thebulwark--2020-05-19--A Retreat without Peace

A Retreat without Peace

After the Taliban was forcibly removed from power in the autumn of 2001 , Christopher Hitchens declared that the United States had “ just succeeded in bombing a country out of the stone age.
” For years before America ’ s intervention , Afghanistan had been under the rule of Islamic law imposed by an austere clan of religious “ students.
” The Pashtun tribesman who comprised this squalid regime issued from fanatical madrassas ( Islamic theology schools ) and had been weaned on a rigid interpretation of sharia .
Among the most pronounced features of the Taliban ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Afghan girls and women were forced to endure the worst imaginable repression and enslavement and torture .
They were thwarted from every educational pursuit and their social presence was effectively erased by the burqa .
The mullahs were sworn enemies of modernity , and they banned nearly every form of entertainment and culture , including music , philosophy , and kite-flying .
It was logical that the theocratic fascists of al Qaeda , waging an escalating war upon American interests and eventually American civil society , would find safe harbor under their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ September 11 , 2001 , the United States launched war in Afghanistan to vanquish the jihadist cadre that had perpetrated that outrage .
After the Taliban leader Mullah Omar refused the Bush administration ’ s demand to turn over Osama bin Laden ( as he had refused on dozens of previous occasions , citing the duty owed to “ Islam ’ s prestige ” ) , Washington proceeded without making any meaningful distinction between al Qaeda and the Taliban , treating both as enemy combatants to be defeated and destroyed .
The Islamic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new democratic government swept into Kabul , and al Qaeda and its former hosts scattered into the hinterlands of Afghanistan ( and Pakistan ) .
The war to displace a reactionary terror-sponsoring regime was thus rapidly superseded by a bitter war of attrition in which the Taliban and their al Qaeda associates have struck relentlessly at American military outposts and the central government in Kabul , as well as against the softer targets of the Afghan military and police .
This insurgency has wrecked havoc on Afghanistan ’ s fragile new order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategic threat to it .
America , meanwhile , has stayed on to “ hunt in the shadows ” for Arab mujahideen and local reactionary seminarians against a backdrop of impassable mountains and an unforgiving culture of bandits and warlords .
It has been a grim mission by any standard , but not without its share of successes .
As this conflict approaches its third decade , however , the public mood has plainly soured .
Popular opinion lost patience with both the mission ’ s imperial contours as well as its endless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been amply registered by and reflected among many in the governing class .
In the badlands on both sides of the Khyber Pass , the enemy has concluded from years of vacillation that Washington lacks staying power in this fight .
“ You have the watches , ” according to a familiar Afghan aphorism regarding outsiders , “ we have the time.
” President Obama laid bare this deep ambivalence in his own prosecution of the Afghan campaign .
Despite his adamant declarations of support for this “ necessary war ” , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American security and only dispatched reinforcements to the Afghan theater of war along with a promise to bring them home by a date certain .
Some conservatives raised a fuss over this “ uncertain trumpet , ” but many more objected to “ the wrong war.
” By the appearance of things , President Trump has decided to break with this pattern of incoherence and unseriousness by inaugurating a novel kind of incoherence and unseriousness .
Like his predecessor , he has long indicated a desire to bring an end to the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice would ever be the prerogative of a single party involved in a fierce and protracted fight––unless it was a chosen defeat .
But Trump now seems determined to fulfill that pledge , withdrawing American arms from the struggle and handing victory to the Taliban .
The counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations that have been a constant feature of American policy in Afghanistan for almost two decades , as well as the ambitious humanitarian efforts to construct roads , build health clinics and repair bombed-out girls ’ schools , have been a squalid and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fostered total fatigue among Americans , without any countervailing presidential leadership to remind them about the requirements of national security and national honor .
What happens next is hard to predict with precision , though some educated guesses may be ventured .
The foreign policy specialist Max Boot envisions three potential scenarios for Afghanistan after the American withdrawal is complete : good , bad , and ugly .
The good scenario would look like Colombia after the government signed a deal with the FARC insurgency .
The rebels agreed to lay down their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society , and so far the agreement remains intact .
The bad scenario would look like Lebanon , which was spared further bloodletting in its devastating civil war by the Taif Accord .
This agreement brought a much-needed respite by altering power-sharing among the major sectarian groups , but only at the expense of an emboldened Hezbollah that drives sectarian mayhem and foreign aggression to this day .
The ugly scenario would look like South Vietnam after the 1973 Paris Peace Accords brought an end to the U.S. military presence .
Hanoi began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon Saigon was overrun by a North Vietnamese blitzkrieg–with nasty results for America ’ s abandoned allies and , it follows , American credibility .
It must be said that the rosy scenario is by far the least likely to come to pass in the wake of American withdrawal , as demonstrated by the staggering violence unleashed by the Taliban since the deal was announced .
A Taliban ambush last month killed 24 Afghan security forces in southern Afghanistan .
Last week , gunmen stormed a maternity ward in a Shiite neighborhood of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including newborns , mothers and nurses , in an attack that has not yet been claimed .
Without the staying hand of American power , it is likely that the Afghans will revert back to what they know best : civil strife and religious barbarism .
It would be the gravest of blunders for the United States to allow the Taliban to reclaim control of the state without first renouncing and extirpating al Qaeda .
For the entirety of this conflict , Taliban forces and their al Qaeda allies have believed they could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since America was ( in their plausible narrative ) a fickle superpower that might fight fiercely in the short term but was destined to head for the exits .
By brokering a deal with this dangerous foe , President Trump has not achieved anything like peace .
He has instead vindicated the central contention of our enemies , and in so doing he will give the stone age a new lease on life in the Hindu Kush .

After the Taliban was forcibly removed from power in the autumn of 2001, Christopher Hitchens declared that the United States had “just succeeded in bombing a country out of the stone age.” For years before America’s intervention, Afghanistan had been under the rule of Islamic law imposed by an austere clan of religious “students.” The Pashtun tribesman who comprised this squalid regime issued from fanatical madrassas (Islamic theology schools) and had been weaned on a rigid interpretation of sharia.
Among the most pronounced features of the Taliban’s backward state was the subjugation of women. Afghan girls and women were forced to endure the worst imaginable repression and enslavement and torture. They were thwarted from every educational pursuit and their social presence was effectively erased by the burqa. The mullahs were sworn enemies of modernity, and they banned nearly every form of entertainment and culture, including music, philosophy, and kite-flying. It was logical that the theocratic fascists of al Qaeda, waging an escalating war upon American interests and eventually American civil society, would find safe harbor under their tyrannical dominion.
In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the United States launched war in Afghanistan to vanquish the jihadist cadre that had perpetrated that outrage. After the Taliban leader Mullah Omar refused the Bush administration’s demand to turn over Osama bin Laden (as he had refused on dozens of previous occasions, citing the duty owed to “Islam’s prestige”), Washington proceeded without making any meaningful distinction between al Qaeda and the Taliban, treating both as enemy combatants to be defeated and destroyed. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan was promptly overthrown, a new democratic government swept into Kabul, and al Qaeda and its former hosts scattered into the hinterlands of Afghanistan (and Pakistan).
The war to displace a reactionary terror-sponsoring regime was thus rapidly superseded by a bitter war of attrition in which the Taliban and their al Qaeda associates have struck relentlessly at American military outposts and the central government in Kabul, as well as against the softer targets of the Afghan military and police. This insurgency has wrecked havoc on Afghanistan’s fragile new order, but it has not posed a strategic threat to it. America, meanwhile, has stayed on to “hunt in the shadows” for Arab mujahideen and local reactionary seminarians against a backdrop of impassable mountains and an unforgiving culture of bandits and warlords. It has been a grim mission by any standard, but not without its share of successes.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
As this conflict approaches its third decade, however, the public mood has plainly soured. Popular opinion lost patience with both the mission’s imperial contours as well as its endless mounting costs. The palpable weariness has been amply registered by and reflected among many in the governing class. In the badlands on both sides of the Khyber Pass, the enemy has concluded from years of vacillation that Washington lacks staying power in this fight. “You have the watches,” according to a familiar Afghan aphorism regarding outsiders, “we have the time.”
President Obama laid bare this deep ambivalence in his own prosecution of the Afghan campaign. Despite his adamant declarations of support for this “necessary war”, he belittled the challenge that jihadism posed to American security and only dispatched reinforcements to the Afghan theater of war along with a promise to bring them home by a date certain. Some conservatives raised a fuss over this “uncertain trumpet,” but many more objected to “the wrong war.”
By the appearance of things, President Trump has decided to break with this pattern of incoherence and unseriousness by inaugurating a novel kind of incoherence and unseriousness. Like his predecessor, he has long indicated a desire to bring an end to the “endless war”; as if that choice would ever be the prerogative of a single party involved in a fierce and protracted fight––unless it was a chosen defeat. But Trump now seems determined to fulfill that pledge, withdrawing American arms from the struggle and handing victory to the Taliban.
The counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations that have been a constant feature of American policy in Afghanistan for almost two decades, as well as the ambitious humanitarian efforts to construct roads, build health clinics and repair bombed-out girls’ schools, have been a squalid and thankless business. This Sisyphean mission has fostered total fatigue among Americans, without any countervailing presidential leadership to remind them about the requirements of national security and national honor.
What happens next is hard to predict with precision, though some educated guesses may be ventured. The foreign policy specialist Max Boot envisions three potential scenarios for Afghanistan after the American withdrawal is complete: good, bad, and ugly. The good scenario would look like Colombia after the government signed a deal with the FARC insurgency. The rebels agreed to lay down their arms and to be reintegrated into civilian society, and so far the agreement remains intact.
The bad scenario would look like Lebanon, which was spared further bloodletting in its devastating civil war by the Taif Accord. This agreement brought a much-needed respite by altering power-sharing among the major sectarian groups, but only at the expense of an emboldened Hezbollah that drives sectarian mayhem and foreign aggression to this day.
The ugly scenario would look like South Vietnam after the 1973 Paris Peace Accords brought an end to the U.S. military presence. Hanoi began violating its terms at once, and soon Saigon was overrun by a North Vietnamese blitzkrieg–with nasty results for America’s abandoned allies and, it follows, American credibility.
It must be said that the rosy scenario is by far the least likely to come to pass in the wake of American withdrawal, as demonstrated by the staggering violence unleashed by the Taliban since the deal was announced. A Taliban ambush last month killed 24 Afghan security forces in southern Afghanistan. Last week, gunmen stormed a maternity ward in a Shiite neighborhood of Kabul, killing at least 24 people including newborns, mothers and nurses, in an attack that has not yet been claimed.
Without the staying hand of American power, it is likely that the Afghans will revert back to what they know best: civil strife and religious barbarism. It would be the gravest of blunders for the United States to allow the Taliban to reclaim control of the state without first renouncing and extirpating al Qaeda.
For the entirety of this conflict, Taliban forces and their al Qaeda allies have believed they could prevail simply by not being defeated, since America was (in their plausible narrative) a fickle superpower that might fight fiercely in the short term but was destined to head for the exits. By brokering a deal with this dangerous foe, President Trump has not achieved anything like peace. He has instead vindicated the central contention of our enemies, and in so doing he will give the stone age a new lease on life in the Hindu Kush.


