thebulwark--2020-07-27--Third Parties, Political Purity, and “Throwing Away Your Votes”

In the American political system , third parties have typically attracted candidates and voters on the fringes or in exile .
It is when third parties move toward the mainstream and start to attract significant numbers of voters that they begin to get the attention of the press and become annoyances for the two major parties .
Consider , for example , Ross Perot ’ s bid for the presidency in 1992 .
His 18.9 percent of the popular vote—the biggest share won by any third-party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt ’ s 1912 Bull Moose campaign—undoubtedly played a role in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Bill Clinton .
In the 2016 election , the 6 percent of the voters who cast their ballots for someone other than the two major-party candidates may have had any number of motivations .
Some probably protested against Trump by voting third party with the expectation of a Clinton victory , while others probably condemned both candidates as equally bad .
Still other voters would have genuinely preferred a third-party candidate .
While not huge , third-party candidates ’ total share of the vote was electorally significant : The Libertarian party candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over 3 percent of the national popular vote , which was greater than the national difference between Trump and Clinton .
In the key battleground state of Pennsylvania , the vote for Johnson was triple the size of Trump ’ s margin of victory ; in Wisconsin , Johnson ’ s vote was quadruple Trump ’ s margin ; in Michigan , Johnson ’ s vote was sixteen times Trump ’ s margin .
The phenomena that can drive candidates and voters to third parties—polarization , political homelessness , and a desire for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in American politics .
To understand the dynamic that can give rise to third-party voting , sway an election , and have lasting historical consequences , it is worth examining the election of 1844 between the Democrat James K. Polk , the Whig Henry Clay , and the Liberty party nominee James G. Birney .
Following the rise of Andrew Jackson to the presidency and the birth of the Democratic party , critics and defectors allied to form the Whig party .
It began as an oppositional coalition but under the leadership of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Whigs soon formed their own political identity .
They called for the chartering of banks and the use of paper money ( both of which Jackson had opposed ) and the subsidization of internal improvements .
While both parties had anti-slavery wings and both included slaveholders among their leaders , by the middle of the nineteenth century , the Whigs had garnered the reputation as the party more hostile to slavery .
Yet the Whigs were hardly a united front against slavery , and often the issue served as a wedge that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Southern factions .
As time went on , some of the “ Conscience Whigs ” —those who opposed slavery—found it more difficult to abide the party ’ s pro-slavery members .
Given the state of the Democratic and Whig parties , abolitionists and anti-slavery advocates debated how best to proceed toward bringing about slavery ’ s ultimate destruction .
William Lloyd Garrison and his radical abolitionists , while politically outspoken , eschewed participating in party politics , arguing that doing so would mean compromising their values and prolonging the enslavement of black Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within the political system as the most realistic way to bring about lasting change—and thus was born the Liberty party .
As the 1844 election approached , the Democrats were keen to retake the White House .
The last Democratic presidency , the one term of Jackson ’ s successor Martin Van Buren , had been defined by the economic hardship that followed the Panic of 1837 .
The Whigs ’ victory in 1840 resulted in the short-lived presidency of William Henry Harrison and the contentious presidency of John Tyler .
As Whigs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it became clear that the annexation of Texas—and with it the expansion of slavery—would dominate political discourse .
While Van Buren had been angling to position himself as a comeback candidate for his party , after some behind-the-scenes political fixing and a series of convention battles the Democrats instead selected as their champion former House speaker James K. Polk of Tennessee .
Polk was a political figure of little importance—the Whigs ridiculed him with the slogan “ Who is James K. Polk ?
” —but he was a protégé of Jackson , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expansionist .
He was trumpeted as Young Hickory to Jackson ’ s Old Hickory .
Such credentials made him an ideal choice for most of the South .
Meanwhile , Henry Clay—former senator , former speaker of the House , former secretary of state—was the undisputed leader of the Whig party and its candidate for the presidency .
With Clay opposing the annexation of Texas , believing such a move would spark a war with Mexico and increase the Southern slave power ’ s influence on politics , the Northern states lined up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also in these Northern states that Clay faced a strong backlash from abolitionist activists and the anti-slavery Liberty party .
Even though Clay ’ s views on Texas as well as the other territories largely gelled with those of the Liberty party , Clay and the Whigs came under intense criticism .
The presidential candidate of the small Liberty party in 1840 and again in 1844 was James G. Birney , a former Kentuckian who had moved north to Ohio .
Birney , who had previously campaigned for Clay and gotten along well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clay that the most effective way to end slavery was colonization—that is , a movement to “ voluntarily ” relocate blacks from America to Africa .
But over time the men grew apart , with Birney coming to embrace the immediate abolition of slavery .
Pro-slavery Democrats delighted at the situation and sought to further divide voters between the Whigs and the Liberty party by reprinting excerpts from Clay ’ s speeches where he had criticized abolitionists and defended slavery .
Meanwhile , in the South , Democrats galvanized voters with records of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , always the great compromiser , tried to appease both Northern and Southern interests but slavery would prove non-negotiable for some voters .
What is striking is how aware of the situation Whigs were .
A pro-Whig newspaper , the Indiana State Journal , pleaded with its readers on August 3 , 1844 that supporting the Liberty party would be “ throwing away your votes , ” while “ our opponents .
.
.
are tickled to death with the prospect of thus using you as tools ” : Other abolitionist outlets , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ printed an even blunter editorial around the time of the midterm elections in 1842 : “ Let it be understood , that every abolitionist who , by refusing to vote as a Whig , adds to the strength of the Southern party , does , in effect , vote for the maintenance of slavery.
” But such sentiments did not move the Liberty men .
Abel W. Brown , a Baptist preacher and anti-slavery publisher , as well as a member of the Liberty party , denounced Clay as a “ Sabbath breaker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thief , Robber , Adulterer , Man-stealer , Slaveholder , & c. ” According to Brown , Clay “ buys and sells our Lord Jesus Christ , in the persons of his oppressed children ” —that is , through his enslavement of black Americans .
In the end , Polk narrowly won the presidency .
Though he scored 170 Electoral College votes to Clay ’ s 105 , on the ground the results were nail-bitingly close .
In Michigan , Polk beat Clay by just 3,362 votes .
Had Michigan ’ s 3,639 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would have won the state .
In New York , Polk won by a mere 5,106 votes out of nearly half a million cast .
If even a third of the 15,812 New Yorkers who voted for Birney had held their noses and voted for Clay , the state ’ s 36 Electoral College votes would have been his and he would have been president .
As one anti-slavery Whig , Abraham Lincoln , put it in a letter to a friend the next year , “ If the whig abolitionists of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall , Mr. Clay would now be president , whig principles in the ascendent , and Texas not annexed ; whereas by the division [ of the Whig and Liberty parties ] , all that either had at stake in the contest , was lost.
” Their defiance of slavery had determined the outcome of the election .
With this in mind , how should we view the legacies of the Liberty party voters ?
Given the later birth of the anti-slavery Republican party , did the purist Liberty party lose the battle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against slavery in the long run ?
Or did the Liberty party delay slavery ’ s demise by unintentionally aiding the victory of Polk ?
Would Clay have worked to help end slavery , a practice he claimed he disapproved of ?
Or would have he continued to strike deals with the South , revealing himself to be unable or unwilling to fight the power of the slave states ?
These types of counterfactual questions are impossible to answer , but they should offer us pause in thinking about our own moment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1844—when human bondage was being debated and the very enslaved people on whose fate the election centered were deprived of the franchise—were very different from those of today .
But by looking just at the dynamic of third-party voting in the context of a polarized electorate , we might still draw some lessons that are relevant to 2020 .
A few months ago , when the Democratic primaries were at their most heated , it seemed possible that disappointed Bernie Sanders supporters might refuse to vote for the more moderate Joe Biden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a significant factor in the general election .
Even so , it seems the alliance between the progressive and centrist wings of the Democratic party are fragile .
As for third-party candidates , this year ’ s Libertarian party nominee , Jo Jorgensen , who has never won an election or held political office , seems unlikely to draw the kind of following that Gary Johnson , a former governor , attracted from protest voters in 2016 .
Conservatives who find themselves unwilling to vote for Trump will have to ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Jorgensen ( or some other third-party candidate ) and what will be at stake ?
Trump ’ s victory in 2016 was result of a perfect storm of political events and ultimately a slim Electoral College win .
Yet in the time that Trump has been president , he has thoroughly rebranded the Republican party , stripping out every aspect of compassionate conservatism and replacing it with “ owning the libs ” and national populism .
Conservatives longing for the exorcism of Trumpism from the GOP may be waiting in vain .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s re-election bid is likely to fail , even a narrow defeat could cement the Trumpian transformation of the GOP for decades to come .
Yet can pro-life , limited-government-advocating , Second Amendment-supporting conservatives really make any kind of long-term home for themselves in the Democratic party ?
Given the dwindling influence within the party of the “ Blue Dogs ” and the “ New Democrats , ” this seems unlikely .
Politics is always a balancing act between strategy and sacrifice , calculation and compromise .
Voting for Jorgensen or some other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may even seem to have a certain logic to it .
Like the Conscience Whigs before them , some Never Trump Republicans may feel themselves to be in a bind .
Do they refuse to join the Biden coalition in the hopes of winning the longer war for the soul of conservatism ?
Do they ease their consciences by writing in Mitt Romney while effectively casting aside their votes ?
Do libertarians and other voters tempted by third-party candidates hold on to their purist convictions while knowing victory is impossible ?
Or do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man whom they have denounced as a threat to the very foundations of the republic ?
As frustrating as it may be , successful American politicking has always been coalitional .

