Wilford Brimley, RIP

It ’ s weird that Wilford Brimley wound up as a meme .
On announcing his passing , TMZ—our national arbiter for who ’ s actually dead in this age of viral fake obits—described him as the “ Face of Quaker Oats & Diabetes Campaigns.
” Many of the responses to my own quick remembrance on Twitter were met with shouts of “ DIABEEEETUS ” or some variant .
There ’ s a Twitter account dedicated to marking when actors pass the “ Brimley/Cocoon Line ” ( that is , the age at which Wilford Brimley played a senior citizen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cocoon ) , the idea being that 50 ( well , 49 ) is the new 30 .
All of which is to say that Brimley seems to linger in the national memory not as a fine character actor who enlivened any production with his push-broom mustache and laconic drawl .
And that ’ s a shame , because he ’ s brought so much joy to so many of us through the years .
It ’ s not Cocoon but another sci-fi offering that comes to mind when I think of Brimley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s claustrophobic Cold-War-by-way-of-the-cold classic .
Brimley ’ s Blair embodies the real spirit of the picture , the inability to know who , exactly , has been compromised by the titular Thing .
Has he been overtaken by the alien when he smashes up the computers , cutting the base off from the rest of the world , or is he simply trying to keep them safe ?
Has he been compromised when he ’ s self-isolating in his shack away from the base or later , after demanding to be freed ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems more reasonable than when he ’ s calm and collected—and that simple realization is the most frightening revelation of all .
Brimley later went toe-to-toe with one of the great actors of the silver screen and one of the great stars of the silver screen ( Gene Hackman and Tom Cruise , respectively ) in The Firm , a bloated-but-entertaining adaptation of the Grisham potboiler .
He ’ s the perfect actor to bounce those two very different personalities off of , able to out-gruff Hackman and lend a bit of gravitas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , perhaps Brimley was fated for memedom .
How can a man who creates this image—a shot worthy of the Renaissance masters ; a shot that could be studied for its perfection for ages ; a shot one could build whole retrospective film festivals out of—not be ?
In fully comprehending and absorbing this visual , we come to understand that Wilford Brimley was both the superego of America—a solemn , gravelly voice reminding us of the righteous path—and also its id .
As is often the case , and following in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took a foreigner entering this land to clearly see America for what it is .
John Woo added Wilford Brimley to Hard Target to show us that America is a land where a geriatric can ride a horse and shoot a bow while galloping away from an explosion at full speed , debris raining down all around him , a white-haired , white-mustachioed angel of death and harbinger of awesome .
And if he can do so in a deeply questionable Cajun accent , all the better .

It’s weird that Wilford Brimley wound up as a meme.
On announcing his passing, TMZ—our national arbiter for who’s actually dead in this age of viral fake obits—described him as the “Face of Quaker Oats & Diabetes Campaigns.” Many of the responses to my own quick remembrance on Twitter were met with shouts of “DIABEEEETUS” or some variant. There’s a Twitter account dedicated to marking when actors pass the “Brimley/Cocoon Line” (that is, the age at which Wilford Brimley played a senior citizen in a retirement community in the movie Cocoon), the idea being that 50 (well, 49) is the new 30.
All of which is to say that Brimley seems to linger in the national memory not as a fine character actor who enlivened any production with his push-broom mustache and laconic drawl. And that’s a shame, because he’s brought so much joy to so many of us through the years.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
It’s not Cocoon but another sci-fi offering that comes to mind when I think of Brimley: The Thing, John Carpenter’s claustrophobic Cold-War-by-way-of-the-cold classic. Brimley’s Blair embodies the real spirit of the picture, the inability to know who, exactly, has been compromised by the titular Thing. Has he been overtaken by the alien when he smashes up the computers, cutting the base off from the rest of the world, or is he simply trying to keep them safe? Has he been compromised when he’s self-isolating in his shack away from the base or later, after demanding to be freed? When he’s a madman he seems more reasonable than when he’s calm and collected—and that simple realization is the most frightening revelation of all.
Brimley later went toe-to-toe with one of the great actors of the silver screen and one of the great stars of the silver screen (Gene Hackman and Tom Cruise, respectively) in The Firm, a bloated-but-entertaining adaptation of the Grisham potboiler. He’s the perfect actor to bounce those two very different personalities off of, able to out-gruff Hackman and lend a bit of gravitas to the still-young Cruise.
But then, perhaps Brimley was fated for memedom. How can a man who creates this image—a shot worthy of the Renaissance masters; a shot that could be studied for its perfection for ages; a shot one could build whole retrospective film festivals out of—not be?
In fully comprehending and absorbing this visual, we come to understand that Wilford Brimley was both the superego of America—a solemn, gravelly voice reminding us of the righteous path—and also its id.
As is often the case, and following in the tradition of Tocqueville and Dickens, it took a foreigner entering this land to clearly see America for what it is. John Woo added Wilford Brimley to Hard Target to show us that America is a land where a geriatric can ride a horse and shoot a bow while galloping away from an explosion at full speed, debris raining down all around him, a white-haired, white-mustachioed angel of death and harbinger of awesome.
And if he can do so in a deeply questionable Cajun accent, all the better.


thebulwark--2020-08-04--Can Joe Biden Stay in His Sweet Spot?

Can Joe Biden Stay in His Sweet Spot?

