thebulwark--2020-10-16--The Conservative Push for a Social Media “Fairness Doctrine” is Pure Fantasy

Perhaps the most jarring aspect of the Amy Coney Barrett Senate confirmation hearings was the contrast between Judge Barrett and the man who nominated her to the Supreme Court .
Yet after a few days of Trump acolytes praising Barrett for her originalist understanding of the Constitution , they immediately took a contradictory tone as soon as the news cycle presented them with the opportunity to own the libs—crafting a phantom version of the First Amendment in which government has the power to regulate speech on social media platforms if Republicans disagree with a private corporation ’ s decision to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday , Senator Josh Hawley sent a letter to the Federal Election Commission ( FEC ) asking whether Twitter and Facebook had committed “ egregious campaign-finance violations benefitting the Biden campaign ” after they both blocked users from sharing a New York Post story of dubious plausibility .
In any sane non-election world , the FEC ’ s response would be three words long : “ No .
Seriously .
No.
” But we are in the feverish last three weeks of a presidential election , so Team Red Hat is suddenly trotting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ punish private companies both for what they choose to publish—or , in this case , what they choose not to publish—on their platforms .
Hawley ’ s decision was immediately cheered by Trump sycophants like Rep. Matt Gaetz ( R-Florida ) , who claimed Twitter is “ engaged in domestic election interference.
” Former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said that Twitter ’ s and Facebook ’ s decisions to ban the New York Post link were “ much like Communist China , ” ironically using Twitter to call Twitter Communists .
Gaetz ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Downright Stalinesque , right ?
The Post story in question purported to show former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s son , Hunter , had set up a meeting between then-VP Biden and officials from Burisma , a Ukrainian energy firm that employed Hunter Biden .
The story was based on emails of suspicious provenance .
Twitter and Facebook blocked links to it , suggesting it might be derived from “ hacked ” material .
As New York magazine ’ s Jonathan Chait put it , while Rudy Giuliani , who brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not previously demonstrated any deep network of contacts in the Delaware computer-repair world , he has a long-standing string of contacts in the Russian intelligence world.
” Let there be no doubt that what Twitter and Facebook did was immensely stupid , giving Republicans a talking point for days , if not weeks , leading up to the election and shining an even bigger spotlight on the dubious report .
Hunter Biden ’ s actions are virtually irrelevant to the current election ; had the companies simply allowed the story to run its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But now the social media platforms are the ones on trial in “ the discourse.
” And that trial is revealing how thoroughly Trump has corrupted the traditional conservative brain .
For years , conservatives cheered the Citizens United Supreme Court case that held that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals .
But since the 2010 decision , liberals have wailed that “ corporations aren ’ t people , ” complaining that big businesses shouldn ’ t be able to exercise their speech rights to affect campaigns .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ formulation has flipped completely .
Hawley and other government-forward Republicans have urged more regulation of corporations like Twitter and Facebook , alleging bias among their content gatekeepers ( of which there is ample evidence ) .
Hawley and his ilk have taken aim at Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , which essentially provides immunity for platforms that allow users to post content .
These platforms are allowed to bar “ obscene , lewd , lascivious , filthy , excessively violent , harassing , or otherwise objectionable “ content , even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ act , however , does not require platforms to be “ unbiased.
” They are still corporations that can decide what to allow on their site and when .
But not according to the new nationalist-oriented conservatives , who want the government to be able to instill a “ fairness doctrine ” for privately owned corporations—or at least open up social media platforms to lawsuits for the things users post on their services .
This would effectively mean the end of social media—no firm would open itself up to lawsuits based on intemperate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ users , which may include a deranged U.S. president .
For instance , members of SEAL Team Six might be inclined to sue Twitter any time Donald Trump retweets an insane conspiracy theory suggesting Barack Obama and Joe Biden ordered their assassination because they mistakenly killed Osama bin Laden ’ s body double .
Late on Thursday , Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai said the FCC would be taking actions to “ clarify ” Section 230 in advance of the election .
FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel immediately criticized the decision , saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the President ’ s speech police.
” The idea that law enforcement can—or should—tell publishers or platforms ( some of which are both ) what they can or can ’ t publish in the months leading up to a campaign is a lefty fantasy that has migrated to the right now that the Republicans ’ ox is being gored .
The ramifications would be horrifying—virtually every decision made by a newspaper or cable news station regarding what to print or say would be subject to a review to determine whether it “ helps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , these newly defined conservatives are evidently unable to see any further than the length of their own noses .
They are suggesting granting the executive branch a whole host of new powers just before an election in which it looks like the White House might be changing parties .
They appear unaware that the censorship powers they now want may soon be in the hands of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris .
This may come as a shock to Republican senators , but a freshly empowered Biden/Harris FCC will not likely make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the largest font of liberal tears .
In short , the idea that the FCC ( or for that matter the FEC or FTC ) should micromanage political speech leading up to an election is pure constitutional fantasy , driven by emotion and not law .
And if Republicans want verification on this , they could have just asked the woman sitting in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on whom they have spent the week appropriately lavishing praise .

Perhaps the most jarring aspect of the Amy Coney Barrett Senate confirmation hearings was the contrast between Judge Barrett and the man who nominated her to the Supreme Court.
Yet after a few days of Trump acolytes praising Barrett for her originalist understanding of the Constitution, they immediately took a contradictory tone as soon as the news cycle presented them with the opportunity to own the libs—crafting a phantom version of the First Amendment in which government has the power to regulate speech on social media platforms if Republicans disagree with a private corporation’s decision to ban content harmful to Democrats.
On Wednesday, Senator Josh Hawley sent a letter to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) asking whether Twitter and Facebook had committed “egregious campaign-finance violations benefitting the Biden campaign” after they both blocked users from sharing a New York Post story of dubious plausibility.
In any sane non-election world, the FEC’s response would be three words long: “No. Seriously. No.”
But we are in the feverish last three weeks of a presidential election, so Team Red Hat is suddenly trotting out the idea that federal regulators should punish private companies both for what they choose to publish—or, in this case, what they choose not to publish—on their platforms.
Hawley’s decision was immediately cheered by Trump sycophants like Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Florida), who claimed Twitter is “engaged in domestic election interference.” Former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said that Twitter’s and Facebook’s decisions to ban the New York Post link were “much like Communist China,” ironically using Twitter to call Twitter Communists.
Gaetz’s tweet now has over 100,000 likes. Downright Stalinesque, right?
The Post story in question purported to show former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, had set up a meeting between then-VP Biden and officials from Burisma, a Ukrainian energy firm that employed Hunter Biden. The story was based on emails of suspicious provenance. Twitter and Facebook blocked links to it, suggesting it might be derived from “hacked” material. As New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait put it, while Rudy Giuliani, who brought these emails to light, “has not previously demonstrated any deep network of contacts in the Delaware computer-repair world, he has a long-standing string of contacts in the Russian intelligence world.”
Let there be no doubt that what Twitter and Facebook did was immensely stupid, giving Republicans a talking point for days, if not weeks, leading up to the election and shining an even bigger spotlight on the dubious report. Hunter Biden’s actions are virtually irrelevant to the current election; had the companies simply allowed the story to run its course, it would have died out.
But now the social media platforms are the ones on trial in “the discourse.” And that trial is revealing how thoroughly Trump has corrupted the traditional conservative brain.
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…
For years, conservatives cheered the Citizens United Supreme Court case that held that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals. But since the 2010 decision, liberals have wailed that “corporations aren’t people,” complaining that big businesses shouldn’t be able to exercise their speech rights to affect campaigns.
But since Trump has taken over, that formulation has flipped completely. Hawley and other government-forward Republicans have urged more regulation of corporations like Twitter and Facebook, alleging bias among their content gatekeepers (of which there is ample evidence).
Hawley and his ilk have taken aim at Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which essentially provides immunity for platforms that allow users to post content. These platforms are allowed to bar “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable“ content, even if it is otherwise constitutionally protected.
The act, however, does not require platforms to be “unbiased.” They are still corporations that can decide what to allow on their site and when.
But not according to the new nationalist-oriented conservatives, who want the government to be able to instill a “fairness doctrine” for privately owned corporations—or at least open up social media platforms to lawsuits for the things users post on their services.
This would effectively mean the end of social media—no firm would open itself up to lawsuits based on intemperate comments made by their platform’s users, which may include a deranged U.S. president.
For instance, members of SEAL Team Six might be inclined to sue Twitter any time Donald Trump retweets an insane conspiracy theory suggesting Barack Obama and Joe Biden ordered their assassination because they mistakenly killed Osama bin Laden’s body double.
Late on Thursday, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai said the FCC would be taking actions to “clarify” Section 230 in advance of the election. FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel immediately criticized the decision, saying “The FCC has no business being the President’s speech police.”
The idea that law enforcement can—or should—tell publishers or platforms (some of which are both) what they can or can’t publish in the months leading up to a campaign is a lefty fantasy that has migrated to the right now that the Republicans’ ox is being gored. The ramifications would be horrifying—virtually every decision made by a newspaper or cable news station regarding what to print or say would be subject to a review to determine whether it “helps” a campaign or not.
Further, these newly defined conservatives are evidently unable to see any further than the length of their own noses. They are suggesting granting the executive branch a whole host of new powers just before an election in which it looks like the White House might be changing parties. They appear unaware that the censorship powers they now want may soon be in the hands of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
This may come as a shock to Republican senators, but a freshly empowered Biden/Harris FCC will not likely make content moderation determinations premised on what produces the largest font of liberal tears.
In short, the idea that the FCC (or for that matter the FEC or FTC) should micromanage political speech leading up to an election is pure constitutional fantasy, driven by emotion and not law.
And if Republicans want verification on this, they could have just asked the woman sitting in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on whom they have spent the week appropriately lavishing praise.


