thebulwark--2020-09-20--Save the Vote, Save the Court

Save the Vote, Save the Court

A Supreme Court seat is suddenly vacant on the eve of the presidential election .
President Trump should promptly nominate the late Justice Ginsburg ’ s successor , but Senators should delay a final vote on the nomination until after the election .
If Trump wins reelection , then his victory will secure not just the new justice ’ s appointment , but also her public legitimacy .
And if Trump loses , then Senate Republicans and Democrats will have an opportunity to commit to not pack the Court , and thus to not destroy it .
Supreme Court vacancies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soullessly brutal political era .
And this is because of a double-failure of constitutional self-restraint .
The first failure is obvious : the political branches have come to treat each nomination like total war .
The second failure is the Court ’ s own decades-long failure of self-restraint , as justices reached beyond their constitutional limits and pretended that certain policy questions were actually matters of constitutional rights .
In cases such as Roe v. Wade , justices turned the “ Highest Court ” into the political world ’ s commanding heights .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to control the future of the Court .
And every presidential nomination to the Court is a fight to the bitter end .
But that fight has become even more bitter—just like everything else in our politics has become even more bitter—because our republic is increasingly devoid of the constitutional virtues needed to moderate our worst political vices : the vices that lead a president to abuse his diplomatic power , his pardon power , and other powers ; the vices that lead a Republican House and Senate to abandon any pretense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; the vices that lead Democrats to convince themselves that they should “ pack the Court ” ; the vices that drive activists on both sides to literally fight in the streets ; the vices that drive us to believe that our political opponents should be locked up .
And now the vices that may drive us to blow up our Supreme Court .
The fight to fill Justice Ginsburg ’ s seat will be waged under many shadows—the shadow of Bork , the shadow of Garland , the shadow of Kavanaugh .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pretend that I entertain any real doubts about the recent history of Supreme Court nominations .
This is my account of it : Over three decades , Democratic Senators ratcheted up the stakes at every turn , with Republicans almost always playing catch-up .
In 1987 , barely one year after the Senate confirmed Antonin Scalia ’ s appointment to the Court with a 98-0 vote , Senator Kennedy and his colleagues blindsided the Reagan administration with an unprecedented declaration of total war against Robert Bork .
Even after Bork , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans did not react in kind : they joined Senate Democrats in confirming Ruth Bader Ginsburg 96–3 , and Stephen Breyer 87–9 .
Senate Republicans would not begin to return fire on Democratic nominations to the Supreme Court until 2009 , after the heated Roberts and Alito hearings .
Similarly , when Senate Democrats undertook a new strategy of filibustering several of George W. Bush ’ s lower-court nominations , Republican senators considered using the “ nuclear option ” to abolish judicial filibusters but stopped short ; the bipartisan “ Gang of 14 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the precipice .
Yet eight years later , Senator Harry Reid led Senate Democrats to detonate the nuclear option , clearing a path for three more Democratic appointments to the crucial D.C .
Circuit .
At that moment , Senator McConnell warned , “ you ’ ll regret this ” —and surely they did , as Reid ’ s nuclear option opened the door to an entire generation of President Trump ’ s lower-court appointments and , upon extending the new rule to Supreme Court nominations , Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh .
Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it easier for Senate Republicans to quickly commit not to act on Merrick Garland ’ s election-year nomination in 2016 .
Democrats denounced this ( and still denounce this ) as unprecedented obstruction , but it wasn ’ t completely without precedent : In 1968 the Senate ’ s Republican minority successfully prevented the Senate from moving on the nomination to fill Chief Justice Warren ’ s seat , and they specifically said that they were trying to hold the seat because for the presidential election .
The Senate had not just the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ignore Garland ’ s nomination .
President Obama claimed that senators had a “ constitutional duty ” to give Garland an up-or-down vote , just as President Bush claimed against Democrats .
They were both wrong .
The Constitution neither expressly nor implicitly contains any such duty .
The Senate gets to decide whether to act on a judicial nomination , and it decides this as a matter of politics and prudence .
The Senate Republicans were not wrong to disregard Garland ’ s nomination .
But it is now clear that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
“ The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice , ” Senator McConnell announced immediately upon Justice Scalia ’ s passing in February 2016 .
“ Therefore , this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.
” Republican senators promptly joined him , often invoking former Senator Biden ’ s own argument that Senators should not confirm Supreme Court appointments during a presidential election year .
“ The Biden Rule , ” the Senate ’ s Majority Leader announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate announced weeks ago remains about a principle , not a person.
” After 30 years ’ war over Supreme Court nominations , hypocrisy is a vice that virtually anyone in the political process can credibly be accused of .
I focus , unsurprisingly , on Democrats : From the “ Biden rule , ” to Obama ’ s pre-presidential attempt to filibuster Alito , to Senate Democrats ’ old belief that even a president ’ s election-year nominee is entitled to a vote , to their earlier flip-flop on judicial filibusters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Republicans to denounce as hypocrisy .
Democrats , no less surprisingly , will give reasons to defend their changes in mind as changes in circumstances .
They will argue that Republican evolving tactics justified their own .
They will argue—they already do argue—that the McConnell Rule either requires the Senate ’ s inaction this year or justifies court-packing next year .
Or both .
Or more .
But for Senate Republicans who four years ago adopted Senator McConnell ’ s principle that a Supreme Court vacancy arising during a presidential election year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is no way around their own words .
They can withhold a vote on a nomination for the next duly elected president , or they can be shameless hypocrites .
But not both .
Then again , they may conclude that the cost to their reputation is worth the gain on the Court .
But the Senators ’ gain on the Court may also be a cost to the Court .
Because the justices will be forced to undertake their work , for years to come , in the face of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even though the circumstances surrounding the appointment of this justice will prove nothing about the new justice herself ; and even though her work , like that of her colleagues , will be judged best in terms of the Constitution ’ s meaning , not in terms of the Republican senators ’ own credibility ; the fact remains that the Court ’ s work will be seen by many , many Americans—and not just Democrats , but many others , too—as the product of the most palpably hypocritical political action in living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the nominee .
Conservatives demand that Supreme Court justices do their jobs with utmost commitment to principle .
And that commitment to principle requires justices to decide extremely controversial cases in ways that will attract incredibly heated political and personal attacks .
For precisely that reason , Republican senators need to do everything possible to protect the justices ’ perceived legitimacy , rather than undermine it .
Given what is at stake—all of what is at stake—Republican senators should not vote on a nomination before the presidential election .
They should constrain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to constrain it four years ago .
True , there is no formal “ rule ” that binds them , other than their own words .
But they should restrain themselves with their words .
Indeed , when the constitutional crisis of our time is a crisis of the failure of self-restraint , that crisis will only end when one side restrains itself at the very moment when it can not be restrained by the other side .
For Republicans , that moment is right now , and the fact that self-restraint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best evidence that self-restraint is so necessary .
Some will denounce this as “ disarmament , ” as if constitutional politics were nuclear war .
They will point to Madison ’ s famous observation that constitutional government must befit men who aren ’ t angels , and they will pretend that Madison meant that constitutional government requires no virtue at all .
Madison meant the very opposite : He emphasized that republican government , more than any other form of government , relies upon the virtue of the people and their leaders .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” we need to keep in mind are not Madison ’ s , but Lincoln ’ s “ better angels of our nature , ” which ought to bring us back from the brink .
And , at this moment , to withhold a vote until after the election is to create the opportunity to save the Court from not just one crisis , but two .
If Trump wins reelection , then his new appointee to the Court , and the Court ’ s new six-justice conservative majority , will benefit from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s electoral process .
Republicans will have held themselves to their own principle , and by withholding a vote until after the election , they will avoid a judicial crisis of their own creation—namely , appointing a justice in a manner so hasty and so hypocritical as to inevitably color much of the public ’ s view of the justice and the Court .
And if Trump loses , then delaying a vote will create the circumstances necessary to avoid a judicial crisis of the Democrats ’ creation—namely , a crisis caused by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ pack the Court ” by legislating new seats .
More specifically : if Trump loses , then a coalition of Republican senators should negotiate a deal with Democratic colleagues , agreeing not to confirm a justice in the lame-duck session , and not to pack the Court .
Both sides will have dangerous weapons in hand : the power to confirm a justice in the lame-duck session , and the power to pack the Court after Inauguration Day .
Both sides can agree to forswear using those powers , and step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A President-elect Biden , who understands the harm that Court-packing would do to the Court— “ we ’ ll live to rue that day , ” he ’ s warned—could join them . )
Such a deal would be binding only so long as senators honored their own word , and it would require mutual trust and self-restraint .
But that is precisely the point : at a moment when Republican and Democratic senators are poised to damage the Court , they can instead begin to repair the Senate itself .
None of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shouldn ’ t nominate someone .
Quite the opposite : he should nominate Amy Coney Barrett , or another solid nominee , as soon as possible .
And the Senate Judiciary Committee should begin the hard work of serious , deliberate consideration of the nomination in the months ahead .
The Supreme Court , the Constitution , and the people deserve nothing less .
A credible confirmation process will help to inform Americans as they cast their presidential votes , and inform senators as they decide what action to take after the votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But save the vote .
Save the Court .
And in so doing , save our country .

