thebulwark--2020-11-11--Republicans Continue to Cower Under Phony Strongman

According to Joseph Stalin biographer Simon Sebag Montefiore , Stalin grew so powerful that when he gave a speech and mispronounced a word , every speaker would mispronounce the word in the same way .
“ If I ’ d said it right , Stalin would have felt I was correcting him , ” remembered Stalin protégé Vyacheslav Molotov , noting the Soviet leader was “ very touchy and proud.
” Donald Trump is obviously not Stalin : he doesn ’ t conduct show trials , send his political opponents to gulags , or starve millions of his own people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , that makes the embarrassing post-2020 election obeisance of Republican politicians even more confounding .
If they rightly acknowledge Trump ’ s election loss was not due to vote “ fraud ” and concede Joe Biden will , in fact , be president on January 20 next year , the worst they will suffer is an angry tweet from the president .
And yet they trot right out , single file , humiliating themselves in order to soothe the “ very touchy and proud ” adolescent in the Oval Office .
Newt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections work , said Trump fell to a “ corrupt and stolen election.
” On the Senate floor , Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Trump is “ 100 percent within his right ” to pursue recounts and litigation .
Attorney General William Barr has authorized Department of Justice agents to begin looking into “ voting irregularities.
” And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , when asked about the impending transfer of power , “ joked ” there would be a “ smooth transition to a second Trump administration.
” And these were some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s post-election tantrum .
According to one particularly odious pro-Trump commentator , Biden is “ not the president-elect ” because Real Clear Politics had yet to officially call a handful of states .
( This is a heretofore unknown requirement spelled out in the version of the Constitution read exclusively by people with undetected natural gas leaks in their homes . )
For years , watching Republicans actively defend Trump ’ s solipsism has been unbearable .
Whether he ’ s lying about the size of the crowd at his inauguration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in exchange for dirt on his political opponents , or virtually ignoring a deadly infectious disease that could hurt his re-election , Republicans have twisted themselves in knots either vying for Trump ’ s affection or dodging questions about his latest vile utterance .
Last Tuesday , Republicans were rewarded for this strategy , picking up seats in the House of Representatives , and , depending on a pair of January runoff elections in Georgia , retaining control of the Senate .
It appears only Trump can ’ t survive Trumpism .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same , please .
That is why , even with Trump soon to be out of office , Republicans are still spooked by his shadow , actively taking part in his campaign to misinform millions of American voters and plunge the country into a fruitless legal war .
Even the supposedly “ responsible ” Republicans issuing milquetoast statement demanding every “ legally cast ” vote be counted are winking to the low-information crowds who believe millions of illegal votes were cast .
This , of course , includes a number of GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 2024 will cost them their dignity in the short-term .
The past is an ever-growing resource , and many of these would-be contenders hope there will soon be enough of it to distance them from the post-election freak show .
Some of these presidential aspirants are counting on Trump fading from view , once news networks are no longer forced to cover him .
Others are trying to grab hold of the dragon Trump created and hope they can ride it for four more years .
“ What is the downside for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time ?
” one “ senior Republican official ” told the Washington Post .
“ No one seriously thinks the results will change .
… He went golfing this weekend .
It ’ s not like he ’ s plotting how to prevent Joe Biden from taking power on Jan. 20 .
He ’ s tweeting about filing some lawsuits , those lawsuits will fail , then he ’ ll tweet some more about how the election was stolen , and then he ’ ll leave.
” Naturally , the ongoing behavior of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visible Trump remains while in exile , and whether he continues to demand fealty from weaker-willed Republicans .
And much of Trump ’ s power will be determined by how much money he can make as a political figure once he ’ s out of office .
Even the current legal battles over the election results are a fundraising scam , with Trump ’ s appeals telling donors a portion of the money will be spent to retire campaign debt .
As a private citizen , Trump faces hundreds of millions of dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains “ political , ” it seems his focus will be more on vacuuming money from his supporters ’ pockets than refereeing disputes between Biden and potential Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell .
But in the shorter term , without any sort of condemnation from his own side , Trump will continue to put his own fundraising over the nation ’ s well-being as the phony voter fraud lawsuits continue .
Historically , the peaceful transfer of power has relied on the losing candidate hoping to preserve his dignity and character .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone with neither of those things .

According to Joseph Stalin biographer Simon Sebag Montefiore, Stalin grew so powerful that when he gave a speech and mispronounced a word, every speaker would mispronounce the word in the same way.
“If I’d said it right, Stalin would have felt I was correcting him,” remembered Stalin protégé Vyacheslav Molotov, noting the Soviet leader was “very touchy and proud.”
Donald Trump is obviously not Stalin: he doesn’t conduct show trials, send his political opponents to gulags, or starve millions of his own people to death.
In a way, though, that makes the embarrassing post-2020 election obeisance of Republican politicians even more confounding. If they rightly acknowledge Trump’s election loss was not due to vote “fraud” and concede Joe Biden will, in fact, be president on January 20 next year, the worst they will suffer is an angry tweet from the president.
And yet they trot right out, single file, humiliating themselves in order to soothe the “very touchy and proud” adolescent in the Oval Office. Newt Gingrich, a man who knows how elections work, said Trump fell to a “corrupt and stolen election.” On the Senate floor, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Trump is “100 percent within his right” to pursue recounts and litigation.
Attorney General William Barr has authorized Department of Justice agents to begin looking into “voting irregularities.” And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, when asked about the impending transfer of power, “joked” there would be a “smooth transition to a second Trump administration.”
And these were some of the more reasonable Republican reactions to Trump’s post-election tantrum. According to one particularly odious pro-Trump commentator, Biden is “not the president-elect” because Real Clear Politics had yet to officially call a handful of states. (This is a heretofore unknown requirement spelled out in the version of the Constitution read exclusively by people with undetected natural gas leaks in their homes.)
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
For years, watching Republicans actively defend Trump’s solipsism has been unbearable. Whether he’s lying about the size of the crowd at his inauguration, or auctioning U.S. foreign policy off in exchange for dirt on his political opponents, or virtually ignoring a deadly infectious disease that could hurt his re-election, Republicans have twisted themselves in knots either vying for Trump’s affection or dodging questions about his latest vile utterance.
Last Tuesday, Republicans were rewarded for this strategy, picking up seats in the House of Representatives, and, depending on a pair of January runoff elections in Georgia, retaining control of the Senate. It appears only Trump can’t survive Trumpism.
But the lesson from voters? More of the same, please.
That is why, even with Trump soon to be out of office, Republicans are still spooked by his shadow, actively taking part in his campaign to misinform millions of American voters and plunge the country into a fruitless legal war. Even the supposedly “responsible” Republicans issuing milquetoast statement demanding every “legally cast” vote be counted are winking to the low-information crowds who believe millions of illegal votes were cast.
This, of course, includes a number of GOP presidential hopefuls, who know a ticket to 2024 will cost them their dignity in the short-term. The past is an ever-growing resource, and many of these would-be contenders hope there will soon be enough of it to distance them from the post-election freak show.
Some of these presidential aspirants are counting on Trump fading from view, once news networks are no longer forced to cover him. Others are trying to grab hold of the dragon Trump created and hope they can ride it for four more years.
“What is the downside for humoring him for this little bit of time?” one “senior Republican official” told the Washington Post. “No one seriously thinks the results will change. … He went golfing this weekend. It’s not like he’s plotting how to prevent Joe Biden from taking power on Jan. 20. He’s tweeting about filing some lawsuits, those lawsuits will fail, then he’ll tweet some more about how the election was stolen, and then he’ll leave.”
Naturally, the ongoing behavior of Trump’s sycophants depends on how visible Trump remains while in exile, and whether he continues to demand fealty from weaker-willed Republicans. And much of Trump’s power will be determined by how much money he can make as a political figure once he’s out of office.
Even the current legal battles over the election results are a fundraising scam, with Trump’s appeals telling donors a portion of the money will be spent to retire campaign debt. As a private citizen, Trump faces hundreds of millions of dollars in debt he needs to repay—if he remains “political,” it seems his focus will be more on vacuuming money from his supporters’ pockets than refereeing disputes between Biden and potential Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
But in the shorter term, without any sort of condemnation from his own side, Trump will continue to put his own fundraising over the nation’s well-being as the phony voter fraud lawsuits continue. Historically, the peaceful transfer of power has relied on the losing candidate hoping to preserve his dignity and character. We are seeing what happens when we elect someone with neither of those things.


