thebulwark--2020-10-07--How a Second Trump Term Could Degrade Democracy

According to Freedom House , the United States has experienced the most severe ten-year period of decline in political rights and civil liberties of any free country around the world .
Where once the United States ranked at roughly the same level as Germany or Great Britain , it now keeps company with flawed systems like Croatia and Italy , and trails behind such new democracies as Taiwan and Estonia .
America may have had the world ’ s most dynamic political system , but today it suffers from deficits arising from expressions of its political DNA , including those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are of more recent vintage , but still predate the Trump presidency .
This is painfully the case with the steady deterioration of our electoral system , highlighted by voter suppression laws , pinpoint gerrymandering , foreign and domestic manipulation , and the massive amount of money spent on elections .
Then there are those problems that Trump himself created or made worse : corruption at high levels , a consistent stream of lies and misinformation , blatant politicization of the justice system , migrant children ripped from their parents , nonstop condemnation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ census manipulation , vendettas against whistleblowers , gross mishandling of the pandemic , tax scandals , and on and on .
Just within the last week , he sank to new lows with his unwillingness to commit to a peaceful transfer of power or to repudiate white nationalists .
Until now , those distressed by Trump ’ s hostility to the laws , customs , and individuals that stand in his way have been consoled by the likelihood of reelection failure .
The polls continue to vindicate their optimism , but by narrowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out a victory—or steal one—America would confront the likelihood that the president ’ s war against democratic standards , a campaign that has gained impetus over the past year , will be prosecuted with renewed vigor .
Trump has already made clear that he regards the liberal institutions that check executive power as obstacles to be dispensed with and those who defend them as enemies to be sidelined or crushed .
In this , Trump can look to ready-made templates that have guided the actions of some of his favorite strongmen : Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Viktor Orbán , and Turkey ’ s Recep Erdoğan .
These men have built virtual one-party , or one-person , states through methods that are technically legal , fortified by near-total media and judicial domination , and sustained by a mafia-like economy in which the leader , his family , his cronies , and his oligarch supporters control the commanding heights .
There are obvious differences between American conditions and Russia , Hungary , and Turkey .
In those countries , democracy was new , fragile , and weak—barely even tried in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for ambitious demagogues .
Putin , Orbán , and Erdoğan all have finely-tuned political antennas , a reservoir of patience , and impressive self-discipline .
The transformation to autocracy in these countries did not occur overnight .
In each case , it took years to bring each country ’ s liberal—or semi-liberal—institutions to heel and neutralize the political opposition .
Another difference is that most modern autocrats come from political systems where term limits don ’ t exist or where , as in Russia , the term-limit tradition was weak and easily subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noises about the need to abolish the two-term rule , but chances of his crossing that bridge are remote .
But Trump still has an agenda to fulfill : immigrants to deport , walls to build , deep state enemies to identify and purge , and corrupt pockets to fill .
And where Trump moved cautiously during his first three years , during the past year he has ramped up efforts to weaken or neutralize liberal institutions and place his own loyalists in key positions in traditionally nonpartisan agencies .
It is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after the Senate in February declined to convict him in the impeachment process .
He clearly did not learn any lessons from that experience , as some had naively hoped , but instead felt vindicated , and unrestrained .
Instead of the illiberal state that Orbán has attained in Hungary , Trump would seek enough changes in the American system to achieve something approaching permanent minority rule .
The building blocks of such a system would include manipulation of the electoral system , support of a politicized judiciary , and a propaganda offensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , anti-American socialists and insinuate oblique messages about the consequences of demographic change .
In a second Trump administration , the leading indicators of democratic backsliding would be : Media Capture : In every country where strongman rule has won out , control over the media has been a sine quo non .
Orbán inherited a diverse and vibrant press environment after his 2010 election .
Step by step , he gained control of Hungarian news outlets until today political domination of the media is as concentrated as it is in Putin ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Soon after assuming the presidency in Russia 20 years ago , Putin took over two independent television stations , the main means by which most Russians got their news back then .
Under current conditions , gaining control of the American press would be almost impossible given our commitment to private ownership and the sacrosanct status of the First Amendment .
To be sure , a national media permanently divided along polarized ideological lines is not an appealing prospect .
But it ensures that no one personality or party can gain the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Orbán , and other autocrats enjoy .
If outright media capture is not a viable option , more modest goals are within Trump ’ s grasp .
He already commands something of a party press in Fox News , Breitbart , and talk radio .
In the past , the conservative media were united in their antipathy towards liberal figures like Obama .
Today , the hard-right press is mobilized around the program and personality of the president .
Add to this Trump ’ s expressed desire to establish his own loyal media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News , and you have press with a large and loyal audience in Red State America , a vast echo chamber with commentators vying for the chief ’ s approval .
There is another strategy that presents more cause for concern : taming the liberal press through a concerted campaign of libel and slander suits .
True , the United States is unique in the legal obstacles to libel action brought by public figures .
But Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr have shown a fondness for smashing liberal legal traditions , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a cudgel against critics .
The First Amendment notwithstanding , with the media ’ s standing at low ebb and some curious decisions from Trump-appointed justices , a successful drive to recalibrate America ’ s commitment to freedom of speech can ’ t be ruled out .
Voter Suppression and Electoral Chaos : The Republican Party has sought to dilute the vote of blacks , Hispanics , and immigrants for over a decade .
While a minority of states have adopted voter ID laws , some of those that have are presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy of suppressing the minority vote was illustrated by the Florida law that essentially undid a referendum that restored the franchise to convicted felons after their prison term was completed .
All this coincided with a bipartisan , and much overdue , movement to restore civil rights to ex-felons .
A more sinister development has been the drumbeat of presidential warnings about the rigged nature of the election .
To the combination of a pandemic and an upsurge in mail balloting , the president has added the specter of undocumented immigrants voting en @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant to sow doubts in voters ’ minds and pave the way for an outcome that , in Trump ’ s calculations , will seem to be so tangled as to demand a Supreme Court resolution .
Rule by Law : While both parties choose ideological loyalists to the Supreme Court and the lower federal bench , only Trump has personalized the process .
Trump ’ s branding of judges as being “ Obama ” or “ Clinton ” judges earned him a rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts—but did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Attorney General Barr has made clear all prosecutorial decisions lie with him , not with career officials .
In Hungary and more recently in Poland , domination of the judiciary has been a primary objective of illiberal parties .
In Russia , “ telephone justice , ” in which judges receive their instructions via a call from the political authorities , is the norm in any case with even tangential political connections .
Loyalists in the Agencies : Every recent president has appointed loyalists to slots reserved for political appointees , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moved expeditiously to weed out career government officials he deemed hostile or , more often , simply neutral .
In their place , he has appointed unqualified loyalists , such as Richard Grenell , Alan Souza , John Ratcliffe .
Perhaps no figure illustrates this troubling trend as much as Michael Caputo , who recently took medical leave from his position as assistant secretary of HHS for public affairs .
The important feature of Caputo ’ s brief stint was his effort to distort or suppress the publication of crucial health indicators .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience in matters of public health , not least in the midst of a pandemic , did not matter ; he was a Trump loyalist .
Tinkering with statistics is a phenomenon associated with countries like Venezuela under Maduro and Argentina under the Kirchners .
That the United States is experiencing a similar phenomenon is beyond shocking .
Deepening Corruption : Despite his campaign pledge to “ drain the swamp , ” corruption in the Trump administration and among its officials has taken on new heights .
It has become so commonplace that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example of officials using government service for personal enrichment .
We used to criticize leaders like the Aliyevs in Azerbaijan and Marcos in the Philippines for massive corruption .
Now we hear about new cases of corruption in the U.S. on an almost daily basis , with the New York Times exposé on Trump ’ s avoidance—if not outright dereliction—of paying federal income taxes being the latest example .
Equally important is the question of to whom Trump has hundreds of millions of loans due— and will that compromise Trump ’ s foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ watching events in Belarus where its longtime dictator Alexander Lukashenka has tried to steal an election and then launched a brutal crackdown against peaceful protesters bore eerie similarity to events at home .
Trump has already demonstrated a readiness to unleash force against peaceful protesters ( see June 1 in Lafayette Square ) .
He has claimed that he could lose re-election only through massive fraud and is unwilling to pledge a peaceful transfer of power .
Sadly , the phrase “ that could never happen here ” sounds less and less convincing @

