Qwazy for QAnon

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration , Communist indoctrination , Communist subversion , and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids .
In the 1964 Stanley Kubrick classic black comedy Dr. Strangelove , the above words are spoken by a general who is about to start World War III .
His theory about the contamination of “ precious bodily fluids ” is the tipoff for poor Group Captain Lionel Mandrake that the general has gone certifiably cuckoo .
This week , Republican voters in Georgia ’ s 14th congressional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seat being vacated by Rep. Tom Graves .
She won a run-off against a fellow Republican , Dr. John Cowan .
Like Greene , Cowan is a gun-rights-supporting , anti-abortion Trump loyalist .
Unlike Greene , he does not endorse the QAnon conspiracy .
That ’ s right .
Greene is ( or claims to be ) a Q believer .
You might think that once voters were alerted to this , they ’ d shrink from Greene as Mandrake did from Ripper , asking her to go nicely with the men in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her .
Cowan clearly thought his opponent ’ s Q talk was toxic .
He ran ads saying “ All of the conservative .
None of the embarrassment.
” And he told Politico , “ She is not conservative—she ’ s crazy .
.
.
.
She deserves a YouTube channel , not a seat in Congress .
She ’ s a circus act.
” The voters were not convinced .
Greene trounced Cowan by 14 points ( as of this writing ) .
Georgia 14 is a comfortably Republican district , going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump in 2016 by 75 percent , and Brian Kemp for governor by 75 percent .
Greene correctly perceived that being conservative in a district like this is the bare minimum .
And so she provided more .
Responding to the election of Ilhan Omar , Greene said in a Facebook video that there was a “ Muslim invasion into our government offices.
” Attempting to prove that she wasn ’ t a racist , she told viewers , “ It ’ s not about skin color .
.
.
.
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are as lazy and sorry as black people I know.
” Repeating a smear that circulates perennially online , she called Hungarian financier George Soros , who is Jewish , a “ Nazi.
” But the money quote is this one : Referring to Q , the anonymous leader of the QAnon conspiracy , she said Q is a “ patriot.
” “ I think it ’ s something worth listening to and paying attention to , and the reason why is because many of the things he has given clues about and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have really proven to be true.
” Q refers to an Energy Department classification level of top secret .
The person styling himself Q in cryptic online messages is anonymous , thus QAnon .
To describe what followers of Q believe is to enter a hall of mirrors .
As one of my relatives ( who , full disclosure , is on the left ) put it to me , “ At least the 9/11 truthers , as illogical as they were , had some nutty thread of plausibility to their theory .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are a thing .
But the Qanon theory is beyond imagination.
” Remember the fellow who , a month after the 2016 election , drove from North Carolina to D.C. , barging into a pizza place and firing off a shotgun ?
Why would a religious , previously law-abiding father of two do such a thing ?
Well , he was looking for the child sex slaves he ’ d been led to believe were chained in the back , at the behest of John Podesta and Hillary Clinton .
He “ knew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circulating among right-wing websites and email lists , heavily promoted by Jack Posobiec ( who went on to be honored with a Lincoln fellowship by the formerly respectable Claremont Institute ) .
Pizzagate morphed into the QAnon conspiracy in which Q followers wait for signals from their leader that a vast conspiracy of Satanic child abusers , run by the “ deep state , ” George Soros , the Supreme Court , and God knows who else is about to be unmasked .
Did I mention that they think Beyoncé is only pretending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hydra-headed thing , this conspiracy , and contains multitudes .
But the one common thread is this : The great deliverer will be Donald J. Trump .
The internet age has birthed a crisis of information .
Flooded by claims and counterclaims , people don ’ t know whom to trust .
And in this welter of confusion , many seize upon stories they ’ d like to be true , rather than those that seem plausible .
I guess it ’ s more comforting for some to believe that Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover for a massive plan to save the world from Satan-worshipping child molesters than to accept that he is what he seems .
People carrying Q signs began showing up at Trump rallies in 2018 .
The phrases “ Calm Before the Storm ” and “ Where We Go One , We Go All ” have become talismanic .
Trump has done nothing to discourage the cult .
On the contrary , he posed in the Oval Office with Michael Lebron , a Q promoter .
Trump ’ s former national security advisor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the eponymous Q by a number of adherents , has signaled to Q followers in a video release .
He follows a recitation of the oath of office for federal officials with the line “ Where We Go One , We Go All.
” ( My guess is that Flynn is in it for the cash . )
No fewer than 60 current or former congressional candidates have expressed interest in or support for the QAnon conspiracy .
One of them , Jo Rae Perkins , got the Republican nomination for Senate in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems almost certain to be going to Congress .
Greene claimed that the Republican “ establishment ” was against her .
But alas , that ’ s not true .
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise and GOP Conference Chair Liz Cheney did condemn her remarks .
But Greene received backing from the House Freedom Fund , an arm of the House Freedom Caucus .
Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and former Rep. Mark Meadows , now Trump ’ s chief of staff , also backed Greene .
And , naturally , the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say : Against the furnace blast of crazy that Trump puts out daily , green shoots of sanity are harder and harder to find .
Rep. Adam Kinzinger , an Illinois Republican , has often provided them .
Regarding this bit of nutbaggery , he said : Normal , right ?
The world seems to be on its axis .
But no , the Trump campaign smashed back at Kinzinger : Most Americans have not yet heard of QAnon .
But the paranoid conspiracy has gathered momentum at the Republican grassroots .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When Democrats go off the deep end , it tends to be for Marxism or Maoism .
Those are among the most dangerous political ideas in the world and have led directly to the deaths of scores of millions of people .
But they ’ re not nuts .
It ’ s odd that Republicans , who pride themselves on their practical understanding of life—incentives matter , money doesn ’ t grow on trees , personal responsibility is essential to a well-ordered society—should display such a marked weakness for utter lunacy .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a warning .
This disordered thinking is no longer just a fringe phenomenon .
Unlike Group Captain Mandrake , a lot of Republicans out there don ’ t recognize crazy when they see it .

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
–Air Force Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper, Dr. Strangelove
In the 1964 Stanley Kubrick classic black comedy Dr. Strangelove, the above words are spoken by a general who is about to start World War III. His theory about the contamination of “precious bodily fluids” is the tipoff for poor Group Captain Lionel Mandrake that the general has gone certifiably cuckoo.
This week, Republican voters in Georgia’s 14th congressional district nominated Marjorie Taylor Greene for the seat being vacated by Rep. Tom Graves. She won a run-off against a fellow Republican, Dr. John Cowan. Like Greene, Cowan is a gun-rights-supporting, anti-abortion Trump loyalist. Unlike Greene, he does not endorse the QAnon conspiracy. That’s right. Greene is (or claims to be) a Q believer.
You might think that once voters were alerted to this, they’d shrink from Greene as Mandrake did from Ripper, asking her to go nicely with the men in white coats who are here to help her. Cowan clearly thought his opponent’s Q talk was toxic. He ran ads saying “All of the conservative. None of the embarrassment.” And he told Politico, “She is not conservative—she’s crazy. . . . She deserves a YouTube channel, not a seat in Congress. She’s a circus act.” The voters were not convinced. Greene trounced Cowan by 14 points (as of this writing).
Georgia 14 is a comfortably Republican district, going for Romney in 2012 by 73 percent, Trump in 2016 by 75 percent, and Brian Kemp for governor by 75 percent. Greene correctly perceived that being conservative in a district like this is the bare minimum. And so she provided more. Responding to the election of Ilhan Omar, Greene said in a Facebook video that there was a “Muslim invasion into our government offices.” Attempting to prove that she wasn’t a racist, she told viewers, “It’s not about skin color. . . . I know a ton of white people who are as lazy and sorry as black people I know.” Repeating a smear that circulates perennially online, she called Hungarian financier George Soros, who is Jewish, a “Nazi.”
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But the money quote is this one: Referring to Q, the anonymous leader of the QAnon conspiracy, she said Q is a “patriot.” “I think it’s something worth listening to and paying attention to, and the reason why is because many of the things he has given clues about and talked about on 4chan and other forums have really proven to be true.”
Q refers to an Energy Department classification level of top secret. The person styling himself Q in cryptic online messages is anonymous, thus QAnon. To describe what followers of Q believe is to enter a hall of mirrors. As one of my relatives (who, full disclosure, is on the left) put it to me, “At least the 9/11 truthers, as illogical as they were, had some nutty thread of plausibility to their theory. Inside jobs do happen. False flags are a thing. But the Qanon theory is beyond imagination.”
Remember the fellow who, a month after the 2016 election, drove from North Carolina to D.C., barging into a pizza place and firing off a shotgun? Why would a religious, previously law-abiding father of two do such a thing? Well, he was looking for the child sex slaves he’d been led to believe were chained in the back, at the behest of John Podesta and Hillary Clinton. He “knew” this because “Pizzagate” was circulating among right-wing websites and email lists, heavily promoted by Jack Posobiec (who went on to be honored with a Lincoln fellowship by the formerly respectable Claremont Institute).
Pizzagate morphed into the QAnon conspiracy in which Q followers wait for signals from their leader that a vast conspiracy of Satanic child abusers, run by the “deep state,” George Soros, the Supreme Court, and God knows who else is about to be unmasked. Did I mention that they think Beyoncé is only pretending to be black? It’s a hydra-headed thing, this conspiracy, and contains multitudes. But the one common thread is this: The great deliverer will be Donald J. Trump.
The internet age has birthed a crisis of information. Flooded by claims and counterclaims, people don’t know whom to trust. And in this welter of confusion, many seize upon stories they’d like to be true, rather than those that seem plausible. I guess it’s more comforting for some to believe that Trump’s erratic and incompetent behavior is actually cover for a massive plan to save the world from Satan-worshipping child molesters than to accept that he is what he seems.
People carrying Q signs began showing up at Trump rallies in 2018. The phrases “Calm Before the Storm” and “Where We Go One, We Go All” have become talismanic. Trump has done nothing to discourage the cult. On the contrary, he posed in the Oval Office with Michael Lebron, a Q promoter. Trump’s former national security advisor, Michael Flynn, believed to be the eponymous Q by a number of adherents, has signaled to Q followers in a video release. He follows a recitation of the oath of office for federal officials with the line “Where We Go One, We Go All.” (My guess is that Flynn is in it for the cash.)
No fewer than 60 current or former congressional candidates have expressed interest in or support for the QAnon conspiracy. One of them, Jo Rae Perkins, got the Republican nomination for Senate in Oregon. And now Marjorie Taylor Greene seems almost certain to be going to Congress.
Greene claimed that the Republican “establishment” was against her. But alas, that’s not true. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise and GOP Conference Chair Liz Cheney did condemn her remarks. But Greene received backing from the House Freedom Fund, an arm of the House Freedom Caucus. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and former Rep. Mark Meadows, now Trump’s chief of staff, also backed Greene. And, naturally, the Republican Party’s leader had this to say:
Congratulations to future Republican Star Marjorie Taylor Greene on a big Congressional primary win in Georgia against a very tough and smart opponent. Marjorie is strong on everything and never gives up – a real WINNER! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 12, 2020
Against the furnace blast of crazy that Trump puts out daily, green shoots of sanity are harder and harder to find. Rep. Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican, has often provided them. Regarding this bit of nutbaggery, he said:
Qanon is a fabrication. This “insider” has predicted so much incorrectly (but people don’t remember PAST predictions) so now has switched to vague generalities. Could be Russian propaganda or a basement dweller. Regardless, no place in Congress for these conspiracies. — Adam Kinzinger (@RepKinzinger) August 12, 2020
Normal, right? The world seems to be on its axis. But no, the Trump campaign smashed back at Kinzinger:
When will @RepKinzinger condemn the Steele Dossier fabrications and conspiracy theories pushed by Democrats? That actually WAS Russian propaganda. https://t.co/NzVjbkkk8l — Matt Wolking (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@MattWolking) August 12, 2020
Most Americans have not yet heard of QAnon. But the paranoid conspiracy has gathered momentum at the Republican grassroots. The taste for crazy seems peculiarly partisan. When Democrats go off the deep end, it tends to be for Marxism or Maoism. Those are among the most dangerous political ideas in the world and have led directly to the deaths of scores of millions of people. But they’re not nuts.
It’s odd that Republicans, who pride themselves on their practical understanding of life—incentives matter, money doesn’t grow on trees, personal responsibility is essential to a well-ordered society—should display such a marked weakness for utter lunacy. I don’t offer an explanation, just a warning. This disordered thinking is no longer just a fringe phenomenon. Unlike Group Captain Mandrake, a lot of Republicans out there don’t recognize crazy when they see it.