thebulwark--2020-11-11--There Is No Return to Normalcy

There Is No Return to Normalcy

The day after the firing of the secretary of defense who resisted the use of troops against peaceful American protesters is probably not a great time for the secretary of state to joke about a transition to a “ second Trump administration.
” If he was in fact joking .
Welcome to what the Republican party is in 2020—a threat to democratic order .
I ’ ve had conversations in the past few days with people who disliked Trump enough to pull the lever for Biden but still believe that the Republican party itself is sound and will snap back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ d like to believe that , but the auguries are not good so far .
The party ’ s leaders have closed ranks around Trump , repeating the lies and conspiracies he ’ s spinning about a stolen election .
They are laying the predicate for the next four years—the stab in the back .
Trump didn ’ t lose , he was robbed .
Biden is not the president , he ’ s the usurper .
You really couldn ’ t have asked for a more open-handed Democrat than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort to soothe the bitterness of our politics and attempted to unify the country .
Someone on CNN said he had “ slammed ” Trump for failing to concede , but that ’ s wrong .
He said it was “ embarrassing ” and wouldn ’ t burnish Trump ’ s legacy—which is about the mildest way to describe what Trump is doing .
But major figures in the Republican party , from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to the head of the Republican National Committee to the attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are playing along with the charade of distinguishing between “ legal ” and “ illegal votes.
” Republican attorneys general from 10 states have petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene and stop the vote counting in Pennsylvania .
Attorney General Bill Barr has altered longstanding Justice Department guidance , instructing prosecutors to pursue “ vote tabulation irregularities.
” Although Barr ’ s order was hedged and cautious in the fine print , as Adam White notes , the headline was “ Barr green lights investigations of vote fraud ” —when there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virtually nothing .
There are mistakes and small frauds in every election . )
This was too much for Richard Pilger , director of the Justice Department ’ s Election Crimes Branch .
He submitted his resignation .
Some Republicans , recognizing that Trump ’ s attempt to discredit the election is his most severe assault on democratic norms yet , are attempting to right the ship , and God bless them .
Sen. Mitt Romney was among the first to congratulate President-elect Biden .
Sens .
Lisa Murkowski , Susan Collins , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wishes to the winner .
George W. Bush issued a gracious statement , as did a number of governors—Larry Hogan , Phil Scott , Governor-elect Spencer Cox , and Charlie Baker .
Hogan also went further : “ There is no defense for the President ’ s comments tonight undermining our democratic process.
” A handful of congressmen ( mostly those who are retiring ) congratulated the winner .
Rep. Fred Upton was actually inspiring .
Noting that the country needs to address the millions of people who are struggling in the face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Douglass : “ I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong.
” But McConnell , one of the most influential men in the party , is saying that “ President Trump is 100 percent within his rights to look into allegations of irregularities and weigh his legal options ” as if this is just a speeding ticket .
And McCarthy told Fox News that “ President Trump won this election .
So everyone who is listening , do not be silent about this .
We can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eyes.
” Among right-leaning journalists and infotainers , the Wall Street Journal editorial page offered the gentlest of rebukes to Trump ’ s petulance , saying “ Mr .
Trump isn ’ t obliged to concede or congratulate his opponent if he loses , though it would be better for the country and his own legacy if he did.
” They are at least not among the claque of enablers .
And the news sides of the New York Post and Fox News have acknowledged reality .
Meanwhile , Rush Limbaugh has laid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years : “ There ’ s simply no way Joe Biden was legitimately elected president.
” Funny , Rush didn ’ t explain why , if the Democrats were successful in stealing the election from Donald Trump , they didn ’ t also steal it from Sens .
Thom Tillis , Joni Ernst , Susan Collins , and Lindsey Graham ?
The usual suspects at Fox are pouring gasoline on the fire of suspicion Trump has ignited .
As Paul Waldman of the Washington Post put it , “ It is not enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be disappointed in the results of the election and determined to do better next time .
They must be enraged .
For the conservative media , creating and feeding anger is a business model that goes back decades.
” To be fair , ginning up rage is not a Republican monopoly .
I remember Democratic ads in 2000 suggesting that then-governor George W. Bush was soft on lynching .
But what is happening now is a decline even from there .
The Trump Republicans have gone wading in the fever swamps and invited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ ve always had conspiracy theories , but we ’ ve never before elected a conspiracy-monger , and we ’ ve never before had the minority leader of the House of Representatives as well as a U.S. senator welcoming a fringe conspiracist ( Representative-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene ) .
This president rose to power on the strength of the birther hoax and spoke warmly of QAnon , so spinning a tale of voter fraud is completely on brand .
In recent months , we ’ ve learned that 37 percent of Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the QAnon conspiracy are true , and that 34 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaners think the COVID-19 pandemic was intentionally started by powerful people ( the figure for Democrats and Democratic-leaners was 18 percent ) .
Into that warm petri dish for incubating crazy thinking , insert one defeated President Trump claiming voter fraud and you get yesterday ’ s new polling showing that 70 percent of Republicans do not believe the 2020 election was “ free and fair.
” The difference between 37 percent and 70 percent is the difference between a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legitimacy .
About 70 million Americans voted for Donald Trump .
If the vast majority of them believe—falsely—that the election was stolen from them , that their votes didn ’ t count , what does that do to any opportunity for national healing ?
How do they respond if the sitting president goes beyond filing frivolous lawsuits and urges state legislatures to submit alternative slates of electors ( as Mark Levin has urged ) ?
Or if he asks the military to take to the streets by invoking the Insurrection Act ?
Is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this interview the just-fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper gave to Military Times .
Describing President Trump ’ s demand that he order active-duty troops from Fort Bragg to Washington , D.C. , in June to deal with protesters in Lafayette Square , Esper said he pushed back .
The president was livid , but Esper thought something crucial was on the line : That was not some Never Trump pundit .
That was the president ’ s own defense secretary saying the situation “ could spiral.
” It ’ s possible that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s also possible that he had other motives as well , something that would move in a “ dark direction.
” By the way , does any Trump backer question the president ’ s judgment in choosing this delicate moment—when foreign adversaries may seek to capitalize on what they see as American chaos—to fire the defense secretary ?
Some object that Republicans who are indulging the president ’ s tantrum are merely playing for time and waiting for him to come to terms with reality .
That makes no sense .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s paranoia , they are making it less , not more likely that he climbs down off the crazy tree .
No , the branch of Republicans that brought Trump to power are now attempting to poison the well for sane Republicans in the future .
Instead of being able to focus on policy or ( gasp ) possible cooperation with the Democratic president on urgent matters like the pandemic , the narrative will be set by the grievance machine .
The Trump crowds were still chanting “ lock her up ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they ’ ll be chanting “ Trump won ” in 2024 ?