According to Freedom House, the United States has experienced the most severe ten-year period of decline in political rights and civil liberties of any free country around the world. Where once the United States ranked at roughly the same level as Germany or Great Britain, it now keeps company with flawed systems like Croatia and Italy, and trails behind such new democracies as Taiwan and Estonia.
America may have had the world’s most dynamic political system, but today it suffers from deficits arising from expressions of its political DNA, including those driven by racial inequality. Other problems are of more recent vintage, but still predate the Trump presidency. This is painfully the case with the steady deterioration of our electoral system, highlighted by voter suppression laws, pinpoint gerrymandering, foreign and domestic manipulation, and the massive amount of money spent on elections.
Then there are those problems that Trump himself created or made worse: corruption at high levels, a consistent stream of lies and misinformation, blatant politicization of the justice system, migrant children ripped from their parents, nonstop condemnation of the media, data falsification, census manipulation, vendettas against whistleblowers, gross mishandling of the pandemic, tax scandals, and on and on. Just within the last week, he sank to new lows with his unwillingness to commit to a peaceful transfer of power or to repudiate white nationalists.
Until now, those distressed by Trump’s hostility to the laws, customs, and individuals that stand in his way have been consoled by the likelihood of reelection failure. The polls continue to vindicate their optimism, but by narrowing margins.
If Trump should somehow eke out a victory—or steal one—America would confront the likelihood that the president’s war against democratic standards, a campaign that has gained impetus over the past year, will be prosecuted with renewed vigor. Trump has already made clear that he regards the liberal institutions that check executive power as obstacles to be dispensed with and those who defend them as enemies to be sidelined or crushed.
In this, Trump can look to ready-made templates that have guided the actions of some of his favorite strongmen: Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, and Turkey’s Recep Erdoğan. These men have built virtual one-party, or one-person, states through methods that are technically legal, fortified by near-total media and judicial domination, and sustained by a mafia-like economy in which the leader, his family, his cronies, and his oligarch supporters control the commanding heights.
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…
There are obvious differences between American conditions and Russia, Hungary, and Turkey. In those countries, democracy was new, fragile, and weak—barely even tried in the case of Russia—and thus easy prey for ambitious demagogues. Putin, Orbán, and Erdoğan all have finely-tuned political antennas, a reservoir of patience, and impressive self-discipline. The transformation to autocracy in these countries did not occur overnight. In each case, it took years to bring each country’s liberal—or semi-liberal—institutions to heel and neutralize the political opposition.
Another difference is that most modern autocrats come from political systems where term limits don’t exist or where, as in Russia, the term-limit tradition was weak and easily subject to “reform.” Trump has made noises about the need to abolish the two-term rule, but chances of his crossing that bridge are remote.
But Trump still has an agenda to fulfill: immigrants to deport, walls to build, deep state enemies to identify and purge, and corrupt pockets to fill. And where Trump moved cautiously during his first three years, during the past year he has ramped up efforts to weaken or neutralize liberal institutions and place his own loyalists in key positions in traditionally nonpartisan agencies. It is no coincidence that much of this has occurred after the Senate in February declined to convict him in the impeachment process. He clearly did not learn any lessons from that experience, as some had naively hoped, but instead felt vindicated, and unrestrained.
Instead of the illiberal state that Orbán has attained in Hungary, Trump would seek enough changes in the American system to achieve something approaching permanent minority rule. The building blocks of such a system would include manipulation of the electoral system, support of a politicized judiciary, and a propaganda offensive that would paint the opposition as radical, anti-American socialists and insinuate oblique messages about the consequences of demographic change.
In a second Trump administration, the leading indicators of democratic backsliding would be:
Media Capture: In every country where strongman rule has won out, control over the media has been a sine quo non. Orbán inherited a diverse and vibrant press environment after his 2010 election. Step by step, he gained control of Hungarian news outlets until today political domination of the media is as concentrated as it is in Putin’s Russia or Maduro’s Venezuela. Soon after assuming the presidency in Russia 20 years ago, Putin took over two independent television stations, the main means by which most Russians got their news back then.
Under current conditions, gaining control of the American press would be almost impossible given our commitment to private ownership and the sacrosanct status of the First Amendment. To be sure, a national media permanently divided along polarized ideological lines is not an appealing prospect. But it ensures that no one personality or party can gain the kind of near-total domination that Putin, Orbán, and other autocrats enjoy.
If outright media capture is not a viable option, more modest goals are within Trump’s grasp. He already commands something of a party press in Fox News, Breitbart, and talk radio. In the past, the conservative media were united in their antipathy towards liberal figures like Obama. Today, the hard-right press is mobilized around the program and personality of the president. Add to this Trump’s expressed desire to establish his own loyal media empire along the lines of One America News, and you have press with a large and loyal audience in Red State America, a vast echo chamber with commentators vying for the chief’s approval.
There is another strategy that presents more cause for concern: taming the liberal press through a concerted campaign of libel and slander suits. True, the United States is unique in the legal obstacles to libel action brought by public figures. But Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr have shown a fondness for smashing liberal legal traditions, and Trump has made threats of using libel as a cudgel against critics. The First Amendment notwithstanding, with the media’s standing at low ebb and some curious decisions from Trump-appointed justices, a successful drive to recalibrate America’s commitment to freedom of speech can’t be ruled out.
Voter Suppression and Electoral Chaos: The Republican Party has sought to dilute the vote of blacks, Hispanics, and immigrants for over a decade. While a minority of states have adopted voter ID laws, some of those that have are presidential battleground contests. The importance to Republican strategy of suppressing the minority vote was illustrated by the Florida law that essentially undid a referendum that restored the franchise to convicted felons after their prison term was completed. All this coincided with a bipartisan, and much overdue, movement to restore civil rights to ex-felons.
A more sinister development has been the drumbeat of presidential warnings about the rigged nature of the election. To the combination of a pandemic and an upsurge in mail balloting, the president has added the specter of undocumented immigrants voting en masse and repeated warnings of fraud all meant to sow doubts in voters’ minds and pave the way for an outcome that, in Trump’s calculations, will seem to be so tangled as to demand a Supreme Court resolution.
Rule by Law: While both parties choose ideological loyalists to the Supreme Court and the lower federal bench, only Trump has personalized the process. Trump’s branding of judges as being “Obama” or “Clinton” judges earned him a rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts—but did not stop Trump from engaging in such rhetoric. Attorney General Barr has made clear all prosecutorial decisions lie with him, not with career officials. In Hungary and more recently in Poland, domination of the judiciary has been a primary objective of illiberal parties. In Russia, “telephone justice,” in which judges receive their instructions via a call from the political authorities, is the norm in any case with even tangential political connections.
Loyalists in the Agencies: Every recent president has appointed loyalists to slots reserved for political appointees, but over the past year, Trump has moved expeditiously to weed out career government officials he deemed hostile or, more often, simply neutral. In their place, he has appointed unqualified loyalists, such as Richard Grenell, Alan Souza, John Ratcliffe. Perhaps no figure illustrates this troubling trend as much as Michael Caputo, who recently took medical leave from his position as assistant secretary of HHS for public affairs. The important feature of Caputo’s brief stint was his effort to distort or suppress the publication of crucial health indicators. The fact that he had absolutely no experience in matters of public health, not least in the midst of a pandemic, did not matter; he was a Trump loyalist. Tinkering with statistics is a phenomenon associated with countries like Venezuela under Maduro and Argentina under the Kirchners. That the United States is experiencing a similar phenomenon is beyond shocking.
Deepening Corruption: Despite his campaign pledge to “drain the swamp,” corruption in the Trump administration and among its officials has taken on new heights. It has become so commonplace that Americans yawn when they hear the latest example of officials using government service for personal enrichment. We used to criticize leaders like the Aliyevs in Azerbaijan and Marcos in the Philippines for massive corruption. Now we hear about new cases of corruption in the U.S. on an almost daily basis, with the New York Times exposé on Trump’s avoidance—if not outright dereliction—of paying federal income taxes being the latest example. Equally important is the question of to whom Trump has hundreds of millions of loans due— and will that compromise Trump’s foreign or domestic policy decision-making?
Finally, watching events in Belarus where its longtime dictator Alexander Lukashenka has tried to steal an election and then launched a brutal crackdown against peaceful protesters bore eerie similarity to events at home. Trump has already demonstrated a readiness to unleash force against peaceful protesters (see June 1 in Lafayette Square). He has claimed that he could lose re-election only through massive fraud and is unwilling to pledge a peaceful transfer of power. Sadly, the phrase “that could never happen here” sounds less and less convincing.


