thebulwark--2020-11-17--The Week Democracy Pushed Back

The Week Democracy Pushed Back

In the ten days since we ’ ve known the result of the presidential election , Americans who felt the country undone by Donald Trump ’ s divisive presidency have stood up to his maneuvers to distort our most precious right—the vote .
Citizens and leaders of every stripe have used the republic ’ s constitutional tools to call a bully ’ s bluff .
For months , the president told us he would treat the election as unfair if he lost , even calling for white supremacist groups to “ stand by.
” But at this historic moment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most important pillars of our democracy—including the “ Bill of Rights institutions ” —have held firm .
That ’ s not to say that every American institution fared well .
The norms and mores for presidential conduct failed .
The Republican party chose power over democratic principles and the rule of law .
Still , it is important to stop and appreciate the institutions that stood up .
First in line , the free press and our country ’ s state-level election rules .
Across the board , the exquisitely factual election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public confidence in the system .
For days , journalists from TV and radio , newspapers , magazines , and websites reported in exhausting detail how battleground states ’ election officials administered the count in stages under varying state laws—and explicated demographics that determined voting mixes in different groupings of ballots as results rolled in .
Scrupulous reporting made a cumbersome complex process transparent .
Fortified by the credibility of the counting process , joyous street celebrations erupted around the country when networks “ called ” the result on the morning of November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment rights “ peaceably to assemble ” and “ to associate ” for political ends were leavened with plain old pursuit of happiness .
The vigor of those celebrations built on momentum gained in months of bipartisan public opposition to a second Trump term from national security luminaries , former cabinet-level officials , and former congressional Republican leaders .
As Alexis de Tocqueville famously observed , unlike Europeans , if Americans “ want to proclaim a truth or propagate some feeling .
.
.
they form an association ” rather than turning to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that insight has been on full display .
Organized citizen-groups converted the election result from a presumption Trump intended to rebut to a hard truth he could not bluster away .
The National Council on Election Integrity , a bipartisan group of former government and civic leaders , ran a “ We Did It ” TV ad campaign congratulating Americans on a secure election despite the global pandemic .
The rule-of-law Republicans at the Lincoln Project announced plans to run ads naming law firms litigating unfounded election fraud claims , thereby triggering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national , bipartisan group Lawyers Defending American Democracy ( with which one of us is involved ) released an open letter , signed by over 1,200 lawyers , calling out public officials and lawyers advancing baseless voter fraud claims .
And grassroots organizers committed to amass a quarter-million signatures demanding that the Trump administration lift its blockade of Biden ’ s transition funding .
Remaining faithful to their constitutional oaths , government leaders echoed those citizen-activist calls : • General Mark Milley , chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , publicly declared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to the Constitution , not “ to an individual ” —deflating the specter that the president might enlist military aid to resist a transfer of power .
• Christopher Krebs , the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection Agency , a division of the Department of Homeland Security , repeatedly contradicted Trump ’ s “ election fraud ” narrative , and his agency released a statement from a private-public partnership dedicated to election integrity that said “ the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history.
” The acting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to fire Krebs .
• Sixteen Justice Department prosecutors monitoring the 2020 election reported no significant evidence of voter fraud .
They publicly urged Attorney General William Barr to rescind his precedent-shattering November 9 memorandum injecting the department into investigations ( or related announcements ) that could affect the election before certification .
• Courts tossed out a ragtag series of post-election Trump legal challenges in five battleground states , rejecting fact-free allegations of fraud .
• GOP state legislature leaders in four key states won by Biden stated that they will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overturn their state ’ s popular vote count , absent fraud evidence which they have not seen .
Taken together , such actions of ordinary citizens and institutional leaders demonstrate that our constitutional rules have survived historic stress-testing—and that a widely shared commitment to preserve democratic values limits authoritarian reach .
Our Founders could hardly have imagined a reality-TV president .
But they built a constitutional republic to permit an engaged citizenry , a free press , dedicated government officials , and a conscientious judiciary to withstand an unbounded presidential personality , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Frederick Baron, Dennis Aftergut, and Frederick Hoxie

In the ten days since we’ve known the result of the presidential election, Americans who felt the country undone by Donald Trump’s divisive presidency have stood up to his maneuvers to distort our most precious right—the vote. Citizens and leaders of every stripe have used the republic’s constitutional tools to call a bully’s bluff.
For months, the president told us he would treat the election as unfair if he lost, even calling for white supremacist groups to “stand by.” But at this historic moment, under fire from Trump, many of the most important pillars of our democracy—including the “Bill of Rights institutions”—have held firm.
That’s not to say that every American institution fared well. The norms and mores for presidential conduct failed. The Republican party chose power over democratic principles and the rule of law.
Still, it is important to stop and appreciate the institutions that stood up. First in line, the free press and our country’s state-level election rules. Across the board, the exquisitely factual election count reporting by major news organizations bolstered public confidence in the system. For days, journalists from TV and radio, newspapers, magazines, and websites reported in exhausting detail how battleground states’ election officials administered the count in stages under varying state laws—and explicated demographics that determined voting mixes in different groupings of ballots as results rolled in. Scrupulous reporting made a cumbersome complex process transparent.
Fortified by the credibility of the counting process, joyous street celebrations erupted around the country when networks “called” the result on the morning of November 7. These spontaneous manifestations of First Amendment rights “peaceably to assemble” and “to associate” for political ends were leavened with plain old pursuit of happiness.
The vigor of those celebrations built on momentum gained in months of bipartisan public opposition to a second Trump term from national security luminaries, former cabinet-level officials, and former congressional Republican leaders.
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…
As Alexis de Tocqueville famously observed, unlike Europeans, if Americans “want to proclaim a truth or propagate some feeling . . . they form an association” rather than turning to the government.
Over the past week, that insight has been on full display. Organized citizen-groups converted the election result from a presumption Trump intended to rebut to a hard truth he could not bluster away.
The National Council on Election Integrity, a bipartisan group of former government and civic leaders, ran a “We Did It” TV ad campaign congratulating Americans on a secure election despite the global pandemic. The rule-of-law Republicans at the Lincoln Project announced plans to run ads naming law firms litigating unfounded election fraud claims, thereby triggering a series of lawyer withdrawals.
The national, bipartisan group Lawyers Defending American Democracy (with which one of us is involved) released an open letter, signed by over 1,200 lawyers, calling out public officials and lawyers advancing baseless voter fraud claims. And grassroots organizers committed to amass a quarter-million signatures demanding that the Trump administration lift its blockade of Biden’s transition funding.
Remaining faithful to their constitutional oaths, government leaders echoed those citizen-activist calls:
General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, publicly declared that the military’s sworn loyalty is to the Constitution, not “to an individual”—deflating the specter that the president might enlist military aid to resist a transfer of power.
Christopher Krebs, the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection Agency, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, repeatedly contradicted Trump’s “election fraud” narrative, and his agency released a statement from a private-public partnership dedicated to election integrity that said “the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history.” The acting DHS secretary then defied a White House order to fire Krebs.
Sixteen Justice Department prosecutors monitoring the 2020 election reported no significant evidence of voter fraud. They publicly urged Attorney General William Barr to rescind his precedent-shattering November 9 memorandum injecting the department into investigations (or related announcements) that could affect the election before certification.
Courts tossed out a ragtag series of post-election Trump legal challenges in five battleground states, rejecting fact-free allegations of fraud.
GOP state legislature leaders in four key states won by Biden stated that they will not use Electoral College vote certification to overturn their state’s popular vote count, absent fraud evidence which they have not seen.
Taken together, such actions of ordinary citizens and institutional leaders demonstrate that our constitutional rules have survived historic stress-testing—and that a widely shared commitment to preserve democratic values limits authoritarian reach.
Our Founders could hardly have imagined a reality-TV president. But they built a constitutional republic to permit an engaged citizenry, a free press, dedicated government officials, and a conscientious judiciary to withstand an unbounded presidential personality, even one as unforeseeable as Donald J. Trump.


thebulwark--2020-11-17--They Are What They Say They Hate

They Are What They Say They Hate

Donald Trump is a snowflake who cares only about his feelings not the facts .
He ’ s a pampered millennial child who can ’ t handle losing and wants a participation trophy .
He ’ s a coddled , out-of-touch elite who cares more about what his media friends say about him than the struggles of forgotten Americans .
He ’ s a fool who leads a selfish ruling class that is bringing America to the brink of revolution .
He is an Ivy Leaguer who requires a safe space to protect himself from painful speech .
He believes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the top and his aggrieved white supporters next .
He ’ s a wokescold who wants to silence those who reject his magical thinking .
Those who are not standing up to him have “ no conception of the national interest larger than his immediate political interests.
” He is a censorious enemy of free speech and freedom of religion .
He is trying to bring about an “ End Of Discussion ” by leading an “ outrage industry that shuts down debate and manipulates voters.
” He is “ Triggered ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to silence the voters.
” He ’ s a whiner who specializes in phony outrage .
A beta-soy-boy cuck who won ’ t take his setbacks like a grown man .
He wants to infuse political culture wars into every crevice of American life , bullying those who don ’ t accept his hegemony .
He sees democracy as a filthy process that can be cured only by centralized power .
He ’ s a loser who is up to his eyeballs in bullshit .
He is everything that they ever said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And worse .
Even in the face of Trump ’ s humiliating defeat at the hands of an opponent they believe to be weak and suffering from dementia , Republicans and conservative commentators continue to enable the human embodiment of what they once decried .
They do it because their crusade stopped being about anything other than causing their opponents pain a long time ago .
They came to the crossroads and struck a deal to make a human troll the president of the United States , because he put Obama in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the right people mad .
He was their vehicle to give the finger to half of the country .
Their end of that deal paid off in spades the past four years .
And as he petulantly refuses to concede defeat they continue to get the liberal schadenfreude they crave .
The only thing they had to do in order to get it , was become everything that they had claimed hate .
They should never be allowed to forget it .

