thebulwark--2020-07-21--Mike Pompeo Has Given Up Being Secretary of State

Last week was a bad one for the cause of human rights .
On Thursday , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ’ s Commission on Unalienable Rights unveiled its long-anticipated report in Philadelphia , ahead of which Pompeo delivered a speech more fitting for a Trumpian candidate for president in 2024 than a person serving in the apolitical position of secretary of state .
Pompeo also published an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he devoted far more space to slamming his fellow Americans for “ outrageous efforts to erase American history by tearing down statues of our nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the worst human rights abusers around the world .
In calling for a return to our founding principles , Pompeo ’ s Philadelphia speech acknowledged almost in passing that “ at our nation ’ s founding our country fell far short of securing the rights of all .
The evil institution of slavery was our nation ’ s gravest departure from these founding principles .
We expelled Native Americans from their ancestral lands.
” This was one step in the right direction .
The United States is a stronger advocate for human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our own shortcomings and invite other nations and peoples to join us striving to improve .
To that end , Pompeo should also have mentioned that women were denied the right to vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920 , or that two-tiered citizenship in the Jim Crow South ended a full century after emancipation .
Yet even with his limited concession , Pompeo did not effectively champion human rights .
Very little of his speech was devoted to the challenges to human rights from regimes in Beijing , Moscow , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more focused on “ internal ” threats .
Yet , had he been truthful , he would have acknowledged that the president he works for – through his corruption , abuse of power , and divisiveness – poses the greatest internal threat to our democracy and human rights .
He would have rejected Trump ’ s dangerous disparagement of the media as the “ enemy of the people.
” He would have acknowledged his own mistaken attack against NPR ’ s Mary Louise Kelly for asking him about his lack of support for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Marie Yovanovitch .
Instead , Pompeo used his speech and op-ed to attack various media outlets , including the New York Times .
His boss must have been proud .
Had he been more honest , Pompeo would have reaffirmed the concept of accountability and recognized that the United States has three separate , co-equal branches of government and that it had been wrong of him to defy Congressional subpoenas for documents during the impeachment proceedings .
He would have admitted that his boss ’ s embrace of some of the worst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more damage to the cause of human rights than the tearing down of some statues .
Recall that Trump “ fell in love ” with North Korea ’ s Kim Jung Un , called Egypt ’ s Mohamed El-Sisi his “ favorite dictator , ” says nary a word about Russian President Vladimir Putin ’ s appalling human rights record , and blessed Chinese President Xi ’ s concentration camps for Uyghurs .
Had Pompeo wished to grapple seriously with internal threats to human rights , he could have devoted a modicum of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of separating immigrant families at the border , his abuse of police in quelling peaceful protests in Lafayette Square , and his defiance of Congress .
Instead , Pompeo bemoaned the “ proliferation of rights ” and prioritized religious freedom and property rights over everything else .
Accordingly , he had Cardinal Timothy Dolan from New York open the proceedings , which , by the way , flew in the face of that city ’ s efforts to control the pandemic .
But like his boss , Pompeo showed that he didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pompeo ’ s commission opens its report arguing that the “ credibility of U.S. advocacy for human rights abroad depends on the nation ’ s vigilance in assuring that all its own citizens enjoy fundamental human rights.
” And yet it goes on to downgrade the rights of women and the LGBTQ community , dismissing them as “ divisive social and political controversies in the United States ” and suggesting that they are , in fact , not “ unalienable rights.
” “ There is good reason to worry that the prodigious expansion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strengthened the claims of human rights and left the most disadvantaged more vulnerable , ” the commission argues .
“ More rights do not always yield more justice .
Transforming every worthy political preference into a claim of human rights inevitably dilutes the authority of human rights.
” As if legalizing same-sex marriage somehow compounded the plight of political prisoners rotting in Iranian , Egyptian , Chinese , or North Korean jails .
In his speech , Pompeo asserted , “ Americans have not only unalienable rights , but also positive rights , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multilateral bodies .
Many are worth defending in light of our founding ; others aren ’ t. ” Which rights are not worth defending ?
Neither the commission nor Pompeo is explicit , but one can infer that they mean women ’ s rights and LGBTQ rights .
Both Pompeo and his hand-picked commission offer a way out for regimes around the world that suppress the rights of their people .
“ The U.S. promotion of rights should always respect ordinary democratic politics and the legitimate exercise of national sovereignty , and should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seek to bypass democratic institutions and processes , ” the commission argues .
What happens when “ democratic politics ” don ’ t exist in countries like China , Russia , or Saudi Arabia ?
Do we go silent , as this administration so often has ?
Pompeo appears to be under the impression that the secretary of state ’ s responsibility is not to promote American interests abroad , but rather to do battle in the culture war at home .
“ Instead of seeking to improve America , too many leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Pompeo decried in his speech .
This may be because the loudest voice among those spouting hatred is his boss .

Last week was a bad one for the cause of human rights. On Thursday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s Commission on Unalienable Rights unveiled its long-anticipated report in Philadelphia, ahead of which Pompeo delivered a speech more fitting for a Trumpian candidate for president in 2024 than a person serving in the apolitical position of secretary of state. Pompeo also published an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he devoted far more space to slamming his fellow Americans for “outrageous efforts to erase American history by tearing down statues of our nation’s founders” than he did to the worst human rights abusers around the world.
In calling for a return to our founding principles, Pompeo’s Philadelphia speech acknowledged almost in passing that “at our nation’s founding our country fell far short of securing the rights of all. The evil institution of slavery was our nation’s gravest departure from these founding principles. We expelled Native Americans from their ancestral lands.” This was one step in the right direction. The United States is a stronger advocate for human rights around the world when we acknowledge our own shortcomings and invite other nations and peoples to join us striving to improve. To that end, Pompeo should also have mentioned that women were denied the right to vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920, or that two-tiered citizenship in the Jim Crow South ended only a full century after emancipation.
Yet even with his limited concession, Pompeo did not effectively champion human rights. Very little of his speech was devoted to the challenges to human rights from regimes in Beijing, Moscow, Cairo, and elsewhere. He was more focused on “internal” threats.
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…
Yet, had he been truthful, he would have acknowledged that the president he works for—through his corruption, abuse of power, and divisiveness—poses the greatest internal threat to our democracy and human rights. He would have rejected Trump’s dangerous disparagement of the media as the “enemy of the people.” He would have acknowledged his own mistaken attack against NPR’s Mary Louise Kelly for asking him about his lack of support for the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.
Instead, Pompeo used his speech and op-ed to attack various media outlets, including the New York Times. His boss must have been proud.
Had he been more honest, Pompeo would have reaffirmed the concept of accountability and recognized that the United States has three separate, co-equal branches of government and that it had been wrong of him to defy Congressional subpoenas for documents during the impeachment proceedings.
He would have admitted that his boss’s embrace of some of the worst human rights abusers in the world does more damage to the cause of human rights than the tearing down of some statues. Recall that Trump “fell in love” with North Korea’s Kim Jung Un, called Egypt’s Mohamed El-Sisi his “favorite dictator,” says nary a word about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s appalling human rights record, and blessed Chinese President Xi’s concentration camps for Uyghurs.
Had Pompeo wished to grapple seriously with internal threats to human rights, he could have devoted a modicum of attention to Trump’s cruel policy of separating immigrant families at the border, his abuse of police in quelling peaceful protests in Lafayette Square, and his defiance of Congress.
Instead, Pompeo bemoaned the “proliferation of rights” and prioritized religious freedom and property rights over everything else. Accordingly, he had Cardinal Timothy Dolan from New York open the proceedings, which, by the way, flew in the face of that city’s efforts to control the pandemic. But like his boss, Pompeo showed that he didn’t care about any of that.
Pompeo’s commission opens its report arguing that the “credibility of U.S. advocacy for human rights abroad depends on the nation’s vigilance in assuring that all its own citizens enjoy fundamental human rights.” And yet it goes on to downgrade the rights of women and the LGBTQ community, dismissing them as “divisive social and political controversies in the United States” and suggesting that they are, in fact, not “unalienable rights.”
“There is good reason to worry that the prodigious expansion of human rights has weakened rather than strengthened the claims of human rights and left the most disadvantaged more vulnerable,” the commission argues. “More rights do not always yield more justice. Transforming every worthy political preference into a claim of human rights inevitably dilutes the authority of human rights.”
As if legalizing same-sex marriage somehow compounded the plight of political prisoners rotting in Iranian, Egyptian, Chinese, or North Korean jails.
In his speech, Pompeo asserted, “Americans have not only unalienable rights, but also positive rights, rights granted by governments, courts, multilateral bodies. Many are worth defending in light of our founding; others aren’t.” Which rights are not worth defending? Neither the commission nor Pompeo is explicit, but one can infer that they mean women’s rights and LGBTQ rights.
Both Pompeo and his hand-picked commission offer a way out for regimes around the world that suppress the rights of their people. “The U.S. promotion of rights should always respect ordinary democratic politics and the legitimate exercise of national sovereignty, and should be reluctant to push rights claims that seek to bypass democratic institutions and processes,” the commission argues. What happens when “democratic politics” don’t exist in countries like China, Russia, or Saudi Arabia? Do we go silent, as this administration so often has?
Pompeo appears to be under the impression that the secretary of state’s responsibility is not to promote American interests abroad, but rather to do battle in the culture war at home. “Instead of seeking to improve America, too many leading voices promulgate hatred of our founding principles,” Pompeo decried in his speech. This may be because the loudest voice among those spouting hatred is his boss.


