Defining Deviancy Down

Deviancy has been defined so far down that President Donald Trump ’ s retweet at mid-day Tuesday was barely noticed .
After all , what ’ s new ?
And who cares ?
So what if the president of the United States brought to prominence an insane conspiracy theory that his predecessor , Barack Obama , arranged for four Americans to be killed at Benghazi to cover up an even bigger intentional blood-sacrifice of Navy SEALs—which in turn covered up the fact that Osama Bin Laden was still alive .
Since it was a body-double who was in fact killed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that ’ s the story Trump was amplifying .
You ’ ll forgive me if I got some twists in the plot wrong .
Anyway , what ’ s the big deal ?
It ’ s just Trump being Trump .
The important things were happening elsewhere , in the back and forth between Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett and various senators on Capitol Hill .
That ’ s what serious conservatives were focused on .
That ’ s what ’ s going to make a difference .
If crazy tweets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ originalist justice , these people tell us , then it ’ s well worth it .
Except that it ’ s not .
Leave aside how much real difference a Justice Barrett will make .
Leave aside how much difference the Supreme Court will make—or will even try to make—if the GOP is reduced to a minority party for the foreseeable future , and the conservative movement is discredited with a majority of the American people .
In fact the Court will follow the election returns , and the political climate , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it always ultimately has .
But let ’ s assume that Justice Barrett is , for conservatives , a real win .
But at what price ?
What is a win for the conservative legal movement worth if the conservative movement as a whole is in a state of moral , political , and intellectual collapse ?
No structure of court decisions , no edifice of edifying jurisprudence , can survive if it ’ s built on a fever swamp of conspiracy theories .
Justice Antonin Scalia and other Supreme Court justices were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I didn ’ t watch it all , but I don ’ t believe one of the greatest judges never to make it to the Supreme Court , Judge Learned Hand , was mentioned .
It was Learned Hand who said in his 1944 Spirit of Liberty speech , that I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions , upon laws , and upon courts .
These are false hopes ; believe me , these are false hopes .
Liberty lies in the hearts of men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no constitution , no law , no court can save it ; no constitution , no law , no court can even do much to help it .
While it lies there , it needs no constitution , no law , no court to save it .
In fact , as a respite from Trump ’ s tweets , but also from the often disingenuous and uninspiring sparring before the Senate Judiciary Committee , here ’ s the whole text of Judge Hand ’ s brief remarks .
Read the whole thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a faith , a faith in a common purpose , a common conviction , a common devotion .
Some of us have chosen America as the land of our adoption ; the rest have come from those who did the same .
For this reason we have some right to consider ourselves a picked group , a group of those who had the courage to break from the past and brave the dangers and the loneliness of a strange land .
What was the object that nerved us , or those who went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We sought liberty ; freedoms from oppression , freedom from want , freedom to be ourselves .
This we then sought ; this we now believe that we are by way of winning .
What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty ?
I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions , upon laws and upon courts .
These are false hopes ; believe me , these are false hopes .
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no law , no court can even do much to help it .
While it lies there it needs no constitution , no law , no court to save it .
And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women ?
It is not the ruthless , the unbridled will ; it is not freedom to do as one likes .
That is the denial of liberty , and leads straight to its overthrow .
A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the possession of only a savage few ; as we have learned to our sorrow .
What then is the spirit of liberty ?
I can not define it ; I can only tell you my own faith .
The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right ; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women ; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias ; the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sparrow falls to earth unheeded ; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who , near two thousand years ago , taught mankind that lesson it has never learned but never quite forgotten ; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest .
And now in that spirit , that spirit of an America which has never been , and which may never be ; nay , which never will be except as the conscience and courage of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spirit of that America which lies hidden in some form in the aspirations of us all ; in the spirit of that America for which our young men are at this moment fighting and dying ; in that spirit of liberty and of America I ask you to rise and with me pledge our faith in the glorious destiny of our beloved country .
Learned Hand was a representative of an older conservatism , long-gone and presumably never to return .
Or could it return ?
Could the terrible descent into the fever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Republican party and the conservative movement—jostle us out of our short-sightedness and complacency ?
We need a return to the spirit of Learned Hand far more than we need one more vote on the “ right ” side of some issues on the Supreme Court .

Deviancy has been defined so far down that President Donald Trump’s retweet at mid-day Tuesday was barely noticed.
The president retweeted an insane article alleging "Biden and Obama may have had Seal Team 6 killed" posted by a QAnon account and written by "an ex-Community Organizer and Homeschool Mom." pic.twitter.com/ydoCEFLkAt — Christian Vanderbrouk (@UrbanAchievr) October 13, 2020
After all, what’s new? And who cares?
So what if the president of the United States brought to prominence an insane conspiracy theory that his predecessor, Barack Obama, arranged for four Americans to be killed at Benghazi to cover up an even bigger intentional blood-sacrifice of Navy SEALs—which in turn covered up the fact that Osama Bin Laden was still alive. Since it was a body-double who was in fact killed in 2011.
Or at least I think that’s the story Trump was amplifying. You’ll forgive me if I got some twists in the plot wrong.
Anyway, what’s the big deal? It’s just Trump being Trump. The important things were happening elsewhere, in the back and forth between Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett and various senators on Capitol Hill. That’s what serious conservatives were focused on. That’s what’s going to make a difference. If crazy tweets are the price we pay for an originalist justice, these people tell us, then it’s well worth it.
Except that it’s not. Leave aside how much real difference a Justice Barrett will make. Leave aside how much difference the Supreme Court will make—or will even try to make—if the GOP is reduced to a minority party for the foreseeable future, and the conservative movement is discredited with a majority of the American people. In fact the Court will follow the election returns, and the political climate, and the sociological and ideological currents. As it always ultimately has.
But let’s assume that Justice Barrett is, for conservatives, a real win.
But at what price? What is a win for the conservative legal movement worth if the conservative movement as a whole is in a state of moral, political, and intellectual collapse? No structure of court decisions, no edifice of edifying jurisprudence, can survive if it’s built on a fever swamp of conspiracy theories.
Justice Antonin Scalia and other Supreme Court justices were cited at the Amy Coney Barrett hearing. I didn’t watch it all, but I don’t believe one of the greatest judges never to make it to the Supreme Court, Judge Learned Hand, was mentioned.
It was Learned Hand who said in his 1944 Spirit of Liberty speech, that
I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it.
In fact, as a respite from Trump’s tweets, but also from the often disingenuous and uninspiring sparring before the Senate Judiciary Committee, here’s the whole text of Judge Hand’s brief remarks. Read the whole thing:
We have gathered here to affirm a faith, a faith in a common purpose, a common conviction, a common devotion. Some of us have chosen America as the land of our adoption; the rest have come from those who did the same. For this reason we have some right to consider ourselves a picked group, a group of those who had the courage to break from the past and brave the dangers and the loneliness of a strange land. What was the object that nerved us, or those who went before us, to this choice? We sought liberty; freedoms from oppression, freedom from want, freedom to be ourselves. This we then sought; this we now believe that we are by way of winning. What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow. What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the mind of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned but never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest. And now in that spirit, that spirit of an America which has never been, and which may never be; nay, which never will be except as the conscience and courage of Americans create it; yet in the spirit of that America which lies hidden in some form in the aspirations of us all; in the spirit of that America for which our young men are at this moment fighting and dying; in that spirit of liberty and of America I ask you to rise and with me pledge our faith in the glorious destiny of our beloved country.
Learned Hand was a representative of an older conservatism, long-gone and presumably never to return. Or could it return? Could the terrible descent into the fever swamps—and the terrible accommodation of that descent by the Republican party and the conservative movement—jostle us out of our short-sightedness and complacency?
We need a return to the spirit of Learned Hand far more than we need one more vote on the “right” side of some issues on the Supreme Court.


