thebulwark--2020-04-30--Jared, the Trump Family, and China

Jared, the Trump Family, and China

We all know that instead of taking the coronavirus seriously , President Trump irresponsibly accepted the word of the Chinese regime and spent several precious weeks praising them instead of preparing and ramping up production of needed supplies .
We ’ ve seen where that got us .
As of today , there have been more than a million confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the United States and more than 60,000 deaths—the figure that less than two weeks ago the president was describing as the likely total death toll .
A trillion dollars have been shoveled into relief and stimulus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is still going “ brrr.
” There are astroturfed protests cropping up and demanding “ reopening ” for a controversy-starved media .
These protests bear some superficial resemblance to the Tea Party protests of eleven years ago—but make no mistake : These are not the same folks who were concerned about cronyism , bailouts , the Fed , the debt , and wild spending .
Sure , you might see some folks toting Gadsden flags , but many of today ’ s protesters seem to be just professionally aggrieved .
In reality , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the shutdowns mostly don ’ t have time to protest .
( Have you seen the unemployment numbers ? )
Besides , remember how concerned the Tea Party folks were about Obamacare ’ s “ death panels ” ?
Are we to believe these are the same people now demanding their elected officials sacrifice the elderly for the sake of the economy ?
Speaking of the protesters , remember that viral photo of the screaming faces in Ohio from a couple weeks back ?
One of them was a Republican state senate candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for appearing in that picture .
Did it help her primary challenge ?
Nope , she was clobbered , 65-35 .
There may be a lesson in that for anyone who thinks campaigning as a critic of COVID-19 precautions is a winning strategy .
These protesters are going to be foot soldiers in the 2020 GOP ground war over China .
Because this election is going to be all about China .
It ’ s the natural course of politics : Trump needs a villain and who better than China ?
After all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden as a socialist when you ’ re printing money faster than you ’ re making N-95 masks .
But President Trump and his family have an interesting history with China , so before we are subjected to President Trump ’ s earworm pronunciation of the country ’ s name , let ’ s take a trip down memory lane .
More often than not , when the president and his sycophants accuse opponents of something , the accusation is something that Trump is himself guilty of .
It lets them say : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s not so bad , he ’ s only as bad as everybody else .
Maybe even better !
It ’ s bizarre , I know , but them ’ s the laws of whataboutism physics .
So it is with the Trump team ’ s criticisms of Hunter Biden : It ’ s not just that his business dealings and various problems could complicate things for Joe Biden , it ’ s rather that he provides a foil for the Trump children .
It ’ s about preparing for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president is the nepotist-in-chief .
And even the people throwing around the Hunter Biden accusations don ’ t think Joe Biden is going to make Hunter his chief policy advisor for everything , like Donald Trump has done with his son-in-law .
Or put him in a nebulous White House role , as Trump has with his daughter .
Or even heavily involve him in his presidential campaign , as Trump has done with his other children , their spouses , and girlfriends .
Eric Trump once said that nepotism is “ a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just how beautiful it is—and what it has to do with China .
Perhaps the best example of nepotism in the Trump administration is Jared Kushner , the husband of eldest daughter Ivanka Trump .
Both have been appointed to high-level advisory positions in the White House .
Despite lacking qualifications to be appointed to anything—other than the board of the Charles Kushner Center for Kids of Billionaires Who Can ’ t Make Good Business Decisions and Wan na Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too—Jared , because he is married to President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been put in charge of everything .
Peace in the Middle East ?
On it .
The opioid epidemic ?
Consider it solved .
Diplomacy with Mexico while trying to Build The Wall™ ?
No hay problema .
What about trade with China ?
Add it to the list .
Criminal justice reform ?
A version of that became law !
American innovation ?
Let ’ s take his leadership of the New York Observer and make it national .
So Jared has a lot on his plate .
What ’ s that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after President Trump was inaugurated , it was reported that Jared and Ivanka were targets of Chinese influence campaigns .
But , before his father-in-law ended up in the Oval , Jared was in talks with “ Anbang Insurance Group , a Chinese financial behemoth with estimated assets of $ 285 billion and an ownership structure shrouded in mystery.
” If you ’ re a Chinese spy , and your geopolitical opponent ’ s son-in-law has a bunch of vulnerabilities , why not target them ?
Like a GEICO ad that writes itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spy , it ’ s what you do .
Especially when the president ’ s son-in-law has become “ Mr .
China ” and a confidant and friend of China ’ s ambassador to the United States .
If you want to understand how Kushner might be vulnerable to Chinese pressure , keep in mind that he ’ s a lot like Donald Trump : His money came from his corrupt father , he is bad at business , and when it came time to be honest and divest himself , he only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
President Trump handed off operations of his company to his sons , while Jared divested , only partially , a little too late , some even as late as last month .
And all this after forgetting to disclose a bunch of assets from his application to get a security clearance , as the Washington Post ’ s Catherine Rampell noted : a form he revised 39 times over the course of a few months before President Trump later intervened to grant him access to government secrets .
Rampell writes : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security-clearance form that left off more than 100 contacts with foreign nationals.
” Sure .
Maybe .
You can understand the reluctance of former White House chief of staff John Kelly in granting this guy a security clearance , let alone putting him in charge of large swaths of the administration ’ s most high-profile initiatives .
As forgetful as Jared may be , and as corrupt as Trump may be , it ’ s not like either forgets what assets he owned until five minutes ago .
And when you keep things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Kushners do , you ’ re going to run into some problems .
Case in point : What went down with Kushner ’ s sister , Nicole Kushner Meyer , in 2017 .
What happens if your brother is put in charge of handling a lot of trade policy with China , and he still has an interest in your company ?
It all gets very complicated when you say you don ’ t have an interest in something you sold back to your family trust , except you ’ ve still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to be able to invest again a later time .
Tell me that ’ s not a conflict .
Jared apparently quickly realized it , and dropped that legacy contingent three days after his sister held a conference for wealthy Chinese to buy their way to citizenship through the E5-B investment program and name-dropped her relationship with Jared in the promotional materials .
Oops !
Back in those early days of the Trump presidency , Jared was going to be the inside man that China trusted to try and improve relations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old hand Henry Kissinger .
A month before his sister ’ s E5-B conference , Kushner led a high-stakes meeting with President Xi which took place—where else ?
—at Mar-a-Lago .
Of course , since then , relations with China have deteriorated .
Trump launched his trade war with China , which has cost U.S. consumers billions .
( The Congressional Budget Office projected the tariffs would cost your household more than $ 1,200 .
Incidentally , the recent stimulus checks were for about that amount . )
These direct reductions to household @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs are in addition to the nearly $ 30 billion in direct aid to farmers who bore the brunt of China ’ s retaliatory tariffs .
As recently as January of this year , Trump was still signaling his hope that he could get a second phase of a trade deal with China , one that pulls back on his trade war .
Obviously , that ’ s not likely to happen now .
So much for “ trade wars are good , and easy to win.
” Jared is not the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with China .
His wife , Ivanka , was granted a number of patents from China—several shortly before her father ’ s election and several more between the election and inauguration .
Now facing consumer backlash due to politics , Ms. Trump stopped active business in 2018 , saying that she doesn ’ t “ know when or if I will ever return to the business.
” You don ’ t have to have an MBA to know when returning to the business is good : the second Trump leaves office .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big MAGA market for those shoes .
Like the old Men ’ s Wearhouse guy said : “ I guarantee it.
” There remains a lot that we don ’ t know about the Trump family ’ s business dealings with China .
We don ’ t know the extent to which Jared Kushner ’ s fortune is tied up there .
Like the “ legacy contingent right ” and the complicated nature of being a billionaire , some of these things can pay off down the line .
Again , Kushner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is relevant here .
Remember that his clearance was in limbo until his father-in-law ordered it be granted .
We don ’ t know the details , but it appears that the career officials tasked with preventing people with potential conflicts or security vulnerabilities from getting access to our secrets were prevented from doing their jobs .
Were he denied a clearance , it wouldn ’ t have prevented Jared from getting access to the decision-maker and influencing him .
But in any other administration , it would have precluded him from getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Kushner ’ s personal security clearance liabilities is a big red flag .
And the U.S. Office of Government Ethics ( OGE ) , which handles financial disclosures , is largely toothless to enforce failed disclosures because , as former OGE director Walter Schaub put it last year , beyond making suggestions , it “ lacks real enforcement authority.
” ( Former Minnesota Rep. Gerry Sikorski once famously called it a “ toothless terrier on Valium.
” ) It ’ s quite possible that there are many potential conflicts of interest in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little we do know , from what he did disclose , shows broad ranges in asset value .
But we don ’ t know who the other investors ( if any ) in those projects are , or their possible leverage .
These details are left up to investigative reporters , and perhaps historians someday in the future , to look into .
Clearly , our security-clearance and financial-disclosure laws were not written for an administration like this one .
Nepotism , graft , and potential corruption among candidates and their families are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But in this election cycle , since you ’ re likely to hear Trump and the Republicans talk about Joe Biden ’ s ne ’ er-do-well son Hunter , keep in mind the Trump family ’ s own complicated past and potential future relationships with China .