The day after the firing of the secretary of defense who resisted the use of troops against peaceful American protesters is probably not a great time for the secretary of state to joke about a transition to a “second Trump administration.” If he was in fact joking. Welcome to what the Republican party is in 2020—a threat to democratic order.
I’ve had conversations in the past few days with people who disliked Trump enough to pull the lever for Biden but still believe that the Republican party itself is sound and will snap back to normal now that Trump is defeated.
I’d like to believe that, but the auguries are not good so far. The party’s leaders have closed ranks around Trump, repeating the lies and conspiracies he’s spinning about a stolen election. They are laying the predicate for the next four years—the stab in the back. Trump didn’t lose, he was robbed. Biden is not the president, he’s the usurper.
You really couldn’t have asked for a more open-handed Democrat than Joe Biden. He has made every effort to soothe the bitterness of our politics and attempted to unify the country. Someone on CNN said he had “slammed” Trump for failing to concede, but that’s wrong. He said it was “embarrassing” and wouldn’t burnish Trump’s legacy—which is about the mildest way to describe what Trump is doing.
But major figures in the Republican party, from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy to the head of the Republican National Committee to the attorney general and the aforementioned secretary of state, are playing along with the charade of distinguishing between “legal” and “illegal votes.” Republican attorneys general from 10 states have petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene and stop the vote counting in Pennsylvania. Attorney General Bill Barr has altered longstanding Justice Department guidance, instructing prosecutors to pursue “vote tabulation irregularities.” Although Barr’s order was hedged and cautious in the fine print, as Adam White notes, the headline was “Barr green lights investigations of vote fraud”—when there was nothing to investigate. (Or, virtually nothing. There are mistakes and small frauds in every election.) This was too much for Richard Pilger, director of the Justice Department’s Election Crimes Branch. He submitted his resignation.
Some Republicans, recognizing that Trump’s attempt to discredit the election is his most severe assault on democratic norms yet, are attempting to right the ship, and God bless them. Sen. Mitt Romney was among the first to congratulate President-elect Biden. Sens. Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, and Ben Sasse have also extended best wishes to the winner. George W. Bush issued a gracious statement, as did a number of governors—Larry Hogan, Phil Scott, Governor-elect Spencer Cox, and Charlie Baker. Hogan also went further: “There is no defense for the President’s comments tonight undermining our democratic process.” A handful of congressmen (mostly those who are retiring) congratulated the winner. Rep. Fred Upton was actually inspiring. Noting that the country needs to address the millions of people who are struggling in the face of the pandemic, he quoted Frederick Douglass: “I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong.”
But McConnell, one of the most influential men in the party, is saying that “President Trump is 100 percent within his rights to look into allegations of irregularities and weigh his legal options” as if this is just a speeding ticket. And McCarthy told Fox News that “President Trump won this election. So everyone who is listening, do not be silent about this. We cannot allow this to happen before our very eyes.”
Among right-leaning journalists and infotainers, the Wall Street Journal editorial page offered the gentlest of rebukes to Trump’s petulance, saying “Mr. Trump isn’t obliged to concede or congratulate his opponent if he loses, though it would be better for the country and his own legacy if he did.” They are at least not among the claque of enablers. And the news sides of the New York Post and Fox News have acknowledged reality.
Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh has laid down the marker for the next four years: “There’s simply no way Joe Biden was legitimately elected president.” Funny, Rush didn’t explain why, if the Democrats were successful in stealing the election from Donald Trump, they didn’t also steal it from Sens. Thom Tillis, Joni Ernst, Susan Collins, and Lindsey Graham?
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 usual suspects at Fox are pouring gasoline on the fire of suspicion Trump has ignited. As Paul Waldman of the Washington Post put it, “It is not enough for the GOP’s base to be disappointed in the results of the election and determined to do better next time. They must be enraged. For the conservative media, creating and feeding anger is a business model that goes back decades.”
To be fair, ginning up rage is not a Republican monopoly. I remember Democratic ads in 2000 suggesting that then-governor George W. Bush was soft on lynching.
But what is happening now is a decline even from there. The Trump Republicans have gone wading in the fever swamps and invited the creatures to the inner circle. We’ve always had conspiracy theories, but we’ve never before elected a conspiracy-monger, and we’ve never before had the minority leader of the House of Representatives as well as a U.S. senator welcoming a fringe conspiracist (Representative-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene). This president rose to power on the strength of the birther hoax and spoke warmly of QAnon, so spinning a tale of voter fraud is completely on brand.
In recent months, we’ve learned that 37 percent of Trump supporters believe that all or parts of the QAnon conspiracy are true, and that 34 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaners think the COVID-19 pandemic was intentionally started by powerful people (the figure for Democrats and Democratic-leaners was 18 percent).
Into that warm petri dish for incubating crazy thinking, insert one defeated President Trump claiming voter fraud and you get yesterday’s new polling showing that 70 percent of Republicans do not believe the 2020 election was “free and fair.”
The difference between 37 percent and 70 percent is the difference between a disturbing tendency and a potential crisis of legitimacy.
About 70 million Americans voted for Donald Trump. If the vast majority of them believe—falsely—that the election was stolen from them, that their votes didn’t count, what does that do to any opportunity for national healing? How do they respond if the sitting president goes beyond filing frivolous lawsuits and urges state legislatures to submit alternative slates of electors (as Mark Levin has urged)? Or if he asks the military to take to the streets by invoking the Insurrection Act?
Is that farfetched? Have a look at this interview the just-fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper gave to Military Times. Describing President Trump’s demand that he order active-duty troops from Fort Bragg to Washington, D.C., in June to deal with protesters in Lafayette Square, Esper said he pushed back. The president was livid, but Esper thought something crucial was on the line:
I was really concerned that continued talk about the Insurrection Act was going to take us in a direction, take us into a really dark direction. And I wanted to make clear what I thought about the situation as secretary of defense and the role of the active-duty forces. And to kind of break the fever, if you will, because I thought that was just a moment in history where . . . if somebody doesn’t stand up now and say something and kind of push the pause button, then . . . it could spiral.
That was not some Never Trump pundit. That was the president’s own defense secretary saying the situation “could spiral.” It’s possible that Trump fired Esper out of pique, but it’s also possible that he had other motives as well, something that would move in a “dark direction.” By the way, does any Trump backer question the president’s judgment in choosing this delicate moment—when foreign adversaries may seek to capitalize on what they see as American chaos—to fire the defense secretary?
Some object that Republicans who are indulging the president’s tantrum are merely playing for time and waiting for him to come to terms with reality. That makes no sense. By helping him to stoke the base’s paranoia, they are making it less, not more likely that he climbs down off the crazy tree.
No, the branch of Republicans that brought Trump to power are now attempting to poison the well for sane Republicans in the future. Instead of being able to focus on policy or (gasp) possible cooperation with the Democratic president on urgent matters like the pandemic, the narrative will be set by the grievance machine. The Trump crowds were still chanting “lock her up” in 2020. Is there any doubt that they’ll be chanting “Trump won” in 2024?


thebulwark--2020-11-11--How to Make Biden’s COVID Task Force Better

President-elect Biden ’ s Monday announcement of his COVID task force offered an initial look at his thinking and approach to expertise .
The good news is the deep biomedical background of each member—a clear indication that science , as Biden has repeatedly emphasized , will be prioritized in his administration .
However there was one point of weakness in the group Biden selected : a lack of industry experience .
Most of the group are academics , several have experience in the government or nonprofit sector—all of which is valuable .
But having a voice in the room who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , too .
There is a tendency to view all the relevant biomedical expertise as residing in academia , with industry cast as the grifting profiteer who seizes what university researchers have developed , and earns outsized returns by simply doing the sleazy work of marketing .
But that ’ s not how drug development actually works .
Medical product development is a complicated , risky , and iterative process , associated not only with a remarkably high failure rate , but also requiring distinct skills and real expertise .
Translating even a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to be especially robust , or even replicable ) from a published paper into a safe and effective therapeutic is difficult and demanding work , involving what ’ s often a complementary skill set to that generally found in academics .
While the Trump administration ’ s relationship with science—how to put this euphemistically—left something to be desired , its most prominent scientific successes came precisely because it valued industry expertise .
Dr. Scott Gottlieb , for instance , was a phenomenally effective FDA Commissioner .
He succeeded in large measure because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry .
And it is important to remember that when Gottlieb was first nominated , he was actually criticized by academics for this experience .
Similarly , the accelerated development of many vaccine candidates ( though not Pfizer ’ s ) was driven by Operation Warp Speed under the leadership of industry vet Moncef Slaoui , who has been subject to nearly-constant assault by critics in academia and the media who reflexively disdain anyone with roots in large pharma .
Biden reportedly will continue adding to his Task Force—which is good news .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his administration as a whole will include experts reflecting a range of experiences , including lived experience within the biopharma and technology ecosystems .
Specific suggestions , in addition to Gottlieb and Slaoui , include : Dr. Amy Abernethy , currently Principal Deputy Commission at the FDA , the top non-political role .
Abernethy brings the perspective of both an academic oncologist and a sophisticated health data technologist , and played a pivotal leadership role at the oncology data company Flatiron , which was acquired by Roche in 2018 for around $ 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political radar at the FDA , Abernethy has led a range of technology modernization initiatives , as well as efforts to leverage data from the clinical care of COVID patients to accelerate the evaluation and development of effective diagnostics , therapeutics , and vaccines .
Dr. Taha Kass-Hout , a cardiologist and AI expert , has previously pioneered the use of emerging technologies at both the CDC ( in electronic disease surveillance ) and the FDA , where he was the Agency ’ s first Chief Health Informatics Officer , and established both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He is currently Chief Medical Officer at Amazon Web Services .
Dr. Karen DeSalvo , an internal medicine physician and population health and policy expert , earned plaudits for her instrumental work helping Louisiana recover from Hurricane Katrina .
DeSalvo served in the Obama administration as the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology , and is now the Chief Health Officer at Google .
Dr. Roy Vagelos , a physician and former Merck CEO , is perhaps equally well known for his rigorous science , his view towards the future , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , astute as ever at the age of 91 , he might serve as an inspiration to the incoming 78 year-old president .
Dr. Susan Desmond-Hellmann trained in infectious diseases and experienced the early days of the HIV epidemic acutely , when she was on the faculty at UCSF .
She subsequently garnered praise for her leadership at Genentech , where she was President of Product Development .
She has also served as Chancellor of UCSF , and was CEO of the Gates Foundation from 2014 to 2020 , departing earlier this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would each of these experts bring valuable additional private sector perspective to a Biden administration , but their careers also serve to highlight the increasing opportunities at the intersection of biopharma and technology , and offer the promise of ensuring government benefits from the explosive learning occurring within companies operating at the frontiers of these essential domains .

