thebulwark--2020-11-19--The Pandemic Is Now McConnell’s Problem, Too

Can anything be done to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe over the next three months ?
That is the pressing question hanging over the nation ’ s political class .
The Trump administration gave its answer long ago when it abdicated responsibility for managing the crisis .
It is one reason the president lost re-election .
The right answer is yes .
As Anthony Fauci and many public health leaders have repeatedly said , much more can and should be done to limit the human harm that will come from an unchecked fall-winter wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections .
Further , taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fully recover more quickly .
What has been missing is willing political leadership .
Enter Mitch McConnell .
The Senate majority leader emerged from the election even more powerful than he was over the past four years , which was plenty powerful .
He is now critical to getting the nation on a better course in managing the pandemic .
McConnell is already the most important officeholding Republican in Washington because President Trump , post-election , is uninterested in governing .
The Senate GOP leader has the power to deliver the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or he can kill it .
Following the latter course would be tragic because of the needless harm to both human health and the national economy it would cause .
There is reason to think McConnell will support a reasonable legislative compromise if the opportunity presents itself .
He announced again this week that he is open to passing a “ narrowly targeted ” relief bill during the lame-duck session of Congress , including new funds for schools , small business support , and aid for health-care providers .
That ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The next bill needs to be organized around a strong , final push to get the country through this difficult ( and hopefully last ) phase of the pandemic while effective vaccines are deployed .
Doing that will mean approving several important provisions : • Adoption of a Coordinated National Re-Opening Plan .
Fauci is right , and the Trump administration is wrong , about the need for a coordinated national strategy .
The administration has hidden behind a false understanding of federalism to avoid enforcing a coherent plan for re-opening the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own course is foolhardy when a virus can move so easily from one jurisdiction to another .
To get the virus under better control , all states need to follow the same sensible national standards on when it is safe to allow certain activities to occur .
Federal funds should be conditioned on state compliance .
• Vaccine Procurement and Deployment Funds .
The states will be crucial to coordinated deployment of effective vaccines , and governors from both parties are pleading with national leaders to provide them with funding to avoid mishaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis .
Inoculating the entire country in a matter of months is an immense undertaking .
A $ 5 billion investment is a small price to pay to ensure it goes as smoothly as circumstances allow .
• A National Testing Plan .
Ten months into the pandemic the United States still does not have a coherent and coordinated plan for finding infections quickly so that transmission rates will fall .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been pushing for substantial funding for a robust national testing plan , which the Trump administration inexcusably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to what is in the House bill .
• Support for High-Risk Enterprises .
Certain business activities are high-risk in this pandemic and need to be curtailed during spikes in confirmed cases .
Most especially , as infections soar , the country should be halting all indoor dining and socializing in restaurants , bars , and nightclubs , and placing strict capacity limits on indoor gyms .
It is not the fault of the owners of these businesses , or their workers , that their normal operations conflict with rational public health precautions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of COVID-19—such as movie theaters—should be given the resources they need to stay afloat and to meet their payroll until this phase of the pandemic has passed .
• Aid to State and Local Governments .
Democrats in Congress want substantial support for state and local governments that have been hit hard by the pandemic .
Republicans are skeptical of the need and do not want to bail out states they see as mismanaged .
These are differences that should be amenable to compromise .
Absent more federal support , states will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recovery .
McConnell need not agree to everything Pelosi is seeking , but he should take a couple of steps in her direction .
A major obstacle to reaching a compromise is the overall price tag .
House Democrats want a $ 2.2 trillion bill .
McConnell supports something closer to $ 0.5 trillion .
That ’ s a big difference .
The election undercut Pelosi on this question , and strengthened McConnell .
In October , Democrats were tempted to think they did not need to budge because they believed they could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , when the larger congressional majorities they anticipated winning were in place and when Joe Biden was in the White House .
That calculus is no longer valid .
Speaker Pelosi should agree to a $ 1.0 to $ 1.5 trillion relief bill now because there is little chance that her $ 2.2 trillion bill will ever get enacted .
Senator McConnell is worried that passing such an expensive bill will divide his caucus .
Several Republican senators will oppose any legislation costing more than $ 0.5 trillion .
McConnell also might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might harm the electoral prospects of the two GOP senators from Georgia facing run-offs on January 5 .
Under normal circumstances , those might be legitimate reasons to slow-walk a bill .
Not now .
The United States is the midst of its worst crisis in many decades .
This is not the time to handicap whether a bill will or will not affect the Georgia races .
A bipartisan deal is certain to lose votes on both sides .
That is what happens with compromise bills .
The Georgia senators would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing so would help them politically .
That should not affect McConnell , however .
It is clear enough what the country needs at this historic moment .
With power comes responsibility .
It is up to McConnell to do what he surely knows is required .

Can anything be done to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe over the next three months? That is the pressing question hanging over the nation’s political class. The Trump administration gave its answer long ago when it abdicated responsibility for managing the crisis. It is one reason the president lost re-election.
The right answer is yes. As Anthony Fauci and many public health leaders have repeatedly said, much more can and should be done to limit the human harm that will come from an unchecked fall-winter wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Further, taking these steps now will allow the economy to fully recover more quickly. What has been missing is willing political leadership.
Enter Mitch McConnell. The Senate majority leader emerged from the election even more powerful than he was over the past four years, which was plenty powerful. He is now critical to getting the nation on a better course in managing the pandemic. McConnell is already the most important officeholding Republican in Washington because President Trump, post-election, is uninterested in governing. The Senate GOP leader has the power to deliver the next round of long-awaited COVID-19 response funding, or he can kill it. Following the latter course would be tragic because of the needless harm to both human health and the national economy it would cause.
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…
There is reason to think McConnell will support a reasonable legislative compromise if the opportunity presents itself. He announced again this week that he is open to passing a “narrowly targeted” relief bill during the lame-duck session of Congress, including new funds for schools, small business support, and aid for health-care providers. That’s a start, but it is insufficient. The next bill needs to be organized around a strong, final push to get the country through this difficult (and hopefully last) phase of the pandemic while effective vaccines are deployed. Doing that will mean approving several important provisions:
Adoption of a Coordinated National Re-Opening Plan. Fauci is right, and the Trump administration is wrong, about the need for a coordinated national strategy. The administration has hidden behind a false understanding of federalism to avoid enforcing a coherent plan for re-opening the economy. Allowing every state to follow its own course is foolhardy when a virus can move so easily from one jurisdiction to another. To get the virus under better control, all states need to follow the same sensible national standards on when it is safe to allow certain activities to occur. Federal funds should be conditioned on state compliance.
Vaccine Procurement and Deployment Funds. The states will be crucial to coordinated deployment of effective vaccines, and governors from both parties are pleading with national leaders to provide them with funding to avoid mishaps and delays that will only prolong the crisis. Inoculating the entire country in a matter of months is an immense undertaking. A $5 billion investment is a small price to pay to ensure it goes as smoothly as circumstances allow.
A National Testing Plan. Ten months into the pandemic the United States still does not have a coherent and coordinated plan for finding infections quickly so that transmission rates will fall. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been pushing for substantial funding for a robust national testing plan, which the Trump administration inexcusably opposed. McConnell should relent and agree to what is in the House bill.
Support for High-Risk Enterprises. Certain business activities are high-risk in this pandemic and need to be curtailed during spikes in confirmed cases. Most especially, as infections soar, the country should be halting all indoor dining and socializing in restaurants, bars, and nightclubs, and placing strict capacity limits on indoor gyms. It is not the fault of the owners of these businesses, or their workers, that their normal operations conflict with rational public health precautions. These and other similar businesses closed because of COVID-19—such as movie theaters—should be given the resources they need to stay afloat and to meet their payroll until this phase of the pandemic has passed.
Aid to State and Local Governments. Democrats in Congress want substantial support for state and local governments that have been hit hard by the pandemic. Republicans are skeptical of the need and do not want to bail out states they see as mismanaged. These are differences that should be amenable to compromise. Absent more federal support, states will implement budget cuts that will slow the recovery. McConnell need not agree to everything Pelosi is seeking, but he should take a couple of steps in her direction.
A major obstacle to reaching a compromise is the overall price tag. House Democrats want a $2.2 trillion bill. McConnell supports something closer to $0.5 trillion. That’s a big difference. The election undercut Pelosi on this question, and strengthened McConnell. In October, Democrats were tempted to think they did not need to budge because they believed they could get a better bill in the new year, when the larger congressional majorities they anticipated winning were in place and when Joe Biden was in the White House. That calculus is no longer valid. Speaker Pelosi should agree to a $1.0 to $1.5 trillion relief bill now because there is little chance that her $2.2 trillion bill will ever get enacted.
Senator McConnell is worried that passing such an expensive bill will divide his caucus. Several Republican senators will oppose any legislation costing more than $0.5 trillion. McConnell also might be worried that enactment of another bill might harm the electoral prospects of the two GOP senators from Georgia facing run-offs on January 5.
Under normal circumstances, those might be legitimate reasons to slow-walk a bill. Not now. The United States is the midst of its worst crisis in many decades. This is not the time to handicap whether a bill will or will not affect the Georgia races. A bipartisan deal is certain to lose votes on both sides. That is what happens with compromise bills. The Georgia senators would be free to vote no if they thought doing so would help them politically.
That should not affect McConnell, however. It is clear enough what the country needs at this historic moment. With power comes responsibility. It is up to McConnell to do what he surely knows is required.