thebulwark--2020-10-14--Trump’s Great “Unmasking” Hoax Is Finally Dead

Guess we can close the file on that one .
Attorney General William Barr has quietly ended the probe into the supposed “ unmasking ” scandal which was only opened as fan service for Republican elected officials and conservative media in the first place .
( Trump had suggested to Maria Bartiromo that the perpetrators be given 50-year sentences on Fox . )
I suspect that Barr had hoped that maybe , with a little luck , his investigation might snare somebody in some tangential wrongdoing .
Or be able to do some strategic leaking .
Or at least keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Alas , the president ’ s lawyer daddy struck out .
Again .
Thus bringing to a close a matter that—in a saner world—would have been the stupidest fake scandal in decade .
But in our timeline , turned out to not even be the stupidest fake scandal of the day .
It was eclipsed in the crazy-rankings by President Trump twice suggesting that President Obama may have killed Osama Bin Laden ’ s body double and worked with secret Muslim John Brennan to pay the Iranians to murder Seal Team Six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obsessing about “ media bias , ” is the most insane conspiracy ever publicly suggested by a sitting president And yet will not even make page A-16 in today ’ s newspapers .
As for The Great Unmasking fake scandal : It brings to an end a fantasy in which Obama administration officials—including Joe Biden !
—had wrongfully requested the “ unmasking ” of Trump campaign officials who showed up in intelligence memos because of their communications with Russia .
In this conspiracy theory the unmasking was part of a broader Deep State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the 2016 Trump campaign staffers , frame them for the “ Russia Hoax , ” and smear them in the media .
If you would like to become further steeped in the various related subnontroversies , the very fine people at the Federalist have an entire page dedicated to “ unmasking ” that you can peruse .
Though—spoiler—you probably shouldn ’ t bother looking for updates or corrections .
There were obvious holes in the “ unmasking ” story from the start .
The big two being that : • Unmasking is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7,700 unmasking requests , for example .
Mike Morrell wrote about the practice in great detail here .
• If the Trump campaign hadn ’ t been having unusual—and frequent—back-channel conversations with the country who was attacking our elections , there would have been nothing to unmask .
The only world in which “ unmasking ” could have possibly been a real scandal is in the delusional one where the Russians didn ’ t systematically interfere in our elections to help one candidate while that candidate and his emissaries encouraged this interference both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sandy foundation that the conservative media and Bill Barr erected a pyramid of trumped up BS .
The Durham investigation , Obamagate , tapping “ my wires , ” # ButSusanRice ’ sEmails—none of this makes sense unless you first reject the fundamental reality of Russian interference in the 2016 election .
Once you grasp that basic , underlying fact , everything else makes complete sense : The Obama administration ’ s national security apparatus was looking into the perpetrators of a cyber attack on our elections .
Occam has never had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretend this truth doesn ’ t exist , for political purposes , well , then you find yourself doing things like Wacko Bird # 1 Ted Cruz tweeting that Obama and Biden directed an unprecedented spying campaign on Trump .
Or Wacko Bird # 2 Rand Paul tweeting that a man who is spreading a deadly contagion not wearing a mask is less important than the Democrats “ illegally spying ” on their opponents .
Or John Cornyn saying that these routine actions were somehow “ bigger than Watergate.
” They all convinced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is what ’ s required to justify their embrace of a man they knew was corrupt , that they knew would be an unmitigated disaster , and they suspected was on Putin ’ s payroll themselves !
So while the Barr “ investigation ” of “ unmasking ” closed with what you might call TOTAL EXONERATION , the damage is done .
Because when you keep telling your supporters that the Deep State is out to get you and that the other side is spying on you and that you can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hold them accountable for their treason because everything is rigged against the Christian white man .
.
.
eventually they believe you .
Then the people who believe it will go on to support candidates who fulfill that fantasy .
And around the drain we go .
So in that sense there is an unmasking scandal after all .
It ’ s just that the Republicans who were pushing it were actually the perpetrators .

Guess we can close the file on that one.
Attorney General William Barr has quietly ended the probe into the supposed “unmasking” scandal which was only opened as fan service for Republican elected officials and conservative media in the first place. (Trump had suggested to Maria Bartiromo that the perpetrators be given 50-year sentences on Fox.)
I suspect that Barr had hoped that maybe, with a little luck, his investigation might snare somebody in some tangential wrongdoing. Or be able to do some strategic leaking. Or at least keep the issue open until after the election.
Alas, the president’s lawyer daddy struck out. Again. Thus bringing to a close a matter that—in a saner world—would have been the stupidest fake scandal in decade. But in our timeline, turned out to not even be the stupidest fake scandal of the day.
It was eclipsed in the crazy-rankings by President Trump twice suggesting that President Obama may have killed Osama Bin Laden’s body double and worked with secret Muslim John Brennan to pay the Iranians to murder Seal Team Six. Which, for those of you obsessing about “media bias,” is the most insane conspiracy ever publicly suggested by a sitting president and yet will not even make page A-16 in today’s newspapers.
As for The Great Unmasking fake scandal: It brings to an end a fantasy in which Obama administration officials—including Joe Biden!—had wrongfully requested the “unmasking” of Trump campaign officials who showed up in intelligence memos because of their communications with Russia.
In this conspiracy theory the unmasking was part of a broader Deep State effort by the U.S. government to spy on the 2016 Trump campaign staffers, frame them for the “Russia Hoax,” and smear them in the media. If you would like to become further steeped in the various related subnontroversies, the very fine people at the Federalist have an entire page dedicated to “unmasking” that you can peruse.
Though—spoiler—you probably shouldn’t bother looking for updates or corrections.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
There were obvious holes in the “unmasking” story from the start. The big two being that:
Unmasking is routine. Last year there were about 7,700 unmasking requests, for example. Mike Morrell wrote about the practice in great detail here. If the Trump campaign hadn’t been having unusual—and frequent—back-channel conversations with the country who was attacking our elections, there would have been nothing to unmask.
The only world in which “unmasking” could have possibly been a real scandal is in the delusional one where the Russians didn’t systematically interfere in our elections to help one candidate while that candidate and his emissaries encouraged this interference both publicly and privately
It is on this sandy foundation that the conservative media and Bill Barr erected a pyramid of trumped up BS. The Durham investigation, Obamagate, tapping “my wires,” #ButSusanRice’sEmails—none of this makes sense unless you first reject the fundamental reality of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Once you grasp that basic, underlying fact, everything else makes complete sense: The Obama administration’s national security apparatus was looking into the perpetrators of a cyber attack on our elections. Occam has never had a straighter razor.
But if you willfully pretend this truth doesn’t exist, for political purposes, well, then you find yourself doing things like Wacko Bird #1 Ted Cruz tweeting that Obama and Biden directed an unprecedented spying campaign on Trump. Or Wacko Bird #2 Rand Paul tweeting that a man who is spreading a deadly contagion not wearing a mask is less important than the Democrats “illegally spying” on their opponents. Or John Cornyn saying that these routine actions were somehow “bigger than Watergate.”
They all convinced themselves that Biden did a treason because that is what’s required to justify their embrace of a man they knew was corrupt, that they knew would be an unmitigated disaster, and they suspected was on Putin’s payroll themselves!
So while the Barr “investigation” of “unmasking” closed with what you might call TOTAL EXONERATION, the damage is done. Because when you keep telling your supporters that the Deep State is out to get you and that the other side is spying on you and that you can’t trust the media or the courts to hold them accountable for their treason because everything is rigged against the Christian white man . . . eventually they believe you.
Then the people who believe it will go on to support candidates who fulfill that fantasy.
And around the drain we go. So in that sense there is an unmasking scandal after all. It’s just that the Republicans who were pushing it were actually the perpetrators.