thebulwark--2020-10-07--Art of the Crazy: Trump’s Insane Twitter Negotiations

When I look at President Trump ’ s Twitter-centric negotiation over the possibility of a second COVID-19 stimulus package in the past 24 hours , I just got ta say , I think he might be fouling this up .
He is the Great Negotiator .
He “ wrote ” a whole book on the subject , you may have heard of it .
And here I am , a liberal arts major .
A person who did not not go to Wharton Business School while pretending that I did .
I ’ m no businessman ( I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I am merely a humble writer-at-large for a niche political webmagazine who is poor to quite poor at salary negotiations .
So I freely admit that maybe there is a method to the madness that I do not understand , having neither been versed in Jack Welch ’ s Six Sigma nor spun the wheel of domination .
But speaking as a novice , this stimulus negotiation looks like an epic self-own on par with bankrupting a casino or selling steaks in a home electronics store .
For those who aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dexamethasone , it might be hard to keep up , so let ’ s look at how Tuesday ’ s absolutely bonkers self-negotiations played out on our nation ’ s premiere microblogging platform .
For the last few months , Democrats and Republicans have been—slowly , distractedly—fighting over the details of a supplemental COVID stimulus package that would address the severe economic hardships brought upon many families and businesses by the pandemic .
On Tuesday , the president , who had been largely absent from these discussions previously , crashed through the wall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to demonstrate his mediation prowess .
First , around 2:30 p.m. , he executed one of his patented gambits straight out of Art of the Deal : The “ economic populist ” timed this power move on the heels of a conversation with Austerity-for-Thee Cocaine Mitch , blindsiding his own advisers ( element of surprise ! )
in a series of tweets announcing that he will end negotiations on the stimulus package until after the election .
As part of the tweetstorm , he also kindly ensured that people are aware that Nancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2.4 trillion in aid for people still struggling through a once-in-a-century pandemic .
Here—within half an hour after his tweeting began—is how the stock market responded to his announcement : So , as an opening bid , it left a little bit to be desired , I would say .
Jonathan Chait , another non-businessman mind you , called it “ the worst political blunder in history.
” A tad dramatic maybe , but not a great sign .
Regardless , it seemed like the dire reaction in the markets left Trump in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she agreed , firing off a single tweet about how the president ’ s ploy exposed his heartlessness .
This sense was confirmed five hours later when the president took a new/old tack , recanting his earlier contention that Pelosi ’ s offer was overly generous and adding a dollop of his trademark schoolyard misogyny : With balance restored to the negotiating table , you might think he would wait to see how Pelosi would respond .
No he needed to further demonstrate his position as the alpha .
So in between IVs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows , possibly wearing his preferred nightgown , he began to unleash a torrent of tweets negotiating against himself like a person suffering from a bout of psychosis due to a corticosteroid therapy .
First he did a complete 180 on his earlier position that Congress should pass no stimulus legislation , retweeting a news story about the Federal Reserve chair that implied Congress should spend even more !
Then he retweeted the esteemed Paul Sperry of Investor ’ s Business Daily—not once , not twice , but twenty-two separate times—on matters ranging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” moderator of the debate that Trump totally won to a not-all-that-veiled attack on Joe Biden for being concerned about health care when his wife and child died in a tragic car accident .
Trump followed that up with eight retweets of Fox News analyst Gregg Jarrett , calling for the jailing of his former opponent Hillary Clinton and disparaging Speaker Pelosi ’ s looks .
He then tweeted a meme depicting the late Chris Farley—in character as the thrice-divorced homeless motivational speaker Matt Foley from the classic SNL sketch—berating Attorney General Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s unclear to me if any of these missives were part of the gamesmanship of the ongoing negotiations but I wanted to make sure that everyone had a clear picture of the state of play .
Around 10 p.m. , on day five ( we think ) of the experimental drug regimen he is taking for combating the coronavirus , the president then launched back into the stimulus negotiations that at this stage are taking place only between himself and his earlier tweets .
No longer wanting to walk away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pass two pieces of standalone legislation , the first bailing out the airline industry , the second sending a round of $ 1,200 stimulus checks out to our “ great people.
” In the final tweet at the time of writing , he tagged Nancy Pelosi—whose visage he had insulted hours earlier and who has been silent as he dickered for hours—presumably in an attempt to reopen the line of communication with his counterparty .
Given that I have never been “ in a boardroom ” for a high-stakes parley like this and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measure of Donald Trump since he spent the day hiding from the cameras as the novel coronavirus infection consumed him , I can only turn to a celebrity negotiator for his expert analysis on what transpired : “ The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it .
That makes the other guy smell blood , and then you ’ re dead.
” —Donald J. Trump .
Hard to argue with that .

When I look at President Trump’s Twitter-centric negotiation over the possibility of a second COVID-19 stimulus package in the past 24 hours, I just gotta say, I think he might be fouling this up.
I know, I know.
He is the Great Negotiator. He “wrote” a whole book on the subject, you may have heard of it.
And here I am, a liberal arts major. A person who did not not go to Wharton Business School while pretending that I did. I’m no businessman (I don’t “Think Big” enough). I am merely a humble writer-at-large for a niche political webmagazine who is poor to quite poor at salary negotiations.
So I freely admit that maybe there is a method to the madness that I do not understand, having neither been versed in Jack Welch’s Six Sigma nor spun the wheel of domination.
But speaking as a novice, this stimulus negotiation looks like an epic self-own on par with bankrupting a casino or selling steaks in a home electronics store. For those who aren’t juiced up on steroids or slamming dexamethasone, it might be hard to keep up, so let’s look at how Tuesday’s absolutely bonkers self-negotiations played out on our nation’s premiere microblogging platform.
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…
For the last few months, Democrats and Republicans have been—slowly, distractedly—fighting over the details of a supplemental COVID stimulus package that would address the severe economic hardships brought upon many families and businesses by the pandemic. On Tuesday, the president, who had been largely absent from these discussions previously, crashed through the wall like the Kool-Aid Man in an attempt to demonstrate his mediation prowess.
First, around 2:30 p.m., he executed one of his patented gambits straight out of Art of the Deal:
"Know when to walk away from the table." The Art of the Deal — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 27, 2011
The “economic populist” timed this power move on the heels of a conversation with Austerity-for-Thee Cocaine Mitch, blindsiding his own advisers (element of surprise!) in a series of tweets announcing that he will end negotiations on the stimulus package until after the election. As part of the tweetstorm, he also kindly ensured that people are aware that Nancy Pelosi wanted to pass a munificent $2.4 trillion in aid for people still struggling through a once-in-a-century pandemic.
Here—within half an hour after his tweeting began—is how the stock market responded to his announcement:
The U.S. stock market's reaction to Trump cutting off stimulus talks with the Democrats until after the election… pic.twitter.com/4e1zXoFD0N — Eric Martin (@EMPosts) October 6, 2020
So, as an opening bid, it left a little bit to be desired, I would say. Jonathan Chait, another non-businessman mind you, called it “the worst political blunder in history.” A tad dramatic maybe, but not a great sign.
Regardless, it seemed like the dire reaction in the markets left Trump in a bad negotiating position vis-à-vis Speaker Pelosi—and she agreed, firing off a single tweet about how the president’s ploy exposed his heartlessness.
This sense was confirmed five hours later when the president took a new/old tack, recanting his earlier contention that Pelosi’s offer was overly generous and adding a dollop of his trademark schoolyard misogyny:
Crazy Nancy Pelosi and the Radical Left Democrats were just playing “games” with the desperately needed Workers Stimulus Payments.They just wanted to take care of Democrat failed, high crime, Cities and States. They were never in it to help the workers, and they never will be! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 6, 2020
With balance restored to the negotiating table, you might think he would wait to see how Pelosi would respond.
Not this president.
No he needed to further demonstrate his position as the alpha.
So in between IVs, presumably during commercial breaks from the shows, possibly wearing his preferred nightgown, he began to unleash a torrent of tweets negotiating against himself like a person suffering from a bout of psychosis due to a corticosteroid therapy.
First he did a complete 180 on his earlier position that Congress should pass no stimulus legislation, retweeting a news story about the Federal Reserve chair that implied Congress should spend even more!
Then he retweeted the esteemed Paul Sperry of Investor’s Business Daily—not once, not twice, but twenty-two separate times—on matters ranging from #Obamagate to the “disgraceful” moderator of the debate that Trump totally won to a not-all-that-veiled attack on Joe Biden for being concerned about health care when his wife and child died in a tragic car accident.
Trump followed that up with eight retweets of Fox News analyst Gregg Jarrett, calling for the jailing of his former opponent Hillary Clinton and disparaging Speaker Pelosi’s looks.
He then tweeted a meme depicting the late Chris Farley—in character as the thrice-divorced homeless motivational speaker Matt Foley from the classic SNL sketch—berating Attorney General Bill Barr for not arresting enough political opponents.
It’s unclear to me if any of these missives were part of the gamesmanship of the ongoing negotiations but I wanted to make sure that everyone had a clear picture of the state of play.
Around 10 p.m., on day five (we think) of the experimental drug regimen he is taking for combating the coronavirus, the president then launched back into the stimulus negotiations that at this stage are taking place only between himself and his earlier tweets.
No longer wanting to walk away completely, the president demanded that Congress pass two pieces of standalone legislation, the first bailing out the airline industry, the second sending a round of $1,200 stimulus checks out to our “great people.”
In the final tweet at the time of writing, he tagged Nancy Pelosi—whose visage he had insulted hours earlier and who has been silent as he dickered for hours—presumably in an attempt to reopen the line of communication with his counterparty.
Whew.
Given that I have never been “in a boardroom” for a high-stakes parley like this and that I cannot take the full measure of Donald Trump since he spent the day hiding from the cameras as the novel coronavirus infection consumed him, I can only turn to a celebrity negotiator for his expert analysis on what transpired:
“The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you’re dead.” —Donald J. Trump.
Hard to argue with that.