Donald Trump is a snowflake who cares only about his feelings not the facts.
He’s a pampered millennial child who can’t handle losing and wants a participation trophy.
He’s a coddled, out-of-touch elite who cares more about what his media friends say about him than the struggles of forgotten Americans.
He’s a fool who leads a selfish ruling class that is bringing America to the brink of revolution.
He is an Ivy Leaguer who requires a safe space to protect himself from painful speech.
Try watching @OANN. Really GREAT! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 16, 2020
He believes in a hierarchy of victimhood with himself at the top and his aggrieved white supporters next.
He’s a wokescold who wants to silence those who reject his magical thinking.
A wanna-be monarch having a “temper tantrum.”
He’s callow and acting in bad faith.
Those who are not standing up to him have “no conception of the national interest larger than his immediate political interests.”
He is a censorious enemy of free speech and freedom of religion.
He is trying to bring about an “End Of Discussion” by leading an “outrage industry that shuts down debate and manipulates voters.”
He is “Triggered”, “driven by hate, and trying to silence the voters.”
He is stealing America.
He’s a whiner who specializes in phony outrage. A beta-soy-boy cuck who won’t take his setbacks like a grown man.
He wants to infuse political culture wars into every crevice of American life, bullying those who don’t accept his hegemony.
He sees democracy as a filthy process that can be cured only by centralized power.
He’s unvirtuous, ignorant, anti-American, and anti-Christian.
He’s a loser who is up to his eyeballs in bullshit.
He is everything that they ever said their “evil” opponents were. And worse.
But they don’t care.
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…
Even in the face of Trump’s humiliating defeat at the hands of an opponent they believe to be weak and suffering from dementia, Republicans and conservative commentators continue to enable the human embodiment of what they once decried.
They do it because their crusade stopped being about anything other than causing their opponents pain a long time ago. They came to the crossroads and struck a deal to make a human troll the president of the United States, because he put Obama in his (birth) place and made all the right people mad. He was their vehicle to give the finger to half of the country.
Their end of that deal paid off in spades the past four years. And as he petulantly refuses to concede defeat they continue to get the liberal schadenfreude they crave.
The only thing they had to do in order to get it, was become everything that they had claimed to hate.
They should never be allowed to forget it.


thebulwark--2020-11-18--Let’s Make a Deal to Roll Back Executive Power

If President-elect Joe Biden is serious about forging a bipartisan consensus in Washington and Senate Republicans are looking for ways to assert power , there is a natural solution .
Congress should seek to reclaim powers that the legislative branch has surrendered to the executive , and Biden should agree to return them to their rightful place .
It sounds almost too simple to be true because , of course , cynical politics are predictable .
The main obstacle to such basic reforms is that the conversation often dissolves into cases of situational ethics .
One can reasonably expect that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s executive actions on immigration and climate change as abuses of power will not only be content to see Biden overturn them with his own executive actions on Day One of his presidency , but will eagerly anticipate Biden using the same tools to advance their preferred policies .
Partisan progressives will also likely lean on Trump ’ s previous abuses of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act in appointing “ acting ” officials as a reason to demand that Biden similarly circumvent the normal Senate confirmation process—should Mitch McConnell ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his own officials .
It ’ s also not hard to imagine that Republicans will renew Obama-era wails about the dangers of an “ imperial presidency ” once Biden begins standing up a robust federal response to the coronavirus or starts talking about student loan forgiveness .
Still , despite these inevitable cases of tit-for-tat hypocrisy , there remains the potential for bipartisan agreement among those with a longer view of the risks of executive overreach—mainly because this is a vexing problem that pre-dates Donald Trump , although the 45th president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus to the subject .
And while Democrats have offered many worthy proposals designed to target abuses of power enacted by President Trump , the ripest and most profound areas of structural constitutional reforms go well beyond Trump ’ s specific abuses .
Matters of executive overreach span presidencies , particularly in war powers expansion , declarations of national emergency , and congressional budget authority seizure .
Let ’ s start with Biden ’ s campaign promise to “ end forever wars.
” Congress could help him do that by repealing and replacing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military force , which , while in operation , have become blank checks for presidents to make war .
Congress delivered President George W. Bush the 2001 authorization of military force ( AUMF ) on September 18 , 2001 , one week after the 9/11 terrorist attacks .
Because American officials still did not know who the perpetrators of the attack were , the language is broad and vague .
It reads : … the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations , organizations , or persons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 , 2001 , or harbored such organizations or persons , in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations , organizations or persons .
A subsequent AUMF , enacted in 2002 authorized President Bush to “ defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.
” As a matter of practice , the 2002 AUMF should have been repealed the day officials declared the war in Iraq to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more urgently in need of revision , as it has been stretched beyond reason by subsequent administrations to cover unilateral military actions around the globe .
Obama used it to conduct operations against the Islamic State .
He also abused his powers , and semantics , when he unilaterally dropped precision bombs on Libya , and then his administration claimed it wasn ’ t “ war ” and was , instead “ kinetic military action.
” Some Republicans have argued that the 2001 AUMF justified Trump ’ s 2018 missile strikes in Syria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Both the Obama and Trump administrations relied , in addition to the old AUMFs , upon a pair of 2001 and 2002 Office of Legal Counsel ( OLC ) memos to buttress their actions .
Lawyers for both administrations determined that a president can conduct military action under his Article II powers—that is , sans congressional approval—as long as it satisfies two conditions .
First , it must serve “ important national interests.
” Second , it must not amount to prolonged and substantial military engagement .
These are not high legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , both Obama and Trump have used these memos as constitutional justification for drone strikes , which under any common interpretation would be considered acts of war .
President Biden , if he wishes to restore constitutional order , should discard those memos .
As Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith—respectively White House counsel to President Obama and assistant attorney general in charge of the OLC in the George W. Bush administration—write in their new book , After Trump : Reconstructing the Presidency , those two OLC opinions “ are loaded guns that should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should , in short , be abrogated.