thebulwark--2020-11-19--Trump Goes Out as He Came In

Trump Goes Out as He Came In

Donald Trump ’ s presidency is ending the way it began : with a handoff between administrations that could have been smooth but is instead confused , mired in controversy , and less useful for good governance than it could have been .
Think back to the transition that followed the 2016 election .
If an incoming administration doesn ’ t believe in government and is run like a sole proprietorship , the transition is simply a nuisance , and it is not surprising that the incoming transition team that year experienced considerable turbulence .
New Jersey Gov .
Chris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was replaced almost immediately after election day .
The binders full of personnel picks that his team had prepared “ were apparently thrown out the day I was terminated , ” Christie said , leaving the new administration scrambling to fill thousands of positions in the federal government .
If the Trump transition left any other mark on history , it was probably the unpleasantness involving Michael Flynn .
In the weeks after the election , the retired Army lieutenant general had several conversations with Russia ’ s ambassador to the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vice President Mike Pence .
When this came to light , he was forced to resign as Trump ’ s national security advisor after just twenty-two days on the job .
He subsequently pleaded guilty twice to making false statements to federal investigators and is awaiting sentencing by Federal District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan .
The case is currently embroiled in a controversy over whether the Justice Department should be permitted to withdraw criminal charges against Flynn .
For reasons I ’ ve never understood , the Justice Department decided not to charge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law that provides : Any citizen of the United States , wherever he may be , who , without authority of the United States , directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof , with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof , in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States , or to defeat the measures of the United States , shall be fined under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three years , or both .
In his conversations with the Russian ambassador , Flynn suggested that Russia not overreact to the sanctions the Obama administration imposed in response to Russia ’ s intervention in the 2016 election .
This is a clear violation of the Logan Act .
Although the Logan Act has not produced a single conviction and could probably be more tightly written , my own view—unlike some others ’ —is that it would withstand constitutional challenge .
Flynn ’ s conduct in the course of the 2016 transition evinced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on private diplomacy .
The subversive effect of that misconduct can not be overstated .
At the time Barack Obama was president .
The country has only one president at a time .
Foreign relations are a core presidential responsibility , on which much of our national security obviously rides .
Just as the Republican-controlled Senate effectively and ( as subsequent events richly confirmed ) cynically truncated President Obama ’ s term when it came time to fill a Supreme Court vacancy , Flynn truncated his term with respect to relations with another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to the other end of the Trump administration .
Once again we see a disregard for norms of orderly government in the administration ’ s unwillingness to facilitate basic preparation by the incoming administration .
The Biden transition team is not seeking to jump the gun the way Flynn did .
It simply wants to be ready when power is handed over .
By starving the Biden administration-to-be of resources and information , the Trump administration is doing its best to hobble the successor team ’ s ability to hit the ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , again , in the context of crude norm-busting—in this case a president who has not only refused to concede but has , with his surrogates , repeatedly distorted the facts of the election .
Fortunately , the Biden administration will have a deep bench of experienced public servants who are preparing for office regardless of whether the overpaid marionette who serves as Trump ’ s GSA administrator ever feels liberated enough ( or is ordered by some judge ) to turn on the funding and whether or not the rest of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the many problems the government and the country will face on January 20—and are facing today .

Donald Trump’s presidency is ending the way it began: with a handoff between administrations that could have been smooth but is instead confused, mired in controversy, and less useful for good governance than it could have been.
Think back to the transition that followed the 2016 election. If an incoming administration doesn’t believe in government and is run like a sole proprietorship, the transition is simply a nuisance, and it is not surprising that the incoming transition team that year experienced considerable turbulence. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie had headed the team, but was replaced almost immediately after election day. The binders full of personnel picks that his team had prepared “were apparently thrown out the day I was terminated,” Christie said, leaving the new administration scrambling to fill thousands of positions in the federal government.
If the Trump transition left any other mark on history, it was probably the unpleasantness involving Michael Flynn. In the weeks after the election, the retired Army lieutenant general had several conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the United States, and then misrepresented those conversations to Vice President Mike Pence. When this came to light, he was forced to resign as Trump’s national security advisor after just twenty-two days on the job. He subsequently pleaded guilty twice to making false statements to federal investigators and is awaiting sentencing by Federal District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. The case is currently embroiled in a controversy over whether the Justice Department should be permitted to withdraw criminal charges against Flynn.
For reasons I’ve never understood, the Justice Department decided not to charge Flynn for violating the Logan Act—a 1799 law that provides:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
In his conversations with the Russian ambassador, Flynn suggested that Russia not overreact to the sanctions the Obama administration imposed in response to Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election. This is a clear violation of the Logan Act. Although the Logan Act has not produced a single conviction and could probably be more tightly written, my own view—unlike some others’—is that it would withstand constitutional challenge.
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…
Flynn’s conduct in the course of the 2016 transition evinced an utter disregard of the criminal prohibition on private diplomacy. The subversive effect of that misconduct cannot be overstated. At the time Barack Obama was president. The country has only one president at a time. Foreign relations are a core presidential responsibility, on which much of our national security obviously rides. Just as the Republican-controlled Senate effectively and (as subsequent events richly confirmed) cynically truncated President Obama’s term when it came time to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, Flynn truncated his term with respect to relations with another major world power.
Fast-forward four years, to the other end of the Trump administration. Once again we see a disregard for norms of orderly government in the administration’s unwillingness to facilitate basic preparation by the incoming administration. The Biden transition team is not seeking to jump the gun the way Flynn did. It simply wants to be ready when power is handed over.
By starving the Biden administration-to-be of resources and information, the Trump administration is doing its best to hobble the successor team’s ability to hit the ground running. And it is doing so, again, in the context of crude norm-busting—in this case a president who has not only refused to concede but has, with his surrogates, repeatedly distorted the facts of the election.
Fortunately, the Biden administration will have a deep bench of experienced public servants who are preparing for office regardless of whether the overpaid marionette who serves as Trump’s GSA administrator ever feels liberated enough (or is ordered by some judge) to turn on the funding and whether or not the rest of the current waning administration starts to share information on the many problems the government and the country will face on January 20—and are facing today.


thebulwark--2020-11-19--The Marketing Theory Which Explains Why Trump Owns the GOP

