic chuckles of those in attendance.
But if you can find a theater where the patrons are expected to follow the rules of common moviegoing decency—particularly places like an Alamo Drafthouse or an Arclight or an Angelika—you’re probably safer in a theater than you are at a restaurant or a gym or surrounded by folks shouting out slogans.


Speak for America!

“ When Parliament met in the afternoon [ of September 2 , 1939 ] , a short but very fierce debate occurred , in which the Prime Minister ’ s temporizing statement was ill-received by the House .
When Mr. Greenwood rose to speak on behalf of the Labour Opposition , Mr. Amery from the Conservative benches cried out to him , ‘ Speak for England.
’ This was received with loud cheers.
” I ’ ve always been moved by this passage .
Mostly because it describes a moving moment , and partly because I have some interest in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a time and place replete with fascinating figures .
Amery was a staunch Conservative and imperialist .
He wasn ’ t some kind of RINO avant-la-lettre .
( Not that there ’ d be anything wrong with that ! )
That ’ s what made his plea to the Labour Party Deputy Leader particularly notable .
Amery ’ s point on September 2 , 1939 , in the wake of Hitler ’ s invasion of Poland , was that there are times when the Loyal Opposition needs to speak not just for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There are times when country comes first , when a government of one ’ s own party has utterly failed and needs to be called to account on behalf of the nation as a whole .
This is such a time in America , in 2020 .
So it would be fitting and proper for Joe Biden , the challenger to the incumbent president , to self-consciously , indeed explicitly , speak for the nation .
This doesn ’ t mean distancing himself from his own party .
It doesn ’ t mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he holds .
It doesn ’ t mean indulging in a self-conscious “ Sister Souljah moment , ” which has primarily a connotation of clever political positioning .
It means condemning violence on all sides , appealing to the national unity and civic comity .
And it means doing so clearly as a national , rather than a party , matter .
That might in fact be good for Biden politically .
But the reason Joe Biden should now speak for America isn ’ t political .
It ’ s that America needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America .

“When Parliament met in the afternoon [of September 2, 1939], a short but very fierce debate occurred, in which the Prime Minister’s temporizing statement was ill-received by the House. When Mr. Greenwood rose to speak on behalf of the Labour Opposition, Mr. Amery from the Conservative benches cried out to him, ‘Speak for England.’ This was received with loud cheers.”
—Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm
I’ve always been moved by this passage. Mostly because it describes a moving moment, and partly because I have some interest in Leo Amery, a fascinating figure in a time and place replete with fascinating figures.
Amery was a staunch Conservative and imperialist. He wasn’t some kind of RINO avant-la-lettre. (Not that there’d be anything wrong with that!) That’s what made his plea to the Labour Party Deputy Leader particularly notable.
(It’s also what made his famous denunciation from the Conservative back benches of his prime minister—a fellow Member from Birmingham, Neville Chamberlain—on May 7, 1940, even more notable. Amery quoted Cromwell to Chamberlain, saying “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”)
Amery’s point on September 2, 1939, in the wake of Hitler’s invasion of Poland, was that there are times when the Loyal Opposition needs to speak not just for the opposition, but for the country. There are times when country comes first, when a government of one’s own party has utterly failed and needs to be called to account on behalf of the nation as a whole.
This is such a time in America, in 2020.
So it would be fitting and proper for Joe Biden, the challenger to the incumbent president, to self-consciously, indeed explicitly, speak for the nation. This doesn’t mean distancing himself from his own party. It doesn’t mean repudiating or modifying any public policy positions he holds. It doesn’t mean indulging in a self-conscious “Sister Souljah moment,” which has primarily a connotation of clever political positioning.
It means condemning violence on all sides, appealing to the national unity and civic comity. And it means doing so clearly as a national, rather than a party, matter.
That might in fact be good for Biden politically.
But the reason Joe Biden should now speak for America isn’t political. It’s that America needs him to speak for all of us—for America.


thebulwark--2020-09-01--Trump’s New Conspiracy Theory

Trump’s New Conspiracy Theory

Having encouraged , or at least excused , violence from his supporters during the day , Donald Trump used an interview with Laura Ingraham on Fox News Monday night to encourage , or at least excuse , conspiracy theories .
Trump : And Biden—well Biden is—I don ’ t even like to mention Biden , because he ’ s not controlling anything .
They control him… Ingraham : Who do you think is pulling Biden ’ s strings ?
Is it former Obama officials… ?
Trump : People that you ’ ve never heard of .
People that are in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : What does that mean ?
That sounds like conspiracy theory .
Dark shadows , what is that ?
Trump : No .
People that you haven ’ t heard of .
They ’ re people that are on the streets .
They ’ re people that are controlling the streets .
We had somebody get on a plane from a certain city this weekend , and in the plane it was almost completely loaded with thugs wearing these dark uniforms , black uniforms with gear and this and that .
They ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll tell you sometime , but it ’ s under investigation right now , but they came from a certain city , and this person was coming to the Republican National Convention , and there were like seven people on the plane like this person , and then a lot of people were on the plane to do big damage .
They were coming for… Trump : Yes , this was all—this is all happening .
The key moment in this exchange is when Ingraham interrupts Trump and says , “ What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a conspiracy theory .
Dark shadows , what is that ?
” When Laura Ingraham is amazed by something Donald Trump has said , and tries to save him from himself ?
Donald Trump has jumped the shark .
But of course Trump often jumps the shark .
And here we still are .
And perhaps one shouldn ’ t , after all , be too alarmed by a politician claiming his opponent is being manipulated by men operating in the dark shadows .
Politicians exaggerate and even make up things .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But this wasn ’ t just any politician .
It was the president .
And this isn ’ t just any president .
It ’ s one who ’ s not been afraid to encourage , or at least excuse , violence by his supporters .
And it ’ s one who has shown himself willing to weaponize the executive branch of the federal government against his opponents .
And it ’ s one who feels utterly unconstrained by norms and even laws when he can find a way around them .
Or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it ’ s a president who has found many , many willing accomplices , enablers and rationalizers willing to work with him in the executive branch , protect him in Congress , support him from outside with money and influence , and—like Ingraham—defend him in the media .
Still , a healthy democracy should be able to deal with this .
But how healthy are we ?
The country is bitterly divided , a division whose bitterness has been much exacerbated by this president .
Can we as a nation withstand fear-mongering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might have ?
Also , we have an election in two months—one this president has already suggested will be “ rigged ” in the normal course of events , unless presumably he and his lieutenants take extraordinary actions .
Are we confident that under this administration we will have fair and free elections and a peaceful and lawful transfer of power ?
Today is September 1 .
It ’ s a date with some historical resonance .
One ’ s first instinct is to think of THE September 1 , in 1939 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was an existential and civilizational crisis .
This is just Donald Trump .
We ’ re very unlikely to experience a September 1 , 1939 .
But one does not need a world war to do great damage to a liberal democracy , especially to one whose institutions and mores have already been weakened .
Still , one might imagine the suicide of a great country would be aided and abetted by a more impressive figure than Donald Trump .
But small figures can do great damage , and death can come by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dramatic swoop .
There are nine weeks until the election .
Those will be nine weeks of incitement , conspiracy-mongering , and law-breaking by the president of the United States .
That will be a test .
If we can overcome that , it will in itself be a promising sign for the future , a sign of civic strength and health .
We need , despite Trump , to have a free and fair election .
We need to , as much as possible , and despite Trump , keep the peace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Then will come the more fundamental challenge , one less dramatic than those of the 19th and 20th centuries , but not easy : Can we rebuild in the 21st century the temple of liberty handed down to us by our forebears on solid foundations ?