thebulwark--2020-05-19--Josh Hawley’s New Smoot-Hawley

Josh Hawley’s New Smoot-Hawley

Since the end of World War II , the United States has exerted outsized influence to shape the rules of global commerce .
Recognizing the economic and strategic benefits of a rules-based trading system , every president from Harry Truman to Barack Obama supported U.S. leadership and engagement with the World Trade Organization ( WTO ) and its predecessor institution .
Though imperfect , this system has paid enormous dividends for the United States .
The current global trading system has its origins in the reaction to the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff—named after its congressional sponsors .
President Herbert Hoover was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with his party strongly backing it as a measure to fight the Depression , he signed it in June 1930 .
The disastrous impact of these tariffs on global trade and domestic economies ushered in an era of international trade agreements designed to limit protectionism .
Now a new Hawley has entered the scene to bring protectionism back .
With nationalism on the rise amidst the outbreak of a global pandemic , Senator Josh Hawley ( R-Missouri ) is advocating that the United States walk away from the WTO .
That would hurt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategic interests , and be counted as an economic and diplomatic victory for China .
On May 7 , two days after publishing a New York Times op-ed calling for the abolishment of the WTO , Senator Hawley introduced a joint resolution in Congress to terminate U.S. membership in the organization .
Fortunately , Congress can ’ t unilaterally abolish the WTO : It is an international organization created by a treaty that has been ratified by its state members and observers .
But Congress can end the United States ’ participation in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ codifies U.S. participation in the WTO permits Congress to consider a joint resolution to terminate U.S. membership in the global trading body every five years , which is to be informed by the findings in a report from the U.S. Trade Representative ( USTR ) .
If introduced , such a joint resolution is unamendable , does not require committee approval , and can not be filibustered .
In other words , Hawley ’ s resolution is not a messaging bill .
It is a serious procedural mechanism that will––if it reaches the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the submission of USTR ’ s February 28 report—force a Senate referendum on the merits of the United States remaining in the WTO .
It is worth noting that USTR Robert Lighthizer , in testimony before a Senate Finance Committee hearing last year , wrote that “ the WTO is a valuable institution , and offers many opportunities for the United States to advance our interests on trade .
As I have said before , if we did not have the WTO , we would need to invent it.
” Lighthizer is hardly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point man for President Trump ’ s trade war with China—but he is correct about the WTO .
If the United States were to withdraw from the organization , the economic and diplomatic fallout would be devastating .
The WTO has undoubtedly increased quality of life for Americans : In 2017 , it was estimated that global trade facilitated by the WTO increases the size of the U.S. economy by $ 2.1 trillion annually , the equivalent of about $ 7,000 per person .
And if the WTO were to be eliminated entirely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 2.7 trillion loss in global GDP .
The WTO includes 164 member states and its rules cover a staggering 95 percent of global trade .
WTO members afford equal tariff treatment to all other members , which ensures that American exports can compete on a level playing field .
But they also agree to the same set of legally binding measures , such as commitments on intellectual property rights .
Unilateral withdrawal from the WTO would forfeit these benefits and put U.S. interests at a serious disadvantage .
First , withdrawal from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tariffs , which would burden families and businesses that rely on foreign products .
As numerous studies have confirmed , American consumers are paying for President Trump ’ s tariffs .
Moreover , new tariffs likely would trigger foreign retaliation against American exports , the costs of which America ’ s farmers and ranchers well know .
Under WTO rules , the United States is required to apply the same tariff rates to all WTO members ( excepting those who are U.S. free trade agreement partners and eligible for preferential tariff treatment ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ most-favored nation ” ( MFN ) tariffs .
As trade economists Chad Bown and Doug Irwin have observed , the average applied U.S. MFN tariff in 2017 was 3.3 percent , but the average applied non-MFN U.S. tariff ( those applied to non-WTO members ) was 32.3 percent .
Absent WTO commitments , the president would be free to raise tariffs to rates not seen since the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariffs in the 1930s , hurting taxpayers and damaging American competitiveness in the global economy .
Second , membership in the WTO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for resolution through consultation or adjudication if it believes other members are not living up to the commitments they ’ ve made .
Although some modification to the dispute-settlement rules may be in order , the United States has benefited disproportionately from WTO arbitration : According to the White House , the United States has won more than 85 percent of the cases it has initiated since 1995 ( compared with China ’ s success rate of 67 percent ) .
Notably , U.S. agricultural interests have been well served under the WTO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a recent case involving Chinese subsidies for grain production .
Finally , Ambassador Lighthizer has also correctly noted that “ the WTO provides the United States with a platform to export its views on trade policy.
” If the United States were to abdicate its seat at the table , it would play directly into China ’ s hands .
A spokesman for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley ( R-Iowa ) put it succinctly : “ Withdrawing from the WTO would only leave a vacuum for China to fill and diminish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moreover , if the United States were to depart from the 164 member-strong WTO , it would join the ranks of only 13 countries that are neither WTO members nor seekers of WTO membership , including North Korea and a handful of tiny countries like Turkmenistan , Eritrea , and Kiribati .
Past congressional attempts to abrogate U.S. membership in the WTO failed by wide margins , but Senator Hawley ’ s resolution should still be treated as live fire .
The Hawley resolution , if adopted , won ’ t address the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade malpractice or the dire economic straits currently faced by millions of Americans as a result of COVID-19 .
Instead , it will voluntarily shut the United States out of the world ’ s largest trade agreement and will be remembered as one of the greatest economic missteps in modern history .

Halie Craig, Clark Packard, Dan Ikenson, Simon Lester, Bryan Riley, and Brandon Arnold

