thebulwark--2020-11-13--Caucasus Peace Deal Is a Success for Putin, Failure for Trump

A deal has been announced bringing an apparent end ( for now ) to a long conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia .
The deal , which involves the presence for five years of Russian peacekeepers , was orchestrated by Russia ’ s Vladimir Putin—and represents a clear failure of the Trump administration .
In a statement published on Monday , Armenia ’ s prime minister , Nikol Pashinian , described as “ extremely painful ” the decision to sign a formal cessation of war and accede to the majority of Azerbaijan ’ s demands .
The two countries have clashed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( also known as Artsakh ) , about the size of Rhode Island with a population roughly that of Providence .
The population is overwhelmingly Armenian .
In the early days of Soviet rule , control of the region was briefly given to Armenia before Moscow—heeding complaints from Turkey—moved the borders .
Since 1923 , Nagorno-Karabakh has been an enclave inside Azerbaijan but granted considerable autonomy , and the Armenians have wanted it back or wanted it to have true independence .
Once the Soviet Union fell , the Armenians and Azeris went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the conflict has mostly just simmered since 1994 .
Aside from a spurt of fighting in 2016 , the most intense clash has been over the last seven weeks .
Thousands of lives have been lost this time around , with thousands more displaced before the rapidly approaching winter .
The main reason the outcome has been so clearly in Azerbaijan ’ s favor this time around is the intervention of Turkey ’ s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan , whose recent proxy wars and expansionist efforts have also included Libya and Syria .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , outmanned , and outgunned the Armenian resistance in Nagorno-Karabakh .
Turkey even went so far as to deploy hundreds of Syrian fighters against the Armenians .
( According to a report not yet confirmed by American journalists , these mercenaries were allegedly offered additional $ 100 for each Armenian they beheaded . )
There are four early lessons that can be drawn from this year ’ s Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict and how it ended .
First , it is a reminder of how the international community can turn a blind eye even to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way .
Even with the indiscriminate shelling of civilian centers with cluster munitions , the intentional bombardment of both hospitals and historic churches , the deployment of white phosphorus bombs in surrounding forests , and the execution of captured Armenian combatants , Azerbaijan has managed to keep the international community at bay due to its lucrative exports of gas and oil .
Second , the conflict has highlighted how armed drones are now available not only to major powers but also to smaller countries ( and presumably non-state actors ) , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this year ’ s clash in the Caucasus shows how , when America fails to lead , its rivals swoop in .
The Trump administration has proved feckless .
The United States is a co-chair of the Minsk Group , a longstanding international effort to try to settle the conflict , but the sole cease-fire agreement overseen by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo fell apart mere minutes after its initiation .
( This has been especially frustrating to Armenian-Americans , who are still smarting from the Trump administration ’ s rejection last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genocide . )
While on the campaign trail , President-elect Joe Biden released a statement in mid-October condemning both the conflict and the Trump administration ’ s lack of mediation , saying that “ rather than delegating the diplomacy to Moscow , the administration must get more involved , at the highest levels , by working with our European partners to de-escalate the fighting and return the two sides to negotiations.
” Unfortunately , this course of action wasn ’ t ultimately pursued , and the Trump administration ’ s failure to act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key regional powerhouse during the negotiations .
That Trump would allow the Kremlin to walk away with the upper hand should come at no surprise at this point .
Despite having a defense agreement with Armenia and leasing a military base there , Russia is no real friend to the Armenians : It sells arms to both sides of the conflict—full price to Azerbaijan , and with special financing for Armenia .
Fourth , and finally , Turkey ’ s major role in the conflict suggests grim possibilities for Armenia .
Held alongside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Turkey ] will continue to fulfill the mission our grandfathers have carried out for centuries in the Caucasus , ” the potential for a second Armenian genocide looms ever larger on the horizon .
Anyone who thinks the international community will intervene to stop such a crisis instead of turning a blind eye has failed to learn the lesson of this year ’ s Nagorno-Karabakh conflict .

A deal has been announced bringing an apparent end (for now) to a long conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The deal, which involves the presence for five years of Russian peacekeepers, was orchestrated by Russia’s Vladimir Putin—and represents a clear failure of the Trump administration.
In a statement published on Monday, Armenia’s prime minister, Nikol Pashinian, described as “extremely painful” the decision to sign a formal cessation of war and accede to the majority of Azerbaijan’s demands. The two countries have clashed for decades over the region called Nagorno-Karabakh (also known as Artsakh), about the size of Rhode Island with a population roughly that of Providence. The population is overwhelmingly Armenian. In the early days of Soviet rule, control of the region was briefly given to Armenia before Moscow—heeding complaints from Turkey—moved the borders. Since 1923, Nagorno-Karabakh has been an enclave inside Azerbaijan but granted considerable autonomy, and the Armenians have wanted it back or wanted it to have true independence. Once the Soviet Union fell, the Armenians and Azeris went to war over the region, but the conflict has mostly just simmered since 1994. Aside from a spurt of fighting in 2016, the most intense clash has been over the last seven weeks. Thousands of lives have been lost this time around, with thousands more displaced before the rapidly approaching winter.
The main reason the outcome has been so clearly in Azerbaijan’s favor this time around is the intervention of Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, whose recent proxy wars and expansionist efforts have also included Libya and Syria. With his backing, Azerbaijan has heavily outspent, outmanned, and outgunned the Armenian resistance in Nagorno-Karabakh. Turkey even went so far as to deploy hundreds of Syrian fighters against the Armenians. (According to a report not yet confirmed by American journalists, these mercenaries were allegedly offered additional $100 for each Armenian they beheaded.)
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…
There are four early lessons that can be drawn from this year’s Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict and how it ended.
First, it is a reminder of how the international community can turn a blind eye even to apparent war crimes if self-interest gets in the way. Even with the indiscriminate shelling of civilian centers with cluster munitions, the intentional bombardment of both hospitals and historic churches, the deployment of white phosphorus bombs in surrounding forests, and the execution of captured Armenian combatants, Azerbaijan has managed to keep the international community at bay due to its lucrative exports of gas and oil.
Second, the conflict has highlighted how armed drones are now available not only to major powers but also to smaller countries (and presumably non-state actors), and can confer a decisive advantage.
Third, this year’s clash in the Caucasus shows how, when America fails to lead, its rivals swoop in. The Trump administration has proved feckless. The United States is a co-chair of the Minsk Group, a longstanding international effort to try to settle the conflict, but the sole cease-fire agreement overseen by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo fell apart mere minutes after its initiation. (This has been especially frustrating to Armenian-Americans, who are still smarting from the Trump administration’s rejection last year of congressional resolutions recognizing the Armenian genocide.)
While on the campaign trail, President-elect Joe Biden released a statement in mid-October condemning both the conflict and the Trump administration’s lack of mediation, saying that “rather than delegating the diplomacy to Moscow, the administration must get more involved, at the highest levels, by working with our European partners to de-escalate the fighting and return the two sides to negotiations.”
Unfortunately, this course of action wasn’t ultimately pursued, and the Trump administration’s failure to act effectively allowed Russia to intervene as the key regional powerhouse during the negotiations. That Trump would allow the Kremlin to walk away with the upper hand should come at no surprise at this point.
Despite having a defense agreement with Armenia and leasing a military base there, Russia is no real friend to the Armenians: It sells arms to both sides of the conflict—full price to Azerbaijan, and with special financing for Armenia.
Fourth, and finally, Turkey’s major role in the conflict suggests grim possibilities for Armenia. Held alongside Erdoğan’s promise that “[Turkey] will continue to fulfill the mission our grandfathers have carried out for centuries in the Caucasus,” the potential for a second Armenian genocide looms ever larger on the horizon.
Anyone who thinks the international community will intervene to stop such a crisis instead of turning a blind eye has failed to learn the lesson of this year’s Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.