Trump is Right

President Trump has a point .
It is a serious situation .
People are being injured .
The property damage runs into the millions .
Americans are frightened .
Things are out of control .
We can not have a country if people think they can run riot like this .
Local governments are not able to handle this on their own .
It demands a federal response .
If it requires the full mobilization of federal forces to deal with the crisis , that ’ s what we should do .
And there ’ s a psychological cost as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it takes a toll on the national spirit .
Trump thinks this applies to rioters and protesters in Portland and other cities “ run by very liberal Democrats… really by the radical left.
” He thinks the sacred things are confederate monuments .
In truth , it ’ s the coronavirus that demands a response—and when it comes to that , the president is AWOL .
Dave Carney , a Republican strategist who advises Texas Gov .
Greg Abbott , summed it up in words that will be chapter headings in history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President got bored with it.
” Trump is incapable of doing the basics of his job as president , and he is undone by a crisis that requires more than the basics .
Flailing and floundering in an emergency that requires sustained attention , comprehension , and teamwork , he is resorting to the magician ’ s trick of misdirection .
He is hoping he can get the nation to focus on the lesser problem of mayhem in Portland and other cities ( partially by escalating it ) to distract from the crushing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economy .
Yes , the economy .
The president claimed credit a thousand times for the strong economy that prevailed during the first three and a half years of his tenure , and perhaps some of that is deserved .
It ’ s possible that the corporate tax cuts stimulated growth , though there are many doubters , and many critics who note the immense price tag handed to our children in terms of increasing deficits .
Some believe the deregulation push may have boosted productivity .
But it ’ s also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just the continuation of the expansion that began in 2009 .
In fact , the average annual GDP growth rate in Trump ’ s first three years was 2.5 percent , which is just 0.2 percent higher than Obama ’ s average ( which included the last months of the Great Recession ) .
Stewardship of the economy requires more than signing a tax cut bill and discouraging over-regulation .
It requires peering out over the bow and spinning the wheel hard when you see an enormous iceberg .
Trump saw the iceberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : It was included in his security briefings for weeks .
His first officer was mumbling nervously about it .
But Trump refused to take action to save the ship .
He told the crew it wasn ’ t an iceberg , just an ice floe .
He said it would go away .
The two actions Trump constantly cites to prove that he took the virus seriously were two orders : One to restrict travel to and from China and one to restrict travel to and from Europe .
Those may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planning next steps .
But that ’ s all it did .
Obviously it didn ’ t prevent the virus from reaching our shores .
It couldn ’ t .
Covid19 has now been registered in 193 countries around the globe .
That ’ s why it ’ s called a pandemic .
The only places that have escaped infection thus far are remote islands like Samoa and Tonga and mountainous enclaves like Turkmenistan .
And it will reach those redoubts eventually .
“ I felt it was a pandemic long before it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claimed in one of his gaslighting “ task force ” briefings .
No , he said the opposite .
By denying the dire threat , Trump discouraged a systematic response from the departments and agencies tasked with public health .
When he did eventually turn his gaze toward the problem , he saw hospitals struggling to cope with shortages of masks , gloves , and testing materials , and tens of thousands of Americans dying , and he shrugged , saying governors should handle it .
“ We ’ re not a shipping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate of new infections is 60,000 , on the way to a predicted 100,000 .
The entire European Union , plus Britain—which together have about 200 million more people than the United States—have roughly 2,500 new daily cases .
President Trump is confused .
He thinks the reason we ’ re leading the world in cases and deaths is that we ’ re doing so much testing .
“ If we stop testing right now , we ’ d have very few cases , if any , ” Trump suggested in June .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ war , encouraging millions to believe that declining to show consideration for themselves and others was a mark of virility .
The CDC wasn ’ t perfect .
But when Dr. Robert Redfield , finally got around to recommending masks , saying “ If we could get everybody to wear a mask right now , I really do think over the next four , six , eight weeks , we could bring this epidemic under control , ” Trump contradicted him .
He said “ No .
I want people to have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t believe in that , no .
And I don ’ t agree with the statement that if everybody would wear a mask , everything disappears.
” A few days later , he tweeted that wearing a mask was “ patriotic , ” but too late to undo the damage already inflicted .
How many mask avoiders transmitted the virus to others ?
How many died after contracting COVID-19 ?
We ’ ll never know .
But a bunch of people in Portland are spraying graffiti on buildings , starting some fires , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to be clear , is wrong and should be punished ) , and the president is sending in the feds .
In force .
Not only that , but these border patrol officers , wearing fatigues without identifying insignia , are grabbing people off the street and hustling them away in unmarked vehicles .
Like in Venezuela .
The president threatens to do the same in Chicago , Detroit , Baltimore , New York , and Philadelphia .
Why ?
Because it ’ s a crisis .
It demands presidential action .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ let this happen to our country , ” the leader explained .

President Trump has a point. It is a serious situation. People are being injured. The property damage runs into the millions. Americans are frightened. Things are out of control. We cannot have a country if people think they can run riot like this. Local governments are not able to handle this on their own. It demands a federal response. If it requires the full mobilization of federal forces to deal with the crisis, that’s what we should do. And there’s a psychological cost as well. When sacred things are desecrated, it takes a toll on the national spirit.
Trump thinks this applies to rioters and protesters in Portland and other cities “run by very liberal Democrats . . . really by the radical left.” He thinks the sacred things are Confederate monuments. In truth, it’s the coronavirus that demands a response—and when it comes to that, the president is AWOL. Dave Carney, a Republican strategist who advises Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, summed it up in words that will be chapter headings in history textbooks of the future: “The President got bored with it.”
Trump is incapable of doing the basics of his job as president, and he is undone by a crisis that requires more than the basics. Flailing and floundering in an emergency that requires sustained attention, comprehension, and teamwork, he is resorting to the magician’s trick of misdirection. He is hoping he can get the nation to focus on the lesser problem of mayhem in Portland and other cities (partially by escalating it) to distract from the crushing, monumental screw-up of public health and the economy.
Yes, the economy. The president claimed credit a thousand times for the strong economy that prevailed during the first three and a half years of his tenure, and perhaps some of that is deserved. It’s possible that the corporate tax cuts stimulated growth, though there are many doubters, and many critics who note the immense price tag handed to our children in terms of increasing deficits. Some believe the deregulation push may have boosted productivity. But it’s also possible that Trump’s economy was just the continuation of the expansion that began in 2009. In fact, the average annual GDP growth rate in Trump’s first three years was 2.5 percent, which is just 0.2 percent higher than Obama’s average (which included the last months of the Great Recession).
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…
Stewardship of the economy requires more than signing a tax cut bill and discouraging over-regulation. It requires peering out over the bow and spinning the wheel hard when you see an enormous iceberg. Trump saw the iceberg. Or at least he should have: It was included in his security briefings for weeks. His first officer was mumbling nervously about it. But Trump refused to take action to save the ship. He told the crew it wasn’t an iceberg, just an ice floe. He said it would go away.
The two actions Trump constantly cites to prove that he took the virus seriously were two orders: One to restrict travel to and from China and one to restrict travel to and from Europe. Those may have bought a little time—if he had been planning next steps. But that’s all it did. Obviously it didn’t prevent the virus from reaching our shores. It couldn’t. COVID-19 has now been registered in 193 countries around the globe. That’s why it’s called a pandemic. The only places that have escaped infection thus far are remote islands like Samoa and Tonga and mountainous enclaves like Turkmenistan. And it will reach those redoubts eventually. “I’ve felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic,” Trump claimed in one of his gaslighting “task force” briefings. No, he said the opposite.
By denying the dire threat, Trump discouraged a systematic response from the departments and agencies tasked with public health. When he did eventually turn his gaze toward the problem, he saw hospitals struggling to cope with shortages of masks, gloves, and testing materials, and tens of thousands of Americans dying, and he shrugged, saying governors should handle it. “We’re not a shipping clerk.”
Now, the average daily rate of new infections is 60,000, on the way to a predicted 100,000. The entire European Union, plus Britain—which together have about 200 million more people than the United States—have roughly 2,500 new daily cases.
President Trump is confused. He thinks the reason we’re leading the world in cases and deaths is that we’re doing so much testing. “If we stop testing right now, we’d have very few cases, if any,” Trump suggested in June.
He made mask-wearing part of the culture war, encouraging millions to believe that declining to show consideration for themselves and others was a mark of virility. The CDC wasn’t perfect. But when Dr. Robert Redfield, finally got around to recommending masks, saying “If we could get everybody to wear a mask right now, I really do think over the next four, six, eight weeks, we could bring this epidemic under control,” Trump contradicted him. He said “No. I want people to have a certain freedom, and I don’t believe in that, no. And I don’t agree with the statement that if everybody would wear a mask, everything disappears.” A few days later, he tweeted that wearing a mask was “Patriotic,” but too late to undo the damage already inflicted. How many mask avoiders transmitted the virus to others? How many died after contracting COVID-19? We’ll never know.
But a bunch of people in Portland are spraying graffiti on buildings, starting some fires, and throwing feces at police (which, to be clear, is wrong and should be punished), and the president is sending in the feds. In force. Not only that, but these border patrol officers, wearing fatigues without identifying insignia, are grabbing people off the street and hustling them away in unmarked vehicles. Like in Venezuela.
The president threatens to do the same in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, New York, and Philadelphia. Why? Because it’s a crisis. It demands presidential action. “We’re not going to let this happen to our country,” the leader explained.


