thebulwark--2020-12-14--Biden’s Defense of Democracy Can Begin in Belarus

President-elect Joe Biden has pledged to renew the spirit of democracy at home and abroad and revive America ’ s moral leadership .
The ongoing pro-democracy protests in Belarus provide a unique opportunity for Biden to start strong .
The Washington Post ran an editorial calling on the incoming Biden administration to recognize Belarusian opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya as the legitimate president of Belarus and invite her to the inauguration .
It ’ s a good start , but the incoming Biden Administration can—and should—do more than that .
In the early days of his presidency , Biden should announce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the United States ’ s European allies , if the Russian military is to move further into Belarus to save the failing Lukashenko regime .
Further , the Biden administration should coordinate with allies to provide material support for the protests .
The protesters ’ English-language banners are pleas for outside help .
Even though Belarus is a small country by population ( fewer than 10 million ) , encouraging freedom and democracy there would help slow the rising tide of authoritarianism .
President George W. Bush popularized Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s last dictator.
” But Europe has not been immune to the rise of global authoritarianism , as Andrzej Duda in Poland and Viktor Orbán in Hungary are rapidly eroding democracy in their respective countries .
An end to Lukashenko ’ s 26-year rule will send a clear message to would-be authoritarians in Europe and elsewhere that Biden means business when he talks about renewing the democratic spirit around the world .
There is a second message in an inauguration invitation .
President George H.W .
Bush popularized the phrase “ Europe whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the phrase was in the context of the Cold War .
Much has changed since then , but two things have not .
First , Europe remains the continent with the greatest strategic value to the United States .
Second , Europe faces a threat from an autocratic Russia .
Inviting Tikhanovskaya to the inauguration will signal that Biden is true to his word about taking the threat posed by Vladimir Putin seriously , and after 12 years of neglect , Europeans will know that they are once more America ’ s top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went to the polls to vote in a presidential election process which was widely decried as neither free nor fair .
Over the summer , numerous prominent opposition figures and citizens who protested against the regime were detained and given prison sentences .
The woman who has since become the symbol of a democratic Belarus , Svetlana Tikhanovskaya , was unknown before the summer .
The 38-year-old stay-at-home mother announced her candidacy after her husband , Sergei Tikhanovsky , a prominent member of the Belarusian opposition , was jailed .
After the sham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 80 percent of the vote , and Tikhanovskaya fled to Lithuania .
( As Tikhanovsky ’ s case illustrates , Belarus is not a safe place for opposition politicians . )
Protesters speaking out against the fraudulent election were beaten by riot police and arrested by the thousands .
Belarusians continue to take to the streets over 100 days after the falsified presidential election , with hundreds of thousands of Belarusians marching in the famous Sunday protests throughout the country .
In exile , Tikhanovskaya has forged relations with leading European officials .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in October , called Tikhanovskaya “ courageous , ” and stated that her government does not recognize Lukashenko ’ s declared electoral victory .
French President Emmanuel Macron also met with Tikhanovskaya in Vilnius .
After the meeting , the French president urged Vladimir Putin , whose government had supported Lukashenko despite an often frosty relationship and reported personal animosity , to begin communicating with the Belarusian opposition leader , telling Russia ’ s president that Tikhanovskaya “ was open to dialogue with Russia.
” Lithuania has played an indisputable role in fighting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a country with which it shares a border of more than 400 miles .
In addition to giving Tikhanovskaya a safe haven , Lithuania ’ s parliament , the Sejm , recognized Tikhanovskaya as the legitimate president of Belarus in a September 10 resolution .
The forcefully worded measure states support for the legitimate president of Belarus , Svetlana Tikhanovskaya , “ to hold new and transparent presidential elections in the republic ” and deems Lukashenko the “ illegitimate head of Belarus , ” vowing to treat any of his actions , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ crimes against the Belarusian people.
” The United States has joined its European allies in refusing to recognize the fraudulent election or Lukashenko as the duly elected president of Belarus , but neither President Donald Trump nor Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has met with the Belarusian opposition leader in exile .
The U.S. has taken a backseat in a pressing matter of human rights , democratic values , and global leadership in what should be the final such instance of the Obama-Trump era .
But the Trump administration has not been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorities arrested Vitali Shkliarov , an American citizen and former campaign staffer for President Barack Obama and Senator Bernie Sanders , who was visiting family .
The Belarusian authorities claimed Shkliarov was plotting to incite riots , alleging that he planned to mobilize protesters behind Tikhanovsky .
On October 24 , Pompeo spoke with Lukashenko by phone .
After the call , a State Department spokesman announced that “ the secretary called for the full release and immediate departure from Belarus of wrongfully detained U.S. citizen Vitali Shkliarov and reaffirmed U.S. support for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Belarus.
” Four days later , the authorities released Shkilarov .
Since the August election , the State Department has released numerous statements on the current state of Belarus , including one which criticized Lukashenko ’ s refusal to let Belarusian Catholic Archbishop Kondrusiewicz , who spoke out in favor of Belarus ’ s courageous democratic protesters , to reenter the country from exile in Poland .
Diplomatic pressure is always good and necessary , but Americans should demand more of their country , which has traditionally been the beacon of democracy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ F. Kennedy went to Europe and said , “ Ich bin ein Berliner.
” President Ronald Reagan stood before the Berlin Wall , the symbol of tyranny in Europe , and said to the leader of the Soviet Union , “ Mr .
Gorbachev , tear down this wall.
” Thirty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and Soviet Union , the struggle for the liberation , freedom , and prosperity of all citizens of Eastern Europe is not over .
Lukashenko , a former collective farm boss , is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After a generation-long lull , Russian foreign policy once again supports autocrats and authoritarians , including in Belarus .
President-elect Biden ’ s foreign policy mandate is to rebuild alliances , promote human rights , and renew the spirit of democracy .
There is no worthier agenda .
To demonstrate his seriousness , Biden should begin with Belarus .
Advancing Belarus ’ s freedom is morally good and strategically sound .
Biden should hurry up because , if he doesn ’ t , Putin will .
And he can start his Belarus policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tikhanovskaya to his inauguration and coordinating with the United States ’ s allies to support the protesters ’ noble struggle for dignity .