Since the end of World War II, the United States has exerted outsized influence to shape the rules of global commerce. Recognizing the economic and strategic benefits of a rules-based trading system, every president from Harry Truman to Barack Obama supported U.S. leadership and engagement with the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its predecessor institution. Though imperfect, this system has paid enormous dividends for the United States.
The current global trading system has its origins in the reaction to the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff—named after its congressional sponsors. President Herbert Hoover was ambivalent about the final legislation, but with his party strongly backing it as a measure to fight the Depression, he signed it in June 1930. The disastrous impact of these tariffs on global trade and domestic economies ushered in an era of international trade agreements designed to limit protectionism.
Now a new Hawley has entered the scene to bring protectionism back. With nationalism on the rise amidst the outbreak of a global pandemic, Senator Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) is advocating that the United States walk away from the WTO. That would hurt American families and businesses, undermine our strategic interests, and be counted as an economic and diplomatic victory for China.
On May 7, two days after publishing a New York Times op-ed calling for the abolishment of the WTO, Senator Hawley introduced a joint resolution in Congress to terminate U.S. membership in the organization.
Fortunately, Congress can’t unilaterally abolish the WTO: It is an international organization created by a treaty that has been ratified by its state members and observers. But Congress can end the United States’ participation in the WTO. The implementing law that codifies U.S. participation in the WTO permits Congress to consider a joint resolution to terminate U.S. membership in the global trading body every five years, which is to be informed by the findings in a report from the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). If introduced, such a joint resolution is unamendable, does not require committee approval, and cannot be filibustered. In other words, Hawley’s resolution is not a messaging bill. It is a serious procedural mechanism that will––if it reaches the Senate floor within 90 legislative days after the submission of USTR’s February 28 report—force a Senate referendum on the merits of the United States remaining in the WTO.
It is worth noting that USTR Robert Lighthizer, in testimony before a Senate Finance Committee hearing last year, wrote that “the WTO is a valuable institution, and offers many opportunities for the United States to advance our interests on trade. As I have said before, if we did not have the WTO, we would need to invent it.” Lighthizer is hardly a cheerleader for globalization—he has been the point man for President Trump’s trade war with China—but he is correct about the WTO. If the United States were to withdraw from the organization, the economic and diplomatic fallout would be devastating.
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 WTO has undoubtedly increased quality of life for Americans: In 2017, it was estimated that global trade liberalization, in part facilitated by the WTO, increased the size of the U.S. economy by $2.1 trillion between 1950 and 2016 (in 2016 dollars), the equivalent of about $7,000 per person. And if the WTO and other trade agreements were to be eliminated entirely, the result could be a drastic $2.8 trillion loss in global GDP.
The WTO includes 164 member states and its rules cover a staggering 95 percent of global trade. WTO members afford equal tariff treatment to all other members, which ensures that American exports can compete on a level playing field. But they also agree to the same set of legally binding measures, such as commitments on intellectual property rights. Unilateral withdrawal from the WTO would forfeit these benefits and put U.S. interests at a serious disadvantage.
First, withdrawal from the WTO could result in higher U.S. tariffs, which would burden families and businesses that rely on foreign products. As numerous studies have confirmed, American consumers are paying for President Trump’s tariffs. Moreover, new tariffs likely would trigger foreign retaliation against American exports, the costs of which America’s farmers and ranchers well know. Under WTO rules, the United States is required to apply the same tariff rates to all WTO members (excepting those who are U.S. free trade agreement partners and eligible for preferential tariff treatment). Those uniformly applied tariffs are known as “most-favored nation” (MFN) tariffs. As trade economists Chad Bown and Doug Irwin have observed, the average applied U.S. MFN tariff in 2017 was 3.3 percent, but the average applied non-MFN U.S. tariff (those applied to non-WTO members) was 32.3 percent. Absent WTO commitments, the president would be free to raise tariffs to rates not seen since the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariffs in the 1930s, hurting taxpayers and damaging American competitiveness in the global economy.
Second, membership in the WTO entitles the U.S. government to bring complaints for resolution through consultation or adjudication if it believes other members are not living up to the commitments they’ve made. Although some modification to the dispute-settlement rules may be in order, the United States has benefited disproportionately from WTO arbitration: According to the White House, the United States has won more than 85 percent of the cases it has initiated since 1995 (compared with China’s success rate of 67 percent). Notably, U.S. agricultural interests have been well served under the WTO dispute-settlement system, prevailing on major claims in a recent case involving Chinese subsidies for grain production.
Finally, Ambassador Lighthizer has also correctly noted that “the WTO provides the United States with a platform to export its views on trade policy.” If the United States were to abdicate its seat at the table, it would play directly into China’s hands. A spokesman for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) put it succinctly: “Withdrawing from the WTO would only leave a vacuum for China to fill and diminish America’s position of strength.” Moreover, if the United States were to depart from the 164 member-strong WTO, it would join the ranks of only 13 countries that are neither WTO members nor seekers of WTO membership, including North Korea and a handful of tiny countries like Turkmenistan, Eritrea, and Kiribati.
Past congressional attempts to abrogate U.S. membership in the WTO failed by wide margins, but Senator Hawley’s resolution should still be treated as live fire. The Hawley resolution, if adopted, won’t address the Senator’s legitimate grievances about Chinese trade malpractice or the dire economic straits currently faced by millions of Americans as a result of COVID-19. Instead, it will voluntarily shut the United States out of the world’s largest trade agreement and will be remembered as one of the greatest economic missteps in modern history.
* *
Correction: In an earlier version of this article, the $2.1 trillion figure cited above was wrongly described as the estimated annual benefit to the U.S. economy of the WTO, when it in fact is an estimate of the cumulative benefit to the U.S. economy across six decades of trade liberalization in general.


The Trumpian Doublethink

“ Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one ’ s mind simultaneously , and accepting both of them.
” So we are back to Orwell again .
On Monday , Donald Trump ’ s campaign took a break from his relentless attack on reality to announce the launch of a new “ investigative website ” that is called , without even a hint of irony , TheTruthOverFacts.com .
We shit you not .
And yet this wasn ’ t the craziest Trump moment of the day .
Because in the middle of his latest briefing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking hydroxychloroquine—an unproven drug that might actually kill vulnerable patients—and had been taking it for some time .
Here ’ s the tl ; dr on HCQ : Keep in mind that the supposed—but unproven—benefits of HCQ are as a therapeutic for people who have COVID-19 , not as a prophylactic to prevent you from contracting the virus .
Also keep in mind that it ’ s an open question as to whether or not the president of the United States is • Taking an unproven and unnecessary medication which the medical establishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of COVID-19 , or This clusterfork came two days after one of the president ’ s grown-ass sons , Eric , claimed that the novel coronavirus which has killed , officially , more than 90,000 Americans will “ magically vanish ” after the November 3 election , freeing the country to reopen .
Why will it vanish after November 3 ?
As Eric explained Fox ’ s Jeanine Pirro there is a “ cognizant strategy ” by Trump ’ s enemies to use COVID-19 to thwart his father ’ s ability to hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s glorious reelection , the Deep State Fake News Whatever will no longer need this phantom threat , so it will simply vanish .
“ You watch , they ’ ll milk it every single day between now and November 3 , ” Eric Trump said .
“ And guess what , after November 3 , coronavirus will magically , all of a sudden , go away and disappear and everybody will be able to reopen.
” At first blush , this is confusing and more than a little incoherent .
Eric ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 pandemic a “ horrible scourge , ” a “ horrible plague , ” and a “ matter of life and death.
” He holds briefings almost every day to talk about the pandemic .
So which is it ?
A plague ?
Or an anti-Trump hoax ?
Back in March , President Trump described the pandemic as “ probably the worst thing the country ’ s ever seen.
” “ We lose more here potentially than you lose in world wars as a country , ” he said in a rare moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that as the day people fell over one another to observe that Trump had finally turned a corner and adopted a “ presidential ” tone . )
“ I want every American to be prepared for the hard days that lie ahead .
We ’ re going through a very tough few weeks , ” he said , as he extended the federal guidelines for another 30 days—no groups larger than 10 people , no unnecessary travel , no going to restaurants or bars .
“ It ’ s a matter of life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president said then .
His son Eric now : No big deal .
Democrat scam .
Will vanish easily .
This isn ’ t your average “ Jumbo Shrimp ” oxymoron , it ’ s a fundamental contradiction—what philosophers might call a violation of the law of non-contradiction .
That law posits that “ opposite assertions can not be true at the same time ” or , more simply that the claims “ A is B ” and “ A is not B ” are mutually exclusive .
But defying this law has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is , after all , the president who declared of March 13 “ When somebody is the president of the United States , the authority is total .
And that ’ s the way it ’ s got to be .
It ’ s total.
” Of course , as Orwell wrote : war is peace ; freedom is slavery ; ignorance is strength .
So here we are .
TrumpWorld insists that we believe : • Trump saved America ; but he is not responsible for the deaths of 90,000 Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing that ever happened to America ; but it was an over hyped scam .
• It ’ s the Democrats ’ fault that we shut down the country ; but it was Trump who saved millions by shutting down the country .
This all suggests a number of things about Trump ’ s habits of mind .
But it also suggests what he thinks of his voters .
Every hustle relies on the existence of a sucker who wants to believe .
In that sense Trump is like the Iranian mullahs who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preaching in the countryside in Farsi , but another thing when they were in Tehran , or talking to foreign audiences in English .
One message for the world , another for the rubes .
The Trumps ’ multiple stories are yet another sign that they view their voters as marks .
In their defense : they may not be wrong .

