thebulwark--2020-12-11--How Three Counties Can Help Us Understand Trump’s Shellacking

Given Donald Trump ’ s hold on the GOP—and his rather raucous pursuit of election fraud and tweets and the occasional rally—circular firing squads are more likely to wear red than blue these days .
The MAGA base hates the GOP now , Fox News Channel is losing ground to Newsmax , and , most importantly , hardly anyone wants to admit that Trump got drilled .
Poor losers like Trump are usually the center of these conundrums : he and his supporters insist that they were right even as they got shellacked , while others in the party are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given his capture of the GOP base .
Given the fact that the election fraud lawsuits filed on behalf of Trump have hit the end of the road , the party now has to decide where it wants to be in the 2022 midterms and 2024 general election .
They find themselves stuck : the party has been Trumpified but Trump himself is , obviously , toxic to a majority of the population .
Political pundits are , by and large , missing some basic changes in voting that were key to Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to look at three counties to see how genuflecting before Trump in coming years will make Joe Biden ’ s re-election much easier .
These three counties are in the Midwest “ Blue Wall ” states : Allegheny County ( home of Pittsburgh ) in Pennsylvania , Oakland County ( suburban Detroit ) in Michigan , and Dane County ( home of Madison ) in Wisconsin .
Trump won the three states that house these counties by about 77,000 votes combined in 2016 .
They were the three states that he flipped , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House .
This time Trump lost these states by about 250,000 combined votes .
While some in the Trump circle have tried to say the race was lost in these states in the big cities ( Philadelphia , Detroit and Milwaukee ) it wasn ’ t .
For example , in Philadelphia County , Biden beat Trump by about 4,000 fewer votes than Hillary Rodham Clinton did .
In Allegheny County , Biden beat Trump by about 40,000 more votes than Clinton did .
In other words : Trump won Pennsylvania by 44,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden just about made up that amount in one county .
Dane and Oakland counties performed similarly : all three counties came close to making up Trump ’ s statewide numbers from 2016 , helping make president-elect Joe Biden the winner .
What was the difference ?
Three things : Trump ’ s campaign failed to recognize that the suburban population changed ; women ’ s earnings have gone up in the Midwest states and they are often now the primary breadwinners in their households ; and midterm successes increase turnout by generating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that 2018 midterms in these counties moved the needle in 2020 .
Trump and his campaign missed the fact that the African-American population has increased in the suburbs ( almost half of the black population now lives in the suburbs ) , which caused an unintended counter mobilization .
In Oakland County , for example , the suburban population in the southeast corner is much more urban and much more African-American than it was 10 or 20 years ago .
This county was 93 percent white in 1980 ; it is 75 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racial politics—like his ominous suggestions that milquetoast African-American Sen. Cory Booker ( D. , N.J. ) would destroy the homes of white families—play differently in these counties today .
Another change missed by Trump is that Oakland County ’ s economy has been driven by what they call “ Automation Alley ” : research at the nearby University of Michigan , combined with foreign trade and immigrant/science contributions , powered by the big money from the automakers .
Trump flicked at some of this occasionally , but largely ignored it .
Given that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this county is Asian and most likely working in automobile research , huge tariffs and anti-China rhetoric are not winning messages .
Women in the Rust Belt are now earning more and are a bigger part of the total economic picture than ever before .
Consider that manufacturing jobs are 75 percent male while health care and social service workers are 75 percent female .
Now consider that all three states have seen manufacturing jobs either stay flat or decline , while healthcare jobs have risen steadily .
The swing in actual dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who worked in durable goods manufacturing brought home $ 21 million in January of 2000 , and $ 22 million in January of 2020 .
Compare to healthcare dollars : $ 30 million annually in January 2000 , and $ 74.3 million in 2020 .
The point here is that Trump and the GOP often portrayed the women in the suburbs as mindless wine-box-consuming hausfraus , but what they missed is that they were more often than not the working parent who not only oversaw household spending , but earned quite a bit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Common sense suggests that suburban women were skeptical about Trump before the pandemic , ” said Republican pollster Whit Ayres said in a recent interview with Vox .
“ Having their lives utterly disrupted by school closings and trying to help 6- and 7-year-olds learn virtually while also holding down a job has simply exacerbated their preexisting skepticism about Trump.
” Lastly , the 2018 midterms influenced how these counties voted in 2020 due to new election data that can be used going forward .
Allegheny County had the big congressional redistricting race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conor Lamb won in a district that leaned very much right .
( He was reelected in 2020 . )
In Oakland County , Democratic Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer won the usually red county by 17 points in her first race for the top spot , while the Democratic winners in the secretary of state and attorney general races also reversed the trend .
Dane County has always been a Democratic stronghold , but the key in the Dems bouncing out Republican governor Scott Walker for Tony Evers was that they increased turnout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % in 2018 .
Trump never figured out that local issues with a federal component—freeway construction needs in Oakland County ; healthcare and STEM research in Pittsburgh ; and urban job training and park expansion in Madison—are big factors for voters .
You get votes by sending money back to taxpayers in the form of spending programs where they live .
Some conservatives think they should be preparing legal responses to Biden ’ s promise to sign executive orders in his first month that could undo some of Trump ’ s policies on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have been killed .
The public may not be in a mood for that .
“ To be sure , Trump ’ s petulant refusal to concede is forcing a bit of a kabuki dance , particularly for McConnell and GOP members , to pretend that the election either didn ’ t happen or has yet to be resolved , ” wrote Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report .
“ But once that ’ s resolved , there really is a chance for at least a brief period of moderate stability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for once , neither party is in a position to go too far .
Any coalitions will have to be built from the center out , not from the left or right in.
” What the GOP refuses to acknowledge is very obvious to most everyone else : The media will stop covering Trump ’ s rallies ; his MAGA base will diminish ; and protests against elected officials will go away .
The suggestion that election fraud caused him to lose will subside quickly .
People will be seeking stability rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counties like Dane , Oakland , and Allegheny than not in the next few years .
Finally , and perhaps most importantly , Trump will have no good answer for the following question as time goes on : “ What have you done for me lately ?
” That ’ s usually measured in months and not years .
This is why the idea of Trump running in 2024 almost seems like bad fiction : not only is he a loser , he won ’ t be able to deliver anything to his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ form of rallies .
Consider the attention span of the American public these days and then think of how Trump will be perceived in 2024 .
Republicans have a choice .
Take some short-term heat from Trump and his most dedicated fans by ditching him now .
Or carry him around the party ’ s neck like an albatross , alienating voters in must-win suburban counties in 2022 along the way—which would in turn imperil their chances in 2024 of defeating Joe Biden ’ s reelection efforts .