thebulwark--2020-08-13--COVID-19 and the Costs of Unsteady Administration

Advocates for presidential power often invoke Alexander Hamilton ’ s original defense of “ energy in the executive ” : It is “ a leading character in the definition of good government.
” But at moments like these , it is good to read his paragraph a little further .
As the famous Federalist 70 goes on to explain , an “ energetic ” presidency isn ’ t a constitutional virtue in and of itself ; rather , like any form of energy , presidential energy is a constitutional good when it is channeled to good constitutional ends .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ours , the clearest need for presidential energy was “ the protection of the community against foreign attacks.
” But , Hamilton added , we also need presidential energy for “ the steady administration of the laws.
” This is a theme that deserves more consideration these days .
President Trump ’ s latest batch of executive actions , issued in response to COVID-19 ’ s economic impacts , were energetic .
But they do not exemplify “ steady administration ” —if anything , they exemplify the constitutional harm of unsteady administration .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ substitute for actual legislation—an action that , as Yuval Levin and I have noted , raises constitutional problems in and of itself .
That is not to say that the orders are illegal ; in fact , Josh Blackman and Daniel Hemel have both written to explain how the orders are specifically based on pre-existing statutory authorizations , including the federal statute authorizing the president to defer the obligation of “ employment ” taxes for “ a period up to 1 year.
” Trump ’ s rejection of a meaningful legislative process , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government ’ s payroll tax collections , undermines well-functioning constitutional institutions but avoids violating the law per se .
But by abandoning the effort to construct a legislative solution for the problem at hand , and instead simply announcing a six-month deferral of payroll taxes using an older statute written in broad terms , President Trump raised more questions than he answered .
Payroll taxes are deferred but not eliminated , meaning that taxpayers and employers have no idea whether their accumulated tax bills will actually come due on December 31 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Jim Tankersley reports , this could also have collateral effects on people ’ s income taxes .
So an executive action purporting to give people more economic security is , instead , actually creating significant uncertainty—which President Trump promptly attempted to leverage by declaring , from his New Jersey golf course , that “ if I ’ m victorious on November 3rd , I plan to forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax.
” The world is already uncertain enough .
As it happens , that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of leading through crises , and why Congress has legislated myriad statutes vesting presidents with vaguely defined powers to act in emergencies .
Written in general terms , those statutes—like the constitutional provision vesting the president with “ the executive power ” —leave room for presidents to take action to help repel the crisis and alleviate the public ’ s uncertainty .
To Hamilton , this was not a peripheral constitutional issue , but the very crux of constitutionalism .
Describing the sorts of presidents that ( he hoped ) the Electoral College @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.
” The point was so important that Hamilton quoted himself , several essays later , to reiterate it .
A good constitutional government would be the government that tends to produce a good administration , and a good administration would be energetic but steady administration .
Steady administration is primarily the president ’ s responsibility , but our Constitution ’ s other features were intended to reinforce it .
The legislative process was intended to translate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s competing values and interests into written law ; the judicial branch would help to ensure that written laws would actually govern the government and the people themselves ; the House ’ s “ power over the purse ” would protect the people against “ the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government ” ; and the Senate ’ s power to grant or deny its “ advice and consent ” to the president ’ s selection of executive branch leadership would help to create an administration capable carrying out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passively as to be merely “ obsequious instruments of his pleasure.
” This last one , the Senate ’ s crucial share in the power and responsibility for staffing up the executive branch ’ s leadership , was seen by Hamilton as especially important for “ contribut [ ing ] to the stability of the administration.
” Just as “ steady administration ” is the responsibility for all parts of our government , its absence at this moment reflects a failure of many of them : of Congress generally , for failing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand ; of the Senate specifically , for not taking more seriously its advice-and-consent responsibilities over the last three years .
But most of all the president , who responds to crisis not by alleviating its uncertainties , but rather amplifying them .
So what would “ steady administration ” look like in the current crisis ?
First and foremost , Congress would seek out points of common ground on which to legislate policy solutions suited to the specific economic and public-health issues now confronting us .
Second , to the extent that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he would work to promulgate policies that make it easier—not harder—for people to plan their own lives , and thus would eschew policies as inherently unstable as this payroll-tax-delay gambit .
Relatedly , third , to the extent that the administration ’ s policies depend on the assistance of intervening third parties ( such as employers ) , the administration would work quickly to respond to their questions and concerns , further clarifying the legal and practical questions surrounding the administration ’ s policies .
If Hamilton was right about “ the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being “ its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration , ” we need to understand the present crisis of governance , exacerbating the crises of public health and economic stability , for what it is : a test of our Constitution itself , and of the men and women who swore oaths to defend it .