President-elect Biden’s Monday announcement of his COVID task force offered an initial look at his thinking and approach to expertise. The good news is the deep biomedical background of each member—a clear indication that science, as Biden has repeatedly emphasized, will be prioritized in his administration.
However there was one point of weakness in the group Biden selected: a lack of industry experience. Most of the group are academics, several have experience in the government or nonprofit sector—all of which is valuable. But having a voice in the room who understands the biomedical industry would be valuable, too.
There is a tendency to view all the relevant biomedical expertise as residing in academia, with industry cast as the grifting profiteer who seizes what university researchers have developed, and earns outsized returns by simply doing the sleazy work of marketing.
But that’s not how drug development actually works.
Medical product development is a complicated, risky, and iterative process, associated not only with a remarkably high failure rate, but also requiring distinct skills and real expertise. Translating even a robust academic finding (and many prove not to be especially robust, or even replicable) from a published paper into a safe and effective therapeutic is difficult and demanding work, involving what’s often a complementary skill set to that generally found in academics.
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…
While the Trump administration’s relationship with science—how to put this euphemistically—left something to be desired, its most prominent scientific successes came precisely because it valued industry expertise. Dr. Scott Gottlieb, for instance, was a phenomenally effective FDA Commissioner. He succeeded in large measure because of his sophisticated understanding of the biopharmaceutical industry. And it is important to remember that when Gottlieb was first nominated, he was actually criticized by academics for this experience.
Similarly, the accelerated development of many vaccine candidates (though not Pfizer’s) was driven by Operation Warp Speed under the leadership of industry vet Moncef Slaoui, who has been subject to nearly-constant assault by critics in academia and the media who reflexively disdain anyone with roots in large pharma.
(Notably, Pfizer’s vaccine development, like others, was catalyzed by the U.S. government’s commitment to purchasing millions of doses once the vaccine passes muster at the FDA; Pfizer’s partner, German biotech company BioNTech, received significant development support from Berlin.)
Biden reportedly will continue adding to his Task Force—which is good news. Hopefully, both his task force and his administration as a whole will include experts reflecting a range of experiences, including lived experience within the biopharma and technology ecosystems.
Specific suggestions, in addition to Gottlieb and Slaoui, include:
Dr. Amy Abernethy, currently Principal Deputy Commissioner at the FDA, the top non-political role. Abernethy brings the perspective of both an academic oncologist and a sophisticated health data technologist, and played a pivotal leadership role at the oncology data company Flatiron, which was acquired by Roche in 2018 for around $2 billion. While working largely under the political radar at the FDA, Abernethy has led a range of technology modernization initiatives, as well as efforts to leverage data from the clinical care of COVID patients to accelerate the evaluation and development of effective diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines.
Dr. Taha Kass-Hout, a cardiologist and AI expert, has previously pioneered the use of emerging technologies at both the CDC (in electronic disease surveillance) and the FDA, where he was the Agency’s first Chief Health Informatics Officer, and established both the OpenFDA and PrecisionFDA data sharing initiatives. He is currently Chief Medical Officer at Amazon Web Services.
Dr. Karen DeSalvo, an internal medicine physician and population health and policy expert, earned plaudits for her instrumental work helping Louisiana recover from Hurricane Katrina. DeSalvo served in the Obama administration as the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, and is now the Chief Health Officer at Google.
Dr. Roy Vagelos, a physician and former Merck CEO, is perhaps equally well known for his rigorous science, his view towards the future, and his high ethical standards. In addition, astute as ever at the age of 91, he might serve as an inspiration to the incoming 78 year-old president.
Dr. Susan Desmond-Hellmann trained in infectious diseases and experienced the early days of the HIV epidemic acutely, when she was on the faculty at UCSF. She subsequently garnered praise for her leadership at Genentech, where she was President of Product Development. She has also served as Chancellor of UCSF, and was CEO of the Gates Foundation from 2014 to 2020, departing earlier this year to return to UCSF.
Not only would each of these experts bring valuable additional private sector perspective to a Biden administration, but their careers also serve to highlight the increasing opportunities at the intersection of biopharma and technology, and offer the promise of ensuring government benefits from the explosive learning occurring within companies operating at the frontiers of these essential domains.


The Lame-Duck Massacre

In a bizarre and troubling series of events , President Donald Trump has in recent days fired several key officials in the Department of Defense .
The rationale behind these actions is unclear , but given the timing—just after his election loss and in the last few weeks before his term in office ends—the informed speculation points in ominous and unsettling directions .
And more firings may be on the way .
It is hard to think of an instance of a lame-duck president firing a cabinet secretary , but on Monday Trump “ terminated ” Secretary of Defense Mark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yesper , ’ Esper suspected the ax was going to fall and had a resignation letter ready—and just last week defended his record in an interview with Military Times : Who ’ s pushed back [ against Trump ] more than anybody ?
Name another Cabinet secretary that ’ s pushed back… Have you seen me on a stage saying , “ Under the exceptional leadership of blah-blah-blah , we have blah-blah-blah-blah ” ?
… At the end of the day , it ’ s as I said—you ’ ve got to pick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over anything , and I could make it a big fight , and I could live with that—why ?
Who ’ s going to come in behind me ?
It ’ s going to be a real “ yes man.
” And then God help us .
Esper clearly gives himself more credit than most observers would give him .
His replacement , Christopher Miller , has a very thin résumé ; he has been the director of the National Counterterrorism Center only since August .
Miller is the fourth acting secretary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone paying attention to the formalities and legalities that this administration revels in ignoring , his appointment seems somewhat irregular : Esper ’ s firing was just the beginning of the massacre .
On Tuesday , the acting under secretary of defense for policy , James Anderson , resigned upon a request from the White House .
Anderson had only been in the job for eight months , and it was clear that the president wanted not him but his deputy : Tony Tata , who is a kook , a conspiracy theorist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had originally nominated Tata months ago but withdrew the nomination after the Senate made it clear that it wouldn ’ t confirm Tata .
Now the job is his .
Later on Tuesday , Jen Stewart , Esper ’ s chief of staff , also resigned at the request of the White House .
Stewart is a respected figure in Washington , having worked for former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Mac Thornberry and for House speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan .
She has been replaced in the Pentagon by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hurry .
He worked as a staffer for the House Intelligence Committee under Rep. Devin Nunes , where Patel wrote the infamous and false “ Nunes memo ” and worked to discredit the Russia probe .
He then joined the staff of the National Security Council , where he reportedly misrepresented himself to President Trump as a Ukraine expert ( an allegation raised by Fiona Hill during the impeachment inquiry and denied by Patel ) .
When MAGA hack Richard Grenell became the acting director of national intelligence , Patel joined his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chief of staff to the secretary of defense .
And one more head on the chopping block on Tuesday : The under secretary of defense for intelligence , Joseph Kernan , also resigned .
A Pentagon press release said that Kernan ’ s departure had been “ planned for several months , ” but the coincidence suggests otherwise .
Kernan ’ s replacement is Ezra Cohen-Watnick , another Trump favorite .
Cohen-Watnick was recruited by Mike Flynn to hold the intelligence portfolio at the National Security Council in the earliest days of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , H.R .
McMaster , tried to get rid of Cohen-Watnick , as he kept clashing with McMaster and leaking conspiracies to Devin Nunes about the Obama administration ’ s supposed wiretapping of Trump Tower , but Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner intervened with the president on Cohen-Watnick ’ s behalf .
McMaster eventually succeeded in firing him , but like the proverbial bad penny , he keeps showing up : He returned to the administration , first working for the Department of Justice on Trump ’ s orders , then the Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the acting assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict .
He has now leapfrogged up the Pentagon org chart .
Among the four Pentagon personnel ousted this week ( so far ) , none was a hardcore Trump loyalist .
The same can not be said about their replacements .
The motivation behind the personnel change , and the reason for its timing , is unclear .
Perhaps it has to do with a major policy disagreement , as Jake Tapper has suggested : Or perhaps , as others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last-minute coverup underway : Or perhaps Trump is simply purging enemies and rewarding allies—and other officials , especially supposed “ deep state ” types , may be next .
CIA Director Gina Haspel and FBI Director Christopher Wray should watch their backs .