thebulwark--2020-10-07--Ask These 3 Questions at the VP Debate

Ask These 3 Questions at the VP Debate

The vice president is–as an elected , constitutional officer–the one executive branch official a president can not fire .
That makes him unique .
And it should be the focus of Wednesday ’ s debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris .
Every four years we get a single vice presidential debate in which the two candidates simply speak for the top of the ticket , answering the same types of policy questions asked of the presidential candidates during the big kids ’ sessions .
Policy questions are a waste of time .
A vice president does not set policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have definitive input into the president ’ s decisions .
What the VP nominees say on these issues does not matter .
So this year , with the two oldest presidential candidates in history on the ballot and the president currently infected with the coronavirus , the moderator should skip the theater and focus instead on the vice president ’ s constitutional duties .
These are the only three sets of questions worth asking Pence and Harris .
( 1 ) What will you do every day as vice president to prepare to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the presidency should it fall into your hands ?
How will you ensure you are able to take the reins immediately if needed ?
The candidates should have thought past this being a job that other former occupants have called “ as useful as a cow ’ s fifth teat ” and “ not worth a bucket of warm piss.
” They should be pressed to move beyond regurgitating the policy positions of the presidential nominees , to what really matters about their role : being ready to become commander-in-chief at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hear whether they intend to take daily , in-person briefings of the President ’ s Daily Brief ; if they have received a commitment from their partners on the ticket to attend any and every presidential meeting they wish ; and how they will use their ample free time in this otherwise insignificant office to build the relationships necessary to serve as president if need be .
( 2 ) What physical conditions of the president short of falling into a coma—such as the emergency surgery that Ronald Reagan had after his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a disease such as COVID-19—would prompt you convene the cabinet to discuss invoking Section 4 of the 25th amendment ?
With whom would you consult ?
Would you be willing to declare the president unable , even if his family and others disagreed ?
The president ’ s powers and duties can not be temporarily removed without the vice president .
Period .
True , a successful invocation of the 25th amendment ’ s 4th section would also require a majority of the cabinet—but even a unanimous cabinet can not act unless the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went under the knife after being shot in April 1981 , no transfer of power occurred despite the president ’ s incapacity .
Precisely because the first in line to the presidency would rightfully exercise great caution , to avoid the appearance of a power grab , it is important to know what would trigger a potential vice president ’ s consideration of this never-yet-employed mechanism .
( 3 ) What mental deterioration of the president—dementia , severe depression , adverse psychological reactions to medications , or other condition—would prompt you to convene @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the 25th amendment ?
According to a 2006 study , more than a quarter of all presidents during their time in office met established criteria for one or more psychiatric disorders—with depression , by far , standing out as the most common .
And yet , none have had power even temporarily transferred away from them .
Richard Nixon ’ s mix of self-medication , lack of sleep , and increasing depression as the Watergate crisis swirled created at least temporary periods of incapacity for sound decision-making .
A vice president must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the courage to act when needed .
The vice presidency remains an insignificant office most of the time .
Let ’ s use these debates to gain better insight into whether these potential vice presidents , when it matters , will be what we need them to be .

The vice president is–as an elected, constitutional officer–the one executive branch official a president cannot fire. That makes him unique. And it should be the focus of Wednesday’s debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris.
Every four years we get a single vice presidential debate in which the two candidates simply speak for the top of the ticket, answering the same types of policy questions asked of the presidential candidates during the big kids’ sessions.
That’s dumb.
Policy questions are a waste of time. A vice president does not set policy. He or she may not even have definitive input into the president’s decisions. What the VP nominees say on these issues does not matter.
So this year, with the two oldest presidential candidates in history on the ballot and the president currently infected with the coronavirus, the moderator should skip the theater and focus instead on the vice president’s constitutional duties.
These are the only three sets of questions worth asking Pence and Harris.
(1) What will you do every day as vice president to prepare to take on the powers and solemn duties of the presidency should it fall into your hands?
How will you ensure you are able to take the reins immediately if needed?
The candidates should have thought past this being a job that other former occupants have called “as useful as a cow’s fifth teat” and “not worth a bucket of warm piss.” They should be pressed to move beyond regurgitating the policy positions of the presidential nominees, to what really matters about their role: being ready to become commander-in-chief at a moment’s notice.
We want to hear whether they intend to take daily, in-person briefings of the President’s Daily Brief; if they have received a commitment from their partners on the ticket to attend any and every presidential meeting they wish; and how they will use their ample free time in this otherwise insignificant office to build the relationships necessary to serve as president if need be.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
(2) What physical conditions of the president short of falling into a coma—such as the emergency surgery that Ronald Reagan had after his assassination attempt, or severe complications from a disease such as COVID-19—would prompt you convene the cabinet to discuss invoking Section 4 of the 25th amendment?
With whom would you consult?
Would you be willing to declare the president unable, even if his family and others disagreed?
The president’s powers and duties cannot be temporarily removed without the vice president. Period. True, a successful invocation of the 25th amendment’s 4th section would also require a majority of the cabinet—but even a unanimous cabinet cannot act unless the veep is on board. When Reagan went under the knife after being shot in April 1981, no transfer of power occurred despite the president’s incapacity. Precisely because the first in line to the presidency would rightfully exercise great caution, to avoid the appearance of a power grab, it is important to know what would trigger a potential vice president’s consideration of this never-yet-employed mechanism.
(3) What mental deterioration of the president—dementia, severe depression, adverse psychological reactions to medications, or other condition—would prompt you to convene the cabinet to discuss invoking Section 4 of the 25th amendment?
According to a 2006 study, more than a quarter of all presidents during their time in office met established criteria for one or more psychiatric disorders—with depression, by far, standing out as the most common. And yet, none have had power even temporarily transferred away from them. Richard Nixon’s mix of self-medication, lack of sleep, and increasing depression as the Watergate crisis swirled created at least temporary periods of incapacity for sound decision-making. A vice president must have the awareness to recognize such moments, and the courage to act when needed.
The vice presidency remains an insignificant office most of the time. Let’s use these debates to gain better insight into whether these potential vice presidents, when it matters, will be what we need them to be.


thebulwark--2020-10-07--McSally Flops in Only Arizona Senate Debate

Last night was the debate in Arizona between that state ’ s two Senate candidates .
It proved to be a embarrassment for the incumbent , Republican Martha McSally , and a pretty good night for her challenger , Democrat Mark Kelly .
McSally , a former Air Force pilot—the first woman to fly in combat—served in the House for two terms before she ran for the Senate in 2018 .
She lost to Kyrsten Sinema .
But she was appointed to John McCain ’ s seat after Jon Kyl , the initial appointee , stepped down , and so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in on the same day as the woman who defeated her .
She ’ s now running to keep the seat she was appointed to .
Kelly served in the Navy—as a test pilot and a combat aviator—before becoming an astronaut .
His wife , former congresswoman Gabby Giffords , had to retire from the House after a shooting almost killed her .
Ever since , Giffords and Kelly have advocated for policies that restrict ownership of guns through an organization named after her .
McSally used to be a rising star and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , pro-immigration , and moderate .
Once the GOP became Trumpy , though , McSally—as Tim Miller has put it—maneuvered toward Trump .
During her failed Senate campaign in 2018 , McSally attacked her opponent ’ s flamboyance by dubbing her “ Hollywood Sinema.
” It didn ’ t work .
And she ’ s doubling down on the Trumpy name-calling this year : Mark Kelly is “ Counterfeit Kelly , ” a phrase she used at least nine times during the debate .
Counterfeit of what ?
Who knows !
Perhaps his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Somebody was lying .
McSally went after Kelly over things that Kelly had allegedly done and said , and , every time , Kelly responded that it had never happened and some variation on “ I do not know where Senator McSally gets her information from.
” Toward the end , there was a clue for who was lying : When the moderator asked McSally about her support for red flag laws—laws that let authorities temporarily confiscate guns from people who could be a threat to themselves or to others—McSally responded that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversation .
To which the moderator , Yvonne Wingett Sanchez , with a good reputation in Arizona , responded , “ I did not misspeak .
We ’ ve had multiple conversations .
.
.
with your office , so I just want to be clear on that.
” McSally ’ s broader strategy was to depict Kelly as a far-left candidate in bed with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer , which is funny since Schumer , despite his countless flaws , isn ’ t a far-left politician himself .
She kept mentioning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , naming Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib but not Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley , and one wonders whether this has to do anything with the fact that Arabic names are scarier to Arizona voters .
This particular attack isn ’ t entirely baseless : Giffords , the organization Mark Kelly and Gabby Giffords run , has endorsed Tlaib .
And Kelly did participate in a 2018 gun-control panel with Omar , before she had become the most toxic , scandalous , and despicable politician in America not named Donald Trump .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far-left candidate is that he just isn ’ t one .
( In fact , the far left was trying to recruit Rep. Ruben Gallego to run in the primary against Kelly . )
McSally even smeared Kelly as a Red : She said that he was in the pocket of the Chinese Communist Party ( CCP ) after the CCP funded a 2003 trip he took to China .
Further , she said that Kelly had taken the CCP ’ s banner on a shuttle mission .
“ Of all the things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” And she mocked him for calling that trip to China the second-greatest experience of his life after going to space .
The truth is that the trip in question was funded by an American organization called the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations , which has on its board retired American statesmen and members of the business community , not CCP members .
The banner that Kelly took to space was the program ’ s banner , not the CCP ’ s .
And the reason he described the trip as “ one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , second only to flying in space ” was that it was on that trip that he met his wife .
Toward the end of the debate , the subject of policing came up .
McSally said that “ I back the blue , ” objected to police reform , and charged that Kelly was anti-police .
Kelly countered not by posturing but by calmly stating a simple , devastating fact : “ Both of my parents were cops.
” He went on to say that there is a distinction between peaceful protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop , and that he supports police reform .
Kelly was not always on defense .
He charged that McSally wanted to get rid of mandatory insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions , which she denied , as she has throughout the campaign—earning herself four Pinocchios and a Politifact slapdown .
Kelly also called out McSally for flip-flopping : “ Senator McSally used to support DREAMers , then she said DACA was unconstitutional .
There was a bipartisan agreement on a pathway to a normal status for DREAMers ; Senator McSally used to support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t politically convenient anymore she decided not to.
” The examples go on and on .
But the most interesting part of the debate was how McSally kept dodging questions on Trump ’ s character .
The moderators repeatedly gave her opportunities to say she disapproved of the president ’ s reported remarks about fallen warriors—he allegedly called them “ losers ” and “ suckers ” —or to distance herself in other ways from Trump .
Every single time , McSally refused to do so .
She kept talking about what she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engaging the president ’ s character .
Kelly ’ s only bad moment came in the beginning when he refused to pick a side on getting rid of the filibuster .
Overall , he came off as personable , calm , and articulate—in a word , he was senatorial .
McSally , by contrast , was obnoxious and spoke too fast .
She had to be corrected on facts by her opponent and a moderator .
The polls suggest that November is going to bring an unfortunate end to her once-promising political career @