thebulwark--2020-11-13--Biden vs. Block Booking

Biden vs. Block Booking

Given the precarious state of the film industry—even with a vaccine on the horizon , studios continue to lack the ability to project when the coronavirus will end and their products will be able to return to theaters ; the theaters themselves remain precariously close to bankruptcy , given the lack of new product from studios—one thing worth watching from the incoming Biden Administration will be what they choose to do if the studios or theaters decide to take advantage of the recent termination of the Paramount Decrees .
Because of Covid-19 , theaters are distressed assets ; as such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that an Apple or AT & T ( which owns Warner Brothers ) or Amazon will try to buy some theaters to control all aspects of distribution for their movies.While the ownership aspect of the Paramount Decrees is the best l known , other angles here are potentially more concerning to me .
The ruling prevented studios from engaging in block booking , which was the process of forcing exhibitors to show lesser movies in exchange for the privilege of playing movies exhibitors wanted to play .
In today ’ s world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever they wanted—even content never designed for theatrical exhibition or movies not even in production—in exchange for playing Black Widow or the next Thor movie .
You want the good stuff , you have to take whatever else we want you to take .
This may not seem like a big deal , as I ’ m sure you have heard that Disney leverages their position in negotiating runs better than any other studio .
They can dictate the highest film rental ( around 65 percent of the box office take for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent average ) , have dictated theater placement ( guaranteeing the biggest houses ) , and required longer-than-usual runs in those prime theaters ( Disney has demanded four-week runs in the biggest theaters instead of the standard two-week runs for big releases ) .
The post-covid world in exhibition is only going to exacerbate studio leverage over theaters , which is precisely what the Paramount Decrees were trying to prevent .
Theaters have always needed studios more than studios need theaters , and it is increasingly likely that in 2021 and beyond , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the biggest studio movies will get the best theatrical release .
In evaluating the Paramount Decrees , Trump ’ s DOJ focused on the competitive market in 2020 in simple ways .
It mostly focused on how the marketplace looks now versus 70 years ago , when United States v. Paramount Pictures was a going concern .
There are two very relevant passages from the August motion to end the Decrees .
First , the DOJ remarked that there are a lot more theaters now .
They write : This is absolutely true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States and only a thousand movies actually report any box office each year .
In theory , there ’ s plenty of room for every movie .
The DOJ also stated that consumers don ’ t just see movies in theaters .
They write : This is also true .
Therefore , the DOJ reasoned , the original protections are no longer needed as there are so many theaters and screens and also so many different ways to watch .
Despite these truths , I still have issues with this thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that it negates the first fact above : more screens don ’ t do you much good if a handful of studios will monopolize the available screens .
This isn ’ t necessarily a huge problem for the big chains .
They are essentially playing the 100 or so movies that generate 90 percent of the total box office and more than 90 percent of those movies come from the big studios .
AMC and Regal and Cinemark are in the studio business .
However , it is a problem for theaters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of movies .
If most theaters are just going to play studio movies , having the flexibility to play a wider range of movies is the key competitive difference for other theaters.It ’ s also a problem for distributors that don ’ t release studio movies .
If block booking comes back , the space for these movies and these distributors will shrink .
Studios will use block booking to command even more screens in the future than they do now .
This concern was true seventy years ago , it was true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubly true in a 2021 post-COVID theatrical environment .
One of the first items on a new administrative agenda will be another needed stimulus package and NATO , the largest lobby organization for exhibition in the U.S. , has already been working the phones to let our elected leaders know that without assistance from the federal government , most circuits after the big three ( who aren ’ t eligible for a bailout ) will go under .
Consolidation is seemingly inevitable .
I ’ ll grant some consolidation is needed .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around 33 percent of the theaters .
However , this is largely made up of the largest theater chains and they can—and should—shrink their footprint .
( Indeed , AMC is already quietly closing a lot of theaters . )
However , the remaining theaters can ’ t afford to lose too much of their theater count .
This is why block booking is problematic .
Studios know that the footprint is shrinking and some smaller chains are likely to go away forever .
They know that screen space is going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leverage that as much as they can and they ’ ll use block booking to do so .
What does this mean ?
Smaller movies from your favorite non-studio distributors will be fighting for less space .
This doesn ’ t affect most moviegoers because , as I pointed out earlier , about 10 to 20 percent of movies are making up 90 percent of the box office .
However , I ’ d argue that it ’ s not healthy for the industry to continue to trust that audiences will keep coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the same level as they do now .
The more top heavy the industry gets , the more the middle opens up .
This is the space in which A24 and NEON have done their best work , with creative movies and smart marketing that targets 25-44 year-olds from both genders .
The healthier this space is , the better I feel about theatrical exhibition ’ s long term prospects .
A new administration is going to have their work cut out for them and NATO is primarily focused on getting theaters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t dealing with mass amounts of bankruptcies .
Lobbying the new DOJ about the Paramount Decrees will have to wait .
NATO has two years from the cancellation of the Paramount Decrees—so , August 2020—to push the new administration to reevaluate .
They also may not care .
After all , the big theater chains only care about betting on the big movies and they do represent the bulk of NATO ’ s membership , so they may not be as concerned about booking practices as I am .
But everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invested in not losing more control over their screens .
Forget about studios owning theaters : it ’ s the thing everyone knows about the Paramount Decrees , but it ’ s not the biggest issue here .
Block booking is , and I will continue to argue that this practice sets up the whole business for failure in the future .

Given the precarious state of the film industry—even with a vaccine on the horizon, studios continue to lack the ability to project when the coronavirus will end and their products will be able to return to theaters; the theaters themselves remain precariously close to bankruptcy, given the lack of new product from studios—one thing worth watching from the incoming Biden Administration will be what they choose to do if the studios or theaters decide to take advantage of the recent termination of the Paramount Decrees.
Because of Covid-19, theaters are distressed assets; as such, it’s even more likely that an Apple or AT&T (which owns Warner Brothers) or Amazon will try to buy some theaters to control all aspects of distribution for their movies.While the ownership aspect of the Paramount Decrees is the best l known, other angles here are potentially more concerning to me. The ruling prevented studios from engaging in block booking, which was the process of forcing exhibitors to show lesser movies in exchange for the privilege of playing movies exhibitors wanted to play. In today’s world, this would be Disney making theaters play whatever they wanted—even content never designed for theatrical exhibition or movies not even in production—in exchange for playing Black Widow or the next Thor movie. You want the good stuff, you have to take whatever else we want you to take.
This may not seem like a big deal, as I’m sure you have heard that Disney leverages their position in negotiating runs better than any other studio. They can dictate the highest film rental (around 65 percent of the box office take for their biggest films, compared to the 55 percent average), have dictated theater placement (guaranteeing the biggest houses), and required longer-than-usual runs in those prime theaters (Disney has demanded four-week runs in the biggest theaters instead of the standard two-week runs for big releases). The post-covid world in exhibition is only going to exacerbate studio leverage over theaters, which is precisely what the Paramount Decrees were trying to prevent. Theaters have always needed studios more than studios need theaters, and it is increasingly likely that in 2021 and beyond, theatrical windows will be shorter and only the biggest studio movies will get the best theatrical release.
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 evaluating the Paramount Decrees, Trump’s DOJ focused on the competitive market in 2020 in simple ways. It mostly focused on how the marketplace looks now versus 70 years ago, when United States v. Paramount Pictures was a going concern. There are two very relevant passages from the August motion to end the Decrees. First, the DOJ remarked that there are a lot more theaters now. They write:
Most metropolitan areas today have more than one movie theatre. The first-run movie palaces of the 1930s and 40s that had one screen and showed one movie at a time, today have been replaced by multiplex theatres that have multiple screens showing movies from many different distributors at the same time.
This is absolutely true as there are over 40,000 screens in the United States and only a thousand movies actually report any box office each year. In theory, there’s plenty of room for every movie.
The DOJ also stated that consumers don’t just see movies in theaters. They write:
Finally, consumers today are no longer limited to watching motion pictures in theatres. New technology has created many different distribution and viewing platforms that did not exist when the decrees were entered into. After an initial theatre run, today’s consumers can view motion pictures on cable and broadcast television, DVDs, and over the Internet through streaming services.
This is also true. Therefore, the DOJ reasoned,the original protections are no longer needed as there are so many theaters and screens and also so many different ways to watch.
Despite these truths, I still have issues with this thinking. My main complaint about block booking is that it negates the first fact above: more screens don’t do you much good if a handful of studios will monopolize the available screens. This isn’t necessarily a huge problem for the big chains. They are essentially playing the 100 or so movies that generate 90 percent of the total box office and more than 90 percent of those movies come from the big studios. AMC and Regal and Cinemark are in the studio business. However, it is a problem for theaters that rely on playing a diverse selection of movies. If most theaters are just going to play studio movies, having the flexibility to play a wider range of movies is the key competitive difference for other theaters.It’s also a problem for distributors that don’t release studio movies. If block booking comes back, the space for these movies and these distributors will shrink. Studios will use block booking to command even more screens in the future than they do now.
This concern was true seventy years ago, it was true in 2019, and it’s doubly true in a 2021 post-COVID theatrical environment. One of the first items on a new administrative agenda will be another needed stimulus package and NATO, the largest lobby organization for exhibition in the U.S., has already been working the phones to let our elected leaders know that without assistance from the federal government, most circuits after the big three (who aren’t eligible for a bailout) will go under. Consolidation is seemingly inevitable.
I’ll grant some consolidation is needed. Most box office—70 to 75 percent—is generated in around 33 percent of the theaters. However, this is largely made up of the largest theater chains and they can—and should—shrink their footprint. (Indeed, AMC is already quietly closing a lot of theaters.) However, the remaining theaters can’t afford to lose too much of their theater count. This is why block booking is problematic. Studios know that the footprint is shrinking and some smaller chains are likely to go away forever. They know that screen space is going to be an even larger premium and they will leverage that as much as they can and they’ll use block booking to do so.
What does this mean? Smaller movies from your favorite non-studio distributors will be fighting for less space. This doesn’t affect most moviegoers because, as I pointed out earlier, about 10 to 20 percent of movies are making up 90 percent of the box office. However, I’d argue that it’s not healthy for the industry to continue to trust that audiences will keep coming to superhero and other giant IP movies at the same level as they do now. The more top heavy the industry gets, the more the middle opens up. This is the space in which A24 and NEON have done their best work, with creative movies and smart marketing that targets 25-44 year-olds from both genders. The healthier this space is, the better I feel about theatrical exhibition’s long term prospects.
A new administration is going to have their work cut out for them and NATO is primarily focused on getting theaters the financial support they need so they aren’t dealing with mass amounts of bankruptcies. Lobbying the new DOJ about the Paramount Decrees will have to wait. NATO has two years from the cancellation of the Paramount Decrees—so, August 2020—to push the new administration to reevaluate. They also may not care. After all, the big theater chains only care about betting on the big movies and they do represent the bulk of NATO’s membership, so they may not be as concerned about booking practices as I am. But everyone outside the big three circuits are likely invested in not losing more control over their screens.
Forget about studios owning theaters: it’s the thing everyone knows about the Paramount Decrees, but it’s not the biggest issue here. Block booking is, and I will continue to argue that this practice sets up the whole business for failure in the future.