A Supreme Court seat is suddenly vacant on the eve of the presidential election. President Trump should promptly nominate the late Justice Ginsburg’s successor, but Senators should delay a final vote on the nomination until after the election.
If Trump wins reelection, then his victory will secure not just the new justice’s appointment, but also her public legitimacy. And if Trump loses, then Senate Republicans and Democrats will have an opportunity to commit to not pack the Court, and thus to not destroy it.
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…
Supreme Court vacancies are the most brutal part of our soullessly brutal political era. And this is because of a double-failure of constitutional self-restraint. The first failure is obvious: the political branches have come to treat each nomination like total war.
The second failure is the Court’s own decades-long failure of self-restraint, as justices reached beyond their constitutional limits and pretended that certain policy questions were actually matters of constitutional rights. In cases such as Roe v. Wade, justices turned the “Highest Court” into the political world’s commanding heights. Now every presidential election is a fight to control the future of the Court. And every presidential nomination to the Court is a fight to the bitter end.
But that fight has become even more bitter—just like everything else in our politics has become even more bitter—because our republic is increasingly devoid of the constitutional virtues needed to moderate our worst political vices: the vices that lead a president to abuse his diplomatic power, his pardon power, and other powers; the vices that lead a Republican House and Senate to abandon any pretense of institutional duty to check-and-balance the executive branch; the vices that lead Democrats to convince themselves that they should “pack the Court”; the vices that drive activists on both sides to literally fight in the streets; the vices that drive us to believe that our political opponents should be locked up. And now the vices that may drive us to blow up our Supreme Court.
Courting Disaster
The fight to fill Justice Ginsburg’s seat will be waged under many shadows—the shadow of Bork, the shadow of Garland, the shadow of Kavanaugh. In that respect, I cannot pretend that I entertain any real doubts about the recent history of Supreme Court nominations. This is my account of it:
Over three decades, Democratic Senators ratcheted up the stakes at every turn, with Republicans almost always playing catch-up. In 1987, barely one year after the Senate confirmed Antonin Scalia’s appointment to the Court with a 98-0 vote, Senator Kennedy and his colleagues blindsided the Reagan administration with an unprecedented declaration of total war against Robert Bork. Even after Bork, and the failed war on Clarence Thomas, Senate Republicans did not react in kind: they joined Senate Democrats in confirming Ruth Bader Ginsburg 96–3, and Stephen Breyer 87–9. Senate Republicans would not begin to return fire on Democratic nominations to the Supreme Court until 2009, after the heated Roberts and Alito hearings.
Similarly, when Senate Democrats undertook a new strategy of filibustering several of George W. Bush’s lower-court nominations, Republican senators considered using the “nuclear option” to abolish judicial filibusters but stopped short; the bipartisan “Gang of 14” senators agreed to step back from the precipice. Yet eight years later, Senator Harry Reid led Senate Democrats to detonate the nuclear option, clearing a path for three more Democratic appointments to the crucial D.C. Circuit.
At that moment, Senator McConnell warned, “you’ll regret this”—and surely they did, as Reid’s nuclear option opened the door to an entire generation of President Trump’s lower-court appointments and, upon extending the new rule to Supreme Court nominations, Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Those three decades of constitutional hardball surely made it easier for Senate Republicans to quickly commit not to act on Merrick Garland’s election-year nomination in 2016. Democrats denounced this (and still denounce this) as unprecedented obstruction, but it wasn’t completely without precedent: In 1968 the Senate’s Republican minority successfully prevented the Senate from moving on the nomination to fill Chief Justice Warren’s seat, and they specifically said that they were trying to hold the seat because of the presidential election.
The Senate had not just the precedent, but also the power, to ignore Garland’s nomination. President Obama claimed that senators had a “constitutional duty” to give Garland an up-or-down vote, just as President Bush claimed against Democrats.
They were both wrong.
The Constitution neither expressly nor implicitly contains any such duty. The Senate gets to decide whether to act on a judicial nomination, and it decides this as a matter of politics and prudence. The Senate Republicans were not wrong to disregard Garland’s nomination. But it is now clear that they chose the wrong reason to justify it.
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” Senator McConnell announced immediately upon Justice Scalia’s passing in February 2016. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Republican senators promptly joined him, often invoking former Senator Biden’s own argument that Senators should not confirm Supreme Court appointments during a presidential election year.
“The Biden Rule,” the Senate’s Majority Leader announced, “reminds us that the decision the Senate announced weeks ago remains about a principle, not a person.”
“About a Principle”
After 30 years’ war over Supreme Court nominations, hypocrisy is a vice that virtually anyone in the political process can credibly be accused of. I focus, unsurprisingly, on Democrats: From the “Biden rule,” to Obama’s pre-presidential attempt to filibuster Alito, to Senate Democrats’ old belief that even a president’s election-year nominee is entitled to a vote, to their earlier flip-flop on judicial filibusters, there is no shortage of items for Republicans to denounce as hypocrisy.
Democrats, no less surprisingly, will give reasons to defend their changes in mind as changes in circumstances. They will argue that Republican evolving tactics justified their own. They will argue—they already do argue—that the McConnell Rule either requires the Senate’s inaction this year or justifies court-packing next year. Or both. Or more.
But for Senate Republicans who four years ago adopted Senator McConnell’s principle that a Supreme Court vacancy arising during a presidential election year must be filled by the next president, there is no way around their own words. They can withhold a vote on a nomination for the next duly elected president, or they can be shameless hypocrites. But not both.
Then again, they may conclude that the cost to their reputation is worth the gain on the Court.
But the Senators’ gain on the Court may also be a cost to the Court. Because the justices will be forced to undertake their work, for years to come, in the face of challenges to the Court’s legitimacy.
Even though the circumstances surrounding the appointment of this justice will prove nothing about the new justice herself; and even though her work, like that of her colleagues, will be judged best in terms of the Constitution’s meaning, not in terms of the Republican senators’ own credibility; the fact remains that the Court’s work will be seen by many, many Americans—and not just Democrats, but many others, too—as the product of the most palpably hypocritical political action in living memory.
This would be profoundly unfair to the nominee. Conservatives demand that Supreme Court justices do their jobs with utmost commitment to principle. And that commitment to principle requires justices to decide extremely controversial cases in ways that will attract incredibly heated political and personal attacks. For precisely that reason, Republican senators need to do everything possible to protect the justices’ perceived legitimacy, rather than undermine it.
Given what is at stake—all of what is at stake—Republican senators should not vote on a nomination before the presidential election. They should constrain the Senate with the principle that they used to constrain it four years ago. True, there is no formal “rule” that binds them, other than their own words. But they should restrain themselves with their words.
Indeed, when the constitutional crisis of our time is a crisis of the failure of self-restraint, that crisis will only end when one side restrains itself at the very moment when it cannot be restrained by the other side. For Republicans, that moment is right now, and the fact that self-restraint would be so painful is itself the best evidence that self-restraint is so necessary.
Some will denounce this as “disarmament,” as if constitutional politics were nuclear war. They will point to Madison’s famous observation that constitutional government must befit men who aren’t angels, and they will pretend that Madison meant that constitutional government requires no virtue at all.
Madison meant the very opposite: He emphasized that republican government, more than any other form of government, relies upon the virtue of the people and their leaders.
At this moment, the “angels” we need to keep in mind are not Madison’s, but Lincoln’s “better angels of our nature,” which ought to bring us back from the brink. And, at this moment, to withhold a vote until after the election is to create the opportunity to save the Court from not just one crisis, but two.
After the Election, A Decision
If Trump wins reelection, then his new appointee to the Court, and the Court’s new six-justice conservative majority, will benefit from the full credibility of the Constitution’s electoral process. Republicans will have held themselves to their own principle, and by withholding a vote until after the election, they will avoid a judicial crisis of their own creation—namely, appointing a justice in a manner so hasty and so hypocritical as to inevitably color much of the public’s view of the justice and the Court.
And if Trump loses, then delaying a vote will create the circumstances necessary to avoid a judicial crisis of the Democrats’ creation—namely, a crisis caused by Democrats forging ahead with a reckless plan to “pack the Court” by legislating new seats.
More specifically: if Trump loses, then a coalition of Republican senators should negotiate a deal with Democratic colleagues, agreeing not to confirm a justice in the lame-duck session, and not to pack the Court. Both sides will have dangerous weapons in hand: the power to confirm a justice in the lame-duck session, and the power to pack the Court after Inauguration Day. Both sides can agree to forswear using those powers, and step back from mutually assured destruction. (A President-elect Biden, who understands the harm that Court-packing would do to the Court—“we’ll live to rue that day,” he’s warned—could join them.)
Such a deal would be binding only so long as senators honored their own word, and it would require mutual trust and self-restraint. But that is precisely the point: at a moment when Republican and Democratic senators are poised to damage the Court, they can instead begin to repair the Senate itself.
None of this is to say that President Trump shouldn’t nominate someone. Quite the opposite: he should nominate Amy Coney Barrett, or another solid nominee, as soon as possible. And the Senate Judiciary Committee should begin the hard work of serious, deliberate consideration of the nomination in the months ahead. The Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the people deserve nothing less. A credible confirmation process will help to inform Americans as they cast their presidential votes, and inform senators as they decide what action to take after the votes are counted.
Start the process. But save the vote. Save the Court. And in so doing, save our country.


