thebulwark--2020-10-28--Why Women Hate Trump

Why Women Hate Trump

One of the many striking results from 2016 was that Donald Trump carried white women 47-45 over Hillary Clinton .
So much for identity politics !
The first female major party nominee couldn ’ t even win her own demographic niche .
And this result was even more striking because Trump wasn ’ t just “ not a feminist.
” He wasn ’ t your garden-variety , patriarchy-lite conservative , like a John Cornyn or Mike Pence .
He was an anti-feminist : a walking , sniffing caricature of the kind of troglodytic asshole that most women—whatever their politics—hate coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Trump , even this improbable victory got exaggerated .
After the election he would go around claiming , “ You know , I got 52 percent with women.
” Which wasn ’ t true—overall , Trump lost women voters 39 percent to 54 percent .
But like so many things that Trump says but aren ’ t true , there was an idea of a kernel or a nugget of truth to it .
Because if you were a left-leaning white gal—like myself—you felt kind of betrayed by the fact that your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And the explanations were kind of discomforting .
Because at the end of the day the only real explanations were ( a ) racism or ( b ) internalized misogyny .
But what a difference a presidency makes .
Four years and 220,000 lives later , white women have broken hard against Trump—he ’ s somewhere in the neighborhood of -3 to -8 with them .
And this despite the fact that , as Harry Enten writes , “ majorities of white women have backed the Republican presidential candidate in nearly every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ More from Enten : “ Biden has seen a double-digit improvement among women voters compared to Clinton.
” Some Republicans had hoped that Trump ’ s fake feminist daughter might have been able to trick suburban women into voting for her dad again .
At the Republican National Convention / Hatch Act Memorial Bonfire , Ivanka tried to convince women that her father ’ s .
.
.
foibles .
.
.
were merely stylistic .
“ I recognize that my dad ’ s communication style is not to everyone ’ s taste @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I know his tweets can feel a bit—unfiltered.
” The president ’ s problem isn ’ t his style , it ’ s his substance ( or lack of ) .
I mean , on one level , Ivanka is correct .
Part of the reason women have turned against Donald Trump is his “ style.
” They turn out not to like “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts.
” Or playing footsie with white supremacists .
Or having peaceful protestors gassed and beaten at the behest of the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ communication style ” are not to their tastes .
I know .
So weird , right ?
But women have also turned against Trump for policy reasons .
The big one turns out to be the pandemic which the president has mismanaged to the point that it has killed a huge swath of the American people .
Of the world ’ s wealthiest countries we are close to the bottom in being the sickest .
American women have watched as their country went from being a world leader to a cautionary tale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has become not just desperate for these women to help him , but kind of pathetic .
Like the ex-boyfriend who texts you a year later saying he wishes you hadn ’ t broken up with him .
“ [ C ] an I ask you to do me a favor , suburban women ?
” he asked at a Pennsylvania rally earlier this month .
“ Will you please like me ?
Please .
Please .
I saved your damn neighborhood , Okay ?
” The pathetic part isn ’ t that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever again .
It ’ s that he ( 1 ) doesn ’ t understand why they left him and ( 2 ) doesn ’ t have any concept of what might bring them home .
Just as a for instance : Telling women who became uncomfortable because of your overt racism that they ought to support you because you think they ’ re closet racists , too is .
.
.
a bold strategy , Cotton .
A less insane Trump—which is to say : someone who was not Donald Trump—would understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Booker moving into the neighborhood to teach them yoga and make them vegan cookies .
They ’ re stressed out from having children home , staring at us , day in and day out ten months .
We ’ re worried about schools that are either closed , or operating on a hybrid schedule , or using test-and-pray and hoping everything works out .
They ’ re worried about the extra work for moms , trying to figure out which kid is in school when and for how long , and the complicated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They ’ re also worried about jobs , since women are getting crushed in the labor market , with more than 860,000 women dropping out of the work force in September .
The Harvard Business Review has found that “ women ’ s jobs are 1.8 times more vulnerable to this crisis than men ’ s jobs.
” And the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress found that this was “ the first recession where women have lost more jobs than men.
” When Trump ran in 2016 he used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have to lose ?
” Well , women have now figured out the answer to that question : our jobs , our health , our sanity , our freedom .
It turns out we had a lot to lose .
And the fact that Donald Trump thinks that the way to win us back is by bragging about keeping Cory Booker out of our neighborhoods ?
That ’ s just the organic vegan chocolate frosting on this shit-sandwhich of a presidency .

One of the many striking results from 2016 was that Donald Trump carried white women 47-45 over Hillary Clinton. So much for identity politics! The first female major party nominee couldn’t even win her own demographic niche.
And this result was even more striking because Trump wasn’t just “not a feminist.” He wasn’t your garden-variety, patriarchy-lite conservative, like a John Cornyn or Mike Pence. He was an anti-feminist: a walking, sniffing caricature of the kind of troglodytic asshole that most women—whatever their politics—hate coming into contact with.
Like everything else about Trump, even this improbable victory got exaggerated. After the election he would go around claiming, “You know, I got 52 percent with women.” Which wasn’t true—overall, Trump lost women voters 39 percent to 54 percent.
But like so many things that Trump says but aren’t true, there was an idea of a kernel of a nugget of truth to it. Because if you were a left-leaning white gal—like myself—you felt kind of betrayed by the fact that your demographic peer group went for that guy. And the explanations were kind of discomfiting. Because at the end of the day the only real explanations were (a) racism or (b) internalized misogyny.
Yay us?
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But what a difference a presidency makes. Four years and 220,000 lives later, white women have broken hard against Trump—he’s somewhere in the neighborhood of -3 to -8 with them.
And this despite the fact that, as Harry Enten writes, “majorities of white women have backed the Republican presidential candidate in nearly every election for the past 70 years.” More from Enten: “Biden has seen a double-digit improvement among women voters compared to Clinton.”
Yay us!
Some Republicans had hoped that Trump’s fake feminist daughter might have been able to trick suburban women into voting for her dad again. At the Republican National Convention / Hatch Act Memorial Bonfire, Ivanka tried to convince women that her father’s… foibles… were merely stylistic. “I recognize that my dad’s communication style is not to everyone’s taste,” she said. “And I know his tweets can feel a bit—unfiltered.”
The president’s problem isn’t his style, it’s his substance (or lack of).
I mean, on one level, Ivanka is correct. Part of the reason women have turned against Donald Trump is his “style.” They turn out not to like “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Or playing footsie with white supremacists. Or having peaceful protestors gassed and beaten at the behest of the president.
These “unfiltered” bits of “communication style” are not to their tastes. I know. So weird, right?
But women have also turned against Trump for policy reasons. The big one turns out to be the pandemic which the president has mismanaged to the point that it has killed a huge swath of the American people.
Of the world’s wealthiest countries we are close to the bottom in being the sickest. American women have watched as their country went from being a world leader to a cautionary tale.
And in his decrepitude, Trump has become not just desperate for these women to help him, but kind of pathetic. Like the ex-boyfriend who texts you a year later saying he wishes you hadn’t broken up with him. “[C]an I ask you to do me a favor, suburban women?” he asked at a Pennsylvania rally earlier this month. “Will you please like me? Please. Please. I saved your damn neighborhood, okay?”
The pathetic part isn’t that Trump wants to grab women by the whatever again. It’s that he (1) doesn’t understand why they left him and (2) doesn’t have any concept of what might bring them home.
Just as a for instance: Telling women who became uncomfortable because of your overt racism that they ought to support you because you think they’re closet racists, too is… a bold strategy, Cotton.
A less insane Trump—which is to say: someone who was not Donald Trump—would understand that women are not worried about Cory Booker moving into the neighborhood to teach them yoga and make them vegan cookies. They’re stressed out from having children home, staring at us, day in and day out for ten months. We’re worried about schools that are either closed, or operating on a hybrid schedule, or using test-and-pray and hoping everything works out. They’re worried about the extra work for moms, trying to figure out which kid is in school when and for how long, and the complicated tapestry of schlepping this all involves.
They’re also worried about jobs, since women are getting crushed in the labor market, with more than 860,000 women dropping out of the work force in September. The Harvard Business Review has found that “women’s jobs are 1.8 times more vulnerable to this crisis than men’s jobs.” And the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress found that this was “the first recession where women have lost more jobs than men.”
When Trump ran in 2016 he used to go around saying, “What do you have to lose?”
Well, women have now figured out the answer to that question: our jobs, our health, our sanity, our freedom.
It turns out we had a lot to lose.
And the fact that Donald Trump thinks that the way to win us back is by bragging about keeping Cory Booker out of our neighborhoods?
That’s just the organic vegan chocolate frosting on this shit-sandwhich of a presidency.


