thebulwark--2020-07-15--Bari Weiss Was Too Honest for the New York Times

Bari Weiss brought keen intelligence and broadminded liberalism to the editorial pages of the New York Times .
So naturally , she had to go .
Liberalism—by which I mean a commitment to open inquiry—is fast disappearing from American life .
The right will cackle that this proves how dangerous the left is .
They ’ re not totally wrong , but they need to look in the mirror .
Many Twitter denizens first became aware of former New York Times writer and editor Bari Weiss , who resigned on July 14 , when she was dragged for tweeting about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Olympics , in February of 2018 .
An American skater named Mirai Nagasu became the first female American to land a triple axel at the Olympics .
Weiss tweeted an image of her whirling body and jauntily retweeted an NBC Sports tweet : “ ‘ HOLY COW !
’ You just witnessed a historic triple axel from Mirai Nagasu .
# WinterOlympics.
” Weiss added a line from Hamilton , the musical , “ Immigrants : They get the job done.
” Landmine .
Her colleagues at the Times were outraged .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an immigrant herself but is the daughter of two immigrants from Japan .
When someone responded with “ she was born in California , ” Weiss tweeted “ Yes , yes , I realize .
Felt the poetic license was kosher.
” It wasn ’ t .
At least not according to the many indignant Times staffers who aired their dissatisfaction on the paper ’ s Slack channel .
Weiss was labeled a racist for “ othering ” Nagasu .
A leaked transcript of the Slack conversation featured complaints that Weiss was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One wrote , “ i guess it ’ s too much to even expect a ‘ we ’ re sorry you ’ re offended ’ apology since asians don ’ t matter.
” They nitpicked at her because , in a follow-up tweet , she had misquoted herself quoting Hamilton , rendering the line as “ Immigrants : We get the job done !
” instead of “ they get the job done ” as the original tweet was worded .
Sheesh .
The person who said “ asians don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but I felt that tweet denied Mirai her full citizenship just as the internment did .
and nothing will be done because no one was offended !
( since we don ’ t count ) ” To which the only proper response is : Get a grip !
Weiss was obviously celebrating Nagasu , cheering her on , and taking pride in immigrants ’ contributions to America .
The lyric from Hamilton , originally sung by the Hamilton and Lafayette characters in a scene about the Battle of Yorktown for God ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a music video about immigrants .
Shortly after Trump ’ s election , Hamilton creator Lin-Manuel Miranda explained that “ This election cycle has brought xenophobia and vilification of immigrants back to the forefront of US politics .
This is a musical counterweight.
” The title of the video was “ Immigrants : We Get the Job Done.
” But , sure , let ’ s pretend that Weiss was “ othering.
” Bari Weiss might seem an unlikely target of wrath .
She left the Wall Street Journal editorial page in protest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The editorial section of the Journal ( unlike the news pages ) leans right , so her tenure there may have engendered suspicion on the part of her new colleagues at the Times .
Maybe they were expecting Ghengis Khan .
But a little due diligence , to say nothing of good faith , would have shown the skeptics that Weiss is a firm centrist .
One of her early pieces for the Times traced the ( limp ) response of many conservative-leaning think tanks to the Trump phenomenon .
“ Will the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2017 as easily as they captured the Republican Party in 2016 ?
” she asked , in a piece titled “ The Trump Debate Inside Conservative Citadels.
” She also contributed a deeply researched piece on the Women ’ s March that took aim at figures like Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory , citing their fondness for Fidel Castro and Louis Farrakhan .
There was a time when the Grey Lady was hospitable to takedowns of far leftists , but that piece earned her bitter enemies both inside and outside the paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement , Weiss demonstrated balance and perspective .
Neither a traditional conservative like me , nor a woke activist like Alyssa Milano , she sounded a note of caution .
Recognizing that the phrase “ believe all women ” was empowering , she nonetheless worried about it being abused : Three years later , when Tara Reade demanded uncritical trust , many feminists found new wisdom in Weiss ’ s hesitancy .
Weiss ’ s Twitter feed is characterized by concern for human rights—there are many references to the Uighurs , Hong Kong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows a particular sensitivity , unsurprisingly , to cancel culture .
She is a passionate , but hardly mindless , supporter of Israel .
She ’ s been critical of the Israeli government on a number of occasions , as for example , when it moved to deny visas to Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota because of their support for BDS , and she ’ s been openly hoping for Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu ’ s electoral defeat .
In her resignation letter , Weiss denounced the Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face of leftwing pressure emanating from Twitter .
“ Twitter is not on the masthead of the New York Times .
But Twitter has become its ultimate editor , ” she wrote .
The story of Bari Weiss ’ s tense parting with the Times will doubtless provide several days ’ worth of fodder for the right .
Weiss will become , for a while , a right-wing pin-up—symbol of the dangerous cancel culture that Democrats want to impose on the whole nation .
Andrew Sullivan announced on the same day that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the heels of other prominent departures from progressive standard bearers , the scent of purges is in the air .
But the right has no credibility on this .
If the left is woke , the right is bespoke—it has become tailored around one person .
Look at conservative publications and search for Trump critics .
They are thin on the ground .
National Review parted ways with David French and Jonah Goldberg .
The Wall Street Journal lost Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss .
Fox News staffed up with fulsome Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s services .
This narrowing of the American mind is making everyone dumber and nastier .
Debate is practically dead .
What Bari Weiss stands for is the individual conscience attempting to evaluate issues fairly .
She stands for dispassionate analysis in a world that increasingly favors zealotry and intolerance .
That ’ s why her fate matters .