Given Donald Trump’s hold on the GOP—and his rather raucous pursuit of election fraud and tweets and the occasional rally—circular firing squads are more likely to wear red than blue these days. The MAGA base hates the GOP now, Fox News Channel is losing ground to Newsmax, and, most importantly, hardly anyone wants to admit that Trump got drilled.
Poor losers like Trump are usually the center of these conundrums: he and his supporters insist that they were right even as they got shellacked, while others in the party are loath to turn their back on him given his capture of the GOP base. Given the fact that the election fraud lawsuits filed on behalf of Trump have hit the end of the road, the party now has to decide where it wants to be in the 2022 midterms and 2024 general election. They find themselves stuck: the party has been Trumpified but Trump himself is, obviously, toxic to a majority of the population.
Political pundits are, by and large, missing some basic changes in voting that were key to Trump losing. In particular, they need to look at three counties to see how genuflecting before Trump in coming years will make Joe Biden’s re-election much easier.
These three counties are in the Midwest “Blue Wall” states: Allegheny County (home of Pittsburgh) in Pennsylvania, Oakland County (suburban Detroit) in Michigan, and Dane County (home of Madison) in Wisconsin. Trump won the three states that house these counties by about 77,000 votes combined in 2016. They were the three states that he flipped, and they put him in the White House.
This time Trump lost these states by about 250,000 combined votes. While some in the Trump circle have tried to say the race was lost in these states in the big cities (Philadelphia, Detroit, and Milwaukee), it wasn’t. For example, in Philadelphia County, Biden beat Trump by about 4,000 fewer votes than Hillary Rodham Clinton did. In Allegheny County, Biden beat Trump by about 40,000 more votes than Clinton did. In other words: Trump won Pennsylvania by 44,000 or so votes in 2016, and Biden just about made up that amount in one county.
Dane and Oakland counties performed similarly: All three counties came close to making up Trump’s statewide numbers from 2016, helping make president-elect Biden the winner.
What was the difference? Three things: Trump’s campaign failed to recognize that the suburban population changed; women’s earnings have gone up in the Midwest states and they are often now the primary breadwinners in their households; and midterm successes increase turnout by generating new voters, as seen by the fact that 2018 midterms in these counties moved the needle in 2020.
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…
Trump and his campaign missed the fact that the African-American population has increased in the suburbs (almost half of the black population now lives in the suburbs), which caused an unintended counter mobilization. In Oakland County, for example, the suburban population in the southeast corner is much more urban and much more African-American than it was 10 or 20 years ago. This county was 93 percent white in 1980; it is 75 percent white now. Trump’s racial politics—like his ominous suggestions that milquetoast African-American Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.) would destroy the homes of white families—play differently in these counties today.
Another change missed by Trump is that Oakland County’s economy has been driven by what they call “Automation Alley”: research at the nearby University of Michigan, combined with foreign trade and immigrant/science contributions, powered by the big money from the automakers. Trump flicked at some of this occasionally, but largely ignored it. Given that 59 percent of the foreign-born population in this county is Asian and most likely working in automobile research, huge tariffs and anti-China rhetoric are not winning messages.
Women in the Rust Belt are now earning more and are a bigger part of the total economic picture than ever before. Consider that manufacturing jobs are 75 percent male while health care and social service workers are 75 percent female. Now consider that all three states have seen manufacturing jobs either stay flat or decline, while healthcare jobs have risen steadily.
The swing in actual dollars is huge. In Pennsylvania, those who worked in durable goods manufacturing brought home $21 million in January of 2000, and $22 million in January of 2020. Compare to healthcare dollars: $30 million annually in January 2000, and $74.3 million in 2020. The point here is that Trump and the GOP often portrayed the women in the suburbs as mindless wine-box-consuming hausfraus, but what they missed is that they were more often than not the working parent who not only oversaw household spending, but earned quite a bit of what was spent too.
“Common sense suggests that suburban women were skeptical about Trump before the pandemic,” said Republican pollster Whit Ayres said in a recent interview with Vox. “Having their lives utterly disrupted by school closings and trying to help 6- and 7-year-olds learn virtually while also holding down a job has simply exacerbated their preexisting skepticism about Trump.”
Lastly, the 2018 midterms influenced how these counties voted in 2020 due to new election data that can be used going forward.
Allegheny County had the big congressional redistricting race in 2018, in which moderate Democrat Conor Lamb won in a district that leaned very much right. (He was reelected in 2020.) In Oakland County, Democratic Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer won the usually red county by 17 points in her first race for the top spot, while the Democratic winners in the secretary of state and attorney general races also reversed the trend. Dane County has always been a Democratic stronghold, but the key in the Dems bouncing out Republican governor Scott Walker for Tony Evers was that they increased turnout from 72.9 percent in 2014 to 88 percent in 2018.
Trump never figured out that local issues with a federal component—freeway construction needs in Oakland County; healthcare and STEM research in Pittsburgh; and urban job training and park expansion in Madison—are big factors for voters. You get votes by sending money back to taxpayers in the form of spending programs where they live.
Some conservatives think they should be preparing legal responses to Biden’s promise to sign executive orders in his first month that could undo some of Trump’s policies on immigration, foreign policy, and restoring programs that have been killed. The public may not be in a mood for that.
“To be sure, Trump’s petulant refusal to concede is forcing a bit of a kabuki dance, particularly for McConnell and GOP members, to pretend that the election either didn’t happen or has yet to be resolved,” wrote Charlie Cook of the Cook Political Report. “But once that’s resolved, there really is a chance for at least a brief period of moderate stability and measured governing, simply because, for once, neither party is in a position to go too far. Any coalitions will have to be built from the center out, not from the left or right in.”
What the GOP refuses to acknowledge is very obvious to most everyone else: The media will stop covering Trump’s rallies; his MAGA base will diminish; and protests against elected officials will go away. The suggestion that election fraud caused him to lose will subside quickly. People will be seeking stability rather than chaos, and there will be more counties like Dane, Oakland, and Allegheny than not in the next few years.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Trump will have no good answer for the following question as time goes on: “What have you done for me lately?” That’s usually measured in months and not years. This is why the idea of Trump running in 2024 almost seems like bad fiction: Not only is he a loser, he won’t be able to deliver anything to his voters aside from in-person spectacle in the form of rallies. Consider the attention span of the American public these days and then think of how Trump will be perceived in 2024.
Republicans have a choice. Take some short-term heat from Trump and his most dedicated fans by ditching him now. Or carry him around the party’s neck like an albatross, alienating voters in must-win suburban counties in 2022 along the way—which would in turn imperil their chances in 2024 of defeating Biden’s reelection efforts.


thebulwark--2020-12-11--What’s a Little Abuse of Power Among Friends?

Let it be known that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is not the most ethical person .
Which is probably why he agreed to be co-chair of Lawyers for Trump and had no qualms about filing a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court to cancel votes in Pennsylvania , Georgia , Michigan , and Wisconsin to overthrow Joe Biden ’ s Electoral College victory and give Donald Trump four more years as president .
It wouldn ’ t be the first time Paxton has been accused of abusing his office to help a pal .
In October , seven of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assistant attorney general , signed a letter claiming they all had “ a good faith belief that the Attorney General is violating federal and/or state law , including prohibitions relating to improper influence , abuse of office , bribery , and other potential criminal offenses.
” At issue are a number of official actions Paxton took to help out his wealthy real-estate developer friend and campaign donor , Nate Paul .
Long story short , Paxton is accused of appointing a special prosecutor to target “ adversaries ” of Paul and taking unusual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s lawsuit against him .
Why ?
One possible reason that has been presented : Paxton associates have told the press that Paul allegedly agreed to hire a former Paxton staffer with whom Paxton had an affair .
The FBI is currently investigating the whistleblowers ’ allegations .
And KVUE reported Thursday evening , hours after Paxton attended a private lunch with Trump , that federal authorities issued Paxton ’ s office a subpoena for records the previous day .
Paxton has denied any kind of pardon was discussed , but it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ From the brief , it looks like a fella begging for a pardon filed a PR stunt rather than a lawsuit , ” said Sen. Ben Sasse , one of the few Republicans to come out criticizing Paxton ’ s lawsuit .
“ All of its assertions have already been rejected by federal courts and Texas ’ s own solicitor general isn ’ t signing on.
” The FBI investigation isn ’ t Paxton ’ s only legal problem , though .
He is also under indictment by the state for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case that has been curiously stalled in the courts for the last five years .
And , if that ever goes forward , there ’ s no presidential pardon for state crimes .
Through it all , Paxton ’ s wife has remained firmly by his side .
Which also comes with a dose of ethical drama .
Angela Paxton is a state senator , elected in 2018 .
One of her first official acts was to file legislation that would decriminalize the very securities law her husband was arrested for breaking .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sold it as a “ consumer-protection ” bill .
If Ken Paxton were a more imposing figure , his shenanigans could probably serve as inspiration for a new season of Billions .
The big sticking point is , thanks to his SCOTUS filing for Trump , he ’ s now more well known for his exceptionally abysmal legal skills than his ethical lapses .
Even more so than his wife for the exceptionally abysmal songs she sings , a cringeworthy marital accomplishment , indeed : Yeah , that ’ s her out on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and twanging a little tune she wrote about how “ I ’ m a pistol-packin ’ momma , and my husband sues Obama.
” Not even the Veep writers would make Selina Meyer suffer through that kind of humiliation .
Yet , this is the stuff real politics is made of , where nothing is ever as smart , sleek , and steamy as it is on Netflix , but dumber than screenwriters could ever imagine .
Paxton ’ s lawsuit is so bad that Texas ’ s solicitor general—the official who would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court , and who was appointed by Paxton—has refused to have anything to do with it .
Similarly , Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy , who previously served as a top aide to Paxton and chief of staff to Sen. Ted Cruz , wrote “ I believe the case itself represents a dangerous violation of federalism & sets a precedent to have one state asking federal courts to police the voting procedures of other states.
“ This isn ’ t Roy ’ s first time calling out Paxton ; he also called for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s aides went public with their complaints .
Still , 18 GOP attorneys general and 106 Republican members of Congress are going along with Paxton ’ s nonsensical bid to nullify votes in four states that didn ’ t go for Trump .
Some of them may actually believe in the president ’ s election conspiracies .
But , most are probably just playing along with Trump ’ s seditious delusions because they see no downside in engaging in some constitutional crisis kayfabe .
On Monday , Sen. Cruz agreed to argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lobbed into the lap of the Supreme Court .
The Court tossed away that lawsuit like a hot potato , as everyone expected it would—which is probably why Cruz agreed to argue the case in the first place .
It ’ s like offering your kidney to a sick friend who you secretly know isn ’ t a blood match .
You look like a hero while fully confident it would never functionally work out anyway .
Maybe that also explains why Paxton filed his lawsuit .
Maybe he thinks of it as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not a serious case that will lead to anything actionable .
The rotten thing is that Paxton , and all the state attorneys general and members of Congress who signed the amicus briefs , are all abusing their official offices to do it , which is its own low form of corruption .
Because sleaze isn ’ t always about indictments and crimes , although Paxton is well acquainted with those .
There ’ s plenty of perfectly legal soft deceits in plain sight .
Like the basic act of enlisting government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overturn an election , whether or not it ’ s in hopes of snagging a presidential pardon .
Or , using taxpayer-funded staff to pump out press releases supporting the whole farce , to make it seem legit .
These are all official acts done for the purpose of currying favor with someone—Trump .
No one is going to go to jail for it , but it sure is gross .
That kind of crooked thinking is why Paxton may one day find himself on trial , rather than fulfilling Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Pennsylvania , Georgia , Michigan , and Wisconsin to the Supreme Court .
One has to wonder why so many Republicans think he ’ s a good person to take any kind of legal advice from .