Income Injustice

When Democrats rail against income inequality , that doesn ’ t mean they believe all incomes should be equal , in spite of what Trump and some Republicans want you to think .
No Democrat—not Nancy Pelosi , not AOC , not any of them—believes that .
What they are talking about is income injustice .
• Wage growth for workers at the bottom of the income ladder growing 1 percent in the last 40 years , while income for the top earners rose by 347 percent .
• The 40 percent of Americans today who could not handle a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans who experience food insecurity daily—which amounts to 49 million of our fellow citizens , including over 16 million kids .
All while Trump and his Senate enablers give a $ 1 trillion to the richest Americans in a tax cut ; while Trump bails out a private jet company owned by one of his donors to the tune of $ 27 million ; while the deficit reaches the highest percent of GDP since World War II ; while Trump charges the American people hundreds of thousands of dollars to hold events at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represents a free market .
None of this has anything to do with the American values of innovation , hard work , and competition .
It is simply a transfer of wealth : from the poor and middle-class to the rich .
And the transfer happened not because the rich worked harder or created more value , but because they had more money to give to lobbyists and politicians .
Every time a corporation gets bailed out with American tax dollars and uses it for stock buybacks or corporate bonuses , we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and capitalism continue its slide into oligarchy .
The American Dream is about opportunity .
It ’ s about making a fair wage that pays for food and medicine for your family , or having fair access to loans to create your own small business or sustain your family ’ s farm .
The American Dream is a baseline of opportunity for all of us to have a shot to work hard and create a life for themselves and their families—which turns us into taxpayers and consumers , who in turn contribute to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capitalism .
It ’ s time to admit that the past 40 years has seen the system increasingly rigged and corrupted under both Republican and Democratic leadership .
We can all agree on that , whether you ’ re a libertarian , a Bernie Bro , or a proud worker hoping to MAGA—whether you ’ re part of the white working class or a person of color struggling to get fair access to a loan or basic healthcare , whether you ’ re a suburban liberal or a country-club Republican .
But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noise designed to distract and confuse you .
There are no socialists in the 2020 election .
Only people who want a fair version of capitalism , and oligarchs .

When Democrats rail against income inequality, that doesn’t mean they believe all incomes should be equal, in spite of what Trump and some Republicans want you to think. No Democrat—not Nancy Pelosi, not AOC, not any of them—believes that. What they are talking about is income injustice.
They’re talking about:
Wage growth for workers at the bottom of the income ladder growing 1 percent in the last 40 years, while income for the top earners rose by 347 percent.
The 40 percent of Americans today who could not handle a $400 emergency.
The 1-in-6 Americans who experience food insecurity daily—which amounts to 49 million of our fellow citizens, including over 16 million kids.
All while Trump and his Senate enablers give a $ 1 trillion to the richest Americans in a tax cut; while Trump bails out a private jet company owned by one of his donors to the tune of $27 million; while the deficit reaches the highest percent of GDP since World War II; while Trump charges the American people hundreds of thousands of dollars to hold events at his private properties.
None of this represents a free market. None of this has anything to do with the American values of innovation, hard work, and competition. It is simply a transfer of wealth: from the poor and middle-class to the rich. And the transfer happened not because the rich worked harder or created more value, but because they had more money to give to lobbyists and politicians.
Every time a corporation gets bailed out with American tax dollars and uses it for stock buybacks or corporate bonuses, we are watching the market become less free, and capitalism continue its slide into oligarchy.
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 American Dream is about opportunity. It’s about making a fair wage that pays for food and medicine for your family, or having fair access to loans to create your own small business or sustain your family’s farm. The American Dream is a baseline of opportunity for all of us to have a shot to work hard and create a life for themselves and their families—which turns us into taxpayers and consumers, who in turn contribute to and benefit from our wonderful system of capitalism.
It’s time to admit that the past 40 years has seen the system increasingly rigged and corrupted under both Republican and Democratic leadership. We can all agree on that, whether you’re a libertarian, a Bernie Bro, or a proud worker hoping to MAGA—whether you’re part of the white working class or a person of color struggling to get fair access to a loan or basic healthcare, whether you’re a suburban liberal or a country-club Republican.
But it’s time to cut through the noise designed to distract and confuse you. There are no socialists in the 2020 election. Only people who want a fair version of capitalism, and oligarchs.