Bari Weiss brought keen intelligence and broadminded liberalism to the editorial pages of the New York Times. So naturally, she had to go. Liberalism—by which I mean a commitment to open inquiry—is fast disappearing from American life. The right will cackle that this proves how dangerous the left is. They’re not totally wrong, but they need to look in the mirror.
Many Twitter denizens first became aware of former New York Times writer and editor Bari Weiss, who resigned on July 14, when she was dragged for tweeting about an ice skater. It was during the Olympics, in February of 2018. An American skater named Mirai Nagasu became the first female American to land a triple axel at the Olympics. Weiss tweeted an image of her whirling body and jauntily retweeted an NBC Sports tweet: “‘HOLY COW!’ You just witnessed a historic triple axel from Mirai Nagasu. #WinterOlympics.” Weiss added a line from Hamilton, the musical, “Immigrants: They get the job done.”
Landmine. Her colleagues at the Times were outraged. It turns out that Nagasu is not an immigrant herself but is the daughter of two immigrants from Japan. When someone responded with “she was born in California,” Weiss tweeted “Yes, yes, I realize. Felt the poetic license was kosher.”
It wasn’t. At least not according to the many indignant Times staffers who aired their dissatisfaction on the paper’s Slack channel. Weiss was labeled a racist for “othering” Nagasu. A leaked transcript of the Slack conversation featured complaints that Weiss was “doubling down” when she denied ill-intent. One wrote, “i guess it’s too much to even expect a ‘we’re sorry you’re offended’ apology since asians don’t matter.” They nitpicked at her because, in a follow-up tweet, she had misquoted herself quoting Hamilton, rendering the line as “Immigrants: We get the job done!” instead of “they get the job done” as the original tweet was worded. Sheesh. The person who said “asians don’t matter” continued, posting “sorry, but I felt that tweet denied Mirai her full citizenship just as the internment did. and nothing will be done because no one was offended! (since we don’t count)”
To which the only proper response is: Get a grip! Weiss was obviously celebrating Nagasu, cheering her on, and taking pride in immigrants’ contributions to America. The lyric from Hamilton, originally sung by the Hamilton and Lafayette characters in a scene about the Battle of Yorktown for God’s sake, was also made into a music video about immigrants. Shortly after Trump’s election, Hamilton creator Lin-Manuel Miranda explained that “This election cycle has brought xenophobia and vilification of immigrants back to the forefront of US politics. This is a musical counterweight.” The title of the video was “Immigrants: We Get the Job Done.” But, sure, let’s pretend that Weiss was “othering.”
Bari Weiss might seem an unlikely target of wrath. She left the Wall Street Journal editorial page in protest of its gradual surrender to Trump. The editorial section of the Journal (unlike the news pages) leans right, so her tenure there may have engendered suspicion on the part of her new colleagues at the Times. Maybe they were expecting Ghengis Khan. But a little due diligence, to say nothing of good faith, would have shown the skeptics that Weiss is a firm centrist.
One of her early pieces for the Times traced the (limp) response of many conservative-leaning think tanks to the Trump phenomenon. “Will the Trumpists capture the principled conservative intellectual establishment in 2017 as easily as they captured the Republican Party in 2016?” she asked, in a piece titled “The Trump Debate Inside Conservative Citadels.”
She also contributed a deeply researched piece on the Women’s March that took aim at figures like Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory, citing their fondness for Fidel Castro and Louis Farrakhan. There was a time when the Grey Lady was hospitable to takedowns of far leftists, but that piece earned her bitter enemies both inside and outside the paper.
In response to the #MeToo movement, Weiss demonstrated balance and perspective. Neither a traditional conservative like me, nor a woke activist like Alyssa Milano, she sounded a note of caution. Recognizing that the phrase “believe all women” was empowering, she nonetheless worried about it being abused:
The huntresses’ war cry—‘believe all women’—has felt like a bracing corrective to a historic injustice. . . . In less than two months we’ve moved from uncovering accusations of criminal behavior (Harvey Weinstein) to criminalizing behavior that we previously regarded as presumptuous and boorish (Glenn Thrush). In a climate in which sexual mores are transforming so rapidly, many men are asking: If I were wrongly accused, who would believe me? I know the answer that many women would give—are giving—is: Good. Be scared. We have been scared for forever. It’s your turn for some sleepless nights.
Three years later, when Tara Reade demanded uncritical trust, many feminists found new wisdom in Weiss’s hesitancy.
Weiss’s Twitter feed is characterized by concern for human rights—there are many references to the Uighurs, Hong Kong, and other oppressed people. She shows a particular sensitivity, unsurprisingly, to cancel culture. She is a passionate, but hardly mindless, supporter of Israel. She’s been critical of the Israeli government on a number of occasions, as for example, when it moved to deny visas to Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota because of their support for BDS, and she’s been openly hoping for Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s electoral defeat.
In her resignation letter, Weiss denounced the Times’ leadership for its weakness in the face of leftwing pressure emanating from Twitter. “Twitter is not on the masthead of the New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor,” she wrote.
The story of Bari Weiss’s tense parting with the Times will doubtless provide several days’ worth of fodder for the right. Weiss will become, for a while, a right-wing pin-up—symbol of the dangerous cancel culture that Democrats want to impose on the whole nation. Andrew Sullivan announced on the same day that he is leaving New York magazine. Coming on the heels of other prominent departures from progressive standard bearers, the scent of purges is in the air.
But the right has no credibility on this. If the left is woke, the right is bespoke—it has become tailored around one person. Look at conservative publications and search for Trump critics. They are thin on the ground. National Review parted ways with David French and Jonah Goldberg. The Wall Street Journal lost Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss. Fox News staffed up with fulsome Trump enthusiasts, but dispensed with George Will’s services.
This narrowing of the American mind is making everyone dumber and nastier. Debate is practically dead. What Bari Weiss stands for is the individual conscience attempting to evaluate issues fairly. She stands for dispassionate analysis in a world that increasingly favors zealotry and intolerance. That’s why her fate matters.


thebulwark--2020-07-15--The Odds Have Caught Up with Trump

The Odds Have Caught Up with Trump

Donald Trump has turned himself into the political equivalent of Steve McQueen ’ s Cincinnati Kid .
Not unlike Trump , McQueen ’ s character was a gambler of rare luck , pluck and talent trying to take on and defeat the elite national gambling establishment .
But after many mistakes , McQueen loses it all in the big final hand .
And then , in the movie ’ s dark coda , McQueen even loses to a kid in a street game of craps .
Which is a lot like what the Trump campaign looks like right now .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president continues to double and triple down on his losing policy bets in the face of polling data establishing a hardening of public opinion on his handling of the pandemic ; his reaction to the murder of George Floyd ; and his silence on the Russian bounties placed on American soldiers .
The net result is that coming out of the Fourth of July , the polling data paints a grim portrait of Trump ’ s reelection prospects : ( 1 ) Trump ’ s job approval rating was down to 38 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 2 ) Trump ’ s job disapproval stands at 56.6 percent .
With a job disapproval settling in at 55 percent or higher , it is almost impossible to project a path to reelection , barring the emergence of a strong third party candidate who raids Biden ’ s flanks on ideology or race .
( 3 ) Polls in mid- to late-June showed Trump falling behind Biden .
On June 18 the Fox News poll showed Trump trailing Biden by 12 percent .
The most recent Pew Research poll ( June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at 10 points .
( 4 ) In the battleground state polling released by the New York Times/Siena on June 25 , Biden was ahead by 11 percent in Michigan and Wisconsin , 10 percent in Pennsylvania , 9 percent in North Carolina , 7 percent in Arizona , and 6 percent in Florida .
So what is happening to Trump ?
He and his campaign are out of balance with public opinion .
Presidential politics is a lot like boxing .
A candidate can deliver punches and absorb blows if their legs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ context , is a function of proper positioning on the issues that are needed to assemble a majority coalition .
Trump is on the wrong side of the public on just about every issue other than his handling of the economy .
And on top of this policy imbalance , two other flaws are undermining Trump ’ s political standing : his clear reality gap and his preoccupation with the media cycle without regard to any strategic plan for fixing his campaign .
On the first count , Trump ’ s repeated denials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ headlong into a dearth of support in the polling data .
He is simply on the wrong side of the public on the top issue of the day .
Consider this ABC/Ipsos poll released on July 10 : • 59 percent of the American people believe that Trump ’ s push to reopen the economy is moving too quickly .
• Only 33 percent support—while 67 percent oppose—Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus crisis .
The support for Trump on the coronavirus crisis is at 26 percent among independents in July ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll ) .
• The American people oppose by 2-1 how Trump is handling race relations , with 32 percent supporting Trump with 67 percent opposing .
On the second count , Trump ’ s central communications blunder has been his obsession with the current news cycle rather than fashioning a strategic plan for combating both the public health and the economic ramifications of this pandemic .
And the racial justice challenge coming on the heels of the COVID-19 crisis only worsened Trump ’ s standing .
Trump ’ s reality gap paired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news cycle to the next has left him with a credibility gap at least as bad as Lyndon Johnson ’ s was in the run-up to the 1968 election .
The main difference between Trump and LBJ , of course , is that LBJ was realistic enough to realize that he needed to step aside before he dragged his party down with him .
Can Trump regain his political balance ?
There is time for change but not as much time as you might think .
I would argue that he would need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the polls by Labor Day in order to be even viable for a comeback victory in November .
Consider that in most successful reelection campaigns , the incumbent president uses Spring and Summer to define the opposing party ’ s nominee .
Nixon , Reagan , Clinton , George W. Bush , and Obama all did this .
Instead , Trump has spent these months being even further defined himself in the minds of voters , while losing ground to Biden in the polls at a steady pace .
There is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sits at approval levels where Trump is now winning reelection .
That said , the extreme volatility of the events is a sharp argument against complacency from the Biden campaign .
The range of foreseeable events which could wreak havoc with either or both party ’ s campaigns is large and foreseeable , even as the consequences of these events is less certain : • How will voters react to the spread of COVID-19 rippling through the South and the Sun Belt ?
That reaction is likely to be quite severe in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to permeate nationally .
Trump seems prepared to view 200,000 deaths as not very significant .
Will voters agree ?
• Will parents and grandparents of school children be comfortable with schools reopening in August in the South and around Labor Day everywhere else ?
This is not a choice lightly made for not only are children to be concerned about , but also the older residents in multi-generational homes .
Once again , Trump has placed a bet here by insisting that all schools should reopen fully , as normal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as their own schools begin making decisions and then living with the consequences ?
• Are effective treatment options available for COVID-19 patients by either Labor Day or Halloween ?
Is a vaccine credibly on the horizon for 2021 ?
• Is the economy headed for a V-shaped recovery by Labor Day ?
Or will it be in the trough of a wide U-shaped recovery ?
Or—this last seems unthinkable—could Labor Day see us in the second downstroke of a W-shaped recovery ?
• Does the public continue to yearn for a purposeful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sentiment dissipate in the face of a rise in violent crime ?
Other events could also have an outsized impact on the ability of Trump to regain and Biden to retain their political balance .
For example , do any superstorms do real damage along the Atlantic and/or Gulf coasts ?
And then there are the unknown unknowns—the equivalent of an Access Hollywood tape .
Or foreign interference .
But for now , keep your eyes on Labor Day .
It ’ s possible that , if Trump finds his balance , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unprecedented comeback , should he get help from events .
Or it ’ s possible that by then his hole will be so deep that little short of a political Act of God will be able to save his presidency .

