thebulwark--2020-12-15--It’s Not About This Election, It’s About the Next One

When I first got my hair on fire about Donald Trump ’ s plan to exploit the quirks of mail-in voting to overturn the election results , a good friend of mine gave me a lot of grief for being alarmist .
Sure , maybe Trump would try , but there was no evidence that state and local Republican officials would agree to go along with his delusions .
He turned out to be right , for now—but I ’ m increasingly wondering if it ’ s only for now .
Trump ’ s attempt has failed because the ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the current attempt is preparing the ground , getting the rank and file of Republican to sign on to election conspiracy theories and be ready to demand a different result four years from now .
It ’ s not about this presidential election .
It ’ s about the next one .
I became well and truly alarmed before the election after reading a long article describing how Trump was preparing to undermine the vote .
I would say this article was prescient , except that Trump had been telegraphing what he wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has proceeded to attempt all of it .
The basic approach was to take advantage of the “ red mirage ” produced by the partisan differential between in-person and mail-in voting .
Republicans usually do slightly better with in-person voting , while Democrats have an edge in absentee and mail-in voting , but the mail-in vote isn ’ t usually big enough to make much of a difference .
During a pandemic year , particularly one in which Trump was downplaying the risks of COVID-19 , making his voters less likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was much larger .
This produced a window in which Trump could point to an early lead from in-person voting , dismiss mail-in votes as fraudulent—a line of attack he had been preparing all summer—and claim victory on election night , before all the votes were counted .
But this plan required follow-up from state-level officials—either election officials or members of state legislatures—who would be prepared to use this shift as an excuse to throw out the actual vote counts and grant Trump their state ’ s Electoral College votes .
Failing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try to achieve the same result by filing lawsuits that would end up in the Supreme Court , where Trump believed the majority of justices would back him .
Trump and his people have tried every aspect of this strategy—and failed .
Why did it fail ?
Because not enough people were willing to go along .
The first failure was Fox News Channel ’ s decision to call Arizona for Joe Biden relatively early on election night , depriving Trump of the narrative of an election-night victory that would then be “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Then various local officials agreed to certify the final counts that included mail-in ballots and confirmed a lead for Biden in Arizona , Michigan , Pennsylvania , Wisconsin , and Georgia .
Then Trump ’ s team took his case to court , only to have all but one of his suits tossed out—often contemptuously so—for lack of evidence .
( This lone procedural victory was reversed on appeal . )
I ’ m trying to decide whether my favorite is the judge who rejected supposed evidence because it came from an anonymous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s lawyers to task for making up a quote from a court ruling cited in support of his case .
Trump is now left with a last-ditch attempt to get at least one senator and one House member to object to the tally from the Electoral College , forcing the whole Congress to vote , on the record , on whether or not to accept the results of the election .
Even in this scenario , Trump will lose .
But winning this election is not the point any more .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ large number of congressional Republicans to officially sign on to Trump ’ s “ rigged election ” fantasy .
Many of the crucial decisions that prevented the Trump strategy from working were made by local officials who are Republicans , but who refused to sacrifice the integrity of the system for temporary partisan advantage .
Many of the rulings that tossed Trump ’ s spurious claims out of the courts were made by judges appointed by Republican presidents .
These people are Republicans—or were Republicans .
Will they remain so ?
Will they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
I ask because these officials represent the pre-Trump Republican party .
The judges were appointed in the two Bush presidencies , and the local election officials rose to their positions within the party either before Trump was in office , or before his influence had extended down to the details of local politics .
They did not act like Trump loyalists , because they were selected before loyalty to Trump became the party ’ s central , defining issue .
That increasingly looks like the party ’ s past , not its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the current tussling over the election is really about .
It ’ s not about overturning this election .
It ’ s about preparing the ground for the next one .
Consider a few scenes from that transformation .
We have Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filing a suit to invalidate the election results in other states , based on a series of debunked claims .
The suit was summarily rejected for consideration by the Supreme Court , but the point is that this is now the sort of thing an ambitious state-level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boost his standing in the party .
In Wisconsin , Republican lawmakers vowed to hold hearings about voting irregularities at which they would grill the state ’ s election officials .
Instead , they have asked not a single official or election expert to testify .
Rather , they are calling upon “ a conservative radio talk show host , a former state Supreme Court justice , a postal subcontractor who has offered a debunked theory about backdated absentee ballots , and an election observer whom President Donald Trump wants to testify in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the election.
” It ’ s less of a legislative hearing than it is the comments section of a Facebook post .
Thousands of Evangelical Trump supporters marched in Washington , DC , to proclaim Donald Trump ’ s election victory literally as an article of faith , preached to them by such religious luminaries as Alex Jones of the Church of Infowars .
But it ’ s not just the rubes and the fanatics .
Former intellectual luminaries of the right have endorsed the fantasy of a “ stolen election ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overturn the results by appointing pro-Trump electors .
Finally , as a threat to back all of this up , there is an alt-right group distributing the names and addresses of local election officials and targeting them for assassination .
These are the forces that are going to be reshaping the party for the next four years .
When it next comes time to appoint or elect a state election official , for example , do you think Republicans are going to back the kind of sane technocrat we ’ ve seen in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base view these figures as unacceptable and demand raving true believers ?
And then what happens when Donald Trump or some successor to his movement runs again , but with a party that has been thoroughly prepared , propagandized , and purged in order to sustain the narrative of a “ rigged election ” that needs to be corrected by overturning its results ?
Under Donald Trump , the Republican party is resigning itself to the status of a minority party .
It is giving up on any kind of “ big tent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on pandering to the prejudices of a relatively narrow base .
It is as if they have decided they are never going to win an outright national majority again—so they are trying to figure out how to wield power without having to win a majority .
Perhaps I ’ m being too alarmist .
Perhaps with Trump out of office and getting along in years , he will run out of steam , and there will be no successor who can harness quite the same forces .
The next election will almost certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that make the mail-in vote decisive and thus won ’ t present the exact same opportunities for mischief .
Perhaps the QAnon people will all go barking off after another target and lose interest .
But after five years of this , of barriers breaking down and guardrails giving out , of previously sober friends and colleagues wandering off in the fever swamps of conspiracy theories , of things that we thought would never happen in a million years happening—I ’ m more worried about not being alarmist enough .

