thebulwark--2020-08-25--How to Take (Some of) the Politics Out of Judges’ Retirements

At last count , Donald Trump has placed 203 federal judges on the bench , the fact by which all too many rationalize their support for his presidency .
A few well-known names helped an otherwise feckless administration reach this milestone : Leonard Leo identified new judges and guaranteed their ideological fitness .
Mitch McConnell sped nominees through the Senate , going so far as to hold hearings on a controversial D.C .
Circuit nominee during some of the worst days of the pandemic .
But one group assisting the president ’ s efforts has largely gone unnoticed , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have had such an outsized effect on the judiciary : Sitting federal judges who decided to retire after the 2016 election—many of whom , one can safely assume , would not have done the same had Hillary Clinton won—opening up seats for Trump to fill .
This phenomenon isn ’ t limited to conservatives .
If Joe Biden wins this November—and , as someone who worries about the rule of law in this country , I fervently hope he does—we will likely see a similar trend , with older , liberal-leaning judges vacating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his chance to appoint their successors .
No one is terribly subtle about what ’ s going on : In May , Lindsey Graham , chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee , urged conservative judges to retire ASAP so he could bring their replacements before the committee well in advance of Trump ’ s potential defeat .
Regardless of one ’ s political persuasion or legal temperament , we should all find the trend of judges stepping down when their preferred party controls the White House worrisome : To preserve the public ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at all costs , but when they choose their moment of retirement , judges openly assist one political movement over another .
Happily , however , there are two ways to solve the problem—and they should be the first items on the short list for judicial-reform proponents in a post-Trump age : Judges can adopt internal ethical guidelines that require jurists to announce their intent to retire well before a presidential election , effective in the next administration .
And Congress could mandate by law that judges assume senior status—a kind of semi-retirement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they are eligible , removing the ability of judges to game the date of their successors ’ appointments .
Either measure would go a long way toward maintaining the public appearance and private reality of judicial impartiality—and legislation may be particularly appealing to Democrats looking for a path to judicial reform that avoids packing the courts .
For the rule of law to function , judging can ’ t be just another form of politics .
The good news is that it isn ’ t .
America ’ s federal courts admirably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breach as they administer justice every day , in all kinds of cases , from employment disputes to criminal trials .
It was in defense of this noble tradition of impartiality—and against Trump ’ s contrary vision of a politicized judiciary—that Chief Justice Roberts declared : But the mere fact that federal judges decide cases with the utmost professionalism and dedication to the rule of law isn ’ t the end of the story .
It ’ s equally important that ordinary Americans perceive judges to be nonpolitical .
In the vast majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court ’ s decision—even when they lose the case—not because an authority confronts them at the point of a gun but because litigants know that the ultimate decision-makers ruled fairly .
Chip away that public trust and you threaten to undermine the legal order .
The Judicial Conference of the United States—an internal governance body for the federal judiciary—maintains a code of conduct and associated advisory opinions that help judges avoid the mere appearance of impropriety as well as prevent any actually impropriety itself .
To take the most obvious , neither judges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statements or donate to political parties ( though they can register with political parties and vote in primaries ) .
Recently , there was a heated controversy regarding a since-withdrawn draft ethics opinion advising judges to avoid formal membership in the conservative Federalist Society or its liberal equivalent , the American Constitution Society .
Whatever your position on the issue—I think that judges probably shouldn ’ t possess membership in either organization—the recommendation reflects the very real concern that every judge must carefully maintain the public ’ s trust in the judiciary lest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s why it ’ s especially odd when some judges retire after an election to allow the president they prefer to select their replacement .
In that brief moment , judges who so assiduously avoid politics in public openly align themselves with a political party , at a time in our nation ’ s history when both major parties have made filling the courts and vetting nominees a prominent element of their pitch to voters .
Consider Americans ’ perception if an ailing Justice Ginsburg steps aside after Joe Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she didn ’ t want Donald Trump to choose her successor and so remained in her seat , despite a desire to leave the bench , until a Democrat held the White House .
In some ways , that hypothetical Justice Ginsburg ’ s motivations would be entirely understandable .
Having dedicated her career as an advocate and a judge to advancing a particular set of legal values , why shouldn ’ t she wish her replacement to possess a similar approach to the law ?
But by staying on until Biden assumed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave the impression that she sought to coordinate , albeit tacitly , with Biden ’ s campaign for the presidency and his promise to appoint progressive jurists .
Worse , the public might grow more jaded in assuming that the legal reasoning in Justice Ginsburg ’ s decisions from the bench was just window dressing for politics .
To be clear , I do not subscribe to that brand of realism , with respect to the real Justice Ginsburg or her colleagues on the federal bench .
But convincing many Americans otherwise is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and politicians tacitly coordinate .
Two potential fixes could preserve public faith in the rule of law but still permit aged jurists to retire .
First—and probably the easier one to accomplish—federal judges could interpret or amend their own code of conduct to require judges to publicly announce well before a November presidential election their intent to vacate their seat at a date after the next inauguration , allowing whatever candidate wins the opportunity to fill their seat .
At least one prominent appellate judge already adopted a version of this norm in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means universally accepted .
To be sure , some judges will still need to retire unexpectedly and thus without announcing their plans in advance , say because of a personal or family crisis .
But for everyone else , the rules governing judicial retirement make it easy for judges to determine when they are eligible to leave the bench and to plan accordingly , departing only once every four years .
There is a concern that if judges—especially members of the Supreme Court—pre-commit to retire in advance of an election they will further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filling the judiciary.
” Trump rallied voters in 2016 with a promise to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia with a Federalist Society-approved successor—and one might expect a similar level of emphasis from both sides if Justice Ginsburg announced her plans today to retire in 2021 .
But I ’ m not sure there are many Americans who care about the Court but don ’ t already expect the next president to choose at least one Supreme Court nominee , so the effect might be smaller than we think .
Better yet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to retire in an upcoming term , that signal could potentially reduce the degree to which the Court is a political football in a given election—though , of course , it wouldn ’ t eliminate the possibility that a Supreme Court seat becomes available due to a justice ’ s unplanned departure .
Congress can also achieve a similar result through legislation .
Most judges don ’ t resign and enter private life , but instead opt to take “ senior status , ” a kind of semi-retirement that permits them to remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judges can assume senior status under the so called “ rule of 80 ” ( once a judge turns 65 and the sum of the judge ’ s age and years in service is equal to or more than 80 ) .
And most importantly , once a judge “ goes senior , ” his or her seat opens up for a new appointee .
Congress could simply pass a law requiring judges to assume senior status the day they become eligible , thereby ensuring that judges can ’ t orchestrate their moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no doubt argue otherwise , this proposal comports with the Constitution ’ s requirement that judges “ shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour ” and receive compensation “ which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
” Forcing a judge to go senior looks , at a quick glance , like muscling them into a different judicial office .
But in a 1934 case called Booth v. United States , the Supreme Court concluded that the Good Behavior Clause prohibits Congress from reducing senior judges ’ salaries—while indicating that what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact continue in the same judicial office they held when they were active ( and the current statute confirms that senior judges “ retain the office ” ) .
Thus , requiring a judge—at least on the inferior courts—to take senior status doesn ’ t force him or her into a new office , at least for constitutional purposes .
Nor is my proposed modification of the judicial retirement system so great that it could be said to change the nature of current judges ’ offices .
It ’ s true that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes to the Supreme Court .
Some of those who propose that the justices serve fixed terms before retiring to the lower courts have also argued that the offices of justice and judge are so distinct such that one would need a constitutional amendment to enact that scheme .
( This whole issue actually intersects with other constitutional provisions—chiefly the Appointments Clause , which requires separate nominations and confirmations whenever someone assumes a new office . )
But at least for district court and appellate court judges , legislation mandating senior status shouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And if this rule were applied by law to lower court judges , Supreme Court justices would feel pressure to adopt it as a norm of their own .
The legislative route may also be harder to achieve in practice , but it should appeal to congressional Democrats : Compared to alternative proposals for judicial reform—particularly court packing—modifying the method of judicial retirement offers a realistic-yet-principled way to “ fix ” the courts .
It has a clear justification rooted in the rule of law and isn ’ t pure partisan politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implemented in a Biden administration , it would open up a number of new appointments ( though that ’ s not my motivation for proposing this plan ) .
And unlike court packing , this discrete policy change is a one off : A future Republican-dominated legislature would be harder pressed to adopt their own version of this plan in retaliation , as they surely would if Democrats simply create new judgeships to “ balance out ” Trump ’ s nominees .