Donald Trump has turned himself into the political equivalent of Steve McQueen’s Cincinnati Kid. Not unlike Trump, McQueen’s character was a gambler of rare luck, pluck and talent trying to take on and defeat the elite national gambling establishment. But after many mistakes, McQueen loses it all in the big final hand. And then, in the movie’s dark coda, McQueen even loses to a kid in a street game of craps.
Which is a lot like what the Trump campaign looks like right now.
Despite Trump’s terrible run, the president continues to double and triple down on his losing policy bets in the face of polling data establishing a hardening of public opinion on his handling of the pandemic; his reaction to the murder of George Floyd; and his silence on the Russian bounties placed on American soldiers.
The net result is that coming out of the Fourth of July, the polling data paints a grim portrait of Trump’s reelection prospects:
(1) Trump’s job approval rating was down to 38 percent in the latest Gallup poll. (2) Trump’s job disapproval stands at 56.6 percent. With a job disapproval settling in at 55 percent or higher, it is almost impossible to project a path to reelection, barring the emergence of a strong third party candidate who raids Biden’s flanks on ideology or race. (3) Polls in mid- to late-June showed Trump falling behind Biden. On June 18 the Fox News poll showed Trump trailing Biden by 12 percent. The most recent Pew Research poll (June 30) put Biden’s lead at 10 points. (4) In the battleground state polling released by the New York Times/Siena on June 25, Biden was ahead by 11 percent in Michigan and Wisconsin, 10 percent in Pennsylvania, 9 percent in North Carolina, 7 percent in Arizona, and 6 percent in Florida.
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…
So what is happening to Trump? He and his campaign are out of balance with public opinion.
Presidential politics is a lot like boxing. A candidate can deliver punches and absorb blows if their legs are perfectly balanced. Balance in this context, is a function of proper positioning on the issues that are needed to assemble a majority coalition. Trump is on the wrong side of the public on just about every issue other than his handling of the economy.
And on top of this policy imbalance, two other flaws are undermining Trump’s political standing: his clear reality gap and his preoccupation with the media cycle without regard to any strategic plan for fixing his campaign.
On the first count, Trump’s repeated denials about the dangers of COVID-19 have run headlong into a dearth of support in the polling data. He is simply on the wrong side of the public on the top issue of the day. Consider this ABC/Ipsos poll released on July 10:
59 percent of the American people believe that Trump’s push to reopen the economy is moving too quickly. Only 33 percent support—while 67 percent oppose—Trump’s handling of the coronavirus crisis. The support for Trump on the coronavirus crisis is at 26 percent among independents in July (down from 40 percent in the May poll). The American people oppose by 2-1 how Trump is handling race relations, with 32 percent supporting Trump with 67 percent opposing.
On the second count, Trump’s central communications blunder has been his obsession with the current news cycle rather than fashioning a strategic plan for combating both the public health and the economic ramifications of this pandemic. And the racial justice challenge coming on the heels of the COVID-19 crisis only worsened Trump’s standing.
Trump’s reality gap paired with his zigging and zagging from one news cycle to the next has left him with a credibility gap at least as bad as Lyndon Johnson’s was in the run-up to the 1968 election.
The main difference between Trump and LBJ, of course, is that LBJ was realistic enough to realize that he needed to step aside before he dragged his party down with him.
Can Trump regain his political balance? There is time for change but not as much time as you might think.
I would argue that he would need to regain his political balance as reflected in the polls by Labor Day in order to be even viable for a comeback victory in November.
Consider that in most successful reelection campaigns, the incumbent president uses Spring and Summer to define the opposing party’s nominee. Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama all did this. Instead, Trump has spent these months being even further defined himself in the minds of voters, while losing ground to Biden in the polls at a steady pace.
There is no modern precedent for an incumbent president who sits at approval levels where Trump is now winning reelection.
That said, the extreme volatility of the events is a sharp argument against complacency from the Biden campaign.
The range of foreseeable events which could wreak havoc with either or both party’s campaigns is large and foreseeable, even as the consequences of these events is less certain:
How will voters react to the spread of COVID-19 rippling through the South and the Sun Belt? That reaction is likely to be quite severe in the regions affected, but it is quite likely to permeate nationally. Trump seems prepared to view 200,000 deaths as not very significant. Will voters agree? Will parents and grandparents of school children be comfortable with schools reopening in August in the South and around Labor Day everywhere else? This is not a choice lightly made for not only are children to be concerned about, but also the older residents in multi-generational homes. Once again, Trump has placed a bet here by insisting that all schools should reopen fully, as normal. What will voters think of this position as their own schools begin making decisions and then living with the consequences? Are effective treatment options available for COVID-19 patients by either Labor Day or Halloween? Is a vaccine credibly on the horizon for 2021? Is the economy headed for a V-shaped recovery by Labor Day? Or will it be in the trough of a wide U-shaped recovery? Or—this last seems unthinkable—could Labor Day see us in the second downstroke of a W-shaped recovery? Does the public continue to yearn for a purposeful reconciliation on race? Or does that sentiment dissipate in the face of a rise in violent crime?
Other events could also have an outsized impact on the ability of Trump to regain and Biden to retain their political balance. For example, do any superstorms do real damage along the Atlantic and/or Gulf coasts?
And then there are the unknown unknowns—the equivalent of an Access Hollywood tape. Or foreign interference.
But for now, keep your eyes on Labor Day.
It’s possible that, if Trump finds his balance, he could be in position to mount an unprecedented comeback, should he get help from events.
Or it’s possible that by then his hole will be so deep that little short of a political Act of God will be able to save his presidency.


thebulwark--2020-07-16--Trumpism Corrupts: Wall Street Journal Edition

The Wall Street Journal ran a strikingly oblique editorial on Thursday morning .
I ’ m going to quote from it extensively and bold the phrases that are most interesting : President Trump ’ s coronavirus management ratings have been plummeting ( 67 % disapproved in an ABC/Ipsos poll last week ) and if a better public-relations plan is in the works , it ’ s not apparent .
.
.
.
The problem is that the White House seems to have given up on projecting any consistent virus message , and the descent into internal sniping amplifies a perception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The media are propagating the view that the U.S. is a coronavirus basket case .
In fact , the per-capita death rate remains lower than that of some major countries in Western Europe .
.
.
.
Mr. Trump ’ s messaging has caromed from saying the virus isn ’ t a problem , to the economy must shut down to crush it , to the economy must open and everything will soon go back to normal , to barely talking about it at all as cases rise .
.
.
.
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continues Republicans will be routed in November .
.
.
.
Today President Trump ’ s opponents can depict the White House as resigned , lacking direction , and more eager to disparage medical authorities than rally them to implement the Administration ’ s strategy .
Time is running out to change that perception .
Here is the Wall Street Journal editorial board ’ s listing of the Trump administration ’ s problems in regard to the novel coronavirus : • They do not have “ a better public relations plan.
” • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projecting a “ consistent .
.
.
message ” —which by inference means that at one point the administration did project a consistent message .
• “ The media ” are propagating a view of poor outcomes in America .
• Trump ’ s “ messaging ” has caromed from one place to another .
• Time is running out to change that “ perception.
” • If this “ perception ” is not changed , the result will be a “ rout ” for Republicans .
What reality do the Wall Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this piece—not one single line—addresses the reality of the world as it exists .
Instead , they are fixated on secondary , tertiary , and quaternary concerns : Public relations .
Messaging .
The media .
Depictions .
Perceptions .
The real world is the one that matters .
Not to put this indelicately , but as of this writing 137,234 Americans have died of the coronavirus .
More will die today .
And tomorrow .
And the day after that .
These deaths are not just human tragedies .
They have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They influence the behaviors of citizens , irrespective of any government directions or mandates .
Does the Wall Street Journal think that the country ’ s current situation is optimal ?
Does the Wall Street Journal think that the administration ’ s policies concerning the pandemic have been wise and efficacious ?
Does the Wall Street Journal believe that the migration of the virus to the South and West was preventable through different policy means ?
Does the Wall Street Journal have a sense of what the near-term progress of the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many deaths they can expect ?
Does the Wall Street Journal have a sense of how many dead bodies Americans should have expected at the outset of this crisis under reasonably competent federal management ?
And the answer is : Of course not .
Because addressing any of these questions would mean evaluating the Trump administration ’ s actual performance in the real world .
The only substantive “ defense ” the Journal editorial musters of the administration ’ s response is that a few countries in Western Europe have worse deaths-per-capita numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shouldn ’ t be striving to have the ninth-worst death rate in the world—this metric does not even paint an accurate picture of reality .
Because our death rate is continuing to get worse while the Western Europeans have actually bent their curves .
Perhaps this is precisely because they are responsible countries taking virus containment seriously , and not quasi-failed states led by a reality-TV-show host who is only worried about perceptions and public relations and messaging and “ the media.
” But what is truly disgraceful about this editorial is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real-world concern .
Not the mounting pile of corpses .
Not the economic devastation on working families .
No , here is the Wall Street Journal ’ s real-world concern : “ if it continues Republicans will be routed in November.
” The problem , you see , is not the 137,234 dead Americans .
It ’ s that Republicans might lose an election .