thebulwark--2020-10-15--How Trump Sealed the GOP’s Suicide

How Trump Sealed the GOP’s Suicide

I first wrote about Donald Trump in a September 2015 column predicting his political self-annihilation : Okay , so I was five years and one presidency off .
Still , better to be premature than to miss the inevitable end game : Because Trump can only be himself , a critical mass of Americans have become sick of his pathology .
The Bulwark ’ s Tim Miller cites responses from a fresh poll of independents , a crucial voting bloc Trump desperately needs .
Their shorthand descriptions beg analysis : “ horrible human being , ” “ incredibly rude , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” “ unfit to do the job , ” “ sexist and racist , ” “ idiot , ” “ arrogance , ” “ slimebag , ” and , of course , “ lies.
” I merely summarize the implications for his campaign : Unpromising .
Because Trump is immutably pathological , he ’ s incapable of growth as a politician or president .
As pollster Sean Trende told the New Yorker : One of the big failings of Trump ’ s Presidency—and there are many—is that he never made the transition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I think he had a very effective insurgent campaign , and it was hard for Hillary Clinton .
But , once he became President , he had no reason to listen to people who actually know stuff about politics , who would tell him , “ Hey , you ’ re the President now .
You need to put down that Twitter thing.
” That ’ s great for your initial election campaign , but people don ’ t want their Presidents yelling at the Prime Minister of Denmark because she won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
.
COVID was absolutely a layup for him .
.
.
.
People want to hear Presidents give moving speeches , even if what they do isn ’ t that effective .
And he just couldn ’ t do it .
When a president ’ s incapacities include inhumanity , self-exposure becomes malignant .
Last weekend Trump reprised his “ Evito ” turn on the White House balcony , fusing Patti LuPone with Benito Mussolini in yet another display of heedless self-adoration before an audience clustered—the pandemic be damned—to appear bigger than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ starting very , very big with our rallies , ” Trump crowed , before repeating a claim he first made about COVID-19 roughly 216,000 deaths ago : “ It ’ s going to disappear.
” In the real America beyond Trump ’ s mirror of self , the resurgent coronavirus is causing almost 50,000 new cases per day .
Yet Trump kicked off his renewed contagion tour with potential superspreader events : rallies in Florida , Pennsylvania , and Iowa , using as props throngs of largely mask-free supporters crowded together in disregard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this is political lunacy : He was speaking to the converted while reminding the larger electorate of his callous disregard for others—and highlighting his mismanagement of COVID-19 for whatever undecided voters remain .
But he is mentally incapable of doing anything else—and pathetically needy for adulation .
So he sequesters himself on pro-Trump media , running a one-man campaign geared only to arousing the supporters he already has .
As Jonathan V. Last writes , “ One of the truisms of politics is : Bad gets worse.
” So does Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows Biden leading by 12 points among likely voters .
As to COVID , the Post reports , “ Almost 2 in 3 voters say Trump did not take appropriate precautions to reduce the chances of catching the coronavirus , and 6 in 10 say they do not trust the administration to provide complete and accurate information about his health.
” As for his handling of the pandemic , numerous surveys confirm that he ’ s irreversibly underwater .
The more voters see him , the more his finite foundation crumbles .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden by 52 to 40 percent—whereas among independents in 2016 Trump beat Clinton by four points .
And the widening chasm among suburban women favors Biden by 28 points .
This squares with polling averages maintained by FiveThirtyEight and RealClearPolitics , both of which put Biden ’ s national margin at about 10 percent .
Fresh surveys of battleground states show Biden leading comfortably in Michigan , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin , ahead in Arizona and Florida , and up by a hair in North Carolina .
Politics , of course , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump is practicing subtraction .
His last hope is to squeeze yet more votes out of a shrinking demographic , his base of non-college-educated whites , enabling him to manufacture a synthetic Electoral College margin through voter suppression and disqualifying thousands of mail-in ballots cast for Democrats .
Yet fresh polls in Michigan and Wisconsin suggest that white voters are defecting in significant numbers from Trump to Biden .
Even the intervention of Republican congressmen , state legislatures , and judges to meddle with the Electoral College may not be enough to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP find itself in this desperate , seamy dilemma ?
The short answer is four years of subservience to Trump .
But it is nonetheless instructive to consider what the party had become before his advent—and how he might have helped save it had he been not only a normal person , but the unconventional political genius some conjured from the ether .
By 2012 , the GOP had come to rely on a partially overlapping base of evangelicals ; whites without college degrees threatened by economic dislocation ; and malcontents whose distrust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folks were not natural allies of the party of business or its wealthy donors .
In exchange for pursuing the economic agenda of the wealthy , the GOP increasingly offered up a primal vision rooted in culture wars , contempt for government , and scapegoating blacks , immigrants , Muslims and other minorities .
The real causes of blue-collar woes were globalization , the Great Recession , the housing crisis , and an information society which marginalized the undereducated .
About this , the GOP elite did nothing—not about student debt , stagnant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security , retraining for the new economy , or the widespread unaffordability of quality medical care .
The epitome of their nihilism was Ted Cruz : a grandstanding opportunist who tried to shut down the government while assembling a stunted coalition of evangelicals , gun fanatics , nativists , climate-change deniers , and Tea Party atavists .
By the primary season of 2016 , that covered most of the GOP base .
The party ’ s only realistic alternative to Cruz was an incendiary and ideologically unmoored interloper—Donald Trump .
Had the RNC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party officials and consultants gotten their way , this trajectory would have been different .
After Mitt Romney lost in 2012 , these seasoned professionals concluded that the GOP was headed for demographic oblivion .
The result was the widely-touted “ autopsy ” which called for a comprehensive rethinking of Republican electoral strategy .
Its analysis was unsparing—and proactive .
The GOP had been “ continually marginalizing itself , ” said Sally Bradshaw , one of the autopsy ’ s authors .
“ We have lost the ability to be persuasive with or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree with us on every issue.
” The party , she added , “ needs to do better with women ” and to become “ inviting and inspiring.
” Another of the autopsy ’ s authors warned that “ if our party isn ’ t welcoming and inclusive , young people and increasingly other voters will continue to tune us out.
” Among the solutions proposed was an extensive outreach to women , African-Americans , Asians , Hispanics , and LGBT voters which included embracing “ comprehensive immigration reform.
” But that last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nativist passions roiling much of the GOP base .
Faced with their fury for his cosponsorship of an immigration reform bill , Marco Rubio folded .
Broadening the party ’ s appeal , it seemed clear , would require a nominee with the vision and gifts to propitiate its restive electorate .
Enter Donald Trump .
In 2013 , he tweeted : “ New @ RNC report calls for embracing ‘ comprehensive immigration reform.
’ Does the @ RNC have a death wish ?
” Smart Republicans foresaw the consequences .
Said Jon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself is less consequential than ever before , and .
.
.
the tribal differences are increasingly irreconcilable .
.
.
.
If Trump prevails , he will have single-handedly upended the old Republican order and built a new movement in its place .
The question then will be , is it sustainable ?
” Not in the long run , others forecast .
Peter Wehner warned in 2016 that the GOP “ is becoming redefined by Trump , and the question is , Can we jerk it back ?
.
.
.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ own inner peace with the changing demographics in America .
.
.
.
If it runs against Hispanics and other minorities , that ultimately can ’ t be sustained.
” In 2020 he is proving himself wrong .
But his victory in 2016 , however transient and peculiar to its circumstances , foreclosed the path to a broader-based GOP .
Particularly problematic is that Trump ’ s appeal—while fatally limited—has among the base a visceral depth which transcends loyalty to the party , its elected officials , or whatever threadbare ideas it retains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cult of personality suffused with authoritarianism .
As described by the Washington Post , the new book Authoritarian Nightmare by Bob Altemeyer and John Dean presents “ data from a previously unpublished nationwide survey showing a striking desire for strong authoritarian leadership among Republican voters.
” This squares with findings by Vanderbilt political scientist Larry Bartels summarized by the Post : “ Many Republican voters hold strong authoritarian and anti-democratic beliefs , with racism being a key driver of those attitudes.
” In the Altemeyer-Dean survey , roughly half of Trump supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our government leaders and the authorities condemn the dangerous elements in our society , it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.
” Many Trump supporters , the authors conclude , “ are submissive , fearful , and longing for a mighty leader who will protect them from life ’ s threats .
They divide the world into friend and foe , with the latter greatly outnumbering the former.
” As president , Trump has pushed the boundaries of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power .
Not only do his followers support this , but elected Republicans have done nothing to stop him .
The GOP is no longer about ideas like limited government , or the higher ideals of inclusiveness and an American Dream open to all .
Its toxic compound of raw anger and nativist passion is , at bottom , about subjugating the demographic “ other.
” Before Trump , the GOP ’ s better angels were already enfeebled .
In 2016 he killed them off .
It is barely possible now to imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He came without ideology , propelled by a gift for embodying a potent but undefined populism .
He might have become an agent of constructive reinvention , eschewing racism and xenophobia in favor of offering embattled middle-class and blue-collar workers genuine economic uplift .
He could have reinstated fiscal responsibility by disdaining tax cuts for the wealthy .
He might even have taken steps—if not to drain the swamp—at least to reform it .
But that would have required real talent , sustained attention , and a genuine interest in governance .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narcissistic demagogue unleashed white identity politics and the endless overreach of Republican donors .
This leads inexorably to the deadest of ends—a demographic death knell for his party and , for our democracy , the most grievous of wounds .