Trump ’ s stranglehold on the Republican party stems directly from the remarkable connection he ’ s forged with his base .
This affinity stems not from Trump ’ s astute choice of intellectually resonant issues , but rather from the way he made his supporters feel—it ’ s the emotions he elicits that drive his popularity .
In the Trump-supplicant arrangement , the agreement on specific issues followed the emotional connection , and not the other way around .
Americus Reed , a professor of marketing at Wharton , has a name for this type of relationship between a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reed describes identity loyalty as the “ marketing utopia ” where the consumer develops a deep connection with “ a brand you fervently believe in , a brand you use to express yourself , and one you would recommend to friends.
” Identity loyalty , Reed says , “ is when a product , service , organization , or person is internalized as part of a consumer ’ s sense of who they are.
” And that is Donald Trump ’ s secret sauce .
“ Trump ’ s skill , ” Reed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identity loyalty in his rhetoric and branding/symbols.
” Such connection with consumers , any marketer will tell you , is incredibly difficult to achieve .
But when forged , Reed explains , it can be remarkably powerful , leading followers into motivated reasoning , where they “ see the world in ways that are consistent with what it is that [ they ] want to believe.
” The startling power of motivated reasoning was demonstrated in a 2012 study from Monika Lisjak and colleagues at Kellogg School of Management ( she ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Typically , when consumers are exposed to negative comments about a brand , their view of the brand is likely to go down .
But what Lisjak discovered was that in the specific circumstance where a consumer ( a ) has a strong connection with a brand ; ( b ) has a weak sense of who they are ( “ low implicit self-esteem ” ) ; ( c ) has just been prodded by the experimenter to think about positive characteristics about themselves ( “ self-activation ” ) , this consumer is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the brand after its been criticized .
In other words : Identity loyalty is bulletproof .
And more .
Attempts to dislodge it often have the perverse effect of intensifying the follower ’ s connection to the brand .
This business school theory is uncannily—actually , exactly—what we ’ ve seen with the Trump phenomenon .
This all happens because , as Reed explains , the appeal to the target consumers is fundamentally emotional , in a way that ’ s completely intertwined with their identity .
Which is why this connection can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a brand becomes enmeshed with personal identity , Reed explains , “ Feelings rule the day and data takes a back seat.
” He notes that decisions that arise from emotions “ feel ” more authentic then those arrived at through rational deliberation , and tend to be held more tenaciously .
Moreover , because the brand “ now is part of the target market ’ s identity , ” the consumer will “ defend it at all costs.
” What does this mean for Republicans going forward ?
First , it means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magic by emulating his policies is likely to come up short because those issues are largely besides the point .
Second , Trump ’ s relationship with his target market—and thus his influence—is likely to persist after he leaves office .
Over 70 million Americans voted for him and Trump will continue to use Twitter effectively to reinforce and intensify his emotional relationship with this audience .
Whether or not these people agree with the specifics of what he says , many will continue to savor the way he says it and feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the fact that Trump lost means that it is possible his influence could wane over time—but the attrition is likely to be measured in years , not months , as the attention of his loyal base becomes gradually diluted over time .
What does it mean for the rest of us ?
America probably dodged a bullet because Trump lacked the impulse control to run a more effective campaign .
At his core , Trump seems driven primarily by an insatiable drive for praise and adoration .
What if the next Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change ?
It seems unlikely we can , or should , rely on existing institutions , and bet the Republic on the wisdom and courage of journalists and politicians .
The media , in lavishing so much uncritical attention on Trump in 2015 , allowed his brand identity to gain a foothold ; the GOP , in largely forsaking integrity for expedience , as Politico ’ s Tim Alberta has relentlessly documented , continues to enable him , even today .
Another thing that won ’ t work : Efforts to cleave Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy .
This approach overlooks the underlying emotional affinity Trump elicits , and the extent to which his supporters see themselves expressed in his visceral outrage .
Criticism that focuses on deficiencies of Trump ’ s policy—however accurate—may perversely draw his supporters closer .
A potentially more effective approach , according to Stanford business school professor Jeffrey Pfeffer , an expert on power and leadership , isn ’ t to refute Trump so much as supplant him , by “ finding or constructing an overarching identity that brings people together.
” Pfeffer ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have “ multiple identities , ” and “ the empirical question then becomes .
.
.
what identity is salient at any given point in time ?
” Intergroup conflict , Pfeffer notes , is “ one way to make a particular group identity salient and provoke in-group favoritism and out-group derogation .
The genius of Trump was constant conflict.
” The approach of coming together around a common “ enemy ” is familiar , of course , not only in politics but in business—Steve Jobs famously united the different divisions of Apple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Microsoft , Pfeffer reminds us .
COVID-19 would seem to have been a perfect common enemy and ( as I ’ veargued ) should have been— “ but instead , ” says Pfeffer , “ Trump used it to divide rather than unite.
” A unifying strategy seems especially difficult to employ today , Pfeffer says , “ because of the echo-chamber nature of modern communications , ” and the concomitant focus on—and unreasonable effectiveness of—activating a base by accentuating differences .
But America , and Americans , have also grown weary—tired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end , tired of divisive politics , tired of feeling angry and upset all the time .
We contain multitudes .
Divided as our country may seem , we also yearn deep down to come together and experience once again our shared sense of community and mission , dedication and accomplishment .
We are ready—more than ready—to heal together .
The question is whether Joe Biden—or some other leader—can articulate this shared vision in a compelling , salient , emotionally resonant fashion that pierces partisan division , speaks to our common needs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Without leadership that activates us emotionally , and elevates us collectively , we risk being rendered further asunder .
And 2024 is just around the corner .

Trump’s stranglehold on the Republican party stems directly from the remarkable connection he’s forged with his base. This affinity stems not from Trump’s astute choice of intellectually resonant issues, but rather from the way he made his supporters feel—it’s the emotions he elicits that drive his popularity. In the Trump-supplicant arrangement, the agreement on specific issues followed the emotional connection, and not the other way around.
Americus Reed, a professor of marketing at Wharton, has a name for this type of relationship between a brand and consumers: identity loyalty. Reed describes identity loyalty as the “marketing utopia” where the consumer develops a deep connection with “a brand you fervently believe in, a brand you use to express yourself, and one you would recommend to friends.”
Identity loyalty, Reed says, “is when a product, service, organization, or person is internalized as part of a consumer’s sense of who they are.”
And that is Donald Trump’s secret sauce.
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…
“Trump’s skill,” Reed told me, “is really creating identity loyalty in his rhetoric and branding/symbols.”
Such connection with consumers, any marketer will tell you, is incredibly difficult to achieve. But when forged, Reed explains, it can be remarkably powerful, leading followers into motivated reasoning, where they “see the world in ways that are consistent with what it is that [they] want to believe.”
The startling power of motivated reasoning was demonstrated in a 2012 study from Monika Lisjak and colleagues at Kellogg School of Management (she’s now at Arizona State University). Typically, when consumers are exposed to negative comments about a brand, their view of the brand is likely to go down.
But what Lisjak discovered was that in the specific circumstance where a consumer (a) has a strong connection with a brand; (b) has a weak sense of who they are (“low implicit self-esteem”); (c) has just been prodded by the experimenter to think about positive characteristics about themselves (“self-activation”), this consumer is apt to evince more positive views of the brand after it’s been criticized.
In other words: Identity loyalty is bulletproof. And more. Attempts to dislodge it often have the perverse effect of intensifying the follower’s connection to the brand.
This business school theory is uncannily—actually, exactly—what we’ve seen with the Trump phenomenon.
This all happens because, as Reed explains, the appeal to the target consumers is fundamentally emotional, in a way that’s completely intertwined with their identity. Which is why this connection can then become impervious to facts. Once a brand becomes enmeshed with personal identity, Reed explains, “Feelings rule the day and data takes a back seat.”
He notes that decisions that arise from emotions “feel” more authentic then those arrived at through rational deliberation, and tend to be held more tenaciously. Moreover, because the brand “now is part of the target market’s identity,” the consumer will “defend it at all costs.”
What does this mean for Republicans going forward?
First, it means that anyone trying to recreate the Trump magic by emulating his policies is likely to come up short because those issues are largely besides the point.
Second, Trump’s relationship with his target market—and thus his influence—is likely to persist after he leaves office. Over 70 million Americans voted for him and Trump will continue to use Twitter effectively to reinforce and intensify his emotional relationship with this audience. Whether or not these people agree with the specifics of what he says, many will continue to savor the way he says it and feel personally empowered through his words.
Third, the fact that Trump lost means that it is possible his influence could wane over time—but the attrition is likely to be measured in years, not months, as the attention of his loyal base becomes gradually diluted over time.
What does it mean for the rest of us? America probably dodged a bullet because Trump lacked the impulse control to run a more effective campaign. At his core, Trump seems driven primarily by an insatiable drive for praise and adoration. What if the next Trump is strategically minded and seeks revolutionary political change?
It seems unlikely we can, or should, rely on existing institutions, and bet the Republic on the wisdom and courage of journalists and politicians. The media, in lavishing so much uncritical attention on Trump in 2015, allowed his brand identity to gain a foothold; the GOP, in largely forsaking integrity for expedience, as Politico’s Tim Alberta has relentlessly documented, continues to enable him, even today.
Another thing that won’t work: Efforts to cleave Trump from his supporters that focus primarily on policy. This approach overlooks the underlying emotional affinity Trump elicits, and the extent to which his supporters see themselves expressed in his visceral outrage. Criticism that focuses on deficiencies of Trump’s policy—however accurate—may perversely draw his supporters closer.
A potentially more effective approach, according to Stanford business school professor Jeffrey Pfeffer, an expert on power and leadership, isn’t to refute Trump so much as supplant him, by “finding or constructing an overarching identity that brings people together.”
Pfeffer’s point is that each of us have “multiple identities,” and “the empirical question then becomes . . . what identity is salient at any given point in time?”
Intergroup conflict, Pfeffer notes, is “one way to make a particular group identity salient and provoke in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. The genius of Trump was constant conflict.”
The approach of coming together around a common “enemy” is familiar, of course, not only in politics but in business—Steve Jobs famously united the different divisions of Apple around fighting the “evil empire” of Microsoft, Pfeffer reminds us.
COVID-19 would seem to have been a perfect common enemy and (as I’ve argued) should have been—“but instead,” says Pfeffer, “Trump used it to divide rather than unite.”
A unifying strategy seems especially difficult to employ today, Pfeffer says, “because of the echo-chamber nature of modern communications,” and the concomitant focus on—and unreasonable effectiveness of—activating a base by accentuating differences.
But America, and Americans, have also grown weary—tired of a pandemic that won’t end, tired of divisive politics, tired of feeling angry and upset all the time.
We contain multitudes. Divided as our country may seem, we also yearn deep down to come together and experience once again our shared sense of community and mission, dedication and accomplishment. We are ready—more than ready—to heal together.
The question is whether Joe Biden—or some other leader—can articulate this shared vision in a compelling, salient, emotionally resonant fashion that pierces partisan division, speaks to our common needs, and connects with our better natures.
Without leadership that activates us emotionally, and elevates us collectively, we risk being rendered further asunder.
And 2024 is just around the corner.


thebulwark--2020-11-20--Can We Get Along Together After Trump?