President-elect Joe Biden has pledged to renew the spirit of democracy at home and abroad and revive America’s moral leadership. The ongoing pro-democracy protests in Belarus provide a unique opportunity for Biden to start strong.
The Washington Post ran an editorial calling on the incoming Biden administration to recognize Belarusian opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya as the legitimate president of Belarus and invite her to the inauguration. It’s a good start, but the incoming Biden Administration can—and should—do more than that.
In the early days of his presidency, Biden should announce punitive actions against Russia, in coordination with the United States’s European allies, if the Russian military is to move further into Belarus to save the failing Lukashenko regime. Further, the Biden administration should coordinate with allies to provide material support for the protests. The protesters’ English-language banners are pleas for outside help.
Even though Belarus is a small country by population (fewer than 10 million), encouraging freedom and democracy there would help slow the rising tide of authoritarianism. President George W. Bush popularized Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko’s epithet, “Europe’s last dictator.” But Europe has not been immune to the rise of global authoritarianism, as Andrzej Duda in Poland and Viktor Orbán in Hungary are rapidly eroding democracy in their respective countries. An end to Lukashenko’s 26-year rule will send a clear message to would-be authoritarians in Europe and elsewhere that Biden means business when he talks about renewing the democratic spirit around the world.
There is a second message in an inauguration invitation. President George H.W. Bush popularized the phrase “Europe whole and free.” His 1989 speech repeating the phrase was in the context of the Cold War. Much has changed since then, but two things have not. First, Europe remains the continent with the greatest strategic value to the United States. Second, Europe faces a threat from an autocratic Russia. Inviting Tikhanovskaya to the inauguration will signal that Biden is true to his word about taking the threat posed by Vladimir Putin seriously, and after 12 years of neglect, Europeans will know that they are once more America’s top priority.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
On August 9, Belarusians went to the polls to vote in a presidential election process which was widely decried as neither free nor fair. Over the summer, numerous prominent opposition figures and citizens who protested against the regime were detained and given prison sentences.
The woman who has since become the symbol of a democratic Belarus, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, was unknown before the summer. The 38-year-old stay-at-home mother announced her candidacy after her husband, Sergei Tikhanovsky, a prominent member of the Belarusian opposition, was jailed.
After the sham election, Lukashenko claimed victory with over 80 percent of the vote, and Tikhanovskaya fled to Lithuania. (As Tikhanovsky’s case illustrates, Belarus is not a safe place for opposition politicians.) Protesters speaking out against the fraudulent election were beaten by riot police and arrested by the thousands. Belarusians continue to take to the streets over 100 days after the falsified presidential election, with hundreds of thousands of Belarusians marching in the famous Sunday protests throughout the country.
In exile, Tikhanovskaya has forged relations with leading European officials. German Chancellor Angela Merkel met with her in October, called Tikhanovskaya “courageous,” and stated that her government does not recognize Lukashenko’s declared electoral victory. French President Emmanuel Macron also met with Tikhanovskaya in Vilnius. After the meeting, the French president urged Vladimir Putin, whose government had supported Lukashenko despite an often frosty relationship and reported personal animosity, to begin communicating with the Belarusian opposition leader, telling Russia’s president that Tikhanovskaya “was open to dialogue with Russia.”
Lithuania has played an indisputable role in fighting for a free and democratic Belarus, a country with which it shares a border of more than 400 miles. In addition to giving Tikhanovskaya a safe haven, Lithuania’s parliament, the Sejm, recognized Tikhanovskaya as the legitimate president of Belarus in a September 10 resolution. The forcefully worded measure states support for the legitimate president of Belarus, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, “to hold new and transparent presidential elections in the republic” and deems Lukashenko the “illegitimate head of Belarus,” vowing to treat any of his actions, in both domestic and foreign policy, as “crimes against the Belarusian people.”
The United States has joined its European allies in refusing to recognize the fraudulent election or Lukashenko as the duly elected president of Belarus, but neither President Donald Trump nor Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has met with the Belarusian opposition leader in exile. The U.S. has taken a backseat in a pressing matter of human rights, democratic values, and global leadership in what should be the final such instance of the Obama-Trump era.
But the Trump administration has not been completely idle. In July, Belarusian authorities arrested Vitali Shkliarov, an American citizen and former campaign staffer for President Barack Obama and Senator Bernie Sanders, who was visiting family. The Belarusian authorities claimed Shkliarov was plotting to incite riots, alleging that he planned to mobilize protesters behind Tikhanovsky. On October 24, Pompeo spoke with Lukashenko by phone. After the call, a State Department spokesman announced that “the secretary called for the full release and immediate departure from Belarus of wrongfully detained U.S. citizen Vitali Shkliarov and reaffirmed U.S. support for the democratic aspirations of the people of Belarus.” Four days later, the authorities released Shkilarov.
Since the August election, the State Department has released numerous statements on the current state of Belarus, including one which criticized Lukashenko’s refusal to let Belarusian Catholic Archbishop Kondrusiewicz, who spoke out in favor of Belarus’s courageous democratic protesters, to reenter the country from exile in Poland.
Diplomatic pressure is always good and necessary, but Americans should demand more of their country, which has traditionally been the beacon of democracy and freedom around the world. President John F. Kennedy went to Europe and said, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” President Ronald Reagan stood before the Berlin Wall, the symbol of tyranny in Europe, and said to the leader of the Soviet Union, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Thirty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and Soviet Union, the struggle for the liberation, freedom, and prosperity of all citizens of Eastern Europe is not over. Lukashenko, a former collective farm boss, is a living continuation of the Soviet empire. After a generation-long lull, Russian foreign policy once again supports autocrats and authoritarians, including in Belarus.
President-elect Biden’s foreign policy mandate is to rebuild alliances, promote human rights, and renew the spirit of democracy. There is no worthier agenda. To demonstrate his seriousness, Biden should begin with Belarus. Advancing Belarus’s freedom is morally good and strategically sound. Biden should hurry up because, if he doesn’t, Putin will. And he can start his Belarus policy on day one, by inviting Svetlana Tikhanovskaya to his inauguration and coordinating with the United States’s allies to support the protesters’ noble struggle for dignity.