( Indeed , the Democrats ’ modest platform calls for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts , for which the Judicial Conference itself has asked—and that has already set off howls of protest in conservative legal circles and disappointment in liberal ones , as Ilya Somin recently discussed in Reason . )
Above all , fixing the judicial retirement game is just the right thing to do : Polls routinely show that Americans trust the judiciary more than their counterparts in the political branches—and there ’ s a good reason for that trust .
Judges take an oath to “ administer justice without respect to persons , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the rich ” —and , day in and day out , they and their staff make that noble oath a reality .
Preventing them from orchestrating their moment of retirement for political gain would help preserve the public ’ s trust in arguably the finest institution of our republic .

At last count, Donald Trump has placed 203 federal judges on the bench, the fact by which all too many rationalize their support for his presidency. A few well-known names helped an otherwise feckless administration reach this milestone: Leonard Leo identified new judges and guaranteed their ideological fitness. Mitch McConnell sped nominees through the Senate, going so far as to hold hearings on a controversial D.C. Circuit nominee during some of the worst days of the pandemic.
But one group assisting the president’s efforts has largely gone unnoticed, and without them the Trump administration may not have had such an outsized effect on the judiciary: Sitting federal judges who decided to retire after the 2016 election—many of whom, one can safely assume, would not have done the same had Hillary Clinton won—opening up seats for Trump to fill.
This phenomenon isn’t limited to conservatives. If Joe Biden wins this November—and, as someone who worries about the rule of law in this country, I fervently hope he does—we will likely see a similar trend, with older, liberal-leaning judges vacating their positions to allow the new president his chance to appoint their successors.
No one is terribly subtle about what’s going on: In May, Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, urged conservative judges to retire ASAP so he could bring their replacements before the committee well in advance of Trump’s potential defeat.
Regardless of one’s political persuasion or legal temperament, we should all find the trend of judges stepping down when their preferred party controls the White House worrisome: To preserve the public’s trust, judges normally avoid politics at all costs, but when they choose their moment of retirement, judges openly assist one political movement over another.
Happily, however, there are two ways to solve the problem—and they should be the first items on the short list for judicial-reform proponents in a post-Trump age: Judges can adopt internal ethical guidelines that require jurists to announce their intent to retire well before a presidential election, effective in the next administration. And Congress could mandate by law that judges assume senior status—a kind of semi-retirement which many judges opt to take—as soon as they are eligible, removing the ability of judges to game the date of their successors’ appointments.
Either measure would go a long way toward maintaining the public appearance and private reality of judicial impartiality—and legislation may be particularly appealing to Democrats looking for a path to judicial reform that avoids packing the courts.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
For the rule of law to function, judging can’t be just another form of politics.
The good news is that it isn’t.
America’s federal courts admirably exemplify equality before the law in the breach as they administer justice every day, in all kinds of cases, from employment disputes to criminal trials. It was in defense of this noble tradition of impartiality—and against Trump’s contrary vision of a politicized judiciary—that Chief Justice Roberts declared:
We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.
But the mere fact that federal judges decide cases with the utmost professionalism and dedication to the rule of law isn’t the end of the story. It’s equally important that ordinary Americans perceive judges to be nonpolitical. In the vast majority of situations, people comply with a court’s decision—even when they lose the case—not because an authority confronts them at the point of a gun but because litigants know that the ultimate decision-makers ruled fairly. Chip away that public trust and you threaten to undermine the legal order.
The Judicial Conference of the United States—an internal governance body for the federal judiciary—maintains a code of conduct and associated advisory opinions that help judges avoid the mere appearance of impropriety as well as prevent any actually impropriety itself. To take the most obvious, neither judges nor their staff can make public political statements or donate to political parties (though they can register with political parties and vote in primaries). Recently, there was a heated controversy regarding a since-withdrawn draft ethics opinion advising judges to avoid formal membership in the conservative Federalist Society or its liberal equivalent, the American Constitution Society. Whatever your position on the issue—I think that judges probably shouldn’t possess membership in either organization—the recommendation reflects the very real concern that every judge must carefully maintain the public’s trust in the judiciary lest the American legal system stumble.
That’s why it’s especially odd when some judges retire after an election to allow the president they prefer to select their replacement. In that brief moment, judges who so assiduously avoid politics in public openly align themselves with a political party, at a time in our nation’s history when both major parties have made filling the courts and vetting nominees a prominent element of their pitch to voters.
Consider Americans’ perception if an ailing Justice Ginsburg steps aside after Joe Biden’s inauguration. Many would rightly conclude that she didn’t want Donald Trump to choose her successor and so remained in her seat, despite a desire to leave the bench, until a Democrat held the White House. In some ways, that hypothetical Justice Ginsburg’s motivations would be entirely understandable. Having dedicated her career as an advocate and a judge to advancing a particular set of legal values, why shouldn’t she wish her replacement to possess a similar approach to the law?
But by staying on until Biden assumed office, future Justice Ginsburg would also leave the impression that she sought to coordinate, albeit tacitly, with Biden’s campaign for the presidency and his promise to appoint progressive jurists. Worse, the public might grow more jaded in assuming that the legal reasoning in Justice Ginsburg’s decisions from the bench was just window dressing for politics.
To be clear, I do not subscribe to that brand of realism, with respect to the real Justice Ginsburg or her colleagues on the federal bench. But convincing many Americans otherwise is already difficult and becomes harder when justices and politicians tacitly coordinate.
Two potential fixes could preserve public faith in the rule of law but still permit aged jurists to retire.
First—and probably the easier one to accomplish—federal judges could interpret or amend their own code of conduct to require judges to publicly announce well before a November presidential election their intent to vacate their seat at a date after the next inauguration, allowing whatever candidate wins the opportunity to fill their seat. At least one prominent appellate judge already adopted a version of this norm in 2016, but it is by no means universally accepted.
(Though the code of conduct doesn’t apply to Supreme Court justices, one would hope they would follow this particular norm if it applied to all other federal judges.)
To be sure, some judges will still need to retire unexpectedly and thus without announcing their plans in advance, say because of a personal or family crisis. But for everyone else, the rules governing judicial retirement make it easy for judges to determine when they are eligible to leave the bench and to plan accordingly, departing only once every four years.
There is a concern that if judges—especially members of the Supreme Court—pre-commit to retire in advance of an election they will further polarize the national political discourse around “filling the judiciary.” Trump rallied voters in 2016 with a promise to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia with a Federalist Society-approved successor—and one might expect a similar level of emphasis from both sides if Justice Ginsburg announced her plans today to retire in 2021.
But I’m not sure there are many Americans who care about the Court but don’t already expect the next president to choose at least one Supreme Court nominee, so the effect might be smaller than we think. Better yet, if the justices broadcast an intent not to retire in an upcoming term, that signal could potentially reduce the degree to which the Court is a political football in a given election—though, of course, it wouldn’t eliminate the possibility that a Supreme Court seat becomes available due to a justice’s unplanned departure.
Congress can also achieve a similar result through legislation.
Most judges don’t resign and enter private life, but instead opt to take “senior status,” a kind of semi-retirement that permits them to remain a judge with reduced responsibilities. Federal judges can assume senior status under the so called “rule of 80” (once a judge turns 65 and the sum of the judge’s age and years in service is equal to or more than 80). And most importantly, once a judge “goes senior,” his or her seat opens up for a new appointee. Congress could simply pass a law requiring judges to assume senior status the day they become eligible, thereby ensuring that judges can’t orchestrate their moment of retirement.
Though creative litigants will no doubt argue otherwise, this proposal comports with the Constitution’s requirement that judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour” and receive compensation “which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.” Forcing a judge to go senior looks, at a quick glance, like muscling them into a different judicial office. But in a 1934 case called Booth v. United States, the Supreme Court concluded that the Good Behavior Clause prohibits Congress from reducing senior judges’ salaries—while indicating that what we now call senior judges do in fact continue in the same judicial office they held when they were active (and the current statute confirms that senior judges “retain the office”). Thus, requiring a judge—at least on the inferior courts—to take senior status doesn’t force him or her into a new office, at least for constitutional purposes. Nor is my proposed modification of the judicial retirement system so great that it could be said to change the nature of current judges’ offices.
It’s true that this analysis becomes a little dicier when it comes to the Supreme Court. Some of those who propose that the justices serve fixed terms before retiring to the lower courts have also argued that the offices of justice and judge are so distinct such that one would need a constitutional amendment to enact that scheme. (This whole issue actually intersects with other constitutional provisions—chiefly the Appointments Clause, which requires separate nominations and confirmations whenever someone assumes a new office.) But at least for district court and appellate court judges, legislation mandating senior status shouldn’t pose those serious constitutional concerns. And if this rule were applied by law to lower court judges, Supreme Court justices would feel pressure to adopt it as a norm of their own.
