thebulwark--2020-08-06--How to Steal an Election

How to Steal an Election

If you want the bad news all at once , the TL/DR is this : ( 1 ) Trump can use normal tactics to win outright or make the race closer .
( 2 ) COVID problems with election administration can take up to 6 percent off of Biden ’ s margin .
( 3 ) Trump and the GOP might use historically unprecedented tactics to stay in power despite losing .
( 4 ) pro-Trump foreign actors will be using similar but more aggressive tactics to their 2016 interference .
The combination of these tactics gives Trump a solid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let ’ s talk about them .
( 1 ) Trump can turn the election around in a historically normal way .
Even the most Biden-bullish models give Trump a shot of winning fair and square ( the Economist , for instance , puts Trump ’ s odds at 1-in-10 ) .How would that happen ?
It would be something like 1988 .
Michael Dukakis was +17 points in July , but George H.W .
Bush won by +8 ; a 25-point swing in ~3 months .
Biden ’ s lead today is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To be sure , there are differences between 1988 and 2020 but Mike Murphy ( who was part of the Bush team that engineered that comeback ) wrote in The Bulwark : If Biden ’ s national numbers fade in the face of a GOP onslaught or his own mistakes , it becomes possible for Trump to assemble an Electoral College victory by flipping some close states he lost to Clinton ( e.g.
, New Hampshire , Nevada , or Minnesota ) or holding the “ Blue Wall ” and “ Sun Belt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead .
( 2 ) COVID might damage election mechanics in ways that disproportionately hurt Democrats .
Even without Republican dirty tricks , the COVID crisis will alter the mechanics of the election this year in ways that might disproportionately hurt Democrats .
Systems of vote-by-mail and in-person voting , overwhelmed by COVID , could disproportionately hurt Biden by as much as 6 percent , meaning that his current 8 percent national lead could “ really ” be only 2 percent when those issues are taken into account .
It is much easier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 2 percent lead , which could theoretically increase Trump ’ s odds of winning to as much as 1-in-3 .
Which is about where the election betting markets have it .
( 2a ) COVID will hurt in-person voting among Democrats more than among Republicans .
The coronavirus crisis could disproportionately damage Democratic turnout in a few ways .
Example : The Trump campaign has successfully made views of the virus partisan , with Democrats far more likely than Republicans to take the disease seriously .
This means that Democratic-leaning voters are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the safety risks of voting in person .
While this worldview might ultimately get more Republicans sick or killed , in the short term it means that the GOP might have an easier time getting voters to the polls on Election Day .
Another problem is that the COVID crisis is about to cause an avalanche of evictions that will hamper voter turnout throughout the country .
This will hurt Democrats disproportionately because renters—already a lower-turnout group than homeowners on average—lean Democratic in their voting behavior .
A third problem comes from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often have dense populations around polling locations and longer voting lines than suburbs—even in the best of times .
COVID , by deterring many older poll workers from volunteering , will exacerbate this situation .
In Wisconsin in April 2020 , for instance , turnout dropped 4 percent statewide versus April 2019. ut it dropped by 37percent in Milwaukee , where 175 out of 180 polling stations were closed due to staffing problems .
Since cities produce a massive number of net Democratic votes , that kind of selective damage to turnout in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 4 percent off of Biden ’ s lead in states such as Pennsylvania , increasing Trump ’ s odds of winning still further .
( 2b ) Overwhelmed vote-by-mail operations might take ~2 percent off of Biden ’ s margin .
With Democratic in-person voting disproportionately impacted by COVID , the expected surge in voting by mail is likely to be more important for Democrats than Republicans .
This is presumably why • Trump keeps reiterating the falsehood that vote-by-mail is insecure or subject to fraud ; .
• Trump named major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head of the U.S .
Postal Service .
• Postal workers believe that DeJoy ’ s new policies are meant to sabotage mail-in voting .
Even without sabotage , however , the expected surge of mail-in voting will create logistical disasters that might take up to 2 percent off of Biden ’ s margin , as Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report explains : If Wasserman is correct that these problems with vote-by-mail could reduce Biden ’ s margin by about 2 percent , how big of a deal is that ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have swung 7 Electoral College contests , 12 Senate races , and 71 House races in the past decade .
If you add 2 percent to Trump ’ s margin , Trump ’ s odds of winning the Electoral College go up by ~10 percent depending on the model .
( 3 ) Trump and his allies may use openly authoritarian tactics to keep power .
For a long time , the idea that Trump would try to keep power even after losing was considered absurd catastrophizing .
Jonathan Turley , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor who testified against Trump ’ s impeachment , wrote a column in April chiding Joe Biden for suggesting that Trump would try to delay the election .
Turley wrote that the idea of Trump trying to delay the election “ should be sold as a set including a tin foil hat and an electromagnetic ghost detector.
” That did not age well.Trump has doubled down on his lies about vote-by-mail security and suggested that those concerns demand a delay of the election .
This suggestion led Steven Calabresi ( the arch-conservative co-founder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump in 2016 , attacked the Mueller investigation , and spoke out against impeachment ) to write in the New York Times : On the center-left , skeptics such as Fred Kaplan at Slate have assured us that the system would not allow Trump to stay in power if he loses .
Kaplan ’ s claims are nearly as embarrassing as Turley ’ s .
Kaplan sets up a strawman of Trump losing the vote in the Electoral College , and then refusing to leave office on January 20 , 2021 when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kaplan dismisses this scenario as untenable—because it is .
As the Atlantic summarized : But war games set up by the Transition Integrity Project , a nonpartisan group founded by Rosa Brooks of Georgetown Law School and Nils Gilman of the Berggruen Institute , found other ways Trump could bend the rules to keep power , especially if the election is close .
As Max Boot , who participated in the war games , wrote in the Washington Post : David Frum , who worked in the George W. Bush administration , also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them as follows in the Atlantic : Based on these war game scenarios and other analysis , realistic categories of tactics include : Violent voter suppression : Since the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville , right-wing militia groups have organized online and in-person to harass and intimidate domestic critics of President Trump .
In addition , for the first time in four decades , the GOP is legally allowed to spend tens of millions of dollars to deploy tens of thousands of “ poll watchers ” —recruiting especially off-duty soldiers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in communities of color by threatening them with arrests and fines for voting “ improperly.
” ( This tactic will be allowed this cycle because the 1981 consent decree with the GOP expired recently ) .
These tactics—the far-right militia groups in camo , and the off-duty cops as “ poll watchers ” — be augmented by Department of Homeland Security agents authorized for deployment by Attorney General Bill Barr .
Some observers believe that the federal law enforcement “ surge ” into cities such as Detroit , Cleveland , and Milwaukee is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities and among voters of color .
In a worst-case scenario , DHS agents could start arresting citizens in response to violent “ provocations ” incited by right-wing provocateurs—as happened in Virginia , California , Minnesota , and throughout the country.If polling-place closures lead to long lines in Democratic areas , these combined forces could drive many or all voters away before they get a chance to vote .
Republican state legislatures handing their states ’ electoral votes to Trump : The Constitution gives each state ’ s legislature the sole power to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Manner of holding Elections.
” In every swing state , that authority has been delegated to some combination of election supervisors and precincts at the local level , to be certified statewide by the secretary of State and the governor .
That said , some conservatives have begun arguing that the state legislature could bypass that process by passing a new resolution stating ( because of “ security risks ” or some other pretext ) that only certain types of ballots be counted .
This could theoretically be done immediately prior to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a fashion that would disqualify provisional and mail-in ballots .
This could swing the election in any state where Trump is ahead in the count before counting absentee or provisional ballots .
In a particularly brazen version , the state legislature could simply declare that Trump won that state .
For the 2020 election , the GOP holds a majority in both legislative chambers in each of the battleground states : Arizona , Pennsylvania , Michigan , Wisconsin , Florida , and North Carolina .
( The GOP also controls both chambers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia , Texas , and Iowa , which are currently closer than they have been in many years . )
For any state legislature to undertake this action would be unprecedented , dangerous , illegal , and anti-constitutional.But in Wisconsin and North Carolina , GOP legislators have already proven that they will not hesitate to throw out democratic norms in order to keep power .
What would happen next ?
Democrats and patriotic Americans would sue , the lawsuits would go to the United States Supreme Court , and at that point the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to nine justices and the end result will be a president viewed as factually illegitimate , regardless of the result .
Republican state executives delaying the vote counting : Even if the state legislature does not directly intervene , the Republican governors of critical swing states ( Florida , Arizona , Ohio , Georgia , Texas ) could try to intervene to slow their state ’ s vote count or to prevent their state from sending any electors to the Electoral College .
Again , the pretext for this intervention would be bad-faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Which , again , the president is already making . )
If one of these states was on pace to put Biden over the 270 threshold , the Republican governor could attempt to contest every ballot with the goal of postponing a result so that neither candidate could reach 270 .
At which point , the election would be thrown to the U.S. House , where 26 states have a majority-GOP delegation .
Meaning that Trump would get re-elected .
( 4 ) Hostile foreign or private actors could affect the outcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia ’ s extensive intervention in 2016 was directed at helping Donald Trump .
Recent evidence collected by the Brennan Center suggests that Russian interference has become more brazen in the run-up to 2020 .
We don ’ t know precisely how the Russians will intervene , but possibilities range from social media amplification of anti-Biden misinformation ; to laundering money into the Trump campaign coffers via small dollar contributions from fake social media accounts or other proxy groups ; to hacking voter rolls or voter tabulation software to scramble Election-Day logistics still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the easiest solution is for the margin in the popular vote to be as large as possible .
The bigger the margin , the harder it is to cheat .
But we have arrived at a place where thinking through doomsday scenarios is not only prudent , but necessary .
Because the current commander-in-chief has taken the unprecedented steps of ( a ) claiming that the election results will be fraudulent and ( b ) refusing to say that he will abide by them .
And the president ’ s party has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it has abdicated any respect for laws , rules , or norms , and is merely a vassal for this aspiring authoritarian .