Having encouraged, or at least excused, violence from his supporters during the day, Donald Trump used an interview with Laura Ingraham on Fox News Monday night to encourage, or at least excuse, conspiracy theories.
President Trump goes one-on-one with Laura Ingraham | Part 1
Watch this video on YouTube
Here’s the transcript:
Trump: And Biden—well Biden is—I don’t even like to mention Biden, because he’s not controlling anything. They control him… Ingraham: Who do you think is pulling Biden’s strings? Is it former Obama officials…? Trump: People that you’ve never heard of. People that are in the dark shadows. People that… Ingraham: What does that mean? That sounds like conspiracy theory. Dark shadows, what is that? Trump: No. People that you haven’t heard of. They’re people that are on the streets. They’re people that are controlling the streets. We had somebody get on a plane from a certain city this weekend, and in the plane it was almost completely loaded with thugs wearing these dark uniforms, black uniforms with gear and this and that. They’re on a plane… Ingraham: Where—where was this? Trump: I’ll tell you sometime, but it’s under investigation right now, but they came from a certain city, and this person was coming to the Republican National Convention, and there were like seven people on the plane like this person, and then a lot of people were on the plane to do big damage. They were coming for… Ingraham: Planning for Washington? Trump: Yes, this was all—this is all happening.
The key moment in this exchange is when Ingraham interrupts Trump and says, “What does that mean? That sounds like a conspiracy theory. Dark shadows, what is that?”
When Laura Ingraham is amazed by something Donald Trump has said, and tries to save him from himself? Donald Trump has jumped the shark.
But of course Trump often jumps the shark. And here we still are.
And perhaps one shouldn’t, after all, be too alarmed by a politician claiming his opponent is being manipulated by men operating in the dark shadows. Politicians exaggerate and even make up things. It’s life in a democracy.
But this wasn’t just any politician. It was the president.
And this isn’t just any president. It’s one who’s not been afraid to encourage, or at least excuse, violence by his supporters.
And it’s one who has shown himself willing to weaponize the executive branch of the federal government against his opponents.
And it’s one who feels utterly unconstrained by norms and even laws when he can find a way around them. Or can get away with ignoring them.
And it’s a president who has found many, many willing accomplices, enablers and rationalizers willing to work with him in the executive branch, protect him in Congress, support him from outside with money and influence, and—like Ingraham—defend him in the media.
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…
Still, a healthy democracy should be able to deal with this.
But how healthy are we? The country is bitterly divided, a division whose bitterness has been much exacerbated by this president. Can we as a nation withstand fear-mongering and conspiracy-theorizing as well as we once might have?
Also, we have an election in two months—one this president has already suggested will be “rigged” in the normal course of events, unless presumably he and his lieutenants take extraordinary actions.
Are we confident that under this administration we will have fair and free elections and a peaceful and lawful transfer of power?
Today is September 1. It’s a date with some historical resonance. One’s first instinct is to think of THE September 1, in 1939, and tend to be reassured: That was an existential and civilizational crisis. This is just Donald Trump.
True.
And yet.
We’re very unlikely to experience a September 1, 1939. But one does not need a world war to do great damage to a liberal democracy, especially to one whose institutions and mores have already been weakened.
Still, one might imagine the suicide of a great country would be aided and abetted by a more impressive figure than Donald Trump. But small figures can do great damage, and death can come by a thousand cuts rather than in one dramatic swoop.
There are nine weeks until the election. Those will be nine weeks of incitement, conspiracy-mongering, and law-breaking by the president of the United States.
That will be a test. If we can overcome that, it will in itself be a promising sign for the future, a sign of civic strength and health.
We need, despite Trump, to have a free and fair election. We need to, as much as possible, and despite Trump, keep the peace. We need to defeat Trump.
Then will come the more fundamental challenge, one less dramatic than those of the 19th and 20th centuries, but not easy: Can we rebuild in the 21st century the temple of liberty handed down to us by our forebears on solid foundations?


thebulwark--2020-09-01--Biden, Trump and the Science—or Instinct—of Persuasion

With the number of voters still up for grabs in the election dwindling—a late-July poll found that only 13 percent of the electorate remain truly undecided—and the battle for support intensifying , the persuasive strategies used by the two parties become increasingly important , and key differences become more striking .
The Democrats , perhaps not surprisingly , are leaning heavily into the science of persuasion .
A recurrent theme at the Democratic convention , emphasized by speaker after speaker—Kamala Harris , Barack Obama , Hillary Clinton , among others—was the urgent need for viewers to “ plan ” their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developed through iterative experimentation over a decade ago by Todd Rogers and colleagues .
As one of his Ph.D. advisers ( Max Bazerman ) describes it ( along with co-author Michael Luca ) , in 2003 Rogers was a “ young Democratic pollster and recent Williams College graduate ” who started graduate studies in social psychology at Harvard , then switched to the university ’ s organizational behavioral program , where he felt he could better pursue his interest in applying insights from behavioral science to the political process .
The rising Harvard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critically needed pragmatic experience to—the “ Consortium of Behavioral Scientists , ” a group of scholars hoping to “ apply the results of academic research to win elections and turn more of the electoral map blue.
” These efforts were felt to contribute to Obama ’ s 2008 election , and were celebrated in Sasha Issenberg ’ s 2012 book The Victory Lab : The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns .
Rogers extended his work after his graduation , serving as founding executive director of the Washington , D.C.-based Analyst Institute , described @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left-leaning organization ” created to use “ field experiments to establish a set of empirically proven best practices for interacting with voters.
” One of this effort ’ s key findings was based on the psychological concept of “ implementation intentions ” —the idea that you ’ re more likely to do something if you have a concrete plan .
Rogers and colleagues found that they could goose participation simply by phoning voters and asking several questions around their specific plans around getting to the polls ; the actual answers didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to think in concrete detail about the process .
The emphasis on voter intention on display at the 2020 Democratic convention reflects only the latest application of the science Rogers and other behaviorists have developed and refined .
( Today , Rogers is a professor of public policy at Harvard ’ s Kennedy School of Government . )
The impact of psychological science can also been seen in the approach taken by organizations like Republican Voters Against Trump ( RVAT ) , focused on persuading voters who supported Trump in 2016 to change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ core of this strategy is creating what the organization ’ s leaders refer to as a “ permission structure , ” a mental construct that makes it easier for someone to do something unfamiliar .
RVAT has solicited and published a remarkable collection of testimonials , often gritty and unpolished , from actual Republicans across the country—including many previous Trump supporters—explaining in their own words , directly to the camera , why they ’ re no longer supporting the president .
Similar testimonials were also seen during the Democratic convention .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ permission structure ” in the psychological literature ( a search of “ PubMed , ” for instance , reveals no items ) , but the concept is familiar .
“ That ’ s a good strategy , ” Duke ’ s Dan Ariely , a professor of psychology and behavioral economics , told me .
“ There ’ s no question that showing [ voters ] that people from the ‘ in ’ group , and who are like them ( connected to them or related to them ) have changed their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The term itself has apparently been around “ for years ” in fields like marketing , according to Reuters , but it achieved particular prominence in 2013 when President Obama publicly used the term a handful of times , largely in the context of how his team was thinking about winning GOP support for a range of proposals he felt many Republicans agreed with in principle but resisted because of “ politics.
” As Obama explained , “ We ’ re going to try to do everything we can to create a permission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do what ’ s going to be best for the country .
But it ’ s going to take some time.
” The New York Times traces Obama ’ s embrace of the concept to chief strategist David Axelrod , who “ cut his teeth helping to elect Black mayors in cities like Cleveland , Detroit and Philadelphia , ” where success depended on “ attracting a sizable percentage of the white vote.
” Axelrod was famously successful in achieving this , thanks in part to a strategy of providing “ third-party authentication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that white voters trusted to make safe , conventional decisions about whom to vote for , ” offering in effect “ mainstream validation.
” The value of this approach might also be seen in academic research on social norms—the idea that , as Luca and Bazerman write , “ people act the way they see other people acting.
” Empirical research from Rogers and colleagues demonstrated that voters were more likely to vote if you told them turnout seemed like it would be high than if you said turnout was looking to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opportunity for impact would seem higher in the second instance .
Such is the attractive power of social norms .
The decision to feature several prominent Republicans—former governors John Kasich and Christine Todd Whitman , former representative Susan Molinari , tech CEO Meg Whitman , and former secretary of state Colin Powell—at the DNC earned Democratic leaders considerable critique from the progressive wing of their party .
Yet DNC Chair Tom Perez passionately defended the decision , arguing it created a—wait for it— “ permission structure ” for disaffected Republicans to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the party ( and not for RVAT or the Lincoln Project ) are , of course also keenly aware of the science of political persuasion , even if their leaders are not necessarily steeped in the terminology .
( When Obama first surfaced the phrase “ permission structure ” in 2013 , for example , a spokesman for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell reportedly googled it because he had never heard it before . )
The emphasis at last week ’ s Republican convention on highlighting people of color , in particular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scott , Utah congressional candidate Burgess Owens , Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron , and North Carolina desegregation activist Clarence Henderson , among others ) may certainly reflect an effort to win over voters who ’ ve tended to vote for Democrats ( only 6 percent of African Americans voters supported Trump in 2016 ) .
But it ’ s also likely intended to reassure white suburban voters already inclined to support Trump that doing so doesn ’ t make them racists .
It ’ s arguably the same strategy used by Axelrod @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different end : providing a permission structure for white voters to elect a Republican candidate .
While the design of the 2020 Republican convention may be informed by strategists steeped in the science of persuasion , the party itself is led by someone who seems to understand persuasion instinctively .
As Stanford Business School professor Jeffrey Pfeffer , author of Power : Why Some People Have It—And Others Don ’ t , reminds me , a lot of detailed analyses seem to miss something that ’ s “ fundamentally important ” —to wit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out by events as recent as Trump ’ s dishonest ( but widely reshared ) assertion that the Democrats omitted “ God ” from the Pledge of Allegiance at their convention , and Trump ’ s constant evocation of “ strength.
” For example , in the August 23 press conference announcing that the use of convalescent serum for the treatment of COVID-19 has received an Emergency Use Authorization ( EUA ) by the FDA ( more on that here ) , the president characterized the EUA as “ a powerful term , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powerful therapy that transfuses very , very strong antibodies ” into patients .
More generally , the 2020 RNC convention as a whole seemed intent on offering a coherent , if counterfactual , emotionally appealing narrative , one that is easy to explain , easy to understand .
It represents an attractive alternative to the often-grim reality outside , and to the incessant censoriousness of the progressive left .
Through repetition—along with the consistent discrediting of alternative sources of information—the fable becomes the preferred truth .
The Democrats , predictably , may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and logic and guided by reason , but how effectively can they compete with Trump ’ s marketing instincts , and his one authentic superpower : the intuitive ability to fabricate , hone , convey , and repeat—tirelessly—an easily digestible message appealing viscerally to many voters ?
Trump doesn ’ t need science to recognize what science has in fact demonstrated , according to Baba Shiv , a professor of marketing at Stanford ’ s business school : virtually all human decisions are shaped by emotion .
Shiv explains , “ the rational @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but instead is good at simply rationalizing what the emotional brain has already decided to do , and this happens non-consciously.
” The narratives Trump constructs , and the pageantry the GOP employs , seems aimed at voters ’ hearts , while the case prosecuted by the Democrats tends to focus on voters ’ heads .
Which will prove more persuasive ?
We may have to wait for November to find the answer .