When I first got my hair on fire about Donald Trump’s plan to exploit the quirks of mail-in voting to overturn the election results, a good friend of mine gave me a lot of grief for being alarmist. Sure, maybe Trump would try, but there was no evidence that state and local Republican officials would agree to go along with his delusions.
He turned out to be right, for now—but I’m increasingly wondering if it’s only for now. Trump’s attempt has failed because the ground was not prepared for it.
But the current attempt is preparing the ground, getting the rank and file of Republican to sign on to election conspiracy theories and be ready to demand a different result four years from now.
It’s not about this presidential election. It’s about the next one.
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…
I became well and truly alarmed before the election after reading a long article describing how Trump was preparing to undermine the vote. I would say this article was prescient, except that Trump had been telegraphing what he wanted to do for months ahead of time—and he has proceeded to attempt all of it.
The basic approach was to take advantage of the “red mirage” produced by the partisan differential between in-person and mail-in voting. Republicans usually do slightly better with in-person voting, while Democrats have an edge in absentee and mail-in voting, but the mail-in vote isn’t usually big enough to make much of a difference. During a pandemic year, particularly one in which Trump was downplaying the risks of COVID-19, making his voters less likely to mail in their ballots, that effect was much larger. This produced a window in which Trump could point to an early lead from in-person voting, dismiss mail-in votes as fraudulent—a line of attack he had been preparing all summer—and claim victory on election night, before all the votes were counted.
But this plan required follow-up from state-level officials—either election officials or members of state legislatures—who would be prepared to use this shift as an excuse to throw out the actual vote counts and grant Trump their state’s Electoral College votes. Failing that, it required that the Trump campaign try to achieve the same result by filing lawsuits that would end up in the Supreme Court, where Trump believed the majority of justices would back him.
Trump and his people have tried every aspect of this strategy—and failed. Why did it fail? Because not enough people were willing to go along. The first failure was Fox News Channel’s decision to call Arizona for Joe Biden relatively early on election night, depriving Trump of the narrative of an election-night victory that would then be “stolen” by late-counted mail-in votes. Then various local officials agreed to certify the final counts that included mail-in ballots and confirmed a lead for Biden in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia.
Then Trump’s team took his case to court, only to have all but one of his suits tossed out—often contemptuously so—for lack of evidence. (This lone procedural victory was reversed on appeal.) I’m trying to decide whether my favorite is the judge who rejected supposed evidence because it came from an anonymous Internet troll or the judge who took Trump’s lawyers to task for making up a quote from a court ruling cited in support of his case.
Trump is now left with a last-ditch attempt to get at least one senator and one House member to object to the tally from the Electoral College, forcing the whole Congress to vote, on the record, on whether or not to accept the results of the election. Even in this scenario, Trump will lose.
But winning this election is not the point any more. The point now is to get a large number of congressional Republicans to officially sign on to Trump’s “rigged election” fantasy.
Many of the crucial decisions that prevented the Trump strategy from working were made by local officials who are Republicans, but who refused to sacrifice the integrity of the system for temporary partisan advantage. Many of the rulings that tossed Trump’s spurious claims out of the courts were made by judges appointed by Republican presidents.
These people are Republicans—or were Republicans. Will they remain so? Will they still even be welcome in the party?
I ask because these officials represent the pre-Trump Republican party. The judges were appointed in the two Bush presidencies, and the local election officials rose to their positions within the party either before Trump was in office, or before his influence had extended down to the details of local politics. They did not act like Trump loyalists, because they were selected before loyalty to Trump became the party’s central, defining issue.
That increasingly looks like the party’s past, not its future.
And that’s what the current tussling over the election is really about. It’s not about overturning this election. It’s about preparing the ground for the next one.
Consider a few scenes from that transformation.
We have Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filing a suit to invalidate the election results in other states, based on a series of debunked claims. The suit was summarily rejected for consideration by the Supreme Court, but the point is that this is now the sort of thing an ambitious state-level politician does to get himself noticed and boost his standing in the party.
In Wisconsin, Republican lawmakers vowed to hold hearings about voting irregularities at which they would grill the state’s election officials. Instead, they have asked not a single official or election expert to testify. Rather, they are calling upon “a conservative radio talk show host, a former state Supreme Court justice, a postal subcontractor who has offered a debunked theory about backdated absentee ballots, and an election observer whom President Donald Trump wants to testify in court in one of his lawsuits over the election.”
It’s less of a legislative hearing than it is the comments section of a Facebook post.
Thousands of Evangelical Trump supporters marched in Washington, DC, to proclaim Donald Trump’s election victory literally as an article of faith, preached to them by such religious luminaries as Alex Jones of the Church of Infowars.
But it’s not just the rubes and the fanatics. Former intellectual luminaries of the right have endorsed the fantasy of a “stolen election” and signed petitions calling on state legislators to overturn the results by appointing pro-Trump electors.
Finally, as a threat to back all of this up, there is an alt-right group distributing the names and addresses of local election officials and targeting them for assassination.
These are the forces that are going to be reshaping the party for the next four years. When it next comes time to appoint or elect a state election official, for example, do you think Republicans are going to back the kind of sane technocrat we’ve seen in this election? Or will the fanatical base view these figures as unacceptable and demand raving true believers?
And then what happens when Donald Trump or some successor to his movement runs again, but with a party that has been thoroughly prepared, propagandized, and purged in order to sustain the narrative of a “rigged election” that needs to be corrected by overturning its results?
Under Donald Trump, the Republican party is resigning itself to the status of a minority party. It is giving up on any kind of “big tent” appeal, doubling and tripling down on pandering to the prejudices of a relatively narrow base. It is as if they have decided they are never going to win an outright national majority again—so they are trying to figure out how to wield power without having to win a majority.
Perhaps I’m being too alarmist. Perhaps with Trump out of office and getting along in years, he will run out of steam, and there will be no successor who can harness quite the same forces. The next election will almost certainly not take place in the pandemic conditions that make the mail-in vote decisive and thus won’t present the exact same opportunities for mischief. Perhaps the QAnon people will all go barking off after another target and lose interest.
But after five years of this, of barriers breaking down and guardrails giving out, of previously sober friends and colleagues wandering off in the fever swamps of conspiracy theories, of things that we thought would never happen in a million years happening—I’m more worried about not being alarmist enough.


Bye-Bye, Bill Barr

Some heads snapped when Attorney General William Barr told the truth on December 1 .
“ To date , we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.
” This was not the Bill Barr we had come to expect .
We were surprised again when we learned that Hunter Biden has been under federal investigation for some months , that this was known to Barr , and that he didn ’ t disclose it to President Trump for use in the campaign .
These are damning facts—if you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president .
Contradicting Trump ’ s wild , absurdist fantasy of a Hugo-Chavez-orchestrated/hammer-and-scorecard/Dominion plot to steal the election that Trump had “ won by a landslide ” was bound to be a poker in the eye for the chief executive .
And to think that Barr had incriminating information about Hunter Biden—the sort of thing Trump had gotten himself impeached attempting to extort—and kept it under wraps ?
Well , Barr ’ s days were numbered .
Never mind that there are only ( praise God ) 36 days left in the administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ served above all .
Barr should be grateful that he was offered the chance to submit a letter of resignation rather than be fired by tweet ( though , of course , there was a tweet ) .
And frankly , it ’ s hard to feel sympathy for the guy .
Yes , those last two unexpected spasms of basic ethics must be weighed in the balance when considering his tenure , but Barr has much to answer for .
Unlike Omarosa , “ the Mooch , ” Cohen , Lewandowski , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with , William Pelham Barr , attorney general under George H. W. Bush , former CIA , former Verizon attorney , was as pure an embodiment of the Republican establishment as you could find .
Most of Trump ’ s hangers-on were con men and frauds like their mentor .
If those had been Trump ’ s only enablers , he wouldn ’ t have gone far .
No , in order to seize the Republican party and the White House , he needed the assistance of a few key figures , people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The first to extend this was the governor of New Jersey , Chris Christie .
Sen. Jeff Sessions was the second .
Others followed .
They laid their reputations on the altar of Trump and watched them burn .
It was the tribute he demanded .
One of the more shocking revelations of this low , contemptible era is how much these seemingly self-respecting figures seemed to relish their servility .
Barr immolated his reputation first by misrepresenting the contents of the Mueller report , telling the world that the special counsel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not recommend further steps including prosecution or impeachment .
Responding to a reporter ’ s question , Barr explicitly denied that “ but for ” the Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president , Mueller might have recommended action .
Mueller protested that this is not what the report said , and when the redacted report was released , it became clear to all that Barr had misled us about that very matter .
We know that Barr ’ s tolerance for deceit and disgraceful conduct had to be pretty robust because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after watching his predecessor get flayed alive for following ethics rules .
This is a question for every one of Trump ’ s post-Sessions hires .
Sessions was a fool to endorse Trump in the primaries , but at least he was an early adopter unable to learn from others ’ mistakes .
He also turned out to have some standards .
The rules said he needed to recuse himself .
So he did it .
The fact that Trump not only resented Sessions for this , but couldn ’ t fathom how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other than raw self-interest , or Trump-interest , told you everything you needed to know about Trump .
Trump ’ s selfishness is pathological .
Yet , there was Bill Barr , batting his eyes and lifting his skirt in Trump ’ s direction .
Barr was a weird amalgam of toady and totem .
He constantly disregarded Justice Department precedent and ethical standards in service to his chief .
As Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith recount in After Trump : Reconstructing the Presidency , Barr appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter .
That much was not improper .
What followed was .
Against Justice Department norms and regulations requiring department officials to remain mum about ongoing investigations , Barr offered public comments about what Durham was finding .
He said the FBI had acted in bad faith .
Asked if government employees had committed treason , Barr implied something terrible by responding , “ not as a legal matter , no.
” Regarding former FBI Director James Comey , Barr opined that “ I think Comey has cast himself as being seven layers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t think that holds water .
The record will be clear that that ’ s not the case.
” He criss-crossed the world seeking evidence for what he must have hoped would be Durham ’ s deus ex machina , redeeming Trump ’ s reputation in the Russia matter and wreaking vengeance on his accusers .
He intervened in Roger Stone ’ s case to decrease his sentence—a favor not offered to any non-Donald Trump friend .
He intervened in the Michael Flynn case as well .
But there were lines he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participate in the latest and most damaging of Trump ’ s assaults on America ’ s democracy—the stolen election fraud .
He pushed back .
And he didn ’ t hand over dirt on Hunter Biden .
Had he never joined the Trump administration , Barr would be remembered as a completely honorable man .
As it is , his legacy is badly tarnished .
Still , Barr had some standards .
How much worse could things have been if he had none ?