If you want the bad news all at once, the TL/DR is this:
(1) Trump can use normal tactics to win outright or make the race closer.
(2) COVID problems with election administration can take up to 6 percent off of Biden’s margin.
(3) Trump and the GOP might use historically unprecedented tactics to stay in power despite losing.
(4) pro-Trump foreign actors will be using similar but more aggressive tactics to their 2016 interference.
The combination of these tactics gives Trump a solid chance to stay in power. So let’s talk about them.
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…
(1) Trump can turn the election around in a historically normal way.
Even the most Biden-bullish models give Trump a shot of winning fair and square (the Economist, for instance, puts Trump’s odds at 1-in-10).How would that happen?
It would be something like 1988. Michael Dukakis was +17 points in July, but George H.W. Bush won by +8; a 25-point swing in ~3 months. Biden’s lead today is much smaller, roughly 8 points. To be sure, there are differences between 1988 and 2020 but Mike Murphy (who was part of the Bush team that engineered that comeback) wrote in The Bulwark:
There are just enough loose bolts on the Biden Express to make wise Trump opponents wary and encourage them to not let up one bit. … the three biggest defining events of the Biden campaign are yet to occur: The VP choice
The Convention
And the Debate Each could present an opportunity for the flailing and so far incompetent Trump campaign to seize a Biden misstep and wrench the campaign focus away from Trump’s bungling of the COVID-19 pandemic and onto a hostile examination of Joe Biden. Biden is unlike Mike Dukakis in that he has been a major national figure for a long time. But he is like Mike Dukakis in that, at this point in the race, he is not yet very well-defined.
If Biden’s national numbers fade in the face of a GOP onslaught or his own mistakes, it becomes possible for Trump to assemble an Electoral College victory by flipping some close states he lost to Clinton (e.g., New Hampshire, Nevada, or Minnesota) or holding the “Blue Wall” and “Sun Belt” states where Biden has recently been ahead.
(2) COVID might damage election mechanics in ways that disproportionately hurt Democrats.
Even without Republican dirty tricks, the COVID crisis will alter the mechanics of the election this year in ways that might disproportionately hurt Democrats. Systems of vote-by-mail and in-person voting, overwhelmed by COVID, could disproportionately hurt Biden by as much as 6 percent, meaning that his current 8 percent national lead could “really” be only 2 percent when those issues are taken into account.
It is much easier, obviously, for Trump to overcome a 2 percent lead, which could theoretically increase Trump’s odds of winning to as much as 1-in-3. Which is about where the election betting markets have it.
(2a) COVID will hurt in-person voting among Democrats more than among Republicans.
The coronavirus crisis could disproportionately damage Democratic turnout in a few ways.
Example: The Trump campaign has successfully made views of the virus partisan, with Democrats far more likely than Republicans to take the disease seriously. This means that Democratic-leaning voters are much more likely to express concerns about the safety risks of voting in person. While this worldview might ultimately get more Republicans sick or killed, in the short term it means that the GOP might have an easier time getting voters to the polls on Election Day.
Another problem is that the COVID crisis is about to cause an avalanche of evictions that will hamper voter turnout throughout the country. This will hurt Democrats disproportionately because renters—already a lower-turnout group than homeowners on average—lean Democratic in their voting behavior.
A third problem comes from the concentration of Democrats in cities. Cities often have dense populations around polling locations and longer voting lines than suburbs—even in the best of times. COVID, by deterring many older poll workers from volunteering, will exacerbate this situation.
In Wisconsin in April 2020, for instance, turnout dropped 4 percent statewide versus April 2019. But it dropped by 37 percent in Milwaukee, where 175 out of 180 polling stations were closed due to staffing problems.
Since cities produce a massive number of net Democratic votes, that kind of selective damage to turnout in big cities could take another 3 percent to 4 percent off of Biden’s lead in states such as Pennsylvania, increasing Trump’s odds of winning still further.
(2b) Overwhelmed vote-by-mail operations might take ~2 percent off of Biden’s margin.
With Democratic in-person voting disproportionately impacted by COVID, the expected surge in voting by mail is likely to be more important for Democrats than Republicans. This is presumably why
Trump keeps reiterating the falsehood that vote-by-mail is insecure or subject to fraud.
Trump named major donor and top fundraiser Louis DeJoy as head of the U.S. Postal Service.
Postal workers believe that DeJoy’s new policies are meant to sabotage mail-in voting.
Even without sabotage, however, the expected surge of mail-in voting will create logistical disasters that might take up to 2 percent off of Biden’s margin, as Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report explains:
[T]he biggest risk of a pandemic-induced crush of mail-in votes isn’t fraud, an extraordinarily rare occurrence in American elections. The real danger is a perfect catastrophe of administrative overload, postal delays and voter error that could lead to millions of absentee ballots not counting. And this year, unlike the past, those ballots are likely to be overwhelmingly Democratic. . . . [M]any of the highest-stakes Electoral College states face steep logistical curves as they rush to adapt to the COVID era: in 2018, mail-in votes were just 6 percent of all votes cast in Wisconsin and Georgia, 4 percent in Pennsylvania and 3 percent in North Carolina.
If Wasserman is correct that these problems with vote-by-mail could reduce Biden’s margin by about 2 percent, how big of a deal is that? Well, that is more than enough to have swung 7 Electoral College contests, 12 Senate races, and 71 House races in the past decade.
If you add 2 percent to Trump’s margin, Trump’s odds of winning the Electoral College go up by ~10 percent depending on the model.
(3) Trump and his allies may use openly authoritarian tactics to keep power.
For a long time, the idea that Trump would try to keep power even after losing was considered absurd catastrophizing. Jonathan Turley, for instance, the George Washington University law professor who testified against Trump’s impeachment, wrote a column in April chiding Joe Biden for suggesting that Trump would try to delay the election. Turley wrote that the idea of Trump trying to delay the election “should be sold as a set including a tin foil hat and an electromagnetic ghost detector.”
That did not age well. Trump has doubled down on his lies about vote-by-mail security and suggested that those concerns demand a delay of the election. This suggestion led Steven Calabresi (the arch-conservative co-founder of the Federalist Society who voted for Trump in 2016, attacked the Mueller investigation, and spoke out against impeachment) to write in the New York Times:
I am frankly appalled by the president’s recent tweet seeking to postpone the November election. Until recently, I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats’ assertion that President Trump is a fascist. But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate.
On the center-left, skeptics such as Fred Kaplan at Slate have assured us that the system would not allow Trump to stay in power if he loses. Kaplan’s claims are nearly as embarrassing as Turley’s. Kaplan sets up a strawman of Trump losing the vote in the Electoral College, and then refusing to leave office on January 20, 2021 when the Constitution mandates a transfer of power. Kaplan dismisses this scenario as untenable—because it is. As the Atlantic summarized:
If the Electoral College certifies Joe Biden the winner when its votes are counted in Washington, D.C., on January 6, then at noon on January 20, Donald Trump ceases to be president. His signature loses all legal effect, the officer carrying the nuclear football walks away, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff does not take his call.
But war games set up by the Transition Integrity Project, a nonpartisan group founded by Rosa Brooks of Georgetown Law School and Nils Gilman of the Berggruen Institute, found other ways Trump could bend the rules to keep power, especially if the election is close.
As Max Boot, who participated in the war games, wrote in the Washington Post:
I was on Team Trump and, needless to say, we did not concede defeat. Instead, we went to work, ruthlessly and unscrupulously, utilizing every ounce of power at our disposal, to secure the 10 Electoral college votes to swing the election. We focused our attention on three of the swing states that Biden won in our scenario—Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania—because, in all three, Republicans control both branches of the legislature. Normally, the governor certifies the election results, and in all three states the governor is a Democrat. But there is nothing to prevent the legislature from certifying a different election outcome. Something similar happened in the 1876 presidential election: Democrat Samuel J. Tilden was leading on Election Day in both the popular vote and in the electoral college, but the results were contested in three states. [Subsequent moves gave Republican Rutherford B.] Hayes a 185 to 184 majority in the electoral college, and the presidency along with it.
David Frum, who worked in the George W. Bush administration, also attended the war games, and summarized them as follows in the Atlantic:
The worst news is that, faced with presidential lawlessness, few of the participants at the Transition Integrity Project found effective responses. The courts offered only slow, weak, and unreliable remedies. Street protests were difficult to mobilize and often proved counterproductive. Republican elected officials cowered even in the face of the most outrageous Trump acts. Democratic elected officials lacked the tools and clout to make much difference. Many of the games turned on who made the first bold move. Time after time, that first mover was Trump. . . . Trump’s side possessed—and used—important tactical advantages. Those advantages start with the institutional powers of the presidency, notably the power to federalize the National Guard and take military control of state voting sites. They include also the asymmetry of the U.S. party system, and especially the fiercer team-mindedness of Trump loyalists and pro-Trump media. The most persistent and powerful advantage, however, was the overconfidence of the legally minded Biden team that the Trump team would respect some norms and limits on its behavior. That expectation was again and again refuted by experience.
Based on these war game scenarios and other analysis, realistic categories of tactics include:
Violent voter suppression: Since the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, right-wing militia groups have organized online and in-person to harass and intimidate domestic critics of President Trump.
In addition, for the first time in four decades, the GOP is legally allowed to spend tens of millions of dollars to deploy tens of thousands of “poll watchers”—recruiting especially off-duty soldiers and law enforcement—to intimidate voters in cities and in communities of color by threatening them with arrests and fines for voting “improperly.” (This tactic will be allowed this cycle because the 1981 consent decree with the GOP expired recently).
These tactics—the far-right militia groups in camo, and the off-duty cops as “poll watchers”— be augmented by Department of Homeland Security agents authorized for deployment by Attorney General Bill Barr. Some observers believe that the federal law enforcement “surge” into cities such as Detroit, Cleveland, and Milwaukee is designed to prepare for vote suppression in cities and among voters of color. In a worst-case scenario, DHS agents could start arresting citizens in response to violent “provocations” incited by right-wing provocateurs (who have already staged attacks in Virginia, California, Minnesota, and throughout the country). If polling-place closures lead to long lines in Democratic areas, these combined forces could drive many or all voters away before they get a chance to vote.
Republican state legislatures handing their states’ electoral votes to Trump: The Constitution gives each state’s legislature the sole power to set the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections.” In every swing state, that authority has been delegated to some combination of election supervisors and precincts at the local level, to be certified statewide by the secretary of State and the governor.
That said, some conservatives have begun arguing that the state legislature could bypass that process by passing a new resolution stating (because of “security risks” or some other pretext) that only certain types of ballots be counted.
This could theoretically be done immediately prior to the election—or even immediately after the election, in a fashion that would disqualify provisional and mail-in ballots.
This could swing the election in any state where Trump is ahead in the count before counting absentee or provisional ballots. In a particularly brazen version, the state legislature could simply declare that Trump won that state. For the 2020 election, the GOP holds a majority in both legislative chambers in each of the battleground states: Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, and North Carolina. (The GOP also controls both chambers of the state legislature in Ohio, Georgia, Texas, and Iowa, which are currently closer than they have been in many years.)
For any state legislature to undertake this action would be unprecedented, dangerous, illegal, and anti-constitutional. But in Wisconsin and North Carolina, GOP legislators have already proven that they will not hesitate to throw out democratic norms in order to keep power.
What would happen next? Democrats and patriotic Americans would sue, the lawsuits would go to the United States Supreme Court, and at which point the fate of the election will be up to nine justices and the end result will be a president viewed as factually illegitimate, regardless of the result.
Republican state executives delaying the vote counting: Even if the state legislature does not directly intervene, the Republican governors of critical swing states (Florida, Arizona, Ohio, Georgia, Texas) could try to intervene to slow their state’s vote count or to prevent their state from sending any electors to the Electoral College.
Again, the pretext for this intervention would be bad-faith complaints about vote security and integrity. (Which, again, the president is already making.) If one of these states was on pace to put Biden over the 270 threshold, the Republican governor could attempt to contest every ballot with the goal of postponing a result so that neither candidate could reach 270. At which point, the election would be thrown to the U.S. House, where 26 states have a majority-GOP delegation. Meaning that Trump would get re-elected.
(4) Hostile foreign or private actors could affect the outcome.
It is now overwhelmingly clear that Russia’s extensive intervention in 2016 was directed at helping Donald Trump.
Recent evidence collected by the Brennan Center suggests that Russian interference has become more brazen in the run-up to 2020. We don’t know precisely how the Russians will intervene, but possibilities range from social media amplification of anti-Biden misinformation; to laundering money into the Trump campaign coffers via small dollar contributions from fake social media accounts or other proxy groups; to hacking voter rolls or voter tabulation software to scramble Election-Day logistics still further.
In all of these cases, the easiest solution is for the margin in the popular vote to be as large as possible.
The bigger the margin, the harder it is to cheat.
But we have arrived at a place where thinking through doomsday scenarios is not only prudent, but necessary. Because the current commander-in-chief has taken the unprecedented steps of (a) claiming that the election results will be fraudulent and (b) refusing to say that he will abide by them.
And the president’s party has demonstrated over the course of four years that it has abdicated any respect for laws, rules, or norms, and is merely a vassal for this aspiring authoritarian.