Let it be known that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is not the most ethical person.
Which is probably why he agreed to be co-chair of Lawyers for Trump and had no qualms about filing a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court to cancel votes in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin to overthrow Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory and give Donald Trump four more years as president.
It wouldn’t be the first time Paxton has been accused of abusing his office to help a pal.
In October, seven of his senior lawyers, including his first assistant attorney general, signed a letter claiming they all had “a good faith belief that the Attorney General is violating federal and/or state law, including prohibitions relating to improper influence, abuse of office, bribery, and other potential criminal offenses.”
At issue are a number of official actions Paxton took to help out a wealthy real-estate developer friend and campaign donor, Nate Paul. Long story short, Paxton is accused of appointing a special prosecutor to target “adversaries” of Paul and taking unusual steps to intervene in a charity’s lawsuit against him. Why? One possible reason that has been presented: Paxton associates have told the press that Paul allegedly agreed to hire a former Paxton staffer with whom Paxton had had an affair. The FBI is currently investigating the whistleblowers’ allegations. And KVUE reported Thursday evening, hours after Paxton attended a private lunch with Trump, that federal authorities issued Paxton’s office a subpoena for records the previous day.
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…
Paxton has denied any kind of pardon was discussed, but it’s hard to take that denial seriously. “From the [Supreme Court] brief, it looks like a fella begging for a pardon filed a PR stunt rather than a lawsuit,” said Sen. Ben Sasse, one of the few Republicans to come out criticizing Paxton this week. “All of its assertions have already been rejected by federal courts and Texas’s own solicitor general isn’t signing on.”
The FBI investigation isn’t Paxton’s only legal problem, though. He is also under indictment by the state for securities fraud, in an entirely separate case that has been curiously stalled in the courts for the last five years. And, if that ever goes forward, there’s no presidential pardon for state crimes.
Through it all, Paxton’s wife has remained firmly by his side. Which also comes with a dose of ethical drama. Angela Paxton is a state senator, elected in 2018. One of her first official acts was to file legislation that would decriminalize the very securities law her husband was arrested for breaking. To make it sound less obvious she sold it as a “consumer-protection” bill.
If Ken Paxton were a more imposing figure, his shenanigans could probably serve as inspiration for a new season of Billions. The big sticking point is, thanks to his SCOTUS filing for Trump, he’s now more well known for his exceptionally abysmal legal skills than his ethical lapses. Even more so than his wife for the exceptionally abysmal songs she sings, a cringeworthy marital accomplishment, indeed: Yeah, that’s her out on the campaign trail, strumming a guitar and twanging a little tune she wrote about how “I’m a pistol-packin’ momma, and my husband sues Obama.”
I'm a pistol packin mama and my husband sues Obama song
Watch this video on YouTube
Not even the Veep writers would make Selina Meyer suffer through that kind of humiliation. Yet this is the stuff real politics is made of, where nothing is ever as smart, sleek, and steamy as it is on Netflix, but dumber than screenwriters could ever imagine.
Paxton’s lawsuit is so bad that Texas’s solicitor general—the official who would normally argue such cases before the Supreme Court, and who was appointed by Paxton—has refused to have anything to do with it. Similarly, Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy, who previously served as a top aide to Paxton and chief of staff to Sen. Ted Cruz, wrote “I believe the case itself represents a dangerous violation of federalism & sets a precedent to have one state asking federal courts to police the voting procedures of other states.” This isn’t Roy’s first time calling out Paxton; he also called for Paxton to resign in October when Paxton’s aides went public with their complaints.
Still, 18 GOP attorneys general and 106 Republican members of Congress are going along with Paxton’s nonsensical bid to nullify votes in four states that didn’t go for Trump.
Some of them may actually believe in the president’s election conspiracies. But, most are probably just playing along with Trump’s seditious delusions because they see no downside in engaging in some constitutional crisis kayfabe.
On Monday, Sen. Cruz agreed to argue another of the ridiculous and anti-democratic lawsuits lobbed into the lap of the Supreme Court. The Court tossed away that lawsuit like a hot potato, as everyone expected it would—which is probably why Cruz agreed to argue the case in the first place. It’s like offering your kidney to a sick friend whom you secretly know isn’t a blood match. You look like a hero while fully confident it would never functionally work out anyway.
Maybe that also explains why Paxton filed his lawsuit. Maybe he thinks of it as mere legal lip service for a friend, not a serious case that will lead to anything actionable.
The rotten thing is that Paxton, and all the state attorneys general and members of Congress who signed the amicus briefs, are all abusing their offices to do it, which is its own low form of corruption.
Because sleaze isn’t always about indictments and crimes, although Paxton is well acquainted with those. There’s plenty of perfectly legal soft deceits in plain sight.
Like the basic act of enlisting government lawyers to make a bogus case to overturn an election, whether or not it’s in hopes of snagging a presidential pardon. Or, using taxpayer-funded staff to pump out press releases supporting the whole farce, to make it seem legit.
These are all official acts done for the purpose of currying favor with someone—Trump. No one is going to go to jail for it, but it sure is gross.
That kind of crooked thinking is why Paxton may one day find himself on trial, rather than fulfilling Trump’s lurid MAGA fantasy of dragging the states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin to the Supreme Court.
One has to wonder why so many Republicans think he’s a good person to take any kind of legal advice from.


thebulwark--2020-12-11--State and Local Governments Need Help. Pass COVID Relief Now.

Should Congress pass another COVID relief package ?
The deliberations continue , with one of the sticking points being whether the federal government should provide additional aid to state and local governments and , if so , how much .
On balance , we see a relatively strong argument in favor of a moderate amount of further relief .
The disagreement on this point is , to a certain extent , understandable .
State and local government revenues have decreased , while expenditures needs have simultaneously risen .
However , Congress has already responded with non-trivial relief .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On the revenue side , our estimates suggest that state and local governments will suffer revenue shortfalls of some $ 300 billion from April 2020 through June of 2021 , when the current fiscal year ends for most states .
On the funding side of the ledger , Alan Auerbach and co-authors find in a recent Brookings paper that federal aid so far has amounted to $ 250 billion .
This number includes , among other things , money from the Coronavirus Relief Fund and the net effect of increased spending and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In addition , state and local governments entered the crisis with combined budget surpluses and rainy-day funds of some $ 120 billion .
Put that together and you have $ 370 billion available— $ 70 billion more than the predicted shortfall .
This is a greater amount than the additional expenditures ( outside the Medicaid program ) we expect state and local governments to incur in response to the public-health crisis .
So in the aggregate , state and local governments have probably received enough federal aid to make up for revenue losses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rainy-day funds and pre-crisis budget surpluses into account .
However , “ in the aggregate ” and “ the current fiscal year ” are doing a lot of work here .
What happened “ in the aggregate ” has only so much importance since revenue sources and spending needs differ substantially across states and local entities .
As a result , while the least strained states and localities may have been made whole by federal aid , the most fiscally distressed states are now tightly bound by their balanced budget requirements .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off significant numbers of workers .
( Since the beginning of the pandemic , state and local government employment has decreased by over a million jobs . )
Moreover , some revenue losses may still be rising .
The blow to transit agencies , for example , may be worse than initially foreseen , and the rise in COVID-19 cases makes it unlikely that this strain will abate in the near future .
And while there are two quarters left in the current fiscal year for most jurisdictions , what will happen in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crucial importance as state and local policymakers go into a new budget and planning cycle .
We see a strong case for , and a weak case against , additional state and local aid between $ 100 billion and $ 200 billion , as proposed in a recent bipartisan , bicameral relief proposal .
The case for additional aid is strong because the downside risk of doing nothing is quite real .
The fact that over 1 million state and local government workers have lost their jobs is a sign that fiscal distress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view , the case against substantial , though by no means extravagant , additional aid is weak .
Opponents of further aid cite two concerns : poor incentives and future taxes .
Let ’ s take each in turn .
The “ poor incentives ” argument views federal aid as a form of bailout .
Bailouts encourage future profligacy when they reward poor fiscal management— “ moral hazard.
” Detractors of state and local government aid have been particularly fixated on the idea that aid would “ bail out unfunded pension obligations.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasons .
First , the argument misunderstands existing proposals .
We support general aid distributed to all states , perhaps proportional to each state ’ s population .
We oppose aid that would be contingent on a state ’ s degree of fiscal stress or the linking of aid to holes in underfunded pension schemes .
Second , states ’ current fiscal stress is only loosely related to poor fiscal management .
After the global financial crisis , the conventional wisdom was that states ought to adopt broad-based consumption taxes and eschew the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This view was generally sound—but the states that acted on it may actually be the worst hit by COVID-19 .
Consumption taxes , particularly those that include services , have been hard hit .
At the same time , progressive income bases have been unexpectedly spared due to the pandemic ’ s pernicious effects on relatively low-paying jobs .
To be sure , many states could have done better in their accumulation of reserves in their rainy-day funds .
But again , the aid we propose would neither reward nor punish states based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiscal performance .
And overflowing rainy-day funds pose their own challenge , of course , in that they encourage wasteful spending .
Finally , while we view the “ bailout ” argument as largely misguided , we view future taxes as a relevant and appropriate concern .
Taxes tomorrow are the cost of federal aid today , and these costs and benefits must be weighed against one another .
We view additional aid between $ 100 billion and $ 200 billion as a reasonable compromise between these competing concerns .
In the short @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of fiscal stabilization .
It will enable the hardest hit states to stave off additional layoffs .
It can also ensure that state and local governments have the capacity to invest in vaccine distribution , which is the key to ending the health crisis as quickly as possible .
And aid passed today will also reduce the scope of any additional aid that may be required in the future .
If the crisis persists or grows unexpectedly deeper , aid given today will be a down payment on aid tomorrow .