Some heads snapped when Attorney General William Barr told the truth on December 1. “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” This was not the Bill Barr we had come to expect. We were surprised again when we learned that Hunter Biden has been under federal investigation for some months, that this was known to Barr, and that he didn’t disclose it to President Trump for use in the campaign. These are damning facts—if you’re working for America’s most corrupt president. Contradicting Trump’s wild, absurdist fantasy of a Hugo-Chavez-orchestrated/hammer-and-scorecard/Dominion plot to steal the election that Trump had “won by a landslide” was bound to be a poker in the eye for the chief executive. And to think that Barr had incriminating information about Hunter Biden—the sort of thing Trump had gotten himself impeached attempting to extort—and kept it under wraps? Well, Barr’s days were numbered.
Never mind that there are only (praise God) 36 days left in the administration. Trump’s petulance must be served above all.
Barr should be grateful that he was offered the chance to submit a letter of resignation rather than be fired by tweet (though, of course, there was a tweet). And frankly, it’s hard to feel sympathy for the guy. Yes, those last two unexpected spasms of basic ethics must be weighed in the balance when considering his tenure, but Barr has much to answer for.
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…
Unlike Omarosa, “the Mooch,” Cohen, Lewandowski, and the other C-listers Trump surrounded himself with, William Pelham Barr, attorney general under George H. W. Bush, former CIA, former Verizon attorney, was as pure an embodiment of the Republican establishment as you could find. Most of Trump’s hangers-on were con men and frauds like their mentor. If those had been Trump’s only enablers, he wouldn’t have gone far.
No, in order to seize the Republican party and the White House, he needed the assistance of a few key figures, people with credibility, if not quite gravitas. The first to extend this was the governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie. Sen. Jeff Sessions was the second. Others followed. They laid their reputations on the altar of Trump and watched them burn. It was the tribute he demanded. One of the more shocking revelations of this low, contemptible era is how much these seemingly self-respecting figures seemed to relish their servility.
Barr immolated his reputation first by misrepresenting the contents of the Mueller report, telling the world that the special counsel had found no collusion and therefore did not recommend further steps including prosecution or impeachment. Responding to a reporter’s question, Barr explicitly denied that “but for” the Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president, Mueller might have recommended action. Mueller protested that this is not what the report said, and when the redacted report was released, it became clear to all that Barr had misled us about that very matter.
We know that Barr’s tolerance for deceit and disgraceful conduct had to be pretty robust because he auditioned for the attorney general job after watching his predecessor get flayed alive for following ethics rules. This is a question for every one of Trump’s post-Sessions hires. Sessions was a fool to endorse Trump in the primaries, but at least he was an early adopter unable to learn from others’ mistakes. He also turned out to have some standards. The rules said he needed to recuse himself. So he did it. The fact that Trump not only resented Sessions for this, but couldn’t fathom how someone could mold their behavior to anything other than raw self-interest, or Trump-interest, told you everything you needed to know about Trump. Trump’s selfishness is pathological.
Yet, there was Bill Barr, batting his eyes and lifting his skirt in Trump’s direction.
Barr was a weird amalgam of toady and totem. He constantly disregarded Justice Department precedent and ethical standards in service to his chief. As Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith recount in After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency, Barr appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham to “investigate the investigators” in the Russia matter. That much was not improper. What followed was. Against Justice Department norms and regulations requiring department officials to remain mum about ongoing investigations, Barr offered public comments about what Durham was finding. He said the FBI had acted in bad faith. Asked if government employees had committed treason, Barr implied something terrible by responding, “not as a legal matter, no.” Regarding former FBI Director James Comey, Barr opined that “I think Comey has cast himself as being seven layers above the decision-making. I don’t think that holds water. The record will be clear that that’s not the case.”
He criss-crossed the world seeking evidence for what he must have hoped would be Durham’s deus ex machina, redeeming Trump’s reputation in the Russia matter and wreaking vengeance on his accusers.
He intervened in Roger Stone’s case to decrease his sentence—a favor not offered to any non-Donald Trump friend. He intervened in the Michael Flynn case as well.
But there were lines he would not cross. He didn’t participate in the latest and most damaging of Trump’s assaults on America’s democracy—the stolen election fraud. He pushed back. And he didn’t hand over dirt on Hunter Biden.
Had he never joined the Trump administration, Barr would be remembered as a completely honorable man. As it is, his legacy is badly tarnished. Still, Barr had some standards. How much worse could things have been if he had none?


