thebulwark--2020-08-05--Beholding Trump in Full

Beholding Trump in Full

Try to imagine that your political adversaries are motivated by interests other than selfishness or an orgiastic desire to banish everyone with your views to the island of Saint Helena .
Now .
.
.
if you were successful , you should introduce yourself to Eric Plutzer and Michael Berkman of Penn State University , who have had a tough time finding your kind in their research of Americans ’ political attitudes .
For a “ Mood of the Nation ” poll they conducted last summer , Plutzer and Berkman asked voters who had cast ballots in the 2018 midterm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resource of American political life , empathy : And Democrats “ return [ ed ] the favor ” against Republicans : Findings such as these give some color to the country ’ s typical partisan divides , all of which are sketched along similar battle lines : right versus left , conservative versus progressive or liberal , red state versus blue state .
But the basic insight of this part of Plutzer and Berkman ’ s research transcends such debates , and is broadly applicable to any two competing political forces in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or acknowledge their opponents ’ motivations , and in the absence of knowing accuse them of acting in bad faith .
This insight can help us to think more clearly about the antagonism of the pro-Trump and Never Trump factions of conservatism .
Donald Trump is not a complicated person .
He speaks in simple words , never says “ no comment , ” and appeals to what the late neuroscientist Paul MacLean called “ reptilian ” instincts .
Nonetheless , he is so multitudinous in his discernible traits , so prolific in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news he creates , that he can be indescribable—not because one must squint to see him , but because he is so overwhelming a figure that he exists partly inside the field of vision and mostly beyond the periphery .
Trump ’ s defenders and detractors alike often account for only a piece of him when they say he is either the chosen one or a bringer of doom .
What , then , would a fuller accounting of Trump look like ?
How would his most politically salient characteristics be described ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Trump is a Republican and the president , which makes him the doorman of his party ’ s favored policies and judges , and the last line of defense against progressives in Congress .
2 ) He is a “ different kind ” of Republican , one who declares new culture wars ( unlike , say , Mitch Daniels , who sought truces to old ones ) ; reversed his party ’ s orthodoxy on trade , entitlement reform , and foreign policy ; and charted a more restrictive approach toward immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having an unacceptable comportment , which shows up not just in tweets—which are awful enough—but in the White House press briefing room , the Pentagon , and the Oval Office .
4 ) He is an abuser of executive power , as reflected in policy fights , such as his unilateral effort to fund a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border , and in issues of his personal or political interest , such as Ukraine , his commuting the sentence of Roger Stone , and circumventing the constitutional appointment process by filling key administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s sympathizers invoke one of the first two points to dismiss his critics ’ warnings about the latter two , often by leveling ad hominem attacks against them .
Wrote R. Emmett Tyrell recently : “ All the chief architects of the Never Trump movement are either has-beens or never-weres .
.
.
.
Donald , his tweets aside , brought us to a robust economy .
He is doing it again.
” Other Trump supporters believe that his conservative opponents , despite all their talk about the third and fourth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point—as if sounding an alarm about Trump ’ s comportment and abuses were just a pretext to fight against “ America First ” conservatism .
“ The Lincoln Project is thus a U.S. version of a phenomenon seen worldwide : centrist conservatives who no longer feel at home in a party whose voters want a more nationalist and populist agenda , ” claims Henry Olsen , referring to the pugilistic ad firm led by a handful of Republican presidential campaign veterans .
But as Olsen himself notes , the Lincoln Project has also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans not in response to their backing of “ a more nationalist and populist agenda , ” but rather for “ backing Trump on matters such as impeachment.
” By Olsen ’ s own admission , the group ’ s concern is not restoring “ the pre-Trump Republican economic orthodoxy on matters such as trade , regulation of the Internet and immigration , ” but rather the judgment of the Republicans who sided with Trump when he was accused of leveraging U.S. diplomatic authority over an ally to damage his likely election opponent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the conduct of Trump himself—exist in different universes .
Think of it this way : Major League Baseball ’ s issue with Pete Rose wasn ’ t his management of the Cincinnati Reds ’ pitching staff .
For all the ways that Trump supporters mischaracterize their estranged friends , though , the Never Trump community has to reckon with what benefits he provides to the right .
It is indisputable , for example , that a Democratic president would not nominate judges with the judicial philosophy of either Neil Gorsuch or Brett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals who prioritize religious freedom or Roe v. Wade to the exclusion of other issues , then , the judiciary could be a deciding factor in choosing to stick by Trump—a more consequential consideration than his flaws .
Other right-of-center voters may adjudge the progressive left to be a greater threat to democracy than Trump .
And the value systems of still others may rate the Republican agenda , especially in contrast to the possibilities of Democratic governance , to be a net good even when taking into account the bad that comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positions—and logical positions can be debated , even if a participant who disagrees with them finds them maddening or repellent .
The key phrase is “ can be.
” Such intellectual exchanges do not animate the internecine war of the conservatives .
The right ’ s pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions are motivated by different priorities—that much is clear .
But what differentiates the groups in general is how they acknowledge the tenuousness of their stances when they face one another .
Never Trumpers are essentially unanimous in rejecting the president for his megalomania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during a pandemic ) .
But they do not try to augment their arguments by denying the obvious : that Trump is the leader of the American right and therefore will help deliver certain policy outcomes to their liking .
If anything , Never Trumpers often struggle with the tradeoff .
In any case , the Never Trump point of view is that the presidency is subject to a hierarchy of needs , in which character , competence , and commitment to the law are more fundamental than policy goals .
“ Character @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law ” do not factor in as clearly to the alternative perspective .
The prevailing pro-Trump posture—the one inherent to his political base—instead holds up Trump ’ s comportment as a virtue , admires his wisdom beyond question , and deems his power theoretically limitless , since it is the obligation of everyone on the right to , in the words of an infamous Trump-universe commentator , “ trust Trump.
” “ Power is not a means ; it is an end , ” said O ’ Brien in Orwell ’ s Nineteen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which it is coherent to recast Trump ’ s misdeeds as good works and revel in his behavior that pulps standards of decency .
Only by justifying power for power ’ s sake would it have been possible to nod in agreement when he said on July 19 that “ I ’ ve been right [ about the coronavirus ] probably more than anybody else , ” when he said nearly five months before that the number of cases in the United States “ within a couple of days is going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ and ] that ’ s a pretty good job we ’ ve done.
” Tens of thousands of Americans died from the bug in the time in between those statements .
There is no flattening the curve of Donald Trump ’ s delusion .
It is only convex .
It only grows over time .
And thus it becomes easier to ride it than to deny it .