I first wrote about Donald Trump in a September 2015 column predicting his political self-annihilation:
Slowly, inevitably, Trump will crack, flooding the maws of an avid media with a tsunami of whining, petty feuds, and overblown grievances. His audience will be watching, and not kindly—some out of sheer fascination with his self-destruction, more because most Americans are, at bottom, sensible. They want an optimistic leader who imbues them with hope, not a self- obsessed whiner whose endless psychodrama is, in the end, exhausting. Not only will they not want Donald Trump in the White House; they won’t want him in their living rooms. And one by one they will switch the channel, until Trump is left alone on a soundstage, and the lens into which he stares becomes an empty mirror.
Okay, so I was five years and one presidency off. Still, better to be premature than to miss the inevitable end game: Because Trump can only be himself, a critical mass of Americans have become sick of his pathology.
The Bulwark’s Tim Miller cites responses from a fresh poll of independents, a crucial voting bloc Trump desperately needs. Their shorthand descriptions beg analysis: “horrible human being,” “incredibly rude,” “terrible representative for our country,” “unfit to do the job,” “sexist and racist,” “idiot,” “arrogance,” “slimebag,” and, of course, “lies.” I merely summarize the implications for his campaign: Unpromising.
Because Trump is immutably pathological, he’s incapable of growth as a politician or president. As pollster Sean Trende told the New Yorker:
One of the big failings of Trump’s Presidency—and there are many—is that he never made the transition from an insurgent candidate to a President. I think he had a very effective insurgent campaign, and it was hard for Hillary Clinton. But, once he became President, he had no reason to listen to people who actually know stuff about politics, who would tell him, “Hey, you’re the President now. You need to put down that Twitter thing.” That’s great for your initial election campaign, but people don’t want their Presidents yelling at the Prime Minister of Denmark because she won’t sell him Greenland. . . . COVID was absolutely a layup for him. . . . People want to hear Presidents give moving speeches, even if what they do isn’t that effective. And he just couldn’t do it.
When a president’s incapacities include inhumanity, self-exposure becomes malignant. Last weekend Trump reprised his “Evito” turn on the White House balcony, fusing Patti LuPone with Benito Mussolini in yet another display of heedless self-adoration before an audience clustered—the pandemic be damned—to appear bigger than it was.
“We’re starting very, very big with our rallies,” Trump crowed, before repeating a claim he first made about COVID-19 roughly 216,000 deaths ago: “It’s going to disappear.” In the real America beyond Trump’s mirror of self, the resurgent coronavirus is causing almost 50,000 new cases per day.
Yet Trump kicked off his renewed contagion tour with potential superspreader events: rallies in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Iowa, using as props throngs of largely mask-free supporters crowded together in disregard of physical-distancing guidelines. Public health aside, this is political lunacy: He was speaking to the converted while reminding the larger electorate of his callous disregard for others—and highlighting his mismanagement of COVID-19 for whatever undecided voters remain.
But he is mentally incapable of doing anything else—and pathetically needy for adulation. So he sequesters himself on pro-Trump media, running a one-man campaign geared only to arousing the supporters he already has.
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 Jonathan V. Last writes, “One of the truisms of politics is: Bad gets worse.” So does Trump. The latest Washington Post-ABC News national poll shows Biden leading by 12 points among likely voters. As to COVID, the Post reports, “Almost 2 in 3 voters say Trump did not take appropriate precautions to reduce the chances of catching the coronavirus, and 6 in 10 say they do not trust the administration to provide complete and accurate information about his health.” As for his handling of the pandemic, numerous surveys confirm that he’s irreversibly underwater.
The more voters see him, the more his finite foundation crumbles. The Post poll shows that independent voters favor Biden by 52 to 40 percent—whereas among independents in 2016 Trump beat Clinton by four points. And the widening chasm among suburban women favors Biden by 28 points.
This squares with polling averages maintained by FiveThirtyEight and RealClearPolitics, both of which put Biden’s national margin at about 10 percent. Fresh surveys of battleground states show Biden leading comfortably in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, ahead in Arizona and Florida, and up by a hair in North Carolina.
Politics, of course, is the art of addition. Psychologically maladaptive, Trump is practicing subtraction.
His last hope is to squeeze yet more votes out of a shrinking demographic, his base of non-college-educated whites, enabling him to manufacture a synthetic Electoral College margin through voter suppression and disqualifying thousands of mail-in ballots cast for Democrats. Yet fresh polls in Michigan and Wisconsin suggest that white voters are defecting in significant numbers from Trump to Biden. Even the intervention of Republican congressmen, state legislatures, and judges to meddle with the Electoral College may not be enough to stave off defeat.
How did the GOP find itself in this desperate, seamy dilemma? The short answer is four years of subservience to Trump. But it is nonetheless instructive to consider what the party had become before his advent—and how he might have helped save it had he been not only a normal person, but the unconventional political genius some conjured from the ether.
By 2012, the GOP had come to rely on a partially overlapping base of evangelicals; whites without college degrees threatened by economic dislocation; and malcontents whose distrust of government partook of paranoia. These folks were not natural allies of the party of business or its wealthy donors. In exchange for pursuing the economic agenda of the wealthy, the GOP increasingly offered up a primal vision rooted in culture wars, contempt for government, and scapegoating blacks, immigrants, Muslims and other minorities.
The real causes of blue-collar woes were globalization, the Great Recession, the housing crisis, and an information society which marginalized the undereducated. About this, the GOP elite did nothing—not about student debt, stagnant wages, dwindling benefits, diminishing job security, retraining for the new economy, or the widespread unaffordability of quality medical care. The epitome of their nihilism was Ted Cruz: a grandstanding opportunist who tried to shut down the government while assembling a stunted coalition of evangelicals, gun fanatics, nativists, climate-change deniers, and Tea Party atavists.
By the primary season of 2016, that covered most of the GOP base. The party’s only realistic alternative to Cruz was an incendiary and ideologically unmoored interloper—Donald Trump.
Had the RNC’s then-Chairman Reince Priebus and foresighted party officials and consultants gotten their way, this trajectory would have been different. After Mitt Romney lost in 2012, these seasoned professionals concluded that the GOP was headed for demographic oblivion. The result was the widely-touted “autopsy” which called for a comprehensive rethinking of Republican electoral strategy.
Its analysis was unsparing—and proactive. The GOP had been “continually marginalizing itself,” said Sally Bradshaw, one of the autopsy’s authors. “We have lost the ability to be persuasive with or welcoming to those who don’t agree with us on every issue.”
The party, she added, “needs to do better with women” and to become “inviting and inspiring.” Another of the autopsy’s authors warned that “if our party isn’t welcoming and inclusive, young people and increasingly other voters will continue to tune us out.” Among the solutions proposed was an extensive outreach to women, African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics, and LGBT voters which included embracing “comprehensive immigration reform.”
But that last, in particular, ran athwart the nativist passions roiling much of the GOP base. Faced with their fury for his cosponsorship of an immigration reform bill, Marco Rubio folded. Broadening the party’s appeal, it seemed clear, would require a nominee with the vision and gifts to propitiate its restive electorate.
Enter Donald Trump. In 2013, he tweeted: “New @RNC report calls for embracing ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’ Does the @RNC have a death wish?”
Smart Republicans foresaw the consequences. Said Jon Huntsman in 2016: “The party itself is less consequential than ever before, and . . . the tribal differences are increasingly irreconcilable. . . . If Trump prevails, he will have single-handedly upended the old Republican order and built a new movement in its place. The question then will be, is it sustainable?”
Not in the long run, others forecast. Peter Wehner warned in 2016 that the GOP “is becoming redefined by Trump, and the question is, Can we jerk it back? . . . The Republican Party has to make its own inner peace with the changing demographics in America. . . . If it runs against Hispanics and other minorities, that ultimately can’t be sustained.”
Nonsense, Trump tweeted:
Why can't the leaders of the Republican Party see that I am bringing in new voters by the millions-we are creating a larger, stronger party! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 2, 2016
In 2020 he is proving himself wrong. But his victory in 2016, however transient and peculiar to its circumstances, foreclosed the path to a broader-based GOP.
Particularly problematic is that Trump’s appeal—while fatally limited—has among the base a visceral depth which transcends loyalty to the party, its elected officials, or whatever threadbare ideas it retains. The party of Trump has become a cult of personality suffused with authoritarianism.
As described by the Washington Post, the new book Authoritarian Nightmare by Bob Altemeyer and John Dean presents “data from a previously unpublished nationwide survey showing a striking desire for strong authoritarian leadership among Republican voters.” This squares with findings by Vanderbilt political scientist Larry Bartels summarized by the Post: “Many Republican voters hold strong authoritarian and anti-democratic beliefs, with racism being a key driver of those attitudes.”
In the Altemeyer-Dean survey, roughly half of Trump supporters agreed with this statement: “Once our government leaders and the authorities condemn the dangerous elements in our society, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.” Many Trump supporters, the authors conclude, “are submissive, fearful, and longing for a mighty leader who will protect them from life’s threats. They divide the world into friend and foe, with the latter greatly outnumbering the former.”
As president, Trump has pushed the boundaries of our constitutional democracy to achieve unprecedented executive power. Not only do his followers support this, but elected Republicans have done nothing to stop him.
The GOP is no longer about ideas like limited government, or the higher ideals of inclusiveness and an American Dream open to all. Its toxic compound of raw anger and nativist passion is, at bottom, about subjugating the demographic “other.”
Before Trump, the GOP’s better angels were already enfeebled. In 2016 he killed them off.
It is barely possible now to imagine the GOP had Trump been different. He came without ideology, propelled by a gift for embodying a potent but undefined populism. He might have become an agent of constructive reinvention, eschewing racism and xenophobia in favor of offering embattled middle-class and blue-collar workers genuine economic uplift. He could have reinstated fiscal responsibility by disdaining tax cuts for the wealthy. He might even have taken steps—if not to drain the swamp—at least to reform it.
But that would have required real talent, sustained attention, and a genuine interest in governance. Instead this irredeemably vicious, vacant, and narcissistic demagogue unleashed white identity politics and the endless overreach of Republican donors. This leads inexorably to the deadest of ends—a demographic death knell for his party and, for our democracy, the most grievous of wounds.