The legislative route may also be harder to achieve in practice, but it should appeal to congressional Democrats: Compared to alternative proposals for judicial reform—particularly court packing—modifying the method of judicial retirement offers a realistic-yet-principled way to “fix” the courts. It has a clear justification rooted in the rule of law and isn’t pure partisan politics. At the same time, if implemented in a Biden administration, it would open up a number of new appointments (though that’s not my motivation for proposing this plan). And unlike court packing, this discrete policy change is a one off: A future Republican-dominated legislature would be harder pressed to adopt their own version of this plan in retaliation, as they surely would if Democrats simply create new judgeships to “balance out” Trump’s nominees. (Indeed, the Democrats’ modest platform calls for a few new judges, mostly on district courts, for which the Judicial Conference itself has asked—and that has already set off howls of protest in conservative legal circles and disappointment in liberal ones, as Ilya Somin recently discussed in Reason.)
Above all, fixing the judicial retirement game is just the right thing to do: Polls routinely show that Americans trust the judiciary more than their counterparts in the political branches—and there’s a good reason for that trust. Judges take an oath to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich”—and, day in and day out, they and their staff make that noble oath a reality. Preventing them from orchestrating their moment of retirement for political gain would help preserve the public’s trust in arguably the finest institution of our republic.


thebulwark--2020-08-27--Is Kenosha a Warning for the Biden Campaign?

On Wednesday night I remotely conducted two focus groups , one in North Carolina and one in Arizona .
The demographics of the groups were the same .
Both consisted of 2016 Trump voters .
Both were composed of six white , college-educated women ( those prized suburban women you hear so much about ) .
And both were made up of voters who rated the president as doing a “ very bad job.
” These women are what political operatives often call “ soft Trump voters.
” Yes , they voted for Trump in 2016 , but due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ performance , they are potentially gettable for Joe Biden in 2020 .
Trump won a narrow plurality of white women in 2016 , but this group has been moving away from him ever since .
Over the next two months approximately seven gazillion dollars will be spent trying to win their votes .
Here are my top-line takeaways from the conversations .
Big picture : I do two focus groups every couple weeks and both the NC and AZ groups tracked roughly with what I ’ ve been hearing for the last 6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The country is going in the wrong direction .
“ Shit show ” as one woman described it .
People often tell stories of personal pain and economic distress in the face of COVID .
• Trump is a bully and a narcissist , but they voted for him because they considered him a businessman who could potentially shake things up and they hate the Clintons .
• They think Trump has done a bad job handling COVID and that people should wear masks but that the economy shouldn ’ t be shut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often cited as the moment women realized he wasn ’ t up to the task .
• The media is terrible and one-sided and doesn ’ t give Trump credit for the good things he ’ s done—like the economy before COVID .
• Politics are negative and divisive , and the participants in these focus groups say and they ’ re not paying close attention to what ’ s been going on , but they ’ re definitely going to vote so it ’ s time for them to start doing research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” they ’ re not sure what he stands for , and , according to some , he ’ s possibly suffering from dementia .
• Their views on the choice of Kamala Harris were generally neutral , with many saying they didn ’ t know much about her .
• Out of both groups , only one woman was watching the conventions .
But everyone said they will tune in for the debates and undecided voters view the debates as critical to their decision-making .
Even some who say they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could change their mind if Joe Biden impresses them .
But Wednesday night ’ s groups also diverged in some key ways .
The group from North Carolina tracks pretty closely with roughly 20 swing-state groups I ’ ve conducted in the post-COVID environment .
Of the six women in the group , one was voting for Trump , one was leaning toward Trump , two were definitely voting for Biden and two were undecided .
All said they plan to vote in 2020 .
Generally , I ’ d say this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 6 to 8 women ( doing focus groups over Zoom means they need to be a bit smaller than when I was doing them in person ) , and the voting split almost always breaks down like this : • One or two Trump definites • One or two Trump leaners • One or two Biden definites But the participants in the Arizona focus group stood out for their continued support of Trump , despite their reservations about his performance .
The Arizona group consisted of six women : Three are voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but at least two of the women felt to me like they were leaning Trump .
The sixth woman had voted for Trump in 2016 by essentially flipping a coin and was leaning toward doing the same thing in 2020 ( flipping a coin , that is ) .
The most notable difference between the two groups was the way they talked about race and the ongoing civil unrest related to recent police killings of black Americans .
The North Carolina group was sympathetic to the protestors and said there was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to race .
One of the women had participated in several protests , all of which she said were peaceful .
None of them had really heard much about the events in Kenosha .
The only mention of violence related to the protests was from a woman suggesting that Trump and the police were inciting violence .
One North Carolina woman said she thought “ this might be the start of another civil rights awakening and we might actually make progress on racial issues , ” saying her views on race “ have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years.
” The woman who had attended protests said , “ more white people are becoming aware that they have privilege ” and that “ fear lies at the core ” of a lot of problems that come from race issues and that Trump is “ taking advantage of the fears of white people.
” A young woman who was undecided about whom to vote for—but was leaning Biden—said she “ has become a lot more aware of racial issues in the past year.
” While she grew up in an all-white town @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to care about racism and thinks racial equality is “ something worth fighting for.
” The Arizona group was a mirror image .
They were all aware of what was going on in Wisconsin , and five of the six women were in complete agreement that what was happening was not peaceful protesting , but looting , rioting , and violence for no good reason .
As one woman said , to supportive nods from others in the group : There was also general agreement that Trump was right to send federal forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters said that the unrest made them more likely to vote for Trump .
As one woman said , “ Trump is right that we should send in the National Guard .
Why do our troops go overseas but can ’ t police here ?
” Another observed , “ I think people are looking for an excuse to run wild and do whatever they want , they can loot , burn , and blame it on white people .
You can peacefully protest , no one has an issue with this , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burning , looting , et cetera , you aren ’ t making yourself look good.
” These two groups were polar opposites , but in the past few months the voters I ’ ve talked to have generally expressed a mix of these sentiments : sympathy for the protests and the underlying causes , but disgust at those who use the protests to loot , riot , and destroy .
In this case , two groups of women with shared demography but distant geography viewed the racial unrest through the opposite sides of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so wildly divergent , I ’ m hesitant to draw any broad conclusions from the two groups around how Trump ’ s law-and-order message could potentially resonate with suburban swing voters .
But I will venture two observations : ( 1 ) There are swing voters for whom his divisiveness on race is a liability—and there are those for whom it is an asset .
( 2 ) The North Carolina group knew relatively little about Kenosha while the Arizona group was much more familiar with the media coverage from Wisconsin .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be an inflection point for swing voters .
If this is the case , then Kenosha could be the message Trump has been grasping for ever since the killing of George Floyd .
It could be the case which finally lets Trump pry swing voters away from Biden .
The Biden campaign responded forcefully to Kenosha yesterday , with the candidate himself condemning the riots .
But he may have to do more .
The Trump campaign will do everything possible to tie Biden to the riots and mayhem .
The Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as difficult as possible .
And that starts with recognizing that Kenosha may be a high-leverage situation .
Donald Trump is extremely vulnerable on his handling of COVID .
If the election is about COVID , Trump loses .
The Biden campaign clearly understands this .
But so does the Trump campaign , which is why they are desperate to shift the focus to protests and unrest in American cities .
The chaos candidate understands that this at least gives him a chance .
Wednesday night ’ s focus groups suggest that Trump @ @ @ @

On Wednesday night I remotely conducted two focus groups, one in North Carolina and one in Arizona.
The demographics of the groups were the same. Both consisted of 2016 Trump voters. Both were composed of six white, college-educated women (those prized suburban women you hear so much about). And both were made up of voters who rated the president as doing a “very bad job.”
These women are what political operatives often call “soft Trump voters.” Yes, they voted for Trump in 2016, but due to their dissatisfaction with the president’s performance, they are potentially gettable for Joe Biden in 2020.
Trump won a narrow plurality of white women in 2016, but this group has been moving away from him ever since. Over the next two months approximately seven gazillion dollars will be spent trying to win their votes.
Here are my top-line takeaways from the conversations.
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…
Big picture: I do two focus groups every couple weeks and both the NC and AZ groups tracked roughly with what I’ve been hearing for the last 6 months.
Things are bad. The country is going in the wrong direction. “Shit show” as one woman described it. People often tell stories of personal pain and economic distress in the face of COVID.
Trump is a bully and a narcissist, but they voted for him because they considered him a businessman who could potentially shake things up and they hate the Clintons.
They think Trump has done a bad job handling COVID and that people should wear masks but that the economy shouldn’t be shut down. His COVID press conferences are often cited as the moment women realized he wasn’t up to the task.
The media is terrible and one-sided and doesn’t give Trump credit for the good things he’s done—like the economy before COVID.
