thebulwark--2020-09-04--Trump’s Divisiveness and Our Consciences

I ’ ve noticed an odd phenomenon among my pro-Trump colleagues and friends : They feel a need to get social and psychological distance between themselves and the president .
In my offline conversations , this distancing is expressed as , “ I don ’ t like the tweets , but .
.
.
” or “ I don ’ t like him , but .
.
.
” They approve of Trump ’ s policies , or at least some of them , but are uneasy about his character , or at least parts of it .
He delivers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cuts , pro-life policies , judges ) for the more establishment types and cultural products ( lib-owning ) for the rank and file .
In exchange , he expects unquestioning support from both GOP elected officials and the rank and file .
All of which raises the question : If conservatives approve of the man ’ s policies why not just adopt his transactional mindset , too ?
One answer : the “ revenge of conscience.
” In a book by that title published two decades ago , J. Budziszewski , a professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Texas , argues that when we compromise or violate our deepest-held moral beliefs and instincts , we are visited by four “ Furies ” or “ greater sisters of remorse ” that make uncompromising demands for confession , atonement , reconciliation , and justification .
If we don ’ t undertake those actions out of genuine remorse , we displace them— “ confessing ” to friends compulsively , for example , or “ justifying ” ourselves not by seeking to become just but by engaging in exercises of self-justification .
For many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the desire for certain policy outcomes and moral unease toward the man who is achieving them invites a visit from the Furies .
Some of the Furies , like confession , have presented themselves in an attenuated way during my conversations with my Trump-backing friends .
But the one most present is justification—Trump ’ s policies , which are or may be social and moral goods , are so important that I can and must justify the evils deployed to achieve them .
Before I ’ m buried under an avalanche of whataboutism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re willing to turn your back on the good he ’ s doing and support candidates who are worse ” ) , I would just point out that Budziszewski ’ s propositions are universal , and they apply to all of us , including me .
Trump is living rent-free in certain aspects of my own psychology and background .
My reaction to his persistent “ button pushing ” is the mirror image of my pro-Trump friends : My abhorrence of his conduct overwhelms my agreement with a number of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irresolvable quandary .
I must either back a president who repudiates my deepest-held principles about the dignity and inviolability of the human person or support candidates I do not agree with on a range of important issues .
Some of these policies , like abortion , also go directly to the question of protecting human dignity .
There are losses , compromises , and regrets in this dilemma for which the sisters of remorse are often after me .
And mine is not the only head where Trump has taken up residence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump-supporting friends how they like both his policy positions and his sarcastic , faux-tough-guy demeanor although they themselves would generally be loath to be caught behaving in such a way .
Yes , some people seem to take pleasure in the lib-owning , provocation , and degrading personal attacks emanating from the White House .
In other cases , there may be regional disparities at play : Some people from parts of the urban Northeast may be more likely to be familiar with and even enjoy Trump ’ s modes of banter and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ write off the political salience of such regional differences in culture .
“ Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger , ” said George W. Bush in 2004 , “ which in Texas is called ‘ walking.
’ ” ) And for many people—perhaps a majority on both sides—the button being pushed is the one marked “ fear ” : fear of a changing world , of alien cultures , philosophies and worldviews .
Fear that the America we ’ ve have known and loved is changing in a fundamental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ return .
Or , conversely , fear that Trump will transform America into a land of anger , riot , low-grade civil conflict , and creeping authoritarianism .
My point is that there is more than one way for Trump to “ own ” us all , to become a squatter in the mansions of conscience , and to do so in a uniquely pervasive , corrosive , and destructive way .
We ’ ve been here before and it is a bipartisan problem .
Barack Obama , Mitt Romney , and Hillary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in insulting , dehumanizing attacks on their fellow Americans ( Obama ’ s “ bitter clingers ” in 2008 , Romney ’ s “ 47 percent ” in 2012 , Clinton ’ s “ basket of deplorables ” in 2016 ) where they signaled contempt for vast swaths of the country they claimed to love and wanted to lead .
Such divisiveness is in our nature .
We all harbor ugly , fear-driven antagonisms and indulge in intemperate remarks , especially when we think no one ’ s listening—or if we ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safe ” to give free rein to those instincts and behaviors .
For Trump , as evidenced by his volcanic Twitter feed , that feeling of safety is constant .
He has entirely abandoned the idea of leading the whole country , preferring instead to be president of the GOP base .
He has raised contempt for other people to performance art and governing strategy .
( How plausible is it that he wants less violence in the streets when civil unrest is now his central campaign plank and the shiny object he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 deaths ? )
In doing so , he has granted permission to others on both sides of the partisan divide to do the same—which is exponentially worse than an occasional unguarded moment of the Obama , Romney , and Clinton variety .
And the public is now getting into the act : When I scan social media I see what seems like legions of mini-Trumps , on the left and the right , who have absorbed the lesson that attacking , belittling , and threatening opponents is the way to draw attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s almost like a pandemic of the mind that jumps from person to person creating a culture in which the sisters of remorse finally give up and turn away in horror .
The more pronounced this pattern becomes the harder it will be to reason our way through the country ’ s shared challenges or the difficult compromises necessary to overcome them .
Trump ’ s influence is particularly pernicious in this way .
As one friend put it , “ he ’ s got the biggest thumbs on Twitter , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the nation , is using them to erode the social trust and the intellectual , spiritual , and institutional tools we need to govern ourselves .
To state the obvious , this can ’ t go on forever .
Time is running out for a renewal that might lead us to lay down the short-sighted use of partisan legislation and unilateral executive orders to try to impose by fiat that which is unachievable and unsustainable in a narrowly divided country .
Unless we begin rejecting and stigmatizing the dehumanizing strategies and rhetoric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do it soon , our problems threaten to become bigger than we are .
And when that day comes , extremists and enemies of freedom everywhere will rejoice as the calls to “ let it all burn ” finally triumph and we destroy the very country we are fighting so remorselessly with one another to control .

I’ve noticed an odd phenomenon among my pro-Trump colleagues and friends: They feel a need to get social and psychological distance between themselves and the president. In my offline conversations, this distancing is expressed as, “I don’t like the tweets, but . . .” or “I don’t like him, but . . .” They approve of Trump’s policies, or at least some of them, but are uneasy about his character, or at least parts of it. He delivers certain policies (defense budgets, tax cuts, pro-life policies, judges) for the more establishment types and cultural products (lib-owning) for the rank and file. In exchange, he expects unquestioning support from both GOP elected officials and the rank and file.
All of which raises the question: If conservatives approve of the man’s policies why not just adopt his transactional mindset, too?
One answer: the “revenge of conscience.” In a book by that title published two decades ago, J. Budziszewski, a professor of government and philosophy at the University of Texas, argues that when we compromise or violate our deepest-held moral beliefs and instincts, we are visited by four “Furies” or “greater sisters of remorse” that make uncompromising demands for confession, atonement, reconciliation, and justification. If we don’t undertake those actions out of genuine remorse, we displace them—“confessing” to friends compulsively, for example, or “justifying” ourselves not by seeking to become just but by engaging in exercises of self-justification.
For many Trump supporters, the cognitive dissonance between the desire for certain policy outcomes and moral unease toward the man who is achieving them invites a visit from the Furies. Some of the Furies, like confession, have presented themselves in an attenuated way during my conversations with my Trump-backing friends. But the one most present is justification—Trump’s policies, which are or may be social and moral goods, are so important that I can and must justify the evils deployed to achieve them.
Before I’m buried under an avalanche of whataboutism (“You hate Trump so much you’re willing to turn your back on the good he’s doing and support candidates who are worse”), I would just point out that Budziszewski’s propositions are universal, and they apply to all of us, including me. Trump is living rent-free in certain aspects of my own psychology and background. My reaction to his persistent “button pushing” is the mirror image of my pro-Trump friends: My abhorrence of his conduct overwhelms my agreement with a number of his policy positions, presenting me with an irresolvable quandary. I must either back a president who repudiates my deepest-held principles about the dignity and inviolability of the human person or support candidates I do not agree with on a range of important issues. Some of these policies, like abortion, also go directly to the question of protecting human dignity. There are losses, compromises, and regrets in this dilemma for which the sisters of remorse are often after me.
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…
And mine is not the only head where Trump has taken up residence. Over and over, I hear from Trump-supporting friends how they like both his policy positions and his sarcastic, faux-tough-guy demeanor although they themselves would generally be loath to be caught behaving in such a way. Yes, some people seem to take pleasure in the lib-owning, provocation, and degrading personal attacks emanating from the White House. In other cases, there may be regional disparities at play: Some people from parts of the urban Northeast may be more likely to be familiar with and even enjoy Trump’s modes of banter and behavior. (We shouldn’t write off the political salience of such regional differences in culture. “Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger,” said George W. Bush in 2004, “which in Texas is called ‘walking.’”) And for many people—perhaps a majority on both sides—the button being pushed is the one marked “fear”: fear of a changing world, of alien cultures, philosophies and worldviews. Fear that the America we’ve have known and loved is changing in a fundamental way from which there will be no return. Or, conversely, fear that Trump will transform America into a land of anger, riot, low-grade civil conflict, and creeping authoritarianism. My point is that there is more than one way for Trump to “own” us all, to become a squatter in the mansions of conscience, and to do so in a uniquely pervasive, corrosive, and destructive way.
We’ve been here before and it is a bipartisan problem. Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton were all caught on tape engaging in insulting, dehumanizing attacks on their fellow Americans (Obama’s “bitter clingers” in 2008, Romney’s “47 percent” in 2012, Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” in 2016) where they signaled contempt for vast swaths of the country they claimed to love and wanted to lead. Such divisiveness is in our nature. We all harbor ugly, fear-driven antagonisms and indulge in intemperate remarks, especially when we think no one’s listening—or if we’re in a crowd where it feels “safe” to give free rein to those instincts and behaviors.
For Trump, as evidenced by his volcanic Twitter feed, that feeling of safety is constant. He has entirely abandoned the idea of leading the whole country, preferring instead to be president of the GOP base. He has raised contempt for other people to performance art and governing strategy. (How plausible is it that he wants less violence in the streets when civil unrest is now his central campaign plank and the shiny object he uses to distract the country from 185,000 COVID-19 deaths?) In doing so, he has granted permission to others on both sides of the partisan divide to do the same—which is exponentially worse than an occasional unguarded moment of the Obama, Romney, and Clinton variety. And the public is now getting into the act: When I scan social media I see what seems like legions of mini-Trumps, on the left and the right, who have absorbed the lesson that attacking, belittling, and threatening opponents is the way to draw attention and fight for a cause. It’s almost like a pandemic of the mind that jumps from person to person creating a culture in which the sisters of remorse finally give up and turn away in horror.
The more pronounced this pattern becomes the harder it will be to reason our way through the country’s shared challenges or the difficult compromises necessary to overcome them. Trump’s influence is particularly pernicious in this way. As one friend put it, “he’s got the biggest thumbs on Twitter,” and he, the duly elected president of the nation, is using them to erode the social trust and the intellectual, spiritual, and institutional tools we need to govern ourselves.
To state the obvious, this can’t go on forever. Time is running out for a renewal that might lead us to lay down the short-sighted use of partisan legislation and unilateral executive orders to try to impose by fiat that which is unachievable and unsustainable in a narrowly divided country. Unless we begin rejecting and stigmatizing the dehumanizing strategies and rhetoric that are overwhelming public discourse, and do it soon, our problems threaten to become bigger than we are. And when that day comes, extremists and enemies of freedom everywhere will rejoice as the calls to “let it all burn” finally triumph and we destroy the very country we are fighting so remorselessly with one another to control.