thebulwark--2020-07-22--Data, Principles, and Dodges

Data, Principles, and Dodges

In the debates over how to respond to two separate but similar crises—how to make policing less deadly and how to make COVID-19 less deadly—conservatives risk irrelevance by relying on questionable data and blind allegiance to principles .
They would do better to tackle each of the problems on its own terms .
In the case of policing , the argument from data goes something like this : The chances of a nonviolent person dying at the hands of police are so small— “ you ’ re more likely to die in a car crash , ” e.g.—that the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While the death of any nonviolent citizen at the hands of law enforcement is unfortunate , this argument goes , its likelihood is so minute as to be unworthy of mass protests or political action .
But this argument assumes that people are fundamentally rational and that statistical analysis ought to dominate political decision-making .
Conservatives should know better : People are not rational , and they will seek solutions to their problems .
Besides , the civil unrest protesting police violence isn ’ t arising simply from a concern about death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the terror in the hearts and minds of the African-American community , a terror rooted in a history of police abuse , state-sanctioned discrimination , and horrendous injustice dating to the end of the Civil War .
As a middle-aged white guy whose few interactions with the police have been friendly and helpful , it ’ s hard to put myself into the shoes of a man who has been stopped for “ driving while black.
” But it shouldn ’ t be hard for anyone to understand fear of arbitrary death at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative pundits harp on data , as in this piece by John Lott , Jr. in the Federalist , this piece by Heather Mac Donald , or even in Mac Donald ’ s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee , they reduce the existential fears of black Americans—undergirded by decades of very real political malfeasance—down to something easy to manage and quantify .
While such pieces helpfully lay out the problems posed by defunding the police , as well as the fears of black Americans who live in violent neighborhoods , they fail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by focusing tightly on quantifiable data .
Fears are difficult to dissuade precisely because they are not quantifiable : When our neighbors express a deep and abiding concern , it takes great effort to listen and sympathize with those concerns , instead of trying to wish the problem away as a mere data point on a grid .
And when the same pundits ignore counterarguments that are grounded in data—such as those made by Lyman Stone that American deaths at the hands of police violence are disproportionately high for a peaceful democracy—it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re playing a rhetorical game rather than arguing in good faith about the numbers at hand .
A similar dodge is employed when one argues that deaths at the hands of police don ’ t matter as much as those at the hands of criminals .
Everyday urban violence is a serious problem that will take a long , concentrated effort to correct , even after decades of improvement in violent crime stats .
By insisting that these two issues—police violence and inner city violence—are inextricably intertwined or that one must focus on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressing , conservatives risk failing to understand and address either .
Although these problems are related , they need to be understood separately , and they require different solutions .
The selective use of data to make politically convenient arguments—or to sidestep uncomfortable arguments about justice and fear—is not the only weakness in conservative reasoning exposed by recent events .
Since the birth of modern American conservatism some six decades ago , conservatives of every stripe have prided themselves on an adherence to first principles , the same ones that informed our Constitution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And they are surely cause for celebration !
I hope these principles never sit upon a shelf , dusty and unused .
But we have also prided ourselves on being clear-eyed—on beholding society and human nature as they really are , rather than as we wish them to be .
Unfortunately , these two commitments—to principles and to seeing the world clearly—are often in tension with one another .
And this year , in the case of the pandemic and the raging controversy over race and law enforcement , conservatives have attempted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has rendered conservatives largely ineffective .
When last spring ’ s anti-lockdown protests were caricatured as protests over haircuts and manicures , many conservatives objected .
Those haircuts and manicures represented businesses into which many Americans had invested their entire lives , and business owners rightfully desired to go back to work .
Conservatives and libertarians were not wrong to be concerned about the plight of these people , and , with hindsight , we will likely find that state-based shutdown orders could have been handled differently .
But conservatives made a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principle of liberty in the midst of pandemic : as difficult as it was to admit , liberty wasn ’ t the issue .
Stopping the pandemic was the issue .
Rarely would anyone insist on such purity in the midst of an emergency ; consider the immediate response to the 9/11 attacks , when airplanes were unilaterally grounded for days and new security measures rapidly imposed .
The fact that the Coronavirus emergency moved in slow motion does not make the behavior any wiser .
It ’ s not that liberty should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Conservatives and libertarians were correct to maintain the rights of the individual as part of the political conversation .
But when New York City was overrun and there was palpable fear that the virus would spread throughout the country—a fear that has been borne out , sadly—the immediate rush to liberty arguments rang hollow .
Worse , these arguments gave credence to the liberal accusation that small-government arguments proved conservatives were not serious about proper governance .
Indeed , while conservatives are rightly pointing out that the state of New York appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the political and cultural moves taken by red-state governors have not fared much better as the disease has spread .
Looking ahead , conservatives are on the verge of making the same mistake with education .
We all want schools to reopen on time .
I know there are many millions of students who desperately need the structure , support , and education instruction that their school can provide .
The data is clear that low-income students all over the country are in danger of falling further behind if schools do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , my own sanity depends on it .
No one denies any of this—but what of the virus ?
What of mitigating infection and death ?
Conservatives can pound the table in defense of liberty , law and order , and education , but until meaningful solutions come to light , everyone is stuck in the quagmire .
Liberals and progressives have long accused conservatives of not caring about the plight of the poor and downtrodden .
That is a crude and unfair generalization .
Yet the last few months have made it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movement and conservative media are struggling to accept the reality of certain social and political facts .
What begins as a commitment to data and empiricism on the one hand , and time-tested principle , on the other , eventually morphs into a stubborn refusal to adjust to the world as it is , which in turn renders conservative policies and ideas unhelpful , at best , and cruel , at worst .
It does not have to be this way .
Conservative ideas contain with them the creativity and potency to provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Doing so will require a deep and clear understanding of the present concerns—both real and imagined—of our fellow citizens .
Then , and only then , can conservatism begin to respond in earnest to the doubts and fears that plague their fellow Americans .

In the debates over how to respond to two separate but similar crises—how to make policing less deadly and how to make COVID-19 less deadly—conservatives risk irrelevance by relying on questionable data and blind allegiance to principles. They would do better to tackle each of the problems on its own terms.
In the case of policing, the argument from data goes something like this: The chances of a nonviolent person dying at the hands of police are so small—“you’re more likely to die in a car crash,” e.g.—that the public protests against police violence are an overreaction. While the death of any nonviolent citizen at the hands of law enforcement is unfortunate, this argument goes, its likelihood is so minute as to be unworthy of mass protests or political action.
But this argument assumes that people are fundamentally rational and that statistical analysis ought to dominate political decision-making. Conservatives should know better: People are not rational, and they will seek solutions to their problems. Besides, the civil unrest protesting police violence isn’t arising simply from a concern about death. The concern, rather, is the terror in the hearts and minds of the African-American community, a terror rooted in a history of police abuse, state-sanctioned discrimination, and horrendous injustice dating to the end of the Civil War. As a middle-aged white guy whose few interactions with the police have been friendly and helpful, it’s hard to put myself into the shoes of a man who has been stopped for “driving while black.” But it shouldn’t be hard for anyone to understand fear of arbitrary death at the hands of the state.
When conservative pundits harp on data, as in this piece by John Lott, Jr. in the Federalist, this piece by Heather Mac Donald, or even in Mac Donald’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, they reduce the existential fears of black Americans—undergirded by decades of very real political malfeasance—down to something easy to manage and quantify. While such pieces helpfully lay out the problems posed by defunding the police, as well as the fears of black Americans who live in violent neighborhoods, they fail to address the fears of black Americans by focusing tightly on quantifiable data.
Fears are difficult to dissuade precisely because they are not quantifiable: When our neighbors express a deep and abiding concern, it takes great effort to listen and sympathize with those concerns, instead of trying to wish the problem away as a mere data point on a grid. And when the same pundits ignore counterarguments that are grounded in data—such as those made by Lyman Stone that American deaths at the hands of police violence are disproportionately high for a peaceful democracy—it’s easy to suspect that they’re playing a rhetorical game rather than arguing in good faith about the numbers at hand.
A similar dodge is employed when one argues that deaths at the hands of police don’t matter as much as those at the hands of criminals. Everyday urban violence is a serious problem that will take a long, concentrated effort to correct, even after decades of improvement in violent crime stats. By insisting that these two issues—police violence and inner city violence—are inextricably intertwined or that one must focus on both rather than choosing which is more pressing, conservatives risk failing to understand and address either. Although these problems are related, they need to be understood separately, and they require different solutions.
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 selective use of data to make politically convenient arguments—or to sidestep uncomfortable arguments about justice and fear—is not the only weakness in conservative reasoning exposed by recent events. Since the birth of modern American conservatism some six decades ago, conservatives of every stripe have prided themselves on an adherence to first principles, the same ones that informed our Constitution and the wider Anglo-American political tradition. And they are surely cause for celebration! I hope these principles never sit upon a shelf, dusty and unused. But we have also prided ourselves on being clear-eyed—on beholding society and human nature as they really are, rather than as we wish them to be.
Unfortunately, these two commitments—to principles and to seeing the world clearly—are often in tension with one another. And this year, in the case of the pandemic and the raging controversy over race and law enforcement, conservatives have attempted to mold reality to principle in a way that has rendered conservatives largely ineffective.
When last spring’s anti-lockdown protests were caricatured as protests over haircuts and manicures, many conservatives objected. Those haircuts and manicures represented businesses into which many Americans had invested their entire lives, and business owners rightfully desired to go back to work. Conservatives and libertarians were not wrong to be concerned about the plight of these people, and, with hindsight, we will likely find that state-based shutdown orders could have been handled differently. But conservatives made a serious blunder when rushing back to the principle of liberty in the midst of pandemic: as difficult as it was to admit, liberty wasn’t the issue. Stopping the pandemic was the issue. Rarely would anyone insist on such purity in the midst of an emergency; consider the immediate response to the 9/11 attacks, when airplanes were unilaterally grounded for days and new security measures rapidly imposed. The fact that the Coronavirus emergency moved in slow motion does not make the behavior any wiser.
It’s not that liberty should have been abandoned as an operating principle. Conservatives and libertarians were correct to maintain the rights of the individual as part of the political conversation. But when New York City was overrun and there was palpable fear that the virus would spread throughout the country—a fear that has been borne out, sadly—the immediate rush to liberty arguments rang hollow. Worse, these arguments gave credence to the liberal accusation that small-government arguments proved conservatives were not serious about proper governance. Indeed, while conservatives are rightly pointing out that the state of New York appears to have profoundly mismanaged the initial crisis, the political and cultural moves taken by red-state governors have not fared much better as the disease has spread.
Looking ahead, conservatives are on the verge of making the same mistake with education. We all want schools to reopen on time. I know there are many millions of students who desperately need the structure, support, and education instruction that their school can provide. The data is clear that low-income students all over the country are in danger of falling further behind if schools do not reopen in person. As a parent, my own sanity depends on it. No one denies any of this—but what of the virus? What of mitigating infection and death? Conservatives can pound the table in defense of liberty, law and order, and education, but until meaningful solutions come to light, everyone is stuck in the quagmire.
Liberals and progressives have long accused conservatives of not caring about the plight of the poor and downtrodden. That is a crude and unfair generalization. Yet the last few months have made it clear that significant segments of the conservative movement and conservative media are struggling to accept the reality of certain social and political facts. What begins as a commitment to data and empiricism on the one hand, and time-tested principle, on the other, eventually morphs into a stubborn refusal to adjust to the world as it is, which in turn renders conservative policies and ideas unhelpful, at best, and cruel, at worst.
It does not have to be this way. Conservative ideas contain with them the creativity and potency to provide meaningful solutions in this tenuous moment. Doing so will require a deep and clear understanding of the present concerns—both real and imagined—of our fellow citizens. Then, and only then, can conservatism begin to respond in earnest to the doubts and fears that plague their fellow Americans.