thebulwark--2020-12-14--The Democrats’ Electoral Rubik’s Cube

The Democrats’ Electoral Rubik’s Cube

Last month Joe Biden decisively bested Donald Trump in the Electoral College , and by over 7 million votes nationwide .
But this disguises the durability of the GOP ’ s competitive position , and underlying grip on power , for years to come .
It ’ s a demographic truism that our increasingly diverse population threatens the long-term survival of a Republican party rooted in white America .
Nonetheless , daunting structural barriers to a truly representative democracy—the Electoral College , the Senate , and the party ’ s self-perpetuating gerrymander of state and federal legislative districts—will indefinitely postpone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advantages , the GOP ’ s electoral formula is straightforward—turn out a solid majority of whites ; chip away at the Democrats ’ margins among Asians and Hispanics ; and suppress the votes of African Americans .
Its relative success in 2020 presents Biden and his party with ongoing legislative and electoral challenges .
The voters ’ clear rejection of Trump was not accompanied by a deeper mandate for Joe Biden and his party .
Democrats lost seats in the House ; failed—pending Georgia ’ s runoffs—to take control of the Senate ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state legislatures to fortify partisan gerrymandering .
This augurs a legislative stalemate which the congressional elections of 2022 may only deepen .
For the most part , the Republican base is demographically and ideologically homogeneous .
Not so the Democrats ’ far more diverse coalition of Asians , Hispanics , blacks , and whites—mostly affluent and/or well educated , with a diminishing share of blue-collar voters .
Nationwide , Democrats must navigate philosophical , ethnic , and economic fissures of diabolical complexity .
This is captured by the Guardian ’ s survey of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 45,000-vote margin enabled Biden to flip Arizona by 10,000 votes .
Here Biden ’ s gains in white-majority suburbs offset a diminishing margin among working-class Latinos—many of whom supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries .
Traditionally Democratic Hidalgo County along the Texas-Mexico border , home to working-class and poor Hispanics , swung toward Trump by 13 points over 2016 .
Statewide such gains swamped growing Democratic strength in affluent places like suburban Dallas .
In Miami-Dade County , Florida , the substantial Cuban-American vote favored Trump , while Biden lost ground among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A big trend toward Biden in suburban Atlanta epitomized the white swing voters who , added to an overwhelming African-American vote , tipped Georgia to Biden .
In Pennsylvania , Biden barely carried working-class Lackawanna County—which includes his hometown of Scranton—where Barack Obama won twice by over 25 points .
By contrast , Biden took suburban Chester County near Philadelphia , once overwhelmingly Republican , by 17 points .
In Northampton County , North Carolina , a disappointing African-American turnout presaged Biden ’ s defeat statewide .
And his crushing loss in blue-collar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bastion of the Democratic working-class base , helped seal his fate in a state swiftly trending red .
Overall , Biden increased his margin among affluent whites ; lost a crucial slice of Hispanics in some critical locales ; hemorrhaged blue-collar whites ; and , in other key districts , did not turn out as many African Americans as anticipated .
There is no one-size-fits-all solution to this vexing national chessboard .
The Democrats ’ dilemma is exacerbated by an ideological divide between party moderates and progressives—too many of whom imagine they have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , least of all the most ardent progressives .
Consistently , the GOP argued that Democrats of all stripes were too radical for their constituencies , defeating moderate House members in states like New York , Florida , and California , while stalling the party ’ s hoped-for gains in Texas .
Frustrated moderates blamed their defeat on progressives who embraced volatile slogans like “ defund the police ” or “ democratic socialism.
” Both Obama and the African-American congressional whip James Clyburn blamed “ defund the police ” for repelling critical voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ it ’ s not a slogan but a policy demand , ” while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez chastised Obama for missing that the whole point was “ to make [ people ] uncomfortable.
” As a party Democrats emphatically support African-American calls to combat police brutality , and to reform law enforcement in fundamental ways .
But , pace Rep. Ocasio-Cortez , the whole point of an election is to win over your constituents—or lose the ability to effect real change in areas like policing .
As reported in the New York Times , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ representatives of several Democratic interest groups , Biden bluntly distilled the difference : “ That ’ s how they beat the living hell out of us across the country , saying that we ’ re talking about defunding the police .
We ’ re not .
We ’ re talking about holding them accountable.
” If progressives represented most Americans , or even most Democrats , Sanders would not have been drubbed in two successive presidential primary contests .
Depending on their district and state , the party needs both moderates and progressives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ urban districts , they are far less suited to more moderate majority-white suburban districts .
By appropriating progressive catchphrases to nationalize congressional races , the GOP compromised the ability of moderates to address local sensibilities .
Going forward this stratagem , however dishonest , may put Democrats in a vice—especially without Trump on the ballot to unify the party .
Best to jettison tendentious slogans for real solutions .
Another problem is that the Democrats ’ presumptive coalition of African Americans , Hispanics , Asians , and persuadable whites is far from monolithic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among these groups , but within them .
Start with the gulf between upwardly versus downwardly mobile whites .
Over time , the parties have effectively traded places : Whites with college degrees are trending Democratic , while the more numerous non-college-educated whites—beset by racial , cultural , and economic anxieties—are fleeing in droves .
One predictable result is that Republicans will gerrymander suburban House districts to further disadvantage Democrats .
Absent the ability to speak more persuasively to blue-collar whites about improving their own lives , Democrats may find themselves hemmed into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the House or even , as happened in 2016 , the Electoral College .
As for nonwhites , it should go without saying that Asians , Hispanics , and African Americans are not homogeneous “ people of color ” —or that the viewpoint of immigrant communities may differ from those whose ancestors were sold into slavery before being subjected to terrorism , enforced peonage , segregation , and corrosive racial stereotyping and discrimination .
Moreover , it is foolish to assume that Vietnamese who fled communism share the concerns of Indian Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Like immigrants from China , Cuba , Nicaragua , or Venezuela , the former may be receptive to charges of socialism lodged against Democrats , or to the calls for unfettered entrepreneurship through which the GOP attracts many Asians and Hispanics writ large .
Nor do immigrants who arrived legally , whether Asian , Hispanic , or Afro-Caribbean , necessarily sympathize with those who did not .
Similarly , some Asian Americans feel victimized by affirmative action programs designed to alleviate discrimination against Hispanics and , particularly , blacks .
This November , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Hispanics opposed the repeal of a ban on affirmative action in education , employment , and contracting .
Collectively , Asians and Hispanics were important to the Democrats ’ coalition in 2020 .
Nonetheless the party saw a troubling erosion of support in both communities .
The defection of Hispanics in Texas and Florida received the most attention .
Here , observers took more discerning stock of political variations driven by gender , age , economics , locale , national origin , and religious adherence .
It should be no surprise that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP disinformation associating Democrats with doctrinaire socialism , or that others along the Texas border with Mexico have ties to friends or family members policing illegal immigration .
But Trump ’ s share among Hispanics also increased in major cities like Milwaukee , Philadelphia , Los Angeles , and San Jose .
Reasons vary .
While Hispanic Catholics remain solidly Democratic—considerably more Democratic than white Catholics—they respond to cultural conservatism : opposition to abortion , support for charter schools , and calls for freedom of religion .
Further , Democrats came late to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some Hispanics in Arizona reacted to being racially scapegoated by anti-immigrant zealots ; others did not .
As with Asians , Hispanics increasingly split along economic and educational lines—much like whites .
But nothing captures the complexities of the Democratic coalition more than the pivotal importance of overwhelming support from African Americans—at once indispensable and , in itself , insufficient .
In his victory speech , Biden told black voters “ you ’ ve always had my back , and I ’ ll have yours.
” So he must .
But as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the black share of the electorate dropped in battleground states like North Carolina and , more surprisingly , Georgia .
Nor was there increased turnout in critical cities like Detroit , Milwaukee , and Philadelphia .
Within the black community , one fissure concerned “ defunding ” police departments .
Progressives and younger blacks embraced it ; older and more moderate voters found it unnerving .
Overall , the relative moderation of African-American voters was critical to Biden ’ s victories over both Sanders and Trump .
Georgia illustrates the complex interplay within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bedrock of Biden ’ s win .
But outreach to Hispanics and Asians helped , and college-educated whites put Biden over the top .
Concurrently , ticket splitting down-ballot caused senatorial candidates Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff to run behind the total vote for their Republican opponents—making them underdogs in January ’ s runoffs .
To win , both candidates will need a sliver of traditionally Republican white voters who remain unsympathetic to progressives , as well as more affluent Asians and Hispanics who have migrated to the suburbs .
The election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divide .
A late-November Survey USA poll shows that , among white voters likely to vote in the runoff , Senator David Perdue has a 43-point lead over Ossoff , and the appointed Senator Kelly Loeffler has a 37-point lead over Warnock , the African-American pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church .
Among black voters likely to vote in the runoff , Ossoff an 87-point advantage over Perdue , and Warnock an 83-point margin over Loeffler .
Critically , Georgia ’ s population is about 58 percent white and 32 percent black , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white and black respondents said they would vote in the runoff .
Trafficking in coded racial politics , the GOP is casting the “ radical liberal ” Warnock as the face of the Democratic party .
Should either Democrat eke out a victory , it will be because both enjoy a substantial margin among suburban women .
Politically and morally , Biden must address the urgent concerns of black Americans—including those shared by many Hispanics : Pandemic relief .
Comprehensive police accountability .
Food insecurity .
Housing shortages .
Gaping disparities in wealth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business opportunities .
Greater representation in the cabinet , while important , is only a start .
But the road to these changes must involve an overarching program which helps the entire Democratic coalition cohere while addressing the legitimate concerns of blue-collar whites .
That means addressing the fundamental desire of diverse Americans for economic security , opportunity , security , and prosperity .
This does not require embracing a doctrinaire progressivism of dubious popularity .
Biden ’ s already ambitious agenda includes rebuilding infrastructure ; expanding educational opportunity ; raising the minimum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power of workers ; assuring better care for children and seniors ; and providing quality healthcare for more Americans .
Not every constituency in the Democrats ideal coalition will respond .
But many will—including the more educated and affluent citizens who believe that a more inclusive America will be more prosperous and secure .
Let the GOP oppose this program—as it surely will—and let them explain to voters what they offer instead .
Some Republicans imagine that their inroads among minorities may prefigure a multiracial working-class coalition which actualizes Trump ’ s pseudo-populism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the white identity politics essential to Trumpism , the economic solipsism of the party ’ s donor class , and its ideological aversion to federal programs for those who are falling behind .
The Republican party has created its own ceiling , and scapegoating China is insufficient to raise it .
This is not true of Democrats , who appeal to voters across broader ethnic and ideological lines .
However complicated their coalition , it offers the hope of transcending the zero-sum politics which is stagnating our governance and polarizing our citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats to realize that internecine ideological warfare and doctrinal purity are the enemies of our democratic revival .
The political landscape is far too arduous for self-indulgence , and their opportunities far too easily extinguished .
Only adults will do .