In the American political system, third parties have typically attracted candidates and voters on the fringes or in exile. It is when third parties move toward the mainstream and start to attract significant numbers of voters that they begin to get the attention of the press and become annoyances for the two major parties. Consider, for example, Ross Perot’s bid for the presidency in 1992. His 18.9 percent of the popular vote—the biggest share won by any third-party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt’s 1912 Bull Moose campaign—undoubtedly played a role in George H.W. Bush’s loss to Bill Clinton.
In the 2016 election, the 6 percent of the voters who cast their ballots for someone other than the two major-party candidates may have had any number of motivations. Some probably protested against Trump by voting third party with the expectation of a Clinton victory, while others probably condemned both candidates as equally bad. Still other voters would have genuinely preferred a third-party candidate. While not huge, third-party candidates’ total share of the vote was electorally significant: The Libertarian party candidate, Gary Johnson, won a bit over 3 percent of the national popular vote, which was greater than the national difference between Trump and Clinton. In the key battleground state of Pennsylvania, the vote for Johnson was triple the size of Trump’s margin of victory; in Wisconsin, Johnson’s vote was quadruple Trump’s margin; in Michigan, Johnson’s vote was sixteen times Trump’s margin.
The phenomena that can drive candidates and voters to third parties—polarization, political homelessness, and a desire for a kind of electoral purity—are not new in American politics. To understand the dynamic that can give rise to third-party voting, sway an election, and have lasting historical consequences, it is worth examining the election of 1844 between the Democrat James K. Polk, the Whig Henry Clay, and the Liberty party nominee James G. Birney.
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…
Following the rise of Andrew Jackson to the presidency and the birth of the Democratic party, critics and defectors allied to form the Whig party. It began as an oppositional coalition but under the leadership of the Kentuckian Henry Clay in 1833, the Whigs soon formed their own political identity. They called for the chartering of banks and the use of paper money (both of which Jackson had opposed) and the subsidization of internal improvements. While both parties had anti-slavery wings and both included slaveholders among their leaders, by the middle of the nineteenth century, the Whigs had garnered the reputation as the party more hostile to slavery.
Yet the Whigs were hardly a united front against slavery, and often the issue served as a wedge that split the party’s Northern and Southern factions. As time went on, some of the “Conscience Whigs”—those who opposed slavery—found it more difficult to abide the party’s pro-slavery members. Given the state of the Democratic and Whig parties, abolitionists and anti-slavery advocates debated how best to proceed toward bringing about slavery’s ultimate destruction. William Lloyd Garrison and his radical abolitionists, while politically outspoken, eschewed participating in party politics, arguing that doing so would mean compromising their values and prolonging the enslavement of black Americans. Others, however, viewed working within the political system as the most realistic way to bring about lasting change—and thus was born the Liberty party.
As the 1844 election approached, the Democrats were keen to retake the White House. The last Democratic presidency, the one term of Jackson’s successor Martin Van Buren, had been defined by the economic hardship that followed the Panic of 1837. The Whigs’ victory in 1840 resulted in the short-lived presidency of William Henry Harrison and the contentious presidency of John Tyler. As Whigs and Democrats prepared for the 1844 contest, it became clear that the annexation of Texas—and with it the expansion of slavery—would dominate political discourse. While Van Buren had been angling to position himself as a comeback candidate for his party, after some behind-the-scenes political fixing and a series of convention battles the Democrats instead selected as their champion former House speaker James K. Polk of Tennessee. Polk was a political figure of little importance—the Whigs ridiculed him with the slogan “Who is James K. Polk?”—but he was a protégé of Jackson, a prominent slaveholder, and a steadfast expansionist. He was trumpeted as Young Hickory to Jackson’s Old Hickory. Such credentials made him an ideal choice for most of the South.
Meanwhile, Henry Clay—former senator, former speaker of the House, former secretary of state—was the undisputed leader of the Whig party and its candidate for the presidency. With Clay opposing the annexation of Texas, believing such a move would spark a war with Mexico and increase the Southern slave power’s influence on politics, the Northern states lined up behind the Whigs. But it was also in these Northern states that Clay faced a strong backlash from abolitionist activists and the anti-slavery Liberty party. Even though Clay’s views on Texas as well as the other territories largely gelled with those of the Liberty party, Clay and the Whigs came under intense criticism.
The presidential candidate of the small Liberty party in 1840 and again in 1844 was James G. Birney, a former Kentuckian who had moved north to Ohio. Birney, who had previously campaigned for Clay and gotten along well with him, had formerly agreed with Clay that the most effective way to end slavery was colonization—that is, a movement to “voluntarily” relocate blacks from America to Africa. But over time the men grew apart, with Birney coming to embrace the immediate abolition of slavery. Pro-slavery Democrats delighted at the situation and sought to further divide voters between the Whigs and the Liberty party by reprinting excerpts from Clay’s speeches where he had criticized abolitionists and defended slavery. Meanwhile, in the South, Democrats galvanized voters with records of Clay’s anti-slavery sentiments. Clay, always the great compromiser, tried to appease both Northern and Southern interests but slavery would prove non-negotiable for some voters.
What is striking is how aware of the situation Whigs were. A pro-Whig newspaper, the Indiana State Journal, pleaded with its readers on August 3, 1844 that supporting the Liberty party would be “throwing away your votes,” while “our opponents . . . are tickled to death with the prospect of thus using you as tools”:
Other abolitionist outlets, the Worcester Spy and Boston Atlas, printed an even blunter editorial around the time of the midterm elections in 1842: “Let it be understood, that every abolitionist who, by refusing to vote as a Whig, adds to the strength of the Southern party, does, in effect, vote for the maintenance of slavery.”
But such sentiments did not move the Liberty men. Abel W. Brown, a Baptist preacher and anti-slavery publisher, as well as a member of the Liberty party, denounced Clay as a “Sabbath breaker, Swearer, Gambler, Duelist, Thief, Robber, Adulterer, Man-stealer, Slaveholder, &c.” According to Brown, Clay “buys and sells our Lord Jesus Christ, in the persons of his oppressed children”—that is, through his enslavement of black Americans.
In the end, Polk narrowly won the presidency. Though he scored 170 Electoral College votes to Clay’s 105, on the ground the results were nail-bitingly close. In Michigan, Polk beat Clay by just 3,362 votes. Had Michigan’s 3,639 Birney voters instead gone for Clay, he would have won the state. In New York, Polk won by a mere 5,106 votes out of nearly half a million cast. If even a third of the 15,812 New Yorkers who voted for Birney had held their noses and voted for Clay, the state’s 36 Electoral College votes would have been his and he would have been president. As one anti-slavery Whig, Abraham Lincoln, put it in a letter to a friend the next year, “If the whig abolitionists of New York had voted with us last fall, Mr. Clay would now be president, whig principles in the ascendent, and Texas not annexed; whereas by the division [of the Whig and Liberty parties], all that either had at stake in the contest, was lost.”
Their defiance of slavery had determined the outcome of the election.
With this in mind, how should we view the legacies of the Liberty party voters? Given the later birth of the anti-slavery Republican party, did the purist Liberty party lose the battle of 1844 only to win the war against slavery in the long run? Or did the Liberty party delay slavery’s demise by unintentionally aiding the victory of Polk? Would Clay have worked to help end slavery, a practice he claimed he disapproved of? Or would have he continued to strike deals with the South, revealing himself to be unable or unwilling to fight the power of the slave states? These types of counterfactual questions are impossible to answer, but they should offer us pause in thinking about our own moment.
The moral stakes and political circumstances of 1844—when human bondage was being debated and the very enslaved people on whose fate the election centered were deprived of the franchise—were very different from those of today. But by looking just at the dynamic of third-party voting in the context of a polarized electorate, we might still draw some lessons that are relevant to 2020. A few months ago, when the Democratic primaries were at their most heated, it seemed possible that disappointed Bernie Sanders supporters might refuse to vote for the more moderate Joe Biden, but recent polling suggests that is unlikely to be a significant factor in the general election. Even so, it seems the alliance between the progressive and centrist wings of the Democratic party are fragile.
As for third-party candidates, this year’s Libertarian party nominee, Jo Jorgensen, who has never won an election or held political office, seems unlikely to draw the kind of following that Gary Johnson, a former governor, attracted from protest voters in 2016. Conservatives who find themselves unwilling to vote for Trump will have to ask themselves what would be gained by voting for Jorgensen (or some other third-party candidate) and what will be at stake?
Trump’s victory in 2016 was result of a perfect storm of political events and ultimately a slim Electoral College win. Yet in the time that Trump has been president, he has thoroughly rebranded the Republican party, stripping out every aspect of compassionate conservatism and replacing it with “owning the libs” and national populism. Conservatives longing for the exorcism of Trumpism from the GOP may be waiting in vain. While the polls suggest that Trump’s re-election bid is likely to fail, even a narrow defeat could cement the Trumpian transformation of the GOP for decades to come. Yet can pro-life, limited-government-advocating, Second Amendment-supporting conservatives really make any kind of long-term home for themselves in the Democratic party? Given the dwindling influence within the party of the “Blue Dogs” and the “New Democrats,” this seems unlikely.
Politics is always a balancing act between strategy and sacrifice, calculation and compromise. Voting for Jorgensen or some other third-party candidate may seem tempting, or may even seem to have a certain logic to it. Like the Conscience Whigs before them, some Never Trump Republicans may feel themselves to be in a bind. Do they refuse to join the Biden coalition in the hopes of winning the longer war for the soul of conservatism? Do they ease their consciences by writing in Mitt Romney while effectively casting aside their votes? Do libertarians and other voters tempted by third-party candidates hold on to their purist convictions while knowing victory is impossible? Or do they compromise their principles to stop a man whom they have denounced as a threat to the very foundations of the republic? As frustrating as it may be, successful American politicking has always been coalitional.