We all know that instead of taking the coronavirus seriously, President Trump irresponsibly accepted the word of the Chinese regime and spent several precious weeks praising them instead of preparing and ramping up production of needed supplies.
We’ve seen where that got us. As of today, there have been more than a million confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the United States and more than 60,000 deaths—the figure that less than two weeks ago the president was describing as the likely total death toll. A trillion dollars have been shoveled into relief and stimulus, and the Fed’s printer is still going “brrr.” There are astroturfed protests cropping up and demanding “reopening” for a controversy-starved media.
These protests bear some superficial resemblance to the Tea Party protests of eleven years ago—but make no mistake: These are not the same folks who were concerned about cronyism, bailouts, the Fed, the debt, and wild spending. Sure, you might see some folks toting Gadsden flags, but many of today’s protesters seem to be just professionally aggrieved. In reality, the folks who are hardest hit by the shutdowns mostly don’t have time to protest. (Have you seen the unemployment numbers?) Besides, remember how concerned the Tea Party folks were about Obamacare’s “death panels”? Are we to believe these are the same people now demanding their elected officials sacrifice the elderly for the sake of the economy?
Speaking of the protesters, remember that viral photo of the screaming faces in Ohio from a couple weeks back? One of them was a Republican state senate candidate, who got a lot of attention for appearing in that picture. Did it help her primary challenge? Nope, she was clobbered, 65-35. There may be a lesson in that for anyone who thinks campaigning as a critic of COVID-19 precautions is a winning strategy.
These protesters are going to be foot soldiers in the 2020 GOP ground war over China. Because this election is going to be all about China. It’s the natural course of politics: Trump needs a villain and who better than China? After all, you can’t paint Joe Biden as a socialist when you’re printing money faster than you’re making N-95 masks.
But President Trump and his family have an interesting history with China, so before we are subjected to President Trump’s earworm pronunciation of the country’s name, let’s take a trip down memory lane.
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…
More often than not, when the president and his sycophants accuse opponents of something, the accusation is something that Trump is himself guilty of. It lets them say: See? Other people do it. Trump’s not so bad, he’s only as bad as everybody else. Maybe even better! It’s bizarre, I know, but them’s the laws of whataboutism physics.
So it is with the Trump team’s criticisms of Hunter Biden: It’s not just that his business dealings and various problems could complicate things for Joe Biden, it’s rather that he provides a foil for the Trump children. It’s about preparing for the eventuality of having to concede that the president is the nepotist-in-chief.
And even the people throwing around the Hunter Biden accusations don’t think Joe Biden is going to make Hunter his chief policy advisor for everything, like Donald Trump has done with his son-in-law. Or put him in a nebulous White House role, as Trump has with his daughter. Or even heavily involve him in his presidential campaign, as Trump has done with his other children, their spouses, and girlfriends.
Eric Trump once said that nepotism is “a beautiful thing.” Let’s see just how beautiful it is—and what it has to do with China.
Perhaps the best example of nepotism in the Trump administration is Jared Kushner, the husband of eldest daughter Ivanka Trump. Both have been appointed to high-level advisory positions in the White House.
Despite lacking qualifications to be appointed to anything—other than the board of the Charles Kushner Center for Kids of Billionaires Who Can’t Make Good Business Decisions and Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too—Jared, because he is married to President Trump’s daughter, has seemingly been put in charge of everything.
Peace in the Middle East? On it.
The opioid epidemic? Consider it solved.
Diplomacy with Mexico while trying to Build The Wall™? No hay problema.
What about trade with China? Add it to the list.
Reforming the Department of Veterans Affairs? Salute.
Criminal justice reform? A version of that became law!
American innovation? Let’s take his leadership of the New York Observer and make it national.
So Jared has a lot on his plate. What’s that got to do with China?
Shortly after President Trump was inaugurated, it was reported that Jared and Ivanka were targets of Chinese influence campaigns. But, before his father-in-law ended up in the Oval, Jared was in talks with “Anbang Insurance Group, a Chinese financial behemoth with estimated assets of $285 billion and an ownership structure shrouded in mystery.”
If you’re a Chinese spy, and your geopolitical opponent’s son-in-law has a bunch of vulnerabilities, why not target them? Like a GEICO ad that writes itself, if you’re a Chinese spy, it’s what you do. Especially when the president’s son-in-law has become “Mr. China” and a confidant and friend of China’s ambassador to the United States.
If you want to understand how Kushner might be vulnerable to Chinese pressure, keep in mind that he’s a lot like Donald Trump: His money came from his corrupt father, he is bad at business, and when it came time to be honest and divest himself, he only did it at the last possible second. President Trump handed off operations of his company to his sons, while Jared divested, only partially, a little too late, some even as late as last month.
And all this after forgetting to disclose a bunch of assets from his financial disclosures, as the Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell noted: a form he revised 39 times over the course of a few months. Rampell writes: “Maybe Kushner really did forget all those assets, including a stake in a start-up valued at $5 million to $25 million. Just as maybe he really did accidentally submit a security-clearance form that left off more than 100 contacts with foreign nationals.” Sure. Maybe. (President Trump later intervened to grant him a security clearance, giving him access to government secrets.)
You can understand the reluctance of former White House chief of staff John Kelly in granting this guy a security clearance, let alone putting him in charge of large swaths of the administration’s most high-profile initiatives.
As forgetful as Jared may be, and as corrupt as Trump may be, it’s not like either forgets what assets he owned until five minutes ago. And when you keep things in the family, as the Trumps and Kushners do, you’re going to run into some problems.
Case in point: What went down with Kushner’s sister, Nicole Kushner Meyer, in 2017. What happens if your brother is put in charge of handling a lot of trade policy with China, and he still has an interest in your company? It all gets very complicated when you say you don’t have an interest in something you sold back to your family trust, except you’ve still apparently got a “legacy contingent right” to be able to invest again a later time. Tell me that’s not a conflict.
Jared apparently quickly realized it, and dropped that legacy contingent three days after his sister held a conference for wealthy Chinese to buy their way to citizenship through the E5-B investment program and name-dropped her relationship with Jared in the promotional materials. Oops!
Back in those early days of the Trump presidency, Jared was going to be the inside man that China trusted to try and improve relations, along with then-Secretary of State Tillerson and old hand Henry Kissinger. A month before his sister’s E5-B conference, Kushner led a high-stakes meeting with President Xi which took place—where else?—at Mar-a-Lago.
Of course, since then, relations with China have deteriorated. Trump launched his trade war with China, which has cost U.S. consumers billions. (The Congressional Budget Office projected the tariffs would cost your household more than $1,200. Incidentally, the recent stimulus checks were for about that amount.) These direct reductions to household income via higher prices and other economic costs are in addition to the nearly $30 billion in direct aid to farmers who bore the brunt of China’s retaliatory tariffs.
As recently as January of this year, Trump was still signaling his hope that he could get a second phase of a trade deal with China, one that pulls back on his trade war. Obviously, that’s not likely to happen now. So much for “trade wars are good, and easy to win.”
Jared is not the only Trump family member with a complicated relationship with China. His wife, Ivanka, was granted a number of patents from China—several shortly before her father’s election and several more between the election and inauguration. Now facing consumer backlash due to politics, Ms. Trump stopped active business in 2018, saying that she doesn’t “know when or if I will ever return to the business.” You don’t have to have an MBA to know when returning to the business is good: the second Trump leaves office. No matter the circumstances, there will be a big MAGA market for those shoes. Like the old Men’s Wearhouse guy said: “I guarantee it.”
There remains a lot that we don’t know about the Trump family’s business dealings with China. We don’t know the extent to which Jared Kushner’s fortune is tied up there. Like the “legacy contingent right” and the complicated nature of being a billionaire, some of these things can pay off down the line. Again, Kushner’s seriously flawed security-clearance background check is relevant here. Remember that his clearance was in limbo until his father-in-law ordered it be granted. We don’t know the details, but it appears that the career officials tasked with preventing people with potential conflicts or security vulnerabilities from getting access to our secrets were prevented from doing their jobs.
Were he denied a clearance, it wouldn’t have prevented Jared from getting access to the decision-maker and influencing him. But in any other administration, it would have precluded him from getting his job. Trump’s bailout of Kushner’s personal security clearance liabilities is a big red flag.
And the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE), which handles financial disclosures, is largely toothless to enforce failed disclosures because, as former OGE director Walter Schaub put it last year, beyond making suggestions, it “lacks real enforcement authority.” (Former Minnesota Rep. Gerry Sikorski once famously called it a “toothless terrier on Valium.”) It’s quite possible that there are many potential conflicts of interest in Jared Kushner’s fortunes. What little we do know, from what he did disclose, shows broad ranges in asset value. But we don’t know who the other investors (if any) in those projects are, or their possible leverage. These details are left up to investigative reporters, and perhaps historians someday in the future, to look into. Clearly, our security-clearance and financial-disclosure laws were not written for an administration like this one.
Nepotism, graft, and potential corruption among candidates and their families are rarely high-priority issues for many voters. But in this election cycle, since you’re likely to hear Trump and the Republicans talk about Joe Biden’s ne’er-do-well son Hunter, keep in mind the Trump family’s own complicated past and potential future relationships with China.
Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Kushner’s repeatedly revised financial disclosures were done as part of his security clearance investigation, rather than in conjunction.