Last night was the debate in Arizona between that state’s two Senate candidates. It proved to be a embarrassment for the incumbent, Republican Martha McSally, and a pretty good night for her challenger, Democrat Mark Kelly.
McSally, a former Air Force pilot—the first woman to fly in combat—served in the House for two terms before she ran for the Senate in 2018. She lost to Kyrsten Sinema. But she was appointed to John McCain’s seat after Jon Kyl, the initial appointee, stepped down, and so had the strange experience of being sworn in on the same day as the woman who defeated her. She’s now running to keep the seat she was appointed to.
Kelly served in the Navy—as a test pilot and a combat aviator—before becoming an astronaut. His wife, former congresswoman Gabby Giffords, had to retire from the House after a shooting almost killed her. Ever since, Giffords and Kelly have advocated for policies that restrict ownership of guns through an organization named after her.
McSally used to be a rising star and a McCain Republican: pragmatic, hawkish, pro-immigration, and moderate. Once the GOP became Trumpy, though, McSally—as Tim Miller has put it—maneuvered toward Trump.
During her failed Senate campaign in 2018, McSally attacked her opponent’s flamboyance by dubbing her “Hollywood Sinema.” It didn’t work. And she’s doubling down on the Trumpy name-calling this year: Mark Kelly is “Counterfeit Kelly,” a phrase she used at least nine times during the debate. Counterfeit of what? Who knows! Perhaps his identical twin?
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…
One thing was clear: Somebody was lying. McSally went after Kelly over things that Kelly had allegedly done and said, and, every time, Kelly responded that it had never happened and some variation on “I do not know where Senator McSally gets her information from.” Toward the end, there was a clue as to who was lying: When the moderator asked McSally about her support for red flag laws—laws that let authorities temporarily confiscate guns from people who could be a threat to themselves or to others—McSally responded that the moderator was “misstating” a conversation. To which the moderator, Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, with a good reputation in Arizona, responded, “I did not misspeak. We’ve had multiple conversations . . . with your office, so I just want to be clear on that.”
McSally’s broader strategy was to depict Kelly as a far-left candidate in bed with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, which is funny since Schumer, despite his countless flaws, isn’t a far-left politician himself. She kept mentioning Kelly’s support for the Squad, naming Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib but not Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley, and one wonders whether this has to do anything with the fact that Arabic names are scarier to Arizona voters. This particular attack isn’t entirely baseless: Giffords, the organization Mark Kelly and Gabby Giffords run, has endorsed Tlaib. And Kelly did participate in a 2018 gun-control panel with Omar, before she had become the most toxic, scandalous, and despicable politician in America not named Donald Trump.
But the problem with depicting Kelly as a far-left candidate is that he just isn’t one. (In fact, the far left was trying to recruit Rep. Ruben Gallego to run in the primary against Kelly.)
McSally even smeared Kelly as a Red: She said that he was in the pocket of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) after the CCP funded a 2003 trip he took to China. Further, she said that Kelly had taken the CCP’s banner on a shuttle mission. “Of all the things he could have brought to space!” And she mocked him for calling that trip to China the second-greatest experience of his life after going to space.
The truth is that the trip in question was funded by an American organization called the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, which has on its board retired American statesmen and members of the business community, not CCP members. The banner that Kelly took to space was the program’s banner, not the CCP’s. And the reason he described the trip as “one of the absolute highlights of my life, second only to flying in space” was that it was on that trip that he met his wife.
Toward the end of the debate, the subject of policing came up. McSally said that “I back the blue,” objected to police reform, and charged that Kelly was anti-police. Kelly countered not by posturing but by calmly stating a simple, devastating fact: “Both of my parents were cops.” He went on to say that there is a distinction between peaceful protests and violence, that the violence should stop, and that he supports police reform.
Kelly was not always on defense. He charged that McSally wanted to get rid of mandatory insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions, which she denied, as she has throughout the campaign—earning herself four Pinocchios and a Politifact slapdown. Kelly also called out McSally for flip-flopping: “Senator McSally used to support DREAMers, then she said DACA was unconstitutional. There was a bipartisan agreement on a pathway to a normal status for DREAMers; Senator McSally used to support it, and then when it wasn’t politically convenient anymore she decided not to.”
The examples go on and on. But the most interesting part of the debate was how McSally kept dodging questions on Trump’s character. The moderators repeatedly gave her opportunities to say she disapproved of the president’s reported remarks about fallen warriors—he allegedly called them “losers” and “suckers”—or to distance herself in other ways from Trump. Every single time, McSally refused to do so. She kept talking about what she had accomplished in the Senate, never engaging the president’s character.
Kelly’s only bad moment came in the beginning when he refused to pick a side on getting rid of the filibuster. Overall, he came off as personable, calm, and articulate—in a word, he was senatorial. McSally, by contrast, was obnoxious and spoke too fast. She had to be corrected on facts by her opponent and a moderator. The polls suggest that November is going to bring an unfortunate end to her once-promising political career.