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
—George Orwell, 1984
So we are back to Orwell again.
On Monday, Donald Trump’s campaign took a break from his relentless attack on reality to announce the launch of a new “investigative website” that is called, without even a hint of irony, TheTruthOverFacts.com.
We shit you not.
And yet this wasn’t the craziest Trump moment of the day. Because in the middle of his latest briefing, the president claimed that he was currently taking hydroxychloroquine—an unproven drug that might actually kill vulnerable patients—and had been taking it for some time. Here’s the tl;dr on HCQ:
Clinical trials, academic research and scientific analysis indicate that the danger of the drug is a significantly increased risk of death for certain patients, particularly those with heart problems. Trump dismissed those concerns, saying he has heard about the drug’s benefits from doctors and others he has spoken with.
Keep in mind that the supposed—but unproven—benefits of HCQ are as a therapeutic for people who have COVID-19, not as a prophylactic to prevent you from contracting the virus.
Also keep in mind that it’s an open question as to whether or not the president of the United States is
Taking an unproven and unnecessary medication which the medical establishment has warned is dangerous in the context of COVID-19, or Lying about taking this medication.
Satire despairs.
This clusterfork came two days after one of the president’s grown-ass sons, Eric, claimed that the novel coronavirus which has killed, officially, more than 90,000 Americans will “magically vanish” after the November 3 election, freeing the country to reopen.
Why will it vanish after November 3? As Eric explained Fox’s Jeanine Pirro there is a “cognizant strategy” by Trump’s enemies to use COVID-19 to thwart his father’s ability to hold his trademark rallies. After daddy’s glorious reelection, the Deep State Fake News Whatever will no longer need this phantom threat, so it will simply vanish.
“You watch, they’ll milk it every single day between now and November 3,” Eric Trump said. “And guess what, after November 3, coronavirus will magically, all of a sudden, go away and disappear and everybody will be able to reopen.”
At first blush, this is confusing and more than a little incoherent. Eric’s father—President Donald J. Trump—has called the COVID-19 pandemic a “horrible scourge,” a “horrible plague,” and a “matter of life and death.” He holds briefings almost every day to talk about the pandemic.
So which is it? A plague? Or an anti-Trump hoax?
Back in March, President Trump described the pandemic as “probably the worst thing the country’s ever seen.”
“We lose more here potentially than you lose in world wars as a country,” he said in a rare moment of solemnity. (You might remember that as the day people fell over one another to observe that Trump had finally turned a corner and adopted a “presidential” tone.)
“I want every American to be prepared for the hard days that lie ahead. We’re going through a very tough few weeks,” he said, as he extended the federal guidelines for another 30 days—no groups larger than 10 people, no unnecessary travel, no going to restaurants or bars.
“It’s a matter of life and death, frankly,” the president said then.
His son Eric now: No big deal. Democrat scam. Will vanish easily.
This isn’t your average “Jumbo Shrimp” oxymoron, it’s a fundamental contradiction—what philosophers might call a violation of the law of non-contradiction. That law posits that “opposite assertions cannot be true at the same time” or, more simply that the claims “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive.
But defying this law has been a defining feature of Trumpism.
This is, after all, the president who declared of March 13
“No, I don’t take responsibility at all.”
But on April 13 declared:
“When somebody is the president of the United States, the authority is total. And that’s the way it’s got to be. It’s total.”
Of course, as Orwell wrote: war is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength.
So here we are. TrumpWorld insists that we believe:
Trump saved America; but he is not responsible for the deaths of 90,000 Americans.
The pandemic was the worst thing that ever happened to America; but it was an over hyped scam.
It’s the Democrats’ fault that we shut down the country; but it was Trump who saved millions by shutting down the country.
This all suggests a number of things about Trump’s habits of mind. But it also suggests what he thinks of his voters. Every hustle relies on the existence of a sucker who wants to believe.
In that sense Trump is like the Iranian mullahs who would say one thing when they were preaching in the countryside in Farsi, but another thing when they were in Tehran, or talking to foreign audiences in English.
One message for the world, another for the rubes.
The Trumps’ multiple stories are yet another sign that they view their voters as marks.
In their defense: they may not be wrong.


thebulwark--2020-05-20--Is Holocaust Denial Conservative Now?

Is Holocaust Denial Conservative Now?

Among dozens of addled tweets from the commander-in-chief over the past few days , one in particular deserves pausing over , because it demonstrates not just his weak-mindedness , but also the way his leadership is sabotaging conservatism .
Trump retweeted an “ America First ” post featuring disgraced columnist Michelle Malkin complaining about conservatives being silenced on social media .
Trump has retweeted unsavory characters before , but in this case , he added an endorsement : “ The radical left is in total command & control of Facebook , Instagram , Twitter and Google .
The administration is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stay tuned , and send names & events .
Thank you Michelle !
” In the name of standing up for aggrieved conservatives , Trump soils the brand .
First , a detail .
The “ radical left ” is not in control of those outlets , and even if it were , they are private entities , and therefore perfectly free to make their own judgements about content .
There is nothing “ illegal ” about it .
If the administration were working to “ remedy ” the situation , that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has 19.7 million followers on Instagram , 26.7 million on Facebook , and 80 million on Twitter .
Perhaps what keeps him so popular is his audience ’ s inexhaustible appetite for whining .
The woman Trump thanked is a columnist and social media entrepreneur who was a respected member of the conservative commentariat – emphasis on the past tense .
Her books were published by Regnery , she was a featured speaker for the Young America ’ s Foundation and at CPAC , she was a regular on Fox & Friends – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two years though , she has been pretty well shunned by respectable conservative outlets , or what passes for such nowadays .
She is no longer welcome at CPAC .
The Young America ’ s Foundation has dropped her , and the Daily Wire and National Review discontinued her syndicated column .
The occasion for the deplatforming was Malkin ’ s swan dive into the right-wing fever swamps .
Who can say whether the rise of Trump emboldened her to consort with racists and Holocaust deniers ?
Something like those tendencies were in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she published a book titled In Defense of Internment : The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and The War on Terror .
That was a tell , but the real nutbaggery didn ’ t set in until about 2017 , when she endorsed alt-right candidate Paul Nehlen ( “ Paul Nehlen slams .
.
.
corporate open-borders elites !
” ) , and contributed to the VDARE website which frequently hosts white nationalists , racists , and anti-Semites .
Her most grotesque relationship though , and the one that got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Foundation , was with a group calling themselves “ groypers , ” led by a 21-year-old YouTube host named Nick Fuentes .
To get a sense of just how loathsome this figure is , have a look at this video in which he wonders , grinning , about whether 6 million “ cookies ” could really be baked in ovens and how the “ math doesn ’ t add up.
” Fuentes , you will not be shocked to learn , is one of the “ very fine people ” who marched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Right rally in Charlottesville .
Remember Pepe the Frog ?
He ’ s their mascot .
He described the mass murder in an El Paso Walmart as an “ act of desperation.
” Turning Point USA is too tame for his tastes , and his group has lately been heckling speakers like Ben Shapiro , Dan Crenshaw , and even Donald Trump , Jr .
In other words , if anything is beyond the pale for a civilized country , the “ groypers ” are it .
Yet Michelle Malkin has declared herself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called them “ good kids.
” When she was rebuked by mainstream conservatives , she declared her allegiances proudly : “ They ” did want that , or at least some mainstream conservatives were willing to draw a line ( the grosser MAGA-types like Mike Cernovich and Jim Hoft were not ) .
But now Trump has vitiated that work by praising Malkin .
The thing Trump retweeted was not actually a Malkin post , but a tweet of Malkin speaking to a Fuentes event .
“ America First Clips ” is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlets .
Naturally , Fuentes is gloating .
Trump defenders will no doubt protest that Trump knew nothing of Malkin ’ s descent into neo-Nazi land ; that he was merely endorsing her complaint about discrimination against conservative voices .
Or they may object that Trump was taken in by the title “ America First Clips , ” assuming that a group using his tagline must be okay .
But that ’ s no excuse at all .
In fact , Trump probably did not know much about those he praised , either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But he has a duty to know .
Yes , he ’ s an indolent ignoramus , but guess what , the taxpayers are paying for a huge staff .
He has people who can check .
He doesn ’ t use them because he doesn ’ t care .
His moral reasoning is primitive .
If you are pro-Trump , no matter what else you are ( a murderous dictator , a racist troll ) , you ’ re fine in his book .
A bunch of loutish protesters harass a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ fake news ” and the other one ) , and Trump proclaims them “ great people.
” He has no objective moral standards .
Everything is about him .
On a scale of moral reasoning , he is subzero .
But the world of conservative opinion shapers does still attempt , however weakly , to maintain some guard rails .
With every passing day of Donald Trump ’ s leadership , those standards crumble a bit more .
Correction : An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated Fuentes was 22 years @ @