thebulwark--2020-04-30--Time for the “Shoe-Leather Epidemiologists”

Social-distancing has worked—so far .
We are past the peak in deaths from COVID-19 , both nationally and in most states , though we ’ ve still got a few weeks before we go down the other side of the curve .
It ’ s natural for people to be restless and to be eager for re-opening .
But the question isn ’ t “ Should we reopen ?
” The question has always been “ How do we reopen ?
” What conditions will make it possible ?
Reopening too quickly and with inadequate preparation just raises the prospect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with more deaths and more shutdowns in the future .
That ’ s what happened with the Spanish Flu in 1918 .
The past six weeks of shutdowns have certainly bought us time—but time for what ?
A lot of conservative pundits are angrily asking that question—but not spending any time thinking about the answer .
Because there is an answer .
One of the early messages of the pandemic was learned a little too well : the exhortation to “ flatten the curve.
” The idea as stated early on was that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spread of the virus—that it would infect just about everyone eventually , but we had to pace the impact to avoid overwhelming the hospitals .
But if everyone is going to get COVID-19 anyway , if we ’ re going to keep going until we arrive at “ herd immunity , ” then what ’ s the point ?
It ’ s all pain for the foreseeable future—pain in the form of more deaths , and pain in the form of more economic shutdowns .
But this does not have to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which never had such severe shutdowns , but which isn ’ t headed for herd immunity , either .
In fact , a country with one-sixth our population , which had its first confirmed case on the same day as the United States , has one percent as many confirmed cases and less than one percent as many deaths .
The daily number of new cases being identified in South Korea is trending down into the single digits .
That ’ s the equivalent of only 60 new cases a day in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate of maybe a dozen a day .
If we could reach those numbers , we would be reopening , too .
Clearly it is possible to do more than just slow the spread of COVID-19 .
We can reduce it and bring this disease down to minimal levels .
How did South Korea do it ?
By massive testing and “ contact tracing ” : finding infected individuals and tracing anyone with whom they had significant contact .
This allowed South Korea to quarantine only those who were specifically identified as being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country didn ’ t have to lock down .
South Korea has still been practicing aggressive hygiene and social distancing , mind you , including bans on large gatherings .
But its limitations on the public ’ s movement have been far less draconian than in the US .
The sweeping lockdowns and strict social distancing we ’ ve had to do here in America—whether government-imposed or voluntary—are blunt instruments we used to slow down the spread of the virus because we had failed to implement the South Korean approach early on .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing what it was supposed to do , and if it continues to work , it could bring us to the point where a South Korean-style system would work .
Testing and tracing is nearly impossible when you have tens of millions of people exposed , as we almost certainly do .
But if the lockdowns can bring the number of active cases down into the thousands , then test-and-trace has a chance .
If we want to reopen , only one thing matters : building the infrastructure for test-and-trace .
All other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waste of time .
Test-and-trace will require paying premium prices for the rapid production of enormous numbers of new tests , mobilizing the people and equipment needed to administer the tests , and recruiting a small army of “ contact tracers.
” What does a “ contact tracer ” do ?
They talk to people who are identified as being infected , figure out where they ’ ve been and who they ’ ve seen , and then track down other people they might have infected .
Colorado is ramping up a system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases a day .
The Colorado Sun refers to these contact tracers as “ shoe-leather epidemiologists , ” which sounds a whole lot more useful than all of the armchair epidemiologists who have been clogging our airwaves and social media .
New York is going to need a much larger effort , and last week Andrew Cuomo announced the formation of a “ tracing army ” with help from Michael Bloomberg—who is doing something far more useful than his ill-conceived run for president .
“ ‘ You don ’ t have months to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
‘ You have weeks to get this up and running . '
” The state has about 500 tracers and will add thousands more , working with universities to draft medical students , Cuomo said .
The efforts will be coordinated between the state and municipalities .
New York City and other localities also will be hiring their own independent people , Cuomo said .
For all of President Trump ’ s bluster about reopening , there is , as far as I can tell , no national test-and-trace plan .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ about miracle cures and attempting to troll the media .
His daily vaporings are increasingly coming across as just another Boomer on Facebook complaining about what other people should or shouldn ’ t be doing—a confession of his own irrelevance at a time of national crisis .
A federal effort on this would be particularly helpful given the ease and frequency of travel across state lines .
No state can simply seal itself off from the rest of the country and test and trace within its own borders .
So two prominent former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for such a plan .
They want Congress to appropriate $ 46 billion for it—a far smaller and far more effective expenditure than the trillions we have already been poured into “ stimulus ” boondoggles .
The goal of test-and-trace is to allow a return to the established , limited quarantine powers of government : the power to identify specific individuals who are contagious and require their isolation for a specific period of time .
As Colorado Governor Jared Polis put it , the goal is “ testing , quarantining , and isolating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Yet much of the conservative commentariat has trapped itself in a debate about ending the “ totalitarian ” lockdowns , while ignoring or dismissing the actual effort required to do so .
They are attempting to shoehorn this crisis into the pre-existing mental template of Complaining About Big Government , with themselves in the role of freedom-fighters taking on “ the elites.
” There is a well-established business model in the conservative media of pandering to inarticulate populist resentment , and I suppose people in that industry want to keep their businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country is going to take more than owning the libs .
What is actually required right now is the competent execution of one of the legitimate powers of government .
There are , of course , a great many questions about how a test-and-trace system will be implemented .
Many states are still short on the number of tests they will need , and there are questions about the reliability of the tests we have .
Low-tech contact tracing starts with just talking to an infected person and asking him to recall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher-tech options that involve tracking cell-phone data raise privacy concerns .
But the point is that these are the questions we need to be talking about .
If , in the next few weeks and months , we manage to reopen the economy without experiencing a rebound of COVID-19 in a vicious second wave , it will be primarily because the state governors managed to create a test-and-trace system that reduced the number of cases to a very low level and kept them there .
That ’ s what a return to normal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look like .
That ’ s the only issue that really matters right now , and everything else is noise .