” This is by no means a theoretical matter of constitutional crisis .
In early January , Trump pushed the limits of his war-making powers when he ordered a strike against Iran ’ s top security commander , Major General Qassem Soleimani , an action that could have quickly brought the United States into a full-scale war .
Trump did not consult Congress before the strike—not even the “ Gang of Eight ” congressional leaders—which caught many lawmakers by surprise .
Both houses of Congress then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducting military operations in Iran without obtaining congressional authorizations—which Trump promptly vetoed .
The Senate could not muster enough votes to override the presidential veto , and so Trump feels himself free—even now , in the waning days of his presidency—to look at options to attack Iran .
President Biden , however , is not likely to issue such a veto .
In fact , in 2007 , then-Senator Biden said he would support impeaching President Bush if he tried to take the United States to war with Iran using the 9/11-era AUMFs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should again try to limit the president ’ s unilateral war-making powers by terminating the old AUMFs .
In their place , Congress should issue a new AUMF that would allow the president to pursue terrorist targets , but only entities specifically authorized , or in countries specifically authorized , by Congress .
The new AUMF should also contain a sunset provision requiring yearly renewal every one or two years , so that it can not be extended indefinitely without deliberate reauthorization , ensuring that Congress retains an oversight role in the executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorizations , ” Biden could fulfill his promise to “ end forever wars.
” Next , Congress should review and restrict presidential powers to declare national emergencies , bestowed to the executive branch under the 1976 National Emergencies Act and the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act .
Trump showed how easily these powers could be abused when he declared a “ national emergency ” in February 2019 as a legal justification for ordering the Armed Forces to build the southern border wall after Congress explicitly refused him the money .
Congress twice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which Trump promptly vetoed , and Congress was unable to override .
In response , Sen. Mike Lee ( R-Utah ) proposed the ARTICLE ONE Act that would automatically terminate any national emergency after 30 days if Congress does not approve it .
Again , this is a long-overdue reform for a problem that pre-dates Trump .
Since the emergency laws were enacted in the late 1970s , presidents have declared 59 national emergencies , and 33 of them are still in effect , including the first one ever proclaimed in 1979 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Iranian hostage crisis .
Even while Trump typically enjoyed lockstep support from Senate Republicans , Lee attracted 14 GOP cosponsors for his legislation , designed to check the powers , at the time , of the GOP president .
The names of those cosponsors are worth noting ; the list includes two members of the Senate GOP leadership team , Sens .
Roy Blunt and Joni Ernst .
And the southern border “ emergency ” wasn ’ t the only time Trump drew Republican ire for invoking these powers .
The president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a declaration to bypass Congress in 2019 to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates .
The White House argued the action was necessary to deter Iran ’ s “ malign influence ” in the region .
In a committee hearing , Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-Tex ) , who is also a sponsor of ARTICLE ONE , said that while he agreed with the administration ’ s motivation , the way it was handled was an affront to constitutional order .
In a hearing , Cruz berated a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have to imagine how furious Cruz would be if the Biden administration did the same .
Biden ’ s State Department could not expect a second chance .
If Lee ’ s legislation passed , however , no future administration would be in a position to ask for one .
Congress should also seek reforms to reclaim its power of the purse in tandem with national emergency reform .
President Trump ’ s declaration of a national emergency at the southern border would be much diminished in effect if he weren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ build his wall .
And peremptorily taking funds isn ’ t the only problem .
A president can similarly abuse power by freezing money that Congress appropriated and authorized spending for , as President Trump did when he paused funding $ 250 million in military assistance for Ukraine , paving the way for his impeachment .
As Sen. Patrick Leahy ( D-Vt ) , vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee , wrote in an op-ed : Eventually , the funding was released , but only because several Republican senators , including Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threatened to vote for an amendment by Illinois Democrat Sen. Dick Dubin to force the funds ’ release .
As a remedy , Leahy proposed the Congressional Power of the Purse legislation , in companion with House Budget chairman John Yarmuth ( D-Ky. ) and Appropriations chairwoman Nita Lowey ( D-N.Y. ) , all notable figures when it comes to congressional spending policy .
This bill would prevent a president from rescinding or deferring funds without congressional approval .
Interestingly , it also contains national emergency reform language remarkably similar to Lee ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neatly the two ideas complement each other .
In a Washington removed from the partisan divisions over Trump ’ s impeachment for his handling of Ukraine , one could see how a meeting of Republican and Democratic minds could come together here .
All it might take is a suggestion from Biden ’ s next Environmental Protection Agency administrator that federal money should be withheld from non-carbon-neutral cities to get Republicans fully on board .
Just as Congress did post-Watergate , many Democrats are pushing reforms tailored to Trump-specific abuses of power .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in September , attracted little attention from Republicans given the package ’ s partisan nature .
But with some time and space from the Trump administration , one can imagine , however , one would hope Republicans might be willing to take some aspects of the bill under consideration .
This wide-ranging set of reforms not only addresses matters related to national emergencies and spending but also protections for inspectors general and federal whistleblowers that may become more enticing to Republicans during a Biden administration .
Eventually , both parties should be willing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as increasing the penalties for violating the Hatch Act and anti-nepotism laws , enforcing congressional subpoenas , clarifying and strengthening the Emoluments Clause , requiring presidential candidates to release tax returns , and limiting the president ’ s ability to appoint “ acting ” officials .
But , beginning with weighty matters such as war powers , national emergencies , and spending could prove more beneficial in the long term .
And the time for Republicans to start contemplating executive reforms is now .
As the Biden administration settles in , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s various abuses as justification for their own will only grow .
Republicans should act quickly , while worries of Trump ’ s abuses of power are fresh in Democrats ’ minds and before Biden finds himself tempted to misuse these powers himself .