thebulwark--2020-10-16--Biden Must Stiff-Arm the Court-Packers

Biden Must Stiff-Arm the Court-Packers

Ever since his resurrection in South Carolina , Joe Biden and his campaign have done almost everything right .
Unerringly , he struck a balance between his party ’ s contending forces , making important but measured concessions to consolidate liberal support .
With two-plus weeks to go , he is hitting the swing states and speaking to the voters he most needs : persuadable blue-collar workers ; senior citizens of all races ; and suburbanites ready to be weaned from Trump ’ s GOP .
He is avoiding hot-button issues while focusing on issues that affect the daily lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaigning as a unifier in a country weary of anger and division .
By all available evidence , he is headed for victory .
By contrast , Trump ’ s campaign has become a rolling fiasco , demonstrating that underappreciated political maxim : When you ’ re a one-trick politician with a personality disorder , your luck runs out .
He screwed up one debate , backed out of the next , blew up stimulus negotiations , contracted COVID-19 , turned the White House into a coronavirus hotspot , and commenced a national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wonder that there is record early voting in Democratic areas : Trump is , indeed , a turnout machine .
Biden has a roughly 10 percent lead in national polls .
The latest surveys have him leading in the six universally acknowledged battleground states : Michigan , Wisconsin , Pennsylvania , Florida , North Carolina , and Arizona .
New polls show him weaning white and independent voters away from Trump , and leading among those who voted third-party 2016 .
A majority of Americans blame Trump for contracting COVID : by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has placed himself beyond empathy .
Now , however , the imminent confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court justice presents Biden with a distinctly unwelcome challenge—a pincer movement between Trump and the Democratic party ’ s more febrile progressives .
Some on the left , faced with the grim prospect of winning sans Bernie , have hit on their last chance of losing : urging Biden to embrace a decidedly unpopular and culturally inflammatory proposal to expand the Supreme Court .
Just ask key Sanders advisor Nina Turner who—having helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the far-less-beloved Hillary Clinton—seems to have learned absolutely nothing .
“ The majority of Berniecrats will most likely vote for Vice President Joe Biden , ” she graciously allowed .
“ That doesn ’ t mean that they are not going to raise hell all the way.
” What would make her happy ?
Only this : “ Biden should make it clear that he will fight back by expanding the court if he wins.
” Similarly , movement progressive Adam Green says that one way Biden “ can quickly unify Democrats ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court if Republicans do an end run around democracy ” through confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett .
But isn ’ t the party already united ?
Before we inaugurate Biden , don ’ t we need to elect him ?
Doesn ’ t that include propitiating swing voters unmoved by ideological passions ?
Lamentably , such earthbound considerations seem never to penetrate the ethereal self-absorption of the most monomaniacal progressives .
Now they are outraged because Barrett will give right-wing Republicans a 6-3 hammerlock on the Supreme Court-and because , quite predictably , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exploiting the equally unsurprising death of a justice they revered above all others .
So it bears mentioning that we have reached this point because Justice Ginsburg overstayed her long-failing health—urged on by progressive idolaters willfully oblivious to actuarial and political reality , yet who now demand that Biden jeopardize his campaign to redeem their seemingly infinite myopia .
Here Slate writers Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern serve as a melancholy example .
Far from chastened , they insist that Biden hasten to commit electoral suicide : More aptly , they should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lose.
” But , quite expressly , Lithwick and Stern don ’ t care about November : “ The court is already lost for a generation .
Retaking the White House and the Senate in November will do nothing to solve that problem .
Bold and big action on court reform on Day One of a new administration isn ’ t a fanciful hope .
It may be the only lifeline that remains.
” One could write a book on what is wrong with that paragraph .
But let ’ s start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House and the Senate , how do Lithwick and Stern propose to jam court packing past Trump and McConnell ?
Such details matter .
Back in 2014—when Barack Obama could have replaced Ginsburg with a liberal justice like his appointees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—Lithwick wrote a piece with the exceedingly unfortunate title : “ Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is Irreplaceable.
” Just as winning in November doesn ’ t matter to her now , the potential that the Court would be “ lost for a generation ” should a conservative replace Ginsburg didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that counted was that Ginsburg not retire .
To that end , Lithwick favorably quoted a piece that argued : “ Does anyone really think the justice [ Ginsburg ] has yet to think through her decision ?
Isn ’ t the doomsday scenario of a 6- or 7-justice conservative bloc screamingly obvious to her ?
Should any of us really counsel Justice Ginsburg on her major life decisions ?
” Only if one cares , as Lithwick then did not , about the millions of Americans affected by the composition of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s death could shift its ideological balance to the right , Lithwick wrote in 2014 : “ That analysis suffers from exactly the same realpolitik flaw Ginsburg ’ s critics ascribe to her : that counting to four , or five , is more important than the justice itself.
” Yet in 2020 , presented with Ginsburg ’ s death , Lithwick ( joined by Stern ) urges Biden to commit political malpractice—because she has at last discovered what eluded her in 2014 : “ A 6-3 conservative majority .
.
.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions in danger.
” Here Lithwick and Stern descend from the willfully obtuse to the inexcusably irrational : But doesn ’ t the “ longer term ” depend on who first captures the presidency in “ this political moment ” ?
Not to Lithwick and Stern : Indeed .
Yet it never dawns on Lithwick and Stern that the indispensable prerequisite to expanding the court is not only winning the White House , but securing a solid majority of senators potentially amenable to expanding the Court—which , first of all , requires unseating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But where Lithwick and Stern ignore this reality , erstwhile Sanders advisor David Sirota simply repeals it : Given how easy he finds this to say , Sirota and his coauthors are mystified that practicing politicians are not quite so blasé : Maybe that ’ s because these candidates actually live in those places , and know what their voters think .
South Carolina is an actual state , not a liberal lotusland in Sirota ’ s state of mind .
To govern , Biden must not only win , but refrain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an issue that diminishes their chances .
Of course , the justices have yet to do those “ wildly unpopular things ” , rendering Sirota ’ s arguments premature .
Nonetheless , he heaps scorn on the candidates who reject his visionary imperatives : Perhaps these “ politically stupid ” Democrats are hung up on popular opinion .
So we should review recent polls on the subject , and return Sirota to his vital work in the Sanders administration .
In the wake of Ginsburg ’ s death , a Washington Post/ABC News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respondents support expanding the Court .
Similarly , a Washington Examiner/YouGov survey earlier this month showed a 47 to 34 percent margin among registered voters against adding new justices .
Equally instructive is a June 2019 survey by the polling firm PSB , taken to gauge relative support for proposals to reform the Supreme Court : 40 percent of the respondents preferred setting a term limit of 18 years for justices ; only 15 percent favored adding new members .
At the very least , this suggests that Biden should not precipitously catapult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his campaign .
Biden handily beat Sanders and the field for the Democratic party ’ s nomination by judiciously feeling the popular pulse .
That ’ s why he refused to unreservedly embrace Medicare For All , the Green New Deal , decriminalizing the border , or defunding the police .
Instead he frustrated Trump by crafting progressive but popular proposals designed to maximize his chances of winning .
And that ’ s why he ’ s doing his damnedest to finesse the issue of court-packing for the remaining two weeks and change—even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him into succumbing to the suicidal siren song of the left .
He hasn ’ t—so far .
Pressed by the media , he has allowed that “ I ’ m not a fan of court-packing , ” but refused to take a definitive position .
Instead he countered that Trump “ would love nothing better than to fight about whether or not I would in fact pack the court.
” The real court packing , Biden emphasized , is Trump ’ s effort to steamroll Barrett ’ s confirmation so close to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t rest : Trump , some progressives , and the media won ’ t let it .
At last night ’ s town hall , pressed further , Biden allowed that Barrett ’ s actual confirmation would influence his position on expanding the court—and that voters “ have a right to know where I stand before they vote.
” Politically , Biden faces an unappetizing choice .
If he endorses court packing , he will inflame a heated cultural and political issue to Trump ’ s advantage , and potentially harm several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not , he will alienate some progressives , and prematurely give up bargaining power on court reform should he become president—even before he knows what he can get through the Senate , and what his top legislative priorities must be in this badly wounded country .
The only party that should want him to make such a choice before the election is the GOP .
Given that , Biden should not take a definitive stance that this measure , and this alone , is the way to approach Supreme Court reform .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his choosing , not Trump ’ s , or embrace at his peril the latest enthusiasm of progressives whose political wisdom is so uncannily awful .
In short , Biden ’ s description of “ where I stand ” need not be a definitive up or down on expanding the court .
Nor should it be .
Politics aside , the constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe told me , it would be injudicious to oversimplify the crucial and multifaceted issue of reforming the Court in the transient heat of this campaign .
The ultimate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the legal and political context facing Biden should he become president—whereupon various proposals , including term limits , may deserve more studied consideration .
That ’ s when he should choose and , until elected , what he should say .
There are times , whether in politics or policy , when temporizing equals wisdom .
This is one—Joe Biden has a country to save .