With the number of voters still up for grabs in the election dwindling—a late-July poll found that only 13 percent of the electorate remain truly undecided—and the battle for support intensifying, the persuasive strategies used by the two parties become increasingly important, and key differences become more striking.
The Democrats, perhaps not surprisingly, are leaning heavily into the science of persuasion.
A recurrent theme at the Democratic convention, emphasized by speaker after speaker—Kamala Harris, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, among others—was the urgent need for viewers to “plan” their vote. This reflects a research strategy developed through iterative experimentation over a decade ago by Todd Rogers and colleagues.
As one of his Ph.D. advisers (Max Bazerman) describes it (along with co-author Michael Luca), in 2003 Rogers was a “young Democratic pollster and recent Williams College graduate” who started graduate studies in social psychology at Harvard, then switched to the university’s organizational behavioral program, where he felt he could better pursue his interest in applying insights from behavioral science to the political process.
The rising Harvard star was soon connected with—and apparently brought critically needed pragmatic experience to—the “Consortium of Behavioral Scientists,” a group of scholars hoping to “apply the results of academic research to win elections and turn more of the electoral map blue.” These efforts were felt to contribute to Obama’s 2008 election, and were celebrated in Sasha Issenberg’s 2012 book The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns.
Rogers extended his work after his graduation, serving as founding executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Analyst Institute, described by Luca and Bazerman as a “left-leaning organization” created to use “field experiments to establish a set of empirically proven best practices for interacting with voters.” One of this effort’s key findings was based on the psychological concept of “implementation intentions”—the idea that you’re more likely to do something if you have a concrete plan. Rogers and colleagues found that they could goose participation simply by phoning voters and asking several questions around their specific plans around getting to the polls; the actual answers didn’t matter—the point was simply to motivate them to think in concrete detail about the process.
The emphasis on voter intention on display at the 2020 Democratic convention reflects only the latest application of the science Rogers and other behaviorists have developed and refined. (Today, Rogers is a professor of public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.)
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The impact of psychological science can also been seen in the approach taken by organizations like Republican Voters Against Trump (RVAT), focused on persuading voters who supported Trump in 2016 to change their minds in 2020. At the core of this strategy is creating what the organization’s leaders refer to as a “permission structure,” a mental construct that makes it easier for someone to do something unfamiliar.
RVAT has solicited and published a remarkable collection of testimonials, often gritty and unpolished, from actual Republicans across the country—including many previous Trump supporters—explaining in their own words, directly to the camera, why they’re no longer supporting the president. Similar testimonials were also seen during the Democratic convention.
It’s difficult to locate the specific term “permission structure” in the psychological literature (a search of “PubMed,” for instance, reveals no items), but the concept is familiar. “That’s a good strategy,” Duke’s Dan Ariely, a professor of psychology and behavioral economics, told me. “There’s no question that showing [voters] that people from the ‘in’ group, and who are like them (connected to them or related to them) have changed their mind. That is incredibly important.”
The term itself has apparently been around “for years” in fields like marketing, according to Reuters, but it achieved particular prominence in 2013 when President Obama publicly used the term a handful of times, largely in the context of how his team was thinking about winning GOP support for a range of proposals he felt many Republicans agreed with in principle but resisted because of “politics.”
As Obama explained, “We’re going to try to do everything we can to create a permission structure for them to be able to do what’s going to be best for the country. But it’s going to take some time.”
The New York Times traces Obama’s embrace of the concept to chief strategist David Axelrod, who “cut his teeth helping to elect Black mayors in cities like Cleveland, Detroit and Philadelphia,” where success depended on “attracting a sizable percentage of the white vote.” Axelrod was famously successful in achieving this, thanks in part to a strategy of providing “third-party authentication”—endorsement from individuals and institutions “that white voters trusted to make safe, conventional decisions about whom to vote for,” offering in effect “mainstream validation.”
The value of this approach might also be seen in academic research on social norms—the idea that, as Luca and Bazerman write, “people act the way they see other people acting.” Empirical research from Rogers and colleagues demonstrated that voters were more likely to vote if you told them turnout seemed like it would be high than if you said turnout was looking to be low, even though you might think the opportunity for impact would seem higher in the second instance. Such is the attractive power of social norms.
The decision to feature several prominent Republicans—former governors John Kasich and Christine Todd Whitman, former representative Susan Molinari, tech CEO Meg Whitman, and former secretary of state Colin Powell—at the DNC earned Democratic leaders considerable critique from the progressive wing of their party. Yet DNC Chair Tom Perez passionately defended the decision, arguing it created a—wait for it—“permission structure” for disaffected Republicans to vote for Biden.
Republican strategists still working for the party (and not for RVAT or the Lincoln Project) are, of course also keenly aware of the science of political persuasion, even if their leaders are not necessarily steeped in the terminology. (When Obama first surfaced the phrase “permission structure” in 2013, for example, a spokesman for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell reportedly googled it because he had never heard it before.)
The emphasis at last week’s Republican convention on highlighting people of color, in particular African Americans (South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, Utah congressional candidate Burgess Owens, Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, and North Carolina desegregation activist Clarence Henderson, among others) may certainly reflect an effort to win over voters who’ve tended to vote for Democrats (only 6 percent of African Americans voters supported Trump in 2016). But it’s also likely intended to reassure white suburban voters already inclined to support Trump that doing so doesn’t make them racists. It’s arguably the same strategy used by Axelrod, but here used for a markedly different end: providing a permission structure for white voters to elect a Republican candidate.
While the design of the 2020 Republican convention may be informed by strategists steeped in the science of persuasion, the party itself is led by someone who seems to understand persuasion instinctively.
As Stanford Business School professor Jeffrey Pfeffer, author of Power: Why Some People Have It—And Others Don’t, reminds me, a lot of detailed analyses seem to miss something that’s “fundamentally important”—to wit:
non-rational, emotional elements like how people look, how they project power through their language and body language, whether they attract or repel others through their dress, symbolism, etc. Trump uses, and still does, strong language. And a lie, repeated often enough, becomes the truth. His intuition is to focus on a few messages consistently. The Democrats are all over the map.
Pfeffer’s description is borne out by events as recent as Trump’s dishonest (but widely reshared) assertion that the Democrats omitted “God” from the Pledge of Allegiance at their convention, and Trump’s constant evocation of “strength.” For example, in the August 23 press conference announcing that the use of convalescent serum for the treatment of COVID-19 has received an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the FDA (more on that here), the president characterized the EUA as “a powerful term,” said the treatment represented “a powerful therapy that transfuses very, very strong antibodies” into patients.
More generally, the 2020 RNC convention as a whole seemed intent on offering a coherent, if counterfactual, emotionally appealing narrative, one that is easy to explain, easy to understand. It represents an attractive alternative to the often-grim reality outside, and to the incessant censoriousness of the progressive left. Through repetition—along with the consistent discrediting of alternative sources of information—the fable becomes the preferred truth.
The Democrats, predictably, may have landed on a strategy driven by data and logic and guided by reason, but how effectively can they compete with Trump’s marketing instincts, and his one authentic superpower: the intuitive ability to fabricate, hone, convey, and repeat—tirelessly—an easily digestible message appealing viscerally to many voters?
Trump doesn’t need science to recognize what science has in fact demonstrated, according to Baba Shiv, a professor of marketing at Stanford’s business school: virtually all human decisions are shaped by emotion. Shiv explains, “the rational brain is not good at being rational, but instead is good at simply rationalizing what the emotional brain has already decided to do, and this happens non-consciously.”
The narratives Trump constructs, and the pageantry the GOP employs, seems aimed at voters’ hearts, while the case prosecuted by the Democrats tends to focus on voters’ heads. Which will prove more persuasive?
We may have to wait for November to find the answer.