Try to imagine that your political adversaries are motivated by interests other than selfishness or an orgiastic desire to banish everyone with your views to the island of Saint Helena. Now . . . if you were successful, you should introduce yourself to Eric Plutzer and Michael Berkman of Penn State University, who have had a tough time finding your kind in their research of Americans’ political attitudes.
For a “Mood of the Nation” poll they conducted last summer, Plutzer and Berkman asked voters who had cast ballots in the 2018 midterm elections to locate within themselves that rare resource of American political life, empathy:
We asked every Republican in the sample to do their best to imagine that they were a Democrat and sincerely believed that the Democratic Party was best for the country. We asked them to explain their support for the Democratic Party as an actual Democratic voter might. . . . But most had trouble looking at the world through Democratic eyes. Typical was a 59-year-old Floridian who wrote “I don’t want to work and I want cradle to grave assistance. In other words, Mommy!”
And Democrats “return[ed] the favor” against Republicans:
Democrats inferred that Republicans must be “VERY ill-informed,” or that “Fox news told me to vote for Republicans.” Or that Republicans are “uneducated and misguided people guided by what the media is feeding them.” . . . Many used the question to express their anger and outrage at the other side. Rather than really try to take the position of their opponents, they said things like, “I like a dictatorial system of Government, I’m a racist, I hate non-whites.”
Findings such as these give some color to the country’s typical partisan divides, all of which are sketched along similar battle lines: right versus left, conservative versus progressive or liberal, red state versus blue state. But the basic insight of this part of Plutzer and Berkman’s research transcends such debates, and is broadly applicable to any two competing political forces in a democracy: voters often do not understand or acknowledge their opponents’ motivations, and in the absence of knowing accuse them of acting in bad faith.
This insight can help us to think more clearly about the antagonism of the pro-Trump and Never Trump factions of conservatism.
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…
Donald Trump is not a complicated person. He speaks in simple words, never says “no comment,” and appeals to what the late neuroscientist Paul MacLean called “reptilian” instincts. Nonetheless, he is so multitudinous in his discernible traits, so prolific in the records of his history and the news he creates, that he can be indescribable—not because one must squint to see him, but because he is so overwhelming a figure that he exists partly inside the field of vision and mostly beyond the periphery. Trump’s defenders and detractors alike often account for only a piece of him when they say he is either the chosen one or a bringer of doom.
What, then, would a fuller accounting of Trump look like? How would his most politically salient characteristics be described? Maybe something close to this:
1) Trump is a Republican and the president, which makes him the doorman of his party’s favored policies and judges, and the last line of defense against progressives in Congress.
2) He is a “different kind” of Republican, one who declares new culture wars (unlike, say, Mitch Daniels, who sought truces to old ones); reversed his party’s orthodoxy on trade, entitlement reform, and foreign policy; and charted a more restrictive approach toward immigration.
3) He is guilty of having an unacceptable comportment, which shows up not just in tweets—which are awful enough—but in the White House press briefing room, the Pentagon, and the Oval Office.
4) He is an abuser of executive power, as reflected in policy fights, such as his unilateral effort to fund a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, and in issues of his personal or political interest, such as Ukraine, his commuting the sentence of Roger Stone, and circumventing the constitutional appointment process by filling key administration posts with indefinite temps.
Some of Trump’s sympathizers invoke one of the first two points to dismiss his critics’ warnings about the latter two, often by leveling ad hominem attacks against them. Wrote R. Emmett Tyrell recently: “All the chief architects of the Never Trump movement are either has-beens or never-weres. . . . Donald, his tweets aside, brought us to a robust economy. He is doing it again.”
Other Trump supporters believe that his conservative opponents, despite all their talk about the third and fourth points, actually object to the second point—as if sounding an alarm about Trump’s comportment and abuses were just a pretext to fight against “America First” conservatism. “The Lincoln Project is thus a U.S. version of a phenomenon seen worldwide: centrist conservatives who no longer feel at home in a party whose voters want a more nationalist and populist agenda,” claims Henry Olsen, referring to the pugilistic ad firm led by a handful of Republican presidential campaign veterans.
But as Olsen himself notes, the Lincoln Project has also launched a political offensive against some Senate Republicans not in response to their backing of “a more nationalist and populist agenda,” but rather for “backing Trump on matters such as impeachment.” By Olsen’s own admission, the group’s concern is not restoring “the pre-Trump Republican economic orthodoxy on matters such as trade, regulation of the Internet and immigration,” but rather the judgment of the Republicans who sided with Trump when he was accused of leveraging U.S. diplomatic authority over an ally to damage his likely election opponent. These things—the government policies of Trumpism and the conduct of Trump himself—exist in different universes. Think of it this way: Major League Baseball’s issue with Pete Rose wasn’t his management of the Cincinnati Reds’ pitching staff.
For all the ways that Trump supporters mischaracterize their estranged friends, though, the Never Trump community has to reckon with what benefits he provides to the right. It is indisputable, for example, that a Democratic president would not nominate judges with the judicial philosophy of either Neil Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh to any federal court. For individuals who prioritize religious freedom or Roe v. Wade to the exclusion of other issues, then, the judiciary could be a deciding factor in choosing to stick by Trump—a more consequential consideration than his flaws. Other right-of-center voters may adjudge the progressive left to be a greater threat to democracy than Trump. And the value systems of still others may rate the Republican agenda, especially in contrast to the possibilities of Democratic governance, to be a net good even when taking into account the bad that comes with Trump. These are logically defensible positions—and logical positions can be debated, even if a participant who disagrees with them finds them maddening or repellent.
The key phrase is “can be.” Such intellectual exchanges do not animate the internecine war of the conservatives. The right’s pro-Trump and anti-Trump factions are motivated by different priorities—that much is clear. But what differentiates the groups in general is how they acknowledge the tenuousness of their stances when they face one another. Never Trumpers are essentially unanimous in rejecting the president for his megalomania and maladministration (a toxic governing cocktail during a pandemic). But they do not try to augment their arguments by denying the obvious: that Trump is the leader of the American right and therefore will help deliver certain policy outcomes to their liking. If anything, Never Trumpers often struggle with the tradeoff. In any case, the Never Trump point of view is that the presidency is subject to a hierarchy of needs, in which character, competence, and commitment to the law are more fundamental than policy goals.
“Character, competence, and commitment to the law” do not factor in as clearly to the alternative perspective. The prevailing pro-Trump posture—the one inherent to his political base—instead holds up Trump’s comportment as a virtue, admires his wisdom beyond question, and deems his power theoretically limitless, since it is the obligation of everyone on the right to, in the words of an infamous Trump-universe commentator, “trust Trump.” “Power is not a means; it is an end,” said O’Brien in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. This is the only worldview in which it is coherent to recast Trump’s misdeeds as good works and revel in his behavior that pulps standards of decency. Only by justifying power for power’s sake would it have been possible to nod in agreement when he said on July 19 that “I’ve been right [about the coronavirus] probably more than anybody else,” when he said nearly five months before that the number of cases in the United States “within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, [and] that’s a pretty good job we’ve done.” Tens of thousands of Americans died from the bug in the time in between those statements.
There is no flattening the curve of Donald Trump’s delusion. It is only convex. It only grows over time. And thus it becomes easier to ride it than to deny it.


thebulwark--2020-08-05--What Are Allies Good For, Anyway?

What Are Allies Good For, Anyway?

As a candidate and then as president , Donald Trump has criticized and complained about U.S. allies—and especially about the amount of money that they pay toward their own defenses .
And it hasn ’ t all been talk : His administration recently announced a major reduction in the number of U.S. forces in Germany .
( “ We don ’ t want to be the suckers anymore , ” he said . )
Reports claim that South Korea may be next .
As has so often been the case with the Trump administration , the president ’ s words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to basics—to understand and make the case for norms and practices that he has ignored or rejected .
So let ’ s try to answer a simple question : What are allies and what do we need them for ?
First , some background .
For most of history , alliances were situational and short-term , like the two Grand Alliances formed to halt the expansionism of France under Louis XIV , or the series of coalitions formed to defeat Napoleon .
Outside of wartime , alliances tended to be unbalanced , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : There was the exploiter and there was the exploited .
Participation in regional—and later global—hegemonic orders used to be more forcible than voluntary , and usually the hegemon benefited in a mercantile sense while the subjects received protection .
Only in the nineteenth century did a world power—the United Kingdom—for the first time use its hegemony to liberalize trade to benefit all participants .
In time , the United States would take on that responsibility , and expand upon it .
One indicator of how historically anomalous the U.S.-led world order since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some U.S. allies ask , or even beg , the United States to house its troops in their countries .
The United States has only reluctantly accepted this responsibility—and that reluctance is itself part of what has made U.S. global leadership appealing to much of the world .
As Robert Kagan notes in his 2012 book The World America Made , never in history have small powers been so desirous of having a great power station troops within their borders , never in history has a great power been so reluctant to accept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a great power been so forceful in asking smaller powers to spend more on military capabilities , and never in history have smaller powers been so resistant to such a request .
Now on to the question of what allies are good for .
First , there is the obvious answer : They increase the aggregate military power of their bloc .
This is what Trump has been complaining about for years—that some of our allies don ’ t pay as much as they ought to for their own defenses , and so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the alliance ’ s aggregate military power .
On this point , he is not factually wrong .
( There often are , though , good reasons to think twice before asking allies to pay more . )
Nor is he the first president to push NATO allies to spend more ; his two predecessors did as well .
But increasing aggregate military power is not an alliance ’ s only benefit—nor necessarily the most important one .
Allies also provide each other with geographic access and knowledge .
The United States is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war in its home territory .
But if the United States ever needs to fight another war in Europe , the current presence of U.S. troops allows the United States not to have to worry about having to lead another Normandy invasion .
Additionally , this presence helps to acquaint the U.S. military with Europe ’ s terrain , geography , and climate .
And forward deployments of troops to Europe and Asia have created buffer zones between the United States and Russia and the United States and China—in America ’ s favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not at our doorsteps , but we are at theirs .
Alliances can also legitimize the collective actions of their participants .
Americans remember the Iraq War as a unilateral move due to France ’ s and Germany ’ s objections .
The truth , however , is that a half-dozen other nations participated militarily alongside the United States , and dozens of others joined in other ways .
Russian ’ s unilateral actions in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine starting in 2014 resulted in punitive action against it .
But American actions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraq starting in 2003 , Libya in 2011 , Pakistan for the past two decades , Yemen in the 2000s , Somalia in the 1990s , and so on , never resulted in any international punitive backlash—sanctions , for instance—in part because those actions were taken alongside allies .
Alliances also share intelligence .
Five Eyes is an intelligence-sharing coalition of five English-speaking countries—the United States , the United Kingdom , Canada , Australia , and New Zealand .
In Asia , Americans benefit from South Korean intelligence services spying on North Korea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provider to the United States , and not only about Iran and potential threats in the Middle East : In 2015 , for instance , it was Israel that informed the National Security Agency about the Russians ’ access to the agency ’ s hacking tool .
By providing our allies with security guarantees , the United States prevents them from—or at least reduces their likelihood of—accommodating our enemies against our interests .
Indeed , because of our security guarantees , our allies often go out of their way to accommodate our interests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so they can stay on our good side .
Last but not least , by allowing the forward deployment of the U.S. military , America ’ s allies make it possible for the United States to resolve what Peter Feaver calls the “ civil-military relations problematique ” : that Americans needed a large standing army but feared that it would be used to undermine liberalism in the United States .
The resolution was forward deployment .
Americans got to keep their large Army but far away in somebody else ’ s country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ world order is how relatively little the United States , compared with previous hegemonic powers , spends on its military , despite its large responsibilities around the world .
From 1960 until the demise of the USSR , the Soviet Union never spent less than 10 percent of its GDP on military expenditures , while occasionally getting close to 20 percent of it .
By contrast , the United States never spent more than about 9 percent of its GDP—which would have been impossible without America ’ s liberal alliance system .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many great allies , and they are lucky to have us .
Only a fool would choose to endanger the current system .