‘Songbird’ Review

Songbird is best-explained as “ The Michael Bay COVID Movie.
” This is not entirely fair to the actual director , Adam Mason , or the writers , Mason and Simon Boyes .
Bay , after all , is merely the producer .
But if you say the phrase “ Michael Bay COVID Movie ” and then think about what that might entail , you might envision something a bit like Songbird .
Sure , there aren ’ t any massive explosions .
However , there is the signature choppy editing and a whole coterie of top-tier supporting actors and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a movie that , honestly , kinda-sorta has something to say .
It ’ s more Pain & Gain than Transformers , in other words .
Set in the near future , a COVID-ravaged America has resorted to years of rolling lockdowns after the disease mutates and becomes far deadlier .
Rather than a 99.98 percent survival rate , nearly half of those who catch the mutated form of COVID die , and pretty quickly at that .
Citizens are required to check in daily for health screenings via smartphone app ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are sent to Q-zones so as to stop the spread of infection .
Bike courier Nico ( KJ Apa ) , whose immunity to the disease has earned him the epithet “ munie ” ( like “ mutie , ” from X-Men , just one of the many derivative touches here ) , has to save his girlfriend Sara ( Sofia Carson ) from “ Department of Sanitation ” employees empowered by martial law to clean the streets of those infected by the disease with extreme prejudice .
Written in March after production @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an almost-guerrilla style that earned criticism from the Screen Actors Guild because the producers “ have not been transparent about their safety protocols , ” Songbird is , basically , a high-class exploitation film .
With its ripped-from-the-headlines premise and its cheap , on-the-move style of filmmaking , it has all the hallmarks of something that would ’ ve run on drive-in screens and New York City ’ s less reputable screens back in the 1970s .
But the supporting cast here is top notch .
Craig Robinson ( The Office ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bradley Whitford ( The West Wing ) and Alexandra Daddario ( True Detective ) and Paul Walter Hauser ( Richard Jewell ) round out the ensemble cast of characters , each embodying a different sort of person trying to get by in a crisis .
You ’ ve got the grubby striver ( Robinson ) and the desperate mom ( Moore ) and the wide-eyed ingénue trapped in the City of Angels with nowhere to go ( Daddario ) and the wheelchair-bound vet who loves her ( Hauser ) and the liberal-with-a-heart-of-shit ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lovers .
( I ’ m not bothering with character names because , aside from the two leads , I literally couldn ’ t tell you the name of a single character in this film without looking it up . )
The true star of the show might be Peter Stormare , who plays a psychotic higher-up in the Department of Sanitation .
A munie himself , he explains that his ascent in the ranks from trash-truck driver to a leader of the most important , and vicious , municipal organizations had nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was seniority .
People above him kept dying so he kept moving up the food chain .
He ’ s a god now , able to go anywhere , do anything .
Look , Songbird isn ’ t good , exactly .
It ’ s the sort of movie I would ’ ve happily paid $ 10 to see at a mid-day matinee and feel kind of annoyed at being asked to pay $ 20 for at home .
Despite being just 84 minutes it feels a bit stretched , the emptiness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forming any real emotional attachment to them .
There are nice touches here and there—the sly comment on municipal employees above ; the concern Moore has for keeping her immunocompromised child safe in the face of unending plague ; Hauser ’ s crippled , housebound vet realizing the sadness that comes with being well suited for life in a world where the lockdowns never come to a close—but there ’ s something alienating about watching most of these actors act without actually acting near one another .
It ’ s like a hybrid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Searching-style movies with a mumblecore production shot with the frenetic energy of the Auteur of Awesome .
And yet .
There ’ s something ineffably transcendent about the whole enterprise , a vibe that can really only be summed up by describing the final , shocking bit of action .
Spoiler after the interstitial here .
If you are enjoying this review of Songbird , please consider signing up for Sonny ’ s newsletter , Screen Time .
Each week he writes about the latest updates in the world of Hollywood business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something old .
The vet played by Hauser is an expert at using drones ; his little whirlybird is painted with an American flag color scheme .
As the film comes to a close , Hauser sends the drone to help Daddario escape from Whitford , who we come to learn is a sexually predatory record executive cheating on Moore with the vivacious Daddario .
As Whitford tries to pull Daddario from the car , the drone fires a bullet , turning the old creep ’ s head to so much red mush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about all of this .
You have Richard Jewell ( Hauser ) using a drone done up as the American flag , the ultimate symbol of freedom , to eliminate a beloved liberal icon from The West Wing in order to save an innocent young woman from the predations of a Hollywood goon—all while a surgical mask , the ever-present-item of our moment , dangles from her ear .
It ’ s like a cultural car crash , a pile-up of people and ideas and memes slamming together 70 mph in a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ windshield .
Again : I ’ m not sure Songbird is good .
But I ’ m kind of in awe that it exists at all .

Songbird is best-explained as “The Michael Bay COVID Movie.” This is not entirely fair to the actual director, Adam Mason, or the writers, Mason and Simon Boyes. Bay, after all, is merely the producer.
But if you say the phrase “Michael Bay COVID Movie” and then think about what that might entail, you might envision something a bit like Songbird. Sure, there aren’t any massive explosions. However, there is the signature choppy editing and a whole coterie of top-tier supporting actors and a slightly dark comic sensibility butting up to a movie that, honestly, kinda-sorta has something to say. It’s more Pain & Gain than Transformers, in other words.
Set in the near future, a COVID-ravaged America has resorted to years of rolling lockdowns after the disease mutates and becomes far deadlier. Rather than a 99.98 percent survival rate, nearly half of those who catch the mutated form of COVID die, and pretty quickly at that. Citizens are required to check in daily for health screenings via smartphone app; those who show signs of the disease are sent to Q-zones so as to stop the spread of infection. Bike courier Nico (KJ Apa), whose immunity to the disease has earned him the epithet “munie” (like “mutie,” from X-Men, just one of the many derivative touches here), has to save his girlfriend Sara (Sofia Carson) from “Department of Sanitation” employees empowered by martial law to clean the streets of those infected by the disease with extreme prejudice.
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…
Written in March after production shutdowns stymied the film industry and shot in an almost-guerrilla style that earned criticism from the Screen Actors Guild because the producers “have not been transparent about their safety protocols,” Songbird is, basically, a high-class exploitation film. With its ripped-from-the-headlines premise and its cheap, on-the-move style of filmmaking, it has all the hallmarks of something that would’ve run on drive-in screens and New York City’s less reputable screens back in the 1970s.
But the supporting cast here is top notch. Craig Robinson (The Office) and Demi Moore (Striptease) and Bradley Whitford (The West Wing) and Alexandra Daddario (True Detective) and Paul Walter Hauser (Richard Jewell) round out the ensemble cast of characters, each embodying a different sort of person trying to get by in a crisis. You’ve got the grubby striver (Robinson) and the desperate mom (Moore) and the wide-eyed ingénue trapped in the City of Angels with nowhere to go (Daddario) and the wheelchair-bound vet who loves her (Hauser) and the liberal-with-a-heart-of-shit (Whitford) all intersecting with our disease-crossed lovers. (I’m not bothering with character names because, aside from the two leads, I literally couldn’t tell you the name of a single character in this film without looking it up.)
The true star of the show might be Peter Stormare, who plays a psychotic higher-up in the Department of Sanitation. A munie himself, he explains that his ascent in the ranks from trash-truck driver to a leader of the most important, and vicious, municipal organizations had nothing to do with skill or talent.
It was seniority. People above him kept dying so he kept moving up the food chain. He’s a god now, able to go anywhere, do anything.
Kill anyone.
Look, Songbird isn’t good, exactly. It’s the sort of movie I would’ve happily paid $10 to see at a mid-day matinee and feel kind of annoyed at being asked to pay $20 for at home. Despite being just 84 minutes it feels a bit stretched, the emptiness of Nico and Sara keeping us from forming any real emotional attachment to them.
There are nice touches here and there—the sly comment on municipal employees above; the concern Moore has for keeping her immunocompromised child safe in the face of unending plague; Hauser’s crippled, housebound vet realizing the sadness that comes with being well suited for life in a world where the lockdowns never come to a close—but there’s something alienating about watching most of these actors act without actually acting near one another. It’s like a hybrid of one of those screen-based, Unfriended– or Searching-style movies with a mumblecore production shot with the frenetic energy of the Auteur of Awesome.
And yet. There’s something ineffably transcendent about the whole enterprise, a vibe that can really only be summed up by describing the final, shocking bit of action. Spoiler after the interstitial here.
(Seriously, stop reading now if you don’t want to know how Songbird ends.)
If you are enjoying this review of Songbird, please consider signing up for Sonny’s newsletter, Screen Time. Each week he writes about the latest updates in the world of Hollywood business while also reviewing something new and recommending something old.
The vet played by Hauser is an expert at using drones; his little whirlybird is painted with an American flag color scheme. As the film comes to a close, Hauser sends the drone to help Daddario escape from Whitford, who we come to learn is a sexually predatory record executive cheating on Moore with the vivacious Daddario. As Whitford tries to pull Daddario from the car, the drone fires a bullet, turning the old creep’s head to so much red mush.
There’s just something perfect about all of this. You have Richard Jewell (Hauser) using a drone done up as the American flag, the ultimate symbol of freedom, to eliminate a beloved liberal icon from The West Wing in order to save an innocent young woman from the predations of a Hollywood goon—all while a surgical mask, the ever-present-item of our moment, dangles from her ear. It’s like a cultural car crash, a pile-up of people and ideas and memes slamming together 70 mph in a way that leaves nothing but goo on the windshield.
Again: I’m not sure Songbird is good. But I’m kind of in awe that it exists at all.