thebulwark--2020-07-22--Trump’s New Ad Is Amazing

Trump’s New Ad Is Amazing

A couple weeks ago the Trump campaign rolled out an ad proclaiming that the president would protect a statue of Jesus from the woke left .
The only problem was that the statue pictured in the ad was the famous Christ the Redeemer from Rio de Janeiro .
That screw-up was under the Parscale regime .
Now Bill Stepien has asked America to hold his beer .
The latest ad from the Trump campaign running on The Facebook is an attempt to get the olds worked up about their LAW & ORDER PRESIDENT .
Here ’ s the ad , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Pretty standard stuff .
With one exception .
That picture on the right where the evil hippie scum from Stumptown are whaling on the gallant law enforcement officer who ’ s trying to protect God and country ?
But that ’ s not the bad part , either .
The “ evil hippie scum ” are actually pro-democracy protesters .
And the policeman getting beat up is a member of the riot police who had been brought in to try to protect the authoritarian president , Viktor Yanukovych , who was attempting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by extralegal means .
Still not at the bad part .
One of the extralegal means Yanukovych employed was a specialized federal internal police force , the Berkut , which answered directly to him and was used to assault his political opponents and tamper with elections .
Another of the extralegal means he used was jailing former Prime Minister Yulia V. Tymoshenko after beating her in the 2010 election .
He actually “ locked her up.
” Now we ’ re at the bad part .
The picture Trump is using in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2014 .
On February 22 , 2014 , an overwhelming majority of Ukraine ’ s parliament—328 of 447 members—voted to remove Yanukovych from office .
And on February 25 , 2014 Yanukovych turned up in .
.
.
Moscow .
Where he enjoyed asylum .
Because he was Vladimir Putin ’ s puppet .
I ’ m sorry .
I lied .
Because we ’ re not actually at the bad part yet .
Buckle up your chin straps because the real bad part is that after Yanukovych fled to Russia , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Not in the Fox News sense .
They didn ’ t go on TV and say “ Oh yeah , that guy .
He was the worst .
Total traitor .
Human scum.
” No , they filed charges and tried him in a court of law ( in absentia ) and convicted him .
Not of a little light treason , but of “ high treason.
” Oh , and also—just as a cherry on top—back in 2004 , before Yanukovych had ascended to the throne and tried to destroy his country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really interesting American political operative to help his party .
The guy ’ s name was Paul Manafort .
Perhaps you ’ ve heard of him ?

A couple weeks ago the Trump campaign rolled out an ad proclaiming that the president would protect a statue of Jesus from the woke left. The only problem was that the statue pictured in the ad was the famous Christ the Redeemer from Rio de Janeiro.
That screw-up was under the Parscale regime.
Now Bill Stepien has asked America to hold his beer.
The latest ad from the Trump campaign running on The Facebook is an attempt to get the olds worked up about their LAW & ORDER PRESIDENT. Here’s the ad, courtesy of the sharps at Business Insider:
Pretty standard stuff. With one exception. That picture on the right where the evil hippie scum from Stumptown are whaling on the gallant law enforcement officer who’s trying to protect God and country?
It’s from 2014.
That’s not the bad part.
It’s from Ukraine.
But that’s not the bad part, either.
The “evil hippie scum” are actually pro-democracy protesters. And the policeman getting beat up is a member of the riot police who had been brought in to try to protect the authoritarian president, Viktor Yanukovych, who was attempting to turn Ukraine into a one-party state by extralegal means.
Still not at the bad part.
One of the extralegal means Yanukovych employed was a specialized federal internal police force, the Berkut, which answered directly to him and was used to assault his political opponents and tamper with elections. Another of the extralegal means he used was jailing former Prime Minister Yulia V. Tymoshenko after beating her in the 2010 election. He actually “locked her up.”
Now we’re at the bad part.
Wait for it . . .
The picture Trump is using in his ad was taken on February 14, 2014.
On February 22, 2014, an overwhelming majority of Ukraine’s parliament—328 of 447 members—voted to remove Yanukovych from office.
And on February 25, 2014 Yanukovych turned up in . . . Moscow. Where he enjoyed asylum. Because he was Vladimir Putin’s puppet.
I’m sorry. I lied. Because we’re not actually at the bad part yet.
Buckle up your chin straps because the real bad part is that after Yanukovych fled to Russia, the Ukrainian people charged him with treason. Not in the Fox News sense. They didn’t go on TV and say “Oh yeah, that guy. He was the worst. Total traitor. Human scum.”
No, they filed charges and tried him in a court of law (in absentia) and convicted him. Not of a little light treason, but of “high treason.”
Oh, and also—just as a cherry on top—back in 2004, before Yanukovych had ascended to the throne and tried to destroy his country’s democracy, he hired this really interesting American political operative to help his party.
The guy’s name was Paul Manafort. Perhaps you’ve heard of him?
Irony = ded.


thebulwark--2020-07-23--What the Conservative Version of Cancel Culture Looks Like