thebulwark--2020-10-29--The Conservative Case for Biden’s Foreign Policy

In a line many on the right love to quote , former Defense Secretary Robert Gates accused Joe Biden of being “ wrong on nearly every major foreign-policy and national-security issue over the past four decades.
” Gates isn ’ t wrong , though he , too , has been wrong on foreign policy questions , and has anyone who ’ s made enough tough decisions over that many decades ( see Churchill , Winston ) .
What conservatives omit is that Gates dedicates most of the passage to praising Biden ’ s character : Conservative foreign policy expert Kori @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been wrong more often than he has been right .
So why has she endorsed him , despite her criticism ?
What differentiates Schake , a Biden-supporter with reservations , from Michael Brendan Doherty , who has lambasted Biden ’ s foreign policy errors as “ career-defining ?
” Schake knows that Biden is a progressive Democrat .
Schake is conservative .
Disagreement is inevitable .
But Biden ’ s instinct is right where it matters most : The return of great power competitions has reignited the struggle between free and autocratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defend and promote democracy overseas .
In an essay for Foreign Affairs , Biden outlined his foreign policy agenda .
Many of the specifics he mentioned left a lot to be desired .
But specific issues were not Biden ’ s main argument .
The centerpiece of the essay was perfectly summarized in the title : America Must Lead Again .
The Trump administration ’ s foreign policy has been a war on American credibility and an acceleration of Barack Obama ’ s abdication of America ’ s hegemonic responsibilities .
Whatever one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuclear deal , the Paris Agreement on climate change , and the Trans-Pacific Partnership—I objected to the first two when they were announced—they were agreements that the U.S. government had entered .
The Trump administration withdrew from them without consultation or coordination with the United States ’ s democratic allies , and without a coherent alternative strategy .
These reversals served to undermine America ’ s credibility for future agreements .
The administration has also signaled that America ’ s relationship with its allies is completely transactional .
The Trump administration abandoned the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and bombers .
It has also weakened America ’ s relationship with European democracies and South Korea .
Instead , the president has promoted anti-democratic forces skeptical of liberal alliances , including Polish president Andrzej Duda , Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán , Turkish strongman Recep Tayyib Erdoğan , and Brazil ’ s demagogic president Jair Bolsanero , all on missions to erode democracy .
The president has an affinity for strongmen .
He calls them “ tough guys.
” He loves tyrants .
He has called the military dictator of Egypt his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping .
He has said that he has fallen in love with Kim Jong-un , probably the evilest man in the world .
He has praised Chinese concentration camps in private , according to his former adviser , John Bolton .
He has no kind words , though , for pro-American liberals like Angela Merkel , Emmanuel Macron , and Theresa May , or for the protesters in Hong Kong , or Alexei Navalny , or the poor souls of Xinjiang .
He simply views liberalism as weakness and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the free world ’ s strength against the Soviet Union , and it is going to be our strength against China and Russia .
A freer world weakens China and Russia .
In part thanks to , and in part because of the unprecedented expansion in global freedom since 1991 , the United States remains the most powerful state in the world , but this gap is narrowing .
Power is not just military power .
Power is also diplomatic credibility and persuasion , state legitimacy , economic might , and intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and enforce peace with less risk and cost than bullets and bombs .
Liberal democracies are more legitimate than autocracies , and , illegitimacy is the Achilles ’ s heel of autocrats—just ask Mikhail Gorbachev .
Liberal democracies add to their economic strength through free trade—a blessing they can weaponize to contain their adversaries—while autocrats tend to be more mercantilist and economically isolated .
Liberal democracies share intelligence , while autocrats spy on everybody , including their own peoples .
Liberal democracies join forces out of ideological affinity , while autocrats build alliances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon as a better deal presents itself .
The Biden campaign ’ s message on foreign policy has been a call to strengthen democracy around the world , something that is only possible if the world ’ s greatest democracy is attractive again : He is right .
America must lead with its hard power but also by setting an example .
He continues : This idea echoes a proposal espoused by John McCain , an international league of democracies .
If all of Biden ’ s foreign policy ideas were tributes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remembered as a master statesman on par with Reagan .
Biden is also right about the value of NATO .
He commits to pushing members to pay more for their defenses , and writes that NATO ’ s military preparedness against Russia is crucial to the success of the alliance .
But he adds : Which is exactly what the founders of NATO intended it to be .
And exactly what thugs like Putin need it not to be .
Biden ’ s essay includes more than 50 references to democracy and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importance of America ’ s alliances .
This is a welcoming contrast with Trump ’ s foreign policy of America First , which has turned out in its best moments as America Alone , and in its worst moments as America and the Autocrats .
As Biden conceded during his October 15 town hall , the Trump administration has had its share of achievements .
Normalization of relations between Arab states and Israel is a welcome development .
The Islamic State has lost its caliphate .
Iran ’ s regime has never been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achievements have all come from the Middle East , a region that , while still of great importance to American national security , is losing its place as America ’ s top priority to Europe and Asia .
Trump has also completely neglected Africa and mistreated Latin American allies , all to the benefit of China , which is increasing its influence in those regions , building alliances that are also increasing China ’ s influence in international organizations .
This is another area where Biden is right : Trump thinks that America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect it against her ill-wishers and maintain its international influence .
He is wrong .
China and Russia are trying to catch up with and overtake America ’ s position as the world ’ s indispensable nation .
America remains more powerful , and the good news is that power begets power , and influence begets influence , but only if used prudently .
Our adversaries are using their power prudently , and they are multiplying their influence , while America is scoring own goals .
Trump ’ s complacency about America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the greatest threat to American security , world order , and the American way of life .
Biden ’ s critics point to the Obama administration ’ s myriad and sundry failures in foreign policy and call Biden guilty by association .
Fair enough .
Biden himself pays a lot of lip service to the “ successes ” of the Obama administration .
But what , then , to make of the current administration ?
Trump ’ s instincts on foreign policy are like Obama ’ s but on steroids .
Both presidents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America as a dispensable power , just “ another pleasant country on the U.N. roll call , somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe.
” They damaged America ’ s standing in the world and its reputation as a reliable ally whose word has credibility .
The Obama-Trump America stopped being a country that stands with the free world and free peoples against tyrants .
Biden ’ s vision for America ’ s role in the world is much closer to an old-school conservative Republican than that of Obama and Trump .
This doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative on foreign policy .
He is still a progressive Democrat , and he will govern like one .
He will be wrong on many issues .
But his thinking is within the old bipartisan establishment that won the Cold War and made America the world ’ s sole superpower .
He will be wrong , but he will be wrong within normal parameters .
For too long , the United States has shirked the responsibility that it assumed at the end of the Second World War , pretended that it could retreat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deluded itself into thinking that its international leadership was a source of poverty and weakness rather than wealth and strength .
Biden ’ s campaign message is that he will reverse the course .