thebulwark--2020-10-08--Harris Won By Not Losing

Harris Won By Not Losing

From 1976 to 2016 , there were ten vice presidential debates .
None mattered .
The most memorable moment—Lloyd Bentsen ’ s withering retort to the shallow , callow Dan Quayle that “ you ’ re no Jack Kennedy ” —had no discernible impact on the campaign of 1988 .
And the only vice-presidential contest with more viewers than the presidential debates , that pitting Joe Biden against Sarah Palin , owed everything to Palin ’ s riveting emergence as a human trainwreck-in-process .
But last night ’ s clash between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris arrived laden with portent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oldest ever to seek the office , underscoring the importance of their running mates .
One , the incumbent president , has been sickened by an epochal pandemic which has abraded the nerve ends of our societal fractiousness .
But the long shadow of Donald Trump ’ s contagion also dogged the actuarially vulnerable Joe Biden—not least because some feared that he might have contracted the virus during their corrosive debate .
Trump ’ s illness illuminated the prospect that Pence might succeed him in office—or , most dramatic , become the de @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November .
And the prospect that a President Biden might serve but one term creates the possibility that Pence and Harris will fight for the presidency in 2024 .
More immediate is the here and now .
Given the president ’ s uncertain health , and his resistance to rules changes , last night ’ s broadcast might become the final debate through which voters can compare the choices before them .
In a time when one disorienting event after the other assaults us with vertiginous swiftness , Americans are grasping for any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope—however transient—of stability to come .
The imperatives for Pence began with transcending his vice-presidential persona : an obsequious toady who will do anything to ingratiate himself with his narcissistic master .
With his pipe organ voice , bobblehead nods , and the oleaginous manner of an unctuous church elder , he seems so devoid of wit or self-awareness that he becomes a parody of provincial Republican piety .
And his calculated fusion of ostentatious religiosity with corporate subservience and disdain for the rights of minorities and women stunts his appeal beyond the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a seasoned debater who dispenses partisan attack lines with a serene disregard for truth that renders him incapable of insulting his own integrity or intelligence .
In 2016 , that worked well enough for Pence to stymie Tim Kaine .
But the demands facing him last night were of a different order .
Indeed , Pence arrived in a quadruple bind : He must defend Trump on all fronts while avoiding the shameless sycophancy which has shriveled his stature ; justify his own performance as head of Trump ’ s coronavirus task force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; present himself as a plausible instant president ; and preserve his viability as a candidate in 2024 .
The potentially excruciating particulars included touting Trump ’ s health without becoming Baghdad Bob ; rationalizing Trump ’ s objectionable debate performance and flagrant disregard for public health protocols ; embracing Trump ’ s counterfactual optimism about America ’ s path to recovery from COVID-19 ; and tarring Biden and Harris as un-American agents of socialism and disorder .
All this would be arduous for a politician far more gifted and compelling than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dense.
” Beyond that , Harris ’ s prosecutorial demeanor combined with her ethnicity and gender to made her a trickier opponent than Kaine .
Even the setting underscored Trump ’ s failures : Salt Lake City has become a coronavirus hotspot , and Pence and Harris were separated by a plexiglass shield which symbolized the pandemic ’ s accelerating spread .
Harris faced her own daunting challenges .
Her considerable skills at political theater helped secure her spot on the ticket .
But her own presidential candidacy foundered on the lack of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grasp of policy , and a conspicuous uncertainty in unscripted moments .
By the end of her campaign , fewer Americans imagined her as president than when she began .
And she struggled throughout to convey a public persona larger and more engaging than a facile politician whose political raison d ’ être was ambition .
On Wednesday night , her imperative was to seem bigger—and better .
In bearing and substance , she needed to appear sufficiently knowledgeable and commanding to be president ; to take the edge off her aggression by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; and to prosecute the case against a sickened president without appearing too relentlessly prosecutorial .
That meant providing a more engaging and relatable contrast to Pence ’ s public sanctimony ; praising Joe Biden without evoking Pence ’ s subservience ; and proving as adept in spontaneous debate as she is in dispensing prepackaged attack lines .
Her potential vulnerabilities included positions from her own presidential campaign on critical issues like healthcare that contradicted Biden ’ s positions ; her withering attack on Biden as racially insensitive in the first primary debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and non-support for police ; and Biden ’ s own evasions with respect to whether he will seek to expand the Supreme Court .
The obvious goal for Pence was to paint Harris—however inconsistently—as both a closet radical bent on pulling Biden ’ s strings and a calculating chameleon whose only principle is self-interest .
Given that many viewers came to the debate lacking a settled sense of Harris as a politician or a person , she , like Pence , had a great deal to win or lose—now , and in 2024 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one great advantage : Biden is pulling away from Trump , in part because he is an infinitely saner and better person .
All Harris needed to accomplish was secure a draw with Pence which kept these favorable dynamics in place .
In contrast , Pence came dragging Trump ’ s flailing campaign performance like an anvil—most recently , his self-immolation in the debate last week ; his callous and narcissistic response to contracting COVID-19 ; and his abrupt reversal of a decision to cancel stimulus talks so pointless and peremptory that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thus impaired , Pence nonetheless needed to wound Harris so badly that it damaged Biden twice over—first , because he chose her ; second , because she might succeed him .
Perhaps this was impossible .
In the event , it proved too much to accomplish .
Both candidates were predictably themselves ; neither revealed surprising new dimensions of personality or substance .
Both were conveniently evasive , both recited nonresponsive talking points .
But in the process Harris acquired a bit more stature , while Pence underscored his more annoying qualities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ consistently poised and steady , Harris dialed down her prosecutorial persona .
Though she reprised Trump ’ s lack of honesty , integrity , or concern for others , in a clearly tactical decision she refrained from discussing his illness , his own role as a superspreader , his related carelessness for the health of coworkers and Secret Service agents , or his erratic and vainglorious recent behavior .
Consistently , Harris brought the subject back to Biden ’ s character and programs in a way that felt genuine and convincing .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unruffled firmness with sufficient stability .
She left behind no gaffes or sour notes .
Not so Pence .
As ever , he walked the line between smooth and smarmy , repackaging reality in a way that belied four chaotic years of presidential malpractice which culminated in what Harris called “ the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of our country ” —the tragic toll of COVID-19 .
But when Harris nailed Trump for withholding the truth from his fellow citizens , Pence fell back on vapid bromides about trusting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too obviously , he and Trump had not .
Perhaps this accounted for his oddly wan performance—Pence knew too well that he could not banish 210,000 dead Americans from our collective mind .
But his more energetic moments were particularly unfortunate : He became a relentless male monologist who interrupted both Harris and the moderator , Susan Page , evoking every pompous white guy who stifles any woman he encounters .
One could sense a million females grinding their teeth in suppressed anger and frustration .
By the time Pence left the stage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his company .
Beyond the lingering residue of insufferability , the most lasting impression was of the fly which settled , quite comfortably , into the white helmet of his hair .
But the serious consequence was that , perhaps inescapably , he had squandered any chance to change the trajectory of the race .
True , Harris evaded questions about whether she and Biden had discussed how and when she would assume responsibilities should he become incapacitated ; her more liberal positions as a presidential candidate ; and , most predictably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court—a point that Pence drove home .
Here , Harris most resembled the dissembling politician Pence strove to conjure .
But the questions Pence evaded were like a roadmap of Trump ’ s abuses , derelictions , and political weaknesses : Trump ’ s failure to pay income taxes ; Trump ’ s consistent non-disclosures regarding his personal health ; Trump ’ s nonexistent plan to protect people with pre-existing conditions ; Trump ’ s refusal to embrace a peaceful transition of power .
No doubt Pence had no answers because there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter of politics and character , Pence displayed the breathtaking cynicism of a man who believes that God believes in him—no matter what he says or does .
He responded to questions about climate change by claiming that he and Trump are following the science ; accused Harris of playing politics with the pandemic and , therefore , people ’ s lives ; and falsely accused Harris of discouraging Americans from taking a putative vaccine .
But then , as catalogued by the Washington Post , Pence lied with such frequency and facility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his temporal master .
One wonders what role conscience plays in God ’ s plan for Michael Pence .
But in the here and now he can not escape the coronavirus , and Harris did not let him .
When he tried to pivot to the Supreme Court , Harris hit him with Trump ’ s efforts to eliminate the Affordable Care Act .
When Pence tried to tout the economy , Harris connected Biden ’ s plans to combat climate change with creating American jobs .
When Pence complained that Biden would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wealthy , Harris retorted that he would invest the proceeds in infrastructure , education , and free community college for those who need it .
When Pence falsely claimed , serially , that Biden would abolish fracking and raise taxes on every American , Harris responded that the debate was supposed to about facts and truth—and then crisply refuted both claims .
In foreign policy , Harris criticized Trump ’ s consistent disdain for allies and his withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord .
And she pilloried Trump for his subservience to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s literally incredible denial of electoral interference over the judgment of our intelligence agencies ; and his repeated failure to confront Putin over Russia ’ s reported placement of bounties on American soldiers in Afghanistan .
In sum , when a draw was all she needed , Harris did her job well enough to win .
Pence ’ s problem was that Trump has made her job too easy—America ’ s tragedy is that he did so by degrading his office and dividing our country .
From that , Pence had no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America is one debate closer to escaping Donald Trump .