It is hard to think of a major sector of the culture-shaping industries and institutions of American life—Hollywood , news media , universities , arts , publishing , music , advertising , and so on—that isn ’ t thoroughly absorbed into the intersectional zeitgeist of the American left .
There are pockets of conservatism , of course , such as Fox News , talk radio , some publishers , and various online publications and communities .
But for various reasons , they can neither balance nor meaningfully compete with the cultural and social throw-weight of progressivism and the left .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reflecting on how the right has chosen to exercise the cultural power it does have .
Rather than securing the broadest possible coalition against the illiberal left , the right has decided to mimic the left ’ s strategies and tactics to conduct a purity campaign .
In short , the right is canceling itself .
Earlier this month , I casually asked on Twitter whether the right has a cancel culture analogous to the left .
My AEI colleague Stan Veuger dryly suggested checking out this week ’ s issue of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ topic .
Point taken : Lacking the muscle to compete in the mainstream of American life , the right cancels competing views and their adherents among fellow conservatives .
You see the irony ?
While the left continues its long march through the institutions that guide cultural and social development , the right focuses on stamping out internal differences of opinion .
One side steadily adds to and multiplies its influence while the other plays a game of subtraction and division against supposedly heterodox allies .
How did conservatives arrive at this point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the imbalance between conservative political success and its ongoing and pervasive cultural weakness .
The coalition that came to power under Reagan was always far more successful at the ballot box than it was in the broader culture wars .
Reaganism succeeded almost in spite of itself .
Reagan himself understood this and actively discouraged internecine wars under the auspices of his 11th Commandment : “ Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.
” He knew lasting change required broad , strong , and occasionally even bipartisan coalitions .
Victories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political strength and sound governance ; incremental advances could , over time , reshape society and politics .
Without the leavening influence of Reagan ’ s personality and political wisdom , however , his platform of smaller government , lower taxes , and stronger defense hardened into pledges and scorecards .
Overreach , and the backlashes that accompany it , replaced “ three yards and a cloud of dust ” advances .
These rigid ideological checks have come to serve as one of the primary mechanisms for internal GOP cancelation .
Former senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foundation as part of another intraconservative fight—once declared that he ’ d prefer “ 30 Marco Rubios to 60 Arlen Specters ” in the Senate .
His vision is taking shape : the creation of a zealous GOP minority .
What cancel conservatism didn ’ t see coming was Donald Trump .
As a completely transactional politician , Trump has been more than happy to become the avatar of longstanding Republican views .
He accepted most GOP planks : tax cuts , increased defense budgets , outsourced but conservative judicial picks , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and foreign policy , the Republican establishment long included a diversity of views . )
Free trade has been Trump ’ s one departure from orthodoxy , but it has mainly been a rhetorical one , marked by a spasmodic and ineffectual protectionism that seems to have succeeded mostly in inflicting pain on American producers and consumers .
The price among Republicans for these policy victories has been the imposition of the ultimate “ cancel ” : an omerta as it relates to the erratic leadership and unsavory character and behavior of Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positions , policies , and fidelity measures have been collapsed into an oath of loyalty to Donald J. Trump .
Republican governing identity and support for Donald Trump are now one .
People like Mark Sanford ( a 93 percent voting record from Heritage Action ) and Jeff Flake ( 85 percent ) weren ’ t driven from public life over compromises on taxes , judges , or abortion but for active criticism of Donald Trump .
Ben Sasse ( 83 percent ) survived cancelation by moving to an undisclosed political location until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary .
Even Jeff Sessions has been permanently canceled under the barrage of Trump ’ s Twitter siege artillery in recompense for putting the rule of law above his loyalty to the president .
And now , in the depths of today ’ s pandemic , economic meltdown , and nationwide protests over police killings , the presidential personnel office is busily conducting loyalty stress-tests on the administration ’ s own appointees that focus on personal commitment to Trump rather than any particular administration policy .
Which brings us to the peculiar case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blue-state governor , presidential nominee , senator from Utah and bête noire of the Trumpist movement .
Famously , he provided the lone Republican vote in either chamber for removing Trump from office during the impeachment proceedings .
This brought down the full force of Trumpian cancel-power .
Relatives have changed their names .
CPAC , engaging in what the late , great Florence King might have called the “ height of WASP rage , ” made a point of announcing that it had not invited Romney this year on the theory that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Through this fire , Romney has emerged as the political equivalent of Harry Potter , “ the Boy Who Lived.
” The moral here is that if you ’ re going to state the obvious about Trump , survival depends on having a couple hundred million dollars in the bank , a lifetime of personal achievement , great hair , and a tan of a shade that occurs in nature .
At the moment , polls are pointing toward a presidential wipeout and the possible loss of the GOP Senate majority .
Suburban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2018 , is withdrawing in horror from the GOP in 2020 .
Is this a rejection of lower taxes , a strong national defense , or a conservative federal bench ?
Not in the least .
It ’ s a verdict on the character , personality , behavior , and governing incompetence of President Trump .
And as long as the GOP anchors its fortunes in Trumpian decadence rather than competent , philosophically coherent leadership , there ’ s little chance of escape .

It is hard to think of a major sector of the culture-shaping industries and institutions of American life—Hollywood, news media, universities, arts, publishing, music, advertising, and so on—that isn’t thoroughly absorbed into the intersectional zeitgeist of the American left. There are pockets of conservatism, of course, such as Fox News, talk radio, some publishers, and various online publications and communities. But for various reasons, they can neither balance nor meaningfully compete with the cultural and social throw-weight of progressivism and the left.
Given this imbalance, it is worth reflecting on how the right has chosen to exercise the cultural power it does have. Rather than securing the broadest possible coalition against the illiberal left, the right has decided to mimic the left’s strategies and tactics to conduct a purity campaign. In short, the right is canceling itself.
Earlier this month, I casually asked on Twitter whether the right has a cancel culture analogous to the left. My AEI colleague Stan Veuger dryly suggested checking out this week’s issue of the Weekly Standard for a symposium on the topic. Point taken: Lacking the muscle to compete in the mainstream of American life, the right cancels competing views and their adherents among fellow conservatives. You see the irony? While the left continues its long march through the institutions that guide cultural and social development, the right focuses on stamping out internal differences of opinion. One side steadily adds to and multiplies its influence while the other plays a game of subtraction and division against supposedly heterodox allies.
How did conservatives arrive at this point? The answer lies, I think, in the imbalance between conservative political success and its ongoing and pervasive cultural weakness. The coalition that came to power under Reagan was always far more successful at the ballot box than it was in the broader culture wars. Reaganism succeeded almost in spite of itself. Reagan himself understood this and actively discouraged internecine wars under the auspices of his 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican.” He knew lasting change required broad, strong, and occasionally even bipartisan coalitions. Victories were achieved by the steady application of political strength and sound governance; incremental advances could, over time, reshape society and politics.
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…
Without the leavening influence of Reagan’s personality and political wisdom, however, his platform of smaller government, lower taxes, and stronger defense hardened into pledges and scorecards. Overreach, and the backlashes that accompany it, replaced “three yards and a cloud of dust” advances. These rigid ideological checks have come to serve as one of the primary mechanisms for internal GOP cancelation. Former senator Jim DeMint—himself eventually defenestrated at the Heritage Foundation as part of another intraconservative fight—once declared that he’d prefer “30 Marco Rubios to 60 Arlen Specters” in the Senate. His vision is taking shape: the creation of a zealous GOP minority.
What cancel conservatism didn’t see coming was Donald Trump. As a completely transactional politician, Trump has been more than happy to become the avatar of longstanding Republican views. He accepted most GOP planks: tax cuts, increased defense budgets, outsourced but conservative judicial picks, and selective social conservatism. (On immigration and foreign policy, the Republican establishment long included a diversity of views.) Free trade has been Trump’s one departure from orthodoxy, but it has mainly been a rhetorical one, marked by a spasmodic and ineffectual protectionism that seems to have succeeded mostly in inflicting pain on American producers and consumers. The price among Republicans for these policy victories has been the imposition of the ultimate “cancel”: an omerta as it relates to the erratic leadership and unsavory character and behavior of Donald Trump himself. All conservative interests, positions, policies, and fidelity measures have been collapsed into an oath of loyalty to Donald J. Trump.
Republican governing identity and support for Donald Trump are now one. People like Mark Sanford (a 93 percent voting record from Heritage Action) and Jeff Flake (85 percent) weren’t driven from public life over compromises on taxes, judges, or abortion but for active criticism of Donald Trump. Ben Sasse (83 percent) survived cancelation by moving to an undisclosed political location until he finished slogging nervously through his Republican primary. Even Jeff Sessions has been permanently canceled under the barrage of Trump’s Twitter siege artillery in recompense for putting the rule of law above his loyalty to the president. And now, in the depths of today’s pandemic, economic meltdown, and nationwide protests over police killings, the presidential personnel office is busily conducting loyalty stress-tests on the administration’s own appointees that focus on personal commitment to Trump rather than any particular administration policy.
Which brings us to the peculiar case of Mitt Romney, the former GOP blue-state governor, presidential nominee, senator from Utah and bête noire of the Trumpist movement. Famously, he provided the lone Republican vote in either chamber for removing Trump from office during the impeachment proceedings. This brought down the full force of Trumpian cancel-power. Relatives have changed their names. CPAC, engaging in what the late, great Florence King might have called the “height of WASP rage,” made a point of announcing that it had not invited Romney this year on the theory that this constituted punishment rather than deliverance. Through this fire, Romney has emerged as the political equivalent of Harry Potter, “the Boy Who Lived.” The moral here is that if you’re going to state the obvious about Trump, survival depends on having a couple hundred million dollars in the bank, a lifetime of personal achievement, great hair, and a tan of a shade that occurs in nature.
At the moment, polls are pointing toward a presidential wipeout and the possible loss of the GOP Senate majority. Suburban America, having already executed a volte-face in 2018, is withdrawing in horror from the GOP in 2020. Is this a rejection of lower taxes, a strong national defense, or a conservative federal bench? Not in the least. It’s a verdict on the character, personality, behavior, and governing incompetence of President Trump. And as long as the GOP anchors its fortunes in Trumpian decadence rather than competent, philosophically coherent leadership, there’s little chance of escape.


thebulwark--2020-07-23--Will Spain Be the Next Country in Need of a Bailout?