There is no more glaring contrast between Donald Trump and Joe Biden than that presented by the defining issue of 2020—the coronavirus pandemic .
Democrats know that very well .
Said pollster Geoff Garin to the Washington Post : Biden knows it too .
“ Make no mistake , ” he said in early July .
“ We ’ re still in a deep , deep job hole because Donald Trump has so badly bungled the response to coronavirus , and now has basically given up on responding at all .
.
.
.
Millions of [ Americans ] would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump had done his job .
And many of the jobs that have now come back should never have been lost in the first place.
” Back in April , Biden proposed deploying the powers of the federal government to provide testing on a massive scale .
Trump never did .
Now , months later , America is paying the price : a worsening pandemic exacerbated by testing results often so delayed as to become meaningless in controlling the virus .
Little wonder that our pathologically narcissistic president sees himself as the ultimate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killing his campaign .
A recent national Fox News poll shows that registered voters prefer Biden over Trump in handling the pandemic by 51 to 34 percent .
An earlier Fox poll , from mid-May , found that 63 percent of registered voters viewed the “ lack of available testing ” as a “ major problem.
” Meanwhile , 62 percent of the respondents to a mid-July Quinnipiac poll of registered voters said they believed it would be unsafe to reopen K-12 classrooms in the fall , compared to 31 percent who said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moreover , polls give Biden an edge over Trump on managing the economy , a reversal that reflects the seismic effects of COVID-19 on employment and the GDP .
And on another pressing national issue , handling race relations , the new Fox poll shows Biden with a 52 to 31 percent advantage .
These discontents pervade the electorate ’ s assessment of the candidates ’ personal qualities .
Fox ’ s findings are lethal for Trump : • 51 percent think Biden has the intelligence to be an effective president ; 52 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • 56 percent credit Biden with the requisite compassion for the job of president ; 57 percent believe that Trump lacks it ; and • 47 to 39 percent invest Biden with the “ mental soundness ” required for the presidency ; 51 to 43 percent find Trump deficient .
This comprehensive disaffection drives the presidential contest .
Biden continues to lead national polls by a significant margin .
Taking the currently available state polling , which shows Biden leading in the six universally acknowledged battleground states , political analyst Ron Faucheux gives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 219 .
In turn , this pandemic-driven surge in support for Biden enabled him to outraise Trump in both May and June , diminishing the substantial financial advantage Trump has heretofore enjoyed .
Moreover , the Trump campaign , the Republican party , and affiliated political committees have spent a staggering $ 983 million—only to fall further behind .
Politically , the pandemic has remade Biden into a harbinger of hope—a potentially transformative rather than transitional leader .
That he now invokes FDR , who helped deliver America from a vertiginous national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tone and ambition .
From the outset of the pandemic , Biden has called for a concerted federal response which includes spearheading a comprehensive , rigorous and prompt testing regime .
Equally fundamental , Biden appreciates that the virus has aggravated pre-existing social and economic pathologies we can no longer ignore .
This reflects an underrated virtue : As a practical politician rather than an ideologue , Biden can respond to changing national imperatives by moving with the temper of the times .
He is doing so with considerable skill .
Wisely Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : keeping the oft-fractious components of his party together ; attracting swing voters while addressing the urgent concerns of minorities ; confronting the consequences of COVID-19 ; and offering meaningful proposals which , as president , he might actually pass .
To this end , he has forged a shared agenda with Democratic progressives which , without embracing their most tendentious economic litmus tests , addresses needs underscored by the pandemic : expanding low-income housing ; improving childcare ; funding universal pre-K education ; offering free community college ; establishing a comprehensive infrastructure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that creates well-paying new jobs ; and providing universal healthcare grounded in a public option .
He ’ s no Bernie Sanders , nor should he be—after all , Sanders lost .
But Biden promises to be the most progressive Democratic nominee in recent years , at a moment which calls for vigorous new initiatives to retrieve us from our national slough of despond .
Concurrently , Biden has rejected the brain-dead catchphrases that repel most Americans and fuel Trump ’ s race-based culture war : “ abolish ICE ” and , more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead , he proposes broad immigration reform and embraces practical measures to sustain the racial awakening stemming from George Floyd ’ s murder : banning chokeholds ; reforming qualified immunity for police officers ; barring the overuse of military equipment by local police ; and passing more funding for community policing .
With similar equipoise , Biden supports decriminalizing marijuana use but opposes legalization .
He favors removing monuments to Confederate generals but draws the line at Washington and Jefferson .
He advocates a ban on public leases for natural gas fracking , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost him Pennsylvania .
This is more than canny calculation—it ’ s politically farsighted .
To win and then govern , Biden must appeal to some of the disaffected voters Clinton lost in 2016 and rally the suburbanites who helped Democrats win back the House in 2018 .
He is not running to enthrall the febrile progressives who populate Twitter , but as a steady , seasoned leader who can help heal the wounds Trump is determined to deepen at any cost .
So far , so smart .
Most voters place Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in swing states , is where he needs to be .
Accordingly , he is reaching out to anti-Trump Republicans like John Kasich , who is speaking at the Democrats ’ virtual convention .
By making a place for Republicans and independents wary of Democrats but repelled by Trump , Biden is making their long-term conversion more likely .
And why not ?
Ardent Democratic leftists may view this with suspicion , but how has our toxic polarization worked out for them—or , really , for anyone ?
Writes E.J .
Dionne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sykes argues , Biden must rout a party that “ once imagined itself to be about ideas [ but ] became a cult of personality for one of the most deplorable personalities in political history.
” That ’ s the party , Dionne notes , which is now “ unable to produce a coherent relief bill to keep the economy from spiraling further downward.
” It is not that Trump changed the Republican party ; it is that the party created the conditions for Trump to rise .
Here , Dionne quotes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lifetime ago—by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein .
The GOP , they concluded , had become “ ideologically extreme ; scornful of compromise ; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts , evidence and science ; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
” Add further the GOP ’ s narrowing demographic base ; its dependence on relentlessly mendacious right-wing media and a wealthy donor class concerned only with self-enrichment ; and its burgeoning contempt for the rule of law and constitutional democracy itself .
The Republican party has long since become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monster .
In style and substance , Biden is the antidote .
He may not exude charisma , but he has a persona that counters Trump ’ s narcissistic faux-populism : Middle-Class Joe , an empathetic guy bereft of braggadocio or condescension , the political embodiment of that reliable neighbor who gets things done .
The president of the International Association of Fire Fighters , Harold Schaitberger , described Biden ’ s qualities to Thomas Frank : “ He is who he is .
He ’ s real .
He ’ s genuine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and he ’ s a decent person , and he has great empathy and concern .
Particularly for those who have experienced heartache or difficulties or tragedies.
” Meeting with the New York Times editorial board last December , Biden showed an acute awareness of his party ’ s problems with elitism .
Democrats , he said , had started to “ give up on white working-class folks.
” Then he added : But there ’ s a false dichotomy , he argued , between progressive and working-class values .
Democrats , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working-class whites : “ We treat them like they ’ re stupid .
They know they ’ re in trouble , and nobody ’ s talking to them .
Nobody ’ s talking to them .
That ’ s what we used to do .
That was our base.
” This spirit makes Biden a hard man to hate—or for Trump to demonize .
Given Trump ’ s own noxious persona and lethal failures of leadership , demonization is about all he ’ s got left .
Too bad for him .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in late July , only 19 percent of Americans say they dislike Biden “ a lot ” —as opposed to the 41 percent who feel that way about Trump .
That makes sense .
Instead of fear and division , Biden is offering hope and reassurance .
Further , the more limited campaign imposed by the coronavirus has made Biden a more disciplined campaigner—far from the virtual gaffe machine who would help Trump argue that Biden is past it .
In this favorable political landscape , one looming question for Biden is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leading in Arizona , Florida , Michigan , North Carolina , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin—and needs at most three of those states to win .
But Ohio may also be within reach and , with money and effort , even Georgia and Texas .
Biden ’ s qualities of inclusion make going big thinkable .
At the same time , he must worry about doing all he can to turn out his base in must-win states—in part by bolstering his tepid support among Hispanics and the young .
And the electoral history of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states will tighten .
That ’ s Biden ’ s dilemma .
He can ’ t squander the resources he needs to carry Wisconsin by spending too lavishly in , say , Texas—with its 20 media markets and recent history of rousing and then deflating Democratic hopes through relentless voter suppression .
So far the Biden campaign is proceeding with caution , at least at this distance from November—a temperance justified by comprehensive Republican efforts to depress Democratic turnout by any means at hand .
Still , a state like Ohio potentially beckons—as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times , “ Ohio was a bellwether until 2016.
” Further , Brown notes , an overwhelming Electoral College victory “ gives Biden the ability to move on major issues.
” Finally , there is the desirability—perhaps , the need—to win Senate races in places like Georgia , Iowa , and Maine in order to advance Biden ’ s prospective agenda .
These are good problems to have—unless candidate Biden takes on more than he should .
Two other challenges lie ahead : picking a running mate who first does no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which solidify Biden ’ s standing with the voters he needs to win .
And there is one more problem over which Biden has little control—the unslakable death wish among some elements of the left .
The least of these stupidities is that a subset of Sanders supporters are circulating a petition to force a platform fight over Medicare-for-all .
This is a conflict which , short of surrender , Biden has done his damnedest to avoid—and which the party can ill afford .
But given the perpetual adolescence of those progressives who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best Biden can hope for is to mute the discord .
A greater difficulty is the “ Portland problem.
” Trump ’ s dispatching of federal forces to Portland opened a disturbing new chapter in his aspiring authoritarianism—and his resolve to turn the campaign into a drama of law and order .
Trump not only revels in disorder but means to provoke it .
Still , that ’ s the problem when protests spawn violence and disorder—even at the margins .
As Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf told the New York Times about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m furious that Oakland may have played right into Donald Trump ’ s twisted campaign strategy .
.
.
.
Images of a vandalized downtown is exactly what he wants to whip up his base and to potentially justify sending in federal troops that will only incite more unrest.
” Biden must navigate this minefield with discernment—distinguishing genuine protests over racial injustice from mindless disturbances that achieve nothing .
What is truly plaguing America , after all , is not the dystopian lawlessness Trump conjures out of little , but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through his inexcusable neglect of COVID-19 .
Joe Biden , and America , have three months to go .