As a candidate and then as president, Donald Trump has criticized and complained about U.S. allies—and especially about the amount of money that they pay toward their own defenses. And it hasn’t all been talk: His administration recently announced a major reduction in the number of U.S. forces in Germany. (“We don’t want to be the suckers anymore,” he said.) Reports claim that South Korea may be next.
As has so often been the case with the Trump administration, the president’s words and deeds force us to go back to basics—to understand and make the case for norms and practices that he has ignored or rejected. So let’s try to answer a simple question: What are allies and what do we need them for?
First, some background. For most of history, alliances were situational and short-term, like the two Grand Alliances formed to halt the expansionism of France under Louis XIV, or the series of coalitions formed to defeat Napoleon. Outside of wartime, alliances tended to be unbalanced, and they were not necessarily friendly and consensual: There was the exploiter and there was the exploited. Participation in regional—and later global—hegemonic orders used to be more forcible than voluntary, and usually the hegemon benefited in a mercantile sense while the subjects received protection. Only in the nineteenth century did a world power—the United Kingdom—for the first time use its hegemony to liberalize trade to benefit all participants. In time, the United States would take on that responsibility, and expand upon it.
One indicator of how historically anomalous the U.S.-led world order since 1945 has been is the fact that some U.S. allies ask, or even beg, the United States to house its troops in their countries. The United States has only reluctantly accepted this responsibility—and that reluctance is itself part of what has made U.S. global leadership appealing to much of the world. As Robert Kagan notes in his 2012 book The World America Made, never in history have small powers been so desirous of having a great power station troops within their borders, never in history has a great power been so reluctant to accept this invitation, never in history has a great power been so forceful in asking smaller powers to spend more on military capabilities, and never in history have smaller powers been so resistant to such a request.
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…
Now on to the question of what allies are good for. First, there is the obvious answer: They increase the aggregate military power of their bloc. This is what Trump has been complaining about for years—that some of our allies don’t pay as much as they ought to for their own defenses, and so don’t do enough to increase the alliance’s aggregate military power. On this point, he is not factually wrong. (There often are, though, good reasons to think twice before asking allies to pay more.) Nor is he the first president to push NATO allies to spend more; his two predecessors did as well.
But increasing aggregate military power is not an alliance’s only benefit—nor necessarily the most important one. Allies also provide each other with geographic access and knowledge. The United States is unlikely to have to fight a land war in its home territory. But if the United States ever needs to fight another war in Europe, the current presence of U.S. troops allows the United States not to have to worry about having to lead another Normandy invasion. Additionally, this presence helps to acquaint the U.S. military with Europe’s terrain, geography, and climate. And forward deployments of troops to Europe and Asia have created buffer zones between the United States and Russia and the United States and China—in America’s favor. The Russians and the Chinese are not at our doorsteps, but we are at theirs.
Alliances can also legitimize the collective actions of their participants. Americans remember the Iraq War as a unilateral move due to France’s and Germany’s objections. The truth, however, is that a half-dozen other nations participated militarily alongside the United States, and dozens of others joined in other ways. Russia’s unilateral actions in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine starting in 2014 resulted in punitive action against it. But American actions in the Balkans in the 1990s, Iraq starting in 2003, Libya in 2011, Pakistan for the past two decades, Yemen in the 2000s, Somalia in the 1990s, and so on, never resulted in any international punitive backlash—sanctions, for instance—in part because those actions were taken alongside allies.
Alliances also share intelligence. Five Eyes is an intelligence-sharing coalition of five English-speaking countries—the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. In Asia, Americans benefit from South Korean intelligence services spying on North Korea. Israel has been a useful intelligence provider to the United States, and not only about Iran and potential threats in the Middle East: In 2015, for instance, it was Israel that informed the National Security Agency about the Russians’ access to the agency’s hacking tool.
By providing our allies with security guarantees, the United States prevents them from—or at least reduces their likelihood of—accommodating our enemies against our interests. Indeed, because of our security guarantees, our allies often go out of their way to accommodate our interests, sometimes even against their own, so they can stay on our good side.
Last but not least, by allowing the forward deployment of the U.S. military, America’s allies make it possible for the United States to resolve what Peter Feaver calls the “civil-military relations problematique”: that Americans needed a large standing army but feared that it would be used to undermine liberalism in the United States. The resolution was forward deployment. Americans got to keep their large Army but far away in somebody else’s country.
Among the anomalies of the U.S. liberal world order is how relatively little the United States, compared with previous hegemonic powers, spends on its military, despite its large responsibilities around the world. From 1960 until the demise of the USSR, the Soviet Union never spent less than 10 percent of its GDP on military expenditures, while occasionally getting close to 20 percent of it. By contrast, the United States never spent more than about 9 percent of its GDP—which would have been impossible without America’s liberal alliance system.
The United States is lucky to have its many great allies, and they are lucky to have us. Only a fool would choose to endanger the current system.


thebulwark--2020-08-05--The Declaration Under Siege

The Declaration Under Siege

Margaret Thatcher explained the stark difference between American and European political traditions with elegant economy .
The Iron Lady said that European nations were made by history but the United States was made by philosophy .
Last month , the State Department issued a thoughtful and carefully reasoned report on that quintessentially American philosophy , and the unique nation that came into existence to conserve and champion it .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had tasked a commission with exploring the role of “ unalienable rights ” in U.S. foreign policy .
To do so entailed an ideological assault against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deprive their subjects of those rights .
The doctrine of natural rights also agitates against the growing inclination of the political left to make all of politics a matter of rights .
The report explores the cause of natural law and natural rights , as articulated by the Declaration of Independence ( as well as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights ) .
In this theory , rights inhere in human individuals at birth , which is why we call them natural .
“ The sacred rights of mankind , ” wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as with a sun beam , in the whole volume of human nature.
” Thus government does not create rights , nor does it dispense them .
It merely recognizes and respects them .
As George Will likes to say , the most important word in the Declaration of Independence is secure : “ [ T ] o secure these rights , governments are instituted among men.
” The hostile response to the report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights—and by extension the Declaration of Independence on which it is grounded—puts in sharp @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today .
The keen student of history can only marvel at how we have reached this point .
The assumption of natural rights and government ’ s limited role to secure those rights , the bedrock premise of American political thought , finds itself widely embattled today .
It is under pressure on university campuses and in the prestige media , and even challenged by self-professed advocates of human rights .
Amnesty International , to pluck one notable example , called Pompeo ’ s anodyne effort “ a dangerous political stunt that could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human rights-abusing governments around the world.
” At a time when many Americans are no longer the recipients of sound civic instruction and thus understand poorly , if at all , the premises of their nation , this episode furnishes a welcome opportunity to reach a new—or , better put , to refresh an old—understanding .
The United States was from its beginning a republic “ dedicated ” to certain self-evident truths , foremost among them that “ all men are created equal.
” These founding principles of equal rights and human freedom—America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his bracing tome The Conservative Sensibility ) calls “ an epistemological assertion ” that important political truths are not merely knowable but known .
In the world of 1776 , the truths held to be self-evident by America ’ s founders were ferociously contested by kings and monarchs who claimed a divine right .
Today , although despots still contest America ’ s great epistemological assertion , the problem in the West is closer to the opposite : everyone claims the truth is known , but with the crucial stipulation that no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse than anyone else ’ s .
Tom Nichols has written deftly about this phenomenon .
“ It is a new Declaration of Independence : no longer do we hold these truths to be self-evident , we hold all truths to be self-evident , even the ones that aren ’ t true .
All things are knowable and every opinion on any subject is as good as any other.
” Thus does the American Founders ’ assertion of truth , and its implication that not all claims to truth are equally valid , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modern ears .
When Allan Bloom wrote The Closing of the American Mind more than a quarter-century ago , he began his broadside against American academia by noting that the relativity of truth is the core article of faith among those who control the commanding heights of American culture .
This postmodern allegiance to the equality of ideas , in Bloom ’ s words , was “ not a theoretical insight but a moral postulate , ” and for its adherents “ the condition of a free society.
” This habit of making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the relativistic ideology that sustains it , continues to permeate America ’ s intellectual landscape to such a degree that as indolent a mind as the American president ’ s can express it effortlessly .
Even some of the president ’ s prominent critics have deeply imbibed this relativism , as they demonstrate when they regard the existence of Chinese gulags as a strictly Chinese concern .
However , it is the progressive left that has raised this practice of nonjudgmentalism to an art form .
A central aim of progressivism has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been called “ negative rights ” ( those that , like the Bill of Rights , protect life and liberty ) and “ positive rights ” ( those that obligate the government to provide certain services in pursuit of equality ) .
This project brings concentrated focus on economic and social rights rather than fundamental political freedoms , and this ever-widening circle of rights has brought the older , limited system of rights under scrutiny .
Smart progressives understand that the choice they propose is a binary one .
If their expansive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it would bring the older vision—with its ironclad protections for free speech , and its ideals of a colorblind society , rational discourse , and the scientific method—into disrepute .
These classical liberal ideals self-evidently clash with newly asserted rights , since they have already begun to be curtailed to make way for them .
This is a temptation that the Unalienable Rights Commission stoutly resists in favor of maintaining uncompromising respect for the fundamental rights of a free society .
The commission assails the left ’ s elastic conception of rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would recognize : “ to defend everything is to defend nothing.
” It argues that this proliferation of elective rights for certain groups ( some of which are good in and of themselves ) endangers the essential liberties of all .
Modern politics , built on progressive foundations , assumes that natural rights constitute an incomplete and therefore inadequate body of rights .
The classical liberals standing against authoritarian regimes and struggling for their basic liberties from Hong Kong to Hama do not have the luxury of those who curse the West ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admire its tradition of freedom and devoutly wish they enjoyed a measure of it themselves .
The full scope of America ’ s civic and political crisis is only revealed when one considers that the philosophy of natural right on which America is based is not merely beset by those who publicly declare against it , or those who can not recognize the resources that preserve it .
Many of its ostensible defenders , especially in the Trump administration , further undermine it .
The very president that Pompeo serves , and on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has not forcefully spoken up in defense of human rights , whether in Hong Kong , Xinjiang , or eastern Ukraine .
To the contrary , Trump has done more to encourage these rampant and mass violations of human rights .
His likely imminent departure from office will surely be a boon to the cause of human rights .
The American experience , as related by the Unalienable Rights Commission , is a complex story of excruciating lapses from America ’ s founding promise and persistent efforts to form a more perfect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from these ghastly historical failures—most significantly in the case of slavery and the racial apartheid of the Jim Crow era—and asserts that the United States can not effectively promote core human rights abroad without honoring them at home .
Of this there can be no doubt .
But the cause of human rights will remain impotent against utterly hostile forces if moral purity—as opposed to moral striving—is demanded of its greatest custodians .