thebulwark--2020-08-07--Avoiding Hooverville: Why We Need to Extend and Reform Pandemic Unemployment Insurance

Just like that , the additional $ 600 a week pandemic unemployment supplements have expired .
With the livelihood of American workers and the economy at risk , Congress and the Administration are deeply divided on how—or whether—to renew the lifeline that has sustained both .
This is a much more complex debate than the combatants recognize , and misunderstanding the dynamics may hold big consequences for workers and the economy .
First , let ’ s consider the workers and their families .
Over 25 million are set to fall off a steep “ income cliff ” if this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As the labor market continues to weaken and initial unemployment claims start to climb again , a significant portion of the 25 million receiving these benefits will have no other prospects for replacing income that has been paying for housing , food and other necessities .
Republicans have argued since the enhanced benefits were created back in March that the additional payments would discourage workers , especially low-wage workers , from going back to work since they could make more by staying home and collecting benefits .
It ’ s important to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standing between workers and their jobs is not the unemployment benefits , but COVID-19 itself .
People aren ’ t avoiding work ; they are avoiding illness and the potential for it .
A recent review of the pandemic supplement by Yale University found no evidence that the additional $ 600 “ encouraged layoffs… [ or ] deterred people from returning to work.
” Though the research around this latter point is muddy , there is evidence that the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance , or PUA , may not have a disincentive effect for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 600 supplement , unemployment insurance ( UI ) payments are below what they were making as an employee once non-wage compensation is included .
An exclusive focus on UI benefits through the lens of homo economicus—the idea that human beings make decisions solely on the basis of rational economic considerations—is excessively narrow and ignores other aspects of the roles work plays in our lives .
Human beings require work to thrive personally , emotionally , and financially .
If the virus disappeared tomorrow , people who have been cooped up for months would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is comforting to “ retreat to priors ” and try to apply long-held policy concerns about welfarism to COVID-induced layoffs , but it is a category error nonetheless .
Leaving aside the pain inflicted on individuals and families , abruptly terminating these expanded UI benefits also threatens to further blunt whatever economic momentum we currently have .
With GDP in an apparent free-fall , failing to renew UI benefits to spur consumer demand is a kind of economic death wish , reminiscent of efforts by the Hoover Administration and a divided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teeth of the Great Depression .
We ’ ve seen this kind of frustration , exasperation , and exhaustion before it didn ’ t end well as the Depression gained momentum .
What should focus the minds of our elected representatives is that , as in 1932 , there might not be a “ do-over ” .
Once the damage to business and employment is done , it is terribly difficult to reverse and holds the potential not just to impoverish millions of Americans , but take the rest of the global economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UI payments and other federal backstopping of the economy is expensive , consider the potential cost of a prolonged depression inflicting severe damage on entire industries and business sectors while plunging our trading partners and the developing world into even deeper crises .
While we await the production of new COVID therapies and vaccines that are the real cures for the pandemic and the economic slump , we do need to begin considering how we will reform the COVID unemployment supplements in a way that will incentivize and support the return to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent report , A Roadmap to Reemployment in the COVID-19 Economy , proposes diverting a portion of the $ 600 UI supplement to personal reemployment accounts that can be used for education , training , and other work- or training-related costs .
Even a modest , initial shift of $ 50 per week to such accounts would signal to UI recipients that a return to work was necessary and expected while providing worker-controlled resources to build skills , finance relocation , or pay for childcare , transportation or other work-support services .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also be possible to convert these accounts to a long-term strategy for reskilling by creating a reliable source of funds to support the “ life-long learning ” that is increasingly required in our dynamic , technology-driven economy .
Unfortunately , even with the trillions of dollars already pumped into the economy , great damage is being done .
In this health-driven economic crisis the top priority must be , “ First , do no harm.
” If we can help workers and businesses hang on until effective solutions to the COVID-19 virus are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health and the economy—is possible .