thebulwark--2020-11-13--‘Karens’ and ‘Dream Hoarders’ Swung the Election to Biden

If current results hold , Joe Biden will have won the election by flipping five states that Donald Trump won in 2016—Arizona , Georgia , Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin—four of them by less than one percent of the vote .
Many commentators on the progressive left are giving credit to voters in major cities , particularly black voters , claiming they turned out in larger numbers and pushed Biden to victory .
As several elected officials put it in the Chicago Sun-Times , black voters and their allies “ delivered Georgia , Pennsylvania , Michigan and Wisconsin for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the major city thesis a little more in a New York Times interview : Voter data suggests a different story .
The suburbs surrounding major cities , which tend to be whiter and more highly educated , did much more to swing the election to Biden than the populations of the cities themselves .
Moreover , what we might call the “ Kasich voters ” —people who voted Republican in their House race but did not vote for President Trump—proved crucial for victory in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania .
Let ’ s tackle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states—leaving out Arizona , because it hasn ’ t made city-level data available and its counties are too big to be of use for this analysis .
Before we proceed , there are two things to keep in mind : First , remember that states are still counting ( and recounting ) votes .
Second , when I refer to “ net ” votes for a given candidate , I mean the difference between their margins of victory ( or defeat ) in 2020 and 2016 .
For example , Donald Trump won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but is losing it by about 14,000 votes now , so he incurred a net loss of 245,000 votes .
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is correct about Detroit .
Indeed , 94 percent of Detroiters voted for Biden .
But 95 percent of them voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
In fact , Donald Trump actually saw a net gain of about 6,000 voters in the city of Detroit this time around .
Biden arguably won Michigan in the suburban counties surrounding Detroit .
In a state that went to Donald Trump by about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earned a net gain of 86,000 voters in the Detroit suburbs , which include Monroe , Macomb , Livingston , Oakland , and Washtenaw counties .
In Philadelphia , organizers indeed turned out more people to vote—for Donald Trump .
Biden sealed his election victory by scoring big gains not in the city itself but in its suburbs .
In the city of Philadelphia , Donald Trump won 19,000 more votes than he did four years ago while Joe Biden won 8,000 fewer votes than Hillary Clinton did .
This 27,000 vote deficit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s overperformance in the suburbs ( Berks , Bucks , Chester , Delaware , Lehigh , Montgomery , and Northampton counties ) , where he netted some 112,000 votes , including 66,000 Kasich voters .
President Trump won Pennsylvania in 2016 by fewer than 45,000 votes .
Democrats in Milwaukee succeeded in increasing Democratic turnout by 3 percent , but that only amounted to a 3,000-vote net gain .
This was a pittance against Trump ’ s 23,000-vote Wisconsin victory in 2016 .
On the other hand , Milwaukee ’ s biggest suburb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of Democratic voters increase 31 percent , netting Joe Biden 10,500 votes .
Kasich voters in Waukesha numbered 7,900 .
Obviously , that wasn ’ t enough to achieve victory .
The knockout punch arguably came from outside the Milwaukee metro area in Dane County , where 85 percent of residents are white and 51 percent have bachelor ’ s degrees .
It was here that Biden earned a net gain of 35,000 votes .
Another viable candidate for the knockout punch is the number of Kasich voters statewide : over 50,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aside : There was only one suburban county in this entire analysis that voted for Donald Trump at a higher rate than it did in 2016 .
Can you guess ?
It was Kenosha , the site of major protests this past summer , where Trump ’ s margin of victory increased from 0.3 percent in 2016 to 3.2 percent in 2020 .
Finally , let ’ s look at Georgia and the city of Atlanta .
Georgia ’ s data is complicated by two facts : The state has only county-level voter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s county lines do not align well with racial or suburban characteristics .
The city of Atlanta bifurcates two counties , Fulton and DeKalb , which each have suburban communities of their own .
Lehigh University Professor Karen Beck Pooley estimates 87 percent of African Americans in the Atlanta metro area live in suburbs .
And many of the metro area ’ s suburban counties have a nearly even white-black balance .
Meanwhile , Biden ’ s margin of victory is hovering around 10,000 votes , so practically everyone ’ s vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who registered to vote because of Stacey Abrams ’ s efforts and the state ’ s 28,549 Kasich voters .
The urban vs. suburban trends observed in Detroit , Philadelphia , and Milwaukee essentially hold true with Atlanta .
Pooley describes Clayton County as “ historically black ” along with DeKalb County and part of Fulton County .
These counties have the highest proportion of Democratic support by far .
So , for the sake of our analysis , let ’ s imperfectly call these three counties “ Atlanta ” and call the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Newton , Rockdale , Douglas , Henry , Gwinnett , Fayette , Paulding , and Cobb ) the suburbs .
In the 2020 election , there were a total of 702,300 Democratic voters in the suburbs and 784,600 Democratic voters in “ Atlanta.
” For the suburbs , that represented an increase of 43 percent and for “ Atlanta , ” an increase of 31 percent ( it ’ s not clear what makes Rep. Ocasio-Cortez believe turnout doubled or tripled—Democratic turnout in the metro area ’ s most black county , Clayton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them all ) .
Joe Biden ’ s margin of victory was 14 percent higher than Hillary Clinton ’ s in the suburban counties while it was 2 percent higher in “ Atlanta.
” The stat that perhaps best sums up the Atlanta area is that , compared to Hillary Clinton ’ s performance , Joe Biden saw a net gain of 160,900 voters in the suburban counties and 146,000 in “ Atlanta.
” While there is no doubt heavily Democratic major cities formed the foundation of the party ’ s support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country from a Trump victory in 2016 to a Biden victory in 2020 .
The numbers suggest that the suburbs played a much bigger role .
Saying so doesn ’ t diminish the praise that community leaders rightfully deserve for getting their constituents to the polls ( especially in places where it ’ s historically been difficult ) .
But it does correct some of the misleading , under-researched , or outright false narratives circulating in the news .
It also demonstrates that , for better or worse , the middle- to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ Karens ” and “ dream hoarders ” still have the power to swing elections .
They had a major impact on this one by voting for Joe Biden in far higher numbers than they did for Hillary Clinton .
And , in a way , that ’ s a good thing .
Some say elections are best won by candidates who turn out their base , wavering voters or the impact on national polarization be damned .
The data on this election demonstrates Joe Biden won primarily by doing the opposite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and won crucial votes in Republican-leaning and swing counties .
Politicians and strategists already gaming out 2022 or 2024 should keep Biden ’ s winning strategy in mind .