There is no more glaring contrast between Donald Trump and Joe Biden than that presented by the defining issue of 2020—the coronavirus pandemic.
Democrats know that very well. Said pollster Geoff Garin to the Washington Post:
Trump is increasingly defined in voters’ minds by his failing response to the coronavirus crisis, and virtually every action and position he’s taken have been wildly out of sync with where the public is at on what should be done. . . . Biden now has a remarkable opportunity to contrast himself with this failure of leadership that a large majority of voters see so clearly.
Biden knows it too. “Make no mistake,” he said in early July. “We’re still in a deep, deep job hole because Donald Trump has so badly bungled the response to coronavirus, and now has basically given up on responding at all. . . . Millions of [Americans] would still have their jobs today if Donald Trump had done his job. And many of the jobs that have now come back should never have been lost in the first place.”
Back in April, Biden proposed deploying the powers of the federal government to provide testing on a massive scale. Trump never did. Now, months later, America is paying the price: a worsening pandemic exacerbated by testing results often so delayed as to become meaningless in controlling the virus.
Little wonder that our pathologically narcissistic president sees himself as the ultimate victim of COVID-19: It’s killing his campaign.
A recent national Fox News poll shows that registered voters prefer Biden over Trump in handling the pandemic by 51 to 34 percent. An earlier Fox poll, from mid-May, found that 63 percent of registered voters viewed the “lack of available testing” as a “major problem.” Meanwhile, 62 percent of the respondents to a mid-July Quinnipiac poll of registered voters said they believed it would be unsafe to reopen K-12 classrooms in the fall, compared to 31 percent who said they thought it would be safe.
Moreover, polls give Biden an edge over Trump on managing the economy, a reversal that reflects the seismic effects of COVID-19 on employment and the GDP. And on another pressing national issue, handling race relations, the new Fox poll shows Biden with a 52 to 31 percent advantage.
These discontents pervade the electorate’s assessment of the candidates’ personal qualities. Fox’s findings are lethal for Trump:
51 percent think Biden has the intelligence to be an effective president; 52 percent believe that Trump does not;
56 percent credit Biden with the requisite compassion for the job of president; 57 percent believe that Trump lacks it; and
47 to 39 percent invest Biden with the “mental soundness” required for the presidency; 51 to 43 percent find Trump deficient.
This comprehensive disaffection drives the presidential contest. Biden continues to lead national polls by a significant margin. Taking the currently available state polling, which shows Biden leading in the six universally acknowledged battleground states, political analyst Ron Faucheux gives Biden an Electoral College margin of 319 to 219.
In turn, this pandemic-driven surge in support for Biden enabled him to outraise Trump in both May and June, diminishing the substantial financial advantage Trump has heretofore enjoyed. Moreover, the Trump campaign, the Republican party, and affiliated political committees have spent a staggering $983 million—only to fall further behind.
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…
Politically, the pandemic has remade Biden into a harbinger of hope—a potentially transformative rather than transitional leader. That he now invokes FDR, who helped deliver America from a vertiginous national crisis, marks a striking change of tone and ambition.
From the outset of the pandemic, Biden has called for a concerted federal response which includes spearheading a comprehensive, rigorous and prompt testing regime. Equally fundamental, Biden appreciates that the virus has aggravated pre-existing social and economic pathologies we can no longer ignore. This reflects an underrated virtue: As a practical politician rather than an ideologue, Biden can respond to changing national imperatives by moving with the temper of the times.
He is doing so with considerable skill. Wisely Biden has committed to a careful balancing act: keeping the oft-fractious components of his party together; attracting swing voters while addressing the urgent concerns of minorities; confronting the consequences of COVID-19; and offering meaningful proposals which, as president, he might actually pass.
To this end, he has forged a shared agenda with Democratic progressives which, without embracing their most tendentious economic litmus tests, addresses needs underscored by the pandemic: expanding low-income housing; improving childcare; funding universal pre-K education; offering free community college; establishing a comprehensive infrastructure program; advancing a robust climate-change agenda that creates well-paying new jobs; and providing universal healthcare grounded in a public option.
He’s no Bernie Sanders, nor should he be—after all, Sanders lost. But Biden promises to be the most progressive Democratic nominee in recent years, at a moment which calls for vigorous new initiatives to retrieve us from our national slough of despond.
Concurrently, Biden has rejected the brain-dead catchphrases that repel most Americans and fuel Trump’s race-based culture war: “abolish ICE” and, more recently, “defund the police.” Instead, he proposes broad immigration reform and embraces practical measures to sustain the racial awakening stemming from George Floyd’s murder: banning chokeholds; reforming qualified immunity for police officers; barring the overuse of military equipment by local police; and passing more funding for community policing.
With similar equipoise, Biden supports decriminalizing marijuana use but opposes legalization. He favors removing monuments to Confederate generals but draws the line at Washington and Jefferson. He advocates a ban on public leases for natural gas fracking, but eschews a fracking ban which could cost him Pennsylvania.
This is more than canny calculation—it’s politically farsighted. To win and then govern, Biden must appeal to some of the disaffected voters Clinton lost in 2016 and rally the suburbanites who helped Democrats win back the House in 2018. He is not running to enthrall the febrile progressives who populate Twitter, but as a steady, seasoned leader who can help heal the wounds Trump is determined to deepen at any cost.
So far, so smart. Most voters place Biden closer to the middle than Trump is—which, in swing states, is where he needs to be.
Accordingly, he is reaching out to anti-Trump Republicans like John Kasich, who is speaking at the Democrats’ virtual convention. By making a place for Republicans and independents wary of Democrats but repelled by Trump, Biden is making their long-term conversion more likely.
And why not? Ardent Democratic leftists may view this with suspicion, but how has our toxic polarization worked out for them—or, really, for anyone? Writes E.J. Dionne:
The easy answer to this apprehension is to say that if you believe (as I certainly do) that defeating President Trump is the prerequisite for anything good happening again in American politics, you should welcome everyone willing to help get the job done. And in light of Trump’s threats to challenge the results if he loses, the health of our democracy may depend on Biden’s winning by a landslide that would leave not a smidgen of doubt about what the voters were saying. This is an all-hands-on-deck proposition.
To succeed as president, Charles Sykes argues, Biden must rout a party that “once imagined itself to be about ideas [but] became a cult of personality for one of the most deplorable personalities in political history.” That’s the party, Dionne notes, which is now “unable to produce a coherent relief bill to keep the economy from spiraling further downward.”
It is not that Trump changed the Republican party; it is that the party created the conditions for Trump to rise. Here, Dionne quotes the damning assessment rendered in 2012—a seeming political lifetime ago—by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein. The GOP, they concluded, had become “ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”
Add further the GOP’s narrowing demographic base; its dependence on relentlessly mendacious right-wing media and a wealthy donor class concerned only with self-enrichment; and its burgeoning contempt for the rule of law and constitutional democracy itself. The Republican party has long since become Dr. Frankenstein, and Trump is its monster.
In style and substance, Biden is the antidote. He may not exude charisma, but he has a persona that counters Trump’s narcissistic faux-populism: Middle-Class Joe, an empathetic guy bereft of braggadocio or condescension, the political embodiment of that reliable neighbor who gets things done.
The president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, Harold Schaitberger, described Biden’s qualities to Thomas Frank: “He is who he is. He’s real. He’s genuine. He’s a respectful person, and he’s a decent person, and he has great empathy and concern. Particularly for those who have experienced heartache or difficulties or tragedies.”
Meeting with the New York Times editorial board last December, Biden showed an acute awareness of his party’s problems with elitism. Democrats, he said, had started to “give up on white working-class folks.” Then he added:
Look what started to seep in . . . even with candidates during our administration. We stopped showing up at the Polish American club. We stopped showing up, and we all went to you, the really smart people. We had a new kind of coalition we were putting together. College-educated women and college men . . . and so on.
But there’s a false dichotomy, he argued, between progressive and working-class values. Democrats, he concluded, must quit condescending to working-class whites: “We treat them like they’re stupid. They know they’re in trouble, and nobody’s talking to them. Nobody’s talking to them. That’s what we used to do. That was our base.”
This spirit makes Biden a hard man to hate—or for Trump to demonize. Given Trump’s own noxious persona and lethal failures of leadership, demonization is about all he’s got left. Too bad for him. According to the latest Economist/YouGov poll, conducted in late July, only 19 percent of Americans say they dislike Biden “a lot”—as opposed to the 41 percent who feel that way about Trump.
That makes sense. Instead of fear and division, Biden is offering hope and reassurance. Further, the more limited campaign imposed by the coronavirus has made Biden a more disciplined campaigner—far from the virtual gaffe machine who would help Trump argue that Biden is past it.
In this favorable political landscape, one looming question for Biden is “how big to go.” He is leading in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—and needs at most three of those states to win. But Ohio may also be within reach and, with money and effort, even Georgia and Texas.
Biden’s qualities of inclusion make going big thinkable. At the same time, he must worry about doing all he can to turn out his base in must-win states—in part by bolstering his tepid support among Hispanics and the young. And the electoral history of these polarized times suggests that the swing states will tighten.
That’s Biden’s dilemma. He can’t squander the resources he needs to carry Wisconsin by spending too lavishly in, say, Texas—with its 20 media markets and recent history of rousing and then deflating Democratic hopes through relentless voter suppression.
So far the Biden campaign is proceeding with caution, at least at this distance from November—a temperance justified by comprehensive Republican efforts to depress Democratic turnout by any means at hand. Still, a state like Ohio potentially beckons—as Senator Sherrod Brown pointed out to the New York Times, “Ohio was a bellwether until 2016.”
Further, Brown notes, an overwhelming Electoral College victory “gives Biden the ability to move on major issues.” Finally, there is the desirability—perhaps, the need—to win Senate races in places like Georgia, Iowa, and Maine in order to advance Biden’s prospective agenda. These are good problems to have—unless candidate Biden takes on more than he should.
Two other challenges lie ahead: picking a running mate who first does no harm; and turning in debate performances which solidify Biden’s standing with the voters he needs to win. And there is one more problem over which Biden has little control—the unslakable death wish among some elements of the left.
The least of these stupidities is that a subset of Sanders supporters are circulating a petition to force a platform fight over Medicare-for-all. This is a conflict which, short of surrender, Biden has done his damnedest to avoid—and which the party can ill afford. But given the perpetual adolescence of those progressives who sparked defections from Clinton in 2016, the best Biden can hope for is to mute the discord.
A greater difficulty is the “Portland problem.” Trump’s dispatching of federal forces to Portland opened a disturbing new chapter in his aspiring authoritarianism—and his resolve to turn the campaign into a drama of law and order.
Trump not only revels in disorder but means to provoke it. Still, that’s the problem when protests spawn violence and disorder—even at the margins. As Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf told the New York Times about her city’s unrest: “I’m furious that Oakland may have played right into Donald Trump’s twisted campaign strategy. . . . Images of a vandalized downtown is exactly what he wants to whip up his base and to potentially justify sending in federal troops that will only incite more unrest.”
Biden must navigate this minefield with discernment—distinguishing genuine protests over racial injustice from mindless disturbances that achieve nothing. What is truly plaguing America, after all, is not the dystopian lawlessness Trump conjures out of little, but the needless death and economic ruin he unleashed through his inexcusable neglect of COVID-19.
Joe Biden, and America, have three months to go.