Among dozens of addled tweets from the commander-in-chief over the past few days, one in particular deserves pausing over, because it demonstrates not just his weak-mindedness, but also the way his leadership is sabotaging conservatism.
Trump retweeted an “America First” post featuring disgraced columnist Michelle Malkin complaining about conservatives being silenced on social media. Trump has retweeted unsavory characters before, but in this case, he added an endorsement: “The radical left is in total command & control of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Google. The administration is working to remedy this illegal situation. Stay tuned, and send names & events. Thank you Michelle!”
In the name of standing up for aggrieved conservatives, Trump soils the brand. First, a detail. The “radical left” is not in control of those outlets, and even if it were, they are private entities, and therefore perfectly free to make their own judgements about content. There is nothing “illegal” about it. If the administration were working to “remedy” the situation, that would be illegal. Another detail: Trump has 19.7 million followers on Instagram, 26.7 million on Facebook, and 80 million on Twitter. Perhaps what keeps him so popular is his audience’s inexhaustible appetite for whining.
The woman Trump thanked is a columnist and social media entrepreneur who was a respected member of the conservative commentariat – emphasis on the past tense. Her books were published by Regnery, she was a featured speaker for the Young America’s Foundation and at CPAC, she was a regular on Fox & Friends – the full fandango. In the past two years though, she has been pretty well shunned by respectable conservative outlets, or what passes for such nowadays. She is no longer welcome at CPAC. The Young America’s Foundation has dropped her, and the Daily Wire and National Review discontinued her syndicated column.
The occasion for the deplatforming was Malkin’s swan dive into the right-wing fever swamps. Who can say whether the rise of Trump emboldened her to consort with racists and Holocaust deniers? Something like those tendencies were in evidence long ago. In 2004, she published a book titled In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and The War on Terror. That was a tell, but the real nutbaggery didn’t set in until about 2017, when she endorsed alt-right candidate Paul Nehlen (“Paul Nehlen slams . . . corporate open-borders elites!”), and contributed to the VDARE website which frequently hosts white nationalists, racists, and anti-Semites.
Her most grotesque relationship though, and the one that got her booted from the Young America’s Foundation, was with a group calling themselves “groypers,” led by a 21-year-old YouTube host named Nick Fuentes. To get a sense of just how loathsome this figure is, have a look at this video in which he wonders, grinning, about whether 6 million “cookies” could really be baked in ovens and how the “math doesn’t add up.”
Holocaust jokes. How droll.
Fuentes, you will not be shocked to learn, is one of the “very fine people” who marched with neo-Nazis at the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. Remember Pepe the Frog? He’s their mascot. He described the mass murder in an El Paso Walmart as an “act of desperation.” Turning Point USA is too tame for his tastes, and his group has lately been heckling speakers like Ben Shapiro, Dan Crenshaw, and even Donald Trump, Jr.
In other words, if anything is beyond the pale for a civilized country, the “groypers” are it. Yet Michelle Malkin has declared herself the “mother of groypers” and called them “good kids.” When she was rebuked by mainstream conservatives, she declared her allegiances proudly:
They want me to disavow Nick Fuentes and VDARE and Peter Brimelow and Faith Goldy and Gavin McInnes and the Proud Boys and Steve King and Laura Loomer and on and on. They want to do to me what they’ve done to brilliant academics who’ve told the truth — Amy Wax at the University of Pennsylvania and Darren Beattie and Jason Richwine and Steve Sailer.
“They” did want that, or at least some mainstream conservatives were willing to draw a line (the grosser MAGA-types like Mike Cernovich and Jim Hoft were not). But now Trump has vitiated that work by praising Malkin. The thing Trump retweeted was not actually a Malkin post, but a tweet of Malkin speaking to a Fuentes event. “America First Clips” is a feed for one of Fuentes’s outlets. Naturally, Fuentes is gloating.
Trump defenders will no doubt protest that Trump knew nothing of Malkin’s descent into neo-Nazi land; that he was merely endorsing her complaint about discrimination against conservative voices. Or they may object that Trump was taken in by the title “America First Clips,” assuming that a group using his tagline must be okay.
But that’s no excuse at all. In fact, Trump probably did not know much about those he praised, either Malkin or, by extension, Fuentes. But he has a duty to know. Yes, he’s an indolent ignoramus, but guess what, the taxpayers are paying for a huge staff. He has people who can check. He doesn’t use them because he doesn’t care. His moral reasoning is primitive. If you are pro-Trump, no matter what else you are (a murderous dictator, a racist troll), you’re fine in his book. A bunch of loutish protesters harass a TV journalist using the F words (“fake news” and the other one), and Trump proclaims them “great people.” He has no objective moral standards. Everything is about him. On a scale of moral reasoning, he is subzero.
But the world of conservative opinion shapers does still attempt, however weakly, to maintain some guard rails. With every passing day of Donald Trump’s leadership, those standards crumble a bit more.
Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated Fuentes was 22 years old.


Break Up Amazon

The coronavirus pandemic is diminishing or destroying countless American businesses—large and small .
Not Amazon , though .
Lockdown is its friend : Amazon is widely perceived as our national supply chain , and many people , stuck at home for weeks , understandably feel grateful to the company for its deliveries of vital supplies .
In reality , though , the pandemic is intensifying Amazon ’ s stranglehold on American life .
“ My nightmare scenario is an economic shock that leaves every Main Street firm without Wall Street connections , and every tech startup that is trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for cash and vulnerable to predatory acquisition , ” warns Senator Josh Hawley ( R-Missouri ) .
“ We can ’ t stand by and let Amazon , Facebook , Google , and all the rest gobble up all the innovators in our economy.
” But the problem is bigger yet .
We are selling our societal soul to an avaricious mega-corporation in exchange for cheap and easy home delivery .
More than 40 percent of all the money Americans spend online goes to Amazon .
That includes 40 percent of paper book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ audiobook sales , and about a third of the video streaming market .
Amazon ’ s sales platform is omnipresent : “ At any moment , ” Franklin Foer writes , “ its website has more than 600 million items for sale and more than 3 million vendors selling them.
” Roughly half of American households are enrolled in Amazon Prime .
It owns Whole Foods .
It owns Zappos , the shoe company .
It owns Twitch , the popular livestreaming service .
Behind the scenes , Amazon is one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ storage and computing power , services it sells to more than a million companies , including some that are its competitors in other domains , as well as to government agencies ( including the CIA ) .
Notes Charles Duhigg in the New Yorker : “ No other tech company does as many unrelated things , on such a scale , as Amazon.
” How did Amazon amass unparalleled economic leverage ?
By ruthlessly suffocating competition .
First , Amazon undercut competitors by offering consumers cheaper prices , even when it has meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result , as Robinson Meyer reports in the Atlantic , Second , Amazon used its massive sales platform to control , undercut , and compete with the millions of vendors who depend on it .
To sell their products on Amazon ’ s site , suppliers and retailers had to let Amazon collect valuable data on which products were becoming popular .
Amazon then used that data to undermine those companies .
As the New York Times reports , paraphrasing a criticism voiced by a coalition trying to force the company to reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make and sell goods , and then dictates the terms by which those competitors find their customers on Amazon ’ s platform and controls how they ship their wares to market.
” This licenses a multiplicity of abusive practices .
One victim is Birkenstock , the maker of the iconic sandals .
As Duhigg reports , the company found that Amazon was allowing third-party retailers to sell badly made counterfeit Birkenstock sandals at cut-rate prices , thereby harming Birkenstock ’ s brand and ability to set prices .
Not only did Amazon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it bought over a year ’ s supply of Birkenstock inventory to resell on its site—essentially allowing the web giant to take over the pricing and marketing of Birkenstock ’ s products .
When Birkenstock protested , Amazon ignored them .
After Birkenstock refused to do further business with it , Amazon went to Birkenstock ’ s authorized retailers to try to buy up their supplies .
Amazon also uses its vast market share to beat into submission the companies that want their products sold on its platform .
When the publisher Hachette @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for its books and ebooks , “ Amazon delayed shipments of Hachette books , ” writes Foer .
“ When consumers searched for some Hachette titles , it redirected them to similar books from other publishers.
” When Hachette published my novel Eden In Winter , Amazon did precisely that .
Further , Amazon itself uses data from retailers who sell on its site to clone their most successful products and then compete with them by undercutting prices .
The company “ has a track record of cloning products that succeed so it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” writes antitrust expert Tim Wu in Wired .
As Slate recently noted , “ the company is sophisticated enough in learning our habits to produce countless AmazonBasics knockoffs of popular products.
” Finally , Amazon has acquired over 90 business enterprises , including former competitors .
Despite this , Foer writes , Amazon has escaped scrutiny under the antitrust laws .
Amazon increases its economic power by amassing political power .
Between 2012 and 2019 , its expenditures on lobbying increased by 470 percent .
It manipulates the tax code : After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , it paid barely more than 1 percent in 2019—further swelling its coffers .
In 2018 , when Seattle passed a modest corporate tax to fund affordable housing and homeless shelters , Amazon bludgeoned its city council into repealing the tax ( although the author of the tax proposal promised recently to try again ) .
Amazon is now America ’ s second-largest employer .
But its abuse of employees is the human cost of home delivery .
Here ’ s Duhigg : For these workers , the cost of failure is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of crippling injuries .
One told Duhigg that he was “ expected to grab an item every eight seconds , and has seen co-workers injure their wrists , knees , shoulders , and backs by repeatedly kneeling , or by rushing up and down ladders .
‘ There ’ s a constant pressure to hit your numbers , ’ he said .
If you get four writeups within ninety days for falling below the expected productivity rate , you will be fired.
” Another employee told Frontline : “ The part they don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules that you have to ignore to make rate.
” The Atlantic reports an injury rate at fulfillment centers “ more than double the national average for the warehousing industry ” in 2018 .
Amazon ’ s increasing use of robots seems to worsen this : At one Amazon facility that has incorporated robots into the fulfillment process , the injury rate was more than triple the national average .
And those are just the injuries we know about ; according to former managers , Amazon has a practice of underreporting injuries .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppressing unionization—and by employing lawyers who specialize in union-busting .
In 2000 , Amazon shut down a call center whose workers were attempting to organize .
In 2014 , Duhigg reports , an Amazon manager thwarted another unionization effort by giving an “ emotional speech about his youth : after his father had died , steps from his front door , the union had offered no support.
” It was all a lie : The manager ’ s father had really been “ a partner at an insurance agency , not a union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on vacation in South Carolina.
” In 2017 , when Amazon bought Whole Foods , store managers received a video explaining how to discourage unionization .
For a quarter-century , Amazon ’ s anti-unionization tactics have succeeded .
Little wonder that the company feels free to illegally obstruct employees from reporting injuries .
This past January , Slate surveyed industry experts to rate the thirty most dangerous tech companies .
Amazon earned the worst ranking .
In addition to remarking on the conditions in the company ’ s warehouses , Slate noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mile ’ shipping operation has led to burnout , injuries and deaths.
” Moreover , Amazon ’ s willingness to sell phony , imitation products is not simply dishonest—it ’ s dangerous .
Notes Duhigg : “ A recent investigation by the Wall Street Journal identified thousands of products for sale on Amazon that ‘ have been declared unsafe by federal agencies , are deceptively labeled or are banned by figure regulators , ’ including children ’ s toys containing dangerous levels of lead .
Many of these products were shipped from Amazon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , other businesses are adopting its practices .
“ The company has pointed out that it still has a smaller share of total retail than Walmart , ” notes Slate .
“ But Walmart is becoming more and more like Amazon .
And so is the entire economy.
” That ’ s profoundly undesirable .
As Wu told Duhigg : “ If you ’ re a consumer , it ’ s perfect for maximizing the efficiency of finding what you want and getting it as cheap and fast as possible .
But , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t just consumers.
” COVID-19 only deepens Amazon ’ s dominance .
Politico reports that perhaps 100,000 retail outlets are likely to close within five years , according to one analysis .
J.C. Penney announced this week that it will be closing nearly 30 percent of its stores .
The company that owns The Gap , Old Navy , and Banana Republic has warned that it may have to start closing locations , too .
Meanwhile , Amazon claims to be doing God ’ s work during the pandemic .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has slowed delivery times for many of the third-party sellers it prodded to use its platform , jeopardizing their survival .
As they founder , Amazon ’ s sales explode .
As other stocks plummet , Amazon ’ s soars—even as it puts workers at greater risk .
By mid-April , the Washington Post reported , the coronavirus had infected workers in at least 74 Amazon warehouses and delivery facilities .
( The New York Times yesterday reported on the conditions in the Amazon warehouse apparently with the biggest outbreak in April @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come by . )
Faced with employee protests over working conditions which enhanced the dangers of COVID-19 , Amazon fired protest organizers—some for supposedly “ violating internal policies.
” Another protester , Christian Smalls , previously involved in union-organizing activities , was terminated in late March , supposedly for “ putting the health and safety of others at risk.
” But notes obtained by Vice News showed Amazon ’ s general counsel discussing how Smalls could be portrayed as “ not smart or articulate ” to discredit the organizing movement .
Amazon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ catch-22 : risk your health or lose your job .
A top Amazon executive quit to protest these firings , calling them “ evidence of a vein of toxicity running through the company culture.
” Of the embattled workers , he rightly said : “ Any plausible solution has to start with increasing their collective strength.
” How would a decent government help to accomplish this ?
To start , by protecting the right to unionize and unleashing OSHA to scour Amazon workplaces .
But the broader problem is regulatory myopia .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exchange for lower prices .
The antitrust laws were originally about more than preventing price-fixing .
They were also meant to ensure competition , encourage innovation , and prevent mammoth business enterprises from becoming all-powerful—thereby preserving democracy .
But in recent decades , some legal theorists argued that the chief legitimate concern of antitrust enforcement is assuring low prices for consumers .
Indeed , in a 2004 Supreme Court opinion , Justice Antonin Scalia asserted that “ the mere possession of monopoly power , and the concomitant charging of monopoly prices , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an important element of the free-market system.
” This monopoly-friendly ideology gives Amazon its free rein .
It is time that we restore antitrust law to its original and salutary purposes .
First , we should bar Amazon from further dominating commerce through predatory abuses of its sales platform , including using third-party suppliers ’ data to compete with them and even to produce Amazon ’ s own “ cloned ” versions of their products .
Second , Amazon should be barred from predatory pricing practices—such as selling products at a loss—intended to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be empowered to scrutinize Amazon ’ s corporate acquisitions—past and present—and unwind those deemed anticompetitive .
Fourth , our tax laws must be strengthened to prevent Amazon from dodging taxes .
Finally , the government should prevent Amazon from making or allowing the sale of knockoffs that are unsafe or defective , or that infringe on intellectual property .
None of this would prevent Amazon from delivering our groceries , books , or toilet paper .
It would simply diminish its erosion of America ’ s common decency—and our collective infantilization .