If President-elect Joe Biden is serious about forging a bipartisan consensus in Washington and Senate Republicans are looking for ways to assert power, there is a natural solution. Congress should seek to reclaim powers that the legislative branch has surrendered to the executive, and Biden should agree to return them to their rightful place.
It sounds almost too simple to be true because, of course, cynical politics are predictable. The main obstacle to such basic reforms is that the conversation often dissolves into cases of situational ethics. One can reasonably expect that some of the same progressives who denounced Trump’s executive actions on immigration and climate change as abuses of power will not only be content to see Biden overturn them with his own executive actions on Day One of his presidency, but will eagerly anticipate Biden using the same tools to advance their preferred policies.
Partisan progressives will also likely lean on Trump’s previous abuses of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act in appointing “acting” officials as a reason to demand that Biden similarly circumvent the normal Senate confirmation process—should Mitch McConnell’s Republicans retain control of the chamber—to install his own officials.
It’s also not hard to imagine that Republicans will renew Obama-era wails about the dangers of an “imperial presidency” once Biden begins standing up a robust federal response to the coronavirus or starts talking about student loan forgiveness.
Still, despite these inevitable cases of tit-for-tat hypocrisy, there remains the potential for bipartisan agreement among those with a longer view of the risks of executive overreach—mainly because this is a vexing problem that pre-dates Donald Trump, although the 45th president’s wild authoritarian impulses did bring a renewed focus to the subject. And while Democrats have offered many worthy proposals designed to target abuses of power enacted by President Trump, the ripest and most profound areas of structural constitutional reforms go well beyond Trump’s specific abuses. Matters of executive overreach span presidencies, particularly in war powers expansion, declarations of national emergency, and congressional budget authority seizure.
War Powers
Let’s start with Biden’s campaign promise to “end forever wars.” Congress could help him do that by repealing and replacing the ever-elastic 9/11-era authorizations of use of military force, which, while in operation, have become blank checks for presidents to make war.
Congress delivered President George W. Bush the 2001 authorization of military force (AUMF) on September 18, 2001, one week after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Because American officials still did not know who the perpetrators of the attack were, the language is broad and vague. It reads:
… the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
A subsequent AUMF, enacted in 2002 authorized President Bush to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” As a matter of practice, the 2002 AUMF should have been repealed the day officials declared the war in Iraq to be over.
The 2001 AUMF is more urgently in need of revision, as it has been stretched beyond reason by subsequent administrations to cover unilateral military actions around the globe. Obama used it to conduct operations against the Islamic State. He also abused his powers, and semantics, when he unilaterally dropped precision bombs on Libya, and then his administration claimed it wasn’t “war” and was, instead “kinetic military action.” Some Republicans have argued that the 2001 AUMF justified Trump’s 2018 missile strikes in Syria.
Actions all taken without congressional approval.
Both the Obama and Trump administrations relied, in addition to the old AUMFs, upon a pair of 2001 and 2002 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos to buttress their actions. Lawyers for both administrations determined that a president can conduct military action under his Article II powers—that is, sans congressional approval—as long as it satisfies two conditions. First, it must serve “important national interests.” Second, it must not amount to prolonged and substantial military engagement. These are not high legal bars to meet. To this point, both Obama and Trump have used these memos as constitutional justification for drone strikes, which under any common interpretation would be considered acts of war.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
President Biden, if he wishes to restore constitutional order, should discard those memos. As Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith—respectively White House counsel to President Obama and assistant attorney general in charge of the OLC in the George W. Bush administration—write in their new book, After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency, those two OLC opinions “are loaded guns that should be unloaded and stored safely. They should, in short, be abrogated.”
This is by no means a theoretical matter of constitutional crisis.
In early January, Trump pushed the limits of his war-making powers when he ordered a strike against Iran’s top security commander, Major General Qassem Soleimani, an action that could have quickly brought the United States into a full-scale war. Trump did not consult Congress before the strike—not even the “Gang of Eight” congressional leaders—which caught many lawmakers by surprise. Both houses of Congress then passed a measure to forbid Trump from conducting military operations in Iran without obtaining congressional authorizations—which Trump promptly vetoed. The Senate could not muster enough votes to override the presidential veto, and so Trump feels himself free—even now, in the waning days of his presidency—to look at options to attack Iran.
President Biden, however, is not likely to issue such a veto. In fact, in 2007, then-Senator Biden said he would support impeaching President Bush if he tried to take the United States to war with Iran using the 9/11-era AUMFs.
In the new Congress, members should again try to limit the president’s unilateral war-making powers by terminating the old AUMFs. In their place, Congress should issue a new AUMF that would allow the president to pursue terrorist targets, but only entities specifically authorized, or in countries specifically authorized, by Congress. The new AUMF should also contain a sunset provision requiring yearly renewal every one or two years, so that it cannot be extended indefinitely without deliberate reauthorization, ensuring that Congress retains an oversight role in the executive war-making policy.
By ending “forever authorizations,” Biden could fulfill his promise to “end forever wars.”
National Emergencies
Next, Congress should review and restrict presidential powers to declare national emergencies, bestowed to the executive branch under the 1976 National Emergencies Act and the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Trump showed how easily these powers could be abused when he declared a “national emergency” in February 2019 as a legal justification for ordering the Armed Forces to build the southern border wall after Congress explicitly refused him the money. Congress twice passed bipartisan resolutions disapproving his declaration, which Trump promptly vetoed, and Congress was unable to override.
In response, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) proposed the ARTICLE ONE Act that would automatically terminate any national emergency after 30 days if Congress does not approve it. Again, this is a long-overdue reform for a problem that pre-dates Trump.
Since the emergency laws were enacted in the late 1970s, presidents have declared 59 national emergencies, and 33 of them are still in effect, including the first one ever proclaimed in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter in response to the Iranian hostage crisis.
Even while Trump typically enjoyed lockstep support from Senate Republicans, Lee attracted 18 GOP cosponsors for his legislation, designed to check the powers, at the time, of the GOP president. The names of those cosponsors are worth noting; the list includes two members of the Senate GOP leadership team, Sens. Roy Blunt and Joni Ernst.
And the southern border “emergency” wasn’t the only time Trump drew Republican ire for invoking these powers. The president also faced a backlash when he issued such a declaration to bypass Congress in 2019 to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The White House argued the action was necessary to deter Iran’s “malign influence” in the region. In a committee hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz, who is also a sponsor of ARTICLE ONE, said that while he agreed with the administration’s motivation, the way it was handled was an affront to constitutional order. In a hearing, Cruz berated a State Department official:
If the administration does it again and there is not a live and exigent emergency, you will not have my vote, and I predict you will not have the vote of a number of other Republicans as well. The simpler process is follow the damn law and respect it. The process that the State Department followed for these weapons sales, not to put too fine a point on it, was crap…. The administration, in what seems to me a not fully baked decision process, decided to circumvent the law, decided to circumvent the constitutional responsibility of Congress, and act unilaterally.
One doesn’t have to imagine how furious Cruz would be if the Biden administration did the same. Biden’s State Department could not expect a second chance. If Lee’s legislation passed, however, no future administration would be in a position to ask for one.
Power of the Purse
Congress should also seek reforms to reclaim its power of the purse in tandem with national emergency reform. President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency at the southern border would be much diminished in effect if he weren’t also able to seize funds to build his wall.
And peremptorily taking funds isn’t the only problem. A president can similarly abuse power by freezing money that Congress appropriated and authorized spending for, as President Trump did when he paused funding $250 million in military assistance for Ukraine, paving the way for his impeachment. As Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt), vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, wrote in an op-ed:
I have never seen anything like it. After all, if the president can interpose his personal interests between congressional appropriations and a designated funding recipient, such as Ukraine, what would stop him from withholding development funds intended for a U.S. city until the mayor endorses him? What stops him from holding any part of the $4.7 trillion annual federal budget hostage to his personal whims?
Eventually, the funding was released, but only because several Republican senators, including Trump champion Lindsey Graham, threatened to vote for an amendment by Illinois Democrat Sen. Dick Dubin to force the funds’ release.
As a remedy, Leahy proposed the Congressional Power of the Purse legislation, in companion with House Budget chairman John Yarmuth and Appropriations chairwoman Nita Lowey, all notable figures when it comes to congressional spending policy. This bill would prevent a president from rescinding or deferring funds without congressional approval. Interestingly, it also contains national emergency reform language remarkably similar to Lee’s ARTICLE ONE legislation, showing how neatly the two ideas complement each other.
In a Washington removed from the partisan divisions over Trump’s impeachment for his handling of Ukraine, one could see how a meeting of Republican and Democratic minds could come together here. All it might take is a suggestion from Biden’s next Environmental Protection Agency administrator that federal money should be withheld from non-carbon-neutral cities to get Republicans fully on board.
Just as Congress did post-Watergate, many Democrats are pushing reforms tailored to Trump-specific abuses of power. The Protecting Our Democracy Act, unveiled in September, attracted little attention from Republicans given the package’s partisan nature. But with some time and space from the Trump administration, one would hope Republicans might be willing to take some aspects of the bill under consideration. This wide-ranging set of reforms not only addresses matters related to national emergencies and spending but also protections for inspectors general and federal whistleblowers that may become more enticing to Republicans during a Biden administration.
Eventually, both parties should be willing to debate these and other Trump-specific reforms, such as increasing the penalties for violating the Hatch Act and anti-nepotism laws, enforcing congressional subpoenas, clarifying and strengthening the Emoluments Clause, requiring presidential candidates to release tax returns, and limiting the president’s ability to appoint “acting” officials. But, beginning with weighty matters such as war powers, national emergencies, and spending could prove more beneficial in the long term.
And the time for Republicans to start contemplating executive reforms is now.
As the Biden administration settles in, the temptation among Democrats to begin using Trump’s various abuses as justification for their own will only grow. Republicans should act quickly, while worries of Trump’s abuses of power are fresh in Democrats’ minds and before Biden finds himself tempted to misuse these powers himself.
Correction: An earlier version of this article listed the number of original cosponsors of Senator Lee’s bill; it has been updated to include those who later cosponsored it.