If current results hold, Joe Biden will have won the election by flipping five states that Donald Trump won in 2016—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—four of them by less than one percent of the vote. Many commentators on the progressive left are giving credit to voters in major cities, particularly black voters, claiming they turned out in larger numbers and pushed Biden to victory. As several elected officials put it in the Chicago Sun-Times, black voters and their allies “delivered Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin for Joe Biden.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fleshed out the major city thesis a little more in a New York Times interview:
If the party believes after 94 percent of Detroit went to Biden, after Black organizers just doubled and tripled turnout down in Georgia, after so many people organized Philadelphia, the signal from the Democratic Party is the John Kasichs won us this election? I mean, I can’t even describe how dangerous that is.
Voter data suggests a different story. The suburbs surrounding major cities, which tend to be whiter and more highly educated, did much more to swing the election to Biden than the populations of the cities themselves. Moreover, what we might call the “Kasich voters”—people who voted Republican in their House race but did not vote for President Trump—proved crucial for victory in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
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…
Let’s tackle the major cities in four of these states—leaving out Arizona, because it hasn’t made city-level data available and its counties are too big to be of use for this analysis. Before we proceed, there are two things to keep in mind: First, remember that states are still counting (and recounting) votes. Second, when I refer to “net” votes for a given candidate, I mean the difference between their margins of victory (or defeat) in 2020 and 2016. For example, Donald Trump won Georgia by about 231,000 votes in 2016 but is losing it by about 14,000 votes now, so he incurred a net loss of 245,000 votes.
Michigan
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is correct about Detroit. Indeed, 94 percent of Detroiters voted for Biden. But 95 percent of them voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. In fact, Donald Trump actually saw a net gain of about 6,000 voters in the city of Detroit this time around. Biden arguably won Michigan in the suburban counties surrounding Detroit. In a state that went to Donald Trump by about 10,000 votes in 2016, Joe Biden earned a net gain of 86,000 voters in the Detroit suburbs, which include Monroe, Macomb, Livingston, Oakland, and Washtenaw counties.
Pennsylvania
In Philadelphia, organizers indeed turned out more people to vote—for Donald Trump. Biden sealed his election victory by scoring big gains not in the city itself but in its suburbs. In the city of Philadelphia, Donald Trump won 19,000 more votes than he did four years ago while Joe Biden won 8,000 fewer votes than Hillary Clinton did. This 27,000 vote deficit was more than offset by Biden’s overperformance in the suburbs (Berks, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Lehigh, Montgomery, and Northampton counties), where he netted some 112,000 votes, including 66,000 Kasich voters. President Trump won Pennsylvania in 2016 by fewer than 45,000 votes.
Wisconsin
Democrats in Milwaukee succeeded in increasing Democratic turnout by 3 percent, but that only amounted to a 3,000-vote net gain. This was a pittance against Trump’s 23,000-vote Wisconsin victory in 2016. On the other hand, Milwaukee’s biggest suburb, Republican-leaning Waukesha County, saw its number of Democratic voters increase 31 percent, netting Joe Biden 10,500 votes. Kasich voters in Waukesha numbered 7,900. Obviously, that wasn’t enough to achieve victory. The knockout punch arguably came from outside the Milwaukee metro area in Dane County, where 85 percent of residents are white and 51 percent have bachelor’s degrees. It was here that Biden earned a net gain of 35,000 votes. Another viable candidate for the knockout punch is the number of Kasich voters statewide: over 50,000.
An interesting, and perhaps predictable aside: There was only one suburban county in this entire analysis that voted for Donald Trump at a higher rate than it did in 2016. Can you guess? It was Kenosha, the site of major protests this past summer, where Trump’s margin of victory increased from 0.3 percent in 2016 to 3.2 percent in 2020.
Georgia
Finally, let’s look at Georgia and the city of Atlanta. Georgia’s data is complicated by two facts: The state has only county-level voter data, not city-level; and Atlanta’s county lines do not align well with racial or suburban characteristics.
The city of Atlanta bifurcates two counties, Fulton and DeKalb, which each have suburban communities of their own. Lehigh University Professor Karen Beck Pooley estimates 87 percent of African Americans in the Atlanta metro area live in suburbs. And many of the metro area’s suburban counties have a nearly even white-black balance. Meanwhile, Biden’s margin of victory is hovering around 10,000 votes, so practically everyone’s vote was needed to win, including those who registered to vote because of Stacey Abrams’s efforts and the state’s 28,549 Kasich voters.
The urban vs. suburban trends observed in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee essentially hold true with Atlanta. Pooley describes Clayton County as “historically black” along with DeKalb County and part of Fulton County. These counties have the highest proportion of Democratic support by far. So, for the sake of our analysis, let’s imperfectly call these three counties “Atlanta” and call the other counties in the metro area (Newton, Rockdale, Douglas, Henry, Gwinnett, Fayette, Paulding, and Cobb) the suburbs.
In the 2020 election, there were a total of 702,300 Democratic voters in the suburbs and 784,600 Democratic voters in “Atlanta.” For the suburbs, that represented an increase of 43 percent and for “Atlanta,” an increase of 31 percent (it’s not clear what makes Rep. Ocasio-Cortez believe turnout doubled or tripled—Democratic turnout in the metro area’s most black county, Clayton, actually increased at the lowest rate of them all). Joe Biden’s margin of victory was 14 percent higher than Hillary Clinton’s in the suburban counties while it was 2 percent higher in “Atlanta.”
The stat that perhaps best sums up the Atlanta area is that, compared to Hillary Clinton’s performance, Joe Biden saw a net gain of 160,900 voters in the suburban counties and 146,000 in “Atlanta.”
While there is no doubt heavily Democratic major cities formed the foundation of the party’s support as usual, they did not swing the country from a Trump victory in 2016 to a Biden victory in 2020. The numbers suggest that the suburbs played a much bigger role.
Saying so doesn’t diminish the praise that community leaders rightfully deserve for getting their constituents to the polls (especially in places where it’s historically been difficult). But it does correct some of the misleading, under-researched, or outright false narratives circulating in the news.
It also demonstrates that, for better or worse, the middle- to upper-middle-class suburbanites whom the left often derides as “Karens” and “dream hoarders” still have the power to swing elections. They had a major impact on this one by voting for Joe Biden in far higher numbers than they did for Hillary Clinton.
And, in a way, that’s a good thing. Some say elections are best won by candidates who turn out their base, wavering voters or the impact on national polarization be damned. The data on this election demonstrates Joe Biden won primarily by doing the opposite: He reached across the partisan divide and won crucial votes in Republican-leaning and swing counties. Politicians and strategists already gaming out 2022 or 2024 should keep Biden’s winning strategy in mind.


thebulwark--2020-11-13--Pfizer’s Art of the Deal

Pfizer’s Art of the Deal

Pfizer , in partnership with the German firm BioNTech , has developed a vaccine that , according to the companies ’ unpublished data , is more than 90 percent effective in preventing COVID-19 .
This represents a major step toward getting back to something that approaches the pre-COVID world .
As with everything related to COVID , however , the near-miraculous breakthrough became immediately tangled in politics as Pfizer attempted to maintain distance from the Trump administration ’ s Operation Warp Speed while the administration sought to claim credit .
The truth in this dispute is apparently equivocal but ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pfizer , unlike a number of other pharmaceutical firms , did not receive federal funding for research and development , opting instead to rely on its own resources .
On the other hand , the company did sign a “ purchase agreement ” pledging to deliver 100 million doses of the vaccine at a price tag of $ 1.9 billion ( with an option to produce an additional 500 million doses ) once its product cleared Food and Drug Administration efficacy and safety checks .
While this agreement would not have protected Pfizer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as the purchase agreement specified the U.S. government would purchase the vaccine upon approval or emergency use authorization from the FDA , permitting the company to immediately recoup much of its development costs .
The long-term value of the product for a disease that will be with humanity forever is essentially incalculable , a license for Pfizer to print money , and a reminder of how important profits are in driving innovation .
The more interesting questions are why Pfizer opted to front its own costs when the federal spigot was open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself from Operation Warp Speed once the clinical trial findings were released .
For answers to those questions , we have to review the long , sad tale of the Trump administration ’ s mishandling of the COVID-19 crisis over the past nine months .
Except for brief interludes , President Trump more or less fumbled pandemic policy and communications from the get-go .
In service of his re-election campaign , he sought to downplay the seriousness of the threat .
He has encouraged resistance to public health measures like masking and business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease spikes first in the South and more recently in the Midwest .
His overheated rhetoric against social distancing and restrictions on business ( “ Liberate Michigan !
” ) culminated in FBI-thwarted plots to kidnap the governors of Michigan and Virginia .
Finally , his resolute refusal to adhere to , or allow those around him to adhere to , basic disease mitigation practices resulted in a mini-epidemic for the first family and dozens of members of his administration .
Back in August , even Mitch McConnell started avoiding a White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scene from The Hot Zone .
Then there ’ s the way Trump has handled therapeutics and vaccines themselves .
He has upsold unproven and quack remedies—everything from hydroxychloroquine to light to disinfectant—as health advisers looked on with hostage-video expressions on their faces .
He and Alex Azar , his secretary of health and human services , signaled repeatedly that they wanted to seize control of the agencies and protocols that guide the development and approval of vaccines and therapeutics .
Trump openly misled the public about when a vaccine was likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was “ rounding the corner ” on the disease even though an effective and broadly available vaccine was , and remains , months away , and infections and hospitalizations are exploding across the country .
In short , he has treated every aspect of COVID-19 the way he treats everything else , as subject to his patented “ truthful hyperbole ” —minus the truth .
Is it really any wonder that Pfizer avoided the embrace of Operation Warp Speed and did everything it could to distance itself when it came time to persuade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as effective and safe ?
It would be a disservice to the public and business malpractice to do otherwise .
In a time when capitalism is under attack from the left and the right , this highly promising vaccine is a reminder of what profit-driven markets are capable of .
Pfizer chose to go it alone and the company ’ s reasoning is worth consideration .
In an interview , the CEO of Pfizer emphasized that he wanted to liberate his scientists from bureaucracy , that he didn ’ t want to deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with , and that he wanted to keep Pfizer out of politics .
In his approach we glean two insights : the importance of forward-thinking corporate leadership and the critical difference between government as a customer and government as an investor .