The Wall Street Journal ran a strikingly oblique editorial on Thursday morning. I’m going to quote from it extensively and bold the phrases that are most interesting:
President Trump’s coronavirus management ratings have been plummeting (67% disapproved in an ABC/Ipsos poll last week) and if a better public-relations plan is in the works, it’s not apparent. . . . The problem is that the White House seems to have given up on projecting any consistent virus message, and the descent into internal sniping amplifies a perception of dysfunction that is politically damaging. The media are propagating the view that the U.S. is a coronavirus basket case. In fact, the per-capita death rate remains lower than that of some major countries in Western Europe. . . . Mr. Trump’s messaging has caromed from saying the virus isn’t a problem, to the economy must shut down to crush it, to the economy must open and everything will soon go back to normal, to barely talking about it at all as cases rise. . . . This is a mess, and if it continues Republicans will be routed in November. . . . Today President Trump’s opponents can depict the White House as resigned, lacking direction, and more eager to disparage medical authorities than rally them to implement the Administration’s strategy. Time is running out to change that perception.
What a remarkable piece of writing.
Here is the Wall Street Journal editorial board’s listing of the Trump administration’s problems in regard to the novel coronavirus:
They do not have “a better public relations plan.”
They have “given up” on projecting a “consistent . . . message”—which by inference means that at one point the administration did project a consistent message.
“The media” are propagating a view of poor outcomes in America.
Trump’s “messaging” has caromed from one place to another.
Trump’s opponents “can depict” the White House as failing.
Time is running out to change that “perception.”
If this “perception” is not changed, the result will be a “rout” for Republicans.
What reality do the Wall Street Journal editors live in?
Because nothing in this piece—not one single line—addresses the reality of the world as it exists.
Instead, they are fixated on secondary, tertiary, and quaternary concerns: Public relations. Messaging. The media. Depictions. Perceptions.
The real world is the one that matters.
Not to put this indelicately, but as of this writing 137,234 Americans have died of the coronavirus. More will die today. And tomorrow. And the day after that.
These deaths are not just human tragedies. They have economic impacts. They have social impacts. They influence the behaviors of citizens, irrespective of any government directions or mandates.
Does the Wall Street Journal think that the country’s current situation is optimal?
Does the Wall Street Journal think that the administration’s policies concerning the pandemic have been wise and efficacious?
Does the Wall Street Journal believe that the migration of the virus to the South and West was preventable through different policy means?
Does the Wall Street Journal have a sense of what the near-term progress of the virus will look like for Americans and how many deaths they can expect?
Does the Wall Street Journal have a sense of how many dead bodies Americans should have expected at the outset of this crisis under reasonably competent federal management?
And the answer is: Of course not.
Because addressing any of these questions would mean evaluating the Trump administration’s actual performance in the real world.
The only substantive “defense” the Journal editorial musters of the administration’s response is that a few countries in Western Europe have worse deaths-per-capita numbers.
Set aside the fact that America shouldn’t be striving to have the ninth-worst death rate in the world—this metric does not even paint an accurate picture of reality. Because our death rate is continuing to get worse while the Western Europeans have actually bent their curves.
Perhaps this is precisely because they are responsible countries taking virus containment seriously, and not quasi-failed states led by a reality-TV-show host who is only worried about perceptions and public relations and messaging and “the media.”
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But what is truly disgraceful about this editorial is that it does evince a single, solitary real-world concern.
Not the mounting pile of corpses.
Not the economic devastation on working families.
No, here is the Wall Street Journal’s real-world concern: “if it continues Republicans will be routed in November.”
The problem, you see, is not the 137,234 dead Americans.
It’s that Republicans might lose an election.


Remember Brexit?

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic , the British can be forgiven for having forgotten about Brexit .
But Brexit has not forgotten about them .
With the clock ticking down to December 31 , the scheduled end of the one-year Brexit transition period , there is a real risk that the U.K. could crash out of Europe without a trade deal .
It hardly needs emphasizing that , as bad as the economic shock of a crash-out would be in normal circumstances , it would be substantially worse amid a major economic slump caused by a pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mishandled the pandemic would be a gross understatement .
In addition to suffering Europe ’ s highest number of COVID-19 mortalities , the U.K. economy is faring considerably worse than those on the Continent .
According to the OECD , the British economy could contract by as much as 14 percent in 2020 .
That would be the country ’ s worst single-year economic performance in the past three centuries .
This time last year , Prime Minister Boris Johnson ’ s government was threatening to lead the U.K. toward a hard-Brexit .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to request a one-year transitional period from his European partners to give more time for the negotiation of a final deal .
The granting of that request staved off , at least for another year , the potential disruption in trade relations with the European Single Market , which is by far the U.K. ’ s largest export market .
Under the terms of the Brexit transitional arrangement , the British government had until June 30 to request from Europe an extension in the transition arrangement beyond December 31 .
Pandering to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruled out any notion of his government making such a request .
He did so knowing full well that Parliament would be unable to force his hand this time , thanks to the comfortable parliamentary majority his government secured in the December 2019 elections .
This all means that the U.K. once again faces the risk of crashing out of Europe at the end of this year .
That risk could be averted if the U.K. were to come to terms with its European partners .
It could also be averted if Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of backing down from his opposition to requesting an extension in the transitional arrangement and if the Europeans could somehow find a way to make that legally possible under the terms of the transition agreement .
One source of hope for the U.K. is that the Europeans know that their coronavirus-wracked economies are also in no position to absorb the shock of a disorderly U.K. departure .
This might make them more amenable to dropping their red lines in the ongoing Brexit negotiations .
It might also make them more receptive to finding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Brexit transition period if needed—assuming Johnson would ask for one .
Both the currently ailing U.K. and European economies desperately need Johnson to seize on the opportunity afforded to him by Europe ’ s weakened economic state to avoid a catastrophic U.K. crash-out of Europe .
This might be his last opportunity to strike a fair final deal for his country .
At least , the current slump might allow him to wrest from his European partners an extension in the transitional period .
That would spare both the U.K. and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brexit just when their economies are least able to absorb it .