Jeffrey Clemens, Benedic Ippolito, and Stan Veuger

Should Congress pass another COVID relief package? The deliberations continue, with one of the sticking points being whether the federal government should provide additional aid to state and local governments and, if so, how much.
On balance, we see a relatively strong argument in favor of a moderate amount of further relief.
The disagreement on this point is, to a certain extent, understandable. State and local government revenues have decreased, while expenditures needs have simultaneously risen. However, Congress has already responded with non-trivial relief. It is not obvious how these factors net out.
On the revenue side, our estimates suggest that state and local governments will suffer revenue shortfalls of some $300 billion from April 2020 through June of 2021, when the current fiscal year ends for most states. On the funding side of the ledger, Alan Auerbach and co-authors find in a recent Brookings paper that federal aid so far has amounted to $250 billion. This number includes, among other things, money from the Coronavirus Relief Fund and the net effect of increased spending and federal transfers in the Medicaid program.
In addition, state and local governments entered the crisis with combined budget surpluses and rainy-day funds of some $120 billion. Put that together and you have $370 billion available—$70 billion more than the predicted shortfall. This is a greater amount than the additional expenditures (outside the Medicaid program) we expect state and local governments to incur in response to the public-health crisis.
So in the aggregate, state and local governments have probably received enough federal aid to make up for revenue losses throughout the current fiscal year—if we take rainy-day funds and pre-crisis budget surpluses into account.
However, “in the aggregate” and “the current fiscal year” are doing a lot of work here.
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…
What happened “in the aggregate” has only so much importance since revenue sources and spending needs differ substantially across states and local entities.
As a result, while the least strained states and localities may have been made whole by federal aid, the most fiscally distressed states are now tightly bound by their balanced budget requirements. In fact, some of them have laid off significant numbers of workers. (Since the beginning of the pandemic, state and local government employment has decreased by over a million jobs.)
Moreover, some revenue losses may still be rising. The blow to transit agencies, for example, may be worse than initially foreseen, and the rise in COVID-19 cases makes it unlikely that this strain will abate in the near future. And while there are two quarters left in the current fiscal year for most jurisdictions, what will happen in the next fiscal year is becoming of crucial importance as state and local policymakers go into a new budget and planning cycle.
We see a strong case for, and a weak case against, additional state and local aid between $100 billion and $200 billion, as proposed in a recent bipartisan, bicameral relief proposal.
The case for additional aid is strong because the downside risk of doing nothing is quite real. The fact that over 1 million state and local government workers have lost their jobs is a sign that fiscal distress has had real consequences.
In our view, the case against substantial, though by no means extravagant, additional aid is weak. Opponents of further aid cite two concerns: poor incentives and future taxes. Let’s take each in turn.
The “poor incentives” argument views federal aid as a form of bailout. Bailouts encourage future profligacy when they reward poor fiscal management—“moral hazard.” Detractors of state and local government aid have been particularly fixated on the idea that aid would “bail out unfunded pension obligations.”
This argument is largely unapplicable for two reasons. First, the argument misunderstands existing proposals. We support general aid distributed to all states, perhaps proportional to each state’s population. We oppose aid that would be contingent on a state’s degree of fiscal stress or the linking of aid to holes in underfunded pension schemes.
Second, states’ current fiscal stress is only loosely related to poor fiscal management.
After the global financial crisis, the conventional wisdom was that states ought to adopt broad-based consumption taxes and eschew the volatility of progressive personal income taxes.
This view was generally sound—but the states that acted on it may actually be the worst hit by COVID-19. Consumption taxes, particularly those that include services, have been hard hit. At the same time, progressive income bases have been unexpectedly spared due to the pandemic’s pernicious effects on relatively low-paying jobs.
To be sure, many states could have done better in their accumulation of reserves in their rainy-day funds. But again, the aid we propose would neither reward nor punish states based on this particular aspect of their past fiscal performance. And overflowing rainy-day funds pose their own challenge, of course, in that they encourage wasteful spending.
Finally, while we view the “bailout” argument as largely misguided, we view future taxes as a relevant and appropriate concern. Taxes tomorrow are the cost of federal aid today, and these costs and benefits must be weighed against one another. We view additional aid between $100 billion and $200 billion as a reasonable compromise between these competing concerns.
In the short run, aid is a valuable source of fiscal stabilization. It will enable the hardest hit states to stave off additional layoffs. It can also ensure that state and local governments have the capacity to invest in vaccine distribution, which is the key to ending the health crisis as quickly as possible.
And aid passed today will also reduce the scope of any additional aid that may be required in the future. If the crisis persists or grows unexpectedly deeper, aid given today will be a down payment on aid tomorrow.


thebulwark--2020-12-11--Secessionists Join Republican Effort to Steal the Election

A group of secessionists out West who have branded their states “ New California ” and “ New Nevada ” —no word from New New York—filed an amicus brief today joining with 100-plus Republican leaders urging the Supreme Court to cancel the legally cast votes of millions of Americans in four states and reinstall President Donald Trump against the will of the people .
This is not a trolly take on American news using the tropes normally employed to describe events in Third World countries .
It is a simple accounting of what the totalitarian party has become .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president himself , the runner-up in the last presidential primary , the House majority leader , and the chief law-enforcement officials in 17 states—is teaming up with a crank secessionist movement for a coup .
That is where we are at .
The latest distinguished gentleman to join this effort is Robert Thomas , a real-life Cousin Eddie-style conspiracist living somewhere near a nuclear testing site in Nevada but filing with the Court as a member of the ( Old ) California bar .
Thomas is currently the chairman of the New Nevada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written in support of the Texas attorney general ’ s proposed constitutional coup-via-SCOTUS , Thomas begins by addressing the question of standing , stating that the creation of “ New California State and New Nevada Sate [ sic ] is to stop the lawless actions of Governors Newsome [ sic again ] and Sisolak.
” A rocky start , sure , but in fairness to Mr. Thomas , we can likely attribute these errors to the frankly elitist Supreme Court policy rejecting briefs in his natural form : cut-out magazine letters pasted onto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s closing request for the Court is to validate the standing of two new states that have seceded from the Union as well as to approve the efforts of his comrades-in-arms to invalidate the election by judicial fiat .
There it is .
“ Judicial restraint ” in action .
This astonishingly undemocratic filing echoes the tin-foil screeds Thomas has been sending off to local media outlets and , I presume , shouting about at his local supermarket .
Last year he wrote a letter to the editor of the Pahrump Valley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tyrannical democracy ” and that laws that usurp God ’ s rights are “ not to be obeyed.
” Here ’ s the thing .
Crazy , bored coots in Nevada tootling off letters to the editor about the end times and overthrowing tyrants is nothing particularly new or noteworthy .
If Jon Ralston had a nickel for every one of these guys he ’ s met out there he ’ d be Jeff Bezos .
What ’ s new is that the coot claiming that democracy is tyrannical and must be disobeyed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the other Supreme Court briefs being filed by a preponderance of the members of a major political party .
Ted Cruz has offered to argue something not too dissimilar from Thomas ’ s secession+coup SCOTUS double header .
Liddle Marco thinks these filings are indistinguishable from those oh-so-heinous court cases that “ redefined marriage.
” ( Marco wanted to maintain the more traditional , Biblical marriage of one man fucking a porn star while his third wife is in labor . )
Again : 17 Republican AGs have filed briefs alongside Thomas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House of Representatives ( up from 106 just yesterday .
Momentum ! )
.
The president ’ s Twitter feed indicates that , if anything , he doesn ’ t think the secession+coup gambit goes far enough .
Meanwhile , graybeard conservative “ thinkers ” are signing a letter in support of a similar scheme .
That ’ s what it has come to in December 2020 .
The crazy FW : FW : FW : email guy ranting about how “ democracy is tyranny ” is a replacement-level participant in a Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tyrannical democracy is now the entry-level position .
The New Nevada Party is the GOP and the GOP is the New Nevada Party .