Pfizer, in partnership with the German firm BioNTech, has developed a vaccine that, according to the companies’ unpublished data, is more than 90 percent effective in preventing COVID-19. This represents a major step toward getting back to something that approaches the pre-COVID world. As with everything related to COVID, however, the near-miraculous breakthrough became immediately tangled in politics as Pfizer attempted to maintain distance from the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed while the administration sought to claim credit.
The truth in this dispute is apparently equivocal but ultimately perfectly clear. On the one hand Pfizer, unlike a number of other pharmaceutical firms, did not receive federal funding for research and development, opting instead to rely on its own resources. On the other hand, the company did sign a “purchase agreement” pledging to deliver 100 million doses of the vaccine at a price tag of $1.9 billion (with an option to produce an additional 500 million doses) once its product cleared Food and Drug Administration efficacy and safety checks. While this agreement would not have protected Pfizer in the event of a dud vaccine, as the purchase agreement specified the U.S. government would purchase the vaccine upon approval or emergency use authorization from the FDA, permitting the company to immediately recoup much of its development costs. The long-term value of the product for a disease that will be with humanity forever is essentially incalculable, a license for Pfizer to print money, and a reminder of how important profits are in driving innovation.
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 more interesting questions are why Pfizer opted to front its own costs when the federal spigot was open, and why it raced to distance itself from Operation Warp Speed once the clinical trial findings were released. For answers to those questions, we have to review the long, sad tale of the Trump administration’s mishandling of the COVID-19 crisis over the past nine months.
Except for brief interludes, President Trump more or less fumbled pandemic policy and communications from the get-go. In service of his re-election campaign, he sought to downplay the seriousness of the threat. He has encouraged resistance to public health measures like masking and business lockdowns, leading to huge, rotating disease spikes first in the South and more recently in the Midwest. His overheated rhetoric against social distancing and restrictions on business (“Liberate Michigan!”) culminated in FBI-thwarted plots to kidnap the governors of Michigan and Virginia. Finally, his resolute refusal to adhere to, or allow those around him to adhere to, basic disease mitigation practices resulted in a mini-epidemic for the first family and dozens of members of his administration. Back in August, even Mitch McConnell started avoiding a White House that looked every day more like a scene from The Hot Zone.
Then there’s the way Trump has handled therapeutics and vaccines themselves. He has upsold unproven and quack remedies—everything from hydroxychloroquine to light to disinfectant—as health advisers looked on with hostage-video expressions on their faces. He and Alex Azar, his secretary of health and human services, signaled repeatedly that they wanted to seize control of the agencies and protocols that guide the development and approval of vaccines and therapeutics. Trump openly misled the public about when a vaccine was likely to be available, contending that the country was “rounding the corner” on the disease even though an effective and broadly available vaccine was, and remains, months away, and infections and hospitalizations are exploding across the country. In short, he has treated every aspect of COVID-19 the way he treats everything else, as subject to his patented “truthful hyperbole”—minus the truth. Is it really any wonder that Pfizer avoided the embrace of Operation Warp Speed and did everything it could to distance itself when it came time to persuade a wary public to accept its product as effective and safe? It would be a disservice to the public and business malpractice to do otherwise.
In a time when capitalism is under attack from the left and the right, this highly promising vaccine is a reminder of what profit-driven markets are capable of. Pfizer chose to go it alone and the company’s reasoning is worth consideration. In an interview, the CEO of Pfizer emphasized that he wanted to liberate his scientists from bureaucracy, that he didn’t want to deal with the strings that money would come with, and that he wanted to keep Pfizer out of politics. In his approach we glean two insights: the importance of forward-thinking corporate leadership and the critical difference between government as a customer and government as an investor.


thebulwark--2020-11-14--Trump’s Pentagon: No Place for Good Men

Trump’s Pentagon: No Place for Good Men

On Monday of this week , White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows—fresh from testing positive for COVID-19—called Secretary of Defense Mark Esper to let him know that President Trump was removing him from his cabinet position .
The call had no sooner ended when Trump informed the world via tweet that Christopher Miller , the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center , was the acting Defense secretary , effectively immediately .
The tweet ended bluntly : “ Mark Esper has been terminated .
I would like to thank him for his service.
” With that , Esper ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public servant , ejected unceremoniously , reputation tainted by the president for the crime of attempting to serve as his character and conscience dictated .
Esper ’ s firing was abrupt but not a complete surprise .
He ’ d fallen out of favor after pushing back on Trump ’ s desire to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 in order to deploy active duty troops to quell unrest associated with the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis .
Esper , still stinging from how he ’ d been co-opted to participate in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Square , told the Pentagon press corps , “ I say this not only as secretary of Defense , but also as a former soldier , and a former member of the National Guard : The option to use active-duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort and only in the most urgent and dire of situations .
We are not in one of those situations now.
” I suspect that what pushed Trump to the breaking point was Esper saying “ as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Esper is West Point grad who earned the Bronze Star for valorous conduct during Desert Storm while Donald Trump is .
.
.
Donald Trump .
But even before the Lafayette Square incident , Esper had found himself cross-threaded with the White House on issues ranging from Trump ’ s summary transgender “ ban ” and the pardoning of war criminals , to the military ’ s COVID response and the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan .
In each case , Esper was made to see that his commander-in-chief had no appetite for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The only thing the president valued was unconditional loyalty .
Intellect was only to be reverse engineered and weaponized in service of the president ’ s will .
Esper ’ s pedigree was never going to allow him to be a loyalist and Trump punishes those who aren ’ t loyal in myriad ways : pushing hot buttons , creating loyalty tests , watching how subordinates respond , in extreme cases even tacitly daring them to quit and doubling down on the abuse when they don ’ t .
That abuse can take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dubbed Esper “ Yesper ” in an attempt to brand him as a sycophant even when he wasn ’ t ) or petty gestures , like the way he left the Pentagon without a spokesperson by taking DoD ’ s Alyssa Farrah and making her Kayleigh McEnany ’ s right hand at the White House .
Perhaps it ’ s not surprising that President Trump has focused his toxic management on the Pentagon .
As much as anything else , he seems to see the presidency as a platform for settling scores and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dog .
And nothing in his profile is as challenging to that status as the fact everyone in the country knows that Trump ducked serving during Vietnam on bogus medical grounds .
Cadet Bone Spurs has seen the last four years as a way of trying to subjugate the men and women who actually answered their nation ’ s call .
So , he came into office and surrounded himself with what he called “ all the best generals ” and slowly , methodically , set about an effort to soil their lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as Jim Mattis ( “ overrated ” ) , John Kelly ( “ out of his league ” ) , and H.R .
McMaster ( “ a beer salesman ” ) were chewed up and spit out from the podiums of the White House Press Room or at rallies or , most prolifically , in tweets .
Trump has shown his disdain for the military by ignoring the chain of command and , in several extreme cases , giving enlisted men—both active duty and veteran—direct access to his office as he formulated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four years , he has had five secretaries of Defense—three of them acting—and none of them has left gracefully .
Trump ’ s election loss has accelerated his settling of scores , which is why Esper is gone .
Don ’ t look for any meaning beyond that .
Trump doesn ’ t play chess .
He doesn ’ t even play checkers .
He plays the binary game of “ I win , you lose ” that changes moment to moment .
And at this moment he ’ s satisfied that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is .
There is some concern as to what acting Secretary Christopher Miller , he of Green Beret street cred but lacking executive experience , and the band of FOX News regulars and conspiracy theorists with whom Trump has surrounded him , will do in the next two months .
The worries include a force-fed initiative to get American forces out of Afghanistan by Inauguration Day .
The reality is that a conflict that has lasted over 19 years can ’ t end for good in a couple of months .
We fought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is to say , when faced with an asymmetric threat that largely consisted of bands of insurgents armed with rifles and rocket-propelled grenades , we countered with platoons of highly trained infantry and special operators supported by drones , helicopters , and attack jets directed by fully staffed mission control centers .
Even if we pull all of the warfighters out tomorrow , somebody has to stay behind to guard the stuff we don ’ t want to fall into Taliban , Russian , or Chinese hands until we can dismantle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundred sorties worth of C-17s .
That can ’ t happen between now and January 20 , 2021 .
No , most likely what ’ s going to happen at the Pentagon during the next few weeks is that Trump loyalists will make meetings unpleasant for the uniformed folks around the E-Ring .
Yes , this is small comfort .
But in the meantime we can hope that actual stewards of democracy in those rooms will take good notes .
Because this interregnum should make for interesting reading in the early days of @ @ @ @