thebulwark--2020-08-04--Trumpvangelicals in the Lion’s Den

Trumpvangelicals in the Lion’s Den

Trump ’ s evangelical advisers are like modern-day Daniels , but without the courage .
The biblical book of Daniel tells the story of Jewish captivity in Babylon .
Daniel , a Jew , becomes an adviser to King Nebuchadnezzar after the king recognized Daniel to be a man of wisdom blessed by God .
The book describes the tension Daniel and other Jews faced in Babylon as they were challenged to remain true to their faith while serving various kings of Babylon .
In chapter 3 , for instance , Shadrach , Meshach , and Abednego are thrown into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a golden statue of Nebuchadnezzar .
( Spoiler : God saves them . )
When evangelical leaders were first invited to join Trump ’ s board of religious advisers , I often heard the analogy of Daniel mentioned .
Like Daniel , the reasoning went , they should not turn away requests to advise “ the king.
” I ’ m often critical of evangelical leaders associating with Trump , but I ’ ll admit , this is their best argument .
And maybe these evangelicals leaders could have convinced me they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Chapter 6 of Daniel is one of the Bible ’ s most-told stories .
Babylon is now under the rule of King Darius .
Daniel has gained a reputation as an honorable man who remains true to his faith .
When he is given additional authority , other Babylonian governors become jealous and set a trap for him .
But the only way to trap him is to use his devotion to God against him : “ We shall not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God ” ( verse 5 ) .
So they convince Darius to decree that everyone must pray only to him for 30 days , knowing that Daniel will refuse .
For his punishment , Daniel is thrown in a lion ’ s den .
( Spoiler : God saves him . )
The “ lion ’ s den ” metaphor now often refers to having resolve and courage .
For Christians in particular , it ’ s also used in defense of disobeying government authority .
While the Apostle Paul commands us to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Daniel counterbalances that .
When government commands us to disobey God , we must disobey the government and accept the punishment , the book of Daniel teaches .
For example , in California and Nevada , churches sued over quarantine restrictions for worship services .
The Supreme Court sided with the state in both cases .
In response , California Pastor Tony Suarez , who works for the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and is on Trump ’ s evangelical advisory board , tweeted : In Suarez ’ s view , faithfulness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worship , thus the California law must be disobeyed .
Most Christians would agree with the principle Suarez is using ( though many would question whether helping spread a deadly virus is the place to make that stand ) .
The civil rights movement often made reference to Daniel .
In his “ Letter From a Birmingham Jail , ” for instance , Martin Luther King Jr. wrote , “ Of course , there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience .
It was seen sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws of Nebuchadnezzar because a higher moral law was involved.
” King and others in the civil rights movement often followed the example of Daniel in disobeying unjust laws and accepting the punishment .
If Trump ’ s evangelical advisers want to evoke Daniel as their model , they should model Daniel ’ s behavior .
This would mean three things .
1 .
They wouldn ’ t use their position for personal benefit .
In chapter 1 , when Nebuchadnezzar first enlists Daniel in his court , Daniel refuses to “ defile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and wine.
” Daniel understands that he could serve the king but must remain separate from the king to maintain faith and loyalty to God .
In accepting the king ’ s rations , his faith would ’ ve been in danger of becoming corrupted .
Trump ’ s evangelical advisers often use their positions for personal benefit .
Not only have they literally accepted the king ’ s rations , attending several White House banquets over the years , they advertise their position , eagerly tweeting photos of themselves with the king @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth-teller , Daniel didn ’ t shy away from delivering bad news to the kings he advised .
They asked Daniel to interpret their dreams and the literal writing on the wall .
It was always bad news but Daniel gave it to them straight .
By contrast , Trump ’ s evangelical advisers rarely condemn his mistruths and immoral policies , and in some cases defend them .
When news broke that Trump paid hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels , evangelist Franklin Graham said in a January 2018 CNN interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 13 , 14 years ago .
.
.
that was before he was in office.
” But Trump signed the hush money checks and lied about it while in office , the interviewer pointed out .
Graham continued to defend Trump , however , noting that Trump denied the payoff .
“ I think God put him there .
.
.
.
And I think the president has changed quite a bit in the last 11 years .
.
.
and I think there ’ s a maturing of the president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when evidence of the payoff became public , Trump admitted he had paid Daniels .
Even after Trump was caught in a lie , Graham continued to defend him , despite the fact that Trump had made Graham look foolish .
In an interview the next day , Graham argued , “ Stormy Daniels and so forth is nobody ’ s business.
” Dr. Richard Land , president of Southern Evangelical Seminary and executive editor of the Christian Post , where I used to work , condemned Trump ’ s policy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but wouldn ’ t criticize Trump by name for implementing the policy .
In a June 20 , 2018 op-ed , he pointed his finger at Congress and referenced the “ government ’ s policy ” but wouldn ’ t condemn the person responsible for the policy .
His only mention of Trump was to say “ I am delighted that President Trump has taken executive action to rectify this policy.
” So much for speaking truth to power .
Daniel could have quietly opposed the king ’ s edict in chapter 6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a window “ open toward Jerusalem ” ( verse 10 ) , knowing that the punishment would be the lion ’ s den .
I ’ ve been told by insiders that Trump ’ s evangelical advisers challenge him privately .
I ’ m sure Trump is fine with that , as long as they don ’ t do it publicly .
There are only a few examples of his advisers publicly condemning his actions .
On the June 1 incident at Lafayette Square , Trump defiled the Bible by having protesters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God ’ s word .
He claims to be a protector of Christianity , but a priest was forcibly removed from the church grounds ahead of his sacrilegious act .
This could have been a Daniel moment for Trump ’ s evangelical advisers , but most were quiet about it .
Some actually praised it .
Here ’ s the reaction of Johnnie Moore , founder of a PR firm that represents many evangelical leaders and one of the Trump evangelical advisory board ’ s main organizers : Moore would have us believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and walking across the street surrounded by police and military protection , is the one who demonstrated courage , rather than the people who were tear-gassed for peacefully protesting racism .
( There were rioters among the protesters , but most were peaceful , video shows . )
Pastor Jack Graham claimed Trump “ demonstrated solidarity with people of faith.
” Trump ’ s evangelical advisers should have stood in solidarity with the protesters condemning racism , not our race-baiter-in-chief .
Proximity to political power has always presented a dangerous temptation for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worldly victories can easily supersede the Gospel ’ s call for selfless devotion to the spiritual and physical needs of others .
Daniel shows us it can be done , but you must be willing to be thrown to the lions .