Margaret Thatcher explained the stark difference between American and European political traditions with elegant economy. The Iron Lady said that European nations were made by history but the United States was made by philosophy.
Last month, the State Department issued a thoughtful and carefully reasoned report on that quintessentially American philosophy, and the unique nation that came into existence to conserve and champion it. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had tasked a commission with exploring the role of “unalienable rights” in U.S. foreign policy. To do so entailed an ideological assault against not only the foreign despotisms that willfully deprive their subjects of those rights. The doctrine of natural rights also agitates against the growing inclination of the political left to make all of politics a matter of rights.
The report explores the cause of natural law and natural rights, as articulated by the Declaration of Independence (as well as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights). In this theory, rights inhere in human individuals at birth, which is why we call them natural. “The sacred rights of mankind,” wrote Alexander Hamilton, “are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature.”
Thus government does not create rights, nor does it dispense them. It merely recognizes and respects them. As George Will likes to say, the most important word in the Declaration of Independence is secure: “[T]o secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”
The hostile response to the report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights—and by extension the Declaration of Independence on which it is grounded—puts in sharp relief the ferocious tribalism disfiguring American politics today. The keen student of history can only marvel at how we have reached this point. The assumption of natural rights and government’s limited role to secure those rights, the bedrock premise of American political thought, finds itself widely embattled today. It is under pressure on university campuses and in the prestige media, and even challenged by self-professed advocates of human rights. Amnesty International, to pluck one notable example, called Pompeo’s anodyne effort “a dangerous political stunt that could spark a race to the bottom by human rights-abusing governments around the world.”
At a time when many Americans are no longer the recipients of sound civic instruction and thus understand poorly, if at all, the premises of their nation, this episode furnishes a welcome opportunity to reach a new—or, better put, to refresh an old—understanding.
The United States was from its beginning a republic “dedicated” to certain self-evident truths, foremost among them that “all men are created equal.” These founding principles of equal rights and human freedom—America’s public philosophy—contain what Will (in his bracing tome The Conservative Sensibility) calls “an epistemological assertion” that important political truths are not merely knowable but known.
In the world of 1776, the truths held to be self-evident by America’s founders were ferociously contested by kings and monarchs who claimed a divine right. Today, although despots still contest America’s great epistemological assertion, the problem in the West is closer to the opposite: everyone claims the truth is known, but with the crucial stipulation that no one’s truth is better or worse than anyone else’s.
Tom Nichols has written deftly about this phenomenon. “It is a new Declaration of Independence: no longer do we hold these truths to be self-evident, we hold all truths to be self-evident, even the ones that aren’t true. All things are knowable and every opinion on any subject is as good as any other.”
Thus does the American Founders’ assertion of truth, and its implication that not all claims to truth are equally valid, comes off as “judgmental” to modern ears. When Allan Bloom wrote The Closing of the American Mind more than a quarter-century ago, he began his broadside against American academia by noting that the relativity of truth is the core article of faith among those who control the commanding heights of American culture. This postmodern allegiance to the equality of ideas, in Bloom’s words, was “not a theoretical insight but a moral postulate,” and for its adherents “the condition of a free society.”
This habit of making a virtue out of radical openness, and the relativistic ideology that sustains it, continues to permeate America’s intellectual landscape to such a degree that as indolent a mind as the American president’s can express it effortlessly. Even some of the president’s prominent critics have deeply imbibed this relativism, as they demonstrate when they regard the existence of Chinese gulags as a strictly Chinese concern.
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…
However, it is the progressive left that has raised this practice of nonjudgmentalism to an art form. A central aim of progressivism has been to blur the distinction between what have been called “negative rights” (those that, like the Bill of Rights, protect life and liberty) and “positive rights” (those that obligate the government to provide certain services in pursuit of equality). This project brings concentrated focus on economic and social rights rather than fundamental political freedoms, and this ever-widening circle of rights has brought the older, limited system of rights under scrutiny.
Smart progressives understand that the choice they propose is a binary one. If their expansive vision of rights is accepted as legitimate, it would bring the older vision—with its ironclad protections for free speech, and its ideals of a colorblind society, rational discourse, and the scientific method—into disrepute. These classical liberal ideals self-evidently clash with newly asserted rights, since they have already begun to be curtailed to make way for them.
This is a temptation that the Unalienable Rights Commission stoutly resists in favor of maintaining uncompromising respect for the fundamental rights of a free society. The commission assails the left’s elastic conception of rights on the logic that Frederick the Great would recognize: “to defend everything is to defend nothing.” It argues that this proliferation of elective rights for certain groups (some of which are good in and of themselves) endangers the essential liberties of all.
Modern politics, built on progressive foundations, assumes that natural rights constitute an incomplete and therefore inadequate body of rights. The classical liberals standing against authoritarian regimes and struggling for their basic liberties from Hong Kong to Hama do not have the luxury of those who curse the West’s lack of freedom. They plainly admire its tradition of freedom and devoutly wish they enjoyed a measure of it themselves.
The full scope of America’s civic and political crisis is only revealed when one considers that the philosophy of natural right on which America is based is not merely beset by those who publicly declare against it, or those who cannot recognize the resources that preserve it. Many of its ostensible defenders, especially in the Trump administration, further undermine it. The very president that Pompeo serves, and on whose behalf he engages in regular mendacity, has not forcefully spoken up in defense of human rights, whether in Hong Kong, Xinjiang, or eastern Ukraine. To the contrary, Trump has done more to encourage these rampant and mass violations of human rights. His likely imminent departure from office will surely be a boon to the cause of human rights.
The American experience, as related by the Unalienable Rights Commission, is a complex story of excruciating lapses from America’s founding promise and persistent efforts to form a more perfect union. The commission does not shy away from these ghastly historical failures—most significantly in the case of slavery and the racial apartheid of the Jim Crow era—and asserts that the United States cannot effectively promote core human rights abroad without honoring them at home. Of this there can be no doubt. But the cause of human rights will remain impotent against utterly hostile forces if moral purity—as opposed to moral striving—is demanded of its greatest custodians.