On Monday of this week, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows—fresh from testing positive for COVID-19—called Secretary of Defense Mark Esper to let him know that President Trump was removing him from his cabinet position.
The call had no sooner ended when Trump informed the world via tweet that Christopher Miller, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the acting Defense secretary, effectively immediately. The tweet ended bluntly: “Mark Esper has been terminated. I would like to thank him for his service.”
With that, Esper’s 16-month tenure was over. Another public servant, ejected unceremoniously, reputation tainted by the president for the crime of attempting to serve as his character and conscience dictated.
Esper’s firing was abrupt but not a complete surprise. He’d fallen out of favor after pushing back on Trump’s desire to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 in order to deploy active duty troops to quell unrest associated with the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. Esper, still stinging from how he’d been co-opted to participate in Trump’s Bible stunt across Lafayette Square, told the Pentagon press corps, “I say this not only as secretary of Defense, but also as a former soldier, and a former member of the National Guard: The option to use active-duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort and only in the most urgent and dire of situations. We are not in one of those situations now.”
I suspect that what pushed Trump to the breaking point was Esper saying “as a former soldier.” It was a reminder that Esper is West Point grad who earned the Bronze Star for valorous conduct during Desert Storm while Donald Trump is . . . Donald Trump. But even before the Lafayette Square incident, Esper had found himself cross-threaded with the White House on issues ranging from Trump’s summary transgender “ban” and the pardoning of war criminals, to the military’s COVID response and the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. In each case, Esper was made to see that his commander-in-chief had no appetite for precedent or the assessment of fact. The only thing the president valued was unconditional loyalty. Intellect was only to be reverse engineered and weaponized in service of the president’s will.
Esper’s pedigree was never going to allow him to be a loyalist and Trump punishes those who aren’t loyal in myriad ways: pushing hot buttons, creating loyalty tests, watching how subordinates respond, in extreme cases even tacitly daring them to quit and doubling down on the abuse when they don’t. That abuse can take the form of issuing nicknames (Trump dubbed Esper “Yesper” in an attempt to brand him as a sycophant even when he wasn’t) or petty gestures, like the way he left the Pentagon without a spokesperson by taking DoD’s Alyssa Farrah and making her Kayleigh McEnany’s right hand at the White House.
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…
Perhaps it’s not surprising that President Trump has focused his toxic management on the Pentagon. As much as anything else, he seems to see the presidency as a platform for settling scores and establishing himself as America’s Alpha Dog. And nothing in his profile is as challenging to that status as the fact everyone in the country knows that Trump ducked serving during Vietnam on bogus medical grounds. Cadet Bone Spurs has seen the last four years as a way of trying to subjugate the men and women who actually answered their nation’s call.
So, he came into office and surrounded himself with what he called “all the best generals” and slowly, methodically, set about an effort to soil their lives of accomplishment. One-by-one respected military figures such as Jim Mattis (“overrated”), John Kelly (“out of his league”), and H.R. McMaster (“a beer salesman”) were chewed up and spit out from the podiums of the White House Press Room or at rallies or, most prolifically, in tweets. Trump has shown his disdain for the military by ignoring the chain of command and, in several extreme cases, giving enlisted men—both active duty and veteran—direct access to his office as he formulated his approaches to national defense. In four years, he has had five secretaries of Defense—three of them acting—and none of them has left gracefully.
Trump’s election loss has accelerated his settling of scores, which is why Esper is gone. Don’t look for any meaning beyond that. Trump doesn’t play chess. He doesn’t even play checkers. He plays the binary game of “I win, you lose” that changes moment to moment. And at this moment he’s satisfied that he showed Yesper who the real big man is.
There is some concern as to what acting Secretary Christopher Miller, he of Green Beret street cred but lacking executive experience, and the band of FOX News regulars and conspiracy theorists with whom Trump has surrounded him, will do in the next two months. The worries include a force-fed initiative to get American forces out of Afghanistan by Inauguration Day.
The reality is that a conflict that has lasted over 19 years can’t end for good in a couple of months. We fought this war in a uniquely American way, which is to say, when faced with an asymmetric threat that largely consisted of bands of insurgents armed with rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, we countered with platoons of highly trained infantry and special operators supported by drones, helicopters, and attack jets directed by fully staffed mission control centers. Even if we pull all of the warfighters out tomorrow, somebody has to stay behind to guard the stuff we don’t want to fall into Taliban, Russian, or Chinese hands until we can dismantle everything and load it on a few hundred sorties worth of C-17s.
That can’t happen between now and January 20, 2021.
No, most likely what’s going to happen at the Pentagon during the next few weeks is that Trump loyalists will make meetings unpleasant for the uniformed folks around the E-Ring.
Yes, this is small comfort. But in the meantime we can hope that actual stewards of democracy in those rooms will take good notes. Because this interregnum should make for interesting reading in the early days of the Biden administration.


thebulwark--2020-11-14--Trump’s Men in Moscow

Trump’s Men in Moscow

When Donald Trump unexpectedly won the presidential election four years ago , the pro-Kremlin political establishment in Moscow literally toasted him with champagne and Vladimir Putin ’ s servile parliament , the Duma , cheered him with a round of applause .
Trump nash—literally “ Trump is ours , ” but meaning something like “ Trump is one of us ” or “ Trump is our guy ” —became a popular catchphrase .
Eventually , the romance cooled .
But during the 2020 election season , it appears that Trump is nash after all : so far , Putin is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held back on congratulating Joe Biden on his victory .
Meanwhile , the Russian state-run ( or state-friendly ) media have alternated mostly between open gloating over an American election in chaos and equally open sympathy for Trump .
Two days before the election , on November 1 , the government-run channel Rossiya-1 aired a one-hour special by Mikhail Taratuta—who worked as a Soviet and then Russian correspondent in the United States from 1988 to 2000—called “ The Hunting of the President.
” After a montage of clips from anti-Trump protests ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taratuta gravely informed his audience that “ not a single [ U.S. ] President in recent history was subjected to such an onslaught , to such organized hounding ” —from the media , from feminists , from human rights activists , and others .
Trump ’ s real crime in his enemies ’ eyes , Taratuta asserted , was that “ he wasn ’ t supposed to win.
” He did concede that some of the hostility was an understandable response to Trump ’ s behavior and policies , from boorishness toward women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overall , the program ’ s portrait of “ Trump , The Hunted ” was one of injured innocence marred only by minor flaws .
( The segment on Trump ’ s woman problem , for instance , noted that he “ could have been more respectful to women ” —a bit of an understatement—and mentioned Trump ’ s spat with Megyn Kelly , but left out the infamous Access Hollywood tape . )
On November 4 , discussions of America ’ s election drama on Russian airwaves eclipsed a patriotic holiday at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the pro-Trump cheerleading grew more heavy-handed .
That evening ’ s edition of the political talk show Big Game on TV-1 , Russia ’ s main federal channel , was almost entirely dominated by pro-Trump voices .
“ The majority of American voters want law and order , and today , alas , only Trump symbolizes the idea of law and order , ” declared host Andranik Migranyan , adding that Democratic governors and mayors not only allow rioters and looters to operate with impunity but even “ get down on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( Migranyan , a 71-year-old academic , pundit and devout Putinist , has impeccable authoritarian bona fides : just recently , he lauded Putin for tweaking the Russian constitution to give himself another term in 2024 and thus ending “ the abominable chatter about a successor.
” More notoriously , Migranyan penned a 2014 column arguing , in response to comparisons between Putin ’ s annexation of Crimea and Hitler ’ s 1938 seizure of the Sudetenland , that pre-1939 Hitler was basically fine—a patriotic statesman “ gathering German lands.
” ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Moscow State University dean Vitaly Tretyakov , lauded Trump as “ an American Stolypin ” —a reference to Putin ’ s hero Pyotr Stolypin , Russia ’ s reformist Prime Minister in 1906-1911 ( a complex figure who was both a successful modernizer and an oft-brutal authoritarian ) .
“ He says , ‘ You want great upheavals , but we want a great America , ’ ” rhapsodized Tretyakov , putting in Trump ’ s mouth an Americanized version of Stolypin ’ s “ great Russia ” retort to Russian liberals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
“ He said repeatedly that he wants to meet with Putin , but they tied him hand and foot in that so-called free country , ” lamented Tretyakov .
“ But in his next term he ’ ll meet with Putin , and they will definitely reach an agreement.
” Leaving aside the fact that Trump and Putin have met more than once , the casual assumption that there would be a next Trump term seems remarkable .
However , that was par for the course on Russian state television , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote-stealing were taken quite seriously .
The next evening , the American election was the focus of the popular Evening with Vladimir Solovyov on Rossiya-1 .
Solovyov , who stands out even among the Russian TV pundit class as a particularly aggressive pro-Kremlin propagandist , opened the program with the smirking announcement that “ while the counting of votes in the United States is not yet over , it ’ s already hilarious.
” Informing his viewers that “ absolutely nobody [ in the U.S. ] trusts the electoral system , ” Solovyov @ @ @ @ @ @ @ observers ” from watching the vote count : “ It ’ s just brilliant .
This is what they call an electoral system.
” He also put up a ( fake ) graphic supposedly showing voter turnout well over 100 percent in several states , including 125 percent in Nevada and 109 percent in Pennsylvania , and repeated the ( already debunked ) claim that at one point , a batch of 128,000 votes , for Biden , was added to the vote tally in Michigan .
While Solovyov was literally chortling at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his guests , political analyst Sergei Stankevich , knitted his brow in a mien of deep , sorrowful concern , professing to feel “ regret ” at the unfolding events .
“ Most likely , the Democrats will be able to torture the arithmetic until they get a win—that is , Biden will be declared president of the United States .
But he will be a president without legitimacy , because a thick cloud of doubt will hang over his presidency for many Americans , ” mused Stankevich .
“ Millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and no one will ever know how many of those votes were from real people.
” Nearly a week later , the November 11 edition of another political talk show , Time Will Tell , ran with the same themes .
When Moscow-based American writer Michael Wasiura ( who frequently appears in the thankless role of the American guest on Russian television ) described Pompeo ’ s remark about “ a smooth transition to аsecond Trump administration ” as an “ attempted coup d ’ état , ” host Artyom Sheinin quickly parried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be the winner of the election based on some unclear procedure and starts to take on matters of state , is that also an attempted coup ?
” Wasiura , who has an enviable gift for remaining unflappable while serving as the designated punching bag , replied that it was perfectly clear : foreign leaders such as Boris Johnson and Angela Merkel , he pointed out , have no trouble understanding that Biden is the legitimate President-elect .
But Sheinin and co-host Anatoly Kulichev pressed on : How could anyone know ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ When Wasiura replied that he had seen the numbers on the websites of state election boards , Kulichev broke into a patronizing smile : “ Come on , Michael , we ’ re not children .
Oh well , blessed are those who have faith.
” At the end of the program , another guest—Alexei Mukhin , director of Moscow ’ s Center for Political Information—dropped several bombshells .
Or at least , they would have been bombshells if true .
Did you know that besides firing Defense Secretary Mark Esper , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI and CIA ?
Neither did I ; but according to Mukhin , he has , and it means he may be planning to stay in office by force .
( In reality , the possible firings of the FBI ’ s Chris Wray and the CIA ’ s Gina Haspel have been rumored since late October . )
Also , did you know that Biden no longer has the 270 electoral votes necessary to secure a victory because RealClearPolitics has rescinded its decision to call Pennsylvania in his favor ?
Neither does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refuted Rudy Giuliani ’ s tweet making this claim on November 9 .
( RCP never called Pennsylvania for Biden . )
Yet there was Mukhin , repeating the fake news on November 11 .
Pro-Trumpism aside , pro-Kremlin Russian punditry is clearly basking in schadenfreude at the thought of American elections being compromised after all the times the United States has lectured other countries—and , specifically , Russia—about elections that failed the “ free and fair ” test .
Tretyakov suggested that any other country with such a mess on its hands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interference .
RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan made a sarcastic post on the Telegram social media platform asking if “ we have already declared the American elections illegitimate , ” citing “ numerous violations , ” “ the lack of foreign monitors , ” “ non-transparency of the process , ” “ numerous reports of corruption , ” media bias , and “ popular protest.
” The only anti-Trump voices in Putin ’ s Russia came from the dissidents .
Opposition activist Alexei Navalny , currently in Germany recovering from a poisoning widely blamed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kamala Harris on their victory in a “ free and fair election.
” Writing in the independent online magazine Sobesednik ( “ Interlocutor ” ) on November 3 , the brilliant poet , writer and critic Dmitry Bykov predicted that Trump would probably win , but added that he badly wanted to be wrong : “ I really want him to lose , because any victory of flagrant , self-assured , obvious evil is morally harmful .
And also because the vilest of pundits and commentators on both sides of the Atlantic are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he thought Trump would win because the populist wave led by “ mindless , obscurantist and cynical forces ” was not yet over—not for a few more years .
“ But if I ’ m wrong , ” he concluded , “ thank God for that.
” In an interview on Ekho Moskvy ( Moscow Echo ) , a rare , still-free Russian radio station , satirist Viktor Shenderovich offered an unusual take : that the dispute over the election was not a sign of democracy ’ s crisis but of its health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN for two days , and it ’ s a very powerful , impressive spectacle .
… Everything really does depend on the voters .
No matter how you feel about Trump or Biden , Americans will get to decide—unlike us , who will be told who our leader will be.
” As for Trump ’ s legal challenges , “ can you imagine Putin needing more votes and trying to go to court to get them , instead of just writing in 90 percent or 110 percent ?
” It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offer it because he is confident that all the talk of fraud “ has turned out to be nonsense.
” For less discerning people in Russia and elsewhere , the claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election will surely undermine not only America ’ s moral authority , but that of her democratic institutions .
And that ’ s on the people who have spread or condoned these toxic fictions .