thebulwark--2020-09-04--The Lazy Lies of President Chaos

The Lazy Lies of President Chaos

You want some convenient examples of why Donald Trump is not fit to serve as president of the United States ?
I know , it ’ s not as if anybody needs even more .
But yesterday ’ s White House press briefing offered up three on a platter .
Press secretary Kayleigh McEnany began by showing video footage of Nancy Pelosi and making fun of the speaker of the House for what happened when she went to get her hair styled on Monday .
McEnany and President Trump have highlighted the fact that Pelosi is seen in the video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of course , is that Pelosi is a hypocrite of the “ Do as I say and not as I do ” variety—an accusation that comes as no surprise to the members of the White House press corps , many of whom ( myself included ) have tried to get Trump and McEnany to wear masks for the last few months when they visit the Brady Briefing Room .
But all that was just run-of-the-mill hypocrisy from Trump ’ s team .
The first of the big three new items came as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is threatening to hold back funds from cities across the United States that won ’ t do as he says to deal with protests and violence surrounding the Black Lives Matter movement and recent examples of police brutality .
According to McEnany , the president is trying to “ incentivize ” the mayors of the cities in question .
That is , if they are under the threat of losing federal funds then they ’ ll do what Trump wants .
This fits the dictionary definition of extortion—and shows that the president obviously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ quid pro quo ” behavior with Ukraine that got him impeached .
The second of the big three offenses occurred when NBC ’ s Peter Alexander tried to ask McEnany to clear up something Trump said .
Trump told reporters in early March of this year , in answering a question I posed to him , that his visit to the Walter Reed Medical Center in November 2019 was the first of two visits for his annual physical and that he would return to Walter Reed and give us the results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Trump apparently never visited Walter Reed again and we were later told that the presidential physician came to him—somewhere else—and finished the physical .
We got the report on June 2 .
Questions surfaced again this week following reports that Trump may have lied about the reason for his visit to Walter Reed .
That followed several public appearances where Trump appeared in questionable health .
In response to those reports , Trump sent out a tweet denying he had had “ mini-strokes ” : He also changed his story and claimed—contrary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeatedly been saying since last November—that the 2019 visit to Walter Reed was the end of his physical , not the beginning : If the new timeline was true , then why did Trump wait until June to release his physical ?
Why did he tell us on the South Lawn in March that he still had yet to finish his physical—because he was “ so busy ” ?
He certainly had plenty of time to golf during those months , but not enough time to visit Walter Reed .
Peter Alexander tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but she blundered through one excuse after another before finally saying that she wasn ’ t going to indulge media “ conspiracy theories.
” All Alexander wanted was clarification .
All he got was obfuscation .
Then there was the third episode .
Jon Karl from ABC began by asking McEnany if the president would admit that knowingly voting twice in an election is a criminal offense .
McEnany tried to parry , and then tried to deny and finally she got Karl off the topic and tried to tell everyone that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but if someone voted by mail and they showed up to vote and a poll worker couldn ’ t guarantee they had voted , then the voter should vote again .
This encourages chaos because plenty of Democrats and Republicans could reason that it is okay to do this , and it could throw the entire election into question .
And , to use just one state as an example , in the case of North Carolina , it can take up to three days to finish receiving and tabulating the mail-in votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Election Day if you voted .
But the bottom line is that is illegal to knowingly vote twice in an election and in many places it ’ s also illegal to encourage such behavior .
The president who claims to be all about law and order is telling people to break the law .
When I followed up on Jon Karl ’ s original question in the briefing room— “ Knowingly voting twice is a crime , why is he telling people to vote twice ?
” —McEnany walked away .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is a legitimate question .
It deserves an answer .
Donald Trump is not fit for office and his press secretary isn ’ t fit to serve .
They are encouraging lawlessness , not the rule of law .
They are encouraging chaos in the cities and chaos at the ballot box while pushing lies about the opposition and lies about the president ’ s annual physical .
At her first press briefing Trump ’ s press secretary said she ’ d never lie to the American people .
That was her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steady stream of them ever since .

You want some convenient examples of why Donald Trump is not fit to serve as president of the United States? I know, it’s not as if anybody needs even more. But yesterday’s White House press briefing offered up three on a platter.
Press secretary Kayleigh McEnany began by showing video footage of Nancy Pelosi and making fun of the speaker of the House for what happened when she went to get her hair styled on Monday. McEnany and President Trump have highlighted the fact that Pelosi is seen in the video not wearing a mask. The implication, of course, is that Pelosi is a hypocrite of the “Do as I say and not as I do” variety—an accusation that comes as no surprise to the members of the White House press corps, many of whom (myself included) have tried to get Trump and McEnany to wear masks for the last few months when they visit the Brady Briefing Room.
But all that was just run-of-the-mill hypocrisy from Trump’s team.
The first of the big three new items came as McEnany tried to explain why the president is threatening to hold back funds from cities across the United States that won’t do as he says to deal with protests and violence surrounding the Black Lives Matter movement and recent examples of police brutality.
According to McEnany, the president is trying to “incentivize” the mayors of the cities in question. That is, if they are under the threat of losing federal funds then they’ll do what Trump wants.
This fits the dictionary definition of extortion—and shows that the president obviously hasn’t learned his lesson from the “quid pro quo” behavior with Ukraine that got him impeached.
The second of the big three offenses occurred when NBC’s Peter Alexander tried to ask McEnany to clear up something Trump said. Trump told reporters in early March of this year, in answering a question I posed to him, that his visit to the Walter Reed Medical Center in November 2019 was the first of two visits for his annual physical and that he would return to Walter Reed and give us the results of his physical by June 1:
POTUS finally answers the question about his physical. Says it will be done within the next 90 days. @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/FTB1H4c5W6 — Brian J. Karem (@BrianKarem) March 2, 2020
But Trump apparently never visited Walter Reed again and we were later told that the presidential physician came to him—somewhere else—and finished the physical. We got the report on June 2.
Questions surfaced again this week following reports that Trump may have lied about the reason for his visit to Walter Reed. That followed several public appearances where Trump appeared in questionable health. In response to those reports, Trump sent out a tweet denying he had had “mini-strokes”:
It never ends! Now they are trying to say that your favorite President, me, went to Walter Reed Medical Center, having suffered a series of mini-strokes. Never happened to THIS candidate – FAKE NEWS. Perhaps they are referring to another candidate from another Party! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 1, 2020
He also changed his story and claimed—contrary to everything he and his staff had repeatedly been saying since last November—that the 2019 visit to Walter Reed was the end of his physical, not the beginning:
Mike Pence was never put on standby, & there were no mini-strokes. This is just more Fake News by @CNN, a phony story. The reason for the visit to Walter Reed, together with the full press pool, was to complete my yearly physical. Short visit, then returned (with press) to W.H… https://t.co/GUVdbJRvqD — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 2, 2020
If the new timeline was true, then why did Trump wait until June to release his physical? Why did he tell us on the South Lawn in March that he still had yet to finish his physical—because he was “so busy”? He certainly had plenty of time to golf during those months, but not enough time to visit Walter Reed.
Peter Alexander tried to get an answer from McEnany, but she blundered through one excuse after another before finally saying that she wasn’t going to indulge media “conspiracy theories.”
All Alexander wanted was clarification. All he got was obfuscation.
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…
Then there was the third episode. Jon Karl from ABC began by asking McEnany if the president would admit that knowingly voting twice in an election is a criminal offense. McEnany tried to parry, and then tried to deny and finally she got Karl off the topic and tried to tell everyone that Trump is for the rule of law, but if someone voted by mail and they showed up to vote and a poll worker couldn’t guarantee they had voted, then the voter should vote again.
This encourages chaos because plenty of Democrats and Republicans could reason that it is okay to do this, and it could throw the entire election into question. And, to use just one state as an example, in the case of North Carolina, it can take up to three days to finish receiving and tabulating the mail-in votes, so poll workers may not know on Election Day if you voted.
But the bottom line is that is illegal to knowingly vote twice in an election and in many places it’s also illegal to encourage such behavior.
The president who claims to be all about law and order is telling people to break the law.
When I followed up on Jon Karl’s original question in the briefing room—“Knowingly voting twice is a crime, why is he telling people to vote twice?”—McEnany walked away. She wouldn’t even address it. It is a legitimate question. It deserves an answer.
Donald Trump is not fit for office and his press secretary isn’t fit to serve.
They are encouraging lawlessness, not the rule of law.
They are encouraging chaos in the cities and chaos at the ballot box while pushing lies about the opposition and lies about the president’s annual physical.
At her first press briefing Trump’s press secretary said she’d never lie to the American people. That was her first lie.
There have been a steady stream of them ever since.