Can We Get Along Together After Trump?

I had an opportunity to ask the president of the United States a question only once in the six weeks prior to the November general election—when , on September 23 , I asked him if he would support a peaceful transfer of power following the election “ win , lose or draw.
” His answer was explosively controversial at the time : “ We ’ ll see what happens.
” Well , we have seen .
We have seen the president lose the election—by more than 5 million popular votes and by 306-232 in the Electoral College .
In 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by that same margin but lost the popular vote , he called it a landslide .
Now he calls Biden ’ s victory a hoax .
We have seen the president disparage and dispute the orderly and secure conduct of American democracy .
We have seen the president take to Twitter to blast inflammatory accusations— “ tens of thousands of votes were stolen from us ” ; “ VOTER FRAUD ALL OVER THE COUNTRY ” ; “ this was a rigged election ” ; “ an open and shut case of voter fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , despite evidence to the contrary .
We have seen the president ’ s minions fly to talk radio , Fox News , conservative websites , and social media to lie and to share one another ’ s lies and laugh at the truth .
We have seen indeed .
Although the president hasn ’ t taken questions from reporters since the election , I have lobbed a few at him .
When he appeared in the Brady Briefing Room two days after the election , the race hadn ’ t yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the handwriting was on the wall .
As he finished his remarks , I asked him : “ Why do you continue lying to the American people ?
Why are you so delusional ?
” He staggered out of the room clutching onto a fake column behind the briefing room stage to steady himself as he left .
Eight days later Trump held another of his pep rallies pretending to be press conferences .
Joined by some of his favorite sycophants—Vice President Mike Pence and HHS Secretary Alex Azar—as well as two of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine program , the president once again refused to permit questions from any of the gathered journalists .
So I made a statement at the end and asked a question : “ Mr .
President you lost the election , ” I said—six words spoken from the diaphragm from about 20 feet away .
Then : “ When will you admit you lost the election , sir ?
” Nine words .
Short .
To the point .
It was not complicated .
He heard it .
He understood it .
He didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whether he admits it or doesn ’ t is of no matter .
On January 20 , 2021 , there will be a new president .
I see no value in caring whether Donald Trump accepts his loss or what he does after he leaves the White House .
He wants attention I will no longer give him .
I ’ ve had to cover every damn insane , divisive , ridiculous lie he ’ s spewed since he walked into the Oval Office .
He will tease and hint a 2024 run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lever he knows to try to stay relevant .
But he won ’ t have the power of the presidency .
What he says won ’ t matter so much anymore .
What matters are the immense challenges we face as a country—including the pandemic , with a death toll of quarter of a million and now surging again , and the terrible economic fallout .
Another of our systemic ailments , our extreme polarization built upon a foundation of political and racial problems we ’ ve refused to face for arguably 155 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current administration and by the president ’ s post-election antics .
How are we supposed to hold the country together when people are so divided ?
Why are tens of millions of Americans willing to believe the worst of their fellow citizens ?
How can we handle those who endorse—via their vote and via their media-consuming habits— “ alternate facts ” that are detached from reality ?
One modest suggestion : We should learn from the example of Daryl Davis .
You may have heard of Davis ; his story has been widely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has even been the subject of an award-winning documentary .
He is a big guy , a 62-year-old African-American pianist who has played backup for Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis as well as blues icons Muddy Waters and B.B .
King .
But Davis ’ s main claim to fame—and the hope he gives us all—is in his work as a civil rights activist .
The son of a foreign service officer , Davis grew up in Europe .
He told me that when his family moved back to the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount of racism here .
Eventually , through his music , he got to meet people he ’ d never likely encounter otherwise .
That led Davis to a multitude of conversations with members of the Ku Klux Klan .
For three decades he has sought them out , to get to know them so they could get to know him .
He ’ s even gone to KKK rallies to talk to Klansmen .
He often begins his initial conversations saying , “ Why do you hate me when you don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s talked several Klansmen , including high-ranking members , out of their robes .
The Grand Wizard of the Maryland KKK gave Davis his robes and even invited him to be his daughter ’ s godfather .
Davis recently spoke with me about his experiences .
Listen to him on this episode of my “ Just Ask the Question ” podcast and decide for yourself if he makes sense .
Now , if that kind of transformation is possible in the United States , then it is still possible to hold country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his wailing banshees behind us .
To get along again .
In the words of a song Davis once played with Chuck Berry : Hail , hail rock-n ’ -roll .
Deliver me from the days of old .
That lyric was a subtle way , Davis explains , to talk about white kids and black kids getting together and enjoying each other ’ s company even as uptight parents fought against that type of bonding .
What was once old is new again .

I had an opportunity to ask the president of the United States a question only once in the six weeks prior to the November general election—when, on September 23, I asked him if he would support a peaceful transfer of power following the election “win, lose or draw.”
His answer was explosively controversial at the time: “We’ll see what happens.”
Well, we have seen.
We have seen the president lose the election—by more than 5 million popular votes and by 306-232 in the Electoral College. In 2016, when Trump won the Electoral College by that same margin but lost the popular vote, he called it a landslide. Now he calls Biden’s victory a hoax.
We have seen the president disparage and dispute the orderly and secure conduct of American democracy.
We have seen the president take to Twitter to blast inflammatory accusations—“tens of thousands of votes were stolen from us”; “VOTER FRAUD ALL OVER THE COUNTRY”; “this was a rigged election”; “an open and shut case of voter fraud”—with no evidence, and in fact, despite evidence to the contrary.
We have seen the president’s minions fly to talk radio, Fox News, conservative websites, and social media to lie and to share one another’s lies and laugh at the truth.
We have seen indeed.
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…
Although the president hasn’t taken questions from reporters since the election, I have lobbed a few at him.
When he appeared in the Brady Briefing Room two days after the election, the race hadn’t yet been called by the networks, although the handwriting was on the wall. As he finished his remarks, I asked him: “Why do you continue lying to the American people? Why are you so delusional?” He staggered out of the room clutching onto a fake column behind the briefing room stage to steady himself as he left.
Eight days later Trump held another of his pep rallies pretending to be press conferences. Joined by some of his favorite sycophants—Vice President Mike Pence and HHS Secretary Alex Azar—as well as two of the leaders of the Operation Warp Speed vaccine program, the president once again refused to permit questions from any of the gathered journalists.
So I made a statement at the end and asked a question: “Mr. President you lost the election,” I said—six words spoken from the diaphragm from about 20 feet away. Then: “When will you admit you lost the election, sir?” Nine words. Short. To the point. It was not complicated. He heard it. He understood it. He didn’t answer.
Trump lost. Whether he admits it or doesn’t is of no matter. On January 20, 2021, there will be a new president. I see no value in caring whether Donald Trump accepts his loss or what he does after he leaves the White House. He wants attention I will no longer give him. I’ve had to cover every damn insane, divisive, ridiculous lie he’s spewed since he walked into the Oval Office. He will tease and hint a 2024 run, and will push every p.r. lever he knows to try to stay relevant. But he won’t have the power of the presidency. What he says won’t matter so much anymore.
What matters are the immense challenges we face as a country—including the pandemic, with a death toll of quarter of a million and now surging again, and the terrible economic fallout. Another of our systemic ailments, our extreme polarization built upon a foundation of political and racial problems we’ve refused to face for arguably 155 years, has been exacerbated by the current administration and by the president’s post-election antics.
How are we supposed to hold the country together when people are so divided?
Why are tens of millions of Americans willing to believe the worst of their fellow citizens?
How can we handle those who endorse—via their vote and via their media-consuming habits—“alternate facts” that are detached from reality?
One modest suggestion: We should learn from the example of Daryl Davis.
You may have heard of Davis; his story has been widely reported in the press, and he has even been the subject of an award-winning documentary. He is a big guy, a 62-year-old African-American pianist who has played backup for Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis as well as blues icons Muddy Waters and B.B. King.
But Davis’s main claim to fame—and the hope he gives us all—is in his work as a civil rights activist.
The son of a foreign service officer, Davis grew up in Europe. He told me that when his family moved back to the United States, he was genuinely surprised at the amount of racism here. Eventually, through his music, he got to meet people he’d never likely encounter otherwise.
That led Davis to a multitude of conversations with members of the Ku Klux Klan. For three decades he has sought them out, to get to know them so they could get to know him. He’s even gone to KKK rallies to talk to Klansmen. He often begins his initial conversations saying, “Why do you hate me when you don’t even know me?”
He’s talked several Klansmen, including high-ranking members, out of their robes. The Grand Wizard of the Maryland KKK gave Davis his robes and even invited him to be his daughter’s godfather.
Davis recently spoke with me about his experiences. Listen to him on this episode of my “Just Ask the Question” podcast and decide for yourself if he makes sense.
Now, if that kind of transformation is possible in the United States, then it is still possible to hold country together. To put Donald Trump and his wailing banshees behind us. To get along again. In the words of a song Davis once played with Chuck Berry:
Hail, hail rock-n’-roll. Deliver me from the days of old.
That lyric was a subtle way, Davis explains, to talk about white kids and black kids getting together and enjoying each other’s company even as uptight parents fought against that type of bonding.
What was once old is new again.