When Donald Trump unexpectedly won the presidential election four years ago, the pro-Kremlin political establishment in Moscow literally toasted him with champagne and Vladimir Putin’s servile parliament, the Duma, cheered him with a round of applause. Trump nash—literally “Trump is ours,” but meaning something like “Trump is one of us” or “Trump is our guy”—became a popular catchphrase. Eventually, the romance cooled. But during the 2020 election season, it appears that Trump is nash after all: so far, Putin is the only major national leader to have held back on congratulating Joe Biden on his victory. Meanwhile, the Russian state-run (or state-friendly) media have alternated mostly between open gloating over an American election in chaos and equally open sympathy for Trump.
Two days before the election, on November 1, the government-run channel Rossiya-1 aired a one-hour special by Mikhail Taratuta—who worked as a Soviet and then Russian correspondent in the United States from 1988 to 2000—called “The Hunting of the President.” After a montage of clips from anti-Trump protests (and a couple of Trump rallies), Taratuta gravely informed his audience that “not a single [U.S.] President in recent history was subjected to such an onslaught, to such organized hounding”—from the media, from feminists, from human rights activists, and others.
Trump’s real crime in his enemies’ eyes, Taratuta asserted, was that “he wasn’t supposed to win.” He did concede that some of the hostility was an understandable response to Trump’s behavior and policies, from boorishness toward women to the parent/child border separations. Yet overall, the program’s portrait of “Trump, The Hunted” was one of injured innocence marred only by minor flaws. (The segment on Trump’s woman problem, for instance, noted that he “could have been more respectful to women”—a bit of an understatement—and mentioned Trump’s spat with Megyn Kelly, but left out the infamous Access Hollywood tape.)
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 November 4, discussions of America’s election drama on Russian airwaves eclipsed a patriotic holiday at home (Russian Unity Day), and the pro-Trump cheerleading grew more heavy-handed. That evening’s edition of the political talk show Big Game on TV-1, Russia’s main federal channel, was almost entirely dominated by pro-Trump voices. “The majority of American voters want law and order, and today, alas, only Trump symbolizes the idea of law and order,” declared host Andranik Migranyan, adding that Democratic governors and mayors not only allow rioters and looters to operate with impunity but even “get down on their knees and kiss the feet of blacks.” (Migranyan, a 71-year-old academic, pundit and devout Putinist, has impeccable authoritarian bona fides: just recently, he lauded Putin for tweaking the Russian constitution to give himself another term in 2024 and thus ending “the abominable chatter about a successor.” More notoriously, Migranyan penned a 2014 column arguing, in response to comparisons between Putin’s annexation of Crimea and Hitler’s 1938 seizure of the Sudetenland, that pre-1939 Hitler was basically fine—a patriotic statesman “gathering German lands.”)
One of the guests, veteran journalist and Moscow State University dean Vitaly Tretyakov, lauded Trump as “an American Stolypin”—a reference to Putin’s hero Pyotr Stolypin, Russia’s reformist Prime Minister in 1906-1911 (a complex figure who was both a successful modernizer and an oft-brutal authoritarian). “He says, ‘You want great upheavals, but we want a great America,’” rhapsodized Tretyakov, putting in Trump’s mouth an Americanized version of Stolypin’s “great Russia” retort to Russian liberals.
The Trump nash trope resurfaced as well. “He said repeatedly that he wants to meet with Putin, but they tied him hand and foot in that so-called free country,” lamented Tretyakov. “But in his next term he’ll meet with Putin, and they will definitely reach an agreement.” Leaving aside the fact that Trump and Putin have met more than once, the casual assumption that there would be a next Trump term seems remarkable. However, that was par for the course on Russian state television, where Trump’s allegations of rampant vote-stealing were taken quite seriously.
The next evening, the American election was the focus of the popular Evening with Vladimir Solovyov on Rossiya-1. Solovyov, who stands out even among the Russian TV pundit class as a particularly aggressive pro-Kremlin propagandist, opened the program with the smirking announcement that “while the counting of votes in the United States is not yet over, it’s already hilarious.” Informing his viewers that “absolutely nobody [in the U.S.] trusts the electoral system,” Solovyov asserted that “some precincts simply barred observers” from watching the vote count: “It’s just brilliant. This is what they call an electoral system.” He also put up a (fake) graphic supposedly showing voter turnout well over 100 percent in several states, including 125 percent in Nevada and 109 percent in Pennsylvania, and repeated the (already debunked) claim that at one point, a batch of 128,000 votes, for Biden, was added to the vote tally in Michigan.
While Solovyov was literally chortling at the troubles besetting American democracy, one of his guests, political analyst Sergei Stankevich, knitted his brow in a mien of deep, sorrowful concern, professing to feel “regret” at the unfolding events. “Most likely, the Democrats will be able to torture the arithmetic until they get a win—that is, Biden will be declared president of the United States. But he will be a president without legitimacy, because a thick cloud of doubt will hang over his presidency for many Americans,” mused Stankevich. “Millions of his votes came from mail-in ballots, and no one will ever know how many of those votes were from real people.”
Nearly a week later, the November 11 edition of another political talk show, Time Will Tell, ran with the same themes. When Moscow-based American writer Michael Wasiura (who frequently appears in the thankless role of the American guest on Russian television) described Pompeo’s remark about “a smooth transition to аsecond Trump administration” as an “attempted coup d’état,” host Artyom Sheinin quickly parried, “And when Biden declares himself to be the winner of the election based on some unclear procedure and starts to take on matters of state, is that also an attempted coup?”
Wasiura, who has an enviable gift for remaining unflappable while serving as the designated punching bag, replied that it was perfectly clear: foreign leaders such as Boris Johnson and Angela Merkel, he pointed out, have no trouble understanding that Biden is the legitimate President-elect. But Sheinin and co-host Anatoly Kulichev pressed on: How could anyone know? Just because the news said so? When Wasiura replied that he had seen the numbers on the websites of state election boards, Kulichev broke into a patronizing smile: “Come on, Michael, we’re not children. Oh well, blessed are those who have faith.”
At the end of the program, another guest—Alexei Mukhin, director of Moscow’s Center for Political Information—dropped several bombshells. Or at least, they would have been bombshells if true. Did you know that besides firing Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Trump has also fired the directors of the FBI and CIA? Neither did I; but according to Mukhin, he has, and it means he may be planning to stay in office by force. (In reality, the possible firings of the FBI’s Chris Wray and the CIA’s Gina Haspel have been rumored since late October.) Also, did you know that Biden no longer has the 270 electoral votes necessary to secure a victory because RealClearPolitics has rescinded its decision to call Pennsylvania in his favor? Neither does RCP editor Tom Bevan, who flatly refuted Rudy Giuliani’s tweet making this claim on November 9. (RCP never called Pennsylvania for Biden.) Yet there was Mukhin, repeating the fake news on November 11.
Pro-Trumpism aside, pro-Kremlin Russian punditry is clearly basking in schadenfreude at the thought of American elections being compromised after all the times the United States has lectured other countries—and, specifically, Russia—about elections that failed the “free and fair” test. Tretyakov suggested that any other country with such a mess on its hands would have been the target of U.S. interference. RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan made a sarcastic post on the Telegram social media platform asking if “we have already declared the American elections illegitimate,” citing “numerous violations,” “the lack of foreign monitors,” “non-transparency of the process,” “numerous reports of corruption,” media bias, and “popular protest.”
The only anti-Trump voices in Putin’s Russia came from the dissidents. Opposition activist Alexei Navalny, currently in Germany recovering from a poisoning widely blamed on Kremlin agents, congratulated Biden and Kamala Harris on their victory in a “free and fair election.” Writing in the independent online magazine Sobesednik (“Interlocutor”) on November 3, the brilliant poet, writer and critic Dmitry Bykov predicted that Trump would probably win, but added that he badly wanted to be wrong: “I really want him to lose, because any victory of flagrant, self-assured, obvious evil is morally harmful. And also because the vilest of pundits and commentators on both sides of the Atlantic are rooting for him.” Bykov explained that he thought Trump would win because the populist wave led by “mindless, obscurantist and cynical forces” was not yet over—not for a few more years. “But if I’m wrong,” he concluded, “thank God for that.”
In an interview on Ekho Moskvy (Moscow Echo), a rare, still-free Russian radio station, satirist Viktor Shenderovich offered an unusual take: that the dispute over the election was not a sign of democracy’s crisis but of its health. “I’ve been watching CNN for two days, and it’s a very powerful, impressive spectacle. … Everything really does depend on the voters. No matter how you feel about Trump or Biden, Americans will get to decide—unlike us, who will be told who our leader will be.” As for Trump’s legal challenges, “can you imagine Putin needing more votes and trying to go to court to get them, instead of just writing in 90 percent or 110 percent?”
It’s an appealing view. But Shenderovich can offer it because he is confident that all the talk of fraud “has turned out to be nonsense.” For less discerning people in Russia and elsewhere, the claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election will surely undermine not only America’s moral authority, but that of her democratic institutions.
And that’s on the people who have spread or condoned these toxic fictions.