Trump’s evangelical advisers are like modern-day Daniels, but without the courage.
The biblical book of Daniel tells the story of Jewish captivity in Babylon. Daniel, a Jew, becomes an adviser to King Nebuchadnezzar after the king recognized Daniel to be a man of wisdom blessed by God. The book describes the tension Daniel and other Jews faced in Babylon as they were challenged to remain true to their faith while serving various kings of Babylon. In chapter 3, for instance, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are thrown into a fiery furnace for refusing to worship a golden statue of Nebuchadnezzar. (Spoiler: God saves them.)
When evangelical leaders were first invited to join Trump’s board of religious advisers, I often heard the analogy of Daniel mentioned. Like Daniel, the reasoning went, they should not turn away requests to advise “the king.”
I’m often critical of evangelical leaders associating with Trump, but I’ll admit, this is their best argument. And maybe these evangelicals leaders could have convinced me they were right—if only they behaved more like Daniel.
Chapter 6 of Daniel is one of the Bible’s most-told stories. Babylon is now under the rule of King Darius. Daniel has gained a reputation as an honorable man who remains true to his faith. When he is given additional authority, other Babylonian governors become jealous and set a trap for him. But the only way to trap him is to use his devotion to God against him: “We shall not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God” (verse 5). So they convince Darius to decree that everyone must pray only to him for 30 days, knowing that Daniel will refuse. For his punishment, Daniel is thrown in a lion’s den. (Spoiler: God saves him.)
The “lion’s den” metaphor now often refers to having resolve and courage. For Christians in particular, it’s also used in defense of disobeying government authority. While the Apostle Paul commands us to obey government authority (Romans 13:1), Daniel counterbalances that. When government commands us to disobey God, we must disobey the government and accept the punishment, the book of Daniel teaches.
For example, in California and Nevada, churches sued over quarantine restrictions for worship services. The Supreme Court sided with the state in both cases. In response, California Pastor Tony Suarez, who works for the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and is on Trump’s evangelical advisory board, tweeted:
I’ll go to jail before I’ll stop singing to my God!
This just turned into our Daniel chapter six moment.
California has just banned singing/chanting in houses of worship. — Tony Suarez (@revtonysuarez) July 3, 2020
In Suarez’s view, faithfulness to God is tied to singing in worship, thus the California law must be disobeyed. Most Christians would agree with the principle Suarez is using (though many would question whether helping spread a deadly virus is the place to make that stand).
The civil rights movement often made reference to Daniel. In his “Letter From a Birmingham Jail,” for instance, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, “Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was seen sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar because a higher moral law was involved.” King and others in the civil rights movement often followed the example of Daniel in disobeying unjust laws and accepting the punishment.
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…
If Trump’s evangelical advisers want to evoke Daniel as their model, they should model Daniel’s behavior. This would mean three things.
1. They wouldn’t use their position for personal benefit.
In chapter 1, when Nebuchadnezzar first enlists Daniel in his court, Daniel refuses to “defile himself with the royal rations of food and wine.” Daniel understands that he could serve the king but must remain separate from the king to maintain faith and loyalty to God. In accepting the king’s rations, his faith would’ve been in danger of becoming corrupted.
Trump’s evangelical advisers often use their positions for personal benefit. Not only have they literally accepted the king’s rations, attending several White House banquets over the years, they advertise their position, eagerly tweeting photos of themselves with the king to enhance their fame.
2. They would defend truth.
A devoted truth-teller, Daniel didn’t shy away from delivering bad news to the kings he advised. They asked Daniel to interpret their dreams and the literal writing on the wall. It was always bad news but Daniel gave it to them straight.
By contrast, Trump’s evangelical advisers rarely condemn his mistruths and immoral policies, and in some cases defend them.
When news broke that Trump paid hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels, evangelist Franklin Graham said in a January 2018 CNN interview, it “happened 11, 12, 13, 14 years ago . . . that was before he was in office.” But Trump signed the hush money checks and lied about it while in office, the interviewer pointed out. Graham continued to defend Trump, however, noting that Trump denied the payoff. “I think God put him there. . . . And I think the president has changed quite a bit in the last 11 years . . . and I think there’s a maturing of the president,” Graham added . Less than four months later, when evidence of the payoff became public, Trump admitted he had paid Daniels. Even after Trump was caught in a lie, Graham continued to defend him, despite the fact that Trump had made Graham look foolish. In an interview the next day, Graham argued, “Stormy Daniels and so forth is nobody’s business.”
Dr. Richard Land, president of Southern Evangelical Seminary and executive editor of the Christian Post, where I used to work, condemned Trump’s policy of separating migrant children from their families, but wouldn’t criticize Trump by name for implementing the policy. In a June 20, 2018 op-ed, he pointed his finger at Congress and referenced the “government’s policy” but wouldn’t condemn the person responsible for the policy. His only mention of Trump was to say “I am delighted that President Trump has taken executive action to rectify this policy.” So much for speaking truth to power.
3. They would publicly defend God’s word.
Daniel could have quietly opposed the king’s edict in chapter 6. Instead, he prayed in front of a window “open toward Jerusalem” (verse 10), knowing that the punishment would be the lion’s den.
I’ve been told by insiders that Trump’s evangelical advisers challenge him privately. I’m sure Trump is fine with that, as long as they don’t do it publicly. There are only a few examples of his advisers publicly condemning his actions.
On the June 1 incident at Lafayette Square, Trump defiled the Bible by having protesters tear-gassed for a partisan photo op with God’s word. He claims to be a protector of Christianity, but a priest was forcibly removed from the church grounds ahead of his sacrilegious act.
This could have been a Daniel moment for Trump’s evangelical advisers, but most were quiet about it. Some actually praised it. Here’s the reaction of Johnnie Moore, founder of a PR firm that represents many evangelical leaders and one of the Trump evangelical advisory board’s main organizers:
I will never forget seeing @POTUS @realDonaldTrump slowly & in-total-command walk from the @WhiteHouse across Lafayette Square to St. John's Church defying those who aim to derail our national healing by spreading fear, hate & anarchy. After just saying, "I will keep you safe." https://t.co/sH8jLg5pnz — Rev. Johnnie Moore ن (@JohnnieM) June 1, 2020
Moore would have us believe that Trump, emerging from his bunker and walking across the street surrounded by police and military protection, is the one who demonstrated courage, rather than the people who were tear-gassed for peacefully protesting racism. (There were rioters among the protesters, but most were peaceful, video shows.)
Pastor Jack Graham claimed Trump “demonstrated solidarity with people of faith.” Trump’s evangelical advisers should have stood in solidarity with the protesters condemning racism, not our race-baiter-in-chief.
Proximity to political power has always presented a dangerous temptation for the church. A desire for prestige and worldly victories can easily supersede the Gospel’s call for selfless devotion to the spiritual and physical needs of others. Daniel shows us it can be done, but you must be willing to be thrown to the lions.


Trump’s Unreality Forcefield

During the Obama years , Republican politicians and conservative pundits obsessed over President Obama ’ s unwillingness to say three magic words : radical Islamic terrorism .
It was a phrase that launched a million think pieces and cable segments and hackneyed applause lines from presidential hopefuls .
As Donald Trump came to reveal , for many Republicans these magic words were little more than a stand-in for their desire to hear “ Brown People Bad.
” But in polite company a more sophisticated argument was proffered .
The logic was that a president can not defeat a foe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the president won ’ t say that our foe is radical Islam then he doesn ’ t really know who the foe is or what the scale of the threat is and thus will be unable to defeat it .
In the case of Obama and radical Islamic terrorism , that argument was largely hogwash .
Obama did know the foe but he had separate concerns—concerns that , given his successor , we now know many of us on the right should ’ ve taken much more seriously—about the demonization of Islam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The logic of the argument was sound , if inapt , and it very much applies to President Trump ’ s handling of COVID-19 , in ways that were on full display yesterday , in his tweets and in a long-awaited interview with Axios reporter Jonathan Swan that was released in full .
They all show that President Trump is fundamentally incapable of recognizing the true nature of what he calls the “ invisible enemy.
” His malignant narcissism means that he is consumed by the need for constant praise .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about whether Americans are dying , since it ’ s so much less important than whether people are nice to him on TV .
Then there ’ s the selective info he receives from his diet of Fox News propaganda , phone calls with random golfing buddies , and F-list aides who coddle him with happy talk and cherry-picked data .
On top of that is his tendency to put his finger in his ears and scream “ la la la la la ” when someone tries to break through his forcefield of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the propaganda shows he watches .
In two incidents yesterday this willful ignorance was on full display .
First was his shameful tweet calling Deborah Birx—an adviser who has gone out of her way to feed his need for happy talk— “ pathetic ” for simply stating the facts about how the virus has reached community spread in more rural parts of America .
Birx wanted to encourage more diligent adherence to social-distancing guidelines , thus protecting a population that is largely made up of the president ’ s supporters .
People @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have an interest in not dying .
Then in an absolutely devastating exchange with Jonathan Swan , Trump thinks he has his interlocutor nailed when he provides charts that his staff has prepared about the percentage of COVID-19 deaths relative to the number of cases in the United States .
On this largely worthless metric , the country appears to be doing well .
Swan presses Trump on the more relevant metric , the number of deaths per capita and Trump is completely confused .
He can ’ t even follow the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is an ignoramus who was either not prepped or simply refuses to acknowledge the troubling data provided to him .
Like a child , Trump lashes out at Swan— “ you can ’ t do that ” —when the reporter tries to break through his unreality forcefield .
Watch the whole thing—this exchange starts around 13:00 : This is willful ignorance in vivo .
And people are dying because of it .
Earlier in the interview Swan practically begs Trump to take responsibility for leading the fight against this virus and he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the exchange ( starting around 7:00 in the video above ) : “ It is what it is ” ?
!
Trump simply does not care about the casualties befalling our country at the hands of this “ invisible enemy ” because he doesn ’ t recognize the virus as the real enemy .
He sees Birx as the enemy for undermining the phony story he ’ s trying to perpetrate .
He sees Swan as the enemy for asking challenging questions .
This is a depraved , insane , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him and the country .
America ’ s actual foe is radical covid-nineteen .
It is a foe that ’ s terrorizing the country Trump leads , leaving mass death in its wake .
The president is unwilling to acknowledge its true scale .
And since he can ’ t recognize it , he can ’ t defeat it .