Mitch McConnell’s Calculation

Anyone who has observed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s career knows there are only two things he cares about : maintaining his Senate majority leader position and confirming judges .
That means he ’ s going to hold a vote to confirm a Supreme Court Justice to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s seat before the election .
In fact—if you are able to escape the liberal screams about unfairness , hypocrisy , and norm-shattering—it ’ s nearly impossible to conclude that he wouldn ’ t .
One of the reasons reluctant Republicans came around to supporting Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative judges to the Supreme Court .
That was the deal .
You vote for Trump , and you get judges .
And Trump made good on those promises twice now with Judge Neil Gorsuch and Judge Brett Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation .
What makes anyone think those Republicans who lost their dignity defending Trump for the last four years will throw away the chance to get a third Supreme Court justice ?
They will get that judge because , to many Trump voters , this is the only redeeming thing about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last , best chance to win another prize before Trump potentially loses to Joe Biden in November .
Why would they throw that away ?
Please don ’ t be naive enough to think that digging up old clips and op-eds of Republicans saying something else some other years will persuade them otherwise .
There are only two principles at play : politics and power .
Some people have suggested it would be politically wiser for McConnell to wait until the lame-duck to confirm the nominee and hold out the seat as some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Martha McSally , and she ’ ll get you a conservative judge , ” the thinking goes .
But , how would Thom Tillis or Lindsey Graham , two other GOP senators up for re-election , explain to their Republican voters on the campaign trail that yes , this is the most urgent , consequential vote we will ever take , but .
.
.
we ’ ll get to it later .
Republicans need a nomination fight now , especially because Democrats are already raising gobs of money overnight in the aftermath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight is happening without or without them .
Might as well take the field .
Most importantly , if McConnell schedules a vote for the Supreme Court before the election , that guarantees his most vulnerable Republicans will have something else to talk about .
The hearings will suck valuable time and attention away from both Trump and Biden .
Maybe Graham will rev up his outrage engine for some more viral moments .
Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris will surely have to take time off the campaign trail to attend to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Look at what Susan Collins , who absurdly refuses to say whether she will vote for Trump , did during a recent debate .
She is so proud of her Supreme Court votes that she tried to box in her opponent Sarah Gideon over whether she would have supported Chief Justice John Roberts .
When Gideon said she would study his record , Collins huffed , “ She ’ s ducking the question.
” If that ’ s not a big clue that Collins would rather fight on the campaign trail over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I don ’ t know what is .
She ’ s practically begging , “ Please let me campaign on the Supreme Court .
Anything but Trump.
” All Trump needs to do is nominate someone more like the straight-laced John Roberts and less like the beer-chugging Brett Kavanaugh and Collins will be on board .
Tillis already is .
He fired off a statement Saturday morning that said “ There is a clear choice on the future of the Supreme Court between the well-qualified and conservative jurist President Trump will nominate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal activist Joe Biden will nominate and Cal Cunningham will support , who will legislate radical , left-wing policies from the bench.
” And , keep in mind , we don ’ t even have a nominee yet .
McConnell couldn ’ t have scripted it better .
This opening not only concerns his favorite issue but may also be a lifeline to his most vulnerable members , who he needs to win so he can maintain his position as Majority Leader .
Read the statement he issued last night to members .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the issue and “ keep their powder dry ” and explained that Supreme Court nominees have “ either been confirmed , rejected , or withdrawn within an average of 25 days from the nomination ’ s arrival in the Senate.
” That ’ s his timeline .
And , there are 45 days until the election .
What do you think McConnell would most like to spend the last stretch of the election calendar talking about ?
The failed Coronavirus response ?
Trump ’ s tweets ?
Or judges ?
This isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risks all this by waiting until after the election to confirm a judge in a lame-duck session .
All the incentives are aligned for McConnell and Trump to act now .
Pushing this fight past the election only risks confirming a judge nominated by a President who was just rejected by the voters by senators who have been voted out of office .
A Democratic Congress may think about impeaching that judge , rather than let him or her serve out his or her term .
This Supreme Court fight couldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or Trump , especially given that it seems like Trump is on pace to lose .
Because this gives him a legacy-setting victory .
No matter what happens in November , Trump can always talk about how he changed the future of the court for conservatives .
“ No one did more for the Court than me , ” he ’ ll say , forever .
You can hear him now .
“ No one ever thought I ’ d get three seats .
.
.
” Little wonder the president is pushing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweeted , “ We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us , the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices .
We have this obligation , without delay !
”

Anyone who has observed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s career knows there are only two things he cares about: maintaining his Senate majority leader position and confirming judges. That means he’s going to hold a vote to confirm a Supreme Court Justice to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat before the election.
In fact—if you are able to escape the liberal screams about unfairness, hypocrisy, and norm-shattering—it’s nearly impossible to conclude that he wouldn’t.
One of the reasons reluctant Republicans came around to supporting Trump in 2016 was his promise to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court. That was the deal. You vote for Trump, and you get judges. And Trump made good on those promises twice now with Judge Neil Gorsuch and Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
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…
What makes anyone think those Republicans who lost their dignity defending Trump for the last four years will throw away the chance to get a third Supreme Court justice? They will get that judge because, to many Trump voters, this is the only redeeming thing about the Trump presidency. And this is their last, best chance to win another prize before Trump potentially loses to Joe Biden in November.
Why would they throw that away? Please don’t be naive enough to think that digging up old clips and op-eds of Republicans saying something else some other years will persuade them otherwise. There are only two principles at play: politics and power.
Some people have suggested it would be politically wiser for McConnell to wait until the lame-duck to confirm the nominee and hold out the seat as some carrot to voters. “Vote for Martha McSally, and she’ll get you a conservative judge,” the thinking goes. But, how would Thom Tillis or Lindsey Graham, two other GOP senators up for re-election, explain to their Republican voters on the campaign trail that yes, this is the most urgent, consequential vote we will ever take, but . . . we’ll get to it later. Republicans need a nomination fight now, especially because Democrats are already raising gobs of money overnight in the aftermath of Ginsburg’s passing. The fight is happening with or without them. Might as well take the field.
Most importantly, if McConnell schedules a vote for the Supreme Court before the election, that guarantees his most vulnerable Republicans will have something else to talk about. The hearings will suck valuable time and attention away from both Trump and Biden. Maybe Graham will rev up his outrage engine for some more viral moments. Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris will surely have to take time off the campaign trail to attend to her Senate Judiciary Committee duties, too.
Look at what Susan Collins, who absurdly refuses to say whether she will vote for Trump, did during a recent debate. She is so proud of her Supreme Court votes that she tried to box in her opponent Sarah Gideon over whether she would have supported Chief Justice John Roberts. When Gideon said she would study his record, Collins huffed, “She’s ducking the question.”
If that’s not a big clue that Collins would rather fight on the campaign trail over the Supreme Court rather than Donald Trump, I don’t know what is. She’s practically begging, “Please let me campaign on the Supreme Court. Anything but Trump.” All Trump needs to do is nominate someone more like the straight-laced John Roberts and less like the beer-chugging Brett Kavanaugh and Collins will be on board.
Tillis already is. He fired off a statement Saturday morning that said “There is a clear choice on the future of the Supreme Court between the well-qualified and conservative jurist President Trump will nominate and I will support, and the liberal activist Joe Biden will nominate and Cal Cunningham will support, who will legislate radical, left-wing policies from the bench.”
And, keep in mind, we don’t even have a nominee yet.
McConnell couldn’t have scripted it better. This opening not only concerns his favorite issue but may also be a lifeline to his most vulnerable members, who he needs to win so he can maintain his position as Majority Leader. Read the statement he issued last night to members. He explicitly asked senators to not speak on the issue and “keep their powder dry” and explained that Supreme Court nominees have “either been confirmed, rejected, or withdrawn within an average of 25 days from the nomination’s arrival in the Senate.” That’s his timeline. And, there are 45 days until the election.
What do you think McConnell would most like to spend the last stretch of the election calendar talking about? The failed Coronavirus response? Trump’s tweets? Or judges? This isn’t even a question.
McConnell risks all this by waiting until after the election to confirm a judge in a lame-duck session. All the incentives are aligned for McConnell and Trump to act now. Pushing this fight past the election only risks confirming a judge nominated by a President who was just rejected by the voters by senators who have been voted out of office. A Democratic Congress may think about impeaching that judge, rather than let him or her serve out his or her term.
This Supreme Court fight couldn’t come at a better time for McConnell or Trump, especially given that it seems like Trump is on pace to lose. Because this gives him a legacy-setting victory. No matter what happens in November, Trump can always talk about how he changed the future of the court for conservatives. “No one did more for the Court than me,” he’ll say, forever. You can hear him now. “No one ever thought I’d get three seats . . .”
Little wonder the president is pushing full-steam ahead.
On Saturday morning Trump tweeted, “We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!”