In a line many on the right love to quote, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates accused Joe Biden of being “wrong on nearly every major foreign-policy and national-security issue over the past four decades.” Gates isn’t wrong, though he, too, has been wrong on foreign policy questions, and has anyone who’s made enough tough decisions over that many decades (see Churchill, Winston).
What conservatives omit is that Gates dedicates most of the passage to praising Biden’s character:
Joe is simply impossible not to like. He’s down to earth, funny, profane, and humorously self-aware of his motormouth. Not too many meetings had occurred in the Situation Room before the president started impatiently cutting Biden off. Joe is a man of integrity, incapable of hiding what he really thinks, and one of those rare people you know you could turn to for help in a personal crisis.
Conservative foreign policy expert Kori Schake has also written about how Biden has been wrong more often than he has been right. So why has she endorsed him, despite her criticism? What differentiates Schake, a Biden-supporter with reservations, from Michael Brendan Doherty, who has lambasted Biden’s foreign policy errors as “career-defining?”
Schake knows that Biden is a progressive Democrat. Schake is conservative. Disagreement is inevitable. But Biden’s instinct is right where it matters most: The return of great power competitions has reignited the struggle between free and autocratic states, and the United States should defend and promote democracy overseas.
In an essay for Foreign Affairs, Biden outlined his foreign policy agenda. Many of the specifics he mentioned left a lot to be desired. But specific issues were not Biden’s main argument. The centerpiece of the essay was perfectly summarized in the title: America Must Lead Again.
The Trump administration’s foreign policy has been a war on American credibility and an acceleration of Barack Obama’s abdication of America’s hegemonic responsibilities. Whatever one thinks of the merits of the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership—I objected to the first two when they were announced—they were agreements that the U.S. government had entered. The Trump administration withdrew from them without consultation or coordination with the United States’s democratic allies, and without a coherent alternative strategy. These reversals served to undermine America’s credibility for future agreements.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The administration has also signaled that America’s relationship with its allies is completely transactional. The Trump administration abandoned the Syrian Kurds last year to Turkish tanks and bombers. It has also weakened America’s relationship with European democracies and South Korea. Instead, the president has promoted anti-democratic forces skeptical of liberal alliances, including Polish president Andrzej Duda, Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, Turkish strongman Recep Tayyib Erdoğan, and Brazil’s demagogic president Jair Bolsonaro, all on missions to erode democracy.
The president has an affinity for strongmen. He calls them “tough guys.” He loves tyrants. He has called the military dictator of Egypt his “favorite dictator.” He frequently praises Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. He has said that he has fallen in love with Kim Jong-un, probably the evilest man in the world. He has praised Chinese concentration camps in private, according to his former adviser, John Bolton.
He has no kind words, though, for pro-American liberals like Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, and Theresa May, or for the protesters in Hong Kong, or Alexei Navalny, or the poor souls of Xinjiang.
He simply views liberalism as weakness and thuggish authoritarianism as strength.
But liberalism was the free world’s strength against the Soviet Union, and it is going to be our strength against China and Russia. A freer world weakens China and Russia. In part thanks to, and in part because of the unprecedented expansion in global freedom since 1991, the United States remains the most powerful state in the world, but this gap is narrowing.
Power is not just military power. Power is also diplomatic credibility and persuasion, state legitimacy, economic might, and intelligence capability—all the measures that can spread influence and enforce peace with less risk and cost than bullets and bombs. Liberal democracies are more legitimate than autocracies, and, illegitimacy is the Achilles’s heel of autocrats—just ask Mikhail Gorbachev. Liberal democracies add to their economic strength through free trade—a blessing they can weaponize to contain their adversaries—while autocrats tend to be more mercantilist and economically isolated. Liberal democracies share intelligence, while autocrats spy on everybody, including their own peoples. Liberal democracies join forces out of ideological affinity, while autocrats build alliances out of necessity and abandon them as soon as a better deal presents itself.
The Biden campaign’s message on foreign policy has been a call to strengthen democracy around the world, something that is only possible if the world’s greatest democracy is attractive again:
As a nation, we have to prove to the world that the United States is prepared to lead again—not just with the example of our power but also with the power of our example. To that end, as president, I will take decisive steps to renew our core values.
He is right. America must lead with its hard power but also by setting an example. He continues:
During my first year in office, the United States will organize and host a global Summit for Democracy to renew the spirit and shared purpose of the nations of the free world. It will bring together the world’s democracies to strengthen our democratic institutions, honestly confront nations that are backsliding, and forge a common agenda.
This idea echoes a proposal espoused by John McCain, an international league of democracies. If all of Biden’s foreign policy ideas were tributes to the late hero, he could be remembered as a master statesman on par with Reagan.
Biden is also right about the value of NATO. He commits to pushing members to pay more for their defenses, and writes that NATO’s military preparedness against Russia is crucial to the success of the alliance. But he adds:
The alliance transcends dollars and cents; the United States’ commitment is sacred, not transactional. NATO is at the very heart of the United States’ national security, and it is the bulwark of the liberal democratic ideal—an alliance of values, which makes it far more durable, reliable, and powerful than partnerships built by coercion or cash.
Which is exactly what the founders of NATO intended it to be. And exactly what thugs like Putin need it not to be.
Biden’s essay includes more than 50 references to democracy and the free world. He continuously mentions the importance of America’s alliances. This is a welcoming contrast with Trump’s foreign policy of America First, which has turned out in its best moments as America Alone, and in its worst moments as America and the Autocrats.
As Biden conceded during his October 15 town hall, the Trump administration has had its share of achievements. Normalization of relations between Arab states and Israel is a welcome development. The Islamic State has lost its caliphate. Iran’s regime has never been more vulnerable. But Trump’s achievements have all come from the Middle East, a region that, while still of great importance to American national security, is losing its place as America’s top priority to Europe and Asia. Trump has also completely neglected Africa and mistreated Latin American allies, all to the benefit of China, which is increasing its influence in those regions, building alliances that are also increasing China’s influence in international organizations. This is another area where Biden is right:
We need to do more to integrate our friends in Latin America and Africa into the broader network of democracies and to seize opportunities for cooperation in those regions.
Trump thinks that America’s military might is enough to protect it against her ill-wishers and maintain its international influence. He is wrong. China and Russia are trying to catch up with and overtake America’s position as the world’s indispensable nation. America remains more powerful, and the good news is that power begets power, and influence begets influence, but only if used prudently. Our adversaries are using their power prudently, and they are multiplying their influence, while America is scoring own goals. Trump’s complacency about America’s ability to sustain its power is the greatest threat to American security, world order, and the American way of life.
Biden’s critics point to the Obama administration’s myriad and sundry failures in foreign policy and call Biden guilty by association. Fair enough. Biden himself pays a lot of lip service to the “successes” of the Obama administration.
But what, then, to make of the current administration? Trump’s instincts on foreign policy are like Obama’s but on steroids. Both presidents came to power as disrupters and saw America as a dispensable power, just “another pleasant country on the U.N. roll call, somewhere between Albania and Zimbabwe.” They damaged America’s standing in the world and its reputation as a reliable ally whose word has credibility. The Obama-Trump America stopped being a country that stands with the free world and free peoples against tyrants.
Biden’s vision for America’s role in the world is much closer to an old-school conservative Republican than that of Obama and Trump. This doesn’t mean that Biden will be a conservative on foreign policy. He is still a progressive Democrat, and he will govern like one. He will be wrong on many issues. But his thinking is within the old bipartisan establishment that won the Cold War and made America the world’s sole superpower. He will be wrong, but he will be wrong within normal parameters.
For too long, the United States has shirked the responsibility that it assumed at the end of the Second World War, pretended that it could retreat without authoritarianism filling the vacuum, and deluded itself into thinking that its international leadership was a source of poverty and weakness rather than wealth and strength. Biden’s campaign message is that he will reverse the course.


thebulwark--2020-10-29--Trump’s Attack on the Civil Service System

This past Monday , in an act of principle and courage , the Republican head of a key presidential advisory council resigned in protest over President Donald Trump ’ s latest executive order .
The order , issued last week , aims to undo 140 years of hard-won American experience in good government .
Should Trump get a second term , he ’ s got a roadmap for replacing the civil service with a spoils system that Boss Tweed would have admired .
Why the stir over an executive order eliminating job protection for government employees in “ policy-advocating ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the chief of the Federal Salary Council and a former high-ranking U.S. intelligence official , called the executive order “ nothing more than a smokescreen for what is clearly an attempt to require the political loyalty of those who advise the President.
” Similarly , a policy counsel for one of the unions representing federal employees described the executive order as an attempt “ to hire cronies and fire enemies .
It is really a 19th-century concept.
” Our president may have moved to Florida , but his instincts seem rooted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s corrupt Tammany Hall machine .
Recall that at our founding , the federal government was small .
In George Washington ’ s day there were only four cabinet departments ( State , Treasury , War , and Justice ) and few federal employees .
But as administrative bodies expanded , presidents found the prospect of filling their ranks with allies and cronies irresistible .
The post office placed political hacks in every village and town , while the customs service rewarded each administration ’ s friends with jobs in many major cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so did the calls for a civil service system like those in England , France , and Germany , requiring employees to be qualified for their posts and preventing wholesale turnover every new administration .
The idea that “ victors ” deserved the “ spoils ” was literally shot down on July 2 , 1881 , when President James Garfield , just four months after his inauguration , was mortally wounded in a Washington train station by a young lawyer , a loyal Republican who believed he had been unfairly denied a patronage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress to pass the Pendleton Act , which stipulated that certain federal jobs should be based on merit—via “ open , competitive examinations for testing the fitness of applicants for the public service ” and rules again requiring civil servants “ to contribute to any political fund , or to render any political service.
” Under the act , civil servants could not be fired or demoted for political reasons .
The act also barred soliciting campaign donations on federal government property .
Over the next half century , new cabinet departments—commerce and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the adoption of the federal income tax , farmers ’ assistance , and federal antitrust laws .
Underlying these changes was a growing sense that important federal functions—managing federal resources , monitoring the national economy , protecting public health and safety—required expertise .
Nonpartisan professionals gradually replaced party functionaries .
Today , apart from several thousand political appointees who are exempt from civil service requirements , federal jobs are virtually all merit-based hires with protections from political retaliation .
The FDA official who resists releasing a COVID vaccine before compliance with safety standards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the forest service scientist who warns against extinctions as a consequence of a change in water or forest management practices .
Nor the defense department arms-policy manager who recommends suspending jet sales to Saudi Arabia following the murder of Jamal Khashoggi .
President Trump ’ s new executive order jeopardizes this system .
Its aim , says University of Texas political scientist Donald Kettl , is “ to undo what the Pendleton Act and subsequent civil service laws tried to accomplish , which was to create a career civil service with expertise that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also a repository of expertise in government.
” Press accounts speculate that the president intends to use the order to target federal employees he considers part of the “ deep state.
” That label appears to cover government professionals who take their constitutional oaths seriously , and who value the rules and norms governing our Republic through changing administrations .
Combine the executive order with the Trump White House ’ s recently intensified “ loyalty tests ” for political appointees and you have a recipe for a government of the obsequious , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with diminishing space for competence .
As we near the climax of an election year , an executive order that alters the functioning of the civil service hardly competes with COVID-19 , health care , or the economy in voters ’ minds .
But each of those issues will be handled better by a competently staffed executive branch .
So , keeping in mind George Santayana ’ s famous warning—that “ those who can not remember the past are condemned to repeat it ” —the question arises : Will we remember the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cronyism in government , or condemn ourselves to repeat it ?