During the Obama years, Republican politicians and conservative pundits obsessed over President Obama’s unwillingness to say three magic words: radical Islamic terrorism. It was a phrase that launched a million think pieces and cable segments and hackneyed applause lines from presidential hopefuls.
As Donald Trump came to reveal, for many Republicans these magic words were little more than a stand-in for their desire to hear “Brown People Bad.” But in polite company a more sophisticated argument was proffered. The logic was that a president cannot defeat a foe that he is unable to recognize. And if the president won’t say that our foe is radical Islam then he doesn’t really know who the foe is or what the scale of the threat is and thus will be unable to defeat it.
In the case of Obama and radical Islamic terrorism, that argument was largely hogwash. Obama did know the foe but he had separate concerns—concerns that, given his successor, we now know many of us on the right should’ve taken much more seriously—about the demonization of Islam.
But here’s the thing: The logic of the argument was sound, if inapt, and it very much applies to President Trump’s handling of COVID-19, in ways that were on full display yesterday, in his tweets and in a long-awaited interview with Axios reporter Jonathan Swan that was released in full.
They all show that President Trump is fundamentally incapable of recognizing the true nature of what he calls the “invisible enemy.”
His malignant narcissism means that he is consumed by the need for constant praise. He is completely incapable of giving a shit about whether Americans are dying, since it’s so much less important than whether people are nice to him on TV.
Then there’s the selective info he receives from his diet of Fox News propaganda, phone calls with random golfing buddies, and F-list aides who coddle him with happy talk and cherry-picked data.
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…
On top of that is his tendency to put his finger in his ears and scream “la la la la la” when someone tries to break through his forcefield of bullshit by telling the truth on one of the propaganda shows he watches.
In two incidents yesterday this willful ignorance was on full display. First was his shameful tweet calling Deborah Birx—an adviser who has gone out of her way to feed his need for happy talk—“pathetic” for simply stating the facts about how the virus has reached community spread in more rural parts of America. Birx wanted to encourage more diligent adherence to social-distancing guidelines, thus protecting a population that is largely made up of the president’s supporters. People who, you would think, he would have an interest in not dying.
Then in an absolutely devastating exchange with Jonathan Swan, Trump thinks he has his interlocutor nailed when he provides charts that his staff has prepared about the percentage of COVID-19 deaths relative to the number of cases in the United States. On this largely worthless metric, the country appears to be doing well. Swan presses Trump on the more relevant metric, the number of deaths per capita and Trump is completely confused. He can’t even follow the premise of this very basic argument because he is an ignoramus who was either not prepped or simply refuses to acknowledge the troubling data provided to him.
Like a child, Trump lashes out at Swan—“you can’t do that”—when the reporter tries to break through his unreality forcefield.
Watch the whole thing—this exchange starts around 13:00:
This is willful ignorance in vivo. And people are dying because of it.
Earlier in the interview Swan practically begs Trump to take responsibility for leading the fight against this virus and he won’t do it. Here’s the exchange (starting around 7:00 in the video above):
SWAN: They don’t listen to me or the media or Fauci, they think we’re fake news. They want to get their advice from you. And so when they hear you say “everything’s under control, don’t worry about wearing masks,” I mean, these are people—many of them are older people, Mr. President—it’s giving them a false sense of security. [Crosstalk] TRUMP: I think it’s under control. SWAN: How? A thousand Americans are dying a day. TRUMP: They are dying that’s true. It is what it is. . . .
“It is what it is”?!
Trump simply does not care about the casualties befalling our country at the hands of this “invisible enemy” because he doesn’t recognize the virus as the real enemy. He sees Birx as the enemy for undermining the phony story he’s trying to perpetrate. He sees Swan as the enemy for asking challenging questions.
This is a depraved, insane, and illogical misreading of the threats that face him and the country. America’s actual foe is radical covid-nineteen. It is a foe that’s terrorizing the country Trump leads, leaving mass death in its wake.
The president is unwilling to acknowledge its true scale.
And since he can’t recognize it, he can’t defeat it.


thebulwark--2020-08-04--Caesar on the Hudson

Caesar on the Hudson

Did Andrew Cuomo and New York state really get the response to COVID-19 right ?
To judge from the almost universal acclaim in which the governor basks , he must have .
Cuomo had emerged “ America ’ s governor , ” according to U.S. News & World Report , with his “ take-charge attitude ” and “ comforting manner.
” His daily briefings , which the New York Times described as reliably “ articulate , consistent and often tinged with empathy , ” had become “ must-see television.
” “ Sometimes the crisis makes the leader , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profile of the governor read .
But while Cuomo may have handled the intangibles—his attitude and manner and empathy—it ’ s not clear his handling of the crisis deserves the praise it has received .
It ’ s easy to forget that Cuomo , like certain other politicians , downplayed the threat from the novel coronavirus in the early days .
“ We went through this before : Zika virus , Ebola , et cetera , ” he said on February 7 .
“ But let ’ s have some connection to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added , “ catching the flu right now is a much greater risk than anything that has anything to do with coronavirus.
” And once Cuomo moved to a war-time footing in April—as New York hospitals were being overwhelmed and makeshift triage centers were being erected in New York City parks—a Wall Street Journal investigation concluded that the disaster had actually been exacerbated by the governor ’ s guidance .
Public bickering and naked hostility between the governor and his nemesis in Gracie Mansion , New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to combat the virus , the Journal declared .
The governor was , for example , quick to contradict de Blasio who , on March 17 , recommended New York City residents “ shelter in place.
” Like so many of the mayor ’ s pronouncements , Cuomo quickly went about undermining it .
“ No city in the state can quarantine itself without state approval , ” the governor said .
“ I have no plan whatsoever to quarantine any city.
” By March 19 , with California in full lockdown , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite having more than five times the Golden State ’ s active caseload .
Cuomo reversed himself five days later , reluctantly shuttering his state .
The very public conflict between New York City ’ s mayor and its governor also contributed to a failure to coordinate hospital transfers—the result being that patients sick with COVID-19 were removed to environs that had not been previously contaminated .
Hospitals lacked sufficient isolation protocols .
“ State , city government , and hospital officials kept shifting guidelines about when exposed and ill front-line workers should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported .
Hospitals that relied on state stockpiles of ventilators—a device that turned out to have far less utility in treating the deadly disease than was initially thought—found that equipment to be “ faulty or inadequate.
” The public sector ’ s focus on ventilators resulted in a reduced supply of other critical medical equipment , such as vital signs monitors and dialysis machines .
A ProPublica investigation concluded in May that officials in Albany appeared to have exacerbated the conditions plaguing New York City in an almost deliberate fashion .
In February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department ceased routine information sharing with its city-based counterpart .
Basic data , such as ventilator counts or the number of available hospital and long-term care facility staff , was not on offer from the state .
One city official claimed that , in early May , they were abruptly and inexplicably informed by Albany that their assistance in identifying and responding to the devastating outbreaks in nursing homes within the five boroughs would no longer be needed .
Perhaps the biggest mistake was Gov .
Cuomo ’ s March 25 directive that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been sent to hospitals where the coronavirus was ranging as long as they had been deemed “ medically stable ” and the facility was properly equipped .
Those facilities that failed to follow this mandate risked excess regulatory scrutiny and the potential for lost revenue .
And , thus , senior-care facilities were overrun with COVID patients , transforming them into what Cuomo later called a “ feeding frenzy for this virus.
” More than 6,400 long-term care facility residents died from COVID-19 , with thousands more infected .
And the numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state only considers a nursing home death to be someone who perished inside a nursing home—and does not count residents who died off-site .
The State Department of Health later insisted that the carnage in New York ’ s nursing homes was less attributable to public policy than the over 37,000 nursing home workers who became infected and unwittingly transmitted the disease to their charges .
This explanation is unconvincing .
Sure , New York was not the only state to pursue this policy : New Jersey followed Albany ’ s example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nation in deaths per capita at nursing homes .
But other states which took a different approach avoided these grisly outcomes .
California , which briefly pursued a Cuomo-like policy , abandoned it early on and averted disaster .
Florida refused to allow nursing homes to intake residents who could have been exposed to the virus in hospitals , even at the risk of violating Medicare reimbursement policy .