thebulwark--2020-08-05--The Case for Not Burning It All Down

The Case for Not Burning It All Down

There is quite a debate raging in the Never Trump Republican battalions about how we should cast our down-ballot votes this year .
I have little to add , since I ’ m still torn and still deciding .
But I do have one thought .
The emotional vote is easy .
Throw ’ em all out !
After many decades in politics I didn ’ t expect much from the GOP—politicians in both parties orbit the lone sun of holding office at all costs and especially fear primaries .
But even as cynical as I am , I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the Republican party crumpled into a worthless scrap ball faster than a Trump University degree .
It ’ s not like we were asking these federal paycheck cashiers to go land on Anzio beach or do something hard .
Are the cheap haircuts in the Senate barber shop really worth such a complete abandonment of principle ?
Yet , they disappointed : ethically , ideologically , constitutionally .
They deserve the consequences .
It ’ s appealing to throw them out and start again .
But starting again is hard .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long and , until these grim years , proud history .
The GOP has been , as we say , The Franchise .
Having worked for The Cause for 30 years , I do feel the tug of loyalty .
So I tell myself it ’ s probably worth trying to save it post Trump .
Still , that chore seems unappetizing because I know that for most of D.C. ’ s governing Vichy Republicans the plan has always been cynical survivalism : Bury the flag in the basement , limply salute Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then emerge to go back to business under the GOP banner .
The worst part ?
After Trump is gone , many of his enablers will return to running the GOP as if nothing ever happened .
Their cowardice and cynicism will actually be rewarded , when what they deserve is a good show trial .
It ’ s disgusting .
And as I think about it , the tug of party loyalty lessens .
So I ’ m left with one final thought that attracts me to still hope for a ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not a grand-scheme-of-things sort of principle , but rather a smaller item of tactics and practical politics for the next four years .
A Senate controlled by the GOP—by one vote—could be a good outcome .
If the Democrats win a real edge in the Senate ( which is now possible ) and control the House , I fear they will run wild over centrist Biden .
To his credit , the current Democratic nominee did oppose Medicare for All and a few more of the Democratic left ’ s other Certifiably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at heart , a bipartisan Senate dealmaker .
In the best sense , he is in many ways the Bob Dole of the Democratic party .
A single-vote Republican majority in the Senate would give a President Biden more leverage with his party ’ s left wing .
And that would be a good thing .
Now this scenario relies on Mitch McConnell putting away the Dracula cape and evolving back into the dealmaking legislator he has been in the past .
But if the GOP majority in the Senate was hanging by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand that getting a few reasonable things done would easily be in his caucus ’ s best political interest .
And McConnell and Biden have a decent relationship ; they ’ ve done deals before .
This outcome would also give Republican senators a path to try , well , governing , which is something they haven ’ t done much of since 2006 .
On the other hand , what happens if the Republican Senate lapses into the minority and full-time opposition to a President Biden ?
The odds are high the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn into a Fox News affiliate , with crank attacks on Biden and endless standing ovations for Donald Trump Jr. at toadying Senate GOP lunches .
I ’ d rather our grim Trump nightmare have a path to ending .
Maybe this scenario is too hopeful in our era of zero-sum , destruction-first , executive-driven politics .
But it seems to me a better alternative than an all-powerful Democratic party running ideologically amuck under a president they privately see as a one-term lame duck .
And I ’ m far from confident that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way—Republicans are not the only politicians who melt into shivering cowardice at the sight of a risky primary .
Democrats can be cowed by their left-wing populist fire breathers too .
Which is why a Republican “ problem ” for President Biden in the Senate could be just what he needs to hold the central power position and avoid being usurped by his own party ’ s left wing .
I ’ m still torn , and not fully convinced to root for a Republican Senate majority .
The GOP must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But a GOP Senate hedge for Biden to use to temper the Democratic left is an attractive idea .

There is quite a debate raging in the Never Trump Republican battalions about how we should cast our down-ballot votes this year. I have little to add, since I’m still torn and still deciding.
But I do have one thought.
The emotional vote is easy. Throw ’em all out! After many decades in politics I didn’t expect much from the GOP—politicians in both parties orbit the lone sun of holding office at all costs and especially fear primaries. But even as cynical as I am, I was disappointed at the speed of the surrender as the Republican party crumpled into a worthless scrap ball faster than a Trump University degree.
It’s not like we were asking these federal paycheck cashiers to go land on Anzio beach or do something hard. Are the cheap haircuts in the Senate barber shop really worth such a complete abandonment of principle? Yet, they disappointed: ethically, ideologically, constitutionally. They deserve the consequences. It’s appealing to throw them out and start again.
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…
But starting again is hard. We have an existing right-of-center party with a long and, until these grim years, proud history. The GOP has been, as we say, The Franchise. Having worked for The Cause for 30 years, I do feel the tug of loyalty.
So I tell myself it’s probably worth trying to save it post Trump.
Still, that chore seems unappetizing because I know that for most of D.C.’s governing Vichy Republicans the plan has always been cynical survivalism: Bury the flag in the basement, limply salute Trump, cower, outwait him, and then emerge to go back to business under the GOP banner.
The worst part? After Trump is gone, many of his enablers will return to running the GOP as if nothing ever happened. Their cowardice and cynicism will actually be rewarded, when what they deserve is a good show trial.
It’s disgusting. And as I think about it, the tug of party loyalty lessens.
So I’m left with one final thought that attracts me to still hope for a (one-vote) Republican Senate majority. It is not a grand-scheme-of-things sort of principle, but rather a smaller item of tactics and practical politics for the next four years.
A Senate controlled by the GOP—by one vote—could be a good outcome. If the Democrats win a real edge in the Senate (which is now possible) and control the House, I fear they will run wild over centrist Biden. To his credit, the current Democratic nominee did oppose Medicare for All and a few more of the Democratic left’s other Certifiably Bad Ideas.
And Biden is, at heart, a bipartisan Senate dealmaker. In the best sense, he is in many ways the Bob Dole of the Democratic party. A single-vote Republican majority in the Senate would give a President Biden more leverage with his party’s left wing.
And that would be a good thing.
Now this scenario relies on Mitch McConnell putting away the Dracula cape and evolving back into the dealmaking legislator he has been in the past. But if the GOP majority in the Senate was hanging by a one vote thread, McConnell would understand that getting a few reasonable things done would easily be in his caucus’s best political interest.
And McConnell and Biden have a decent relationship; they’ve done deals before.
This outcome would also give Republican senators a path to try, well, governing, which is something they haven’t done much of since 2006.
On the other hand, what happens if the Republican Senate lapses into the minority and full-time opposition to a President Biden? The odds are high the Senate Republicans would just double down and turn into a Fox News affiliate, with crank attacks on Biden and endless standing ovations for Donald Trump Jr. at toadying Senate GOP lunches.
I’d rather our grim Trump nightmare have a path to ending.
Maybe this scenario is too hopeful in our era of zero-sum, destruction-first, executive-driven politics.
But it seems to me a better alternative than an all-powerful Democratic party running ideologically amuck under a president they privately see as a one-term lame duck. And I’m far from confident that “reasonable” Democrats will stand in the way—Republicans are not the only politicians who melt into shivering cowardice at the sight of a risky primary. Democrats can be cowed by their left-wing populist fire breathers too.
Which is why a Republican “problem” for President Biden in the Senate could be just what he needs to hold the central power position and avoid being usurped by his own party’s left wing.
I’m still torn, and not fully convinced to root for a Republican Senate majority. The GOP must be punished. Their sins are immense. But a GOP Senate hedge for Biden to use to temper the Democratic left is an attractive idea.
After all, policy counts.


Low-Energy Trump

After this week ’ s set of briefings at the White House , the Donald Trump presidency looks like it may end not with a bang , but with a whimper .
First Chris Wallace from Fox and then Jonathan Swan from Axios eviscerated Trump in interviews that not only exposed how unprepared Trump is for the long-interview format , but how unfamiliar and unrelatable he remains to facts .
He literally does not appear to understand them .
And his confusion now looks like exactly that : the confusion of a senior citizen who doesn ’ t quite have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on , not the bluster of a bully who is dominating the world around him .
Trump used to have bluster .
He ’ d pick fights with reporters .
He ’ d tell us to sit down , shut up , etc .
He was , whatever else you wanted to say about him , high energy .
But lately he can barely muster the get-up-and-go to turn the page on the briefing notes that he pretty obviously hasn ’ t looked at before lumbering to the podium .
Instead of selling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s showmanship , he ’ s like a chagrined schoolboy trying to fib his way through the report on a book he didn ’ t read .
He ’ s losing .
He knows it .
And in his mortal terror , the only place where he can still muster bravado is Twitter .
( On Wednesday he tried to take on CNN ’ s Jim Acosta by tweeting that he was a “ fake reporter ” after CNN ’ s chief White House correspondent called into question Trump ’ s many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) But Trump isn ’ t showing much energy any more in public .
When NPR ’ s Tamara Keith asked him last week why he had canceled a Tuesday meeting with pharmaceutical representatives Trump seemed to be unaware he had done so .
He said the meeting wasn ’ t set in stone and he ’ d meet with them the following day .
But that was impossible because he was heading out of town .
This wasn ’ t a “ gotcha ” question .
It was the sort of basic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with by anyone who is engaged in their own work .
But Trump couldn ’ t handle it .
He also couldn ’ t handle a question this week when a reporter questioned why he had said that Tuesday ’ s explosion in Beirut had been an “ attack.
” This was also a simple , predictable question : The president of the United States had labeled a major event as an attack and been contradicted just a few hours later .
He had to know that he would be asked about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explanation .
Instead , Trump made up a meandering story about talking to generals , but surmised it must ’ ve been an attack because of the size of the explosion .
He proclaimed it an attack with such lackluster enthusiasm you ’ d have thought he was asking for a mulligan on the back nine at his golf club .
The presidency takes its toll on all who hold the office , even , as it happens , the aspirational authoritarians .
That ’ s because even doing the job badly requires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The good presidents grow into the office and learn how to delegate , make decisions , and surround themselves with smart people they can trust .
Trump has done none of that .
There is hardly anyone competent left inside the White House .
More and more is delegated to Mark Meadows , his daughter , and her husband and—terrifyingly—these nullities might be the smartest people still on site .
Meanwhile , Trump ’ s desire to act as his own press secretary , his inability to understand facts or cobble together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his penchant for surrounding himself with a combination of young , eager sycophants and incompetent aging sycophants has sapped him of his strength .
How fitting that his final weeks as president have seen the emergence of Low Energy Trump .