Advocates for presidential power often invoke Alexander Hamilton’s original defense of “energy in the executive”: It is “a leading character in the definition of good government.” But at moments like these, it is good to read his paragraph a little further.
As the famous Federalist 70 goes on to explain, an “energetic” presidency isn’t a constitutional virtue in and of itself; rather, like any form of energy, presidential energy is a constitutional good when it is channeled to good constitutional ends. In Hamilton’s time, as in ours, the clearest need for presidential energy was “the protection of the community against foreign attacks.” But, Hamilton added, we also need presidential energy for “the steady administration of the laws.” This is a theme that deserves more consideration these days.
President Trump’s latest batch of executive actions, issued in response to COVID-19’s economic impacts, were energetic. But they do not exemplify “steady administration”—if anything, they exemplify the constitutional harm of unsteady administration.
The president issued these orders as a substitute for actual legislation—an action that, as Yuval Levin and I have noted, raises constitutional problems in and of itself. That is not to say that the orders are illegal; in fact, Josh Blackman and Daniel Hemel have both written to explain how the orders are specifically based on pre-existing statutory authorizations, including the federal statute authorizing the president to defer the obligation of “employment” taxes for “a period up to 1 year.” Trump’s rejection of a meaningful legislative process, declaring instead the wholesale non-enforcement of the federal government’s payroll tax collections, undermines well-functioning constitutional institutions but avoids violating the law per se.
But by abandoning the effort to construct a legislative solution for the problem at hand, and instead simply announcing a six-month deferral of payroll taxes using an older statute written in broad terms, President Trump raised more questions than he answered. Payroll taxes are deferred but not eliminated, meaning that taxpayers and employers have no idea whether their accumulated tax bills will actually come due on December 31. And, as the New York Times’s Jim Tankersley reports, this could also have collateral effects on people’s income taxes.
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…
So an executive action purporting to give people more economic security is, instead, actually creating significant uncertainty—which President Trump promptly attempted to leverage by declaring, from his New Jersey golf course, that “if I’m victorious on November 3rd, I plan to forgive these taxes and make permanent cuts to the payroll tax.”
The world is already uncertain enough. As it happens, that is why the Constitution created a presidency capable of leading through crises, and why Congress has legislated myriad statutes vesting presidents with vaguely defined powers to act in emergencies. Written in general terms, those statutes—like the constitutional provision vesting the president with “the executive power”—leave room for presidents to take action to help repel the crisis and alleviate the public’s uncertainty.
To Hamilton, this was not a peripheral constitutional issue, but the very crux of constitutionalism. Describing the sorts of presidents that (he hoped) the Electoral College would produce, Hamilton observed that “the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.” The point was so important that Hamilton quoted himself, several essays later, to reiterate it. A good constitutional government would be the government that tends to produce a good administration, and a good administration would be energetic but steady administration.
Steady administration is primarily the president’s responsibility, but our Constitution’s other features were intended to reinforce it. The legislative process was intended to translate (and moderate) the public’s competing values and interests into written law; the judicial branch would help to ensure that written laws would actually govern the government and the people themselves; the House’s “power over the purse” would protect the people against “the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government”; and the Senate’s power to grant or deny its “advice and consent” to the president’s selection of executive branch leadership would help to create an administration capable carrying out the president’s decisions but not so passively as to be merely “obsequious instruments of his pleasure.” This last one, the Senate’s crucial share in the power and responsibility for staffing up the executive branch’s leadership, was seen by Hamilton as especially important for “contribut[ing] to the stability of the administration.”
Just as “steady administration” is the responsibility for all parts of our government, its absence at this moment reflects a failure of many of them: of Congress generally, for failing to enact timely legislation for the crisis at hand; of the Senate specifically, for not taking more seriously its advice-and-consent responsibilities over the last three years. But most of all the president, who responds to crisis not by alleviating its uncertainties, but rather amplifying them.
So what would “steady administration” look like in the current crisis? First and foremost, Congress would seek out points of common ground on which to legislate policy solutions suited to the specific economic and public-health issues now confronting us. Second, to the extent that laws leave the president with significant discretion, he would work to promulgate policies that make it easier—not harder—for people to plan their own lives, and thus would eschew policies as inherently unstable as this payroll-tax-delay gambit. Relatedly, third, to the extent that the administration’s policies depend on the assistance of intervening third parties (such as employers), the administration would work quickly to respond to their questions and concerns, further clarifying the legal and practical questions surrounding the administration’s policies.
If Hamilton was right about “the true test of a good government” being “its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration,” we need to understand the present crisis of governance, exacerbating the crises of public health and economic stability, for what it is: a test of our Constitution itself, and of the men and women who swore oaths to defend it.


thebulwark--2020-08-13--Europe Needs a Hamiltonian Moment

Europe Needs a Hamiltonian Moment

Alexander Hamilton must be rolling in his grave on hearing the happy talk that Europe is having its Hamiltonian moment .
The truth of the matter is that the Eurozone is still lacking any semblance of a fiscal or banking union .
That leaves Europe particularly ill-equipped to meet the existential threat that the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to pose to the Euro .
In 1790 , Treasury Secretary Hamilton succeeded in engineering a permanent fiscal union for the 13 states of the new nation .
He did so by having the federal government assume the debt of all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indebted northern states .
In exchange , the capital was to be moved to Washington , D.C. , and the federal government was to be granted expanded tax authority .
The resulting fiscal union was to serve the country well when it eventually became a full monetary union .
In 1999 , when launching the Euro , the Eurozone countries chose to take a different route from the United States in that they decided to create a monetary union before they had established a political union .
The past decade has indicated how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be .
The Eurozone coped with the 2008-2009 Great Recession more poorly than the United States did , and it also experienced a growing economic divergence between its northern and southern member countries .
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic , the Eurozone has taken some very tentative steps towards a fiscal and banking union .
After much kicking and screaming by the so-called frugal four countries—Austria , Denmark , the Netherlands , and Sweden—the European Union managed to establish a €750 billion recovery fund to aid the European countries hardest hit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be financed by the issuance of a joint European bond and was supposed to be temporary in nature .
At the same time , the European Central Bank ( ECB ) expanded its quantitative easing program with the creation of a €600 billion Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program .
The ECB also indicated that , in using those funds , it would no longer be bound by the ECB ’ s capital key .
Instead , it would use its discretion to buy a larger proportion of bonds from those countries most seriously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ examination of these two European policy initiatives reveals how woefully inadequate they will be to meet the pandemic ’ s impending challenge to the Euro .
This is particularly the case considering the collapse of the Italian and Spanish economies , the Eurozone ’ s third and fourth largest economies , both of which are now forecast to decline by more than 12 percent in 2020 .
That makes it all too likely that both of these countries may soon face both sovereign debt and banking sector crises .
Besides being temporary in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grant and a loan component , the trouble with the Recovery Fund is its relatively small size and the fact that it is to be spread over the next three years .
In relation to Europe ’ s economy , the fund is barely 2 percent of GDP per year .
This might be compared to officially forecast 2020 Italian and Spanish budget of around 10 percent of GDP .
The amount that Italy is expected to receive from the fund over the next three years would be less than 10 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the ECB ’ s Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program would appear far too small for the task that lies ahead .
Whereas the size of that program is €600 billion , Italy alone has a sovereign bond market of €2.5 trillion and a €4 trillion banking system .
If Italy were to experience a sovereign debt and banking crisis , it is far from clear that the ECB currently has enough money on hand to bail Italy out .
It would certainly not be able to do so if it had to bail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unfortunately , it is far from clear that Europe has the political will to act more boldly than it has to date .
Europe ’ s frugal four northern member countries would almost certainly resist any notion of topping up the European Recovery Fund .
Even if they conceded , the German Constitutional Court would very likely prohibit the Bundesbank from participating in an expanded ECB sovereign bond purchasing program , especially if the Court deemed such a program to be in violation of the Treaty of Lisbon ’ s unambiguous strictures against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s budget deficit .
All of this would suggest that Europe desperately needs a real Hamiltonian moment if the Euro is to survive the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic .

Alexander Hamilton must be rolling in his grave on hearing the happy talk that Europe is having its Hamiltonian moment. The truth of the matter is that the Eurozone is still lacking any semblance of a fiscal or banking union. That leaves Europe particularly ill-equipped to meet the existential threat that the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to pose to the Euro.
In 1790, Treasury Secretary Hamilton succeeded in engineering a permanent fiscal union for the 13 states of the new nation. He did so by having the federal government assume the debt of all the states, including those of the heavily indebted northern states. In exchange, the capital was to be moved to Washington, D.C., and the federal government was to be granted expanded tax authority. The resulting fiscal union was to serve the country well when it eventually became a full monetary union.
In 1999, when launching the Euro, the Eurozone countries chose to take a different route from the United States in that they decided to create a monetary union before they had established a political union. The past decade has indicated how costly a mistake that decision has proved to be. The Eurozone coped with the 2008-2009 Great Recession more poorly than the United States did, and it also experienced a growing economic divergence between its northern and southern member countries.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Eurozone has taken some very tentative steps towards a fiscal and banking union. After much kicking and screaming by the so-called frugal four countries—Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden—the European Union managed to establish a €750 billion recovery fund to aid the European countries hardest hit by the pandemic. This fund was to be financed by the issuance of a joint European bond and was supposed to be temporary in nature.
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…
At the same time, the European Central Bank (ECB) expanded its quantitative easing program with the creation of a €600 billion Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program. The ECB also indicated that, in using those funds, it would no longer be bound by the ECB’s capital key. Instead, it would use its discretion to buy a larger proportion of bonds from those countries most seriously impacted by the pandemic.
A closer examination of these two European policy initiatives reveals how woefully inadequate they will be to meet the pandemic’s impending challenge to the Euro. This is particularly the case considering the collapse of the Italian and Spanish economies, the Eurozone’s third and fourth largest economies, both of which are now forecast to decline by more than 12 percent in 2020. That makes it all too likely that both of these countries may soon face both sovereign debt and banking sector crises.
Besides being temporary in nature and split roughly evenly between a grant and a loan component, the trouble with the Recovery Fund is its relatively small size and the fact that it is to be spread over the next three years. In relation to Europe’s economy, the fund is barely 2 percent of GDP per year. This might be compared to officially forecast 2020 Italian and Spanish budget of around 10 percent of GDP. The amount that Italy is expected to receive from the fund over the next three years would be less than 10 percent of its gross government financing needs.
Similarly, the ECB’s Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program would appear far too small for the task that lies ahead. Whereas the size of that program is €600 billion, Italy alone has a sovereign bond market of €2.5 trillion and a €4 trillion banking system. If Italy were to experience a sovereign debt and banking crisis, it is far from clear that the ECB currently has enough money on hand to bail Italy out. It would certainly not be able to do so if it had to bail Spain out at the same time.
Unfortunately, it is far from clear that Europe has the political will to act more boldly than it has to date. Europe’s frugal four northern member countries would almost certainly resist any notion of topping up the European Recovery Fund. Even if they conceded, the German Constitutional Court would very likely prohibit the Bundesbank from participating in an expanded ECB sovereign bond purchasing program, especially if the Court deemed such a program to be in violation of the Treaty of Lisbon’s unambiguous strictures against the monetary financing of a member country’s budget deficit.
All of this would suggest that Europe desperately needs a real Hamiltonian moment if the Euro is to survive the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.


thebulwark--2020-08-13--What If Trump Declared an Election Emergency?