And even today , despite having more active COVID cases than New York and a much larger elderly population in long-term care facilities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have succumbed to this virus is roughly 40 percent of New York ’ s total .
And if Cuomo ’ s directive on nursing homes wasn ’ t a problem , then why was it rescinded in April ?
The nursing homes were just the most glaring example of New York state rushing to shut the barn door after the stables were empty .
On April 13 , a working paper published by an economist with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology strongly indicated what many had suspected : that New York City @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ major disseminator ” of the virus .
Indeed , the outbreak in New York City was so bad that , by early March , it was responsible for seeding much of the rest of the country with the coronavirus .
By April 22 , with 83 Metro Transit Association workers dead from the disease , the city blamed “ the CDC and the World Health Organization ” for their predicament , while insisting that the subways could and must remain open .
On April 30 , Cuomo made a conspicuous trip to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and announce a “ historic move ” to cease the transit service ’ s 24-hour operation schedule so that cars could be cleaned and disinfected .
To some extent , Cuomo—and every other administrator and elected official in the country—is due some understanding .
Particularly in its earliest stages , public officials were operating blindly in an environment that was confused only when it was not total chaos .
Officials around the country experimented with policies tailored to their state ’ s relative exposure and the policies they adopted varied as wildly as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incumbent on us to forgive some of the excesses to which politicians were prone , especially in the early days of the outbreak—and particularly if they were pursued out of an abundance of caution .
Even today , six months in , public officials are still improvising their way through the kind of crisis we have not seen in a century .
But that slack ought to be returned with some humility on the part of the politicians who , though erring on the side of caution , erred , nonetheless .
Andrew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While the economic hardships associated with New York ’ s lockdown mounted , the psychological toll on self-isolated New Yorkers threatened to bring about a new crisis—one marked by “ deaths of despair ” resulting from suicide or substance abuse .
Cuomo angrily dismissed the prospect .
“ The cure can ’ t be worse than the illness itself , ” one reporter said , summarizing the case .
“ The illness is death .
What is worse than death ?
” Cuomo asked .
Pressed to respond to the observed uptick in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the illness may be my death , as opposed to your death.
” For those who were desperate to get back to work , the governor had one flippant response : “ You want to go to work ?
Go take a job as an essential worker.
” At the height of the outbreak in New York , states up and down the eastern seaboard quickly began to look upon New Yorkers as radioactive .
Rhode Island ’ s Governor Gina Raimondo adopted a measure that would have allowed local law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York license plates , and even to go house-to-house hunting for anyone who might confess to having been to New York , all so as to make sure they are self-quarantining .
“ I think what they did is wrong .
It was reactionary .
I think it was illegal , ” said Cuomo , who threatened to sue Rhode Island to have the policy reversed .
The ACLU seemed to agree with the governor , arguing that Raimondo ’ s order represented a violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But his objection to this kind of prosecutorial executive overreach proved entirely situational .
By mid-summer , with states around the Sunbelt reporting an uptick in cases while New York ’ s active caseload declined , Cuomo adopted a variation of the same policy he had attacked when it was directed at his state ’ s residents : The governor mandated that travelers coming to New York from states experiencing a surge of COVID infections , such as Florida , would be required to quarantine themselves for 14 days or face a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York continued to improve following a nightmarish spring , Cuomo took a victory lap .
During a late June press briefing , he produced a visual aid to illustrate the breadth of the Empire State ’ s success in handling the pandemic : a giant foam mountain illustrating the rates of COVID-related deaths in the state .
Cuomo had repeatedly likened to his state ’ s battle with coronavirus to climbing a mountain , and here it was—a to-scale model of a steep spike and gradual , sustained decline .
The only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a sense of propriety—was that the mountain Cuomo produced was composed of dead bodies .
At the risk of sounding overly stern : When more than 32,000 of your fellow citizens have died over the course of a single season , you have not won any sort of “ victory.
” All you have done is come out the other side of a devastating tragedy .
Instead of boasting , you ought to be figuring out what you could have done better so that you can do better in case—God forbid—there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep spiking the football .
Two weeks later , the governor ’ s office produced a second mountain—this time in the form of an artful poster depicting New York ’ s experience with the coronavirus as though it was an epic poem with the governor playing the role of Odysseus .
The mountain of dead was back .
It was accompanied by a calendar marking out key events in the “ 111 days of hell ” through which New Yorkers slogged .
It featured demons blowing the “ winds of fear , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ —whatever that is—planeloads of COVID-bearing Europeans the governor routinely blames for seeding his state , President Donald Trump sitting on the edge of a crescent moon downplaying the virus as “ just the flu , ” and even a self-referential nod to his own extemporaneous diatribes about his daughter ’ s vexing love life deemed “ the boyfriend cliff.
” This was not , the governor insisted , a side project he had outsourced to a graphics design team .
It was an undertaking he took personal interest in developing .
You did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have found the entire exercise deeply inappropriate .
“ I mean this with 0 % snark : how is this not wildly offensive , ” asked Brooklyn-based Democratic state Sen. Zellnor Myrie .
“ This is an artful monument to death and tragedy being sold by the state .
I ’ m legit perplexed.
” The second-ranking Democrat in the state Senate , Mike Gianairis , was equally nonplussed : “ Are all the people about to be evicted not represented because they ’ re drowned under the Sea of Division ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his Democratic predecessors .
Former Gov .
David Paterson noted , as gently as he could , that it was the governor ’ s own guidance that contributed to his state ’ s devastating death toll : “ I think some of the people sent back to the nursing homes with the virus—and nursing homes weren ’ t equipped to quarantine them from everyone else—and I think it had some difficult consequences , ” Paterson said .
“ He seemed to be blaming the nursing homes—but he gave the order.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point of absurdity by late July when , despite minimal rates of infections in his state , he suddenly mandated that bars—which were only recently allowed to reopen as part of the state ’ s long-planned phased recapitulation schedule—were suddenly told that they had to become restaurants if they wanted to operate .
What possible rationale could there be for this dictum ?
If the bars were a danger to public health , then having those establishments start serving food , in addition to alcohol , would provide no remedy .
And so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theater , with bars offering $ 1 menus with paltry fare , many of which featured derisive and mocking comments about the governor .
At which point Cuomo went back again , this time insisting that the bars must offer what he determined was a “ substantive ” meal along with alcohol .
That could include sandwiches , “ the lowest level of substantive food , ” in the governor ’ s estimation .
There is no way to read this absurd episode except as the governor playing politics with public health .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Governor Cuomo made mistakes—he did .
Or whether he is over-invested in his ego—he is .
No , the question is whether it was all worth it .
Did 32,000 New Yorkers die as an unavoidable result of a national calamity , or were at least some of these deaths preventable ?
The short answer is that we do not know .
Why was New York so badly hit when , for example , most of the West Coast—which experienced its first infections at around the same time—has had far fewer deaths ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is because the strain of the virus to which New Yorkers were exposed was deadlier and more virulent than the strain emigrating from Asia .
Or maybe it ’ s because we now have a better understanding of how to treat the disease .
We certainly do know now , thanks to some lamentable experimentation in New York , that it ’ s unwise to compel institutions dedicated to treating high-risk individuals to warehouse likely COVID-cases .
Otherwise , though , we do not know why New York was hit as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followed your goddamn models , ” one exasperated official close to Cuomo told ProPublica in May .
“ All the models were wrong.
” That is , to a substantial extent , true .
New York and its governor were no doubt victims of unforeseen circumstances .
But it does no one any favors to paper over the actions Governor Cuomo took that proved counterproductive and , at times , deadly .
For partisans on the left , the cult of personality that sprang up around Cuomo was a necessary contrivance—his response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump ’ s , even if the governor did not deserve the adulation he ’ d received .
But it was always a fabrication , and New Yorkers deserve a thorough reckoning with what they endured as a result of both uncontrollable environmental circumstances and misguided public policy .