thebulwark--2020-11-20--The Real “America First” Foreign Policy Starts Now

As the clock ticks down on the Trump presidency , the last adults are leaving the room .
Amb .
Jim Jeffrey , who led the war against ISIS for the last two years , revealed this week that he and others played “ shell games ” with President Trump ’ s administration to mislead it about the number of American troops in Syria .
Jeffrey recently departed his post .
Last week , Trump cleared out the Pentagon ’ s civilian leadership , replacing respected professionals with his own supporters who share his isolationist world view .
The new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example , has argued that it was a mistake to go to war even against Nazi Germany .
Not all of the new Pentagon leaders are Trump partisans—Christopher Miller , the new acting secretary of defense , is respected by all sides and seems committed to competently leading the organization .
But many of these new officials pose a significant threat to U.S. national security .
We may be about to find out what an unrestrained Trump foreign policy looks like .
So where is the danger in Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coach after the game is over ?
Of course , much speculation has centered on the possible domestic abuses afoot .
In the wake of the terrifying events at Lafayette Square earlier this summer , these fears are rational .
Outgoing Secretary of Defense Mark Esper rejected Trump ’ s urging to invoke the Insurrection Act , which would have brought the active military onto America ’ s streets .
But even without Esper at the helm , the military will not allow Trump to draw it into a domestic political squabble .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Staff General Mark Milley publicly implied Thursday , there is no legal mechanism for a president to use the Pentagon to alter the election results or maintain his grip on power .
The more realistic risk isn ’ t aggression at home but hasty retreat abroad .
With his supporters now in place at the Pentagon , Trump might aim to reshape our global presence during his last two months in office .
He finally can establish a reckless “ America First ” foreign policy , and can do so without breaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pentagon leadership out of the way , Trump could be on the verge of rushed withdrawals from Syria , Afghanistan , and Iraq .
Many of these moves would be Trump ’ s parting gift to America ’ s adversaries .
Syria illustrates that danger .
Trump has tried to withdraw American forces from that county several times over the past few years , usually at the urging of foreign strongmen like Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan .
Despite Trump ’ s best efforts to lose in Syria , the U.S. mission achieved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
American forces helped eliminate ISIS ’ s territorial holdings , contained Assad , and balanced America ’ s relationship with Turkish and Kurdish partners who are themselves bitter rivals .
Earlier this year , Russian forces endangered U.S. troops multiple times , charging at American convoys with armored vehicles .
The American response was robust and effective , but quiet .
The Pentagon poured hundreds of additional soldiers with dozens of armored Bradley Fighting Vehicles into the country , neutralizing the Russian threat .
The effort was so quiet that Trump may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ busy campaigning and recovering from the coronavirus .
But the officials protecting the U.S. mission in Syria from Trump ’ s wrath—Esper , Jeffrey , and their respective predecessors , Mattis and Amb .
Brett McGurk—are all gone .
So what ’ s at stake now ?
In the wake of this week ’ s firings , there has been much talk about Trump trying to pull troops out of Syria rapidly—some members of Trump ’ s new Pentagon leadership team support such an action .
These officials may feel that it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be yanked out without much difficulty , in contrast to the larger deployments in other countries .
Secretary Miller has already announced drawdowns in Afghanistan and Iraq to 2,500 soldiers , but the full withdrawal Trump desires would be a time-consuming and complicated logistical muzzle .
Retreating from Syria , on the other hand , would be relatively straightforward .
Such a move would significantly damage U.S. interests .
A rushed withdrawal would imperil our Kurdish partners who have sacrificed so much to defeat ISIS and secure a chunk of territory for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier efforts to pullout of the country cost the Kurds hard-won gains .
Northeast Syria might again return to a state of chaos , allowing ISIS and other terrorist organizations to reemerge and , if they so desire , plot attacks on Americans here at home .
Vladimir Putin would relish such an event , which would grant Russia , Iran , and Hezbollah control over vast swaths of territory .
We would be hard pressed to find allies and partners willing to work with us in future conflicts , as the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Syria would remain long after President-elect Biden takes office .
These scenarios have never been less remote .
Trump has the legal authority to withdraw from Syria , Iraq , and Afghanistan without congressional approval .
He now has officials in place at the Pentagon who are of the same mindset .
Uniformed leaders won ’ t speak out the same way General Milley did in the wake of Lafayette Square , as foreign policy decisions like troop withdrawals sit more squarely with the president .
With no one else remaining to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans in Congress with the president ’ s ear to discourage what could be a series of disastrous choices .
Some of the same senators who have yet to criticize Trump ’ s refusal to acknowledge electoral defeat—Marco Rubio , Lindsey Graham , and Tom Cotton—have been strong on our need to uphold our obligations to key allies .
A hasty Syria withdrawal , coupled with Trump ’ s refusal to allow Biden ’ s team to begin hearing security briefings , increases the threat from ISIS .
And while the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump ’ s drawdown plan might be executed poorly .
The president now has Pentagon leaders in place who share his isolationist , “ America First ” goals .
Republican senators , to their credit , have criticized the rushed nature of the administration ’ s Afghanistan and Iraq drawdown plans .
Their influence may have prevented a rushed total withdrawal from those countries that would have resembled America ’ s embarrassing escape from Saigon in 1975 .
It ’ s possible—even likely—that those same senators are pushing the administration behind closed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Syria .
Now is the time for them to use whatever influence they ’ ve accumulated over four years to prevent further damage to America ’ s global standing over the next two months .