thebulwark--2020-11-18--What a President Biden Could Do with a GOP-Controlled Senate

Start with a signal accomplishment : By appealing to our better selves , Joe Biden won a broad and decisive victory in a sharply polarized country .
He captured the popular vote by 5 million and counting , receiving 13 million more votes than Hillary Clinton did in 2016 .
He took the Electoral College by 306 to 232—the very margin by which his sulfurous opponent had defeated Clinton .
He reconstructed the “ blue wall ” in Wisconsin , Michigan , and Pennsylvania .
He turned two formerly red states purple—Arizona and , most surprising , Georgia .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the House and Senate .
But that last augurs the problems to come .
Biden ’ s triumph was more personal than ideological , a call to decency after four years of Donald Trump ’ s divisive psychodrama .
His broad and diverse coalition—disaffected Republicans , suburbanites , young people , minorities , moderates , and progressives—is an impressive accomplishment which nonetheless , in the crucible of a deadly pandemic and , it appears , a divided Congress , will challenge his skills as a unifier .
Fortunately , age has served Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people become fossilized personifications of their gravest failings .
Aging has made Biden wiser , calmer , and more judicious—attributes amply displayed in his measured reaction to Trump ’ s efforts to upend the election and stonewall the peaceful transition of power which undergirds our democracy .
America ’ s oldest president-elect is , quite likely , the only man who could have defeated Trump and then dealt so gracefully with his post-electoral sociopathy .
But new difficulties await .
Already , the divergent groups which supported him—particularly progressives—are demanding the political equivalent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing to say “ you couldn ’ t have won without me ” ; quite another to insist “ you only won because of me ” —thereby demanding that Biden prioritize your passions over political reality .
The immediate points of contention involve cabinet appointments , and how to deal with a Senate which—pending two runoffs in Georgia—will be run by Mitch McConnell .
But looming ahead is a fight over how Democrats should position themselves for 2022 .
The latter dispute is sharpened by the Democrats ’ losses in the House , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gains in the Senate .
House moderates lost promising new members in swing districts across the country—in New York , Florida , Iowa , Oklahoma , New Mexico , California—doomed , they assert , by GOP exploitation of progressive enthusiasms for “ defunding the police , ” “ decriminalizing the border , ” single-payer healthcare , and democratic socialism .
House majority whip James Clyburn , a key Biden supporter , has been particularly vocal on this point—and with reason .
Progressives who thrive in immutably blue urban districts would perish in less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obscure : Biden carried Nebraska ’ s generally suburban 2nd Congressional District by 7 points ; the Democratic House candidate , a Sanders-style progressive , lost by 5 .
That 12 percent difference is about running the race your local demographic requires .
Given that , the political obliviousness of some ardent progressives is truly impressive .
Enter Naomi Klein : “ Even if the Democratic Party base was much more politically aligned with Bernie Sanders , or Elizabeth Warren , in their support for Medicare for All , a Green New Deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was sure that Bernie Sanders was too risky .
And so , as we all remember , they banded together and gave us Biden.
” Earth to Naomi : In 2016 and 2020 , the Democratic primary electorate “ banded together ” to drub Sanders by margins that would sober all but the politically insensate .
Yet Sanders advisor Nina Turner insists that Biden must pass Medicare for All and the Green New Deal as written because “ anything less is unacceptable.
” To whom ?
one wonders .
These progressives ’ quarrel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden than democracy—specifically , with the voters who decisively rejected their hero and his proposals .
They forget that the Democrats ’ House majority in 2018 was built on mainstream proposals salable in swing districts : protecting Obamacare and lowering prescription drug prices .
And they don ’ t even attempt to tell us how Biden is supposed to push hard-left proposals rejected by voters in his own party through a Republican Senate controlled by Mitch McConnell .
Such is Biden ’ s reward for having worked with Sanders supporters to craft a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their fondest dreams , is the most progressive policy blueprint ever proposed by Democratic presidential candidate .
No doubt Biden very much needs the support of progressives .
Equally , they must recognize that he is their only path to meaningful change .
In effect , the electorate of 2020 voted for divided government : Despite our severe partisan polarization , a significant number of voters chose Biden while opting for Republican congressional and senatorial candidates .
Dream as they might , progressives need a leader prepared for the gritty work of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political and legislative environment .
The only mercy for Biden is that his first order of business—coping with the tragedy of COVID-19—has the potential to unify Democrats by postponing more ideological issues while , at least , sobering some of the Republican senators and representatives who must seek re-election in 2022 .
The pandemic is not only a public health crisis which has inflicted economic calamity on millions of Americans ; it has mercilessly exposed the racial and economic disparities progressives decry .
Biden has endorsed the $ 2.2 trillion package passed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic relief pressed by a Democratic president will cause Republicans to rediscover their situational passion for fiscal discipline .
But the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression is an unpromising occasion for unbending legislative resistance .
The vexing question for Biden and his party will become not only where and whether to compromise , but when—in a lame-duck session , or after Biden becomes president ?
The negotiations will be arduous , the decisions painful , and the needs acute .
Some 3.6 million Americans have been unemployed for six months or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minorities—and millions more have been stuck with only part-time work for months .
Unemployment benefits are set to expire at year ’ s end .
Some state and local governments face fiscal calamities which threaten vital services .
Both large and small businesses continue to struggle in the face of a resurgent virus .
Every week that relief is delayed exacerbates these crises .
Do Democrats press for quick action , even if the package is deficient ?
Once passed , will such a compromise render follow-up legislation less likely ?
When the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the balance , these are critical political and economic judgments—not least for Republicans .
As president-elect , Biden will engage with his party ’ s legislative leaders on strategy during the lame-duck session .
As president , he should convene Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi in a high-profile effort to get a package which provides real relief to those who need it most urgently .
That is where Biden ’ s experience counts—and where progressives must support him in the difficult business of getting all he can as swiftly as possible .
Scale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In parallel , Biden must lay the predicate for economic recovery by acting to curb a pandemic whose second wave—accelerated by encroaching winter and Trump ’ s unconscionable indifference—is already exceeding the first .
We can expect from a Biden administration a uniform national policy which emphasizes targeted measures to protect public health , educates Americans in essential safety practices , promotes universally available testing , makes schools safer , and preserves essential economic activity to the extent practicable .
Regarding the development and distribution of a vaccine , Biden has warned bluntly—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Trump does not coordinate with the incoming administration on a plan for mass distribution .
He should keep up the pressure on Trump and the GOP to put Americans first .
Once in office , through an Emergency Use Authorization Biden can speed the distribution of any vaccine shown to be safe and effective by sufficient testing .
As to his broader agenda , until further notice Biden must prepare to deal with a Republican Senate—as well as moderate Democrats like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema .
That means pursuing worthy compromises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he should put McConnell to the test by pushing hard for popular measures like a $ 15 per hour minimum wage ; infrastructure spending that creates new jobs and promotes green energy ; immigration reform ; and broadened access to healthcare that includes a public option .
Such an effort would be more than symbolic .
By forcing McConnell to choose between compromise and adamant opposition , Biden can lay the political predicate for the aggressive use of executive orders .
Here it is imperative that Biden have united support of his party—including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Mitch McConnell is real , not an excuse for inaction on a notional progressive agenda which , in any event , lacks sufficient support in their party—let alone the country .
Nor need Biden bend to their blanket demand that he shun cabinet appointees with corporate connections .
While progressives ’ mistrust of “ corporate Democrats ” attached to the donor class is understandable , such a ban would rule out many experienced people Biden needs to govern—including men and women of color .
Talent and integrity are not confined to universities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rather , Biden should find diverse and progressive-minded secretaries for key domestic departments and agencies like Labor , HUD , HHS , the EPA and , especially , the DOJ .
This should facilitate significant policy changes sought by the party ’ s minority and progressive constituencies .
Further , Biden should make Kamala Harris his liaison to progressives and other groups important to Democrats .
That will help confirm that they matter while enlisting their input and support .
Finally , Biden should consult with progressives in formulating executive orders when needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the agenda agreed upon between the party ’ s factions .
Ideally , substantive change should be accomplished through legislation .
But Biden should reverse Trump ’ s own numerous and noxious executive orders .
And the prospect of gridlock argues for the use of presidential power to sidestep a Republican party which has abandoned responsible governance to serve its donors and placate its base .
Biden can act to protect Dreamers , assist refugees from war and privation , revisit the public charge rule , and raise the cap on legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review potentially abusive policing , enforce voting rights , and reinvigorate the existing antitrust laws .
Foreign policy initiatives will include re-entering the Paris Climate Agreement , abrogating the global gag rule , repealing the Muslim ban , and rejoining the World Health Organization .
Further , Biden can cancel billions in student loan debt , raise the minimum wage for federal contractors , and strengthen the right of government workers to unionize .
Perhaps no area is more important to many progressives than protecting the environment , and nothing more vital to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet a Republican Senate will surely reject Biden ’ s ambitious plans to spend trillions on transitioning to clean energy while creating millions of new jobs .
But there is much he can do even without a Democratic Senate majority .
To start , he can rescind the plethora of executive orders through which Trump gutted rules designed to reduce greenhouse gases , raise energy efficiency standards , strengthen fuel economy regulations for cars and trucks , and stop mining , fracking , and drilling on federal lands .
He can end the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the climate deniers and shills for the fossil fuel industry whom Trump placed in key positions .
But these measures merely restore the status quo ante .
Biden can promulgate rigorous new standards for fuel efficiency ; promote the development of biofuels ; promulgate rigorous efficiency standards for appliances ; require that federal infrastructure projects reduce pollution ; mandate that public companies disclose climate risks and greenhouse gas emissions inherent in their business ; and increase our conservation of public lands .
Let the GOP complain—even as they throttle legislation which affords the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change already manifest in record temperatures , rising seas , proliferating storms , melting icecaps , and deepening droughts .
Ever more Americans are conscious of the need to protect our environment for future generations—and from the Republican party .
Biden ’ s imperative is to accomplish all he can while accelerating public awareness .
All this is hardly enough to save America ’ s future .
But it is way more than nothing .
If the disparate elements of his coalition rally to support him , he can yet hope to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our decline , restored our civility , reinvigorated our governance , built a new political majority , and opened the path for more progress to come .