In a bizarre and troubling series of events, President Donald Trump has in recent days fired several key officials in the Department of Defense. The rationale behind these actions is unclear, but given the timing—just after his election loss and in the last few weeks before his term in office ends—the informed speculation points in ominous and unsettling directions. And more firings may be on the way.
It is hard to think of an instance of a lame-duck president firing a cabinet secretary, but on Monday Trump “terminated” Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. Often mocked as ‘Secretary Yesper,’ Esper suspected the ax was going to fall and had a resignation letter ready—and just last week defended his record in an interview with Military Times:
Who’s pushed back [against Trump] more than anybody? Name another Cabinet secretary that’s pushed back… Have you seen me on a stage saying, “Under the exceptional leadership of blah-blah-blah, we have blah-blah-blah-blah”?… At the end of the day, it’s as I said—you’ve got to pick your fights.… I could have a fight over anything, and I could make it a big fight, and I could live with that—why? Who’s going to come in behind me? It’s going to be a real “yes man.” And then God help us.
Esper clearly gives himself more credit than most observers would give him.
His replacement, Christopher Miller, has a very thin résumé; he has been the director of the National Counterterrorism Center only since August. Miller is the fourth acting secretary of defense during Trump’s term—and for anyone paying attention to the formalities and legalities that this administration revels in ignoring, his appointment seems somewhat irregular:
To be clear, *if* the Federal Vacancies Reform Act allows the President to appoint someone else as Acting Secretary notwithstanding § 132(b), Miller is a valid choice (because of his Senate confirmation). But it's not at all obvious that the FVRA *does* override the DoD statute. — Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) November 9, 2020
Esper’s firing was just the beginning of the massacre. On Tuesday, the acting under secretary of defense for policy, James Anderson, resigned upon a request from the White House. Anderson had only been in the job for eight months, and it was clear that the president wanted not him but his deputy: Tony Tata, who is a kook, a conspiracy theorist, and a bigot. The president had originally nominated Tata months ago but withdrew the nomination after the Senate made it clear that it wouldn’t confirm Tata. Now the job is his.
Later on Tuesday, Jen Stewart, Esper’s chief of staff, also resigned at the request of the White House. Stewart is a respected figure in Washington, having worked for former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Mac Thornberry and for House speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan. She has been replaced in the Pentagon by Kash Patel, a Trump loyalist in a hurry. He worked as a staffer for the House Intelligence Committee under Rep. Devin Nunes, where Patel wrote the infamous and false “Nunes memo” and worked to discredit the Russia probe. He then joined the staff of the National Security Council, where he reportedly misrepresented himself to President Trump as a Ukraine expert (an allegation raised by Fiona Hill during the impeachment inquiry and denied by Patel). When MAGA hack Richard Grenell became the acting director of national intelligence, Patel joined his staff. And now he is the chief of staff to the secretary of defense.
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…
And one more head on the chopping block on Tuesday: The under secretary of defense for intelligence, Joseph Kernan, also resigned. A Pentagon press release said that Kernan’s departure had been “planned for several months,” but the coincidence suggests otherwise. Kernan’s replacement is Ezra Cohen-Watnick, another Trump favorite. Cohen-Watnick was recruited by Mike Flynn to hold the intelligence portfolio at the National Security Council in the earliest days of the Trump administration. Flynn’s successor, H.R. McMaster, tried to get rid of Cohen-Watnick, as he kept clashing with McMaster and leaking conspiracies to Devin Nunes about the Obama administration’s supposed wiretapping of Trump Tower, but Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner intervened with the president on Cohen-Watnick’s behalf. McMaster eventually succeeded in firing him, but like the proverbial bad penny, he keeps showing up: He returned to the administration, first working for the Department of Justice on Trump’s orders, then the Department of Defense—where, until yesterday, he was the acting assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict. He has now leapfrogged up the Pentagon org chart.
Among the four Pentagon personnel ousted this week (so far), none was a hardcore Trump loyalist. The same cannot be said about their replacements.
The motivation behind the personnel change, and the reason for its timing, is unclear. Perhaps it has to do with a major policy disagreement, as Jake Tapper has suggested:
Why? Sources say it may be because Esper and his team were pushing back on what they viewed as a premature withdrawal from Afghanistan before conditions were met, as well as other pending security issues. — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) November 10, 2020
Or perhaps, as others have speculated, there’s a last-minute coverup underway:
This is one plausible relatively (and only relatively) benign explanation for the eleventh-hour reshuffle at the Pentagon: An attempt to lock down potentially embarassing or incriminating information before the transition. https://t.co/sICrYmAoxG — Julian Sanchez (@normative) November 10, 2020
(Regarding the latter possibility, it is worth mentioning that yet another Nunes/Trump loyalist, Michael Ellis, was installed as the general counsel of the National Security Agency this week.)
Or perhaps Trump is simply purging enemies and rewarding allies—and other officials, especially supposed “deep state” types, may be next. CIA Director Gina Haspel and FBI Director Christopher Wray should watch their backs.


thebulwark--2020-11-12--Budget Deficits Still Matter

Budget Deficits Still Matter

In the last few years , economists and policymakers around the world have been seduced by the fantasy that budget deficits are harmless as long as interest rates remain low .
The outsized budget deficits that government are now incurring as they battle the coronavirus pandemic will test the theory , and the results are likely to be painful for policymakers and citizens alike .
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic , a number of major countries , including Brazil , Italy , and Spain , now find themselves on unsustainable debt paths .
They will all soon learn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt without any plan to repay , especially if those countries are forced by their debt burdens to resort to debt restructuring or inflation .
Those who argue that budget austerity is obsolete point to the strong likelihood that world interest rates will remain at historic lows , as Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell keeps on suggesting .
That makes it likely that growth rates in most countries will soon exceed the real interest rate at which their governments can borrow , which in turn will have the effect of reducing public-debt-to-GDP ratios @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governments are hoping they can grow their way out of debt .
The key point that these budget deficit doves tend to overlook is that in the post COVID-19 world , primary budget deficits ( i.e .
budget deficits excluding interest payments ) will be the dominant factor in determining a country ’ s public debt dynamics .
If the primary budget deficit is sufficiently high , the public-debt ratio will continue to rise even if the country ’ s economic growth rate were to exceed the real rate at which the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing as more debt than growth and low interest rates alone can solve—and it ’ s not that uncommon .
A simple arithmetic example may illustrate the point .
Take a country with a public-debt-to-GDP ratio of 100 percent .
If that country had a growth rate that exceeded its interest rate by 2 percent , its public-debt-to-GDP ratio would , in effect , shrink by 2 percentage points .
However , if that country also had a primary budget deficit of 10 percent of GDP , it would find that its public-debt-to-GDP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points , even though interest rates were low .
For heavily indebted countries like Brazil , Italy , and Spain , this is more than a mere theoretical exercise .
All of these countries went into the pandemic with record high public-debt-to-GDP ratios .
They all have also seen these ratios balloon amid the worst economic recession in 90 years as their primary budget deficits have swollen to about of 10 percent of GDP .
These countries are left with few options to improve their budget balances and stabilize their public-debt ratios .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are still weak would risk deepening the recession , which would hardly reduce their debt-to-GDP ratio .
Italy and Spain , being bound to the Euro , are especially vulnerable since they are unable to resort to interest rate cuts or currency depreciation to offset the negative impact of austerity on aggregate demand .
History is littered with examples of countries that have been forced to resort to debt restructuring or hyper-inflation to reduce their real debt burdens .
When that eventually occurs in the cases of countries like Brazil , Italy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for all to see the folly and costliness of pretending budget deficits don ’ t matter .
It ’ s worth noting that the United States ended the last fiscal year with a budget deficit of about 15 percent of GDP and a public-debt-to-GDP ratio of close to 130 percent .
One can only hope that policymakers in Washington will learn from the experiences of Brazil , Italy , and Spain , and that it isn ’ t already too late for them to bring our public finances under some sort of control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

In the last few years, economists and policymakers around the world have been seduced by the fantasy that budget deficits are harmless as long as interest rates remain low. The outsized budget deficits that government are now incurring as they battle the coronavirus pandemic will test the theory, and the results are likely to be painful for policymakers and citizens alike.
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of major countries, including Brazil, Italy, and Spain, now find themselves on unsustainable debt paths. They will all soon learn the hard way the imprudence of embracing debt without any plan to repay, especially if those countries are forced by their debt burdens to resort to debt restructuring or inflation.
Those who argue that budget austerity is obsolete point to the strong likelihood that world interest rates will remain at historic lows, as Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell keeps on suggesting. That makes it likely that growth rates in most countries will soon exceed the real interest rate at which their governments can borrow, which in turn will have the effect of reducing public-debt-to-GDP ratios. In short, these heavily indebted governments are hoping they can grow their way out of debt.
The key point that these budget deficit doves tend to overlook is that in the post COVID-19 world, primary budget deficits (i.e. budget deficits excluding interest payments) will be the dominant factor in determining a country’s public debt dynamics. If the primary budget deficit is sufficiently high, the public-debt ratio will continue to rise even if the country’s economic growth rate were to exceed the real rate at which the government can borrow. There is such a thing as more debt than growth and low interest rates alone can solve—and it’s not that uncommon.
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…
A simple arithmetic example may illustrate the point. Take a country with a public-debt-to-GDP ratio of 100 percent. If that country had a growth rate that exceeded its interest rate by 2 percent, its public-debt-to-GDP ratio would, in effect, shrink by 2 percentage points. However, if that country also had a primary budget deficit of 10 percent of GDP, it would find that its public-debt-to-GDP ratio would have risen by 8 percentage points, even though interest rates were low.
For heavily indebted countries like Brazil, Italy, and Spain, this is more than a mere theoretical exercise. All of these countries went into the pandemic with record high public-debt-to-GDP ratios. They all have also seen these ratios balloon amid the worst economic recession in 90 years as their primary budget deficits have swollen to about of 10 percent of GDP.
These countries are left with few options to improve their budget balances and stabilize their public-debt ratios. Any attempt at belt-tightening when their economies are still weak would risk deepening the recession, which would hardly reduce their debt-to-GDP ratio. Italy and Spain, being bound to the Euro, are especially vulnerable since they are unable to resort to interest rate cuts or currency depreciation to offset the negative impact of austerity on aggregate demand.
History is littered with examples of countries that have been forced to resort to debt restructuring or hyper-inflation to reduce their real debt burdens. When that eventually occurs in the cases of countries like Brazil, Italy, and Spain, it will become plain for all to see the folly and costliness of pretending budget deficits don’t matter.
It’s worth noting that the United States ended the last fiscal year with a budget deficit of about 15 percent of GDP and a public-debt-to-GDP ratio of close to 130 percent. One can only hope that policymakers in Washington will learn from the experiences of Brazil, Italy, and Spain, and that it isn’t already too late for them to bring our public finances under some sort of control to avoid another inflationary episode at home.