Social-distancing has worked—so far. We are past the peak in deaths from COVID-19, both nationally and in most states, though we’ve still got a few weeks before we go down the other side of the curve. It’s natural for people to be restless and to be eager for re-opening.
But the question isn’t “Should we reopen?” The question has always been “How do we reopen?” What conditions will make it possible? Reopening too quickly and with inadequate preparation just raises the prospect of a second wave of infection, with more deaths and more shutdowns in the future. That’s what happened with the Spanish Flu in 1918.
The past six weeks of shutdowns have certainly bought us time—but time for what?
A lot of conservative pundits are angrily asking that question—but not spending any time thinking about the answer. Because there is an answer.
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…
One of the early messages of the pandemic was learned a little too well: the exhortation to “flatten the curve.” The idea as stated early on was that the goal was just to slow down the spread of the virus—that it would infect just about everyone eventually, but we had to pace the impact to avoid overwhelming the hospitals.
But if everyone is going to get COVID-19 anyway, if we’re going to keep going until we arrive at “herd immunity,” then what’s the point? It’s all pain for the foreseeable future—pain in the form of more deaths, and pain in the form of more economic shutdowns.
But this does not have to be the future. Look at South Korea, which never had such severe shutdowns, but which isn’t headed for herd immunity, either. In fact, a country with one-sixth our population, which had its first confirmed case on the same day as the United States, has one percent as many confirmed cases and less than one percent as many deaths.
The daily number of new cases being identified in South Korea is trending down into the single digits. That’s the equivalent of only 60 new cases a day in the US, with deaths at a rate of maybe a dozen a day.
If we could reach those numbers, we would be reopening, too.
Clearly it is possible to do more than just slow the spread of COVID-19. We can reduce it and bring this disease down to minimal levels.
How did South Korea do it? By massive testing and “contact tracing”: finding infected individuals and tracing anyone with whom they had significant contact. This allowed South Korea to quarantine only those who were specifically identified as being at risk, so that the entire country didn’t have to lock down.
South Korea has still been practicing aggressive hygiene and social distancing, mind you, including bans on large gatherings. But its limitations on the public’s movement have been far less draconian than in the US. The sweeping lockdowns and strict social distancing we’ve had to do here in America—whether government-imposed or voluntary—are blunt instruments we used to slow down the spread of the virus because we had failed to implement the South Korean approach early on. So far, this blunt instrument is doing what it was supposed to do, and if it continues to work, it could bring us to the point where a South Korean-style system would work.
Testing and tracing is nearly impossible when you have tens of millions of people exposed, as we almost certainly do. But if the lockdowns can bring the number of active cases down into the thousands, then test-and-trace has a chance.
If we want to reopen, only one thing matters: building the infrastructure for test-and-trace. All other debates are, quite frankly, a waste of time.
Test-and-trace will require paying premium prices for the rapid production of enormous numbers of new tests, mobilizing the people and equipment needed to administer the tests, and recruiting a small army of “contact tracers.” What does a “contact tracer” do? They talk to people who are identified as being infected, figure out where they’ve been and who they’ve seen, and then track down other people they might have infected.
Colorado is ramping up a system intended to be able to track 500 cases a day. The Colorado Sun refers to these contact tracers as “shoe-leather epidemiologists,” which sounds a whole lot more useful than all of the armchair epidemiologists who have been clogging our airwaves and social media.
New York is going to need a much larger effort, and last week Andrew Cuomo announced the formation of a “tracing army” with help from Michael Bloomberg—who is doing something far more useful than his ill-conceived run for president. “‘You don’t have months to plan and do this,’ Cuomo said. ‘You have weeks to get this up and running.'”
The state has about 500 tracers and will add thousands more, working with universities to draft medical students, Cuomo said. The efforts will be coordinated between the state and municipalities. New York City and other localities also will be hiring their own independent people, Cuomo said.
For all of President Trump’s bluster about reopening, there is, as far as I can tell, no national test-and-trace plan. He prefers to spend his time blathering about miracle cures and attempting to troll the media. His daily vaporings are increasingly coming across as just another Boomer on Facebook complaining about what other people should or shouldn’t be doing—a confession of his own irrelevance at a time of national crisis.
A federal effort on this would be particularly helpful given the ease and frequency of travel across state lines. No state can simply seal itself off from the rest of the country and test and trace within its own borders. So two prominent former federal officials have joined together to call for such a plan. They want Congress to appropriate $46 billion for it—a far smaller and far more effective expenditure than the trillions we have already been poured into “stimulus” boondoggles.
The goal of test-and-trace is to allow a return to the established, limited quarantine powers of government: the power to identify specific individuals who are contagious and require their isolation for a specific period of time. As Colorado Governor Jared Polis put it, the goal is “testing, quarantining, and isolating individuals instead of quarantining an entire society.”
Yet much of the conservative commentariat has trapped itself in a debate about ending the “totalitarian” lockdowns, while ignoring or dismissing the actual effort required to do so. They are attempting to shoehorn this crisis into the pre-existing mental template of Complaining About Big Government, with themselves in the role of freedom-fighters taking on “the elites.” There is a well-established business model in the conservative media of pandering to inarticulate populist resentment, and I suppose people in that industry want to keep their businesses going during the pandemic. But reopening the country is going to take more than owning the libs.
What is actually required right now is the competent execution of one of the legitimate powers of government. There are, of course, a great many questions about how a test-and-trace system will be implemented. Many states are still short on the number of tests they will need, and there are questions about the reliability of the tests we have. Low-tech contact tracing starts with just talking to an infected person and asking him to recall where he’s been, while higher-tech options that involve tracking cell-phone data raise privacy concerns. But the point is that these are the questions we need to be talking about.
If, in the next few weeks and months, we manage to reopen the economy without experiencing a rebound of COVID-19 in a vicious second wave, it will be primarily because the state governors managed to create a test-and-trace system that reduced the number of cases to a very low level and kept them there. That’s what a return to normal, or at least semi-normal, will look like.
That’s the only issue that really matters right now, and everything else is noise.


thebulwark--2020-04-30--Mike Pence, the Mayo Clinic, and the Mask

News reports of Vice President Mike Pence ’ s refusal to wear a mask during his visit to the Mayo Clinic this week reminded me of something that occurred when I worked in the Reagan administration .
It was January 1 , 1986 , the date on which California law required all drivers and passengers to wear seat belts when riding in a vehicle .
On that very day , several White House reporters asked whether that would apply to the president and Mrs. Reagan while riding in the Secret Service-driven limousine .
It was an interesting question , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because I was the first White House press aide in the briefing room at the Palm Springs hotel at the time , the inquiry fell to me to answer .
So I called the senior Secret Service agent on the trip and posed the question to him .
He was a bit flustered , and said something about “ unique security requirements ” and the need for the president to “ be immediately evacuated ” in case of emergency .
In other words : probably no seatbelts for the president and first lady @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not want the next day ’ s headlines to be “ Reagans Ignore California State Laws , ” so I decided to short-circuit the system and called the real decision-maker .
Nancy Reagan answered the phone with a cheery “ Happy New Year , Mark , ” to which I responded in kind and then got to the purpose of my call .
With literally zero hesitation , Mrs. Reagan responded by saying : “ Well , of course , we will .
Ronnie and I always follow the law .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I informed the press and the Secret Service .
Fast-forward to Pence ’ s refusal to wear the required mask at Mayo Clinic .
It ’ s hardly surprising .
Indeed , it is the latest and maybe most dangerous symptom of a deeply troubling and defining failure of the Trump administration : arrogance and the unwillingness to accept the fact that when you work or live in the White House , you should set an example for how to behave .
Pence claims that because he has been tested for COVID-19 it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask .
But just because he tested negative Monday does not mean he was not exposed afterwards and is not contagious on Tuesday .
That ’ s why he should have worn a mask—not just to protect himself , but to protect others .
That ’ s what public service is about .
One suspects that the real reason Pence didn ’ t wear a mask is because he ( or more likely his boss ) is horrified by the image of the vice president of the United States wearing a mask to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims to have under control .
The always obedient Pence also made the silly claim that not wearing a mask allows him to look people in the eye .
This is simply untrue .
Medical masks do not prevent eye contact .
If anything , eye contact is enhanced when smiles , frowns , and other facial expressions are concealed .
Not that any of that actually matters .
This was mere smokescreen .
Pence knows it .
We know it .
And he knows we know it , too .
Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disregard for the importance of setting an example in the most visible position in the nation .
Whether it ’ s the refusal of Trump and his co-stars to social distance at press briefings , Ivanka and Jared traveling to New Jersey for Passover when normal people had been asked to stay at home , or Trump demeaning the dignity of the presidency by his constant insulting of those who dare disagree with him , the president and his team act as though the normal rules of society do not apply to them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got it about being an example .
Whether it was being polite , kind , neatly dressed and groomed , or not acting as if he was more important than the people who put him in office , Reagan always conducted himself in a way to which parents could point their children as worthy of emulation .
It is a—perhaps the—fundamental failing of Donald Trump that he models , allows , and thereby encourages behavior which suggests some people are better than others .
That ’ s not what America is about .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t going to uphold this principle on his own , then the officials at the Mayo Clinic should have insisted that he wear a mask , or denied him entry .
Because in this country , the rules apply to everyone .