Start with a signal accomplishment: By appealing to our better selves, Joe Biden won a broad and decisive victory in a sharply polarized country.
He captured the popular vote by 5 million and counting, receiving 13 million more votes than Hillary Clinton did in 2016. He took the Electoral College by 306 to 232—the very margin by which his sulfurous opponent had defeated Clinton. He reconstructed the “blue wall” in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He turned two formerly red states purple—Arizona and, most surprising, Georgia. He generally ran ahead of Democratic candidates in the House and Senate.
But that last augurs the problems to come. Biden’s triumph was more personal than ideological, a call to decency after four years of Donald Trump’s divisive psychodrama. His broad and diverse coalition—disaffected Republicans, suburbanites, young people, minorities, moderates, and progressives—is an impressive accomplishment which nonetheless, in the crucible of a deadly pandemic and, it appears, a divided Congress, will challenge his skills as a unifier.
Fortunately, age has served Biden well. As they grow older many people become fossilized personifications of their gravest failings. Aging has made Biden wiser, calmer, and more judicious—attributes amply displayed in his measured reaction to Trump’s efforts to upend the election and stonewall the peaceful transition of power which undergirds our democracy. America’s oldest president-elect is, quite likely, the only man who could have defeated Trump and then dealt so gracefully with his post-electoral sociopathy.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But new difficulties await. Already, the divergent groups which supported him—particularly progressives—are demanding the political equivalent of room service. It is one thing to say “you couldn’t have won without me”; quite another to insist “you only won because of me”—thereby demanding that Biden prioritize your passions over political reality.
The immediate points of contention involve cabinet appointments, and how to deal with a Senate which—pending two runoffs in Georgia—will be run by Mitch McConnell. But looming ahead is a fight over how Democrats should position themselves for 2022.
The latter dispute is sharpened by the Democrats’ losses in the House, and their failure to make the anticipated gains in the Senate. House moderates lost promising new members in swing districts across the country—in New York, Florida, Iowa, Oklahoma, New Mexico, California—doomed, they assert, by GOP exploitation of progressive enthusiasms for “defunding the police,” “decriminalizing the border,” single-payer healthcare, and democratic socialism.
House majority whip James Clyburn, a key Biden supporter, has been particularly vocal on this point—and with reason. Progressives who thrive in immutably blue urban districts would perish in less hospitable environments. This reality is hardly obscure: Biden carried Nebraska’s generally suburban 2nd Congressional District by 7 points; the Democratic House candidate, a Sanders-style progressive, lost by 5. That 12 percent difference is about running the race your local demographic requires.
Given that, the political obliviousness of some ardent progressives is truly impressive. Enter Naomi Klein: “Even if the Democratic Party base was much more politically aligned with Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren, in their support for Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, for racial justice, the party was sure that Bernie Sanders was too risky. And so, as we all remember, they banded together and gave us Biden.”
Earth to Naomi: In 2016 and 2020, the Democratic primary electorate “banded together” to drub Sanders by margins that would sober all but the politically insensate. Yet Sanders advisor Nina Turner insists that Biden must pass Medicare for All and the Green New Deal as written because “anything less is unacceptable.”
To whom? one wonders. These progressives’ quarrel, it seems, is less with Biden than democracy—specifically, with the voters who decisively rejected their hero and his proposals.
They forget that the Democrats’ House majority in 2018 was built on mainstream proposals salable in swing districts: protecting Obamacare and lowering prescription drug prices. And they don’t even attempt to tell us how Biden is supposed to push hard-left proposals rejected by voters in his own party through a Republican Senate controlled by Mitch McConnell. Such is Biden’s reward for having worked with Sanders supporters to craft a detailed agenda which, while falling short of their fondest dreams, is the most progressive policy blueprint ever proposed by Democratic presidential candidate.
No doubt Biden very much needs the support of progressives. Equally, they must recognize that he is their only path to meaningful change. In effect, the electorate of 2020 voted for divided government: Despite our severe partisan polarization, a significant number of voters chose Biden while opting for Republican congressional and senatorial candidates. Dream as they might, progressives need a leader prepared for the gritty work of extracting whatever he can from a tough political and legislative environment.
The only mercy for Biden is that his first order of business—coping with the tragedy of COVID-19—has the potential to unify Democrats by postponing more ideological issues while, at least, sobering some of the Republican senators and representatives who must seek re-election in 2022. The pandemic is not only a public health crisis which has inflicted economic calamity on millions of Americans; it has mercilessly exposed the racial and economic disparities progressives decry.
Biden has endorsed the $2.2 trillion package passed by the House. No doubt trillions in pandemic relief pressed by a Democratic president will cause Republicans to rediscover their situational passion for fiscal discipline. But the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression is an unpromising occasion for unbending legislative resistance. The vexing question for Biden and his party will become not only where and whether to compromise, but when—in a lame-duck session, or after Biden becomes president?
The negotiations will be arduous, the decisions painful, and the needs acute. Some 3.6 million Americans have been unemployed for six months or longer—including a disproportionate number of women and minorities—and millions more have been stuck with only part-time work for months. Unemployment benefits are set to expire at year’s end. Some state and local governments face fiscal calamities which threaten vital services. Both large and small businesses continue to struggle in the face of a resurgent virus.
Every week that relief is delayed exacerbates these crises. Do Democrats press for quick action, even if the package is deficient? Once passed, will such a compromise render follow-up legislation less likely? When the fate of so many Americans hangs in the balance, these are critical political and economic judgments—not least for Republicans.
As president-elect, Biden will engage with his party’s legislative leaders on strategy during the lame-duck session. As president, he should convene Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi in a high-profile effort to get a package which provides real relief to those who need it most urgently. That is where Biden’s experience counts—and where progressives must support him in the difficult business of getting all he can as swiftly as possible. Scale matters, but so does celerity.
In parallel, Biden must lay the predicate for economic recovery by acting to curb a pandemic whose second wave—accelerated by encroaching winter and Trump’s unconscionable indifference—is already exceeding the first. We can expect from a Biden administration a uniform national policy which emphasizes targeted measures to protect public health, educates Americans in essential safety practices, promotes universally available testing, makes schools safer, and preserves essential economic activity to the extent practicable.
Regarding the development and distribution of a vaccine, Biden has warned bluntly—and appropriately—that “more people may die” if Trump does not coordinate with the incoming administration on a plan for mass distribution. He should keep up the pressure on Trump and the GOP to put Americans first. Once in office, through an Emergency Use Authorization Biden can speed the distribution of any vaccine shown to be safe and effective by sufficient testing.
As to his broader agenda, until further notice Biden must prepare to deal with a Republican Senate—as well as moderate Democrats like Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. That means pursuing worthy compromises on his overall legislative agenda. But he should put McConnell to the test by pushing hard for popular measures like a $15 per hour minimum wage; infrastructure spending that creates new jobs and promotes green energy; immigration reform; and broadened access to healthcare that includes a public option.
Such an effort would be more than symbolic. By forcing McConnell to choose between compromise and adamant opposition, Biden can lay the political predicate for the aggressive use of executive orders.
Here it is imperative that Biden have united support of his party—including progressives. That begins with their acceptance that Mitch McConnell is real, not an excuse for inaction on a notional progressive agenda which, in any event, lacks sufficient support in their party—let alone the country.
Nor need Biden bend to their blanket demand that he shun cabinet appointees with corporate connections. While progressives’ mistrust of “corporate Democrats” attached to the donor class is understandable, such a ban would rule out many experienced people Biden needs to govern—including men and women of color. Talent and integrity are not confined to universities, NGOs, and progressive think-tanks.
Rather, Biden should find diverse and progressive-minded secretaries for key domestic departments and agencies like Labor, HUD, HHS, the EPA and, especially, the DOJ. This should facilitate significant policy changes sought by the party’s minority and progressive constituencies.
Further, Biden should make Kamala Harris his liaison to progressives and other groups important to Democrats. That will help confirm that they matter while enlisting their input and support.
Finally, Biden should consult with progressives in formulating executive orders when needed to effectuate, as much as possible, the agenda agreed upon between the party’s factions.
Ideally, substantive change should be accomplished through legislation. But Biden should reverse Trump’s own numerous and noxious executive orders. And the prospect of gridlock argues for the use of presidential power to sidestep a Republican party which has abandoned responsible governance to serve its donors and placate its base.
Biden can act to protect Dreamers, assist refugees from war and privation, revisit the public charge rule, and raise the cap on legal immigration. His Justice Department can rigorously review potentially abusive policing, enforce voting rights, and reinvigorate the existing antitrust laws.
Foreign policy initiatives will include re-entering the Paris Climate Agreement, abrogating the global gag rule, repealing the Muslim ban, and rejoining the World Health Organization. Further, Biden can cancel billions in student loan debt, raise the minimum wage for federal contractors, and strengthen the right of government workers to unionize.
Perhaps no area is more important to many progressives than protecting the environment, and nothing more vital to future generations than combating climate change. Yet a Republican Senate will surely reject Biden’s ambitious plans to spend trillions on transitioning to clean energy while creating millions of new jobs.
But there is much he can do even without a Democratic Senate majority. To start, he can rescind the plethora of executive orders through which Trump gutted rules designed to reduce greenhouse gases, raise energy efficiency standards, strengthen fuel economy regulations for cars and trucks, and stop mining, fracking, and drilling on federal lands. He can end the suppression of scientific reports, and fire the climate deniers and shills for the fossil fuel industry whom Trump placed in key positions.
But these measures merely restore the status quo ante. Biden can promulgate rigorous new standards for fuel efficiency; promote the development of biofuels; promulgate rigorous efficiency standards for appliances; require that federal infrastructure projects reduce pollution; mandate that public companies disclose climate risks and greenhouse gas emissions inherent in their business; and increase our conservation of public lands.
Let the GOP complain—even as they throttle legislation which affords the only real hope of forestalling the catastrophic climate change already manifest in record temperatures, rising seas, proliferating storms, melting icecaps, and deepening droughts. Ever more Americans are conscious of the need to protect our environment for future generations—and from the Republican party. Biden’s imperative is to accomplish all he can while accelerating public awareness.
All this is hardly enough to save America’s future. But it is way more than nothing. If the disparate elements of his coalition rally to support him, he can yet hope to become the truly consequential president who reversed our decline, restored our civility, reinvigorated our governance, built a new political majority, and opened the path for more progress to come.