[Editor’s note: Soon after this article was published, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit described here.]
A group of secessionists out West who have branded their states “New California” and “New Nevada”—no word from New New York—filed an amicus brief today joining with 100-plus Republican leaders urging the Supreme Court to cancel the legally cast votes of millions of Americans in four states and reinstall President Donald Trump against the will of the people.
This is not a trolly take on American news using the tropes normally employed to describe events in Third World countries. It is a simple accounting of what the totalitarian party has become.
The majority of the Republican party establishment—including the president himself, the runner-up in the last presidential primary, the House majority leader, and the chief law-enforcement officials in 17 states—is teaming up with a crank secessionist movement for a coup.
That is where we are at.
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 latest distinguished gentleman to join this effort is Robert Thomas, a real-life Cousin Eddie-style conspiracist living somewhere near a nuclear testing site in Nevada but filing with the Court as a member of the (Old) California bar. Thomas is currently the chairman of the New Nevada State movement.
In an amicus brief written in support of the Texas attorney general’s proposed constitutional coup-via-SCOTUS, Thomas begins by addressing the question of standing, stating that the creation of “New California State and New Nevada Sate [sic] is to stop the lawless actions of Governors Newsome [sic again] and Sisolak.”
A rocky start, sure, but in fairness to Mr. Thomas, we can likely attribute these errors to the frankly elitist Supreme Court policy rejecting briefs in his natural form: cut-out magazine letters pasted onto a piece of construction paper.
Thomas’s closing request for the Court is to validate the standing of two new states that have seceded from the Union as well as to approve the efforts of his comrades-in-arms to invalidate the election by judicial fiat.
There it is. “Judicial restraint” in action.
This astonishingly undemocratic filing echoes the tin-foil screeds Thomas has been sending off to local media outlets and, I presume, shouting about at his local supermarket. Last year he wrote a letter to the editor of the Pahrump Valley Times about how Nevada was a “tyrannical democracy” and that laws that usurp God’s rights are “not to be obeyed.”
Here’s the thing. Crazy, bored coots in Nevada tootling off letters to the editor about the end times and overthrowing tyrants is nothing particularly new or noteworthy. If Jon Ralston had a nickel for every one of these guys he’s met out there he’d be Jeff Bezos.
What’s new is that the coot claiming that democracy is tyrannical and must be disobeyed is making an argument that fits perfectly with the other Supreme Court briefs being filed by a preponderance of the members of a major political party.
Ted Cruz has offered to argue something not too dissimilar from Thomas’s secession+coup SCOTUS double header. Liddle Marco thinks these filings are indistinguishable from those oh-so-heinous court cases that “redefined marriage.” (Marco wanted to maintain the more traditional, Biblical marriage of one man fucking a porn star while his third wife is in labor.)
Again: 17 Republican AGs have filed briefs alongside Thomas, supported by 126 members of the House of Representatives (up from 106 just yesterday. Momentum!). The president’s Twitter feed indicates that, if anything, he doesn’t think the secession+coup gambit goes far enough. Meanwhile, graybeard conservative “thinkers” are signing a letter in support of a similar scheme.
That’s what it has come to in December 2020. The crazy FW: FW: FW: email guy ranting about how “democracy is tyranny” is a replacement-level participant in a Republican party and conservative establishment for whom overthrowing tyrannical democracy is now the entry-level position.
The New Nevada Party is the GOP and the GOP is the New Nevada Party.