From 1976 to 2016, there were ten vice presidential debates. None mattered.
The most memorable moment—Lloyd Bentsen’s withering retort to the shallow, callow Dan Quayle that “you’re no Jack Kennedy”—had no discernible impact on the campaign of 1988. And the only vice-presidential contest with more viewers than the presidential debates, that pitting Joe Biden against Sarah Palin, owed everything to Palin’s riveting emergence as a human trainwreck-in-process.
But last night’s clash between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris arrived laden with portent.
The two presidential candidates are the oldest ever to seek the office, underscoring the importance of their running mates. One, the incumbent president, has been sickened by an epochal pandemic which has abraded the nerve ends of our societal fractiousness. But the long shadow of Donald Trump’s contagion also dogged the actuarially vulnerable Joe Biden—not least because some feared that he might have contracted the virus during their corrosive debate.
Trump’s illness illuminated the prospect that Pence might succeed him in office—or, most dramatic, become the de facto Republican nominee should Trump die before November. And the prospect that a President Biden might serve but one term creates the possibility that Pence and Harris will fight for the presidency in 2024.
More immediate is the here and now. Given the president’s uncertain health, and his resistance to rules changes, last night’s broadcast might become the final debate through which voters can compare the choices before them. In a time when one disorienting event after the other assaults us with vertiginous swiftness, Americans are grasping for any person or event that affords them some hope—however transient—of stability to come.
The imperatives for Pence began with transcending his vice-presidential persona: an obsequious toady who will do anything to ingratiate himself with his narcissistic master. With his pipe organ voice, bobblehead nods, and the oleaginous manner of an unctuous church elder, he seems so devoid of wit or self-awareness that he becomes a parody of provincial Republican piety. And his calculated fusion of ostentatious religiosity with corporate subservience and disdain for the rights of minorities and women stunts his appeal beyond the GOP base.
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…
Nonetheless, Pence is a seasoned debater who dispenses partisan attack lines with a serene disregard for truth that renders him incapable of insulting his own integrity or intelligence. In 2016, that worked well enough for Pence to stymie Tim Kaine. But the demands facing him last night were of a different order.
Indeed, Pence arrived in a quadruple bind: He must defend Trump on all fronts while avoiding the shameless sycophancy which has shriveled his stature; justify his own performance as head of Trump’s coronavirus task force in the face of so much death; present himself as a plausible instant president; and preserve his viability as a candidate in 2024. The potentially excruciating particulars included touting Trump’s health without becoming Baghdad Bob; rationalizing Trump’s objectionable debate performance and flagrant disregard for public health protocols; embracing Trump’s counterfactual optimism about America’s path to recovery from COVID-19; and tarring Biden and Harris as un-American agents of socialism and disorder.
All this would be arduous for a politician far more gifted and compelling than the man some Indiana legislators labeled “Mike Dense.” Beyond that, Harris’s prosecutorial demeanor combined with her ethnicity and gender to made her a trickier opponent than Kaine. Even the setting underscored Trump’s failures: Salt Lake City has become a coronavirus hotspot, and Pence and Harris were separated by a plexiglass shield which symbolized the pandemic’s accelerating spread.
Harris faced her own daunting challenges. Her considerable skills at political theater helped secure her spot on the ticket. But her own presidential candidacy foundered on the lack of a fixed political identity, a shaky grasp of policy, and a conspicuous uncertainty in unscripted moments.
By the end of her campaign, fewer Americans imagined her as president than when she began. And she struggled throughout to convey a public persona larger and more engaging than a facile politician whose political raison d’être was ambition.
On Wednesday night, her imperative was to seem bigger—and better. In bearing and substance, she needed to appear sufficiently knowledgeable and commanding to be president; to take the edge off her aggression by projecting a warmer and more dimensional persona; and to prosecute the case against a sickened president without appearing too relentlessly prosecutorial.
That meant providing a more engaging and relatable contrast to Pence’s public sanctimony; praising Joe Biden without evoking Pence’s subservience; and proving as adept in spontaneous debate as she is in dispensing prepackaged attack lines. Her potential vulnerabilities included positions from her own presidential campaign on critical issues like healthcare that contradicted Biden’s positions; her withering attack on Biden as racially insensitive in the first primary debate; her supposed affinity for violent protesters and non-support for police; and Biden’s own evasions with respect to whether he will seek to expand the Supreme Court.
The obvious goal for Pence was to paint Harris—however inconsistently—as both a closet radical bent on pulling Biden’s strings and a calculating chameleon whose only principle is self-interest. Given that many viewers came to the debate lacking a settled sense of Harris as a politician or a person, she, like Pence, had a great deal to win or lose—now, and in 2024.
But she took the stage with one great advantage: Biden is pulling away from Trump, in part because he is an infinitely saner and better person. All Harris needed to accomplish was secure a draw with Pence which kept these favorable dynamics in place.
In contrast, Pence came dragging Trump’s flailing campaign performance like an anvil—most recently, his self-immolation in the debate last week; his callous and narcissistic response to contracting COVID-19; and his abrupt reversal of a decision to cancel stimulus talks so pointless and peremptory that it heightened concerns about his emotional stability. Thus impaired, Pence nonetheless needed to wound Harris so badly that it damaged Biden twice over—first, because he chose her; second, because she might succeed him.
Perhaps this was impossible. In the event, it proved too much to accomplish.
Both candidates were predictably themselves; neither revealed surprising new dimensions of personality or substance. Both were conveniently evasive, both recited nonresponsive talking points. But in the process Harris acquired a bit more stature, while Pence underscored his more annoying qualities.
Much of this was manner. While consistently poised and steady, Harris dialed down her prosecutorial persona. Though she reprised Trump’s lack of honesty, integrity, or concern for others, in a clearly tactical decision she refrained from discussing his illness, his own role as a superspreader, his related carelessness for the health of coworkers and Secret Service agents, or his erratic and vainglorious recent behavior.
Consistently, Harris brought the subject back to Biden’s character and programs in a way that felt genuine and convincing. In confronting Pence, she managed to combine unruffled firmness with sufficient stability. She left behind no gaffes or sour notes.
Not so Pence. As ever, he walked the line between smooth and smarmy, repackaging reality in a way that belied four chaotic years of presidential malpractice which culminated in what Harris called “the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of our country”—the tragic toll of COVID-19. But when Harris nailed Trump for withholding the truth from his fellow citizens, Pence fell back on vapid bromides about trusting the American people—which, fatally and all too obviously, he and Trump had not.
Perhaps this accounted for his oddly wan performance—Pence knew too well that he could not banish 210,000 dead Americans from our collective mind. But his more energetic moments were particularly unfortunate: He became a relentless male monologist who interrupted both Harris and the moderator, Susan Page, evoking every pompous white guy who stifles any woman he encounters.
One could sense a million females grinding their teeth in suppressed anger and frustration. By the time Pence left the stage, he had way overstayed the pleasure of his company. Beyond the lingering residue of insufferability, the most lasting impression was of the fly which settled, quite comfortably, into the white helmet of his hair. But the serious consequence was that, perhaps inescapably, he had squandered any chance to change the trajectory of the race.
True, Harris evaded questions about whether she and Biden had discussed how and when she would assume responsibilities should he become incapacitated; her more liberal positions as a presidential candidate; and, most predictably, whether Biden would pack the Supreme Court—a point that Pence drove home. Here, Harris most resembled the dissembling politician Pence strove to conjure.
But the questions Pence evaded were like a roadmap of Trump’s abuses, derelictions, and political weaknesses: Trump’s failure to pay income taxes; Trump’s consistent non-disclosures regarding his personal health; Trump’s nonexistent plan to protect people with pre-existing conditions; Trump’s refusal to embrace a peaceful transition of power. No doubt Pence had no answers because there are none.
Equally telling as both a matter of politics and character, Pence displayed the breathtaking cynicism of a man who believes that God believes in him—no matter what he says or does. He responded to questions about climate change by claiming that he and Trump are following the science; accused Harris of playing politics with the pandemic and, therefore, people’s lives; and falsely accused Harris of discouraging Americans from taking a putative vaccine.
But then, as catalogued by the Washington Post, Pence lied with such frequency and facility that he became hard to distinguish from his temporal master. One wonders what role conscience plays in God’s plan for Michael Pence.
But in the here and now he cannot escape the coronavirus, and Harris did not let him. When he tried to pivot to the Supreme Court, Harris hit him with Trump’s efforts to eliminate the Affordable Care Act. When Pence tried to tout the economy, Harris connected Biden’s plans to combat climate change with creating American jobs.
When Pence complained that Biden would repeal Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy, Harris retorted that he would invest the proceeds in infrastructure, education, and free community college for those who need it. When Pence falsely claimed, serially, that Biden would abolish fracking and raise taxes on every American, Harris responded that the debate was supposed to about facts and truth—and then crisply refuted both claims.
In foreign policy, Harris criticized Trump’s consistent disdain for allies and his withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord. And she pilloried Trump for his subservience to Vladimir Putin; his acceptance of Russia’s literally incredible denial of electoral interference over the judgment of our intelligence agencies; and his repeated failure to confront Putin over Russia’s reported placement of bounties on American soldiers in Afghanistan.
In sum, when a draw was all she needed, Harris did her job well enough to win.
Pence’s problem was that Trump has made her job too easy—America’s tragedy is that he did so by degrading his office and dividing our country. From that, Pence had no escape. Because he did not, America is one debate closer to escaping Donald Trump.


thebulwark--2020-10-08--Pence Flubbed the Civics 101 Question

Pence Flubbed the Civics 101 Question

At the close , everyone proclaimed the vice-presidential debate to be “ civilized.
” I guess , after last week ’ s feces-throwing tantrum by President Trump , even a spitting contest would have seemed tame , but this confrontation featured its own disturbing elements .
Mike Pence—aptly labeled “ smarmy ” by The Bulwark ’ s Sarah Longwell—didn ’ t just dance around questions as all good politicians do , he blatantly refused even the courtesy of acknowledging the questions .
He wove falsehoods with the calm assurance of a practiced deceiver , not the manic spin that his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a lie .
Asked about the White House event for Amy Coney Barrett , after which at least fourteen attendees tested positive for coronavirus , Pence smoothly suggested that “ it was an outdoor event which all of our scientists regularly and routinely advise.
” Except we ’ ve seen the pictures .
There were indoor receptions as well that day , at which no one was masked and social distancing was absent .
He said repeatedly that Biden would ban fracking .
Harris had expressed support for banning fracking during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There was a great deal along those lines , and maybe you can say that ’ s typical political hyperbole or exaggeration , but it ’ s impossible to wave away Pence ’ s response to the question about the peaceful transfer of power .
This is so elemental that any high school government student would be able to give the right answer if you woke her from a deep sleep .
Question : Will you accept the results of the election ?
Answer : Of course .
We accept the sovereignty of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision .
We work for them , they don ’ t work for us .
These are elements so basic to our national creed that for Pence not to have the words trip off his tongue is head-snapping and malign .
The pre-Trump Mike Pence would have known what to say .
But not this Pence .
Asked what he would do if President Trump refused to accept the election results , he at first shook his head as if the question were preposterous .
And then he declined to answer it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of grievances : So the loyal lieutenant to the would-be caudillo on the White House balcony will not say the simple words that any high schooler knows .
As for Kamala Harris , well , she was a bit weak on some topics .
She dodged the question of whether the Democrats would pack the Supreme Court , and she forgot to say how much she appreciates the great work of law enforcement , which is advisable when you ’ re also talking about implicit bias and promising to ban chokeholds .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump tax cuts “ on day one , ” which is not how the system works .
Unlike most of Trump ’ s policy moves , the tax cuts were actual legislation that Congress would have to repeal in concert with the president .
But Harris was okay .
She scored some points about Trump ’ s failures and corruption .
Though she is a performer , she at least conveyed some human warmth .
She seemed more alive than Pence .
She smiled and looked lovely doing it .
It made a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pence had going .
He was almost robotic .
He performed his duty .
He said the lines .
But his eyes looked dead .
Maybe we were seeing what four years of soul-crushing sycophancy do to a man .
Will any of it matter to the outcome ?
Absolutely not .