Last month Joe Biden decisively bested Donald Trump in the Electoral College, and by over 7 million votes nationwide. But this disguises the durability of the GOP’s competitive position, and underlying grip on power, for years to come.
It’s a demographic truism that our increasingly diverse population threatens the long-term survival of a Republican party rooted in white America. Nonetheless, daunting structural barriers to a truly representative democracy—the Electoral College, the Senate, and the party’s self-perpetuating gerrymander of state and federal legislative districts—will indefinitely postpone the day of reckoning.
Given these advantages, the GOP’s electoral formula is straightforward—turn out a solid majority of whites; chip away at the Democrats’ margins among Asians and Hispanics; and suppress the votes of African Americans. Its relative success in 2020 presents Biden and his party with ongoing legislative and electoral challenges.
The voters’ clear rejection of Trump was not accompanied by a deeper mandate for Joe Biden and his party. Democrats lost seats in the House; failed—pending Georgia’s runoffs—to take control of the Senate; and suffered crushing defeats which free GOP state legislatures to fortify partisan gerrymandering. This augurs a legislative stalemate which the congressional elections of 2022 may only deepen.
For the most part, the Republican base is demographically and ideologically homogeneous. Not so the Democrats’ far more diverse coalition of Asians, Hispanics, blacks, and whites—mostly affluent and/or well educated, with a diminishing share of blue-collar voters.
Nationwide, Democrats must navigate philosophical, ethnic, and economic fissures of diabolical complexity. This is captured by the Guardian’s survey of ten bellwether constituencies.
In Maricopa County a 45,000-vote margin enabled Biden to flip Arizona by 10,000 votes. Here Biden’s gains in white-majority suburbs offset a diminishing margin among working-class Latinos—many of whom supported Bernie Sanders in the primaries.
Traditionally Democratic Hidalgo County along the Texas-Mexico border, home to working-class and poor Hispanics, swung toward Trump by 13 points over 2016. Statewide such gains swamped growing Democratic strength in affluent places like suburban Dallas.
In Miami-Dade County, Florida, the substantial Cuban-American vote favored Trump, while Biden lost ground among African Americans—assuring his decisive defeat statewide. A big trend toward Biden in suburban Atlanta epitomized the white swing voters who, added to an overwhelming African-American vote, tipped Georgia to Biden.
In Pennsylvania, Biden barely carried working-class Lackawanna County—which includes his hometown of Scranton—where Barack Obama won twice by over 25 points. By contrast, Biden took suburban Chester County near Philadelphia, once overwhelmingly Republican, by 17 points.
In Northampton County, North Carolina, a disappointing African-American turnout presaged Biden’s defeat statewide. And his crushing loss in blue-collar Mahoning County, Ohio, once a bastion of the Democratic working-class base, helped seal his fate in a state swiftly trending red.
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…
Overall, Biden increased his margin among affluent whites; lost a crucial slice of Hispanics in some critical locales; hemorrhaged blue-collar whites; and, in other key districts, did not turn out as many African Americans as anticipated. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to this vexing national chessboard.
The Democrats’ dilemma is exacerbated by an ideological divide between party moderates and progressives—too many of whom imagine they have the universal answer. Neither faction does, least of all the most ardent progressives.
Consistently, the GOP argued that Democrats of all stripes were too radical for their constituencies, defeating moderate House members in states like New York, Florida, and California, while stalling the party’s hoped-for gains in Texas. Frustrated moderates blamed their defeat on progressives who embraced volatile slogans like “defund the police” or “democratic socialism.”
Both Obama and the African-American congressional whip James Clyburn blamed “defund the police” for repelling critical voters. In response, Ilhan Omar wrote “it’s not a slogan but a policy demand,” while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez chastised Obama for missing that the whole point was “to make [people] uncomfortable.”
As a party Democrats emphatically support African-American calls to combat police brutality, and to reform law enforcement in fundamental ways. But, pace Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, the whole point of an election is to win over your constituents—or lose the ability to effect real change in areas like policing. As reported in the New York Times, in discussing the Georgia runoffs with black representatives of several Democratic interest groups, Biden bluntly distilled the difference: “That’s how they beat the living hell out of us across the country, saying that we’re talking about defunding the police. We’re not. We’re talking about holding them accountable.”
Exactly.
If progressives represented most Americans, or even most Democrats, Sanders would not have been drubbed in two successive presidential primary contests. Depending on their district and state, the party needs both moderates and progressives: While progressives do well in majority-minority urban districts, they are far less suited to more moderate majority-white suburban districts.
By appropriating progressive catchphrases to nationalize congressional races, the GOP compromised the ability of moderates to address local sensibilities. Going forward this stratagem, however dishonest, may put Democrats in a vice—especially without Trump on the ballot to unify the party. Best to jettison tendentious slogans for real solutions.
Another problem is that the Democrats’ presumptive coalition of African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and persuadable whites is far from monolithic. Not only are there considerable divides among these groups, but within them.
Start with the gulf between upwardly versus downwardly mobile whites. Over time, the parties have effectively traded places: Whites with college degrees are trending Democratic, while the more numerous non-college-educated whites—beset by racial, cultural, and economic anxieties—are fleeing in droves.
One predictable result is that Republicans will gerrymander suburban House districts to further disadvantage Democrats. Absent the ability to speak more persuasively to blue-collar whites about improving their own lives, Democrats may find themselves hemmed into enclaves which cannot deliver a majority in the House or even, as happened in 2016, the Electoral College.
As for nonwhites, it should go without saying that Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans are not homogeneous “people of color”—or that the viewpoint of immigrant communities may differ from those whose ancestors were sold into slavery before being subjected to terrorism, enforced peonage, segregation, and corrosive racial stereotyping and discrimination.
Moreover, it is foolish to assume that Vietnamese who fled communism share the concerns of Indian Americans who came to further their education. Like immigrants from China, Cuba, Nicaragua, or Venezuela, the former may be receptive to charges of socialism lodged against Democrats, or to the calls for unfettered entrepreneurship through which the GOP attracts many Asians and Hispanics writ large.
Nor do immigrants who arrived legally, whether Asian, Hispanic, or Afro-Caribbean, necessarily sympathize with those who did not. Similarly, some Asian Americans feel victimized by affirmative action programs designed to alleviate discrimination against Hispanics and, particularly, blacks. This November, in California, significant numbers of Asians and Hispanics opposed the repeal of a ban on affirmative action in education, employment, and contracting.
Collectively, Asians and Hispanics were important to the Democrats’ coalition in 2020. Nonetheless the party saw a troubling erosion of support in both communities.
The defection of Hispanics in Texas and Florida received the most attention. Here, observers took more discerning stock of political variations driven by gender, age, economics, locale, national origin, and religious adherence.
It should be no surprise that many Hispanics in Florida were susceptible to GOP disinformation associating Democrats with doctrinaire socialism, or that others along the Texas border with Mexico have ties to friends or family members policing illegal immigration. But Trump’s share among Hispanics also increased in major cities like Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and San Jose.
Reasons vary. While Hispanic Catholics remain solidly Democratic—considerably more Democratic than white Catholics—they respond to cultural conservatism: opposition to abortion, support for charter schools, and calls for freedom of religion. Further, Democrats came late to targeted organizing and messaging in Hispanic communities.
Some Hispanics in Arizona reacted to being racially scapegoated by anti-immigrant zealots; others did not. As with Asians, Hispanics increasingly split along economic and educational lines—much like whites.
But nothing captures the complexities of the Democratic coalition more than the pivotal importance of overwhelming support from African Americans—at once indispensable and, in itself, insufficient.
In his victory speech, Biden told black voters “you’ve always had my back, and I’ll have yours.” So he must. But as detailed by the New York Times, the black share of the electorate dropped in battleground states like North Carolina and, more surprisingly, Georgia. Nor was there increased turnout in critical cities like Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia.
Within the black community, one fissure concerned “defunding” police departments. Progressives and younger blacks embraced it; older and more moderate voters found it unnerving. Overall, the relative moderation of African-American voters was critical to Biden’s victories over both Sanders and Trump.
Georgia illustrates the complex interplay within the Democratic coalition. African-American voters were the bedrock of Biden’s win. But outreach to Hispanics and Asians helped, and college-educated whites put Biden over the top.
Concurrently, ticket splitting down-ballot caused senatorial candidates Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff to run behind the total vote for their Republican opponents—making them underdogs in January’s runoffs. To win, both candidates will need a sliver of traditionally Republican white voters who remain unsympathetic to progressives, as well as more affluent Asians and Hispanics who have migrated to the suburbs.
The election further exposed Georgia’s persistent racial divide. A late-November Survey USA poll shows that, among white voters likely to vote in the runoff, Senator David Perdue has a 43-point lead over Ossoff, and the appointed Senator Kelly Loeffler has a 37-point lead over Warnock, the African-American pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church. Among black voters likely to vote in the runoff, Ossoff an 87-point advantage over Perdue, and Warnock an 83-point margin over Loeffler. Critically,Georgia’s population is about 58 percent white and 32 percent black, and in the poll roughly three-quarters of the white and black respondents said they would vote in the runoff.
Trafficking in coded racial politics, the GOP is casting the “radical liberal” Warnock as the face of the Democratic party. Should either Democrat eke out a victory, it will be because both enjoy a substantial margin among suburban women.
Politically and morally, Biden must address the urgent concerns of black Americans—including those shared by many Hispanics: Pandemic relief. Comprehensive police accountability. Food insecurity. Housing shortages. Gaping disparities in wealth creation, homeownership, education, and business opportunities. Greater representation in the cabinet, while important, is only a start.
But the road to these changes must involve an overarching program which helps the entire Democratic coalition cohere while addressing the legitimate concerns of blue-collar whites. That means addressing the fundamental desire of diverse Americans for economic security, opportunity, security, and prosperity.
This does not require embracing a doctrinaire progressivism of dubious popularity. Biden’s already ambitious agenda includes rebuilding infrastructure; expanding educational opportunity; raising the minimum wage; protecting the health and bargaining power of workers; assuring better care for children and seniors; and providing quality healthcare for more Americans.
Not every constituency in the Democrats ideal coalition will respond. But many will—including the more educated and affluent citizens who believe that a more inclusive America will be more prosperous and secure. Let the GOP oppose this program—as it surely will—and let them explain to voters what they offer instead.
Some Republicans imagine that their inroads among minorities may prefigure a multiracial working-class coalition which actualizes Trump’s pseudo-populism. But these gauzy aspirations will collide with the white identity politics essential to Trumpism, the economic solipsism of the party’s donor class, and its ideological aversion to federal programs for those who are falling behind. The Republican party has created its own ceiling, and scapegoating China is insufficient to raise it.
This is not true of Democrats, who appeal to voters across broader ethnic and ideological lines. However complicated their coalition, it offers the hope of transcending the zero-sum politics which is stagnating our governance and polarizing our citizens.
But the first step is for Democrats to realize that internecine ideological warfare and doctrinal purity are the enemies of our democratic revival. The political landscape is far too arduous for self-indulgence, and their opportunities far too easily extinguished. Only adults will do.


thebulwark--2020-12-15--How David Hockney Trolled the ‘New Yorker’