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the British can be forgiven for having forgotten about Brexit. But Brexit has not forgotten about them.
With the clock ticking down to December 31, the scheduled end of the one-year Brexit transition period, there is a real risk that the U.K. could crash out of Europe without a trade deal. It hardly needs emphasizing that, as bad as the economic shock of a crash-out would be in normal circumstances, it would be substantially worse amid a major economic slump caused by a pandemic.
To say that the U.K. government has mishandled the pandemic would be a gross understatement. In addition to suffering Europe’s highest number of COVID-19 mortalities, the U.K. economy is faring considerably worse than those on the Continent. According to the OECD, the British economy could contract by as much as 14 percent in 2020. That would be the country’s worst single-year economic performance in the past three centuries.
This time last year, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government was threatening to lead the U.K. toward a hard-Brexit. In the event, Parliament forced Johnson to request a one-year transitional period from his European partners to give more time for the negotiation of a final deal. The granting of that request staved off, at least for another year, the potential disruption in trade relations with the European Single Market, which is by far the U.K.’s largest export 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…
Under the terms of the Brexit transitional arrangement, the British government had until June 30 to request from Europe an extension in the transition arrangement beyond December 31. Pandering to the hardliners within his Conservative party, Johnson ruled out any notion of his government making such a request. He did so knowing full well that Parliament would be unable to force his hand this time, thanks to the comfortable parliamentary majority his government secured in the December 2019 elections.
This all means that the U.K. once again faces the risk of crashing out of Europe at the end of this year. That risk could be averted if the U.K. were to come to terms with its European partners. It could also be averted if Johnson were to make the politically costly decision of backing down from his opposition to requesting an extension in the transitional arrangement and if the Europeans could somehow find a way to make that legally possible under the terms of the transition agreement.
One source of hope for the U.K. is that the Europeans know that their coronavirus-wracked economies are also in no position to absorb the shock of a disorderly U.K. departure. This might make them more amenable to dropping their red lines in the ongoing Brexit negotiations. It might also make them more receptive to finding a way to allow for an extension in the Brexit transition period if needed—assuming Johnson would ask for one.
Both the currently ailing U.K. and European economies desperately need Johnson to seize on the opportunity afforded to him by Europe’s weakened economic state to avoid a catastrophic U.K. crash-out of Europe. This might be his last opportunity to strike a fair final deal for his country. At least, the current slump might allow him to wrest from his European partners an extension in the transitional period. That would spare both the U.K. and Europe from the shock of a hard Brexit just when their economies are least able to absorb it.


thebulwark--2020-07-16--The Myth of Trump as a Centrist Dealmaker

On a Sunday-morning talk show in December 2015 , a rising politician had this to say about Senator Ted Cruz ’ s campaign for president , “ Look at the way he ’ s dealt with the Senate , where he goes in there—like , you know , frankly , like a little bit of a maniac .
You ’ re never going to get things done that way .
.
.
.
You can ’ t walk into the Senate , and scream , and call people liars , and not be able to cajole and get along with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything done .
And that ’ s the problem with Ted.
” Who was this observant political figure ?
It was Donald J. Trump , our screaming , lying , maniacal president who has shown an utter inability to cajole and get along with people .
It is this brand pivot , from a dealmaking anti-establishment businessman to an extremist far-right firebrand that has limited the president ’ s political aspirations more than anything else , in a way that is underappreciated by most of the political chattering class , for whom the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dealmaker ” never really took .
These liberal elites and Never Trumpers saw him from day one as a demagogic extremist , preying on racial animus , and throwing in with the seedier elements of the far right like Steve Bannon .
But many of the ( white ) voters out in the rest of America who supported him in 2016 didn ’ t see him quite this way .
They knew that he had taken a hard line on some issues like immigration .
But they also saw the host of The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system .
They noticed he was willing to buck the Republicans on certain unpopular ideological totems like cutting Social Security or supporting “ forever wars.
” To many of those who ended up voting for him , it was Trump who was the moderating figure while Cruz ( in the primary ) and Clinton ( in the general ) were on the extremes .
Trump went out of his way to burnish this image .
In the 2012 Republican primary , candidates were so scared to admit they would work with Democrats that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand when asked if they would walk away from a wildly lopsided deal with Democrats on spending cuts vs. tax increases .
In 2016 , Trump didn ’ t share this orthodoxy .
He frequently discussed his ability to cut good deals with Democrats and made it part of his appeal .
In a New Hampshire debate ahead of the 2016 primary he was asked about this by conservative journalist Mary Katharine Ham and replied : “ With Congress you have to get everybody in a room and you have to get them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get people in , grab them , hug them , kiss them , and get the deal done.
” And since Trump was a businessman with vast experience hugging and kissing without consent .
.
.
voters bought it !
In a Pew poll in January 2016 , Donald Trump scored the best among “ moderate ” and “ liberal ” Republican registered voters ( about a third of the primary electorate ) when asked which of the remaining candidates would make a great or good president .
In the critical Florida @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rubio , a native son who might be thought of as more appealing to the center of the party , exit polls show that Trump coasted among self-described “ moderate ” voters , winning 42 percent of the vote compared to 25 percent for Rubio and 13 percent for Kasich .
In the general election the story was the same : Gallup and Pew found that voters saw Donald Trump as more moderate than Hillary Clinton , who was largely seen as liberal or very liberal .
In a recent focus group I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having second thoughts , to a person they cited the fact that they thought he was a “ businessman ” who could get things done as a rationale for having voted for him .
For some reason there has been a conventional wisdom congealing in Washington that winning over the middle no longer matters and that we ’ ve moved to a base-only politics .
But here ’ s the shocking # analysis : the candidate who does a better job of capturing the middle , generally wins closely contested elections !
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that count , now ?
Trump is now seen as way out on the conservative edge of the party while Biden is viewed as being towards the middle of the electorate .
This brings us to the great fallacy of the 2020 election , driven by 2016 PTSD : that Donald Trump just has to worry about “ his base ” in order to win the election .
In reality there were a shitton ( technical polling term ) of voters who supported him last time but who are absolutely not part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump base .
So when Trump is railing about how Fox News has gone soft and is now filled with a bunch of libs , a lot of these voters look at him like he has three heads .
When he ’ s talking about how older white Americans need to arm themselves because a caravan from Guatemala or black protesters from inner cities are going to ransack and burn down their homes , he might get roars from his dwindling rally audiences , but the rest of his voters cringe .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who said he would get a bunch of people in a room and butter them up and get a great deal for the American people .
They wanted a businessman who was going to be able to solve problems and help them make money .
Where has THAT guy been ?
We haven ’ t seen him since the campaign .
Trump trashed that whole persona the second he gave the dark and weird and poorly attended inauguration speech , jammed Conservatism Inc. ’ s agenda down the Democrats ’ throats , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So now he has painted himself into this corner where he ’ s spent three years doing exactly the things he correctly identified as problematic for Ted Cruz in 2016 !
He ’ s seen as a lying maniac who in a time of crisis cares mostly about his beefs with Joe Scarborough and spreading weird Very Online memes about Nancy Pelosi ’ s ice-cream fridge , not the glad-handing business guy from the TV show who could be a bit gruff but knew how to close a deal .
The result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald from his political tool box and the only thing he has left is Trashing Trump .
And that ’ s why , with 18 million Americans out of work and 137,000 dead , the president is in the Rose Garden throwing nonsensical haymakers about Biden wanting to abolish the suburbs and screwing up H1N1 , hoping something lands , rather than giving his more moderate voters what they signed up for and walking down to Capitol Hill to give the swamp a lesson in the Art of the Deal .