Just like that, the additional $600 a week pandemic unemployment supplements have expired. With the livelihood of American workers and the economy at risk, Congress and the Administration are deeply divided on how—or whether—to renew the lifeline that has sustained both. This is a much more complex debate than the combatants recognize, and misunderstanding the dynamics may hold big consequences for workers and the economy.
First, let’s consider the workers and their families. Over 25 million are set to fall off a steep “income cliff” if this supplementary unemployment insurance bonus is not renewed. As the labor market continues to weaken and initial unemployment claims start to climb again, a significant portion of the 25 million receiving these benefits will have no other prospects for replacing income that has been paying for housing, food and other necessities.
Republicans have argued since the enhanced benefits were created back in March that the additional payments would discourage workers, especially low-wage workers, from going back to work since they could make more by staying home and collecting benefits. It’s important to keep in mind that the main thing standing between workers and their jobs is not the unemployment benefits, but COVID-19 itself. People aren’t avoiding work; they are avoiding illness and the potential for it. A recent review of the pandemic supplement by Yale University found no evidence that the additional $600 “encouraged layoffs… [or] deterred people from returning to work.” Though the research around this latter point is muddy, there is evidence that the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, or PUA, may not have a disincentive effect for another reason: even with the $600 supplement, unemployment insurance (UI) payments are below what they were making as an employee once non-wage compensation is included.
An exclusive focus on UI benefits through the lens of homo economicus—the idea that human beings make decisions solely on the basis of rational economic considerations—is excessively narrow and ignores other aspects of the roles work plays in our lives. Human beings require work to thrive personally, emotionally, and financially. If the virus disappeared tomorrow, people who have been cooped up for months would happily return to their jobs in droves. It is comforting to “retreat to priors” and try to apply long-held policy concerns about welfarism to COVID-induced layoffs, but it is a category error nonetheless.
Leaving aside the pain inflicted on individuals and families, abruptly terminating these expanded UI benefits also threatens to further blunt whatever economic momentum we currently have. With GDP in an apparent free-fall, failing to renew UI benefits to spur consumer demand is a kind of economic death wish, reminiscent of efforts by the Hoover Administration and a divided Congress to limit relief measures in the teeth of the Great Depression. We’ve seen this kind of frustration, exasperation, and exhaustion before it didn’t end well as the Depression gained momentum.
What should focus the minds of our elected representatives is that, as in 1932, there might not be a “do-over”. Once the damage to business and employment is done, it is terribly difficult to reverse and holds the potential not just to impoverish millions of Americans, but take the rest of the global economy down with us. If you think UI payments and other federal backstopping of the economy is expensive, consider the potential cost of a prolonged depression inflicting severe damage on entire industries and business sectors while plunging our trading partners and the developing world into even deeper crises.
While we await the production of new COVID therapies and vaccines that are the real cures for the pandemic and the economic slump, we do need to begin considering how we will reform the COVID unemployment supplements in a way that will incentivize and support the return to work. To address this challenge, our recent report, A Roadmap to Reemployment in the COVID-19 Economy, proposes diverting a portion of the $600 UI supplement to personal reemployment accounts that can be used for education, training, and other work- or training-related costs. Even a modest, initial shift of $50 per week to such accounts would signal to UI recipients that a return to work was necessary and expected while providing worker-controlled resources to build skills, finance relocation, or pay for childcare, transportation or other work-support services. As outlined in the report, it may also be possible to convert these accounts to a long-term strategy for reskilling by creating a reliable source of funds to support the “life-long learning” that is increasingly required in our dynamic, technology-driven economy.
Unfortunately, even with the trillions of dollars already pumped into the economy, great damage is being done. In this health-driven economic crisis the top priority must be, “First, do no harm.” If we can help workers and businesses hang on until effective solutions to the COVID-19 virus are widely available, a full recovery—for public health and the economy—is possible.


thebulwark--2020-08-07--Trump Got Bored with Venezuela

Trump Got Bored with Venezuela

Pop quiz : How many years ago was it that President Trump invited Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó to the State of the Union Address ?
Trick question .
It was about six months ago , on February 4 .
That was the day before the Senate failed to convict Trump on impeachment charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress , about two weeks after the first American came down with COVID-19 , and among the last times the White House noticeably paid any attention to Venezuela .
Venezuela had long been a focus of Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to equate the Democratic party ( and more often than not , particular Democrats ) with hellish socialism .
Trump established the genre in 2012 with his earliest tweet mentioning Venezuela : But 2019 was the year Venezuela dominated Trump ’ s imagination .
That invaluable resource , the Trump Twitter Archive , reveals that half of his 44 tweets mentioning Venezuela , Guaidó , or incumbent autocrat Nicolás Maduro are from 2019 .
So far in 2020 , just seven tweets .
This makes sense : 2019 was a dramatic year in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while Guaidó , the legally legitimate president of the formerly affluent and democratic country , garnered formal diplomatic recognition from more than 50 countries , including the United States , Canada , and most of South America and Europe .
Millions of Venezuelans flooded the streets to demand an end to corruption , autocracy , and economic lunacy .
It looked , for a moment , like the underpaid military might jettison Maduro .
No such luck .
The protests eventually ended amid violent skirmishes with authorities .
The response of the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , commendable .
The hand of American influence could be seen clearly behind the international mass-recognition of the Guaidó-led government .
It was possibly Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ’ s greatest achievement in office , a successful diplomatic effort that united American allies around a noble purpose .
Even Trump seemed to grasp the importance of the moment , proclaiming : To oversee and coordinate that effort , Pompeo announced on January 25 , 2019 , that Elliot Abrams would become the special representative for Venezuela .
Abrams had previously served as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and humanitarian affairs and as assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs ( now called Western Hemisphere affairs ) in the Reagan administration .
He pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress as part of the Iran-Contra affair , and was later pardoned by George H.W .
Bush .
After a stint running the Ethics and Public Policy Center , he returned to government as senior director for democracy , human rights , and international organizations on George W. Bush ’ s National Security Council .
During Bush ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deputy national security advisor for global democracy strategy .
His appointment by President Trump was met with dismay and derision by Rep. Ilhan Omar , which indicates how wise it was .
“ The entire thrust of the American policy in Venezuela , ” Abrams declared , “ is to support the Venezuelan people ’ s effort to restore democracy to their country .
That ’ s our policy.
” At least , that was our policy .
This past June , the president expressed more ambivalent feelings about the stolen election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling Axios , “ Guaidó was elected .
I think that I wasn ’ t necessarily in favor , but I said—some people that liked it , some people didn ’ t .
I was OK with it .
I don ’ t think it was—you know , I don ’ t think it was very meaningful one way or the other.
” In a Foreign Relations Committee hearing earlier this week , Sen. Mitt Romney asked Abrams , “ Will [ America ’ s pro-Guaidó policy ] ever be communicated to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
.
.
.
Until the president says that , will it ever break through ?
” Abrams did his best to defend the administration in which he serves , pointing out President Trump ’ s previous support for Guaidó .
Then , yesterday , Pompeo announced that the special envoy for Iran , Brian Hook , was stepping down , and that Abrams would take his place while continuing to manage the Venezuela portfolio as well .
While Abrams now must divide his time between two of the most vexing countries in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs is vacant , as it has been for all but 10 months of the Trump administration .
( The president finally in March named a nominee who seems likely to be confirmed soon . )
The assistant secretary of state for democracy , human rights , and labor , Robert Destro , is an accomplished law professor , but has no expertise in either Latin America or diplomacy .
In May , the president finally nominated an ambassador to Caracas , who is awaiting Senate confirmation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efficient and effective civil servant ever to grace the halls of Foggy Bottom , he would still have to struggle to overcome the forces arrayed against him .
Maduro ’ s murderous regime is buttressed by Russia , China , Cuba , Iran—yes , the other country Abrams is now focusing on has a close , supportive relationship with Venezuela—and indifference from a dysfunctional White House .
What a difference a few months can make .

Pop quiz: How many years ago was it that President Trump invited Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó to the State of the Union Address?
Trick question. It was about six months ago, on February 4. That was the day before the Senate failed to convict Trump on impeachment charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, about two weeks after the first American came down with COVID-19, and among the last times the White House noticeably paid any attention to Venezuela.
Venezuela had long been a focus of Trump’s, if only as a convenient way to equate the Democratic party (and more often than not, particular Democrats) with hellish socialism. Trump established the genre in 2012 with his earliest tweet mentioning Venezuela:
Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez said in a television interview that aired on Sunday "If I were American, I'd vote for Obama." — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 2, 2012
But 2019 was the year Venezuela dominated Trump’s imagination. That invaluable resource, the Trump Twitter Archive, reveals that half of his 44 tweets mentioning Venezuela, Guaidó, or incumbent autocrat Nicolás Maduro are from 2019. So far in 2020, just seven tweets.
This makes sense: 2019 was a dramatic year in Venezuela. Maduro stole an election, while Guaidó, the legally legitimate president of the formerly affluent and democratic country, garnered formal diplomatic recognition from more than 50 countries, including the United States, Canada, and most of South America and Europe. Millions of Venezuelans flooded the streets to demand an end to corruption, autocracy, and economic lunacy. It looked, for a moment, like the underpaid military might jettison Maduro. No such luck. The protests eventually ended amid violent skirmishes with authorities.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The response of the Trump administration was, for the most part, commendable. The hand of American influence could be seen clearly behind the international mass-recognition of the Guaidó-led government. It was possibly Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s greatest achievement in office, a successful diplomatic effort that united American allies around a noble purpose.
Even Trump seemed to grasp the importance of the moment, proclaiming:
The people of Venezuela have courageously spoken out against Maduro and his regime and demanded freedom and the rule of law. I will continue to use the full weight of United States economic and diplomatic power to press for the restoration of Venezuelan democracy.
To oversee and coordinate that effort, Pompeo announced on January 25, 2019, that Elliot Abrams would become the special representative for Venezuela. Abrams had previously served as assistant secretary of state for human rights and humanitarian affairs and as assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs (now called Western Hemisphere affairs) in the Reagan administration. He pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress as part of the Iran-Contra affair, and was later pardoned by George H.W. Bush. After a stint running the Ethics and Public Policy Center, he returned to government as senior director for democracy, human rights, and international organizations on George W. Bush’s National Security Council. During Bush’s second term, Abrams was promoted to deputy national security advisor for global democracy strategy.
His appointment by President Trump was met with dismay and derision by Rep. Ilhan Omar, which indicates how wise it was. “The entire thrust of the American policy in Venezuela,” Abrams declared, “is to support the Venezuelan people’s effort to restore democracy to their country. That’s our policy.”
At least, that was our policy. This past June, the president expressed more ambivalent feelings about the stolen election that led to the presidential crisis, telling Axios, “Guaidó was elected. I think that I wasn’t necessarily in favor, but I said—some people that liked it, some people didn’t. I was OK with it. I don’t think it was—you know, I don’t think it was very meaningful one way or the other.”
In a Foreign Relations Committee hearing earlier this week, Sen. Mitt Romney asked Abrams, “Will [America’s pro-Guaidó policy] ever be communicated to the world unless the president expresses it himself? . . . Until the president says that, will it ever break through?”
Abrams did his best to defend the administration in which he serves, pointing out President Trump’s previous support for Guaidó.
Then, yesterday, Pompeo announced that the special envoy for Iran, Brian Hook, was stepping down, and that Abrams would take his place while continuing to manage the Venezuela portfolio as well.
While Abrams now must divide his time between two of the most vexing countries in the world, the post of assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs is vacant, as it has been for all but 10 months of the Trump administration. (The president finally in March named a nominee who seems likely to be confirmed soon.) The assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor, Robert Destro, is an accomplished law professor, but has no expertise in either Latin America or diplomacy. In May, the president finally nominated an ambassador to Caracas, who is awaiting Senate confirmation.
Even if Abrams were the most efficient and effective civil servant ever to grace the halls of Foggy Bottom, he would still have to struggle to overcome the forces arrayed against him. Maduro’s murderous regime is buttressed by Russia, China, Cuba, Iran—yes, the other country Abrams is now focusing on has a close, supportive relationship with Venezuela—and indifference from a dysfunctional White House. What a difference a few months can make.