This past Monday, in an act of principle and courage, the Republican head of a key presidential advisory council resigned in protest over President Donald Trump’s latest executive order. The order, issued last week, aims to undo 140 years of hard-won American experience in good government. Should Trump get a second term, he’s got a roadmap for replacing the civil service with a spoils system that Boss Tweed would have admired.
Why the stir over an executive order eliminating job protection for government employees in “policy-advocating” positions? In resigning, Ronald Sanders, the chief of the Federal Salary Council and a former high-ranking U.S. intelligence official, called the executive order “nothing more than a smokescreen for what is clearly an attempt to require the political loyalty of those who advise the President.” Similarly, a policy counsel for one of the unions representing federal employees described the executive order as an attempt “to hire cronies and fire enemies. It is really a 19th-century concept.”
Our president may have moved to Florida, but his instincts seem rooted in the distant days of New York’s corrupt Tammany Hall machine.
Recall that at our founding, the federal government was small. In George Washington’s day there were only four cabinet departments (State, Treasury, War, and Justice) and few federal employees. But as administrative bodies expanded, presidents found the prospect of filling their ranks with allies and cronies irresistible. The post office placed political hacks in every village and town, while the customs service rewarded each administration’s friends with jobs in many major cities.
As the federal workforce grew, so did the calls for a civil service system like those in England, France, and Germany, requiring employees to be qualified for their posts and preventing wholesale turnover every new administration.
The idea that “victors” deserved the “spoils” was literally shot down on July 2, 1881, when President James Garfield, just four months after his inauguration, was mortally wounded in a Washington train station by a young lawyer, a loyal Republican who believed he had been unfairly denied a patronage job.
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…
Garfield’s death moved Congress to pass the Pendleton Act, which stipulated that certain federal jobs should be based on merit—via “open, competitive examinations for testing the fitness of applicants for the public service” and rules against requiring civil servants “to contribute to any political fund, or to render any political service.” Under the act, civil servants could not be fired or demoted for political reasons. The act also barred soliciting campaign donations on federal government property.
Over the next half century, new cabinet departments—commerce and labor—were created and existing departments expanded with the adoption of the federal income tax, farmers’ assistance, and federal antitrust laws. Underlying these changes was a growing sense that important federal functions—managing federal resources, monitoring the national economy, protecting public health and safety—required expertise. Nonpartisan professionals gradually replaced party functionaries.
Today, apart from several thousand political appointees who are exempt from civil service requirements, federal jobs are virtually all merit-based hires with protections from political retaliation. The FDA official who resists releasing a COVID vaccine before compliance with safety standards cannot be fired. Neither can the forest service scientist who warns against extinctions as a consequence of a change in water or forest management practices. Nor the defense department arms-policy manager who recommends suspending jet sales to Saudi Arabia following the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.
President Trump’s new executive order jeopardizes this system. Its aim, says University of Texas political scientist Donald Kettl, is “to undo what the Pendleton Act and subsequent civil service laws tried to accomplish, which was to create a career civil service with expertise that is both accountable to elected officials but also a repository of expertise in government.” Press accounts speculate that the president intends to use the order to target federal employees he considers part of the “deep state.” That label appears to cover government professionals who take their constitutional oaths seriously, and who value the rules and norms governing our Republic through changing administrations.
Combine the executive order with the Trump White House’s recently intensified “loyalty tests” for political appointees and you have a recipe for a government of the obsequious, by the obsequious, and for the obsequious, with diminishing space for competence.
As we near the climax of an election year, an executive order that alters the functioning of the civil service hardly competes with COVID-19, health care, or the economy in voters’ minds. But each of those issues will be handled better by a competently staffed executive branch. So, keeping in mind George Santayana’s famous warning—that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”—the question arises: Will we remember the past, and the history of corruption and cronyism in government, or condemn ourselves to repeat it?


thebulwark--2020-10-29--The Keenly Felt Loss of Local Newspapers

During a recent visit to my parents ’ house , I stole away our 10-year old son from his doting grandparents to take him on a walk around the neighborhood where I ’ d grown up .
I especially wanted to show him the community basketball court and the maze of trails through the woods where I ’ d spent thousands of hours with scads of other kids .
Before getting to the dirt road that led to all of the adventures a 1980s adolescent could want , we had to walk through the boring parts of the neighborhood with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amazed by how little things had changed in 30 years .
With one exception .
Almost all of the red local-newspaper boxes at the bottom of the driveways were gone .
Just a few decades ago , nearly every house had a subscription for the hard copy of the area ’ s evening paper .
I still remember—from when I filled in for my friend with the paper route—that on one stretch of street , 41 of 45 houses got a paper .
Looking back , our neighborhood had diversity in race , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and more , but we shared the local paper and its contents .
That paper told us if our high school ’ s teams had won the day before , what the county council and school board were up to , and what course the Independence Day parade would take .
It also gave us reasons to be proud of our community .
It highlighted the local Teen of the Week , celebrated an award won by a local restaurant , publicized the donation made by a local business , and showcased the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community group .
The paper also helped shape me .
Working on the weekly word jumble as a kid and reading columnists as a teen improved my writing .
Checking box scores and batting averages and , later , looking through state budget figures and disaggregated school test scores fueled my love of numbers .
Tracking national and international events on the front page taught me about history , culture , peace , and war .
The paper also helped make me a member of our community .
It made me want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , help rehabilitate a park , win Teen of the Week ( alas , that wasn ’ t to be ) .
When a local politician knocked on our door as he was campaigning , I recognized him from articles I ’ d read in the paper .
When a local business got a story in the paper , they would soon frame the article and hang it on their wall .
When I played my first night-time varsity soccer game , I saw , pacing the sideline with an actual notepad and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporter whose articles I ’ d read .
Years later—in hindsight , not enough years later—I ran for the state legislature .
Though I was too young , too inexperienced , and too ambitious , this local paper took me seriously .
The reporters covering the race always treated me with respect .
When I met with the editorial board prior to their endorsements , never once did they condescend to me .
They alluded to my need for a little seasoning , but they were always fair .
They were even subtly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the two much larger papers that reported on my district ’ s race more as an afterthought .
Our community was on the outer reaches of their coverage areas .
They weren ’ t as familiar with our issues and politics , and they were less interested in me .
In fairness , the reporters were spread too thin ; they just had too many races to cover .
And when editors from those papers called to interview me before making endorsements—they didn ’ t have time for in-person meetings—they were curt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing me .
Maybe they were rushed or just having bad days .
Whatever the reason , they did not give the impression that they were invested in my community and my personal role in it .
This taught me an important lesson about the link between journalism and proximity—how knowing and being committed to a place and its people fosters certain attitudes and behaviors .
My local paper knew the neighborhood where I ’ d grown up , and they covered my high school ’ s games .
They knew the church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got married .
Their reporters or editors might run into me at a local business or a high school soccer game .
They were an important part of this community , so they had a reason to care about me and my role in it .
A few years later , when I was selected for a prestigious fellowship and got a job at the White House , I was gratified but not entirely surprised when the paper published a short , front-page story .
Then , almost a decade after that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and confirmed by the state senate for an important state-level position , I shared the news with the paper ’ s former top editor , even though he ’ d retired years earlier .
I still thought of him as part of the community .
Given how that local paper had shaped me in so many important ways , I should have found time to thank the editorial page editor who had treated me charitably during my campaign , the sports writer who covered high school and college games , the columnist who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But I never got the chance .
They were three of the five journalists who were senselessly murdered in their newsroom in 2018 .
My local paper was the Annapolis Capital .
In the days and weeks that followed the attack , there was an outpouring of support for the Capital from far and wide—from journalists who saw this as an assault on a free press , citizens worried that our polarized public square was now turning violent , those concerned about guns and mental health , those who mourned the loss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tragedy was also felt in another way : Our community institution had been attacked .
People whom we knew and cared about—people who knew and cared about us—had been targeted .
Folks brought candles and flowers and pictures to the site of the crime .
I drove our three kids past the crowds holding vigil so I could try to explain in a somber but non-frightening way that something terrible had happened here and that lots of people had come to show their love and respect .
The community had gathered in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ memorials in the place where its newspaper had gathered daily to build community .
And now , that newspaper no longer has a place .
This summer , its parent company announced that the newsroom of the Capital would be shuttered .
The staff that had withered in size over recent years , the staff that had won a Pulitzer for its reporting after the attack upon it , would no longer have a physical home .
A barebones team would work remotely .
Local newspapers have been hit hard by changes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last 15 years , more than a quarter of the nation ’ s newspapers and half of local journalists disappeared .
As Michael Hendrix has argued , there is evidence that the loss of local news can adversely influence local government , including in areas such as crime , public finance , partisanship , and public participation .
Often , when I hear or read journalists lamenting the crisis of disappearing local newspapers , they focus on how reporters and editors hold government accountable .
They discuss their longform investigative reports and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ politics come out .
They see journalism as the pursuit of social justice—comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable .
But it seems to me that this account buries the lede .
For every one major scandal uncovered by a local paper , there are probably thousands of small articles about the good things in our lives .
For each alarming revelation that gives us reason to be more cynical and to trust our leaders and neighbors less , there are thousands that give us reason to be proud of and feel rooted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , local papers also have a profound but underappreciated political influence—one that has virtually nothing to do with Republican or Democrat , conservative or progressive .
They direct our attention closer to home .
As such , we have reason to think in terms of the people we know , and we focus on the issues that influence us and that we can influence .
We behave more civilly ; those with whom we disagree are our neighbors , not avatars on a screen .
We look for solutions , not sound bites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not scoring political points .
We engage in practical discussions , not conspiracy theories ; the actors in our most important social matters are real people we see at the store , not nameless , faceless power brokers far , far away .
In short , local papers help us have a healthy relationship with collective life .
There is no local paper to speak of where I live now .
I have a hard time knowing what happened at the recent meetings of our county commissioners and school board .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giving to which charities or which clubs are looking for volunteers .
I don ’ t know if there is a Teen of the Week .
I don ’ t know if there is an ambitious , civic-minded , local twentysomething desperate to prove herself—someone who can , with a little seasoning , contribute mightily to our community .
I ’ d like to root for her and follow her career , even lend her a hand .
And so my attention gravitates to national politics with all of its dysfunction .
My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powerless to change such huge , distant matters .
I wish I could talk to a neighbor about some local issue or event , but we don ’ t have the same reference points .
I don ’ t know if the high school ’ s soccer teams played last night or if there ’ s money in the county budget to expand the trail .
Maybe I can go online to find a community of people I ’ ve never met who have some shared interests .
.
.
When my son @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , my heart sank .
It was no longer a dirt road—no longer a well-worn path to adventure .
Grass and weeds had taken over the landscape .
It looked like no one had walked this way in years .
Worse , the community basketball court had crumbled into disrepair : The fence was ripped , the pavement was cracked and littered , and one of the hoops was gone .
The trails in the woods had disappeared too .
They were totally grown over from disuse .
Not all that long ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Capital—physical representations of community .
More than symbols , they were actual places that had actual people engaged in the actual activities of communal life .
I suppose it ’ s possible that the neighborhood ’ s kids had found other places to get together .
But if their parents hadn ’ t found a replacement for their neighbor-gathering newspaper , I ’ m not sure why I ’ d expect that .
The kids were probably home alone , looking for community online , as well .