The New Yorker has released a preview of the magazine ’ s second-to-last cover of 2020 .
The cover features an original digital painting by David Hockney , titled “ Hearth.
” It depicts a fireplace and is decidedly juvenile in execution .
The brushwork appears childish and has sparked a Twitter backlash and outcry .
“ This is very funny .
Hockney is perfectly capable of using digital brushes properly , can only assume he hates someone in the TNY art dept , ” Jo Livingstone of the New Republic noted in now-deleted tweets , “ Either that or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough to protect his legacy.
” Livingstone pointed to a number of Hockney ’ s recently exhibited digital paintings as evidence of his mastery , supporting the supposition that the New Yorker cover might be , in some way , a troll .
Along with the cover in question is a brief synopsis and Q & A with Hockney conducted by Françoise Mouly , the New Yorker ’ s art director .
In it we learn that Hockney , after doing 220 digital paintings in 2020 , will be returning to oils for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a sweeping or in-depth discussion of his work , the interview touches on his now decade-long fascination with the iPad as an artistic device and his taking inspiration from tapestries .
The piece also features a time-lapse of the digital painting being created .
If anything , the interview raises more questions than it answers .
Why , if Hockney went to such great pains over the course of the year to produce this great and specific quantity of work , did Mouly not choose to elevate one of better quality ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she writes , “ David Hockney offers the traditional comfort of a hearth.
” Hockney is 83 years old and considered among the greatest living British artists for his contributions to the pop art movement in the 1960s .
Over the course of his career , he has used a wide range of media and has not shied away from technology .
But “ Hearth ” simply does not justly represent Hockney ’ s digital work .
Just last month The Art Newspaper featured an item on his digital art in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most recent work is capable of eliciting .
The Art Newspaper featured two digital paintings in particular , first “ The Big Tree in Autumn , ” has a remarkable sky–blue in the center of the frame , breaking through the clouds behind the branches of the tree .
There are layers of gray in the clouds .
The details of the tree ’ s branches and leaves show deliberate use of different textures and opacities .
These are advanced techniques regardless of medium .
“ The Pond in Autumn , ” made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impressive .
Again the range of detail , color , texture , and gesture , while not entirely controlled or pristine , still shows the hand of a skilled and dedicated artist .
The tranquility of the water Hockney is able to portray is masterful .
Given the well-honed skill and style evident in these works and others exhibited over the years , why the New Yorker chose or accepted upon commission such a seemingly anomalous painting is a valid question .
Hockney is clearly in command of his faculties , making it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irreverence and slap-dash nature of “ Hearth ” are an intentional thumbing of the nose at the magazine ’ s grandiosity .
This is also not the first iPad sketch from Hockney that has graced the New Yorker ’ s cover .
The three previous digitally produced Hockney covers featured beneath the interview—still lifes from 2010 and 2011 and a landscape from 2018—are all vastly more complex and impressive .
It is not just that the study of the fireplace is weak or a departure from the other iPad work he has done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from what he has submitted in the past to this same magazine and this same art director .
Responding to Livingstone ’ s critique , Sterling Crispin suggested that “ Hearth ” was in continuity with Hockney ’ s previous digital work : “ But that ’ s part of the appeal , hard for people to understand it ’ s supposed to be sort of shitty , ” Crispin continued .
Given , again , Hockney ’ s stated mission to complete 220 paintings in 2020 , it ’ s safe to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them to be bangers .
So yes , some are going to have that “ intentional shitty crude ” quality to them—that is not the surprise .
The “ surprise ” is that he chose to shoddily iPad it in for the cover of one of the most prestigious magazines in the world after a year of social uprisings calling for the cultural standard bearers to be more inclusive in who and what they chose to promote .
At a moment when art , almost alone among human endeavors , can offer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and consolation , or distraction and humor , or any other variety of grace , Hockney and the New Yorker give us this ?
Kyle Chayka—using a logical fallacy to bait the conversation away from ‘ why or why not the painting is shitty and why was it chosen ’ to ‘ well actually , it is a virtue that the painting is shitty ’ —chimed in with this bit of wisdom : “ making people mad is a great side-effect of art.
” It can be , yes .
It is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goes on to invoke a well-known anecdote of dubious origin : This vignette does not contradict Livingstone ’ s point , though .
Dashing off a scribble for someone seeking , and willing to pay for , the work of a master is inherently an act of “ trolling ” : an instance of behaving provocatively or antagonizing someone .
The crux is the irreverence and the New Yorker ’ s acceptance and elevation of it .
Suggesting that the iPad ’ s paint app is “ unforgiving ” is an insult to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is perfectly capable of producing very fine work in the medium .
It is not difficult to grasp that some media are cruder than others .
That is not what is at issue here .
Chayka ’ s and Crispin ’ s defenses of the cover are silly .
To suggest that there is something shallow or misinformed in taking umbrage at the cover ’ s juvenile quality is simply pretentious .
This is not a case of “ my kid could do that ” but a moment to reflect on editorial integrity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shitposting ’ ) .
Because ultimately an editor made the choice to feature that image in all its mediocrity—choosing to capstone the year by having an old white man dash off an image severely lacking in technical qualities and at odds with his proven abilities and reputation .
Even so , there is something pleasurable about seeing something done so terribly appear on the cover of the New Yorker .
The disjunction is genuinely hilarious .
Some have gone so far as to call it “ iconic.
” By being elevated to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit of the 2020 zeitgeist .
This is not enough to redeem the digital painting as a standalone work of art .
A fittingly shitty end to a shitty year .
“ Abstraction is still difficult for people !
!
!
” Chakya exclaims .
Indeed , it seems at least some of the meta aspects of trolling have gone over quite a few heads .
But saying a work is purposefully bad doesn ’ t make it good .

The New Yorker has released a preview of the magazine’s second-to-last cover of 2020. The cover features an original digital painting by David Hockney, titled “Hearth.” It depicts a fireplace and is decidedly juvenile in execution. The brushwork appears childish and has sparked a Twitter backlash and outcry.
“This is very funny. Hockney is perfectly capable of using digital brushes properly, can only assume he hates someone in the TNY art dept,” Jo Livingstone of the New Republic noted in now-deleted tweets, “Either that or somebody at TNY doesn’t care enough to protect his legacy.” Livingstone pointed to a number of Hockney’s recently exhibited digital paintings as evidence of his mastery, supporting the supposition that the New Yorker cover might be, in some way, a troll.
Along with the cover in question is a brief synopsis and Q&A with Hockney conducted by Françoise Mouly, the New Yorker’s art director. In it we learn that Hockney, after doing 220 digital paintings in 2020, will be returning to oils for a large mural in 2021. While not a sweeping or in-depth discussion of his work, the interview touches on his now decade-long fascination with the iPad as an artistic device and his taking inspiration from tapestries. The piece also features a time-lapse of the digital painting being created.
If anything, the interview raises more questions than it answers. Why, if Hockney went to such great pains over the course of the year to produce this great and specific quantity of work, did Mouly not choose to elevate one of better quality? “For these short, dark days,” she writes, “David Hockney offers the traditional comfort of a hearth.”
Hockney is 83 years old and considered among the greatest living British artists for his contributions to the pop art movement in the 1960s. Over the course of his career, he has used a wide range of media and has not shied away from technology.
But “Hearth” simply does not justly represent Hockney’s digital work. Just last month The Art Newspaper featured an item on his digital art in quarantine, highlighting the hope that his most recent work is capable of eliciting.
The Art Newspaper featured two digital paintings in particular, first “The Big Tree in Autumn,” has a remarkable sky–blue in the center of the frame, breaking through the clouds behind the branches of the tree. There are layers of gray in the clouds. The details of the tree’s branches and leaves show deliberate use of different textures and opacities. These are advanced techniques regardless of medium.
“The Pond in Autumn,” made two days later, is even more impressive. Again the range of detail, color, texture, and gesture, while not entirely controlled or pristine, still shows the hand of a skilled and dedicated artist. The tranquility of the water Hockney is able to portray is masterful.
Given the well-honed skill and style evident in these works and others exhibited over the years, why the New Yorker chose or accepted upon commission such a seemingly anomalous painting is a valid question. Hockney is clearly in command of his faculties, making it seem all the more likely that the irreverence and slap-dash nature of “Hearth” are an intentional thumbing of the nose at the magazine’s grandiosity.
This is also not the first iPad sketch from Hockney that has graced the New Yorker’s cover. The three previous digitally produced Hockney covers featured beneath the interview—still lifes from 2010 and 2011 and a landscape from 2018—are all vastly more complex and impressive. It is not just that the study of the fireplace is weak or a departure from the other iPad work he has done at large—it is a departure in quality from what he has submitted in the past to this same magazine and this same art director.
Responding to Livingstone’s critique, Sterling Crispin suggested that “Hearth” was in continuity with Hockney’s previous digital work:
https://twitter.com/sterlingcrispin/status/1338568193342750720
“But that’s part of the appeal, hard for people to understand it’s supposed to be sort of shitty,” Crispin continued.
Given, again, Hockney’s stated mission to complete 220 paintings in 2020, it’s safe to say we can’t expect all of them to be bangers. So yes, some are going to have that “intentional shitty crude” quality to them—that is not the surprise. The “surprise” is that he chose to shoddily iPad it in for the cover of one of the most prestigious magazines in the world after a year of social uprisings calling for the cultural standard bearers to be more inclusive in who and what they chose to promote. At a moment when art, almost alone among human endeavors, can offer us beauty and inspiration, or solace and consolation, or distraction and humor, or any other variety of grace, Hockney and the New Yorker give us this?
Kyle Chayka—using a logical fallacy to bait the conversation away from ‘why or why not the painting is shitty and why was it chosen’ to ‘well actually, it is a virtue that the painting is shitty’—chimed in with this bit of wisdom: “making people mad is a great side-effect of art.” It can be, yes. It is also the intended effect of trolling.
Chayka goes on to invoke a well-known anecdote of dubious origin:
It always reminds me of the story about the woman who approached Picasso in a restaurant, asked him to scribble something on a napkin, and said she would be happy to pay whatever he felt it was worth. Picasso complied and then said, “That will be $10,000.” “But you did that in thirty seconds,” the astonished woman replied. “No,” Picasso said. “It has taken me forty years to do that.”
This vignette does not contradict Livingstone’s point, though. Dashing off a scribble for someone seeking, and willing to pay for, the work of a master is inherently an act of “trolling”: an instance of behaving provocatively or antagonizing someone. The crux is the irreverence and the New Yorker’s acceptance and elevation of it.
Suggesting that the iPad’s paint app is “unforgiving” is an insult to Hockney, who has demonstrated that he is perfectly capable of producing very fine work in the medium. It is not difficult to grasp that some media are cruder than others. That is not what is at issue here.
Chayka’s and Crispin’s defenses of the cover are silly. To suggest that there is something shallow or misinformed in taking umbrage at the cover’s juvenile quality is simply pretentious. This is not a case of “my kid could do that” but a moment to reflect on editorial integrity (and the possible virtues of ‘shitposting’). Because ultimately an editor made the choice to feature that image in all its mediocrity—choosing to capstone the year by having an old white man dash off an image severely lacking in technical qualities and at odds with his proven abilities and reputation.
Even so, there is something pleasurable about seeing something done so terribly appear on the cover of the New Yorker. The disjunction is genuinely hilarious. Some have gone so far as to call it “iconic.” By being elevated to the cover it is able to capture a bit of the 2020 zeitgeist. This is not enough to redeem the digital painting as a standalone work of art. A fittingly shitty end to a shitty year.
“Abstraction is still difficult for people!!!” Chakya exclaims. Indeed, it seems at least some of the meta aspects of trolling have gone over quite a few heads. But saying a work is purposefully bad doesn’t make it good.