President Trump ’ s executive orders from last weekend on COVID-19-related economic relief didn ’ t actually accomplish what the White House suggested they did .
But they did provide more evidence of the president ’ s penchant for acting by executive order .
Taken together with his national emergency declaration ( the legality of which is still awaiting review by the Supreme Court ) , his July 30 tweet about postponing the November elections , and the responses of the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security to protests in Washington , D.C. , and Portland , Oregon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unilateral executive action raises a troubling question : What if he simply declares a national emergency and orders the delay ?
Under the Constitution , he can ’ t legally cancel or delay the November elections , but he could issue an order or executive memorandum instructing or advising the states to do so .
Even if many states resisted or ignored the order , here ’ s how this might be enough to disrupt the voting process and keep him in power .
Under the Constitution , state electors ( rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and vice president .
Since the Civil War , virtually all states have chosen their electors by popular vote , but the Constitution doesn ’ t require it .
During the republic ’ s early years , many states appointed their electors , with the process typically in the hands of the state legislature and governor .
An individual state could revert to this antiquated procedure at any time .
In many cases , it would require only a majority vote of the legislature and the approval of the governor to change the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election laws .
As a practical matter , this is unlikely to happen .
But suppose that , in response to the pandemic and an order ( official or unofficial , legal or otherwise ) from Trump , Republican-led states opted to replace popular elections with the direct appoint of electors .
Trump , Attorney General Bill Barr , and other Republican partisans have already begun promoting the idea that elections conducted predominantly through the mail are automatically untrustworthy .
If that ’ s true , it ’ s incumbent on Republican state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really represent the will of the people , instead of the specious vote totals , don ’ t you see ?
Most of the states in question would likely vote for Trump anyway , but not all .
Republicans control both house of the legislature and the governorship in Florida , Arizona , Ohio , Iowa , and Georgia , which are potentially up-for-grabs in 2020 .
Put even a couple of these into Trump ’ s column by legislative fiat , and potentially add Wisconsin , where the Republican-led legislature and state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the Democratic governor ’ s objections , and Trump stands a much better chance of amassing enough electoral votes to win re-election .
The president does not need to cancel or delay the elections to retain power .
His order to politically friendly state governments might suffice .
While Republicans in state capitols around the country might fall over themselves to fulfill the president ’ s quasi-authoritarian wishes , the order could undermine the elections elsewhere as well .
Voters might be uncertain whether to vote and some Republican local elections officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling places or count ballots .
Protests might break out in the streets , which would , in some places , doubtless escalate into riots as such gatherings tend to do .
But this would only play into the president ’ s hands by underscoring the sense of emergency without protecting the normal administration of elections .
Neutralizing the November elections by failing to certify the results or waging protracted legal battles that delay the outcome of the election until after the beginning of the new government could also help preserve the Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Iowa , and possibly Georgia , Democratic challengers threaten to capture Republican-held Senate seats .
Without certified election results in those states by January 3 , the task of filling the Senate vacancies would fall to the governors , who are Republicans and would presumably choose members of their own party .
It might seem un-American , but it ’ s arguably constitutional .
Manipulations of this sort would do serious and possibly irreparable damage to the constitutional union .
The rule of law works in America because we supplement the Constitution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like holding fair elections and respecting the results .
Take those away , and the compromises woven into the Constitution ( like the Electoral College and state-based Senate ) become untenable .
Though the Founders never envisioned the sort of political partisanship now tearing at the seams of our republic , many did warn against the awesome and abuse-prone power of the presidency .
Benjamin Franklin , on the last day of the Constitutional Convention , warned that though the new government “ is likely to be well administered for a course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only end in Despotism , as other forms have done before it , when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government , being incapable of any other.
” Let ’ s hope that Franklin was wrong , and that the abuses and transgressions of our government are not merely reflections of our own flaws .
Let ’ s hope that officials of the federal government and the states , sworn to follow the Constitution , know when to ignore an order from which it might never recover .

President Trump’s executive orders from last weekend on COVID-19-related economic relief didn’t actually accomplish what the White House suggested they did. But they did provide more evidence of the president’s penchant for acting by executive order. Taken together with his national emergency declaration (the legality of which is still awaiting review by the Supreme Court) , his July 30 tweet about postponing the November elections, and the responses of the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security to protests in Washington, D.C., and Portland, Oregon, the president’s embrace of unilateral executive action raises a troubling question: What if he simply declares a national emergency and orders the delay? Under the Constitution, he can’t legally cancel or delay the November elections, but he could issue an order or executive memorandum instructing or advising the states to do so. Even if many states resisted or ignored the order, here’s how this might be enough to disrupt the voting process and keep him in power.
Under the Constitution, state electors (rather than state voters) actually choose the president and vice president. Since the Civil War, virtually all states have chosen their electors by popular vote, but the Constitution doesn’t require it. During the republic’s early years, many states appointed their electors, with the process typically in the hands of the state legislature and governor. An individual state could revert to this antiquated procedure at any time. In many cases, it would require only a majority vote of the legislature and the approval of the governor to change the relevant provisions of the state’s election laws.
As a practical matter, this is unlikely to happen. But suppose that, in response to the pandemic and an order (official or unofficial, legal or otherwise) from Trump, Republican-led states opted to replace popular elections with the direct appoint of electors. Trump, Attorney General Bill Barr, and other Republican partisans have already begun promoting the idea that elections conducted predominantly through the mail are automatically untrustworthy. If that’s true, it’s incumbent on Republican state legislators and governors to appoint electors who really represent the will of the people, instead of the specious vote totals, don’t you see?
Most of the states in question would likely vote for Trump anyway, but not all. Republicans control both houses of the legislature and the governorship in Florida, Arizona, Ohio, Iowa, and Georgia, which are potentially up-for-grabs in 2020. Put even a couple of these into Trump’s column by legislative fiat, and potentially add Wisconsin, where the Republican-led legislature and state supreme court seem to get their way over the Democratic governor’s objections, and Trump stands a much better chance of amassing enough electoral votes to win re-election.
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 president does not need to cancel or delay the elections to retain power. His order to politically friendly state governments might suffice. While Republicans in state capitols around the country might fall over themselves to fulfill the president’s quasi-authoritarian wishes, the order could undermine the elections elsewhere as well. Voters might be uncertain whether to vote and some Republican local elections officials in Democratic-led states might refuse to open polling places or count ballots. Protests might break out in the streets, which would, in some places, doubtless escalate into riots as such gatherings tend to do. But this would only play into the president’s hands by underscoring the sense of emergency without protecting the normal administration of elections.
Neutralizing the November elections by failing to certify the results or waging protracted legal battles that delay the outcome of the election until after the beginning of the new government could also help preserve the Republican majority in the Senate. In Arizona, Iowa, and possibly Georgia, Democratic challengers threaten to capture Republican-held Senate seats. Without certified election results in those states by January 3, the task of filling the Senate vacancies would fall to the governors, who are Republicans and would presumably choose members of their own party. It might seem un-American, but it’s arguably constitutional.
Manipulations of this sort would do serious and possibly irreparable damage to the constitutional union. The rule of law works in America because we supplement the Constitution with agreed norms that make it work, like holding fair elections and respecting the results. Take those away, and the compromises woven into the Constitution (like the Electoral College and state-based Senate) become untenable.
Though the Founders never envisioned the sort of political partisanship now tearing at the seams of our republic, many did warn against the awesome and abuse-prone power of the presidency. Benjamin Franklin, on the last day of the Constitutional Convention, warned that though the new government “is likely to be well administered for a course of years,” it “can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.”
Let’s hope that Franklin was wrong, and that the abuses and transgressions of our government are not merely reflections of our own flaws. Let’s hope that officials of the federal government and the states, sworn to follow the Constitution, know when to ignore an order from which it might never recover.