thebulwark--2020-09-04--Institutions and the Crises of 2020

Institutions and the Crises of 2020

Back in January , when Yuval Levin ’ s book A Time to Build was published , its thesis seemed reasonable , even persuasive .
Levin argues that many of the problems the United States faces today can be traced to broken institutions and a failure to think and act institutionally .
Many of our important social and political institutions have been enervated or eliminated .
We can at least make a start of ameliorating many of our problems , Levin contends , by protecting , strengthening , investing in , and participating in our institutions .
A thesis that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the months since Levin ’ s book was published , a series of national crises and failed responses to them have demonstrated just the kinds of institutional failures he described .
The national response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been nothing short of a catastrophe .
America has less than 5 percent of the world ’ s population and yet accounts for more than 20 percent of the pandemic deaths to date .
The national and state governments had months to prepare for the pandemic , more months to correct course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yet the United States had massive shortages—especially of personal protective equipment—when the pandemic hit , and various federal and state agencies , including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , made boneheaded errors early on and are still making terrible missteps now .
Part of the blame for the failed government response must be directed at the White House , but part also is due to how underfunded and understaffed some of our government institutions are .
The problem of abusive police actions directed toward black men , like those that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , might seem at once to be “ larger ” and “ smaller ” than the level of institutions .
That is , it might seem to be a national problem of race and policing or a problem of individual bad , racist cops .
But many of the resolutions to such problems depend on strong institutions of the kind that Levin describes—including police departments that weed out bad cops , better train their personnel , instill values that forbid abusive actions , and demand transparency about violations .
And then there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the instances of destruction and violence that have resulted in vivid images looping on cable news .
This , too , might not at first seem like a problem where Levin ’ s institutional analysis is relevant .
But one could argue that the rioters ’ actions point to certain kinds of deficiencies of the institutions that ought to inculcate attitudes of respect and responsibility in our young people .
( The rioters seem to be mostly young , white men and women . )
I am reminded , too , of Levin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebrity ( “ the culture of celebrity , ” he writes , is “ the enemy of a culture of integrity ” ) .
It seems like some of the violence we ’ ve seen in recent weeks has been acted out with the aim of obtaining some notoriety or celebrity online .
With these three crises in mind , I thought I would reach out to Levin , whom I know a bit , and ask him about how his thinking about his thesis may have evolved in the eventful months since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disclosure : I hope someday to be published in National Affairs , the quarterly journal Levin edits . )
First , I asked Levin about public confidence in the police .
Has it declined—and if it has , is that the police ’ s own fault ?
“ Confidence in the police has actually tended to be fairly resistant to the broader collapse of trust in institutions in this century , ” Levin told me .
“ Gallup has found that trust in the police has hovered around the 50 percent mark since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little but not much .
Their most recent poll on this , from this year , had it at 48 percent , which is the lowest they have found over this period but not by much.
” And confidence in the police , Levin says , is “ divided by party , and to an even greater extent by race .
There are obviously some deeply rooted reasons for this .
So while I think it makes sense to think about the police in terms of the politicization of our institutions , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decline more dramatically if the police appears to become more politicized in response to this summer ’ s violence , it ’ s still the case that confidence in law enforcement has not collapsed to the same degree that we have seen with public trust in other key institutions—political , professional , academic , and cultural.
” I then asked Levin about the response to the pandemic and why both federal and state governments seem to have mostly failed in responding to the pandemic .
“ I think our response to COVID has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of institutional corruption that I pointed to in the book , ” he said .
“ Our political leaders have been so much in the habit of performative politics that the need for actual administration and governance have caught them unprepared at many levels .
I also think we have seen the politicization of public health , and more generally the tendency of the culture war to fill all the civic spaces that might have been otherwise filled with both expertise and civic energy.
” ( It ’ s worth noting that Levin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including in a New Atlantis essay called “ Tribalism Comes for Pandemic Science.
” ) “ The pandemic , ” Levin summarizes , “ has presented an extremely difficult challenge to our public officials .
It was never going to go smoothly , and essentially no one around the world has really handled it well .
But the ways in which our institutions have been overcome by the culture war in this century has really showed itself in some of the problems we have encountered.
” I broached with Levin my idea that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a social tendency to reward crudeness and vulgarity over moderation , have contributed to the riots .
“ I think all the factors you point to make sense , ” Levin said .
“ I would also say that the disconnect between anger and action , between frustration with injustice and policy reform , has been encouraged by social media and other performative pressures , so that younger people in particular overestimate the value of expressive performance—of saying what you ’ re for—and underestimate the value of organizing , building institutions , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Levin also noted a disparity between the huge social effects and minimal policy effects of intentionally decentralized movements like Black Lives Matter .
“ Whatever you make of its aims , a movement like BLM that avoids having leadership and a structured organizational form can have huge cultural impact but not huge substantive political and policy impact .
It ’ s not really built to do anything .
And I do think that reflects the contemporary ( deformed ) sense of how change happens in society—a sense that ignores the place and character @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far from clear what the long-term effects of the crises of 2020 will be .
But if we want to effect positive changes—if we want to make lasting improvements , whether relating to police tactics , race relations , or matters of public health after the pandemic—it isn ’ t enough to be thinking only in terms of touching individual hearts and minds , or of vast social movements , or even of national electoral politics .
We also must try to think institutionally .

Back in January, when Yuval Levin’s book A Time to Build was published, its thesis seemed reasonable, even persuasive. Levin argues that many of the problems the United States faces today can be traced to broken institutions and a failure to think and act institutionally. Many of our important social and political institutions have been enervated or eliminated. We can at least make a start of ameliorating many of our problems, Levin contends, by protecting, strengthening, investing in, and participating in our institutions.
A thesis that sounded reasonable in January seems prophetic today.
In the months since Levin’s book was published, a series of national crises and failed responses to them have demonstrated just the kinds of institutional failures he described.
The national response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been nothing short of a catastrophe. America has less than 5 percent of the world’s population and yet accounts for more than 20 percent of the pandemic deaths to date. The national and state governments had months to prepare for the pandemic, more months to correct course (as a few states have). Yet the United States had massive shortages—especially of personal protective equipment—when the pandemic hit, and various federal and state agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, made boneheaded errors early on and are still making terrible missteps now. Part of the blame for the failed government response must be directed at the White House, but part also is due to how underfunded and understaffed some of our government institutions are.
The problem of abusive police actions directed toward black men, like those that led to the death of George Floyd, might seem at once to be “larger” and “smaller” than the level of institutions. That is, it might seem to be a national problem of race and policing or a problem of individual bad, racist cops. But many of the resolutions to such problems depend on strong institutions of the kind that Levin describes—including police departments that weed out bad cops, better train their personnel, instill values that forbid abusive actions, and demand transparency about violations.
And then there are the riots—not the peaceful protests, but the instances of destruction and violence that have resulted in vivid images looping on cable news. This, too, might not at first seem like a problem where Levin’s institutional analysis is relevant. But one could argue that the rioters’ actions point to certain kinds of deficiencies of the institutions that ought to inculcate attitudes of respect and responsibility in our young people. (The rioters seem to be mostly young, white men and women.) I am reminded, too, of Levin’s discussion of social media and celebrity (“the culture of celebrity,” he writes, is “the enemy of a culture of integrity”). It seems like some of the violence we’ve seen in recent weeks has been acted out with the aim of obtaining some notoriety or celebrity online.
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…
With these three crises in mind, I thought I would reach out to Levin, whom I know a bit, and ask him about how his thinking about his thesis may have evolved in the eventful months since his book was published. (Full disclosure: I hope someday to be published in National Affairs, the quarterly journal Levin edits.)
First, I asked Levin about public confidence in the police. Has it declined—and if it has, is that the police’s own fault?
“Confidence in the police has actually tended to be fairly resistant to the broader collapse of trust in institutions in this century,” Levin told me. “Gallup has found that trust in the police has hovered around the 50 percent mark since the mid-1990s, rising and falling a little but not much. Their most recent poll on this, from this year, had it at 48 percent, which is the lowest they have found over this period but not by much.”
And confidence in the police, Levin says, is “divided by party, and to an even greater extent by race. There are obviously some deeply rooted reasons for this. So while I think it makes sense to think about the police in terms of the politicization of our institutions, and that public confidence in the police could decline more dramatically if the police appears to become more politicized in response to this summer’s violence, it’s still the case that confidence in law enforcement has not collapsed to the same degree that we have seen with public trust in other key institutions—political, professional, academic, and cultural.”
I then asked Levin about the response to the pandemic and why both federal and state governments seem to have mostly failed in responding to the pandemic.
“I think our response to COVID has definitely suffered from some of the forms of institutional corruption that I pointed to in the book,” he said. “Our political leaders have been so much in the habit of performative politics that the need for actual administration and governance have caught them unprepared at many levels. I also think we have seen the politicization of public health, and more generally the tendency of the culture war to fill all the civic spaces that might have been otherwise filled with both expertise and civic energy.” (It’s worth noting that Levin has written a bit about this, including in a New Atlantis essay called “Tribalism Comes for Pandemic Science.”)
“The pandemic,” Levin summarizes, “has presented an extremely difficult challenge to our public officials. It was never going to go smoothly, and essentially no one around the world has really handled it well. But the ways in which our institutions have been overcome by the culture war in this century has really showed itself in some of the problems we have encountered.”
I broached with Levin my idea that the lack of civic education, and a social tendency to reward crudeness and vulgarity over moderation, have contributed to the riots.
“I think all the factors you point to make sense,” Levin said. “I would also say that the disconnect between anger and action, between frustration with injustice and policy reform, has been encouraged by social media and other performative pressures, so that younger people in particular overestimate the value of expressive performance—of saying what you’re for—and underestimate the value of organizing, building institutions, and working within in those that exist.”
Levin also noted a disparity between the huge social effects and minimal policy effects of intentionally decentralized movements like Black Lives Matter. “Whatever you make of its aims, a movement like BLM that avoids having leadership and a structured organizational form can have huge cultural impact but not huge substantive political and policy impact. It’s not really built to do anything. And I do think that reflects the contemporary (deformed) sense of how change happens in society—a sense that ignores the place and character of institutions in society.”
It is far from clear what the long-term effects of the crises of 2020 will be. But if we want to effect positive changes—if we want to make lasting improvements, whether relating to police tactics, race relations, or matters of public health after the pandemic—it isn’t enough to be thinking only in terms of touching individual hearts and minds, or of vast social movements, or even of national electoral politics. We also must try to think institutionally.