thebulwark--2020-12-16--Strengthen the Guardrails of Democracy

Strengthen the Guardrails of Democracy

Now that the election is over , everyone in the Biden coalition is jockeying for a position and trying to get their people in place and their issues on the agenda .
The Congressional Black Caucus pushed for a black secretary of defense .
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus got its wish for Hispanic heads of homeland security and health and human services .
Bernie Sanders wants to be secretary of labor .
It ’ s now clear that every part of the Biden coalition was absolutely necessary to his victory , especially in swing states .
And that includes Never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just one example , Never Trump voters egged on by groups like Republican Voters Against Trump and the Lincoln Project split the ticket and 64,000 voted for Biden , a number three times larger than Biden ’ s margin of victory .
Nor are Never Trumpers people who jumped on the bandwagon at the last minute .
Many were supporting Joe Biden even before he decided to run and that support never wavered .
While Never Trumpers have as legitimate a claim on the spoils of victory as anyone else , what do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On June 11 , 2019 , Joe Biden gave a speech in Iowa where he said : Everywhere you turn , Trump is tearing down the guardrails of democracy .
.
.
.
What he ’ s doing isn ’ t your typical battle between two co-equal branches of government .
He is deliberately and completely ignoring the legitimate authority of the Congress .
.
.
In 2020 , we not only have to repudiate Donald Trump ’ s policies and values—we have to clearly and firmly reject his view of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re at a moment when we need to re-set constitutional norms in this country .
The presidency is not without limits .
The Congress is a co-equal branch of government .
Never Trumpers don ’ t necessarily want “ our ” people in positions of power .
We don ’ t want special favors from a grateful administration .
Never Trumpers want Joe Biden to do something he has already promised to do : rebuild and strengthen the guardrails of democracy .
The Guardrails of Democracy project has identified dozens of these kinds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : fixing the Vacancies Act , updating the Electoral Count Act , revamping the system under which presidential emergencies are declared and managed , etc .
None of these reforms is partisan .
They are all fixes that will be broadly supported by anyone , Democrat or Republican , conservative or progressive , who is not a fan of authoritarianism .
While there may be vigorous debates on how best to implement these reforms , there is broad consensus that these reforms should be implemented .
We can argue about how , precisely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prevent self-pardons , but does anyone really think presidents should be allowed to pardon themselves ?
Rebuilding the guardrails of democracy needs to be one of the defining themes of Joe Biden ’ s presidency .
Just because these reforms will have broad support doesn ’ t mean that implementing them will be easy .
The devil is in the details and working out those details and getting all the necessary legislation passed will require sustained attention and effort .
Our system of checks and balances has been drifting for decades as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the executive .
Now Donald Trump has spent four years actively damaging the fabric of American democracy .
Correcting that drift , fixing what he broke , and strengthening our institutions to handle the next wannabe autocrat isn ’ t something you can do with a single piece of legislation .
Ideally , President Biden would create a small Office of Legislative and Constitutional Reform specifically tasked with developing these reforms and getting them passed through Congress .
Perhaps it should be led by a Never Trump Republican , since we have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last four years .
But the important thing isn ’ t who does the work but that the work gets done .
Never Trumpers didn ’ t spend four-plus years trashing their careers and alienating their friends because we didn ’ t like Trump ’ s “ style.
” We opposed Trump because we recognized that what he stood for is an existential threat to the American experiment in constitutional democracy .
While Trump will be leaving on January 20 , the threat remains .
Donald Trump has opened a portal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expect other Trump-like creatures to cross into our universe .
If Donald Trump could figure out a way to do it , he would happily ignore the Constitution , ignore the laws , subvert our elections , and install himself as president for at least another four years .
If we have avoided autocracy this time it ’ s only because the current president isn ’ t competent enough or intelligent enough to pull it off .
But we can ’ t expect to be as lucky next time .
What do Never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want him to fulfill his promise , reinvigorate our system of checks and balances , and “ secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
” If President Biden is looking for a theme that will heal our divisions and unite the country , he isn ’ t going to do better than that .

Now that the election is over, everyone in the Biden coalition is jockeying for a position and trying to get their people in place and their issues on the agenda. The Congressional Black Caucus pushed for a black secretary of defense. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus got its wish for Hispanic heads of homeland security and health and human services. Bernie Sanders wants to be secretary of labor.
It’s now clear that every part of the Biden coalition was absolutely necessary to his victory, especially in swing states. And that includes Never Trumpers. In Wisconsin, to take just one example, Never Trump voters egged on by groups like Republican Voters Against Trump and the Lincoln Project split the ticket and 64,000 voted for Biden, a number three times larger than Biden’s margin of victory. Nor are Never Trumpers people who jumped on the bandwagon at the last minute. Many were supporting Joe Biden even before he decided to run and that support never wavered.
While Never Trumpers have as legitimate a claim on the spoils of victory as anyone else, what do they want? You might be surprised.
On June 11, 2019, Joe Biden gave a speech in Iowa where he said:
Everywhere you turn, Trump is tearing down the guardrails of democracy. . . . What he’s doing isn’t your typical battle between two co-equal branches of government. He is deliberately and completely ignoring the legitimate authority of the Congress . . . In 2020, we not only have to repudiate Donald Trump’s policies and values—we have to clearly and firmly reject his view of the presidency. . . . We’re at a moment when we need to re-set constitutional norms in this country. The presidency is not without limits. The Congress is a co-equal branch of government.
Never Trumpers don’t necessarily want “our” people in positions of power. We don’t want special favors from a grateful administration. Never Trumpers want Joe Biden to do something he has already promised to do: rebuild and strengthen the guardrails of democracy.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The Guardrails of Democracy project has identified dozens of these kinds of reforms that need to be implemented: fixing the Vacancies Act, updating the Electoral Count Act, revamping the system under which presidential emergencies are declared and managed, etc. None of these reforms is partisan. They are all fixes that will be broadly supported by anyone, Democrat or Republican, conservative or progressive, who is not a fan of authoritarianism. While there may be vigorous debates on how best to implement these reforms, there is broad consensus that these reforms should be implemented. We can argue about how, precisely, we ought to amend the Constitution to prevent self-pardons, but does anyone really think presidents should be allowed to pardon themselves?
Rebuilding the guardrails of democracy needs to be one of the defining themes of Joe Biden’s presidency. Just because these reforms will have broad support doesn’t mean that implementing them will be easy. The devil is in the details and working out those details and getting all the necessary legislation passed will require sustained attention and effort. Our system of checks and balances has been drifting for decades as Congress ceded more and more power to the executive. Now Donald Trump has spent four years actively damaging the fabric of American democracy. Correcting that drift, fixing what he broke, and strengthening our institutions to handle the next wannabe autocrat isn’t something you can do with a single piece of legislation.
Ideally, President Biden would create a small Office of Legislative and Constitutional Reform specifically tasked with developing these reforms and getting them passed through Congress. Perhaps it should be led by a Never Trump Republican, since we have been sounding the alarm about these issues for the last four years. But the important thing isn’t who does the work but that the work gets done.
Never Trumpers didn’t spend four-plus years trashing their careers and alienating their friends because we didn’t like Trump’s “style.” We opposed Trump because we recognized that what he stood for is an existential threat to the American experiment in constitutional democracy. While Trump will be leaving on January 20, the threat remains.
Donald Trump has opened a portal to another political dimension and we can now expect other Trump-like creatures to cross into our universe. If Donald Trump could figure out a way to do it, he would happily ignore the Constitution, ignore the laws, subvert our elections, and install himself as president for at least another four years. If we have avoided autocracy this time it’s only because the current president isn’t competent enough or intelligent enough to pull it off. But we can’t expect to be as lucky next time.
What do Never Trumpers want from President Biden? We want him to fulfill his promise, reinvigorate our system of checks and balances, and “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” If President Biden is looking for a theme that will heal our divisions and unite the country, he isn’t going to do better than that.