Ever since his resurrection in South Carolina, Joe Biden and his campaign have done almost everything right.
Unerringly, he struck a balance between his party’s contending forces, making important but measured concessions to consolidate liberal support. With two-plus weeks to go, he is hitting the swing states and speaking to the voters he most needs: persuadable blue-collar workers; senior citizens of all races; and suburbanites ready to be weaned from Trump’s GOP.
He is avoiding hot-button issues while focusing on issues that affect the daily lives of average Americans. He’s campaigning as a unifier in a country weary of anger and division. By all available evidence, he is headed for victory.
By contrast, Trump’s campaign has become a rolling fiasco, demonstrating that underappreciated political maxim: When you’re a one-trick politician with a personality disorder, your luck runs out.
He screwed up one debate, backed out of the next, blew up stimulus negotiations, contracted COVID-19, turned the White House into a coronavirus hotspot, and commenced a national tour of potential superspreader events. Little wonder that there is record early voting in Democratic areas: Trump is, indeed, a turnout machine.
Biden has a roughly 10 percent lead in national polls. The latest surveys have him leading in the six universally acknowledged battleground states: Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona.
New polls show him weaning white and independent voters away from Trump, and leading among those who voted third-party 2016. A majority of Americans blame Trump for contracting COVID: by the power of his own example, Trump has placed himself beyond empathy.
Now, however, the imminent confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court justice presents Biden with a distinctly unwelcome challenge—a pincer movement between Trump and the Democratic party’s more febrile progressives. Some on the left, faced with the grim prospect of winning sans Bernie, have hit on their last chance of losing: urging Biden to embrace a decidedly unpopular and culturally inflammatory proposal to expand the Supreme Court.
Just ask key Sanders advisor Nina Turner who—having helped mastermind his decisive defeats by Biden and the far-less-beloved Hillary Clinton—seems to have learned absolutely nothing. “The majority of Berniecrats will most likely vote for Vice President Joe Biden,” she graciously allowed. “That doesn’t mean that they are not going to raise hell all the way.”
What would make her happy? Only this: “Biden should make it clear that he will fight back by expanding the court if he wins.” Similarly, movement progressive Adam Green says that one way Biden “can quickly unify Democrats” is by “promising to expand the court if Republicans do an end run around democracy” through confirming Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
But isn’t the party already united? Before we inaugurate Biden, don’t we need to elect him? Doesn’t that include propitiating swing voters unmoved by ideological passions? Lamentably, such earthbound considerations seem never to penetrate the ethereal self-absorption of the most monomaniacal progressives.
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…
Now they are outraged because Barrett will give right-wing Republicans a 6-3 hammerlock on the Supreme Court-and because, quite predictably, the GOP has offended their sensibilities by exploiting the equally unsurprising death of a justice they revered above all others. So it bears mentioning that we have reached this point because Justice Ginsburg overstayed her long-failing health—urged on by progressive idolaters willfully oblivious to actuarial and political reality, yet who now demand that Biden jeopardize his campaign to redeem their seemingly infinite myopia.
Here Slate writers Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern serve as a melancholy example. Far from chastened, they insist that Biden hasten to commit electoral suicide:
At the first debate . . . Biden refused to say whether he’d expand the Supreme Court if Republicans confirm Barrett, insisting that the issue is a “distraction.” He’s wrong. Broaching the conversation about systemic reform after the election will be too late.
More aptly, they should have said “too late for Biden to lose.” But, quite expressly, Lithwick and Stern don’t care about November: “The court is already lost for a generation. Retaking the White House and the Senate in November will do nothing to solve that problem. Bold and big action on court reform on Day One of a new administration isn’t a fanciful hope. It may be the only lifeline that remains.”
One could write a book on what is wrong with that paragraph. But let’s start here: If Democrats lose the White House and the Senate, how do Lithwick and Stern propose to jam court packing past Trump and McConnell?
Such details matter. Back in 2014—when Barack Obama could have replaced Ginsburg with a liberal justice like his appointees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—Lithwick wrote a piece with the exceedingly unfortunate title: “Ruth Bader Ginsburg Is Irreplaceable.”
Just as winning in November doesn’t matter to her now, the potential that the Court would be “lost for a generation” should a conservative replace Ginsburg didn’t faze Lithwick then. All that counted was that Ginsburg not retire.
To that end, Lithwick favorably quoted a piece that argued: “Does anyone really think the justice [Ginsburg] has yet to think through her decision? Isn’t the doomsday scenario of a 6- or 7-justice conservative bloc screamingly obvious to her? Should any of us really counsel Justice Ginsburg on her major life decisions?”
Only if one cares, as Lithwick then did not, about the millions of Americans affected by the composition of the Court. Dismissing the concern that Ginsburg’s death could shift its ideological balance to the right, Lithwick wrote in 2014: “That analysis suffers from exactly the same realpolitik flaw Ginsburg’s critics ascribe to her: that counting to four, or five, is more important than the justice itself.”
Yet in 2020, presented with Ginsburg’s death, Lithwick (joined by Stern) urges Biden to commit political malpractice—because she has at last discovered what eluded her in 2014: “A 6-3 conservative majority . . . would swiftly transform American life and put millions in danger.”
Here Lithwick and Stern descend from the willfully obtuse to the inexcusably irrational:
Because court expansion remains relatively unpopular among the American public, a cautious approach makes sense in this political moment. But in the longer term, it is a recipe for disaster.
But doesn’t the “longer term” depend on who first captures the presidency in “this political moment”? Not to Lithwick and Stern:
Is there a political cost to announcing that Democrats plan to play constitutional hardball, effective immediately, whether it be scaring off moderate voters or emboldening Mitch McConnell to implement these selfsame ideas if he still controls the Senate from January? Sure there is.
Indeed. Yet it never dawns on Lithwick and Stern that the indispensable prerequisite to expanding the court is not only winning the White House, but securing a solid majority of senators potentially amenable to expanding the Court—which, first of all, requires unseating several GOP incumbents in closely contested states.
But where Lithwick and Stern ignore this reality, erstwhile Sanders advisor David Sirota simply repeals it:
The easiest way to talk about whether to expand the court is to cast it as an issue of values and policies that people actually care about. If—as they insist—Democrats are firmly committed to protecting reproductive, voting, labor, health care and civil rights, it shouldn’t be difficult for any Senate candidate to say they will consider all options available to protect them, including expanding the court.
Given how easy he finds this to say, Sirota and his coauthors are mystified that practicing politicians are not quite so blasé:
Democratic Senate challengers in key swing states—Jaime Harrison in South Carolina, Cal Cunningham in North Carolina, Mark Kelly in Arizona, Jon Ossoff in Georgia, Theresa Greenfield in Iowa, Sara Gideon in Maine, and John Hickenlooper in Colorado—have said outright that they oppose adding judges to the court, or attempted to dodge the topic.
Maybe that’s because these candidates actually live in those places, and know what their voters think. South Carolina is an actual state, not a liberal lotusland in Sirota’s state of mind. To govern, Biden must not only win, but refrain from gratuitously saddling would-be Democratic senators with an issue that diminishes their chances.
Blissfully high on progressivism, Sirota nonetheless adjures:
There’s absolutely zero evidence that voters want the Supreme Court stuck at nine justices, even if that means those justices doing wildly unpopular things, like throwing out protections for pre-existing medical conditions.
Of course, the justices have yet to do those “wildly unpopular things”, rendering Sirota’s arguments premature. Nonetheless, he heaps scorn on the candidates who reject his visionary imperatives:
Refusing to make that case—or running away from questions about court expansion—is not just cowardly, it is politically stupid. It forsakes an opportunity to turn a conceptual battle over the Supreme Court into a much more tangible, down-to-earth battle over policies that affect people in their daily lives.
Perhaps these “politically stupid” Democrats are hung up on popular opinion. So we should review recent polls on the subject, and return Sirota to his vital work in the Sanders administration.
In the wake of Ginsburg’s death, a Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that fewer than one-third of respondents support expanding the Court. Similarly, a Washington Examiner/YouGov survey earlier this month showed a 47 to 34 percent margin among registered voters against adding new justices.
Equally instructive is a June 2019 survey by the polling firm PSB, taken to gauge relative support for proposals to reform the Supreme Court: 40 percent of the respondents preferred setting a term limit of 18 years for justices; only 15 percent favored adding new members. At the very least, this suggests that Biden should not precipitously catapult a court-packing proposal to the forefront of his campaign.
Biden handily beat Sanders and the field for the Democratic party’s nomination by judiciously feeling the popular pulse. That’s why he refused to unreservedly embrace Medicare For All, the Green New Deal, decriminalizing the border, or defunding the police.
Instead he frustrated Trump by crafting progressive but popular proposals designed to maximize his chances of winning. And that’s why he’s doing his damnedest to finesse the issue of court-packing for the remaining two weeks and change—even as the GOP is desperate to corner him into succumbing to the suicidal siren song of the left.
He hasn’t—so far. Pressed by the media, he has allowed that “I’m not a fan of court-packing,” but refused to take a definitive position.
Instead he countered that Trump “would love nothing better than to fight about whether or not I would in fact pack the court.” The real court packing, Biden emphasized, is Trump’s effort to steamroll Barrett’s confirmation so close to the election.
But the issue won’t rest: Trump, some progressives, and the media won’t let it. At last night’s town hall, pressed further, Biden allowed that Barrett’s actual confirmation would influence his position on expanding the court—and that voters “have a right to know where I stand before they vote.”
Politically, Biden faces an unappetizing choice. If he endorses court packing, he will inflame a heated cultural and political issue to Trump’s advantage, and potentially harm several Democratic senatorial candidates. If he does not, he will alienate some progressives, and prematurely give up bargaining power on court reform should he become president—even before he knows what he can get through the Senate, and what his top legislative priorities must be in this badly wounded country. The only party that should want him to make such a choice before the election is the GOP.
Given that, Biden should not take a definitive stance that this measure, and this alone, is the way to approach Supreme Court reform. He needs to run on the issues of his choosing, not Trump’s, or embrace at his peril the latest enthusiasm of progressives whose political wisdom is so uncannily awful.
In short, Biden’s description of “where I stand” need not be a definitive up or down on expanding the court.
Nor should it be. Politics aside, the constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe told me, it would be injudicious to oversimplify the crucial and multifaceted issue of reforming the Court in the transient heat of this campaign. The ultimate answer, Tribe continues, depends on the legal and political context facing Biden should he become president—whereupon various proposals, including term limits, may deserve more studied consideration.
That’s when he should choose and, until elected, what he should say. There are times, whether in politics or policy, when temporizing equals wisdom. This is one—Joe Biden has a country to save.