The Authenticity Trap

It ’ s no secret that we now live in an age of authenticity .
Self-help gurus and TED Talk heroes like Brené Brown have emphasized the importance of openness and vulnerability .
We must always be ourselves , we are told , and social media only amplifies this necessity .
Everyone knows someone who volunteers far too much information on platforms like Twitter and Facebook .
Sometimes it ’ s funny and harmless ; other times it can cause real problems among friends and family .
But this tendency isn ’ t limited to those we know and those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media has made it possible to know anything about anyone , including our heroes in sports and entertainment .
And here ’ s where the age of authenticity is starting to reach some limits : we ’ re seeing the tension between the authenticity that our insta-culture provides , and the perception of popular figures we revere .
For example , look at the National Basketball Association .
NBA players have tremendous platforms .
In keeping with the old noblesse oblige sensibility , players ought to speak out about important issues when they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the resources to enact social change , professional athletes are in a unique position to make an impact in their hometowns , the cities they play , and the nation at large .
Their passion and their own life experiences gives their words added weight .
But expecting—practically demanding—our heroes to have an opinion on every topic of social justice only opens them up to charges of hypocrisy when conflicts inevitably arise .
The controversy over the NBA ’ s relationship with China springs to mind .
When Houston Rockets general manager Daryl @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier this year , it set off a firestorm .
Players and coaches alike—normally quite outspoken in the age of Trump—found themselves mute at the prospect of pushing back against Chinese messaging .
Lebron James even went so far as to say that Morey wasn ’ t properly educated on the subject , which left fans wondering why James would say such a thing if he had clear knowledge of China ’ s treatment of Hong Kong or its Uighur population .
And if James did say that with full awareness , his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a willingness to turn a blind eye to evil in the hopes of pocketing a few extra dollars .
The second problem is one of prudence .
In other words , when and where is it appropriate for public figures to address public problems ?
There are no easy answers here .
Fans come to sports for a variety of reasons , but political enlightenment is rarely at the top of the list .
I may ( or may not ) agree with a sports figure for any number of reasons , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ear is because they represent a team—an institution—for which I care deeply .
This isn ’ t an argument to “ shut up and play , ” but instead for recognizing that the authenticity that inspires public commentary has to be restrained by fidelity to the institution that provided the platform .
There is another , more serious problem with a culture that demands full transparency on the part of public figures : we don ’ t always know what we ’ re going to get .
We assume that athletes are going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but that is not always the case .
When you create an open forum for expression , you get some opinions that push the bounds of good taste .
Take the case of Desean Jackson , one of the most consistent wide receivers in the NFL over the last decade .
In an Instagram post earlier this month , Jackson posted a quote widely misattributed to Adolf Hitler , one full of anti-Semitism .
The quote was , in part , a problem for the reason I laid out earlier : sports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of commentators discussing Jackson ’ s role in the Eagles ’ offense , his contract , his relationship with his coach and quarterback , they ’ re discussing whether or not Jackson should have said this thing .
Then there is the deeper problem of the thing itself .
Jackson ’ s comments were deeply and obviously anti-Semitic , so the discussion isn ’ t over an athlete dabbling in politics .
Now we ’ re addressing an athlete saying straightforwardly bigoted things .
When other athletes and some commentators jumped to Jackson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became even grosser , because we were past the point of defending an athlete ’ s right to speak .
We were listening to revered sports legends like Shannon Sharpe carrying water for an open bigot like Louis Farrakhan while other athletes repeated the same anti-Semitic tropes .
It was disgusting , and it would be easy to forgive someone who lost temporary interest in the sport they normally enjoy .
And in case anyone thinks I ’ m picking on Jackson , one look at the Twitter feed of Aubrey Huff or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two legendary baseball players .
There ’ s a risk here for everyone involved .
Fans clearly enjoy some level of authenticity from their favorite players , and public opinion has shifted dramatically in favor of the racial justice that many athletes advocate , at least in part because of their advocacy .
The Jackson story highlights a tradeoff : The more authenticity we demand from athletes , the more we ’ re going to get—and we may not always like what we find .
A healthy society needs robust debate from people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It also needs shared public spaces that are , at times , free of debate .
Sports , until relatively recently , remained the last such bastion in American life .
While we might welcome the newfound openness of players and coaches to discuss and confront problems in society , we may find that a look behind the curtain presents an ugly picture we would rather not confront .
It would take a lot for me to lose interest in University of Alabama sports or Atlanta Braves baseball or New Orleans Saints football @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they won ’ t be cut off by any one player .
Still , there are lines that can be crossed , and if representatives of a team—players or coaches—were persistent in bigotry or conspiracy , it could inspire a slow trickle of apathy that in time turns into complete disinterestedness .
Calling balls and strikes is hard enough ; I ’ m not sure we want to add adjudicating the lines of discourse to the world of sports .

It’s no secret that we now live in an age of authenticity. Self-help gurus and TED Talk heroes like Brené Brown have emphasized the importance of openness and vulnerability. We must always be ourselves, we are told, and social media only amplifies this necessity. Everyone knows someone who volunteers far too much information on platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Sometimes it’s funny and harmless; other times it can cause real problems among friends and family.
But this tendency isn’t limited to those we know and those to whom we are related. Social media has made it possible to know anything about anyone, including our heroes in sports and entertainment. And here’s where the age of authenticity is starting to reach some limits: we’re seeing the tension between the authenticity that our insta-culture provides, and the perception of popular figures we revere.
For example, look at the National Basketball Association. NBA players have tremendous platforms. In keeping with the old noblesse oblige sensibility, players ought to speak out about important issues when they can. With both the platform and the resources to enact social change, professional athletes are in a unique position to make an impact in their hometowns, the cities they play, and the nation at large. Their passion and their own life experiences gives their words added weight. But expecting—practically demanding—our heroes to have an opinion on every topic of social justice only opens them up to charges of hypocrisy when conflicts inevitably arise.
The controversy over the NBA’s relationship with China springs to mind. When Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey spoke in defense of Hong Kong earlier this year, it set off a firestorm. Players and coaches alike—normally quite outspoken in the age of Trump—found themselves mute at the prospect of pushing back against Chinese messaging. Lebron James even went so far as to say that Morey wasn’t properly educated on the subject, which left fans wondering why James would say such a thing if he had clear knowledge of China’s treatment of Hong Kong or its Uighur population. And if James did say that with full awareness, his statement suggests a staggering level of hypocrisy, a willingness to turn a blind eye to evil in the hopes of pocketing a few extra dollars.
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 second problem is one of prudence. In other words, when and where is it appropriate for public figures to address public problems? There are no easy answers here. Fans come to sports for a variety of reasons, but political enlightenment is rarely at the top of the list. I may (or may not) agree with a sports figure for any number of reasons, but the only reason they have my ear is because they represent a team—an institution—for which I care deeply. This isn’t an argument to “shut up and play,” but instead for recognizing that the authenticity that inspires public commentary has to be restrained by fidelity to the institution that provided the platform.
There is another, more serious problem with a culture that demands full transparency on the part of public figures: we don’t always know what we’re going to get. We assume that athletes are going to engage in safe, bourgeois sentimentality, but that is not always the case. When you create an open forum for expression, you get some opinions that push the bounds of good taste. Take the case of Desean Jackson, one of the most consistent wide receivers in the NFL over the last decade. In an Instagram post earlier this month, Jackson posted a quote widely misattributed to Adolf Hitler, one full of anti-Semitism.
The quote was, in part, a problem for the reason I laid out earlier: sports fans want to discuss sports. Instead of commentators discussing Jackson’s role in the Eagles’ offense, his contract, his relationship with his coach and quarterback, they’re discussing whether or not Jackson should have said this thing.
Then there is the deeper problem of the thing itself. Jackson’s comments were deeply and obviously anti-Semitic, so the discussion isn’t over an athlete dabbling in politics. Now we’re addressing an athlete saying straightforwardly bigoted things. When other athletes and some commentators jumped to Jackson’s defense, the whole matter became even grosser, because we were past the point of defending an athlete’s right to speak. We were listening to revered sports legends like Shannon Sharpe carrying water for an open bigot like Louis Farrakhan while other athletes repeated the same anti-Semitic tropes. It was disgusting, and it would be easy to forgive someone who lost temporary interest in the sport they normally enjoy. And in case anyone thinks I’m picking on Jackson, one look at the Twitter feed of Aubrey Huff or Curt Schilling really takes the shine off two legendary baseball players.
There’s a risk here for everyone involved. Fans clearly enjoy some level of authenticity from their favorite players, and public opinion has shifted dramatically in favor of the racial justice that many athletes advocate, at least in part because of their advocacy. The Jackson story highlights a tradeoff: The more authenticity we demand from athletes, the more we’re going to get—and we may not always like what we find.
A healthy society needs robust debate from people who are free to be themselves. It also needs shared public spaces that are, at times, free of debate. Sports, until relatively recently, remained the last such bastion in American life. While we might welcome the newfound openness of players and coaches to discuss and confront problems in society, we may find that a look behind the curtain presents an ugly picture we would rather not confront.
It would take a lot for me to lose interest in University of Alabama sports or Atlanta Braves baseball or New Orleans Saints football. Those roots run deep, and they won’t be cut off by any one player. Still, there are lines that can be crossed, and if representatives of a team—players or coaches—were persistent in bigotry or conspiracy, it could inspire a slow trickle of apathy that in time turns into complete disinterestedness. Calling balls and strikes is hard enough; I’m not sure we want to add adjudicating the lines of discourse to the world of sports.