During a recent visit to my parents’ house, I stole away our 10-year old son from his doting grandparents to take him on a walk around the neighborhood where I’d grown up. I especially wanted to show him the community basketball court and the maze of trails through the woods where I’d spent thousands of hours with scads of other kids.
Before getting to the dirt road that led to all of the adventures a 1980s adolescent could want, we had to walk through the boring parts of the neighborhood with paved roads and cars. I was amazed by how little things had changed in 30 years. With one exception.
Almost all of the red local-newspaper boxes at the bottom of the driveways were gone.
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…
Just a few decades ago, nearly every house had a subscription for the hard copy of the area’s evening paper. I still remember—from when I filled in for my friend with the paper route—that on one stretch of street, 41 of 45 houses got a paper. Looking back, our neighborhood had diversity in race, income, religion, family structure, and more, but we shared the local paper and its contents.
That paper told us if our high school’s teams had won the day before, what the county council and school board were up to, and what course the Independence Day parade would take. It also gave us reasons to be proud of our community. It highlighted the local Teen of the Week, celebrated an award won by a local restaurant, publicized the donation made by a local business, and showcased the rehabilitation of a local park by a community group.
The paper also helped shape me. Working on the weekly word jumble as a kid and reading columnists as a teen improved my writing. Checking box scores and batting averages and, later, looking through state budget figures and disaggregated school test scores fueled my love of numbers. Tracking national and international events on the front page taught me about history, culture, peace, and war.
The paper also helped make me a member of our community. It made me want to take part in that Independence Day parade, help rehabilitate a park, win Teen of the Week (alas, that wasn’t to be). When a local politician knocked on our door as he was campaigning, I recognized him from articles I’d read in the paper. When a local business got a story in the paper, they would soon frame the article and hang it on their wall. When I played my first night-time varsity soccer game, I saw, pacing the sideline with an actual notepad and pen, the paper’s local-sports reporter whose articles I’d read.
Years later—in hindsight, not enough years later—I ran for the state legislature. Though I was too young, too inexperienced, and too ambitious, this local paper took me seriously. The reporters covering the race always treated me with respect. When I met with the editorial board prior to their endorsements, never once did they condescend to me. They alluded to my need for a little seasoning, but they were always fair. They were even subtly encouraging.
My experience was quite different with the two much larger papers that reported on my district’s race more as an afterthought. Our community was on the outer reaches of their coverage areas. They weren’t as familiar with our issues and politics, and they were less interested in me. In fairness, the reporters were spread too thin; they just had too many races to cover. And when editors from those papers called to interview me before making endorsements—they didn’t have time for in-person meetings—they were curt bordering on antagonistic. Maybe they were testing me. Maybe they were rushed or just having bad days. Whatever the reason, they did not give the impression that they were invested in my community and my personal role in it.
This taught me an important lesson about the link between journalism and proximity—how knowing and being committed to a place and its people fosters certain attitudes and behaviors. My local paper knew the neighborhood where I’d grown up, and they covered my high school’s games. They knew the church where I received my first Communion and got married. Their reporters or editors might run into me at a local business or a high school soccer game. They were an important part of this community, so they had a reason to care about me and my role in it.
A few years later, when I was selected for a prestigious fellowship and got a job at the White House, I was gratified but not entirely surprised when the paper published a short, front-page story. Then, almost a decade after that, when I was nominated by the governor and confirmed by the state senate for an important state-level position, I shared the news with the paper’s former top editor, even though he’d retired years earlier. I still thought of him as part of the community.
Given how that local paper had shaped me in so many important ways, I should have found time to thank the editorial page editor who had treated me charitably during my campaign, the sports writer who covered high school and college games, the columnist who wrote weekly Teen of the Week stories. But I never got the chance.
They were three of the five journalists who were senselessly murdered in their newsroom in 2018.
My local paper was the Annapolis Capital.
In the days and weeks that followed the attack, there was an outpouring of support for the Capital from far and wide—from journalists who saw this as an assault on a free press, citizens worried that our polarized public square was now turning violent, those concerned about guns and mental health, those who mourned the loss of innocent lives.
Locally, the tragedy was also felt in another way: Our community institution had been attacked. People whom we knew and cared about—people who knew and cared about us—had been targeted. Folks brought candles and flowers and pictures to the site of the crime. I drove our three kids past the crowds holding vigil so I could try to explain in a somber but non-frightening way that something terrible had happened here and that lots of people had come to show their love and respect. The community had gathered in that place on that day to build makeshift memorials in the place where its newspaper had gathered daily to build community.
And now, that newspaper no longer has a place. This summer, its parent company announced that the newsroom of the Capital would be shuttered. The staff that had withered in size over recent years, the staff that had won a Pulitzer for its reporting after the attack upon it, would no longer have a physical home. A barebones team would work remotely.
Local newspapers have been hit hard by changes in technology and media consumption. Over the last 15 years, more than a quarter of the nation’s newspapers and half of local journalists disappeared. As Michael Hendrix has argued, there is evidence that the loss of local news can adversely influence local government, including in areas such as crime, public finance, partisanship, and public participation.
Often, when I hear or read journalists lamenting the crisis of disappearing local newspapers, they focus on how reporters and editors hold government accountable. They discuss their longform investigative reports and their high-profile exposés. Often, their left-leaning politics come out. They see journalism as the pursuit of social justice—comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.
But it seems to me that this account buries the lede. For every one major scandal uncovered by a local paper, there are probably thousands of small articles about the good things in our lives. For each alarming revelation that gives us reason to be more cynical and to trust our leaders and neighbors less, there are thousands that give us reason to be proud of and feel rooted in our community.
Because of this, local papers also have a profound but underappreciated political influence—one that has virtually nothing to do with Republican or Democrat, conservative or progressive. They direct our attention closer to home. As such, we have reason to think in terms of the people we know, and we focus on the issues that influence us and that we can influence. We behave more civilly; those with whom we disagree are our neighbors, not avatars on a screen. We look for solutions, not sound bites; we are interested in addressing problems, not scoring political points. We engage in practical discussions, not conspiracy theories; the actors in our most important social matters are real people we see at the store, not nameless, faceless power brokers far, far away. In short, local papers help us have a healthy relationship with collective life.
There is no local paper to speak of where I live now. I have a hard time knowing what happened at the recent meetings of our county commissioners and school board. I don’t know which businesses are giving to which charities or which clubs are looking for volunteers. I don’t know if there is a Teen of the Week. I don’t know if there is an ambitious, civic-minded, local twentysomething desperate to prove herself—someone who can, with a little seasoning, contribute mightily to our community. I’d like to root for her and follow her career, even lend her a hand.
And so my attention gravitates to national politics with all of its dysfunction. My blood pressure rises, and I feel powerless to change such huge, distant matters. I wish I could talk to a neighbor about some local issue or event, but we don’t have the same reference points. I don’t know if the high school’s soccer teams played last night or if there’s money in the county budget to expand the trail. Maybe I can go online to find a community of people I’ve never met who have some shared interests. . .
When my son and I got to the dirt road, my heart sank. It was no longer a dirt road—no longer a well-worn path to adventure. Grass and weeds had taken over the landscape. It looked like no one had walked this way in years. Worse, the community basketball court had crumbled into disrepair: The fence was ripped, the pavement was cracked and littered, and one of the hoops was gone. The trails in the woods had disappeared too. They were totally grown over from disuse.
Not all that long ago, all of these were—like the newsroom of the Capital—physical representations of community. More than symbols, they were actual places that had actual people engaged in the actual activities of communal life.
I suppose it’s possible that the neighborhood’s kids had found other places to get together. But if their parents hadn’t found a replacement for their neighbor-gathering newspaper, I’m not sure why I’d expect that. The kids were probably home alone, looking for community online, as well.