thebulwark--2020-12-15--Biden Needs Party Unity—or Else

Biden Needs Party Unity—or Else

To win the presidency , Joe Biden crafted a diverse and ideologically fractious coalition unified by loathing for Donald Trump .
But its inherent tensions—particularly between moderates and progressives—threaten his ability as president to navigate an arduous political terrain occupied by a single-minded legislative saboteur : Mitch McConnell .
By stonewalling Biden ’ s agenda in the Senate , McConnell means to provoke factional recriminations among Democrats which could effectively destroy Biden ’ s presidency .
Five weeks before inauguration day , the dangers of disunity are already clear—as is the character of McConnell and his party .
The question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to governance in such difficult times .
The first legislative priority is one of historic urgency : providing economic relief from the ravages of a surging pandemic .
In a saner polity , such a crisis would mandate bipartisan cooperation .
Instead we see partisan guerrilla warfare that stymies solutions as Americans suffer .
Last spring the GOP supported a massive stimulus package which buttressed an economy in crisis and , not so incidentally , Trump ’ s presidency .
But its benefits have largely expired , as has McConnell ’ s interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of fellow citizens less cosseted than he : failing businesses , rising evictions , proliferating hunger , and state and local governments facing fiscal crises which threaten vital services .
The question is how much more human misery it takes for McConnell to reimagine himself as a public servant .
Having rediscovered the GOP ’ s situational passion for fiscal discipline , McConnell has killed Democratic proposals for $ 2 trillion in additional relief .
Particularly offensive to his rarefied sensibilities is federal aid to struggling states and cities which he dismisses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blue-state bailout.
” Never mind that , as the New York Times notes , “ six of the seven states that are expected to suffer the biggest revenue declines over the next two years are red—states led by Republican governors and won by President Trump this year.
” Those who imagine McConnell cares misunderstand the game .
But a few Republican senators are refusing to play .
Susan Collins , Mitt Romney , and Lisa Murkowski have joined Joe Manchin in working toward a bipartisan compromise designed to get Americans through the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ framework now under discussion includes rental assistance , relief for small businesses , supplements to unemployment insurance and additional funding for airlines , Amtrak , education , coronavirus testing , the postal service , and childcare .
Citing the urgent need for immediate relief pending further legislation , Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer backed off their insistence on a $ 2 trillion package , and President-elect Biden urged Democrats to support the bipartisan framework .
Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce added its endorsement .
But within the negotiations thorny issues remain .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cities—which the negotiators seem ready to include—and another round of checks to the unemployed ; McConnell demands a liability shield for businesses which exposed workers and customers to COVID—no matter how careless of public-health measures those businesses may have been .
External actors are complicating the negotiators ’ task .
Even as they edged toward agreement , at the eleventh hour the White House , which had been largely uninvolved in the discussions , introduced a $ 916 billion proposal which includes the liability shield and aid to states and cities , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Democrats .
McConnell then contributed his own bit of mischief , suggesting the removal from Trump ’ s proposal of both the liability shield and funding for state and local entities—further undermining the negotiations .
From the left , Bernie Sanders announced that he could not support the compromise proposal unless it eliminated the liability shield and included direct checks of least $ 12,000 .
Citing the logjam he had done so much to construct , McConnell suggested that legislation sorting out important details might have to be shelved until 2021 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is how McConnell has played pandemic relief and its protagonists .
He refused to consider the $ 2 trillion relief package passed by House Democrats .
He sat back while the President-elect and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate supported the compromise effort by cutting their demands in half ; no doubt chuckled when Sanders issued demands of his own ; and bestirred himself only to narrow the road to a final agreement .
Some package may yet emerge before Congress adjourns .
But if this is McConnell ’ s template in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can but despair of meaningful progress on Biden ’ s legislative agenda .
And Sanders may have provided a worrisome sign of Democratic fissures to come .
Sanders protested that “ this bill will set the agenda for the first two years of the Biden administration .
.
.
.
And if we allow Republicans to set the agenda , to set the parameters of the debate , the next two to four years will be a disaster .
.
.
.
So the question is , are we going to return to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or are we going to build a dynamic economy that works for everyone and not just the 1 percent ?
” Bernie Sanders ’ s frustration with McConnell is utterly justified—but not his implicit assumption that indignation will overcome McConnell ’ s fortified position as the autocratic leader of a Republican majority .
The ultimate question is whether Democrats can unite to help Biden achieve optimal progress in the face of McConnell ’ s trench warfare , or grant their antagonist his fondest wish—a bitterly divided party mired in mutual recriminations .
Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive , a diverse group of experts concerned with raising wages , combating income and wealth disparities , expanding childcare , providing paid family leave , fortifying the bargaining power of labor unions , protecting vulnerable workers , and ameliorating minority unemployment .
Given a Democratic Senate , they could help drive genuine change .
But , pending two upsets in Georgia ’ s senatorial runoffs , Biden and congressional Democrats must deal with McConnell .
Here , past is surely prologue—indeed , the hysteria of the Republican base is likely to render @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the Obama administration .
One need not reprise that history in detail .
McConnell helped shrink the stimulus package through which Obama sought to relieve the Great Recession ; denied a single vote to a healthcare plan modeled on that enacted by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts ; and killed climate change legislation altogether .
Congress all but ceased to function .
As majority leader , McConnell can simply keep Biden ’ s legislative proposals from reaching the floor .
Set aside any optimistic speculation about McConnell and Biden potentially having a productive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accept the legitimacy of Biden ’ s election will no doubt deny the legitimacy of his efforts to govern .
Even a narrow Democratic majority will make major legislation unlikely .
With considerable understatement , Senate Democratic whip Dick Durbin told the Associated Press : “ There ’ s so many areas , which we value so much that Republicans do not , that it will be tough to guide [ compromise legislation ] through the Senate.
” Indeed , the principal power of congressional progressives may involve the potential to kill what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ toxic compromises with McConnell.
” The obvious risk is that progressives will turn their frustration with McConnell into antagonism toward Biden .
As progressive Senator Jeff Merkley ( D-Oregon ) told the Washington Post : So what is the path ?
As a first step Biden should put McConnell to the test by pushing hard for popular measures like a $ 15 per hour minimum wage ; infrastructure spending that creates new job and promotes green energy ; humane immigration reform ; and broader access to healthcare .
Such an effort would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell to choose between compromise and scorched earth , Biden can lay the political predicate for aggressively using executive orders to advance his agenda—after warning McConnell that he will do so .
One can already hear Republicans denouncing Biden ’ s “ dictatorial ” actions .
Were they responsible participants in democratic governance , that would carry some weight .
But given that they are not , let them complain—as long and loudly as they want .
As president , Biden has a bigger megaphone .
He should use it to tell voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are doing it—with McConnell as the poster boy for GOP obstruction .
This could have two salutary affects : making government work , and uniting the Democratic party .
Obviously , on Day One Biden can unwind Trump ’ s most noxious executive orders ; rejoin the Paris Climate Accord ; protect Dreamers ; reform our treatment of immigrants and asylum-seekers ; and direct his cabinet officers to protect voting rights , workers ’ rights , and civil rights .
But there is much else he could do should McConnell set out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order Biden can raise energy-efficiency standards , strengthen fuel economy regulations , invest in public transit , compel federal infrastructure projects to reduce pollution , require public companies to disclose climate risks stemming from their businesses , and increase our protection and conservation of public lands .
Republicans will surely decry such measures as an attack on jobs and prosperity .
But concern for the environment is not confined to progressives and the young : Ever more Americans perceive the evidence for climate change all around us—record temperatures , catastrophic fires , rising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and widening droughts—not to mention the grave dangers to air and water resulting from pollution regulations reversed by Trump .
Other examples abound .
Should Republicans refuse to raise the minimum wage to $ 15 an hour , Biden can mandate it for the employees of federal contractors .
And if the GOP blocks measures to make college affordable and reduce student debt , Biden can cancel such debt altogether .
Already Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren have penned an opinion piece arguing that $ 50,000 in student-debt cancellations would give “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a far better shot at building financial security ” while constituting the “ single most effective executive action available to provide massive stimulus to our economy.
” Advocates further note that this would eliminate the debt of 75 percent of student borrowers .
There are respectable arguments against debt relief on that scale—including that it ’ s costly ; would encourage more borrowing ; motivate colleges to jack up tuition ; and reward affluent borrowers who don ’ t need relief .
But , as Annie Lowrey points out in the Atlantic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans do ?
If they have better proposals to address the burgeoning cost of higher education , they should introduce them .
If not , then Biden can propose legislation to reduce student debt—and do so by executive order if Republicans refuse to act .
Relentlessly , Biden and the Democrats should connect cause and effect : Republican legislative stonewalling begets Democratic executive action .
And they should make Mitch McConnell the public face of GOP obstruction—in speeches , writings , and on television , radio , and the internet—listing each measure that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sake , and that of the country , the Democrats can not acquiesce in their own undoing , or dissolve in fratricidal bickering .
In the congressional elections of 2022 , Democrats should pose this choice : Do you trust Joe Biden , or Mitch McConnell ?
McConnell , that shadowy creature of the Washington swamp , may find such exposure to political sunlight distinctly uncomfortable .