thebulwark--2020-09-01--We Need to Prepare Better for Crises

We Need to Prepare Better for Crises

COVID-19 felt like it came out of nowhere .
But the possibility of an outbreak becoming a global pandemic upending people ’ s lives and the world economy was hardly unforeseen .
Movies like Outbreak ( 1995 ) and Contagion ( 2011 ) offered fictionalized accounts of devastating diseases spreading rapidly .
Journalists have written long exposés investigating our readiness for a pandemic comparable to the 1918 Spanish flu .
A series of other contagious diseases and novel strains in recent years—SARS , avian flu , Zika , swine flu , MERS , Ebola—were grim warnings .
In a now-famous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the greatest risk of mass fatality no longer came from bombs but from microbes , and warned that we had done virtually nothing to prepare .
Netflix ’ s documentary series Pandemic , takes a close look at the possibility of a respiratory virus sweeping the globe ; it premiered in January , just as the coronavirus was starting to do just that .
And the All England Lawn Tennis Club had the foresight to insure against a closure due to pandemic , receiving $ 141 million when it was forced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Second World War .
We can and often do predict “ unforeseeable ” risks .
To prevent a repeat of the COVID fiasco , however , we must institutionalize the practice to make sure we are ready for whatever arises .
The federal government should establish a new U.S. Board of Preparation to identify potential catastrophes and take all necessary steps to prevent and prepare for them .
Real risk control requires substantial thought and expertise .
It requires long-term investment and planning and the willingness to make short-term expenditures to mitigate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And it therefore requires that the strategists be insulated from the short-term demands of the political cycle .
For the board ’ s membership , appropriate models are apolitical institutions like the Federal Reserve or the Federal Communications Commission , with lengthy terms and a mandated bipartisan makeup .
The board would have two responsibilities .
First , it would be tasked with identifying , analyzing , and prioritizing risks , work for which it could draw on the considerable resources of the intelligence community , the National Academies , government research groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office of Net Assessment , and private-sector experts .
Second , the board would fund—either through direct contracts or via grants made to other government entities—only projects narrowly tailored to address specific risk-mitigation projects .
Insofar as possible , appropriations for the board must be removed from the political system .
Ideally , the funds would be moved out of Congress ’ s annual discretionary budget process and treated as mandatory spending ( alongside such programs as Social Security and Medicare ) ; that way the funds could be fenced off and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budget .
There are various ways this could be done ; perhaps Congress could require that some amount of funding , pegged to a small percentage of gross domestic product , would be assigned to the board each year , and that figure would only be alterable with a 60-vote majority in the Senate .
To prevent bureaucratic waste , the board ’ s overhead should by law be capped at a small percent of its budget , and an inspector general could provide oversight .
The truth is that not only are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be prevented or substantially contained at minimal expense .
In his TED talk , Gates cited a World Bank estimate that an influenza pandemic would kill millions of people and cause $ 3 trillion in economic loss .
In actuality , the COVID-19 crisis has resulted in much greater economic damage from a far less deadly illness .
Gates did not quantify the cost of his recommended strategy : research into vaccines and diagnostics , a medical reserve at the ready to deploy with the military , and constant “ germ game ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been minuscule compared to the cost associated with tens of millions of people out of work , tens of thousands of businesses shuttered , and trillions of dollars of debt run up by the government .
A board of preparation would ensure we take the actions that are never at the top of the agenda for politicians or the media .
Consider our electric grid .
National security experts have flagged potential damage from an electromagnetic pulse—whether manmade or from a solar flare—as a major issue for some time , an event that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the nineteenth century .
The cost of hardening the grid against such an attack is , by one estimate , less than $ 4 billion .
Yet legislation to do just that has been languishing in Congress since 2013 .
Or take the risk of an asteroid collision .
A space rock in the last few days came within two thousand miles of the earth , the closest ever , without being detected until after the fact .
Yet , as former astronaut Ed Lu of the B612 Foundation recently told me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warning and prevention system could be as little as $ 1 billion , less than 0.001 percent of the amount spent on the CARES Act .
The list of “ known unknowns ” is well-known : cyberattack , nuclear proliferation , earthquake , attacks on satellites , tsunamis , mass terror , biological weapons , and climate change , to name just a few .
Benjamin Franklin ’ s maxim that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is as true as it ever was .
It is the logic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ premiums .
In the private sector , insurance has been used for catastrophic risk management for centuries .
On Wall Street , investors buy “ tail-risk hedges ” for their portfolios by buying cheap options that pay off asymmetrically if the market crashes .
Most of the time , these hedges lose small amounts of money .
But when the market does swoon , the cost proves worth it .
In the policy sphere , Ronald Reagan used the insurance analogy to good effect when he and George Schultz spearheaded the Montreal Protocol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevented the further degradation of the ozone layer .
As with climate change today , scientific knowledge of the problem was imperfect and vocal opponents were skeptical that human use of chlorofluorocarbons were to blame , but all agreed that the ozone layer ’ s destruction would be catastrophic .
So Reagan put it simply to the critics : What if there is even a small chance they were wrong ?
You don ’ t take out an insurance policy because you think your house is actually going to burn down .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out , ” Schultz later said , “ the scientists who were worried were right and Reagan ’ s Montreal Protocol came along just in time.
” We currently have no systematic program in place to identify and prepare for risks .
Politicians focus only on the present and address crises only when they become acute .
Various executive-branch agencies may work on risk-related projects , but only in scattered and piecemeal ways and in competition with other nearer-term responsibilities—so their level of focus is inadequate .
The coronavirus crisis has been devastating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sustained .
But let us learn the hard lesson of small steps not taken that could have made it far less catastrophic .
We must consistently devote a small amount of our resources—financial , political , scientific , and intellectual—to risk management .
What we insist every driver do for their automobile , we should do for our way of life .