thebulwark--2020-10-29--The Pro-life Case Against Trump

The Pro-life Case Against Trump

This is a story about selling one ’ s soul .
Specifically , it is a story about those who would trade away their political , moral , and ethical souls and support Donald Trump—against their own better judgment—for the believed benefit of halting the abortion holocaust .
Or , at least , who feel they should back Trump out of the perceived need to remain loyal to the pro-life cause .
I write to urge you to reconsider .
Because I strongly believe that committed pro-lifers can and should vote against Donald Trump ’ s reelection .
No one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-life legal and moral position .
And if ever there were an issue worth selling one ’ s soul for , it ’ s abortion .
I am serious about that : If you could trade your own life—your soul , even—to save the lives of millions of human beings , well , a case can be made for doing just that .
But like most deals with the Devil , this one—supporting Trump against your conscience , solely for the sake of abortion—doesn ’ t really get you anywhere .
Whatever benefits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the most part , illusory and ephemeral .
Worse , such a bargain is ultimately counter-productive , undermining the integrity of pro-life people and diminishing the persuasiveness of the pro-life position .
This bargain forfeits the very values of compassion , justice , and respect for the lives and well-being of others on which the success of the pro-life movement ultimately depends .
Worst of all , selling your soul for short-term gain—even for a noble and worthy cause—is still selling your soul .
Deals with the Devil always backfire in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Garden to Doctor Faustus to Dorian Gray , these things always end badly .
They not only fail to achieve their goals , but destroy those who enter into them .
One of the arguments I hear from pro-lifers to justify supporting Trump goes something like this : Yes , there is abundant evidence that Trump is a racist , given what he has said and what he has refused to say : “ the Mexican judge ” ( from Indiana ) , the “ Muslim ban , ” restricting immigration from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( ! )
, there being good people on both sides of white supremacist rallies , refusing to condemn identified white supremacist groups .
Yes , Trump is also a misogynist and likely serial sexual abuser/harasser .
Yes , Trump is heedless , arrogant , dangerously incompetent , and concerned only with himself .
Yes , in large part because of these traits , Trump responded incompetently and dismissively to the coronavirus , almost certainly resulting in the avoidable deaths of scores of thousands of people .
Yes , Trump is corrupt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and utterly lacking in public ( or private ) integrity .
He almost certainly attempted to obstruct justice in connection with the Mueller investigation .
He solicited ( or at least encouragingly winked at ) Russia ’ s intervention in the 2016 election .
He corruptly bartered vital military and security assistance to Ukraine for its pledge to investigate a U.S. domestic political rival for the presidency .
And yes , Trump has disturbingly authoritarian instincts : mindlessly claiming “ total authority ” over laws , hinting at canceling or postponing elections ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refusing to agree that he will abide by election results or to call on his supporters not to engage in election violence .
( Proud Boys : “ Stand back and stand by.
” ) In short , Trump is a terrible person and a terrible president .
.
.
But he ’ s good for the pro-life movement and that overrides everything else .
Because although he is not a true believer , he knows which side his political bread is buttered on and has adopted a pro-life stance out of transactional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of political gain , Trump has agreed to the appointment of solid , conservative justices and judges .
And his administration has rescinded and replaced pro-abortion and anti-conscience regulations and policies with much better ones .
Trump , whatever his many sins , is good for the pro-life cause .
Or at least he ’ s better than the alternative .
He may be a disaster .
But he ’ s our disaster .
Or so the argument goes .
The Drawbacks , Delusions , and Dangers of Deals with the Devil I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least in its premise .
But there are at least four things wrong with it .
First , it is wrong in principle—a betrayal of the moral integrity that must underly the pro-life movement .
Second , it is for that reason discrediting and , ultimately , counterproductive .
Trump undermines the values on which the success of the pro-life position ultimately depends and support of Trump likewise undermines those values and tars the position .
If one is playing the pro-life long game—which is the only game in town when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law on abortion—support of Trump kills our own cause .
Third , the believed gains to the pro-life movement from Trump—mainly judges—are short-term , ephemeral , illusory .
They are nowhere near worth the price .
Fourth , support of Trump grossly underestimates the dangers he poses to democracy , stability , and the security of a free republic , which are the foundations upon which everything else depends .
Including the effective protection of the right to life .
A word about each of these points , taken in somewhat reverse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First : A stable , secure , properly functioning constitutional republic is an essential precondition of effective protection of the right to life of the unborn .
If there are any who would trade away democracy and republican institutions—who would risk authoritarianism or countenance proto-despotism to any degree—for the sake of real or imagined short-term marginal gains to the pro-life political and legal position , I do not agree with them .
The destruction of our political institutions would leave any pro-life gains without a foundation on which to stand .
The state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Undermine the republic and you undermine the ability of a just community to maintain these basic human rights—and ever to include the right to life among them .
Risk democracy and you risk everything ; all minor and major political achievements are drowned by the loss of the institutions that enable and undergird them .
Everybody agrees with this precept at some level .
I take it for granted that no one would knowingly vote into office an Orbán or a Putin , just because he purported to be pro-life or would appoint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be candid , there have been some on American right who seem enamored with such figures . )
Most pro-lifers understand that the danger is too great , the harm threatened too irreparable , the perceived gains too illusory and contingent on the very values that such a man would repudiate .
Trump is not , as of now , in the same class as Putin or Orbán .
But he does have marked authoritarian instincts and tendencies , is heedless of constitutional and moral restraints on his own power , and has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while you can say that Donald Trump is not ( yet ) Vladimir Putin , you can not dismiss out of hand the possibility that a man who talks openly about changing election dates , will not commit to the peaceful transition of power , uses the military and police powers to put down dissent , and flirts with running for a third term might push for the country to experiment with very real soft-authoritarianism .
If one rightly judges that Trump is a danger on this score , then that peril for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump were to attempt to walk Putin ’ s or Orbán ’ s path then it would , among other things , destroy all progress on abortion .
It is eminently reasonable , I submit , to judge a Trump reelection a serious threat in this regard .
The pattern is there , the danger is real .
These are not liberal delusions .
Serious pro-life conservatives ( like me ) ought to take it seriously .
After all , to be conservative is to cherish the republican values of our constitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect , and defend them against all threats , and against all enemies , foreign and domestic .
For that constitutional order is what makes all else possible .
Note how far Trump is from embracing these conservative first premises .
Trump is a threat to a stable , secure , republican political order—and thus is a threat to the very preconditions that make the right-to-life of the unborn possible in the first place .
That alone is reason enough for pro-lifers to vote against him .
Second : Trump affirmatively undermines and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ethical position .
He does this in two related ways .
He undercuts the values on which the success of the pro-life position ultimately depends : compassion , respect for others , valuing all human life , and the Golden Rule of do-unto-others .
If we lose these values , then the pro-life movement loses .
It ’ s as simple as that .
Abandon these principles and you abandon the long-run objective .
To embrace Trump is to embrace the opposite of the values the pro-life cause needs to succeed .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pro-life message .
Nothing persuades negatively quite like the demonstration of hypocrisy .
One of the secondary problems with selling your soul is that it ’ s public .
Everybody can see what you ’ ve done .
And even if you ’ re the kind of person who thinks it ’ s worth it , the vast majority of people disapprove of such bargains .
This is literally a fact of the human experience , in all times and places .
Pro-lifers will lose our witness if we embrace a liar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , a racist , a man thoroughly corrupt and incompetent—for the sake of transactional political advantage .
Even if it is in pursuit of a just cause .
As Abraham Lincoln put it in his debate with Stephen Douglas , Lincoln ’ s insight remains sound .
In the long run , it matters more how we shape public sentiment concerning abortion than whether we appoint and confirm pro-life judges .
For ultimately , that sentiment shapes the judges more than the other way around .
Persuasion precedes policy .
No amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to life into a reality if it is not first written in the hearts of the people .
In this respect , Trump affirmatively harms the pro-life cause .
He negatively molds public sentiment on abortion .
It is not right , but it is true : the pro-life cause and position is tainted by—deemed guilty by its association with—Donald Trump .
What does it profit the pro-life movement to embrace Trump and forfeit its soul ?
Sadly , the most plausible counterargument is that the damage has already been done .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve already sold our souls ; any impairment of pro-life credibility and integrity—Trump taint—has already been accomplished .
We therefore might as well get out of it what we can and keep going down the same road , since repudiating Trump now won ’ t do any good .
What ’ s done is done .
I reject this cynical stance .
As long as Trump is president , he undermines and discredits the pro-life position .
The longer he is in office , the greater long-run harm he does to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gone , the quicker rehabilitation efforts can proceed .
The Short-Term Gains are Slight and Overstated Third point : The purported pro-life benefits from Trump ’ s presidency are not all that great because the political and legal gains on abortion are likely to be short-term , ephemeral , and largely illusory .
The primary benefit of a Trump administration is judicial appointments .
But important as judges are , success in judicial appointments will not sufficient to accomplish the goals of the pro-life cause .
At most they will produce short-run , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hate to say it , but without public sentiment on the pro-life side I doubt that even a “ solid ” conservative majority on the Court will overrule Roe—particularly if the votes of Trump appointees are needed to supply the margin of victory .
Most justices embrace—or hide behind the skirt of , depending on your point of view—the doctrine of stare decisis , at least to some degree or in some forms .
Remember Planned Parenthood v. Casey ?
A majority thought Roe wrong ; a majority reaffirmed it nonetheless , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a mistake for pro-lifers to put their faith in Supreme Court appointments .
They disappoint .
True , a Justice Barrett is far better on this score than any liberal appointee imaginable .
But it is a delusion to think that support for Trump equates with the demise of Roe v. Wade , let alone with effective and enduring prohibitions of abortion .
Hoping for a judicial silver bullet is a pro-life fantasy .
The reality is a long struggle to change hearts and minds .
Consigning abortion to the ash heap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not years .
Even if you disagree about the prospect of transformative judicial appointments undoing Roe , you must count the cost in terms of impairment of pro-life values , republican principles , and everything else .
Don ’ t bet the republic on Supreme Court appointments overturning Roe .
There is less to be gained in judges than might initially appear .
( There ’ s also an argument that whatever gains might be expected on this score by a Republican administration have already been achieved .
There is probably less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now than there might have been the first time around . )
My final point is actually the first one : A deal with the Devil is still a deal with the Devil .
And such bargains are wrong in principle .
I know what you ’ re thinking : All politics is compromise , a choice among lesser evils .
The alternative is worse .
No , it isn ’ t .
The alternative is bad , but only ordinarily bad .
Donald Trump is extraordinarily bad—a dagger pointed at the heart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and American unity .
He is dishonest and corrupt to the core , incompetent , and reckless .
He is a true threat to the American order , even if his policy preferences align with yours .
Joe Biden is not .
Biden ’ s politics and policies are largely contrary to my own .
He is hugely unsound on abortion .
But I have voted for him in order to save the republic .
And once our constitutional order is safeguarded , I will promptly turn around and begin working to resist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe are wrong .
But I will do so secure in the knowledge that my side will have an orderly system governed by the rule of law which will make the long-term success of my beliefs possible .
From where I sit , Joe Biden will be a pro-life policy setback .
But , unlike Trump , he is not a threat to the system that might one day produce a pro-life society .
If Biden is president , we will have a functioning system within which to contest policies and proposals with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is reelected , there is a risk that we might cease to have effective , operable checks on abuses of power and abusive policies .
Both choices are bad .
But only one is foundationally bad and closes off the possibility of doing better in the future .
The Deplorables , the Deluded , and the Deniers Not all Trump supporters are “ deplorables ” who affirm his racism , corruption , dishonesty , willful ignorance , incompetence , lawlessness , and authoritarian instincts .
Others—with all due respect—are simply deluded : People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all evidence , that none of the things that his most ardent supporters celebrate are true .
And then there are the deniers and deal makers : Otherwise clear-eyed , well-intended men and women who acknowledge the reality about Trump ’ s character , conduct , and danger , but who nonetheless are willing to look the other way for the sake of abortion .
They excuse , accept , tolerate .
Like the victim of domestic violence who enables , shields , and defends her abuser—because of his good qualities—they are in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence properly .
To those in that category , I appeal to your better judgment .
Is this man really , on balance , good for the pro-life cause ?
Or does he undermine and discredit it , do it long-term damage , and threaten the very foundations of the public framework and institutions that might one day enable a consensus in favor of safeguarding the lives of the unborn ?