thebulwark--2020-08-14--Trump Tries to Grab Credit for Israel-UAE Deal

A breakthrough diplomatic agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates ( UAE ) was announced yesterday morning in dramatic fashion on Donald Trump ’ s Twitter account via a joint statement issued by the two countries and the United States .
This marks Israel ’ s third peace treaty with an Arab nation , after similar agreements with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994 .
The announcement comes at an opportune moment for the president , creating a media frenzy to distract from Joe Biden ’ s running mate Kamala Harris and wresting control of at least one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days before their virtual convention .
In conversation with reporters , Trump said of the Israel-UAE accord : “ I wanted it to be called the ‘ Donald J. Trump Accord , ’ but I didn ’ t think the press would understand that.
” His narcissism is silly—and par for the course .
But his silliness also conceals a more important truth : This historic act of conciliation is not about Donald Trump .
It is the result of strategic , behind-the-scenes diplomacy on the part of Israel and the UAE , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the American president has packaged this historic agreement as a personal pat on the back is a woeful mistake .
Let us briefly examine some of the long-term efforts leading to this accord .
First , Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has in the last decade pioneered a new diplomatic revolution for the hitherto relatively isolated Jewish state .
He has made overtures to Arab , African , and European states , securing trade deals , the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel ’ s capital , and bilateral security agreements .
In 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Ethiopia , Rwanda , and Uganda .
In 2017 , Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made the first-ever visit of an Indian premier to Israel , resulting in memorable images of the two leaders frolicking together in the Mediterranean .
Two years later , Netanyahu made a whirlwind visit to the Gulf country of Oman to meet with its sultan .
Israel ’ s leadership in civilian and military technology makes it an attractive partner in a volatile part of the world .
In addition , Israel ’ s peaceful ambitions make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other regional powerhouses , such as Russia and Turkey .
In short , Israel has been able to convince developing countries to engage in partnerships for mutual economic prosperity and regional security .
Though some states , such as the so-called Visegrád countries—Hungary , Poland , Slovakia , and the Czech Republic—hope that relations with Israel might lead to greater cooperation with America , the Israeli “ diplomatic revolution ” itself occurred through efforts entirely independent of the United States .
Second , Sunni Arab states in the Middle East have a particular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The rising threat of Iranian hegemony in the region has pushed countries like the UAE further toward Israel .
While Trump has made much of his decision to withdraw from the Obama-brokered Iranian nuclear deal , Iran continues to sponsor proxy conflicts in the region , fire at foreign ships near the Straits of Hormuz , expand its nuclear program , and test new missiles .
The U.S. disinterest in engaging in military conflict has left a security vacuum in the region , and Israel is working hard to fill it .
Israel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destroy Iran ’ s nuclear ambitions .
For example , it is widely believed that Israel is behind the recent wave of explosions at strategic Iranian military sites .
Along with military and strategic efforts , Israel has prioritized cultural outreach .
Israel ’ s foreign ministry has developed popular social media pages in Arabic with original content to engage with Arab citizens and thaw personal animosities .
And there is even more going on behind the scenes .
Secret backchannels between Israel and the Gulf states have been open for some time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s office today personally thanked the director of Mossad , Israel ’ s renown national intelligence agency , for its role in “ developing the ties with the Gulf states over the years , ” helping to secure the Israel-UAE accord .
While Netanyahu has many , many flaws—he is currently under numerous criminal proceedings in Israel—he is nonetheless a skilled diplomat , negotiator , and spokesperson for his country .
He , perhaps more than anyone else , deserves the credit for this historic agreement .
Why , then , did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the announcement and claim credit for himself and his son-in-law , Jared Kushner ?
Simple : Netanyahu knows that Israel needs America ’ s support .
The easiest and surest way to stay on Trump ’ s good side is to flatter and pander to him , so that ’ s what he ’ s been doing , sometimes rather ridiculously , for three and a half years .
Success , as the saying goes , has many fathers ; why not let Trump claim paternity ?
The irony is that the historic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the growing irrelevance of America in the Middle East .
As the United States continues to write itself out of the region by abandoning Syria , the Kurds , and even the safety of its own soldiers , this accord will go down in history not as the “ Donald J. Trump Accord , ” but as an Israeli and Emirati breakthrough .

A breakthrough diplomatic agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) was announced yesterday morning in dramatic fashion on Donald Trump’s Twitter account via a joint statement issued by the two countries and the United States. This marks Israel’s third peace treaty with an Arab nation, after similar agreements with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994.
The announcement comes at an opportune moment for the president, creating a media frenzy to distract from Joe Biden’s running mate Kamala Harris and wresting control of at least one news cycle from the Democrats in the days before their virtual convention. In conversation with reporters, Trump said of the Israel-UAE accord: “I wanted it to be called the ‘Donald J. Trump Accord,’ but I didn’t think the press would understand that.”
His narcissism is silly—and par for the course. But his silliness also conceals a more important truth: This historic act of conciliation is not about Donald Trump. It is the result of strategic, behind-the-scenes diplomacy on the part of Israel and the UAE, combined with fortuitous geopolitical shifts. That the American president has packaged this historic agreement as a personal pat on the back is a woeful mistake.
Let us briefly examine some of the long-term efforts leading to this accord. First, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has in the last decade pioneered a new diplomatic revolution for the hitherto relatively isolated Jewish state. He has made overtures to Arab, African, and European states, securing trade deals, the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and bilateral security agreements. In 2016, Netanyahu made historic visits to Kenya, Ethiopia, Rwanda, and Uganda. In 2017, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made the first-ever visit of an Indian premier to Israel, resulting in memorable images of the two leaders frolicking together in the Mediterranean. Two years later, Netanyahu made a whirlwind visit to the Gulf country of Oman to meet with its sultan.
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…
Israel’s leadership in civilian and military technology makes it an attractive partner in a volatile part of the world. In addition, Israel’s peaceful ambitions make it a more attractive ally than some other regional powerhouses, such as Russia and Turkey. In short, Israel has been able to convince developing countries to engage in partnerships for mutual economic prosperity and regional security. Though some states, such as the so-called Visegrád countries—Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic—hope that relations with Israel might lead to greater cooperation with America, the Israeli “diplomatic revolution” itself occurred through efforts entirely independent of the United States.
Second, Sunni Arab states in the Middle East have a particular reason for making peace with Israel. The rising threat of Iranian hegemony in the region has pushed countries like the UAE further toward Israel. While Trump has made much of his decision to withdraw from the Obama-brokered Iranian nuclear deal, Iran continues to sponsor proxy conflicts in the region, fire at foreign ships near the Straits of Hormuz, expand its nuclear program, and test new missiles. The U.S. disinterest in engaging in military conflict has left a security vacuum in the region, and Israel is working hard to fill it. Israel has the military capability to deter and destroy Iran’s nuclear ambitions. For example, it is widely believed that Israel is behind the recent wave of explosions at strategic Iranian military sites.
Along with military and strategic efforts, Israel has prioritized cultural outreach. Israel’s foreign ministry has developed popular social media pages in Arabic with original content to engage with Arab citizens and thaw personal animosities. And there is even more going on behind the scenes. Secret backchannels between Israel and the Gulf states have been open for some time. Indeed, the Israeli prime minister’s office today personally thanked the director of Mossad, Israel’s renown national intelligence agency, for its role in “developing the ties with the Gulf states over the years,” helping to secure the Israel-UAE accord.
While Netanyahu has many, many flaws—he is currently under numerous criminal proceedings in Israel—he is nonetheless a skilled diplomat, negotiator, and spokesperson for his country. He, perhaps more than anyone else, deserves the credit for this historic agreement. Why, then, did Netanyahu allowed the American president to make the announcement and claim credit for himself and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner? Simple: Netanyahu knows that Israel needs America’s support. The easiest and surest way to stay on Trump’s good side is to flatter and pander to him, so that’s what he’s been doing, sometimes rather ridiculously, for three and a half years. Success, as the saying goes, has many fathers; why not let Trump claim paternity?
The irony is that the historic agreement between Israel and the UAE marks the growing irrelevance of America in the Middle East. As the United States continues to write itself out of the region by abandoning Syria, the Kurds, and even the safety of its own soldiers, this accord will go down in history not as the “Donald J. Trump Accord,” but as an Israeli and Emirati breakthrough.


‘Boys State’ Review

Spoiler Warning : I talk about the end of Boys State in this review .
So , you know , if you ’ re really committed to not knowing the end of this documentary that ’ s going to be streaming on AppleTV+ starting this weekend , please stop reading before the banner ad in the middle of this review .
That said , the Boys State seen in Boys State—a documentary about Texas ’ s iteration of the American Legion-sponsored civics camp populated by strivers and junior politicos and true believers just trying to influence the government they create—bears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State .
My biggest memory of Boys State wasn ’ t politicking or horse trading or speech-prepping .
No , it was annoyance that the host campus , Liberty University , didn ’ t have playing cards in the gift shop .
( Tools of the devil or some such . )
Making the guys down the hall who had a deck of cards and played Spades until all hours of the night kings , the Kings of Boys State .
Like the wicked King George before them , however , these sovereigns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not stand for kings ; they elect governors , visions of democracy who represent the will of the people and strive to enact those voters ’ aims and desires .
Imagine , if you will , groups of children between the age of 16 and 18 arbitrarily divided into political parties—the “ Federalists ” and the “ Nationalists , ” which is a brain-melting conundrum all of its own—and then asking them to choose a party platform with some relevance to the issues of the day .
Or don ’ t imagine it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , invaluable insights into the fights over abortion and guns and immigration that have roiled our democracy for the last 40 years .
The children will save us .
Our primary subjects are : Ben , who lost his legs to a bout of meningitis years before and winds up as the chief strategist of the Federalist party ; Robert , a charismatic figure who runs for governor in the Nationalist party ’ s primary and loses ; Steven , the Beto-esque idealist ( he literally wears a Beto shirt as he boards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defeats Robert and runs for governor under the Nationalist party ’ s banner ; and Rene , whose speaking prowess earns him the chairmanship of the Nationalist party .
Directors Amanda McBaine and Jesse Moss have constructed Boys State in a way that suggests a dichotomy of Passionate Pols and Weak-Kneed Triangulators .
Robert ’ s charisma is undermined by his willingness to argue against his own beliefs because he thinks that ’ s what the people want to hear ; Steven , meanwhile , struggles to obtain the 30 signatures needed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away with his impassioned campaign speech against .
.
.
secession .
( Remember : This is a very serious undertaking tackling the most important issues of our day . )
Interestingly , Boys State spends very little time with the Federalist party ’ s nominee , Patrick , treating him as an empty suit and instead choosing to focus on Ben ’ s machinations .
At one point , Ben rallies his base by accusing Rene of bias for using parliamentary tricks to shut down Patrick ’ s efforts to host a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop .
As Ben later explains , these people are conservatives , and shallow , baseless accusations of bias really play well with them .
Ben wages viral meme warfare on Instagram and unleashes an unrelenting smear campaign suggesting that Steven ’ s work as an anti-gun advocate means he is , in fact , opposed to gun ownership .
It ’ s odd that so little attention is paid to Patrick , given the contours of his own story : The child of Italian immigrants , Patrick ’ s journey to Boy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Steven .
But focusing on Patrick ’ s story rather than Ben ’ s string-pulling would be a distraction .
When paired with the opening vignette , in which a Boys State counselor reads the passage from Neil Postman ’ s Amusing Ourselves to Death about why we should fear Brave New World more than Nineteen Eighty-Four , the message of the movie is obvious .
It ’ s not that Steven ’ s ideas were bad or unpopular—just as it wasn ’ t that Beto ’ s ideas were bad or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t that Hillary ran a shoddy campaign—but that the people were overwhelmed with irrelevance .
This is a comforting fiction for progressives who can not understand why they keep losing , a pleasant way to come to terms with defeat snatched from the jaws of victory .
It is no wonder that Boys State was such a hit with critics and studio figures alike when it debuted at Sundance in January of this year : People like to be comforted .
It ’ s easy to dismiss defeat as the product of some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or a new method of voting .
It ’ s harder to grapple with the notion that the ideas themselves are bad or unpopular , or that they ’ re being delivered by a flawed messenger who alienates people otherwise open to the messages he ’ s peddling .
Boys State is compelling enough in its absurdity , as many documentaries about inherently absurd setups often are .
But it ’ s an obscuring fiction , at best , for those trying to figure out where we go from here .