thebulwark--2020-09-04--“Opportunity Zones” Don’t Actually Work

“Opportunity Zones” Don’t Actually Work

If you were one of the die-hards who diligently sat through last week ’ s Republican convention , you heard a lot of talk about opportunity zone ( OZ ) programs .
Created as part of the 2017 Republican tax bill , Opportunity Zones are a key component of the Republican Party ’ s outreach , such as it is , to minority voters .
The Opportunity Zones enjoy a fair amount of bipartisan support : They reduce the tax liability of investors who reinvest capital gains in certain census tracts .
These designated census tracts are often low-income ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an effort to create jobs and raise wages in those areas .
But like the rest of the Trumpist economic agenda , Opportunity Zones have not delivered on their promise so far and seem unlikely to do so in the future .
South Carolina Senator Tim Scott , one of the program ’ s original champions , called OZ ’ s “ the first new , major effort to tackle poverty in a generation.
” If this is our main effort to tackle poverty , then poverty will be with us for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ location-specific tax incentives ( such as OZs ) is to direct investment where it would not otherwise go .
In some sense this is counterproductive : We are using public policy to direct capital away from its most productive ends .
But if the OZs addressed involuntary unemployment in depressed areas , or created self-sustaining agglomeration economies , perhaps they would be worth it .
But those are the best-case scenarios .
Sometimes things don ’ t work out that nicely To be eligible for OZ designation by a state ’ s governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have a poverty rate of at least 20 percent , or a median family income that is below 80 percent of the statewide median ( or below 80 percent of the metropolitan area median if that is higher and the tract is inside a metro area ) .
In addition , up to 5 percent of OZ tracts can be higher-income tracts that are contiguous to tracts that meet the poverty or income standards.
” Because of these eligibility criteria , high-income neighborhoods and rapidly gentrifying areas can be designated opportunity zones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vague targeting can wind up helping the people who are already economic winners .
For example , a census tract can contain both public housing and high-income areas , and be eligible based on its poverty rate .
Some census tracts were eligible simply because they are adjacent to an eligible tract .
The Brooklyn waterfront , now an Opportunity Zone in New York , was eligible because its census tract is contiguous to a census tract that contains a large public-housing complex .
Local policymakers may also simply fold the designation into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the locations the Washington metro area offered for Amazon ’ s HQ2 , for example , were largely inside OZs .
That was convenient for the D.C. area and for Amazon .
But not particularly helpful for low-income residents or unemployed people at the lower end of the wage scale .
And it isn ’ t just ineffectiveness that ’ s a problem .
The targeting problems means that some share of the tax subsidy will wind up going to investment that would have occurred anyway , turning the program into an extraordinarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirms that Opportunity Zone investment has disproportionately flowed into OZs that were already flourishing .
Perhaps as a consequence , home prices in opportunity zones—a forward-looking indicator of whether homebuyers expect dramatic change—have not increased .
In addition , to the extent that we can observe labor market effects , zip codes with opportunity zones seem to have slightly fewer job postings than similar areas that were not selected .
It ’ s probably a good thing that , despite how often Opportunity Zones were talked about at the RNC , these programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place-based spending ( which is mostly done by state and local governments ) .
The OZ program was originally scored to constitute only about 3 percent of spending on such policies at all levels of government .
That said , it is large by the standards of federal jobs programs : According to the Joint Committee on Taxation , annual spending on Opportunity Zones is now $ 3.5 billion—twice that of the Tennessee Valley Authority at its peak in the early 1950s .
For that kind of money , we ’ d be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

If you were one of the die-hards who diligently sat through last week’s Republican convention, you heard a lot of talk about opportunity zone (OZ) programs.
Created as part of the 2017 Republican tax bill, Opportunity Zones are a key component of the Republican Party’s outreach, such as it is, to minority voters.
The Opportunity Zones enjoy a fair amount of bipartisan support: They reduce the tax liability of investors who reinvest capital gains in certain census tracts. These designated census tracts are often low-income ones, and the program is typically presented as an effort to create jobs and raise wages in those areas.
But like the rest of the Trumpist economic agenda, Opportunity Zones have not delivered on their promise so far and seem unlikely to do so in the future.
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…
South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, one of the program’s original champions, called OZ’s “the first new, major effort to tackle poverty in a generation.”
If this is our main effort to tackle poverty, then poverty will be with us for a while.
The central idea underlying location-specific tax incentives (such as OZs) is to direct investment where it would not otherwise go.
In some sense this is counterproductive: We are using public policy to direct capital away from its most productive ends. But if the OZs addressed involuntary unemployment in depressed areas, or created self-sustaining agglomeration economies, perhaps they would be worth it. But those are the best-case scenarios.
Sometimes things don’t work out that nicely
To be eligible for OZ designation by a state’s governor, a census tract “usually needs to have a poverty rate of at least 20 percent, or a median family income that is below 80 percent of the statewide median (or below 80 percent of the metropolitan area median if that is higher and the tract is inside a metro area). In addition, up to 5 percent of OZ tracts can be higher-income tracts that are contiguous to tracts that meet the poverty or income standards.”
Because of these eligibility criteria, high-income neighborhoods and rapidly gentrifying areas can be designated opportunity zones. Meaning that the program’s vague targeting can wind up helping the people who are already economic winners.
For example, a census tract can contain both public housing and high-income areas, and be eligible based on its poverty rate. Some census tracts were eligible simply because they are adjacent to an eligible tract. The Brooklyn waterfront, now an Opportunity Zone in New York, was eligible because its census tract is contiguous to a census tract that contains a large public-housing complex.
Local policymakers may also simply fold the designation into existing development strategies: All four of the locations the District of Columbia offered for Amazon’s HQ2, for example, were largely inside OZs. That was convenient for the D.C. area and for Amazon. But not particularly helpful for low-income residents or unemployed people at the lower end of the wage scale.
And it isn’t just ineffectiveness that’s a problem. The targeting problems means that some share of the tax subsidy will wind up going to investment that would have occurred anyway, turning the program into an extraordinarily regressive tax cut. A recent study confirms that Opportunity Zone investment has disproportionately flowed into OZs that were already flourishing.
Perhaps as a consequence, home prices in opportunity zones—a forward-looking indicator of whether homebuyers expect dramatic change—have not increased. In addition, to the extent that we can observe labor market effects, zip codes with opportunity zones seem to have slightly fewer job postings than similar areas that were not selected.
It’s probably a good thing that, despite how often Opportunity Zones were talked about at the RNC, these programs are not a large share of overall place-based spending (which is mostly done by state and local governments). The OZ program was originally scored to constitute only about 3 percent of spending on such policies at all levels of government.
That said, it is large by the standards of federal jobs programs: According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, annual spending on Opportunity Zones is now $3.5 billion—twice that of the Tennessee Valley Authority at its peak in the early 1950s.
For that kind of money, we’d be better off with an actual Infrastructure Week.