thebulwark--2020-12-11--George Shultz at 100

George Shultz at 100

In early November 1986 , just days after the midterm elections , the biggest scandal of the Reagan presidency broke .
In what would come to be known as the Iran-Contra affair , U.S. officials had sold arms to Iran in return for Iran ’ s cooperation to free American hostages in Lebanon , then illegally sent that money to anti-Marxist rebels in Nicaragua .
Journalists began to sink their teeth into the controversy , some speculating about whether the secretary of state should be fired or resign .
George Shultz , who had been in the job for four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scheme , but it went forward in secret without his knowledge .
Now , following the coverage in the newspapers and on TV , he knew that the remaining months of the Reagan presidency could well be dominated by the biggest political crisis since Watergate .
“ I knew my job was on the line , ” Shultz recalled in his 1993 memoir , Turmoil and Triumph .
“ But proud as I was to be secretary of state and conscious as I was of possible achievements of great significance , I knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much.
” As he was grappling with these questions of scandal and service , career and country , Shultz got a phone call .
It was Charles Krauthammer .
Shultz ’ s resignation , the columnist said , would be a disaster : “ The wrong man always resigns in cases like this.
” Shultz stayed through the crisis—and through the end of the Reagan presidency .
And he would deservedly be remembered among the greatest secretaries of state , one who deftly combined America ’ s economic and military might with its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
George Pratt Shultz was born in midtown Manhattan on December 13 , 1920—so this weekend he celebrates his hundredth birthday , a fitting occasion to look back at his life and career .
Shultz ’ s father had a Ph.D. in history from Columbia but had left academia to work on the New York Stock Exchange .
Young George was raised to love books .
At Princeton , where he had a tattoo of the school ’ s tiger mascot inked on his posterior , he studied economics and international affairs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ then-still-new Tennessee Valley Authority .
During Shultz ’ s senior year at Princeton , Japan attacked Pearl Harbor .
Eager to join the war , he “ tried to enlist in the Royal Canadian Air Force as a way of getting over there and doing my part , ” he wrote in his memoir , “ but my eyes weren ’ t good enough to pass their test.
” Instead , he joined the U.S. Marine Corps , where he was commissioned a second lieutenant .
“ Take good care of this rifle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in boot camp .
“ It ’ s your best friend .
And remember one thing : Never point it at anybody unless you ’ re willing to pull the trigger.
” Serving as an artillery officer in the Pacific theater , he participated in the battles for two of the lower islands of Palau .
After returning from the war , Shultz went to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for graduate studies in industrial economics .
Because of the timing—he started in fall 1945 , immediately after the war ’ s end—there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course with future Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson , Shultz had only one classmate .
For one statistics course in which he was the only student , the professor held class peripatetically .
In 1946 , Shultz married Helena “ O ’ Bie ” O ’ Brien , a military nurse he had met two years earlier when stationed in Hawaii .
After finishing his Ph.D. in 1949 , he stayed at MIT to teach .
In 1955 , the young academic briefly joined President Eisenhower ’ s Council of Economic Advisers .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not to the economics department—although he would befriend its future Nobel laureates George Stigler , who sold Shultz his dining-room furniture , and Milton Friedman—but as a professor in , and eventually dean of , the graduate school of business .
President Nixon , at the advice of a mutual friend , economist Arthur Burns , recruited Shultz to be his first secretary of labor , marking Shultz ’ s entry into top-tier politics .
He would hold two other cabinet posts under Nixon : director of the Office of Management and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the treasury .
In those capacities , he would privately negotiate desegregation of schools and the workforce and impose punitive policies against companies that discriminated in hiring black workers .
In public , Nixon would call him “ a man of exceptionally sound judgment ” and among “ the ablest members of my administration ” ; in private , Nixon referred to him as a “ candy ass ” for not deploying the IRS against Nixon ’ s enemies .
After leaving government , Shultz went to work for Bechtel , soon becoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firm .
( Among his colleagues there was Caspar Weinberger , who had been his deputy and then successor at OMB and would go on to be his colleague in Reagan ’ s cabinet . )
While he was an economic adviser to Ronald Reagan ’ s 1980 campaign , he was initially passed over for a job in the administration .
Writes Reagan biographer Lou Cannon , former President Nixon “ was determined to keep [ Shultz ] from landing a high post in the Reagan administration.
” Shultz ’ s turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s first secretary of state , Al Haig—a Nixon favorite—was a retired four-star general in the U.S. Army , former Supreme Allied Commander Europe , chief of staff to both Nixon and Ford , and Henry Kissinger ’ s deputy at the National Security Council .
However , his time as secretary of state was characterized by his rocky relationship with the White House .
The most memorable moment of his tenure came after the assassination attempt on President Reagan , when Haig , in a bumbling attempt to project calm , infamously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ room and said “ I am in control here.
” George Shultz did not have Haig ’ s credentials .
His highest military rank was captain .
He was a university professor , a dean , and a businessman , not an experienced officer or diplomat .
While he had served at a high level in the Nixon administration , his government work had been related to his area of academic expertise , economics .
His experience in diplomacy and foreign affairs was mostly limited to negotiating trade deals , not arms control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from those experiences .
He had watched Henry Kissinger formulate strategy .
As a labor negotiator , he had developed the necessary skills for negotiations .
As a university administrator , he had to learn about bureaucracy .
But what made him exceptionally well suited to the position of secretary of state—and certainly better suited than the tempestuous Haig—were his calm steadiness , high emotional intelligence , understanding of human nature , and capacity to manage a large government bureaucracy .
His integrity would prove invaluable as well .
On June 25 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then on a business trip in London , to tell him that Haig had resigned and to invite him to become secretary of state .
He said yes .
Unlike many of his predecessors and successors in the office of secretary of state , Shultz understood his mandate to be not the creation of policy but the execution of the president ’ s desired policy .
To his assistants who would raise objections to Reagan ’ s policies , he would say , You know , you may be right .
What you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president .
But since Ronald Reagan is president , we ’ re going to do what he wants to do .
He would push the president in private and eventually had considerable success in changing Reagan ’ s mind on some matters , but he was not a self-aggrandizing secretary .
Not only did Shultz never cross the president , but his assistants revered Shultz too much to ever cross him .
Talk to them today about him and they will mention to you his integrity , calling it “ rare in Washington.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reagan ordered lie-detector tests as part of a leak investigation , Shultz objected on his own behalf— “ Mr .
President , you ’ ll only polygraph me one time .
And then you ’ ll get yourself another secretary of state ” —and on behalf of his department .
His support for his subordinates earned him their loyalty in return .
Too often , when Reagan devotees didn ’ t like a policy of his administration , they believed that the Gipper was being betrayed by his advisers , especially Shultz and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise to the slogan “ Let Reagan Be Reagan !
” Republican Congressman Jack Kemp called for him to resign at least twice .
In 1984 , Bob Novak and Rowland Evans claimed that he was purging Reaganites from the State Department : “ With Shultz now in the close embrace of the Foreign Service , the president ’ s diplomacy is likely to be turned away from his own strong ideological convictions on the world struggle.
” Ed Feulner , then president of the Heritage Foundation , charged that he was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolve problems ” —coded language meaning that Shultz was a squish , a ridiculous charge on its face .
And he never got along with some of the president ’ s right-wing political staffers , especially Pat Buchanan , whom he considered a “ flamboyant right-wing hard-liner.
” What repeatedly helped Shultz was his integrity .
The president never doubted his dedication .
Frustrated with the administration ’ s ideologues , he twice tendered his resignation ; both times it was rejected by the president .
Reagan knew that Shultz was doing what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefited from the trust of the president ’ s closest adviser , Nancy Reagan .
One of the biggest intra-administration fights Shultz faced was with Jeane Kirkpatrick , the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations .
Kirkpatrick was a Democrat who came on Ronald Reagan ’ s radar for her famous essay “ Dictatorships and Double Standards.
” She attacked the Carter administration for betraying America ’ s authoritarian allies and letting them fall in Iran and Nicaragua in the name of human rights .
It was a doctrine that Reagan signed up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carter ’ s policy , but he was not willing to abandon human rights .
He needed to fight for the soul of the administration ’ s foreign policy .
Early in his tenure , he ordered for the office of assistant secretary for human rights and humanitarian affairs to be renovated .
The office was in poor condition and had been , physically and metaphorically , neglected under Haig .
By ordering the renovation , he was signaling a change of course .
The change meant battling the White House to push @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommendation .
The first battle came over the Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos , whom Reagan considered a friend and was reluctant to push out of power .
Through Shultz ’ s persuasion and thanks to events , Reagan stopped backing Marcos , and soon he was out .
South Korea was another country whose democratic transition Shultz facilitated .
No region was more important to Shultz than the Americas , and Latin America—then rife with military dictatorships , juntas , and revolutionary Communists—received extraordinary attention under Reagan and Shultz .
Augusto Pinochet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communism in Chile , had created a market economy with the advice of free-market economists in his cabinet .
Yet when , at a National Security Council meeting , Reagan suggested inviting Pinochet to the White House , the normally mild-mannered Shultz raised his voice : “ No !
No !
No !
No !
” There was no way that the Chilean butcher was going to get a photo op with the president of the United States .
Even though he personally knew several members of Pinochet ’ s cabinet—some had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never rejected withholding aid or imposing economic pressure on Pinochet .
By the time Reagan left office , he had lost a referendum and was on the verge of leaving office .
In Nicaragua , although communist Sandinistas won initially , they would be kept out of office for over two decades thereafter .
El Salvador became a democracy on Shultz ’ s watch , and so did Grenada after the U.S. invasion in 1983 .
The Middle East is an outlier in Shultz ’ s tenure—it ’ s where he most badly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but failed to implement the withdrawal of the Syrian military from Lebanon , especially after the U.S. military left the country following the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut .
His Israeli-Arab-Palestinian peace negotiations did not get anywhere .
And he was undermined by the officials who engineered the arms-for-hostages arrangement with Iran , a policy he vehemently objected to , which almost ended Reagan ’ s presidency .
Shultz ’ s greatest success , however , is the end of the Cold War .
Unlike Haig , who clashed with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soviets , Shultz found ways to work within Reagan ’ s policy preferences while also slowly changing Reagan ’ s mind .
He adopted a dual-track strategy to negotiate arms control with the Soviets : The United States would strengthen its nuclear capabilities in Europe to put pressure on the Soviet Union while negotiating arms reduction .
That , combined with Reagan ’ s Strategic Defense Initiative and conventional military buildup , forced the Soviet Union to ramp up its own military expenditure .
When reformers Mikhail Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze rose to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work with them .
Were Reagan and Shultz , and their successors George H.W .
Bush and James Baker , lucky that their tenures coincided with that of Mikhail Gorbachev , a sincere reformer in good faith ?
Yes .
But they made their own luck .
It was , in part , their pressure on the Soviet Union that forced the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to elevate a reformer to the position of general secretary .
Shultz ’ s pressure on the Soviet Union was not just military and economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human rights .
He provided strong support for Solidarity in Poland .
He was a stalwart advocate for Soviet Jews .
In fact , no American statesman , other than Senator Henry Jackson , advocated for Soviet Jewry as much as Shultz did .
He successfully advocated for their right to migration and Natan Sharansky ’ s release from the gulag .
In a symbolic and important gesture , to advocate for their right to worship he invited Soviet Jews to the U.S. embassy in Moscow for a seder dinner , which he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Never give up.
” Shultz ’ s greatest strength was his trust in America ’ s values .
It is expected of states to advocate for their immaterial values in foreign policy .
What he understood was that American values are not a liability but a strength .
He never shied away from using America ’ s economic strength and military might to promote the country ’ s core values .
He understood that the Cold War was not just a standoff between two superpowers but also a struggle for freedom .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
America could only win the fight for a free world if it held allies and enemies to the same standard .
Shultz compared diplomacy with gardening , meeting leaders at their own homes , where they are most comfortable .
America has made the world a beautiful garden—but without constant gardening it can turn into a jungle .
George P. Shultz ’ s tenure as secretary of state was longer than all but a handful of the other 67 men and women to serve in the job .
And he is one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as both secretary of the treasury and secretary of state .
Shultz has a longstanding affiliation with Stanford ’ s Hoover Institution , which has set up a special website to mark his hundredth birthday .
He remains involved in watching international affairs—in fact , he is the coauthor , with a Hoover colleague , of a book on world affairs published just last month .
“ A good family life , ” Shultz says , “ is the building block of society.
” His five children , eleven grandchildren , and seven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testament to his life well lived .
Of Washington , Shultz once said “ Nothing ever gets settled in this town .
.
.
.
It ’ s not like running a company or even a university .
It ’ s a seething debating society in which the debate never stops , in which people never give up , including me.
” Looking back from the vantage of three decades after he left office , historians can judge that he was on the right side of those debates .
As the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy practitioners will be wise to study his career and his balanced , principled mode of leadership .