The coronavirus pandemic is diminishing or destroying countless American businesses—large and small. Not Amazon, though.
Lockdown is its friend: Amazon is widely perceived as our national supply chain, and many people, stuck at home for weeks, understandably feel grateful to the company for its deliveries of vital supplies. In reality, though, the pandemic is intensifying Amazon’s stranglehold on American life.
“My nightmare scenario is an economic shock that leaves every Main Street firm without Wall Street connections, and every tech startup that is trying to compete with the big guys, starved for cash and vulnerable to predatory acquisition,” warns Senator Josh Hawley (R-Missouri). “We can’t stand by and let Amazon, Facebook, Google, and all the rest gobble up all the innovators in our economy.”
But the problem is bigger yet. We are selling our societal soul to an avaricious mega-corporation in exchange for cheap and easy home delivery. More than 40 percent of all the money Americans spend online goes to Amazon. That includes 40 percent of paper book sales and 90 percent of ebook and audiobook sales, and about a third of the video streaming market.
Amazon’s sales platform is omnipresent: “At any moment,” Franklin Foer writes, “its website has more than 600 million items for sale and more than 3 million vendors selling them.” Roughly half of American households are enrolled in Amazon Prime.
It owns Whole Foods. It owns Zappos, the shoe company. It owns Twitch, the popular livestreaming service.
Behind the scenes, Amazon is one of the world’s largest providers of cloud storage and computing power, services it sells to more than a million companies, including some that are its competitors in other domains, as well as to government agencies (including the CIA).
Notes Charles Duhigg in the New Yorker: “No other tech company does as many unrelated things, on such a scale, as Amazon.”
How did Amazon amass unparalleled economic leverage? By ruthlessly suffocating competition.
First, Amazon undercut competitors by offering consumers cheaper prices, even when it has meant operating at a loss. As a result, as Robinson Meyer reports in the Atlantic,
Amazon has grown so large that it can undercut other companies just by announcing that it will soon compete with them. When Amazon purchased Whole Foods, its market cap rose by $15.6 billion—some $2 billion more than it paid for the chain. Meanwhile, the rest of the grocery industry immediately lost $37 billion in market value.
Second, Amazon used its massive sales platform to control, undercut, and compete with the millions of vendors who depend on it. To sell their products on Amazon’s site, suppliers and retailers had to let Amazon collect valuable data on which products were becoming popular. Amazon then used that data to undermine those companies. As the New York Times reports, paraphrasing a criticism voiced by a coalition trying to force the company to reform, “Amazon competes with other companies to make and sell goods, and then dictates the terms by which those competitors find their customers on Amazon’s platform and controls how they ship their wares to market.”
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
This licenses a multiplicity of abusive practices. One victim is Birkenstock, the maker of the iconic sandals. As Duhigg reports, the company found that Amazon was allowing third-party retailers to sell badly made counterfeit Birkenstock sandals at cut-rate prices, thereby harming Birkenstock’s brand and ability to set prices. Not only did Amazon refuse to police this fraud, but it bought over a year’s supply of Birkenstock inventory to resell on its site—essentially allowing the web giant to take over the pricing and marketing of Birkenstock’s products. When Birkenstock protested, Amazon ignored them. After Birkenstock refused to do further business with it, Amazon went to Birkenstock’s authorized retailers to try to buy up their supplies.
Amazon also uses its vast market share to beat into submission the companies that want their products sold on its platform. When the publisher Hachette complained about the prices Amazon was charging for its books and ebooks, “Amazon delayed shipments of Hachette books,” writes Foer. “When consumers searched for some Hachette titles, it redirected them to similar books from other publishers.” When Hachette published my novel Eden In Winter, Amazon did precisely that.
Further, Amazon itself uses data from retailers who sell on its site to clone their most successful products and then compete with them by undercutting prices. The company “has a track record of cloning products that succeed so it can help itself to the margins,” writes antitrust expert Tim Wu in Wired. As Slate recently noted, “the company is sophisticated enough in learning our habits to produce countless AmazonBasics knockoffs of popular products.”
Finally, Amazon has acquired over 90 business enterprises, including former competitors. Despite this, Foer writes, Amazon has escaped scrutiny under the antitrust laws.
Amazon increases its economic power by amassing political power. Between 2012 and 2019, its expenditures on lobbying increased by 470 percent. It manipulates the tax code: After paying no federal tax in 2017 or 2018, it paid barely more than 1 percent in 2019—further swelling its coffers. In 2018, when Seattle passed a modest corporate tax to fund affordable housing and homeless shelters, Amazon bludgeoned its city council into repealing the tax (although the author of the tax proposal promised recently to try again).
Amazon is now America’s second-largest employer. But its abuse of employees is the human cost of home delivery. Here’s Duhigg:
More than a hundred thousand people work at Amazon’s fulfillment centers, and nearly everything they do is digitally tracked and evaluated, meaning that if someone falls behind—even for just a few minutes—it can be grounds for reprimand. Many employees carry handheld scanners that deliver a constant stream of instructions, such as a countdown clock detailing how many seconds remain until the next item must be plucked from a shelf. Workers can walk more than fifteen miles a day, and their breaks, including trips to the bathroom, are brief and closely measured.
For these workers, the cost of failure is termination; of success, the prospect of crippling injuries. One told Duhigg that he was “expected to grab an item every eight seconds, and has seen co-workers injure their wrists, knees, shoulders, and backs by repeatedly kneeling, or by rushing up and down ladders. ‘There’s a constant pressure to hit your numbers,’ he said. If you get four writeups within ninety days for falling below the expected productivity rate, you will be fired.” Another employee told Frontline: “The part they don’t talk about is the safety rules that you have to ignore to make rate.”
The Atlantic reports an injury rate at fulfillment centers “more than double the national average for the warehousing industry” in 2018. Amazon’s increasing use of robots seems to worsen this: At one Amazon facility that has incorporated robots into the fulfillment process, the injury rate was more than triple the national average. And those are just the injuries we know about; according to former managers, Amazon has a practice of underreporting injuries.
Amazon sustains its mechanized netherworld by ferociously suppressing unionization—and by employing lawyers who specialize in union-busting. In 2000, Amazon shut down a call center whose workers were attempting to organize. In 2014, Duhigg reports, an Amazon manager thwarted another unionization effort by giving an “emotional speech about his youth: after his father had died, steps from his front door, the union had offered no support.” It was all a lie: The manager’s father had really been “a partner at an insurance agency, not a union member, and had died while jogging, on vacation in South Carolina.” In 2017, when Amazon bought Whole Foods, store managers received a video explaining how to discourage unionization.
For a quarter-century, Amazon’s anti-unionization tactics have succeeded. Little wonder that the company feels free to illegally obstruct employees from reporting injuries.
This past January, Slate surveyed industry experts to rate the thirty most dangerous tech companies. Amazon earned the worst ranking. In addition to remarking on the conditions in the company’s warehouses, Slate noted that Amazon’s “‘last mile’ shipping operation has led to burnout, injuries and deaths.”
Moreover, Amazon’s willingness to sell phony, imitation products is not simply dishonest—it’s dangerous. Notes Duhigg: “A recent investigation by the Wall Street Journal identified thousands of products for sale on Amazon that ‘have been declared unsafe by federal agencies, are deceptively labeled or are banned by figure regulators,’ including children’s toys containing dangerous levels of lead. Many of these products were shipped from Amazon warehouses.”
To stay competitive with Amazon, other businesses are adopting its practices. “The company has pointed out that it still has a smaller share of total retail than Walmart,” notes Slate. “But Walmart is becoming more and more like Amazon. And so is the entire economy.”
That’s profoundly undesirable. As Wu told Duhigg: “If you’re a consumer, it’s perfect for maximizing the efficiency of finding what you want and getting it as cheap and fast as possible. But, the thing is, most of us aren’t just consumers.”
Indeed. Writes Foer:
As Trump runs down the country, [Amazon CEO Jeff] Bezos builds things that function as promised. Yet the erosion of democracy comes in different forms. Untrammeled private power might not seem the biggest threat when public power takes such abusive form. But the country needs to . . . consider the longer sweep of history before permitting so much responsibility to pool in one man, who, without ever receiving a vote, assumes roles once reserved for the state.
COVID-19 only deepens Amazon’s dominance. Politico reports that perhaps 100,000 retail outlets are likely to close within five years, according to one analysis. J.C. Penney announced this week that it will be closing nearly 30 percent of its stores. The company that owns The Gap, Old Navy, and Banana Republic has warned that it may have to start closing locations, too.
Meanwhile, Amazon claims to be doing God’s work during the pandemic. But by prioritizing groceries and sanitation supplies, it has slowed delivery times for many of the third-party sellers it prodded to use its platform, jeopardizing their survival.
As they founder, Amazon’s sales explode. As other stocks plummet, Amazon’s soars—even as it puts workers at greater risk. By mid-April, the Washington Post reported, the coronavirus had infected workers in at least 74 Amazon warehouses and delivery facilities. (The New York Times yesterday reported on the conditions in the Amazon warehouse apparently with the biggest outbreak in April, although the actual figures are hard to come by.) Faced with employee protests over working conditions which enhanced the dangers of COVID-19, Amazon fired protest organizers—some for supposedly “violating internal policies.”
Another protester, Christian Smalls, previously involved in union-organizing activities, was terminated in late March, supposedly for “putting the health and safety of others at risk.” But notes obtained by Vice News showed Amazon’s general counsel discussing how Smalls could be portrayed as “not smart or articulate” to discredit the organizing movement. Amazon represents perfectly the pandemic’s Hobbesian catch-22: risk your health or lose your job.
A top Amazon executive quit to protest these firings, calling them “evidence of a vein of toxicity running through the company culture.” Of the embattled workers, he rightly said: “Any plausible solution has to start with increasing their collective strength.”
How would a decent government help to accomplish this? To start, by protecting the right to unionize and unleashing OSHA to scour Amazon workplaces.
But the broader problem is regulatory myopia. We license Amazon’s corporate sociopathy in exchange for lower prices.
The antitrust laws were originally about more than preventing price-fixing. They were also meant to ensure competition, encourage innovation, and prevent mammoth business enterprises from becoming all-powerful—thereby preserving democracy.
But in recent decades, some legal theorists argued that the chief legitimate concern of antitrust enforcement is assuring low prices for consumers. Indeed, in a 2004 Supreme Court opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia asserted that “the mere possession of monopoly power, and the concomitant charging of monopoly prices, is not only not unlawful; it is an important element of the free-market system.” This monopoly-friendly ideology gives Amazon its free rein.
It is time that we restore antitrust law to its original and salutary purposes.
First, we should bar Amazon from further dominating commerce through predatory abuses of its sales platform, including using third-party suppliers’ data to compete with them and even to produce Amazon’s own “cloned” versions of their products.
Second, Amazon should be barred from predatory pricing practices—such as selling products at a loss—intended to destroy competitors.
Third, federal regulators should be empowered to scrutinize Amazon’s corporate acquisitions—past and present—and unwind those deemed anticompetitive.
Fourth, our tax laws must be strengthened to prevent Amazon from dodging taxes.
Finally, the government should prevent Amazon from making or allowing the sale of knockoffs that are unsafe or defective, or that infringe on intellectual property.
None of this would prevent Amazon from delivering our groceries, books, or toilet paper. It would simply diminish its erosion of America’s common decency—and our collective infantilization.