Politics are negative and divisive, and the participants in these focus groups say and they’re not paying close attention to what’s been going on, but they’re definitely going to vote so it’s time for them to start doing research.
Joe Biden is “meh,” they’re not sure what he stands for, and, according to some, he’s possibly suffering from dementia.
Their views on the choice of Kamala Harris were generally neutral, with many saying they didn’t know much about her.
One participant was QAnon-curious.
Out of both groups, only one woman was watching the conventions. But everyone said they will tune in for the debates and undecided voters view the debates as critical to their decision-making. Even some who say they are planning to vote for Trump said they could change their mind if Joe Biden impresses them.
But Wednesday night’s groups also diverged in some key ways.
The group from North Carolina tracks pretty closely with roughly 20 swing-state groups I’ve conducted in the post-COVID environment. Of the six women in the group, one was voting for Trump, one was leaning toward Trump, two were definitely voting for Biden and two were undecided. All said they plan to vote in 2020.
Generally, I’d say this is representative. The groups are typically composed of 6 to 8 women (doing focus groups over Zoom means they need to be a bit smaller than when I was doing them in person), and the voting split almost always breaks down like this:
One or two Trump definites
One or two Trump leaners
One or two Biden definites
A Biden leaner (or two)
And a few undecideds.
But the participants in the Arizona focus group stood out for their continued support of Trump, despite their reservations about his performance.
The Arizona group consisted of six women: Three are voting for Trump again and three are undecided, but at least two of the women felt to me like they were leaning Trump. The sixth woman had voted for Trump in 2016 by essentially flipping a coin and was leaning toward doing the same thing in 2020 (flipping a coin, that is).
The most notable difference between the two groups was the way they talked about race and the ongoing civil unrest related to recent police killings of black Americans.
The North Carolina group was sympathetic to the protestors and said there was a need to reevaluate America’s relationship to race. One of the women had participated in several protests, all of which she said were peaceful. None of them had really heard much about the events in Kenosha. The only mention of violence related to the protests was from a woman suggesting that Trump and the police were inciting violence.
One North Carolina woman said she thought “this might be the start of another civil rights awakening and we might actually make progress on racial issues,” saying her views on race “have changed a lot over the past few years.”
The woman who had attended protests said, “more white people are becoming aware that they have privilege” and that “fear lies at the core” of a lot of problems that come from race issues and that Trump is “taking advantage of the fears of white people.”
A young woman who was undecided about whom to vote for—but was leaning Biden—said she “has become a lot more aware of racial issues in the past year.” While she grew up in an all-white town, she now feels like she needs to care about racism and thinks racial equality is “something worth fighting for.”
The Arizona group was a mirror image. They were all aware of what was going on in Wisconsin, and five of the six women were in complete agreement that what was happening was not peaceful protesting, but looting, rioting, and violence for no good reason. As one woman said, to supportive nods from others in the group:
If you’re obeying the law, usually you won’t get shot. If a cop tells you stop, stop. Follow orders. Did cops go overboard? Yes, don’t shoot a dude seven times. But if you follow directions we wouldn’t be here. If he was white no one would have cared.
There was also general agreement that Trump was right to send federal forces to Wisconsin. Two of the undecided voters said that the unrest made them more likely to vote for Trump.
As one woman said, “Trump is right that we should send in the National Guard. Why do our troops go overseas but can’t police here?”
Another observed, “I think people are looking for an excuse to run wild and do whatever they want, they can loot, burn, and blame it on white people. You can peacefully protest, no one has an issue with this, it’s when you start violence burning, looting, et cetera, you aren’t making yourself look good.”
These two groups were polar opposites, but in the past few months the voters I’ve talked to have generally expressed a mix of these sentiments: sympathy for the protests and the underlying causes, but disgust at those who use the protests to loot, riot, and destroy.
In this case, two groups of women with shared demography but distant geography viewed the racial unrest through the opposite sides of the telescope.
Because the opinions were so wildly divergent, I’m hesitant to draw any broad conclusions from the two groups around how Trump’s law-and-order message could potentially resonate with suburban swing voters. But I will venture two observations:
(1) There are swing voters for whom his divisiveness on race is a liability—and there are those for whom it is an asset.
(2) The North Carolina group knew relatively little about Kenosha while the Arizona group was much more familiar with the media coverage from Wisconsin. It is possible that the events in Kenosha could be an inflection point for swing voters.
If this is the case, then Kenosha could be the message Trump has been grasping for ever since the killing of George Floyd. It could be the case which finally lets Trump pry swing voters away from Biden.
The Biden campaign responded forcefully to Kenosha yesterday, with the candidate himself condemning the riots.
Joe Biden condemns police shooting of Jacob Blake
Watch this video on YouTube
But he may have to do more. The Trump campaign will do everything possible to tie Biden to the riots and mayhem. The Biden campaign will need to make this work as difficult as possible. And that starts with recognizing that Kenosha may be a high-leverage situation.
Donald Trump is extremely vulnerable on his handling of COVID. If the election is about COVID, Trump loses. The Biden campaign clearly understands this.
But so does the Trump campaign, which is why they are desperate to shift the focus to protests and unrest in American cities. The chaos candidate understands that this at least gives him a chance.
Wednesday night’s focus groups suggest that Trump may be right.


thebulwark--2020-08-27--Why This Pro-Life Conservative Is Voting for Biden

Since I announced publicly that I will be voting for Joe Biden in November , I ’ ve received a few communications from puzzled readers .
“ How can you , a supposedly pro-life woman , support someone who believes in killing babies ?
” Others say , “ What do you not like about Trump ’ s record ?
The tax cuts ?
The record jobs numbers ?
The conservative judges ?
” One reader summed things up with “ I used to like you.
” I understand .
I feel the same way about many people myself .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sake of those who , like me , find themselves alienated from the Republican Party despite some policy agreements with the Trump administration .
Let ’ s start with abortion .
I have been pro-life my entire adult life .
I haven ’ t changed .
I continue to find the practice abhorrent , and will persist in trying to persuade others .
But I ’ ve noticed a tendency among pro-life conservatives to forgive absolutely everything else if a politician expresses the right views on abortion .
This is a mirror image @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when Bill Clinton was accused of sexual misconduct .
Many liberals were willing to overlook his gross behavior toward women in the name of preserving abortion rights .
Call it “ abortion washing.
” Both sides do it .
Abortion washing shuts down moral reflection .
Rather than do the work of analyzing how one good thing weighs in the balance against other considerations , abortion washing permits the brain to snap shut , the conscience to put its feet up .
My views on abortion can ’ t be severed from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion because it ’ s morally wrong .
I understand that women are sometimes plunged into terrible life crises by unplanned pregnancies , which is why I do what I can to provide help for them .
Crisis pregnancies can present agonizing choices , but I don ’ t think killing is an acceptable solution because life is sacred .
That doesn ’ t settle the matter of how to place abortion within the matrix of factors that go into voting .
There are prudential considerations .
While I would prefer to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life , I ’ ve never believed that electing presidents who agree with me will lead to dramatic changes in abortion law , nor is the law itself the only way to discourage abortion .
The number of abortions has been declining steadily since 1981 .
It dropped during Republican presidencies and during Democratic presidencies , and now stands below the rate in 1973 , when Roe v. Wade was decided and when abortion was illegal in 44 states .
The Supreme Court , despite Republican appointments , has side-stepped many opportunities to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Justices Sandra Day O ’ Connor , Anthony Kennedy , and David Souter were harsh critics of the decision , but chose , on the bench , to vote for continuity .
So if the logic is to support presidents based on the kind of Supreme Court nominees they will choose , the chances that any particular appointment will have the effect of changing the law seem remote .
It has always been my hope to change people ’ s hearts , so that this cruel practice—like slavery , torture , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us .
Being pro-life is part of an overall approach to ethical questions .
It ’ s wrong to take innocent life .
But other things are immoral too .
It ’ s also wrong to swindle people , to degrade and demonize , to incite violence , to bully , and while we ’ re at it , to steal , to bear false witness , to commit adultery , and to covet .
I don ’ t think Trump has committed murder , and he seems to have honored his parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
But as for the other eight of the 10 commandments , Donald Trump has flagrantly , even proudly violated them all , and encouraged his followers to regard his absence of conscience as strength .
Donald Trump is a daily , even hourly , assault on the very idea of morality , even as he obliterates truth .
His influence is like sulphuric acid on our civic bonds .
His cruelty is contagious .
Remember how he mocked a handicapped reporter in 2016 ?
His defenders either denied the obvious facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself might be “ politically incorrect , ” his supporters wouldn ’ t be influenced by that aspect of his character .