thebulwark--2020-09-19--Why We Love to Talk Like Pirates

Why We Love to Talk Like Pirates

Talk Like a Pirate Day , the folk holiday popularized by a Dave Barry column back in 2002 , is a weird holiday—even weirder than the obvious talking , dressing , and ( for adults ) drinking like a pirate .
Pirates were violent men ( and occasionally violent women ) who stole , tortured , raped , and murdered .
Yet we celebrate them as lighthearted fun .
“ Yo ho !
Yo ho !
A pirate ’ s life for me !
” Not if you wanted to live like a decent person—or for very long .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it , is how pirates are presented as for kids .
I have three little ones , and they could watch cartoons about pirates all day long if my wife and I let them .
From Peppa Pig to Paw Patrol , Bubble Guppies , and Mickey Mouse Clubhouse , the adventures of these colonial criminals are as ubiquitous as stories about the importance of sharing or going to the dentist .
How did pirates become such a big part of popular culture ?
If you ’ re thinking Disney did it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Walt was enamored of pirates .
He built the Pirates of the Caribbean ride at Disneyland—the ride that would , decades later , inspire the Johnny Depp movies—and Disney studios was indirectly responsible for creating the idea that pirates shout “ arrrr !
” all the time .
Robert Newton , the actor who played Long John Silver in Disney ’ s 1950 movie Treasure Island , delivered his lines with a growl , emphasizing the r sounds .
Two years later , Newton starred as the notorious Captain Edward Teach in Blackbeard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a similarly rough and rumbling voice , although Newton ’ s Blackbeard sounds like he ’ s saying “ ha-arrrrr ” with an h preceding the now famous pirate locution .
Ultimately , it ’ s the last part that stuck : pirates punctuated every sentence with a hearty “ arrrr.
” Everyone knows that .
Even my 3-year-old .
Disney ’ s efforts point to an even bigger influence on popularizing pirates : Robert Louis Stevenson ’ s 1883 novel Treasure Island .
But Stevenson drew on an already venerable tradition of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier in the 19th century .
In fact , the early 19th century witnessed a profusion of stories about hunting for pirate treasure .
Edgar Allan Poe ’ s 1843 “ The Gold Bug , ” about a lost pirate hoard discovered with a cryptograph , is a well-known example .
Washington Irving ’ s “ The Money-Diggers ” ( 1824 ) is less famous , but more typical of the period ’ s mixture of pirates with tales of ghosts and magic divination .
The fascination with pirate stories goes back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swarming the seas .
In the 17th and 18th centuries , for example , people thrilled to reading the exploits of Captain Henry Morgan ( later immortalized in the rum ) and singing songs about Captain William Kidd .
In 1719 , a 13-year-old Benjamin Franklin walked the streets of Boston selling a ballad he wrote called “ The Taking of Teach the Pirate.
” One stanza recounted how the pirates pledged to blow up their ship rather than surrender : I ’ ve pondered the appeal of pirates for nearly 20 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a fully satisfactory answer to why people love pirates so much in spite of the gruesome reality .
A few factors , though , seem important .
Although piracy has existed in all times and places , it ’ s the pirates of the 17th and 18th century Caribbean and Indian Ocean who get the most attention .
These pirates carried out their depredations in exotic places , so beautiful that it ’ s like pirates lived a perpetual vacation—and got rich doing it .
It ’ s easy to forget the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the men who exploited it , and the likelihood that they would die painfully , at sea or at the end of a rope .
Pirates have also enjoyed unusually good publicity .
Treasure Island is one example of the high quality of pirate literature .
But it ’ s far from the only one .
In the late 17th century , The Buccaneers of America gripped Europe with stories told by Alexandre Exquemelin , a surgeon who joined an expedition of buccaneers .
Accompanied by vivid engravings , the work offered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and drunkenness too awful to look at .
.
.
but impossible to turn away from .
In the 1720s , a printer named Nathaniel Mist mixed fact with fiction in A General History of the Pyrates and made stars of Blackbeard and two women pirates named Anne Bonny and Mary Read .
Both works influenced innumerable other books and movies and remain captivating reads today .
The grim reality of pirate life was forgotten from the start , so it ’ s no wonder it ’ s seldom appreciated today .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early-20th-century author and illustrator of many a book about buccaneers , might have gotten closest to an answer .
“ Would not every boy , ” he asked rhetorically , “ rather be a pirate captain than a Member of Parliament ?
” I ’ d add girls , too , but Pyle ’ s right .
Today , pirates mean adventure .
And it ’ s fun to say “ arrrr !
”

Talk Like a Pirate Day, the folk holiday popularized by a Dave Barry column back in 2002, is a weird holiday—even weirder than the obvious talking, dressing, and (for adults) drinking like a pirate. Pirates were violent men (and occasionally violent women) who stole, tortured, raped, and murdered. Yet we celebrate them as lighthearted fun. “Yo ho! Yo ho! A pirate’s life for me!” Not if you wanted to live like a decent person—or for very long.
The most bizarre part, when you think about it, is how pirates are presented as for kids. I have three little ones, and they could watch cartoons about pirates all day long if my wife and I let them. From Peppa Pig to Paw Patrol, Bubble Guppies, and Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, the adventures of these colonial criminals are as ubiquitous as stories about the importance of sharing or going to the dentist.
How did pirates become such a big part of popular culture?
If you’re thinking Disney did it, you’re not wrong. Walt was enamored of pirates. He built the Pirates of the Caribbean ride at Disneyland—the ride that would, decades later, inspire the Johnny Depp movies—and Disney studios was indirectly responsible for creating the idea that pirates shout “arrrr!” all the time. Robert Newton, the actor who played Long John Silver in Disney’s 1950 movie Treasure Island, delivered his lines with a growl, emphasizing the r sounds.
Two years later, Newton starred as the notorious Captain Edward Teach in Blackbeard the Pirate. He gave the character a similarly rough and rumbling voice, although Newton’s Blackbeard sounds like he’s saying “ha-arrrrr” with an h preceding the now famous pirate locution. Ultimately, it’s the last part that stuck: pirates punctuated every sentence with a hearty “arrrr.” Everyone knows that. Even my 3-year-old.
Disney’s efforts point to an even bigger influence on popularizing pirates: Robert Louis Stevenson’s 1883 novel Treasure Island. But Stevenson drew on an already venerable tradition of stories about pirates and buried treasure from earlier in the 19th century. In fact, the early 19th century witnessed a profusion of stories about hunting for pirate treasure. Edgar Allan Poe’s 1843 “The Gold Bug,” about a lost pirate hoard discovered with a cryptograph, is a well-known example. Washington Irving’s “The Money-Diggers” (1824) is less famous, but more typical of the period’s mixture of pirates with tales of ghosts and magic divination.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
The fascination with pirate stories goes back to the days when real pirates were still swarming the seas. In the 17th and 18th centuries, for example, people thrilled to reading the exploits of Captain Henry Morgan (later immortalized in the rum) and singing songs about Captain William Kidd.
In 1719, a 13-year-old Benjamin Franklin walked the streets of Boston selling a ballad he wrote called “The Taking of Teach the Pirate.” One stanza recounted how the pirates pledged to blow up their ship rather than surrender:
And when we no longer can strike a blow,
Then fire the magazine, boys, and up we go!
It’s better to swim in the sea below
Than to swing in the air and feed the crow,
Says jolly Ned Teach of Bristol.
I’ve pondered the appeal of pirates for nearly 20 years, and I still don’t have a fully satisfactory answer to why people love pirates so much in spite of the gruesome reality.
A few factors, though, seem important.
Although piracy has existed in all times and places, it’s the pirates of the 17th and 18th century Caribbean and Indian Ocean who get the most attention. These pirates carried out their depredations in exotic places, so beautiful that it’s like pirates lived a perpetual vacation—and got rich doing it. It’s easy to forget the harshness of the climate, the cruelty of the men who exploited it, and the likelihood that they would die painfully, at sea or at the end of a rope.
Pirates have also enjoyed unusually good publicity. Treasure Island is one example of the high quality of pirate literature. But it’s far from the only one.
In the late 17th century, The Buccaneers of America gripped Europe with stories told by Alexandre Exquemelin, a surgeon who joined an expedition of buccaneers. Accompanied by vivid engravings, the work offered lurid descriptions of looting, mayhem, and drunkenness too awful to look at . . . but impossible to turn away from.
In the 1720s, a printer named Nathaniel Mist mixed fact with fiction in A General History of the Pyrates and made stars of Blackbeard and two women pirates named Anne Bonny and Mary Read. Both works influenced innumerable other books and movies and remain captivating reads today.
The grim reality of pirate life was forgotten from the start, so it’s no wonder it’s seldom appreciated today.
In the end, Howard Pyle, the early-20th-century author and illustrator of many a book about buccaneers, might have gotten closest to an answer. “Would not every boy,” he asked rhetorically, “rather be a pirate captain than a Member of Parliament?” I’d add girls, too, but Pyle’s right. Today, pirates mean adventure. And it’s fun to say “arrrr!”


But No One!

As a fractured Republican Party ambled towards the general election in 2016 , one individual took on the prodigious task of holding conservatives together .
This person didn ’ t have a name or a face .
We didn ’ t know if they were male or female , short or tall , black , Hispanic , or white .
In fact , that person didn ’ t even yet exist .
The individual in question was the person a prospective President Donald Trump would appoint to succeed revered conservative Justice Antonin Scalia , who died in February of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open , with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell arguing that with the presidential election underway , the people had a say in who this mysterious individual would be .
Trump only received 44.9 % of the total votes within his own party in 2016 , the lowest number for an eventual winner since Michael Dukakis won the Democratic primary in 1988 .
But it was the prospect of the new president picking this open seat that drew a lot of skeptical conservatives to unify and back Trump .
Of course , the mystery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being now-Justice Neil Gorsuch .
But Trump wasn ’ t done : he later picked Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill the seat vacated by moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy .
And now , Trump has the option to fill the seat opened by the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday .
Trump , who is facing an uphill battle to earn re-election in November , has indicated he will make an appointment , and McConnell has pledged there will be a vote on a new justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January 3 .
But if Trump does make his pick and McConnell does push the choice through the Senate , his coalition of traditional conservatives and populist nationalists will likely dissolve .
Gone will be the fear that a Democratic president will appoint a justice who will swing the Court so far to the left that gay marriage will be mandatory and abortions will be performed at Costco .
In effect , by making a pick , Trump may be rendering himself obsolete in November .
According to an August Pew poll , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider Supreme Court appointments to be a top issue , trailing only the economy ( 79 percent ) and health care ( 68 percent . )
Conservatives who find Trump wholly unfit for the job but currently burn a candle in front of a portrait of Amy Coney Barrett on a nightly basis lose the need for four more years of Trump if Republican-appointed justices hold a bulletproof 6-3 majority on the bench .
“ But Coney Barrett ” only works if the seat is open in 2021 .
Using the composition of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has typically been a winner for Republicans .
In 1968 , Richard Nixon railed against the liberal Warren Court , arguing it too often sided with society ’ s “ criminal forces ” against its “ peace forces.
” Nixon promised his appointments would view their duty as “ interpreting law and not making law ” and not serve as “ superlegislators with a free hand to impose their social and political viewpoints upon the American people.
” Many Trump critics will likely see winning the Supreme Court and losing the presidency as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court was the only reason to vote for him in 2016 , so once that ’ s a done deal , it ’ s best for the GOP to cut him loose .
But it will also impugn the integrity of the Court , poisoning future decisions and turning nomination fights into unwinnable wars of attrition .
There will always be a wing of Trump supporters who will support him no matter how much bleach he instructs them to drink or how many war heroes he assails .
But if the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just enough conservative voters willing to choose normalcy over daily insanity .