COVID-19 felt like it came out of nowhere. But the possibility of an outbreak becoming a global pandemic upending people’s lives and the world economy was hardly unforeseen. Movies like Outbreak (1995) and Contagion (2011) offered fictionalized accounts of devastating diseases spreading rapidly. Journalists have written long exposés investigating our readiness for a pandemic comparable to the 1918 Spanish flu. A series of other contagious diseases and novel strains in recent years—SARS, avian flu, Zika, swine flu, MERS, Ebola—were grim warnings. In a now-famous 2015 TED Talk, Bill Gates declared that the greatest risk of mass fatality no longer came from bombs but from microbes, and warned that we had done virtually nothing to prepare. Netflix’s documentary series Pandemic, takes a close look at the possibility of a respiratory virus sweeping the globe; it premiered in January, just as the coronavirus was starting to do just that. And the All England Lawn Tennis Club had the foresight to insure against a closure due to pandemic, receiving $141 million when it was forced to cancel Wimbledon for the first time since the Second World War.
We can and often do predict “unforeseeable” risks. To prevent a repeat of the COVID fiasco, however, we must institutionalize the practice to make sure we are ready for whatever arises. The federal government should establish a new U.S. Board of Preparation to identify potential catastrophes and take all necessary steps to prevent and prepare for them. Real risk control requires substantial thought and expertise. It requires long-term investment and planning and the willingness to make short-term expenditures to mitigate events that likely will not occur. And it therefore requires that the strategists be insulated from the short-term demands of the political cycle.
For the board’s membership, appropriate models are apolitical institutions like the Federal Reserve or the Federal Communications Commission, with lengthy terms and a mandated bipartisan makeup. The board would have two responsibilities. First, it would be tasked with identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing risks, work for which it could draw on the considerable resources of the intelligence community, the National Academies, government research groups like the Department of Defense’s Office of Net Assessment, and private-sector experts. Second, the board would fund—either through direct contracts or via grants made to other government entities—only projects narrowly tailored to address specific risk-mitigation projects.
Insofar as possible, appropriations for the board must be removed from the political system. Ideally, the funds would be moved out of Congress’s annual discretionary budget process and treated as mandatory spending (alongside such programs as Social Security and Medicare); that way the funds could be fenced off and not used to plug gaps elsewhere in the budget. There are various ways this could be done; perhaps Congress could require that some amount of funding, pegged to a small percentage of gross domestic product, would be assigned to the board each year, and that figure would only be alterable with a 60-vote majority in the Senate. To prevent bureaucratic waste, the board’s overhead should by law be capped at a small percent of its budget, and an inspector general could provide oversight.
The truth is that not only are most catastrophic risks foreseeable but they can be prevented or substantially contained at minimal expense. In his TED talk, Gates cited a World Bank estimate that an influenza pandemic would kill millions of people and cause $3 trillion in economic loss. In actuality, the COVID-19 crisis has resulted in much greater economic damage from a far less deadly illness. Gates did not quantify the cost of his recommended strategy: research into vaccines and diagnostics, a medical reserve at the ready to deploy with the military, and constant “germ game” simulations. But it would certainly have been minuscule compared to the cost associated with tens of millions of people out of work, tens of thousands of businesses shuttered, and trillions of dollars of debt run up by the government.
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…
A board of preparation would ensure we take the actions that are never at the top of the agenda for politicians or the media. Consider our electric grid. National security experts have flagged potential damage from an electromagnetic pulse—whether manmade or from a solar flare—as a major issue for some time, an event that could send part of our country back to the nineteenth century. The cost of hardening the grid against such an attack is, by one estimate, less than $4 billion. Yet legislation to do just that has been languishing in Congress since 2013.
Or take the risk of an asteroid collision. A space rock in the last few days came within two thousand miles of the earth, the closest ever, without being detected until after the fact. Yet, as former astronaut Ed Lu of the B612 Foundation recently told me, the cost of a permanent early warning and prevention system could be as little as $1 billion, less than 0.001 percent of the amount spent on the CARES Act. The list of “known unknowns” is well-known: cyberattack, nuclear proliferation, earthquake, attacks on satellites, tsunamis, mass terror, biological weapons, and climate change, to name just a few.
Benjamin Franklin’s maxim that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is as true as it ever was. It is the logic we all employ when we pay insurance premiums. In the private sector, insurance has been used for catastrophic risk management for centuries. On Wall Street, investors buy “tail-risk hedges” for their portfolios by buying cheap options that pay off asymmetrically if the market crashes. Most of the time, these hedges lose small amounts of money. But when the market does swoon, the cost proves worth it.
In the policy sphere, Ronald Reagan used the insurance analogy to good effect when he and George Schultz spearheaded the Montreal Protocol in 1987, a treaty that successfully prevented the further degradation of the ozone layer. As with climate change today, scientific knowledge of the problem was imperfect and vocal opponents were skeptical that human use of chlorofluorocarbons were to blame, but all agreed that the ozone layer’s destruction would be catastrophic. So Reagan put it simply to the critics: What if there is even a small chance they were wrong? You don’t take out an insurance policy because you think your house is actually going to burn down. The argument prevailed. “As it turned out,” Schultz later said, “the scientists who were worried were right and Reagan’s Montreal Protocol came along just in time.”
We currently have no systematic program in place to identify and prepare for risks. Politicians focus only on the present and address crises only when they become acute. Various executive-branch agencies may work on risk-related projects, but only in scattered and piecemeal ways and in competition with other nearer-term responsibilities—so their level of focus is inadequate.
The coronavirus crisis has been devastating in lives lost and in economic damage sustained. But let us learn the hard lesson of small steps not taken that could have made it far less catastrophic. We must consistently devote a small amount of our resources—financial, political, scientific, and intellectual—to risk management. What we insist every driver do for their automobile, we should do for our way of life.


thebulwark--2020-09-01--Where Are the Defenders of Democracy?

Where Are the Defenders of Democracy?