thebulwark--2020-10-16--Kelly Loeffler: Lifestyles of the Rich and Classless

Senator Kelly Loeffler is worth roughly $ 500 million .
Her husband , Jeffrey Sprecher , is the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange .
Yet , Loeffler spends her time duct-taping herself to President Trump , slumming around for an endorsement from QAnon candidate Marjorie Taylor Greene ( and support from the Georgia militia ) , styling herself as a modern-day Atilla the Hun , and pretending to be a populist tribune of the people .
As ways to spend your fortune , this does not seem like a ton of fun .
Then again , Kelly Loeffler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Once upon a time—back before she spent her days and nights trafficking in conspiracies and hob-nobbing with dangerous cranks—Loeffler was supposed to be Republican savior-ess who would help the GOP win back college-educated suburban women .
That was the public sell , anyway .
In September of 2019 , Georgia governor Brian Kemp staged a bizarre stunt to pretend that he was conducting a transparent search process to fill Johnny Isakson ’ s seat : He rolled out an online application process for candidates to compete for the appointment .
Nearly 200 applications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never held public office before , jumped to the top of the list .
Why ?
Well , there was the giant rift with college educated suburban women that nearly cost Kemp his election .
He needed to shore up their support .
And , there was the money : Loeffler promised to spend $ 20 million of her own money on her 2020 special election .
Trumplandia was skeptical— President Trump wanted Kemp to appoint Rep. Doug Collins .
Kemp resisted .
Because once someone starts talking about how much money they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , other politicians start dreaming about how she could help them out .
Kemp would be up for re-election in 2022 and as a sage once said , a Senate seat “ is fucking valuable thing.
” Loeffler , in theory , could bring more women to the party .
Along with her checkbook .
Done .
Still , the populist distrust of Loeffler ran so deep that even her fortune didn ’ t ward off a Republican challenger .
Shortly after Loeffler was appointed , Collins jumped into the race .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Loeffler : She ’ s a quick study .
Just a few months into the job she was conducting herself like a true Republican senator : Endlessly puffing up Trump , catering to alt-right shitposters , and churning out stupid memes .
All in an attempt to convince the base that she , not the arch-conservative Navy Chaplain-turned Tea Partier-turned Trump crusader Doug Collins , was the real conservative .
She understood , quite intuitively , what Republican campaigns are about in the age of Trump .
There were some hiccups .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Responsive Politics reported that Loeffler and her husband had given $ 3.2 million to various campaigns and committees , including a whopping $ 1.5 million to Restore Our Future , a Super PAC that supported Mitt Romney ’ s 2012 presidential campaign .
People were beginning to get the idea why Loeffler was popular among the Kemps and the McConnells of the GOP .
So , in January she tried to signal her true allegiance to Trump .
She knifed Romney for , supposedly , wanting to “ appease the left.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during impeachment .
The traitor .
Then , there were the stock trades .
Loeffler was privy to private Senate briefings about coronavirus and—by total coincidence—she dumped millions of dollars worth of stocks before the coronavirus tanked the markets .
Several Republicans distanced themselves from her ; Tucker Carlson said she should resign if she knew anything about the trades .
Loeffler pleaded ignorance , liquidated her stocks , and said she was the victim of a “ socialist attack.
” Behind the scenes , her husband cut a $ 1 million check @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Action .
And all was forgiven .
Her Senate seat still isn ’ t a lock .
Incredibly , Trump has stayed out of the race so far , refusing to endorse anyone .
The special election puts Loeffler , Collins , and Democrat Raphael Warnock on the same ballot , as well 19 other candidates who aren ’ t considered serious contenders .
If none of them gets to 50 percent of the vote , then the top two will face a runoff in January .
In recent polling , Warnock , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baptist church where Rev .
Martin Luther King , Jr. once led a congregation , is the frontrunner , but not near the 50 percent threshold .
Loeffler and Collins are neck-and-neck .
If she can edge out Collins , she ’ ll be the favorite to retain her seat in a one-on-one January matchup .
That ’ s not going to be easy .
Loeffler remains stuck in the low 20s , defined by her money and her desperate attempts to pretend that she ’ s the real Trumpkin .
As a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bunch of flailing consultants compiled from scraps of Judge Jeanine Pirro ’ s Fox News show .
For instance , Loeffler recently tweeted a chart showing how she believes she , Collins , and Trump stack up against each other .
Among other things , the chart described herself and Trump as “ wildly successful ” business people , who donate their salaries , are largely self-funded , are “ hated by fake news media , ” and who both “ oppose ” Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams .
By comparison , Collins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” who collects a government salary , and needs the financial support from “ PACS , lobbyists , and Big Tech , ” is “ beloved by Fake News Media ” and is a “ good friend ” of Stacey Abrams .
( She also claims that Collins , who has an A rating from the Susan B. Anthony List is not pro-life .
But that ’ s almost beside the point . )
It ’ s not subtle .
Loeffler thinks she can win the GOP vote by virtue of her wealth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats .
It worked for Trump , right ?
One of Loeffler ’ s liabilities with the kind of voters she ’ s fighting over with Collins—is that she not only owns a WNBA team—which is basically viewed as a diverse , icky league of feminist woke culture among the MAGA set—but the team she owns is the Atlanta Dream .
Whose name is taken from Martin Luther King ’ s “ I Have a Dream ” speech .
These are both considered fouls in the Trump Office of Personnel and Management for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ivanka.
” In July , the team wanted to honor the Black Lives Matter movement by wearing warmups with the BLM logo .
Eager to separate herself , Loeffler fired off a letter to the WNBA commissioner to blast BLM .
Players retaliated by wearing black T-shirts with “ Vote Warnock ” on them .
When confronted by the revolt from players , Loeffler gleefully tweeted she had been “ canceled ” and issued a statement claiming , “ This is just more proof that the out of control cancel culture wants to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s clear that the league is more concerned with playing politics than basketball.
” Because only millionaire dilettantes who bought their Senate appointments should talk about politics .
As if .
The point is , Loeffler needed to buff up her MAGA cred and she was happy to triangulate against her own business to do it .
But wait , there ’ s more .
Her shamelessness gets even better , or worse , depending on how you look at it .
Loeffler was one of Trump ’ s special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ superspreader event to announce Amy Coney Barrett .
There , she went the extra mile by conspicuously socializing—maskless—with Trump and others at an indoor event .
All while she simultaneously claimed that she was following medical guidelines and practicing social distancing .
If that kind of double talk doesn ’ t prove her gaslighting skills to Trump voters , what will ?
She wasn ’ t done yet , though .
When it became public that Trump had contracted coronavirus Loeffler tweeted “ Remember : China gave this virus to our President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WE MUST HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.
” As if it had been secret Chinese agents breathing COVID germs all over the president , and not eager Trump sycophants .
Like herself .
Who knew Loeffler was such a boss 4D chessmaster ?
She should share notes with South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem .
Today , Loeffler probably only has an even-money chance to hold onto her seat .
She ’ s within the margin of error against Collins .
If she finishes second , it ’ s possible that the Senate majority could hinge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What would that race look like ?
If the money that has poured into South Carolina Democrat Jaime Harrison ’ s Senate campaign for the purpose of taking out Trump ’ s golf caddy Lindsey Graham is any indication , Warnock would be exceptionally well funded .
The race would come down to a fight for MLK ’ s legacy versus the woman who turned her back on her own MLK-inspired team .
Just think for a moment about how that would hit under the glare of national spotlight with control of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely possible that Loeffler could spend many more of her millions , only to lose it all come 2021 .
And what would happen then ?
Loeffler would be forced to retreat to her $ 10.5 million , 15,000-square-foot mansion .
Pour one out for the poor rich lady .
But maybe it ’ ll all work out for her .
Maybe the Qanons she ’ s courted will go Quazy for Quelly .
Maybe the good old boys in the militia will march to the polls for Loeffler and scare everyone else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she is really one of them .
In a way , she is .
If the Age of Trump is about anything , it ’ s about the triumph of plutocratic faux populism in the Republican party .
Kelly Loeffler has made herself into a real fake populist .
She is Trump ’ s true heir .
They ’ re political fam now , their fates inextricably tied .
She wanted this .