As a fractured Republican Party ambled towards the general election in 2016, one individual took on the prodigious task of holding conservatives together. This person didn’t have a name or a face. We didn’t know if they were male or female, short or tall, black, Hispanic, or white.
In fact, that person didn’t even yet exist. The individual in question was the person a prospective President Donald Trump would appoint to succeed revered conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February of that year. Republicans famously held the seat open, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell arguing that with the presidential election underway, the people had a say in who this mysterious individual would be.
Trump only received 44.9% of the total votes within his own party in 2016, the lowest number for an eventual winner since Michael Dukakis won the Democratic primary in 1988. But it was the prospect of the new president picking this open seat that drew a lot of skeptical conservatives to unify and back Trump.
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…
Of course, the mystery person who galvanized the GOP ended up being now-Justice Neil Gorsuch. But Trump wasn’t done: he later picked Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill the seat vacated by moderate conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy. And now, Trump has the option to fill the seat opened by the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday.
Trump, who is facing an uphill battle to earn re-election in November, has indicated he will make an appointment, and McConnell has pledged there will be a vote on a new justice before a new Senate is seated on January 3.
But if Trump does make his pick and McConnell does push the choice through the Senate, his coalition of traditional conservatives and populist nationalists will likely dissolve. Gone will be the fear that a Democratic president will appoint a justice who will swing the Court so far to the left that gay marriage will be mandatory and abortions will be performed at Costco.
In effect, by making a pick, Trump may be rendering himself obsolete in November.
According to an August Pew poll, 64 percent of registered voters said they consider Supreme Court appointments to be a top issue, trailing only the economy (79 percent) and health care (68 percent.) Conservatives who find Trump wholly unfit for the job but currently burn a candle in front of a portrait of Amy Coney Barrett on a nightly basis lose the need for four more years of Trump if Republican-appointed justices hold a bulletproof 6-3 majority on the bench.
“But Coney Barrett” only works if the seat is open in 2021.
Using the composition of the Supreme Court as a campaign issue has typically been a winner for Republicans. In 1968, Richard Nixon railed against the liberal Warren Court, arguing it too often sided with society’s “criminal forces” against its “peace forces.” Nixon promised his appointments would view their duty as “interpreting law and not making law” and not serve as “superlegislators with a free hand to impose their social and political viewpoints upon the American people.”
Many Trump critics will likely see winning the Supreme Court and losing the presidency as a fair tradeoff – a rock-solid conservative Supreme Court was the only reason to vote for him in 2016, so once that’s a done deal, it’s best for the GOP to cut him loose. But it will also impugn the integrity of the Court, poisoning future decisions and turning nomination fights into unwinnable wars of attrition.
There will always be a wing of Trump supporters who will support him no matter how much bleach he instructs them to drink or how many war heroes he assails. But if the Supreme Court is Biden-proof, there may be just enough conservative voters willing to choose normalcy over daily insanity.


The Absentee President

It isn ’ t just that Donald Trump is crazy .
It isn ’ t just that he lies .
It ’ s not just that his administration is filled with chaos .
And it isn ’ t just that he is “ Putin ’ s puppet.
” There ’ s another problem we tend to overlook as we react to the president ’ s bombast , wild claims , misogyny , racism , lies , greed , avarice , and abandonment of all the core principles of our country and his party .
We overlook it because it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news .
It is this : Donald Trump rarely shows up in the West Wing , and when he does , he is too incompetent to effectively fulfill his oath of office .
The Marine guard posted outside of Trump ’ s office when he is in it almoste never appears before noon and is rarely seen in the afternoon .
There have been days when Trump has held press briefings where the guard wasn ’ t outside of the door even as Trump entered the briefing room—indicating that Trump may have walked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ room .
No guard on duty outside of the West Wing after a Trump appearance would indicate he walked straight back to the residence .
The image of the hard-working Trump that he and his supporters love to promote is false .
The lack of attendance leads to presidential inaction on key issues .
Trump has promised infrastructure and healthcare reform since his first day in office .
We haven ’ t gotten them .
His lack of engagement leads to him reading from notes and using visual aids in his briefings .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it out himself—that he hasn ’ t read the prepared material he ’ s giving us .
Thus he misquotes it and often doesn ’ t seem to understand what he ’ s saying .
Last Wednesday he was at it again .
He used visual aids and misled us about their significance to try and explain away the fact that we lead the world in coronavirus deaths .
“ And thanks to our lifesaving therapies and treatments—I think this is the best of all , in terms of our great percentages and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fatality rate has fallen 85 percent since April—85 percent—fatality rate.
” It was like watching the 21st-century embodiment of the Arlo Guthrie song “ Alice ’ s Restaurant ” as Trump used the equivalent of several “ 8 x 10 colored glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one ” to be used as evidence .
But Trump couldn ’ t sell it because he fumbled through the presentation .
He doesn ’ t do his homework .
His lack of attendance on the job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by his communication staff and allows White House stakeholders to create their own narratives to fill the void .
Later , if Trump doesn ’ t like what ’ s going on he merely undercuts his underlings .
They misspoke , we ’ re told .
Or they didn ’ t understand .
Or Trump doesn ’ t know them .
The wise underling then quickly falls in line with whatever the absent president has said .
That was on display again last Wednesday .
Early in the morning a pool reporter tweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple of staffers had tested positive for the coronavirus .
In her afternoon briefing , press secretary Kayleigh McEnany refused to say how many , if any , of the White House staff had tested positive .
She said she wouldn ’ t give out names out of respect for privacy .
But no one had actually asked for the names .
We just wanted to know how many .
When Trump arrived for his afternoon briefing he at first seemed unaware of the positive tests .
“ But it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about it for the first time .
And it ’ s a small number of cases .
Maybe it ’ s not even cases.
” McEnany then wanted to emphasize that whatever happened did not “ affect the event ” —the socially distant town hall hosted by ABC News in Philadelphia the night before—and Trump said , “ It ’ s not that was anybody near me.
” Finally they both confirmed that one person who had been at the event in Philadelphia tested positive the previous evening .
That confusion wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saved for talking about a potential coronavirus vaccine .
Earlier that day , Dr. Robert Redfield testified in a Senate hearing that a coronavirus vaccine would not be available to the general public until next summer .
Trump said , “ No , I think he made a mistake when he said that .
It ’ s just incorrect information .
.
.
.
We ’ re ready to go immediately as the vaccine is announced.
” Trump indicated that the vaccine could be “ announced ” as early as October , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Trump , contradicted the president and said that even for “ high-priority people ” the vaccine wouldn ’ t arrive until “ sometime no later than January .
I mean , of course , it depends on when things are approved and the emergency use is given.
” Dr. Redfield also said in that Senate hearing that masks were arguably more effective than a vaccine .
Trump , who rarely wears a mask , disputed that .
( “ Okay , number one , it ’ s not more effective , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) The message coming out of the Trump White House could not be more muddled .
It has been this way all along .
Many of Trump ’ s lies are a symptom of his lack of engagement in the job he ’ s been elected to perform .
The man in charge isn ’ t there .
His pathological lying exists to cover up his lack of engagement .
Everything becomes a political debate and Trump must always be right .
Months ago this general malaise led him to give up crafting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So now he blames the individual “ blue states ” for their response .
He further perversely claimed last Wednesday that the “ blue states ” have had “ tremendous death rates .
If you take the blue states out , we ’ re at a level that I don ’ t think anybody in the world would be at.
” And because the death rate in those unnamed blue states is so bad , what does the president want ?
“ We ’ d recommend they open up their states , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s lazy mind it is easier to talk about blue and red states than the United States .
It strikes a chord with his base and reduces difficult problems to a political “ us ” versus “ them ” mentality .
At the end of the day , if there is a second term for President Donald Trump , then last Wednesday is a template for just how screwed up the administration can and will be .
If Trump gets a second term and doesn ’ t have to face another election in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ ll spend more time at the office ?
His speech at the National Archives last Thursday shows where we ’ re headed : Stephen Miller-driven national policy .
That couldn ’ t be more hideous .
As for Trump , he disengaged long ago and all the chaos and lies are symptomatic of a man who just doesn ’ t care anymore—or was never really even capable of doing so .