Spoiler Warning: I talk about the end of Boys State in this review. So, you know, if you’re really committed to not knowing the end of this documentary that’s going to be streaming on AppleTV+ starting this weekend, please stop reading before the banner ad in the middle of this review.
Full, dorky disclosure: I went to Boys State.
That said, the Boys State seen in Boys State—a documentary about Texas’s iteration of the American Legion-sponsored civics camp populated by strivers and junior politicos and true believers just trying to influence the government they create—bears no relation to my experience of Boys State. My biggest memory of Boys State wasn’t politicking or horse trading or speech-prepping. No, it was annoyance that the host campus, Liberty University, didn’t have playing cards in the gift shop. (Tools of the devil or some such.) Making the guys down the hall who had a deck of cards and played Spades until all hours of the night kings, the Kings of Boys State.
Like the wicked King George before them, however, these sovereigns were false gods. Boys State does not stand for kings; they elect governors, visions of democracy who represent the will of the people and strive to enact those voters’ aims and desires.
It is sublimely absurd.
Imagine, if you will, groups of children between the age of 16 and 18 arbitrarily divided into political parties—the “Federalists” and the “Nationalists,” which is a brain-melting conundrum all of its own—and then asking them to choose a party platform with some relevance to the issues of the day. Or don’t imagine it, watch this documentary and gain keen, invaluable insights into the fights over abortion and guns and immigration that have roiled our democracy for the last 40 years. The children will save us.
Our primary subjects are: Ben, who lost his legs to a bout of meningitis years before and winds up as the chief strategist of the Federalist party; Robert, a charismatic figure who runs for governor in the Nationalist party’s primary and loses; Steven, the Beto-esque idealist (he literally wears a Beto shirt as he boards the bus to Boys State) who defeats Robert and runs for governor under the Nationalist party’s banner; and Rene, whose speaking prowess earns him the chairmanship of the Nationalist party.
Directors Amanda McBaine and Jesse Moss have constructed Boys State in a way that suggests a dichotomy of Passionate Pols and Weak-Kneed Triangulators. Robert’s charisma is undermined by his willingness to argue against his own beliefs because he thinks that’s what the people want to hear; Steven, meanwhile, struggles to obtain the 30 signatures needed to get on the ballot but blows people away with his impassioned campaign speech against . . . secession. (Remember: This is a very serious undertaking tackling the most important issues of our day.)
Interestingly, Boys State spends very little time with the Federalist party’s nominee, Eddy, treating him as an empty suit and instead choosing to focus on Ben’s machinations. At one point, Ben rallies his base by accusing Rene of bias for using parliamentary tricks to shut down Eddy’s efforts to host a Q&A session during a campaign stop. As Ben later explains, these people are conservatives, and shallow, baseless accusations of bias really play well with them. Ben wages viral meme warfare on Instagram and unleashes an unrelenting smear campaign suggesting that Steven’s work as an anti-gun advocate means he is, in fact, opposed to gun ownership.
Spoiler—
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…
— Eddy ends up defeating Steven.
It’s odd that so little attention is paid to Eddy, given the contours of his own story: The child of Italian immigrants, Eddy’s journey to Boy’s State echoes that of first-generation American Steven. But focusing on Eddy’s story rather than Ben’s string-pulling would be a distraction. When paired with the opening vignette, in which a Boys State counselor reads the passage from Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death about why we should fear Brave New World more than Nineteen Eighty-Four, the message of the movie is obvious. It’s not that Steven’s ideas were bad or unpopular—just as it wasn’t that Beto’s ideas were bad or unpopular; just as it wasn’t that Hillary ran a shoddy campaign—but that the people were overwhelmed with irrelevance.
This is a comforting fiction for progressives who cannot understand why they keep losing, a pleasant way to come to terms with defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. It is no wonder that Boys State was such a hit with critics and studio figures alike when it debuted at Sundance in January of this year: People like to be comforted.
It’s easy to dismiss defeat as the product of some unfair trick: outside interference, say, or a new method of voting. It’s harder to grapple with the notion that the ideas themselves are bad or unpopular, or that they’re being delivered by a flawed messenger who alienates people otherwise open to the messages he’s peddling. Boys State is compelling enough in its absurdity, as many documentaries about inherently absurd setups often are. But it’s an obscuring fiction, at best, for those trying to figure out where we go from here.
Correction: I’d originally named the winner “Patrick” instead of Eddy due to a note-taking mistake. Apologies.


thebulwark--2020-08-14--Ralph Reed’s ‘Christian Case for Trump’ Fails to Convince