On a Sunday-morning talk show in December 2015, a rising politician had this to say about Senator Ted Cruz’s campaign for president, “Look at the way he’s dealt with the Senate, where he goes in there—like, you know, frankly, like a little bit of a maniac. You’re never going to get things done that way. . . . You can’t walk into the Senate, and scream, and call people liars, and not be able to cajole and get along with people. He’ll never get anything done. And that’s the problem with Ted.”
Who was this observant political figure?
It was Donald J. Trump, our screaming, lying, maniacal president who has shown an utter inability to cajole and get along with people.
It is this brand pivot, from a dealmaking anti-establishment businessman to an extremist far-right firebrand that has limited the president’s political aspirations more than anything else, in a way that is underappreciated by most of the political chattering class, for whom the concept of “Donald Trump, centrist dealmaker” never really took.
These liberal elites and Never Trumpers saw him from day one as a demagogic extremist, preying on racial animus, and throwing in with the seedier elements of the far right like Steve Bannon. But many of the (white) voters out in the rest of America who supported him in 2016 didn’t see him quite this way. They knew that he had taken a hard line on some issues like immigration. But they also saw the host of The Apprentice, a businessman outside the political system. They noticed he was willing to buck the Republicans on certain unpopular ideological totems like cutting Social Security or supporting “forever wars.” To many of those who ended up voting for him, it was Trump who was the moderating figure while Cruz (in the primary) and Clinton (in the general) were on the extremes.
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…
Trump went out of his way to burnish this image. In the 2012 Republican primary, candidates were so scared to admit they would work with Democrats that famously every candidate on stage raised their hand when asked if they would walk away from a wildly lopsided deal with Democrats on spending cuts vs. tax increases. In 2016, Trump didn’t share this orthodoxy. He frequently discussed his ability to cut good deals with Democrats and made it part of his appeal. In a New Hampshire debate ahead of the 2016 primary he was asked about this by conservative journalist Mary Katharine Ham and replied: “With Congress you have to get everybody in a room and you have to get them to agree . . . you have to get people in, grab them, hug them, kiss them, and get the deal done.”
And since Trump was a businessman with vast experience hugging and kissing without consent . . . voters bought it!
In a Pew poll in January 2016, Donald Trump scored the best among “moderate” and “liberal” Republican registered voters (about a third of the primary electorate) when asked which of the remaining candidates would make a great or good president. In the critical Florida primary where Trump faced off against Marco Rubio, a native son who might be thought of as more appealing to the center of the party, exit polls show that Trump coasted among self-described “moderate” voters, winning 42 percent of the vote compared to 25 percent for Rubio and 13 percent for Kasich. In the general election the story was the same: Gallup and Pew found that voters saw Donald Trump as more moderate than Hillary Clinton, who was largely seen as liberal or very liberal. In a recent focus group I was observing of Trump voters who are having second thoughts, to a person they cited the fact that they thought he was a “businessman” who could get things done as a rationale for having voted for him.
For some reason there has been a conventional wisdom congealing in Washington that winning over the middle no longer matters and that we’ve moved to a base-only politics. But here’s the shocking #analysis: the candidate who does a better job of capturing the middle, generally wins closely contested elections!
So how’s Donald Trump doing on that count, now?
Not great, Bob!
Trump is now seen as way out on the conservative edge of the party while Biden is viewed as being towards the middle of the electorate.
This brings us to the great fallacy of the 2020 election, driven by 2016 PTSD: that Donald Trump just has to worry about “his base” in order to win the election. In reality there were a shitton (technical polling term) of voters who supported him last time but who are absolutely not part of the insane QAnon-believing, OAN-watching, red-hat-wearing Trump base.
So when Trump is railing about how Fox News has gone soft and is now filled with a bunch of libs, a lot of these voters look at him like he has three heads. When he’s talking about how older white Americans need to arm themselves because a caravan from Guatemala or black protesters from inner cities are going to ransack and burn down their homes, he might get roars from his dwindling rally audiences, but the rest of his voters cringe.
Many of them were looking for the politician who said he would get a bunch of people in a room and butter them up and get a great deal for the American people. They wanted a businessman who was going to be able to solve problems and help them make money.
Where has THAT guy been? We haven’t seen him since the campaign. Trump trashed that whole persona the second he gave the dark and weird and poorly attended inauguration speech, jammed Conservatism Inc.’s agenda down the Democrats’ throats, and made racist attacks on their congressional delegation.
So now he has painted himself into this corner where he’s spent three years doing exactly the things he correctly identified as problematic for Ted Cruz in 2016!
He’s seen as a lying maniac who in a time of crisis cares mostly about his beefs with Joe Scarborough and spreading weird Very Online memes about Nancy Pelosi’s ice-cream fridge, not the glad-handing business guy from the TV show who could be a bit gruff but knew how to close a deal.
The result is that he’s removed dealmaking Donald from his political tool box and the only thing he has left is Trashing Trump.
And that’s why, with 18 million Americans out of work and 137,000 dead, the president is in the Rose Garden throwing nonsensical haymakers about Biden wanting to abolish the suburbs and screwing up H1N1, hoping something lands, rather than giving his more moderate voters what they signed up for and walking down to Capitol Hill to give the swamp a lesson in the Art of the Deal.


thebulwark--2020-07-16--The Return of Independent Counsels?

The Return of Independent Counsels?

The Supreme Court ’ s recent decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is notable not only because the majority struck down a key provision of the statute creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) .
It is also notable because of what conservatives on the Court did not do : wrangle a majority willing to hold unconstitutional any agency structure that places limits on the president ’ s appointment and removal power .
What this means is that , under the next president and with a willing Congress , we could see constitutional legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecutor who can not be fired by a president gone rogue .
The brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren , the CFPB was created by Congress in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis in order to protect consumers from unfair , deceptive , or abusive practices by predatory lenders .
The statute gives the agency authority to bring legal actions against credit reporting and debt collection companies on behalf duped consumers .
But after Trump took office and put Mick Mulvaney—who , at the time , was also the director of the Office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CFPB , the agency ’ s pro-consumer enforcement actions plummeted .
( As a member of the House of Representatives , Mulvaney had called the CFPB a “ joke ” in “ a sick , sad kind of way ” and took steps to abolish it .
Putting him in charge of the CFPB was roughly the equivalent of putting a flat-earther in charge of NASA . )
However , the Trump administration ’ s destruction of the CFPB from the inside out is now beside the point .
In Seila Law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside in too , holding that its configuration— “ run by a single individual who can not be removed by the President unless certain statutory criteria are met ” —violates the separation of powers and is therefore unconstitutional .
The underlying notion is that presidents must be able to hire and fire principal officers , such as cabinet members , in order to be able to effectively execute the law under Article II of the Constitution .
This is not a novel interpretation—even though Article II itself only references the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Supreme Court instead inferred the president ’ s power to fire officers within the executive branch at will from the silent text of the Constitution ( demonstrating once again that pure textualism is not a feasible means of consistent constitutional interpretation ) .
Nonetheless , the Supreme Court has long held that “ independent ” agencies—such as the agencies with the word “ commission ” in their names because they are headed not by a single person but by a panel of individuals from competing political parties who can only be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staggered—are constitutional .
I won ’ t get into the wonky details here , but suffice it to say that this line of authority is hardly airtight as an analytical matter .
The Court has vacillated in its reasoning to the point where Chief Justice Roberts admits in his Seila Law opinion for the 5-4 majority that “ we need not and do not revisit our prior decisions allowing certain limitations on the President ’ s removal power.
” This aside by Roberts is significant , because the other prior decision of note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 1988 ) , which upheld as constitutional the provisions of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act that had created the office of the independent counsel .
More than a dozen investigations were carried out by independent counsels under this post-Watergate authority , including Lawrence Walsh ’ s investigation of Iran-Contra .
Most prominently , it is under this authority that Kenneth W. Starr investigated President Bill Clinton with scant interference or oversight from the White House—because Starr could not be fired except for cause , and not by the president personally .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal framework governing former Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s work during the Trump administration is that the latter fell under federal regulations that give the attorney general a great deal of power over the investigation and its aftermath .
Mueller was a glorified line prosecutor ; Starr was his own man , so to speak .
So how did Roberts justify striking down the CFPB structure but preserving regular independent agencies ( including critical watchdogs like the Securities and Exchange Commission ) ?
Well , he reasoned that someone like Starr was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CFPB director was not—the latter position is one that qualifies as a “ principal officer ” under the Constitution , giving the president unfettered ( albeit inferred ) removal power with respect to that office .
Moreover , because there was only one person at the helm—not a panel or commission—the CFPB offended the Constitution , while the SEC and Independent Counsel Starr did not .
It would take a 70-page law review article to tease apart the mental gymnastics implicit in this analysis .
If it evaded you , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takeaway for the separation of powers is not that the Court retained the CFPB itself—on the grounds that the provision requiring the agency to have a single head was severable from the rest of the statute , and there was no need to throw the baby out with the bath water—but that this conservative-leaning Court is willing to tolerate federal agencies that are not totally beholden to presidents .
Keep in mind that the Constitution does not create the vast federal bureaucracy that dots Washington , D.C.—Congress did .
And despite the textualist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alito , Gorsuch , and Kavanaugh , all were in sync in terms of preserving quasi-independent law enforcement entities that can not be totally controlled by presidents .
If a President Biden were to take office with a compliant Congress , it would behoove Democrats to take steps to restrain unbridled presidential power with new oversight legislation—the kind that came in spades after Watergate .
After all , as this Supreme Court understands , the guardrails of democracy only work if they are enforced and enforceable .