thebulwark--2020-11-18--Raffensperger to the Rescue

Raffensperger to the Rescue

It was really all we needed : One previously obscure public official to stand up on his hind legs and say No , I will not surrender my integrity for your political agenda .
Brad Raffensperger is a lifelong Republican .
An engineer and successful businessman , he served a few terms in the Georgia House and then ran for Secretary of State in 2018 and won .
That was the year of Stacey Abrams ’ s unsuccessful bid for governor .
She never conceded defeat , alleging that the vote was stolen .
So Democrats were none too thrilled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy of cleaning up voter rolls .
According to Georgia law , voters can be deregistered if they fail to vote in a seven-year period and do not respond to contact attempts .
Raffensperger purged 300,000 voters , on top of the 670,000 Brian Kemp had removed .
More recently , Raffensperger annoyed Republicans when , in response to the COVID-19 emergency , he agreed to send absentee ballot request forms to all registered voters before the June primary .
He then set up an online system for requesting absentee ballots for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the purges were done correctly or not , but I ’ m inclined to give Raffensperger the benefit of the doubt because of what came next .
Georgia , which had not voted for a Democrat for president since 1992 , went for Biden by a narrow margin .
As he has done in pretty much every state he lost , Donald Trump screamed FRAUD !
And , as in nearly every other state , there have been local Republicans ready to back him up .
Rep. Doug Collins , who lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jungle primary for one of the two U.S. Senate seats , was deputized to act as the Trump campaign ’ s local liar .
Ever eager to accommodate , Collins responded to his new responsibilities not by promising to conduct a thorough review ( he ’ s no cuck ! )
, but by saying he was “ confident ” that the state would “ find evidence of improperly harvested ballots and other irregularities.
” He then hosted a “ Stop the Steal ” rally in Atlanta .
“ Sentence first , verdict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Collins was joined in the farrago of falsehood by Georgia ’ s two senatorial candidates , Loeffler and Sen. David Perdue , whom the White House reportedly instructed to call for Raffensperger ’ s resignation .
The White House said “ jump ” and they asked “ how high ?
” The two senators issued a statement the following day .
Without citing any evidence , they declared that “ The secretary of state has failed to deliver honest and transparent elections .
He has failed the people of Georgia , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Raffensperger did not play his assigned role .
According to the pattern established during the past four years , he was supposed to mumble his loyalty to the president , and suggest that yes indeed , the whole election might have been tainted , who can say ?
Instead , he showed something that hasn ’ t been seen in Republican precincts for some time—self-respect .
He issued the following statement : Responding to a string of falsehoods from Collins , Raffensperger was even more caustic .
“ Doug Collins is… doing bald-faced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” He also called him a charlatan .
No , there was no ballot harvesting .
The signature matching effort had been strengthened , not weakened .
No , the Dominion voting machines are not made in Venezuela , and no , they didn ’ t make Trump votes disappear .
Would they track back absentee ballot envelopes to individual voters ?
“ Our office has received multiple requests to match ballots back to voters—exposing how a Georgia voter has voted.
” Raffensperger posted on Facebook .
“ We stand ready to prevent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to intimidate voters .
Georgia voters have a right to vote in secret without intimidation from any political candidate or party.
” That ’ s when the death threats began .
“ You better not botch this , ” read one .
“ Your life depends on it.
” But the bullies picked the wrong guy to cross .
Sure , he was upset .
“ Other than getting you angry , it ’ s also very disillusioning , ” Raffensperger said , “ particularly when it comes from people on my side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working on this needs to elevate their speech .
We need to be thoughtful and careful about what we say.
” Raffensperger was also just angry enough to let fly at one more prominent Republican—Sen .
Lindsey Graham .
The newly-reelected senior senator from South Carolina phoned the Georgia secretary of state .
Why ?
To get better insight into how the hand-recount is proceeding ?
To inquire about what caused the hiccup in Floyd County , where 2600 votes were accidentally missed in the first count ?
No .
Raffensperger told the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s unfounded claims about vote fraud .
He then probed about the signature-matching law .
Raffensperger presumably told Graham what he told a local TV station : Then Graham came to the point : Could Raffensperger see his way clear to tossing all mail ballots in counties found to have higher rates of non-matching signatures ?
While Raffensperger was spitting out his coffee , Trump was tweeting : “ Georgia Secretary of State , a so-called Republican ( RINO ) , won ’ t let the people checking the ballots see the signatures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whole process is very unfair and close to meaningless .
Everyone knows that we won the state.
” Everyone knows that major portions of the Republican party abased themselves before an incompetent narcissist who is discrediting the democratic process as his parting shot .
But not every Republican .
Brad Raffensperger is a reminder that there are Republicans and Americans who do what is right for its own sake , even under stress , even when it will cost them , and even when the only reward they can expect is being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flinching .

It was really all we needed: One previously obscure public official to stand up on his hind legs and say No, I will not surrender my integrity for your political agenda.
Brad Raffensperger is a lifelong Republican. An engineer and successful businessman, he served a few terms in the Georgia House and then ran for Secretary of State in 2018 and won. That was the year of Stacey Abrams’s unsuccessful bid for governor. She never conceded defeat, alleging that the vote was stolen. So Democrats were none too thrilled when Raffensperger continued his predecessor’s policy of cleaning up voter rolls. According to Georgia law, voters can be deregistered if they fail to vote in a seven-year period and do not respond to contact attempts. Raffensperger purged 300,000 voters, on top of the 670,000 Brian Kemp had removed. More recently, Raffensperger annoyed Republicans when, in response to the COVID-19 emergency, he agreed to send absentee ballot request forms to all registered voters before the June primary. He then set up an online system for requesting absentee ballots for the general election.
I have no idea if the purges were done correctly or not, but I’m inclined to give Raffensperger the benefit of the doubt because of what came next.
Georgia, which had not voted for a Democrat for president since 1992, went for Biden by a narrow margin. As he has done in pretty much every state he lost, Donald Trump screamed FRAUD! And, as in nearly every other state, there have been local Republicans ready to back him up. Rep. Doug Collins, who lost out to Sen. Kelly Loeffler in the jungle primary for one of the two U.S. Senate seats, was deputized to act as the Trump campaign’s local liar. Ever eager to accommodate, Collins responded to his new responsibilities not by promising to conduct a thorough review (he’s no cuck!), but by saying he was “confident” that the state would “find evidence of improperly harvested ballots and other irregularities.” He then hosted a “Stop the Steal” rally in Atlanta. “Sentence first, verdict afterwards,” said the Red Queen.
Collins was joined in the farrago of falsehood by Georgia’s two senatorial candidates, Loeffler and Sen. David Perdue, whom the White House reportedly instructed to call for Raffensperger’s resignation. The White House said “jump” and they asked “how high?” The two senators issued a statement the following day. Without citing any evidence, they declared that “The secretary of state has failed to deliver honest and transparent elections. He has failed the people of Georgia, and he should step down immediately.”
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But Raffensperger did not play his assigned role. According to the pattern established during the past four years, he was supposed to mumble his loyalty to the president, and suggest that yes indeed, the whole election might have been tainted, who can say?
Instead, he showed something that hasn’t been seen in Republican precincts for some time—self-respect. He issued the following statement:
My job is to follow Georgia law and see to it that all legal votes—and no illegal votes—are counted properly and accurately. As secretary of state, that is my duty, and I will continue to do my duty. As a Republican, I am concerned about Republicans keeping the U.S. Senate. I recommend that Sens. Loeffler and Perdue start focusing on that.
Responding to a string of falsehoods from Collins, Raffensperger was even more caustic. “Doug Collins is… doing bald-faced lying… We’re basically fact-bombing them.” He also called him a charlatan. No, there was no ballot harvesting. The signature matching effort had been strengthened, not weakened. No, the Dominion voting machines are not made in Venezuela, and no, they didn’t make Trump votes disappear. Would they track back absentee ballot envelopes to individual voters? “Our office has received multiple requests to match ballots back to voters—exposing how a Georgia voter has voted.” Raffensperger posted on Facebook. “We stand ready to prevent any and all attempts from any party to intimidate voters. Georgia voters have a right to vote in secret without intimidation from any political candidate or party.”
That’s when the death threats began. “You better not botch this,” read one. “Your life depends on it.”
But the bullies picked the wrong guy to cross. Sure, he was upset. “Other than getting you angry, it’s also very disillusioning,” Raffensperger said, “particularly when it comes from people on my side of the aisle. Everyone that is working on this needs to elevate their speech. We need to be thoughtful and careful about what we say.”
Raffensperger was also just angry enough to let fly at one more prominent Republican—Sen. Lindsey Graham. The newly-reelected senior senator from South Carolina phoned the Georgia secretary of state. Why? To get better insight into how the hand-recount is proceeding? To inquire about what caused the hiccup in Floyd County, where 2600 votes were accidentally missed in the first count? No. Raffensperger told the Washington Post that Graham repeated Trump’s unfounded claims about vote fraud. He then probed about the signature-matching law. Raffensperger presumably told Graham what he told a local TV station:
When you make a paper application and send it in, the signature is matched. And then when you send your ballot in, it’s matched again. And now for the first time ever, we’ve brought photo ID to the absentee ballot process with our online portal.
Then Graham came to the point: Could Raffensperger see his way clear to tossing all mail ballots in counties found to have higher rates of non-matching signatures? While Raffensperger was spitting out his coffee, Trump was tweeting: “Georgia Secretary of State, a so-called Republican (RINO), won’t let the people checking the ballots see the signatures for fraud. Why? Without this the whole process is very unfair and close to meaningless. Everyone knows that we won the state.”
Everyone knows that major portions of the Republican party abased themselves before an incompetent narcissist who is discrediting the democratic process as his parting shot. But not every Republican. Brad Raffensperger is a reminder that there are Republicans and Americans who do what is right for its own sake, even under stress, even when it will cost them, and even when the only reward they can expect is being able to look in the mirror without flinching.