thebulwark--2020-10-15--Mike Lee and the Illiberal Chic

Mike Lee and the Illiberal Chic

We need to talk about the illiberal chic on the right .
Case in point : Last Wednesday , Senator Mike Lee fired off a tweet that took aim at American democracy itself : A few hours later , he doubled down : It might be tempting to dismiss these poorly spelled , middle-of-the-night tweets as nothing more than a restless COVID patient ’ s failed attempt at profundity within Twitter ’ s strict character limit .
But at another level , Senator Lee sent a well-crafted message , one that came through loud and clear : The American experiment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevails .
This message fits a growing and disturbing trend .
Among the conservative intelligentsia , especially in certain legal circles , it has become stylish to view self-governance as nothing more than a means to a very particular set of ends .
And should “ conservative ” policies lose out in the democratic process , then liberal democracy itself should go .
The clearest example came this past March , when Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule penned an article in the Atlantic making the case for replacing originalism with what he calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judges should interpret the Constitution to empower “ strong ” government to “ direct persons , associations , and society generally toward the common good.
” The article didn ’ t even try to hide the ball .
According to Vermeule , the law should reflect “ respect for the authority of rule and of rulers ” and “ candid willingness to ‘ legislate morality.
’ ” Vermeule is confident that his fellow Americans will eventually learn to love theocracy : Though by no means as outlandish as Vermeule , Justice Clarence Thomas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amendment permits a state—just not the federal government—to establish religion .
Among Federalist Society members , a group once defined by a commitment to judicial restraint to protect democracy , one today hears about “ active judging ” —the notion that life-tenured jurists shouldn ’ t hesitate to strike down popularly enacted legislation .
Similar illiberal urges have been expressed by conservative commentators , including Sohrab Ahmari , who in debates against David French last year essentially disowned the Bill of Rights because it permits others the ability to make decisions he doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , these illiberal tendencies sometimes point in different directions .
Ahmari would like to reinterpret some constitutional provisions that protect what he perceives as immoral activities ; proponents of active judging seek to use the courts to lock in their preferred outcomes .
But whatever their surface differences , these tendencies share a common endpoint : Upset the delicate bargain of American democracy and impose a narrow set of preferences on the rest of us .
And it ’ s exactly this vein of illiberalism that Senator Lee tapped into .
The senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intellectual credentials go , his are impressive .
He clerked for then-Judge Samuel Alito on the Third Circuit , worked for major law firms , served as a federal prosecutor , and provided legal counsel to the Utah governor—not to mention spent the past decade in the United States Senate .
He sits on the Judiciary Committee , where this week he is interrogating a Supreme Court nominee .
It bears repeating : Senator Lee , Professor Vermeule , and their fellow travelers are just plain wrong .
Liberal democracy isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcomes .
Voting , marching , participating in self-government at every level—these aren ’ t just means to ends , they ’ re goods in and of themselves .
Men and women around the world fought and sometimes died for what Senator Lee derisively dubbed “ rank democracy ” —from the Václav Havels behind the Iron Curtain to the students in Tiananmen Square to the hundreds of thousands or Belarusians risking life and limb right now in the streets .
Yes , the Founders crafted a constitutional structure that prevents the majority from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ places some hard limits on the government ’ s powers .
But Senator Lee ’ s attack on “ rank democracy ” blew a dog whistle for minority rule .
And that ’ s where the real trouble lies : The illiberal conservative chic rejects the idea of intellectual and cultural modesty , the humility and self-confidence to admit that you might not always be correct and that your opponents might occasionally have the better of the policy debate .
Adrian Vermeule knows what moral codes a strong ruler should impose .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very well-defined concept of human flourishing in mind , one that may well exclude a good chunk of Americans .
That leaves little room for individual choice , and not much space for collective self-government .
America will be lucky if this worrisome trend little influences public opinion and dies with Trump ’ s defeat .
But it will likely persist , receiving intellectual cover from the Adrian Vermeules and populist shots-in-the arm from the Mike Lees .
We need to call that illiberal chic for what it is : un-American .

We need to talk about the illiberal chic on the right.
Case in point: Last Wednesday, Senator Mike Lee fired off a tweet that took aim at American democracy itself:
We’re not a democracy. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 8, 2020
A few hours later, he doubled down:
Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prospefity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that. — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) October 8, 2020
It might be tempting to dismiss these poorly spelled, middle-of-the-night tweets as nothing more than a restless COVID patient’s failed attempt at profundity within Twitter’s strict character limit.
But at another level, Senator Lee sent a well-crafted message, one that came through loud and clear: The American experiment is worth it only when my view prevails.
This message fits a growing and disturbing trend. Among the conservative intelligentsia, especially in certain legal circles, it has become stylish to view self-governance as nothing more than a means to a very particular set of ends. And should “conservative” policies lose out in the democratic process, then liberal democracy itself should go.
The clearest example came this past March, when Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule penned an article in the Atlantic making the case for replacing originalism with what he calls “common-good constitutionalism”—the idea that judges should interpret the Constitution to empower “strong” government to “direct persons, associations, and society generally toward the common good.”
The article didn’t even try to hide the ball. According to Vermeule, the law should reflect “respect for the authority of rule and of rulers” and “candid willingness to ‘legislate morality.’”
Vermeule is confident that his fellow Americans will eventually learn to love theocracy:
Subjects will come to thank the ruler whose legal strictures, possibly experienced at first as coercive, encourage subjects to form more authentic desires for the individual and common goods, better habits, and beliefs that better track and promote communal well-being.
Though by no means as outlandish as Vermeule, Justice Clarence Thomas openly professes the idea that the First Amendment permits a state—just not the federal government—to establish religion. Among Federalist Society members, a group once defined by a commitment to judicial restraint to protect democracy, one today hears about “active judging”—the notion that life-tenured jurists shouldn’t hesitate to strike down popularly enacted legislation.
Similar illiberal urges have been expressed by conservative commentators, including Sohrab Ahmari, who in debates against David French last year essentially disowned the Bill of Rights because it permits others the ability to make decisions he doesn’t like.
To be sure, these illiberal tendencies sometimes point in different directions. Ahmari would like to reinterpret some constitutional provisions that protect what he perceives as immoral activities; proponents of active judging seek to use the courts to lock in their preferred outcomes. But whatever their surface differences, these tendencies share a common endpoint: Upset the delicate bargain of American democracy and impose a narrow set of preferences on the rest of us.
And it’s exactly this vein of illiberalism that Senator Lee tapped into.
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 senator knew what he was doing. As intellectual credentials go, his are impressive. He clerked for then-Judge Samuel Alito on the Third Circuit, worked for major law firms, served as a federal prosecutor, and provided legal counsel to the Utah governor—not to mention spent the past decade in the United States Senate. He sits on the Judiciary Committee, where this week he is interrogating a Supreme Court nominee.
It bears repeating: Senator Lee, Professor Vermeule, and their fellow travelers are just plain wrong. Liberal democracy isn’t worthy just because it produces preferable policy outcomes. Voting, marching, participating in self-government at every level—these aren’t just means to ends, they’re goods in and of themselves. Men and women around the world fought and sometimes died for what Senator Lee derisively dubbed “rank democracy”—from the Václav Havels behind the Iron Curtain to the students in Tiananmen Square to the hundreds of thousands of Belarusians risking life and limb right now in the streets.
Yes, the Founders crafted a constitutional structure that prevents the majority from easily imposing itself on a minority and places some hard limits on the government’s powers. But Senator Lee’s attack on “rank democracy” blew a dog whistle for minority rule.
And that’s where the real trouble lies: The illiberal conservative chic rejects the idea of intellectual and cultural modesty, the humility and self-confidence to admit that you might not always be correct and that your opponents might occasionally have the better of the policy debate. Adrian Vermeule knows what moral codes a strong ruler should impose. I suspect that Senator Lee probably has a very well-defined concept of human flourishing in mind, one that may well exclude a good chunk of Americans. That leaves little room for individual choice, and not much space for collective self-government.
America will be lucky if this worrisome trend little influences public opinion and dies with Trump’s defeat. But it will likely persist, receiving intellectual cover from the Adrian Vermeules and populist shots-in-the arm from the Mike Lees.
We need to call that illiberal chic for what it is: un-American.