Alas , they are .
Consider the incredibly moving moment during the Democratic National Convention when young Braydon Harrington , who struggles with stuttering , introduced Joe Biden .
That night , an Atlantic editor with the same affliction tweeted “ This is what stutterers face every day .
I ’ m in awe of Braydon ’ s courage and resolve.
” But Austin Ruse , author of The Catholic Case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ever stuttered , and replied to another comment with , “ W-w-w-w-w-w-what ?
” Casual cruelty has become the fashion for many Republicans .
Trump acolytes have adopted the mob-boss style that Trump brought to the Oval Office .
When former Trump lawyer/fixer Michael Cohen was preparing to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee , Rep. Matt Gaetz , tweeted , “ Hey @ MichaelCohen212 — Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends ?
Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat .
I wonder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re in prison .
She ’ s about to learn a lot.
” ( Gaetz was rebuked by the House Ethics Committee for this last week . )
Even U.S. senators and cabinet secretaries have aped Trump ’ s bullying tactics .
During Trump ’ s impeachment trial , Senator Rand Paul ( R. , KY ) repeatedly badgered Chief Justice John Roberts to reveal the name of the whistleblower—in violation of the spirit of whistleblower protection statutes , and despite knowing that it might endanger that person ’ s safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the name himself on the Senate floor .
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo permitted his aggression free reign when NPR ’ s Mary Louise Kelly asked a question he didn ’ t like , screaming profanity at her .
Sen. Martha McSally , perhaps sensing that the new Republican chic is rudeness , wheeled on a CNN reporter and called him a “ liberal hack ” before you could say Trumpian .
And Ted Cruz , self-styled “ constitutional conservative , ” has made a show of joining the social media group Parler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ characters , the better to “ own ” Twitter .
It isn ’ t just a matter of style .
At Donald Trump ’ s order , thousands of children , including hundreds under the age of four , were forcibly separated from their parents at the border .
Pro-lifers are tender-hearted about the most vulnerable members of society .
So images like this must stir something .
Separating children from their parents is a barbaric act .
In the crush of outrages over the past three and a half years , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ horror of what was done in our name should never be forgotten .
All of this is familiar to Trump supporters , along with the “ fine people ” in Charlottesville , the mocking of reporters for wearing face masks , the Joe-Scarborough-is-a murderer intimations , the Lafayette Park tear gas , denying the legitimacy of elections , the bleach enemas , and on and on .
They accept it .
Some Trump supporters genuinely hate Trump ’ s imbecilic tweets and disordered personality .
But they will vote for him because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Gaetz , characteristically subtle , claimed at the RNC that Biden and Democrats will “ disarm you , empty the prisons , lock you in your home , and invite MS-13 to live next door .
And the defunded police aren ’ t on their way.
” Writing in Commentary , Abe Greenwald proclaims that the violence following George Floyd ’ s death is the start of a revolution .
Echoing the alarm of the Flight 93 election argument from 2016 , he writes , “ The battle for the survival of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us.
” Speaker after speaker at the Republican National Convention has sounded the same theme .
The left is on the march .
Violent mobs are coming for your suburban home .
If you don ’ t vote for Trump , Antifa will control your town council , AOC will confiscate your guns , and Al Sharpton will dismantle the police .
Funny , but I could have sworn that the Democratic Party nominated Joe Biden last week , not Alexandria Ocasio Cortez or Bernie Sanders .
Look , there are extremists on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a weakness for not wishing to call them out .
Democrats do the truth and themselves no favors by attempting to gloss over the looting , arson , and vandalism that have persisted in Portland , Chicago , and other cities throughout the summer .
And they insult the millions of peaceful protesters who expressed the conscience of the nation by failing to distinguish them from criminals who used the opportunity to pillage and destroy .
Some of the extremists are not on the streets , but on the editorial boards of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and in other positions of cultural influence .
But it ’ s dishonest , and frankly , a bit hysterical to attempt to hang every sin of the left around Joe Biden ’ s neck .
He ’ s no radical , and the party that nominated him showed that its centrist core was stronger than its extremist wing .
As for calls to “ defund the police , ” Biden kept his balance .
In the wake of renewed violence following yet another horrific police shooting , this time in Kenosha , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expressing deep sympathy for Jacob Blake and his family , outrage at what happened , and also condemnation of violence , saying “ burning down communities is not protest , it ’ s needless violence .
.
.
That ’ s wrong.
” Biden struck exactly the right tone .
The argument that the left is worse doesn ’ t persuade me .
Strange as it is to write those words after 30 plus years as a conservative columnist , I have to say that when you compare the state of the two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more frightening .
It is the Republican party that has officially become a personality cult , declaring that it will not adopt a platform but will simply follow whatever Trump dictates .
It is the Republican party that pretends that COVID-19 will magically disappear .
It is the Republican party that has elevated a series of criminals and grifters including Paul Manafort , Rick Gates , Roy Moore , Steve Bannon , Wayne LaPierre , Rudy Giuliani , Jerry Falwell , Jr. , and Roger Stone .
It is the Republican party that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump diverted funds to his border wall .
It is the Republican party that has become truth-optional .
And it is the Republican party that now opens its arms to adherents of a deranged but nonetheless dangerous new cult called QAnon , which a ( defeated ) Republican called “ mental gonorrhea , ” and which in December , 2016 , inspired a man to open fire in a pizza parlor in Washington , D.C. , as part of a “ self investigation.
” The FBI has designated QAnon a domestic terror threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committed to providing committee assignments to Marjorie Taylor Greene , should she be elected in November There is putrefaction where the Republican party ’ s essence should be , and appointing pro-life judges can not mask the stench .
So this conservative is voting for the Democrats .
Will the GOP reform ?
I hope so .
But my priority isn ’ t trying to heal the Republican party .
It ’ s trying to heal the country .
Update , August 27 , 2020 , 10:29 a.m. : Austin Ruse claims that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Braydon Harrington , but was meant to express doubts that Joe Biden ever stuttered .

Since I announced publicly that I will be voting for Joe Biden in November, I’ve received a few communications from puzzled readers. “How can you, a supposedly pro-life woman, support someone who believes in killing babies?” Others say, “What do you not like about Trump’s record? The tax cuts? The record jobs numbers? The conservative judges?” One reader summed things up with “I used to like you.”
I understand. I feel the same way about many people myself.
I will try to respond for the sake of those who, like me, find themselves alienated from the Republican Party despite some policy agreements with the Trump administration.
Let’s start with abortion. I have been pro-life my entire adult life. I haven’t changed. I continue to find the practice abhorrent, and will persist in trying to persuade others. But I’ve noticed a tendency among pro-life conservatives to forgive absolutely everything else if a politician expresses the right views on abortion. This is a mirror image of the left, as we saw when Bill Clinton was accused of sexual misconduct. Many liberals were willing to overlook his gross behavior toward women in the name of preserving abortion rights. Call it “abortion washing.” Both sides do it.
Abortion washing shuts down moral reflection. Rather than do the work of analyzing how one good thing weighs in the balance against other considerations, abortion washing permits the brain to snap shut, the conscience to put its feet up.
My views on abortion can’t be severed from the rest of my worldview. I oppose abortion because it’s morally wrong. I understand that women are sometimes plunged into terrible life crises by unplanned pregnancies, which is why I do what I can to provide help for them. Crisis pregnancies can present agonizing choices, but I don’t think killing is an acceptable solution because life is sacred.
That doesn’t settle the matter of how to place abortion within the matrix of factors that go into voting. There are prudential considerations. While I would prefer to vote for someone who upholds the right to life, I’ve never believed that electing presidents who agree with me will lead to dramatic changes in abortion law, nor is the law itself the only way to discourage abortion. The number of abortions has been declining steadily since 1981. It dropped during Republican presidencies and during Democratic presidencies, and now stands below the rate in 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided and when abortion was illegal in 44 states.
The Supreme Court, despite Republican appointments, has side-stepped many opportunities to reverse Roe. As David French noted, Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter were harsh critics of the decision, but chose, on the bench, to vote for continuity. So if the logic is to support presidents based on the kind of Supreme Court nominees they will choose, the chances that any particular appointment will have the effect of changing the law seem remote.
It has always been my hope to change people’s hearts, so that this cruel practice—like slavery, torture, and mutilation—can be put (mostly) behind us.
Being pro-life is part of an overall approach to ethical questions. It’s wrong to take innocent life. But other things are immoral too. It’s also wrong to swindle people, to degrade and demonize, to incite violence, to bully, and while we’re at it, to steal, to bear false witness, to commit adultery, and to covet. I don’t think Trump has committed murder, and he seems to have honored his parents (though perhaps in the wrong way). But as for the other eight of the 10 commandments, Donald Trump has flagrantly, even proudly violated them all, and encouraged his followers to regard his absence of conscience as strength.