thebulwark--2020-07-27--The Dismal International Response to China’s Gulags

Mounting evidence shows that the Chinese Communist Party is running an extralegal campaign of mass internment of more than one million ethnic Uighurs , Kazakhs , and other predominantly Muslim minorities in the western frontier province Xinjiang .
In this realm of indoctrination , nearly 2,000 miles from Beijing , Uighurs and other indigenous peoples are stripped of their traditions , culture , and language .
China continues to deceive the world about the scale and depravity of this project but , by contrast with its mendacity regarding the coronavirus pandemic , it is not clear that it needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paying much attention .
Xinjiang , a sprawling 640,000 square miles—comparable to the size of Alaska—sits along the ancient Silk Road trading routes and has a history of incubating violent unrest in service of the independence of what the inhabitants sometimes call East Turkestan .
After a long period of official neglect , the Chinese state has recently begun to exhibit great interest in the region , extracting natural resources while imposing its culture .
This project has included the forced migration of millions of ethnic Han Chinese to settle this internal frontier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way of life prevalent in the region has come under dire threat .
Mosques have been razed and prayer has been outlawed .
Beijing ’ s policy of subjugation and ethnic colonization generated resentment and resistance , and some ethnic-based riots have taken place in recent years .
Chinese authorities point to a few sparse attacks on government targets in Beijing and elsewhere to justify harsh emergency measures against the Muslim minorities in the region .
Intrusive and pervasive surveillance oversees the Muslim minorities of Xinjiang .
Displays of Islamic faith are often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been constructed to enslave Uighurs for purposes of “ reeducation , ” and in recent years the camps have swelled to accommodate a torrent of new inmates .
There is compulsory singing of Communist party songs praising the glorious motherland and its wise leader , Xi Jinping .
Escapees from these camps have testified to grotesque treatment : sleep deprivation , solitary confinement , routine torture .
Many of the women in the camps are sterilized .
China has claimed that the concentration camps were vocational skills training centers .
These assertions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in reality than the CCP ’ s claim that the U.S. military is responsible for the coronavirus pandemic .
Our knowledge of the monstrous treatment of Uighurs by the Chinese authorities has recently been sharpened by drone footage out of Xinjiang taken last year showing scores of Uighurs sitting , bound and blindfolded with heads shaved , waiting to be loaded onto train cars bound for the camps—or worse .
The aim of the Chinese regime is clearly cultural extermination and ethnic cleansing .
It is therefore not too early to pronounce the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s impending Holocaust .
Indeed , it is high time for the civilized world to say so , and to begin to act accordingly .
Unfortunately , the international response to China ’ s systematic barbarism in Xinjiang has been dismal , when it hasn ’ t been appalling .
And this seems unlikely to change as long as this remains , if not quite a post-American world , then at least a post-Pax Americana world .
President Trump reportedly gave his blessing to China ’ s treatment of the Uighurs .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at the G-20 meeting in June 2019 , with only interpreters present , Xi explained to Trump the rationale behind the concentration camps .
According to the American interpreter , Trump said that Xi should go ahead with building the camps , which Trump considered eminently justified .
Bolton also declared that the National Security Council ’ s top Asia staffer , Matthew Pottinger , had confirmed that Trump endorsed the Chinese gulag during his November 2017 trip to China .
This is absolutely scandalous , but it will come as no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way that Trump , with unfathomable historical frivolity , has been whimpering for the approval of Chairman Xi since entering office .
Only last year , Trump was asked by a reporter about the protests then erupting in Hong Kong .
“ Hong Kong is a part of China , ” Mr. Trump said .
“ They ’ ll have to deal with that themselves.
” Imagine the wolfish delight that must have overcome the faces of the Communist commissars in Beijing .
Trump has not suffered politically for making a fool of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this way .
At least not yet .
But as long as he remains in office , the United States will not attempt to rally the beleaguered and distracted free world to contest a formidable totalitarian adversary .
The last time it did so , the architects of American strategy understood they were engaged in a supreme contest of ideological and imperial dimensions with the Soviet Union .
To prevail , the United States needed to muster and maintain every element of its strength–moral , political , economic , and military .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ peace with Soviet oppression .
And the greatest symbol of such oppression , although it only became known late in the long twilight struggle , was the gulag—the system of forced labor camps where dissidents were sent to work , often unto death .
Created by Lenin and expanded by Stalin , the gulag system was not exposed until Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ’ s 1973 masterpiece , The Gulag Archipelago .
Initially written on small strips of paper , which Solzehnitsyn inserted into an empty champagne bottle that he buried to keep the contents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the story of the prison camps in numbing detail .
Solzhenitsyn noticed that a political regime capable of committing this radical evil in the first place could not survive without maintaining the terror and oppression of the gulag .
“ Rulers change , the Archipelago remains , ” Solzhenitsyn concluded .
An estimated sixty million human beings went through the Soviet gulag .
The Chinese count does not ( yet ) approach that figure , although in its growing prison system and surveillance state the Chinese security apparatus has constructed something almost as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the grisly Communist Party of the Soviet Union that operated them are no more .
But the network of camps that has arisen in Xinjiang will likely remain as long as the regime that has built them .
The Chinese term for this kind of foul camp is laogai .
History will record it , even if the American president does not .

Mounting evidence shows that the Chinese Communist Party is running an extralegal campaign of mass internment of more than one million ethnic Uighurs, Kazakhs, and other predominantly Muslim minorities in the western frontier province Xinjiang. In this realm of indoctrination, nearly 2,000 miles from Beijing, Uighurs and other indigenous peoples are stripped of their traditions, culture, and language. China continues to deceive the world about the scale and depravity of this project but, by contrast with its mendacity regarding the coronavirus pandemic, it is not clear that it needs to do so: The world is not paying much attention.
Xinjiang, a sprawling 640,000 square miles—comparable to the size of Alaska—sits along the ancient Silk Road trading routes and has a history of incubating violent unrest in service of the independence of what the inhabitants sometimes call East Turkestan. After a long period of official neglect, the Chinese state has recently begun to exhibit great interest in the region, extracting natural resources while imposing its culture. This project has included the forced migration of millions of ethnic Han Chinese to settle this internal frontier. In the process, the Islamic way of life prevalent in the region has come under dire threat. Mosques have been razed and prayer has been outlawed. Beijing’s policy of subjugation and ethnic colonization generated resentment and resistance, and some ethnic-based riots have taken place in recent years. Chinese authorities point to a few sparse attacks on government targets in Beijing and elsewhere to justify harsh emergency measures against the Muslim minorities in the region.
Intrusive and pervasive surveillance oversees the Muslim minorities of Xinjiang. Displays of Islamic faith are often punished. A network of concentration camps has been constructed to enslave Uighurs for purposes of “reeducation,” and in recent years the camps have swelled to accommodate a torrent of new inmates. There is compulsory singing of Communist party songs praising the glorious motherland and its wise leader, Xi Jinping. Escapees from these camps have testified to grotesque treatment: sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, routine torture. Many of the women in the camps are sterilized.
China has claimed that the concentration camps were vocational skills training centers. These assertions are rubbish, with no more grounding in reality than the CCP’s claim that the U.S. military is responsible for the coronavirus pandemic. Our knowledge of the monstrous treatment of Uighurs by the Chinese authorities has recently been sharpened by drone footage out of Xinjiang taken last year showing scores of Uighurs sitting, bound and blindfolded with heads shaved, waiting to be loaded onto train cars bound for the camps—or worse.
The aim of the Chinese regime is clearly cultural extermination and ethnic cleansing. It is therefore not too early to pronounce the Chinese concentration camps as this generation’s impending Holocaust. Indeed, it is high time for the civilized world to say so, and to begin to act accordingly.
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…
Unfortunately, the international response to China’s systematic barbarism in Xinjiang has been dismal, when it hasn’t been appalling.
And this seems unlikely to change as long as this remains, if not quite a post-American world, then at least a post-Pax Americana world.
President Trump reportedly gave his blessing to China’s treatment of the Uighurs. According to former National Security Advisor John Bolton, at the G-20 meeting in June 2019, with only interpreters present, Xi explained to Trump the rationale behind the concentration camps. According to the American interpreter, Trump said that Xi should go ahead with building the camps, which Trump considered eminently justified. Bolton also declared that the National Security Council’s top Asia staffer, Matthew Pottinger, had confirmed that Trump endorsed the Chinese gulag during his November 2017 trip to China.
This is absolutely scandalous, but it will come as no surprise to those who have observed the way that Trump, with unfathomable historical frivolity, has been whimpering for the approval of Chairman Xi since entering office. Only last year, Trump was asked by a reporter about the protests then erupting in Hong Kong. “Hong Kong is a part of China,” Mr. Trump said. “They’ll have to deal with that themselves.” Imagine the wolfish delight that must have overcome the faces of the Communist commissars in Beijing.
Trump has not suffered politically for making a fool of himself and bringing dishonor on his country in this way. At least not yet. But as long as he remains in office, the United States will not attempt to rally the beleaguered and distracted free world to contest a formidable totalitarian adversary.
The last time it did so, the architects of American strategy understood they were engaged in a supreme contest of ideological and imperial dimensions with the Soviet Union. To prevail, the United States needed to muster and maintain every element of its strength–moral, political, economic, and military.
In Washington, there could be no peace with Soviet oppression. And the greatest symbol of such oppression, although it only became known late in the long twilight struggle, was the gulag—the system of forced labor camps where dissidents were sent to work, often unto death. Created by Lenin and expanded by Stalin, the gulag system was not exposed until Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s 1973 masterpiece, The Gulag Archipelago.
Initially written on small strips of paper, which Solzehnitsyn inserted into an empty champagne bottle that he buried to keep the contents safe from the KGB, Gulag tells the story of the prison camps in numbing detail. Solzhenitsyn noticed that a political regime capable of committing this radical evil in the first place could not survive without maintaining the terror and oppression of the gulag. “Rulers change, the Archipelago remains,” Solzhenitsyn concluded.
An estimated sixty million human beings went through the Soviet gulag. The Chinese count does not (yet) approach that figure, although in its growing prison system and surveillance state the Chinese security apparatus has constructed something almost as elaborate.
Today, the Russian gulag and the grisly Communist Party of the Soviet Union that operated them are no more. But the network of camps that has arisen in Xinjiang will likely remain as long as the regime that has built them. The Chinese term for this kind of foul camp is laogai. History will record it, even if the American president does not.


thebulwark--2020-07-27--Burn It All Down?