thebulwark--2020-09-07--Trump Is Trying to Lose in Syria

Trump Is Trying to Lose in Syria

Donald Trump bragged at the Republican convention that he “ obliterated ” ISIS “ 100 percent.
” This victory has come despite Trump ’ s meddling , rather than as a result of it .
In fact , he ’ s made many serious mistakes—and the sacrifice of others has camouflaged his blunders .
For three years , Trump ’ s incompetence and affection for regional strongmen have endangered American lives and interests .
Last month , even as Trump rehearsed his convention speech , four Americans were wounded during a confrontation with Russian forces in Syria .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Syria last year , several nation-states and armed groups now struggle for territory—Russians , Syrians , Turks , Kurds , and Americans have dangerous encounters along Syria ’ s highways , jostling for regional control .
In the most recent case , Russian vehicles charged at an American convoy , colliding with a U.S. vehicle at high speed .
Northern Syria today is a gerrymandered mess , with different forces holding territory purely based on wherever they stood when Trump changed policy via tweet .
In that jumbled terrain , Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk , again and again .
There ’ s been a clear pattern for Trump ’ s blunders in Syria : pro-authoritarian tweets from the White House , creating perilous experiences for American troops .
Starting in 2017 , Turkish-backed forces have continually shot at American patrols in northern Syria .
U.S. troops sat exposed and outmatched in the town of Manbij , without the clear support of their own commander-in-chief , as Trump never condemned the treacherous behavior from a NATO ally .
As we now know , Turkish president Recep Erdogan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a week during this period .
It ’ s unclear whether Trump was afraid , smitten , or some of each .
I was an Army Officer deployed to northern Syria in late 2017 .
I would check Trump ’ s Twitter feed before our morning intelligence briefing to figure out what our policy was that day , and I was usually caught by surprise—as were our Kurdish partners .
Trump ’ s dance with Erdogan had terrible strategic consequences last fall , when Erdogan convinced the president suddenly to abandon America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instrumental in the fight against ISIS—leading to fighting that killed hundreds of loyal Kurdish soldiers .
Rather than imploring Turkey not to harm our local allies , the Kurds , Trump publicly suggested the two sides duke it out “ like two kids in a lot.
” The next year , with ISIS on the run , Trump ’ s soft spot for Vladimir Putin jeopardized not just U.S. lives but world stability .
In late 2017 , Trump tweeted that American hawks—or “ fools ” as he dubbed them—should trust Putin to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidently decided that Trump ’ s weak words were an invitation to test the limits of American policy .
Months later , Russian paramilitary forces brazenly crossed the Euphrates River into American territory .
Called The Wagner Group , these forces represent an unofficial arm of the Russian state .
Rather than getting their orders through the chain of command of the Russian Army , which has its own traditions , protocols , and processes , the Wagner Group answers directly to the oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin , who owes personal—rather than institutional—loyalty to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wagner mercenaries charging at Americans was not some sort of accident—Russian government officials apparently granted the militia permission to conduct the attack days in advance .
This represented an obvious hostile act towards U.S. special forces in the area .
In a little-covered battle reminiscent of the Cold War , Americans on the ground responded with airstrikes that killed dozens of Russian mercenaries .
The event could have led to a significant escalation between the United States and Russia .
Russia ’ s aggression towards U.S. forces continues to this day .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Russian army troops over the past few months .
This represents an escalation , of sorts—Putin is now willing to send uniformed Russian soldiers charging dangerously at American convoys .
These have come because of Trump ’ s bungled semi-withdrawal from Syria , leaving the country ’ s affairs even more convoluted than they were a year ago .
There hasn ’ t yet been major fighting between U.S. and Russian regulars , but with continued erratic guidance from this administration , an escalation might be inevitable .
Thankfully , no Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are likely similar events that haven ’ t emerged in the press , and it ’ s conceivable that deaths of American special forces or intelligence personnel wouldn ’ t be public information .
And in light of Trump ’ s closed-door statements about U.S. military personnel—describing them as “ suckers ” and “ losers ” —we shouldn ’ t expect him to prioritize American lives .
We should be alarmed .
Trump ’ s handling of this conflict indicates the grave danger he presents as commander-in-chief .
His actions have undermined American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it more difficult for the military to find loyal partners in conflict zones .
Any hostile encounter with a NATO partner like Turkey represents a threat to the world order .
Further deference to Putin weakens American interest .
Trump , of course , points to our Syrian intervention as a glorious triumph .
In many ways , it is .
But who exactly deserves the credit for the defeat of ISIS ?
Credit the Kurds or our fellow coalition members who fought and died in large numbers in the fight against ISIS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who organized and maintained a coalition of the willing to combat a moral abomination .
Credit Defense Secretary James Mattis for holding the line against the president ’ s worst instincts .
Syria has been in the world ’ s spotlight for the entire duration of Trump ’ s presidency .
But our limited successes there have been despite his actions , not because of them—and if we find ourselves with him as commander-in-chief for four more years , we should expect more cowardice and capitulation at the expense of U.S. interests and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Donald Trump bragged at the Republican convention that he “obliterated” ISIS “100 percent.” This victory has come despite Trump’s meddling, rather than as a result of it. In fact, he’s made many serious mistakes—and the sacrifice of others has camouflaged his blunders. For three years, Trump’s incompetence and affection for regional strongmen have endangered American lives and interests.
Last month, even as Trump rehearsed his convention speech, four Americans were wounded during a confrontation with Russian forces in Syria. In the wake of Trump’s partial withdrawal from Syria last year, several nation-states and armed groups now struggle for territory—Russians, Syrians, Turks, Kurds, and Americans have dangerous encounters along Syria’s highways, jostling for regional control. In the most recent case, Russian vehicles charged at an American convoy, colliding with a U.S. vehicle at high speed. Northern Syria today is a gerrymandered mess, with different forces holding territory purely based on wherever they stood when Trump changed policy via tweet.
In that jumbled terrain, Trump’s mismanagement has unthinkingly put Americans at risk, again and again.
There’s been a clear pattern for Trump’s blunders in Syria: pro-authoritarian tweets from the White House, creating perilous experiences for American troops.
Starting in 2017, Turkish-backed forces have continually shot at American patrols in northern Syria. U.S. troops sat exposed and outmatched in the town of Manbij, without the clear support of their own commander-in-chief, as Trump never condemned the treacherous behavior from a NATO ally. As we now know, Turkish president Recep Erdogan spoke to Trump as often as twice a week during this period. It’s unclear whether Trump was afraid, smitten, or some of each. I was an Army Officer deployed to northern Syria in late 2017. I would check Trump’s Twitter feed before our morning intelligence briefing to figure out what our policy was that day, and I was usually caught by surprise—as were our Kurdish partners.
Trump’s dance with Erdogan had terrible strategic consequences last fall, when Erdogan convinced the president suddenly to abandon America’s Kurdish partners who had been so instrumental in the fight against ISIS—leading to fighting that killed hundreds of loyal Kurdish soldiers. Rather than imploring Turkey not to harm our local allies, the Kurds, Trump publicly suggested the two sides duke it out “like two kids in a lot.”
The next year, with ISIS on the run, Trump’s soft spot for Vladimir Putin jeopardized not just U.S. lives but world stability. In late 2017, Trump tweeted that American hawks—or “fools” as he dubbed them—should trust Putin to help U.S. efforts in Syria. Putin evidently decided that Trump’s weak words were an invitation to test the limits of American policy. Months later, Russian paramilitary forces brazenly crossed the Euphrates River into American territory.
Called The Wagner Group, these forces represent an unofficial arm of the Russian state. Rather than getting their orders through the chain of command of the Russian Army, which has its own traditions, protocols, and processes, the Wagner Group answers directly to the oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, who owes personal—rather than institutional—loyalty to Putin. Sending a large force of Wagner mercenaries charging at Americans was not some sort of accident—Russian government officials apparently granted the militia permission to conduct the attack days in advance. This represented an obvious hostile act towards U.S. special forces in the area. In a little-covered battle reminiscent of the Cold War, Americans on the ground responded with airstrikes that killed dozens of Russian mercenaries. The event could have led to a significant escalation between the United States and Russia.
Russia’s aggression towards U.S. forces continues to this day. There have been routine hostile clashes between U.S. and Russian army troops over the past few months. This represents an escalation, of sorts—Putin is now willing to send uniformed Russian soldiers charging dangerously at American convoys. These have come because of Trump’s bungled semi-withdrawal from Syria, leaving the country’s affairs even more convoluted than they were a year ago. There hasn’t yet been major fighting between U.S. and Russian regulars, but with continued erratic guidance from this administration, an escalation might be inevitable.
Thankfully, no Americans have been killed in these attacks—though there are likely similar events that haven’t emerged in the press, and it’s conceivable that deaths of American special forces or intelligence personnel wouldn’t be public information. And in light of Trump’s closed-door statements about U.S. military personnel—describing them as “suckers” and “losers”—we shouldn’t expect him to prioritize American lives.
We should be alarmed. Trump’s handling of this conflict indicates the grave danger he presents as commander-in-chief. His actions have undermined American alliances, jeopardized NATO, and made it more difficult for the military to find loyal partners in conflict zones. Any hostile encounter with a NATO partner like Turkey represents a threat to the world order. Further deference to Putin weakens American interest.
Trump, of course, points to our Syrian intervention as a glorious triumph. In many ways, it is. But who exactly deserves the credit for the defeat of ISIS? Credit the Kurds or our fellow coalition members who fought and died in large numbers in the fight against ISIS. Credit diplomats like Brett McGurk, who organized and maintained a coalition of the willing to combat a moral abomination. Credit Defense Secretary James Mattis for holding the line against the president’s worst instincts.
Syria has been in the world’s spotlight for the entire duration of Trump’s presidency. But our limited successes there have been despite his actions, not because of them—and if we find ourselves with him as commander-in-chief for four more years, we should expect more cowardice and capitulation at the expense of U.S. interests and lives in the Middle East and beyond.


thebulwark--2020-09-07--Who Will Speak for the Uighurs?