It isn’t just that Donald Trump is crazy.
It isn’t just that he lies.
It’s not just that his administration is filled with chaos.
And it isn’t just that he is “Putin’s puppet.”
There’s another problem we tend to overlook as we react to the president’s bombast, wild claims, misogyny, racism, lies, greed, avarice, and abandonment of all the core principles of our country and his party. We overlook it because it is so common that it is no longer news.
It is this: Donald Trump rarely shows up in the West Wing, and when he does, he is too incompetent to effectively fulfill his oath of office.
The Marine guard posted outside of Trump’s office when he is in it almoste never appears before noon and is rarely seen in the afternoon. There have been days when Trump has held press briefings where the guard wasn’t outside of the door even as Trump entered the briefing room—indicating that Trump may have walked straight from the residence to the briefing room. No guard on duty outside of the West Wing after a Trump appearance would indicate he walked straight back to the residence.
The image of the hard-working Trump that he and his supporters love to promote is false.
The lack of attendance leads to presidential inaction on key issues. Trump has promised infrastructure and healthcare reform since his first day in office. We haven’t gotten them.
His lack of engagement leads to him reading from notes and using visual aids in his briefings. It is often apparent—sometimes he even points it out himself—that he hasn’t read the prepared material he’s giving us. Thus he misquotes it and often doesn’t seem to understand what he’s saying.
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…
Last Wednesday he was at it again. He used visual aids and misled us about their significance to try and explain away the fact that we lead the world in coronavirus deaths. “And thanks to our lifesaving therapies and treatments—I think this is the best of all, in terms of our great percentages and all the progress we’ve made—the fatality rate has fallen 85 percent since April—85 percent—fatality rate.”
It was like watching the 21st-century embodiment of the Arlo Guthrie song “Alice’s Restaurant” as Trump used the equivalent of several “8 x 10 colored glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one” to be used as evidence. But Trump couldn’t sell it because he fumbled through the presentation. He doesn’t do his homework.
His lack of attendance on the job also creates an atmosphere fertile for misinterpretation by his communication staff and allows White House stakeholders to create their own narratives to fill the void. Later, if Trump doesn’t like what’s going on he merely undercuts his underlings. They misspoke, we’re told. Or they didn’t understand. Or Trump doesn’t know them. The wise underling then quickly falls in line with whatever the absent president has said.
That was on display again last Wednesday. Early in the morning a pool reporter tweeted out that an administration official said a couple of staffers had tested positive for the coronavirus. In her afternoon briefing, press secretary Kayleigh McEnany refused to say how many, if any, of the White House staff had tested positive. She said she wouldn’t give out names out of respect for privacy. But no one had actually asked for the names. We just wanted to know how many.
When Trump arrived for his afternoon briefing he at first seemed unaware of the positive tests. “But it’s a small—it’s—last night, I heard about it for the first time. And it’s a small number of cases. Maybe it’s not even cases.”
McEnany then wanted to emphasize that whatever happened did not “affect the event”—the socially distant town hall hosted by ABC News in Philadelphia the night before—and Trump said, “It’s not that was anybody near me.”
Finally they both confirmed that one person who had been at the event in Philadelphia tested positive the previous evening.
That confusion wasn’t the biggest misstep. That was saved for talking about a potential coronavirus vaccine. Earlier that day, Dr. Robert Redfield testified in a Senate hearing that a coronavirus vaccine would not be available to the general public until next summer. Trump said, “No, I think he made a mistake when he said that. It’s just incorrect information. . . . We’re ready to go immediately as the vaccine is announced.”
Trump indicated that the vaccine could be “announced” as early as October, then Dr. Scott Atlas, in the room with Trump, contradicted the president and said that even for “high-priority people” the vaccine wouldn’t arrive until “sometime no later than January. I mean, of course, it depends on when things are approved and the emergency use is given.”
Dr. Redfield also said in that Senate hearing that masks were arguably more effective than a vaccine. Trump, who rarely wears a mask, disputed that. (“Okay, number one, it’s not more effective, by any means, than a vaccine.”)
The message coming out of the Trump White House could not be more muddled. It has been this way all along. Many of Trump’s lies are a symptom of his lack of engagement in the job he’s been elected to perform. The man in charge isn’t there. His pathological lying exists to cover up his lack of engagement. Everything becomes a political debate and Trump must always be right.
Months ago this general malaise led him to give up crafting a credible federal response to the pandemic. So now he blames the individual “blue states” for their response. He further perversely claimed last Wednesday that the “blue states” have had “tremendous death rates. If you take the blue states out, we’re at a level that I don’t think anybody in the world would be at.” And because the death rate in those unnamed blue states is so bad, what does the president want? “We’d recommend they open up their states,” he said.
In Trump’s lazy mind it is easier to talk about blue and red states than the United States. It strikes a chord with his base and reduces difficult problems to a political “us” versus “them” mentality.
At the end of the day, if there is a second term for President Donald Trump, then last Wednesday is a template for just how screwed up the administration can and will be.
If Trump gets a second term and doesn’t have to face another election in his lifetime, does anyone honestly think he’ll spend more time at the office? His speech at the National Archives last Thursday shows where we’re headed: Stephen Miller-driven national policy.
That couldn’t be more hideous. As for Trump, he disengaged long ago and all the chaos and lies are symptomatic of a man who just doesn’t care anymore—or was never really even capable of doing so.


thebulwark--2020-09-21--How Biden Will Handle the Supreme Court Vacancy

In a better world , we would spend this week paying tribute to the remarkable life of Ruth Bader Ginsburg , reflecting on her importance as a historical figure in the American story , and having high-minded discussions of her judicial philosophy and its implications—and limitations—for the future .
We do not live in that world .
So let me express my admiration for her life , my respect for her achievements , and my doubts about her jurisprudence .
And let me stipulate with respect to politics that a lot is in the air , that the political implications @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six weeks are uncertain , that all kinds of statements and developments could change the political dynamic , and the like .
But sometimes it does pay in analyzing politics to be simple-minded and straightforward .
Here are three facts that I think are more substantial than all the complicated and problematic analogies to 2016 or 2018 , that will most likely make more difference than whatever zigs and zags there are in the Senate process , and that will probably outweigh whatever wise or foolish statements and misstatements are made by either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an uncommonly famous and personally admired Supreme Court justice .
She seems to have been popular with not just Democrats and liberals , but with many less partisan and ideological voters .
Joe Biden will embrace the memory of RBG .
He ’ ll pay effusive ( and genuine , for that matter ) tribute to her .
He ’ ll remind Americans that he presided at her 1993 confirmation hearings , and say how proud he was to help secure a 96-3 vote to confirm her .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate who will carry on and honor her legacy .
Donald Trump will try to be polite about her , but his crowds will make this difficult .
And of course whomever he nominates will in fact stand in opposition to much of her jurisprudence .
So Biden will be the pro-RBG candidate .
( 2 ) Polls show that the Supreme Court , deservedly or not , is relatively popular .
Most Americans don ’ t want its standing sullied .
It will be easy to portray Mitch McConnell and the Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Democrats who simply urge waiting until after the election and letting the next president make a nomination , as in 2016 , run very little risk , particularly if they frame this argument in a reasonably high-minded way .
So Biden will be the pro-integrity-of-the-Supreme-Court candidate .
( 3 ) Roe v. Wade is quite popular .
In my opinion , undeservedly so .
But the American people don ’ t agree with me : 70 percent of them favor keeping Roe in place .
We on the pro-life side have spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popularity is undeserved .
But every poll shows it ’ s a fact .
Just try finding other issues where 70 percent of the public is on the same side .
It ’ s not easy .
So Democrats simply have to say—especially in targeted messaging to key groups—that they will uphold Roe .
It will not be hard for Joe Biden to present himself as the pro-RBG , pro-Supreme Court , and pro-Roe v. Wade candidate .
And in each of those cases , he will be sitting smack-dab in the center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most likely a winning place to be .
There are obvious risks : Biden could be portrayed as likely to appoint radical leftists to the Court .
He could be goaded into embracing radical changes in the constitutional structure .
He could display disdain for pro-life Americans .
He could make unfair attacks against Trump ’ s eventual nominee , rather than standing on the principle that the pick should be made by the winner of the election .
But these are relatively easy traps for Biden to avoid .
Some Democrats and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but Biden just has to stay somewhat above that fray .
Which is a feat he has achieved , consistently , for the entirety of the campaign .
Then , after paying tribute to RBG , presenting himself as someone who respects the Court , and pledging to defend Roe , Biden will be able to pivot to the issues that have put Trump behind in the race : his mismanagement of the coronavirus , his divisiveness , his failure to rise to the demands of the office , and the like .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ here ?
Maybe not .
But maybe yes .