Burn It All Down?

Senate Republicans “ have enabled Trump ’ s despicable behavior , ” Matt K. Lewis writes over at the Daily Beast , “ while doing nothing to mitigate his worst instincts .
Rather than rising to the occasion , they instead buckled under pressure .
They lacked both the courage and the character we should expect from our leaders .
If Trump were a more competent authoritarian , their cowardice might have been lethal.
” But , writes Lewis : We should vote for them anyway .
Six more years !
Let ’ s leave aside the question of whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be considered a “ lethal ” consequence .
Lewis is among the anti-Trump critics now warning against punishing the GOP too severely for its cowardice , lack of character , and submission to Trumpism .
He is joined by David French , who is also “ squarely in the camp that seeks to dump Trump but not to seek vengeance on the rest of the GOP ” : French is likely referring to comments by the Lincoln Project ’ s Steve Schmidt , who argues that Never Trump conservatives should vote against Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The analogy would be in the same way that fire purifies the forest , it needs to be burned to the ground and fundamentally repudiated , ” Schmidt said .
“ Every one of them should be voted out of office , with the exception of Mitt Romney.
” Predictably , the legions of anti-anti-Trumpers are incensed , suggesting that this position makes Never Trumpers effectively Democrats .
( As a class , the anti-anti-Trumpers may concede that the house is on fire , but are content to sit on the patio complaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both Lewis and French are a different story : They have been unwavering in their Never Trumpism .
I ’ ve been a fan of Lewis ’ s since his 2016 book Too Dumb to Fail eviscerated the GOP for betraying the Reagan Revolution , and I am by long custom and practice an avowed Frenchist .
So it gives me no pleasure to say that they are both wrong .
But we need to have this debate : Is Trumpism a seasonal flu or a metastasizing cancer ?
Or to mix some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an attitude adjustment or a complete exorcism ?
Botox or an enema ?
In political terms : Can you defeat Trumpism by defeating Trump but leaving his bootlickers in power ?
As George Will has said , Trump has been a “ Vesuvius of mendacity , ” but the rot obviously runs much deeper than the president himself .
Trump himself is a horror show , but the most horrific story of the last four years has been the complete surrender of the GOP to Trumpism , not just on policy but on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself to be about ideas became a cult of personality for one of the most deplorable personalities in political history .
This suggests that the dysfunction in the GOP was a pre-existing condition ; and that bringing the party back to sanity won ’ t be easy .
As a matter of political hygiene , getting rid of the Orange God-King is necessary but far from sufficient .
The transactional nature of the Senate GOP ’ s groveling surrender to Trump is straightforward : Simply ignore his awfulness and you will get things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an ever-growing pile of awfulness .
At some point the ignorance morphed into rationalization and ultimately active collaboration .
The political calculation was also uncomplicated : Breaking with Trump would be political suicide because it would bring nasty tweets and aggravate the base .
Earlier this year , Senate Republicans decided to tie their fates inextricably to Trump , including “ an apparent end to public disagreements for the next six months until the party is past the election.
” The question now is : Should we attempt to rescue them from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinks so because the alternative would be so much worse .
He cites the Lincoln Project ’ s broadside against Trump ’ s Senate enablers , noting that it is “ a compelling ad.
” But , he asks , “ is this a smart strategy for conservatives who want to restore the Party of Ronald Reagan and not empower the party of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ?
” But , wait .
If the Democrats were actually the party of AOC , Joe Biden would not be its nominee ; we would be talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not is not trivial .
But except for this bit of Don Jr.-level strawmanning , Lewis makes a more substantive case .
“ Just because you think Trump is horrible doesn ’ t mean you should cheer a 180-degree backlash , ” he writes .
“ Losing the Senate would leave Republicans with little power to block a progressive , pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice nominee .
.
.
.
And when President Biden is trying to raise the top marginal tax rate north of 50 percent , I want enough Republicans in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it.
” All of this has elements of truth , but isn ’ t it also the sort of transactional argument that gave us Trumpism in the first place ?
It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world .
.
.
but for marginal tax rates ?
Lewis is on stronger ground when he warns that defeating some of the moderate senators like Susan Collins might leave the GOP more Trumpy than ever .
So he cautions against destroying the party to save the party .
But in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting for Lindsey Graham , Kelly Loeffler , John Cornyn , Martha McSally , Thom Tillis , Mitch McConnell , Cory Gardner , and Joni Ernst .
What kind of salvation is that ?
This is not a new argument among Never Trumpers .
Back in 2018 , George Will made the case for repudiating the entire GOP : The good Republican he had in mind was Marsha Blackburn .
He noted that even before the election , Blackburn “ is so Trump-friendly that she actually signed a letter nominating him for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Really ? )
” But , he announced that he would “ happily vote for Marsha Blackburn over Phil Bredesen.
” He described her as “ a scandal-free , faithful conservative representative long before Trump rode down the escalator in 2015 , and if she wins election in 2018 , she ’ ll almost certainly be a scandal-free , faithful conservative senator well after Trump has left the presidency.
” French wrote that had seen How did that work out ?
Earlier this year , Blackburn took a leading role in the campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman , who had testified to Congress about Trump ’ s July 25 , 2019 call with the Ukrainian president .
“ Adam Schiff is hailing Alexander Vindman as an American patriot , ” Blackburn tweeted .
“ How patriotic is it to badmouth and ridicule our great nation in front of Russia , America ’ s greatest enemy ?
” The charge was baseless and despicable .
But Trump retweeted her and she never backed down .
Instead , Blackburn launched what Politico described as a “ multimonth , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s lawyer , former ambassador David Pressman , called her attacks “ a testament to cowardice.
” “ While Senator Blackburn fires off defamatory tweets , Lieutenant Colonel Vindman will continue to do what he has always done : serve our country dutifully and with honor , ” Pressman said .
So much for Blackburn ’ s “ destiny as a senator.
” ( Keep in mind that I write as someone who once upon a time vouched for the character and judgment of Ron Johnson . )
The story of Marsha Blackburn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long book cataloguing the many ways that Trumpism corrupts everything .
Here ’ s another example to keep in mind .
When Trump declared a national emergency to circumvent Congress and build his wall , for Republican legislators it was a time for choosing : Support Trump or the rule of law .
It was perhaps a defining vote because it tested the GOP ’ s commitment to both constitutional norms and limited government .
Writing in National Review , David French laid out the stakes : Some Republican senators did , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then there was Thom Tillis .
He not only wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post declaring his opposition to Trump ’ s order , but he then boasted of his political courage in doing so .
“ It ’ s never a tough vote for me when I ’ m standing on principle , ” Tillis told a Post reporter .
And then he caved , voting to approve Trump ’ s move .
His flip-flop was as abject as it was surprising .
As Commentary editor John Podhoretz tweeted at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ a weasel action the likes of which we ’ ve rarely seen.
” There is nothing unique about Tillis or Blackburn : They are what the Senate GOP has become .
On issue after issue—the deficit , impeachment , racial justice , corruption , the assault on the rule of law , and basic oversight—Senate Republicans have distinguished themselves by failing to uphold their most basic constitutional responsibilities .
Some have simply fallen silent , while others have turned themselves into low-rent internet trolls .
Worse : they have squandered their credibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a John Cornyn making a credible case against executive overreach ; or Kelly Loeffler for ethics in government ; or Lindsey Graham defending the rule of law .
Which Senate Republican would not be laughed off the stage if he or she attempted to warn now against the dangers of an exploding national debt ?
Of course , we need to be realistic : If Senate Republicans are defeated en masse , they will not necessarily be replaced by angels or statesmen , and the policy implications will not be pleasant for conservatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permanent victories or defeats .
Parties can renew themselves in the wilderness .
But if the GOP does not somehow renew itself—by purging the foul air of its current corruption—it will find itself in the wilderness for the next 40 years as it tries to explain its history of Vichy Trumpism .
Where does that leave us ?
I have nothing but respect for Mitt Romney , and if I lived in Nebraska , I would probably come around to voting for Ben Sasse this year .
And throughout the nation , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governors like Larry Hogan , Charlie Baker , and Phil Scott .
As for the rest of them : Burn it all down .