Senator Kelly Loeffler is worth roughly $500 million. Her husband, Jeffrey Sprecher, is the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange. Yet, Loeffler spends her time duct-taping herself to President Trump, slumming around for an endorsement from QAnon candidate Marjorie Taylor Greene (and support from the Georgia militia), styling herself as a modern-day Atilla the Hun, and pretending to be a populist tribune of the people.
As ways to spend your fortune, this does not seem like a ton of fun.
Then again, Kelly Loeffler is not your average rich person.
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…
Once upon a time—back before she spent her days and nights trafficking in conspiracies and hob-nobbing with dangerous cranks—Loeffler was supposed to be Republican savior-ess who would help the GOP win back college-educated suburban women. That was the public sell, anyway.
In September of 2019, Georgia governor Brian Kemp staged a bizarre stunt to pretend that he was conducting a transparent search process to fill Johnny Isakson’s seat: He rolled out an online application process for candidates to compete for the appointment. Nearly 200 applications were submitted. Loeffler, who had never held public office before, jumped to the top of the list. Why? Well, there was the giant rift with college educated suburban women that nearly cost Kemp his election. He needed to shore up their support. And, there was the money: Loeffler promised to spend $20 million of her own money on her 2020 special election.
Trumplandia was skeptical— President Trump wanted Kemp to appoint Rep. Doug Collins. Kemp resisted. Because once someone starts talking about how much money they’d like to spend on campaigns, other politicians start dreaming about how she could help them out. Kemp would be up for re-election in 2022 and as a sage once said, a Senate seat is “a fucking valuable thing.” Loeffler, in theory, could bring more women to the party. Along with her checkbook. Done.
Still, the populist distrust of Loeffler ran so deep that even her fortune didn’t ward off a Republican challenger. Shortly after Loeffler was appointed, Collins jumped into the race. But you can at least say this for Loeffler: She’s a quick study. Just a few months into the job she was conducting herself like a true Republican senator: Endlessly puffing up Trump, catering to alt-right shitposters, and churning out stupid memes. All in an attempt to convince the base that she, not the arch-conservative Navy Chaplain-turned Tea Partier-turned Trump crusader Doug Collins, was the real conservative.
She understood, quite intuitively, what Republican campaigns are about in the age of Trump.
There were some hiccups.
For instance, last December, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that Loeffler and her husband had given $3.2 million to various campaigns and committees, including a whopping $1.5 million to Restore Our Future, a Super PAC that supported Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. People were beginning to get the idea why Loeffler was popular among the Kemps and the McConnells of the GOP.
So, in January she tried to signal her true allegiance to Trump. She knifed Romney for, supposedly, wanting to “appease the left.” All because Romney voted to call witnesses during impeachment. The traitor.
Then, there were the stock trades. Loeffler was privy to private Senate briefings about coronavirus and—by total coincidence—she dumped millions of dollars worth of stocks before the coronavirus tanked the markets. Several Republicans distanced themselves from her; Tucker Carlson said she should resign if she knew anything about the trades. Loeffler pleaded ignorance, liquidated her stocks, and said she was the victim of a “socialist attack.” Behind the scenes, her husband cut a $1 million check to the Trump Super PAC America First Action. And all was forgiven.
Her Senate seat still isn’t a lock. Incredibly, Trump has stayed out of the race so far, refusing to endorse anyone. The special election puts Loeffler, Collins, and Democrat Raphael Warnock on the same ballot, as well 19 other candidates who aren’t considered serious contenders. If none of them gets to 50 percent of the vote, then the top two will face a runoff in January.
In recent polling, Warnock, pastor of Atlanta’s historic Ebenezer Baptist church where Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. once led a congregation, is the frontrunner, but not near the 50 percent threshold. Loeffler and Collins are neck-and-neck. If she can edge out Collins, she’ll be the favorite to retain her seat in a one-on-one January matchup.
That’s not going to be easy. Loeffler remains stuck in the low 20s, defined by her money and her desperate attempts to pretend that she’s the real Trumpkin. As a result, her campaign resembles something that a bunch of flailing consultants compiled from scraps of Judge Jeanine Pirro’s Fox News show.
For instance, Loeffler recently tweeted a chart showing how she believes she, Collins, and Trump stack up against each other. Among other things, the chart described herself and Trump as “wildly successful” business people, who donate their salaries, are largely self-funded, are “hated by fake news media,” and who both “oppose” Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams.
By comparison, Collins is a “do-nothing career politician,” who collects a government salary, and needs the financial support from “PACS, lobbyists, and Big Tech,” is “beloved by Fake News Media” and is a “good friend” of Stacey Abrams. (She also claims that Collins, who has an A rating from the Susan B. Anthony List is not pro-life. But that’s almost beside the point.)
It’s not subtle. Loeffler thinks she can win the GOP vote by virtue of her wealth, belligerence, and hostility to black Democrats.
It worked for Trump, right?
One of Loeffler’s liabilities with the kind of voters she’s fighting with Collins over is that she not only owns a WNBA team—which is basically viewed as a diverse, icky league of feminist woke culture among the MAGA set—but the team she owns is the Atlanta Dream. Whose name is taken from Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. These are both considered fouls in the Trump Office of Personnel and Management for anyone whose first name is not “Ivanka.”
In July, the team wanted to honor the Black Lives Matter movement by wearing warmups with the BLM logo. Eager to separate herself, Loeffler fired off a letter to the WNBA commissioner to blast BLM. Players retaliated by wearing black T-shirts with “Vote Warnock” on them. When confronted by the revolt from players, Loeffler gleefully tweeted she had been “canceled” and issued a statement claiming, “This is just more proof that the out of control cancel culture wants to shut out anyone who disagrees with them. It’s clear that the league is more concerned with playing politics than basketball.”
Because only millionaire dilettantes who bought their Senate appointments should talk about politics. As if.
The point is, Loeffler needed to buff up her MAGA cred and she was happy to triangulate against her own business to do it.
But wait, there’s more. Her shamelessness gets even better, or worse, depending on how you look at it.
Loeffler was one of Trump’s special loyal subjects who attended the White House superspreader event to announce Amy Coney Barrett. There, she went the extra mile by conspicuously socializing—maskless—with Trump and others at an indoor event. All while she simultaneously claimed that she was following medical guidelines and practicing social distancing. If that kind of double talk doesn’t prove her gaslighting skills to Trump voters, what will?
She wasn’t done yet, though.
When it became public that Trump had contracted coronavirus, Loeffler tweeted “Remember: China gave this virus to our President @realDonaldTrump and First Lady @FLOTUS. WE MUST HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.” As if it had been secret Chinese agents breathing COVID germs all over the president, and not eager Trump sycophants. Like herself.
Who knew Loeffler was such a boss 4D chessmaster? She should share notes with South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem.
Today, Loeffler probably only has an even-money chance to hold onto her seat. She’s within the margin of error against Collins. If she finishes second, it’s possible that the Senate majority could hinge on her January runoff against Warnock.
What would that race look like?
If the money that has poured into South Carolina Democrat Jaime Harrison’s Senate campaign for the purpose of taking out Trump’s golf caddy Lindsey Graham is any indication, Warnock would be exceptionally well funded. The race would come down to a fight for MLK’s legacy versus the woman who turned her back on her own MLK-inspired team. Just think for a moment about how that would hit under the glare of national spotlight, especially if control of the Senate were at stake.
It’s entirely possible that Loeffler could spend many more of her millions, only to lose it all come 2021. And what would happen then? Loeffler would be forced to retreat to her $10.5 million, 15,000-square-foot mansion. Pour one out for the poor rich lady.
But maybe it’ll all work out for her. Maybe the Qanons she’s courted will go Quazy for Quelly. Maybe the good old boys in the militia will march to the polls for Loeffler and scare everyone else away. Maybe they’ll believe she is really one of them.
In a way, she is. If the Age of Trump is about anything, it’s about the triumph of plutocratic faux populism in the Republican party.
Kelly Loeffler has made herself into a real fake populist. She is Trump’s true heir. They’re political fam now, their fates inextricably tied. She wanted this.