thebulwark--2020-11-18--Lindsey Graham Is the Worst

Lindsey Graham Is the Worst

I worked for Lindsey Graham ’ s 2016 presidential campaign as his national director of ballot access and delegates .
As part of his senior staff , I spent one-on-one time with Graham advising him on different political initiatives related to getting him on every primary ballot and securing delegates for the Republican convention .
I worked for him because I saw him at the time as a man of moral clout who was unafraid to speak his mind and who would be a good guide for the American people .
Needless to say , I was wrong .
Since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the man who told America that Donald Trump was nothing more than a “ race-baiting , xenophobic , religious bigot ” has morphed into one of the most fawning Trump sycophants in the entire GOP herd .
When I speak to former colleagues of mine who are—or were—in the Republican sphere that includes Graham , the conversation about “ what happened to Lindsey Graham ?
” usually ends with the conclusion that he is scared to death of what life would be like if he wasn ’ t a U.S. senator .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was asked why he had such a dramatic shift of allegiance towards Donald Trump .
His answer : “ From my point of view , if you know anything about me , it ’ d be odd not to do this.
” When asked what “ this ” meant , he said “ try to be relevant.
” It seems that for Graham , changing one ’ s operational code to fit the political climate so as to stay close to power is not just acceptable—it ’ s part of his inherent identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaks about not standing on principles makes it clear how he could go from telling Americans they should “ tell Donald Trump to go to hell ” to effectively licking Trump ’ s boots on command .
Every politician moves and shakes in some way—it ’ s the nature of the beast .
But for Graham , his song and dance has been more aggressive than most .
It includes lies , over-the-top rhetoric , immoral conduct , and a direct assault on our democratic institutions .
Some of the highlights : aggressively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ redirecting Congressionally appointed money ; allowing his campaign team to go unpunished for using a racist dog-whistle against Jamie Harrison ; failing to stand against Trump ’ s attacks on John McCain when his old friend passed away ; reneging on his word that he wouldn ’ t support a SCOTUS appointment in the last year of a presidential campaign ; mocking the juror oath he took for Trump ’ s impeachment hearing .
Add it up , and you have a man of low character .
Yet somehow , Graham has found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump ’ s presidency .
Lindsey Graham has sought to have legally cast ballots excluded from the vote count in Georgia .
This goes beyond indulging Trump ’ s conspiracy theories and into the realm of actively trying to undermine the democratic process .
On Monday evening , the Washington Post reported on the ongoing audit of Georgia ’ s election results .
Republicans have been exerting pressure on Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to throw out ballots .
Donald Trump has been spreading conspiracy theories and lies about the result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been on the phone with Secretary Raffensperger asking him if he has the power to exclude all mail ballots in counties with higher rates of non-matching signatures .
The Post reports that Secretary Raffensperger was “ stunned ” by Graham ’ s comments to exclude ballots and quotes him saying , “ it sure looked like he [ Lindsey Graham ] was wanting to go down that road.
” For the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to suggest to a Secretary of State that thousands of ballots should be thrown out is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in illegal behavior , he is seeking to undermine the bedrock of our republic : free and fair elections .
If Lindsey Graham had any sense of shame , he would resign from the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee .
And since he obviously does not , there should be a Senate ethics inquiry into this conduct .
But of course , that won ’ t happen , either .
Lindsey Graham seems not to care that liberal self-governance is a fragile system .
And this can ’ t be a case of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all , he spent much of his political life fighting with John McCain for people in countries who do not have democratic rule .
But what if even that previous incarnation of Graham was a facade , too ?
Because knowing what we do now about Graham , it seems possible—likely , even—that his association with McCain was based on rank opportunism , too .
After all , McCain was a heavy hitter .
His advice was sought from people in all corners of our government and democratic governments around the world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bearer in 2008 and was , by universal acclaim , a national treasure .
Perhaps Graham ’ s association with him was just the easiest route to Graham becoming “ relevant.
” What several years ago was a head scratching question—What happened to Lindsey Graham ?
—is now pretty clear .
For Graham , being a United States Senator isn ’ t about helping Americans or advancing principles .
It ’ s about swimming in the pool of power and feeding off the scraps the big fish leave behind .
In short : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong with our political system .
I wonder what Lindsey Graham thinks about that advice .
After all , it comes from a man who was one of the most relevant leaders of his generation .

I worked for Lindsey Graham’s 2016 presidential campaign as his national director of ballot access and delegates. As part of his senior staff, I spent one-on-one time with Graham advising him on different political initiatives related to getting him on every primary ballot and securing delegates for the Republican convention. I worked for him because I saw him at the time as a man of moral clout who was unafraid to speak his mind and who would be a good guide for the American people.
Needless to say, I was wrong.
Since Donald Trump took office, Graham, the man who told America that Donald Trump was nothing more than a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot” has morphed into one of the most fawning Trump sycophants in the entire GOP herd.
When I speak to former colleagues of mine who are—or were—in the Republican sphere that includes Graham, the conversation about “what happened to Lindsey Graham?” usually ends with the conclusion that he is scared to death of what life would be like if he wasn’t a U.S. senator.
In an interview in February 2019, Graham was asked why he had such a dramatic shift of allegiance towards Donald Trump. His answer: “From my point of view, if you know anything about me, it’d be odd not to do this.” When asked what “this” meant, he said “try to be relevant.”
It seems that for Graham, changing one’s operational code to fit the political climate so as to stay close to power is not just acceptable—it’s part of his inherent identity. The flippant manner in which he speaks about not standing on principles makes it clear how he could go from telling Americans they should “tell Donald Trump to go to hell” to effectively licking Trump’s boots on command.
Every politician moves and shakes in some way—it’s the nature of the beast. But for Graham, his song and dance has been more aggressive than most. It includes lies, over-the-top rhetoric, immoral conduct, and a direct assault on our democratic institutions.
Some of the highlights: aggressively encouraging Trump to subvert the Constitution by redirecting Congressionally appointed money; allowing his campaign team to go unpunished for using a racist dog-whistle against Jamie Harrison; failing to stand against Trump’s attacks on John McCain when his old friend passed away; reneging on his word that he wouldn’t support a SCOTUS appointment in the last year of a presidential campaign; mocking the juror oath he took for Trump’s impeachment hearing.
Add it up, and you have a man of low character.
Yet somehow, Graham has found a new low in the waning days of Trump’s presidency.
Lindsey Graham has sought to have legally cast ballots excluded from the vote count in Georgia. This goes beyond indulging Trump’s conspiracy theories and into the realm of actively trying to undermine the democratic process.
On Monday evening, the Washington Post reported on the ongoing audit of Georgia’s election results. Republicans have been exerting pressure on Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to throw out ballots. Donald Trump has been spreading conspiracy theories and lies about the result in Georgia. And Lindsey Graham has been on the phone with Secretary Raffensperger asking him if he has the power to exclude all mail ballots in counties with higher rates of non-matching signatures.
The Post reports that Secretary Raffensperger was “stunned” by Graham’s comments to exclude ballots and quotes him saying, “it sure looked like he [Lindsey Graham] was wanting to go down that road.”
For the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to suggest to a Secretary of State that thousands of ballots should be thrown out is outrageous. Graham is not just dabbling in illegal behavior, he is seeking to undermine the bedrock of our republic: free and fair elections.
If Lindsey Graham had any sense of shame, he would resign from the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. And since he obviously does not, there should be a Senate ethics inquiry into this conduct.
But of course, that won’t happen, either.
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…
Lindsey Graham seems not to care that liberal self-governance is a fragile system. And this can’t be a case of ignorance: Graham knows better. After all, he spent much of his political life fighting with John McCain for people in countries who do not have democratic rule.
But what if even that previous incarnation of Graham was a facade, too? Because knowing what we do now about Graham, it seems possible—likely, even—that his association with McCain was based on rank opportunism, too. After all, McCain was a heavy hitter. His advice was sought from people in all corners of our government and democratic governments around the world. He was the party’s standard bearer in 2008 and was, by universal acclaim, a national treasure. Perhaps Graham’s association with him was just the easiest route to Graham becoming “relevant.”
What several years ago was a head scratching question—What happened to Lindsey Graham?—is now pretty clear. For Graham, being a United States Senator isn’t about helping Americans or advancing principles. It’s about swimming in the pool of power and feeding off the scraps the big fish leave behind. In short: Lindsey Graham is everything that’s wrong with our political system.
There’s a great book called Character Is Destiny. It begins:
It is your character, and your character alone, that will make your life happy or unhappy. That is all that really passes for destiny. And you choose it. No one else can give it to you or deny it to you. No rival can steal it from you. And no friend can give it to you. Others can encourage you to make the right choices or discourage you. But you choose.
I wonder what Lindsey Graham thinks about that advice. After all, it comes from a man who was one of the most relevant leaders of his generation.