thebulwark--2020-08-07--What’s Left To Conserve?

What’s Left To Conserve?

Conservatism is in crisis .
But we knew that .
With the exception of 2004—a squeaker that came down to the wire in Ohio , almost necessitating a replay of Florida ’ s dramatic 2000 recount—the conservative movement has not unambiguously won a presidential election by popular vote since 1988 .
And that was before Trump came along .
Since that time , of course , the conservative movement has been tarred by association not only with Trump ’ s corruption , incompetence , and brutality , but also with the dangerous fanatics of the alt-right and similar white supremacist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tacitly allied with .
If the conservative movement had troubles already , a key guardrail had broken : the very people whom William F. Buckley and others had desperately tried to keep out of the movement , and who had been seen off again and again , in the persona of George Wallace , David Duke , Pat Buchanan , and others , had now taken control of the movement .
Amid the current culture war , and especially its latest and hardest-contested battleground , the understanding and commemoration of American history itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to play .
But only if they go back to first principles : reverence for the Constitution and its freedoms , and a commitment to implement them for all Americans , not just some .
These core values , not a thoughtless and unqualified deification of the past , nor a Manichaean opposition to the ideas of others , will ensure that conservative values will endure .
American conservatism has always had a spotty record on racial matters .
Even though founders of the modern conservative movement like William F. Buckley sought to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and crackpots , their own record on matters of civil rights was spotty at best , checkered at worst .
More recently , the “ law and order ” conservatism of the Reagan era , however sympathetically one reads it in light of the “ Boomer crime wave , ” carried with it a contempt for civil rights and a tolerance for abuse of power .
These problems look quaint in retrospect .
Today , the conservative movement looks dated at the very least , and toxic at worst .
Perhaps the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s weakness was that , at the time Trump knocked it over in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries , 16 other candidates had no real solution to America ’ s problems .
Despite repeated allusions to a 1980s icon in the form of Ronald Reagan , there was no “ vision.
” This is unfortunate not just for the conservative movement , but for America .
Obscured by the fanaticism and partisanship brought on by Trump , the American left has gone crazy .
The left has avoided the much-needed discussion on race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of George Floyd by Minneapolis police and instead used his killing as a justification for the vandalism of monuments ( not just Confederate ones ) , the renaming of major institutions , and the “ cancelling ” of those who disagree , all the while peddling the argument that the United States is irredeemable .
The response on the right has been inarticulate at best , but its most prominent voice has been a president who ordered the National Guard to use force on peaceful protesters outside the White House so that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a church whose minister he had just injured .
The latest development in this increasingly alarming back and forth has been the attempted sacking of a federal courthouse followed by extrajudicial detention of citizens in Portland ( and potentiallyelsewhere ) by federal law enforcement with questionable jurisdiction and chains of command .
Amid all this , doomsayers are now all but openly pronouncing the imminentcollapse of the United States .
Amid deconstructionism on the left and crushing authoritarianism on the right , we may fear that , as W.B .
Yeats would put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold.
” A reasonable conservative , surveying the intellectual and social carnage , might reasonably ask , what ’ s left to conserve ?
There is , in fact , a historic opportunity for American conservatives to reclaim their core principles and build a winning political coalition .
In the process , they can rebuild , rearticulate , and revive the American consensus about what our nation is , what it stands for , and where it can go .
What one is against can serve as the basis of what one is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaker pointed out to one of us in 2016 , in the short to medium term , one can unite a squabbling party by pointing at something all of its factions find intolerable and reminding them that they oppose it .
This , it was argued , was what Reagan had done in the 1980s and what Trump attempted to do and mostly failed .
It ’ s quite debatable whether this was really the secret of past conservative coalitions ’ success , and whether the lesson is applicable now .
The real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well have been the simple fecklessness of his , and his successor George H.W .
Bush ’ s , opposition , and the relative absence of partisanship that allowed for super coalitions to be built .
But even if it is true , the limitations of this logic have become apparent .
Clearly , conservatives are going to need to articulate a real vision for the United States , and not just “ stand athwart history yelling , ‘ Stop !
’ ” They are , moreover , going to have to look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need a new vision , and a chance to articulate it .
The good news , though , is that the excesses of the left and the vacuousness of Trump offer an opportunity to rebuild .
Cancel culture , with its internet mobs , digitized harassment and slurs , nihilistic reverse racism , and attempt to shift the climate of intolerance it has created from the college campus to the boardroom is not a viable way forward for America .
Indeed , given its origins in postmodernist deconstructionism and its characterization of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not seek to be .
The reaction against this over-reach by the postmodern left has come from all corners—from the campus free speech movement , to online contrarians , to left-libertarians , to liberals and former Hillary Clintonsupporters , to NeverTrumpconservatives , to moderate free-marketers—in addition to Trump supporters themselves .
A movement that can unite this many people across the political spectrum potentially signals the basis for a principled opposition .
For conservatives who have historically styled themselves classical liberals , conserving the original liberal principles of America ’ s founding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenge for conservatives is not simply to oppose , but to lead .
It must be emphasized : this will not save conservatives or Republicans this election cycle—not in net terms anyway .
The Republican Party and the conservative movement are too tainted by Trump and too disorganized to do much more than tread water–if they are lucky .
There is no winning this time , and , in fairness , there probably should not be .
The question is how to lay the groundwork for a reboot , and what the conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that case .
It is here that we can offer some thoughts .
The biggest issue in the current culture war is how America is to remember its history .
Without some agreement , or at least give and take , on how to understand and value their shared experience as a nation , Americans have no reason to stick together at all—a frightening prospect , doubly so in this age of division and hyper-partisanship .
We live at a time when historical figures are literally being pulled off pedestals , and when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only to Confederate leaders and soldiers but any historical figure whose views or practices were typical of another era .
This has extended even to Union leaders such as Ulysses S. Grant and abolitionist Union soldiers such as Hans Christian Heg .
It is vital for some reasonableness to be injected into the discourse .
Conservatives , who prize reason and moderation and value historical inheritance , have no choice but to weigh in .
They are well-positioned to do so , if they can overcome their worst instincts that have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As George Will articulated in his recent book , one of few constants in American conservatism over the centuries is its veneration of the Madisonian Constitution , not merely as a legal system to be manipulated or circumvented , but a worthy blueprint for a free society .
Limited government , checks and balances , and individual rights are the sine qua non of conservatism ; all else may come and go .
With them , in the here and now , comes a basic acknowledgement that the country that possesses them should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take pride in them – not scorn them .
When the conservative movement sided with a president who had no respect for anything but popularity and naked power , it went astray from its roots .
It must find its way back .
In doing so , conservatives will have to confront a valid point that the left-wing opposition is making : that American society today , especially if it reveres the principles and guarantees of the Constitution , can not uncritically praise all of the actions of the great figures of American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of such figures as it has .
Equally , the conservative movement will have to articulate a way to view America that does not involve whitewashing actions and events which can not be justified under the principles Americans—and especially conservatives—hold dear .
The way to do this is for conservatives to reclaim the American story honestly , including the nasty parts of which Americans are justly ashamed .
Rather than mindlessly take the yin to the woke brigade ’ s yang by positing an America that is all good against a vision of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as befits a group who are trying to , well , conserve something , can simply remind Americans of the obvious : that they have a great ( and ongoing ) national story , but that that story includes imperfections , wrong turns , and dark hours where the American promise was unfulfilled .
America does , indeed , have much promise , even at this dark hour .
As investors have noted , it is still the world ’ s preferred place to park money : whatever one would like to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a dynamo of productivity .
This is not a mere bit of investment analysis : it means that America is still seen , fundamentally , as a good place to make a living and , therefore , a life .
Despite anti-immigrant sentiment , people from all over the world still try to get visas to get into the United States ; Americans are in far less of a hurry to leave .
This is all ultimately a reflection of America ’ s greatness .
The United States was founded on the noble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the individual by a democratic state , with a constitution that is a masterpiece of legal engineering , with an inspiring story of improving itself even if it falls short of its own pretensions , that not only overcame evil at home in the form of slavery but fought it abroad and defeated it twice in the form of fascism and communism .
A country of visionaries and practical people , it is almost a byword for inventiveness , creativity , and toughness in the face of adversity .
Its final legacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ footprints it left on the surface of the moon .
However many its faults and shortcomings , its story is not a thing of no value to be thrown away , and in the absence of others it will fall to conservatives to plead its case .
Reclaim American History ; Conserve the Best Within Us To do that , though , conservatives must enter debates about America ’ s history not as simple-minded Manicheans , but as opponents of that worldview .
The conservative thesis must not be that if the left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in turn must regard it as all good .
It should rather be that American history is the great story of an imperfect but self-improving people .
To take an example : it is not a contradiction to characterize Christopher Columbus as a brutal colonizer and conquistador and also as an intrepid mariner whose crossing of the Atlantic was perhaps the single most influential distinct act in human history , one that paved the way for the New World and Western liberalism .
He was assuredly both .
Conservatives can acknowledge the value @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simplifying it themselves .
In the current dialectic , conservatives ’ natural role is to argue for understanding and appreciating history , against those who do not see value in it rather than whitewashing it and undermining their own case by doing so .
They can , and should , be the adults in the room , arguing for appreciation and , especially , simple knowledge of history , without reducing it to hagiography .
This may be too complex for soundbites and bumper stickers , but is a reasonable enough case for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Conservatives would be wise to argue that America is not perfect , but that it is fundamentally worth preserving and that its historical figures who made important contributions be subject both to respect and honest appraisal about their deficiencies Drop the Confederacy ; Save and Contextualize All Others To that end , those conservatives who continue to defend Confederate statues should retreat and retrench to those other areas of historical commemoration where the individuals being commemorated actually contributed something positive to America .
Conservatives can and should argue against condemnation of historical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modern standards ; they can and should argue for appreciating the contributions of imperfect people .
But they do well to stop short of defending people who , largely for the worst of reasons , tried—and failed—to destroy the United States .
This is more than simply a pragmatic attempt to avoid a “ bad look , ” but a key element of our principles .
Conservatives should concede the point that the Confederacy was a wrong turn for America that was rightly corrected .
Moreover , the case for retaining the commemoration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or George Washington , or originators like Columbus who are otherwise almost Martian to us now , will be made stronger if they do not also defend those who , at a critical moment , actively tried to undermine America .
Admittedly , there is assuredly a case to be made in individual cases for retaining old artwork—including that deemed “ problematic ” —for its aesthetic value , particularly in the case of old buildings that often contain too much late-nineteenth century memorabilia to easily be removable .
But conservatives should pick their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a courthouse where thousands were unjustly treated by the intellectual , if not literal , descendants of the Confederacy is bad enough ; it is worse if the statue is a cheap piece of kitsch .
In order to defend George Washington and Thomas Jefferson—and , more importantly , the ideas they established—conservatives will have to prove that they are not the racists and reactionaries that their critics claim .
This is where conservatives ’ reverence for the Constitution can work for them .
Precisely because their opponents in the current dialogue are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of room to become realistic , thoughtful , and prudent—as well as respectful of institutions , especially the Constitution .
David French ’ s call for conservatives to become “ Bill of Rights conservatives ” instead of “ law and order conservatives ” is therefore extremely topical .
If conservatives find progressives ’ racialization of American discourse toxic and ineffective , they should substitute something that can work .
Protecting the rights of individual Americans from the arbitrary and heavy-handed use of force by unaccountable and overpaid public servants is something conservatives normally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to police brutality and police reform .
Conservatives should also reclaim their understanding of the human condition as essentially tragic .
Utopian projects with vague goals accomplish little ; excesses committed in their name leave no positive legacy .
Substantial reform that better safeguards constitutional rights from abuses by law enforcement can be championed by conservatives , even as they reject anger and censorship in the service of nebulous goals .
Reining in official abuse , and exercising checks and balances , is a bedrock principle of conservatism .
It also helps people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take the lead on police reform without sacrificing their concern for law and order .
There is nothing inconsistent about asking that police to obey legal constraints regarding reasonable and appropriate use of force and subjecting them to impartial oversight , while also being in favor of effective and humane policing on the other .
Both are examples of the rule of law in action .
On this , conservatives should be willing to forge links with those elements of the civil rights left who reject utopianism to work together on police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ floated , including scaling back or ending the qualified immunity doctrine and removing investigations of police killings from overly interested local prosecutors .
The issue has already found acceptance ( and urgent advocacy ) among the libertarian right , which was decrying the judicial system ’ s acceptance of law enforcement excesses as early as the 1990s , and whose adherents have chronicled police brutality and overreach in depressing detail .
Since 2014 , there has been a historic opportunity for the civil rights left and the libertarian right to get something done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their failure to do so has arguably been one of the great tragedies of America ’ s partisan conflict .
Regrettably , partisanship is now killing police reform in the Senate , even as America burns .
If one does not want radical anarchists and Trumpian thugs to take over the conversation , it is time for conservatives to start conserving actual law and order , and not its simulacrum .
( For those arguing that such proposals do not go far enough , the criticism is valid—but the solution conservatives should advocate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that support constitutional rights , not recklessly champion a “ defund the police ” agenda that Americans do not and can not support , and not support lawlessness by federal and local law enforcement either . )
Doing this would have involved something akin to implementing the reforms recommended by the famous Republican National Committee 2012 postmortem , or Paul Ryan ’ s recommendation that Republicans campaign in minority neighborhoods .
It would require not only acknowledging that minority groups have constitutional rights , but actively working to protect them , and showing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Republicans could win an election in a city now and then , so much the better .
Although this is the issue of the day , the re-articulation of the value of America ’ s history and national story , and the end to the hagiography of those who tried to end that story , linked to a recommitment to individual rights , the rule of law , and the Constitution , would allow conservatives to take the lead in other areas as well .
This would allow for conservatives to again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broad range of issues such as the environment , science , health care , right to life issues , deficits , and the proper size and scope of government more generally .
Only by returning to these principles and having enlightened conversations can conservatives redeem the Republican Party as a party of ideas and patriotism once again .
That , though , will require turning away from Donald Trump .
The only chance the Republican Party , and thereby the conservative movement , has at redemption and resuscitation lies in actively stating that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong move .
It will not help much this time , but it is the only way to chart a new course .
The worst that might happen is not the loss of the presidency , or even the Senate .
It is that , divided and visionless , conservatives will have presided over the disintegration of the Republic they love , when they had an opportunity to save it by living up to their best vision of America and themselves .