Who Will Speak for the Uighurs?

It ’ s easy to imagine how the conversation between Xi Xinping and Donald Trump went—the one John Bolton recounted in his book .
Xi doubtless told Trump that China was putting a few of the nation ’ s 12 million Uighurs , the ones who had displayed terrorist tendencies , into special schools where they were interned and reformed before being released .
Mr. Muslim Ban cheerfully assented , telling the Chinese dictator that he was doing “ exactly the right thing.
” Of course , as everyone with greater than 8th-grade reading comprehension knows , Xi ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not targeting Uighurs who have shown terrorist tendencies , it is crushing an entire ethno/religious minority in brutal fashion .
Even if he only selectively scans newspapers looking for mentions of his own name , Trump must have been told this at some point during a briefing .
Then again , he has a tendency to believe strong men more than American officials .
This drone footage showing hundreds of blindfolded and shackled Uighur men being boarded onto trains is reminiscent of World War II .
The so-called re-education camps are , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a million men , women , and children .
Last week , Chinese officials brazenly insisted that these camps are “ vocational education schools , ” no different from those in Western nations .
Except for all that barbed wire , those guard towers , and massive concrete walls .
The Uighurs ’ supposed “ terrorist ” activities ?
Praying at the mosque too often .
Refusing to watch state television .
Growing a beard .
Simply being a minority ( ethnic Kazakhs are also targeted ) .
While imprisoned , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ criticize Islam , eat pork , speak Mandarin instead of their own Turkic tongue , and praise Xi Xinping.
” Escapees tell of mistreatment , beatings , and torture .
While “ schooled ” in these benevolent vocational institutions , Uighurs are also being used as forced labor .
Sen. Marco Rubio has introduced legislation to create a “ rebuttable presumption ” that goods from Xinjiang province are products of forced labor and therefore ineligible for import to the United States .
Now comes news that in addition to all of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy of forced abortion and sterilization against Uighur women .
A Uighur doctor who escaped to Turkey told iTV that she had performed up to 600 forced abortions and removal of wombs .
In one case , she said , the baby was still moving when it was dropped in the trash .
The policy is working .
The Han Chinese population of Xinjiang province is growing , while the Uighur birthrate has plummeted by 60 percent .
Just as President Trump was reluctant to criticize China ’ s handling of COVID-19 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was hoping for a trade deal , he has said that he was reluctant to impose sanctions over the ethnic cleansing of Uighurs for the same reason .
Under pressure , he finally did sign the Uighur Human Rights Policy Act in June , a slap on the wrist that imposed sanctions on a couple of Chinese officials .
But imagine for a moment that we had a president who was not spewing spittle about a Fox News reporter for confirming a damning Atlantic magazine piece , cheering on his followers ’ vigilante @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s hair appointment .
Imagine that we had a president with the dignity and largeness of vision to understand that America still means something in the world .
When we uphold human rights and human dignity , we are the America the world trusts .
A foreign policy that asserts “ America First ” is obnoxious to our allies and redolent of a discredited past , but above all it is a moral abdication .
If the United States no longer speaks for the oppressed , for the silenced , for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump partisans will protest that we can not engage in “ endless wars ” for other nations .
But that ’ s a dodge .
No one is suggesting war .
No , the U.S. should demand a United Nations investigation .
We may disdain the international organization , and our skepticism is well-founded in many ways , but other nations do pay attention to what happens there .
The Trump administration has pulled away , leaving more scope for China to exert influence .
Our diplomats should raise the Uighurs , Kazakhs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forum .
In concert with our allies , we should demand transparency from the Chinese .
They won ’ t comply , but we can make it as embarrassing as possible for them .
In 2004 , former “ refusenik ” Natan Sharansky recalled what it was like , as a prisoner in the Soviet gulag , to hear that President Ronald Reagan had declared the USSR to be an “ evil empire.
” We feel that we ’ re drowning in our own troubles in 2020 America .
But speaking up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help to remind us of who we once were and can be again .

It’s easy to imagine how the conversation between Xi Xinping and Donald Trump went—the one John Bolton recounted in his book. Xi doubtless told Trump that China was putting a few of the nation’s 12 million Uighurs, the ones who had displayed terrorist tendencies, into special schools where they were interned and reformed before being released. Mr. Muslim Ban cheerfully assented, telling the Chinese dictator that he was doing “exactly the right thing.”
Of course, as everyone with greater than 8th-grade reading comprehension knows, Xi’s depiction was pure agitprop. China is not targeting Uighurs who have shown terrorist tendencies, it is crushing an entire ethno/religious minority in brutal fashion. Even if he only selectively scans newspapers looking for mentions of his own name, Trump must have been told this at some point during a briefing. Then again, he has a tendency to believe strong men more than American officials.
This drone footage showing hundreds of blindfolded and shackled Uighur men being boarded onto trains is reminiscent of World War II. The so-called re-education camps are, in reality, concentration camps, holding up to a million men, women, and children. Last week, Chinese officials brazenly insisted that these camps are “vocational education schools,” no different from those in Western nations. Except for all that barbed wire, those guard towers, and massive concrete walls. The Uighurs’ supposed “terrorist” activities? Praying at the mosque too often. Refusing to watch state television. Growing a beard. Simply being a minority (ethnic Kazakhs are also targeted). While imprisoned, the Economist reports, inmates are forced to “criticize Islam, eat pork, speak Mandarin instead of their own Turkic tongue, and praise Xi Xinping.” Escapees tell of mistreatment, beatings, and torture.
While “schooled” in these benevolent vocational institutions, Uighurs are also being used as forced labor. Sen. Marco Rubio has introduced legislation to create a “rebuttable presumption” that goods from Xinjiang province are products of forced labor and therefore ineligible for import to the United States.
Now comes news that in addition to all of the above, China is engaged in a policy of forced abortion and sterilization against Uighur women. A Uighur doctor who escaped to Turkey told iTV that she had performed up to 600 forced abortions and removal of wombs. In one case, she said, the baby was still moving when it was dropped in the trash. The policy is working. The Han Chinese population of Xinjiang province is growing, while the Uighur birthrate has plummeted by 60 percent.
Just as President Trump was reluctant to criticize China’s handling of COVID-19 in the early months of 2020 because he was hoping for a trade deal, he has said that he was reluctant to impose sanctions over the ethnic cleansing of Uighurs for the same reason. Under pressure, he finally did sign the Uighur Human Rights Policy Act in June, a slap on the wrist that imposed sanctions on a couple of Chinese officials.
But imagine for a moment that we had a president who was not spewing spittle about a Fox News reporter for confirming a damning Atlantic magazine piece, cheering on his followers’ vigilante violence, or tweeting about Nancy Pelosi’s hair appointment. Imagine that we had a president with the dignity and largeness of vision to understand that America still means something in the world. When we uphold human rights and human dignity, we are the America the world trusts.
A foreign policy that asserts “America First” is obnoxious to our allies and redolent of a discredited past, but above all it is a moral abdication. If the United States no longer speaks for the oppressed, for the silenced, for the persecuted, it loses its soul.
Trump partisans will protest that we cannot engage in “endless wars” for other nations. But that’s a dodge. No one is suggesting war.
No, the U.S. should demand a United Nations investigation. We may disdain the international organization, and our skepticism is well-founded in many ways, but other nations do pay attention to what happens there. The Trump administration has pulled away, leaving more scope for China to exert influence. Our diplomats should raise the Uighurs, Kazakhs, and Tibetans too at every international forum. In concert with our allies, we should demand transparency from the Chinese. They won’t comply, but we can make it as embarrassing as possible for them.
In 2004, former “refusenik” Natan Sharansky recalled what it was like, as a prisoner in the Soviet gulag, to hear that President Ronald Reagan had declared the USSR to be an “evil empire.”
It was the brightest, most glorious day. Finally a spade had been called a spade. Finally, Orwell’s Newspeak was dead. President Reagan had from that moment made it impossible for anyone in the West to continue closing their eyes to the real nature of the Soviet Union. . . . It was one of the most important, freedom-affirming declarations, and we all instantly knew it.
We feel that we’re drowning in our own troubles in 2020 America. But speaking up for the world’s most vulnerable might help to remind us of who we once were and can be again.