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is notable not only because the majority struck down a key provision of the statute creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). It is also notable because of what conservatives on the Court did not do: wrangle a majority willing to hold unconstitutional any agency structure that places limits on the president’s appointment and removal power. What this means is that, under the next president and with a willing Congress, we could see constitutional legislation that once again creates a truly independent prosecutor who cannot be fired by a president gone rogue.
The brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren, the CFPB was created by Congress in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis in order to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices by predatory lenders. The statute gives the agency authority to bring legal actions against credit reporting and debt collection companies on behalf duped consumers. But after Trump took office and put Mick Mulvaney—who, at the time, was also the director of the Office of Management and Budget—in charge of the CFPB, the agency’s pro-consumer enforcement actions plummeted. (As a member of the House of Representatives, Mulvaney had called the CFPB a “joke” in “a sick, sad kind of way” and took steps to abolish it. Putting him in charge of the CFPB was roughly the equivalent of putting a flat-earther in charge of NASA.)
However, the Trump administration’s destruction of the CFPB from the inside out is now beside the point. In Seila Law, the Court fractured the agency from the outside in too, holding that its configuration—“run by a single individual who cannot be removed by the President unless certain statutory criteria are met”—violates the separation of powers and is therefore unconstitutional. The underlying notion is that presidents must be able to hire and fire principal officers, such as cabinet members, in order to be able to effectively execute the law under Article II of the Constitution.
This is not a novel interpretation—even though Article II itself only references the president’s appointment power and says nothing about removal. The Supreme Court instead inferred the president’s power to fire officers within the executive branch at will from the silent text of the Constitution (demonstrating once again that pure textualism is not a feasible means of consistent constitutional interpretation).
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…
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has long held that “independent” agencies—such as the agencies with the word “commission” in their names because they are headed not by a single person but by a panel of individuals from competing political parties who can only be fired for cause and whose terms are staggered—are constitutional. I won’t get into the wonky details here, but suffice it to say that this line of authority is hardly airtight as an analytical matter. The Court has vacillated in its reasoning to the point where Chief Justice Roberts admits in his Seila Law opinion for the 5-4 majority that “we need not and do not revisit our prior decisions allowing certain limitations on the President’s removal power.”
This aside by Roberts is significant, because the other prior decision of note on this topic is Morrison v. Olson (1988), which upheld as constitutional the provisions of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act that had created the office of the independent counsel. More than a dozen investigations were carried out by independent counsels under this post-Watergate authority, including Lawrence Walsh’s investigation of Iran-Contra. Most prominently, it is under this authority that Kenneth W. Starr investigated President Bill Clinton with scant interference or oversight from the White House—because Starr could not be fired except for cause, and not by the president personally. The difference between that law and the legal framework governing former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s work during the Trump administration is that the latter fell under federal regulations that give the attorney general a great deal of power over the investigation and its aftermath. Mueller was a glorified line prosecutor; Starr was his own man, so to speak.
So how did Roberts justify striking down the CFPB structure but preserving regular independent agencies (including critical watchdogs like the Securities and Exchange Commission)? Well, he reasoned that someone like Starr was an “inferior officer,” while the CFPB director was not—the latter position is one that qualifies as a “principal officer” under the Constitution, giving the president unfettered (albeit inferred) removal power with respect to that office. Moreover, because there was only one person at the helm—not a panel or commission—the CFPB offended the Constitution, while the SEC and Independent Counsel Starr did not.
It would take a 70-page law review article to tease apart the mental gymnastics implicit in this analysis. If it evaded you, it’s not that important. The key takeaway for the separation of powers is not that the Court retained the CFPB itself—on the grounds that the provision requiring the agency to have a single head was severable from the rest of the statute, and there was no need to throw the baby out with the bath water—but that this conservative-leaning Court is willing to tolerate federal agencies that are not totally beholden to presidents.
Keep in mind that the Constitution does not create the vast federal bureaucracy that dots Washington, D.C.—Congress did. And despite the textualist ideology of Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, all were in sync in terms of preserving quasi-independent law enforcement entities that cannot be totally controlled by presidents.
If a President Biden were to take office with a compliant Congress, it would behoove Democrats to take steps to restrain unbridled presidential power with new oversight legislation—the kind that came in spades after Watergate. After all, as this Supreme Court understands, the guardrails of democracy only work if they are enforced and enforceable.


Anti-Anti-Cancel Culture

Last week ’ s open letter in Harper ’ s in defense of free speech against “ cancel culture ” produced a response that .
.
.
well , it didn ’ t exactly come out in defense of cancel culture .
Instead , it followed the usual formula for defending the indefensible : “ This thing never happened .
But if it had , it would 100 percent be justified.
” The anti-anti-cancelers would have you believe that this entire phenomenon is all in our heads .
Sure , maybe a few people got fired for dubious infractions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Also , if they did get fired it was only because somebody was calling them out for their bigotry .
The “ actual meaning ” of the pro-free-speech letter , the anti-anti-cancelers claim , is expressed in “ coded language ” understood only by the signers of this new letter .
The people who say they ’ re in favor of free speech are actually just panicking because “ black , brown , and LGBTQ+ people—particularly black and trans people—can now critique elites publicly and hold them accountable socially.
” The anti-anti-cancelers complain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harper ’ s letter are “ white , wealthy , and endowed with massive platforms.
” This last point is worth considering carefully .
Of course the signers of the Harper ’ s letter are powerful and established .
Otherwise , they wouldn ’ t have been in a position to sign it , now would they ?
That ’ s precisely how all of this is supposed to work : The influential and the established are supposed to use their power to uphold principles that protect everyone else .
What is obvious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cancel culture debate is that none of this sturm und drang is actually about J.K. Rowling or the other famous names on the letter .
Sure , Rowling is a target for saying sensible things about transgender fanaticism .
But she ’ s not going to get canceled .
She knows it , and we know it .
No publisher is going to drive away the cash cow that is the Harry Potter franchise , and when a couple of much lesser-known writers who share Rowling ’ s literary agency pitched a fit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to let the door hit them on their way out .
But remember how this whole thing with Rowling started .
It was because she used her massive social media following to speak out in defense of someone without such a following : Maya Forstater , a tax expert with an anti-poverty think tank who was fired from her job for tweeting that “ men can not change into women.
” Rowling didn ’ t have to stick her neck out in Forstater ’ s defense .
But she did so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That ’ s not to say that everyone who signed the pro-free-speech letter has nothing to fear for himself .
Salman Rushdie once had the very great “ privilege ” of being put on a hit list by Muslim fanatics .
But if you want to see what cancel culture actually looks like , consider the real stories .
There is the Mexican-American electrical worker fired by San Diego Gas and Electric for holding his hand in a totally innocuous way that was interpreted , in the hyperactive imagination of an extremely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power symbol.
” We ’ ve seen mild-mannered knitting designers with anxiety disorders hounded into submission or out of business for expressing eagerness about a trip to India in shades of expression that only someone deeply committed to finding offense could detect as racist .
Most recently , there is the girl attacked for using a “ racist hashtag , ” which turns out to be “ # BlueLivesMatter , ” to express her grief on the day her father , a police officer , was murdered in the line of duty .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ these incidents in a seemingly endless Twitter thread devoted to the purpose .
They all fit a by-now familiar pattern and it really is an appalling list of ordinary people with no fame , no money , and no power having their lives turned upside down because some bluenosed zealot wanted to make an example of them .
These ordinary people are the targets of a massive moral panic over racism and “ bigotry , ” which in practice is interpreted to mean , “ anything a busybody with a social media account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most helpful to these ordinary people when they face the onslaught of the hectoring “ social justice ” mobs ?
Well , one thing that might help is having a ring of defense from powerful and well-known people .
People in a position secure enough that they can not be canceled .
People like those who stuck their necks out in the Harper ’ s letter .
These people are able to take the heat on behalf of the hapless targets of the mob .
Every time I ’ ve had to stick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve had to say something unwelcome that I knew could get me in trouble , the worst part has been watching people with more money and status scurrying to hide .
Because when the people who can afford to speak up don ’ t , that shifts the burden down to those who can afford it a less .
And the truth is that when the big names do speak up , it can make a substantial practical difference .
It provides what we sometime call on social media “ air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beat back the frenzy of the mob .
It also makes an intellectual difference , changing our cultural expectations .
The stand taken by prominent people sets an example that makes dissent from the mob more acceptable for everyone else .
The more we think it is acceptable for J.K. Rowling , or Steven Pinker , or any one of a long list of scientific and literary luminaries to challenge the prevailing dogma , the easier it is for a young writer just starting out , or a graduate student , or any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survives precisely because people with power and status stand up for it and don ’ t just let the little guy swing in the wind .
This can be true even when the powerful and prominent only set out to defend themselves .
The Magna Carta was intended primarily to protect the rights of the barons against the king—yet it established basic rights and principles that ended up protecting everyone .
The Declaration of Independence may have been written by a slaveholder , but it provided a “ promissory note ” for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have fought monarchy and fascism and communism out of concern for our own freedom and national power , but in the process we liberated much of the world .
People on the left might reflect that this also secures their own freedom to express their views .
The old left—the one that remembered being on the receiving end of blacklists and suppression—often understood this .
Showing tolerance for the speech of others is the best way to secure it for your own .
The signers of the anti-anti canceling letter seem to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have been hounded and bullied .
Instead , their letter is primarily dedicated to the proposition that its signers are the only real victims—and anyone who disagrees with them is secretly a bigot .
Freedom flows from the expansion of the “ circle of empathy ” —the recognition of other people as fellow humans who deserve the same rights you enjoy , the sense that “ if this can happen to you , it can happen to me.
” The anti-anti-cancel position represents a contraction of that circle .
They only deign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very narrow ideological in-group .
This is a movement that is only about power , and only for a narrow clique .
But at least we now know that those of us who care about free speech have the support of a lot of prominent and influential people .
Because in a civilized society , that is one of the jobs of powerful people : to use their power to protect the rights of others .