thebulwark--2020-05-20--The Strange Case of Ron Johnson

The Strange Case of Ron Johnson

I go way back with Ron Johnson .
A mutual friend introduced us in early 2010 , when I was still a radio host in Wisconsin .
Democratic senator Russ Feingold was cruising to re-election , in large measure because the GOP simply had no strong candidates to run against the three-term incumbent .
But , my friend said , there was this guy from Oshkosh I should meet .
More out of politeness than anything else , I met Johnson .
As way of introduction , he pulled out a typescript of a speech that he had been giving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was pretty good .
I ’ ll let Peggy Noonan tell the rest of the story : As progressives on social media will be sure to note , we were a thing .
And not everyone was thrilled .
In a detailed account of Johnson ’ s improbable upset victory , Christian Schneider ( now a Bulwark contributor ) told this funny story : So Johnson and I both have a lot of baggage .
What I liked about Johnson was his crusty , no-BS independence ; and I imagined that he could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin ’ s legendary Bill Proxmire , whose seat he now held .
( I ’ m biased here because my father was Proxmire ’ s biographer . )
The Ron Johnson I knew was unawed by the Senate and unimpressed by its establishment .
He was certainly no fan of Mitch McConnell .
And vice versa .
In 2016 , Johnson ran for reelection and he faced off for a rematch against Feingold .
He trailed in the polls for much of the race and McConnell ( and other institutional Republicans ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson defied Wisconsin political history and DC Republican naysayers and won .
And he didn ’ t just win : He got more votes than anyone on the Wisconsin ballot , including the Republican presidential candidate .
He was poised to be very much his own man .
Instead , he became Trump ’ s .
Over the last three years , Johnson has emerged as one of the president ’ s most ardent supporters , not just on policy grounds but in his zeal to push many of Trump ’ s pet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , Johnson demanded the declassification of a memo from former national security advisor Susan Rice that Trump World imagined was at the center of “ Obamagate.
” ( It turned out to be a dud . )
This was not the first time .
Last October , Johnson inadvertently told the Wall Street Journal that had been concerned about Trump ’ s Ukraine dealings .
This slip mortified him so that he made a memorable appearance on Meet the Press to walk it back .
Asked over and over why he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson bobbed and weaved until Chuck Todd was reduced to existential despair .
“ Answer the question that I asked you instead of trying to make Donald Trump feel better here that you ’ re not criticizing him , ” Todd finally begged .
Johnson refused and instead brought up yet another Trump-centric conspiracy theory about the FBI .
In his spare time Johnson has also continued to push the Burisma-Biden investigation angle .
This week , in the midst of a pandemic , Johnson ’ s committee will vote to issue subpoenas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas company Burisma Holdings when Hunter Biden was on its board .
But his most recent ( and puzzling ) about-face has come on the question of inspectors general .
Once upon a time , Johnson was one of the most passionate champions of the inspectors general and their role in the federal government .
In 2015 , as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee he pushed for legislation that would strengthen and protect the IGs as they rooted out incompetence and malfeasance .
But this week , as Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IGs , Johnson has been an outspoken presidential ally .
During a Sunday appearance on CNN , he was asked about the purge , including Trump ’ s decision to fire the State Department ’ s inspector general at the urging of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo .
The IG , Steve A. Linick , had reportedly been investigating allegations of misconduct by Pompeo before he was sacked .
“ I ’ m not crying big crocodile tears over this termination , ” Johnson told Jake Tapper .
“ Let ’ s put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t he argued in the past that in the inspectors general should be independent , he was asked ?
Johnson replied : In other words , the inspectors general should be independent of some parts of the federal government .
Just so long as they ’ re not independent of Trump .
The Washington Post ’ s Aaron Blake has highlighted what looked like hypocrisy on Johnson ’ s part .
Back in 2015 , when Barack Obama was president , Blake notes , Johnson had “ hailed the importance of independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama administration.
” Indeed , back then , Johnson was singularly focused on the question of protecting the IGs from political interference .
Unless the IGs were permanent appointees , he warned , “ they are at greater risk of compromising their work to appease the agency or the president.
” His committee ’ s report on the issue , which was written at Johnson ’ request , declared that the president ’ s power to fire an inspector general “ threatens the IG ’ s independence at a very basic level.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had “ attempted to temper this power by adding procedural safeguards meant to protect IGs from being removed for political or other nefarious reasons.
” [ Emphasis added , again . ]
The Inspector General Empowerment Act , which had been backed by Johnson , was specifically aimed to address that problem .
Notably though , it kept presidential power to fire IG ’ s intact .
Which brings us to Trump ’ s rolling Friday massacres .
There has been some modest pushback from GOP senators , including Senators Charles Grassley , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thune , who asked the administration to obey the law by offering an explanation for the recent IG terminations .
Last month after earlier firings , Senator Rob Portman and James Lankford wrote a letter to Trump asking him ‘ to work with IGs , not against them.
” But , as Politico notes , “ so far , the handful of Republicans who have expressed unease with President Donald Trump ’ s firing of a federal watchdog have shown no signs that they ’ re willing to deploy hard-line tactics to hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ they could draw up legislation to protect IGs , hold up nominees until they get adequate answers or launch hearings and probes to get to the bottom of it.
” But at least those senators registered protest .
Not Johnson .
The man who was so worried about politicization of the IGs under Obama has not even offered pro-forma objections to the defenestration of the watchdogs that he used to champion .
Even as Trump makes a joke of the independence of the inspectors general , Johnson remains one of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this week he signaled just how far he is prepared to go to accommodate himself to the president ’ s agenda .
What happened to Ron Johnson ?
On one level , his story is not all that much different from the rest of the GOP , which has transformed itself into Trumpist camp followers .
But I thought Ronjon would be different .