This is a story about selling one’s soul.
Specifically, it is a story about those who would trade away their political, moral, and ethical souls and support Donald Trump—against their own better judgment—for the believed benefit of halting the abortion holocaust. Or, at least, who feel they should back Trump out of the perceived need to remain loyal to the pro-life cause. I write to urge you to reconsider.
Because I strongly believe that committed pro-lifers can and should vote against Donald Trump’s reelection.
No one is more committed than I to the pro-life legal and moral position. And if ever there were an issue worth selling one’s soul for, it’s abortion. I am serious about that: If you could trade your own life—your soul, even—to save the lives of millions of human beings, well, a case can be made for doing just that.
But like most deals with the Devil, this one—supporting Trump against your conscience, solely for the sake of abortion—doesn’t really get you anywhere. Whatever benefits it might produce are short-term and, for the most part, illusory and ephemeral. Worse, such a bargain is ultimately counter-productive, undermining the integrity of pro-life people and diminishing the persuasiveness of the pro-life position. This bargain forfeits the very values of compassion, justice, and respect for the lives and well-being of others on which the success of the pro-life movement ultimately depends.
Worst of all, selling your soul for short-term gain—even for a noble and worthy cause—is still selling your soul. Deals with the Devil always backfire in the end. From the unfortunate afternoon in the Garden to Doctor Faustus to Dorian Gray, these things always end badly.
They not only fail to achieve their goals, but destroy those who enter into them.
“Yes, But”—The (Reluctant) Pro-life Case For Trump
One of the arguments I hear from pro-lifers to justify supporting Trump goes something like this:
Yes, there is abundant evidence that Trump is a racist, given what he has said and what he has refused to say: “the Mexican judge” (from Indiana), the “Muslim ban,” restricting immigration from “shithole countries” like “Africa” (!), there being good people on both sides of white supremacist rallies, refusing to condemn identified white supremacist groups. Yes, Trump is also a misogynist and likely serial sexual abuser/harasser. Yes, Trump is heedless, arrogant, dangerously incompetent, and concerned only with himself. Yes, in large part because of these traits, Trump responded incompetently and dismissively to the coronavirus, almost certainly resulting in the avoidable deaths of scores of thousands of people. Yes, Trump is corrupt, almost pathologically dishonest, abusive, and utterly lacking in public (or private) integrity. He almost certainly attempted to obstruct justice in connection with the Mueller investigation. He solicited (or at least encouragingly winked at) Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election. He corruptly bartered vital military and security assistance to Ukraine for its pledge to investigate a U.S. domestic political rival for the presidency. And yes, Trump has disturbingly authoritarian instincts: mindlessly claiming “total authority” over laws, hinting at canceling or postponing elections (if he thinks it necessary) and refusing to agree that he will abide by election results or to call on his supporters not to engage in election violence. (Proud Boys: “Stand back and stand by.”) In short, Trump is a terrible person and a terrible president . . . But he’s good for the pro-life movement and that overrides everything else. Because although he is not a true believer, he knows which side his political bread is buttered on and has adopted a pro-life stance out of transactional convenience. Even though done for purposes of political gain, Trump has agreed to the appointment of solid, conservative justices and judges. And his administration has rescinded and replaced pro-abortion and anti-conscience regulations and policies with much better ones. Trump, whatever his many sins, is good for the pro-life cause. Or at least he’s better than the alternative. He may be a disaster. But he’s our disaster.
Or so the argument goes.
The Drawbacks, Delusions, and Dangers of Deals with the Devil
I concede the force of that argument, at least in its premise. But there are at least four things wrong with it.
First, it is wrong in principle—a betrayal of the moral integrity that must underly the pro-life movement.
Second, it is for that reason discrediting and, ultimately, counterproductive. Trump undermines the values on which the success of the pro-life position ultimately depends and support of Trump likewise undermines those values and tars the position. If one is playing the pro-life long game—which is the only game in town when it comes to changing both the culture and the law on abortion—support of Trump kills our own cause.
Third, the believed gains to the pro-life movement from Trump—mainly judges—are short-term, ephemeral, illusory. They are nowhere near worth the price.
Fourth, support of Trump grossly underestimates the dangers he poses to democracy, stability, and the security of a free republic, which are the foundations upon which everything else depends. Including the effective protection of the right to life.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
A word about each of these points, taken in somewhat reverse order, starting with the last.
First: A stable, secure, properly functioning constitutional republic is an essential precondition of effective protection of the right to life of the unborn.
If there are any who would trade away democracy and republican institutions—who would risk authoritarianism or countenance proto-despotism to any degree—for the sake of real or imagined short-term marginal gains to the pro-life political and legal position, I do not agree with them.
The destruction of our political institutions would leave any pro-life gains without a foundation on which to stand. The state exists to protect life and liberty. Undermine the republic and you undermine the ability of a just community to maintain these basic human rights—and ever to include the right to life among them. Risk democracy and you risk everything; all minor and major political achievements are drowned by the loss of the institutions that enable and undergird them.
Everybody agrees with this precept at some level. I take it for granted that no one would knowingly vote into office an Orbán or a Putin, just because he purported to be pro-life or would appoint pro-life judges. (Though, to be candid, there have been some on American right who seem enamored with such figures.) Most pro-lifers understand that the danger is too great, the harm threatened too irreparable, the perceived gains too illusory and contingent on the very values that such a man would repudiate.
Trump is not, as of now, in the same class as Putin or Orbán. But he does have marked authoritarian instincts and tendencies, is heedless of constitutional and moral restraints on his own power, and has a disturbing cult of followers.
So while you can say that Donald Trump is not (yet) Vladimir Putin, you cannot dismiss out of hand the possibility that a man who talks openly about changing election dates, will not commit to the peaceful transition of power, uses the military and police powers to put down dissent, and flirts with running for a third term might push for the country to experiment with very real soft-authoritarianism.
If one rightly judges that Trump is a danger on this score, then that peril for democracy overwhelms everything else. Because if Donald Trump were to attempt to walk Putin’s or Orbán’s path then it would, among other things, destroy all progress on abortion.
It is eminently reasonable, I submit, to judge a Trump reelection a serious threat in this regard. The pattern is there, the danger is real. These are not liberal delusions. Serious pro-life conservatives (like me) ought to take it seriously. After all, to be conservative is to cherish the republican values of our constitutional order and to seek to preserve, protect, and defend them against all threats, and against all enemies, foreign and domestic. For that constitutional order is what makes all else possible.