Donald Trump is a daily, even hourly, assault on the very idea of morality, even as he obliterates truth. His influence is like sulphuric acid on our civic bonds. His cruelty is contagious. Remember how he mocked a handicapped reporter in 2016? His defenders either denied the obvious facts, or insisted that, while Trump himself might be “politically incorrect,” his supporters wouldn’t be influenced by that aspect of his character.
Alas, they are. Consider the incredibly moving moment during the Democratic National Convention when young Braydon Harrington, who struggles with stuttering, introduced Joe Biden. That night, an Atlantic editor with the same affliction tweeted “This is what stutterers face every day. I’m in awe of Braydon’s courage and resolve.” But Austin Ruse, author of The Catholic Case for Trump, tweeted his doubts that Biden ever stuttered, and replied to another comment with, “W-w-w-w-w-w-what?”
Casual cruelty has become the fashion for many Republicans. Trump acolytes have adopted the mob-boss style that Trump brought to the Oval Office. When former Trump lawyer/fixer Michael Cohen was preparing to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Matt Gaetz, tweeted, “Hey @MichaelCohen212 — Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat. I wonder if she’ll remain faithful when you’re in prison. She’s about to learn a lot.” (Gaetz was rebuked by the House Ethics Committee for this last week.)
Even U.S. senators and cabinet secretaries have aped Trump’s bullying tactics. During Trump’s impeachment trial, Senator Rand Paul (R., KY) repeatedly badgered Chief Justice John Roberts to reveal the name of the whistleblower—in violation of the spirit of whistleblower protection statutes, and despite knowing that it might endanger that person’s safety. When Roberts declined, Paul revealed the name himself on the Senate floor. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo permitted his aggression free reign when NPR’s Mary Louise Kelly asked a question he didn’t like, screaming profanity at her. Sen. Martha McSally, perhaps sensing that the new Republican chic is rudeness, wheeled on a CNN reporter and called him a “liberal hack” before you could say Trumpian. And Ted Cruz, self-styled “constitutional conservative,” has made a show of joining the social media group Parler, which hosts alt-right and other unsavory characters, the better to “own” Twitter.
It isn’t just a matter of style. At Donald Trump’s order, thousands of children, including hundreds under the age of four, were forcibly separated from their parents at the border. Pro-lifers are tender-hearted about the most vulnerable members of society. So images like this must stir something. Separating children from their parents is a barbaric act. In the crush of outrages over the past three and a half years, it has gotten swallowed up, but the horror of what was done in our name should never be forgotten.
All of this is familiar to Trump supporters, along with the “fine people” in Charlottesville, the mocking of reporters for wearing face masks, the Joe-Scarborough-is-a murderer intimations, the Lafayette Park tear gas, denying the legitimacy of elections, the bleach enemas, and on and on. They accept it. Some Trump supporters genuinely hate Trump’s imbecilic tweets and disordered personality. But they will vote for him because they believe that the left is far worse.
Gaetz, characteristically subtle, claimed at the RNC that Biden and Democrats will “disarm you, empty the prisons, lock you in your home, and invite MS-13 to live next door. And the defunded police aren’t on their way.”
Writing in Commentary, Abe Greenwald proclaims that the violence following George Floyd’s death is the start of a revolution. Echoing the alarm of the Flight 93 election argument from 2016, he writes, “The battle for the survival of the United States of America is upon us.” Speaker after speaker at the Republican National Convention has sounded the same theme. The left is on the march. Violent mobs are coming for your suburban home. If you don’t vote for Trump, Antifa will control your town council, AOC will confiscate your guns, and Al Sharpton will dismantle the police.
Funny, but I could have sworn that the Democratic Party nominated Joe Biden last week, not Alexandria Ocasio Cortez or Bernie Sanders.
Look, there are extremists on the left, and the Democratic Party has a weakness for not wishing to call them out. Democrats do the truth and themselves no favors by attempting to gloss over the looting, arson, and vandalism that have persisted in Portland, Chicago, and other cities throughout the summer. And they insult the millions of peaceful protesters who expressed the conscience of the nation by failing to distinguish them from criminals who used the opportunity to pillage and destroy.
Some of the extremists are not on the streets, but on the editorial boards of leading newspapers, on university faculties, and in other positions of cultural influence.
But it’s dishonest, and frankly, a bit hysterical to attempt to hang every sin of the left around Joe Biden’s neck. He’s no radical, and the party that nominated him showed that its centrist core was stronger than its extremist wing.
Biden denounced violence in cities, saying:
The vast majority of the protests have been peaceful. Anyone who burns or pillages… should be arrested. They are a problem for society and they make a mockery of what the march is all about. They should be tried, arrested and put in jail.
As for calls to “defund the police,” Biden kept his balance.
Absolutely not. I do not support [defunding the police] and I never have. What I support is strong and serious reform of police departments which most serious police officers in the country support. And we should have transparency in what in fact occurs within police departments as it relates to accusations of brutality or violating peoples’ rights.
In the wake of renewed violence following yet another horrific police shooting, this time in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Biden repeated this message, expressing deep sympathy for Jacob Blake and his family, outrage at what happened, and also condemnation of violence, saying “burning down communities is not protest, it’s needless violence . . . That’s wrong.” Biden struck exactly the right tone.
The argument that the left is worse doesn’t persuade me. Strange as it is to write those words after 30 plus years as a conservative columnist, I have to say that when you compare the state of the two major parties today, the Republicans are more frightening.
It is the Republican party that has officially become a personality cult, declaring that it will not adopt a platform but will simply follow whatever Trump dictates. It is the Republican party that pretends that COVID-19 will magically disappear. It is the Republican party that has elevated a series of criminals and grifters including Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Roy Moore, Steve Bannon, Wayne LaPierre, Rudy Giuliani, Jerry Falwell, Jr., and Roger Stone. It is the Republican party that shamefully declined to uphold the Constitution when Trump diverted funds to his border wall. It is the Republican party that has become truth-optional. And it is the Republican party that now opens its arms to adherents of a deranged but nonetheless dangerous new cult called QAnon, which a (defeated) Republican called “mental gonorrhea,” and which in December, 2016, inspired a man to open fire in a pizza parlor in Washington, D.C., as part of a “self investigation.” The FBI has designated QAnon a domestic terror threat, yet minority leader Kevin McCarthy has committed to providing committee assignments to Marjorie Taylor Greene, should she be elected in November
There is putrefaction where the Republican party’s essence should be, and appointing pro-life judges cannot mask the stench. So this conservative is voting for the Democrats. Will the GOP reform? I hope so. But my priority isn’t trying to heal the Republican party. It’s trying to heal the country.
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…
Update, August 27, 2020, 10:29 a.m.: Austin Ruse claims that his tweet was not meant to mock Braydon Harrington, but was meant to express doubts that Joe Biden ever stuttered.


thebulwark--2020-08-27--Pompeo’s RNC Speech Was Worse Than You Thought

The clues are in plain sight : Mike Pompeo is doing everything within his power to position himself as a contender for the 2024 GOP nomination .
The secretary of state has adopted a MAGA-esque manner , is pandering to the base from his office , and conducts diplomacy with the nation of Iowa .
And , this week , he delivered a prerecorded speech for the Republican National Convention .
Much has already been said about how it was unprecedented , inappropriate , and likely illegal for Pompeo to have addressed the convention in the way that he did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep the nation ’ s top diplomat out of partisan politics ; the laws forbidding such speeches were enacted to draw important ethical lines between governance from politics .
What made Pompeo ’ s convention appearance worse , however , was that he gave the speech from the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem—an obvious pander to evangelical voters , since President Trump himself recently admitted that the relocation of the embassy was chiefly done to appease them .
And worse still , Pompeo ’ s act risks making the U.S. relationship with Israel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already is , which is dangerous both for U.S. interests in the Middle East and for Israel ’ s security .
The more that Republicans polarize the issue of U.S.-Israel relations , the more they are encouraging Democrats to distance themselves from Israel .
It will be terrible for the tiny Jewish nation if it is hugged for four or eight years when there is a Republican president and kicked around for four or eight years when a Democrat comes into office .
( It is important to note that Joe Biden ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is not true of the Democratic party ’ s progressive insurgents like Bernie Sanders and AOC . )
Pompeo knows all this .
He just doesn ’ t care .
Again : He wants to be president .
But let ’ s set aside the norms and the laws and instead analyze the speech itself .
According to Pompeo , the Trump administration has made the United States safer and more prosperous over the past three and a half years .
How ?