After this week’s set of briefings at the White House, the Donald Trump presidency looks like it may end not with a bang, but with a whimper.
First Chris Wallace from Fox and then Jonathan Swan from Axios eviscerated Trump in interviews that not only exposed how unprepared Trump is for the long-interview format, but how unfamiliar and unrelatable he remains to facts.
He literally does not appear to understand them.
And his confusion now looks like exactly that: the confusion of a senior citizen who doesn’t quite have a grasp on what’s going on, not the bluster of a bully who is dominating the world around him.
Trump used to have bluster. He’d pick fights with reporters. He’d tell us to sit down, shut up, etc. He was, whatever else you wanted to say about him, high energy.
But lately he can barely muster the get-up-and-go to turn the page on the briefing notes that he pretty obviously hasn’t looked at before lumbering to the podium. Instead of selling his version of reality with a huckster’s showmanship, he’s like a chagrined schoolboy trying to fib his way through the report on a book he didn’t read.
What happened?
Trump is scared.
He’s losing. He knows it. And in his mortal terror, the only place where he can still muster bravado is Twitter. (On Wednesday he tried to take on CNN’s Jim Acosta by tweeting that he was a “fake reporter” after CNN’s chief White House correspondent called into question Trump’s many fictitious claims regarding the coronavirus pandemic.)
But Trump isn’t showing much energy any more in public.
When NPR’s Tamara Keith asked him last week why he had canceled a Tuesday meeting with pharmaceutical representatives Trump seemed to be unaware he had done so. He said the meeting wasn’t set in stone and he’d meet with them the following day. But that was impossible because he was heading out of town.
This wasn’t a “gotcha” question. It was the sort of basic question about scheduling that could be dealt with by anyone who is engaged in their own work. But Trump couldn’t handle it.
He also couldn’t handle a question this week when a reporter questioned why he had said that Tuesday’s explosion in Beirut had been an “attack.”
This was also a simple, predictable question: The president of the United States had labeled a major event as an attack and been contradicted just a few hours later. He had to know that he would be asked about it and should have been ready with an explanation. Instead, Trump made up a meandering story about talking to generals, but surmised it must’ve been an attack because of the size of the explosion. He proclaimed it an attack with such lackluster enthusiasm you’d have thought he was asking for a mulligan on the back nine at his golf club.
The presidency takes its toll on all who hold the office, even, as it happens, the aspirational authoritarians. That’s because even doing the job badly requires a major commitment of time and energy. The good presidents grow into the office and learn how to delegate, make decisions, and surround themselves with smart people they can trust.
Trump has done none of that. There is hardly anyone competent left inside the White House. More and more is delegated to Mark Meadows, his daughter, and her husband and—terrifyingly—these nullities might be the smartest people still on site.
Meanwhile, Trump’s desire to act as his own press secretary, his inability to understand facts or cobble together a coherent policy on any issue, and his penchant for surrounding himself with a combination of young, eager sycophants and incompetent aging sycophants has sapped him of his strength.
How fitting that his final weeks as president have seen the emergence of Low Energy Trump.


thebulwark--2020-08-06--A Spineless Tennessee Republican’s Shiv

A Spineless Tennessee Republican’s Shiv

Today , Bill Hagerty awaits the verdict of Tennessee voters following a contentious primary campaign for the Republican nomination to replace retiring Senator Lamar Alexander .
In 2019 , as Hagerty was weighing a bid for this seat in the world ’ s most annoying deliberative body , he went to see an old friend for advice about the race—Mitt Romney .
The fact that Hagerty would lean on Romney wouldn ’ t have come as a surprise to the Utah senator .
The two had first met , and become friends , as young consultants when Hagerty began his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a dozen years his senior , had .
Going back as far as 1987 , Hagerty recognized that his friend had the necessary leadership traits “ in his DNA ” to be president .
In 2006 , it was Bill Hagerty who went with a group of other consultants to the one-term moderate Massachusetts governor and encouraged him to enter the presidential race against bigger names , including potentially Hagerty ’ s fellow Tennessean Fred Thompson .
When Romney decided to run , Hagerty became one of the “ O.G.
” supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came calling in 2019 , it made sense that Romney both encouraged him to run for the Senate and provided the same early support that Hagerty had entrusted in him , shipping a $ 5,600 dollar check to his campaign .
And then , in violation of campaign finance law , didn ’ t file with the FEC , preventing the public from seeing it .
It turns out that sometime after asking Romney for his counsel and taking his money , Bill Hagerty had a Saul-to-Damascus conversion in reverse .
He returned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s character and his politics anytime it came up .
Where and when this roadside conversion happened remains opaque .
But why it happened is clear as day .
Hagerty had a new orange daddy .
And daddy ’ s friends told little Billy that he and Willard couldn ’ t sit at the same lunchroom table anymore .
They told him that Willard is “ despised ” in Tennessee .
They said that if Bill wanted to sit with the MAGA kids he ’ d have to dump the Mormon .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go to parties like this instead : In order to be bestowed with the honor of appearing on the TRIGGERED podcast , Bill Hagerty had to torch his old friend .
So he spent months smearing Romney , calling him a person who is “ indistinguishable from Barack Obama ” and saying he is just “ bitter after his [ 2012 ] loss.
” When Hagerty ’ s campaign was called out on the returned check by the New York Times , it issued a statement saying Hagerty returned the check because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were not the most convincing lines of attack , coming from Hagerty .
After all , it was Bill Hagerty who in 2006 encouraged an extremely squishy Massachusetts governor to run for president .
.
.
.
Yet in 2020 he thinks the same person—who if anything has veered to the right on policy issues in the ensuing years—is too “ liberal ” ?
Please .
In 2012 Bill Hagerty was one of Romney ’ s most enthusiastic supporters in his campaign against Barack Obama .
He took unpaid leave from his job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commissioner to work on the Romney transition team .
A fellow staffer told me that while working on the transition Hagerty ’ s “ head was up Mitt ’ s ass as he begged to be secretary of treasury.
” Yet in 2020 , Mr. Rectumhead thinks that the person whom he desperately wanted to defeat President Obama is now “ indistinguishable ” from him ?
Because he walked in a Black Lives Matter protest ?
!
( Seriously , that was the hit .
Subtle . )
In 2016 , Hagerty was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ E2 conference that Romney hosted in Park City , Utah .
There , according to attendees , he praised Mitt “ lavishly ” and “ couldn ’ t have been more complimentary of Mitt or more gracious.
” But in 2020 , Hagerty wants you to believe he thinks Mitt is “ bitter after his loss.
” I guess the bitterness didn ’ t show itself while he was eating some amuse bouche .
It wasn ’ t just Hagerty : The team that he built for this Senate run includes people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Hagerty ’ s chief strategist , Ward Baker , was placed by Romney in a prominent role as the liaison between his presidential campaign and the Republican National Committee .
It is completely implausible to imagine that people with this background could truly believe the anti-Romney slander they are now peddling to win a primary .
Does anyone really believe that Bill Hagerty , an accomplished businessman who had previously had an affinity for establishment Republicans , actually thinks that Donald Trump is a master negotiator who has “ an ability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sometimes , ” as he said on Donald Trump Jr. ’ s podcast ?
It is all preposterous on its face .
Unless spending time with Diamond and Silk and Donald Trump Jr. has resulted in the first known brain-worms contagion , the truth is painfully obvious : Bill Hagerty is so enamoured of the possibility of being a senator that he ’ s willing to utterly debase himself at the feet of Donald Trump and smear a loyal , long-time friend .
Which brings us to the most galling critique of Romney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech at a luncheon in late July , following an onslaught of attacks from his equally phony MAGA cosplay opponent in the primaries , Hagerty contrasted himself with his old friend , saying “ what we need in the U.S. Senate is backbone.
” How much backbone would have been required for Hagerty to have said that while they disagree about President Trump ’ s impeachment , he knows Mitt is a person of character and integrity who wants what ’ s best for the country .
That Mitt is a person he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few important matters .
Is that such a hard answer to give ?
Would that really have cost Hagerty the Tennessee Senate race ?
Are we sure about that ?
Was it maybe worth a shot ?
Doing the minimum to stand up for a friend doesn ’ t seem like the kind of thing that requires much backbone .
It ’ s the kind of lesson you teach a small child .
Smearing a good person because your consultants or your new friends said you had to do so in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backbone .
It ’ s flaccidity .
It ’ s cowardly .
It ’ s invertebrate .
Backbone is doing the unpopular thing because you believe in it .
Backbone is getting out of your comfort zone to stand against injustice .
Backbone is doing the right thing even when you suspect it might cause some of your oldest friends to shun you .
Bill Hagerty is right that the U.S. Senate could use more backbone .
The problem is his has gone limp .