thebulwark--2020-10-15--Brazil’s Public Spending Problem Is a Warning for Us All

Herb Stein famously noted that if something can not go on forever , it will stop .
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro is soon to discover that Stein ’ s law still applies , especially to the world of Brazil ’ s shaky public finances .
And what a discovery it will be : His country ’ s unsustainable fiscal policy could roil the Brazilian currency market .
Even before Brazil was hit by the COVID-19 pandemic , its public finances were strained by years of profligacy and a weak economic recovery from a deep recession .
By 2019 , despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to curb public pension expenditures , Brazil ’ s budget deficit remained stuck at more than 6 percent of GDP , resulting in a public-debt-to-GDP ratio of around 80 percent by the end of 2019—troublingly high for an emerging market economy .
The last thing that Brazil ’ s shaky public finances needed was a shock on the scale of the COVID-19 pandemic .
Yet the shock came , and the government ’ s poor handling of the pandemic only exacerbated its effects .
More than 150,000 Brazilians have died from the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected .
During the first half of the year , Brazilian economic output declined by 7 percent—the largest economic contraction the country had experienced in 30 years .
The Brazilian government ’ s bold economic policy response to the pandemic further compromised its finances .
According to the IMF , the fiscal and quasi-fiscal measures that Brazil adopted to support the economy amounted to a staggering 18 percent of GDP , which made it among the largest fiscal responses among the G-20 countries .
Included in this response was an aid package to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 percent of GDP .
All this spending bought Bolsonaro more approval points by mortgaging his country ’ s economic future .
The net effect is that while Brazil ’ s public finances may or may not have been sustainable before the pandemic , the response to COVID-19 has rendered them untenable .
Brazil ’ s public-debt-to-GDP ratio will soon exceed 100 percent , and its budget deficit has ballooned to a level that will keep the public debt ratio rising into the foreseeable future .
According to the IMF , Brazil ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unlikely to dip below 12 percent of GDP in 2020 , even assuming that the country will not be hit by a second wave of the pandemic .
The precarious state of Brazil ’ s public finances has not been lost on the country ’ s foreign exchange market .
Since the start of the year , the Brazilian real has lost around 25 percent of its value against the dollar , making it among the world ’ s worst performing currencies , as foreign exchange traders have begun to suspect that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public finances will lead to inflation .
In principle , the Brazilian government could try to slash public spending and hike taxes in an attempt to restore financial order .
In practice , this is unlikely given that the country is fighting a deep recession , has very low interest rates , and has a currency under severe pressure .
Any attempt to reign in the budget deficit in those circumstances would risk deepening the recession .
With interest rates at already low levels and with interest rate hikes likely needed to defend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be no room for further rate cuts to alleviate the sting of budget cuts .
Brazil has previously tried inflating away its debt .
With the central bank now needing to print money to finance the government deficit , indications are it may try again .
For Latin America ’ s largest economy , this is an expensive experiment to repeat .
One bright side , Brazil might serve as yet another cautionary tale for the United States as we risk losing control over our own public finances .
Maybe then our economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely inflationary consequences of the sorry state of our own public finances .

Herb Stein famously noted that if something cannot go on forever, it will stop. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro is soon to discover that Stein’s law still applies, especially to the world of Brazil’s shaky public finances. And what a discovery it will be: His country’s unsustainable fiscal policy could roil the Brazilian currency market.
Even before Brazil was hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, its public finances were strained by years of profligacy and a weak economic recovery from a deep recession. By 2019, despite the Bolsonaro administration’s bold efforts to curb public pension expenditures, Brazil’s budget deficit remained stuck at more than 6 percent of GDP, resulting in a public-debt-to-GDP ratio of around 80 percent by the end of 2019—troublingly high for an emerging market economy.
The last thing that Brazil’s shaky public finances needed was a shock on the scale of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet the shock came, and the government’s poor handling of the pandemic only exacerbated its effects. More than 150,000 Brazilians have died from the coronavirus while more than 5 million have been infected. During the first half of the year, Brazilian economic output declined by 7 percent—the largest economic contraction the country had experienced in 30 years.
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 Brazilian government’s bold economic policy response to the pandemic further compromised its finances. According to the IMF, the fiscal and quasi-fiscal measures that Brazil adopted to support the economy amounted to a staggering 18 percent of GDP, which made it among the largest fiscal responses among the G-20 countries. Included in this response was an aid package to low-income families that has amounted to about 5 percent of GDP. All this spending bought Bolsonaro more approval points by mortgaging his country’s economic future.
The net effect is that while Brazil’s public finances may or may not have been sustainable before the pandemic, the response to COVID-19 has rendered them untenable. Brazil’s public-debt-to-GDP ratio will soon exceed 100 percent, and its budget deficit has ballooned to a level that will keep the public debt ratio rising into the foreseeable future. According to the IMF, Brazil’s government deficit excluding interest payments is unlikely to dip below 12 percent of GDP in 2020, even assuming that the country will not be hit by a second wave of the pandemic.
The precarious state of Brazil’s public finances has not been lost on the country’s foreign exchange market. Since the start of the year, the Brazilian real has lost around 25 percent of its value against the dollar, making it among the world’s worst performing currencies, as foreign exchange traders have begun to suspect that the poor state of the country’s public finances will lead to inflation.
In principle, the Brazilian government could try to slash public spending and hike taxes in an attempt to restore financial order. In practice, this is unlikely given that the country is fighting a deep recession, has very low interest rates, and has a currency under severe pressure.
Any attempt to reign in the budget deficit in those circumstances would risk deepening the recession. With interest rates at already low levels and with interest rate hikes likely needed to defend the currency, there would seem to be no room for further rate cuts to alleviate the sting of budget cuts.
Brazil has previously tried inflating away its debt. With the central bank now needing to print money to finance the government deficit, indications are it may try again. For Latin America’s largest economy, this is an expensive experiment to repeat.
One bright side, Brazil might serve as yet another cautionary tale for the United States as we risk losing control over our own public finances. Maybe then our economic policymakers might become less cavalier about the likely inflationary consequences of the sorry state of our own public finances.


thebulwark--2020-10-15--Scaredy Trump Ducks Debate: MAGA Media Hardest Hit

The second presidential debate that was to be held today was officially canceled after President Donald Trump refused to participate in the virtual format that was necessitated by the fact that he contracted COVID-19 through his own gross negligence .
The politics of this choice are interesting .
Trump throwing a tantrum and refusing an opportunity to shake up the race when he is trailing by 10 points in the Real Clear Politics average is a bold strategic move indeed .
Clearly the president feels he has a better opportunity to win over voters by holding more COVID superspreader events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s DMs , the investigation into his former national security advisor , and his victimhood at the hands of the Commission on Presidential Debates .
Setting the strategic merits of this move aside , I ’ m struck by how Trump ’ s decision to duck Biden must have come as a shock to our friends in the MAGA media .
For months leading up to the debate , viewers of Fox News and readers of the venerated journals of the online right were told that Donald Trump was such a killer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that his opponent would cower in fear at the prospect of going mano-a-mano and come up with an excuse not to debate him at all .
This contention was pushed by the president ’ s staff and surrogates .
Much of this coverage was spurred by the Trump campaign itself , whose spokesman Tim Murtaugh must ’ ve had a keyboard shortcut for this quote which appeared in several outlets : “ It ’ s pretty obvious that Joe Biden ’ s handlers are afraid to send their candidate out without a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s possible that Murtaugh was projecting the fears he has about his own boss , but he was successful at driving the phony narrative .
Murtaugh ’ s argument was circulated by the conservative media propagandists who argued that Biden was too feeble and lacking in the mental stamina necessary to stand up to our alpha-dog president .
The imaginary nontroversy that Biden would duck Trump dominated the news coverage in conservative media at times despite the Biden campaign ’ s repeated and crystal-clear statements to the contrary .
So the people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been floored when the news came that it was the other way around : Donald Trump is cowering at the prospect of meeting Joe Biden on the debate stage after getting so thoroughly schlonged in the first contest .
Isn ’ t it ironic .
Like rain on your wedding day .
Let ’ s take a quick tour through a few of the writers and TV hosts who incorrectly guaranteed that it would be Biden who ducked debates rather than their enfeebled president .
Tucker Carlson was obsessed with the topic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right-wing verity claiming liberals “ don ’ t want to debate ” is a real thing .
Here he is on July 8 : It would indeed be shocking and cynical if it were not a figment of Carlson ’ s imagination .
Laura Ingraham was pressed by Tucker on the topic in late August .
Here was her take : Back in March when COVID—you know , really broke , everything was shut down .
.
.
I said they ’ re going to use this pandemic to try to coast Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
.
.
.
The left doesn ’ t want to debate .
They don ’ t like debates , they don ’ t want a conversation about any of the major issues of the day .
.
.
.
They know that Joe Biden can ’ t stand on a stage with Donald Trump for five minutes let alone 90 minutes .
.
.
.
Zero , zero percent chance that [ Biden ] does three debates .
I don ’ t think he debates .
I think there ’ s always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden , staying in the basement .
.
.
.
On Fox ’ s The Five , Greg Gutfeld said that Biden ’ s “ weakness is that he can ’ t think on his feet .
.
.
.
They want to deny Trump the ‘ kill shot ’ and I think that ’ s what ’ s going to happen.
” Gutfeld goes onto concoct a fantasy wherein Donald Trump stands outside Biden ’ s house and conducts the debate alone on the street and sends a reporter into Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I put it at 90 percent [ Biden ] is not going to debate.
” The best you can say about Gutfeld ’ s prediction is that it was 10 percent better than Ingraham ’ s .
The Washington Examiner ’ s Eddie Scarry suggested that Biden “ might crater facing off against Trump because he performed miserably in every one of the Democratic primary debates… ” Examiner contributor Mark Vargas tweeted a picture of an untanned Joe Biden as proof for why Democrats want to “ hide their candidate.
” Sean Hannity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was “ too feeble ” and that “ want him to stay hiding and for good reason.
” The Wall Street Journal editorial board deigned it necessary to weigh in on the matter , saying the “ The public deserves to see how well Mr. Biden holds up under debate pressure.
” I look forward to their editorial making the same demand of Mr. Trump .
But nobody brought as much flair to this faux outrage as Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna Romney McRomney in her interview on the Fox Business Channel with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ RNC chair thinks a presidential candidate should be disqualified if they skip a debate ?
Ronna Romney and I may have finally found some common-ground : Disqualifying Trump it is .