First , he mentioned that Trump ’ s trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is a lie , according to the Trump administration itself , which has cut massive checks to help the U.S. farmers who have been harmed by Trump ’ s trade war .
Pompeo said that the jobs shipped to China “ are coming back home.
” They are not .
There is no evidence for that .
There is also little economic reason for most companies to move such jobs to the United States at the moment ; even if China were to become too costly for U.S. businesses to profitably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other countries with attractive labor markets and costs .
Pompeo also mentioned the killing of Qassem Soleimani , the monstrous Iranian general-diplomat .
The world is a better place , and America a safer nation , with Soleimani gone .
But when Iran decided to launch a cosmetic retaliation to save face domestically , the Trump administration allowed it .
During the winter conflict , the country that attacked last was Iran .
And over a hundred U.S. troops received brain injuries from the attack , for which the Trump administration let Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Ukraine has defensive weapon systems.
” True .
But did he think that we all somehow forgot the story that convulsed the country last year—that Trump initially blocked that Ukraine aid to get dirt on Biden , and only released it after the whistleblower came out , resulting in his impeachment ?
“ In North Korea , ” Pompeo said , “ the president lowered the temperature and against all odds got the North Korean leadership to the table.
” Which achieved nothing !
Why ?
The talks with Kim Jong-un were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the middle—and he was right to do so .
Pompeo is correct that the North Koreans have not been conducting nuclear tests , but he omitted to mention that , on Trump ’ s watch , North Korea ’ s nuclear fuel has increased up to four times , according to estimates , and the country has built a much more advanced nuclear reactor .
“ Because of President Trump , NATO is stronger , ” Pompeo said—a laughable proposition , especially only weeks after the United States pulled its troops out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending on defense has increased , but NATO ’ s founders never intended to reduce it to merely a military alliance .
NATO was intended to be a community of nations with shared values .
And the bond between the members of the community and the United States has never been weaker—as vividly demonstrated by the way Trump was literally laughed out of a NATO summit .
“ Because of the president ’ s determination and leadership , ” Pompeo said , “ the ISIS caliphate is wiped out .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) the Trump administration diminished the Islamic State by continuing to implement the Obama administration ’ s strategy ; ( 2 ) Trump fired James Mattis , the secretary of defense who succeeded in winning the war against the Islamic State ; and , ( 3 ) the Islamic State is making a comeback , this time on Trump ’ s watch .
And , of course , Pompeo ended with Israel , mentioning the relocation of the embassy and the peace deal between Israel and the UAE .
Except , well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was negotiated by a bunch of rookies with no diplomatic experience .
As to whether Americans are safer than they were four years ago and whether the world is more peaceful than it was before Trump took office , you be the judge .

The clues are in plain sight: Mike Pompeo is doing everything within his power to position himself as a contender for the 2024 GOP nomination. The secretary of state has adopted a MAGA-esque manner, is pandering to the base from his office, and conducts diplomacy with the nation of Iowa. And, this week, he delivered a prerecorded speech for the Republican National Convention.
Much has already been said about how it was unprecedented, inappropriate, and likely illegal for Pompeo to have addressed the convention in the way that he did. The norms preventing such speeches arose to keep the nation’s top diplomat out of partisan politics; the laws forbidding such speeches were enacted to draw important ethical lines between governance and politics.
What made Pompeo’s convention appearance worse, however, was that he gave the speech from the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem—an obvious pander to evangelical voters, since President Trump himself recently admitted that the relocation of the embassy was chiefly done to appease them. And worse still, Pompeo’s act risks making the U.S. relationship with Israel an even more polarized issue than it already is, which is dangerous both for U.S. interests in the Middle East and for Israel’s security. The more that Republicans polarize the issue of U.S.-Israel relations, the more they are encouraging Democrats to distance themselves from Israel. It will be terrible for the tiny Jewish nation if it is hugged for four or eight years when there is a Republican president and kicked around for four or eight years when a Democrat comes into office. (It is important to note that Joe Biden’s platform is quite pro-Israel, but this is not true of the Democratic party’s progressive insurgents like Bernie Sanders and AOC.)
Pompeo knows all this. He just doesn’t care. Again: He wants to be president.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But let’s set aside the norms and the laws and instead analyze the speech itself. According to Pompeo, the Trump administration has made the United States safer and more prosperous over the past three and a half years. How?
First, he mentioned that Trump’s trade war with China has benefited U.S. workers. This is a lie, according to the Trump administration itself, which has cut massive checks to help the U.S. farmers who have been harmed by Trump’s trade war. Pompeo said that the jobs shipped to China “are coming back home.” They are not. There is no evidence for that. There is also little economic reason for most companies to move such jobs to the United States at the moment; even if China were to become too costly for U.S. businesses to profitably remain there, there are plenty of other countries with attractive labor markets and costs.
Pompeo also mentioned the killing of Qassem Soleimani, the monstrous Iranian general-diplomat. The world is a better place, and America a safer nation, with Soleimani gone. But when Iran decided to launch a cosmetic retaliation to save face domestically, the Trump administration allowed it. During the winter conflict, the country that attacked last was Iran. And over a hundred U.S. troops received brain injuries from the attack, for which the Trump administration let Iran go unpunished.
Pompeo also mentioned that “Ukraine has defensive weapon systems.” True. But did he think that we all somehow forgot the story that convulsed the country last year—that Trump initially blocked that Ukraine aid to get dirt on Biden, and only released it after the whistleblower came out, resulting in his impeachment?
“In North Korea,” Pompeo said, “the president lowered the temperature and against all odds got the North Korean leadership to the table.” Which achieved nothing! Why? The talks with Kim Jong-un were so pointless that Trump abruptly left them in the middle—and he was right to do so. Pompeo is correct that the North Koreans have not been conducting nuclear tests, but he omitted to mention that, on Trump’s watch, North Korea’s nuclear fuel has increased up to four times, according to estimates, and the country has built a much more advanced nuclear reactor.
“Because of President Trump, NATO is stronger,” Pompeo said—a laughable proposition, especially only weeks after the United States pulled its troops out of Germany. NATO’s aggregate spending on defense has increased, but NATO’s founders never intended to reduce it to merely a military alliance. NATO was intended to be a community of nations with shared values. And the bond between the members of the community and the United States has never been weaker—as vividly demonstrated by the way Trump was literally laughed out of a NATO summit.
“Because of the president’s determination and leadership,” Pompeo said, “the ISIS caliphate is wiped out. It’s gone.” Except that: (1) the Trump administration diminished the Islamic State by continuing to implement the Obama administration’s strategy; (2) Trump fired James Mattis, the secretary of defense who succeeded in winning the war against the Islamic State; and, (3) the Islamic State is making a comeback, this time on Trump’s watch.
And, of course, Pompeo ended with Israel, mentioning the relocation of the embassy and the peace deal between Israel and the UAE. Except, well, the deal is already falling apart because it was negotiated by a bunch of rookies with no diplomatic experience.
As to whether Americans are safer than they were four years ago and whether the world is more peaceful than it was before Trump took office, you be the judge.


thebulwark--2020-08-27--Who Cares if Trump ‘Accepts’ the Election? Not the Constitution.

The Electoral College , which delivered Donald Trump the White House after he lost the 2016 popular vote , is the constitutional mechanism the president ’ s critics love to hate .
It may be the one that saves the nation from the scenario they increasingly fear : Trump losing the election and refusing to concede .
Kayleigh McEnany , the White House press secretary , reiterated Trump ’ s caginess last week .
Asked whether the president would “ not accept the results ” of the election “ unless he wins , ” she replied : “ The president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what happens and make a determination in the aftermath.
” A reasonable , and constitutional , reply would be : “ So ?
” The growing anxiety about a president undermining the legitimacy of an election he may lose is justified .
In a republic , perceptions of legitimacy , not just the law , matter .
A scenario in which , as George F. Will put it , Trump must be “ frogmarched out of the White House ” would be disastrous for the nation ’ s political fabric , not least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and therefore perpetuate Trumpism .
But that should not obscure the fundamental constitutional fact : There is no “ determination ” for Trump to make .
Constitutionally , his acceptance of the results matters no more than that of any other citizen .
The Electoral College is the mechanism that guarantees it .
It consists of 538 electors chosen in the November 3 election .
To win a second term , Trump must receive a majority of those votes or , if no one does , be chosen by the House of Representatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Twelfth Amendment .
The Twentieth Amendment specifies what happens next : “ The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January.
” The key fact is this : No step in this procedure requires the incumbent ’ s assent .
As Kim Wehle has noted in this space , absent an Electoral College victory , Trump will cease to be president at 12 p.m. on January 20 .
The clock , not the president , is in control .
Might a variety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensue ?
Of course .
Trump could barricade himself in the Oval Office .