At the close, everyone proclaimed the vice-presidential debate to be “civilized.” I guess, after last week’s feces-throwing tantrum by President Trump, even a spitting contest would have seemed tame, but this confrontation featured its own disturbing elements.
Mike Pence—aptly labeled “smarmy” by The Bulwark’s Sarah Longwell—didn’t just dance around questions as all good politicians do, he blatantly refused even the courtesy of acknowledging the questions. He wove falsehoods with the calm assurance of a practiced deceiver, not the manic spin that his boss prefers—but a lie is a lie is a lie.
Asked about the White House event for Amy Coney Barrett, after which at least fourteen attendees tested positive for coronavirus, Pence smoothly suggested that “it was an outdoor event which all of our scientists regularly and routinely advise.” Except we’ve seen the pictures. There were indoor receptions as well that day, at which no one was masked and social distancing was absent.
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…
He said repeatedly that Biden would ban fracking. Harris had expressed support for banning fracking during the primaries, but Biden did not. There was a great deal along those lines, and maybe you can say that’s typical political hyperbole or exaggeration, but it’s impossible to wave away Pence’s response to the question about the peaceful transfer of power.
This is so elemental that any high school government student would be able to give the right answer if you woke her from a deep sleep. Question: Will you accept the results of the election? Answer: Of course. We accept the sovereignty of the people. They make the ultimate decision. We work for them, they don’t work for us.
These are elements so basic to our national creed that for Pence not to have the words trip off his tongue is head-snapping and malign. The pre-Trump Mike Pence would have known what to say. But not this Pence. Asked what he would do if President Trump refused to accept the election results, he at first shook his head as if the question were preposterous. And then he declined to answer it. Instead, he spun out a list of grievances:
When you talk about accepting the outcome of the election, I must tell you, senator, your party has spent the last three and a half years trying to overturn the results of the last election. It’s amazing. . . . If we have a free and fair election, we know—we’re going to have confidence in it.
So the loyal lieutenant to the would-be caudillo on the White House balcony will not say the simple words that any high schooler knows.
As for Kamala Harris, well, she was a bit weak on some topics. She dodged the question of whether the Democrats would pack the Supreme Court, and she forgot to say how much she appreciates the great work of law enforcement, which is advisable when you’re also talking about implicit bias and promising to ban chokeholds. She said Biden would “repeal” the Trump tax cuts “on day one,” which is not how the system works. Unlike most of Trump’s policy moves, the tax cuts were actual legislation that Congress would have to repeal in concert with the president.
But Harris was okay. She scored some points about Trump’s failures and corruption. Though she is a performer, she at least conveyed some human warmth. She seemed more alive than Pence. She smiled and looked lovely doing it. It made a stark contrast to the Stepford husband thing Pence had going. He was almost robotic. He performed his duty. He said the lines. But his eyes looked dead. Maybe we were seeing what four years of soul-crushing sycophancy do to a man.
Will any of it matter to the outcome? Absolutely not.


thebulwark--2020-10-08--The Indefensible Mike Pence

The Indefensible Mike Pence

The necessity of plexiglass at the 2020 vice presidential debate tonight should have been enough to disqualify Vice President Mike Pence—who , recall , also serves as the White House ’ s Coronavirus Task Force chairman—from a second term .
But just as he has done throughout the last four years , from the moment he joined the ticket with Donald Trump , Pence soldiered on with his phony act .
In the debate tonight with Senator Kamala Harris , Pence projected concern .
Instead of providing straightforward answers about his record , he deflected—thrusting responsibility on the American people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make choices in the best interest of their health.
” Pence thanked supporters for their prayers for the president , who hours earlier said , bizarrely , that it was a “ blessing from God ” that he contracted coronavirus .
At first glance , Pence ’ s performance seemed merely absurd .
But it ’ s far more disturbing when you consider the space Pence occupies .
He ’ s been an active participant in the rise and spread of coronavirus .
The Trump-Pence ticket has toured the country and packed people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held the White House lawn convention , breaking norms and health recommendations with abandon .
He clapped along like everyone else at the superspreader event for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett .
He ’ s not quarantining—in fact , he ’ s planning a MAGA event at the Villages in Florida this weekend .
The horrific death toll hasn ’ t stopped him , not one bit .
Pence remains unfazed .
How can he be so numb ?
Well , it took practice .
To become vice president , Pence—who had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about morality and virtue—looked past all Trump ’ s sordid scandals and sleazy smears .
For the past four years , he has dutifully played the role of the suited Stepford man , nodding along pleasantly during Trump ’ s unhinged speeches .
He stood by Trump ’ s side as Muslims were banned , as children were separated from their parents , as white supremacists were elevated , as peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square were tear-gassed .
So it wasn ’ t hard for Pence not to blink when confronted with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID .
He is accustomed to such things by now .
Nothing can shock him .
Nothing can move him .
In a way , this demonstrates the depth of the problem we face : Even if Trump loses by a massive margin in November , Mike Pence will still be hanging around on the periphery , trying to position himself to run for the presidency himself .
Looking back on the wreckage of the last four years , some people have suggested the creation of something like a truth and reconciliation commission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for any number of reasons , but we do need at least to find a way to ask this hard question : How can we allow people—like Pence—who were responsible for our egregious COVID death toll to continue in public life ?
Mike Pence shouldn ’ t have even been at the debate tonight .
A good man would have resigned already .
But Trump ’ s White House is no place for good men and Mike Pence still wants to be in it .

The necessity of plexiglass at the 2020 vice presidential debate tonight should have been enough to disqualify Vice President Mike Pence—who, recall, also serves as the White House’s Coronavirus Task Force chairman—from a second term. But just as he has done throughout the last four years, from the moment he joined the ticket with Donald Trump, Pence soldiered on with his phony act.
In the debate tonight with Senator Kamala Harris, Pence projected concern. Instead of providing straightforward answers about his record, he deflected—thrusting responsibility on the American people, saying he trusted them to “make choices in the best interest of their health.” Pence thanked supporters for their prayers for the president, who hours earlier said, bizarrely, that it was a “blessing from God” that he contracted coronavirus.
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…
At first glance, Pence’s performance seemed merely absurd. But it’s far more disturbing when you consider the space Pence occupies.
He’s been an active participant in the rise and spread of coronavirus. The Trump-Pence ticket has toured the country and packed people into rallies. The Republican National Committee held the White House lawn convention, breaking norms and health recommendations with abandon. He clapped along like everyone else at the superspreader event for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. He’s not quarantining—in fact, he’s planning a MAGA event at the Villages in Florida this weekend.
The horrific death toll hasn’t stopped him, not one bit. Pence remains unfazed.
How can he be so numb?
Well, it took practice.
To become vice president, Pence—who had been the kind of Republican who preached about morality and virtue—looked past all Trump’s sordid scandals and sleazy smears. For the past four years, he has dutifully played the role of the suited Stepford man, nodding along pleasantly during Trump’s unhinged speeches. He stood by Trump’s side as Muslims were banned, as children were separated from their parents, as white supremacists were elevated, as peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square were tear-gassed.
So it wasn’t hard for Pence not to blink when confronted with the wretched death toll of 210,000 dead from COVID. He is accustomed to such things by now. Nothing can shock him. Nothing can move him.
In a way, this demonstrates the depth of the problem we face: Even if Trump loses by a massive margin in November, Mike Pence will still be hanging around on the periphery, trying to position himself to run for the presidency himself. Looking back on the wreckage of the last four years, some people have suggested the creation of something like a truth and reconciliation commission. That’s not likely, for any number of reasons, but we do need at least to find a way to ask this hard question: How can we allow people—like Pence—who were responsible for our egregious COVID death toll to continue in public life?
His tenure is indefensible.
Mike Pence shouldn’t have even been at the debate tonight. A good man would have resigned already. But Trump’s White House is no place for good men and Mike Pence still wants to be in it.