Note how far Trump is from embracing these conservative first premises.
Trump is a threat to a stable, secure, republican political order—and thus is a threat to the very preconditions that make the right-to-life of the unborn possible in the first place.
That alone is reason enough for pro-lifers to vote against him.
Undermining Pro-Life Values, Discrediting the Pro-Life Message
Second: Trump affirmatively undermines and discredits the pro-life cause and the pro-life ethical position.
He does this in two related ways.
He undercuts the values on which the success of the pro-life position ultimately depends: compassion, respect for others, valuing all human life, and the Golden Rule of do-unto-others. If we lose these values, then the pro-life movement loses. It’s as simple as that. Abandon these principles and you abandon the long-run objective.
To embrace Trump is to embrace the opposite of the values the pro-life cause needs to succeed. And because of that, embracing Trump discredits the pro-life message. Nothing persuades negatively quite like the demonstration of hypocrisy.
One of the secondary problems with selling your soul is that it’s public. Everybody can see what you’ve done. And even if you’re the kind of person who thinks it’s worth it, the vast majority of people disapprove of such bargains. This is literally a fact of the human experience, in all times and places.
Pro-lifers will lose our witness if we embrace a liar, an abuser of power and of people, a racist, a man thoroughly corrupt and incompetent—for the sake of transactional political advantage. Even if it is in pursuit of a just cause.
As Abraham Lincoln put it in his debate with Stephen Douglas,
[P]ublic sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed.
Lincoln’s insight remains sound. In the long run, it matters more how we shape public sentiment concerning abortion than whether we appoint and confirm pro-life judges. For ultimately, that sentiment shapes the judges more than the other way around.
Persuasion precedes policy. No amount of bullying and bluster can bulldoze the right to life into a reality if it is not first written in the hearts of the people. In this respect, Trump affirmatively harms the pro-life cause. He negatively molds public sentiment on abortion. It is not right, but it is true: the pro-life cause and position is tainted by—deemed guilty by its association with—Donald Trump.
What does it profit the pro-life movement to embrace Trump and forfeit its soul?
Sadly, the most plausible counterargument is that the damage has already been done. It’s too late; we’ve already sold our souls; any impairment of pro-life credibility and integrity—Trump taint—has already been accomplished. We therefore might as well get out of it what we can and keep going down the same road, since repudiating Trump now won’t do any good. What’s done is done.
I reject this cynical stance. As long as Trump is president, he undermines and discredits the pro-life position. The longer he is in office, the greater long-run harm he does to the pro-life cause. The sooner he is gone, the quicker rehabilitation efforts can proceed.
The Short-Term Gains are Slight and Overstated
Third point: The purported pro-life benefits from Trump’s presidency are not all that great because the political and legal gains on abortion are likely to be short-term, ephemeral, and largely illusory.
The primary benefit of a Trump administration is judicial appointments. But important as judges are, success in judicial appointments will not sufficient to accomplish the goals of the pro-life cause. At most they will produce short-run, marginal gains in abortion jurisprudence.
I hate to say it, but without public sentiment on the pro-life side I doubt that even a “solid” conservative majority on the Court will overrule Roe—particularly if the votes of Trump appointees are needed to supply the margin of victory. Most justices embrace—or hide behind the skirt of, depending on your point of view—the doctrine of stare decisis, at least to some degree or in some forms. Remember Planned Parenthood v. Casey? A majority thought Roe wrong; a majority reaffirmed it nonetheless, including “conservative” Republican appointees.
It is a mistake for pro-lifers to put their faith in Supreme Court appointments. They disappoint. True, a Justice Barrett is far better on this score than any liberal appointee imaginable. But it is a delusion to think that support for Trump equates with the demise of Roe v. Wade, let alone with effective and enduring prohibitions of abortion. Hoping for a judicial silver bullet is a pro-life fantasy. The reality is a long struggle to change hearts and minds. Consigning abortion to the ash heap of history is the work of generations, not years.
Even if you disagree about the prospect of transformative judicial appointments undoing Roe, you must count the cost in terms of impairment of pro-life values, republican principles, and everything else. Don’t bet the republic on Supreme Court appointments overturning Roe. There is less to be gained in judges than might initially appear. (There’s also an argument that whatever gains might be expected on this score by a Republican administration have already been achieved. There is probably less justification for accepting Trump on this ground now than there might have been the first time around.)
Point of Principle
My final point is actually the first one: A deal with the Devil is still a deal with the Devil. And such bargains are wrong in principle.
I know what you’re thinking: All politics is compromise, a choice among lesser evils. The alternative is worse.
No, it isn’t. The alternative is bad, but only ordinarily bad. Donald Trump is extraordinarily bad—a dagger pointed at the heart of American democracy, American integrity, and American unity. He is dishonest and corrupt to the core, incompetent, and reckless. He is a true threat to the American order, even if his policy preferences align with yours.
Joe Biden is not. Biden’s politics and policies are largely contrary to my own. He is hugely unsound on abortion. But I have voted for him in order to save the republic.
And once our constitutional order is safeguarded, I will promptly turn around and begin working to resist the parts of his agenda which I believe are wrong. But I will do so secure in the knowledge that my side will have an orderly system governed by the rule of law which will make the long-term success of my beliefs possible.
From where I sit, Joe Biden will be a pro-life policy setback. But, unlike Trump, he is not a threat to the system that might one day produce a pro-life society.
If Biden is president, we will have a functioning system within which to contest policies and proposals with which we disagree emphatically. If Trump is reelected, there is a risk that we might cease to have effective, operable checks on abuses of power and abusive policies.
Both choices are bad. But only one is foundationally bad and closes off the possibility of doing better in the future.
The Deplorables, the Deluded, and the Deniers
Not all Trump supporters are “deplorables” who affirm his racism, corruption, dishonesty, willful ignorance, incompetence, lawlessness, and authoritarian instincts.
Others—with all due respect—are simply deluded: People who have somehow become convinced, against all evidence, that none of the things that his most ardent supporters celebrate are true.
And then there are the deniers and deal makers: Otherwise clear-eyed, well-intended men and women who acknowledge the reality about Trump’s character, conduct, and danger, but who nonetheless are willing to look the other way for the sake of abortion. They excuse, accept, tolerate. Like the victim of domestic violence who enables, shields, and defends her abuser—because of his good qualities—they are in denial. They fail to weigh the evidence properly.
To those in that category, I appeal to your better judgment. Is this man really, on balance, good for the pro-life cause?
Or does he undermine and discredit it, do it long-term damage, and threaten the very foundations of the public framework and institutions that might one day enable a consensus in favor of safeguarding the lives of the unborn?