#NeverTrump #Winning

For NeverTrump , this is not the end—but it ’ s a great beginning .
I was a small-government Never Trumper .
I regarded Donald Trump as unfit for office and wanted him out , but I didn ’ t want to sign on for the full Democratic party agenda .
Which means that I ’ m part of a small sliver of the country who got precisely what we wanted from this election : a victory for Joe Biden , but a narrow one that didn ’ t extend down the ballot and will almost certainly leave him without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Finally , 2020 paid out for someone .
I had intended to write something after the election about the specifics of the Biden agenda—but the voters have saved me a lot of work , because without Democratic control of the Senate , whole sections of a potential Biden agenda just disappear .
The Manchin-Toomey gun control bill ?
Forget about it .
Tax increases ?
Probably not .
A Biden version of Green New Deal Lite ?
A public option added to Obamacare ?
It ’ s hard to see how these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pernicious executive orders here and there , but maybe that will create some bipartisan interest in reining in executive authority and limiting the president ’ s emergency powers—something Congress should have done decades ago .
Joe Biden pretty openly campaigned as a caretaker president , and it looks like the American people took him up on the offer .
His main job will be to sit in the Oval Office and act like a responsible adult .
If he manages to accomplish this even half the time , it will be an improvement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , there were a lot of people on the internet angry that I wasn ’ t supporting Trump .
They insisted that I must be in favor of the Democrats ’ “ socialist ” agenda that was going to “ destroy America.
” But it turned out that the joke was on them : We actually managed to withdraw support from Donald Trump without getting the Democrats ’ whole agenda , much less some kind of Venezuelan-style socialism .
In the end , people like me got pretty much what we wanted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How the hell did that happen ?
What happened is this : Voters across the country showed a decided tendency to split their votes , supporting Republican candidates down the ballot even while they voted against Trump .
In my neck of the woods , Abigail Spanberger very narrowly won re-election in a strongly Republican-leaning congressional district ( VA-07 ) where she had carried off a surprise victory in 2018 ’ s big Democratic wave .
A Washington Post reporter live-tweeted Spanberger ’ s reaction in a post-election conference call with other Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s transcribed here .
I did not vote for Spanberger , but I can ’ t say I ’ m entirely disappointed she won .
I was waiting all summer for evidence that the violent protests–not just in Portland , where we ’ re used to it , but in places like Minneapolis and Kenosha , for crying out loud—would finally show up in the polls as a backlash against the left .
It never really did , not in the presidential race .
It proved too difficult to tie lifelong moderate Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same reason it was hard to tie him to radical socialism .
Yet that was the only strategy the Trump campaign really had .
But the poor performance of Democrats down the ballot ?
I suspect this is the backlash against violent protests showing up in the polls .
Moderate Democrats who swept suburban districts in 2018 thanks to disgust with Trump suddenly found those districts less welcoming when they were associated with dismantling the police .
The biggest surprise in the polls is that Trump did relatively well among black and Hispanic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because winning 18 % of the votes of black males may be higher than is normal for a Republican candidate , but it ’ s not exactly changing the game .
Yet for people who had not been paying close attention to the polls , this result came as a surprise .
Part of the explanation is that ordinary black and Hispanic voters are not as interested in identity politics as the leadership of the Democratic party .
Ruy Teixeira , who co-wrote the book arguing that Democrats could rely on the minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explains why it ’ s not working : In related news , the Biden campaign is attributing their success to one thing : “ We turned off Twitter .
We stayed away from it .
We knew that the country was in a different headspace than social media would suggest.
” And they were right .
The best proof that Trump ’ s loss is not the far left ’ s gain is what happened in state and local referendums : This pretty much sinks the prospects for a federal version of AB5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may have gone for the Democrat for president , but they went libertarian on referendums .
From the moment Donald Trump got elected in 2016 , there were two schools of thought on the left about what to do .
One was that Trump was so awful that he needed to be removed from office , and Democrats should focus like a laser on that , working to appeal to moderate voters and seeking out allies they wouldn ’ t usually agree with , such as disaffected Republicans .
The other school of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obviously vile and off-putting that the American people were bound to reject him—so Democrats should nominate the most radical candidates possible , taking advantage of this opportunity to get the far left ’ s entire fantasy agenda .
The voters have just settled that question , and the Revolution has once again been put on hold .
No wonder Democrats , despite Biden ’ s victory , are viewing this election as a failure and planning a post-mortem .
The last time a political party held a widely publicized election post-mortem was in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The only thing that ’ s missing is the reckoning some of us were looking for .
If Trump had lost in a landslide , with Republicans in Congress punished for his misdeeds , it would have been clear that Trump and Trumpism have been an unmitigated disaster for the right .
I was skeptical that this would happen .
In my experience , the last thing people will forgive you for is being right while they were wrong .
This election result was just narrow enough that it ’ s clear a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead , conservatives are going to be tempted by the idea that the real ticket to winning is Trumpism without Trump—all the illiberal nationalism , but without the crazy tweeting .
I think this is an illusion .
The crazy tweets , the conspiracy theories , the blustering megalomania—those were the keys to Trump ’ s political success .
His reliance on personal celebrity , combined with a basic indifference toward policy and ideas , is the essence of Trumpism .
Nationalist intellectuals are just trying to backfill their ideology into this void @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to work , but that is the big ideological question that didn ’ t get settled in this election .
This indicates the future direction for advocates of liberty : We can expect to spend less time than we might have feared fighting against Biden administration assaults on individual liberty—simply because Democrats won ’ t be able to do all that much—and more time fighting the intellectual battle for freedom against the nationalist wing of conservatism .
For those of us who wanted to rescue the political right from its illiberal and authoritarian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it ’ s a great beginning .

For NeverTrump, this is not the end—but it’s a great beginning.
I was a small-government Never Trumper. I regarded Donald Trump as unfit for office and wanted him out, but I didn’t want to sign on for the full Democratic party agenda.
Which means that I’m part of a small sliver of the country who got precisely what we wanted from this election: a victory for Joe Biden, but a narrow one that didn’t extend down the ballot and will almost certainly leave him without a Democratic Senate majority to work with.
Finally, 2020 paid out for someone.
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…
I had intended to write something after the election about the specifics of the Biden agenda—but the voters have saved me a lot of work, because without Democratic control of the Senate, whole sections of a potential Biden agenda just disappear. The Manchin-Toomey gun control bill? Forget about it. Tax increases? Probably not. A Biden version of Green New Deal Lite? A public option added to Obamacare? It’s hard to see how these happen now.
We will get some pernicious executive orders here and there, but maybe that will create some bipartisan interest in reining in executive authority and limiting the president’s emergency powers—something Congress should have done decades ago.
Joe Biden pretty openly campaigned as a caretaker president, and it looks like the American people took him up on the offer. His main job will be to sit in the Oval Office and act like a responsible adult. If he manages to accomplish this even half the time, it will be an improvement.
Over the final weeks of the election, there were a lot of people on the internet angry that I wasn’t supporting Trump. They insisted that I must be in favor of the Democrats’ “socialist” agenda that was going to “destroy America.” But it turned out that the joke was on them: We actually managed to withdraw support from Donald Trump without getting the Democrats’ whole agenda, much less some kind of Venezuelan-style socialism.
In the end, people like me got pretty much what we wanted out of the Never Trump movement.
How the hell did that happen?
What happened is this: Voters across the country showed a decided tendency to split their votes, supporting Republican candidates down the ballot even while they voted against Trump.
In my neck of the woods, Abigail Spanberger very narrowly won re-election in a strongly Republican-leaning congressional district (VA-07) where she had carried off a surprise victory in 2018’s big Democratic wave. A Washington Post reporter live-tweeted Spanberger’s reaction in a post-election conference call with other Democrats. I love the way it’s transcribed here.
Spanberger on the Dem caucus call: We lost races we shouldn’t have lost.
Defund police almost cost me my race bc of an attack ad.
Don’t say socialism ever again.
Need to get back to basics.
(Is yelling.) — Erica Werner (@ericawerner) November 5, 2020
I did not vote for Spanberger, but I can’t say I’m entirely disappointed she won.
I was waiting all summer for evidence that the violent protests–not just in Portland, where we’re used to it, but in places like Minneapolis and Kenosha, for crying out loud—would finally show up in the polls as a backlash against the left. It never really did, not in the presidential race. It proved too difficult to tie lifelong moderate Joe Biden to the violence, for the same reason it was hard to tie him to radical socialism. Yet that was the only strategy the Trump campaign really had.
But the poor performance of Democrats down the ballot? I suspect this is the backlash against violent protests showing up in the polls. Moderate Democrats who swept suburban districts in 2018 thanks to disgust with Trump suddenly found those districts less welcoming when they were associated with dismantling the police.
The biggest surprise in the polls is that Trump did relatively well among black and Hispanic voters. I say “relatively” because winning 18% of the votes of black males may be higher than is normal for a Republican candidate, but it’s not exactly changing the game. Yet for people who had not been paying close attention to the polls, this result came as a surprise.
Part of the explanation is that ordinary black and Hispanic voters are not as interested in identity politics as the leadership of the Democratic party. Ruy Teixeira, who co-wrote the book arguing that Democrats could rely on the minority vote to become a majority party, explains why it’s not working:
I don’t think there’s any doubt that wokeness, and the issues around that, helped brand the Democratic party. The Democrats spent three months with a discourse dominated by the protests around George Floyd, racial justice, and so on, culminating in the defund-and-abolish-the-police movement, which was basically of very little interest to the median voter. To the extent that the Democrats are identified with that rhetoric—from language-policing to terming the US a white-supremacist society—the less able the party is to appeal to working-class voters of all races and moderate voters in general…. [Democrats] need to put a lid on the culture-war stuff, and emphasize issues that are of broad concern to working- and middle-class people of all races.
In related news, the Biden campaign is attributing their success to one thing: “We turned off Twitter. We stayed away from it. We knew that the country was in a different headspace than social media would suggest.” And they were right.
The best proof that Trump’s loss is not the far left’s gain is what happened in state and local referendums:
California voters passed Proposition 22, partially undoing Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which put thousands of independent contractors out of work right when the pandemic hit. The bill was originally intended to encourage gig workers to unionize by requiring ridesharing companies such as Uber and Lyft to classify their drivers as employees, not independent contractors. But AB5 overshot its mark and put thousands of other independent contractors out of work, including journalists, translators, office workers, actors, musicians, and production crews.
This pretty much sinks the prospects for a federal version of AB5, which Biden had endorsed.
While they were at it, California voters also said no to expanding rent controls, finally heeding the warnings economists have been shouting since the 1940s. Illinois voters said no to giving their legislature the ability to raise taxes more easily. The Illinois state constitution requires a flat income tax. The Fair Tax Amendment would have changed that to allow a progressive tax and would have made tax increases easier…. Oregon decriminalized possession of hard drugs. Five other states legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use, including socially conservative Mississippi. Oregon and the District of Columbia also decriminalized hallucinogenic mushrooms.
Voters may have gone for the Democrat for president, but they went libertarian on referendums.
From the moment Donald Trump got elected in 2016, there were two schools of thought on the left about what to do. One was that Trump was so awful that he needed to be removed from office, and Democrats should focus like a laser on that, working to appeal to moderate voters and seeking out allies they wouldn’t usually agree with, such as disaffected Republicans.
The other school of thought was that Donald Trump was so obviously vile and off-putting that the American people were bound to reject him—so Democrats should nominate the most radical candidates possible, taking advantage of this opportunity to get the far left’s entire fantasy agenda.
The voters have just settled that question, and the Revolution has once again been put on hold. No wonder Democrats, despite Biden’s victory, are viewing this election as a failure and planning a post-mortem. The last time a political party held a widely publicized election post-mortem was in 2012, when their candidate lost.
The only thing that’s missing is the reckoning some of us were looking for. If Trump had lost in a landslide, with Republicans in Congress punished for his misdeeds, it would have been clear that Trump and Trumpism have been an unmitigated disaster for the right.
I was skeptical that this would happen. In my experience, the last thing people will forgive you for is being right while they were wrong. This election result was just narrow enough that it’s clear a reckoning is not going to happen. Instead, conservatives are going to be tempted by the idea that the real ticket to winning is Trumpism without Trump—all the illiberal nationalism, but without the crazy tweeting.
In other words, Josh Hawley.
I think this is an illusion. The crazy tweets, the conspiracy theories, the blustering megalomania—those were the keys to Trump’s political success. His reliance on personal celebrity, combined with a basic indifference toward policy and ideas, is the essence of Trumpism. Nationalist intellectuals are just trying to backfill their ideology into this void.
I doubt it’s going to work, but that is the big ideological question that didn’t get settled in this election.
This indicates the future direction for advocates of liberty: We can expect to spend less time than we might have feared fighting against Biden administration assaults on individual liberty—simply because Democrats won’t be able to do all that much—and more time fighting the intellectual battle for freedom against the nationalist wing of conservatism.
For those of us who wanted to rescue the political right from its illiberal and authoritarian wing, this is not the end. But it’s a great beginning.