One has to pity the Spanish people .
No sooner did Spain finally recover from its housing-bust-induced 2008 recession than a once-in-a-century coronavirus pandemic caused a worldwide economic slump .
This does not bode well for Spain ’ s longer run economic outlook , especially considering that the country remains stuck with the Euro , a currency over which it has no control .
Nor does it bode well for Spanish political stability , which was shattered in the aftermath of its Great Economic Recession .
Spain ’ s economy was painfully slow to recover from its 2008 economic recession @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4 percent .
It was only by 2016 that Spanish income per capita returned to its 2008 level .
Similarly , after unemployment rose to a staggering 25 percent of the labor force , it was only in 2016 that it finally dropped below 20 percent .
One of the results of the 2008 recession was the fragmentation of Spanish politics at the national level and the exacerbation of its regional tensions .
Following 30 years in which the center-left Spanish Socialist Workers ’ Party and the center-right People ’ s Party alternated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far-left Unidas Podemos parties have also vied for power in recent elections .
That has seriously complicated the formation of a stable government .
At the same time , economic dissatisfaction has fueled a strong Catalonian separatist movement .
Over the past decade , a major reason for Spain ’ s poor economic performance was its need to mend its public finances , which were seriously compromised by the collapse of its housing bubble and it ’ s limited monetary options .
Only after years of budget austerity did Spain ’ s public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But because Spain no longer has its own currency , it could not use interest rate or exchange rate policy to cushion the blow that budget austerity dealt to its economy .
Spain ’ s coronavirus-induced recession could now make the 2008 housing market collapse look like a minor speed bump .
In a cruel twist of fate , the pandemic has inflicted its miseries on Spain ’ s tourism- and export-dependent economy more severely than on the broader European economy .
According to the IMF ’ s latest forecasts , whereas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 8 percent in 2020 , Spain ’ s GDP is projected to contract by almost 13 percent .
As in 2008 , Spanish public finances will be sure to suffer , possibly reviving questions about the sustainability of its public debt .
( Spain once loaned its initial to the infamous PIGS group of wobbly sovereign debtors . )
The fear is not only that the country ’ s public-debt-to-GDP ratio will by the end of this year jump to 120 percent—a level appreciably above its 2010 peak .
It is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spain , the country ’ s budget deficit could balloon to 11 percent of GDP .
Spain ’ s compromised public finances will once again make it difficult for the country to recover from a deep recession .
As happened before , the country will be forced to exercise considerable budget discipline in the midst of a recession to prevent its public debt level from rising any further .
And once again , the strictures of the Euro will prevent Spain from using interest rate or exchange rate policy to make the belt-tightening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Following the 2008 recession , it took Spain nine years to come back into compliance with the Eurozone ’ s rule that a country ’ s budget deficit can not exceed 3 percent of GDP .
This time , the Bank of Spain is suggesting that the country will need to balance its budget by 2030 if it is to put its public debt on an acceptable path .
Over the past 25 years , Spain has only managed to balance its budget on three occasions .
But public finances aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s current economic crisis .
Another disturbing projection is the toll that the recession will take on its banking system , especially considering that the Spanish banking system will now be exposed to a recession more than twice as deep as that experienced in 2010 and more severe than the worst-case scenario of the Spanish banks ’ stress test .
It does not inspire confidence that Spanish banks entered the present crisis with among the slimmest capital reserves in Europe .
All of this suggests that Spain is likely to remain on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come .
This would be unwelcome news to any country , but it is especially sobering for one struggling with political instability and regional independence movements .
It also will complicate the European Central Bank ’ s present challenge of holding the Euro together .
Already , the ECB has begun buying large amounts of Italian debt in a bid to keep the Eurozone ’ s third-largest economy afloat .
Whether it will be in a position simultaneously to do the same for Spain , the Eurozone ’ s fourth-largest economy , remains @ @ @ @

One has to pity the Spanish people. No sooner did Spain finally recover from its housing-bust-induced 2008 recession than a once-in-a-century coronavirus pandemic caused a worldwide economic slump.
This does not bode well for Spain’s longer run economic outlook, especially considering that the country remains stuck with the Euro, a currency over which it has no control. Nor does it bode well for Spanish political stability, which was shattered in the aftermath of its Great Economic Recession.
Spain’s economy was painfully slow to recover from its 2008 economic recession, which saw its GDP drop by 4 percent. It was only by 2016 that Spanish income per capita returned to its 2008 level. Similarly, after unemployment rose to a staggering 25 percent of the labor force, it was only in 2016 that it finally dropped below 20 percent.
One of the results of the 2008 recession was the fragmentation of Spanish politics at the national level and the exacerbation of its regional tensions. Following 30 years in which the center-left Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party and the center-right People’s Party alternated in government, the far-right Vox and far-left Unidas Podemos parties have also vied for power in recent elections. That has seriously complicated the formation of a stable government. At the same time, economic dissatisfaction has fueled a strong Catalonian separatist movement.
Over the past decade, a major reason for Spain’s poor economic performance was its need to mend its public finances, which were seriously compromised by the collapse of its housing bubble and it’s limited monetary options. Only after years of budget austerity did Spain’s public debt shrink to a more manageable size. But because Spain no longer has its own currency, it could not use interest rate or exchange rate policy to cushion the blow that budget austerity dealt to its economy.
Spain’s coronavirus-induced recession could now make the 2008 housing market collapse look like a minor speed bump. In a cruel twist of fate, the pandemic has inflicted its miseries on Spain’s tourism- and export-dependent economy more severely than on the broader European economy. According to the IMF’s latest forecasts, whereas the European economy is expected to contract by 8 percent in 2020, Spain’s GDP is projected to contract by almost 13 percent.
As in 2008, Spanish public finances will be sure to suffer, possibly reviving questions about the sustainability of its public debt. (Spain once loaned its initial to the infamous PIGS group of wobbly sovereign debtors.) The fear is not only that the country’s public-debt-to-GDP ratio will by the end of this year jump to 120 percent—a level appreciably above its 2010 peak. It is also that, according to the Bank of Spain, the country’s budget deficit could balloon to 11 percent of GDP.
Spain’s compromised public finances will once again make it difficult for the country to recover from a deep recession. As happened before, the country will be forced to exercise considerable budget discipline in the midst of a recession to prevent its public debt level from rising any further. And once again, the strictures of the Euro will prevent Spain from using interest rate or exchange rate policy to make the belt-tightening more palatable, either economically or politically.
Following the 2008 recession, it took Spain nine years to come back into compliance with the Eurozone’s rule that a country’s budget deficit cannot exceed 3 percent of GDP. This time, the Bank of Spain is suggesting that the country will need to balance its budget by 2030 if it is to put its public debt on an acceptable path. Over the past 25 years, Spain has only managed to balance its budget on three occasions.
But public finances aren’t the only concern about Spain’s current economic crisis. Another disturbing projection is the toll that the recession will take on its banking system, especially considering that the Spanish banking system will now be exposed to a recession more than twice as deep as that experienced in 2010 and more severe than the worst-case scenario of the Spanish banks’ stress test. It does not inspire confidence that Spanish banks entered the present crisis with among the slimmest capital reserves in Europe.
All of this suggests that Spain is likely to remain on a glacial economic growth path for years to come. This would be unwelcome news to any country, but it is especially sobering for one struggling with political instability and regional independence movements.
It also will complicate the European Central Bank’s present challenge of holding the Euro together. Already, the ECB has begun buying large amounts of Italian debt in a bid to keep the Eurozone’s third-largest economy afloat. Whether it will be in a position simultaneously to do the same for Spain, the Eurozone’s fourth-largest economy, remains to be seen.