In early November 1986, just days after the midterm elections, the biggest scandal of the Reagan presidency broke. In what would come to be known as the Iran-Contra affair, U.S. officials had sold arms to Iran in return for Iran’s cooperation to free American hostages in Lebanon, then illegally sent that money to anti-Marxist rebels in Nicaragua.
Journalists began to sink their teeth into the controversy, some speculating about whether the secretary of state should be fired or resign. George Shultz, who had been in the job for four years, had consistently opposed the arms-for-hostages scheme, but it went forward in secret without his knowledge. Now, following the coverage in the newspapers and on TV, he knew that the remaining months of the Reagan presidency could well be dominated by the biggest political crisis since Watergate.
“I knew my job was on the line,” Shultz recalled in his 1993 memoir, Turmoil and Triumph. “But proud as I was to be secretary of state and conscious as I was of possible achievements of great significance, I knew I could not want the job too much.”
As he was grappling with these questions of scandal and service, career and country, Shultz got a phone call. It was Charles Krauthammer. Shultz’s resignation, the columnist said, would be a disaster: “The wrong man always resigns in cases like this.”
Shultz stayed through the crisis—and through the end of the Reagan presidency. And he would deservedly be remembered among the greatest secretaries of state, one who deftly combined America’s economic and military might with its moral authority to win the Cold War.
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…
George Pratt Shultz was born in midtown Manhattan on December 13, 1920—so this weekend he celebrates his hundredth birthday, a fitting occasion to look back at his life and career.
Shultz’s father had a Ph.D. in history from Columbia but had left academia to work on the New York Stock Exchange. Young George was raised to love books. At Princeton, where he had a tattoo of the school’s tiger mascot inked on his posterior, he studied economics and international affairs. He wrote his undergraduate thesis on the then-still-new Tennessee Valley Authority.
During Shultz’s senior year at Princeton, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Eager to join the war, he “tried to enlist in the Royal Canadian Air Force as a way of getting over there and doing my part,” he wrote in his memoir, “but my eyes weren’t good enough to pass their test.” Instead, he joined the U.S. Marine Corps, where he was commissioned a second lieutenant. “Take good care of this rifle,” his drill sergeant told him in boot camp. “It’s your best friend. And remember one thing: Never point it at anybody unless you’re willing to pull the trigger.” Serving as an artillery officer in the Pacific theater, he participated in the battles for two of the lower islands of Palau.
There were heavy casualties, and I lost friends. . . . I went in on one of the early waves and wound up for a while more or less directing traffic on the beach. Conditions were chaotic. Supplies were pouring in. The beach was crowded, so matériel had to be moved out to make room for more. As I worked to organize our beachhead, Japanese soldiers from the high ground fired down on us. That day I saw the savagery of war. When the Japanese snipers were finally talked into coming out with their hands up, they were hit by fire from all over the beach.
After returning from the war, Shultz went to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for graduate studies in industrial economics. Because of the timing—he started in fall 1945, immediately after the war’s end—there were few other students. In a course with future Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson, Shultz had only one classmate. For one statistics course in which he was the only student, the professor held class peripatetically.
In 1946, Shultz married Helena “O’Bie” O’Brien, a military nurse he had met two years earlier when stationed in Hawaii. After finishing his Ph.D. in 1949, he stayed at MIT to teach. In 1955, the young academic briefly joined President Eisenhower’s Council of Economic Advisers. He then moved to the University of Chicago, not to the economics department—although he would befriend its future Nobel laureates George Stigler, who sold Shultz his dining-room furniture, and Milton Friedman—but as a professor in, and eventually dean of, the graduate school of business.
President Nixon, at the advice of a mutual friend, economist Arthur Burns, recruited Shultz to be his first secretary of labor, marking Shultz’s entry into top-tier politics. He would hold two other cabinet posts under Nixon: director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and secretary of the treasury. In those capacities, he would privately negotiate desegregation of schools and the workforce and impose punitive policies against companies that discriminated in hiring black workers. In public, Nixon would call him “a man of exceptionally sound judgment” and among “the ablest members of my administration”; in private, Nixon referred to him as a “candy ass” for not deploying the IRS against Nixon’s enemies.
After leaving government, Shultz went to work for Bechtel, soon becoming president of the vast construction and engineering firm. (Among his colleagues there was Caspar Weinberger, who had been his deputy and then successor at OMB and would go on to be his colleague in Reagan’s cabinet.) While he was an economic adviser to Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign, he was initially passed over for a job in the administration. Writes Reagan biographer Lou Cannon, former President Nixon “was determined to keep [Shultz] from landing a high post in the Reagan administration.”
Shultz’s turn would come, though. Reagan’s first secretary of state, Al Haig—a Nixon favorite—was a retired four-star general in the U.S. Army, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, chief of staff to both Nixon and Ford, and Henry Kissinger’s deputy at the National Security Council. However, his time as secretary of state was characterized by his rocky relationship with the White House. The most memorable moment of his tenure came after the assassination attempt on President Reagan, when Haig, in a bumbling attempt to project calm, infamously strode into the White House press briefing room and said “I am in control here.”
George Shultz did not have Haig’s credentials. His highest military rank was captain. He was a university professor, a dean, and a businessman, not an experienced officer or diplomat. While he had served at a high level in the Nixon administration, his government work had been related to his area of academic expertise, economics. His experience in diplomacy and foreign affairs was mostly limited to negotiating trade deals, not arms control or human rights.
Yet Shultz benefited from those experiences. He had watched Henry Kissinger formulate strategy. As a labor negotiator, he had developed the necessary skills for negotiations. As a university administrator, he had to learn about bureaucracy. But what made him exceptionally well suited to the position of secretary of state—and certainly better suited than the tempestuous Haig—were his calm steadiness, high emotional intelligence, understanding of human nature, and capacity to manage a large government bureaucracy. His integrity would prove invaluable as well.
On June 25, 1982, President Reagan called Shultz, then on a business trip in London, to tell him that Haig had resigned and to invite him to become secretary of state. He said yes.
Unlike many of his predecessors and successors in the office of secretary of state, Shultz understood his mandate to be not the creation of policy but the execution of the president’s desired policy. To his assistants who would raise objections to Reagan’s policies, he would say, You know, you may be right. What you need to do is to get elected president. But since Ronald Reagan is president, we’re going to do what he wants to do. He would push the president in private and eventually had considerable success in changing Reagan’s mind on some matters, but he was not a self-aggrandizing secretary.
Not only did Shultz never cross the president, but his assistants revered Shultz too much to ever cross him. Talk to them today about him and they will mention to you his integrity, calling it “rare in Washington.” When, in 1983, President Reagan ordered lie-detector tests as part of a leak investigation, Shultz objected on his own behalf—“Mr. President, you’ll only polygraph me one time. And then you’ll get yourself another secretary of state”—and on behalf of his department. His support for his subordinates earned him their loyalty in return.
Too often, when Reagan devotees didn’t like a policy of his administration, they believed that the Gipper was being betrayed by his advisers, especially Shultz and James Baker. This concern would give rise to the slogan “Let Reagan Be Reagan!” Republican Congressman Jack Kemp called for him to resign at least twice. In 1984, Bob Novak and Rowland Evans claimed that he was purging Reaganites from the State Department: “With Shultz now in the close embrace of the Foreign Service, the president’s diplomacy is likely to be turned away from his own strong ideological convictions on the world struggle.” Ed Feulner, then president of the Heritage Foundation, charged that he was “a pragmatist” who wanted to “resolve problems”—coded language meaning that Shultz was a squish, a ridiculous charge on its face. And he never got along with some of the president’s right-wing political staffers, especially Pat Buchanan, whom he considered a “flamboyant right-wing hard-liner.”
What repeatedly helped Shultz was his integrity. The president never doubted his dedication. Frustrated with the administration’s ideologues, he twice tendered his resignation; both times it was rejected by the president. Reagan knew that Shultz was doing what he had ordered him. And Shultz benefited from the trust of the president’s closest adviser, Nancy Reagan.
One of the biggest intra-administration fights Shultz faced was with Jeane Kirkpatrick, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Kirkpatrick was a Democrat who came on Ronald Reagan’s radar for her famous essay “Dictatorships and Double Standards.” She attacked the Carter administration for betraying America’s authoritarian allies and letting them fall in Iran and Nicaragua in the name of human rights. It was a doctrine that Reagan signed up for.
Shultz understood the problem with Carter’s policy, but he was not willing to abandon human rights. He needed to fight for the soul of the administration’s foreign policy. Early in his tenure, he ordered for the office of assistant secretary for human rights and humanitarian affairs to be renovated. The office was in poor condition and had been, physically and metaphorically, neglected under Haig. By ordering the renovation, he was signaling a change of course.
The change meant battling the White House to push out allied dictators against Kirkpatrick’s recommendation. The first battle came over the Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, whom Reagan considered a friend and was reluctant to push out of power. Through Shultz’s persuasion and thanks to events, Reagan stopped backing Marcos, and soon he was out. South Korea was another country whose democratic transition Shultz facilitated.
No region was more important to Shultz than the Americas, and Latin America—then rife with military dictatorships, juntas, and revolutionary Communists—received extraordinary attention under Reagan and Shultz. Augusto Pinochet, a brutal military dictator who had stopped communism in Chile, had created a market economy with the advice of free-market economists in his cabinet. Yet when, at a National Security Council meeting, Reagan suggested inviting Pinochet to the White House, the normally mild-mannered Shultz raised his voice: “No! No! No! No!” There was no way that the Chilean butcher was going to get a photo op with the president of the United States. Even though he personally knew several members of Pinochet’s cabinet—some had been his students at the University of Chicago—he never rejected withholding aid or imposing economic pressure on Pinochet. By the time Reagan left office, he had lost a referendum and was on the verge of leaving office. In Nicaragua, although communist Sandinistas won initially, they would be kept out of office for over two decades thereafter. El Salvador became a democracy on Shultz’s watch, and so did Grenada after the U.S. invasion in 1983.
The Middle East is an outlier in Shultz’s tenure—it’s where he most badly came short. The United States negotiated but failed to implement the withdrawal of the Syrian military from Lebanon, especially after the U.S. military left the country following the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. His Israeli-Arab-Palestinian peace negotiations did not get anywhere. And he was undermined by the officials who engineered the arms-for-hostages arrangement with Iran, a policy he vehemently objected to, which almost ended Reagan’s presidency.
Shultz’s greatest success, however, is the end of the Cold War. Unlike Haig, who clashed with Reagan over the fundamental stance toward the Soviets, Shultz found ways to work within Reagan’s policy preferences while also slowly changing Reagan’s mind. He adopted a dual-track strategy to negotiate arms control with the Soviets: The United States would strengthen its nuclear capabilities in Europe to put pressure on the Soviet Union while negotiating arms reduction. That, combined with Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative and conventional military buildup, forced the Soviet Union to ramp up its own military expenditure. When reformers Mikhail Gorbachev and Eduard Shevardnadze rose to power, he seized the opportunity to work with them. Were Reagan and Shultz, and their successors George H.W. Bush and James Baker, lucky that their tenures coincided with that of Mikhail Gorbachev, a sincere reformer in good faith? Yes. But they made their own luck. It was, in part, their pressure on the Soviet Union that forced the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to elevate a reformer to the position of general secretary.
Shultz’s pressure on the Soviet Union was not just military and economic, combined with tough negotiations—it also involved human rights. He provided strong support for Solidarity in Poland. He was a stalwart advocate for Soviet Jews. In fact, no American statesman, other than Senator Henry Jackson, advocated for Soviet Jewry as much as Shultz did. He successfully advocated for their right to migration and Natan Sharansky’s release from the gulag. In a symbolic and important gesture, to advocate for their right to worship he invited Soviet Jews to the U.S. embassy in Moscow for a seder dinner, which he attended, telling the guests, “Never give up.”
Shultz’s greatest strength was his trust in America’s values. It is expected of states to advocate for their immaterial values in foreign policy. What he understood was that American values are not a liability but a strength. He never shied away from using America’s economic strength and military might to promote the country’s core values. He understood that the Cold War was not just a standoff between two superpowers but also a struggle for freedom. And where freedom expanded, Soviet power contracted. America could only win the fight for a free world if it held allies and enemies to the same standard. Shultz compared diplomacy with gardening, meeting leaders at their own homes, where they are most comfortable. America has made the world a beautiful garden—but without constant gardening it can turn into a jungle.
George P. Shultz’s tenure as secretary of state was longer than all but a handful of the other 67 men and women to serve in the job. And he is one of only five people ever to serve as both secretary of the treasury and secretary of state.
Shultz has a longstanding affiliation with Stanford’s Hoover Institution, which has set up a special website to mark his hundredth birthday. He remains involved in watching international affairs—in fact, he is the coauthor, with a Hoover colleague, of a book on world affairs published just last month.
“A good family life,” Shultz says, “is the building block of society.” His five children, eleven grandchildren, and seven (so far) great-grandchildren are a testament to his life well lived.
Of Washington, Shultz once said “Nothing ever gets settled in this town. . . . It’s not like running a company or even a university. It’s a seething debating society in which the debate never stops, in which people never give up, including me.” Looking back from the vantage of three decades after he left office, historians can judge that he was on the right side of those debates. As the United States returns to great power competition, foreign policy practitioners will be wise to study his career and his balanced, principled mode of leadership.