Senate Republicans “have enabled Trump’s despicable behavior,” Matt K. Lewis writes over at the Daily Beast, “while doing nothing to mitigate his worst instincts. Rather than rising to the occasion, they instead buckled under pressure. They lacked both the courage and the character we should expect from our leaders. If Trump were a more competent authoritarian, their cowardice might have been lethal.”
But, writes Lewis: We should vote for them anyway. Six more years!
Let’s leave aside the question of whether the deaths of nearly 150,000 Americans can be considered a “lethal” consequence. Lewis is among the anti-Trump critics now warning against punishing the GOP too severely for its cowardice, lack of character, and submission to Trumpism. He is joined by David French, who is also “squarely in the camp that seeks to dump Trump but not to seek vengeance on the rest of the GOP”:
A rage, fury, and a “burn it all down” mentality is one of the maladies that brought us to the present moment. Repeating that same impulse, but with an entire party in the crosshairs, will only compound our political dysfunction.
French is likely referring to comments by the Lincoln Project’s Steve Schmidt, who argues that Never Trump conservatives should vote against Republicans up and down the ballot. “The analogy would be in the same way that fire purifies the forest, it needs to be burned to the ground and fundamentally repudiated,” Schmidt said. “Every one of them should be voted out of office, with the exception of Mitt Romney.”
Predictably, the legions of anti-anti-Trumpers are incensed, suggesting that this position makes Never Trumpers effectively Democrats. (As a class, the anti-anti-Trumpers may concede that the house is on fire, but are content to sit on the patio complaining about the fire extinguishers.)
But both Lewis and French are a different story: They have been unwavering in their Never Trumpism. I’ve been a fan of Lewis’s since his 2016 book Too Dumb to Fail eviscerated the GOP for betraying the Reagan Revolution, and I am by long custom and practice an avowed Frenchist.
So it gives me no pleasure to say that they are both wrong.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But we need to have this debate: Is Trumpism a seasonal flu or a metastasizing cancer? Or to mix some metaphors: Does the Republican party need an attitude adjustment or a complete exorcism? Botox or an enema?
In political terms: Can you defeat Trumpism by defeating Trump but leaving his bootlickers in power?
As George Will has said, Trump has been a “Vesuvius of mendacity,” but the rot obviously runs much deeper than the president himself. Trump himself is a horror show, but the most horrific story of the last four years has been the complete surrender of the GOP to Trumpism, not just on policy but on everything. The party that once imagined itself to be about ideas became a cult of personality for one of the most deplorable personalities in political history.
This suggests that the dysfunction in the GOP was a pre-existing condition; and that bringing the party back to sanity won’t be easy. As a matter of political hygiene, getting rid of the Orange God-King is necessary but far from sufficient.
The transactional nature of the Senate GOP’s groveling surrender to Trump is straightforward: Simply ignore his awfulness and you will get things you want. That bargain required ignoring an ever-growing pile of awfulness. At some point the ignorance morphed into rationalization and ultimately active collaboration.
The political calculation was also uncomplicated: Breaking with Trump would be political suicide because it would bring nasty tweets and aggravate the base. Earlier this year, Senate Republicans decided to tie their fates inextricably to Trump, including “an apparent end to public disagreements for the next six months until the party is past the election.”
The question now is: Should we attempt to rescue them from the consequences of that decision?
Lewis evidently thinks so because the alternative would be so much worse. He cites the Lincoln Project’s broadside against Trump’s Senate enablers, noting that it is “a compelling ad.” But, he asks, “is this a smart strategy for conservatives who want to restore the Party of Ronald Reagan and not empower the party of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?”
But, wait. If the Democrats were actually the party of AOC, Joe Biden would not be its nominee; we would be talking about Bernie. The fact that we are not is not trivial. But except for this bit of Don Jr.-level strawmanning, Lewis makes a more substantive case.
“Just because you think Trump is horrible doesn’t mean you should cheer a 180-degree backlash,” he writes. “Losing the Senate would leave Republicans with little power to block a progressive, pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice nominee. . . . And when President Biden is trying to raise the top marginal tax rate north of 50 percent, I want enough Republicans in the Senate to be there to stop it.”
All of this has elements of truth, but isn’t it also the sort of transactional argument that gave us Trumpism in the first place? It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world . . . but for marginal tax rates?
Lewis is on stronger ground when he warns that defeating some of the moderate senators like Susan Collins might leave the GOP more Trumpy than ever. So he cautions against destroying the party to save the party.
But in this case, saving the party means voting for Lindsey Graham, Kelly Loeffler, John Cornyn, Martha McSally, Thom Tillis, Mitch McConnell, Cory Gardner, and Joni Ernst.
What kind of salvation is that?
This is not a new argument among Never Trumpers. Back in 2018, George Will made the case for repudiating the entire GOP:
The congressional Republican caucuses must be substantially reduced. So substantially that their remnants, reduced to minorities, will be stripped of the Constitution’s Article I powers that they have been too invertebrate to use against the current wielder of Article II powers. They will then have leisure time to wonder why they worked so hard to achieve membership in a legislature whose unexercised muscles have atrophied because of people like them.
David French disagreed, urging conservatives to vote for “good Republicans.”
The good Republican he had in mind was Marsha Blackburn. He noted that even before the election, Blackburn “is so Trump-friendly that she actually signed a letter nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize. (Really? Really?)” But, he announced that he would “happily vote for Marsha Blackburn over Phil Bredesen.”
He described her as “a scandal-free, faithful conservative representative long before Trump rode down the escalator in 2015, and if she wins election in 2018, she’ll almost certainly be a scandal-free, faithful conservative senator well after Trump has left the presidency.” French wrote that had seen
enough of Blackburn’s character to see her likely destiny as a senator. And I’m supposed to throw all that away because of Trump? No. He’s not that important. Conservatives, hold steady. Good conservative men and women still deserve your vote.
How did that work out?
Earlier this year, Blackburn took a leading role in the campaign to smear and impugn the patriotism of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who had testified to Congress about Trump’s July 25, 2019 call with the Ukrainian president.
“Adam Schiff is hailing Alexander Vindman as an American patriot,” Blackburn tweeted. “How patriotic is it to badmouth and ridicule our great nation in front of Russia, America’s greatest enemy?”
The charge was baseless and despicable. But Trump retweeted her and she never backed down. Instead, Blackburn launched what Politico described as a “multimonth, multimedia crusade against Vindman.”
Vindman’s lawyer, former ambassador David Pressman, called her attacks “a testament to cowardice.” “While Senator Blackburn fires off defamatory tweets, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman will continue to do what he has always done: serve our country dutifully and with honor,” Pressman said.
French himself tweeted:
In the patriotism scale, a Purple Heart beats “bone spurs.” Yet we see where you stand. https://t.co/nTBhWpRyPZ — David French (@DavidAFrench) January 24, 2020
So much for Blackburn’s “destiny as a senator.” (Keep in mind that I write as someone who once upon a time vouched for the character and judgment of Ron Johnson.)
The story of Marsha Blackburn is merely one small chapter in the long book cataloguing the many ways that Trumpism corrupts everything.
Here’s another example to keep in mind. When Trump declared a national emergency to circumvent Congress and build his wall, for Republican legislators it was a time for choosing: Support Trump or the rule of law. It was perhaps a defining vote because it tested the GOP’s commitment to both constitutional norms and limited government.
Writing in National Review, David French laid out the stakes:
[T]his is an attempted abuse of the constitutional order that is justified mainly by the existence of previous successful abuses of the constitutional order. Each abuse builds on the next; hypocrisy builds on hypocrisy. The only clear winner is the imperial presidency. The loser is our constitutional republic. And each Trump fan cheering his raw power grab will be a furious partisan when the next Democratic president builds on Trump’s abuse.
Some Republican senators did, in fact, stand on principle.
But then there was Thom Tillis. He not only wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post declaring his opposition to Trump’s order, but he then boasted of his political courage in doing so. “It’s never a tough vote for me when I’m standing on principle,” Tillis told a Post reporter.
Wrote Tillis:
It is my responsibility to be a steward of the Article I branch, to preserve the separation of powers and to curb the kind of executive overreach that Congress has allowed to fester for the better part of the past century. I stood by that principle during the Obama administration, and I stand by it now. . . . There is no intellectual honesty in now turning around and arguing that there’s an imaginary asterisk attached to executive overreach—that it’s acceptable for my party but not thy party.
And then he caved, voting to approve Trump’s move.
His flip-flop was as abject as it was surprising. As Commentary editor John Podhoretz tweeted at the time, Tillis’s vote was “a weasel action the likes of which we’ve rarely seen.”
There is nothing unique about Tillis or Blackburn: They are what the Senate GOP has become. On issue after issue—the deficit, impeachment, racial justice, corruption, the assault on the rule of law, and basic oversight—Senate Republicans have distinguished themselves by failing to uphold their most basic constitutional responsibilities.
Some have simply fallen silent, while others have turned themselves into low-rent internet trolls.
Worse: they have squandered their credibility. Only the profoundly naïve can imagine a John Cornyn making a credible case against executive overreach; or Kelly Loeffler for ethics in government; or Lindsey Graham defending the rule of law. Which Senate Republican would not be laughed off the stage if he or she attempted to warn now against the dangers of an exploding national debt?
Of course, we need to be realistic: If Senate Republicans are defeated en masse, they will not necessarily be replaced by angels or statesmen, and the policy implications will not be pleasant for conservatives.
There are, however, no permanent victories or defeats. Parties can renew themselves in the wilderness.
But if the GOP does not somehow renew itself—by purging the foul air of its current corruption—it will find itself in the wilderness for the next 40 years as it tries to explain its history of Vichy Trumpism.
Where does that leave us?
I have nothing but respect for Mitt Romney, and if I lived in Nebraska, I would probably come around to voting for Ben Sasse this year. And throughout the nation, there are smart, principled, competent Republican governors like Larry Hogan, Charlie Baker, and Phil Scott.
As for the rest of them: Burn it all down.