Conservatism is in crisis. But we knew that.
With the exception of 2004—a squeaker that came down to the wire in Ohio, almost necessitating a replay of Florida’s dramatic 2000 recount—the conservative movement has not unambiguously won a presidential election by popular vote since 1988.
And that was before Trump came along. Since that time, of course, the conservative movement has been tarred by association not only with Trump’s corruption, incompetence, and brutality, but also with the dangerous fanatics of the alt-right and similar white supremacist groups whom he has tolerated, even tacitly allied with. If the conservative movement had troubles already, a key guardrail had broken: the very people whom William F. Buckley and others had desperately tried to keep out of the movement, and who had been seen off again and again, in the persona of George Wallace, David Duke, Pat Buchanan, and others, had now taken control of the movement.
Amid the current culture war, and especially its latest and hardest-contested battleground, the understanding and commemoration of American history itself, traditional conservatives have a vital role to play. But only if they go back to first principles: reverence for the Constitution and its freedoms, and a commitment to implement them for all Americans, not just some. These core values, not a thoughtless and unqualified deification of the past, nor a Manichaean opposition to the ideas of others, will ensure that conservative values will endure.
A Zombie From The ’80s
American conservatism has always had a spotty record on racial matters. Even though founders of the modern conservative movement like William F. Buckley sought to distance themselves from overt bigots, anti-Semites, and crackpots, their own record on matters of civil rights was spotty at best, checkered at worst. More recently, the “law and order” conservatism of the Reagan era, however sympathetically one reads it in light of the “Boomer crime wave,” carried with it a contempt for civil rights and a tolerance for abuse of power.
These problems look quaint in retrospect. Today, the conservative movement looks dated at the very least, and toxic at worst. Perhaps the biggest indicator of the conservative movement’s weakness was that, at the time Trump knocked it over in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, 16 other candidates had no real solution to America’s problems. Despite repeated allusions to a 1980s icon in the form of Ronald Reagan, there was no “vision.”
This is unfortunate not just for the conservative movement, but for America. Obscured by the fanaticism and partisanship brought on by Trump, the American left has gone crazy. The left has avoided the much-needed discussion on race and policing brought on by the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police and instead used his killing as a justification for the vandalism of monuments (not just Confederate ones), the renaming of major institutions, and the “cancelling” of those who disagree, all the while peddling the argument that the United States is irredeemable.
The response on the right has been inarticulate at best, but its most prominent voice has been a president who ordered the National Guard to use force on peaceful protesters outside the White House so that he could wave a Bible in front of a church whose minister he had just injured. The latest development in this increasingly alarming back and forth has been the attempted sacking of a federal courthouse followed by extrajudicial detention of citizens in Portland (and potentiallyelsewhere) by federal law enforcement with questionable jurisdiction and chains of command.
Amid all this, doomsayers are now all but openly pronouncing the imminentcollapse of the United States. Amid deconstructionism on the left and crushing authoritarianism on the right, we may fear that, as W.B. Yeats would put it, “the center cannot hold.”
A reasonable conservative, surveying the intellectual and social carnage, might reasonably ask, what’s left to conserve?
Plenty, in fact.
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…
On Rebuilding a Movement
There is, in fact, a historic opportunity for American conservatives to reclaim their core principles and build a winning political coalition. In the process, they can rebuild, rearticulate, and revive the American consensus about what our nation is, what it stands for, and where it can go.
What one is against can serve as the basis of what one is for. Indeed, as a conservative speaker pointed out to one of us in 2016, in the short to medium term, one can unite a squabbling party by pointing at something all of its factions find intolerable and reminding them that they oppose it. This, it was argued, was what Reagan had done in the 1980s and what Trump attempted to do and mostly failed.
It’s quite debatable whether this was really the secret of past conservative coalitions’ success, and whether the lesson is applicable now. The real key to Reagan’s success may well have been the simple fecklessness of his, and his successor George H.W. Bush’s, opposition, and the relative absence of partisanship that allowed for super coalitions to be built. But even if it is true, the limitations of this logic have become apparent.
Clearly, conservatives are going to need to articulate a real vision for the United States, and not just “stand athwart history yelling, ‘Stop!’” They are, moreover, going to have to look past Reagan and abandon Trump. They need a new vision, and a chance to articulate it.
The good news, though, is that the excesses of the left and the vacuousness of Trump offer an opportunity to rebuild. Cancel culture, with its internet mobs, digitized harassment and slurs, nihilistic reverse racism, and attempt to shift the climate of intolerance it has created from the college campus to the boardroom is not a viable way forward for America. Indeed, given its origins in postmodernist deconstructionism and its characterization of the United States as irredeemably oppressive, it does not seek to be. The reaction against this over-reach by the postmodern left has come from all corners—from the campus free speech movement, to online contrarians, to left-libertarians, to liberals and former Hillary Clintonsupporters, to NeverTrumpconservatives, to moderate free-marketers—in addition to Trump supporters themselves.
A movement that can unite this many people across the political spectrum potentially signals the basis for a principled opposition. For conservatives who have historically styled themselves classical liberals, conserving the original liberal principles of America’s founding, this is an opportunity. The challenge for conservatives is not simply to oppose, but to lead.
It must be emphasized: this will not save conservatives or Republicans this election cycle—not in net terms anyway. The Republican Party and the conservative movement are too tainted by Trump and too disorganized to do much more than tread water–if they are lucky. There is no winning this time, and, in fairness, there probably should not be. The question is how to lay the groundwork for a reboot, and what the conservative vision for America would look like in that case.
It is here that we can offer some thoughts.
Preserving (The Right) History
The biggest issue in the current culture war is how America is to remember its history. Without some agreement, or at least give and take, on how to understand and value their shared experience as a nation, Americans have no reason to stick together at all—a frightening prospect, doubly so in this age of division and hyper-partisanship.
We live at a time when historical figures are literally being pulled off pedestals, and when the ire of those doing it extends not only to Confederate leaders and soldiers but any historical figure whose views or practices were typical of another era. This has extended even to Union leaders such as Ulysses S. Grant and abolitionist Union soldiers such as Hans Christian Heg. It is vital for some reasonableness to be injected into the discourse. Conservatives, who prize reason and moderation and value historical inheritance, have no choice but to weigh in. They are well-positioned to do so, if they can overcome their worst instincts that have been on display in the Trump era.
As George Will articulated in his recent book, one of few constants in American conservatism over the centuries is its veneration of the Madisonian Constitution, not merely as a legal system to be manipulated or circumvented, but a worthy blueprint for a free society. Limited government, checks and balances, and individual rights are the sine qua non of conservatism; all else may come and go. With them, in the here and now, comes a basic acknowledgement that the country that possesses them should cherish them, implement them, and take pride in them – not scorn them. When the conservative movement sided with a president who had no respect for anything but popularity and naked power, it went astray from its roots. It must find its way back.
In doing so, conservatives will have to confront a valid point that the left-wing opposition is making: that American society today, especially if it reveres the principles and guarantees of the Constitution, cannot uncritically praise all of the actions of the great figures of American history, or even curate the list of such figures as it has. Equally, the conservative movement will have to articulate a way to view America that does not involve whitewashing actions and events which cannot be justified under the principles Americans—and especially conservatives—hold dear.
The way to do this is for conservatives to reclaim the American story honestly, including the nasty parts of which Americans are justly ashamed. Rather than mindlessly take the yin to the woke brigade’s yang by positing an America that is all good against a vision of America as all bad, conservatives, as befits a group who are trying to, well, conserve something, can simply remind Americans of the obvious: that they have a great (and ongoing) national story, but that that story includes imperfections, wrong turns, and dark hours where the American promise was unfulfilled.