News reports of Vice President Mike Pence’s refusal to wear a mask during his visit to the Mayo Clinic this week reminded me of something that occurred when I worked in the Reagan administration.
It was January 1, 1986, the date on which California law required all drivers and passengers to wear seat belts when riding in a vehicle. On that very day, several White House reporters asked whether that would apply to the president and Mrs. Reagan while riding in the Secret Service-driven limousine. It was an interesting question, especially since the Reagans were in California.
Because I was the first White House press aide in the briefing room at the Palm Springs hotel at the time, the inquiry fell to me to answer. So I called the senior Secret Service agent on the trip and posed the question to him. He was a bit flustered, and said something about “unique security requirements” and the need for the president to “be immediately evacuated” in case of emergency. In other words: probably no seatbelts for the president and first lady.
I understood his reasoning, but did not want the next day’s headlines to be “Reagans Ignore California State Laws,” so I decided to short-circuit the system and called the real decision-maker.
Nancy Reagan answered the phone with a cheery “Happy New Year, Mark,” to which I responded in kind and then got to the purpose of my call. With literally zero hesitation, Mrs. Reagan responded by saying: “Well, of course, we will. Ronnie and I always follow the law. And we need to set an example.” I informed the press and the Secret Service.
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…
Fast-forward to Pence’s refusal to wear the required mask at Mayo Clinic. It’s hardly surprising. Indeed, it is the latest and maybe most dangerous symptom of a deeply troubling and defining failure of the Trump administration: arrogance and the unwillingness to accept the fact that when you work or live in the White House, you should set an example for how to behave.
Pence claims that because he has been tested for COVID-19 it’s okay to go without a mask. But just because he tested negative Monday does not mean he was not exposed afterwards and is not contagious on Tuesday. That’s why he should have worn a mask—not just to protect himself, but to protect others.
That’s what public service is about.
One suspects that the real reason Pence didn’t wear a mask is because he (or more likely his boss) is horrified by the image of the vice president of the United States wearing a mask to protect against a virus that the administration claims to have under control.
The always obedient Pence also made the silly claim that not wearing a mask allows him to look people in the eye.
This is simply untrue. Medical masks do not prevent eye contact. If anything, eye contact is enhanced when smiles, frowns, and other facial expressions are concealed. Not that any of that actually matters. This was mere smokescreen. Pence knows it. We know it. And he knows we know it, too.
Trump and his aides—including Pence—have behaved with a scandalous disregard for the importance of setting an example in the most visible position in the nation. Whether it’s the refusal of Trump and his co-stars to social distance at press briefings, Ivanka and Jared traveling to New Jersey for Passover when normal people had been asked to stay at home, or Trump demeaning the dignity of the presidency by his constant insulting of those who dare disagree with him, the president and his team act as though the normal rules of society do not apply to them.
If nothing else, Ronald Reagan got it about being an example. Whether it was being polite, kind, neatly dressed and groomed, or not acting as if he was more important than the people who put him in office, Reagan always conducted himself in a way to which parents could point their children as worthy of emulation.
It is a—perhaps the—fundamental failing of Donald Trump that he models, allows, and thereby encourages behavior which suggests some people are better than others.
That’s not what America is about.
And if the vice president wasn’t going to uphold this principle on his own, then the officials at the Mayo Clinic should have insisted that he wear a mask, or denied him entry.
Because in this country, the rules apply to everyone.


thebulwark--2020-05-01--Conservative Psychology Favors Vote-By-Mail

A small but vocal group of Republicans continues to oppose voting by mail on the grounds that it ’ s somehow bad for the GOP .
As a Republican operative myself , I hope they will soon realize their assumption is dead wrong .
Generally speaking , voting by mail has proven to have no partisan impact on election outcomes .
But in a pandemic — when a single cough can infect dozens of people — it might be more likely to help Republicans .
The reason : disgust .
Disgust is a powerful emotion , and conservatives tend to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies have shown a correlation between conservative political preferences and greater sensitivity to disgust .
When presented with a disgusting image or scenario , conservatives ’ reactions are generally stronger and more negative than liberals ’ .
This differential could have an effect in the 2020 election , as conservative voters confront the disgusting possibility of voting in person during a pandemic .
A lot of them just won ’ t do it .
Not if the virus persists .
The shared booths , shared pens , shared voting machines , shared air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gross .
Conservatives will experience great sensitivity to these disgusting conditions , potentially causing more Republicans to stay home than Democrats .
This prediction is consistent with the studies .
In one review , researchers found that conservatives were more concerned with “ avoiding contamination.
” The study asked people to rate their disgust with scenarios like , “ You take a sip of soda , and then realize that you drank from the glass that an acquaintance of yours had been drinking from.
” Another prompt asked people to rate their agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any part of my body touch the toilet seat in a public washroom.
” Results showed that desire to avoid contamination was strongly associated with political conservatism .
Many of the disgust studies have specifically looked at cleanliness and fear of disease .
One found that politically conservative undergrads had cleaner , tidier rooms with more cleaning supplies on hand .
This behavior relates to the origins of disgust , which some social psychologists believe evolved from a desire to protect ourselves from dangerous pathogens .
We are the descendants of those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservatives ’ concern with cleanliness and “ avoiding contamination ” impact GOP turnout in 2020 ?
If people can vote by mail from the safety of their homes , it won ’ t hurt turnout at all .
But if a few misguided Republicans succeed in making it harder to vote by mail , expect a net decrease in ballots for Trump .
Will fear of the virus cause some Biden supporters to stay home ?
Sure .
But on balance , the disease has more potential to suppress Republican votes .
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personally disgusted by the germs , Republican voters are also on average older and therefore more at risk from COVID-19 and more likely to be subject to shelter-in-place orders .
It might seem odd that so many “ conservatives ” are protesting in the streets right now if they ’ re more prone to disgust .
But their whole message is that they don ’ t believe in the virus .
They think it ’ s fake news .
Trump told them so for weeks , and it ’ s clearly proven impossible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia , and others are busy stoking conspiracies on social media .
While Trump finally changed his tune in press briefings mid-March , his Twitter feed has remained more than a little conspiratorial , urging people to “ liberate ” themselves from lockdowns in a few states ( which all just happened to be Democrat-tilted battlegrounds key to the Electoral College ) .
Keep in mind that the lockdown protesters are a small fraction of Republicans voters .
They generate more media than the conservatives quietly staying home .
For every protester screaming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there are thousands of Republicans , including my southern Trump-supporting family members , who absolutely will not visit a voting booth during a pandemic any more than they ’ ll be booking a trip to Wuhan .
If Republicans endorse vote-by-mail and expanded absentee voting , they ’ ll be doing the right thing .
And they might just see a shift in their favor because of conservative psychology .
The problem for Republicans currently is that they ’ re blocking their most favorable voters by requiring in-person voting at a shrinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Before we predict how people might vote , we first have to consider whether they will choose to vote at all .
Wise up , fellow Republicans .
If you insist on viewing the issue of ballot access through the cynical lens of partisan advantage , then you should support vote-by-mail .
Republicans have never faced an election where voting is disgusting .
We need to make it easy for people to vote from their safe , clean , sanitized homes .
Otherwise , it ’ s likely fewer Republican voters will @ @ @ @ @