thebulwark--2020-10-16--In a World Without Movie Theaters …

In a World Without Movie Theaters …

There ’ s a great deal of concern about the state of the exhibition industry given the impact of COVID-19 on attendance figures and release schedules .
Prominent filmmakers and the exhibition ’ s business lobbying group , the National Association of Theatre Owners ( NATO ) , are appealing to lawmakers directly and are asking for financial assistance , citing the potential loss of 69 percent of small and mid-sized exhibitors and two-thirds of the industry ’ s jobs .
Compounding worries is news that Disney , with a 2019 market share of almost 40 percent of the theatrical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and putting their streaming platform Disney+ first .
When announcing this , they referred to theatrical as a “ legacy distribution business.
” It ’ s undeniable now that COVID has accelerated the growing shift from consumer watching movies in theaters to watching movies at home .
A future without theaters is an increasing possibility .
This worst-case scenario is unlikely : I firmly believe that audiences will return to theaters once they ’ re convinced of the activity ’ s safety .
However , the word— “ legacy ” —used by Disney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Entertainment Distribution , Kareem Daniel , is striking .
Disney , the biggest generator of theatrical dollars in the world and the owner of the two largest domestic franchises ( Marvel and Star Wars ) , views the theatrical business as something that has been superseded .
For our purposes , let ’ s just consider how the world of movies will change if theaters vanish altogether .
It ’ s important to understand the basic economics of how movies are fully exploited , at least prior to the lockdown in March , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars will impact the world of film economics .
Box office dollars are a major source of revenue , of course , but they also drove and defined all other revenue streams as well .
The better a movie does at the box office , the better it does on iTunes and Amazon , in Walmart and Target , etc .
License deals for broadcast ( like HBO or Netflix ) were based on a percentage of the theatrical box office .
Once you take away theatrical , you are taking away the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performance and it can ’ t be replaced by VOD or streaming .
Here are five major results that I think will happen if the world ’ s movie theaters vanish .
1 ) Studio movie budgets—including MCU features and Star Wars movies—will be cut in half .
The days of the $ 200-million-plus budget blockbusters will be over .
2020 digital releases like Trolls : World Tour and Scoob did more digital revenue than usual thanks to their higher-than-usual price points , but not enough to replace the total pie of theatrical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if studios shift the millions of dollars they are spending on marketing the theatrical release to digital , and even if studios keep a higher percentage of VOD sales than they do box office sales , they are still making less money .
The costs of making even the biggest and most profitable movies will come down .
Films made from preexisting intellectual property ( comic books , the Fast and Furious world , etc . )
will still be the biggest demand titles , but they will look decidedly cheaper .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consistently the most popular movies—won ’ t be impossible , but they will take more creative talent deals : no more $ 50 million paydays for Robert Downey Jr .
The scale of adventures for heroes like James Bond—that used to showcase many exotic locations—will be noticeably smaller .
It could also influence storytelling , as studios could have fewer days to develop scripts and shoot films .
2 ) Digital platforms like iTunes will be flooded with ultra-low budget Direct to Video content .
Given that digital platforms don ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movie under the sun .
However , they give the best placement to movies that receive a theatrical release for two reasons .
First , these films have a higher demand because their huge marketing spends guarantee awareness .
Second , consumers believe theatrical releases guarantees a certain level of quality .
This is why you see the words “ In Theaters ” on these platforms even for movies you ’ ve never heard of .
Without even a limited theatrical release , part of a film ’ s marketing spend will likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on digital platforms , and anything short of millions in guarantees will relegate a picture to the “ bargain bin ” of the digital world .
While some factors can still lead to higher demand with bargain bin placement ( e.g.
, big stars like Bruce Willis or good word of mouth ) , finding success in this space is almost random : like winning the lottery .
Even straight-to-VOD movies with decent budgets—say $ 3M to $ 10M—will share digital placement with micro budget films .
As it stands , a studio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theatrically to get strong digital placement .
If theaters go away , that placement will be reserved for movies with marketing spends of tens of millions .
This will lead to decently budgeted movies that used to be worthy of small theatrical releases lowering their production budgets while micro-budget producers create a lot more content knowing that they ’ ll need lots of movies out there to have a better chance at hitting the bargain bin jackpot .
You could argue that February—when Parasite won best picture at the Academy Awards—was the pinnacle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theatrical release , I don ’ t think that win would have happened .
Its limited release broke records and signaled to educated audiences that the movie was something special .
How do you replace that without theaters ?
A big festival premiere could help and a movie like Parasite will always have its pick of the best fests , but it is not a replacement for building awareness and excitement with general audiences .
Netflix will likely own the awards circuit if theaters go away .
But this doesn ’ t apply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It applies to the entire arthouse industry , which relies on platforming : These movies start in a handful in the best theaters in New York City and Los Angeles before they grow in release , expanding from a couple screens to 1,000-plus if all goes well .
Success on a few screens suggests they have higher demand and better quality than other non-studio movies , attracting audiences around the country as they grow .
Without the proving ground of platforming , most movies like this are likely getting the same digital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ success again comes down to winning the bargain bin jackpot .
Additionally , the best arthouse distributors like NEON , A24 , Searchlight , Magnolia , Bleecker Street , IFC , and Focus are dependent on their broadcast or streaming deals to make their models work and these deals pay out based on their box office .
Without a theatrical release , those deals likely go away .
Companies like NEON and Magnolia might be forced to pivot to more mainstream content like thrillers or action films with big stars .
( This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Vertical occupy right now . )
I could see A24 pivoting entirely to television since they ’ ve had success in that space already .
Disney and Comcast will likely shutter Searchlight and Focus .
4 ) Streaming platforms will be extremely competitive for content and subscribers .
One potential bright spot for big-name studios and filmmakers , at least in the short term , is outsized spending by streamers trying to capture films that will grab eyeballs .
Between legacy platforms like Netflix , Amazon Prime , and Hulu and new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , HBOMax , and Paramount , the competition for subscriber dollars is fierce : there are only so many subs to be sold .
Movies that are expected to be popular and content creators with strong track records will be the subject of immense bidding wars between streamers : consider Amazon ’ s reported expenditure of $ 125M on Coming 2 America .
I expect several streamers to end up consolidating to keep up with Disney .
Disney had no idea COVID was around the corner when they bought Fox , so imagine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the middle of this pandemic ?
Whatever huge number you can consider , it ’ s probably even more than that .
5 ) Film journalism will look very different .
I mentioned earlier that one aspect of how movies might be able to get recognized in a saturated digital platform is audience ratings .
Netflix is a good example of this as their recommendation engine drives viewers .
We ’ ve seen the Rotten Tomatoes audience score , which is more reliable now that the service has added a tab to track @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This reflects a growing trust between consumers and how other consumers are evaluating product rather than being driven by critics .
The film journalism world is already consolidating and shrinking .
While non-theatrical marketing campaigns will still use PR to drive awareness , the promotion that takes place on the purchasing platform itself—a verified fresh badge ; reviews on Amazon—is more valuable as it quickly answers consumers ’ basic questions : “ What ’ s new ?
” and “ What ’ s good ?
” Still , I ’ ve asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a number of members currently in this industry and there is real optimism around a film journalism environment dedicated to niche content like horror/genre or African/Hispanic/Asian/Native American programming , so I don ’ t think this industry will go completely away .
It ’ s easy for film twitter to get excited when a highly anticipated movie shifts to a home release : We ’ re all desperate for good movies .
But there are ramifications to bypassing theatrical altogether that need to be considered .
If you love movies—from big budget @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theaters survive .
Because the future of film without them is a little dimmer , a little duller , and a lot harder to navigate for filmmakers and movie lovers alike .
James Emanuel Shapiro is a 20-year vetearn of the entertainment industry .
He ’ s been the COO of NEON and Drafthouse Films and most recently started the analytics department at the Alamo Drafthouse .
His gravestone will read “ Made the only other offer to buy PARANORMAL ACTIVITY .
”