From the point of view of investment in democracy and democratic norms the Democratic and Republican National Conventions could not have been more different .
On every day of their convention , Democrats professed allegiance and commitment to democracy .
They urged voters to turn out and vote as if the survival of our political system were on the ballot .
Former President Barack Obama warned his listeners that they needed to act to “ give our democracy new meaning.
” Among Republicans , by contrast , the word “ democracy ” was barely uttered .
They focused on other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Vice President Mike Pence put it on the RNC ’ s first day , “ Last week , Joe Biden said ‘ democracy is on the ballot ’ —and the truth is , our economic recovery is on the ballot .
Law and order are on the ballot .
But so are things far more fundamental and foundational to our country .
.
.
.
[ including ] our highest ideals of freedom , free markets , and the unalienable right to life and liberty.
” This difference reflects a sad fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has become a partisan issue and many members of both political parties have serious doubts about it .
American beliefs about democracy now are filtered through a partisan lens .
During the last few months , politicians from both parties have contributed to this worrisome situation .
They have sowed doubts about whether the 2020 election will be conducted in a genuinely democratic fashion .
They have accused their opponents of seeking to subvert our political system .
They have raised questions about their own willingness to adhere to norms that have historically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Evidence suggests that many Americans have gotten the message .
They now share those doubts and are more invested in the success of the political party with which they identify than in the health of the democracy itself .
President Trump deserves the brunt of the blame in this regard .
He has carried on a concerted effort to discredit voting by mail , insisting against all the evidence that it will lead to massive fraud .
In addition , he has refused to say that he will accept the results of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even insisted that the only way he can lose the election is if the result is rigged and encouraged an audience of his supporters to think he might serve 12 more years .
( His defenders will inevitably call this remark a joke , but of course joking is a routine part of his gaslighting . )
Democrats have added to the uncertainty by claiming that the president himself is rigging the election .
Thus in July former Vice President Biden predicted that Trump “ is going to try to indirectly steal the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t work.
” Hillary Clinton echoed Biden ’ s sentiment when she said at the DNC that Trump would try to “ sneak or steal ” his way to a second term in office .
She followed up those remarks by saying , “ Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances , because I think this is going to drag out , and eventually I do believe he will win if we don ’ t give an inch , and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alleging , among other things , that Democrats don ’ t want to play by the same electoral rules that they insist Republicans must follow .
Each side accusing the other of trying to cheat or steal the election .
Each side discussing not conceding defeat .
An American nightmare is unfolding that could make the 2000 election debacle look tame by comparison .
In this atmosphere , Americans now worry that our elections are neither secure nor a reliable register of popular preferences .
In a large survey of the general population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the respondents said they have little or no confidence that the November election will be conducted fairly and the results will be reported accurately .
A Pew poll conducted in April found a stark partisan divide on this question : 75 percent of self-identified Republicans said they were somewhat or very confident that the election will be conducted fairly and accurately , compared to just 46 percent of Democrats who reported feeling that way .
And 87 percent of the Republican respondents predicted that anyone who wants to vote will be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 43 percent of Democratic respondents .
Partisan divides also characterize a range of other attitudes about the conduct of American elections .
For example , another Pew survey conducted last January found that 81 percent of the Democratic respondents favored a constitutional amendment to insure that the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote would become president , compared to 33 percent of the Republican respondents .
In an older Pew survey , from 2018 , 84 percent of the Democrats said that “ everything possible should be done to make it easy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compared to 48 percent of Republicans .
To make matters worse , members of each party regard the other ’ s commitment to democracy with suspicion .
The January Pew survey found that majorities of both parties do not believe that the opposing party is committed to insuring that we have fair and accurate elections .
Americans now think about democracy in terms of what it can do for the party with which they identify rather than having an independent attachment to it .
Recent research confirms that political polarization and partisan tribalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and assess democratic norms .
This tendency is exacerbated when political leaders , like President Trump , associate partisanship with patriotism and argue that people who affiliate with the opposing party endanger the American way of life itself , a repeated refrain during the Republican convention .
That sentiment provides yet another reason why Americans should worry that democracy will not survive this year ’ s apocalyptic political contest .

From the point of view of investment in democracy and democratic norms the Democratic and Republican National Conventions could not have been more different. On every day of their convention, Democrats professed allegiance and commitment to democracy. They urged voters to turn out and vote as if the survival of our political system were on the ballot. Former President Barack Obama warned his listeners that they needed to act to “give our democracy new meaning.”
Among Republicans, by contrast, the word “democracy” was barely uttered. They focused on other things during their convention last week. As Vice President Mike Pence put it on the RNC’s first day, “Last week, Joe Biden said ‘democracy is on the ballot’—and the truth is, our economic recovery is on the ballot. Law and order are on the ballot. But so are things far more fundamental and foundational to our country. . . . [including] our highest ideals of freedom, free markets, and the unalienable right to life and liberty.”
This difference reflects a sad fact of contemporary American life: Democracy itself has become a partisan issue and many members of both political parties have serious doubts about it. American beliefs about democracy now are filtered through a partisan lens.
During the last few months, politicians from both parties have contributed to this worrisome situation. They have sowed doubts about whether the 2020 election will be conducted in a genuinely democratic fashion. They have accused their opponents of seeking to subvert our political system. They have raised questions about their own willingness to adhere to norms that have historically governed the conduct of American elections.
Evidence suggests that many Americans have gotten the message. They now share those doubts and are more invested in the success of the political party with which they identify than in the health of the democracy itself.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
President Trump deserves the brunt of the blame in this regard. He has carried on a concerted effort to discredit voting by mail, insisting against all the evidence that it will lead to massive fraud. In addition, he has refused to say that he will accept the results of the election should he lose. Recently he even insisted that the only way he can lose the election is if the result is rigged and encouraged an audience of his supporters to think he might serve 12 more years. (His defenders will inevitably call this remark a joke, but of course joking is a routine part of his gaslighting.)
Democrats have added to the uncertainty by claiming that the president himself is rigging the election. Thus in July former Vice President Biden predicted that Trump “is going to try to indirectly steal the election by arguing that mail-in ballots don’t work.” Hillary Clinton echoed Biden’s sentiment when she said at the DNC that Trump would try to “sneak or steal” his way to a second term in office.
She followed up those remarks by saying, “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances, because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch, and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.”
Republicans responded in kind, alleging, among other things, that Democrats don’t want to play by the same electoral rules that they insist Republicans must follow.
Each side accusing the other of trying to cheat or steal the election. Each side discussing not conceding defeat. An American nightmare is unfolding that could make the 2000 election debacle look tame by comparison.
In this atmosphere, Americans now worry that our elections are neither secure nor a reliable register of popular preferences. In a large survey of the general population conducted in late July, 46 percent of the respondents said they have little or no confidence that the November election will be conducted fairly and the results will be reported accurately.
A Pew poll conducted in April found a stark partisan divide on this question: 75 percent of self-identified Republicans said they were somewhat or very confident that the election will be conducted fairly and accurately, compared to just 46 percent of Democrats who reported feeling that way. And 87 percent of the Republican respondents predicted that anyone who wants to vote will be able to do so, compared to just 43 percent of Democratic respondents.
Partisan divides also characterize a range of other attitudes about the conduct of American elections. For example, another Pew survey conducted last January found that 81 percent of the Democratic respondents favored a constitutional amendment to insure that the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote would become president, compared to 33 percent of the Republican respondents.
In an older Pew survey, from 2018, 84 percent of the Democrats said that “everything possible should be done to make it easy for every citizen to vote,” compared to 48 percent of Republicans.
To make matters worse, members of each party regard the other’s commitment to democracy with suspicion. The January Pew survey found that majorities of both parties do not believe that the opposing party is committed to insuring that we have fair and accurate elections.
Americans now think about democracy in terms of what it can do for the party with which they identify rather than having an independent attachment to it. Recent research confirms that political polarization and partisan tribalism provide the framework through which citizens evaluate and assess democratic norms.
As the political scientist Alexandra Filindra recently noted,
Citizens do not have a principled or ideologically constrained approach to democracy any more than they have a principled approach to governance and policy. . . . Rather, they are prone to understand democracy through the lens of group memberships.
This tendency is exacerbated when political leaders, like President Trump, associate partisanship with patriotism and argue that people who affiliate with the opposing party endanger the American way of life itself, a repeated refrain during the Republican convention.
That sentiment provides yet another reason why Americans should worry that democracy will not survive this year’s apocalyptic political contest.