The imagination , fueled by Trump ’ s refusal to state the irrelevant—that he will concede the election if he loses it—can conjure fevered possibilities from there .
But none of them would make Trump anything more than a private citizen trespassing on the White House grounds .
At the stroke of noon , he would not be the president of the United States in the only sense that matters : constitutionally .
One could dream up wilder plots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turning the military or other federal agencies against the people .
As Kori Schake and Jim Golby have noted , fear of such schemes creates its own hazards , especially looking to the military to litigate the outcome of an election by force .
But that scenario would require the secretive and prolonged grooming of large and bureaucratic institutions , all sworn to uphold the Constitution , all prone to leaks , and all difficult for the best of presidents to control in the best of times .
Even then , such schemes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a president .
There is a difference .
And even autocratic commands are just rants until someone follows them .
Edmund Burke , urging Parliament to reconcile with the American colonists in 1775 , observed that no amount of taxation or regulation would make rebels into subjects unless they fell into line : “ Obedience , ” he declared , “ is what makes Government , and not the names by which it is called.
” The wild scenarios are as endless as they are implausible .
Most assume that the body politic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump is worth more angst than he justifies .
If any are right , they would prove not only that Trump is a megalomaniac , which is not new information , but also that Americans have no business governing ourselves .
But , if only for sport , let ’ s play : A disgruntled Trump could head west , Aaron Burr-style , in the pointless hope of a separatist regime .
Even if large numbers of citizens or officials chose to follow him after his term expires—which could rise to crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation has bigger political problems than the transient phenomenon of Trumpism—he would still not be president of the United States .
His insistence that the election was rigged would not matter precisely because the Electoral College can not be rigged in any strict sense , and its votes are all that count .
The idea of electors was to balance the right of the people to oversee the selection of the president with the benefits of an intermediary and deliberative body comprised of individuals who were , Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
” That original ideal never materialized .
At least since 1796 , electors have been mere instruments for registering popular votes by state .
But in a continental nation with universal suffrage , the system offers other advantages .
Hamilton may not have foreseen them all , but Federalist 68 at least prophesied the Electoral College ’ s utility as an impediment “ to cabal , intrigue , and corruption.
” Since the body would be elected for a single purpose and then dissolve , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agent of usurpation .
The fact that electors meet in state capitals would prevent the corruption of the whole body at one time .
And , most pertinent to the scale of contemporary America , because the Electoral College was designed for independent deliberation , no popular vote , rigged or flawless , can bind its members .
It is true , as the Supreme Court recently ruled , that a state can punish electors who do not respect its popular vote .
Fewer than 1 percent of electors in American history actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ penalized , the ballots of these “ faithless electors ” still count .
By statute , the 538 Electoral College ballots are officially counted in the chamber of the House of Representatives on January 6 .
Any of them can be questioned , in which case legislators decide the challenge .
That has never been a serious issue .
It could , in theory , become complicated , but not nearly as ugly and protracted as litigating 130 million individual ballots sprawled across tens of thousands of precincts nationwide .
Trump could litigate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 .
Without a majority of electoral ballots , his term expires at noon that day .
None of this diminishes the dangerous possibility of a former president undermining his successor ’ s authority in sharply polarized times .
But the fear of that scenario—the unrelenting questions to the president about the outcome of the election , the constant hand-wringing about his enigmatic replies—risks legitimizing the false and egotistical idea that Trump ’ s views count .
In the eyes of the Constitution , only the votes of 538 electors do .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way off—his critics might learn to love the constitutional institution they wrongly blame for his ascent .

The Electoral College, which delivered Donald Trump the White House after he lost the 2016 popular vote, is the constitutional mechanism the president’s critics love to hate. It may be the one that saves the nation from the scenario they increasingly fear: Trump losing the election and refusing to concede.
Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary, reiterated Trump’s caginess last week. Asked whether the president would “not accept the results” of the election “unless he wins,” she replied: “The president has always said he’ll see what happens and make a determination in the aftermath.” A reasonable, and constitutional, reply would be: “So?”
The growing anxiety about a president undermining the legitimacy of an election he may lose is justified. In a republic, perceptions of legitimacy, not just the law, matter. A scenario in which, as George F. Will put it, Trump must be “frogmarched out of the White House” would be disastrous for the nation’s political fabric, not least because it would perpetuate tribalism and resentments and therefore perpetuate Trumpism. But that should not obscure the fundamental constitutional fact: There is no “determination” for Trump to make. Constitutionally, his acceptance of the results matters no more than that of any other citizen. The Electoral College is the mechanism that guarantees it.
It consists of 538 electors chosen in the November 3 election. To win a second term, Trump must receive a majority of those votes or, if no one does, be chosen by the House of Representatives according to the elaborate procedure elucidated in the Twelfth Amendment.
The Twentieth Amendment specifies what happens next: “The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January.” The key fact is this: No step in this procedure requires the incumbent’s assent. As Kim Wehle has noted in this space, absent an Electoral College victory, Trump will cease to be president at 12 p.m. on January 20. The clock, not the president, is in control.
Might a variety of ominous—or, better put, pathetic—spectacles ensue? Of course. Trump could barricade himself in the Oval Office. The imagination, fueled by Trump’s refusal to state the irrelevant—that he will concede the election if he loses it—can conjure fevered possibilities from there. But none of them would make Trump anything more than a private citizen trespassing on the White House grounds. At the stroke of noon, he would not be the president of the United States in the only sense that matters: constitutionally.
One could dream up wilder plots, such as Trump retaining power by turning the military or other federal agencies against the people. As Kori Schake and Jim Golby have noted, fear of such schemes creates its own hazards, especially looking to the military to litigate the outcome of an election by force. But that scenario would require the secretive and prolonged grooming of large and bureaucratic institutions, all sworn to uphold the Constitution, all prone to leaks, and all difficult for the best of presidents to control in the best of times.
Even then, such schemes would make Trump a dictator, not a president. There is a difference. And even autocratic commands are just rants until someone follows them. Edmund Burke, urging Parliament to reconcile with the American colonists in 1775, observed that no amount of taxation or regulation would make rebels into subjects unless they fell into line: “Obedience,” he declared, “is what makes Government, and not the names by which it is called.”
The wild scenarios are as endless as they are implausible. Most assume that the body politic is more diseased than it is and that Trump is worth more angst than he justifies. If any are right, they would prove not only that Trump is a megalomaniac, which is not new information, but also that Americans have no business governing ourselves.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But, if only for sport, let’s play: A disgruntled Trump could head west, Aaron Burr-style, in the pointless hope of a separatist regime. Even if large numbers of citizens or officials chose to follow him after his term expires—which could rise to crisis levels, while simultaneously revealing that the nation has bigger political problems than the transient phenomenon of Trumpism—he would still not be president of the United States. His insistence that the election was rigged would not matter precisely because the Electoral College cannot be rigged in any strict sense, and its votes are all that count.
The idea of electors was to balance the right of the people to oversee the selection of the president with the benefits of an intermediary and deliberative body comprised of individuals who were, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68, “most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.” That original ideal never materialized. At least since 1796, electors have been mere instruments for registering popular votes by state.
But in a continental nation with universal suffrage, the system offers other advantages. Hamilton may not have foreseen them all, but Federalist 68 at least prophesied the Electoral College’s utility as an impediment “to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.” Since the body would be elected for a single purpose and then dissolve, it could not be groomed as an agent of usurpation. The fact that electors meet in state capitals would prevent the corruption of the whole body at one time.
And, most pertinent to the scale of contemporary America, because the Electoral College was designed for independent deliberation, no popular vote, rigged or flawless, can bind its members. It is true, as the Supreme Court recently ruled, that a state can punish electors who do not respect its popular vote. Fewer than 1 percent of electors in American history actually have. But even when they are penalized, the ballots of these “faithless electors” still count.
By statute, the 538 Electoral College ballots are officially counted in the chamber of the House of Representatives on January 6. Any of them can be questioned, in which case legislators decide the challenge. That has never been a serious issue. It could, in theory, become complicated, but not nearly as ugly and protracted as litigating 130 million individual ballots sprawled across tens of thousands of precincts nationwide. Trump could litigate his way to 11:59 a.m. on January 20. Without a majority of electoral ballots, his term expires at noon that day.
None of this diminishes the dangerous possibility of a former president undermining his successor’s authority in sharply polarized times. But the fear of that scenario—the unrelenting questions to the president about the outcome of the election, the constant hand-wringing about his enigmatic replies—risks legitimizing the false and egotistical idea that Trump’s views count. In the eyes of the Constitution, only the votes of 538 electors do. If Trump loses in November—which is a long way off—his critics might learn to love the constitutional institution they wrongly blame for his ascent.