(Bulwark+ members can listen to an exclusive discussion of this topic between James Emanuel Shapiro and Culture Editor Sonny Bunch here. Sign up today!)
There’s a great deal of concern about the state of the exhibition industry given the impact of COVID-19 on attendance figures and release schedules. Prominent filmmakers and the exhibition’s business lobbying group, the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), are appealing to lawmakers directly and are asking for financial assistance, citing the potential loss of 69 percent of small and mid-sized exhibitors and two-thirds of the industry’s jobs.
Compounding worries is news that Disney, with a 2019 market share of almost 40 percent of the theatrical business, is restructuring their content focus and putting their streaming platform Disney+ first. When announcing this, they referred to theatrical as a “legacy distribution business.” It’s undeniable now that COVID has accelerated the growing shift from consumer watching movies in theaters to watching movies at home. A future without theaters is an increasing possibility.
This worst-case scenario is unlikely: I firmly believe that audiences will return to theaters once they’re convinced of the activity’s safety. However, the word—“legacy”—used by Disney’s new head of Media and Entertainment Distribution, Kareem Daniel, is striking. Disney, the biggest generator of theatrical dollars in the world and the owner of the two largest domestic franchises (Marvel and Star Wars), views the theatrical business as something that has been superseded. For our purposes, let’s just consider how the world of movies will change if theaters vanish altogether.
It’s important to understand the basic economics of how movies are fully exploited, at least prior to the lockdown in March, to understand how the disappearance of theatrical dollars will impact the world of film economics. Box office dollars are a major source of revenue, of course, but they also drove and defined all other revenue streams as well. The better a movie does at the box office, the better it does on iTunes and Amazon, in Walmart and Target, etc. License deals for broadcast (like HBO or Netflix) were based on a percentage of the theatrical box office. Once you take away theatrical, you are taking away the driver of the film’s overall performance and it can’t be replaced by VOD or streaming.
Here are five major results that I think will happen if the world’s movie theaters vanish.
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…
1) Studio movie budgets—including MCU features and Star Wars movies—will be cut in half.
The days of the $200-million-plus budget blockbusters will be over. 2020 digital releases like Trolls: World Tour and Scoob did more digital revenue than usual thanks to their higher-than-usual price points, but not enough to replace the total pie of theatrical and other transactional revenue streams. Even if studios shift the millions of dollars they are spending on marketing the theatrical release to digital, and even if studios keep a higher percentage of VOD sales than they do box office sales, they are still making less money. The costs of making even the biggest and most profitable movies will come down. Films made from preexisting intellectual property (comic books, the Fast and Furious world, etc.) will still be the biggest demand titles, but they will look decidedly cheaper.
The superhero team up movies like Avengers—which are consistently the most popular movies—won’t be impossible, but they will take more creative talent deals: no more $50 million paydays for Robert Downey Jr. The scale of adventures for heroes like James Bond—that used to showcase many exotic locations—will be noticeably smaller. It could also influence storytelling, as studios could have fewer days to develop scripts and shoot films.
2) Digital platforms like iTunes will be flooded with ultra-low budget Direct to Video content.
Given that digital platforms don’t have inventory constraints, they can carry every movie under the sun. However, they give the best placement to movies that receive a theatrical release for two reasons. First, these films have a higher demand because their huge marketing spends guarantee awareness. Second, consumers believe theatrical releases guarantees a certain level of quality. This is why you see the words “In Theaters” on these platforms even for movies you’ve never heard of.
Without even a limited theatrical release, part of a film’s marketing spend will likely go to pay for the best placement on digital platforms, and anything short of millions in guarantees will relegate a picture to the “bargain bin” of the digital world. While some factors can still lead to higher demand with bargain bin placement (e.g., big stars like Bruce Willis or good word of mouth), finding success in this space is almost random: like winning the lottery. Even straight-to-VOD movies with decent budgets—say $3M to $10M—will share digital placement with micro budget films. As it stands, a studio can spend $100,000 releasing a movie theatrically to get strong digital placement. If theaters go away, that placement will be reserved for movies with marketing spends of tens of millions.
This will lead to decently budgeted movies that used to be worthy of small theatrical releases lowering their production budgets while micro-budget producers create a lot more content knowing that they’ll need lots of movies out there to have a better chance at hitting the bargain bin jackpot.
3) The arthouse movie world will collapse.
You could argue that February—when Parasite won best picture at the Academy Awards—was the pinnacle for the arthouse business.Without its hugely successful theatrical release, I don’t think that win would have happened. Its limited release broke records and signaled to educated audiences that the movie was something special. How do you replace that without theaters? A big festival premiere could help and a movie like Parasite will always have its pick of the best fests, but it is not a replacement for building awareness and excitement with general audiences. Netflix will likely own the awards circuit if theaters go away.
But this doesn’t apply just to the movies gunning for awards. It applies to the entire arthouse industry, which relies on platforming: These movies start in a handful in the best theaters in New York City and Los Angeles before they grow in release, expanding from a couple screens to 1,000-plus if all goes well. Success on a few screens suggests they have higher demand and better quality than other non-studio movies, attracting audiences around the country as they grow. Without the proving ground of platforming, most movies like this are likely getting the same digital placement as micro budget DTV fare and success again comes down to winning the bargain bin jackpot.
Additionally, the best arthouse distributors like NEON, A24, Searchlight, Magnolia, Bleecker Street, IFC, and Focus are dependent on their broadcast or streaming deals to make their models work and these deals pay out based on their box office. Without a theatrical release, those deals likely go away. Companies like NEON and Magnolia might be forced to pivot to more mainstream content like thrillers or action films with big stars. (This is the space DTV companies like Saban and Vertical occupy right now.) I could see A24 pivoting entirely to television since they’ve had success in that space already. Disney and Comcast will likely shutter Searchlight and Focus.
4) Streaming platforms will be extremely competitive for content and subscribers.
One potential bright spot for big-name studios and filmmakers, at least in the short term, is outsized spending by streamers trying to capture films that will grab eyeballs. Between legacy platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime, and Hulu and new competition from services like Disney+, Peacock, HBOMax, and Paramount, the competition for subscriber dollars is fierce: there are only so many subs to be sold.
Movies that are expected to be popular and content creators with strong track records will be the subject of immense bidding wars between streamers: consider Amazon’s reported expenditure of $125M on Coming 2 America. I expect several streamers to end up consolidating to keep up with Disney. Disney had no idea COVID was around the corner when they bought Fox, so imagine what Fox would have gone for in the middle of this pandemic? Whatever huge number you can consider, it’s probably even more than that.
5) Film journalism will look very different.
I mentioned earlier that one aspect of how movies might be able to get recognized in a saturated digital platform is audience ratings. Netflix is a good example of this as their recommendation engine drives viewers. We’ve seen the Rotten Tomatoes audience score, which is more reliable now that the service has added a tab to track verified viewers, growing in awareness recently. This reflects a growing trust between consumers and how other consumers are evaluating product rather than being driven by critics.
The film journalism world is already consolidating and shrinking. While non-theatrical marketing campaigns will still use PR to drive awareness, the promotion that takes place on the purchasing platform itself—a verified fresh badge; reviews on Amazon—is more valuable as it quickly answers consumers’ basic questions: “What’s new?” and “What’s good?” Still, I’ve asked this hypothetical question about journalism without theaters to a number of members currently in this industry and there is real optimism around a film journalism environment dedicated to niche content like horror/genre or African/Hispanic/Asian/Native American programming, so I don’t think this industry will go completely away.
It’s easy for film twitter to get excited when a highly anticipated movie shifts to a home release: We’re all desperate for good movies. But there are ramifications to bypassing theatrical altogether that need to be considered. If you love movies—from big budget blockbusters to smarter arthouse fare—you better hope theaters survive. Because the future of film without them is a little dimmer, a little duller, and a lot harder to navigate for filmmakers and movie lovers alike.
James Emanuel Shapiro is a 20-year vetearn of the entertainment industry. He’s been the COO of NEON and Drafthouse Films and most recently started the analytics department at the Alamo Drafthouse. His gravestone will read “Made the only other offer to buy PARANORMAL ACTIVITY.”


thebulwark--2020-10-19--Learning the Right Lessons from the Trump Experience

As we gingerly permit ourselves to contemplate the possibility of a post-Trump era , it is important to remember that it would be foolish to summarily reject everything Trump has done , simply because he did it .
It is possible to understand that Donald Trump was a very bad president , that America would be better off under different leadership , and also that some of the policies Trump enacted have turned out to be effective .
Negative partisanship has warped American politics .
Let ’ s not allow it to warp policy , too .
Start with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s leadership on managing the pandemic has been somewhere between deeply flawed and catastrophic .
But even so , his administration has not been wrong about everything , and it ’ s critical we recognize and retain things he ’ s done right , as well as learn from important deficiencies that he ( inadvertently ) exposed .
For instance : Operation Warp Speed .
OWS is an ambitious public/private effort to accelerate vaccine development , in particular , by enabling significant work to advance at risk .
So far , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key insight behind OWS was recognizing that the long timelines typically associated with conventional medical product development reflect the stage-gate nature of the process .
When researching a new treatment , drug companies have been traditionally ( and understandably ) cautious about investing in sequentially more expansive and expensive stage developments until they ’ re certain they have cleared the earlier hurdles .
This stage-gating is part of what makes the development process so lengthy .
With Operation Warp Speed , the federal government offset the costs associated with this risk , allowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for subsequent phases , so that if a product meets the ( still strict ) requirements of a previous stage , it can surge forward immediately into the next one .
This is precisely how the government should leverage its dollars to move along vaccine development without sacrificing the science .
Not only was the theory behind OWS sound , but Trump chose a strong and experienced leader for the project : a pharma industry veteran named Moncef Slaoui , who put his very comfortable life on hold to helm this effort .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ received incessant criticism from many in the media who are inherently distrustful of anyone from the industry . )
Scott Gottlieb , whom Trump appointed as FDA Commissioner in 2017 , was another savvy healthcare appointment involving the wisdom to value private sector experience .
Gottlieb understood both Washington politics and the industry he was regulating .
His selection was also greeted with predictable skepticism , based on the usual progressive canard that industry experience is intrinsically vulgar and inherently disqualifying , versus precisely what can enable someone , like Gottlieb , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be – as I argued when he was nominated .
Without question , Trump ’ s discomfort with science resulted in a series of unexplainable , truly unforgivable decisions , best exemplified by his marginalizing of Drs .
Brix and Fauci , and embracing instead .
.
.
Peter Navarro .
This is batshit crazy—full stop .
It ’ s like having Josh Hader and Mariano Rivera warming up in the bullpen , and instead calling Joe Buck in from the press box .
Trump ’ s meddling with the FDA and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undermining confidence that is desperately required .
In part , Trump seems to act this way because he believes that there is no “ truth , ” that everyone has an agenda , and corruption is a universal way of life .
This is not the optimal lens through which to view the American government ’ s management of a pandemic .
But there is one way in which Trump ’ s post-truth belief in the universality of corruption turned out to be helpful : In Trump ’ s criticisms of traditionally “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Organization , whose elevated intentions have typically placed them beyond serious scrutiny , much less public reproach .
( The United Nations Human Rights Council , from which Trump wisely withdrew in 2018 , is another example . )
Certainly , the WHO has a worthy mission .
And Trump ’ s criticisms of the group were self-serving .
But they also turned out to be true .
A rare and much-needed close look at the WHO , by the Wall Street Journal in February , suggested the organization had sucked up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the good graces of the authoritarian country .
So we should continue to pay close attention to the WHO and work to make sure the organization is reformed , and not a pawn of China ’ s geopolitical ambitions , or other political agendas .
Trump ’ s politicization of everything also revealed the extent to which other spheres of public life have been unhealthily politicized .
For instance , the public health community did themselves no favors by stifling themselves in the face of summer protests with which most were politically aligned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Stanford ( likely left-leaning—he most recently donated to the Warren campaign , according to OpenSecrets ) suggests that as a group , academics and journalists ( along with the entertainment industry ) skew farthest to the left of all the groups studied .
Within medicine , some of the disciplines most involved in public health , including infectious disease experts , were subsequently found to be most progressive ; spinal surgeons the most conservative .
Among professions , “ oil , gas , and coal ” was the most conservative .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ metastasized out from the media and academia .
And it is deeply disturbing for a number of reasons , not least of which is that it creates an increasing lack of tolerance for unauthorized views—when such receptivity is the foundation of our liberal institutions .
While it ’ s routine for journalists to evocatively describe relationships between companies and others as “ cozy ” ( code for compromised and corrupt ) , it ’ s hard to think of a cozier relationship than that between intrinsically politically aligned academics and journalists , whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compelling narratives generated—are each concretely served and advanced by these personally syntonic and professionally synergistic relationships .
Consequently , it ’ s disheartening , but perhaps not surprising , that in both the media and academia , the intolerance has grown to the level of caricature , where independent , remarkably moderate voices such as Bari Weiss ( Bari Weiss ! )
are vilified , and ultimately chased from premier publications , while few dissenting voices within academic institutions dare speak up , for fear of what might happen .
See the tribulations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor , who came under attack for suggesting , in the most gentle way , that perhaps students need not be protected from every conceivable environmental trigger .
Naturally , this affront to the Yale environment triggered such outrage that Christakis stepped away from teaching .
Beyond these well-publicized stories are hundreds of other examples : thoughtful colleagues both within and outside of academia , who feel compelled to hold their collective tongues , keep as far as possible from the fray , and offer the expected utterances and affirmations .
All because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be to risk their professional standing and hold back their career development .
They are almost certainly correct .
And just because Donald Trump demagogued this politicization and used it as a pretext for racism , know-nothing-ism , and worse does not mean that we should embrace it .
Fealty to an ever-more-stringent political orthodoxy is now routinely demanded from a growing number of organizations .
The pursuit of diversity is an important and worthy goal—especially compared to the alternative—but unfortunately , one that tends to be pursued only selectively , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewpoint .
We have good reason to be concerned by this unhealthy , fundamentally illiberal trend , and to yearn for a thoughtful counterpoint , a powerful and compelling voice of reason .
Trump is not that voice .
The profound tragedy is that there are few remaining on the right—and perhaps none in the Republican establishment—who can credibly step into this role .
That ’ s because the GOP ’ s reflexive and complete embrace of Trump has resulted in their utter loss of moral or intellectual standing .
A party that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ideas has abandoned almost everything it once stood for in order to remain in the good graces of an impetuous man-child .
( Tim Alberta has richly documented this sad descent in his both American Carnage and a recent , dispiriting Politico update . )
None of us should wish for a one-party state .
We need voices that can respond wisely to the excesses of our political poles .
This is not to create a false equivalence : The excesses of the Trump years have been extraordinary , and with luck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But in the normal course of political life , there will always be excesses .
One expects that even a competent and successful Democratic administration will have its own share .
A healthy political system is one which allows for constant self-correction and recalibration .
If we are lucky , then the silver lining of Trump years might be a reaction that rekindles an understanding that what we need from our leaders is that they be engaging and inclusive .
That they admit the possibility of good intentions even from their most ardent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best natures , rather than our worst instincts .
And perhaps our encounter with Trumpism might even encourage us to model these behaviors ourselves .