thebulwark--2020-11-13--Save the Uighurs. Boycott China.

Save the Uighurs. Boycott China.

In a recent interview , Megyn Kelly asked Mark Cuban , the owner of Dallas Mavericks , why he still conducts business with China , despite the regime ’ s grotesque abuses of human rights , especially running concentration camps for Uighur Muslims .
Cuban gave the most amoral answer possible : Cuban can ’ t solve the world ’ s problems , but he can help .
He simply doesn ’ t want to because it costs him money .
Like all financial transactions , the Mavericks ’ business with Beijing benefits both sides , so while the NBA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Chinese Communist Party ( CCP ) .
Beijing buys influence over the U.S. public opinion and generates cash , both directly through taxes the NBA pays CCP , and indirectly by stimulating economic activity in China .
Cuban is not alone in kowtowing to the CCP due to financial interest .
A storm of controversy followed a San Antonio Spurs executive ’ s tweet supporting Hong Kong ’ s democracy protesters .
LeBron James , the franchise ’ s superstar , complained that those words of encouragement could hurt NBA players financially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most technically true : All NBA players are very privileged financially , and disrupting the NBA ’ s $ 500 million deal with China would not have any significant impact on their lifestyles .
The NBA is far from the only major U.S. business which deals with China .
Virtually—perhaps literally—all of them have investments in China , due to the country ’ s population and the size of its economy .
By enriching themselves , they enrich the CCP , too .
This makes them accomplices in Chinese human rights abuses .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two groups frequently and justifiably going together ) frequently use the phrase “ concentration camps ” in reference to the CCP ’ s treatment of Uighurs .
This is because this phrase touches a historical wound that has not healed and will never heal—the Holocaust .
Chinese concentration camp system has not , so far as we can tell , included death camps , but it is the closest that any state has come to the Holocaust since 1945 .
Even the Soviet gulags , as despicable as they were , were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in mind , as the Nazi camps and the archepelago in Xinjiang were .
The CCP has also adopted a eugenics policy to slowly , methodically , mathematically eradicate its Uighur population .
American dollars should not finance such crimes .
The current state of amoral commerce is an anomaly in American history .
During the Cold War , American businesses were partners against the Soviet Union .
When Nikita Khrushchev visited the United States , he was keen on visiting Disneyland .
Disney ’ s board of directors , however , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Today , the same Walt Disney Corporation has , by going out of its way to appeal to the Chinese audience , made itself a propaganda arm of the CCP .
The most recent example is the movie Mulan , based on a Chinese legend which Disney bastardized to appease the CCP by falsely depicting the protagonist as a loyal agent of the emperor .
In the credits of the remake of Mulan , Disney offered special thanks to the authorities in Xinjiang—the same ones confining millions of Uighur Muslims in concentration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hollywood .
A recent and damning report by the free expression organization PEN America details how the entertainment industry is censoring its own members—or , put another way , how entertainment companies are censoring themselves—to appease the CCP ’ s interest .
Simply put , not only are American entertainment institutions complicit in the CCP ’ s outrageous violations of human rights , but they are also voluntarily submitting themselves and by extension American audiences to a share of the CCP ’ s tyranny .
And the story does not end with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variety of industries are accomplices to this evil .
The American tech industry has been lobbying the government against cutting ties with Chinese tech companies , including Huawei , despite the company ’ s work helping the CCP to create a surveillance state .
Huawei recently signed a contract with the police department in Xinjiang , the region where most Uighurs live , to help them to track residents at all times .
It gets worse .
Google has been conducting business in China .
In 2019 , then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ the work that Google is doing in China is indirectly benefiting the Chinese military.
” A year earlier , Google had refused to renew its contract with the Department of Defense , after some of its employees protested that selling services to the Pentagon would be ( wait for it ) .
.
.
immoral .
There are smaller businesses that engage with China .
And there are , of course , all kinds of businesses that engage with other authoritarian countries .
This is inevitable in a global economy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ humanitarian NGO and needs to make some moral compromises to survive .
But which ones , and to what end ?
The responsibility not to cooperate with evil rests more on larger businesses than on smaller ones and applies more to China than to other unfree countries .
Unlike small businesses , large corporations have deep roots among consumers , great financial resources , and recognized brands , allowing them to be more flexible in their investments .
Small businesses , however , lack such resources and have to be more mindful about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefit the CCP orders of magnitude more than their smaller counterparts .
Just as there are different sizes of companies , there are different levels of autocracy .
In the 1930s , Nazi Germany and Egypt were both autocracies , but no one would suggest that Egypt was as evil a regime nor as great a threat to the free world as Hitler ’ s .
Today , Kuwait and China are both autocracies , but only one of them sends its minorities to concentration camps , props up the North Korean slave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom in its own neighborhood and in the United States .
Engaging in business with Kuwait is a moral compromise .
Engaging in business with China is unconditional moral surrender .
It is very difficult for a liberal democracy to prevent its private entities from commercial activity in other countries , and that is a good thing .
But a market economy can only work if its participants—producers and consumers alike—adhere to a moral framework .
Faced with a coordinated , resource-rich , self-confident challenge of the kind that now exists in China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considerations will sell its murderer any weapon for the right price .
American corporations ought to cut ties with China .
But there is no indication that they will do so of their own accord .
They have shown that concentration camps and China ’ s takeover of Hong Kong are not morally objectionable enough to reject Chinese money .
It falls , therefore , to American consumers to make this choice for them .
The problem is that America ’ s economic integration with China makes an economic decoupling inconceivable .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute ’ s report from earlier this year , “ Uyghurs for Sale , ” can be a roadmap .
The report identifies 82 corporations that use Chinese forced labor in their production lines .
Consumers can begin by calling for boycotts of these corporations and others that directly abet and benefit from human rights violations .
Congress can help by requiring the assistant secretary of state for democracy , human rights , and labor to publish an annual report of corporations that profit from such abuses .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bus Boycott helped bring about the end of Jim Crow .
The international boycott of South Africa helped end apartheid .
In fact , political boycotts have been so successful that they ’ ve inspired a series of less impressive imitations .
A sundry assortment of terrorist leaders and undergraduates has been trying for years to boycott everything Israeli , and sporadic boycott attempts pop up from time to time in the culture war ( one year it ’ s Starbucks Christmas cups , the next it ’ s Chick-fil-A or Keurig ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s reason to think that boycotts are more successful when their moral cause is more urgent and righteous .
Americans have historically cared about gross human rights violations .
There is hope that they will care that corporations they do business with are complicit in the 21st century ’ s greatest evil .
And there is a successful recent model of a large , powerful company being pressured out of conducting business in China over human rights concerns .
In 2017 , Google launched its Dragonfly project , the aim of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would censor certain websites and results at the request of the CCP .
Google scratched the project in 2019 , following heavy criticism .
It is unacceptable for Americans to finance Chinese concentration camps or help to strengthen the CCP ’ s surveillance state .
No amount of revenue can justify the 21st century ’ s greatest moral stain .
Each company that benefits from the atrocities committed by the CCP should have its name published on a list for all to see .
Let the source of their profits be known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choice .