thebulwark--2020-07-25--The Biggest Takeaway from Trump’s Barstool Suck-Up Session

President Trump invited Dave “ El Presidente ” Portnoy to the White House on Thursday for a discussion vaguely resembling an “ interview , ” as part of the president ’ s recent PR offensive aimed at turning around his flagging campaign .
For those who are unfamiliar , Portnoy is the head of Barstool Sports—a sports blog and podcast network tailored to the frat-bro demographic—and is known for an irreverent , anti-PC , bro sensibility and a Trumpian devil-may-care attitude to the snowflakes who might blanch when he sings along with the n-word or riles up his man-boy fan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some might see the simple fact that Trump would welcome such a guy to the White House at all as politically problematic .
After all , Portnoy lost his ESPN partnership over calling a female reporter a “ bible thumping freak ” and “ fucking slut ” whose “ # 1 requirement is you make men hard.
” And given that the president ’ s poll numbers with women are tumbling below the Mendoza Line , maybe palling around with the guy who said that women “ kind of deserve to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6 and wear skinny jeans ” and “ subtle sexual harassment is fine and dandy ” isn ’ t putting his tiny finger on the pulse of what women want .
But hey , he ’ s the president .
Maybe the Suburban Housewives of America spent the whole week watching their soaps and worrying about Antifa and they really just needed to be told “ Saturdays Are For The Boys.
” But the most telling part of the encounter wasn ’ t Portnoy ’ s preposterous presence in the Rose Garden .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ interview that even Portnoy ’ s business partner said contained “ no hard questions , ” El Pres still managed to stump The Pres and demonstrate just how out of step Trump is with the cultural mores that have been shifting beneath his feet .
The moment came in the second question of the interview ( that is , if you count Portnoy asking Trump to explain how he managed to not get fooled by Ali G as the first “ question ” ) .
Portnoy prefaces the question saying that at first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest , but that over the years , he ’ s come around to the view that it ’ s better than violent protest and asks Trump what he would suggest as an alternative .
Trump gives a typically rambling reply in which he offers “ becoming successful ” as the appropriate protest and then brags about finding an antiquated law that would allow him to jail vandals for 10 years .
Portnoy : One of the things that I have a question for , and again , I think it matters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer .
So when the Kaepernick thing started , I was critical of it .
And as it ’ s continued baseball players , now , I heard you say , if they kneel , you ’ ll turn the game off .
And we got the Black Lives Matter protests .
So for me , it ’ s like , how does somebody who ’ s dissatisfied , in your world , what ’ s the way for them to show it ?
Because we don ’ t want them looting and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing .
To me , a silent protest that is far better than , you know , going out on the streets and creating crime .
So I ’ m curious , what , what would you do , if you had an issue with the country or something to show your displeasure ?
Trump : Well , I mean , you can always say you run for office , right ?
You become successful .
You could run for a lower office , you can do things .
But there are ways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be very friendly ways of doing it .
Very successful .
I mean , you ’ re going to have rebounds , negative rebounds , if it keeps up the way it is .
Like , as an example , Portland , this is crazy—51 days , you know , we sent in very powerful , uh , not military , but very strong people .
Uh , the police are good , but they were told not to do anything , you know , by the radical left mayor .
No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have to say and speak your mind is good .
I think speaking your mind is good , but you have to do it fairly .
Uh , we are for justice , but we ’ re for law and order , it ’ s got ta be law and order .
And there is law and order .
Uh , I put something out when they were starting to rip down statues .
I went out , I found an old law , an old bill .
You couldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 years in jail , 10 years and no games .
And we have a lot of people in jail right now .
If you rip down a statue , a federal statue , because the states have to take care of their own , unfortunately , cause I ’ d do that too .
But you rip down a federal statue , you get 10 years in jail .
10 years .
No , you know , three months .
And nothing ’ s happened since then .
It was amazing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ news conference .
I said , if you do it , and we were supposed to have thousands of people march on Washington that day .
Nobody showed up .
Beyond the incoherence there was something very revealing about both the question and Trump ’ s answer .
Because it was the unapologetically un-PC shock jock who demonstrated a moment of clarity and personal growth when it comes to Black Lives Matter while the president remains oblivious to what ’ s banging down his door .
Whether it was a genuine change of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businessman who knows a lot of his listeners are protesting in the streets , Portnoy came around to the view that even if some of the BLM stuff isn ’ t his cup of chowder , this is America and the people have a right to express their displeasure if there is something happening that they don ’ t like .
It ’ s the kind of position that you could imagine a bizarro Donald Trump staking out , really .
But our stubborn , childish , grievance-lugging , cosplay president just can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The result ?
The Queens Confederate finds himself in an anti-Black Lives Matter box so small that not even a toady Barstool bro fits in it .
It ’ s pretty remarkable when you think about it .
Portnoy , a guy who was embroiled in a scandal related to his past racist comments this month , a guy who has called himself “ uncancellable , ” tried to throw the president a Black Lives Matter lifeline—and got stiff-armed .
That ’ s not a good place for the president to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflected in the data .
Vanity Fair reported yesterday that a June swing-state poll showed that even among voters who “ Lean Trump , ” 59 percent ( !
! )
said that the protesters were “ completely right ” or “ somewhat right ” while 72 percent of swing voters said the same .
These voters aren ’ t asking Donald Trump to head out to Nats Park and kneel next to the players .
They aren ’ t asking him to defund the police .
They are simply looking for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their cause , in racial justice , in uniting the country .
They are looking for a president who merely recognizes that in this country silent protest is welcome .
That everyone , all races , all creeds get the chance to say their piece .
The Barstool bro came around to it .
But Donny from Queens is too much of a hardo to figure it out .

President Trump invited Dave “El Presidente” Portnoy to the White House on Thursday for a discussion vaguely resembling an “interview,” as part of the president’s recent PR offensive aimed at turning around his flagging campaign.
For those who are unfamiliar, Portnoy is the head of Barstool Sports—a sports blog and podcast network tailored to the frat-bro demographic—and is known for an irreverent, anti-PC, bro sensibility and a Trumpian devil-may-care attitude to the snowflakes who might blanch when he sings along with the n-word or riles up his man-boy fan base with some sexist locker room talk.
Some might see the simple fact that Trump would welcome such a guy to the White House at all as politically problematic. After all, Portnoy lost his ESPN partnership over calling a female reporter a “bible thumping freak” and “fucking slut” whose “#1 requirement is you make men hard.”
And given that the president’s poll numbers with women are tumbling below the Mendoza Line, maybe palling around with the guy who said that women “kind of deserve to be raped if they’re a size 6 and wear skinny jeans” and “subtle sexual harassment is fine and dandy” isn’t putting his tiny finger on the pulse of what women want.
But hey, he’s the president. Maybe the Suburban Housewives of America spent the whole week watching their soaps and worrying about Antifa and they really just needed to be told “Saturdays Are For The Boys.”
Who’s to say.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But the most telling part of the encounter wasn’t Portnoy’s preposterous presence in the Rose Garden. It was the fact that during an interview that even Portnoy’s business partner said contained “no hard questions,” El Pres still managed to stump The Pres and demonstrate just how out of step Trump is with the cultural mores that have been shifting beneath his feet.
The moment came in the second question of the interview (that is, if you count Portnoy asking Trump to explain how he managed to not get fooled by Ali G as the first “question”).
Portnoy prefaces the question saying that at first he was against Colin Kaepernick’s protest, but that over the years, he’s come around to the view that it’s better than violent protest and asks Trump what he would suggest as an alternative. Trump gives a typically rambling reply in which he offers “becoming successful” as the appropriate protest and then brags about finding an antiquated law that would allow him to jail vandals for 10 years.
It’s worth reading the whole rambling mess:
Portnoy: One of the things that I have a question for, and again, I think it matters. I’m very curious in the answer. So when the Kaepernick thing started, I was critical of it. And as it’s continued baseball players, now, I heard you say, if they kneel, you’ll turn the game off. And we got the Black Lives Matter protests. So for me, it’s like, how does somebody who’s dissatisfied, in your world, what’s the way for them to show it? Because we don’t want them looting and doing all this stuff they’re doing. To me, a silent protest that is far better than, you know, going out on the streets and creating crime. So I’m curious, what, what would you do, if you had an issue with the country or something to show your displeasure? Trump: Well, I mean, you can always say you run for office, right? You become successful. You could run for a lower office, you can do things. But there are ways. You get groups together and they can be very friendly ways of doing it. Very successful. I mean, you’re going to have rebounds, negative rebounds, if it keeps up the way it is. Like, as an example, Portland, this is crazy—51 days, you know, we sent in very powerful, uh, not military, but very strong people. Uh, the police are good, but they were told not to do anything, you know, by the radical left mayor. No, you have to go out and you have to say and speak your mind is good. I think speaking your mind is good, but you have to do it fairly. Uh, we are for justice, but we’re for law and order, it’s gotta be law and order. And there is law and order. Uh, I put something out when they were starting to rip down statues. I went out, I found an old law, an old bill. You couldn’t get it passed today. You get 10 years in jail, 10 years and no games. And we have a lot of people in jail right now. If you rip down a statue, a federal statue, because the states have to take care of their own, unfortunately, cause I’d do that too. But you rip down a federal statue, you get 10 years in jail. 10 years. No, you know, three months. And nothing’s happened since then. It was amazing. I signed it. I had a news conference. I said, if you do it, and we were supposed to have thousands of people march on Washington that day. Nobody showed up.
Beyond the incoherence there was something very revealing about both the question and Trump’s answer.
Because it was the unapologetically un-PC shock jock who demonstrated a moment of clarity and personal growth when it comes to Black Lives Matter while the president remains oblivious to what’s banging down his door.
Whether it was a genuine change of heart or a deft move by a businessman who knows a lot of his listeners are protesting in the streets, Portnoy came around to the view that even if some of the BLM stuff isn’t his cup of chowder, this is America and the people have a right to express their displeasure if there is something happening that they don’t like.
It’s the kind of position that you could imagine a bizarro Donald Trump staking out, really.
But our stubborn, childish, grievance-lugging, cosplay president just can’t bring himself to get there.
The result? The Queens Confederate finds himself in an anti-Black Lives Matter box so small that not even a toady Barstool bro fits in it.
It’s pretty remarkable when you think about it. Portnoy, a guy who was embroiled in a scandal related to his past racist comments this month, a guy who has called himself “uncancellable,” tried to throw the president a Black Lives Matter lifeline—and got stiff-armed.
That’s not a good place for the president to be and his isolation on this matter is reflected in the data. Vanity Fair reported yesterday that a June swing-state poll showed that even among voters who “Lean Trump,” 59 percent (!!) said that the protesters were “completely right” or “somewhat right” while 72 percent of swing voters said the same.
These voters aren’t asking Donald Trump to head out to Nats Park and kneel next to the players. They aren’t asking him to defund the police. They are simply looking for a president to show the bare minimum interest in their cause, in racial justice, in uniting the country. They are looking for a president who merely recognizes that in this country silent protest is welcome. That everyone, all races, all creeds get the chance to say their piece.
The Barstool bro came around to it. But Donny from Queens is too much of a hardo to figure it out.