For God and Country The Christian Case for Trump by Ralph Reed Regnery , 369 pp.
, $ 28.99 In his new book , For God and Country , Ralph Reed attempts to convince reluctant Christians to vote for Donald Trump .
Reed argues that Christians voted for Trump in the 2016 election—white born-again or evangelical Christians , in particular , went for Trump over Hillary Clinton by a wide margin , 80 to 16 percent—and should vote for him again this year largely because he has shown himself to be a stalwart defender of the evangelical Christian agenda .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ several main issues : the pro-life movement , religious freedom , conservative justices , and support for Israel .
Reed ’ s strongest point throughout his book is that Trump made conservative campaign promises and kept them .
Indeed , Reed includes a 26-page appendix detailing all of the ways Trump has enacted conservative , evangelical policies .
Ultimately , however , Reed ’ s argument is a dangerously simplistic mischaracterization of evangelical Christians and their priorities .
While most evangelicals do care about the pro-life cause , religious freedom , conservative justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by constraining them to these issues .
Other factors matter , too—such as the competency of the president , especially in handling national crises like the coronavirus pandemic , and progress on racial justice .
So how does Reed go about making the Christian case for Trump ?
Reed ’ s book alternates between campaign history , defenses of the evangelical movement for supporting Trump , and attacks on Hillary Clinton and the left .
The book opens with an account of an unexpected March 2011 phone call from Trump during which Reed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump had made in a Fox News interview .
Reed then discusses his growing support of and friendship with Trump in the years that followed , as Trump courted evangelicals and eventually won the Republican nomination .
Reed highlights three important points on the road to Trump ’ s securing evangelical support : His list of conservative jurists to fill Antonin Scalia ’ s seat on the Supreme Court , his selection of Mike Pence as his running mate , and his statement in the final presidential debate where he argued against abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while Trump may have been less than ideal in various ways , evangelicals in 2016 had little choice “ when confronted with one candidate who seeks to advance the common good and another candidate who supports grave moral evil.
” This disingenuous argument fails to consider the third-party and abstention options available to voters .
And the argument makes even less sense in 2020 , when the president ’ s record of conduct in office—from his love affairs with autocrats to his cover-up of a hush-money payment to a porn star to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a Bible-waving photo op to his assault on democratic norms—suggests that it is not far-fetched to also accuse him of “ grave moral evil , ” as well .
At times , Reed ’ s theology is a fair and accurate representation of the broad umbrella of evangelical Christians , even those who chose not to support Trump .
He quotes Isaiah 8:12-13 ( “ It is the Lord of hosts who you should regard as holy .
He shall be your fear , and He shall be your dread.
” ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faith and hope in God rather than man , saying : “ Followers of Jesus are taught by Scripture to fear God alone and look only to Him for their salvation and deliverance—not to any politician , king , or parliament.
” Writing an entire book about why Christians should put their faith in Trump , however , suggests that Reed doesn ’ t believe his own message .
For every line of good theology he offers , he has more than double the amount of poor theology as he twists the Bible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says that the argument that Christians should refuse to vote for Trump because of his past misdeeds “ removes the heart of the Gospel message from our civic discourse—the grace and forgiveness available to us all through faith in Christ.
” Reed ’ s message might bear more weight if not for Trump ’ s proclamation that he didn ’ t need to ask for forgiveness ( “ I mean , why do I have to repent ?
Why do I have to ask for forgiveness if you are not making mistakes ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s strained attempts to convince Christians to forgive Trump ’ s sexual misconduct run in tandem with Reed ’ s and Trump ’ s clear lack of forgiveness for Hillary Clinton ’ s attempts to justify her husband ’ s wrongdoing .
Reed ’ s rosy-eyed view of Trump ’ s courtship of the evangelical movement is also laughable .
In one of Trump ’ s first appearances to a thousand-person crowd of evangelical leaders and pastors , back in 2011 , Trump attempted to impress his audience with a photo from his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He seemed unaware that most Evangelicals view their spiritual journey as beginning with a conversion experience , which they describe as being ‘ born again ’ —not a graduation from confirmation.
” Reed forgives this , however , saying that this “ showed Trump ’ s longing for a connection with Evangelicals as he sought , however awkwardly , to establish a bond with them.
” Which is worse—that Trump would show up to speak to leading evangelical leaders of the day without caring enough to take the time to understand what they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would fall into his lap despite Trump ’ s blatant condescension toward and disrespect for the thing which they hold most dear ?
There is a third problem , too : Reed denies the most plausible argument , which is that the relationship between Trump and his evangelical supporters is purely transactional from both ends .
Yet Reed demonstrates this point himself .
He speaks from the heart later on in the book when he says with pride : “ Trump , it seemed , had broken the code of the Evangelical vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quote the Bible or pretend to be something he wasn ’ t ; he only had to demonstrate that he shared their values and would fight for their issues.
” ( Following Trump ’ s Two Corinthians debacle , it was wise of him to steer clear of quoting the Bible . )
That passage reveals a truth about Reed , one that he seeks to prescribe to all other Christians : Vote for Trump despite Trump ’ s complete lack of moral compass or presidential fitness because it will secure the evangelical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how well Trump has done on those issues , however , might make one pause .
Take the pro-life movement .
Reed is quick to highlight Trump ’ s anti-abortion rhetoric in multiple presidential debates and point to the fact that Trump was the first president to ever attend the March for Life in person .
But previous Republican presidents also had admirable records defending unborn life without all of Trump ’ s other disturbing moral baggage .
And what about the rest of Trump ’ s record ?
When it comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for example , Trump ’ s actions show the limits of his caring about the most vulnerable among us .
How about religious freedom ?
Reed insists : “ Trump has led with great moral clarity as he has .
.
.
defended religious liberty at home and around the world , [ and ] successfully fought for the release of Pastor Andrew Brunson in Turkey and other Christians held in the prisons and gulags of authoritarian regimes.
” Yes , there have been political “ wins ” for evangelical Christians—as there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president—but where is the principled pluralism that defends all religions ?
Muslim Uyghurs sitting in concentration camps would question the claim that Trump has championed religious liberty “ around the world.
” Similarly , Trump ’ s ham-handed prioritization of Christians in the Middle East has jeopardized their position , as they fear that this prioritization will create resentment from the Muslim majorities there .
This worry resounded most loudly following Trump ’ s executive order temporarily banning immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries while confusingly talking about allowing protection for Syrian Christians .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidance of the Federalist Society , has nominated some two hundred judges and justices who have been confirmed , it is far from clear that the two justices appointed by Trump to the Supreme Court will prove to be as consistently conservative as evangelicals initially thought .
Indeed , according to one analysis , in his first term on the Court Brett Kavanaugh aligned himself with the progressive justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan on the same percentage of cases he did with Neil Gorsuch .
Kavanaugh has sided with progressives on Planned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases .
And Gorsuch ’ s June opinion on a case touching on sexuality , gender , and employment has been excoriated by conservative legal analysts .
Reed is correct that evangelicals , who tend to care about Israel for a variety of reasons , have reason to be pleased with Trump ’ s decision to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem .
But is that small success enough to outweigh the 166,000-plus lives that have been lost to COVID-19 , in part because of the inaction and incompetence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christians should ask ourselves whether Trump , a man who has proved himself to be morally repugnant and racially divisive , is the candidate who best represents our values .
This is not necessarily the “ Christian case for Joe Biden.
” By allying ourselves with Trump , however , we risk handing away our moral credibility for what may turn out to be little more than a mess of pottage .

For God and Country
The Christian Case for Trump
by Ralph Reed
Regnery, 369 pp., $28.99
In his new book, For God and Country, Ralph Reed attempts to convince reluctant Christians to vote for Donald Trump. Reed notes that Christians voted for Trump in the 2016 election—the exit polls showed that “white evangelicals or white born-again Christians” went for Trump over Hillary Clinton by a wide margin, 80 to 16 percent—and he argues that they should vote for him again this year largely because he has shown himself to be a stalwart defender of the evangelical Christian agenda. Reed defines this agenda as consisting of several main issues: the pro-life movement, religious freedom, conservative justices, and support for Israel. Reed’s strongest point throughout his book is that Trump made conservative campaign promises and kept them. Indeed, Reed includes a 26-page appendix detailing all of the ways Trump has enacted conservative, evangelical policies.
Ultimately, however, Reed’s argument is a dangerously simplistic mischaracterization of evangelical Christians and their priorities. While most evangelicals do care about the pro-life cause, religious freedom, conservative justices, and Israel, Reed insults them by constraining them to these issues. Other factors matter, too—such as the competency of the president, especially in handling national crises like the coronavirus pandemic, and progress on racial justice.
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…
So how does Reed go about making the Christian case for Trump? Reed’s book alternates between campaign history, defenses of the evangelical movement for supporting Trump, and attacks on Hillary Clinton and the left. The book opens with an account of an unexpected March 2011 phone call from Trump during which Reed praised some pro-life and pro-traditional-marriage remarks that Trump had made in a Fox News interview. Reed then discusses his growing support of and friendship with Trump in the years that followed, as Trump courted evangelicals and eventually won the Republican nomination.
Reed highlights three important points on the road to Trump’s securing evangelical support: His list of conservative jurists to fill Antonin Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court, his selection of Mike Pence as his running mate, and his statement in the final presidential debate where he argued against abortion. Time and again Reed mentions that, while Trump may have been less than ideal in various ways, evangelicals in 2016 had little choice “when confronted with one candidate who seeks to advance the common good and another candidate who supports grave moral evil.” This disingenuous argument fails to consider the third-party and abstention options available to voters. And the argument makes even less sense in 2020, when the president’s record of conduct in office—from his love affairs with autocrats to his cover-up of a hush-money payment to a porn star to his violent disruption of a peaceful protest for a Bible-waving photo op to his assault on democratic norms—suggests that it is not far-fetched to also accuse him of “grave moral evil,” as well.
At times, Reed’s theology is a fair and accurate representation of the broad umbrella of evangelical Christians, even those who chose not to support Trump. He quotes Isaiah 8:12-13 (“It is the Lord of hosts who you should regard as holy. He shall be your fear, and He shall be your dread.”) and tells his readers to put their faith and hope in God rather than man, saying: “Followers of Jesus are taught by Scripture to fear God alone and look only to Him for their salvation and deliverance—not to any politician, king, or parliament.”
Writing an entire book about why Christians should put their faith in Trump, however, suggests that Reed doesn’t believe his own message. For every line of good theology he offers, he has more than double the amount of poor theology as he twists the Bible to suit his political purposes. Reed says that the argument that Christians should refuse to vote for Trump because of his past misdeeds “removes the heart of the Gospel message from our civic discourse—the grace and forgiveness available to us all through faith in Christ.” Reed’s message might bear more weight if not for Trump’s proclamation that he didn’t need to ask for forgiveness (“I mean, why do I have to repent? Why do I have to ask for forgiveness if you are not making mistakes?”). Additionally, Reed’s strained attempts to convince Christians to forgive Trump’s sexual misconduct run in tandem with Reed’s and Trump’s clear lack of forgiveness for Hillary Clinton’s attempts to justify her husband’s wrongdoing.
Reed’s rosy-eyed view of Trump’s courtship of the evangelical movement is also laughable. In one of Trump’s first appearances to a thousand-person crowd of evangelical leaders and pastors, back in 2011, Trump attempted to impress his audience with a photo from his confirmation. Even Reed admits: “He seemed unaware that most Evangelicals view their spiritual journey as beginning with a conversion experience, which they describe as being ‘born again’—not a graduation from confirmation.” Reed forgives this, however, saying that this “showed Trump’s longing for a connection with Evangelicals as he sought, however awkwardly, to establish a bond with them.” Which is worse—that Trump would show up to speak to leading evangelical leaders of the day without caring enough to take the time to understand what they believed, or the fact that evangelicals would fall into his lap despite Trump’s blatant condescension toward and disrespect for the thing which they hold most dear? There is a third problem, too: Reed denies the most plausible argument, which is that the relationship between Trump and his evangelical supporters is purely transactional from both ends.
Yet Reed demonstrates this point himself. He speaks from the heart later on in the book when he says with pride: “Trump, it seemed, had broken the code of the Evangelical vote. He didn’t need to quote the Bible or pretend to be something he wasn’t; he only had to demonstrate that he shared their values and would fight for their issues.” (Following Trump’s Two Corinthians debacle, it was wise of him to steer clear of quoting the Bible.) That passage reveals a truth about Reed, one that he seeks to prescribe to all other Christians: Vote for Trump despite Trump’s complete lack of moral compass or presidential fitness because it will secure the evangelical Christian agenda.
A closer look at how well Trump has done on those issues, however, might make one pause. Take the pro-life movement. Reed is quick to highlight Trump’s anti-abortion rhetoric in multiple presidential debates and point to the fact that Trump was the first president to ever attend the March for Life in person. But previous Republican presidents also had admirable records defending unborn life without all of Trump’s other disturbing moral baggage. And what about the rest of Trump’s record? When it comes to the lives of the elderly during COVID-19, for example, Trump’s actions show the limits of his caring about the most vulnerable among us.
How about religious freedom? Reed insists: “Trump has led with great moral clarity as he has . . . defended religious liberty at home and around the world, [and] successfully fought for the release of Pastor Andrew Brunson in Turkey and other Christians held in the prisons and gulags of authoritarian regimes.” Yes, there have been political “wins” for evangelical Christians—as there would have been under any other Republican president—but where is the principled pluralism that defends all religions? Muslim Uyghurs sitting in concentration camps would question the claim that Trump has championed religious liberty “around the world.” Similarly, Trump’s ham-handed prioritization of Christians in the Middle East has jeopardized their position, as they fear that this prioritization will create resentment from the Muslim majorities there. This worry resounded most loudly following Trump’s executive order temporarily banning immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries while confusingly talking about allowing protection for Syrian Christians.
Lastly, while Trump, with the guidance of the Federalist Society, has nominated some two hundred judges and justices who have been confirmed, it is far from clear that the two justices appointed by Trump to the Supreme Court will prove to be as consistently conservative as evangelicals initially thought. Indeed, according to one analysis, in his first term on the Court Brett Kavanaugh aligned himself with the progressive justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan on the same percentage of cases he did with Neil Gorsuch. Kavanaugh has sided with progressives on Planned Parenthood, environmental, and Apple antitrust cases. And Gorsuch’s June opinion on a case touching on sexuality, gender, and employment has been excoriated by conservative legal analysts.
Reed is correct that evangelicals, who tend to care about Israel for a variety of reasons, have reason to be pleased with Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. But is that small success enough to outweigh the 166,000-plus lives that have been lost to COVID-19, in part because of the inaction and incompetence of the president?
This November, we Christians should ask ourselves whether Trump, a man who has proved himself to be morally repugnant and racially divisive, is the candidate who best represents our values. This is not necessarily the “Christian case for Joe Biden.” By allying ourselves with Trump, however, we risk handing away our moral credibility for what may turn out to be little more than a mess of pottage.