As we gingerly permit ourselves to contemplate the possibility of a post-Trump era, it is important to remember that it would be foolish to summarily reject everything Trump has done, simply because he did it. It is possible to understand that Donald Trump was a very bad president, that America would be better off under different leadership, and also that some of the policies Trump enacted have turned out to be effective.
Negative partisanship has warped American politics. Let’s not allow it to warp policy, too.
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…
Start with the most important subject: COVID. President Trump’s leadership on managing the pandemic has been somewhere between deeply flawed and catastrophic. But even so, his administration has not been wrong about everything, and it’s critical we recognize and retain things he’s done right, as well as learn from important deficiencies that he (inadvertently) exposed.
For instance: Operation Warp Speed. OWS is an ambitious public/private effort to accelerate vaccine development, in particular, by enabling significant work to advance at risk. So far, it appears to be working. The key insight behind OWS was recognizing that the long timelines typically associated with conventional medical product development reflect the stage-gate nature of the process.
When researching a new treatment, drug companies have been traditionally (and understandably) cautious about investing in sequentially more expansive and expensive stage developments until they’re certain they have cleared the earlier hurdles.
This stage-gating is part of what makes the development process so lengthy. With Operation Warp Speed, the federal government offset the costs associated with this risk, allowing companies to fully invest in and prepare for subsequent phases, so that if a product meets the (still strict) requirements of a previous stage, it can surge forward immediately into the next one.
This is precisely how the government should leverage its dollars to move along vaccine development without sacrificing the science.
Not only was the theory behind OWS sound, but Trump chose a strong and experienced leader for the project: a pharma industry veteran named Moncef Slaoui, who put his very comfortable life on hold to helm this effort. (For his troubles, Slaoui has received incessant criticism from many in the media who are inherently distrustful of anyone from the industry.)
Scott Gottlieb, whom Trump appointed as FDA Commissioner in 2017, was another savvy healthcare appointment involving the wisdom to value private sector experience. Gottlieb understood both Washington politics and the industry he was regulating. His selection was also greeted with predictable skepticism, based on the usual progressive canard that industry experience is intrinsically vulgar and inherently disqualifying, versus precisely what can enable someone, like Gottlieb, to be as effective as ultimately he proved to be – as I argued when he was nominated.
Without question, Trump’s discomfort with science resulted in a series of unexplainable, truly unforgivable decisions, best exemplified by his marginalizing of Drs. Brix and Fauci, and embracing instead . . . Peter Navarro. This is batshit crazy—full stop. It’s like having Josh Hader and Mariano Rivera warming up in the bullpen, and instead calling Joe Buck in from the press box. Trump’s meddling with the FDA and the CDC has been similarly destructive, undermining confidence that is desperately required.
In part, Trump seems to act this way because he believes that there is no “truth,” that everyone has an agenda, and corruption is a universal way of life. This is not the optimal lens through which to view the American government’s management of a pandemic.
But there is one way in which Trump’s post-truth belief in the universality of corruption turned out to be helpful: In Trump’s criticisms of traditionally “untouchable” institutions like the World Health Organization, whose elevated intentions have typically placed them beyond serious scrutiny, much less public reproach. (The United Nations Human Rights Council, from which Trump wisely withdrew in 2018, is another example.)
Certainly, the WHO has a worthy mission. And Trump’s criticisms of the group were self-serving. But they also turned out to be true. A rare and much-needed close look at the WHO, by the Wall Street Journal in February, suggested the organization had sucked up to Chinese leaders—and downplayed government missteps—to stay in the good graces of the authoritarian country.
So we should continue to pay close attention to the WHO and work to make sure the organization is reformed, and not a pawn of China’s geopolitical ambitions, or other political agendas.
Trump’s politicization of everything also revealed the extent to which other spheres of public life have been unhealthily politicized.
For instance, the public health community did themselves no favors by stifling themselves in the face of summer protests with which most were politically aligned.
Data from an academic political scientist at Stanford (likely left-leaning—he most recently donated to the Warren campaign, according to OpenSecrets) suggests that as a group, academics and journalists (along with the entertainment industry) skew farthest to the left of all the groups studied. Within medicine, some of the disciplines most involved in public health, including infectious disease experts, were subsequently found to be most progressive; spinal surgeons the most conservative. Among professions, “oil, gas, and coal” was the most conservative.
(Pharma, interestingly, exhibited a strikingly bimodal distribution, and on balance skewed more left than right.)
This politicization of professional life seems to have metastasized out from the media and academia. And it is deeply disturbing for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it creates an increasing lack of tolerance for unauthorized views—when such receptivity is the foundation of our liberal institutions.
While it’s routine for journalists to evocatively describe relationships between companies and others as “cozy” (code for compromised and corrupt), it’s hard to think of a cozier relationship than that between intrinsically politically aligned academics and journalists, whose careers—in terms of research funding earned and compelling narratives generated—are each concretely served and advanced by these personally syntonic and professionally synergistic relationships.
Consequently, it’s disheartening, but perhaps not surprising, that in both the media and academia, the intolerance has grown to the level of caricature, where independent, remarkably moderate voices such as Bari Weiss (Bari Weiss!) are vilified, and ultimately chased from premier publications, while few dissenting voices within academic institutions dare speak up, for fear of what might happen. See the tribulations of Erika Christakis, a distinguished Yale professor, who came under attack for suggesting, in the most gentle way, that perhaps students need not be protected from every conceivable environmental trigger. Naturally, this affront to the Yale environment triggered such outrage that Christakis stepped away from teaching.
Beyond these well-publicized stories are hundreds of other examples: thoughtful colleagues both within and outside of academia, who feel compelled to hold their collective tongues, keep as far as possible from the fray, and offer the expected utterances and affirmations. All because they feel convinced that to do otherwise would be to risk their professional standing and hold back their career development.
They are almost certainly correct.
And just because Donald Trump demagogued this politicization and used it as a pretext for racism, know-nothing-ism, and worse does not mean that we should embrace it.
Fealty to an ever-more-stringent political orthodoxy is now routinely demanded from a growing number of organizations. The pursuit of diversity is an important and worthy goal—especially compared to the alternative—but unfortunately, one that tends to be pursued only selectively, in a fashion that rarely includes diversity of viewpoint.
We have good reason to be concerned by this unhealthy, fundamentally illiberal trend, and to yearn for a thoughtful counterpoint, a powerful and compelling voice of reason.
Trump is not that voice.
The profound tragedy is that there are few remaining on the right—and perhaps none in the Republican establishment—who can credibly step into this role.
That’s because the GOP’s reflexive and complete embrace of Trump has resulted in their utter loss of moral or intellectual standing. A party that defined itself for a generation on convictions and ideas has abandoned almost everything it once stood for in order to remain in the good graces of an impetuous man-child. (Tim Alberta has richly documented this sad descent in his both American Carnage and a recent, dispiriting Politico update.)
None of us should wish for a one-party state. We need voices that can respond wisely to the excesses of our political poles. This is not to create a false equivalence: The excesses of the Trump years have been extraordinary, and with luck we will not see such again.
But in the normal course of political life, there will always be excesses. One expects that even a competent and successful Democratic administration will have its own share. A healthy political system is one which allows for constant self-correction and recalibration.
If we are lucky, then the silver lining of Trump years might be a reaction that rekindles an understanding that what we need from our leaders is that they be engaging and inclusive. That they admit the possibility of good intentions even from their most ardent opponents. That they appeal to our best natures, rather than our worst instincts.
And perhaps our encounter with Trumpism might even encourage us to model these behaviors ourselves.