A small but vocal group of Republicans continues to oppose voting by mail on the grounds that it’s somehow bad for the GOP. As a Republican operative myself, I hope they will soon realize their assumption is dead wrong.
Generally speaking, voting by mail has proven to have no partisan impact on election outcomes. But in a pandemic — when a single cough can infect dozens of people — it might be more likely to help Republicans. The reason: disgust.
Disgust is a powerful emotion, and conservatives tend to feel it more than liberals. Numerous studies have shown a correlation between conservative political preferences and greater sensitivity to disgust. When presented with a disgusting image or scenario, conservatives’ reactions are generally stronger and more negative than liberals’. This differential could have an effect in the 2020 election, as conservative voters confront the disgusting possibility of voting in person during a pandemic.
A lot of them just won’t do it. Not if the virus persists. The shared booths, shared pens, shared voting machines, shared air — it’s all just too gross. Conservatives will experience great sensitivity to these disgusting conditions, potentially causing more Republicans to stay home than Democrats.
This prediction is consistent with the studies. In one review, researchers found that conservatives were more concerned with “avoiding contamination.” The study asked people to rate their disgust with scenarios like, “You take a sip of soda, and then realize that you drank from the glass that an acquaintance of yours had been drinking from.” Another prompt asked people to rate their agreement with: “‘I never let any part of my body touch the toilet seat in a public washroom.” Results showed that desire to avoid contamination was strongly associated with political conservatism.
Many of the disgust studies have specifically looked at cleanliness and fear of disease. One found that politically conservative undergrads had cleaner, tidier rooms with more cleaning supplies on hand. This behavior relates to the origins of disgust, which some social psychologists believe evolved from a desire to protect ourselves from dangerous pathogens. We are the descendants of those who survived the previous plagues.
How might conservatives’ concern with cleanliness and “avoiding contamination” impact GOP turnout in 2020? If people can vote by mail from the safety of their homes, it won’t hurt turnout at all. But if a few misguided Republicans succeed in making it harder to vote by mail, expect a net decrease in ballots for Trump.
Will fear of the virus cause some Biden supporters to stay home? Sure. But on balance, the disease has more potential to suppress Republican votes. Not only are conservatives more likely to be personally disgusted by the germs, Republican voters are also on average older and therefore more at risk from COVID-19 and more likely to be subject to shelter-in-place orders.
It might seem odd that so many “conservatives” are protesting in the streets right now if they’re more prone to disgust. But their whole message is that they don’t believe in the virus. They think it’s fake news. Trump told them so for weeks, and it’s clearly proven impossible to un-ring that bell while China, Russia, and others are busy stoking conspiracies on social media.
While Trump finally changed his tune in press briefings mid-March, his Twitter feed has remained more than a little conspiratorial, urging people to “liberate” themselves from lockdowns in a few states (which all just happened to be Democrat-tilted battlegrounds key to the Electoral College).
Keep in mind that the lockdown protesters are a small fraction of Republicans voters. They generate more media than the conservatives quietly staying home. For every protester screaming in the face of a healthcare worker, there are thousands of Republicans, including my southern Trump-supporting family members, who absolutely will not visit a voting booth during a pandemic any more than they’ll be booking a trip to Wuhan.
If Republicans endorse vote-by-mail and expanded absentee voting, they’ll be doing the right thing. And they might just see a shift in their favor because of conservative psychology. The problem for Republicans currently is that they’re blocking their most favorable voters by requiring in-person voting at a shrinking number of voting locations with longer lines. Before we predict how people might vote, we first have to consider whether they will choose to vote at all.
Wise up, fellow Republicans. If you insist on viewing the issue of ballot access through the cynical lens of partisan advantage, then you should support vote-by-mail. Republicans have never faced an election where voting is disgusting. We need to make it easy for people to vote from their safe, clean, sanitized homes. Otherwise, it’s likely fewer Republican voters will cast ballots this fall.


thebulwark--2020-05-01--Governing and Campaigning in the Pandemic

The “ permanent campaign ” was the title of a book by Sidney Blumenthal in 1980 .
It captured the central role that experts in electoral politics had come to play in governing , not just in elections .
Over the course of the twentieth century , presidents increasingly blended the activities of campaigning and governing .
Pollsters and election consultants were brought into the White House .
They developed strategies to persuade the public of the president ’ s preferred policies , but much more importantly they helped shape public policies themselves .
This phenomenon is among the important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible .
Sometimes a change in degree can be so great that it becomes a change in kind .
Before Trump , the “ permanent campaign ” rubric actually did not describe all of the day-to-day activities of presidents .
While presidents used campaign techniques as instruments of governance far more than did their nineteenth-century counterparts , they did not in fact see the political world from solely a campaigner ’ s perspective .
Modern presidents toggled between the activities of campaigning for re-election and governing , sometimes adopting what came to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that being seen performing the duties of the office , solving important problems or mitigating crises , would better reinforce the public perception of their suitability for the presidency than being seen overtly catering to the needs of popular approval .
The Cuban Missile Crisis , the Challenger shuttle disaster , the 9/11 attacks , and other moments of national trauma have been occasions in which the country instinctively came together .
Polling usually shows bipartisan support for presidents during times like these , because the vast majority of our citizens want presidents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their president during normal times .
It was thus no surprise that President Trump received the highest approval ratings of his term in the early weeks of the pandemic .
Previous presidents understood that attending to—and being seen to be attending to—their duties in times of emergency is vital to maintaining political support .
In emergencies , presidents who attend to the core tasks of governing gain far more support from the public than they could obtain by campaigning for it .
For reasons of political interest as well as the common @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most important task they have is to govern , not to campaign .
In such circumstances , partisan opponents—mindful of their own duties—tend to support the president even if the president pursues a policy or strategy with which they disagree .
Partisan assessment can come later , after the actions required are taken or the crisis has passed .
Donald Trump is not a normal president .
For him , there is no toggle switch between campaigning and governing .
On the very day of his inauguration , he filed the paperwork for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month later , he began holding campaign-style rallies again .
Shortly before the first of those rallies , in February 2017 , he told reporters aboard Air Force One , “ Life is a campaign , Making our country great again is a campaign .
For me , it ’ s a campaign ; to make America great again is absolutely a campaign.
” Before his unexpected win in 2016 , Trump ’ s only clear success in life had been his reality TV show .
He had never held any political office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military .
His businesses repeatedly went bankrupt .
So when he took office , the main experiential resources he had for exercising power and holding office were his time on the reality TV show and the tactics of his campaign .
Few pundits and professionals thought Trump would win in 2016 because he said so many outrageous things so often—any one of which would have sunk the campaigns of other candidates .
Trump pushed the techniques of campaigning to Orwellian dimensions .
He routinely lied ; he repeated lies often , and he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This set of tactics—repetition , proliferation , and projection—worked so well in the campaign that it became his template for governance .
Thus , it was no surprise , though it was contemptible , that Trump traveled to the CDC at the outset of the pandemic wearing one of his red re-election-campaign “ Keep America Great ” hats .
It is no surprise , though it is contemptible , that Trump sees press briefings on the pandemic as substitutes for partisan rallies .
It is no surprise , though it is contemptible , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for COVID-19 , just as he would trade in fiction and lies during the course of his typical campaign rallies .
Before the pandemic , citizens who supported Trump were either duped by his Orwellian innovations or they understood them but didn ’ t care because he was advancing policies they liked : favored judges , tax benefits , or a vision of the nation that channeled their own grievances or advanced their own interests .
Many people either were enveloped in , or tolerated , the fictional world that Trump creates and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens tend to judge presidents by the real-world effects that government decisions have on their own lives or on the lives of people they know .
In the present pandemic , millions of Americans have relatives who have been sick or who have died , or have friends who have suffered .
They have seen the news reports of nursing homes stacking bodies .
Of emergency rooms with long lines .
Of small businesses on the brink of ruin .
They can see and feel the effects of government action and inaction .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not get traction , as he has in the past , for his falsehoods and fictions .
Everyone wants a president who attends to the duties of governing today , not one who hijacks the mechanisms of governing for a permanent campaign .
Many observers have remarked how difficult it must be for Joe Biden to be confined to his basement and unable to campaign in this electoral season .
Biden also holds no office , so unlike , for example , Andrew Cuomo he can ’ t literally demonstrate his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if President Trump shows every day that he is incapable of governing because he is in a permanent campaign , Joe Biden needs to illustrate and exemplify what leadership could look like if we had a president who understood the office and its duties .
Biden needs to display the kind of government we need but do not have .
The best way to do this would be to exemplify the leader that we don ’ t now have .
There are two ways to do this : revive the statesmanship style that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and develop a new norm for campaigns today .
To revive the statesmanship of the past , Biden needs to get journalists and citizens to better attend to his very impressive written rhetoric .
Whatever Biden ’ s limitations as a speaker , his recent written rhetoric has been truly superb—setting a new standard for leadership .
Unfortunately , because ours is now an oral and visual culture , this rhetoric has been largely unnoticed .
For example , Biden ’ s official statement responding to Bernie Sanders suspending his campaign is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to endorse Biden , as Sanders himself has done , need to read that statement .
In it , Biden commits to the same goals as Sanders and testifies to the extent to which Sanders has shaped the Democratic party .
Biden graciously concedes that Sanders is correct in claiming that he has won the ideological battle for the soul of a new party .
In this statement , Biden harks back to the nineteenth century in emphasizing goals over policies .
It is important for candidates to illustrate their policy agenda with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to think that leadership is the ability to ram through specific policies once elected .
Forming a governing majority is about gaining support for an attractive public philosophy—it is not promising non-negotiable commitments to very specific policies .
Such a view of leadership—the specific policy view—is anti-constitutional to the extent that it supplants the role of Congress in actually legislating .
Leadership is , rather , the setting of an agenda and of the basic terms of debate .
The Biden campaign should prominently feature his gracious statement to the Sanders campaign , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its website .
And they should make a point of promoting it to journalists and partisans .
Carefully written rhetoric is a way to discipline a campaign and exemplify governing dispositions and leadership at the same time .
Surrogates could walk journalists though carefully constructed texts rather than offer simplistic talking points on the fly .
If the Biden campaign should look back to nineteenth century statesmen for models of written rhetoric that lasts and informs , it should also look forward by introducing a new model for campaigning .
Instead of waiting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inauguration to roll out nominees for cabinet posts , Biden should follow his VP choice with a rollout of cabinet nominees over the next couple of months .
The entire rollout would form a kind of shadow government .
It would show Americans what a good government would look like .
Each proposed nominee could enable Biden to gain some control over the news cycle .
Biden could also use the rollout to advance whatever vision of leadership he believes necessary at this time—whether it be a full-throated commitment to a progressive Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive and moderate elements .
Because Trump sees governing as a permanent campaign , Biden needs to campaign in a way that shows what it means to govern in a time of impermanence , confusion , and uncertainty .
He can do this while actually supporting the Trump administration if it makes difficult decisions to manage the pandemic ; he can avoid responding to most of Trump ’ s provocations .
As circumstances permit , the Biden campaign can put their candidate in conversation with citizens and health providers who are suffering , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to thank them on behalf of a grateful nation .
This , too , would be a striking contrast with Trump and it would exemplify an expectation we have for those who hold the office of president .
Ignoring Trump to the greatest extent possible while illustrating what a real president looks like , Biden can lead now .