To win the presidency, Joe Biden crafted a diverse and ideologically fractious coalition unified by loathing for Donald Trump. But its inherent tensions—particularly between moderates and progressives—threaten his ability as president to navigate an arduous political terrain occupied by a single-minded legislative saboteur: Mitch McConnell.
By stonewalling Biden’s agenda in the Senate, McConnell means to provoke factional recriminations among Democrats which could effectively destroy Biden’s presidency. Five weeks before inauguration day, the dangers of disunity are already clear—as is the character of McConnell and his party. The question is whether the Democratic party is suited to governance in such difficult times.
The first legislative priority is one of historic urgency: providing economic relief from the ravages of a surging pandemic. In a saner polity, such a crisis would mandate bipartisan cooperation. Instead we see partisan guerrilla warfare that stymies solutions as Americans suffer.
Last spring the GOP supported a massive stimulus package which buttressed an economy in crisis and, not so incidentally, Trump’s presidency. But its benefits have largely expired, as has McConnell’s interest in the spiraling disasters suffered by millions of fellow citizens less cosseted than he: failing businesses, rising evictions, proliferating hunger, and state and local governments facing fiscal crises which threaten vital services. The question is how much more human misery it takes for McConnell to reimagine himself as a public servant.
Apparently, quite a lot.
Having rediscovered the GOP’s situational passion for fiscal discipline, McConnell has killed Democratic proposals for $2 trillion in additional relief. Particularly offensive to his rarefied sensibilities is federal aid to struggling states and cities which he dismisses, with partisan disdain, as a “blue-state bailout.”
Never mind that, as the New York Times notes, “six of the seven states that are expected to suffer the biggest revenue declines over the next two years are red—states led by Republican governors and won by President Trump this year.” Those who imagine McConnell cares misunderstand the game.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But a few Republican senators are refusing to play. Susan Collins, Mitt Romney, and Lisa Murkowski have joined Joe Manchin in working toward a bipartisan compromise designed to get Americans through the next fiscal quarter.
The $908 billion framework now under discussion includes rental assistance, relief for small businesses, supplements to unemployment insurance and additional funding for airlines, Amtrak, education, coronavirus testing, the postal service, and childcare.
Citing the urgent need for immediate relief pending further legislation, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer backed off their insistence on a $2 trillion package, and President-elect Biden urged Democrats to support the bipartisan framework. Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce added its endorsement.
But within the negotiations thorny issues remain. Democrats want substantial aid to states and cities—which the negotiators seem ready to include—and another round of checks to the unemployed; McConnell demands a liability shield for businesses which exposed workers and customers to COVID—no matter how careless of public-health measures those businesses may have been.
External actors are complicating the negotiators’ task. Even as they edged toward agreement, at the eleventh hour the White House, which had been largely uninvolved in the discussions, introduced a $916 billion proposal which includes the liability shield and aid to states and cities, but contains minimal benefits for the unemployed—a nonstarter for the Democrats. McConnell then contributed his own bit of mischief, suggesting the removal from Trump’s proposal of both the liability shield and funding for state and local entities—further undermining the negotiations.
From the left, Bernie Sanders announced that he could not support the compromise proposal unless it eliminated the liability shield and included direct checks of least $1,200. Citing the logjam he had done so much to construct, McConnell suggested that legislation sorting out important details might have to be shelved until 2021.
Most notable throughout this byzantine process is how McConnell has played pandemic relief and its protagonists. He refused to consider the $2 trillion relief package passed by House Democrats. He sat back while the President-elect and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate supported the compromise effort by cutting their demands in half; no doubt chuckled when Sanders issued demands of his own; and bestirred himself only to narrow the road to a final agreement.
Some package may yet emerge before Congress adjourns. But if this is McConnell’s template in a time of indubitable crisis, one can but despair of meaningful progress on Biden’s legislative agenda. And Sanders may have provided a worrisome sign of Democratic fissures to come.
Sanders protested that “this bill will set the agenda for the first two years of the Biden administration. . . . And if we allow Republicans to set the agenda, to set the parameters of the debate, the next two to four years will be a disaster. . . . So the question is, are we going to return to Mitch McConnell’s austerity politics, or are we going to build a dynamic economy that works for everyone and not just the 1 percent?”
Bernie Sanders’s frustration with McConnell is utterly justified—but not his implicit assumption that indignation will overcome McConnell’s fortified position as the autocratic leader of a Republican majority. The ultimate question is whether Democrats can unite to help Biden achieve optimal progress in the face of McConnell’s trench warfare, or grant their antagonist his fondest wish—a bitterly divided party mired in mutual recriminations.
Biden’s incoming economic team is notably progressive, a diverse group of experts concerned with raising wages, combating income and wealth disparities, expanding childcare, providing paid family leave, fortifying the bargaining power of labor unions, protecting vulnerable workers, and ameliorating minority unemployment. Given a Democratic Senate, they could help drive genuine change.
But, pending two upsets in Georgia’s senatorial runoffs, Biden and congressional Democrats must deal with McConnell. Here, past is surely prologue—indeed, the hysteria of the Republican base is likely to render McConnell even more obstructive then he was during the Obama administration.
One need not reprise that history in detail. McConnell helped shrink the stimulus package through which Obama sought to relieve the Great Recession; denied a single vote to a healthcare plan modeled on that enacted by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts; and killed climate change legislation altogether. Congress all but ceased to function.
As majority leader, McConnell can simply keep Biden’s legislative proposals from reaching the floor. Set aside any optimistic speculation about McConnell and Biden potentially having a productive working relationship: A party unwilling to accept the legitimacy of Biden’s election will no doubt deny the legitimacy of his efforts to govern.
Even a narrow Democratic majority will make major legislation unlikely. With considerable understatement, Senate Democratic whip Dick Durbin told the Associated Press: “There’s so many areas, which we value so much that Republicans do not, that it will be tough to guide [compromise legislation] through the Senate.”
Indeed, the principal power of congressional progressives may involve the potential to kill what Waleed Shahid of the Justice Democrats calls “toxic compromises with McConnell.” The obvious risk is that progressives will turn their frustration with McConnell into antagonism toward Biden. As progressive Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) told the Washington Post:
If we really want to torpedo our effort to do anything meaningful, let’s spend our energy on the intraparty battle. . . . It would be much better for all of us if we really reach out and work together to focus on the issues before the American people; health care, and housing, and education. Good-paying jobs, equality, climate change, infrastructure. Let’s focus on the path to get those things.
So what is the path? As a first step Biden should put McConnell to the test by pushing hard for popular measures like a $15 per hour minimum wage; infrastructure spending that creates new job and promotes green energy; humane immigration reform; and broader access to healthcare.
Such an effort would be more than symbolic. By compelling McConnell to choose between compromise and scorched earth, Biden can lay the political predicate for aggressively using executive orders to advance his agenda—after warning McConnell that he will do so.
One can already hear Republicans denouncing Biden’s “dictatorial” actions. Were they responsible participants in democratic governance, that would carry some weight. But given that they are not, let them complain—as long and loudly as they want.
As president, Biden has a bigger megaphone. He should use it to tell voters what the Democrats are doing and why they are doing it—with McConnell as the poster boy for GOP obstruction. This could have two salutary affects: making government work, and uniting the Democratic party.
Obviously, on Day One Biden can unwind Trump’s most noxious executive orders; rejoin the Paris Climate Accord; protect Dreamers; reform our treatment of immigrants and asylum-seekers; and direct his cabinet officers to protect voting rights, workers’ rights, and civil rights. But there is much else he could do should McConnell set out to destroy his presidency.
No doubt McConnell will scuttle meaningful climate-change legislation.
By executive order Biden can raise energy-efficiency standards, strengthen fuel economy regulations, invest in public transit, compel federal infrastructure projects to reduce pollution, require public companies to disclose climate risks stemming from their businesses, and increase our protection and conservation of public lands.
Republicans will surely decry such measures as an attack on jobs and prosperity. But concern for the environment is not confined to progressives and the young: Ever more Americans perceive the evidence for climate change all around us—record temperatures, catastrophic fires, rising seas, killer storms, disappearing icecaps, and widening droughts—not to mention the grave dangers to air and water resulting from pollution regulations reversed by Trump.
Other examples abound. Should Republicans refuse to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, Biden can mandate it for the employees of federal contractors. And if the GOP blocks measures to make college affordable and reduce student debt, Biden can cancel such debt altogether.
Already Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren have penned an opinion piece arguing that $50,000 in student-debt cancellations would give “Black and brown families across the country a far better shot at building financial security” while constituting the “single most effective executive action available to provide massive stimulus to our economy.” Advocates further note that this would eliminate the debt of 75 percent of student borrowers.
There are respectable arguments against debt relief on that scale—including that it’s costly; would encourage more borrowing; motivate colleges to jack up tuition; and reward affluent borrowers who don’t need relief. But, as Annie Lowrey points out in the Atlantic,
millions of low-income and middle-income families, as well as young people without the fallback of familial wealth, are also burdened. . . . This is a policy that would help middle-class families, could be passed instantly, and would advance racial justice. Student-loan debt is suffocating an entire generation. Why not, during this miserable pandemic, magic at least some of it away?
So what, if anything, would Republicans do? If they have better proposals to address the burgeoning cost of higher education, they should introduce them. If not, then Biden can propose legislation to reduce student debt—and do so by executive order if Republicans refuse to act.
Relentlessly, Biden and the Democrats should connect cause and effect: Republican legislative stonewalling begets Democratic executive action. And they should make Mitch McConnell the public face of GOP obstruction—in speeches, writings, and on television, radio, and the internet—listing each measure that Republicans have killed.
For their own sake, and that of the country, the Democrats cannot acquiesce in their own undoing, or dissolve in fratricidal bickering. In the congressional elections of 2022, Democrats should pose this choice: Do you trust Joe Biden, or Mitch McConnell? McConnell, that shadowy creature of the Washington swamp, may find such exposure to political sunlight distinctly uncomfortable.
Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated the amount in COVID-19 relief Senator Sanders is seeking. The figure was $1,200, not $12,000.