thebulwark--2020-12-11--Biden’s Secret Tape Scandal

Biden’s Secret Tape Scandal

In 2012 , when a bartender at a Mitt Romney fundraiser in Boca Raton secretly recorded the candidate ’ s comments , the story exploded .
The Republican had said that “ 47 percent ” of the voters were dependent on government and thought of themselves as “ victims.
” It cemented the image of Romney as a plutocrat with little concern for average people , and when Mother Jones published a transcript , it helped seal his doom as a candidate .
In 2008 , candidate Barack Obama confided to Democratic donors in San Francisco that he thought rural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or antipathy to people who aren ’ t like them ” as a way to cope with a changing world .
That caused a huge kerfuffle , and while it didn ’ t cost Obama the election , it haunted him enough that he included a mea culpa about the episode in his recent memoir .
This week , we got a glimpse of a meeting between president-elect Joe Biden and civil rights leaders .
The Intercept reports that in a Tuesday meeting , the leaders were urging the incoming president to issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Democratic party—having not learned the lessons of recent administrations who abused executive orders—stood ready to abuse presidential power .
On November 11 , Senator Elizabeth Warren published an op-ed suggesting that the new administration shouldn ’ t hesitate to rule by decree .
Using “ existing legal authority ” the new administration could “ cancel billions of dollars ” in student debt , raise the minimum wage , lower drug prices , and much more .
During the primaries , a number of Democratic candidates had pledged to use executive orders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other matters .
Kamala Harris was a particular fan of unchecked presidential diktat .
Biden , we ’ ve been told , is a stalking horse for the far left of the party .
Or , if not that , then a weak weed who will be pressured by the left of the party to do its bidding .
Nothing he has done in his whole career , during the long campaign of 2020 , or since his victory , has suggested that .
So what did he say to civil rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law gives him authority to act via executive order , he won ’ t hesitate to do so .
BUT , what I ’ m not going to do is I ’ m not going to do what used to—Vanita [ Gupta ] , you probably used to get angry with me during the debates , when you ’ d have some of the people you were supporting saying , ‘ On Day 1 , I ’ m gon na have an executive order to do this !
’ Not within the constitutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violate the Constitution .
Executive authority that my progressive friends talk about is way beyond the bounds .
“ There is a Constitution , ” he repeated .
And he continued : It ’ s our only hope .
Our only hope and the way to deal with it is , where I have executive authority , I will use it to undo every single damn thing this guy has done by executive authority , but I ’ m not going to exercise executive authority where it ’ s a question , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ I can do away with assault weapons.
’ There ’ s no executive authority to do away that .
And no one has fought harder to get rid of assault weapons than me , me , but you can ’ t do it by executive order .
We do that , next guy comes along and says , Well , guess what ?
By executive order , I guess everybody can have machine guns again .
So we got ta be careful .
It ’ s going to take some getting used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the limits of his own power .
Biden said something else that contradicts the image some project of the hapless tool of the left .
Some in the meeting apparently criticized his choice of Tom Vilsack for Agriculture secretary because Vilsack was involved in an unfortunate incident during the Obama years involving Shirley Sherrod .
Conversation then turned to police reform .
Biden promised that reform would be a high priority for his administration but added that “ I also don ’ t think we should get too far ahead ourselves on dealing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Jim Clyburn and Obama , Biden said that Republicans beat the living hell out of us across the country , saying that we ’ re talking about defunding the police .
We ’ re not .
We ’ re talking about holding them accountable .
We ’ re talking about giving them money to do the right things .
We ’ re talking about putting more psychologists and psychiatrists on the telephones when the 911 calls through .
We ’ re talking about spending money to enable them to do their jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with less force and more understanding .
Maybe Biden should make a habit of releasing secret tapes of his comments .

In 2012, when a bartender at a Mitt Romney fundraiser in Boca Raton secretly recorded the candidate’s comments, the story exploded. The Republican had said that “47 percent” of the voters were dependent on government and thought of themselves as “victims.” It cemented the image of Romney as a plutocrat with little concern for average people, and when Mother Jones published a transcript, it helped seal his doom as a candidate.
In 2008, candidate Barack Obama confided to Democratic donors in San Francisco that he thought rural Pennsylvanians “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” as a way to cope with a changing world. That caused a huge kerfuffle, and while it didn’t cost Obama the election, it haunted him enough that he included a mea culpa about the episode in his recent memoir.
Secret recordings can be landmines.
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…
This week, we got a glimpse of a meeting between president-elect Joe Biden and civil rights leaders. The Intercept reports that in a Tuesday meeting, the leaders were urging the incoming president to issue a slew of executive orders. Some in the Democratic party—having not learned the lessons of recent administrations who abused executive orders—stood ready to abuse presidential power.
On November 11, Senator Elizabeth Warren published an op-ed suggesting that the new administration shouldn’t hesitate to rule by decree. Using “existing legal authority” the new administration could “cancel billions of dollars” in student debt, raise the minimum wage, lower drug prices, and much more.
During the primaries, a number of Democratic candidates had pledged to use executive orders for gun control, climate policy, and other matters. Kamala Harris was a particular fan of unchecked presidential diktat.
Biden, we’ve been told, is a stalking horse for the far left of the party. Or, if not that, then a weak weed who will be pressured by the left of the party to do its bidding. Nothing he has done in his whole career, during the long campaign of 2020, or since his victory, has suggested that. So what did he say to civil rights leaders?
He said that where the law gives him authority to act via executive order, he won’t hesitate to do so. BUT,
what I’m not going to do is I’m not going to do what used to—Vanita [Gupta], you probably used to get angry with me during the debates, when you’d have some of the people you were supporting saying, ‘On Day 1, I’m gonna have an executive order to do this!’ Not within the constitutional authority. I am not going to violate the Constitution. Executive authority that my progressive friends talk about is way beyond the bounds.
“There is a Constitution,” he repeated. And he continued:
It’s our only hope. Our only hope and the way to deal with it is, where I have executive authority, I will use it to undo every single damn thing this guy has done by executive authority, but I’m not going to exercise executive authority where it’s a question, where I can come along and say, ‘I can do away with assault weapons.’ There’s no executive authority to do away that. And no one has fought harder to get rid of assault weapons than me, me, but you can’t do it by executive order. We do that, next guy comes along and says, Well, guess what? By executive order, I guess everybody can have machine guns again. So we gotta be careful.
It’s going to take some getting used to, having a president who respects the limits of his own power.
Biden said something else that contradicts the image some project of the hapless tool of the left. Some in the meeting apparently criticized his choice of Tom Vilsack for Agriculture secretary because Vilsack was involved in an unfortunate incident during the Obama years involving Shirley Sherrod. Conversation then turned to police reform. Biden promised that reform would be a high priority for his administration but added that “I also don’t think we should get too far ahead ourselves on dealing with police reform…” Echoing the sentiments of Jim Clyburn and Obama, Biden said that Republicans
beat the living hell out of us across the country, saying that we’re talking about defunding the police. We’re not. We’re talking about holding them accountable. We’re talking about giving them money to do the right things. We’re talking about putting more psychologists and psychiatrists on the telephones when the 911 calls through. We’re talking about spending money to enable them to do their jobs better, not with more force, with less force and more understanding.
Maybe Biden should make a habit of releasing secret tapes of his comments.