Today, Bill Hagerty awaits the verdict of Tennessee voters following a contentious primary campaign for the Republican nomination to replace retiring Senator Lamar Alexander. In 2019, as Hagerty was weighing a bid for this seat in the world’s most annoying deliberative body, he went to see an old friend for advice about the race—Mitt Romney.
The fact that Hagerty would lean on Romney wouldn’t have come as a surprise to the Utah senator.
The two had first met, and become friends, as young consultants when Hagerty began his career at Boston Consulting Group—just as Romney, a dozen years his senior, had. Going back as far as 1987, Hagerty recognized that his friend had the necessary leadership traits “in his DNA” to be president. In 2006, it was Bill Hagerty who went with a group of other consultants to the one-term moderate Massachusetts governor and encouraged him to enter the presidential race against bigger names, including potentially Hagerty’s fellow Tennessean Fred Thompson. When Romney decided to run, Hagerty became one of the “O.G.” supporters of his campaign.
So when Hagerty came calling in 2019, it made sense that Romney both encouraged him to run for the Senate and provided the same early support that Hagerty had entrusted in him, shipping a $5,600 dollar check to his campaign.
A check Hagerty promptly deposited.
And then, in violation of campaign finance law, didn’t file with the FEC, preventing the public from seeing it.
What happened?
It turns out that sometime after asking Romney for his counsel and taking his money, Bill Hagerty had a Saul-to-Damascus conversion in reverse. He returned the money and began viciously attacking Romney’s character and his politics anytime it came up.
Where and when this roadside conversion happened remains opaque. But why it happened is clear as day. Hagerty had a new orange daddy. And daddy’s friends told little Billy that he and Willard couldn’t sit at the same lunchroom table anymore. They told him that Willard is “despised” in Tennessee. They said that if Bill wanted to sit with the MAGA kids he’d have to dump the Mormon.
So he did. And he got to go to parties like this instead:
Proud to be endorsed by some of @realDonaldTrump's biggest fans and my good friends @DiamondandSilk! Happy to have their support as we work for the #AmericaFirst agenda! pic.twitter.com/4FPuoVDc0q — Bill Hagerty (@BillHagertyTN) August 4, 2020
Congrats.
In order to be bestowed with the honor of appearing on the TRIGGERED podcast, Bill Hagerty had to torch his old friend. So he spent months smearing Romney, calling him a person who is “indistinguishable from Barack Obama” and saying he is just “bitter after his [2012] loss.” When Hagerty’s campaign was called out on the returned check by the New York Times, it issued a statement saying Hagerty returned the check because Romney is “a liberal.”
These were not the most convincing lines of attack, coming from Hagerty.
After all, it was Bill Hagerty who in 2006 encouraged an extremely squishy Massachusetts governor to run for president. . . . Yet in 2020 he thinks the same person—who if anything has veered to the right on policy issues in the ensuing years—is too “liberal”? Please.
In 2012 Bill Hagerty was one of Romney’s most enthusiastic supporters in his campaign against Barack Obama. He took unpaid leave from his job as the Tennessee Economic and Community Development Commissioner to work on the Romney transition team. A fellow staffer told me that while working on the transition Hagerty’s “head was up Mitt’s ass as he begged to be secretary of treasury.” Yet in 2020, Mr. Rectumhead thinks that the person whom he desperately wanted to defeat President Obama is now “indistinguishable” from him? Because he walked in a Black Lives Matter protest?! (Seriously, that was the hit. Subtle.)
In 2016, Hagerty was an attendee at a gathering at the E2 conference that Romney hosted in Park City, Utah. There, according to attendees, he praised Mitt “lavishly” and “couldn’t have been more complimentary of Mitt or more gracious.” But in 2020, Hagerty wants you to believe he thinks Mitt is “bitter after his loss.” I guess the bitterness didn’t show itself while he was eating some amuse bouche.
It wasn’t just Hagerty: The team that he built for this Senate run includes people who had worked diligently to elect Romney president. Hagerty’s chief strategist, Ward Baker, was placed by Romney in a prominent role as the liaison between his presidential campaign and the Republican National Committee.
It is completely implausible to imagine that people with this background could truly believe the anti-Romney slander they are now peddling to win a primary. Does anyone really believe that Bill Hagerty, an accomplished businessman who had previously had an affinity for establishment Republicans, actually thinks that Donald Trump is a master negotiator who has “an ability to deal with and bring down simmering tensions sometimes,” as he said on Donald Trump Jr.’s podcast?
It is all preposterous on its face.
Unless spending time with Diamond and Silk and Donald Trump Jr. has resulted in the first known brain-worms contagion, the truth is painfully obvious: Bill Hagerty is so enamoured of the possibility of being a senator that he’s willing to utterly debase himself at the feet of Donald Trump and smear a loyal, long-time friend.
Which brings us to the most galling critique of Romney that Hagerty has made. In a speech at a luncheon in late July, following an onslaught of attacks from his equally phony MAGA cosplay opponent in the primaries, Hagerty contrasted himself with his old friend, saying “what we need in the U.S. Senate is backbone.”
Backbone, huh?
How much backbone would have been required for Hagerty to have said that while they disagree about President Trump’s impeachment, he knows Mitt is a person of character and integrity who wants what’s best for the country. That Mitt is a person he loves and respects but disagrees with on a few important matters.
Is that such a hard answer to give? Would that really have cost Hagerty the Tennessee Senate race? Are we sure about that? Was it maybe worth a shot?
Doing the minimum to stand up for a friend doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that requires much backbone. It’s the kind of lesson you teach a small child.
Smearing a good person because your consultants or your new friends said you had to do so in order to win an election isn’t backbone. It’s flaccidity. It’s cowardly. It’s invertebrate.
Backbone is doing the unpopular thing because you believe in it.
Backbone is getting out of your comfort zone to stand against injustice.
Backbone is doing the right thing even when you suspect it might cause some of your oldest friends to shun you.
Bill Hagerty is right that the U.S. Senate could use more backbone.
The problem is his has gone limp.


thebulwark--2020-08-06--Biden’s Shortlist Has Big Risks

Biden’s Shortlist Has Big Risks

Political pledges often cause headaches .
On the eve of the 1904 election , President Theodore Roosevelt wrote to his son Kermit : “ If things go wrong remember that we are very , very fortunate to have had three years in the White House , and that I have had a chance to accomplish work such as comes to very , very few men in any generation.
” The next day , he won the biggest landslide since James Monroe ran unopposed in 1820 .
Because Roosevelt had taken office upon the assassination of William McKinley in 1901 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s term , he felt it would be wrong to transgress the two-term tradition established by George Washington .
On election night , he told reporters in the Oval Office ( which had recently been added to the White House complex ) that “ Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for or accept another nomination.
” He regretted it almost immediately .
Later he would say , “ I would be willing to cut off my hand if I could call back that statement.
” In 1988 , accepting the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ W. Bush also made a pledge .
While his opponent said that he might raise taxes as a last resort , Bush promised “ no new taxes.
” He told the crowd : “ The Congress will push me to raise taxes and I ’ ll say ‘ no.
’ And they ’ ll push and I ’ ll say ‘ no ’ .
And they ’ ll push again and I ’ ll say to them ‘ Read my lips .
No new taxes.
’ ” Bush did wind up agreeing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right governing choice , but because he had pledged in such memorable terms not to do it , he stirred a profound sense of betrayal among Republicans and encouraged cynicism about politicians in general .
On March 15 , in a debate with Bernie Sanders , former vice-president Joe Biden pledged to choose a woman as his running mate .
Now , that pledge is weighing him down .
He has delayed the announcement of his choice by a week , suggesting that it is proving more difficult than he expected .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman for vice president , but less great if you ’ ve first pledged to do so .
The pledge telegraphs that you were not looking for the best person , but the best woman .
Pledges are self-inflicted wounds , painting politicians into corners .
Biden could not know in March that the country would be convulsed by the death of George Floyd at the end of May and that pressure would build among Democrats for the ticket to include an African-American .
Because of his pledge , Biden appears to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ African-American women .
Absent that pledge , he could be considering Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey or former Gov .
Deval Patrick of Massachusetts .
There are few Black women who have the experience and stature to step into the presidency .
Don ’ t get me wrong .
The paucity of African-American women in top-tier political roles is the result of centuries of slavery and discrimination .
But it is a fact nonetheless .
There is only one African American woman United States senator .
There are no governors .
Any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be 78 on inauguration day , needs to choose someone ready to step into the job at a moment ’ s notice .
That someone needs to have governing experience .
She needs to have endured the pitiless spotlight of national politics .
She needs to be broadly acceptable to swing voters .
And she needs to be someone the president trusts completely .
Among the women who meet the above tests , there are problems .
Sen. Kamala Harris has run for president and been exposed to the scrutiny a campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ degree she will be if chosen for vice president ) , but she forfeited some trust with Biden by aiming an insulting charge against him during one of the early debates in 2019 , suggesting that he allied with racists on busing decades ago .
Also , her campaign was a bit of a mess .
She endorsed sweeping policy changes without thinking through the consequences , and she had trouble parrying attacks .
As it turned out , her torpedo to Biden ’ s hull was the biggest moment in her race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of public service but has never run for anything .
She is also potentially quite a lightning rod .
She misled the country about what had happened in Benghazi , Libya in 2012 , and Trump partisans believe she was part of a conspiracy to damage the incoming Trump administration .
The latter accusation against her is mostly rubbish , but putting her on the ticket would give the Trump campaign something to talk about that might resonate with the Fox watching crowd ( not all of whom are Trump voters ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ elective politics , she is almost guaranteed to make rookie mistakes .
Rep. Karen Bass was speaker of the California assembly and now heads the Congressional Black Caucus .
People apparently like and respect her , even Republican people .
But a number of troubling statements and associations have surfaced since her name arose by the Great Mentioner .
In 2010 , she spoke at the opening of a huge Scientology Center in Los Angeles , praising the cult and its leader , L. Ron Hubbard .
Questioned about this , she tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the center was in her district—which isn ’ t much of an explanation .
But that wasn ’ t even true .
A spokesman told Politico on August 5 that she “ regrets the error.
” Hoo boy .
Bass ’ s record is full of questionable judgments .
She eulogized Oneil Marion Cannon as a “ friend and mentor ” in 2017 without mentioning that he was a long time member of the Communist Party USA .
As a young adult , she was a member of the Venceremos ( We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group , and traveled to Cuba eight times in the 1970s under their auspices .
When Castro died in 2016 , Bass released a statement of condolences to the Castro family and to the Cuban people : “ The passing of the Comandante en Jefe is a great loss to the people of Cuba.
” That Comandante language is the way leftists speak .
And no , the passing of a cruel dictator was nothing for the Cuban people ( who never once got the chance to vote him out ) to mourn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to clean this up , arguing that she is not a Castro supporter , and that she would not say the same thing today .
Look , Donald Trump has said equally appalling things about Kim Jong Un ( “ He ’ s a funny guy , he ’ s very smart , he ’ s a great negotiator .
He loves his people… ” ) .
The Republican Party that stands with Trump is hardly in a position to throw stones at Bass .
And yet , we are told that part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tendency on the right to look the other way about the extremists , kooks , and unsavory elements within their own ranks .
The same rule should apply to Democrats .
Karen Bass may well be a reasonable person but she has shown a willingness to consort with extremists ( communists ) and kooks ( Scientologists ) that raises serious questions about her judgment .
Besides , choosing such a confirmed leftist would alarm the centrist voters Biden will need .
Biden is in a tough spot .
Time for a closer look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Demings .
Duckworth ’ s likability and story of heroism and sacrifice is powerful .
She seems a classic “ do no harm ” choice .
Val Demings is a former police chief .
That has upsides and downsides .
The disadvantage is that there is no police department in which stories of wrongdoing will not surface , and there are some from Orlando .
But the upsides are vastly greater .
Who better than an African-American former cop to address questions of police brutality with sensitivity ?
And who can accuse the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Defund the police ” with Val Demings on the ticket ?
Further , Demings is no radical .
Based on bills she sponsored or co-sponsored , she was found to be right in the center of the Democratic party .
The conventional wisdom about vice-presidential picks is that they can harm the ticket , but not help .
Biden is about to become the Democratic nominee because he was perceived to be safe .
He should choose someone just as safe for VP .