thebulwark--2020-07-23--Not Bigger, But Better

Not Bigger, But Better

A few years back there was a highfalutin ’ political debate at a Washington think-tank about whether the American project could be properly construed as libertarian ab initio .
Although the libertarian side of the house was loath to admit it , they found very little historical evidence to support this dubious proposition .
After all , the architects of the American republic , many of whom rendered distinguished service in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War , had seen the very issue of national independence stand on a razor ’ s edge thanks to a chronically weak and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were to the cause of limited government , they understood that a government too small was no less dangerous than a government too large .
In point of fact , the American founders were consummate state-builders .
They embarked on a grand experiment to establish the world ’ s first “ extensive republic ” ––a continental democracy––that accorded with a philosophy of limited government .
They knew the world was an inhospitable place because of the terrible flaws in human nature ( “ if men were angels , no government would be necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gave abundant warrant for the creation of robust federal authority .
According to Alexander Hamilton––the first unflinching advocate of an energetic central government in the service of a commercial society and national strength––this founding generation of Americans was engaged in “ the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world.
” Just as the Founding Fathers proved that the category “ constitutional revolution ” was not an oxymoron , so they proved that an “ imperial republic ” was a worthy aspiration and , in time , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to recall this history , particularly when the credibility of American government has seldom been in shorter supply .
Strength and vitality have been leaking away from American government for many decades , but the woeful absence of these qualities has become palpable in our time .
Consider : A plague stemming from China ’ s Wuhan province has swept through the world .
A global economic recession has ensued that teeters on the edge of a deeper depression .
A criminal execution of a suspect by an agent of law enforcement has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which many businesses have been looted and destroyed .
In this compounding crisis , American and even global society is endangered by a remarkably inept administration .
The coronavirus pandemic and its attendant ills have struck at a particularly bleak moment , when American society is already reeling from a host of maladies .
“ Well before the horrible global pandemic reached our shores , ” writes Yuval Levin , American life was marred by various forms of “ social breakdown , ” including economic stagnation and a loss of bourgeois norms .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ our politics has increasingly reflected these maladies.
” The maladies of this era that will detain historians in the years to come are apt to involve the failure of the government to discharge its rudimentary responsibilities : prevent or at least mitigate a widely-anticipated public health emergency ; do not let spending wildly exceed revenues in time of peace and plenty , lest it constrain the federal response in an crisis ; offer moral leadership paired with intelligent reform to sclerotic government agencies or practices .
In this crisis , the American government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protecting the life and property of individuals , and unable to ensure that public services actually work for the public .
Many months after the outbreak , it has failed to suppress the pandemic death toll to a reasonable level at which economic life might resume .
America has become one of the world ’ s virus hot spots , with nearly 150,000 confirmed deaths and the number still hurtling terrifyingly upward .
The list of failures would come as no surprise in a totalitarian state such as the People ’ s Republic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of social distrust that the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party does not even know what to believe about the reality of their situation .
The conduct of officials in America ’ s executive branch , it goes without saying , should not be assessed by such low and degraded standards .
By what standards should they be judged ?
Decision , activity , and dispatch are the watchwords of the presidency , as Hamilton argued in Federalist No .
70 : The Congress sets frameworks for the future action of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past actions , but the president acts in the present , and in response to events .
This president ’ s neglect of his core duties in a time of plague and emergency has been and continues to be a standing danger to the republic .
Since the outbreak of COVID-19 , Trump ’ s mismanagement has been plain for all to see .
The litany of lingering resentments and lurking insecurities beneath the shell of this presidency have been exceptional .
His style , as ever , has been at once indecisive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-pitying , and unaccountable .
His abiding theme is now that the belated testing regime ( under the inspired command of Admiral Brett Giroir ) , rather than revealing the extent of government ’ s failure , is to blame for the public ’ s growing lack of confidence in the government ’ s performance .
This combination is antithetical to the qualities that go to make up elevated leadership .
It helps to account for the vastly different trajectories for the United States and the European Union .
Small government may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a crisis such as this it will always be found wanting .
A better ideal lies in limited but energetic government of the sort imagined by the American founders .
Take Tyler Cowen ’ s formulation of “ state-capacity libertarianism , ” which serves as a promising model for reconciling markets with a state strong enough to boost infrastructure , education , and research and development .
The yawning gap in capacity in the public health system and in the domestic manufacture of pharmaceuticals and personal protective equipment throughout this crisis has exposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is time not for a bigger state , but a better one .
It was the tough-minded New Yorker Daniel Patrick Moynihan ( a liberal , it ’ s true , but not the annoying sort ) who once reminded conservatives that the Constitution ’ s framers “ had more thoughts about power than merely its limitation.
” If conservatives heeded that wisdom in 2020 , they might have shown more concern not for the size of government , but for its efficiency and quality .

A few years back there was a highfalutin’ political debate at a Washington think-tank about whether the American project could be properly construed as libertarian ab initio. Although the libertarian side of the house was loath to admit it, they found very little historical evidence to support this dubious proposition. After all, the architects of the American republic, many of whom rendered distinguished service in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, had seen the very issue of national independence stand on a razor’s edge thanks to a chronically weak and underfunded central government. Committed as they were to the cause of limited government, they understood that a government too small was no less dangerous than a government too large.
In point of fact, the American founders were consummate state-builders. They embarked on a grand experiment to establish the world’s first “extensive republic”––a continental democracy––that accorded with a philosophy of limited government. They knew the world was an inhospitable place because of the terrible flaws in human nature (“if men were angels, no government would be necessary”). This fact in turn gave abundant warrant for the creation of robust federal authority.
According to Alexander Hamilton––the first unflinching advocate of an energetic central government in the service of a commercial society and national strength––this founding generation of Americans was engaged in “the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world.”
Just as the Founding Fathers proved that the category “constitutional revolution” was not an oxymoron, so they proved that an “imperial republic” was a worthy aspiration and, in time, a noble achievement.
Scoreboard: Conservatives: 1, Libertarians: 0.
It behooves the nation to recall this history, particularly when the credibility of American government has seldom been in shorter supply. Strength and vitality have been leaking away from American government for many decades, but the woeful absence of these qualities has become palpable in our time.
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…
Consider: A plague stemming from China’s Wuhan province has swept through the world. A global economic recession has ensued that teeters on the edge of a deeper depression. A criminal execution of a suspect by an agent of law enforcement has ignited civil unrest in American society in which many businesses have been looted and destroyed.
In this compounding crisis, American and even global society is endangered by a remarkably inept administration. The coronavirus pandemic and its attendant ills have struck at a particularly bleak moment, when American society is already reeling from a host of maladies. “Well before the horrible global pandemic reached our shores,” writes Yuval Levin, American life was marred by various forms of “social breakdown,” including economic stagnation and a loss of bourgeois norms. Predictably enough, Levin notes, “our politics has increasingly reflected these maladies.”
The maladies of this era that will detain historians in the years to come are apt to involve the failure of the government to discharge its rudimentary responsibilities: prevent or at least mitigate a widely-anticipated public health emergency; do not let spending wildly exceed revenues in time of peace and plenty, lest it constrain the federal response in an crisis; offer moral leadership paired with intelligent reform to sclerotic government agencies or practices.
In this crisis, the American government has resembled a pseudo-failed state incapable of protecting the life and property of individuals, and unable to ensure that public services actually work for the public. Many months after the outbreak, it has failed to suppress the pandemic death toll to a reasonable level at which economic life might resume. America has become one of the world’s virus hot spots, with nearly 150,000 confirmed deaths and the number still hurtling terrifyingly upward.
The list of failures would come as no surprise in a totalitarian state such as the People’s Republic of China that breeds such tremendous reserves of social distrust that the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party does not even know what to believe about the reality of their situation. The conduct of officials in America’s executive branch, it goes without saying, should not be assessed by such low and degraded standards.
By what standards should they be judged? Decision, activity, and dispatch are the watchwords of the presidency, as Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 70: The Congress sets frameworks for the future action of the government, the judiciary reviews and assesses past actions, but the president acts in the present, and in response to events.
This president’s neglect of his core duties in a time of plague and emergency has been and continues to be a standing danger to the republic. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, Trump’s mismanagement has been plain for all to see. The litany of lingering resentments and lurking insecurities beneath the shell of this presidency have been exceptional. His style, as ever, has been at once indecisive, mendacious, passive, scatterbrained, self-pitying, and unaccountable. His abiding theme is now that the belated testing regime (under the inspired command of Admiral Brett Giroir), rather than revealing the extent of government’s failure, is to blame for the public’s growing lack of confidence in the government’s performance. This combination is antithetical to the qualities that go to make up elevated leadership. It helps to account for the vastly different trajectories for the United States and the European Union.
Small government may have much to recommend it, but in a crisis such as this it will always be found wanting. A better ideal lies in limited but energetic government of the sort imagined by the American founders. Take Tyler Cowen’s formulation of “state-capacity libertarianism,” which serves as a promising model for reconciling markets with a state strong enough to boost infrastructure, education, and research and development. The yawning gap in capacity in the public health system and in the domestic manufacture of pharmaceuticals and personal protective equipment throughout this crisis has exposed the dangers of too inept a state. It is time not for a bigger state, but a better one.
It was the tough-minded New Yorker Daniel Patrick Moynihan (a liberal, it’s true, but not the annoying sort) who once reminded conservatives that the Constitution’s framers “had more thoughts about power than merely its limitation.”
If conservatives heeded that wisdom in 2020, they might have shown more concern not for the size of government, but for its efficiency and quality.