thebulwark--2020-08-14--Kamala Harris Is the Birthright Citizenship Candidate

Kamala Harris is not a vice-presidential running mate who makes me any more excited about the thought of voting for Joe Biden .
With Donald Trump reverting to the usual last-ditch stunt of a failing president—trying to impose his agenda by executive order—it doesn ’ t seem helpful for Democrats to embrace a woman whose own campaign for president was based on all the things she promised to impose by executive order .
It ’ s almost as if Democrats don ’ t object to a strongman , so long as the strongman ( or strongwoman ) is someone they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that as a matter of electoral politics , Harris probably won ’ t make many people less likely to vote for Biden , and thus she constitutes the safe , “ do no harm ” choice .
Given that this is how Biden himself got the vice-presidential job , it seems appropriate .
Moreover , there is one issue raised by Harris ’ s candidacy that may seem incidental but which strikes at the heart of the agenda of pro-Trump conservatives—and which her candidacy has the chance to settle decisively .
Senator Harris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to serve in the highest office in the land because she was born on American soil—and for no other reason .
Harris was born in Oakland , California , to a scientist from India ( her mother , Shyamala Gopalan ) and an economist from Jamaica ( her father , Donald Harris ) .
Neither parent was a U.S. citizen at the time .
So Harris can not claim to be an American jus sanguinis , by “ right of blood , ” but only jus soli , by “ right of soil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of having been born here .
That makes her the “ anchor baby ” candidate , the poster child for “ birthright citizenship.
” Why is this important ?
Because the Trump-era right has made the rejection of birthright citizenship a central tenet of their xenophobic worldview .
Trumpist populism appeals to the fear that scary “ Third World ” immigrants—like , you know , scientists and economists—are overrunning this country and ruining it .
And the main mechanism that is drawing them here and diluting the power of us natives born rightwise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , enshrined in the 14th Amendment , that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen .
Remember the “ Flight 93 ” argument for Trump ?
The idea that this was our last chance to charge the cockpit and save America from destruction ?
The whole thing was a giant screed against immigration centered on the hope that Donald Trump would end birthright citizenship by announcing a unilateral executive re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment .
Under that interpretation , Kamala Harris would not be a citizen of the United States and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the presidency .
And yes , that ’ s the new “ birther ” argument that is being offered—in the undead corpse of Newsweek—by the same Flight 93 crowd .
We have already hashed out the arguments on birthright citizenship , and the Flight 93 people did not get the better of that exchange .
But at some point , the historical and intellectual arguments ultimately give way to the verdict rendered by voters .
The case against birthright citizenship is based on the premise that the American people have a collective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to become citizens of this country .
But if that ’ s the case , the evidence is pretty compelling what the American people have decided .
They have repeatedly backed the concept of birthright citizenship , both as a matter of Supreme Court precedent and as a consistent legal practice .
It looks likely that they are about to ratify that decision again—and definitively—by electing a vice-president who is a birthright citizen .
If Harris does not fundamentally change the electoral calculus , the odds are that she will be the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at this point , the likeliest result is that we will soon have a birthright citizen as the vice-president of the United State .
And four years later , quite possibly , as president .
A repeated ratification of birthright citizenship by the American voters would , I suspect , put a pretty firm end to this ludicrous debate .
If so , it would be one of the few good things to emerge from this era .

Kamala Harris is not a vice-presidential running mate who makes me any more excited about the thought of voting for Joe Biden. With Donald Trump reverting to the usual last-ditch stunt of a failing president—trying to impose his agenda by executive order—it doesn’t seem helpful for Democrats to embrace a woman whose own campaign for president was based on all the things she promised to impose by executive order. It’s almost as if Democrats don’t object to a strongman, so long as the strongman (or strongwoman) is someone they like.
Yet I have to admit that as a matter of electoral politics, Harris probably won’t make many people less likely to vote for Biden, and thus she constitutes the safe, “do no harm” choice. Given that this is how Biden himself got the vice-presidential job, it seems appropriate.
Moreover, there is one issue raised by Harris’s candidacy that may seem incidental but which strikes at the heart of the agenda of pro-Trump conservatives—and which her candidacy has the chance to settle decisively.
Kamala Harris is the birthright citizenship candidate.
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…
Senator Harris is a U.S. citizen who is eligible to serve in the highest office in the land because she was born on American soil—and for no other reason.
Harris was born in Oakland, California, to a scientist from India (her mother, Shyamala Gopalan) and an economist from Jamaica (her father, Donald Harris). Neither parent was a U.S. citizen at the time. So Harris cannot claim to be an American jus sanguinis, by “right of blood,” but only jus soli, by “right of soil,” i.e., simply by virtue of having been born here.
That makes her the “anchor baby” candidate, the poster child for “birthright citizenship.”
Why is this important? Because the Trump-era right has made the rejection of birthright citizenship a central tenet of their xenophobic worldview. Trumpist populism appeals to the fear that scary “Third World” immigrants—like, you know, scientists and economists—are overrunning this country and ruining it. And the main mechanism that is drawing them here and diluting the power of us natives born rightwise is birthright citizenship: the old rule, enshrined in the 14th Amendment, that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen.
Remember the “Flight 93” argument for Trump? The idea that this was our last chance to charge the cockpit and save America from destruction? The whole thing was a giant screed against immigration centered on the hope that Donald Trump would end birthright citizenship by announcing a unilateral executive re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Under that interpretation, Kamala Harris would not be a citizen of the United States and not eligible to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. And yes, that’s the new “birther” argument that is being offered—in the undead corpse of Newsweek—by the same Flight 93 crowd.
That’s what makes Senator Harris’s selection as Joe Biden’s vice-presidential running mate interesting.
We have already hashed out the arguments on birthright citizenship, and the Flight 93 people did not get the better of that exchange.
But at some point, the historical and intellectual arguments ultimately give way to the verdict rendered by voters. The case against birthright citizenship is based on the premise that the American people have a collective right to decide who they will allow to become citizens of this country. But if that’s the case, the evidence is pretty compelling what the American people have decided. They have repeatedly backed the concept of birthright citizenship, both as a matter of Supreme Court precedent and as a consistent legal practice.
It looks likely that they are about to ratify that decision again—and definitively—by electing a vice-president who is a birthright citizen.
If Harris does not fundamentally change the electoral calculus, the odds are that she will be the next vice-president of the United States.
So at this point, the likeliest result is that we will soon have a birthright citizen as the vice-president of the United State. And four years later, quite possibly, as president.
A repeated ratification of birthright citizenship by the American voters would, I suspect, put a pretty firm end to this ludicrous debate. If so, it would be one of the few good things to emerge from this era.