The “permanent campaign” was the title of a book by Sidney Blumenthal in 1980. It captured the central role that experts in electoral politics had come to play in governing, not just in elections. Over the course of the twentieth century, presidents increasingly blended the activities of campaigning and governing. Pollsters and election consultants were brought into the White House. They developed strategies to persuade the public of the president’s preferred policies, but much more importantly they helped shape public policies themselves. This phenomenon is among the important background conditions that made the Trump presidency possible.
Sometimes a change in degree can be so great that it becomes a change in kind. Before Trump, the “permanent campaign” rubric actually did not describe all of the day-to-day activities of presidents. While presidents used campaign techniques as instruments of governance far more than did their nineteenth-century counterparts, they did not in fact see the political world from solely a campaigner’s perspective. Modern presidents toggled between the activities of campaigning for re-election and governing, sometimes adopting what came to be known as a Rose Garden strategy—the idea that being seen performing the duties of the office, solving important problems or mitigating crises, would better reinforce the public perception of their suitability for the presidency than being seen overtly catering to the needs of popular approval.
The Cuban Missile Crisis, the Challenger shuttle disaster, the 9/11 attacks, and other moments of national trauma have been occasions in which the country instinctively came together. Polling usually shows bipartisan support for presidents during times like these, because the vast majority of our citizens want presidents to succeed no matter what they think of their president during normal times. It was thus no surprise that President Trump received the highest approval ratings of his term in the early weeks of the pandemic. Previous presidents understood that attending to—and being seen to be attending to—their duties in times of emergency is vital to maintaining political support. In emergencies, presidents who attend to the core tasks of governing gain far more support from the public than they could obtain by campaigning for it. For reasons of political interest as well as the common good, normal presidents know that the most important task they have is to govern, not to campaign.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
In such circumstances, partisan opponents—mindful of their own duties—tend to support the president even if the president pursues a policy or strategy with which they disagree. Partisan assessment can come later, after the actions required are taken or the crisis has passed.
Donald Trump is not a normal president. For him, there is no toggle switch between campaigning and governing. On the very day of his inauguration, he filed the paperwork for his re-election campaign. Less than a month later, he began holding campaign-style rallies again. Shortly before the first of those rallies, in February 2017, he told reporters aboard Air Force One, “Life is a campaign, Making our country great again is a campaign. For me, it’s a campaign; to make America great again is absolutely a campaign.”
Before his unexpected win in 2016, Trump’s only clear success in life had been his reality TV show. He had never held any political office. He had never served in the military. His businesses repeatedly went bankrupt. So when he took office, the main experiential resources he had for exercising power and holding office were his time on the reality TV show and the tactics of his campaign. Few pundits and professionals thought Trump would win in 2016 because he said so many outrageous things so often—any one of which would have sunk the campaigns of other candidates. Trump pushed the techniques of campaigning to Orwellian dimensions. He routinely lied; he repeated lies often, and he projected his vices onto his opponents. This set of tactics—repetition, proliferation, and projection—worked so well in the campaign that it became his template for governance.
Thus, it was no surprise, though it was contemptible, that Trump traveled to the CDC at the outset of the pandemic wearing one of his red re-election-campaign “Keep America Great” hats. It is no surprise, though it is contemptible, that Trump sees press briefings on the pandemic as substitutes for partisan rallies. It is no surprise, though it is contemptible, that Trump markets harmful “cures” for COVID-19, just as he would trade in fiction and lies during the course of his typical campaign rallies.
Before the pandemic, citizens who supported Trump were either duped by his Orwellian innovations or they understood them but didn’t care because he was advancing policies they liked: favored judges, tax benefits, or a vision of the nation that channeled their own grievances or advanced their own interests. Many people either were enveloped in, or tolerated, the fictional world that Trump creates and inhabits.
But in a crisis, citizens tend to judge presidents by the real-world effects that government decisions have on their own lives or on the lives of people they know. In the present pandemic, millions of Americans have relatives who have been sick or who have died, or have friends who have suffered. They have seen the news reports of nursing homes stacking bodies. Of emergency rooms with long lines. Of small businesses on the brink of ruin. They can see and feel the effects of government action and inaction. This is why Trump has not and will not get traction, as he has in the past, for his falsehoods and fictions. Everyone wants a president who attends to the duties of governing today, not one who hijacks the mechanisms of governing for a permanent campaign.
Many observers have remarked how difficult it must be for Joe Biden to be confined to his basement and unable to campaign in this electoral season. Biden also holds no office, so unlike, for example, Andrew Cuomo he can’t literally demonstrate his own ability to govern now.
Nevertheless, if President Trump shows every day that he is incapable of governing because he is in a permanent campaign, Joe Biden needs to illustrate and exemplify what leadership could look like if we had a president who understood the office and its duties. Biden needs to display the kind of government we need but do not have.
The best way to do this would be to exemplify the leader that we don’t now have.
There are two ways to do this: revive the statesmanship style that preceded the rise of the permanent campaign, and develop a new norm for campaigns today.
To revive the statesmanship of the past, Biden needs to get journalists and citizens to better attend to his very impressive written rhetoric. Whatever Biden’s limitations as a speaker, his recent written rhetoric has been truly superb—setting a new standard for leadership. Unfortunately, because ours is now an oral and visual culture, this rhetoric has been largely unnoticed. For example, Biden’s official statement responding to Bernie Sanders suspending his campaign is truly remarkable. Progressives who are hesitating to endorse Biden, as Sanders himself has done, need to read that statement. In it, Biden commits to the same goals as Sanders and testifies to the extent to which Sanders has shaped the Democratic party. Biden graciously concedes that Sanders is correct in claiming that he has won the ideological battle for the soul of a new party.
In this statement, Biden harks back to the nineteenth century in emphasizing goals over policies. It is important for candidates to illustrate their policy agenda with specific policies. But it is wrong to think that leadership is the ability to ram through specific policies once elected. Forming a governing majority is about gaining support for an attractive public philosophy—it is not promising non-negotiable commitments to very specific policies. Such a view of leadership—the specific policy view—is anti-constitutional to the extent that it supplants the role of Congress in actually legislating. Leadership is, rather, the setting of an agenda and of the basic terms of debate.
The Biden campaign should prominently feature his gracious statement to the Sanders campaign, and other similarly well-crafted statements, on its website. And they should make a point of promoting it to journalists and partisans. Carefully written rhetoric is a way to discipline a campaign and exemplify governing dispositions and leadership at the same time. Surrogates could walk journalists though carefully constructed texts rather than offer simplistic talking points on the fly.
If the Biden campaign should look back to nineteenth century statesmen for models of written rhetoric that lasts and informs, it should also look forward by introducing a new model for campaigning. Instead of waiting for a transition between the election and inauguration to roll out nominees for cabinet posts, Biden should follow his VP choice with a rollout of cabinet nominees over the next couple of months. The entire rollout would form a kind of shadow government. It would show Americans what a good government would look like. Each proposed nominee could enable Biden to gain some control over the news cycle. Biden could also use the rollout to advance whatever vision of leadership he believes necessary at this time—whether it be a full-throated commitment to a progressive Democratic party or a more capacious party with progressive and moderate elements.
Because Trump sees governing as a permanent campaign, Biden needs to campaign in a way that shows what it means to govern in a time of impermanence, confusion, and uncertainty. He can do this while actually supporting the Trump administration if it makes difficult decisions to manage the pandemic; he can avoid responding to most of Trump’s provocations.
As circumstances permit, the Biden campaign can put their candidate in conversation with citizens and health providers who are suffering, allowing him to show his instinctive empathy and to thank them on behalf of a grateful nation. This, too, would be a striking contrast with Trump and it would exemplify an expectation we have for those who hold the office of president.
Ignoring Trump to the greatest extent possible while illustrating what a real president looks like, Biden can lead now.