Last week’s open letter in Harper’s in defense of free speech against “cancel culture” produced a response that . . . well, it didn’t exactly come out in defense of cancel culture. Instead, it followed the usual formula for defending the indefensible:
“This thing never happened. But if it had, it would 100 percent be justified.”
The anti-anti-cancelers would have you believe that this entire phenomenon is all in our heads. Sure, maybe a few people got fired for dubious infractions, but “they are not trends.” Also, if they did get fired it was only because somebody was calling them out for their bigotry.
The “actual meaning” of the pro-free-speech letter, the anti-anti-cancelers claim, is expressed in “coded language” understood only by the signers of this new letter. The people who say they’re in favor of free speech are actually just panicking because “black, brown, and LGBTQ+ people—particularly black and trans people—can now critique elites publicly and hold them accountable socially.”
The anti-anti-cancelers complain that many of the signers of the Harper’s letter are “white, wealthy, and endowed with massive platforms.”
This last point is worth considering carefully.
Of course the signers of the Harper’s letter are powerful and established. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have been in a position to sign it, now would they?
That’s precisely how all of this is supposed to work: The influential and the established are supposed to use their power to uphold principles that protect everyone else.
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 is obvious to anyone who has been following the cancel culture debate is that none of this sturm und drang is actually about J.K. Rowling or the other famous names on the letter.
Sure, Rowling is a target for saying sensible things about transgender fanaticism. But she’s not going to get canceled. She knows it, and we know it. No publisher is going to drive away the cash cow that is the Harry Potter franchise, and when a couple of much lesser-known writers who share Rowling’s literary agency pitched a fit about her, the agency invited them not to let the door hit them on their way out.
But remember how this whole thing with Rowling started. It was because she used her massive social media following to speak out in defense of someone without such a following: Maya Forstater, a tax expert with an anti-poverty think tank who was fired from her job for tweeting that “men cannot change into women.” Rowling didn’t have to stick her neck out in Forstater’s defense. But she did so, in part because she could afford to.
That’s not to say that everyone who signed the pro-free-speech letter has nothing to fear for himself. Salman Rushdie once had the very great “privilege” of being put on a hit list by Muslim fanatics. But if you want to see what cancel culture actually looks like, consider the real stories.
There is the Mexican-American electrical worker fired by San Diego Gas and Electric for holding his hand in a totally innocuous way that was interpreted, in the hyperactive imagination of an extremely online leftist, as a “white power symbol.”
We’ve seen mild-mannered knitting designers with anxiety disorders hounded into submission or out of business for expressing eagerness about a trip to India in shades of expression that only someone deeply committed to finding offense could detect as racist.
Most recently, there is the girl attacked for using a “racist hashtag,” which turns out to be “#BlueLivesMatter,” to express her grief on the day her father, a police officer, was murdered in the line of duty.
You can find a helpful list of these incidents in a seemingly endless Twitter thread devoted to the purpose. They all fit a by-now familiar pattern and it really is an appalling list of ordinary people with no fame, no money, and no power having their lives turned upside down because some bluenosed zealot wanted to make an example of them. These ordinary people are the targets of a massive moral panic over racism and “bigotry,” which in practice is interpreted to mean, “anything a busybody with a social media account doesn’t like.”
What is most helpful to these ordinary people when they face the onslaught of the hectoring “social justice” mobs? Well, one thing that might help is having a ring of defense from powerful and well-known people. People in a position secure enough that they cannot be canceled. People like those who stuck their necks out in the Harper’s letter.
These people are able to take the heat on behalf of the hapless targets of the mob. Every time I’ve had to stick my own neck out, every time I’ve had to say something unwelcome that I knew could get me in trouble, the worst part has been watching people with more money and status scurrying to hide.
Because when the people who can afford to speak up don’t, that shifts the burden down to those who can afford it a less.
And the truth is that when the big names do speak up, it can make a substantial practical difference. It provides what we sometime call on social media “air support”–prominent people swooping in to beat back the frenzy of the mob.
It also makes an intellectual difference, changing our cultural expectations. The stand taken by prominent people sets an example that makes dissent from the mob more acceptable for everyone else. The more we think it is acceptable for J.K. Rowling, or Steven Pinker, or any one of a long list of scientific and literary luminaries to challenge the prevailing dogma, the easier it is for a young writer just starting out, or a graduate student, or any other random citizen.
Historically, freedom survives precisely because people with power and status stand up for it and don’t just let the little guy swing in the wind.
This can be true even when the powerful and prominent only set out to defend themselves. The Magna Carta was intended primarily to protect the rights of the barons against the king—yet it established basic rights and principles that ended up protecting everyone. The Declaration of Independence may have been written by a slaveholder, but it provided a “promissory note” for the natural equality of man. America may have fought monarchy and fascism and communism out of concern for our own freedom and national power, but in the process we liberated much of the world.
People on the left might reflect that this also secures their own freedom to express their views. The old left—the one that remembered being on the receiving end of blacklists and suppression—often understood this.
Showing tolerance for the speech of others is the best way to secure it for your own.
The signers of the anti-anti canceling letter seem to have precious little empathy for the ordinary people who have been hounded and bullied. Instead, their letter is primarily dedicated to the proposition that its signers are the only real victims—and anyone who disagrees with them is secretly a bigot.
Freedom flows from the expansion of the “circle of empathy”—the recognition of other people as fellow humans who deserve the same rights you enjoy, the sense that “if this can happen to you, it can happen to me.” The anti-anti-cancel position represents a contraction of that circle. They only deign to recognize the fellow humanity of a very narrow ideological in-group. This is a movement that is only about power, and only for a narrow clique.
But at least we now know that those of us who care about free speech have the support of a lot of prominent and influential people.
Because in a civilized society, that is one of the jobs of powerful people: to use their power to protect the rights of others.