thebulwark--2020-12-16--The Coming Re-Employment Crisis

The Coming Re-Employment Crisis

With the United States adding just 245,000 jobs in November—part of a dramatic slowdown in job growth over the past few months—the latest jobs report serves as a warning for what lies ahead in 2021 unless Congress provides additional fiscal stimulus .
It also points to renewed urgency for reforming the way the public workforce system supports workers who are caught between COVID-19 and long-term but rapidly accelerating changes in the job market .
Of the roughly 22 million jobs lost between February and April , a little more than half ( 12 million ) have been recovered .
Recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ created by surging coronavirus infections may lead to a second COVID recession and slow , painful climb-back after vaccines do their work .
Some analysts suggest it might take as many as four years just to get back to where we were before the pandemic .
Moreover , a lot of these layoffs are permanent , making it harder for workers to get back into the job market .
The jobs that are gone or going away and probably not coming back are largely in the service sector and concentrated among those with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service that make them especially vulnerable to coronavirus restrictions .
These include jobs like beauty consultants , valets , stylists , and pet groomers , all of which were flagged in Glassdoor ’ s 2021 Workplace Trends report as “ most ‘ at-risk ’ ” for loss in the post-COVID-19 economy .
Other at-risk occupations highlighted in the report include administrative and lower-skilled office roles that are now no longer needed or are vulnerable to automation .
COVID didn ’ t necessarily create these challenges but it has accelerated them and the effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and low-income Americans .
Left unaddressed , they could have significant impact on job opportunities for those already struggling to find a place in the American economy .
This combination of factors—high levels of unemployment and rapid shifts in labor-market demand—will put the weaknesses of the nation ’ s publicly funded workforce system under klieg lights .
As we saw on the front end of the pandemic , the unemployment insurance system dramatically failed to meet the challenge of mass unemployment .
Looking ahead , as vaccines are distributed and infections fall , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Job Centers ( AJCs ) , the local agencies charged with helping workers find training and work , threatening to inundate them with a multitude of job seekers chasing limited opportunities .
To avoid these bottlenecks and to equip workers with the resources they need to restart their work lives , Congress and the Biden administration should move quickly to adopt new strategies that can both relieve pressure on the workforce development system and help workers access the resources they need to acquire new skills .
In July , alongside Mason Bishop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ roadmap to re-employment ” outlining the critical reforms needed to prepare the workforce system for the surge in demand for services .
Our proposals focused on providing assistance directly to job seekers in the form of “ Personal Reemployment Accounts ” that could be used either for training or for supportive services like childcare , transportation , or relocation .
To backstop the worker-focused elements , we also recommended providing resources to states to work in partnership with businesses , local governments , and economic-planning agencies to develop strategic regional restart plans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lift entire economies by restoring the strength of key economic sectors .
We also recommended providing support for states to modernize their labor-market information systems to better connect workers to jobs and to better understand real-time supply and demand of skills in a region .
Finally , we recommended lifting restrictions on the so-called “ eligible training provider lists ” that govern which training programs are eligible to accept federal funding .
This would help to expand the number and types of training programs available to meet worker and business demand .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , will empower those who do not need hands-on support from the workforce system to find their way back to work while reducing the burden on AJCs , ultimately freeing up workforce-system dollars to help Americans with more significant barriers to employment .
The bottom line is this : The drastic , COVID-driven changes in the labor market are forcing many people to rethink their careers and consider additional skill training to better align their abilities with market demand .
We need a publicly funded workforce system that puts them and their needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @

With the United States adding just 245,000 jobs in November—part of a dramatic slowdown in job growth over the past few months—the latest jobs report serves as a warning for what lies ahead in 2021 unless Congress provides additional fiscal stimulus. It also points to renewed urgency for reforming the way the public workforce system supports workers who are caught between COVID-19 and long-term but rapidly accelerating changes in the job market.
Of the roughly 22 million jobs lost between February and April, a little more than half (12 million) have been recovered. Recent slowing in job growth and the stresses created by surging coronavirus infections may lead to a second COVID recession and slow, painful climb-back after vaccines do their work. Some analysts suggest it might take as many as four years just to get back to where we were before the pandemic. Moreover, a lot of these layoffs are permanent, making it harder for workers to get back into the job market.
The jobs that are gone or going away and probably not coming back are largely in the service sector and concentrated among those with some level of in-person customer or client service that make them especially vulnerable to coronavirus restrictions. These include jobs like beauty consultants, valets, stylists, and pet groomers, all of which were flagged in Glassdoor’s 2021 Workplace Trends report as “most ‘at-risk’” for loss in the post-COVID-19 economy. Other at-risk occupations highlighted in the report include administrative and lower-skilled office roles that are now no longer needed or are vulnerable to automation. COVID didn’t necessarily create these challenges but it has accelerated them and the effects are being felt most acutely by minority and low-income Americans. Left unaddressed, they could have significant impact on job opportunities for those already struggling to find a place in the American economy.
This combination of factors—high levels of unemployment and rapid shifts in labor-market demand—will put the weaknesses of the nation’s publicly funded workforce system under klieg lights. As we saw on the front end of the pandemic, the unemployment insurance system dramatically failed to meet the challenge of mass unemployment. Looking ahead, as vaccines are distributed and infections fall, mass re-employment will create similar stresses on American Job Centers (AJCs), the local agencies charged with helping workers find training and work, threatening to inundate them with a multitude of job seekers chasing limited opportunities. To avoid these bottlenecks and to equip workers with the resources they need to restart their work lives, Congress and the Biden administration should move quickly to adopt new strategies that can both relieve pressure on the workforce development system and help workers access the resources they need to acquire new skills.
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…
In July, alongside Mason Bishop and John Hawkins, we published a “roadmap to re-employment” outlining the critical reforms needed to prepare the workforce system for the surge in demand for services. Our proposals focused on providing assistance directly to job seekers in the form of “Personal Reemployment Accounts” that could be used either for training or for supportive services like childcare, transportation, or relocation. To backstop the worker-focused elements, we also recommended providing resources to states to work in partnership with businesses, local governments, and economic-planning agencies to develop strategic regional restart plans. These restart plans would seek to lift entire economies by restoring the strength of key economic sectors.
We also recommended providing support for states to modernize their labor-market information systems to better connect workers to jobs and to better understand real-time supply and demand of skills in a region.
Finally, we recommended lifting restrictions on the so-called “eligible training provider lists” that govern which training programs are eligible to accept federal funding. This would help to expand the number and types of training programs available to meet worker and business demand. These tools, combined with Personal Reemployment Accounts, will empower those who do not need hands-on support from the workforce system to find their way back to work while reducing the burden on AJCs, ultimately freeing up workforce-system dollars to help Americans with more significant barriers to employment.
The bottom line is this: The drastic, COVID-driven changes in the labor market are forcing many people to rethink their careers and consider additional skill training to better align their abilities with market demand. We need a publicly funded workforce system that puts them and their needs at the center of our policies.