thebulwark--2020-11-14--Lessons from the Vaccine Revolt of 1904

Lessons from the Vaccine Revolt of 1904

Vaccines against COVID-19 may soon be available but controversies over wearing masks and social distancing—not to mention public resistance to other vaccines—have aroused concern that there may be widespread refusal to accept COVID-19 vaccination .
Many parallels to our current challenges , and perhaps even a framework for overcoming resistance to COVID-19 vaccines , can be found in a largely forgotten episode from Brazilian history : the Vaccine Revolt of 1904 .
Throughout the nineteenth century , Brazil suffered from recurrent epidemics of smallpox .
Smallpox was a dreaded disease : It had a mortality rate of about 30 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it left many survivors scarred and disfigured .
In 1904 , smallpox afflicted about 7,000 people in Rio de Janeiro .
To combat this epidemic , the Brazilian Congress passed a law mandating that the entire population be vaccinated .
This law was an extension of a campaign by the president , Francisco de Paula Rodrigues Alves , to make Rio a more attractive destination for European immigration and investment , as well as a better place for its own citizens .
Rodrigues Alves ’ s program entailed extensive reconstruction and beautification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduce the burden of infectious diseases in the city .
The leader of Rodrigues Alves ’ s public health reforms was the director general of public health , Oswaldo Gonçalves Cruz .
Cruz was a Brazilian physician who had studied at the Pasteur Institute in Paris and was familiar with the newest theories of infectious disease causation and transmission as well as with the use of vaccines and antisera for disease prevention and treatment .
Only 32 years old , Cruz was already the leading expert on infectious diseases in Brazil and was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yellow fever and plague .
In the evening of November 10 , 1904 , the day before the compulsory vaccination law was to take effect , a large anti-vaccine demonstration broke out in Rio .
The organizers of the revolt , who objected to government intrusion into their lives , recruited others to join them .
The press had frightened readers by referring to the law as the “ Torture Code.
” Men were urged to oppose vaccination because it was unmanly for them to allow public health workers to touch their wives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the protesters were joined by other groups who had other grievances and objectives , and the uprising became larger and more violent .
Many workers were angry because the government ’ s urban renovations had forced them to move from the center of Rio to outlying neighborhoods or to favelas on the outskirts of the city , and they were not provided with the new housing that the government had promised them or with the reliable and affordable public transportation they needed to get to their jobs .
Some members of the military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an effort to stage a coup .
The revolt continued for about a week and almost succeeded in bringing down the government .
Several dozen people were killed during the uprising and there was considerable destruction of property , especially property owned by the government and by companies involved in the urban renewal campaign .
The revolt was finally ended on November 18 , after the government suspended the compulsory vaccination law .
Once the vaccination law was revoked and the fearmongering stopped , opposition to vaccination decreased .
Vaccination had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ century and most people understood the value of the procedure .
When the next smallpox epidemic struck , in 1908 , there was little resistance to vaccination and smallpox started on the road to eradication .
Although Cruz had been the foremost advocate of compulsory vaccination , little anger was directed at him or at the Department of Public Health .
People recognized that his efforts greatly reduced the incidence of smallpox and he remained a trusted authority who had the support and backing of the government .
Today he is remembered for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and is celebrated as the foremost public health worker in Brazilian history .
Making vaccination voluntary rather than compulsory was crucial to the fight against smallpox , but having respected leadership and consistent governmental support , together with credible evidence of the benefit of vaccination , were also essential to the success of this work .
We have our Oswaldo Cruz in Anthony Fauci , and when COVID-19 vaccines are available their use will almost certainly be voluntary , but we will need trustworthy governmental oversight and convincing documentation of the safety and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people will accept vaccination and that we will be as successful in confronting the coronavirus pandemic as our forebears were in facing the menace of smallpox .

Vaccines against COVID-19 may soon be available but controversies over wearing masks and social distancing—not to mention public resistance to other vaccines—have aroused concern that there may be widespread refusal to accept COVID-19 vaccination. Many parallels to our current challenges, and perhaps even a framework for overcoming resistance to COVID-19 vaccines, can be found in a largely forgotten episode from Brazilian history: the Vaccine Revolt of 1904.
Throughout the nineteenth century, Brazil suffered from recurrent epidemics of smallpox. Smallpox was a dreaded disease: It had a mortality rate of about 30 percent, it could be exceedingly painful, and it left many survivors scarred and disfigured. In 1904, smallpox afflicted about 7,000 people in Rio de Janeiro. To combat this epidemic, the Brazilian Congress passed a law mandating that the entire population be vaccinated. This law was an extension of a campaign by the president, Francisco de Paula Rodrigues Alves, to make Rio a more attractive destination for European immigration and investment, as well as a better place for its own citizens. Rodrigues Alves’s program entailed extensive reconstruction and beautification of downtown Rio and sanitary reforms to reduce the burden of infectious diseases in the city.
The leader of Rodrigues Alves’s public health reforms was the director general of public health, Oswaldo Gonçalves Cruz. Cruz was a Brazilian physician who had studied at the Pasteur Institute in Paris and was familiar with the newest theories of infectious disease causation and transmission as well as with the use of vaccines and antisera for disease prevention and treatment. Only 32 years old, Cruz was already the leading expert on infectious diseases in Brazil and was widely admired for his work in combating yellow fever and plague.
In the evening of November 10, 1904, the day before the compulsory vaccination law was to take effect, a large anti-vaccine demonstration broke out in Rio. The organizers of the revolt, who objected to government intrusion into their lives, recruited others to join them. The press had frightened readers by referring to the law as the “Torture Code.” Men were urged to oppose vaccination because it was unmanly for them to allow public health workers to touch their wives and daughters. The next day, the protesters were joined by other groups who had other grievances and objectives, and the uprising became larger and more violent.
Many workers were angry because the government’s urban renovations had forced them to move from the center of Rio to outlying neighborhoods or to favelas on the outskirts of the city, and they were not provided with the new housing that the government had promised them or with the reliable and affordable public transportation they needed to get to their jobs. Some members of the military together with opposition politicians joined the protests in an effort to stage a coup. The revolt continued for about a week and almost succeeded in bringing down the government. Several dozen people were killed during the uprising and there was considerable destruction of property, especially property owned by the government and by companies involved in the urban renewal campaign. The revolt was finally ended on November 18, after the government suspended the compulsory vaccination law.
Once the vaccination law was revoked and the fearmongering stopped, opposition to vaccination decreased. Vaccination had been practiced in Brazil since the early nineteenth century and most people understood the value of the procedure. When the next smallpox epidemic struck, in 1908, there was little resistance to vaccination and smallpox started on the road to eradication.
Although Cruz had been the foremost advocate of compulsory vaccination, little anger was directed at him or at the Department of Public Health. People recognized that his efforts greatly reduced the incidence of smallpox and he remained a trusted authority who had the support and backing of the government. Today he is remembered for his many achievements in combating infectious diseases and is celebrated as the foremost public health worker in Brazilian history.
Making vaccination voluntary rather than compulsory was crucial to the fight against smallpox, but having respected leadership and consistent governmental support, together with credible evidence of the benefit of vaccination, were also essential to the success of this work. We have our Oswaldo Cruz in Anthony Fauci, and when COVID-19 vaccines are available their use will almost certainly be voluntary, but we will need trustworthy governmental oversight and convincing documentation of the safety and efficacy of these vaccines to ensure that people will accept vaccination and that we will be as successful in confronting the coronavirus pandemic as our forebears were in facing the menace of smallpox.