As the clock ticks down on the Trump presidency, the last adults are leaving the room. Amb. Jim Jeffrey, who led the war against ISIS for the last two years, revealed this week that he and others played “shell games” with President Trump’s administration to mislead it about the number of American troops in Syria. Jeffrey recently departed his post. Last week, Trump cleared out the Pentagon’s civilian leadership, replacing respected professionals with his own supporters who share his isolationist world view. The new senior adviser to the secretary of defense, for example, has argued that it was a mistake to go to war even against Nazi Germany. Not all of the new Pentagon leaders are Trump partisans—Christopher Miller, the new acting secretary of defense, is respected by all sides and seems committed to competently leading the organization. But many of these new officials pose a significant threat to U.S. national security. We may be about to find out what an unrestrained Trump foreign policy looks like.
So where is the danger in Trump’s last-minute Pentagon purge? Why fire the coach after the game is over?
Of course, much speculation has centered on the possible domestic abuses afoot. In the wake of the terrifying events at Lafayette Square earlier this summer, these fears are rational. Outgoing Secretary of Defense Mark Esper rejected Trump’s urging to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would have brought the active military onto America’s streets. But even without Esper at the helm, the military will not allow Trump to draw it into a domestic political squabble. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley publicly implied Thursday, there is no legal mechanism for a president to use the Pentagon to alter the election results or maintain his grip on power.
The more realistic risk isn’t aggression at home but hasty retreat abroad. With his supporters now in place at the Pentagon, Trump might aim to reshape our global presence during his last two months in office. He finally can establish a reckless “America First” foreign policy, and can do so without breaking any laws. With Esper and other Pentagon leadership out of the way, Trump could be on the verge of rushed withdrawals from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Many of these moves would be Trump’s parting gift to America’s adversaries.
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…
Syria illustrates that danger. Trump has tried to withdraw American forces from that county several times over the past few years, usually at the urging of foreign strongmen like Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Despite Trump’s best efforts to lose in Syria, the U.S. mission achieved success rarely found in the Middle East. American forces helped eliminate ISIS’s territorial holdings, contained Assad, and balanced America’s relationship with Turkish and Kurdish partners who are themselves bitter rivals.
Earlier this year, Russian forces endangered U.S. troops multiple times, charging at American convoys with armored vehicles. The American response was robust and effective, but quiet. The Pentagon poured hundreds of additional soldiers with dozens of armored Bradley Fighting Vehicles into the country, neutralizing the Russian threat.
The effort was so quiet that Trump may not have noticed this himself—he was too busy campaigning and recovering from the coronavirus. But the officials protecting the U.S. mission in Syria from Trump’s wrath—Esper, Jeffrey, and their respective predecessors, Mattis and Amb. Brett McGurk—are all gone.
So what’s at stake now? In the wake of this week’s firings, there has been much talk about Trump trying to pull troops out of Syria rapidly—some members of Trump’s new Pentagon leadership team support such an action. These officials may feel that it’s a small enough deployment that troops could be yanked out without much difficulty, in contrast to the larger deployments in other countries. Secretary Miller has already announced drawdowns in Afghanistan and Iraq to 2,500 soldiers, but the full withdrawal Trump desires would be a time-consuming and complicated logistical muzzle. Retreating from Syria, on the other hand, would be relatively straightforward.
Such a move would significantly damage U.S. interests. A rushed withdrawal would imperil our Kurdish partners who have sacrificed so much to defeat ISIS and secure a chunk of territory for themselves, just as Trump’s earlier efforts to pullout of the country cost the Kurds hard-won gains. Northeast Syria might again return to a state of chaos, allowing ISIS and other terrorist organizations to reemerge and, if they so desire, plot attacks on Americans here at home. Vladimir Putin would relish such an event, which would grant Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah control over vast swaths of territory. We would be hard pressed to find allies and partners willing to work with us in future conflicts, as the world’s memory of a rushed abandonment of Syria would remain long after President-elect Biden takes office.
These scenarios have never been less remote. Trump has the legal authority to withdraw from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan without congressional approval. He now has officials in place at the Pentagon who are of the same mindset. Uniformed leaders won’t speak out the same way General Milley did in the wake of Lafayette Square, as foreign policy decisions like troop withdrawals sit more squarely with the president. With no one else remaining to stop Trump, the onus falls on Republicans in Congress with the president’s ear to discourage what could be a series of disastrous choices.
Some of the same senators who have yet to criticize Trump’s refusal to acknowledge electoral defeat—Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and Tom Cotton—have been strong on our need to uphold our obligations to key allies. A hasty Syria withdrawal, coupled with Trump’s refusal to allow Biden’s team to begin hearing security briefings, increases the threat from ISIS. And while the United States should draw down its presence in Afghanistan, Trump’s drawdown plan might be executed poorly.
The president now has Pentagon leaders in place who share his isolationist, “America First” goals. Republican senators, to their credit, have criticized the rushed nature of the administration’s Afghanistan and Iraq drawdown plans. Their influence may have prevented a rushed total withdrawal from those countries that would have resembled America’s embarrassing escape from Saigon in 1975. It’s possible—even likely—that those same senators are pushing the administration behind closed doors to avoid a similar error in Syria. Now is the time for them to use whatever influence they’ve accumulated over four years to prevent further damage to America’s global standing over the next two months.


thebulwark--2020-11-20--How to Wage an Ideological Conflict with China

Both the Trump and Biden presidential campaigns vied to outdo the other in being “ tough on China.
” The Trump administration declassified an intelligence assessment that the Chinese Communist Party favored Biden over Trump , and Biden responded with harsh words for both President Trump and Chairman Xi .
While the House and the Senate are slated to be sharply divided in the next Congress , there is broad consensus on the need to confront China .
But consensus can be hazardous for strategy , and policymakers should be wary so that the rush to confront China doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests .
The key question for any strategy to compete with China is : With our economy closely tied to an authoritarian power , our channels of communication infiltrated by surveillance technology and weaponized information , and the legitimacy of our liberal institutions questioned from within and without , how can the United States avoid an outright military conflict and remain a free and open society ?
Any strategy to confront China by mimicking its illiberal tendencies would be self-defeating .
President Truman grasped a similar dilemma at the beginning of America ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a statement to Congress , Truman warned that failing to contain the Soviet Union would lead to the emergence of a “ garrison state , ” forcing the United States to “ impose upon ourselves a system of centralized regimentation unlike anything we have ever known.
” If the U.S. failed to build a network of allies to prevent the spread of communism , communism would gain strength and make the word unsafe for American democracy .
Truman ’ s successor , Eisenhower , though of a different political party , expanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Farewell Address , Eisenhower cautioned the American people about doing too much in response to the Soviet threat : “ Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry ” can be responsible for ensuring that “ security and liberty may prosper together.
” Both presidents understood that the competition with the Soviet Union was not only military and economic , but also ideological and political .
Sacrificing America ’ s democratic character would be unacceptable .
The words of the first two Cold War presidents are especially salient for our present moment as the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideological , and political competition with China .
How much this emerging confrontation resembles the Cold War remains an academic debate , but a recent survey indicates that the American public views China as a significant threat to the United States .
While the great China debate rages on , Congress and the administration have begun to assemble a China strategy piece-by-piece .
Congress has passed resolutions to investigate and sanction human rights violators in Hong Kong and Xinjiang .
The president has issued executive orders to respond to legitimate national security threats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overdue , both the next Congress and the next administration must learn from President George W. Bush ’ s laudable “ Islam is Peace ” speech at the Islamic Center of Washington , D.C. , just 6 days after the 9/11 attacks : The first task in an ideological struggle is to defend against illiberal tendencies at home .
So far , America ’ s elected leaders have ignored this lesson .
One critical example includes the worry that Chinese students studying in the United States pose an espionage risk .
Sen. Tom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be banned from studying certain subjects at American universities .
While Chinese intelligence has used Chinese-national students and scholars at American universities as assets , such a draconian measure would undermine American universities ’ long-standing international reputation for being havens of opportunity , pluralism , and free exchange .
Such rhetoric also perpetuates a pernicious pattern of categorizing entire groups of Americans as threats to national security .
While this tendency dates back at least as far as the Alien and Sedition Acts signed into law by President John Adams , the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans , including many American citizens , during World War II .
President Trump ’ s insistence on referring to COVID-19 as the “ China virus ” rekindled a similar hostility against Chinese Americans that dates back to the discriminatory Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 .
Today ’ s Chinese Americans face a dual threat of bigotry at home and tyranny from abroad .
In addition to xenophobic attitudes encouraged by the White House , the coercion of the Chinese Communist Party aided by the long reach of digital technology and a robust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United Front Work Department—also threatens Chinese immigrants to America and their families .
The Chinese state has sanctioned American citizens and extortedChinese expats by threatening their relatives still in China .
Any measure aiming to halt China ’ s extraterritorial intimidation tactics must pay special attention to the freedoms and well-being of Chinese Americans so as not to duplicate the oppression they face .
Ensuring that Chinese-Americans continue to be an advantage for the United States , instead of perceived enemies , is an urgent task for the Biden administration .
But leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 21st century requires much more .
The Biden administration will not only inherit a polarized country but also an ideologically polarized world .
President-elect Biden recognized this in his essay in Foreign Affairs outlining his desire to restore American global leadership .
Yet judging by the campaigns of his former rivals for the Democratic nomination , the rest of the party seems inclined toward retrenchment and more focused on domestic issues .
A Biden administration needs to unify both desires : restore confidence in American democracy at home and rebuild American credibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the same .
After responding to the coronavirus , the first thing Biden and his allies in Congress should have on their agenda should be a list of reforms designed to reinvigorate American democratic government—not only for the health of the country , but as an example to other nations of the inherent flexibility and self-healing nature of democracy .
The first measure President Biden should pursue is a Presidential Accountability Act .
Many voluntary measures such as releasing tax returns , divesting from personal investments , and selecting family members for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump .
These soft norms should be codified as statute by Congress .
Next , Biden should work with Congress to revitalize Congressional oversight .
Public transparency is necessary ( but not sufficient ) to slow the avalanche of conspiracy theories rolling over American politics .
Moreover , more muscular oversight ought to be only the start in a larger effort to reverse the trend of expanding executive power at the expense of the legislative branch .
America has come close enough to Orbán-style authoritarianism to know now how to avoid it , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our allies with less consolidated democracies , we should demonstrate how to prevent the consolidation of power in a populist-nationalist executive .
Biden will also inherit a country still grappling with race and racism .
Yet again , Truman provides an example of how a Biden administration can influence American politics at home to preserve what the president-elect has called the “ power of [ America ’ s ] example ” abroad .
Truman ’ s Justice Department filed an amicus curiae brief before the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grist for the Communist propaganda mills , and it raises doubts even among friendly nations as to the intensity of our devotion to the democratic faith… [ School segregation ] jeopardizes the effective maintenance of our moral leadership of the free and democratic nations of the world.
” As the United States continues to recon with its past and present , the Biden administration should encourage other branches and levels of government to see every step against systemic racism as a victory against America ’ s adversaries .
The international community has rightly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China , yet the United States ’ s protestations are decried as hypocritical , coming from the country with the highest incarceration rate in the world .
America ’ s incarceration problem is not the result of overt ethnic and religious oppression , and it lacks many of the most horrifying elements of the slow-motion ethnic cleansing in Xinjiang , but it remains a fundamental problem that is inconsistent with many of the same liberal ideas we stand for internationally .
Because most prisoners in America are in state prisons , not federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how much direct influence the Biden administration can have on this problem .
But just as the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act Biden championed helped create the mass-incarceration problem , the Biden administration can wield federal influence to help alleviate it .
Human rights policy and democracy promotion are too often derided as trivial distractions within certain foreign policy circles .
The Biden administration would be wise to align its mandate to reform liberal institutions at home with broader foreign policy goals necessary to succeed in a global ideological confrontation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authoritarian powers .
Before we are able to be a shining light for the world , we need to reignite the flame of democracy here at home .