thebulwark--2020-12-16--How Europe and the U.K. Can Reach a Fair Free Trade Deal

Ever since the United Kingdom unexpectedly voted to leave the EU back in 2016 , there has been an ongoing debate about what kind of relationship the U.K. and the EU should have in the future .
As part of the then-28 member state bloc , the U.K. subscribed to the “ four freedoms ” of the EU : freedom of movement , freedom of trade , freedom of capital , and freedom to establish and provide services .
Hardly anyone who voted for Brexit opposed the latter three of these freedoms .
Freedom of trade enjoys broad support in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ establishment led by Boris Johnson ( who is often unfairly compared to Donald Trump ) .
By contrast , freedom of movement , which provides for unfettered immigration within the member states , has long been unpopular in Great Britain .
The EU , however , has refused to contemplate free trade without freedom of movement , arguing that the four freedoms are inseparable and that the U.K. can ’ t be allowed to pick the chocolate chips out of the cookie .
The U.K. , on the other hand , has made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up border control in exchange for free trade , and have already legislated to introduce a new immigration system , based on Australia ’ s points system , that is set to go into force on January 1 .
Completely free trade is thus a very unlikely outcome , and the ongoing trade negotiations instead aim to achieve some type of tariff-reduction scheme .
In the U.K. , this is referred to as a Canadian-style trade agreement after the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the EU that went into effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has been hard to achieve due to a number of the demands from the EU .
Most importantly , the EU wants to ensure “ regulatory alignment ” and a “ level playing field ” between the EU and the U.K. What this means in practice is that , unlike Canada , the U.K. would be unable to deregulate in such a way as to make its products and services cheaper and more competitive than those of the EU .
Since one major reason why Brits voted to leave the EU was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this is an unacceptable demand .
The U.K. would still have to follow EU rules , only now without having a say in how those rules are made .
Any new regulations issued by the EU would have to be adopted by the U.K .
The demand for a level playing field is rather revealing : While supporters of the EU insist that the U.K. on its own will become more or less an uncompetitive economic wasteland , the insistence of a level playing field is an implicit admission that , freed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.K may become a serious economic competitor .
The EU fears a “ Singapore on the Thames ” —a low-tax , deregulated economy that will be geographically close enough that businesses can easily relocate there .
Second , the EU demands that the U.K. continue to abide by EU rules on state aid .
It may be surprising to Americans who picture Europe as a cornucopia of government intervention , but , state aid for businesses is heavily restricted .
Any subsidies targeted at a specific sector have to be approved by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get .
This is to ensure that no country gives its own businesses an unfair advantage versus the competition in the rest of the single market .
While any EU-U.K. agreement would still be subject to WTO rules on subsidies , the EU ’ s definition of what counts as a subsidy is much broader , and its regulation much stricter .
Given that the U.K. has a conservative government , one may wonder why state aid is so important .
The answer is , once again , rather revealing of unspoken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.K. ’ s side : The British government is well aware of the fact that an end to freedom of movement means that labor costs will increase , in particular in the agricultural sector , which is heavily reliant on cheap , seasonal labor from Eastern Europe .
Without subsidies far greater than those permitted by the EU , and with new trade agreements with countries like Australia and Brazil portending a massive inflow of cheap meat into the U.K. , significant portions of the British agricultural sector are likely to go bankrupt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a margin of almost 2-1 .
Third , the EU wants continued access to British waters .
Under EU rules , any area more than 12 nautical miles from the coast of a member state is open to all EU fishermen ( with some restrictions regarding quotas ) .
In the event that an agreement is not reached before the end of the transition period , this will automatically revert to 200 nautical miles—the international standard .
On the surface , fishing ought not to be a major issue in these negotiations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the British economy and employs just 0.06 percent of the workforce .
What makes fishing important is that a great selling point of the Leave campaign was to take back control of British waters , preventing overfishing by less scrupulous foreign fishermen .
British national identity also places a greater-than-normal emphasis on its waters : “ Britannia rule the waves , ” etc .
The loss of control over home waters was one of the worst humiliations to the British national ego accompanying membership in the EU .
Perhaps most importantly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same way that coal-mining towns depended on coal .
Abandoning the fishing industry could potentially doom Johnson ’ s Conservative party in many coastal towns , flipping currently-safe seats to political opponents .
There is a precedent for this : Large parts of Scotland used to be heavily reliant on coal .
After Margaret Thatcher more or less dismantled the coal industry and crushed the coal miners ’ union , the Tories rapidly went from winning close to a third of Scottish seats in Parliament to winning almost none .
At its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Tories failed to win a single seat in Scotland , and in the following three elections they won only one .
How to resolve these conflicts ?
Free trade is mutually beneficial , and should be maintained .
The EU to insistence that free movement is inseparable from free trade makes no sense : Free trade exists between countless nations around the world , and free movement is virtually never a part of the deal .
NAFTA did not mean free movement between the U.S. , Mexico , and Canada .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ good parts ” of an EU membership , such as free trade , the EU is implicitly admitting that free movement in its current form has failed .
If free trade is the only good thing about the EU , then why not dismantle the political union and reshape the EU into a purely free trade zone , similar to NAFTA ?
If EU negotiators really believe the benefits of free movement outweigh the costs ( and there are some reasons to think so ) , then their position should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not intransigence at what they won ’ t accept .
Regulatory alignment is also an unreasonable demand .
If U.K. deregulation meant that businesses based in Britain could offer goods and services at a lower price than businesses in the EU , this would benefit EU consumers .
Rather than view British deregulation as a threat , the EU should take the opportunity to reform its own vast bureaucracy to remain competitive .
If it doesn ’ t , the EU will require ever-increasing tariffs on foreign goods and services to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economies where regulations are less rigid .
Since free trade , with or without regulatory alignment , would benefit the EU , it is hard not to see these demands as vindictive : From the very beginning , there has been a strong faction within the EU which has sought to “ make an example ” out of the U.K. , to discredit euroskepticism as a political project and prevent other countries from following in its path .
To many EU leaders , Brexit is not just a disappointing political move , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrated that it seeks not merely a mutually beneficial arrangement , but rather to punish the U.K. Europe ’ s vindictiveness is reciprocated by the more radical elements of the Leave coalition , notably Nigel Farage .
A dogmatic determination to go at it alone will not benefit the U.K .
The desire to “ take back control ” is all well and good , but every agreement will mean giving up some control .
On free movement , a reasonable compromise would be to allow for unrestricted movement for those with advanced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fast-track application for seasonal agricultural workers .
As long as these migrants don ’ t have access to the welfare state , it ’ s virtually impossible to imagine a scenario where this would be a net negative to the British economy .
For everyone else , the points-based system could be implemented as it has been designed .
On state aid , a reasonable compromise would be to allow a degree of support for the agricultural sector , proportionate to any increase in the cost of doing business that may come from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also viable for the fishing industry : The EU can keep its current fishing quotas in British waters , but in exchange the U.K. would be allowed to subsidize its fishing industry to make up the difference ; i.e .
supplement revenue of the industry to the levels they would have been estimated to be , had the EU not had access to British waters .
Whether they like it or not , the U.K. and the EU will remain neighbors even after the transition period .
Neither fanatic nationalism nor dogmatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to be shelved in favor of sound pragmatism that will preserve free trade under fair terms , that will allow both the EU and the U.K. to pursue their own regulatory regimes and immigration rules .
In a world with a rising China and an aggressive Russia , vindictive infighting between Western countries is something neither can afford .