The second presidential debate that was to be held today was officially canceled after President Donald Trump refused to participate in the virtual format that was necessitated by the fact that he contracted COVID-19 through his own gross negligence.
The politics of this choice are interesting. Trump throwing a tantrum and refusing an opportunity to shake up the race when he is trailing by 10 points in the Real Clear Politics average is a bold strategic move indeed.
Clearly the president feels he has a better opportunity to win over voters by holding more COVID superspreader events or firing off tweets about Steve Scully’s DMs, the investigation into his former national security advisor, and his victimhood at the hands of the Commission on Presidential Debates.
Setting the strategic merits of this move aside, I’m struck by how Trump’s decision to duck Biden must have come as a shock to our friends in the MAGA media.
For months leading up to the debate, viewers of Fox News and readers of the venerated journals of the online right were told that Donald Trump was such a killer that it was possible, nay likely, that his opponent would cower in fear at the prospect of going mano-a-mano and come up with an excuse not to debate him at all. This contention was pushed by the president’s staff and surrogates.
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…
Much of this coverage was spurred by the Trump campaign itself, whose spokesman Tim Murtaugh must’ve had a keyboard shortcut for this quote which appeared in several outlets: “It’s pretty obvious that Joe Biden’s handlers are afraid to send their candidate out without a script and teleprompter handy.”
It’s possible that Murtaugh was projecting the fears he has about his own boss, but he was successful at driving the phony narrative.
Murtaugh’s argument was circulated by the conservative media propagandists who argued that Biden was too feeble and lacking in the mental stamina necessary to stand up to our alpha-dog president.
The imaginary nontroversy that Biden would duck Trump dominated the news coverage in conservative media at times despite the Biden campaign’s repeated and crystal-clear statements to the contrary.
So the people who get news from these outlets had to have been floored when the news came that it was the other way around: Donald Trump is cowering at the prospect of meeting Joe Biden on the debate stage after getting so thoroughly schlonged in the first contest.
Isn’t it ironic. Like rain on your wedding day.
Let’s take a quick tour through a few of the writers and TV hosts who incorrectly guaranteed that it would be Biden who ducked debates rather than their enfeebled president.
Tucker Carlson was obsessed with the topic, having convinced himself that the faulty right-wing verity claiming liberals “don’t want to debate” is a real thing. Here he is on July 8:
Imagine Biden spending six hours on stage with Donald Trump trading jabs on live television. . . . Oh, he can’t do that. So he’s not going to do that. Instead, they’re going to keep Joe Biden hidden behind a curtain. . . . It’s all pretty shocking if you think about it. . . . The most cynical election strategy ever devised.
It would indeed be shocking and cynical if it were not a figment of Carlson’s imagination.
Laura Ingraham was pressed by Tucker on the topic in late August. Here was her take:
Back in March when COVID—you know, really broke, everything was shut down . . . I said they’re going to use this pandemic to try to coast Biden to election in November with no debates. . . . The left doesn’t want to debate. They don’t like debates, they don’t want a conversation about any of the major issues of the day. . . . They know that Joe Biden can’t stand on a stage with Donald Trump for five minutes let alone 90 minutes. . . . Zero, zero percent chance that [Biden] does three debates. I don’t think he debates. I think there’s always going to be an excuse for Joe Biden, staying in the basement. . . .
Still standing.
On Fox’s The Five, Greg Gutfeld said that Biden’s “weakness is that he can’t think on his feet. . . . They want to deny Trump the ‘kill shot’ and I think that’s what’s going to happen.” Gutfeld goes onto concoct a fantasy wherein Donald Trump stands outside Biden’s house and conducts the debate alone on the street and sends a reporter into Biden’s basement for the response. “I put it at 90 percent [Biden] is not going to debate.” The best you can say about Gutfeld’s prediction is that it was 10 percent better than Ingraham’s.
The Washington Examiner’s Eddie Scarry suggested that Biden “might crater facing off against Trump because he performed miserably in every one of the Democratic primary debates…” Examiner contributor Mark Vargas tweeted a picture of an untanned Joe Biden as proof for why Democrats want to “hide their candidate.” Sean Hannity concurred, saying that Democrats thought Biden was “too feeble” and that “want him to stay hiding and for good reason.”
The Wall Street Journal editorial board deigned it necessary to weigh in on the matter, saying the “The public deserves to see how well Mr. Biden holds up under debate pressure.” I look forward to their editorial making the same demand of Mr. Trump.
But nobody brought as much flair to this faux outrage as Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna Romney McRomney in her interview on the Fox Business Channel with British Lou Dobbs.
Biden doesn’t want to debate. He’s incoherent at best. . . They are afraid to put him on the debate stage. . . . I think it’s disqualifying. If you cannot debate in front of the American people and make your case as to why you should be president, as to why you should go up against people like Putin or Xi, then you should not be president. . . . If he doesn’t do all three he should be disqualified from actually running for president.
Interesting! The RNC chair thinks a presidential candidate should be disqualified if they skip a debate?
Ronna Romney and I may have finally found some common-ground: Disqualifying Trump it is.