Both the Trump and Biden presidential campaigns vied to outdo the other in being “tough on China.” The Trump administration declassified an intelligence assessment that the Chinese Communist Party favored Biden over Trump, and Biden responded with harsh words for both President Trump and Chairman Xi. While the House and the Senate are slated to be sharply divided in the next Congress, there is broad consensus on the need to confront China. But consensus can be hazardous for strategy, and policymakers should be wary so that the rush to confront China doesn’t sacrifice America’s values and interests.
The key question for any strategy to compete with China is: With our economy closely tied to an authoritarian power, our channels of communication infiltrated by surveillance technology and weaponized information, and the legitimacy of our liberal institutions questioned from within and without, how can the United States avoid an outright military conflict and remain a free and open society? Any strategy to confront China by mimicking its illiberal tendencies would be self-defeating.
President Truman grasped a similar dilemma at the beginning of America’s confrontation with the Soviet Union. In a statement to Congress, Truman warned that failing to contain the Soviet Union would lead to the emergence of a “garrison state,” forcing the United States to “impose upon ourselves a system of centralized regimentation unlike anything we have ever known.” If the U.S. failed to build a network of allies to prevent the spread of communism, communism would gain strength and make the word unsafe for American democracy.
Truman’s successor, Eisenhower, though of a different political party, expanded on this warning. In his 1961 Farewell Address, Eisenhower cautioned the American people about doing too much in response to the Soviet threat: “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry” can be responsible for ensuring that “security and liberty may prosper together.” Both presidents understood that the competition with the Soviet Union was not only military and economic, but also ideological and political. Sacrificing America’s democratic character would be unacceptable.
The words of the first two Cold War presidents are especially salient for our present moment as the U.S. confronts a new military, economic, ideological, and political competition with China. How much this emerging confrontation resembles the Cold War remains an academic debate, but a recent survey indicates that the American public views China as a significant threat to the United States.
While the great China debate rages on, Congress and the administration have begun to assemble a China strategy piece-by-piece. Congress has passed resolutions to investigate and sanction human rights violators in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. The president has issued executive orders to respond to legitimate national security threats posed by Chinese technological acquisitions. While overdue, both the next Congress and the next administration must learn from President George W. Bush’s laudable “Islam is Peace” speech at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., just 6 days after the 9/11 attacks: The first task in an ideological struggle is to defend against illiberal tendencies at home. So far, America’s elected leaders have ignored this lesson.
One critical example includes the worry that Chinese students studying in the United States pose an espionage risk. Sen. Tom Cotton even suggested that Chinese students should be banned from studying certain subjects at American universities. While Chinese intelligence has used Chinese-national students and scholars at American universities as assets, such a draconian measure would undermine American universities’ long-standing international reputation for being havens of opportunity, pluralism, and free exchange.
Such rhetoric also perpetuates a pernicious pattern of categorizing entire groups of Americans as threats to national security. While this tendency dates back at least as far as the Alien and Sedition Acts signed into law by President John Adams, the most egregious example is the internment of Japanese Americans, including many American citizens, during World War II. President Trump’s insistence on referring to COVID-19 as the “China virus” rekindled a similar hostility against Chinese Americans that dates back to the discriminatory Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
Today’s Chinese Americans face a dual threat of bigotry at home and tyranny from abroad. In addition to xenophobic attitudes encouraged by the White House, the coercion of the Chinese Communist Party aided by the long reach of digital technology and a robust network of informal agents—referred to as the United Front Work Department—also threatens Chinese immigrants to America and their families. The Chinese state has sanctioned American citizens and extortedChinese expats by threatening their relatives still in China. Any measure aiming to halt China’s extraterritorial intimidation tactics must pay special attention to the freedoms and well-being of Chinese Americans so as not to duplicate the oppression they face.
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…
Ensuring that Chinese-Americans continue to be an advantage for the United States, instead of perceived enemies, is an urgent task for the Biden administration. But leading America into the competition that could define the 21st century requires much more.
The Biden administration will not only inherit a polarized country but also an ideologically polarized world. President-elect Biden recognized this in his essay in Foreign Affairs outlining his desire to restore American global leadership. Yet judging by the campaigns of his former rivals for the Democratic nomination, the rest of the party seems inclined toward retrenchment and more focused on domestic issues.
A Biden administration needs to unify both desires: restore confidence in American democracy at home and rebuild American credibility abroad. The two can be one in the same. After responding to the coronavirus, the first thing Biden and his allies in Congress should have on their agenda should be a list of reforms designed to reinvigorate American democratic government—not only for the health of the country, but as an example to other nations of the inherent flexibility and self-healing nature of democracy.
The first measure President Biden should pursue is a Presidential Accountability Act. Many voluntary measures such as releasing tax returns, divesting from personal investments, and selecting family members for government roles were taken for granted before Trump. These soft norms should be codified as statute by Congress.
Next, Biden should work with Congress to revitalize Congressional oversight. Public transparency is necessary (but not sufficient) to slow the avalanche of conspiracy theories rolling over American politics. Moreover, more muscular oversight ought to be only the start in a larger effort to reverse the trend of expanding executive power at the expense of the legislative branch. America has come close enough to Orbán-style authoritarianism to know now how to avoid it, and for our own sake and that of our allies with less consolidated democracies, we should demonstrate how to prevent the consolidation of power in a populist-nationalist executive.
Biden will also inherit a country still grappling with race and racism. Yet again, Truman provides an example of how a Biden administration can influence American politics at home to preserve what the president-elect has called the “power of [America’s] example” abroad. Truman’s Justice Department filed an amicus curiae brief before the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, noting “Racial discrimination furnishes grist for the Communist propaganda mills, and it raises doubts even among friendly nations as to the intensity of our devotion to the democratic faith… [School segregation] jeopardizes the effective maintenance of our moral leadership of the free and democratic nations of the world.” As the United States continues to reckon with its past and present, the Biden administration should encourage other branches and levels of government to see every step against systemic racism as a victory against America’s adversaries.
The international community has rightly decried the detention of Uighur Muslims in China, yet the United States’s protestations are decried as hypocritical, coming from the country with the highest incarceration rate in the world. America’s incarceration problem is not the result of overt ethnic and religious oppression, and it lacks many of the most horrifying elements of the slow-motion ethnic cleansing in Xinjiang, but it remains a fundamental problem that is inconsistent with many of the same liberal ideas we stand for internationally. Because most prisoners in America are in state prisons, not federal ones, there is a limit to how much direct influence the Biden administration can have on this problem. But just as the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act Biden championed helped create the mass-incarceration problem, the Biden administration can wield federal influence to help alleviate it.
Human rights policy and democracy promotion are too often derided as trivial distractions within certain foreign policy circles. The Biden administration would be wise to align its mandate to reform liberal institutions at home with broader foreign policy goals necessary to succeed in a global ideological confrontation with China, Russia, and other authoritarian powers. Before we are able to be a shining light for the world, we need to reignite the flame of democracy here at home.


thebulwark--2020-11-19--Taking Giuliani’s Insane, Un-American Press Conference Seriously