thebulwark--2020-09-01--Our Civil War Pre-Enactment

Our Civil War Pre-Enactment

Living where I do , on the location of a minor skirmish in the Wilderness Campaign , I ’ ve been to my share of Civil War re-enactments .
I ’ ve always found it a bit of an odd hobby , to want to play-act such a cataclysm of internecine hatred and killing .
But perhaps the point was that we can play at it because it is so firmly in the past .
Now we ’ re starting to adopt a far stranger national hobby : the civil war pre-enactment .
Factions from the illiberal right and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beating and shooting each other that they just can ’ t wait , so they are seeking out opportunities to do it .
The city of Portland has become a permanent street fair of civil-war pre-enactment , a place for Antifa and the Proud Boys to regularly go at each other .
That ’ s been going on for a while , and people have just grown to accept it as normal , as a crazy left-coast thing that bubbles along at a low simmer in the daily news but doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the country .
Yet now it is starting to escalate , to become deadlier , and to spread to the rest of the country .
That ’ s why the rioting and shooting in Kenosha , Wisconsin , is so significant .
This is a small city in the heartland , and what happens there could happen pretty much anywhere .
What set off the riots in Kenosha was another questionable police shooting of a black man , Jacob Blake .
That the incident would lead to mass protests was predictable—and it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crazies flooding into Kenosha for an orgy of arson and looting that left parts of the city looking “ like a war zone.
” In response to the inability of police to control the rioting , a local self-declared “ militia ” put out a call for armed volunteers to protect the city ; a group of well-armed but largely untrained civilians responded .
This included a 17-year-old kid who came up from Illinois , not to protect his own town , but to join in the civil war pre-enactment .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two of them .
This , by the way , is what “ Defund the Police ” looks like in practice .
As we ’ ve already seen in Seattle , it means that we trade out a small number of police shootings for a larger number of shootings in street battles between rival criminals gangs or between rioters and vigilantes .
The running battles between Antifa and the Proud Boys in Portland tended to have a semi-comic aspect to them , like the melee at a badly run Renaissance Faire .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their civilized inhibitions and start doing really vicious harm to one another , and they have been growing increasingly ready to do it .
Now the civil war pre-enactment is spreading out to every town , and with both protesters and “ militias ” coming armed , it is getting a lot more realistic .
That brings us to Saturday night .
A group of Trump supporters from the surrounding counties mounted themselves in pickup trucks adorned with “ Trump 2020 ” flags and decided to go for a thunder run through downtown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and releasing clouds of pepper spray as they went .
It looks some kind of self-created Disney park ride , an Antifa Safari in which you amuse yourself by shooting fake guns at the local fauna .
In reality , it ’ s an attempt to provoke a violent response and play at amateur riot control—all with the president ’ s blessing .
They got the violence they were seeking to provoke , though the circumstances aren ’ t clear .
A man who seems to have been with the “ Patriot Prayer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though it ’ s not clear by whom .
An Antifa mob was later recording cheering his death .
This is matched by the chortling on the right about the prospect of more guys like the Kenosha shooter killing more protesters .
Why are so many of our fellow citizens so eager to start killing each other ?
A lot of the blame goes to local and state elected officials , particularly in Portland .
By allowing rioting to persist for months—for years , off and on , in Portland—they have emboldened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can act with impunity , while creating a vacuum of law and order that vigilantes and self-appointed “ militias ” on the right are eager to fill , or at least play at filling .
It ’ s time to rein this in before it spins farther out of control , and that burden will have to fall on mostly Democratic mayors and governors .
However , this has merely provided the pretext that allowed people to express a virulent hatred they already harbored toward their fellow Americans .
It ’ s fashionable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” but that ’ s just an effect , not a cause .
The more salient fact is that , increasingly , we ’ re not even arguing about policies .
The Civil War was fought over a large and intractable issue : at root , the North ’ s moral repugnance for a “ peculiar institution ” that central to the South ’ s way of life .
But in this pre-enacted Civil War , can anybody even articulate a broad difference in specific government policy ?
What is the appropriate policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to be implemented to address legitimate grievances ?
Neither side in this battle has any clue , nor are they working with any clear or realistic strategy to promote any particular solution .
All they have is loudly shouted slogans and mantras like “ Defund the Police ” or “ Blue Lives Matter ” —pipe dreams or platitudes , not policies .
In this intellectual vacuum , they aren ’ t fighting for anything , they ’ re fighting against someone .
As a result , the mere act of fighting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , becomes the goal .
Hence the eagerness to play at civil war , to toy with the fantasy of crushing your political opponents by force .
In the absence of actual political principles , specific policy ideas , and the commitment to persuade others of those ideas , there is nothing else to do—and no end in sight .
This is the attitude that sane and rational people urgently need to shut down , so we can keep these civil war fantasies from becoming reality .

Living where I do, on the location of a minor skirmish in the Wilderness Campaign, I’ve been to my share of Civil War re-enactments. I’ve always found it a bit of an odd hobby, to want to play-act such a cataclysm of internecine hatred and killing. But perhaps the point was that we can play at it because it is so firmly in the past.
Now we’re starting to adopt a far stranger national hobby: the civil war pre-enactment.
Factions from the illiberal right and the illiberal left are so eager to begin beating and shooting each other that they just can’t wait, so they are seeking out opportunities to do it.
The city of Portland has become a permanent street fair of civil-war pre-enactment, a place for Antifa and the Proud Boys to regularly go at each other. That’s been going on for a while, and people have just grown to accept it as normal, as a crazy left-coast thing that bubbles along at a low simmer in the daily news but doesn’t have much to do with the rest of the country.
Yet now it is starting to escalate, to become deadlier, and to spread to the rest of the country.
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…
That’s why the rioting and shooting in Kenosha, Wisconsin, is so significant. This is a small city in the heartland, and what happens there could happen pretty much anywhere.
What set off the riots in Kenosha was another questionable police shooting of a black man, Jacob Blake. That the incident would lead to mass protests was predictable—and it was also predictable that it would bring the crazies flooding into Kenosha for an orgy of arson and looting that left parts of the city looking “like a war zone.”
In response to the inability of police to control the rioting, a local self-declared “militia” put out a call for armed volunteers to protect the city; a group of well-armed but largely untrained civilians responded. This included a 17-year-old kid who came up from Illinois, not to protect his own town, but to join in the civil war pre-enactment. He ended up shooting three people, killing two of them.
This, by the way, is what “Defund the Police” looks like in practice. As we’ve already seen in Seattle, it means that we trade out a small number of police shootings for a larger number of shootings in street battles between rival criminals gangs or between rioters and vigilantes.
The running battles between Antifa and the Proud Boys in Portland tended to have a semi-comic aspect to them, like the melee at a badly run Renaissance Faire. The two sides have been trying to overcome their civilized inhibitions and start doing really vicious harm to one another, and they have been growing increasingly ready to do it.
Now the civil war pre-enactment is spreading out to every town, and with both protesters and “militias” coming armed, it is getting a lot more realistic.
That brings us to Saturday night. A group of Trump supporters from the surrounding counties mounted themselves in pickup trucks adorned with “Trump 2020” flags and decided to go for a thunder run through downtown Portland, shooting paintballs and pepper balls and releasing clouds of pepper spray as they went. It looks some kind of self-created Disney park ride, an Antifa Safari in which you amuse yourself by shooting fake guns at the local fauna. In reality, it’s an attempt to provoke a violent response and play at amateur riot control—all with the president’s blessing.
They got the violence they were seeking to provoke, though the circumstances aren’t clear. A man who seems to have been with the “Patriot Prayer” group—a right-leaning opponent of Antifa—was shot, though it’s not clear by whom. An Antifa mob was later recording cheering his death.
This is matched by the chortling on the right about the prospect of more guys like the Kenosha shooter killing more protesters.
Why are so many of our fellow citizens so eager to start killing each other?
A lot of the blame goes to local and state elected officials, particularly in Portland. By allowing rioting to persist for months—for years, off and on, in Portland—they have emboldened rioters on the left to think they can act with impunity, while creating a vacuum of law and order that vigilantes and self-appointed “militias” on the right are eager to fill, or at least play at filling.
It’s time to rein this in before it spins farther out of control, and that burden will have to fall on mostly Democratic mayors and governors.
However, this has merely provided the pretext that allowed people to express a virulent hatred they already harbored toward their fellow Americans. It’s fashionable to blame this on “polarization,” but that’s just an effect, not a cause. The more salient fact is that, increasingly, we’re not even arguing about policies. The Civil War was fought over a large and intractable issue: at root, the North’s moral repugnance for a “peculiar institution” central to the South’s way of life. But in this pre-enacted Civil War, can anybody even articulate a broad difference in specific government policy? What is the appropriate policy for policing in cities? What reforms need to be implemented to address legitimate grievances? Neither side in this battle has any clue, nor are they working with any clear or realistic strategy to promote any particular solution. All they have is loudly shouted slogans and mantras like “Defund the Police” or “Blue Lives Matter”—pipe dreams or platitudes, not policies.
In this intellectual vacuum, they aren’t fighting for anything, they’re fighting against someone. As a result, the mere act of fighting, rather than the achievement of any result, becomes the goal.
Hence the eagerness to play at civil war, to toy with the fantasy of crushing your political opponents by force. In the absence of actual political principles, specific policy ideas, and the commitment to persuade others of those ideas, there is nothing else to do—and no end in sight.
This is the attitude that sane and rational people urgently need to shut down, so we can keep these civil war fantasies from becoming reality.