thebulwark--2020-10-15--A Crusade for Something Noble

A Crusade for Something Noble

In 1948 , General Dwight D. Eisenhower released an expansive memoir that transcribed his personal account as Supreme Allied commander in Europe during World War II , the single most important American military official in the war .
He chronicled the travail of the war in its bitter totality : men sunk beneath waves of bullets and unbroken battle ; the immeasurable sorrow levied as hundreds-of-thousands perished for their country ; the fateful decisions he took in which he accepted complete responsibility—most importantly the decision for the D-Day invasion .
At the same time , Eisenhower also wrote of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country overcame and rang freedom ’ s bell for a world enveloped by the forces of darkness .
Eisenhower titled the memoir Crusade in Europe .
Now I acknowledge , the word crusade may hold conflicting definitions and interpretations , some of which may refresh stories of the medieval .
But used as a verb , according to the most basic dictionary definition , to crusade is to “ lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social , political , or religious issue.
” There is a reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ War in Europe.
” Beyond the bayonets , bloodshed , and carnage , Eisenhower declared to America that what they had just done—the stand they took together against evil , despite any internal divisions—was something much more elegant and profound than could be carried by the word “ war.
” It was something noble .
I know it ’ s difficult for so many of us to feel hope in this moment , which seems so incomprehensibly dark .
We are a nation deeply wounded from a liberated virus .
We ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve endured lashing mental abuse , time and again , from the president of the United States .
But it is not a darker moment than what Ike saw when he looked across the English Channel on June 6 , 1944 at the continent of Europe , dominated by the Nazis .
So I see a light ahead .
Just days away , a unified and electrified coalition of Americans , coming together like our country did in World War II , standing united to send a message that will be heard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look with expectant hope to the America that led the crusade more than half a century ago : That America has not succumbed to a demagogue and would-be autocrat .
That we have overcome .
And that Donald J. Trump is not who we are .
In just a short time , America will go from its darkest hour to its finest hour .
Very seldom in American history have there been periods when people can nobly wage a crusade to create real and lasting change .
But when these crusades do occur @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we do to vanquish the threat to freedom builds something everlasting into the framework of our society .
The American Revolution , the Civil War , World War II , Seneca Falls , Stonewall , and Selma , were all historical flashpoints where Americans displayed their patriotism against oppressive forces in a resounding way .
These movements overthrew an empire , ended slavery , staved off totalitarianism , and paved the way for the establishment of fundamental civil rights and liberties for women , LGBTQ+ and black Americans .
We find ourselves again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s authoritarian presence behind the Resolute Desk is amongst the gravest threats America has ever faced from within .
And Americans have risen to meet this threat .
This resistance has created its own seismic shift .
Look at the rallying cries for racial justice coming from Americans of all colors , who have joined in arms to speak out .
Look at the willingness of voters to wait for hours in lines in Georgia to exercise their democratic right to the franchise .
Look at the coalition that has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists , who are determined to stand up to this threat .
We are constantly told that America is too divided , too hopelessly stricken by tribalism to come together anymore .
Well , I ’ m here to proclaim that this received “ wisdom ” is just plain wrong .
If you were to run a cable wire through the heart of America right now , you would see an image of an exceedingly diverse coalition of people who challenge that assumption at its core .
You ’ d see suburban woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Arizona , standing alongside a retired grandfather in Florida , a college student in Brooklyn , a Latina mom in Raleigh , a Black computer programmer in Houston , and yes , standing alongside even a former Trump voter in Wisconsin who has now changed his mind .
This coalition is exactly why an incumbent president is on the precipice of a catastrophic defeat .
Because this is more than a campaign .
This is a crusade for America .
Long after Trump has gone , this unity forged in his opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this site , which is operated by many of my former Republican rivals , is evidence of this unity in and of itself .
This article , posted right here , is evidence that this is a moment that carries extraordinary consequences much more profound than victory or defeat for a candidate .
Like the majority of people that read this news site , I am white and affluent and—you know what else ?
—I love my country .
Collectively , what I know to be true among so many like us , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on an advantaged and privileged perch in our slice of America .
But if you ’ re like me , you have been haunted by the fact that because of this privilege , many of us have never , in the late John Lewis ’ s words , made enough “ good trouble , ” or fought hard enough in the good fight .
Now , maybe that ’ s because , quite frankly , many of our own backs have never really been against the wall .
What this moment has done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have sat on the sidelines of history or never were presented with something that held as much gravitas—is that it has given us , for one fleeting moment—the moment we ’ re living right now—a sense of common purpose .
Common purpose of which we will be able to recall forever : that when our country and our Republic were on the brink of collapse , when our fellow Americans needed us , we took a blow torch to our past differences , our former conflicts and our old rivalries , and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks , I will be 76 years old .
I was a boy raised near some of the poorest banks of the Mississippi River and I ’ ve now had the overwhelming honor to help elect senators , governors , and my dear friend Bill Clinton as president of the United States .
I ’ ve seen my face flash across the silver screen too many times and have flown around the world twice over practicing the profession I love .
All of this was wildly unimaginable to that little boy skipping rocks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as I sit here , wonderstruck in retrograde , I can say with certainty that in all my years , joining in this crusade to take America back from the brink of destruction is the greatest thing I have ever been a part of in my life .
This crusade is something noble .

In 1948, General Dwight D. Eisenhower released an expansive memoir that transcribed his personal account as Supreme Allied commander in Europe during World War II, the single most important American military official in the war. He chronicled the travail of the war in its bitter totality: men sunk beneath waves of bullets and unbroken battle; the immeasurable sorrow levied as hundreds-of-thousands perished for their country; the fateful decisions he took in which he accepted complete responsibility—most importantly the decision for the D-Day invasion. At the same time, Eisenhower also wrote of what was indomitable about Americans, how the country overcame and rang freedom’s bell for a world enveloped by the forces of darkness.
Eisenhower titled the memoir Crusade in Europe. Now I acknowledge, the word crusade may hold conflicting definitions and interpretations, some of which may refresh stories of the medieval. But used as a verb, according to the most basic dictionary definition, to crusade is to “lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue.”
There is a reason Eisenhower did not title his book “War in Europe.” Beyond the bayonets, bloodshed, and carnage, Eisenhower declared to America that what they had just done—the stand they took together against evil, despite any internal divisions—was something much more elegant and profound than could be carried by the word “war.” It was something noble.
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…
I know it’s difficult for so many of us to feel hope in this moment, which seems so incomprehensibly dark. We are a nation deeply wounded from a liberated virus. We’re struggling with systemic racism. And we’ve endured lashing mental abuse, time and again, from the president of the United States. But it is not a darker moment than what Ike saw when he looked across the English Channel on June 6, 1944 at the continent of Europe, dominated by the Nazis.
So I see a light ahead. Just days away, a unified and electrified coalition of Americans, coming together like our country did in World War II, standing united to send a message that will be heard around the world to all those who look with expectant hope to the America that led the crusade more than half a century ago: That America has not succumbed to a demagogue and would-be autocrat. That we have overcome. And that Donald J. Trump is not who we are.
In just a short time, America will go from its darkest hour to its finest hour.
Very seldom in American history have there been periods when people can nobly wage a crusade to create real and lasting change. But when these crusades do occur, when those moments arrive, what we do to vanquish the threat to freedom builds something everlasting into the framework of our society.
The American Revolution, the Civil War, World War II, Seneca Falls, Stonewall, and Selma, were all historical flashpoints where Americans displayed their patriotism against oppressive forces in a resounding way. These movements overthrew an empire, ended slavery, staved off totalitarianism, and paved the way for the establishment of fundamental civil rights and liberties for women, LGBTQ+ and black Americans.
We find ourselves again at such a turning point. Donald Trump’s authoritarian presence behind the Resolute Desk is amongst the gravest threats America has ever faced from within. And Americans have risen to meet this threat.
This resistance has created its own seismic shift. Look at the rallying cries for racial justice coming from Americans of all colors, who have joined in arms to speak out. Look at the willingness of voters to wait for hours in lines in Georgia to exercise their democratic right to the franchise. Look at the coalition that has been formed, from Republicans to Democrats to activists, who are determined to stand up to this threat.
We are constantly told that America is too divided, too hopelessly stricken by tribalism to come together anymore. Well, I’m here to proclaim that this received “wisdom” is just plain wrong. If you were to run a cable wire through the heart of America right now, you would see an image of an exceedingly diverse coalition of people who challenge that assumption at its core. You’d see a suburban woman from a once-Republican stronghold in Maricopa County, Arizona, standing alongside a retired grandfather in Florida, a college student in Brooklyn, a Latina mom in Raleigh, a Black computer programmer in Houston, and yes, standing alongside even a former Trump voter in Wisconsin who has now changed his mind. This coalition is exactly why an incumbent president is on the precipice of a catastrophic defeat.
Because this is more than a campaign. This is a crusade for America.
Long after Trump has gone, this unity forged in his opposition should be remembered.
My participation on this site, which is operated by many of my former Republican rivals, is evidence of this unity in and of itself.
This article, posted right here, is evidence that this is a moment that carries extraordinary consequences much more profound than victory or defeat for a candidate.
Like the majority of people that read this news site, I am white and affluent and—you know what else?—I love my country. Collectively, what I know to be true among so many like us, is that we understand we have existed on an advantaged and privileged perch in our slice of America.
But if you’re like me, you have been haunted by the fact that because of this privilege, many of us have never, in the late John Lewis’s words, made enough “good trouble,” or fought hard enough in the good fight.
Now, maybe that’s because, quite frankly, many of our own backs have never really been against the wall. What this moment has done for all of us—for all those who have sat on the sidelines of history or never were presented with something that held as much gravitas—is that it has given us, for one fleeting moment—the moment we’re living right now—a sense of common purpose. Common purpose of which we will be able to recall forever: that when our country and our Republic were on the brink of collapse, when our fellow Americans needed us, we took a blow torch to our past differences, our former conflicts and our old rivalries, and we fought together.
In less than two weeks, I will be 76 years old. I was a boy raised near some of the poorest banks of the Mississippi River and I’ve now had the overwhelming honor to help elect senators, governors, and my dear friend Bill Clinton as president of the United States. I’ve seen my face flash across the silver screen too many times and have flown around the world twice over practicing the profession I love.
All of this was wildly unimaginable to that little boy skipping rocks in Louisiana 70 years ago. But as I sit here, wonderstruck in retrograde, I can say with certainty that in all my years, joining in this crusade to take America back from the brink of destruction is the greatest thing I have ever been a part of in my life.
This crusade is something noble.