thebulwark--2020-07-25--100 Days Out from the Election, Immigration is on the Ballot

After nearly 50 immigration policy changes since COVID-19 arrived at our shores , and an untold number since President Trump came into office , he has brought immigration to the United States to a near standstill .
In 100 days , the American people will decide how long the darkness will last .
The president ’ s ruminations on DACA and “ merit-based ” immigration should not lead us to believe he now thinks immigrants and immigration are a benefit to the nation .
There is significant evidence showing that Trump ’ s re-election campaign will rely on anti-immigrant fabrications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cast aside “ build the wall , ” “ bad hombres ” or any of his other favorite applause lines .
We have come full circle to a century ago .
In the 1920s , nationalism , global conflict , and simmering racial hostilities combined to pave the way for the Immigration Act of 1924 .
The law ’ s “ national origin ” racial quotas curtailed immigration from southern and eastern Europe and halted arrivals from Asia .
With few exceptions , the door to America had slammed shut .
The ensuing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future of America , as Jia Lynn Yang describes in her new book , One Mighty and Irresistible Tide .
It was a period that shamefully included a burgeoning eugenics movement , the United States turning its back on displaced Jews fleeing death , and McCarthyism that quickly stretched beyond fighting communism to target political opponents who supported , among other ideas , a more expansive approach to immigration .
As we move into the 2020s , the president ’ s spectacular mismanagement of multiple crises—rising nationalism , a global pandemic , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for America to close its door to the world .
It is getting harder and harder for the vulnerable to seek protection in the United States from persecution of any kind—religious , political , or social .
Attorney General William Barr is reopening asylum cases to potentially remove protections .
Children as young as 1 year old , are being detained in hotels .
Our immigration courts are stacked with leadership focused on denying cases and curtailing due process .
“ Enforcement ” at the border now means deporting people without following the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April proclamation even family members of lawful permanent residents may not be able to enter the country , and also affects recipients of diversity visas .
And , barring action from Congress , the administration ’ s approach to immigration is in danger of bankrupting U.S .
Citizenship and Immigration Services before the summer is over .
America is clearly better than this .
Because , much to his chagrin ( and political peril ) , President Trump has forged a new consensus on American immigration .
In polling completed at the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be racked by COVID-19 and as George Floyd ’ s death was launching a new kind of conversation about racial justice , Gallup found that more Americans wanted an increase in immigration than a decrease—a first since Gallup started asking this question in 1965 .
Look closely and you see something surprising : a 7-point rise since 2018 in independents ’ support for increased immigration .
Among people older than 55 , 63 percent want the present level or an increase and 73 percent think immigration is a good thing .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among those with “ some college ” education , and 79 percent and 86 percent among moderates .
The very coalition that boosted Trump to victory in 2016 is cracking under the weight of his hardline immigration policies .
Not only have a handful of Trump-skeptical evangelical leaders , such as Russell Moore of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention , criticized Trump on immigration , but even the staunch Trump supporter Franklin Graham said in 2018 of the administration ’ s efforts to separate families at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s disgraceful , it ’ s terrible to see families ripped apart and I don ’ t support that one bit.
” All of this is seared into the minds of suburban women .
And the rescission of DACA looms large for business leaders .
The expansion of interior enforcement operations leads farmers to worry if their skilled workforce will make it to work .
The end of refugee resettlement and asylum processing leaves people of faith asking if their government shares their values .
Patients in Appalachia hope their foreign-born doctor will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care .
If the United States is to avoid decades of nativism and nationalism that could result from a second Trump term , the deciding factor will be moderate and independent voters who may have supported Trump ’ s vision of America in 2016 but now reject it for what it is : an agenda that skirts the rule of law , champions authoritarianism , and strips all of us , immigrant and native-born , of our dignity .

After nearly 50 immigration policy changes since COVID-19 arrived at our shores, and an untold number since President Trump came into office, he has brought immigration to the United States to a near standstill.
In 100 days, the American people will decide how long the darkness will last.
The president’s ruminations on DACA and “merit-based” immigration should not lead us to believe he now thinks immigrants and immigration are a benefit to the nation. There is significant evidence showing that Trump’s re-election campaign will rely on anti-immigrant fabrications. And it is unlikely he will cast aside “build the wall,” “bad hombres” or any of his other favorite applause lines.
We have come full circle to a century ago. In the 1920s, nationalism, global conflict, and simmering racial hostilities combined to pave the way for the Immigration Act of 1924. The law’s “national origin” racial quotas curtailed immigration from southern and eastern Europe and halted arrivals from Asia. With few exceptions, the door to America had slammed shut.
The ensuing 40 years was a fight for the future of America, as Jia Lynn Yang describes in her new book, One Mighty and Irresistible Tide. It was a period that shamefully included a burgeoning eugenics movement, the United States turning its back on displaced Jews fleeing death, and McCarthyism that quickly stretched beyond fighting communism to target political opponents who supported, among other ideas, a more expansive approach to immigration.
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 we move into the 2020s, the president’s spectacular mismanagement of multiple crises—rising nationalism, a global pandemic, and exploding racial hostilities—has created a dangerous environment for America to close its door to the world.
It is getting harder and harder for the vulnerable to seek protection in the United States from persecution of any kind—religious, political, or social. Attorney General William Barr is reopening asylum cases to potentially remove protections. Children as young as 1 year old, are being detained in hotels. Our immigration courts are stacked with leadership focused on denying cases and curtailing due process. “Enforcement” at the border now means deporting people without following the law. Under the president’s April proclamation even family members of lawful permanent residents may not be able to enter the country, and also affects recipients of diversity visas. And, barring action from Congress, the administration’s approach to immigration is in danger of bankrupting U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services before the summer is over.
America is clearly better than this. Because, much to his chagrin (and political peril), President Trump has forged a new consensus on American immigration.
In polling completed at the end of May, as the nation continued to be racked by COVID-19 and as George Floyd’s death was launching a new kind of conversation about racial justice, Gallup found that more Americans wanted an increase in immigration than a decrease—a first since Gallup started asking this question in 1965.
Look closely and you see something surprising: a 7-point rise since 2018 in independents’ support for increased immigration. Among people older than 55, 63 percent want the present level or an increase and 73 percent think immigration is a good thing. The numbers are 77 percent and 80 percent among those with “some college” education, and 79 percent and 86 percent among moderates.
The very coalition that boosted Trump to victory in 2016 is cracking under the weight of his hardline immigration policies.
Not only have a handful of Trump-skeptical evangelical leaders, such as Russell Moore of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, criticized Trump on immigration, but even the staunch Trump supporter Franklin Graham said in 2018 of the administration’s efforts to separate families at the border, “I think it’s disgraceful, it’s terrible to see families ripped apart and I don’t support that one bit.” All of this is seared into the minds of suburban women.
And the rescission of DACA looms large for business leaders. The expansion of interior enforcement operations leads farmers to worry if their skilled workforce will make it to work. The end of refugee resettlement and asylum processing leaves people of faith asking if their government shares their values. Patients in Appalachia hope their foreign-born doctor will be there the next time they need care.
If the United States is to avoid decades of nativism and nationalism that could result from a second Trump term, the deciding factor will be moderate and independent voters who may have supported Trump’s vision of America in 2016 but now reject it for what it is: an agenda that skirts the rule of law, champions authoritarianism, and strips all of us, immigrant and native-born, of our dignity.
Restoring America’s dignity begins on November 3.