thebulwark--2020-05-01--How Italy Could Crash the Global Economy

Now that the coronavirus epidemic has pummeled the Italian economy , Europe will soon be confronted with a fundamental challenge : How will it prevent yet another Italian economic and sovereign debt crisis from causing the Euro to unravel ?
At the heart of Europe ’ s problem is the fact that Italy , a founding member of the Euro and an economy some ten times the size of Greece , is simply too big to fail if the Euro is to survive .
Yet at the same time , the Italian economy could prove to be too costly and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partners to bail out without imposing strict economic conditions .
The Italian government would likely refuse such terms as politically unacceptable , especially as support for Europe among the Italian public is dwindling .
If the Euro is to survive , Italy ’ s European partners will have to find some way of bailing it out without imposing conditions that Rome will find difficult to swallow , and do it all without unduly compromising the Eurozone ’ s operating rules .
With the coronavirus having wreaked devastation in Italy , a second and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
According to the IMF ’ s latest estimates , the coronavirus epidemic is now set to cause the Italian economy to contract by almost 10 percent in 2020 .
That in turn will cause Italy ’ s budget deficit to balloon to around 8.5 percent of GDP and its public-debt-to-GDP ratio to skyrocket from 135 percent to 160 percent by the end of the year .
If the IMF ’ s projections were realized , it would leave Italy ’ s public-debt-to-GDP ratio about 30 percentage points higher than that which triggered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2012 .
Little wonder then that markets are already beginning to question whether Italy will be able to meet its debt servicing commitments .
This uncertainty has been reflected in a steady rise in Italy ’ s government borrowing costs relative to those of über-reliable Germany .
An important factor beckoning another Italian sovereign debt crisis is the fact that stuck within a Euro straitjacket , the country has great difficulty extricating itself from recessions .
Not only does it lack its own monetary and exchange-rate policies to generate economic growth .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ require it to tighten its budgetary belt in the middle of a recession to address its deficit problem .
These measures have resulted in Italy ’ s per capita income today being lower than it was in 1999 , when Italy joined the Euro .
Italy ’ s weak banking system also impedes to the country ’ s economic growth prospects .
Even before the epidemic , Italy ’ s banks were saddled with a mountain of non-performing loans and burdened with large holdings of Italian government bonds .
In a deep recession @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the country faces a wave of household and corporate bankruptcies .
In the event that Italy does need to be bailed out by its European partners , the cost of doing so will dwarf the earlier cost of the Greek bailout .
With a prospective annual budget deficit of $ 200 billion and with government bonds of around $ 800 billion reaching maturity over the next two years , Italy ’ s government alone could need a $ 1 trillion bailout .
In addition , its banks could need at least $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a firmer footing .
Apart from the unprecedented size of the bailout , political conditions today in both Europe and Italy will make it more difficult to put together a bailout package for Italy than it was for Greece in 2010 .
On one side of the ledger , Italy ’ s Northern European partners are now more reticent than before to provide funding for their Southern European neighbors .
On the other side , Italian political parties , and especially Mateo Salvini ’ s League Party , are less willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would-be lenders .
Europe has found last-minute solutions to seemingly intractable political challenges before .
Indeed , European integration itself is a striking example of successful political innovation .
For the sake of both the European and the global economies , we must hope that Europe has a little more ingenuity left .
Fresh from the Brexit debacle , the last thing Europe needs is for the Eurozone to disintegrate .
And at a time of great global economic uncertainty , the last thing that the world economy needs is another European sovereign @ @ @

Now that the coronavirus epidemic has pummeled the Italian economy, Europe will soon be confronted with a fundamental challenge: How will it prevent yet another Italian economic and sovereign debt crisis from causing the Euro to unravel?
At the heart of Europe’s problem is the fact that Italy, a founding member of the Euro and an economy some ten times the size of Greece, is simply too big to fail if the Euro is to survive. Yet at the same time, the Italian economy could prove to be too costly and risky for the rest of its European partners to bail out without imposing strict economic conditions. The Italian government would likely refuse such terms as politically unacceptable, especially as support for Europe among the Italian public is dwindling.
If the Euro is to survive, Italy’s European partners will have to find some way of bailing it out without imposing conditions that Rome will find difficult to swallow, and do it all without unduly compromising the Eurozone’s operating rules.
With the coronavirus having wreaked devastation in Italy, a second and more vicious sovereign debt crisis is looming. According to the IMF’s latest estimates, the coronavirus epidemic is now set to cause the Italian economy to contract by almost 10 percent in 2020. That in turn will cause Italy’s budget deficit to balloon to around 8.5 percent of GDP and its public-debt-to-GDP ratio to skyrocket from 135 percent to 160 percent by the end of the year.
If the IMF’s projections were realized, it would leave Italy’s public-debt-to-GDP ratio about 30 percentage points higher than that which triggered Italy’s last sovereign debt crisis in 2012. Little wonder then that markets are already beginning to question whether Italy will be able to meet its debt servicing commitments. This uncertainty has been reflected in a steady rise in Italy’s government borrowing costs relative to those of über-reliable Germany.
An important factor beckoning another Italian sovereign debt crisis is the fact that stuck within a Euro straitjacket, the country has great difficulty extricating itself from recessions. Not only does it lack its own monetary and exchange-rate policies to generate economic growth. All too often, its European partners require it to tighten its budgetary belt in the middle of a recession to address its deficit problem. These measures have resulted in Italy’s per capita income today being lower than it was in 1999, when Italy joined the Euro.
Italy’s weak banking system also impedes to the country’s economic growth prospects. Even before the epidemic, Italy’s banks were saddled with a mountain of non-performing loans and burdened with large holdings of Italian government bonds. In a deep recession, more of their loans will collapse as the country faces a wave of household and corporate bankruptcies.
In the event that Italy does need to be bailed out by its European partners, the cost of doing so will dwarf the earlier cost of the Greek bailout. With a prospective annual budget deficit of $200 billion and with government bonds of around $800 billion reaching maturity over the next two years, Italy’s government alone could need a $1 trillion bailout. In addition, its banks could need at least $500 billion in support to put them on a firmer footing.
Apart from the unprecedented size of the bailout, political conditions today in both Europe and Italy will make it more difficult to put together a bailout package for Italy than it was for Greece in 2010. On one side of the ledger, Italy’s Northern European partners are now more reticent than before to provide funding for their Southern European neighbors. On the other side, Italian political parties, and especially Mateo Salvini’s League Party, are less willing to follow the austerity policies preferred by their would-be lenders.
Europe has found last-minute solutions to seemingly intractable political challenges before. Indeed, European integration itself is a striking example of successful political innovation. For the sake of both the European and the global economies, we must hope that Europe has a little more ingenuity left. Fresh from the Brexit debacle, the last thing Europe needs is for the Eurozone to disintegrate. And at a time of great global economic uncertainty, the last thing that the world economy needs is another European sovereign debt crisis.