In a recent interview, Megyn Kelly asked Mark Cuban, the owner of Dallas Mavericks, why he still conducts business with China, despite the regime’s grotesque abuses of human rights, especially running concentration camps for Uighur Muslims. Cuban gave the most amoral answer possible:
They are a customer. They are a customer of ours. And guess what, Megyn? I’m OK with doing business with China. You know, I wish I could solve all the world’s problems, Megyn. I’m sure you do, too. But we can’t.
Cuban can’t solve the world’s problems, but he can help. He simply doesn’t want to because it costs him money. Like all financial transactions, the Mavericks’ business with Beijing benefits both sides, so while the NBA profits from their trade, so does the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Beijing buys influence over the U.S. public opinion and generates cash, both directly through taxes the NBA pays CCP, and indirectly by stimulating economic activity in China.
Cuban is not alone in kowtowing to the CCP due to financial interest. A storm of controversy followed a Houston Rockets executive’s tweet supporting Hong Kong’s democracy protesters. LeBron James, the franchise’s superstar, complained that those words of encouragement could hurt NBA players financially. James’s protestations were at most technically true: All NBA players are very privileged financially, and disrupting the NBA’s $500 million deal with China would not have any significant impact on their lifestyles.
The NBA is far from the only major U.S. business which deals with China. Virtually—perhaps literally—all of them have investments in China, due to the country’s population and the size of its economy. By enriching themselves, they enrich the CCP, too. This makes them accomplices in Chinese human rights abuses.
China hawks and human rights advocates (the two groups frequently and justifiably going together) frequently use the phrase “concentration camps” in reference to the CCP’s treatment of Uighurs. This is because this phrase touches a historical wound that has not healed and will never heal—the Holocaust. Chinese concentration camp system has not, so far as we can tell, included death camps, but it is the closest that any state has come to the Holocaust since 1945. Even the Soviet gulags, as despicable as they were, were not designed with a certain ethnic group in mind, as the Nazi camps and the archepelago in Xinjiang were. The CCP has also adopted a eugenics policy to slowly, methodically, mathematically eradicate its Uighur population.
American dollars should not finance such crimes.
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 current state of amoral commerce is an anomaly in American history. During the Cold War, American businesses were partners against the Soviet Union. When Nikita Khrushchev visited the United States, he was keen on visiting Disneyland. Disney’s board of directors, however, was staunchly anti-communist and forbad Khrushchev from visiting. Today, the same Walt Disney Corporation has, by going out of its way to appeal to the Chinese audience, made itself a propaganda arm of the CCP. The most recent example is the movie Mulan, based on a Chinese legend which Disney bastardized to appease the CCP by falsely depicting the protagonist as a loyal agent of the emperor. In the credits of the remake of Mulan, Disney offered special thanks to the authorities in Xinjiang—the same ones confining millions of Uighur Muslims in concentration camps.
Disney is not alone in Hollywood. A recent and damning report by the free expression organization PEN America details how the entertainment industry is censoring its own members—or, put another way, how entertainment companies are censoring themselves—to appease the CCP’s interest. Simply put, not only are American entertainment institutions complicit in the CCP’s outrageous violations of human rights, but they are also voluntarily submitting themselves and by extension American audiences to a share of the CCP’s tyranny.
And the story does not end with the entertainment industry. American companies in a variety of industries are accomplices to this evil. The American tech industry has been lobbying the government against cutting ties with Chinese tech companies, including Huawei, despite the company’s work helping the CCP to create a surveillance state. Huawei recently signed a contract with the police department in Xinjiang, the region where most Uighurs live, to help them to track residents at all times.
It gets worse. Google has been conducting business in China. In 2019, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford stated categorically that “the work that Google is doing in China is indirectly benefiting the Chinese military.” A year earlier, Google had refused to renew its contract with the Department of Defense, after some of its employees protested that selling services to the Pentagon would be (wait for it) . . . immoral.
There are smaller businesses that engage with China. And there are, of course, all kinds of businesses that engage with other authoritarian countries. This is inevitable in a global economy. Besides, a business is not a humanitarian NGO and needs to make some moral compromises to survive. But which ones, and to what end?
The responsibility not to cooperate with evil rests more on larger businesses than on smaller ones and applies more to China than to other unfree countries. Unlike small businesses, large corporations have deep roots among consumers, great financial resources, and recognized brands, allowing them to be more flexible in their investments. Small businesses, however, lack such resources and have to be more mindful about maximization of profits. Large corporations also benefit the CCP orders of magnitude more than their smaller counterparts.
Just as there are different sizes of companies, there are different levels of autocracy. In the 1930s, Nazi Germany and Egypt were both autocracies, but no one would suggest that Egypt was as evil a regime nor as great a threat to the free world as Hitler’s. Today, Kuwait and China are both autocracies, but only one of them sends its minorities to concentration camps, props up the North Korean slave state, and poses a threat to freedom in its own neighborhood and in the United States.
Engaging in business with Kuwait is a moral compromise. Engaging in business with China is unconditional moral surrender.
It is very difficult for a liberal democracy to prevent its private entities from commercial activity in other countries, and that is a good thing. But a market economy can only work if its participants—producers and consumers alike—adhere to a moral framework. Faced with a coordinated, resource-rich, self-confident challenge of the kind that now exists in China, a free economy unguided by strategic considerations will sell its murderer any weapon for the right price.
American corporations ought to cut ties with China. But there is no indication that they will do so of their own accord. They have shown that concentration camps and China’s takeover of Hong Kong are not morally objectionable enough to reject Chinese money. It falls, therefore, to American consumers to make this choice for them. The problem is that America’s economic integration with China makes an economic decoupling inconceivable. So American consumers have to choose their battles.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s report from earlier this year, “Uyghurs for Sale,” can be a roadmap. The report identifies 82 corporations that use Chinese forced labor in their production lines. Consumers can begin by calling for boycotts of these corporations and others that directly abet and benefit from human rights violations. Congress can help by requiring the assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor to publish an annual report of corporations that profit from such abuses.
Boycotts are nothing new. The Montgomery Bus Boycott helped bring about the end of Jim Crow. The international boycott of South Africa helped end apartheid. In fact, political boycotts have been so successful that they’ve inspired a series of less impressive imitations. A sundry assortment of terrorist leaders and undergraduates has been trying for years to boycott everything Israeli, and sporadic boycott attempts pop up from time to time in the culture war (one year it’s Starbucks Christmas cups, the next it’s Chick-fil-A or Keurig).
With these examples in mind, there’s reason to think that boycotts are more successful when their moral cause is more urgent and righteous. Americans have historically cared about gross human rights violations. There is hope that they will care that corporations they do business with are complicit in the 21st century’s greatest evil. And there is a successful recent model of a large, powerful company being pressured out of conducting business in China over human rights concerns. In 2017, Google launched its Dragonfly project, the aim of which was to develop a search engine that would censor certain websites and results at the request of the CCP. Google scratched the project in 2019, following heavy criticism.
It is unacceptable for Americans to finance Chinese concentration camps or help to strengthen the CCP’s surveillance state. No amount of revenue can justify the 21st century’s greatest moral stain. Each company that benefits from the atrocities committed by the CCP should have its name published on a list for all to see. Let the source of their profits be known, and let the consumers make their choice.
Correction, November 13, 2020: An earlier version of this article misattributed a tweet in support of the Hong Kong democracy protests to an executive from the San Antonio Spurs instead of the Houston Rockets.