I go way back with Ron Johnson.
A mutual friend introduced us in early 2010, when I was still a radio host in Wisconsin. Democratic senator Russ Feingold was cruising to re-election, in large measure because the GOP simply had no strong candidates to run against the three-term incumbent.
But, my friend said, there was this guy from Oshkosh I should meet. More out of politeness than anything else, I met Johnson. As way of introduction, he pulled out a typescript of a speech that he had been giving at Republican events. I thought it was pretty good.
I’ll let Peggy Noonan tell the rest of the story:
A conservative radio host named Charlie Sykes got hold of a speech Mr. Johnson gave at a Lincoln Day dinner in Oshkosh. He liked it and read it aloud on his show for 20 minutes. A speech! The audience listened and loved it. A man called in and said, “Yes, yes, yes!” Another said, “I have to agree with everything that guy said.” Mr. Johnson decided to run because of that reaction, and in November he won. This week he said, “The reason I’m a U.S. senator is because Charlie Sykes did that.”
As progressives on social media will be sure to note, we were a thing. And not everyone was thrilled. In a detailed account of Johnson’s improbable upset victory, Christian Schneider (now a Bulwark contributor) told this funny story:
On this campaign swing, Johnson’s favorite trick was quoting verbatim entire glowing passages of what Milwaukee radio talk show host Charlie Sykes had said about him, despite nobody in Western Wisconsin knowing who Charlie Sykes was. Staff noticed peoples’ eyes glazing over when he began his typical Sykes spiel.
So Johnson and I both have a lot of baggage.
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…
What I liked about Johnson was his crusty, no-BS independence; and I imagined that he could be a senator in the mold of Wisconsin’s legendary Bill Proxmire, whose seat he now held. (I’m biased here because my father was Proxmire’s biographer.)
The Ron Johnson I knew was unawed by the Senate and unimpressed by its establishment. He was certainly no fan of Mitch McConnell. And vice versa. In 2016, Johnson ran for reelection and he faced off for a rematch against Feingold. He trailed in the polls for much of the race and McConnell (and other institutional Republicans) left him for dead.
Instead, Johnson defied Wisconsin political history and DC Republican naysayers and won. And he didn’t just win: He got more votes than anyone on the Wisconsin ballot, including the Republican presidential candidate. He was poised to be very much his own man.
Instead, he became Trump’s.
Over the last three years, Johnson has emerged as one of the president’s most ardent supporters, not just on policy grounds but in his zeal to push many of Trump’s pet obsessions and conspiracy theories. Just this week, Johnson demanded the declassification of a memo from former national security advisor Susan Rice that Trump World imagined was at the center of “Obamagate.” (It turned out to be a dud.)
This was not the first time. Last October, Johnson inadvertently told the Wall Street Journal that had been concerned about Trump’s Ukraine dealings. This slip mortified him so that he made a memorable appearance on Meet the Press to walk it back. Asked over and over why he had been concerned about Trump and Ukraine, Johnson bobbed and weaved until Chuck Todd was reduced to existential despair. “Answer the question that I asked you instead of trying to make Donald Trump feel better here that you’re not criticizing him,” Todd finally begged.
Johnson refused and instead brought up yet another Trump-centric conspiracy theory about the FBI.
In his spare time Johnson has also continued to push the Burisma-Biden investigation angle. This week, in the midst of a pandemic, Johnson’s committee will vote to issue subpoenas in the investigation of the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings when Hunter Biden was on its board.
But his most recent (and puzzling) about-face has come on the question of inspectors general. Once upon a time, Johnson was one of the most passionate champions of the inspectors general and their role in the federal government.
In 2015, as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee he pushed for legislation that would strengthen and protect the IGs as they rooted out incompetence and malfeasance.
But this week, as Trump continued to dismantle the infrastructure of the IGs, Johnson has been an outspoken presidential ally. During a Sunday appearance on CNN, he was asked about the purge, including Trump’s decision to fire the State Department’s inspector general at the urging of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The IG, Steve A. Linick, had reportedly been investigating allegations of misconduct by Pompeo before he was sacked.
“I’m not crying big crocodile tears over this termination,” Johnson told Jake Tapper. “Let’s put it that way,”
But hadn’t he argued in the past that in the inspectors general should be independent, he was asked? Johnson replied:
I take a slightly different view in terms of what [inspectors general] should be independent from. They need to retain their independence within the agencies, so they can do inspections and investigations and provide that to their leadership, but primarily to the president. And so they serve at the president’s will.” [Emphasis added.]
In other words, the inspectors general should be independent of some parts of the federal government. Just so long as they’re not independent of Trump.
The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake has highlighted what looked like hypocrisy on Johnson’s part. Back in 2015, when Barack Obama was president, Blake notes, Johnson had “hailed the importance of independent inspectors general not being stifled by the Obama administration.”
“It’s just incredibly important to have permanent inspectors general that are completely independent that will provide Congress and the American public transparency and that watchdog assignment—that responsibility for departments and agencies—so that we have awareness of what’s happening,” Johnson said at a hearing on inspectors general that he chaired in 2015. “It’s the only way we’re going to be able to improve the efficiency, the effectiveness, the accountability of government is to have that type of transparency.” At another point in the hearing, Johnson decried the act of “retaliating against people that were issuing reports” that their superiors didn’t like.
Indeed, back then, Johnson was singularly focused on the question of protecting the IGs from political interference. Unless the IGs were permanent appointees, he warned, “they are at greater risk of compromising their work to appease the agency or the president.”
His committee’s report on the issue, which was written at Johnson’ request, declared that the president’s power to fire an inspector general “threatens the IG’s independence at a very basic level.” It noted that the original IG Act had “attempted to temper this power by adding procedural safeguards meant to protect IGs from being removed for political or other nefarious reasons.” [Emphasis added, again.]
The Inspector General Empowerment Act, which had been backed by Johnson, was specifically aimed to address that problem. Notably though, it kept presidential power to fire IG’s intact.
Which brings us to Trump’s rolling Friday massacres.
There has been some modest pushback from GOP senators, including Senators Charles Grassley, Mitt Romney, Susan Collins and John Thune, who asked the administration to obey the law by offering an explanation for the recent IG terminations. Last month after earlier firings, Senator Rob Portman and James Lankford wrote a letter to Trump asking him ‘to work with IGs, not against them.”
But, as Politico notes, “so far, the handful of Republicans who have expressed unease with President Donald Trump’s firing of a federal watchdog have shown no signs that they’re willing to deploy hard-line tactics to hold him accountable.”
If critics were serious, “they could draw up legislation to protect IGs, hold up nominees until they get adequate answers or launch hearings and probes to get to the bottom of it.”
Spoiler alert: They won’t.
But at least those senators registered protest.
Not Johnson. The man who was so worried about politicization of the IGs under Obama has not even offered pro-forma objections to the defenestration of the watchdogs that he used to champion.
Even as Trump makes a joke of the independence of the inspectors general, Johnson remains one of Trump’s most eager lieutenants. And this week he signaled just how far he is prepared to go to accommodate himself to the president’s agenda.
What happened to Ron Johnson? On one level, his story is not all that much different from the rest of the GOP, which has transformed itself into Trumpist camp followers.
But I thought Ronjon would be different.