In a better world, we would spend this week paying tribute to the remarkable life of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, reflecting on her importance as a historical figure in the American story, and having high-minded discussions of her judicial philosophy and its implications—and limitations—for the future.
We do not live in that world.
So let me express my admiration for her life, my respect for her achievements, and my doubts about her jurisprudence.
Now let’s talk politics.
And let me stipulate with respect to politics that a lot is in the air, that the political implications of what might happen over the next six weeks are uncertain, that all kinds of statements and developments could change the political dynamic, and the like.
But sometimes it does pay in analyzing politics to be simple-minded and straightforward.
Here are three facts that I think are more substantial than all the complicated and problematic analogies to 2016 or 2018, that will most likely make more difference than whatever zigs and zags there are in the Senate process, and that will probably outweigh whatever wise or foolish statements and misstatements are made by either candidate or his surrogates.
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) Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an uncommonly famous and personally admired Supreme Court justice. She seems to have been popular with not just Democrats and liberals, but with many less partisan and ideological voters.
Joe Biden will embrace the memory of RBG. He’ll pay effusive (and genuine, for that matter) tribute to her. He’ll remind Americans that he presided at her 1993 confirmation hearings, and say how proud he was to help secure a 96-3 vote to confirm her. He’ll pledge to nominate a candidate who will carry on and honor her legacy.
Donald Trump will try to be polite about her, but his crowds will make this difficult. And of course whomever he nominates will in fact stand in opposition to much of her jurisprudence.
So Biden will be the pro-RBG candidate.
(2) Polls show that the Supreme Court, deservedly or not, is relatively popular. Most Americans don’t want its standing sullied. It will be easy to portray Mitch McConnell and the Republicans as endangering the Court’s status. Democrats who simply urge waiting until after the election and letting the next president make a nomination, as in 2016, run very little risk, particularly if they frame this argument in a reasonably high-minded way.
So Biden will be the pro-integrity-of-the-Supreme-Court candidate.
(3) Roe v. Wade is quite popular. In my opinion, undeservedly so. But the American people don’t agree with me: 70 percent of them favor keeping Roe in place. We on the pro-life side have spent many years trying to explain why that popularity is undeserved. But every poll shows it’s a fact. Just try finding other issues where 70 percent of the public is on the same side. It’s not easy.
So Democrats simply have to say—especially in targeted messaging to key groups—that they will uphold Roe.
It will not be hard for Joe Biden to present himself as the pro-RBG, pro-Supreme Court, and pro-Roe v. Wade candidate. And in each of those cases, he will be sitting smack-dab in the center of the majority opinion. Which is most likely a winning place to be.
There are obvious risks: Biden could be portrayed as likely to appoint radical leftists to the Court. He could be goaded into embracing radical changes in the constitutional structure. He could display disdain for pro-life Americans. He could make unfair attacks against Trump’s eventual nominee, rather than standing on the principle that the pick should be made by the winner of the election.
But these are relatively easy traps for Biden to avoid. Some Democrats and left-wing groups will fall into them, but Biden just has to stay somewhat above that fray. Which is a feat he has achieved, consistently, for the entirety of the campaign.
Then, after paying tribute to RBG, presenting himself as someone who respects the Court, and pledging to defend Roe, Biden will be able to pivot to the issues that have put Trump behind in the race: his mismanagement of the coronavirus, his divisiveness, his failure to rise to the demands of the office, and the like.
Could it all go this straightforwardly from here? Maybe not. But maybe yes.


thebulwark--2020-09-22--Charity and Medicine Adapting to COVID

Charity and Medicine Adapting to COVID

COVID-19 stopped life in its tracks this past year .
But it didn ’ t stop a steel rod in Carlos ’ s back from snapping , and it didn ’ t keep the scoliosis in his back from further bending his spine .
So it didn ’ t stop the U.S.-based doctors and medical professionals who have been treating Carlos for years .
Normally they would have flown to Saint Lucia , where Carlos and his family live , and fixed that steel rod in a relatively straightforward procedure .
With COVID , that wasn ’ t possible .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Major , had a brace built using his measurements and shipped it to Carlos ’ s doctors at home , with support from the World Pediatric Project .
Ksenia , based in Richmond , Virginia , will work via video with Carlos ’ s medical team in Saint Lucia to fit him correctly , allowing his lungs to stay open and relieving his pain , at least until a team from WPP can travel and perform the surgery Carlos needs .
That ’ s how things work when you ’ re in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t stop when a pandemic hits .
You adjust .
You innovate .
You keep trying .
Most of all : You don ’ t stop .
Americans are not letting COVID get in the way of our charitable spirit .
At least based on preliminary figures , charitable donations by Americans are up this year .
People are giving more of themselves in non-financial ways as well .
Even when we ’ re forced into social distance and lockdowns , we ’ ve built enduring bonds in our communities to those in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true where the work is often hardest due to COVID—not just in our hospitals , but across national borders .
For decades , Americans of diverse backgrounds have devoted themselves to global service , particularly in the area of health care .
Doctors , nurses , and other skilled medical professionals regularly donate weeks or more of their time each year to assist patients who otherwise have no access to specialized care .
This work is particularly critical when it comes to children .
Conditions that are treated relatively easily in the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by poverty and disorder .
When COVID hit , World Pediatric Project had a list of roughly forty children in the Caribbean and Central America who needed heart surgery .
Normally , these children ’ s surgical care would be streamlined through partner hospitals in the U.S. ; instead , our five pediatric cardiologists had to meet and make tough choices on how to treat some children remotely while delaying treatment for others .
These cardiologists ’ plan is both imaginative and skillful : They will see what equipment local doctors need , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ procedures , and then determine diagnoses and treatment plans .
When travel is possible , we expect to do the surgery each child needs .
What makes this kind of solution possible is that these doctors are often volunteers for many years .
They ’ ve gotten to know their patients—as any good physician does .
They know the parents and family and the local doctors .
If they have to deliver news or training over a video screen , there is already a trusting relationship to back that up .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s partnership .
In a sense , COVID has forced us to learn some hard lessons about how to do charitable work in new ways .
We have had to learn to work together more , trust each other more , and let others help themselves a little more .
The Jewish sage Maimonides famously taught that there are many different kinds of charity—and the greatest kind is that which allows someone else to live independently and with the greatest possible dignity , so they never need charity again .
In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by COVID to perform charity at that highest level—to help others help themselves .
While we can ’ t treat patients like Carlos when and how we would want to , we are able to express our charitable mission in the fullest way possible , and we take our victories where we can find them .

COVID-19 stopped life in its tracks this past year. But it didn’t stop a steel rod in Carlos’s back from snapping, and it didn’t keep the scoliosis in his back from further bending his spine.
So it didn’t stop the U.S.-based doctors and medical professionals who have been treating Carlos for years. Normally they would have flown to Saint Lucia, where Carlos and his family live, and fixed that steel rod in a relatively straightforward procedure. With COVID, that wasn’t possible. So his pro bono orthotist, Ksenia Major, had a brace built using his measurements and shipped it to Carlos’s doctors at home, with support from the World Pediatric Project.
Ksenia, based in Richmond, Virginia, will work via video with Carlos’s medical team in Saint Lucia to fit him correctly, allowing his lungs to stay open and relieving his pain, at least until a team from WPP can travel and perform the surgery Carlos needs.
That’s how things work when you’re in the business of caring. You don’t stop when a pandemic hits. You adjust. You innovate. You keep trying. Most of all: You don’t stop.
Americans are not letting COVID get in the way of our charitable spirit. At least based on preliminary figures, charitable donations by Americans are up this year. People are giving more of themselves in non-financial ways as well. Even when we’re forced into social distance and lockdowns, we’ve built enduring bonds in our communities to those in need.
That’s been particularly true where the work is often hardest due to COVID—not just in our hospitals, but across national borders. For decades, Americans of diverse backgrounds have devoted themselves to global service, particularly in the area of health care. Doctors, nurses, and other skilled medical professionals regularly donate weeks or more of their time each year to assist patients who otherwise have no access to specialized care.
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…
This work is particularly critical when it comes to children. Conditions that are treated relatively easily in the United States often go unaddressed in countries struck by poverty and disorder. When COVID hit, World Pediatric Project had a list of roughly forty children in the Caribbean and Central America who needed heart surgery. Normally, these children’s surgical care would be streamlined through partner hospitals in the U.S.; instead, our five pediatric cardiologists had to meet and make tough choices on how to treat some children remotely while delaying treatment for others.
These cardiologists’ plan is both imaginative and skillful: They will see what equipment local doctors need, train them to do echocardiograms and other procedures, and then determine diagnoses and treatment plans. When travel is possible, we expect to do the surgery each child needs.
What makes this kind of solution possible is that these doctors are often volunteers for many years. They’ve gotten to know their patients—as any good physician does. They know the parents and family and the local doctors. If they have to deliver news or training over a video screen, there is already a trusting relationship to back that up. That’s not just charitable work. That’s partnership.
In a sense, COVID has forced us to learn some hard lessons about how to do charitable work in new ways. We have had to learn to work together more, trust each other more, and let others help themselves a little more.
The Jewish sage Maimonides famously taught that there are many different kinds of charity—and the greatest kind is that which allows someone else to live independently and with the greatest possible dignity, so they never need charity again. In a sense, we’ve been forced by COVID to perform charity at that highest level—to help others help themselves. While we can’t treat patients like Carlos when and how we would want to, we are able to express our charitable mission in the fullest way possible, and we take our victories where we can find them.