Did Andrew Cuomo and New York state really get the response to COVID-19 right?
To judge from the almost universal acclaim in which the governor basks, he must have.
Cuomo had emerged “America’s governor,” according to U.S. News & World Report, with his “take-charge attitude” and “comforting manner.” His daily briefings, which the New York Times described as reliably “articulate, consistent and often tinged with empathy,” had become “must-see television.” “Sometimes the crisis makes the leader,” the Wall Street Journal‘s glowing April profile of the governor read.
But while Cuomo may have handled the intangibles—his attitude and manner and empathy—it’s not clear his handling of the crisis deserves the praise it has received.
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…
It’s easy to forget that Cuomo, like certain other politicians, downplayed the threat from the novel coronavirus in the early days. “We went through this before: Zika virus, Ebola, et cetera,” he said on February 7. “But let’s have some connection to the reality of the situation,” he added, “catching the flu right now is a much greater risk than anything that has anything to do with coronavirus.”
And once Cuomo moved to a war-time footing in April—as New York hospitals were being overwhelmed and makeshift triage centers were being erected in New York City parks—a Wall Street Journal investigation concluded that the disaster had actually been exacerbated by the governor’s guidance.
Public bickering and naked hostility between the governor and his nemesis in Gracie Mansion, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, “contributed to an uncoordinated effort” to combat the virus, the Journal declared. The governor was, for example, quick to contradict de Blasio who, on March 17, recommended New York City residents “shelter in place.” Like so many of the mayor’s pronouncements, Cuomo quickly went about undermining it. “No city in the state can quarantine itself without state approval,” the governor said. “I have no plan whatsoever to quarantine any city.” By March 19, with California in full lockdown, New York continued to resist that option despite having more than five times the Golden State’s active caseload.
Cuomo reversed himself five days later, reluctantly shuttering his state.
The very public conflict between New York City’s mayor and its governor also contributed to a failure to coordinate hospital transfers—the result being that patients sick with COVID-19 were removed to environs that had not been previously contaminated.
Hospitals lacked sufficient isolation protocols. “State, city government, and hospital officials kept shifting guidelines about when exposed and ill front-line workers should return to work,” the Journal reported. Hospitals that relied on state stockpiles of ventilators—a device that turned out to have far less utility in treating the deadly disease than was initially thought—found that equipment to be “faulty or inadequate.” The public sector’s focus on ventilators resulted in a reduced supply of other critical medical equipment, such as vital signs monitors and dialysis machines.
A ProPublica investigation concluded in May that officials in Albany appeared to have exacerbated the conditions plaguing New York City in an almost deliberate fashion. In February, ProPublica revealed, the state Health Department ceased routine information sharing with its city-based counterpart. Basic data, such as ventilator counts or the number of available hospital and long-term care facility staff, was not on offer from the state. One city official claimed that, in early May, they were abruptly and inexplicably informed by Albany that their assistance in identifying and responding to the devastating outbreaks in nursing homes within the five boroughs would no longer be needed.
Perhaps the biggest mistake was Gov. Cuomo’s March 25 directive that forced nursing homes to readmit residents who had been sent to hospitals where the coronavirus was ranging as long as they had been deemed “medically stable” and the facility was properly equipped.
Those facilities that failed to follow this mandate risked excess regulatory scrutiny and the potential for lost revenue. And, thus, senior-care facilities were overrun with COVID patients, transforming them into what Cuomo later called a “feeding frenzy for this virus.”
More than 6,400 long-term care facility residents died from COVID-19, with thousands more infected. And the numbers might be worse than that, since the state only considers a nursing home death to be someone who perished inside a nursing home—and does not count residents who died off-site.
The State Department of Health later insisted that the carnage in New York’s nursing homes was less attributable to public policy than the over 37,000 nursing home workers who became infected and unwittingly transmitted the disease to their charges.
This explanation is unconvincing. Sure, New York was not the only state to pursue this policy: New Jersey followed Albany’s example, and the Garden State currently leads the nation in deaths per capita at nursing homes. But other states which took a different approach avoided these grisly outcomes.
California, which briefly pursued a Cuomo-like policy, abandoned it early on and averted disaster. Florida refused to allow nursing homes to intake residents who could have been exposed to the virus in hospitals, even at the risk of violating Medicare reimbursement policy. And even today, despite having more active COVID cases than New York and a much larger elderly population in long-term care facilities, the number of staff or residents who have succumbed to this virus is roughly 40 percent of New York’s total.
And if Cuomo’s directive on nursing homes wasn’t a problem, then why was it rescinded in April?
The nursing homes were just the most glaring example of New York state rushing to shut the barn door after the stables were empty.
On April 13, a working paper published by an economist with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology strongly indicated what many had suspected: that New York City’s subways were and remained a “major disseminator” of the virus.
Indeed, the outbreak in New York City was so bad that, by early March, it was responsible for seeding much of the rest of the country with the coronavirus. By April 22, with 83 Metro Transit Association workers dead from the disease, the city blamed “the CDC and the World Health Organization” for their predicament, while insisting that the subways could and must remain open.
This denial didn’t last.
On April 30, Cuomo made a conspicuous trip to New York City to tour the subways and announce a “historic move” to cease the transit service’s 24-hour operation schedule so that cars could be cleaned and disinfected.
Again: too late.
To some extent, Cuomo—and every other administrator and elected official in the country—is due some understanding. Particularly in its earliest stages, public officials were operating blindly in an environment that was confused only when it was not total chaos. Officials around the country experimented with policies tailored to their state’s relative exposure and the policies they adopted varied as wildly as did rates of infection.
It is incumbent on us to forgive some of the excesses to which politicians were prone, especially in the early days of the outbreak—and particularly if they were pursued out of an abundance of caution. Even today, six months in, public officials are still improvising their way through the kind of crisis we have not seen in a century.
But that slack ought to be returned with some humility on the part of the politicians who, though erring on the side of caution, erred, nonetheless.
Andrew Cuomo has exhibited very little humility.
While the economic hardships associated with New York’s lockdown mounted, the psychological toll on self-isolated New Yorkers threatened to bring about a new crisis—one marked by “deaths of despair” resulting from suicide or substance abuse. Cuomo angrily dismissed the prospect.
“The cure can’t be worse than the illness itself,” one reporter said, summarizing the case. “The illness is death. What is worse than death?” Cuomo asked. Pressed to respond to the observed uptick in suicides, Cuomo replied, “yeah, but the illness may be my death, as opposed to your death.”
For those who were desperate to get back to work, the governor had one flippant response: “You want to go to work? Go take a job as an essential worker.”
At the height of the outbreak in New York, states up and down the eastern seaboard quickly began to look upon New Yorkers as radioactive. Rhode Island’s Governor Gina Raimondo adopted a measure that would have allowed local law enforcement to stop and question motorists with New York license plates, and even to go house-to-house hunting for anyone who might confess to having been to New York, all so as to make sure they are self-quarantining. “I think what they did is wrong. It was reactionary. I think it was illegal,” said Cuomo, who threatened to sue Rhode Island to have the policy reversed. The ACLU seemed to agree with the governor, arguing that Raimondo’s order represented a violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure.
Cuomo was probably right. But his objection to this kind of prosecutorial executive overreach proved entirely situational. By mid-summer, with states around the Sunbelt reporting an uptick in cases while New York’s active caseload declined, Cuomo adopted a variation of the same policy he had attacked when it was directed at his state’s residents: The governor mandated that travelers coming to New York from states experiencing a surge of COVID infections, such as Florida, would be required to quarantine themselves for 14 days or face a $10,000 fine.
As conditions in New York continued to improve following a nightmarish spring, Cuomo took a victory lap. During a late June press briefing, he produced a visual aid to illustrate the breadth of the Empire State’s success in handling the pandemic: a giant foam mountain illustrating the rates of COVID-related deaths in the state.
Cuomo had repeatedly likened to his state’s battle with coronavirus to climbing a mountain, and here it was—a to-scale model of a steep spike and gradual, sustained decline. The only problem—one that would have occurred to anyone with a sense of propriety—was that the mountain Cuomo produced was composed of dead bodies.
At the risk of sounding overly stern: When more than 32,000 of your fellow citizens have died over the course of a single season, you have not won any sort of “victory.” All you have done is come out the other side of a devastating tragedy. Instead of boasting, you ought to be figuring out what you could have done better so that you can do better in case—God forbid—there is a next time.
But Cuomo wanted to keep spiking the football. Two weeks later, the governor’s office produced a second mountain—this time in the form of an artful poster depicting New York’s experience with the coronavirus as though it was an epic poem with the governor playing the role of Odysseus.
The mountain of dead was back. It was accompanied by a calendar marking out key events in the “111 days of hell” through which New Yorkers slogged. It featured demons blowing the “winds of fear,” the “sea of division”—whatever that is—planeloads of COVID-bearing Europeans the governor routinely blames for seeding his state, President Donald Trump sitting on the edge of a crescent moon downplaying the virus as “just the flu,” and even a self-referential nod to his own extemporaneous diatribes about his daughter’s vexing love life deemed “the boyfriend cliff.”
This was not, the governor insisted, a side project he had outsourced to a graphics design team. It was an undertaking he took personal interest in developing.
You did not have to be an anti-Cuomite to have found the entire exercise deeply inappropriate. “I mean this with 0% snark: how is this not wildly offensive,” asked Brooklyn-based Democratic state Sen. Zellnor Myrie. “This is an artful monument to death and tragedy being sold by the state. I’m legit perplexed.” The second-ranking Democrat in the state Senate, Mike Gianairis, was equally nonplussed: “Are all the people about to be evicted not represented because they’re drowned under the Sea of Division?”
Cuomo’s stubbornness rankled even one of his Democratic predecessors.
Former Gov. David Paterson noted, as gently as he could, that it was the governor’s own guidance that contributed to his state’s devastating death toll: “I think some of the people sent back to the nursing homes with the virus—and nursing homes weren’t equipped to quarantine them from everyone else—and I think it had some difficult consequences,” Paterson said. “He seemed to be blaming the nursing homes—but he gave the order.”
The governor’s imperious tendencies reached the point of absurdity by late July when, despite minimal rates of infections in his state, he suddenly mandated that bars—which were only recently allowed to reopen as part of the state’s long-planned phased recapitulation schedule—had to become restaurants if they wanted to operate.
What possible rationale could there be for this dictum? If the bars were a danger to public health, then having those establishments start serving food, in addition to alcohol, would provide no remedy. And so New Yorkers were treated to health security theater, with bars offering $1 menus with paltry fare, many of which featured derisive and mocking comments about the governor.
At which point Cuomo went back again, this time insisting that the bars must offer what he determined was a “substantive” meal along with alcohol. That could include sandwiches, “the lowest level of substantive food,” in the governor’s estimation.
But not chicken wings.
There is no way to read this absurd episode except as the governor playing politics with public health.
The only remaining question is not whether Governor Cuomo made mistakes—he did. Or whether he is over-invested in his ego—he is. No, the question is whether it was all worth it. Did 32,000 New Yorkers die as an unavoidable result of a national calamity, or were at least some of these deaths preventable?
The short answer is that we do not know.
Why was New York so badly hit when, for example, most of the West Coast—which experienced its first infections at around the same time—has had far fewer deaths?
Perhaps, as Gov. Cuomo suggests, it is because the strain of the virus to which New Yorkers were exposed was deadlier and more virulent than the strain emigrating from Asia.
Or maybe it’s because we now have a better understanding of how to treat the disease. We certainly do know now, thanks to some lamentable experimentation in New York, that it’s unwise to compel institutions dedicated to treating high-risk individuals to warehouse likely COVID-cases. Otherwise, though, we do not know why New York was hit as hard as it was.
“We followed your goddamn models,” one exasperated official close to Cuomo told ProPublica in May. “All the models were wrong.”
That is, to a substantial extent, true.
New York and its governor were no doubt victims of unforeseen circumstances. But it does no one any favors to paper over the actions Governor Cuomo took that proved counterproductive and, at times, deadly.
For partisans on the left, the cult of personality that sprang up around Cuomo was a necessary contrivance—his response to the pandemic had to contrast favorably with Donald Trump’s, even if the governor did not deserve the adulation he’d received.
But it was always a fabrication, and New Yorkers deserve a thorough reckoning with what they endured as a result of both uncontrollable environmental circumstances and misguided public policy.