My desire to check out from the Trump administration ’ s madness following his decisive electoral defeat was so deep that it emanated from the stem cells in my bone marrow .
I did not want to be made to care about My Cousin Rudy ’ s ham-fisted efforts to contaminate our election from outside a landscaping business .
I chose not to click when the first tweets about its inanities began to roll in .
But we do not have the option to look away .
The press conference held today on behalf of the president of the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struck right at the heart of the most fundamental building block of our democracy , ensuring free and fair elections .
Over the course of an hour-plus-long Infowars session , President Trump ’ s attorneys spouted a series of debunked claims and deranged accusations purporting to prove that our nation ’ s elections are fraudulent replicas of those rigged by tin-pot caudillos .
The trio of Trump lawyers at the lectern—Rudy Giuliani , Sidney Powell , and Jenna Ellis—claimed that our voting systems were created by the deceased Hugo Chavez for the purpose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s team has enough evidence to “ overturn ” —their word—the election .
That Democrats were following in the footsteps of “ corrupt rulers ” in other countries “ willing to pay the highest price ” for voting systems rigged in their favor .
That the only reason this was uncovered was because our Great Leader ’ s victory was so overwhelming that it broke the systems .
That the Biden campaign supplemented the voting-system hack with mail-ballot fraud on a massive scale .
That George Soros , the Clinton Foundation , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Venezuela were all tied into the fraud , too .
The most truthful statement made during the press conference came from Powell , who offered this unintentionally accurate assessment of their undertaking : “ This is stunning .
Heartbreaking .
Infuriating .
And the most unpatriotic acts I can even imagine for people in this country to have participated in in any way shape or form.
” Indeed it was .
The press conference began with Giuliani presenting as a “ tumefied alcoholic from an Edvard Munch painting ” replete with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his cheek and wiping his brow with the vigor of a drag queen removing make-up between sets .
His visage went from subtext to center-stage when the audio of the Trump livestream was interrupted by a pair of Beavis and Butthead-sounding tech managers saying : “ Can they hear us on the stream .
.
.
.
I guess not .
.
.
.
See fuckin ’ Rudy ’ s hair dye dripping down his face ?
” And while the absurdity of it all gave the scene less authority , it also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and government officials from making wildly false and unprovable claims .
Here is Sidney Powell explaining the voting-system fraud , sounding like a character from the ’ 90s classic The Net : The software itself was created with so many variables , and so many backdoors that can be hooked up to the internet or a thumb drive stuck in it or whatever , but one of its characteristic features is its ability to flip votes .
It can set and run an algorithm that probably ran all over the country to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump and flip them to President [ Ed .
note : Great flub . ]
Biden .
Which we might never have uncovered had the votes for President Trump not been so overwhelming in so many of these states that it broke the algorithm that had been plugged into the system and that ’ s what caused them to have to shut down .
She goes on : How can one even begin to diagram this conspiracy ?
Here is the best I can come up with : • The Democrats paid the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes from Trump to Biden ( but didn ’ t do the same for down-ballot Democrats ) .
• Like the gang from Office Space , they put the decimal point in the wrong place and so the number of votes changed were not enough to overwhelm Trump ’ s landslide victory .
• But luckily they had a back-up fraud plan in case their payment to the voting system company didn ’ t pan out .
• Thousands of fraudulent mail ballots were sent in—as shown by the fact that some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And others were crammed in very messily .
• This is further proven by the self-evident truth that obviously liberals cheat and something something Hugo Chavez .
This is obviously nuts .
It doesn ’ t require Snopes or a team of investigative researchers to debunk it .
But that is its power .
Unconstrained by having to present any evidence at all , the Apple Giuliani Gang concocts a conspiracy that sounds manifestly true to voters who have been trained to believe that the left is evil incarnate , but sounds so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials can avoid engaging on the merits while they accuse The Media of being mean to them for asking about it and mock liberals for panicking over this subversion of our democracy .
And so the conspiracy theory exists in an uncanny valley : It ’ s advanced by the president of the United States and believed by untold millions of his followers but at the same time it ’ s so ludicrous that it ’ s impossible to put into context for audiences who do not exist in the Trump Alternative Universe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ utterly ridiculous .
And it will persist in perpetuity if it is not decisively disproved and Republican leaders are not forced to reckon with it and crush it .
Otherwise the Trump team will get away with convincing millions upon millions of people that our democracy is no different than China ’ s or Venezuela ’ s .
That President Trump had the election stolen from him by a shadowy cabal of Soros-funded Antifa and the ghost of Hugo Chavez .
They will get away with co-opting an entire political party for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they aren ’ t stopped , the next time there ’ s an election close enough to take by schnook or by crook , Republican voters will demand that they do it .
This is not the time to look away .

My desire to check out from the Trump administration’s madness following his decisive electoral defeat was so deep that it emanated from the stem cells in my bone marrow.
I did not want to be made to care about My Cousin Rudy’s ham-fisted efforts to contaminate our election from outside a landscaping business. I chose not to click when the first tweets about its inanities began to roll in.
But we do not have the option to look away.
The press conference held today on behalf of the president of the United States was unconscionable and un-American. It struck right at the heart of the most fundamental building block of our democracy, ensuring free and fair elections.
Over the course of an hour-plus-long Infowars session, President Trump’s attorneys spouted a series of debunked claims and deranged accusations purporting to prove that our nation’s elections are fraudulent replicas of those rigged by tin-pot caudillos.
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 trio of Trump lawyers at the lectern—Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis—claimed that our voting systems were created by the deceased Hugo Chavez for the purpose of election theft. That Trump’s team has enough evidence to “overturn”—their word—the election. That Democrats were following in the footsteps of “corrupt rulers” in other countries “willing to pay the highest price” for voting systems rigged in their favor. That the only reason this was uncovered was because our Great Leader’s victory was so overwhelming that it broke the systems. That the Biden campaign supplemented the voting-system hack with mail-ballot fraud on a massive scale. That George Soros, the Clinton Foundation, and “communistic” countries China, Cuba, and Venezuela were all tied into the fraud, too.
The most truthful statement made during the press conference came from Powell, who offered this unintentionally accurate assessment of their undertaking: “This is stunning. Heartbreaking. Infuriating. And the most unpatriotic acts I can even imagine for people in this country to have participated in in any way shape or form.”
Indeed it was.
The press conference began with Giuliani presenting as a “tumefied alcoholic from an Edvard Munch painting” replete with a black hair dye brook babbling down his cheek and wiping his brow with the vigor of a drag queen removing make-up between sets. His visage went from subtext to center-stage when the audio of the Trump livestream was interrupted by a pair of Beavis and Butthead-sounding tech managers saying: “Can they hear us on the stream. . . . I guess not. . . . See fuckin’ Rudy’s hair dye dripping down his face?”
And while the absurdity of it all gave the scene less authority, it also removed the natural constraints that prevent lawyers and government officials from making wildly false and unprovable claims.
Here is Sidney Powell explaining the voting-system fraud, sounding like a character from the ’90s classic The Net:
The software itself was created with so many variables, and so many backdoors that can be hooked up to the internet or a thumb drive stuck in it or whatever, but one of its characteristic features is its ability to flip votes. It can set and run an algorithm that probably ran all over the country to take a certain percentage of votes from President Trump and flip them to President [Ed. note: Great flub.] Biden. Which we might never have uncovered had the votes for President Trump not been so overwhelming in so many of these states that it broke the algorithm that had been plugged into the system and that’s what caused them to have to shut down.
She goes on:
That’s when they came in the backdoor with all the mail-in ballots, many of which they had actually fabricated. Some were on pristine paper with identically matching perfect circle dots. . . . Others were shoved in in batches.
How can one even begin to diagram this conspiracy? Here is the best I can come up with:
The Democrats paid the voting-system company to flip X percent of votes from Trump to Biden (but didn’t do the same for down-ballot Democrats).
Like the gang from Office Space, they put the decimal point in the wrong place and so the number of votes changed were not enough to overwhelm Trump’s landslide victory.
But luckily they had a back-up fraud plan in case their payment to the voting system company didn’t pan out.
Thousands of fraudulent mail ballots were sent in—as shown by the fact that some of them were very neatly filled out. And others were crammed in very messily.
This is further proven by the self-evident truth that obviously liberals cheat and something something Hugo Chavez.
This is obviously nuts. It doesn’t require Snopes or a team of investigative researchers to debunk it. But that is its power.
Unconstrained by having to present any evidence at all, the Apple Giuliani Gang concocts a conspiracy that sounds manifestly true to voters who have been trained to believe that the left is evil incarnate, but sounds so preposterous to everyone else that Republican elected officials can avoid engaging on the merits while they accuse The Media of being mean to them for asking about it and mock liberals for panicking over this subversion of our democracy.
And so the conspiracy theory exists in an uncanny valley: It’s advanced by the president of the United States and believed by untold millions of his followers but at the same time it’s so ludicrous that it’s impossible to put into context for audiences who do not exist in the Trump Alternative Universe. It is both deadly serious and utterly ridiculous. And it will persist in perpetuity if it is not decisively disproved and Republican leaders are not forced to reckon with it and crush it.
Otherwise the Trump team will get away with convincing millions upon millions of people that our democracy is no different than China’s or Venezuela’s. That President Trump had the election stolen from him by a shadowy cabal of Soros-funded Antifa and the ghost of Hugo Chavez.
They will get away with co-opting an entire political party for the advancement of this undemocratic charade.
And if they aren’t stopped, the next time there’s an election close enough to take by schnook or by crook, Republican voters will demand that they do it.
This is not the time to look away.