thebulwark--2020-09-07--Donald Trump Is the Trojan Horse

Donald Trump Is the Trojan Horse

Recently , Donald Trump was asked about his party ’ s embrace of QAnon , whose followers believe that Tom Hanks , Ellen DeGeneres , the Dalai Lama , Hillary Clinton , and George Soros are all involved in a secret pedophile ring in which children are killed and eaten in order to cultivate a life-saving chemical from their blood .
“ I ’ ve heard these are people that love our country , ” Trump said .
“ So I don ’ t know really anything about it other than they do supposedly like me.
” This was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ QAnon always say nice things about Donald Trump , so of course he reciprocates .
That ’ s literally his entire strategy for life .
But it is pretty funny .
Because the Trump campaign has spent the last six months claiming that while Joe Biden might look like a moderate Democrat , he ’ s little more than a Trojan Horse for the evil forces of the radical , commie left .
That ’ s literally the metaphor he uses .
Standing on the White House lawn accepting his party ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trojan Horse for socialism.
” The “ Trojan Horse ” attack is part of Trump ’ s efforts to portray Biden as a weak man who is controlled by others .
For example , Trump was asked by Fox News host Laura Ingraham who he thinks is “ pulling Biden ’ s strings.
” “ People who you ’ ve never heard of , ” Trump answered .
He then clarified they are “ people who are in the dark shadows ” and “ people who are in the streets , people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is clear : Trump wants to portray Biden as a doddering , senile old man who can easily be corrupted by extreme forces on the left .
A guy whose brain is an AirBnb available for cheap rental by Antifa , or looters , whoever is the villain of the morning on Fox & Friends .
This strategy has not ( yet ) worked .
Joe Biden has been in federal office for 47 years .
The public knows full well who he is and what he stands for .
Last week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man ” persona , Biden forcefully denounced violence happening in cities in response to police brutality against African Americans .
And he reminded Americans that this unrest is happening during Trump ’ s administration—that Trump ’ s ludicrous reelection pitch is that he must be reelected to a second term in order to save the country from the country from the consequences of his first term .
But even as the president is pitching Biden as being a Trojan horse for extremists , Trump refuses to condemn violence carried out by his MAGA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He invited the St. Louis couple who are charged with carelessly waving guns at black protestors marching past their home to speak at the Republican National Convention .
And then there ’ s the really crazy stuff .
You may recall that Trump rode to political prominence by embracing the “ Birther ” theory that Barack Obama hadn ’ t been born in the United States , and was thus ineligible to hold office .
He has since stoked a similar theory about Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris .
During the 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Sen. Ted Cruz ’ s father had been involved in John F. Kennedy ’ s assassination .
That same year , he also openly speculated that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had been murdered , claiming—falsely—that “ they found a pillow on his face , which is a pretty unusual place to find a pillow.
” While in office , Trump has suggested that MSNBC host and former Congressman Joe Scarborough murdered one of his former female interns .
He explained away his impeachment by referencing a debunked theory that held that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Democratic National Committee server in Ukraine .
He has called the fictional “ Obamagate ” scandal “ the biggest political crime in American history.
” Trump spent months touting hydroxychloroquine as a drug he said was a miracle cure .
( It isn ’ t . )
This was not the first time he ’ s parroted bogus science when it comes to health care : During a debate in 2016 , he suggested vaccinations caused autism .
Oh , and don ’ t forget the president suggesting that the “ Deep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine until after the November election in order to hurt him .
What ’ s clear—crystal clear—is that Donald Trump is the Trojan Horse .
He ’ s the one who brought crazed extremist conspiracy mongering into mainstream public life .
And his worldview—those who support Trump are Halal , those who oppose Trump are Haram—makes him the puppet .
Because if you ’ ve got a red hat , a Facebook account , and two thumbs , the president of the United States is going to take your side , no matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re selling .
If you say that Satan-worshipping Bill Gates is controlling the world but that Donald Trump is the hero trying to save us , then Donald Trump , like a good puppet , he ’ s going to dance .

Recently, Donald Trump was asked about his party’s embrace of QAnon, whose followers believe that Tom Hanks, Ellen DeGeneres, the Dalai Lama, Hillary Clinton, and George Soros are all involved in a secret pedophile ring in which children are killed and eaten in order to cultivate a life-saving chemical from their blood.
“I’ve heard these are people that love our country,” Trump said. “So I don’t know really anything about it other than they do supposedly like me.”
This was not surprising. The very fine people of QAnon always say nice things about Donald Trump, so of course he reciprocates. That’s literally his entire strategy for life.
But it is pretty funny.
Because the Trump campaign has spent the last six months claiming that while Joe Biden might look like a moderate Democrat, he’s little more than a Trojan Horse for the evil forces of the radical, commie left.
That’s literally the metaphor he uses. Standing on the White House lawn accepting his party’s nomination, Trump called Biden a “Trojan Horse for socialism.”
The “Trojan Horse” attack is part of Trump’s efforts to portray Biden as a weak man who is controlled by others. For example, Trump was asked by Fox News host Laura Ingraham who he thinks is “pulling Biden’s strings.”
“People who you’ve never heard of,” Trump answered. He then clarified they are “people who are in the dark shadows” and “people who are in the streets, people who are controlling the streets.”
The strategy is clear: Trump wants to portray Biden as a doddering, senile old man who can easily be corrupted by extreme forces on the left. A guy whose brain is an AirBnb available for cheap rental by Antifa, or looters, whoever is the villain of the morning on Fox & Friends.
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 strategy has not (yet) worked.
Joe Biden has been in federal office for 47 years. The public knows full well who he is and what he stands for. Last week, donning his “c’mon, man” persona, Biden forcefully denounced violence happening in cities in response to police brutality against African Americans. And he reminded Americans that this unrest is happening during Trump’s administration—that Trump’s ludicrous reelection pitch is that he must be reelected to a second term in order to save the country from the consequences of his first term.
But even as the president is pitching Biden as being a Trojan horse for extremists, Trump refuses to condemn violence carried out by his MAGA army. He defends killer Kyle Rittenhouse. He invited the St. Louis couple who are charged with carelessly waving guns at black protestors marching past their home to speak at the Republican National Convention.
And then there’s the really crazy stuff.
You may recall that Trump rode to political prominence by embracing the “Birther” theory that Barack Obama hadn’t been born in the United States, and was thus ineligible to hold office. He has since stoked a similar theory about vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris.
During the 2016 Republican primary, Trump circulated a theory that Sen. Ted Cruz’s father had been involved in John F. Kennedy’s assassination. That same year, he also openly speculated that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had been murdered, claiming—falsely—that “they found a pillow on his face, which is a pretty unusual place to find a pillow.”
While in office, Trump has suggested that MSNBC host and former Congressman Joe Scarborough murdered one of his former female interns. He explained away his impeachment by referencing a debunked theory that held that a California-based company called Crowdstrike was hiding a Democratic National Committee server in Ukraine. He has called the fictional “Obamagate” scandal “the biggest political crime in American history.”
Trump spent months touting hydroxychloroquine as a miracle cure. (It isn’t.) This was not the first time he’s parroted bogus science when it comes to health care: During a debate in 2016, he suggested vaccinations caused autism. Oh, and don’t forget the president suggesting that the “Deep State” is holding back a COVID-19 vaccine until after the November election in order to hurt him.
What’s clear—crystal clear—is that Donald Trump is the Trojan Horse. He’s the one who brought crazed extremist conspiracy mongering into mainstream public life.
And his worldview—those who support Trump are Halal, those who oppose Trump are Haram—makes him the puppet.
Because if you’ve got a red hat, a Facebook account, and two thumbs, the president of the United States is going to take your side, no matter what sort of bat-shit crazy you’re selling.
If you say that Satan-worshipping Bill Gates is controlling the world but that Donald Trump is the hero trying to save us, then Donald Trump, like a good puppet, he’s going to dance.