America does, indeed, have much promise, even at this dark hour. As investors have noted, it is still the world’s preferred place to park money: whatever one would like to see done with its economy, it remains a dynamo of productivity. This is not a mere bit of investment analysis: it means that America is still seen, fundamentally, as a good place to make a living and, therefore, a life. Despite anti-immigrant sentiment, people from all over the world still try to get visas to get into the United States; Americans are in far less of a hurry to leave. This is all ultimately a reflection of America’s greatness.
The United States was founded on the noble ideal of the protection of the rights of the individual by a democratic state, with a constitution that is a masterpiece of legal engineering, with an inspiring story of improving itself even if it falls short of its own pretensions, that not only overcame evil at home in the form of slavery but fought it abroad and defeated it twice in the form of fascism and communism. A country of visionaries and practical people, it is almost a byword for inventiveness, creativity, and toughness in the face of adversity. Its final legacy, whatever happens, will be the footprints it left on the surface of the moon. However many its faults and shortcomings, its story is not a thing of no value to be thrown away, and in the absence of others it will fall to conservatives to plead its case.
Reclaim American History; Conserve the Best Within Us
To do that, though, conservatives must enter debates about America’s history not as simple-minded Manicheans, but as opponents of that worldview. The conservative thesis must not be that if the left regards America as all bad, conservatives in turn must regard it as all good. It should rather be that American history is the great story of an imperfect but self-improving people.
To take an example: it is not a contradiction to characterize Christopher Columbus as a brutal colonizer and conquistador and also as an intrepid mariner whose crossing of the Atlantic was perhaps the single most influential distinct act in human history, one that paved the way for the New World and Western liberalism. He was assuredly both. Conservatives can acknowledge the value of understanding history’s complexity without simplifying it themselves.
In the current dialectic, conservatives’ natural role is to argue for understanding and appreciating history, against those who do not see value in it rather than whitewashing it and undermining their own case by doing so. They can, and should, be the adults in the room, arguing for appreciation and, especially, simple knowledge of history, without reducing it to hagiography.
This may be too complex for soundbites and bumper stickers, but is a reasonable enough case for commentators and elected leaders alike to make. Conservatives would be wise to argue that America is not perfect, but that it is fundamentally worth preserving and that its historical figures who made important contributions be subject both to respect and honest appraisal about their deficiencies
Drop the Confederacy; Save and Contextualize All Others
To that end, those conservatives who continue to defend Confederate statues should retreat and retrench to those other areas of historical commemoration where the individuals being commemorated actually contributed something positive to America. Conservatives can and should argue against condemnation of historical figures for failing to live up to modern standards; they can and should argue for appreciating the contributions of imperfect people. But they do well to stop short of defending people who, largely for the worst of reasons, tried—and failed—to destroy the United States.
This is more than simply a pragmatic attempt to avoid a “bad look,” but a key element of our principles. Conservatives should concede the point that the Confederacy was a wrong turn for America that was rightly corrected. Moreover, the case for retaining the commemoration of imperfect contributors like Ulysses S. Grant or George Washington, or originators like Columbus who are otherwise almost Martian to us now, will be made stronger if they do not also defend those who, at a critical moment, actively tried to undermine America.
Admittedly, there is assuredly a case to be made in individual cases for retaining old artwork—including that deemed “problematic”—for its aesthetic value, particularly in the case of old buildings that often contain too much late-nineteenth century memorabilia to easily be removable. But conservatives should pick their battles: defending a Confederate statue outside a courthouse where thousands were unjustly treated by the intellectual, if not literal, descendants of the Confederacy is bad enough; it is worse if the statue is a cheap piece of kitsch.
In order to defend George Washington and Thomas Jefferson—and, more importantly, the ideas they established—conservatives will have to prove that they are not the racists and reactionaries that their critics claim.
Champion the Actual Constitution
This is where conservatives’ reverence for the Constitution can work for them.
Precisely because their opponents in the current dialogue are utopian and fanatical, conservatives have plenty of room to become realistic, thoughtful, and prudent—as well as respectful of institutions, especially the Constitution. David French’s call for conservatives to become “Bill of Rights conservatives” instead of “law and order conservatives” is therefore extremely topical. If conservatives find progressives’ racialization of American discourse toxic and ineffective, they should substitute something that can work. Protecting the rights of individual Americans from the arbitrary and heavy-handed use of force by unaccountable and overpaid public servants is something conservatives normally support. They should apply that logic to police brutality and police reform.
Conservatives should also reclaim their understanding of the human condition as essentially tragic. Utopian projects with vague goals accomplish little; excesses committed in their name leave no positive legacy. Substantial reform that better safeguards constitutional rights from abuses by law enforcement can be championed by conservatives, even as they reject anger and censorship in the service of nebulous goals. Reining in official abuse, and exercising checks and balances, is a bedrock principle of conservatism. It also helps people.
Build Policy Around These Values
Conservatives are therefore in a position to take the lead on police reform without sacrificing their concern for law and order. There is nothing inconsistent about asking that police to obey legal constraints regarding reasonable and appropriate use of force and subjecting them to impartial oversight, while also being in favor of effective and humane policing on the other. Both are examples of the rule of law in action.
On this, conservatives should be willing to forge links with those elements of the civil rights left who reject utopianism to work together on police reform. Reasonable proposals have already been floated, including scaling back or ending the qualified immunity doctrine and removing investigations of police killings from overly interested local prosecutors. The issue has already found acceptance (and urgent advocacy) among the libertarian right, which was decrying the judicial system’s acceptance of law enforcement excesses as early as the 1990s, and whose adherents have chronicled police brutality and overreach in depressing detail. Since 2014, there has been a historic opportunity for the civil rights left and the libertarian right to get something done on this by working together, and their failure to do so has arguably been one of the great tragedies of America’s partisan conflict. Regrettably, partisanship is now killing police reform in the Senate, even as America burns. If one does not want radical anarchists and Trumpian thugs to take over the conversation, it is time for conservatives to start conserving actual law and order, and not its simulacrum. (For those arguing that such proposals do not go far enough, the criticism is valid—but the solution conservatives should advocate is to add more tangible policy ideas that support constitutional rights, not recklessly champion a “defund the police” agenda that Americans do not and cannot support, and not support lawlessness by federal and local law enforcement either.)
Doing this would have involved something akin to implementing the reforms recommended by the famous Republican National Committee 2012 postmortem, or Paul Ryan’s recommendation that Republicans campaign in minority neighborhoods. It would require not only acknowledging that minority groups have constitutional rights, but actively working to protect them, and showing real results. And if this meant that Republicans could win an election in a city now and then, so much the better.
Although this is the issue of the day, the re-articulation of the value of America’s history and national story, and the end to the hagiography of those who tried to end that story, linked to a recommitment to individual rights, the rule of law, and the Constitution, would allow conservatives to take the lead in other areas as well. This would allow for conservatives to again have a sense of purpose on a broad range of issues such as the environment, science, health care, right to life issues, deficits, and the proper size and scope of government more generally. Only by returning to these principles and having enlightened conversations can conservatives redeem the Republican Party as a party of ideas and patriotism once again.
Find a New Figurehead
That, though, will require turning away from Donald Trump. The only chance the Republican Party, and thereby the conservative movement, has at redemption and resuscitation lies in actively stating that the nomination of Donald Trump was the wrong move. It will not help much this time, but it is the only way to chart a new course.
The worst that might happen is not the loss of the presidency, or even the Senate. It is that, divided and visionless, conservatives will have presided over the disintegration of the Republic they love, when they had an opportunity to save it by living up to their best vision of America and themselves.