Political pledges often cause headaches. On the eve of the 1904 election, President Theodore Roosevelt wrote to his son Kermit: “If things go wrong remember that we are very, very fortunate to have had three years in the White House, and that I have had a chance to accomplish work such as comes to very, very few men in any generation.” The next day, he won the biggest landslide since James Monroe ran unopposed in 1820. Because Roosevelt had taken office upon the assassination of William McKinley in 1901 and had served nearly all of McKinley’s term, he felt it would be wrong to transgress the two-term tradition established by George Washington. On election night, he told reporters in the Oval Office (which had recently been added to the White House complex) that “Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for or accept another nomination.” He regretted it almost immediately. Later he would say, “I would be willing to cut off my hand if I could call back that statement.”
In 1988, accepting the Republican nomination for the presidency, George H. W. Bush also made a pledge. While his opponent said that he might raise taxes as a last resort, Bush promised “no new taxes.” He told the crowd: “The Congress will push me to raise taxes and I’ll say ‘no.’ And they’ll push and I’ll say ‘no’. And they’ll push again and I’ll say to them ‘Read my lips. No new taxes.’” Bush did wind up agreeing to raise taxes. It may have been the right governing choice, but because he had pledged in such memorable terms not to do it, he stirred a profound sense of betrayal among Republicans and encouraged cynicism about politicians in general.
On March 15, in a debate with Bernie Sanders, former vice-president Joe Biden pledged to choose a woman as his running mate. Now, that pledge is weighing him down. He has delayed the announcement of his choice by a week, suggesting that it is proving more difficult than he expected.
It’s great to pick a woman for vice president, but less great if you’ve first pledged to do so. The pledge telegraphs that you were not looking for the best person, but the best woman.
Pledges are self-inflicted wounds, painting politicians into corners. Biden could not know in March that the country would be convulsed by the death of George Floyd at the end of May and that pressure would build among Democrats for the ticket to include an African-American. Because of his pledge, Biden appears to be searching for a running mate only among African-American women. Absent that pledge, he could be considering Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey or former Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts.
There are few Black women who have the experience and stature to step into the presidency.
Don’t get me wrong. The paucity of African-American women in top-tier political roles is the result of centuries of slavery and discrimination. But it is a fact nonetheless. There is only one African American woman United States senator. There are no governors.
Any presidential candidate, and particularly one who will be 78 on inauguration day, needs to choose someone ready to step into the job at a moment’s notice. That someone needs to have governing experience. She needs to have endured the pitiless spotlight of national politics. She needs to be broadly acceptable to swing voters. And she needs to be someone the president trusts completely.
Among the women who meet the above tests, there are problems. Sen. Kamala Harris has run for president and been exposed to the scrutiny a campaign brings (though not nearly to the degree she will be if chosen for vice president), but she forfeited some trust with Biden by aiming an insulting charge against him during one of the early debates in 2019, suggesting that he allied with racists on busing decades ago. Also, her campaign was a bit of a mess. She endorsed sweeping policy changes without thinking through the consequences, and she had trouble parrying attacks. As it turned out, her torpedo to Biden’s hull was the biggest moment in her race.
Susan Rice has a distinguished record of public service but has never run for anything. She is also potentially quite a lightning rod. She misled the country about what had happened in Benghazi, Libya in 2012, and Trump partisans believe she was part of a conspiracy to damage the incoming Trump administration. The latter accusation against her is mostly rubbish, but putting her on the ticket would give the Trump campaign something to talk about that might resonate with the Fox watching crowd (not all of whom are Trump voters). Because she’s never been in elective politics, she is almost guaranteed to make rookie mistakes.
Rep. Karen Bass was speaker of the California assembly and now heads the Congressional Black Caucus. People apparently like and respect her, even Republican people. But a number of troubling statements and associations have surfaced since her name arose by the Great Mentioner. In 2010, she spoke at the opening of a huge Scientology Center in Los Angeles, praising the cult and its leader, L. Ron Hubbard. Questioned about this, she tweeted last weekend that she had appeared there because the center was in her district—which isn’t much of an explanation. But that wasn’t even true. A spokesman told Politico on August 5 that she “regrets the error.” Hoo boy.
Bass’s record is full of questionable judgments. She eulogized Oneil Marion Cannon as a “friend and mentor” in 2017 without mentioning that he was a long time member of the Communist Party USA. As a young adult, she was a member of the Venceremos (We Will Triumph) Brigade, a pro-Castro group, and traveled to Cuba eight times in the 1970s under their auspices. When Castro died in 2016, Bass released a statement of condolences to the Castro family and to the Cuban people: “The passing of the Comandante en Jefe is a great loss to the people of Cuba.” That Comandante language is the way leftists speak. And no, the passing of a cruel dictator was nothing for the Cuban people (who never once got the chance to vote him out) to mourn. Once again, Bass has attempted to clean this up, arguing that she is not a Castro supporter, and that she would not say the same thing today.
Look, Donald Trump has said equally appalling things about Kim Jong Un (“He’s a funny guy, he’s very smart, he’s a great negotiator. He loves his people…”). The Republican Party that stands with Trump is hardly in a position to throw stones at Bass.
And yet, we are told that part of what made Trump possible was the tendency on the right to look the other way about the extremists, kooks, and unsavory elements within their own ranks. The same rule should apply to Democrats. Karen Bass may well be a reasonable person but she has shown a willingness to consort with extremists (communists) and kooks (Scientologists) that raises serious questions about her judgment. Besides, choosing such a confirmed leftist would alarm the centrist voters Biden will need.
Biden is in a tough spot. Time for a closer look at Senator Tammy Duckworth and Rep. Val Demings. Duckworth’s likability and story of heroism and sacrifice is powerful. She seems a classic “do no harm” choice. Val Demings is a former police chief. That has upsides and downsides. The disadvantage is that there is no police department in which stories of wrongdoing will not surface, and there are some from Orlando. But the upsides are vastly greater. Who better than an African-American former cop to address questions of police brutality with sensitivity? And who can accuse the Democrats of being the party of “Defund the police” with Val Demings on the ticket? Further, Demings is no radical. Based on bills she sponsored or co-sponsored, she was found to be right in the center of the Democratic party.
The conventional wisdom about vice-presidential picks is that they can harm the ticket, but not help. Biden is about to become the Democratic nominee because he was perceived to be safe. He should choose someone just as safe for VP.