Property Is People

When rioters began looting and burning businesses in cities across the country , their apologists assured us that this was “ just property , ” that it could not compare to the need to defend human lives , and anyway , it would all be covered by insurance .
That argument was put forward in an instantly notorious NPR interview with Vicky Osterweil , who has written a whole book in defense of looting as a form of political protest .
Osterweil glibly asserts that looting is “ basically nonviolent.
” “ Most stores are insured ; it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s just money .
It ’ s just property .
It ’ s not actually hurting any people.
” That line about insurance is proof that Osterweil and other apologists have never run a business and have absolutely no clue how any of this works .
In the world ’ s least surprising news , it turns out that insurance will only cover a fraction of the rebuilding costs : Though Gov .
Tim Walz has estimated that total losses will exceed $ 500 million , insurance companies have informed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be covering a maximum of $ 240 million in riot-related damage .
In the 5-mile stretch of Minneapolis that sustained the heaviest destruction , uninsured losses among local small-business owners are at least $ 200 million , according to the Lake Street Council .
… In some cases , owners let their policies lapse when COVID-19 struck and the state ordered them to close , erasing the source of income they needed to pay their premiums .
Others bought bare-bones coverage because that was all they could afford .
Insurance agents said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % more to buy enough coverage to pay the actual cost of rebuilding vs. policies that cover a property ’ s current value .
Older buildings are usually worth far less than they cost to replace .
A bigger problem is availability .
Insurers often won ’ t cover older structures because they have not been updated with new roofs , plumbing , or electrical systems .
In all likelihood , many of these businesses will not be rebuilt , and their neighborhoods will be blighted for decades to come , just as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1968 .
But the real problem is not mere ignorance of how the economy works .
It ’ s the underlying differentiation between property and human life that is false and arbitrary .
Property is people .
Property is both the product of an individual ’ s labor and the means of sustaining his life .
Osterweil and other leftist ideologues might try to talk themselves into the abstract fantasy that “ without police and without state oppression , we can have things for free , ” but everyone else knows this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; everything has a cost , because everything requires human time and effort to make .
A television is not just a television .
It is something that was produced through human labor , planning , and effort , and it was purchased by trading the product of your own effort .
All the things that we have just seen stolen , broken , or burned in these riots—clothing , televisions , food , mattresses , automobiles , shop windows , and whole buildings—all of them are not mere things .
They are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years , decades of someone ’ s life .
This is in fact the basic theory behind modern property rights , as articulated by John Locke , the English philosopher who provided the political ideas at the foundation of American government .
Locke argued that the one thing we all indisputably own is our own bodies , and therefore our own labor .
The things we find pre-existing in nature , land and raw materials , are owned by no-one—until we “ mingle our labor ” with them—by , say , plowing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cutting down the tree to make a log cabin , or digging up ore to make iron .
“ The Labour of his Body , and the Work of his Hands , we may say , are properly his .
Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided , and left it in , he hath mixed his Labour with , and joyned to it something that is his own , and thereby makes it his Property , ” Locke wrote .
To deny the right of property , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man ’ s ownership of his own body .
Property is people in the most literal sense .
The first property everyone owns is their own mind and body , and that is the basis of all other property rights .
Property is also a means of sustaining life .
This is a truth that might seem abstract to the academic and intellectual class , but it is clear for workers and shop owners : a truck , a set of tools , a stock of goods in a store room , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not “ just things.
” They are the means for making more things , the means for putting a roof over your head and food on the table .
Stable and assured access to physical property is a necessity of life .
The most extreme demonstrations of this can be found when the looting of property is committed on the kind of vast scale that only a state can impose .
Consider the Holodomor , the terror-famine imposed on Ukraine by the Soviet government in the 1930s as part of its push to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due primarily to a decrease in agricultural production but to an all-out assault on the farmers ’ property rights .
Ukrainian farmers starved while surrounded by acres of grain , because their crops were requisitioned by the state and seized by vicious enforcers to fill impossible quotas .
Stalin literally made it a crime to eat one ’ s own crops .
The reality of a world without property is a world in which , far from enjoying abundance for free , no one can count on a place to sleep or a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mouths , without fear of having it seized by the state or sacked by looters .
But no one actually envisions , in good faith , a world without property .
The notion is primarily a plaything of the educated upper-middle-class—those who don ’ t live off of physical property , but also those who are used to taking such property and its safety for granted .
Hence the unintentional levity of a robust copyright notice in the front of Osterweil ’ s book warning the reader that “ The scanning , uploading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permission is a theft of the author ’ s intellectual property.
” I guess “ It ’ s only property ” actually means , “ It ’ s only someone else ’ s property.
” That ’ s why it feels ridiculous to explain any of this , because it requires you to talk to people like they are five years old .
If the cat knocks one of my kids ’ LEGO creations off the table and breaks it apart , they will complain loudly about how much time and effort they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ property and life is something we all know and rely on implicitly all the time .
You can go to college and get a degree that helps you unlearn these obvious truths by throwing around Marxist catch-phrases that have been discredited everywhere else .
But the idea makes so little sense that we are entitled to suspect this is a mere cover for a deeper motive .
A rioter looting a store isn ’ t thinking grand thoughts about social reform .
He is drunk with the sense of power that comes from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushing down anyone who gets in his way .
Similarly , the intellectual who spins excuses for that looter is more concerned with the thrill of his own pretended moral superiority over the “ bourgeois ” enemy and has no plan for any alleged ideal society in which everything is magically free .
Behind looting , and the defense of looting , is always lurking an element of hatred .
This also has been laid bare by the actual reality of looting .
In Kenosha , an elderly man trying to ward off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the head and hospitalized with a shattered jaw .
In Minneapolis , an immigrant restaurant owner described vandals who found nothing to steal and instead threw a rock at the family photo hanging on the wall .
Property is people , and looting is act of hatred .
That ’ s one thing we should learn very thoroughly from the last few months .

When rioters began looting and burning businesses in cities across the country, their apologists assured us that this was “just property,” that it could not compare to the need to defend human lives, and anyway, it would all be covered by insurance.
That argument was put forward in an instantly notorious NPR interview with Vicky Osterweil, who has written a whole book in defense of looting as a form of political protest. Osterweil glibly asserts that looting is “basically nonviolent.”
“Most stores are insured; it’s just hurting insurance companies on some level. It’s just money. It’s just property. It’s not actually hurting any people.”
That line about insurance is proof that Osterweil and other apologists have never run a business and have absolutely no clue how any of this works. In the world’s least surprising news, it turns out that insurance will only cover a fraction of the rebuilding costs:
Though Gov. Tim Walz has estimated that total losses will exceed $500 million, insurance companies have informed the Minnesota Department of Commerce that they will be covering a maximum of $240 million in riot-related damage. In the 5-mile stretch of Minneapolis that sustained the heaviest destruction, uninsured losses among local small-business owners are at least $200 million, according to the Lake Street Council. … In some cases, owners let their policies lapse when COVID-19 struck and the state ordered them to close, erasing the source of income they needed to pay their premiums. Others bought bare-bones coverage because that was all they could afford. Insurance agents said it typically costs 25% to 50% more to buy enough coverage to pay the actual cost of rebuilding vs. policies that cover a property’s current value. Older buildings are usually worth far less than they cost to replace. A bigger problem is availability. Insurers often won’t cover older structures because they have not been updated with new roofs, plumbing, or electrical systems.
In all likelihood, many of these businesses will not be rebuilt, and their neighborhoods will be blighted for decades to come, just as they were after the race riots in 1968.
But the real problem is not mere ignorance of how the economy works. It’s the underlying differentiation between property and human life that is false and arbitrary.
Property is people. Property is both the product of an individual’s labor and the means of sustaining his life.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Osterweil and other leftist ideologues might try to talk themselves into the abstract fantasy that “without police and without state oppression, we can have things for free,” but everyone else knows this is nonsense. Nothing is “free”; everything has a cost, because everything requires human time and effort to make. A television is not just a television. It is something that was produced through human labor, planning, and effort, and it was purchased by trading the product of your own effort.
All the things that we have just seen stolen, broken, or burned in these riots—clothing, televisions, food, mattresses, automobiles, shop windows, and whole buildings—all of them are not mere things. They are the embodiment of hours, days, years, decades of someone’s life.
This is in fact the basic theory behind modern property rights, as articulated by John Locke, the English philosopher who provided the political ideas at the foundation of American government. Locke argued that the one thing we all indisputably own is our own bodies, and therefore our own labor. The things we find pre-existing in nature, land and raw materials, are owned by no-one—until we “mingle our labor” with them—by, say, plowing a field to plant a crop, or cutting down the tree to make a log cabin, or digging up ore to make iron.
“The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property,” Locke wrote. To deny the right of property, in effect, is to deny a man’s ownership of his own body. Property is people in the most literal sense. The first property everyone owns is their own mind and body, and that is the basis of all other property rights.
Property is also a means of sustaining life. This is a truth that might seem abstract to the academic and intellectual class, but it is clear for workers and shop owners: a truck, a set of tools, a stock of goods in a store room, the inventory on one’s shelves—these are not “just things.” They are the means for making more things, the means for putting a roof over your head and food on the table.
Stable and assured access to physical property is a necessity of life.
The most extreme demonstrations of this can be found when the looting of property is committed on the kind of vast scale that only a state can impose. Consider the Holodomor, the terror-famine imposed on Ukraine by the Soviet government in the 1930s as part of its push to collectivize agriculture. The famine was not due primarily to a decrease in agricultural production but to an all-out assault on the farmers’ property rights. Ukrainian farmers starved while surrounded by acres of grain, because their crops were requisitioned by the state and seized by vicious enforcers to fill impossible quotas. Stalin literally made it a crime to eat one’s own crops.
The reality of a world without property is a world in which, far from enjoying abundance for free, no one can count on a place to sleep or a morsel of food to put in their mouths, without fear of having it seized by the state or sacked by looters.
But no one actually envisions, in good faith, a world without property. The notion is primarily a plaything of the educated upper-middle-class—those who don’t live off of physical property, but also those who are used to taking such property and its safety for granted. Hence the unintentional levity of a robust copyright notice in the front of Osterweil’s book warning the reader that “The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book without permission is a theft of the author’s intellectual property.” I guess “It’s only property” actually means, “It’s only someone else’s property.”
That’s why it feels ridiculous to explain any of this, because it requires you to talk to people like they are five years old. If the cat knocks one of my kids’ LEGO creations off the table and breaks it apart, they will complain loudly about how much time and effort they spent building it. That connection between property and life is something we all know and rely on implicitly all the time.
You can go to college and get a degree that helps you unlearn these obvious truths by throwing around Marxist catch-phrases that have been discredited everywhere else. But the idea makes so little sense that we are entitled to suspect this is a mere cover for a deeper motive. A rioter looting a store isn’t thinking grand thoughts about social reform. He is drunk with the sense of power that comes from grabbing something that isn’t his—and pushing down anyone who gets in his way. Similarly, the intellectual who spins excuses for that looter is more concerned with the thrill of his own pretended moral superiority over the “bourgeois” enemy and has no plan for any alleged ideal society in which everything is magically free.
Behind looting, and the defense of looting, is always lurking an element of hatred. This also has been laid bare by the actual reality of looting. In Kenosha, an elderly man trying to ward off looters with a fire extinguisher got bashed in the head and hospitalized with a shattered jaw. In Minneapolis, an immigrant restaurant owner described vandals who found nothing to steal and instead threw a rock at the family photo hanging on the wall.
Property is people, and looting is act of hatred. That’s one thing we should learn very thoroughly from the last few months.