thebulwark--2020-12-15--Never Forget the Republicans Who Held Fast

The safety and security of the 2020 presidential election has been verified over and over , including by the top Republicans in the country .
President Trump ’ s own attorney general confirmed that there was no fraud that would have changed the outcome , and former Trump administration top cybersecurity official Chris Krebs called it “ the most secure election in American history.
” A great deal of attention has—for good reason—been paid to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton , who filed suit in an attempt to strip millions of Americans in four states of their vote .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 18 states won by Donald Trump .
126 Republican members of the House also filed an amicus brief , a clear violation of their oath office in which they swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic .
We should not mince words : These people are enemies of democracy .
But we should also take note of the Republican attorneys general who chose to stay off the Paxton brief : Lawrence Wasden ( ID ) , Daniel Cameron ( KY ) , Gordon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hill ( WY ) .
Dave Yost ( OH ) filed his own brief , but did not endorse Texas ’ remedy of legislative overthrow of the popular will .
We should applaud these brave attorneys general , who , despite significant pressure , stood up for democracy while their Republican party attempted to disenfranchise millions of citizens .
Others also stood up against this autocratic attempt—and deserve our respect .
Another amicus brief brought together 23 state attorneys general from across the country to condemn AG Paxton ’ s baseless lawsuit .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Paxton suit .
In addition to Georgia AG Chris Carr , Senator John Cornyn and Sen. Mitt Romney called the lawsuit for what it was : factually inaccurate , legally unsound , and an attack on our democracy .
This list should have been longer .
Much longer .
But that only makes the courage of those who stood against it more admirable .
Paxton ’ s lawsuit was not only irresponsible , it was a waste of taxpayer dollars and resources .
Courts are already clogged and should be dealing with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoken , and states have certified their election results .
The people chose Joe Biden .
It ’ s time to move forward as a country .
These groundless attempts to undermine the will of the people are an embarrassing distraction when we need our leaders rebuilding our economy , beating COVID , and bringing our country back together .
We need more leaders to speak out and join the elected officials who refuse to accept Trump ’ s attempt to undermine the will of the people .
We need to applaud those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history and supported our election officials .
Those men and women are the guardians of our democracy .
We owe them our gratitude .
Donald Trump is Donald Trump .
He is what we thought he was .
But what is new is the Trumpification of the Republican party .
The GOP was once known for its support for the rule of law .
Today , the majority of the party supports an utter fiction .
They have abdicated their role as leaders and violated their oaths of office .
When these men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future , may the first clause in their description be , “ who attempted to overthrow the votes of millions of Americans.
” We must not forget .

The safety and security of the 2020 presidential election has been verified over and over, including by the top Republicans in the country. President Trump’s own attorney general confirmed that there was no fraud that would have changed the outcome, and former Trump administration top cybersecurity official Chris Krebs called it “the most secure election in American history.”
A great deal of attention has—for good reason—been paid to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who filed suit in an attempt to strip millions of Americans in four states of their vote. And Paxton was joined by attorneys general in 18 states won by Donald Trump. 126 Republican members of the House also filed an amicus brief, a clear violation of their oath office in which they swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. We should not mince words: These people are enemies of democracy.
But we should also take note of the Republican attorneys general who chose to stay off the Paxton brief: Lawrence Wasden (ID), Daniel Cameron (KY), Gordon MacDonald (NH), and Bridget Hill (WY). Dave Yost (OH) filed his own brief, but did not endorse Texas’ remedy of legislative overthrow of the popular will. We should applaud these brave attorneys general, who, despite significant pressure, stood up for democracy while their Republican party attempted to disenfranchise millions of citizens.
Others also stood up against this autocratic attempt—and deserve our respect. Another amicus brief brought together 23 state attorneys general from across the country to condemn AG Paxton’s baseless lawsuit. Some Republican leaders were outspokenly critical of the Paxton suit. In addition to Georgia AG Chris Carr, Senator John Cornyn and Sen. Mitt Romney called the lawsuit for what it was: factually inaccurate, legally unsound, and an attack on our democracy.
This list should have been longer. Much longer.
But that only makes the courage of those who stood against it more admirable.
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…
Paxton’s lawsuit was not only irresponsible, it was a waste of taxpayer dollars and resources. Courts are already clogged and should be dealing with other matters. The American people have spoken, and states have certified their election results. The people chose Joe Biden. It’s time to move forward as a country. These groundless attempts to undermine the will of the people are an embarrassing distraction when we need our leaders rebuilding our economy, beating COVID, and bringing our country back together.
We need more leaders to speak out and join the elected officials who refuse to accept Trump’s attempt to undermine the will of the people. We need to applaud those who stood on the right side of history and supported our election officials. Those men and women are the guardians of our democracy. We owe them our gratitude.
Donald Trump is Donald Trump. He is what we thought he was.
But what is new is the Trumpification of the Republican party. The GOP was once known for its support for the rule of law. Today, the majority of the party supports an utter fiction. They have abdicated their role as leaders and violated their oaths of office. When these men and women are written about in the future, may the first clause in their description be, “who attempted to overthrow the votes of millions of Americans.”
We must not forget.