thebulwark--2020-09-22--To Counter China, We Must Strengthen Ties with Europe

Three and a half years into Donald Trump ’ s presidency , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo embarked on a charm offensive in Europe , hoping to bring Europeans on board with U.S. efforts to confront China .
As he told the Copenhagen Democracy Summit in June , “ Europe faces a China challenge , just as the United States does , and as—just as our South American , African , Middle Eastern , and Asian friends do too.
” Then , speaking in Prague last month , he compared China ’ s challenge to Soviet communism : “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party ] CCP threat is in some ways much more difficult .
That ’ s because the CCP is already enmeshed in our economies , in our politics , in our societies in ways the Soviet Union never was.
” Pompeo is right to reach out to America ’ s European partners .
In 2018 , the EU was China ’ s largest trading partner .
Together with the United States , the EU imported just over $ 1 trillion of Chinese goods , accounting for over 40 percent of all China ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s second-largest economy and with longstanding political , economic , and cultural connections to the United States , the European Union ( EU ) is America ’ s natural partner in addressing China ’ s mercantilist practices , its intellectual property theft , and its investments around the world that may seem innocuous but are often intended to exert political influence or create cybersecurity threats .
Beijing did itself no favors by its heavy-handed diplomacy during the pandemic .
A plurality of Europeans now see China more critically than before , with 62 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporting that their views have “ worsened ” since the onset of the crisis—with other European countries also seeing huge swings in public opinion toward China .
After the U.K. ’ s decision to ban Huawei from its 5G network , the voices calling a for a similar move by Germany are growing , including most prominently the country ’ s foreign minister , Heiko Maas .
As a result , on Pompeo ’ s initiative , the United States signed common memoranda on the security of 5G networks with the Czech Republic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , Secretary Pompeo ’ s efforts come on the back of frequent abuse of America ’ s European allies throughout Trump ’ s presidency—and , prior to that , of eight years of not entirely benign neglect .
Drastically cutting U.S. forces in Germany with little notice and unclear strategic rationale—other than President Trump ’ s dislike of Chancellor Angela Merkel—does not send the signal to Berlin that the United States is a reliable partner with whom it can take on China or indeed address any major international challenge .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somewhat united front of Western democracies seeking to contain China , the next U.S. president will have to invest heavily in repairing trust lost during the Trump years .
Moreover , it will not be enough to charm individual European countries .
Especially on trade and economic policy , it is the EU , not national governments , that yields the relevant competences .
While the Trump administration ’ s bilateral ties with European countries have not all uniformly worsened—many Eastern Europeans are rightly appreciative of the beefing up of NATO ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view of Brussels has oscillated between indifference and hostility .
Yet , few things are more acutely in U.S. interests than the EU ’ s ability to speak in one voice on China , even if the message might not be aligned 100 percent with the U.S. administration ’ s views .
Reviving not just bilateral dialogue , but the EU-U.S. one , is in the interest of both the United States and of Europe .
In practical terms , reviving the now-abandoned Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership ( without forgetting about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and European economies closer together but could also serve as a basis for international standards on state aid , financial transparency , and intellectual property , on which China needs disciplining by the world ’ s democracies .
In short , the United States needs a genuine Europe First foreign and trade policy , recognizing that America will not have a better friend and ally than the community of democracies on the other side of the Atlantic .
There is a security role to play for the Europeans too , especially for NATO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Soviet threat in mind , its deterrent role applies to all regimes seeking confrontation with the alliance ’ s members , including China .
The United States has been developing new missile systems , including long-range standoffs , stealth naval and aerial vehicles , and unmanned aerial and naval vehicles meant to break into anti-access/area-denial defense systems that China and Russia have developed .
Partnering with the Europeans would reduce the financial burden that the United States is bearing—not an insignificant consideration given the state of the global economy—while providing the Europeans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep Europe ’ s Eastern flank safe and bringing the allies on both sides of the Atlantic closer together .
Another area where cooperation is beneficial is the field of emerging technologies , such as artificial intelligence , microelectronics , and 5G .
AI in particular might revolutionize warfare as much as the invention of the nuclear bomb or the airplane did in the 20th century .
In its 2021 budget , the Department of Defense has boosted significantly investment in AI and quantum R & D ( i.e.
, quantum computing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science ) .
A report by the Center for a New American Security suggests that the United States ought to increase spending on AI and quantum science research from the current $ 1 billion to $ 25 billion by 2025 .
However , scaled R & D programs need more research capacity and human talent , and that ’ s where NATO ’ s non-U.S. members , with a population of 600 million and some of the world ’ s leading universities and research organizations , come into play .
Last but not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s actions both in the eyes of Americans and internationally .
Be it sanctions , trade restrictions , or military operations , the United States always benefits from the support of European governments and the EU .
Especially in attempts to attack and punish the CCP on its human rights violations , the United States will benefit if the European Union also joins it in such punitive measures .
The United States can also leverage Europe ’ s assistance in the negotiations to renew the New START , set to expire in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the development of high-yield nuclear weapons by Russia and the United States .
The renewal makes sense only if China joins the agreement , which could be achieved through the EU ’ s diplomatic and economic pressure on China .
China does not pose a challenge exclusively to the United States .
It poses a threat to the entire free world .
As AEI ’ s Kori Schake argues in her 2017 book Safe Passage , China aspires to remake the world order in its own image : unfree , corrupt , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hegemony is therefore in the collective interest of the United States and its European allies—as well as other democracies around the world .
If the next administration does not want to see Europe accommodate China because Europeans feel that America is no longer a reliable partner , it ought to make repairing its ties with the old continent its single most important foreign policy priority .

Three and a half years into Donald Trump’s presidency, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo embarked on a charm offensive in Europe, hoping to bring Europeans on board with U.S. efforts to confront China. As he told the Copenhagen Democracy Summit in June, “Europe faces a China challenge, just as the United States does, and as—just as our South American, African, Middle Eastern, and Asian friends do too.” Then, speaking in Prague last month, he compared China’s challenge to Soviet communism: “The challenge of resisting the [Chinese Communist Party] CCP threat is in some ways much more difficult. That’s because the CCP is already enmeshed in our economies, in our politics, in our societies in ways the Soviet Union never was.”
Pompeo is right to reach out to America’s European partners. In 2018, the EU was China’s largest trading partner. Together with the United States, the EU imported just over $1 trillion of Chinese goods, accounting for over 40 percent of all China’s exports. With the world’s second-largest economy and with longstanding political, economic, and cultural connections to the United States, the European Union (EU) is America’s natural partner in addressing China’s mercantilist practices, its intellectual property theft, and its investments around the world that may seem innocuous but are often intended to exert political influence or create cybersecurity threats.
Beijing did itself no favors by its heavy-handed diplomacy during the pandemic. A plurality of Europeans now see China more critically than before, with 62 percent of respondents in France and Denmark reporting that their views have “worsened” since the onset of the crisis—with other European countries also seeing huge swings in public opinion toward China. After the U.K.’s decision to ban Huawei from its 5G network, the voices calling a for a similar move by Germany are growing, including most prominently the country’s foreign minister, Heiko Maas. As a result, on Pompeo’s initiative, the United States signed common memoranda on the security of 5G networks with the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, and Lithuania.
However, Secretary Pompeo’s efforts come on the back of frequent abuse of America’s European allies throughout Trump’s presidency—and, prior to that, of eight years of not entirely benign neglect. Drastically cutting U.S. forces in Germany with little notice and unclear strategic rationale—other than President Trump’s dislike of Chancellor Angela Merkel—does not send the signal to Berlin that the United States is a reliable partner with whom it can take on China or indeed address any major international challenge. If there is any chance of creating a somewhat united front of Western democracies seeking to contain China, the next U.S. president will have to invest heavily in repairing trust lost during the Trump years.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Moreover, it will not be enough to charm individual European countries. Especially on trade and economic policy, it is the EU, not national governments, that yields the relevant competences. While the Trump administration’s bilateral ties with European countries have not all uniformly worsened—many Eastern Europeans are rightly appreciative of the beefing up of NATO’s presence in Poland and the Baltic States—its view of Brussels has oscillated between indifference and hostility. Yet, few things are more acutely in U.S. interests than the EU’s ability to speak in one voice on China, even if the message might not be aligned 100 percent with the U.S. administration’s views.
Reviving not just bilateral dialogue, but the EU-U.S. one, is in the interest of both the United States and of Europe. In practical terms, reviving the now-abandoned Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (without forgetting about the U.K.) would not only bring U.S. and European economies closer together but could also serve as a basis for international standards on state aid, financial transparency, and intellectual property, on which China needs disciplining by the world’s democracies.
In short, the United States needs a genuine Europe First foreign and trade policy, recognizing that America will not have a better friend and ally than the community of democracies on the other side of the Atlantic. There is a security role to play for the Europeans too, especially for NATO. While Article 5 was written with the Soviet threat in mind, its deterrent role applies to all regimes seeking confrontation with the alliance’s members, including China.
The United States has been developing new missile systems, including long-range standoffs, stealth naval and aerial vehicles, and unmanned aerial and naval vehicles meant to break into anti-access/area-denial defense systems that China and Russia have developed. Partnering with the Europeans would reduce the financial burden that the United States is bearing—not an insignificant consideration given the state of the global economy—while providing the Europeans with access to technologies that can help keep Europe’s Eastern flank safe and bringing the allies on both sides of the Atlantic closer together.
Another area where cooperation is beneficial is the field of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, microelectronics, and 5G. AI in particular might revolutionize warfare as much as the invention of the nuclear bomb or the airplane did in the 20th century. In its 2021 budget, the Department of Defense has boosted significantly investment in AI and quantum R&D (i.e., quantum computing and various technologies that are based on quantum science). A report by the Center for a New American Security suggests that the United States ought to increase spending on AI and quantum science research from the current $1 billion to $25 billion by 2025. However, scaled R&D programs need more research capacity and human talent, and that’s where NATO’s non-U.S. members, with a population of 600 million and some of the world’s leading universities and research organizations, come into play.
Last but not least, Europe provides legitimacy to America’s actions both in the eyes of Americans and internationally. Be it sanctions, trade restrictions, or military operations, the United States always benefits from the support of European governments and the EU. Especially in attempts to attack and punish the CCP on its human rights violations, the United States will benefit if the European Union also joins it in such punitive measures. The United States can also leverage Europe’s assistance in the negotiations to renew the New START, set to expire in 2021. The treaty puts a ban on the development of high-yield nuclear weapons by Russia and the United States. The renewal makes sense only if China joins the agreement, which could be achieved through the EU’s diplomatic and economic pressure on China.
China does not pose a challenge exclusively to the United States. It poses a threat to the entire free world. As AEI’s Kori Schake argues in her 2017 book Safe Passage, China aspires to remake the world order in its own image: unfree, corrupt, and mercantilist. Preventing its rise to hegemony is therefore in the collective interest of the United States and its European allies—as well as other democracies around the world. If the next administration does not want to see Europe accommodate China because Europeans feel that America is no longer a reliable partner, it ought to make repairing its ties with the old continent its single most important foreign policy priority.