Ever since the United Kingdom unexpectedly voted to leave the EU back in 2016, there has been an ongoing debate about what kind of relationship the U.K. and the EU should have in the future. As part of the then-28 member state bloc, the U.K. subscribed to the “four freedoms” of the EU: freedom of movement, freedom of trade, freedom of capital, and freedom to establish and provide services.
Hardly anyone who voted for Brexit opposed the latter three of these freedoms. Freedom of trade enjoys broad support in the U.K., including from the political establishment led by Boris Johnson (who is often unfairly compared to Donald Trump). By contrast, freedom of movement, which provides for unfettered immigration within the member states, has long been unpopular in Great Britain.
The EU, however, has refused to contemplate free trade without freedom of movement, arguing that the four freedoms are inseparable and that the U.K. can’t be allowed to pick the chocolate chips out of the cookie. The U.K., on the other hand, has made it clear that it will not give up border control in exchange for free trade, and have already legislated to introduce a new immigration system, based on Australia’s points system, that is set to go into force on January 1.
Completely free trade is thus a very unlikely outcome, and the ongoing trade negotiations instead aim to achieve some type of tariff-reduction scheme. In the U.K., this is referred to as a Canadian-style trade agreement after the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the EU that went into effect in 2017. Even this, however, has been hard to achieve due to a number of the demands from the EU.
Most importantly, the EU wants to ensure “regulatory alignment” and a “level playing field” between the EU and the U.K. What this means in practice is that, unlike Canada, the U.K. would be unable to deregulate in such a way as to make its products and services cheaper and more competitive than those of the EU. Since one major reason why Brits voted to leave the EU was to get rid of the Brussels bureaucracy, this is an unacceptable demand. The U.K. would still have to follow EU rules, only now without having a say in how those rules are made. Any new regulations issued by the EU would have to be adopted by the U.K.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The demand for a level playing field is rather revealing: While supporters of the EU insist that the U.K. on its own will become more or less an uncompetitive economic wasteland, the insistence of a level playing field is an implicit admission that, freed from the restrictions of EU membership, the U.K may become a serious economic competitor. The EU fears a “Singapore on the Thames”—a low-tax, deregulated economy that will be geographically close enough that businesses can easily relocate there.
Second, the EU demands that the U.K. continue to abide by EU rules on state aid. It may be surprising to Americans who picture Europe as a cornucopia of government intervention, but, state aid for businesses is heavily restricted. Any subsidies targeted at a specific sector have to be approved by the EU, and approval is difficult to get. This is to ensure that no country gives its own businesses an unfair advantage versus the competition in the rest of the single market. While any EU-U.K. agreement would still be subject to WTO rules on subsidies, the EU’s definition of what counts as a subsidy is much broader, and its regulation much stricter.
Given that the U.K. has a conservative government, one may wonder why state aid is so important. The answer is, once again, rather revealing of unspoken fears, except this time on the U.K.’s side: The British government is well aware of the fact that an end to freedom of movement means that labor costs will increase, in particular in the agricultural sector, which is heavily reliant on cheap, seasonal labor from Eastern Europe. Without subsidies far greater than those permitted by the EU, and with new trade agreements with countries like Australia and Brazil portending a massive inflow of cheap meat into the U.K., significant portions of the British agricultural sector are likely to go bankrupt. Ironically, British farmerssupported Brexit by a margin of almost 2-1.
Third, the EU wants continued access to British waters. Under EU rules, any area more than 12 nautical miles from the coast of a member state is open to all EU fishermen (with some restrictions regarding quotas). In the event that an agreement is not reached before the end of the transition period, this will automatically revert to 200 nautical miles—the international standard. On the surface, fishing ought not to be a major issue in these negotiations, seeing as it represents only 0.12 percent of the British economy and employs just 0.06 percent of the workforce.
What makes fishing important is that a great selling point of the Leave campaign was to take back control of British waters, preventing overfishing by less scrupulous foreign fishermen. British national identity also places a greater-than-normal emphasis on its waters: “Britannia rule the waves,” etc. The loss of control over home waters was one of the worst humiliations to the British national ego accompanying membership in the EU. Perhaps most importantly, many local communities depend on fishing in the same way that coal-mining towns depended on coal. Abandoning the fishing industry could potentially doom Johnson’s Conservative party in many coastal towns, flipping currently-safe seats to political opponents. There is a precedent for this: Large parts of Scotland used to be heavily reliant on coal. After Margaret Thatcher more or less dismantled the coal industry and crushed the coal miners’ union, the Tories rapidly went from winning close to a third of Scottish seats in Parliament to winning almost none. At its lowest point, in the 1997 election, the Tories failed to win a single seat in Scotland, and in the following three elections they won only one.
How to resolve these conflicts? Free trade is mutually beneficial, and should be maintained. The EU to insistence that free movement is inseparable from free trade makes no sense: Free trade exists between countless nations around the world, and free movement is virtually never a part of the deal. NAFTA did not mean free movement between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.
By accusing the U.K. of only wanting the “good parts” of an EU membership, such as free trade, the EU is implicitly admitting that free movement in its current form has failed. If free trade is the only good thing about the EU, then why not dismantle the political union and reshape the EU into a purely free trade zone, similar to NAFTA? If EU negotiators really believe the benefits of free movement outweigh the costs (and there are some reasons to think so), then their position should be pity for what the Brits are losing, not intransigence at what they won’t accept.
Regulatory alignment is also an unreasonable demand. If U.K. deregulation meant that businesses based in Britain could offer goods and services at a lower price than businesses in the EU, this would benefit EU consumers. Rather than view British deregulation as a threat, the EU should take the opportunity to reform its own vast bureaucracy to remain competitive. If it doesn’t, the EU will require ever-increasing tariffs on foreign goods and services to protect its own industries from businesses in other economies where regulations are less rigid.
Since free trade, with or without regulatory alignment, would benefit the EU, it is hard not to see these demands as vindictive: From the very beginning, there has been a strong faction within the EU which has sought to “make an example” out of the U.K., to discredit euroskepticism as a political project and prevent other countries from following in its path. To many EU leaders, Brexit is not just a disappointing political move, but a personal insult. The EU has demonstrated that it seeks not merely a mutually beneficial arrangement, but rather to punish the U.K.
Europe’s vindictiveness is reciprocated by the more radical elements of the Leave coalition, notably Nigel Farage. A dogmatic determination to go at it alone will not benefit the U.K. The desire to “take back control” is all well and good, but every agreement will mean giving up some control. On free movement, a reasonable compromise would be to allow for unrestricted movement for those with advanced degrees, and generous immigration quotas with fast-track application for seasonal agricultural workers. As long as these migrants don’t have access to the welfare state, it’s virtually impossible to imagine a scenario where this would be a net negative to the British economy. For everyone else, the points-based system could be implemented as it has been designed.
On state aid, a reasonable compromise would be to allow a degree of support for the agricultural sector, proportionate to any increase in the cost of doing business that may come from leaving the EU. A similar solution is also viable for the fishing industry: The EU can keep its current fishing quotas in British waters, but in exchange the U.K. would be allowed to subsidize its fishing industry to make up the difference; i.e. supplement revenue of the industry to the levels they would have been estimated to be, had the EU not had access to British waters.
Whether they like it or not, the U.K. and the EU will remain neighbors even after the transition period. Neither fanatic nationalism nor dogmatic euro-federalism will change that, and both need to be shelved in favor of sound pragmatism that will preserve free trade under fair terms, that will allow both the EU and the U.K. to pursue their own regulatory regimes and immigration rules. In a world with a rising China and an aggressive Russia, vindictive infighting between Western countries is something neither can afford.