thebulwark--2020-08-07--The Hatch Act Is for Suckers

The Hatch Act Is for Suckers

President Trump said on national television that he ’ s considering breaking a federal law live on national television .
In a phone interview with Fox & Friends on Wednesday morning , Trump confirmed a report by the Washington Post that Republicans were considering having the president give his acceptance speech for the Republican National Convention from the South Lawn of the White House .
The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activities while on duty or on government property .
The president and vice president are exempt from the law , but their staff—who are federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his party ’ s nomination for president on the White House lawn , Trump would have his aides break the law so that he could give a speech about his commitment to law and order .
Last year , an investigation by the U.S. special counsel found that Kellyanne Conway , in her role as counselor to the president , had violated the Hatch Act “ repeatedly ” and recommended that she be fired , just as any other federal employee would be .
Conway didn ’ t take it well .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knew she wasn ’ t going to jail , no matter what the blah law blah said .
Enforcement of the Hatch Act on political appointees is the president ’ s prerogative , by custom .
And this president does not enforce the law against people who are loyal to him .
In his acceptance speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention , Trump declared himself “ the law and order candidate ” and promised , if elected , “ to enforce our laws.
” “ When I take the oath of office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and order to our country , ” he said .
It ’ s a little tricky to promise law and order while breaking both your promise and the law .
In addition to illegality , there ’ s also the problem of unintelligibility , both tactically and syntactically .
What does Trump hope to accomplish with such a speech ?
He already speaks on White House grounds regularly—and poorly .
On Tuesday , he pronounced Yosemite “ Yo , Semite.
” In addition to offending nature-lovers , Jewish people , and hip-hop fans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of his campaign ’ s main talking points , which is that Joe Biden talks poorly while Trump has the best words , not all of which are real .
Yesterday , Trump called Thailand “ Thighland.
” He probably wants to go to Phuket .
In the unlikely event that Trump could give a coherent speech consisting of complete sentences , what could he say ?
If he talks about enforcing the law while breaking the law , it would be obvious that Trump doesn ’ t want law and order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a Putin police state where his people are never prosecuted and everyone else is tear gassed .
If he talks about the pandemic or the economy , he has to acknowledge the mass death and mass unemployment , or deny them .
Trump prefers denial .
So far , he has been telling sick people they ’ re healthy and unemployed people that the economy is thriving .
This tactic hasn ’ t improved their health , the economy , or Trump ’ s poll numbers .
A normal president would not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That would be the prudent thing to do , politically , ethically , and epidemiologically .
But Trump suffers from narcissistic logorrhea , and so he must talk , regardless of what the law says .
Trump talks not because he has anything to say but because he wants to be heard .
We should hear him out .
A convention speech on the White House lawn would cost American taxpayers money , sure , but it would also cost Trump votes .
The more people see Trump defiling the White House , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he doesn ’ t belong there .

President Trump said on national television that he’s considering breaking a federal law live on national television. In a phone interview with Fox & Friends on Wednesday morning, Trump confirmed a report by the Washington Post that Republicans were considering having the president give his acceptance speech for the Republican National Convention from the South Lawn of the White House.
The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activities while on duty or on government property. The president and vice president are exempt from the law, but their staff—who are federal employees—are not.
So, by accepting his party’s nomination for president on the White House lawn, Trump would have his aides break the law so that he could give a speech about his commitment to law and order.
Last year, an investigation by the U.S. special counsel found that Kellyanne Conway, in her role as counselor to the president, had violated the Hatch Act “repeatedly” and recommended that she be fired, just as any other federal employee would be.
Conway didn’t take it well. Here’s what she said:
Blah, blah, blah. If you’re trying to silence me through the Hatch Act, it’s not going to work. Let me know when the jail sentence starts.
Law and order!
Conway knew she wasn’t going to jail, no matter what the blah law blah said. Enforcement of the Hatch Act on political appointees is the president’s prerogative, by custom. And this president does not enforce the law against people who are loyal to him.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
In his acceptance speech at the 2016 Republican National Convention, Trump declared himself “the law and order candidate” and promised, if elected, “to enforce our laws.” “When I take the oath of office next year, I will restore law and order to our country,” he said.
It’s a little tricky to promise law and order while breaking both your promise and the law.
In addition to illegality, there’s also the problem of unintelligibility, both tactically and syntactically. What does Trump hope to accomplish with such a speech? He already speaks on White House grounds regularly—and poorly. On Tuesday, he pronounced Yosemite “Yo, Semite.” In addition to offending nature-lovers, Jewish people, and hip-hop fans, the president’s cacology undercut one of his campaign’s main talking points, which is that Joe Biden talks poorly while Trump has the best words, not all of which are real.
Yesterday, Trump called Thailand “Thighland.” He probably wants to go to Phuket.
In the unlikely event that Trump could give a coherent speech consisting of complete sentences, what could he say?
If he talks about enforcing the law while breaking the law, it would be obvious that Trump doesn’t want law and order, strictly speaking. What he wants is a Putin police state where his people are never prosecuted and everyone else is tear gassed.
If he talks about the pandemic or the economy, he has to acknowledge the mass death and mass unemployment, or deny them. Trump prefers denial. So far, he has been telling sick people they’re healthy and unemployed people that the economy is thriving. This tactic hasn’t improved their health, the economy, or Trump’s poll numbers.
A normal president would not give an acceptance speech at all. That would be the prudent thing to do, politically, ethically, and epidemiologically. But Trump suffers from narcissistic logorrhea, and so he must talk, regardless of what the law says. Trump talks not because he has anything to say but because he wants to be heard.
We should hear him out.
A convention speech on the White House lawn would cost American taxpayers money, sure, but it would also cost Trump votes.
The more people see Trump defiling the White House, the more evident it is to them that he doesn’t belong there.