thebulwark--2020-09-02--Europe’s Banks Are Not Ready for the Coronavirus Recession

Europe appears to be on the cusp of a second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic that has already plunged its economy into its worst economic recession in the past 90 years .
Yet , European policymakers keep reassuring us that all is well with the European banking system .
Their happy talk invites concerns that they will once again be caught flat-footed by the onset of another European financial crisis .
Europe is no stranger to troubled financial sectors .
Indeed , in the wake of the 2010-2012 Eurozone debt crisis , several European countries experienced severe banking crises as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting their bank loan obligations in the depths of a painful recession .
As a result , Cyprus was forced to temporarily shut down its banks , Greece was forced to impose draconian limits on deposit withdrawals , and Spain was forced to seek European financial assistance for its hobbled banking system .
According to the IMF , even assuming that Europe avoids a second wave of the pandemic , its economy will contract by more than 10 percent in 2020 before recovering by around 6 percent in 2021 .
Worse yet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Italy and Spain—the two European countries with the highest public debt levels and the shakiest banking systems—will both experience economic declines of around 12.5 percent in 2020 .
Those recessions will be more than twice as deep as those experienced 10 years ago .
To be sure , over the past decade the European banks have made a significant effort to prepare for the next economic crisis by strengthening their balance sheets .
However , this effort did not go nearly as far as that made by U.S. banks following the bursting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the European effort has fallen far short of what might be needed to weather a crisis on the epic scale of the coronavirus-induced recession .
An indication of how ill-prepared the European banks might be to handle the current crisis can be gauged by comparing their stress tests on the eve of the crisis to the likely depth of the European recession .
The stress tests envisaged that , in a worst-case scenario , the European economy might contract by 4.3 percent .
This is a fraction of the declines that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the European economy and for both Italy and Spain .
It also is hardly a source for comfort that compared to other European banks , Italian and Spanish banks are among the least capitalized and the most exposed to industries like tourism that are being devastated by the pandemic .
These banks also have a relatively high exposure to troubled emerging market economies like Argentina , Brazil , and Turkey .
Even before the pandemic , the Eurozone ’ s southern member countries desperately needed rapid economic growth to help reduce their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of bankruptcies and defaults now all too likely to clog up their banks ’ balance sheets with non-performing loans , there is every prospect that these banks will not be in a position to provide the credit needed to jumpstart the European economy .
Among the lessons of the 2008 Lehman bankruptcy was how interconnected the global financial system is , and how quickly troubles in the banking system of one country can spill over to the rest of the global financial system .
Hopefully , that experience will alert U.S. economic policymakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system trouble could constitute an important headwind to the U.S. economic recovery .
This might induce policymakers is Washington to pay greater attention than they now seem to be doing to European economic developments in assessing the external risks to the U.S. economic recovery .

Europe appears to be on the cusp of a second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic that has already plunged its economy into its worst economic recession in the past 90 years. Yet, European policymakers keep reassuring us that all is well with the European banking system. Their happy talk invites concerns that they will once again be caught flat-footed by the onset of another European financial crisis.
Europe is no stranger to troubled financial sectors. Indeed, in the wake of the 2010-2012 Eurozone debt crisis, several European countries experienced severe banking crises as both households and companies had increasing difficulty meeting their bank loan obligations in the depths of a painful recession. As a result, Cyprus was forced to temporarily shut down its banks, Greece was forced to impose draconian limits on deposit withdrawals, and Spain was forced to seek European financial assistance for its hobbled banking system.
According to the IMF, even assuming that Europe avoids a second wave of the pandemic, its economy will contract by more than 10 percent in 2020 before recovering by around 6 percent in 2021. Worse yet, the IMF is anticipating that the economies of Italy and Spain—the two European countries with the highest public debt levels and the shakiest banking systems—will both experience economic declines of around 12.5 percent in 2020. Those recessions will be more than twice as deep as those experienced 10 years ago.
To be sure, over the past decade the European banks have made a significant effort to prepare for the next economic crisis by strengthening their balance sheets. However, this effort did not go nearly as far as that made by U.S. banks following the bursting of the housing market bubble. Moreover, the European effort has fallen far short of what might be needed to weather a crisis on the epic scale of the coronavirus-induced recession.
An indication of how ill-prepared the European banks might be to handle the current crisis can be gauged by comparing their stress tests on the eve of the crisis to the likely depth of the European recession. The stress tests envisaged that, in a worst-case scenario, the European economy might contract by 4.3 percent. This is a fraction of the declines that the IMF is now forecasting for the whole of the European economy and for both Italy and Spain.
It also is hardly a source for comfort that compared to other European banks, Italian and Spanish banks are among the least capitalized and the most exposed to industries like tourism that are being devastated by the pandemic. These banks also have a relatively high exposure to troubled emerging market economies like Argentina, Brazil, and Turkey.
Even before the pandemic, the Eurozone’s southern member countries desperately needed rapid economic growth to help reduce their public debt mountains. With a wave of bankruptcies and defaults now all too likely to clog up their banks’ balance sheets with non-performing loans, there is every prospect that these banks will not be in a position to provide the credit needed to jumpstart the European economy.
Among the lessons of the 2008 Lehman bankruptcy was how interconnected the global financial system is, and how quickly troubles in the banking system of one country can spill over to the rest of the global financial system. Hopefully, that experience will alert U.S. economic policymakers to the real risk that European banking system trouble could constitute an important headwind to the U.S. economic recovery. This might induce policymakers is Washington to pay greater attention than they now seem to be doing to European economic developments in assessing the external risks to the U.S. economic recovery.